Archive

Share

十月

配乐:それでも、生きてゆく オリジナル・サウンドトラック – 09 – ピアノ協奏曲第2番

这曲子悠扬而又忧郁,像极“暮霭沉沉楚天阔”的意境——哀默而又豁达,让人想趁着雾蒙蒙又无风的天气,去传说中的瓦尔登湖,在湖畔坐着,盯着湖心看一下午,脑子里一片空白。。。似梦非梦,恍如隔世。。。恩,以下是最近的摄影。。。

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

十一月

《风林火山》OST主题-三弦版

Don’t Fall! If Fall, Don’t Panic! Something Big, Maybe Good, Gonna Happen! Hang On Tight!

 

配乐:风林火山Theme Piano Cover

转载题记:有心者事竟成。

是不是一个人,天生越聪明,他就能取得越高的成就?
抱歉起了个这么古怪的,非标题党的名字,实际上这是一篇很轻松的文字。
我只想记录一个我非常敬佩的人,从认识他到现在,我所看到的变化。

认识潘大概2年不到的时间。最开始认识的时候,他并不是很起眼的,虽然长得很高,但穿着很普通。 他不太擅长言辞, 每到公众发言的时候总是只能说一句两句。他不太有幽默感,大家插科打诨的时候他也不太能插进话去。 他好像不太关心娱乐八卦,小道消息。我们所说的上至拉登奥巴马,下到大小S,他好像都没怎么听说过。
我所接触的这群人里面,有一些非常耀眼和出众,虽然年龄都不大,但思维非常活跃,眼界又开阔,加上自己手上有些事业,因此“明星”式人物非常多。 因此潘只能算非常中等人才。
但他确实是让我最敬佩的一个人, 我常在家里跟暖手谈起他,说起他这些年的变化。

有一次,我们在谈非诚勿扰最火的,安田那集,他没看过。他问我们怎么查,又问安田那两个字怎么写,我看见他仔细记录在手机上。这不是第一次了,我看到他能越来越多地融入大家的话题,直到所有我们知道的乱七八糟的东西, 是因为他“留心”了。
他是我见过的唯一 一个,在日常会话中会留心记笔记,然后回家做功课的人。

他的幽默感也有很大的增加。 以前他是不会说笑话的,偶尔说下,也觉得很僵,大家只能哈哈打圆场。 但他一点都不气馁,每次都坚持说点无聊小笑话 。 终于功力渐长了 – – – – 现在他已经经常会变成话题的中心了。
他是很少数,主动培养自己幽默感的人。 要知道幽默感在人际关系中的润滑剂作用,是无限的。

再说一些小事:
1、他每次参加活动时,无论是朋友还是工作人员,都会坚持送别人上车。如果别人没有自己开车,他会帮人家叫好车,然后送上车。 然后再让司机开来自己那辆S600.
2、每次大家晚上一起吃饭, 他都会提前买好单,几乎没有一次,有他在场的时候,我看到是别人买的单。 (这一点当然因人而异,但是对于吃饭的这些人来说,这些都是小钱,但能做到如此周到,他也是我认识的唯一的人)
3、他每天6:30 起床, 锻炼,然后看书。虽然公司规模不小,但应酬也绝不抽烟喝酒。
他每次聚会完毕都会发短信问候大家。
4、每次会议如果有他的发言,他一定事先写好稿子,然后提前几天准备。 我经常会在前一天晚上被他拖到2点以后, 帮他准备他的稿子,怎么讲合适, 什么语调比较好。 如果主持人问到这个问题应该怎么回答- – – 等等。
5、他永远都是准时的, 如果是大型会议和活动,永远提早30分钟以上到达会场(很多次,比工作人员还早)。
6、每次会议他都会跟他那个副总一起,把所有人的名片换好。 他会统计出席的人员,包括重量级的嘉宾, 精确到个位数。
7、他如果出差到某地,一定邀请当地的朋友一聚,然后还会打电话给不在的朋友。 我就曾经有几次,被他从北京、美国、等等地方的电话打过来,然后跟在场的十几二十个人一 一说话。
8、他是非常执著的记事本控,每天记录重要事项,每天反省当日工作 ( 实际上,我是从认识他开始,才重视记事本的功用的)
等等等等太多例子。
哦,忘记说了, 他是85年的。

说实在话,我对这个人的好感,也很大程度来自于暖手同学。 暖手说他有“帝王之相”。 也就是说,他有统帅的气度和胸襟。
他真的不算是聪明的,资质只能算是平平。 但我认识他一来,眼见着他一步一步地努力,严格地要求自己,在所有的小事上。
开始的时候,吃饭买单,送人上车这种事, 我只觉得他虚伪。 可人家几十次都反复执行这个标准,最后剩下的只有敬佩。
现在我不能说潘有很高的成就,但是他未来的光彩夺目,是可以预见的。

