The first thing I want to do is say thank you to all of you. The second thing I want to do is introduce my co-author and dear friend and co-teacher. Ken and I have been working together for almost 40 years. That's Ken Sharpe over there.
首先,我想要感謝你們所有的人。 第二,我要介紹我的合著者, 我親愛的朋友和合作老師, --Ken 他和我在一起工作 已經有將近40年了。 Ken Sharpe 就在那裡。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
So there is among many people -- certainly me and most of the people I talk to -- a kind of collective dissatisfaction with the way things are working, with the way our institutions run. Our kids' teachers seem to be failing them. Our doctors don't know who the hell we are, and they don't have enough time for us. We certainly can't trust the bankers, and we certainly can't trust the brokers. They almost brought the entire financial system down. And even as we do our own work, all too often, we find ourselves having to choose between doing what we think is the right thing and doing the expected thing, or the required thing, or the profitable thing. So everywhere we look, pretty much across the board, we worry that the people we depend on don't really have our interests at heart. Or if they do have our interests at heart, we worry that they don't know us well enough to figure out what they need to do in order to allow us to secure those interests. They don't understand us. They don't have the time to get to know us.
所以,在許多人中- 包括我,和我接觸的大部份人中- 有一種集體的不滿-- 對於事情運作的方式不滿, 對於機構周轉的方式不滿。 我們孩子的老師似乎在辜負他們; 我們的醫生不知道我們究竟如何, 也沒有足夠的時間給我們。 我們當然也不能信任銀行家, 更不能相信股票經紀人, 是他們幾乎弄垮了整個財務系統。 甚至當我們只是做自己的工作, 經常會 會發現自己不得不選擇 要做我們認為是對的事, 還是做被期待的事, 或是做被要求的事, 還是做有利益的事。 所以環顧周圍, 基本上的情況都是, 我們擔心我們所依靠的人 並不真的在乎我們的權益; 或即使他們在乎, 我們擔心他們不足夠瞭解我們 來弄清他們該做什麽 才能讓我們 獲取我們的權益。 他們不理解我們。 他們也沒有時間來認識我們。
There are two kinds of responses that we make to this sort of general dissatisfaction. If things aren't going right, the first response is: let's make more rules, let's set up a set of detailed procedures to make sure that people will do the right thing. Give teachers scripts to follow in the classroom, so even if they don't know what they're doing and don't care about the welfare of our kids, as long as they follow the scripts, our kids will get educated. Give judges a list of mandatory sentences to impose for crimes, so that you don't need to rely on judges using their judgment. Instead, all they have to do is look up on the list what kind of sentence goes with what kind of crime. Impose limits on what credit card companies can charge in interest and on what they can charge in fees. More and more rules to protect us against an indifferent, uncaring set of institutions we have to deal with.
對這種普遍的不滿足感, 我們做出 兩種不同的回應。 如果事情不順, 第一種回應是: 讓我們制定更多的規則, 讓我們設定一系列 更細的程序 來確保人們做對的事。 給老師在教室裡 要遵守的教學守則, 那麼即使他們不知道他們在做什麽, 也不在乎我們孩子的福利, 只要他們遵守這些守則, 孩子們就能得到教育。 給法官一列對罪行實施的 強制判決令清單, 所以你不再需要依賴 法官們自己的判斷。 相反,他們所需做的一切 只是查考清單- 什麽判決對應什麽罪行。 對信用卡公司, 在他們能收取什麽為利息。 能收取什麽費用上-施加限制。 有越來越多的條例 來保護我們 對付那些我們得應對的 漠不關心的機構。
Or -- or maybe and -- in addition to rules, let's see if we can come up with some really clever incentives so that, even if the people we deal with don't particularly want to serve our interests, it is in their interest to serve our interest -- the magic incentives that will get people to do the right thing even out of pure selfishness. So we offer teachers bonuses if the kids they teach score passing grades on these big test scores that are used to evaluate the quality of school systems.
