I was told to come here and tell you all stories, but what I'd like to do is instead tell you why I'm suspicious of stories, why stories make me nervous. In fact, the more inspired a story makes me feel, very often, the more nervous I get. (Laughter) So the best stories are often the trickiest ones. The good and bad things about stories is that they are a kind of filter. They take a lot of information, and they leave some of it out, and they keep some of it in. But the thing about this filter is that it always leaves the same things in. You're always left with the same few simple stories. There is the old saying that just about every story can be summed up as "a stranger came to town." There is a book by Christopher Booker, where he claims there are really just seven types of stories. There is monster, rags to riches, quest, voyage and return, comedy, tragedy, rebirth. You don't have to agree with that list exactly, but the point is this: if you think in terms of stories, you're telling yourself the same things over and over again. There was a study done, we asked some people-- people were asked to describe their lives. When asked to describe their lives, what is interesting is how few people said "mess". (Laughter) It's probably the best answer, I don't mean that in a bad way. "Mess" can be liberating, "mess" can be empowering, "mess" can be a way of drawing upon multiple strengths. But what people wanted to say was, "My life is a journey." 51% wanted to turn his or her life into a story. 11% said, "My life is a battle." Again, that is a kind of story. 8% said, "My life is a novel." 5% said, "My life is a play." I don't think anyone said, "My life is a reality TV show." (Laughter) But again, we're imposing order on the mess we observe, and it's taking the same patterns, and the thing is when something is in the form of a story, often, we remember it when we shouldn't. So how many of you know the story about George Washington and the cherry tree? It's not obvious that is exactly what happened. The story of Paul Revere, it's not obvious that that is exactly the way it happened. So again, we should be suspicious of stories. We're biologically programmed to respond to them. They contain a lot of information. They have social power. They connect us to other people. So they are like a candy that we're fed when we consume political information, when we read novels. When we read non-fiction books, we're really being fed stories. Non-fiction is, in a sense, the new fiction. The book may happen to say true things, but again, everything's taking the same form of these stories. So what are the problems of relying too heavily on stories? You view your life like this instead of the mess that it is or it ought to be. But more specifically, I think of a few major problems when we think too much in terms of narrative. First, narratives tend to be too simple, for the point of a narrative is to strip it away, not just into 18 minutes, but most narratives you can present in a sentence or two. When you strip away detail, you tend to tell stories in terms of good versus evil, whether it's a story about your own life or a story about politics. I know some things actually are good versus evil, we all know this, right? But I think, as