Intelligent vs. Smart 智能 vs. 聪明
Here’s an important distinction to make in life.
在生活中有一个重要的区别需要明确。
Some people are intelligent but don’t have a lick of smarts. Their ability to succeed in the world might surprise you on the downside.
有些人聪明，但一点智慧都没有。他们在世界上取得成功的能力可能会让你感到惊讶。
Others lack intelligence but gush smarts. Their potential will surprise you on the upside.
其他人缺乏智力，但却表现出聪明才智。他们的潜力会让你感到惊讶。
On rare occasions you meet people who are both intelligent and smart. They run laps around everyone.
在罕见的情况下，你会遇到既聪明又聪慧的人。他们在众人中游刃有余。
I’d define intelligence vs. smart like this: Intelligent people understand technical details, smart people understand emotional details.
我会这样定义智能与聪明：智能的人理解技术细节，聪明的人理解情感细节。
Or maybe: 或者也许：
Intelligence: Good memory, logic, math skills, test-taking ability, rule-following.
智力：良好的记忆力、逻辑思维能力、数学技巧、应试能力、遵守规则。
Smart: High degree of empathy, bullshit detection, organization, communication skills, persuasion, social awareness, understanding the consequences of your actions.
聪明：高度的共情能力，识破废话能力，组织能力，沟通技巧，说服力，社交意识，理解行为的后果。
Both are important. But there’s a critical difference in how each is valued.
两者都很重要。但在价值观上有一个关键的区别。
Schools are good at teaching and measuring intelligence, so that’s what people tend to value and aspire to. But in almost any field, smarts is what gets rewarded long term.
学校擅长教授和衡量智力，所以人们往往重视并追求这一点。但在几乎任何领域，聪明才智是长期受到奖励的。
You cannot measure empathy like you can SAT scores, so it’s not surprising that one is given more weight on resumes. But who is more likely to succeed in life – a person whose main skill is memorizing formulas, or someone who can instantly relate to the emotions of coworkers, customers, spouses, and friends?
你不能像测量 SAT 成绩那样衡量同理心，所以简历上给予它更多的重视并不令人意外。但在生活中，谁更有可能成功 - 一个主要技能是记忆公式的人，还是一个能够立即理解同事、客户、配偶和朋友情感的人？
It’s so obvious. 这是如此明显。
And it’s why the world is filled with intelligent jerks who have gone nowhere, and middling students who struggled through calculus but go on to live successful, happy lives. The most important decision most people will ever make is whether, when, and whom to marry. But that’s never taught in schools – how could it be? You can’t distill it down to a formula, or a one-size-fits-all answer. It’s a decision that requires lots of smarts and very little intelligence.
这就是为什么世界上充满了聪明但一事无成的混蛋，以及在微不足道的学生中挣扎过微积分却过上了成功、幸福生活的人。大多数人将会做出的最重要决定是何时、何地以及与谁结婚。但这从未在学校教授过 - 这怎么可能呢？你无法将其简化为一个公式或一个适用于所有人的答案。这是一个需要很多智慧但几乎不需要智力的决定。
The core here is realizing that people are not spreadsheets. They are emotional, hormonal, misinformed, status-seeking, insecure creatures trying their best to make it through the day. So if you have to choose between understanding how the world should work in theory vs. how it actually works in practice, lean towards the latter. It’s like historian Will Durant once said: “Logic is an invention of man and may be ignored by the universe.” That is so smart.
核心在于认识到人们不是电子表格。他们是情感、荷尔蒙、信息不准确、追求地位、不安全的生物，尽力度过每一天。所以，如果你必须在理论上了解世界应该如何运作和实际上如何运作之间做出选择，倾向于后者。就像历史学家威尔・杜兰特曾经说过的：“逻辑是人类的发明，可能被宇宙忽略。” 那真是太聪明了。
Here’s an extreme example.
这是一个极端的例子。
George Soros says that whenever he sees a bubble, he rushes in to buy it.
乔治・索罗斯说，每当他看到一个泡沫时，他就会迅速买入。
If you’re an intelligent person, that might seem crazy. Why would you purposefully want to buy an overvalued investment?
如果你是一个聪明的人，这可能看起来很疯狂。为什么你会故意想要购买一个被高估的投资呢？
But if you’re a smart person, maybe it makes sense.
但如果你是一个聪明的人，也许这是有道理的。
You know that bubbles are likely to grow larger and last longer than most people imagine. You understand what’s going through people’s minds, and you know investors will keep frantically buying for some time not because the numbers make sense, but because their neighbor got rich and they’ll spiral down a black hole of jealousy and bad decisions.