或者,或許- 除了規章條例 看看我們還能不能想出 一些聰明的激勵機制。 那樣即使如果我們接觸的人 并不特別想滿足我們的利益, 爲了他們自己的利益 他們也會來滿足我們需要-- 奇妙的激勵措施 竟能讓人們即使出於單單私心 也會做對的事。 所以我們給老師提供獎金 一旦他們所教的學生 能通過那些重要考試 用來衡量學校系統質量的 標準考試。
Rules and incentives -- "sticks" and "carrots." We passed a bunch of rules to regulate the financial industry in response to the recent collapse. There's the Dodd-Frank Act, there's the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency that is temporarily being headed through the backdoor by Elizabeth Warren. Maybe these rules will actually improve the way these financial services companies behave. We'll see. In addition, we are struggling to find some way to create incentives for people in the financial services industry that will have them more interested in serving the long-term interests even of their own companies, rather than securing short-term profits. So if we find just the right incentives, they'll do the right thing -- as I said -- selfishly, and if we come up with the right rules and regulations, they won't drive us all over a cliff. And Ken [Sharpe] and I certainly know that you need to reign in the bankers. If there is a lesson to be learned from the financial collapse it is that.
規矩和獎勵 -- 軟硬兼施 我們通過了一串規條 針對最近的崩盤和蕭條 來規範金融業。 有 Dodd-Frank 法案 (美國華爾街改革和個人消費者保護法案) 有新的暫時由Elizabeth Warren 為首 通過後門的 消費者金融保護局。 也許這些條例 真能改善 金融服務公司表現的方式 我們還需拭目以待。 另一方面, 我們努力 尋找創建激勵機制的方法 給金融服務業界的人 能讓他們甚至只是出於所在的公司 能對實現長遠的利益 更感興趣, 而不只是爲了取得一時的利益 那樣如果我們能找到那個對的激勵, 他們也會“自私地”,如我所講,做對的事。 所以如果我們能制定對的規章條例, 他們就不會置我們與莫大的風險。 然而Ken [Sharpe]和我知道 你們需要支配掌握銀行家! 如果從這次金融大衰退中我們能學的什麽 就是這個。
But what we believe, and what we argue in the book, is that there is no set of rules, no matter how detailed, no matter how specific, no matter how carefully monitored and enforced, there is no set of rules that will get us what we need. Why? Because bankers are smart people. And, like water, they will find cracks in any set of rules. You design a set of rules that will make sure that the particular reason why the financial system "almost-collapse" can't happen again. It is naive beyond description to think that having blocked this source of financial collapse, you have blocked all possible sources of financial collapse. So it's just a question of waiting for the next one and then marveling at how we could have been so stupid as not to protect ourselves against that.
但是我們相信 我們在書中也爭辯, 沒有那麼一系列條例, 無論多細節, 無論多具體, 無論監管、 實施多有力, 沒有哪一列條例 能讓我們得到我們真正所需的。 爲什麽?因為銀行家很聰明 像水一樣, 他們任何條例中 都會找到漏洞鑽。 你設訂一系列法案來確保 那個使整個金融系統 幾乎崩潰的特定原因 不再發生; 但若認為你阻擋了 這個使經濟蕭條的源頭 就阻擋了所有崩毀金融的源頭, 那未免太天真了。 所以這只是等待下一次危機 然後驚異與我們爲什麽這麼愚蠢 竟然沒有針對其保護好自己。
What we desperately need, beyond, or along with, better rules and reasonably smart incentives, is we need virtue. We need character. We need people who want to do the right thing. And in particular, the virtue that we need most of all is the virtue that Aristotle called "practical wisdom." Practical wisdom is the moral will to do the right thing and the moral skill to figure out what the right thing is. So Aristotle was very interested in watching how the craftsmen around him worked. And he was impressed at how they would improvise novel solutions to novel problems -- problems that they hadn't anticipated. So one example is he sees these stonemasons working on the Isle of Lesbos, and they need to measure out round columns. Well if you think about it, it's really hard to measure out round columns using a ruler. So what do they do? They fashion a novel solution to the problem. They created a ruler that bends, what we would call these days a tape measure -- a flexible rule, a rule that bends. And Aristotle said, "Hah, they appreciated that sometimes to design rounded columns, you need to bend the rule." And Aristotle said often in dealing with other people, we need to bend the rules.