a general rule, we're too inclined to tell the good versus evil story. As a simple rule of thumb, just imagine that every time you're telling a good versus evil story, you're basically lowering your IQ by ten points or more. If you just adopt that as a kind of inner mental habit, it's, in my view, one way to get a lot smarter pretty quickly. You don't have to read any books. Just imagine yourself pressing a button every time you tell the good versus evil story, and by pressing that button, you're lowering your IQ by ten points or more. Another set of stories that are popular-- if you know Oliver Stone's movies, or Michael Moore's movies, you can't make a movie and say: "It was all a big accident." No, it has to be a conspiracy, people plotting together, because in a story, a story is about intention. A story is not about spontaneous order or complex human institutions which are the product of human action, but not of human design. No, a story is about evil people plotting together. So when you hear stories about plots, or even stories about good people plotting things together, just like when you're watching movies, this, again, is reason to be suspicious. As a good rule of thumb, if you're asking: "When I hear a story, when should I be especially suspicious?" If you hear a story and you think: "Wow, that would make a great movie!" (Laughter) That's when the "uh-oh" reaction should pop in a bit more, and you should start thinking in terms of how the whole thing is maybe a bit of a mess. Another common story or storyline is the claim that we "have to get tough". You'll hear this in so many contexts. We have to get tough with the banks. We had to get tough with the labor unions. We need to get tough with some other country, some foreign dictator, someone we're negotiating with. Again, the point is not against getting tough. Sometimes we should get tough. That we got tough with the Nazis was a good thing. But this is again a story we fall back upon all too readily, all too quickly. When we don't really know why something happened, we blame someone, and we say: "We need to get tough with them!" As if it had never occurred to your predecessor, this idea of getting tough. I view it usually as a kind of mental laziness. It's a simple story you tell: "We need to get tough, we needed to get tough, we will have to get tough." Usually, that is a kind of warning signal. Another kind of problem with stories is you can only fit so many stories into your mind at once, or in the course of a day, or even over the course of a lifetime. So your stories are serving too many purposes. For instance, just to get out of bed in the morning, you tell yourself the story that your job is really important, what you're doing is really important (Laughter) and maybe it is, but I tell myself that story even when it's not. And you know what? That story works. It gets me out of bed. It's a kind of self-deception, but the problem comes when I need to change that story. The whole point of the story is that I grab onto it and I hold it, and it gets me out of bed. So when I'm really doing something that is actually just a waste of time, in my mess of a life, I'm too tied into my story that got me out of bed, and ideally, I ought to have some very