我不是一个精英主义的信奉者。 虽然不谦虚地说,我自己不能算是非常笨的人。 但是我从来不迷信什么名校啊, 成绩单啊,或者IQ指数啊。
我相信10000小时天才理论, 我相信凡事都靠自己的努力。
潘是最好的例子。 不要说可以反复练习的一些技能,例如英语, IT技术等等。 就连 “幽默感”“人际关系维护”“战略决策”这类 软性技巧, 一样是可以通过反复的练习和总结来提高的。

豆瓣上比较多的是文艺青年们, 兴趣爱好广泛,言辞犀利,每个观点都能跳出来说个一二三四的。 说实在话,我也是这种人,从小自持有些小聪明,从来都不肯好好地下死功夫。
但是, 人的时间是有限的, 一个人的时间花在哪里是看得到的。 昨天看《营销战》,以历史上的战争来影射现在的商战。 实际上, 战争中有一条基本的原则,就是 ”兵力的数量优势“。 但是很多人会迷恋于”以少数挑战多数而成功“的案例。 实际上,很多人也迷信, ”以非常少的时间精力投入,来达到非常好的水准“。
这些都不是王道。
潘是我的一面镜子, 我从他身上,看到非常非常多的我自己的缺点。
这也是我写这篇日记的目的。

配乐:Hijo De La Luna by Sarah Brightman

题记:池莉的《话语是一个美丽的陷阱》是一篇很老的文章了,我记得是我初二时候周记之前的一篇摘抄。十年过去了,这篇文章的主旨越来越清晰地体现在我的生活里,特别是最近的温州动车追尾脱轨事件。这个世界上最普遍的矛盾和麻烦都是话语引起和造成的。一个人的话语只在出口的一瞬间具有真实性。可这一瞬间眨眼就过去了。重复者和传播者使用的是自己的理解和语气,接受者则又有各自的理解背景。任何一种最细微的因素都能够改变话语的顺畅流通,使之产生多重意义。于是,我们的生活中便充满了絮叨,充满了解释,充满了流言和蜚语,充满了隔阂和攻击,也充满了谩骂和扯皮。


我对话语的警觉是在十几年前产生的。那是在我从医的第三年,也就是我医生生涯的最后一年,那个夏天伤寒病大流行。为了追踪传染源,我在整整一个酷热难当的夏天里,与所有的伤寒病人谈话,可是我仍然没有寻找到传染源。有一天我突然醒悟了,我发现找不到传染源的根本原因就在于:所有病人的主诉都带着强烈的个人色彩。撒谎的人在人群中占的比例并不大,但是人们不用撒谎,他们的话语综合起来就是一个巨大的不真实,在这个不真实的话语疑团中,所有的语锋都指向多重岔路,结果是搜寻者必然误入陷阱。我弃医从文的主要原因当然是更喜欢文学,但是也不排除我对口头语言的厌烦和对书面语言的信赖。

更深的醒悟姗姗来迟,那已经是90 年代中期。我在德国见到了一个久违的朋友。她是90 年代初嫁给一个德国人的。她的故事当时很轰动。轰动的原因并不在于她嫁了一个老外,而是因为她一句德语都不懂,还有,她的长相比较难看。我们没有办法理解老外的选择,我们就试图理解她的选择。但是她是一个寡言的女孩子,在我们几个好友的不懈追问下,她简单地告诉我们,她选择这个老外的原因就是因为她在中国嫁不到一个这么英俊这么文雅这么体贴的男人;而她此生的理想,就是想要一个体贴她的男人,想要一栋舒适的房屋和爬满青藤的小花园,所以,她宁可放弃话语。当时,我们都认为她的牺牲太大了太大了。我们都一致地认为她为自己难看的长相和接近于痴人说梦的理想付出了人生最惨痛的代价。转眼就是我再次见到她的90 年代中期了。这一次她带给我的不再是轰动而是震惊。她依然没有变得漂亮,但她生育了两个非常漂亮的混血儿。我们坐在她家大花园的木椅上喝咖啡,青藤果真爬满了她的篱笆。花园的远处,她的小女儿在荡秋千,儿子则在很开心地与他老爸踢球;花园的近处,是她的油画画架。我的这位朋友,依然只能说最简单的德语,但是她的神态已经深刻改变,安详得如同在富裕安定的生活中过了三辈子一样。显然,她不仅没有付出人生最惨痛的代价,而且顺利地达到了她的理想。她深有体会地对我说:“说话不重要,最简单的对话足够管用。亲密的人之间,更重要的是眼睛,是表情和动作。你认为呢?”

我认为我朋友的人生体会是一种真理或者接近于一种真理。那一天,我回到我居住的饭店,坐在窗前,望着德国幽静的绿树成荫的居民区想了很久很久。我想:这个世界上最普遍的矛盾和麻烦难道不都是话语引起和造成的吗?一个人的话语只是在出口的一瞬间具有真实性。可这一瞬间眨眼就过去了。重复者和传播者使用的是自己的理解和语气,接受者则又有各自的理解背景。任何一种最细微的因素都能够改变话语的顺畅流通,使之产生多重意义。于是,我们的生活中便充满了絮叨,充满了解释,充满了流言和蜚语,充满了隔阂和攻击,也充满了谩骂和扯皮。想想多么无聊啊!