我們真正急需想要的, 超過、或伴隨,更好的條例 和有效的激勵 是我們需要-品德 我們需要人格 我們需要想要做對的事的人 特別地, 我們最需要的品德 是亞里斯多德所稱的 實用智慧。 實用智慧- 是做正確的事 的道德意志; 是知道什麽是正確的 道德技巧。 所以亞里斯多德對於觀察 他周圍的工匠如何工作很感興趣。 他對於他們 如何即興針對 他們也沒意料的新問題想出 新奇的解決法案印象深刻。 一個例子是他看到一些石匠 在萊斯博斯島做工 他們需要測量 那裡的圓柱 如果你想想的話 用直尺量圓柱真的很難 所以他們怎麼辦呢? 他們發明了一種新奇的手段 他們製作了一種可以彎曲的尺 今日被叫做-捲尺 一把靈活的尺 可彎曲的尺。 亞里斯多德就說 哈,他們領會到有時 要造園的柱子 你需要通融(放鬆規定)。 亞里斯多德又說 和別人相處 我們也需要時常通融
Dealing with other people demands a kind of flexibility that no set of rules can encompass. Wise people know when and how to bend the rules. Wise people know how to improvise. The way my co-author , Ken, and I talk about it, they are kind of like jazz musicians. The rules are like the notes on the page, and that gets you started, but then you dance around the notes on the page, coming up with just the right combination for this particular moment with this particular set of fellow players. So for Aristotle, the kind of rule-bending, rule exception-finding and improvisation that you see in skilled craftsmen is exactly what you need to be a skilled moral craftsman. And in interactions with people, almost all the time, it is this kind of flexibility that is required. A wise person knows when to bend the rules. A wise person knows when to improvise. And most important, a wise person does this improvising and rule-bending in the service of the right aims. If you are a rule-bender and an improviser mostly to serve yourself, what you get is ruthless manipulation of other people. So it matters that you do this wise practice in the service of others and not in the service of yourself. And so the will to do the right thing is just as important as the moral skill of improvisation and exception-finding. Together they comprise practical wisdom, which Aristotle thought was the master virtue.
與人相處, 要求一種靈活 那是沒有任何規章條例可以包括的。 智慧的人知道什麽時候,怎麼樣 調整規矩; 智慧的人知道如何即興發揮。 我的合著者Ken和我說起這個, 他們就像爵士音樂家; 規矩就像紙上的音符, 你從音符開始, 但是接著你便從中發揮,讓音符自由飛舞, 從中來的是對那特定時刻的 伴隨那特定共演者的 最佳組合。 所以對於亞里斯多德, 這種 調整規矩、 通融規定-你從熟練工匠中 能看到的發現和即興發揮 正是你們要成為一個道德上的工匠 所需要的。 和人相處, 幾乎任何時候, 這種程度的靈活是需要的。 智慧的人知道何時調整規矩 智慧的人知道何時即興發揮 最重要的是, 智慧的人做這種即興發揮和規章調整 是為著正義的目的。 如果你是一個通融者,即興表演家 只是爲了自己, 你能得到的就是對他人無情的控制。 所以重要的是你做這種智行 是爲了他人 而不是為自己。 所以想要做正義事的願望 與即興發揮 特例發現 的道德技巧一樣重要。 他們一起就組成了 被亞里斯多德認為是 品德之首的實用智慧。
So I'll give you an example of wise practice in action. It's the case of Michael. Michael's a young guy. He had a pretty low-wage job. He was supporting his wife and a child, and the child was going to parochial school. Then he lost his job. He panicked about being able to support his family. One night, he drank a little too much, and he robbed a cab driver -- stole 50 dollars. He robbed him at gunpoint. It was a toy gun. He got caught. He got tried. He got convicted. The Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines required a minimum sentence for a crime like this of two years, 24 months. The judge on the case, Judge Lois Forer thought that this made no sense. He had never committed a crime before. He was a responsible husband and father. He had been faced with desperate circumstances. All this would do is wreck a family. And so she improvised a sentence -- 11 months, and not only that, but release every day to go to work. Spend your night in jail, spend your day holding down a job. He did. He served out his sentence. He made restitution and found himself a new job. And the family was united.