complex story map in my mind, you know, with combinatorials and a matrix of computation, and the like, but that is not how stories work. Stories in order to work have to be simple, easily grasped, easily told to others, easily remembered. So stories will serve dual and conflicting purposes, and very often they will lead us astray. I used to think I was within the camp of economists, I was one of the good guys, and I was allied with other good guys, and we were fighting the ideas of the bad guys. I used to think that! And probably, I was wrong. Maybe sometimes, I'm one of the good guys, but on some issues, I finally realized: "Hey, I wasn't one of the good guys." I'm not sure I was the bad guy in the sense of having evil intent, but it was very hard for me to get away with that story. One interesting thing about cognitive biases is they are the subject of so many books these days. There's the Nudge book, the Sway book, the Blink book, like the one-title book, all about the ways in which we screw up. And there are so many ways, but what I find interesting is that none of these books identify what, to me, is the single, central, most important way we screw up, and that is that we tell ourselves too many stories, or we are too easily seduced by stories. Why don't these books tell us that? It's because the books themselves are all about stories. The more of these books you read, you're learning about some of your biases, but you're making some of your other biases essentially worse. So the books themselves are part of your cognitive bias. Often, people buy them as a kind of talisman, like: "I bought this book. I won't be 'Predictably Irrational'." (Laughter) It's like people want to hear the worst, so psychologically, they can prepare for it or defend against it. It's why there is such a market for pessimism. But to think that by buying the book gets you somewhere, that's maybe the bigger fallacy. It's just like the evidence that shows that the most dangerous people are those who have been taught some financial literacy. They're the ones who go out and make the worst mistakes. It's the people who realize they don't know anything at all, that end up doing pretty well. A third problem with stories is that outsiders manipulate us using stories, and we all like to think advertising only works on the other guy, but, of course, that's not how it is, advertising works on all of us. So if you're too attached to stories, what will happen is people selling products come along, and they will bundle their product with a story. You're like, "Hey, a free story!" And you end up buying the product, because the product and the story go together. (Laugther) If you think about how capitalism works, there is a bias here. Let's consider two kinds of stories about cars. Story A is: "Buy this car, and you will have beautiful, romantic partners and a fascinating life." (Laughter) There are a lot of people who have a financial incentive to promote that story. But, say, the alternative story is: "You don't actually need a car as nice as your income would indicate. What you usually do is look at what your peers do and copy them. That is a good heuristic for lots of problems, but when it comes to cars, just buy a Toyota." (Laughter) Maybe