其实,在一个人的生活中,与你无缘的人,你与他说话再多也是废话。但凡与你有缘的人,你的存在就能惊醒他所有的感觉。你们不用说话。你们即便说话也是一堆泡沫,在阳光下,五颜六色,看起来很美丽,其实它仅仅是你们情感交流的衍生物,过去了也就消失了。发生了就永远不会消失的是拥抱,而诺言注定会随风而逝。没错,事情就是这样的。

配乐:三国by鬼太鼓座

题记:转一位佛友的文章。[比量] [现量] [增上] [串习]。变成大白话就是,集中注意力干一件事,每天进步一点点,反复熏习。如果能真心实践,要那么多所谓成功学何用呢?如果能真心实践,虚无犬儒之弊又何处生根呢?

再次强调,集中注意力对应你身体的能量点在腹部(所以那些控制力极强的人叫“腹黑”),也就是瑜伽三脉七轮中的腹轮。很多中国人腹轮极弱,于是成为大众传媒的傀儡,吸收了很多垃圾讯息,没有能量去干建设性的事情。如果用意象心理来看,可以看到一个“食腐者”的形象(所以有沉溺病的人叫“腐女”),它知道自己吃的东西不干净又没营养,但还是会坚持吃下去。

下面请看正文。

一直对佛教很有兴趣,去年又深入接触了许多新的知识点。觉得收获满大的。
深感许多佛教知识同时也可以作为生活知识来理解。帮助指导现实生活。
便拿出部分心得和大家分享一下。

四个词,八个字。[比量] [现量] [增上] [串习]

佛教有增上之说。
什么叫增上呢。
就是说一点点增加而不减少。
这点很重要,作什么事情都一样。
只要每天向目标迈一小步,
达到目的就是指日可待的。
那种一步到位的事情其实靠不住。
有几件事情可以迈一步就成功呢?!
如果连增上都作不到,就容易论为自我的奴隶了。

增上最重要的意思是,要加!不要减!
哪怕只加了一点点,但绝对不能减!
这就是增上的核心。

比如学英语,比如锻炼身体,比如一切事情,
都是这样。只要增上。就能办到。
哪怕一天5分钟,早晚也被你学会英语。
如果今天看了两个小时,明天不看了,那肯定学不会。

增上就是个决心。

另外还有一个词,叫串习。
串习说白了就是勉强成自然,自然成习惯,习惯成性格,性格即命运。

增上可以改变你的人生。
而串习可以改变一个人,让他脱胎换骨。
配合增上和串习,你就能无往不利。
如果认定了一个目标,增上和串习要天天坚持。

要彻底明白增上和串习,还要再说两个词汇,一个叫现量,一个叫比量

现量和比量就是用来指导和检验自己的行为和效果的。
要每天思索和检查。

现量就是你心里自然直接的感情思想。
比量就是通过理性分析推导出来的思想。

串习就是不停的熏自己的心。
在佛教就是用般若火熏习自己阿赖耶识的种子。
般若火勉强说是智慧的火,
阿赖耶识的种子勉强说再世俗了说就是天性和习惯。

先说比量和现量,然后就容易懂串习了。

比如说,早晨不起床,想多睡一会,
但是又知道上班不能迟到,该起床了。
于是心里就有点小矛盾,到底起床不起床呢。
昨晚喝了好多酒,很疲惫,真想多睡一会啊。
可是上班迟到要被老板骂的,怎么办呢?
心里想着多睡一会,不愿意起床。
这个是感情自然流露出的思想。
一点不勉强,不用思考,很自然的,永远是第一个想法。
这就叫现量,现量是真实的量,是真正左右我们的力量。
因为它是最直接的和最快速反应的思想。
而你又思考,我必须积极工作啊,我要振作啊。迟到要扣工资的。
我要积极向上啊,我不该迟到啊,
这个想法就是大脑经过思维判断,
最后推断出来的一个结果,
是经过了一个负责的大脑思维过程而
得来的想法。
也就是间接推断出的一个结论和决定。
这个就是比量。由对各种信息的比较和权衡而来。
所以叫比量。
现量和比量产生分歧的时候,人就有了苦恼和问题。

再比如说,有时候想好好努力,作出成绩。把业余时间也利用起来。
可又总是贪玩。
所以消耗了很多时间。

晚上睡觉前,检讨了一下,思维了很久,
觉得自己应该再加把劲,好好发展事业。应该加倍努力。

但是,睡醒后,可能只是稍微用功了两天,
但其实什么都没改变,人根本改变不了自己。
这是为什么呢?