讓我再舉一個 這種智慧實踐的例子。 這是Michael的故事 Michael是一個年輕人。 他有一份低薪的工作, 他得養活他妻子和一個孩子 孩子將要上教區學校。 然而他丟了他的工作 他極度驚慌擔憂 能不能繼續養家糊口。 一天,他喝的有點多, 搶劫了一個出租司機- 偷了50美金。 他用持槍搶劫。 用的是把玩具槍。 他被抓,被控告, 被定罪。 賓夕法尼亞的判決條例 要求對于這類罪行的處罰 最低為兩年,24個月。 這個案例的法官,法官Lois Forer 認為那沒有意義也講不通。 Michael沒有任何犯罪記錄。 他是一個負責的丈夫和父親。 他面對著絕望的處境。 那個判決所能做的就是毀了這個家 所以她應對發揮了一個判決-11個月。 不僅那樣, 每天予以釋放讓他去工作。 晚上坐監,白天工作。 Michael這麼做了。他服完了他的判決。 他做出了賠償。 他找到了新工作 家庭復原。
And it seemed on the road to some sort of a decent life -- a happy ending to a story involving wise improvisation from a wise judge. But it turned out the prosecutor was not happy that Judge Forer ignored the sentencing guidelines and sort of invented her own, and so he appealed. And he asked for the mandatory minimum sentence for armed robbery. He did after all have a toy gun. The mandatory minimum sentence for armed robbery is five years. He won the appeal. Michael was sentenced to five years in prison. Judge Forer had to follow the law. And by the way, this appeal went through after he had finished serving his sentence, so he was out and working at a job and taking care of his family and he had to go back into jail. Judge Forer did what she was required to do, and then she quit the bench. And Michael disappeared. So that is an example, both of wisdom in practice and the subversion of wisdom by rules that are meant, of course, to make things better.
一切似乎在通往 一種得體生活的正軌上 一個故事的完美結局 有著來自一個智慧法官的 智慧的即興而行 但是結果呢, 檢察官不高興 說Forer法官忽略了判決條例 她發明了自己的判決, 所以他再上訴。 他要求規定的對於持槍搶劫的 最低處罰。 畢竟,Michael的確用了一把玩具槍。 持槍搶劫的最低處罰 是 5 年 檢察官贏了上訴。 Micheal被判坐監5年。 Forer法官必須遵守法律。 另外說一句, 上訴通過時, 是在Micheal已經結束服刑后 所以他已經在外開始工作 開始照料他的家庭 但他現在得重返監獄 Forer法官做了她被要求做的, 接著她放棄了法官的職位。 Michael呢,消失了。 所以就是這個例子 同時有實踐的智慧 和智慧的顛覆- 根據規定,當然,是為了讓事情更好。
Now consider Ms. Dewey. Ms. Dewey's a teacher in a Texas elementary school. She found herself listening to a consultant one day who was trying to help teachers boost the test scores of the kids, so that the school would reach the elite category in percentage of kids passing big tests. All these schools in Texas compete with one another to achieve these milestones, and there are bonuses and various other treats that come if you beat the other schools. So here was the consultant's advice: first, don't waste your time on kids who are going to pass the test no matter what you do. Second, don't waste your time on kids who can't pass the test no matter what you do. Third, don't waste your time on kids who moved into the district too late for their scores to be counted. Focus all of your time and attention on the kids who are on the bubble, the so-called "bubble kids" -- kids where your intervention can get them just maybe over the line from failing to passing. So Ms. Dewey heard this, and she shook her head in despair while fellow teachers were sort of cheering each other on and nodding approvingly. It's like they were about to go play a football game. For Ms. Dewey, this isn't why she became a teacher.