Toyota has an incentive there, but even Toyota is making more money off the luxury cars, and less money off the cheaper cars. So if you think which set of stories you end up hearing, you end up hearing the glamor stories, the seductive stories, and again I'm telling you, don't trust them. There are people using your love of stories to manipulate you. Pull back and say: "What are the messages, what are the stories that no one has an incentive to tell?" Start telling yourself those, and then see if any of your decisions change. That is one simple way. You can never get out of the pattern of thinking in terms of stories, but you can improve the extent to which you think in stories, and make some better decisions. So if I'm thinking about this talk, I'm wondering, of course, what is it you take away from this talk? What story do you take away from Tyler Cowen? One story you might be like the story of the quest. "Tyler was a man on a quest. Tyler came here, and he told us not to think so much in terms of stories." That would be a story you could tell about this talk. (Laughter) It would fit a pretty well-known pattern. You might remember it. You could tell it to other people. "This weird guy came, and he said, 'Don't think in terms of stories. Let me tell you what happened today!'" (Laughter) And you tell your story. (Laugther) Another possibility is you might tell a story of rebirth. You might say, "I used to think too much in terms of stories (Laughter) but then I heard Tyler Cowen (Laughter) and now I think less in terms of stories!" That too is a narrative you will remember, you can tell to other people, and again, it may stick. You also could tell a story of deep tragedy. "This guy Tyler Cowen came (Laughter) and he told us not to think in terms of stories, but all he could do was tell us stories (Laughter) about how other people think too much in terms of stories." (Laughter) So, today, which is it? Is it like quest, rebirth, tragedy? Or maybe some combination of the three? I'm really not sure, and I'm not here to tell you to burn your DVD player and throw out your Tolstoy. To think in terms of stories is fundamentally human. There is a Gabriel Garcia Marquez memoir "Living to Tell the Tale" that we use memory in stories to make sense of what we've done, to give meaning to our lives, to establish connections with other people. None of this will go away, should go away, or can go away. But again, as an economist, I'm thinking about life on the margin, the extra decision. Should we think more in terms of stories, or less in terms of stories? When we hear stories, should we be more suspicious? And what kind of stories should we be suspicious of? Again, I'm telling you it's the stories, very often, that you like the most, that you find the most rewarding, the most inspiring. The stories that don't focus on opportunity cost, or the complex, unintended consequences of human action, because that very often does not make for a good story. So often a story is a story of triumph, a story of struggle; there are opposing forces, which are either evil or ignorant; there is a person on a quest, someone making a voyage, and a stranger coming to town. And those are your categories, but don't let them make you too happy. (Laughter) As