因为晚上考虑了很多,希望自己学习好好工作。
但那都是比量,不是现量。
只是个推导的结果,而不是心中生起的真实的欲望。

比如吸毒的人都想戒,可是想戒的思想是比量。
想抽的思想是现量。
而比量是斗不过现量的。
所以往往我们什么道理都明白,
但是反复进戒毒所却无法从根本上改变自己。
还是要吸毒。
把一辈子变成了一个不停的被自己打败的过程。
而很少打败自己。

再比如说,别人告诉我们,某种水果很酸。小心吃。
可是恰好我们没吃过这种水果,
于是从心里凭经验和我的话,认定这个水果酸,
于是你吃的时候很小心。
但这个还叫比量。

你咬了一口,酸得睁不开眼睛,眼泪都流下来。
然后你告诉自己再也不吃这个水果了。
你的这种感情的真实想法就叫现量了。
这就是一个比量变成了现量,于是你以后再也
不吃这个水果了。因为比量已经变成了现量,
现量才是真的量。比量是假的。

那么要想改变自己,只有一个办法。
就是把比量变成现量

还是那个例子,从前我们有某些愿望但迟迟没有去实现,因为那是比量。
如今要通过一系列的方法,把它变成努力的愿望。
从一个想法变成了很强烈的感情愿望。
这个比量就转变成现量了。
然后你才会真的很努力去达成这个目标。
不再犹豫和彷徨,也不再为其它利益驱使,作到义无返顾。

否则,比量是不会改变什么的。
说白了,也就是说大道理是没用的。
如果通过方法把自己认同的比量变成现量,
人就能改变和战胜自己,并战胜命运。

想作一件事情前,先想想,自己现在是比量还是现量。
如果还只是比量,那肯定作不好。

那么如何把比量变成现量呢?
就是要增上。
要精力集中!把精力放在这一件事情上。
甚至用打坐的方法,默念你的愿望。强化自己的目标。
每天念。好象卧薪尝胆一样。

这个把比量变成现量的过程就在于坚持反复的强化思考
把想法变成真实愿望。

那么串习是什么呢?
这个把比量变成现量的持续不间断的专注心念的努力,就就叫串习。
不管你用什么方法,关键要串起来不间断,
用智慧改变习性。所以叫串习。

就好象水滴石穿或者铁棒磨成针一样的决心
不停的去改变习气,把精力高度集中在一个比量上,
好象攻城一样,每天攻打它,直到比量变成现量。
这就是串习

其实如果真的认真去作,习气改变起来并不是很慢的。
只要够认真够坚持。
增上加串习,效果其实很快。
比一般人想象得都快,关键是看认真不认真了。是否对自己诚心。

人都说江山易改,本性难移
就是因为不明白比量,现量。

或者是明白了比量和现量。
却不懂得增上和串习。
看看身边的人,再看看我们自己,是不是这个样子?

这4个词,8个字,我觉得是宝贝。
现量,比量,还有增上和串习。
这是我在了解佛教的过程中,到现在为止接触过的很直接很实用的东西。

具体的行动,有技巧和方法就简单一些。没方法就难一些。
虽然困难,但还是很值得去作的。毕竟得益的是自己。

(增上:加强力量以助长进展作用,令事物更形强大。比量:比者比类也,以分别之心,比类已知之事,量知未知之事也。现量:现量即感觉,乃尚未加入概念活动,毫无分别思惟、筹度推求等作用,仅以直觉去量知色等外境诸法之自相。串习,即是反复。)—佛学辞典中的解释。

配乐:Deep Structure from UNFAIR O.S.T.

新闻里时常充斥着掌权者的丑行——这种现象令人沮丧,却在预料之中,有地位的人总是忍不住以权谋私。他们对下属大喊大叫、与秘书私通、强暴酒店服务员,甚至跟保姆上床。当然,问题是这种糟糕行为的动机是什么?为什么权力总是带来腐败?

心理学家将这种现象称为“权力的双刃剑”。一旦真正获得权力,那些最初帮助领导者爬上高位的个性特征就消失了。他们不再礼貌、诚实、友好,而是冲动、轻率、粗鲁。根据心理学家的说法,权威最主要的问题在于,它会让我们更难对别人的感情与忧虑感同身受。例如,几项研究发现,身居高位的人更容易依靠刻板印象和一般性的归纳来评判他人。他们与人眼神接触的时间也更短,至少在与没有权力的人交谈时是这样。

最近西北大学的心理学家亚当•盖林斯基(Adam Galinsky)就“权力影响决策过程”的问题做了个实验。盖林斯基和同事要求参与者描述自己拥有很大权力的经历,或者自己感觉完全没有权力的经历。之后,心理学家要求参与者在前额上画个“E”字。之前想过拥有权力的人更有可能把这个E字写反,至少是在有其他人观看的情况下。盖林斯基和同事们认为这种效应是由权力带来的目光短浅引发的,它让人更难从其他人的角度来想象世界。我们把E字写反了,是因为我们不在乎他人的视角。我们才不管下属们是怎么想的呢。

但这里还有个圈套,我们仍旧认为我们在乎别人,至少抽象感觉是这样。这是因为权力能将我们迅速变为伪君子。在2009年的一项研究中,盖林斯基要求参与者想象拥有权力或没有权力的情景。之后,学生们分为两组。第一组被要求对谎报出差开销这种行为的道德过失程度打分,分数从1到9。第二组学生被要求参加一个掷骰子游戏,游戏结果决定了参与者能获得的彩票数量,掷骰子得到的点数越高,得到的彩票就越多。