現在想想 Dewey女士。 Dewey女士是德州小學的一名教師 一天她在聽一個諮詢師 諮詢師想幫助老師 提高學生成績, 那樣學校 就會因為通過大考學生的比例 成為精英學校。 所以這些在德州的學校相互競爭 來實現這些里程碑, 根據你是否戰勝其他學校 有各種各樣的獎勵和威脅。 所以諮詢師的建議是: 第一:不要在那些不管你做什麽,都會通過考試的 學生身上浪費時間; 第二,不要在不管你做什麽 都不會通過考試的學生身上 浪費時間; 第三,不要浪費時間在那些 太遲進入這個學區 成績不會被記入計算的學生。 集中你的時間和注意力 在那些在邊緣的孩子 邊緣孩子 你的介入 也許能讓他們跨過那條線 從不及格到通過。 所以Dewey 女士聽到了這個 在絕望中她搖頭 然而她的同事老師們卻互相歡呼 贊許地點頭- 就好像他們都正要去一場橄欖球比賽一樣。 對於Dewey 女士, 這不是她想要成為一名老師的目的啊。
Now Ken and I are not naive, and we understand that you need to have rules. You need to have incentives. People have to make a living. But the problem with relying on rules and incentives is that they demoralize professional activity, and they demoralize professional activity in two senses. First, they demoralize the people who are engaged in the activity. Judge Forer quits, and Ms. Dewey in completely disheartened. And second, they demoralize the activity itself. The very practice is demoralized, and the practitioners are demoralized. It creates people -- when you manipulate incentives to get people to do the right thing -- it creates people who are addicted to incentives. That is to say, it creates people who only do things for incentives.
現在,Ken和我並不天真, 我們也理解你需要規章條例。 你也學要刺激激勵。 人們需要謀生, 但是依賴規矩和激勵 的問題在于 他們使職業行為 士氣低落。 他們使職業活動士氣低落, 表現在兩方面。 第一,他們使參與活動的 人喪失士氣。 Forer法官放棄了, Dewey女士完全地沮喪。 第二, 他們使活動本身洩氣。 活動是無士氣的, 實施者是沮喪的, 它使人們-- 當你想操控、刺激人們做對的事時-- 這讓人們對 這些激勵措施上癮。 也就是說,它造就了 只爲獎勵做事的人。
Now the striking thing about this is that psychologists have known this for 30 years. Psychologists have known about the negative consequences of incentivizing everything for 30 years. We know that if you reward kids for drawing pictures, they stop caring about the drawing and care only about the reward. If you reward kids for reading books, they stop caring about what's in the books and only care about how long they are. If you reward teachers for kids' test scores, they stop caring about educating and only care about test preparation. If you were to reward doctors for doing more procedures -- which is the current system -- they would do more. If instead you reward doctors for doing fewer procedures, they will do fewer. What we want, of course, is doctors who do just the right amount of procedures and do the right amount for the right reason -- namely, to serve the welfare of their patients. Psychologists have known this for decades, and it's time for policymakers to start paying attention and listen to psychologists a little bit, instead of economists.
引人注目的是, 心理學家已經知道一點 已經有30年。 心理學家都知道 全盤激勵的負面結果 有30年。 我們知道如果你獎勵孩子畫畫, 他們停止關心畫畫本身 而只在乎獎勵; 如果你獎勵孩子讀書, 他們停止關心書的內容 而只關心書有多厚; 如果你為孩子的成績獎勵老師, 他們停止關心教育本身 單單在乎準備考試; 如果你要去獎勵醫生, 為更多的檢查手續-- -也就是現在的醫療系統-他們會做更多; 如果相反,你獎勵他們精化程序, 他們就會做少一些。 我們想要的,當然, 卻是走合適數目程序的醫生: 為正確的原因,走合適數目程序-- 也就是,爲了他們病人的福利。 心裡學家知道這個已經幾十年, 是時候於政策制定者 該開始關注 和傾聽心裡學家多一點, 而不是經濟學家。
And it doesn't have to be this way. We think, Ken and I, that there are real sources of hope. We identify one set of people in all of these practices who we call canny outlaws. These are people who, being forced to operate in a system that demands rule-following and creates incentives, find away around the rules, find a way to subvert the rules. So there are teachers who have these scripts to follow, and they know that if they follow these scripts, the kids will learn nothing. And so what they do is they follow the scripts, but they follow the scripts at double-time and squirrel away little bits of extra time during which they teach in the way that they actually know is effective. So these are little ordinary, everyday heroes, and they're incredibly admirable, but there's no way that they can sustain this kind of activity in the face of a system that either roots them out or grinds them down.