你知道泡沫往往会比大多数人想象的更大、持续的时间更长。你了解人们的想法，知道投资者会继续疯狂购买一段时间，不是因为数字有意义，而是因为他们的邻居变得富有，他们会陷入嫉妒和错误决策的黑洞。
“That’s not irrational,” says Soros. (But please don’t try this; you’re probably not as smart as Soros).
“这并不是不理性的，” 索罗斯说。（但请不要尝试这样做；你可能没有索罗斯聪明。）
Derek Thompson of the Atlantic makes a beautiful point that baseball has become boring over the last 20 years. Why? Because every team got intelligent: they moneyballed their strategy by mining data to figure out how to get the most strikeouts. If you want to win games, that was the intelligent thing to do! But it made the game boring. It took away part of the soul, part of the fun. Now the game is in a crisis of falling interest and attendance. It took smarts to see that coming.
德里克・汤普森在《大西洋月刊》上提出了一个很有道理的观点，即在过去的 20 年里，棒球变得乏味。为什么呢？因为每个球队都变得聪明起来：他们通过挖掘数据来找出如何获得最多的三振，从而实施了 “金钱球” 策略。如果你想赢球，这是明智的选择！但这使得比赛变得乏味。它剥夺了一部分灵魂，一部分乐趣。现在，棒球面临着兴趣和观众数量下降的危机。聪明人早就看到了这一点。
Here are a few other “smart” traits that are hard to measure.
以下是一些难以衡量的其他 “智能” 特征。
Accepting that people who have lived different lives than you want different things and will see the world differently. What looks like debates are often just people with different lived experiences talking over each other.
接受与你有不同生活经历的人希望不同的事情，并且会以不同的方式看待世界。看起来像是辩论的事情往往只是有着不同生活经历的人互相交谈。
Henry Ford said, “If there is any one secret of success it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view and see things from their angle as well as your own.”
亨利・福特说过：“如果成功有任何秘诀的话，那就在于能够理解他人的观点，从他们的角度看问题，而不仅仅是从自己的角度出发。”
The purely intelligent person will find this hard to grasp, because if you think there is one right answer to every problem, you insist on banging through more debate until the other side agrees with you.
纯粹聪明的人会发现这很难理解，因为如果你认为每个问题只有一个正确答案，你会坚持进行更多的辩论，直到对方同意你的观点。
It takes smarts to accept that for most problems in the world, the “right” answer is the one that best promotes your individual wellbeing and fits your experience of how the world works. And since everyone has different needs and experiences, the only way to move forward and get things done is to tolerate and work with some views even when you disagree with them.
接受这样一个事实需要智慧，即对于世界上大多数问题来说，“正确” 的答案是最能促进个人福祉并符合你对世界运作方式的策略。而且由于每个人的需求和经历都不同，唯一前进和完成任务的方法就是容忍并与一些观点合作，即使你不同意它们。
The outcome, if you can pull this off, is the skill of getting along with people you disagree with. It is indispensable.
如果你能做到这一点，结果就是与你意见不合的人相处的技巧。这是不可或缺的。
An awareness that being nice doesn’t mean being weak – it’s actually a selfish strategy for gaining cooperation over time.
意识到友善并不意味着软弱 —— 实际上，这是一种为了长期获得合作而采取的自私策略。
The hedge fund Long Term Capital Management was collapsing in 1998, threatening to take down all of Wall Street in its wake.
1998 年，对冲基金长期资本管理公司正在崩溃，威胁着带走整个华尔街。
In response, 14 Wall Street banks stepped in to collectively bail the fund out and halt the panic.
作为回应，14 家华尔街银行共同出手救助该基金并阻止了恐慌。
Every big bank participated in the bailout – except Bear Stearns, whose CEO Jimmy Cayne allegedly responded, “No fucking way,” to the request.
每家大银行都参与了救助计划，只有贝尔斯登例外，其首席执行官吉米・凯恩据称回应道：“他妈的不可能。”
Ten years later, Bear Stearns itself teetered on the edge. And guess how many other Wall Street banks were willing to lend Jimmy Cayne a hand?
十年后，贝尔斯登自己陷入了危机。猜猜有多少其他华尔街银行愿意帮助吉米・凯恩？
Charlie Munger once pointed out that Benjamin Franklin didn’t say honesty is the best morals – he said it’s the best policy. It’s what’s going to help you, and put you in the best position, earning you the most money, in the long run.