an alternative, at the margin - again, no burning of Tolstoy - but just be a little more messy. If I actually had to live those journeys, and quests, and battles, that would be so oppressive to me! It's like, my goodness, can't I just have my life in its messy, ordinary - I hesitate to use the word - glory but that it's fun for me? Do I really have to follow some kind of narrative? Can't I just live? So be more comfortable with messy. Be more comfortable with agnostic, and I mean this about the things that make you feel good. It's so easy to pick out a few areas to be agnostic in, and then feel good about it, like, "I am agnostic about religion, or politics." It's a kind of portfolio move you make to be more dogmatic elsewhere, right? (Laughter) Sometimes, the most intellectually trustworthy people are the ones who pick one area, and they are totally dogmatic in that, so pig-headedly unreasonable, that you think, "How can they possibly believe that?" But it soaks up their stubbornness, and then, on other things, they can be pretty open-minded. So don't fall into the trap of thinking because you're agnostic on some things, that you're being fundamentally reasonable about your self-deception, your stories, and your open-mindedness. (Laughter) [Think about] this idea of hovering, of epistemological hovering, and messiness, and incompleteness, [and how] not everything ties up into a neat bow, and you're really not on a journey here. You're here for some messy reason or reasons, and maybe you don't know what it is, and maybe I don't know what it is, but anyway, I'm happy to be invited, and thank you all for listening. (Laughter) (Applause)
我被叫来和大家分享趣闻轶事, 而我想说的是, 为什么我不相信趣闻轶事, 因为它们让我紧张。 实际上,这种故事越激动人心, 很多时候,我就会越紧张。 (笑声) 最好的故事往往都带有欺骗性。 它们就像过滤器, 有优点,也有缺点。 在获取大量信息时, 它们会过滤掉无用的部分, 留下有用的内容。 然而这个过滤器有个问题, 它总是保留相同的信息。 结果就是我们总是看到几类 简单相似的故事。 有句老话说:所有的故事 都可以总结为 “镇上来了一个陌生人。” 克里斯朵夫·布克写过一本书, 他认为故事一共只有7种类型: 魔鬼妖怪,白手起家,追求梦想, 探险凯旋,喜剧,悲剧以及重生。 你不必完全认同这份清单, 但重点是:如果让你 思考一下故事的种类, 你也会再三重复相同的东西。 我们做了一项研究, 进行了一次问卷调查—— 请人们描述一下自己的生活。 当问到这个问题时, 有趣的是居然没几个人说“一团糟”。 (笑声) 其实这才是最佳答案, 我决无贬低之意。 “一团糟”会让人 感到解脱,感到自由, 它也许还能汇聚多种力量。 但大家最想说的是: “我的人生是一个旅程。” 有51%的人想把 自己的人生变成一个故事。 11%的人认为,“我的人生是一场战斗。” 这又是一种故事。 8%认为,“我的人生是一部小说。” 5%说,“我的人生是一场戏剧。” 我相信不会有人说, “我的人生是一场电视真人秀。” (笑声) 但是我们硬是把常见的混乱秩序化, 形成相同的模式, 而当事情以故事的形式出现时, 我们总是记得特别清楚。 你们中有多少人记得 乔治·华盛顿和樱桃树的故事? 而真相也许并非如此。 还有保罗·雷维尔的故事, 事实也并非如此。 所以,我们应该对故事持怀疑态度。 本能使我们对它们作出反应。 它们涵盖的内容丰富, 有巨大的社会影响力, 让我们与他人息息相关。 当聆听政治信息,或阅读小说时, 这些故事好似我们口中的糖果; 而当阅读非小说类文献时, 我们实际上是在阅读故事。 非小说类读物,从某种意义上讲 已成为了新式的小说。 这些书可能讲述的是事实, 但不得不再次强调, 这一切都在以故事的形式出现。 那么过分依赖故事有什么问题吗? 原本是“一团糟”的生活, 你却以这种方式来看待。 具体点说,如果我们 都以叙事的方式解释人生, 我认为这里有几个问题。 第一,叙述往往简单化, 为了叙述事件,我们去除细节, 十几分钟都绰绰有余, 大多数叙述甚至 可以简化成一两句话。 当你去除细节时, 你的故事往往只注重善恶之分, 无论是涉及你自己的故事 还是政治事件。 而很多事情并不是非好则坏, 大家都知道这点,对吧? 但一般情况下, 我们太喜欢讲述 正义对抗邪恶的故事。 就经验法则来说, 记住每讲一次 正义对抗邪恶的故事, 你的智商就降低了十个点以上。 如果你把它作为一种内在的心理习惯, 在我看来, 这是一种聪明速成法。 你不必阅读任何书籍, 只要想象一下, 每次你讲述正义对抗邪恶的故事, 就像按下一个按钮, 你的智商就降低至少十个点。 另一套流行的故事—— 就像奥利弗·斯通的电影, 或迈克尔·摩尔的电影。 你不可能拍了个电影, 却说"这是个天大的意外。" 不可能,一定是有预谋的, 是人们在一起策划的, 因为故事最终都有它的意图。 故事的重点不在于自发的秩序, 或复杂的社会机制—— 它是人类活动的产物, 而非人类设计的。 故事强调的是 邪恶的人们凑在一起搞阴谋。 所以,当你听到搞阴谋的故事, 甚至是好人在一起策划时, 就如同看电影一样值得注意, 因为这便是值得怀疑的原因。 依据黄金法则,你应该问: “当我听到故事的时候, 什么时候应该持怀疑态度?” 如果你听到一个故事,直接的反应是: “哇,那会是部好电影!” (笑声) 这便是“ 不对,等一下” 应该出现的时刻, 你应该试问: 整个事情是否显得有点乱七八糟? 