事情不必那樣。 Ken 和我認為有真正的希望來源。 我們發現在所有的工作之中 有一類人 可以被稱為精明的逾矩者。 這些人 被強迫在 一個要求遵規守據,製造激勵機制 的系統工作, 在規條裡鑽漏洞, 扭曲規定。 所以有哪些有教案可參考的老師, 他們知道如果他們照本宣讀,學生什麽都學不著。 他們所作的是遵循講義, 但他們加速 來儲蓄多餘的一點時間 用在他們認為真正有效的 教學方式上。 所以這些才是平凡的生活中的英雄, 他們無比令人欽佩, 但是他們無法面對這麼一個體系 持續他們的舉動 那體系要嘛掃除了他們 要嘛磨損同化了他們。
So canny outlaws are better than nothing, but it's hard to imagine any canny outlaw sustaining that for an indefinite period of time. More hopeful are people we call system-changers. These are people who are looking not to dodge the system's rules and regulations, but to transform the system, and we talk about several. One in particular is a judge named Robert Russell. And one day he was faced with the case of Gary Pettengill. Pettengill was a 23-year-old vet who had planned to make the army a career, but then he got a severe back injury in Iraq, and that forced him to take a medical discharge. He was married, he had a third kid on the way, he suffered from PTSD, in addition to the bad back, and recurrent nightmares, and he had started using marijuana to ease some of the symptoms. He was only able to get part-time work because of his back, and so he was unable to earn enough to put food on the table and take care of his family. So he started selling marijuana. He was busted in a drug sweep. His family was kicked out of their apartment, and the welfare system was threatening to take away his kids.
所以精明的逾矩者比沒有好。 但很難想像他們 能維持多長的時間 更有希望的是 被稱為體系革新者的人。 這些人 不避開系統的規章條例, 卻去改變這個體系, 我們知道一些這樣的人。 其中一個很特別 是一名叫Robert Russell的法官。 一天他面對 Gary Pettengill 的案例。 Pettengill是一個23歲的退役兵 曾經想過留在部隊成就一番事業, 但在伊拉克不幸受到了一次嚴重的背傷, 逼迫他因健康因素退伍。 他結了婚,就要擁有第三個孩子, 除了背傷,他還受創傷後精神障礙, 和無休止噩夢的折磨, 所以他開始抽大麻 來緩解一些癥狀。 因為他的背,他只能做一些兼職, 所以他無法掙足夠錢 來養家糊口。 所以他開始賣大麻。 在一次毒品掃除中被抓。 他的一家被趕出公寓, 福利機構 威脅要帶走他的孩子。
Under normal sentencing procedures, Judge Russell would have had little choice but to sentence Pettengill to serious jail-time as a drug felon. But Judge Russell did have an alternative. And that's because he was in a special court. He was in a court called the Veterans' Court. In the Veterans' Court -- this was the first of its kind in the United States. Judge Russell created the Veterans' Court. It was a court only for veterans who had broken the law. And he had created it exactly because mandatory sentencing laws were taking the judgment out of judging. No one wanted non-violent offenders -- and especially non-violent offenders who were veterans to boot -- to be thrown into prison. They wanted to do something about what we all know, namely the revolving door of the criminal justice system. And what the Veterans' Court did, was it treated each criminal as an individual, tried to get inside their problems, tried to fashion responses to their crimes that helped them to rehabilitate themselves, and didn't forget about them once the judgment was made. Stayed with them, followed up on them, made sure that they were sticking to whatever plan had been jointly developed to get them over the hump.