“高权力组”的参与者认为谎报出差开销的行为是对上级的严重冒犯。然而,掷骰子游戏的结果却与之矛盾。在实验中,高权力组所报告的结果在统计上是不可能的,骰子的平均点数比预期中的随机结果要高20%。(而“无权力组”则相反,骰子点数结果只是稍微高一点。)这强烈暗示着参与者们谎报了得分,通过篡改点数来多拿几张彩票。

尽管人们总是知道什么是对的,至少作弊是不对的,但权力感会让人更容易用理性给自己的道德过失找借口。例如,当心理学家问参与者(包括高权力组和无权力组)如何评价一个为了准时赴约而超速开车的人,高权力组的人一致认为别人违反规定比自己违反规定更糟糕。换句话说,过高的优越感会让人觉得只有自己有理由超速开车(因为他们是重要的人,要做重要的事),但其他所有人却应该乖乖地遵守交通规则。

但也许这些巧妙的实验结果并不能说服你,因为它们大部分是本科生的研究结果。也许你觉得实验模式里充满诡计。我最喜欢的有关权力腐败的研究来自斯坦福大学商学院的心理学家黛博拉•格林菲尔德(Deborah Gruenfeld)。她感兴趣的是权力如何改变我们的推理过程。经过对美国最高法院在1953年到1993年1000余项判决的分析,格林菲尔德发现,法官在法庭中的权力越大,或者法官们联合起来能够占到大多数时,他们写下的观点就更简单、更不注意细节。他们会考虑更少的角度和更少的可能性。当然,坏消息是大多数人的决定正在成为这个国家的法律。

更宏观的教训如傅科(Foucault)所说:权力能深深影响我们的思维方式。当我们爬上地位的阶梯时,内心的观点就开始扭曲,而对他人天生的同情也消失了。我们不再担忧自己行为的后果,只是一意孤行。我们认为自己的一切都是实至名归,而别人绝不敢抵抗。他们难道不知道我是谁吗?

Source: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/how-power-corrupts/

The news abounds with stories of powerful men behaving badly. It’s a depressing yet predictable spectacle — those in positions of power can’t help but help themselves to the help. They scream at underlings and have sex with the secretaries; they assault hotel maids (or at least are accused of such) and sleep with the nanny. The question, of course, is what motivates this awful behavior? Why does power corrupt?

Psychologists refer to this as the paradox of power. The very traits that helped leaders accumulate control in the first place all but disappear once they rise to power. Instead of being polite, honest and outgoing, they become impulsive, reckless and rude. According to psychologists, one of the main problems with authority is that it makes us less sympathetic to the concerns and emotions of others. For instance, several studies have found that people in positions of authority are more likely to rely on stereotypes and generalizations when judging other people. They also spend much less time making eye contact, at least when a person without power is talking.

Consider a recent experiment led by Adam Galinsky, a psychologist at Northwestern University. Galinsky and colleagues began by asking subjects to either describe an experience in which they had lots of power or a time when they felt utterly powerless. Then the psychologists asked the subjects to draw the letter E on their foreheads. Those primed with feelings of power were much more likely to draw the letter backwards, at least when seen by another person. Galinsky et al. argue that this effect is triggered by the myopia of power, which makes it much harder to imagine the world from the perspective of someone else. We draw the letter backwards because we don’t care about the viewpoint of others. We don’t give a shit what the maid thinks.

But here’s the catch: We still think we do care, at least in the abstract. That’s because power quickly turns us into hypocrites. In a 2009 study, Galinsky asked subjects to think about either an experience of power or powerlessness. The students were then divided into two groups. The first group was told to rate, on a nine-point scale, the moral seriousness of misreporting travel expenses at work. The second group was asked to participate in a game of dice, in which the results of the dice determined the number of lottery tickets each student received. A higher roll led to more tickets.

Participants in the high-power group considered the misreporting of travel expenses to be a significantly worse offense. However, the game of dice produced a completely contradictory result. In this instance, people in the high-power group reported, on average, a statistically improbable result, with an average dice score that was 20 percent above that expected by random chance. (The powerless group, in contrast, reported only slightly elevated dice results.) This strongly suggests that they were lying about their actual scores, fudging the numbers to get a few extra tickets.

Although people almost always know the right thing to do — cheating is wrong — their sense of power makes it easier to rationalize away the ethical lapse. For instance, when the psychologists asked the subjects (in both low- and high-power conditions) how they would judge an individual who drove too fast when late for an appointment, people in the high-power group consistently said it was worse when others committed those crimes than when they did themselves. In other words, the feeling of eminence led people to conclude that they had a good reason for speeding — they’re important people, with important things to do — but that everyone else should follow the posted signs.

But perhaps you’re not convinced by these clever lab experiments performed mostly on undergrads. Perhaps you think the paradigms smack of artifice. One of my favorite studies of power corrupting comes from Deborah Gruenfeld, a psychologist at the Stanford Business School. She was interested in how positions of power altered our reasoning process. After analyzing more than 1,000 decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court between 1953 and 1993, Gruenfeld found that, as justices gained power on the court, or became part of a majority coalition, their written opinions tended to become less complex and nuanced. They considered fewer perspectives and possible outcomes. The bad news, of course, is that the opinions written from the majority position are what actually become the law of the land.

