我們不需要人生準則

PRINCIPLES FOR LIVING WE COULD ALL DO WITHOUT

作者：英國《金融時報》專欄作家 露西•凱拉韋

Ray Dalio is deluded, insensitive, emotionally illiterate, simplistic, breathtakingly smug, weird and plain wrong.

雷蒙德•戴利奧(Ray Dalio)易上當受騙、麻木不仁、情商為零、過分簡單化、驚人的自命不凡、古怪、且錯得離譜。

Harsh words, but I know the founder of one the world's most successful hedge funds will welcome them. The Bridgewater chief has just made a list of his top 300 rules for life and number 31 is to write down the weaknesses of others. Number 11 is never to say anything about a person you would not say to them directly, while number 22 is to “get over” fretting about whether comments are positive or negative. All that matters in Dalioland is whether they are accurate or inaccurate.

話說的很重，但我知道，作為世界上最成功對沖基金之一的創(chuàng)始人，雷蒙德會喜歡這些詞的。這位Bridgewater的掌門人剛剛列了一張單子，羅列出自己最重要的300條人生準則。第31條是寫下他人的缺點；第11條是當面不說的話決不在背后亂說；而第22條則是“克制”自己，努力做到榮辱不驚。在雷蒙德的世界里，他只關心準確與否。

These rules are contained in the most curious management document I have ever come across. Simply entitled “Principles”, it is being handed out to staff at Bridgewater to help them be as successful as their boss. It is also being passed gleefully from pillar to post on the internet.

這些準則包含在我所見過的最奇怪的管理文件中。文件被簡單地冠名為“準則”，并分發(fā)給了Bridgewater員工，以幫助他們做到像老板一樣成功。他們還欣喜地在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上四處傳播。

But this is no mere staff manual. In it, Mr Dalio spends the first three chapters expounding on his general philosophy of life, which he says is a bit like skiing. So long as you do what the instructor tells you, all will go well. There is no ego in the exercise, he assures us: “With increased usage [the principles] will evolve from ‘Ray's principles' to ‘our principles' and Ray will fade out of the picture.”

但這不僅僅是員工手冊。在其中，雷蒙德將開篇的頭三章，都用來詳述自己的人生哲學——他形容有一點像滑雪。只要你按照教練的指導做，一切皆會順利。他向我們保證，在應用中完全沒有彰顯自我：“隨著應用的增多，（這些準則）將從‘雷蒙德的準則'逐漸發(fā)展成‘我們的準則'，而雷蒙德的色彩將漸漸褪去?！?/P>

But for the time being Ray is rather firmly in the picture, writing a work that in its ambition reminds me of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Both writers are pretty confident and both believe in principles that are not a priori, but discovered by doing. The main difference is that the Greek philosopher had less of an appetite for words such as “l(fā)everage” and “drilldown” than the modern hedge fund chief. And he avoided bogus equations such as

但眼下，雷蒙德的個人色彩還相當濃厚。作品中的雄心讓我想起了亞里士多德(Aristotle)的《尼各馬可倫理學》(Nicomachean Ethics)。兩位作者都相當自信，都相信并非由推理得出、而是通過實踐發(fā)現(xiàn)的準則。二人的主要區(qū)別在于，那位希臘哲學家沒有當代這位對沖基金經(jīng)理那么喜歡“杠桿”或“鉆取”等詞。他也沒有用一些偽等式，例如：痛苦+深思=進步。

Pain + Reflection = Progress.

雷蒙德的哲學是美國夢狂熱的原教旨主義版本。他宣稱，“人們勞有所得”——如果你坐擁約40億美元的財富，這個觀點還是令人欣慰的。他還認為，“人們賺多少錢，大致反映了他們對社會的付出”——又是一種讓雷蒙德安心的想法，但如果我是一名教師，我可能不會同意。

Mr Dalio's philosophy turns out to be a fanatical, fundamentalist version of the American dream. “People get what they deserve in life,” he states – a comforting view when you have made a fortune of about $4bn. He also thinks that “how much money people have earned is a rough measure of how much they gave society what it wanted” – again, a reassuring thought for Ray, though if I were a teacher I might not agree.