另一个常见的故事或情节 就是宣扬我们“必须要强硬起来”。 它出现在多种情况下: 我们要对银行强硬起来, 我们要对工会强硬起来, 我们要对一些国家强硬起来, 要对一些国外强权势力 或谈判对象强硬起来。 再次强调一下, 重点不在我们要强硬起来, 有些时候我们确实要强硬起来。 像对待纳粹就该强硬。 但这又是一个我们 太容易快速落入的陷阱。 当我们不了解 到底发生了什么的时候, 我们总是责怪他人: “我们应该对他们强硬起来!” 就好像你的前任 从没有过这个想法似的。 我认为这是一种思想上的懒惰。 你只是简单地强调: “我们需要变得强硬, 我们必须强硬起来。“ 通常这只能算是一种警告。 故事的另一个问题是, 你只能在脑海中一次 存放有限的故事, 可以是在一天中, 甚至是在一生中。 所以你的故事要达到太多的目的。 例如,只是为了早上起床, 你告诉自己你的工作有多重要, 你手头的工作多么重要; (笑声) 也许是这样的,即便没有这回事儿, 我们也愿意自欺欺人。 你们猜怎么着? 这故事很有说服力。 它让我大清早干劲儿十足。 这就是一种自欺欺人, 但当我想改变它时, 真正的问题来了。 故事的作用在于我可以利用它, 使我有了起床的动力。 所以,当我们在一片狼藉的生活中, 做着浪费时间的事情时, 我们完全依赖于 那个催促我们起床的故事。 而理想状态下, 我们在脑海中应该有张复杂的构图, 包括组合和计算矩阵等, 但故事却不是这样运作的。 故事必须言简意赅, 容易理解和讲述,更容易记住。 故事负有双重责任, 而且目的相左, 常常使我们误入歧途。 我曾经以为我属于这个经济阵营, 我们这些好的经济学家团结起来, 和那些坏家伙作斗争。 我真是这么想的! 也许,我错了。 也许有时候,我是其中的好人。 但在一些问题上,我终于意识到: “嘿,我也并不算好人。” 我不确定自己是不是有邪念的坏蛋, 但对我来说很难摆脱这个故事。 近来,有一个有趣的现象, 众多的书籍都在以认知偏见为主题。 例如《推力》、《左右决策的迷惑力》、 《决断两秒钟》, 像这种标题党似的的书籍, 都是在讲述我们如何把事情搞砸, 而且方式多种多样, 但有趣的是, 没有一本书明确指出, 我们把事情搞砸的本质: 那便是我们给自己编的故事太多了, 或者说我们太容易被故事诱惑了。 这些书为什么不告诉大家 问题的关键呢? 因为这些书本身就是编的故事。 这些书读多了你可能 会意识到你的一些偏见, 但正是这样使你在 某些方面的偏见变本加厉。 所以这些书本身, 成了你认知偏见的一部分。 通常,人们把这些书当作护身符: “ 我有这本书就不会失去理性了”。 (笑声) 就像人们想听到最坏的消息一样, 从心理上讲,他们可以 做好准备接受,或与它抗衡。 这就是为什么悲观主义很有市场。 但如果你认为买这种书能使你成功, 可能会是个更大的错误。 这就像最危险的家伙 是那些有些金融知识的人。 他们的错误最糟糕。 倒是那些谦虚的人, 反倒能成功。 故事的第三个问题是 外界会用故事来操纵我们, 我们都认为广告只对其他人起作用, 实际上不是这么回事, 广告对任何人都起作用。 所以如果你很相信那些故事, 人们就会利用这些 夹杂了广告的故事, 销售他们的产品。 你呢,就会听信他们的免费故事, 买下他们的产品, 因为那些产品是 这些故事的一部分。 (笑声) 如果你在思考资本主义如何运作, 别忘了这里有个偏见。 让我们来看看两种车的广告。 故事A:“买这辆车吧, 你会有个漂亮,浪漫的伴侣, 享受高品质的生活。“ (笑声) 这里有很多能从中获利的人, 会极力宣传这个故事。 而另外一个版本的故事是: “你实际上不需要一辆 和你收入相当的车。 你只需要看看身边的同事, 然后模仿他们的生活方式。 对于很多问题这都很适用, 但是谈到买车,买丰田就行了。“ (笑声) 也许丰田给了赞助, 但即使是丰田,豪华车赚的钱 也比普通车多。 如果你还不知道你会听哪边, 我告诉你,你会听魅力诱人的故事, 所以我再次提醒你,千万别信。 有人在利用 你爱听的故事来操纵你。 退一步说: “要传递的信息是什么, 如果故事没有任何动机呢?“ 首先告诉自己这个结论, 然后看看你的决定会不会改变。 这是个简单易行的方法。 你永远摆脱不了 对故事的那种思维模式, 但你可以提高对故事的认知程度, 从而做出更好的决定。 说到这个演讲,我当然很想知道, 你们能从中学到什么? 你们从泰勒·考恩的 故事中了解到了什么? 其中之一,你可以 编个探索人生的故事。 “泰勒正在探索人生的路上, 他告诉我们不要太相信故事。” 这便是你可以告诉别人的故事。 (笑声) 正合我们的套路。 你可能还可以这样告诉别人: “这个奇怪的家伙来了就说, ‘不要听信故事。 让我告诉你今天发生了什么!’ ” (笑声) 然后你开始讲述你的故事。 (笑声) 另一种可能性是, 你可能会讲个重新做人的故事。 你可能会说,“我曾经太相信故事了。 (笑声) 但后来我听了泰勒·考恩的演讲, (笑声) 现在明智多了!“ 这个你也会印象很深, 你可以讲给别人听, 他们可能也会觉得记忆犹新。 你还可以讲一个沉重的悲剧。 “这个叫泰勒·考恩的家伙来了, (笑声) 他告诉我们不要听信故事, 但他所做的就是给我们讲 (笑声) 别人是如何听信故事的。” (笑声) 那么今天的故事 是探索人生,重新作人,还是悲剧? 或者是三者的组合呢? 我真的不确定,而且我到这里, 不是让你烧掉影碟机, 或扔掉托尔斯泰的大作。 以故事的方式思考是人的本能。 在加布里埃尔·加西亚·马克斯的 自传“为故事而生”中, 我们使用故事中的记忆 去理解我们所做的一切, 给我们的生活带来意义, 与他人建立联系。 这些都不会消失, 不应消失,也不能消失。 但是, 作为经济学家, 我常常思考的是边际人生, 额外的决策。 以故事的方式思维,是多多益善, 还是应该尽量避免? 当聆听这些故事时, 我们是否应该更加持怀疑态度? 我们应该更加怀疑哪种故事呢? 再次,我可以告诉你, 正是那些你最喜欢的, 听起来最有价值, 最鼓舞人心的故事。 而那些不把机会成本作为重点, 或是复杂的,表现出 意想不到人类行为的故事, 往往却被忽略, 因为它们不是好的素材。 所以,所谓的故事通常是: 正义战胜邪恶,与困难作斗争; 肯定是有一股反对的势力, 不是邪恶便是无知; 某人正在探索的旅途中, 或陌生人出现了。 这些都是你喜欢的套路, 但千万别让它们把你蒙骗了。 (笑声) 另外的一个选择, 依然不是要你 烧掉托尔斯泰的大作—— 但至少要接受一点儿杂乱的生活。 如果强制我非要踏上那些征程, 进行那些探索或斗争, 我会觉得太压抑了! 那种感觉就像:上帝呀, 我能不能过一种普通的生活, 可能有些小凌乱, 但我很享受这种状态呢? 我真的需要听从那些大道理吗? 我能不能只过单纯的日子呢? 所以,学会接受“一团糟”, 学会接受“不可知”, 我指的是让你感觉良好的事情。 很容易就挑出几个 不可知论的领域, 同时欣然接受, 比如,“对于宗教或政治, 我是不可知论者。“ 而这个策略会变相让你在其他领域 变得更加教条,对吧? (笑声) 有时候, 最值得信赖的智慧之人, 在某一领域, 却可以教条到完全不可理喻, 你会觉得,“他们怎么可能 相信这些呢?“ 这是因为他们 完全沉浸在固执己见当中。 然而在其他方面, 他们又可以特别开放。 所以,千万别认为 你在一些事情上持“不可知论”, 就表明你对任何的 自我欺骗,你的故事, 你的开明的判断,就一定是理性的。 ( 笑声 ) 仔细考虑一下这些想法, 这些天马行空的认知, 一团糟,不尽完美, 不是每一件事都能那么完美, 你也不是在什么征程当中。 你凌乱的生活有它的原因, 也许你不知道这原因是什么, 我也不知道, 但无论如何,我不胜荣幸被邀请到这里, 感谢大家的倾听。 ( 笑声) (掌声)