The larger lesson is that Foucault had a point: The dynamics of power can profoundly influence how we think. When we climb the ladder of status, our inner arguments get warped and our natural sympathy for others is vanquished. Instead of fretting about the effects of our actions, we just go ahead and act. We deserve what we want. And how dare they resist. Don’t they know who we are?

配乐: Wonderwall by  Ryan Adams

How to Get a Real Education

By SCOTT ADAMS From The Wall Street Journal April 9th (中文简明翻译在后)

I understand why the top students in America study physics, chemistry, calculus and classic literature. The kids in this brainy group are the future professors, scientists, thinkers and engineers who will propel civilization forward. But why do we make B students sit through these same classes? That’s like trying to train your cat to do your taxes—a waste of time and money. Wouldn’t it make more sense to teach B students something useful, like entrepreneurship?

[COVER]

I speak from experience because I majored in entrepreneurship at Hartwick College in Oneonta, N.Y. Technically, my major was economics. But the unsung advantage of attending a small college is that you can mold your experience any way you want.

There was a small business on our campus called The Coffee House. It served beer and snacks, and featured live entertainment. It was managed by students, and it was a money-losing mess, subsidized by the college. I thought I could make a difference, so I applied for an opening as the so-called Minister of Finance. I landed the job, thanks to my impressive interviewing skills, my can-do attitude and the fact that everyone else in the solar system had more interesting plans.

The drinking age in those days was 18, and the entire compensation package for the managers of The Coffee House was free beer. That goes a long way toward explaining why the accounting system consisted of seven students trying to remember where all the money went. I thought we could do better. So I proposed to my accounting professor that for three course credits I would build and operate a proper accounting system for the business. And so I did. It was a great experience. Meanwhile, some of my peers were taking courses in art history so they’d be prepared to remember what art looked like just in case anyone asked.

One day the managers of The Coffee House had a meeting to discuss two topics. First, our Minister of Employment was recommending that we fire a bartender, who happened to be one of my best friends. Second, we needed to choose a leader for our group. On the first question, there was a general consensus that my friend lacked both the will and the potential to master the bartending arts. I reluctantly voted with the majority to fire him.

But when it came to discussing who should be our new leader, I pointed out that my friend—the soon-to-be-fired bartender—was tall, good-looking and so gifted at b.s. that he’d be the perfect leader. By the end of the meeting I had persuaded the group to fire the worst bartender that any of us had ever seen…and ask him if he would consider being our leader. My friend nailed the interview and became our Commissioner. He went on to do a terrific job. That was the year I learned everything I know about management.

At about the same time, this same friend, along with my roommate and me, hatched a plan to become the student managers of our dormitory and to get paid to do it. The idea involved replacing all of the professional staff, including the resident assistant, security guard and even the cleaning crew, with students who would be paid to do the work. We imagined forming a dorm government to manage elections for various jobs, set out penalties for misbehavior and generally take care of business. And we imagined that the three of us, being the visionaries for this scheme, would run the show.

We pitched our entrepreneurial idea to the dean and his staff. To our surprise, the dean said that if we could get a majority of next year’s dorm residents to agree to our scheme, the college would back it.

It was a high hurdle, but a loophole made it easier to clear. We only needed a majority of students who said they planned to live in the dorm next year. And we had plenty of friends who were happy to plan just about anything so long as they could later change their minds. That’s the year I learned that if there’s a loophole, someone’s going to drive a truck through it, and the people in the truck will get paid better than the people under it.

The dean required that our first order of business in the fall would be creating a dorm constitution and getting it ratified. That sounded like a nightmare to organize. To save time, I wrote the constitution over the summer and didn’t mention it when classes resumed. We held a constitutional convention to collect everyone’s input, and I listened to two hours of diverse opinions. At the end of the meeting I volunteered to take on the daunting task of crafting a document that reflected all of the varied and sometimes conflicting opinions that had been aired. I waited a week, made copies of the document that I had written over the summer, presented it to the dorm as their own ideas and watched it get approved in a landslide vote. That was the year I learned everything I know about getting buy-in.

“Why do we make B students sit through the same classes as their brainy peers? That’s like trying to train your cat to do your taxes—a waste of time and money. Wouldn’t it make sense to teach them something useful instead?”

For the next two years my friends and I each had a private room at no cost, a base salary and the experience of managing the dorm. On some nights I also got paid to do overnight security, while also getting paid to clean the laundry room. At the end of my security shift I would go to The Coffee House and balance the books.

My college days were full of entrepreneurial stories of this sort. When my friends and I couldn’t get the gym to give us space for our informal games of indoor soccer, we considered our options. The gym’s rule was that only organized groups could reserve time. A few days later we took another run at it, but this time we were an organized soccer club, and I was the president. My executive duties included filling out a form to register the club and remembering to bring the ball.