查理・芒格曾指出，本杰明・富兰克林并没有说诚实是最好的道德准则，他说的是诚实是最好的策略。这将帮助你，使你处于最佳位置，在长期来看，能够赚取最多的钱。
There’s a corollary there with kindness.
与善良有一个相关的推论。
There are two reasons to be kind to everyone. One is moral, the other is selfish. Morally, you should do it because you’re empathetic. Selfishly, you should do it because it’s easy to underestimate how many people you may eventually rely on to help you, and you’ll only gain their cooperation if you remain in their good graces.
对每个人友善有两个原因。一个是道德的，另一个是自私的。道德上，你应该这样做是因为你有同理心。自私地说，你应该这样做是因为很容易低估你最终可能依赖的人数，只有保持他们的好感，你才能得到他们的合作。
Multi-disciplinary thinking.
多学科思维。
I serve on the board of directors of Markel. Someone recently asked me what I’ve learned from Markel’s CEO Tom Gayner – truly one of the most accomplished investors of recent decades.
我在 Markel 的董事会任职。最近有人问我从 Markel 的首席执行官 Tom Gayner 那里学到了什么 - 他真的是近几十年来最有成就的投资者之一。
My response is that no matter what we’re talking about, Tom has a perfect analogy from something totally unrelated.
我的回答是，无论我们在谈论什么，汤姆总是能从完全无关的事物中找到一个完美的类比。
If we’re talking about insurance reserves, Tom will say something like, “You know, this reminds me of that scene from the Sound of Music …”
如果我们谈论保险准备金，汤姆会说一些类似这样的话：“你知道，这让我想起了《音乐之声》中的那个场景……”
If we’re talking about market valuations, Tom might say, “It’s kind of like Winston Churchill used to say …”
如果我们谈论市场估值，汤姆可能会说：“这有点像温斯顿・丘吉尔曾经说过的……”
In each case, the analogy gets right to the heart of the topic at hand.
在每种情况下，这个类比直接触及了手头话题的核心。
This is more than mere entertaining chat. I think Tom is a good investor because he understands how the world works – connecting dots between various fields – which is so much broader than just understanding finance. People who understand finance might be intelligent, but understanding how the world works requires smarts.
这不仅仅是娱乐性的聊天。我认为汤姆是一个好的投资者，因为他理解世界是如何运作的 - 在各个领域之间连接各种因素 - 这远远超出了仅仅理解金融的范畴。理解金融的人可能很聪明，但理解世界如何运作需要智慧。
Too many intelligent people become siloed in their field, oblivious to how interconnected the world is.
太多聪明人在自己的领域中变得孤立，对世界的相互联系毫不知情。
True independent thinking.
真正的独立思考。
Kevin Kelly has this great idea that you’re only thinking independently if your views on certain topics can’t be predicted from your views on other topics.
凯文・凯利有一个很棒的想法，即只有当你对某些话题的观点无法从你对其他话题的观点中预测出来时，你才是在独立思考。
Many views can be predicted, because true independent thinking is so rare.
很多观点可以预测，因为真正的独立思考是如此罕见。
Tell me your views on immigration and I can probably guess your views on abortion.
告诉我你对移民的观点，我或许能猜出你对堕胎的观点。
Tell me who you voted for president and I can probably guess whether you think today’s economy is strong or weak.
告诉我你投票给谁当总统，我可能能猜出你是否认为今天的经济强劲还是疲软。
When your views on certain topics can be predicted from unrelated statements, there’s a good chance you’ve outsourced part of your thinking to tribal affiliations.
当你对某些话题的观点可以从无关的陈述中预测出来时，很有可能你已经将思考的一部分外包给了部落归属。
True independent thinking is rare because most people would rather be comfortable than right, and there is comfort in knowing you are a good-standing member of your tribe. Thinking independently also doesn’t mean you’re right, because the crowd is usually pretty close to accurate. Going against the tribe can also be interpreted as arrogance – suddenly you might look like Jimmy Cayne.
真正的独立思考很少见，因为大多数人宁愿舒适而不愿正确，而知道自己是部落中的良好成员也是一种舒适感。独立思考并不意味着你是正确的，因为群体通常相当准确。违背部落的意见也可能被解释为傲慢 - 突然间你可能看起来像吉米・凯恩。
But poet Rudyard Kipling writes, “If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings, nor lose the common touch,” you’re on your way to greatness. One way to test that is whether there are people who you agree with on some topics but not others. If there is someone whose views you agree with on every topic, be careful. If there is someone whose views you disagree with on every topic, be even more careful.