雷蒙德就這樣將社會分了類，沉思人性的善惡。他宣稱，任何順應現(xiàn)實的東西都是好的。因此，他解釋道，角馬被鬣狗吃掉是好事，因為這推動了進化。

Having thus sorted society, Mr Dalio muses on the nature of good and evil, arguing that anything in tune with reality is good. Therefore it is good for the wildebeest to be eaten by the hyena, he explains, because that fosters evolution.

這種推理的問題在于，它不僅讓人懷疑他是否見過角馬，甚至會懷疑他到底見沒見過人類。大多數(shù)我認識的進化人，都不愿成為眾矢之的，就像角馬肯定不愿被撕得支離破碎一樣。

The trouble with this reasoning is that it leaves one wondering not only if Mr Dalio has ever met a wildebeest but whether he has met a human being. Most of the evolved humans I know hate being metaphorically ripped limb from limb by public criticism just as the wildebeest surely hates it in reality.

同樣，進化人喜歡雷蒙德世界里違法的事情。在人背后嚼舌頭——在他看來，這是僅次于監(jiān)守自盜的壞事——在任何機構中都必不可少，這樣做既可以消遣，還可以圓滑處事。如果雷蒙德認為自己的下屬從不在背后對他說三道四，他也太容易被哄騙了。

Equally the evolved human loves things that are illegal in Ray's world. Talking behind peoples' backs – which he says is second-worst thing to having your hand in the till – is vital in any organisation, both for recreational and diplomatic purposes. If Mr Dalio thinks his underlings never bad-mouth him behind his back, he is dangerously deluded.

只有將那些唬人的哲學空話從“準則”中剔除，部分準則才有可能讓人耳目一新。在戴利奧的世界里，并不存在“人才”和“我們”的力量之類空洞的廢話。相反，你要雇用絕頂聰明的人，并積極管理他們——這在一定程度上解釋了他的公司為何能取得成功。

If only one could take out the philosophical claptrap from “Principles”, some of the rules might make refreshing reading. There is no wishy-washy crud about “talent” and the power of “we”. Instead, in Mr Dalio's world, you hire super-bright people and manage them actively – which partly explains why his business is a success.

但就在我隱約感到一絲振奮時，我看到了其中一條準則，教導經(jīng)理們將下屬想象成棒球卡。這一條比其它準則都更能說明，“準則”為何毫無價值。雷蒙德或許是一位出色的投資者，但在情感上，他仍只是一個孩子。對于成年人而言，管理并不像搜集棒球卡。人才無法在棒球場上交換，嚴格按照安打率和失誤率進行評級。相反，他們是理性、無理性、情感、抱負、懶惰、善良和惡意的復雜混合體。

Yet just as I was feeling vaguely invigorated, I came upon a rule that tells managers to think of their underlings like baseball cards. This, more than any of the others, explains why “Principles” is such a dud. Ray might be a brilliant investor, but he is still a little boy in emotional terms. For grown-ups, managing is not like collecting baseball cards. People cannot be swapped in playgrounds, graded exactly according to batting averages and errors. Instead they are complicated mixtures of rationality, irrationality, emotion, ambition, laziness, goodness and spite.

仿佛是擔心雷蒙德的世界會被視為缺乏人情，第114條準則教導經(jīng)理們要“真心實意地關心為你工作的人。盡量參加他們婚禮、分娩和葬禮”。這是最恐怖的準則。我立即把這一條記了下來：有誰敢當面貶損我，或像對待棒球卡一樣對待我的人，都不會受邀參加我的葬禮。

As if fearing that Ray's World might be seen as lacking in human warmth, Principle 114 instructs managers to “sincerely care about the people who work for you. Try to be there for weddings, births and funerals”, he orders. This is the most chilling principle of all. I'm putting this on the record right now: anyone who tells me I'm rubbish to my face and views me like a baseball card is not invited to my funeral.

更多信息請查看英語美文寫作