By the time I graduated, I had mastered the strange art of transforming nothing into something. Every good thing that has happened to me as an adult can be traced back to that training. Several years later, I finished my MBA at Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. That was the fine-tuning I needed to see the world through an entrepreneur’s eyes.

If you’re having a hard time imagining what an education in entrepreneurship should include, allow me to prime the pump with some lessons I’ve learned along the way.

Combine Skills. The first thing you should learn in a course on entrepreneurship is how to make yourself valuable. It’s unlikely that any average student can develop a world-class skill in one particular area. But it’s easy to learn how to do several different things fairly well. I succeeded as a cartoonist with negligible art talent, some basic writing skills, an ordinary sense of humor and a bit of experience in the business world. The “Dilbert” comic is a combination of all four skills. The world has plenty of better artists, smarter writers, funnier humorists and more experienced business people. The rare part is that each of those modest skills is collected in one person. That’s how value is created.

Fail Forward. If you’re taking risks, and you probably should, you can find yourself failing 90% of the time. The trick is to get paid while you’re doing the failing and to use the experience to gain skills that will be useful later. I failed at my first career in banking. I failed at my second career with the phone company. But you’d be surprised at how many of the skills I learned in those careers can be applied to almost any field, including cartooning. Students should be taught that failure is a process, not an obstacle.

Find the Action. In my senior year of college I asked my adviser how I should pursue my goal of being a banker. He told me to figure out where the most innovation in banking was happening and to move there. And so I did. Banking didn’t work out for me, but the advice still holds: Move to where the action is. Distance is your enemy.

[JUMP]

Attract Luck. You can’t manage luck directly, but you can manage your career in a way that makes it easier for luck to find you. To succeed, first you must do something. And if that doesn’t work, which can be 90% of the time, do something else. Luck finds the doers. Readers of the Journal will find this point obvious. It’s not obvious to a teenager.

Conquer Fear. I took classes in public speaking in college and a few more during my corporate days. That training was marginally useful for learning how to mask nervousness in public. Then I took the Dale Carnegie course. It was life-changing. The Dale Carnegie method ignores speaking technique entirely and trains you instead to enjoy the experience of speaking to a crowd. Once you become relaxed in front of people, technique comes automatically. Over the years, I’ve given speeches to hundreds of audiences and enjoyed every minute on stage. But this isn’t a plug for Dale Carnegie. The point is that people can be trained to replace fear and shyness with enthusiasm. Every entrepreneur can use that skill.

Write Simply. I took a two-day class in business writing that taught me how to write direct sentences and to avoid extra words. Simplicity makes ideas powerful. Want examples? Read anything by Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett.

Learn Persuasion. Students of entrepreneurship should learn the art of persuasion in all its forms, including psychology, sales, marketing, negotiating, statistics and even design. Usually those skills are sprinkled across several disciplines. For entrepreneurs, it makes sense to teach them as a package.

That’s my starter list for the sort of classes that would serve B students well. The list is not meant to be complete. Obviously an entrepreneur would benefit from classes in finance, management and more.

Remember, children are our future, and the majority of them are B students. If that doesn’t scare you, it probably should.

—Mr. Adams is the creator of “Dilbert.

作者:SCOTT ADAMS  译者:阮一峰   原载2011年4月9日《华尔街日报》

那些优秀的学生,在大学里学习物理、化学、微积分和古典文学。这些都可以理解,因为他们是未来的教授、科学家、思想家和作家,必须学习这些知识。 但是,为什么差生也得陪着他们,一起学习同样的课程呢?这就像训练一只猫帮你报税—-完全是浪费时间和金钱。再说,没人愿意像上图那样,被当做可怜的陪衬。 差生不应该学那些纯理论的东西,而应该学一些比较实用的东西,比如怎么做生意,或者说得更正式一些,学习当一个企业家。 我这么说,因为我在学校的时候,就是一个差生。但是现在,我的系列漫画《呆伯特》被翻译成19种语言,在全世界65个国家的2000种报纸上刊登。

下面,我想谈一些自己的经历,然后说一些我认为很值得学习的东西。

我读的是一所纽约的二流大学,专业是经济学。二流大学的好处是,你不用很刻苦地读书,平时可以干一些自己想干的事。校园里有一家学生经营的咖啡馆,管理得一团糟,亏损累累,靠校方补助维持。我自告奋勇去应聘他们的会计,由于我的面试技巧和工作态度,以及那些优秀学生都在刻苦读书的缘故,我得到了这个职位。所以,当那些优秀学生正在苦修艺术史课程的时候,我已经有了第一手的会计实践经验了。不过,我要说的不是这个。

有一天,咖啡馆的全体工作人员,开会讨论两件事。第一件事,有人建议开除一个服务员,这个服务员正巧是我的好友。第二件事,我们要选一个总经理。所有人很快在第一件事上达成一致,因为我的好友的服务水平实在太糟糕了,而且心不在焉。但是,他的最大优点就是高大英俊、仪表堂堂。讨论第二个问题的时候,我提出让他来当总经理,其他人勉强被我说服。所以,当天会议的决定,就是开除他,同时聘请他担任总经理。后来,我的好友干得很出色。我从这件事上学到了管理学的真谛。