但是诗人鲁德亚德・吉卜林写道：“如果你能与人群交谈并保持你的美德，或者与国王同行而不失去平凡的感触”，那么你正在走向伟大。一个测试的方法是是否有人在某些话题上你同意但在其他话题上不同意。如果有人在每个话题上你都同意他们的观点，要小心。如果有人在每个话题上你都不同意他们的观点，要更加小心。
I think my own dog – who is such a good girl – is crazy half the time, so I shudder when people can’t find any faults in their favorite politician or investing guru.
我认为我的狗 - 她是个好女孩 - 有一半的时间都很疯狂，所以当人们找不到他们最喜欢的政治家或投资专家的任何缺点时，我感到恐惧。
Recognizing that the best story wins.
认识到最好的故事获胜。
Not the best answer. Not the accurate answer. Not the answer people need to hear. The winner is just whoever gets people to pay attention and nod their heads in agreement.
不是最好的答案。不是准确的答案。不是人们需要听到的答案。胜利者只是那些能够引起人们注意并点头赞同的人。
If you’re merely intelligent, you might focus all of your effort on finding precise truth. If you’re smart, you’ll focus just as much effort on delivering an effective message around that truth, realizing that the most powerful truth does no good if you can’t get people to pay attention to it.
如果你只是聪明，你可能会把所有的努力都放在寻找准确的真相上。如果你很聪明，你会同样努力地将一个有效的信息传达出去，意识到如果你不能引起人们的注意，最有力的真相也没有任何用处。
A doctor once told me there’s a difference between an expert in medicine and an expert in healthcare.
一位医生曾告诉我，医学专家和医疗保健专家之间有所区别。
An expert in medicine knows all the right answers out of the textbook. They can diagnose with precision and are up to date on all the latest treatments.
医学专家从教科书中知道所有正确的答案。他们可以精确诊断，并了解所有最新的治疗方法。
An expert in healthcare understands that medicine from the patient’s view is intimidating, confusing, expensive, and time-consuming. Nothing you diagnose or prescribe matters until you’ve addressed that reality with patients, because even a perfect solution makes no difference to the patient who doesn’t follow it.
一个医疗专家明白，从患者的角度来看，医学是令人生畏、困惑、昂贵和耗时的。除非你与患者共同面对这个现实，否则你所诊断或开出的处方都没有意义，因为即使是完美的解决方案对于不遵循的患者也没有任何影响。
It’s similar in investing. Hedge fund manager Kyle Bass summed this up well, saying: “It’s easy to maintain conviction. It’s harder to maintain investors.” The most successful investors tend to be expert communicators, because you have to compel your investors to stick with you during inevitable times of underperformance. Buffett. Sequoia. Even Vanguard; they are so skilled – intentionally so – at delivering an effective message beyond the numbers.
在投资方面也是如此。对冲基金经理凯尔・巴斯总结得很好，他说：“坚定信念很容易，留住投资者却很难。” 最成功的投资者往往是专业的沟通者，因为你必须说服你的投资者在不可避免的低迷时期坚守你。巴菲特、红杉资本，甚至是先锋集团；他们非常擅长 —— 有意地如此 —— 在数字之外传递有效的信息。
Warren Buffett – amazing writer.
沃伦・巴菲特 - 了不起的作家。
Charlie Munger – amazing writer.
查理・芒格 - 了不起的作家。
Seth Klarman – amazing writer.
塞思・克拉曼 - 了不起的作家。
John Bogle – amazing writer.
约翰・博格尔 - 了不起的作家。
Joel Greenblatt – amazing writer.
乔尔・格林布拉特 - 了不起的作家。
Howard Marks – amazing writer.
霍华德・马克斯 - 了不起的作家。
I don’t think this is a coincidence. These investors’ ability to write let them effectively tell their story, set expectations, and reassure investors. That made their investors more likely to stick around when times got rocky.
我不认为这是巧合。这些投资者的写作能力使他们能够有效地讲述自己的故事，设定期望并安抚投资者。这使得他们的投资者在困难时期更有可能坚持下去。
It’s hard to teach that. Storytelling is a soft, emotional skill. It’s not found in intelligence. It’s found in smarts.
这很难教。讲故事是一种柔软、情感的技能。它不是智力所能得到的，而是聪明才智所具备的。