在通常的判決條例下, Russell法官基本沒有選擇 只能給Pettengill 嚴重的刑期 作為毒品販的懲罰。 但是Russell 的確有另一個選擇。 因為他在一個特別的法庭 他在退伍軍人法庭。 在退伍軍人法庭- 這是美國這一類法庭的第一個。 Russell 法官創立了退伍軍人法庭。 這個法庭只為違法的 退伍軍人服務。 他創立了這個法庭 正是因為強制判刑的法律措施 讓審判的工作脫離了判決。 沒人想讓並不殘暴的罪犯- 特別是那些既不暴力,而且是退伍軍人的冒犯者 被投入監獄。 對於我們都知道的,他們想做點什麽 即-法律系統中的反反復複(抓了就放,把嫌犯隨便放回街頭的司法) 退休軍人法庭所做的, 就是把每個罪犯作為個體看待, 想要深入瞭解他們的問題, 試圖針對他們的罪行做不同回應, 幫助他們改過自新, 並且在判決後也不忘記他們。 與他們並駕齊驅,繼續考察他們 確保他們在堅守不管什麽 一同制定的 幫他們越過坎坷的計劃。
There are now 22 cities that have Veterans' Courts like this. Why has the idea spread? Well, one reason is that Judge Russell has now seen 108 vets in his Veterans' Court as of February of this year, and out of 108, guess how many have gone back through the revolving door of justice into prison. None. None. Anyone would glom onto a criminal justice system that has this kind of a record. So here's is a system-changer, and it seems to be catching.
現在在22個城市, 已經有像那樣的退休軍人法庭了。 爲什麽這個主張會流傳? 一個原因是 Russell法官 到今年2月為止 已經在他的退伍軍人法庭 見過108名退伍軍人。 這108人中 猜猜有多少因為 把嫌犯隨便放回街頭的司法 重返監獄? 一個也沒有! 任何人都無法想像 一個刑事審判系統 能有這樣一番記錄。 所以這裡還有一個制度革新者,故事非常精彩。
There's a banker who created a for-profit community bank that encouraged bankers -- I know this is hard to believe -- encouraged bankers who worked there to do well by doing good for their low-income clients. The bank helped finance the rebuilding of what was otherwise a dying community. Though their loan recipients were high-risk by ordinary standards, the default rate was extremely low. The bank was profitable. The bankers stayed with their loan recipients. They didn't make loans and then sell the loans. They serviced the loans. They made sure that their loan recipients were staying up with their payments. Banking hasn't always been the way we read about it now in the newspapers. Even Goldman Sachs once used to serve clients, before it turned into an institution that serves only itself. Banking wasn't always this way, and it doesn't have to be this way.
有一個銀行家 他創立了一個盈利的社區銀行 來鼓勵銀行家-我知道這讓人難以置信- 鼓勵在那裡工作的銀行家們通過對他們 低收入的顧客行好事來做好工作。 那家銀行幫助籌資重建了 一個原本會沒落的社區。 雖然他們的貸款對象按常規講是高風險的, 但是事實上違約率非常低。 這家銀行非常盈利。 銀行家們與他們的貸款對象在同一陣營 他們不辦理貸款再賣出貸款。 他們維護貸款。 他們確保他們的貸款對象 跟得上他們的還款。 銀行並不總是 像我們今天在報紙上讀到的那樣。 即使是高盛 在它變成一個 單單自利的機構前, 也一度在服務顧客。 所以銀行并不總這樣, 也不必像現在這樣。
So there are examples like this in medicine -- doctors at Harvard who are trying to transform medical education, so that you don't get a kind of ethical erosion and loss of empathy, which characterizes most medical students in the course of their medical training. And the way they do it is to give third-year medical students patients who they follow for an entire year. So the patients are not organ systems, and they're not diseases; they're people, people with lives. And in order to be an effective doctor, you need to treat people who have lives and not just disease. In addition to which there's an enormous amount of back and forth, mentoring of one student by another, of all the students by the doctors, and the result is a generation -- we hope -- of doctors who do have time for the people they treat. We'll see.
在醫學界也有這樣的例子- 在哈佛的醫生們 正在嘗試醫學教育改革, 讓你不會像現在的醫學院學生一樣 在他們的接受專業訓練中 紛紛多少道德腐化 同情心磨滅。 他們所採用的方法是: 給三年級的學生 分配他們要跟隨一整年的病人。 所以病人並不是器官系統, 也不是疾病; 他們也是人,有血有生命的活人。 所以想成為一個有效率的醫生, 你得對待有生命的而不只是有疾病的人。 另外,這其中有許多來回反復, 學生之間相互幫助指導, 所有學生有醫生為導師, 結果將是-我們希望-新一代 願意對醫治的病人付出時間的醫生。 我們拭目以待。
So there are lots of examples like this that we talk about. Each of them shows that it is possible to build on and nurture character and keep a profession true to its proper mission -- what Aristotle would have called its proper telos. And Ken and I believe that this is what practitioners actually want. People want to be allowed to be virtuous. They want to have permission to do the right thing. They don't want to feel like they need to take a shower to get the moral grime off their bodies everyday when they come home from work.
所以有很多像我們今天討論一樣的例子。 每一個例子都證明 建立和培養人格,同時 操守一個符合其使命- -亞里斯多德的稱之為"正當的終極目的” 的職業是完全有可能的. Ken 和我相信 這也是實踐家真正想要的。 人們想要被允許 能是美德的。 他們想得到做正確的事的允許。 他們不希望感到 每日下班回家後, 他們必須淋浴一下, 才能清除他們身上的道德污穢。
Aristotle thought that practical wisdom was the key to happiness, and he was right. There's now a lot of research being done in psychology on what makes people happy, and the two things that jump out in study after study -- I know this will come as a shock to all of you -- the two things that matter most to happiness are love and work. Love: managing successfully relations with the people who are close to you and with the communities of which you are a part. Work: engaging in activities that are meaningful and satisfying. If you have that, good close relations with other people, work that's meaningful and fulfilling, you don't much need anything else.
亞里斯多德認為:實用智慧 幸福快樂的關鍵, 他是對的。 有許多心理學研究都在探索 是什麽讓人快樂幸福, 有兩樣東西反復被提及出現- 我知道這會讓你們所有人大吃一驚- 最影響幸福的兩樣東西是 愛和工作。 愛:即成功地保持與 和你親密的人以及 你所屬社區的關係。 工作:參與那些 有意義和有滿足感的活動。 如果你有,足夠的和他人親密的關係, 有意義令人滿足的工作, 那你真不太需要其他什麽。
Well, to love well and to work well, you need wisdom. Rules and incentives don't tell you how to be a good friend, how to be a good parent, how to be a good spouse, or how to be a good doctor or a good lawyer or a good teacher. Rules and incentives are no substitutes for wisdom. Indeed, we argue, there is no substitute for wisdom. And so practical wisdom does not require heroic acts of self-sacrifice on the part of practitioners. In giving us the will and the skill to do the right thing -- to do right by others -- practical wisdom also gives us the will and the skill to do right by ourselves.
所以呢,要想好好的愛,好好的工作, 你必須要有智慧。 規則和激勵措施不會告訴你 怎麼當一個好朋友,好父母, 好的配偶 或好的老師、好的律師 好的老師。 規則和激勵措施 不能替代智慧。 實施上,我們堅信, 沒有什麽能代替智慧。 因而實用智慧 不需要 在實踐家身上 自我犧牲的英雄作為。 給了我們做正確事,為別人做正確事 的願望和技巧, 實用智慧也給了我們 能獨立為自己 做正確的事的願望和技巧。
Thanks.
謝謝大家。
(Applause)
(掌聲)