不久以后,我的另外几个朋友,提出一个创业计划。他们想组成一个学生团体,承包宿舍的管理工作。也就是不再聘请外来人员,单纯靠学生打工的方式,解决宿舍楼的维护、保卫和清洁工作,并且对违反住宿规定的学生实行罚款。他们觉得,这个计划可以盈利。本来我以为,校方不会支持这个计划。但是院长说,只要下一年的住宿学生,大多数人同意这个计划,校方就不会反对。这本来很难做到。但是,这里面有一个漏洞,我们只需要让大多数学生说,他们”计划”第二年继续住在这里就行了。而对于许多学生来说,只要允许随时改变主意,你让他们说”计划”干什么,他们是无所谓的。

我从这件事上学到,任何规定只要有针眼大的一个漏洞,就会有人试图开着卡车闯过去。而且最终来看,车上的人比车下的人更受益。

院长又提出要求,我们必须首先制定一个宿舍管理章程,并且得到大多数学生的投票同意。要让大学生们投票同意一个对他们进行管理的制度,几乎没有可能。于是,我在暑假里偷偷起草了一个草案,没有告诉任何人。

秋天开学的时候,我们召开了章程起草大会,听取每个学生的意见。我没说草案已经写好了,只是让每个人尽情发表意见。结果不出所料,各种意见针锋相对,所有人吵得不可开交。会议结束的时候,我表示愿意根据大家的意见,志愿起草这份章程,并且保证让各种想法都有所反映。一个星期后,我拿出了自己的草案,一个字都没修改,对别人说他们的意见都已经反映在其中了。这份草案就这样得到了高票通过。我从这件事上学会了如何”收买”他人的支持。

接下来的两年,我和朋友们都以管理人员的名义,免费占用宿舍的单人间,并且领薪水。有时我名义上做宿舍楼保安,实际上在楼里做晚自习,这样就有报酬,甚至我打扫自己房间,都可以领到清洁费。这就是当企业家的好处。

大学毕业后,我又去商学院读了MBA。这些经历使我认为,企业家是可以被培养出来的。我总结了一些差生应该学会的东西。

1. 多种技能的结合。

成为企业家的第一步,就是要让自己变得有价值。任何一个普通的学生,都不可能在某个单独的领域出类拔萃,成为世界级高手。但是,你可以在几个不同的领域都达到不错的水平,这并不是很难。我的艺术才能有限、只掌握一些基本的写作技巧、有一点起码的幽默感和企业管理知识,我把这些才能结合起来,就创造出了《呆伯特》。这个世界上,比我优秀的画家、作家、幽默的人和管理学大师有的是。但是,能够把这些东西结合在一起的人,就非常少。价值就是这样被创造出来的。

2. 别怕失败。

如果你真的在冒风险(很可能你就该这么做),那么90%的时候,你会失败。这里的关键是,不要白白失败,要从失败中获得收获,在将来派上用处。我的第一份工作是银行,结果我失败了;第二份工作是电话公司,也失败了。但是,我从失败中对这些职业有了深切的体验,后来我把它们都画进了《呆伯特》。你应该把失败看做通向成功的一种过程,而不是需要回避的障碍。

3.行动第一。

大学毕业的那年,我问导师,怎样才能成为一个银行家。他说找到银行业最有革新性的部门,然后加入这个部门。我确实这么做了,但还是失败了,银行不适合我。但是,导师的话是对的:找到人们正在做事的那些地方,离行动越远,你越不可能成功。

4.培养运气。

你没法控制运气,但是你可以让好运气来得容易一些。为了成功,首先你必须有所行动。如果没有结果(90%的时候是这样),那么换件事做。你坚持得越久,好运气的可能性就越大。

5.克服恐惧。

大学时,我曾经选修演讲课,感觉用处不大,因为它教的是,如何在公众场合掩饰自己的紧张。毕业后,我听了Dale Carnegie的课程,却受到极大启发。它完全不讲演讲技巧,而是训练你享受在公开场合发言的乐趣。当你在人群面前变得放松的时候,就自然而然会讲得好。我在这里不是为它做广告,而是想说人们需要训练的东西,其实是如何用热情取代恐惧和害羞。这是企业家的基本技能。

6.简洁的写作。

我还上过一个商务写作课程,它其实就教你怎么写简单句,如何不用多余的词。简洁的句子,会让思想更有力。你想要例子,就去看看乔布斯和巴菲特的文章。

7.培养说服能力。

消费者心理学、销售技巧、市场推广、商务谈判、市场统计、甚至产品设计,都是说服能力的不同表现形式。企业家全都应该掌握。

以上就是我总结的差生应该学习的东西。这肯定不是一个完整的清单,但至少这些东西对我很有用。

孩子们是我们的未来。但是,聪明和优秀的孩子只占少数,大部分孩子恐怕都属于差生。我们真的应该好好想想怎么做了。

%d bloggers like this: