Choose Strong
For Tim.
[译者：我没翻译有些人名，地名，和食物。翻了反而令人费解。在互联网时代，把Jesuit翻译成“耶稣会”，Stoics翻成“斯多葛“，Phoenician 翻成腓尼基， 等等，感觉滑稽。如果当年罗马将军Scipio和Carthage统帅Hannibal可以用希腊语交谈，我们网上查个字典或百科全书算个什么事呢？重要的词有星号标记，在文后有解释。]
亲爱的毕业生们，
这是我第一次参加毕业典礼（我没参加我自己的）。我自己还没有成功的感觉（这不是玩虚的），还得想想怎么给你们讲成功。我这样定义成功：每天晚上，在镜子面前，想一想你有没有使18或20岁的你失望。从这个年纪开始，人们就开始被生活腐蚀，走向堕落了。他或她是唯一的裁判。而不是你的名誉，财富，地位，或你的勋章。如果你不感到羞愧，你就是成功的。所有其他的定义都是时代的产品，fragile** 的产品。
古希腊人对成功的定义是像英雄一样死去。但是既然我们活在一个不那么尚武的世界，即使是在黎巴嫩，我们可以把成功的定义修改成为了集体的利益而战斗（集体可大可小，你定）：只要你所做的不都是为你自己。秘密团伙常常有荣誉准则：你为自己做一些事，为其他成员做一些事。对于他们，美德和勇气是不可分割的。比如说做不招人待见的事的勇气。为了他人的利益承担风险，不一定是为了全人类。可以是帮助类似“我的贝鲁特”这个小组织或地方政府。越小越不抽象越好。
要成功就不能fragile。我见过亿万富翁害怕记者，富人由于他的兄弟暴发而沮丧，诺贝尔奖获得者害怕网上的评论。爬得越高，摔得越惨。几乎所有我见过的人，外在的成功都带来内在的脆弱化和不安全感。最糟的是那些“前某某”，有着四页长的简历的人。他们在职时习惯了被逢迎，离开公职后，发现自己被抛弃了：像是一天晚上回到家发现有人把房子清空了。
但是自尊是robust**的--这就是Stoic学派(恰巧是一个Phoenician运动)的方法。(如果有人问Stoics是谁，我会说是一些有态度问题的佛教徒。想象一下黎巴嫩的佛教徒什么样。）在我们村，我见过那些为属于当地族群而骄傲的robust的人们；他们自豪地入梦高兴地起床。那些后苏联时代转型艰难时期的俄罗斯数学家们为每月二百美元的工资自豪。他们做着只有二十多个人能欣赏的工作，认为展示或接受奖品是软弱和对自己的贡献缺乏信心的表现。另外，不管你信不信，有些富人是robust的。你只是没听说过他们因为他们不是社会名人。他们就住在你的隔壁，他们喝Arak baladi（一种西亚民间的传统高度酒），不喝 Veuve Cliquot（一种法国香槟）。
现在谈谈我的过去。别告诉别人，但你想象的那些通过深刻的哲学思考而得的东西都被装点了。它们都来自一个不可根除的赌性：想象一下一个装扮成高级牧师的赌徒。人们不愿意相信: 我的教育来自交易和冒险。学校教育也帮了点忙。
我很幸运有一个经典地中海或中世纪欧洲而非现代公民的背景。我出生在一个图书馆中。我的父母拥有一个图书馆并在Bab Ed Driss 的Antoine图书馆有一个账号。他们买了看不过来的书，所以很高兴有人替他们读。另外，我父亲认识黎巴嫩所有的博学的人，尤其是历史学家。因此我们常常和Jesuit牧师们共进晚餐。因为他们的博学多才，他们成了我唯一的榜样：教育于我就是和教授们吃饭并向他们发问。因此至今我一直更看重博学而非聪明。起初，我想成为一个作者和哲学家; 一个人得读上成吨的书--如果你所学仅限于黎巴嫩学士，你就没有优势。所以我大多数时间都逃课，并且，从十四岁，开始如饥似渴地阅读。后来，我发现我不能集中精力在别人强加给我的科目上。我把学历和学校，阅读和教育分了开来。
我茫无目的地混了一段时间。我写的《伟大的黎巴嫩小说》停在了第八页直到我23岁（每年写一页）。然后, 在沃顿商学院学习时, 有一天我发现了概率论并对它着迷了。但是，如前所述，这并非来源于对高深的哲学或科学渴求，只是因为在市场上赌博的快感。一个朋友给我讲了复杂金融衍生品。我决定在这里开创我的职业。这一职业是交易和复杂性的组合。这一领域是新兴的。但是它在数学上非常非常复杂。
贪婪和恐惧是我的老师。我就像那些上了瘾的资质平庸的人们一样。他们总能发明一些神奇的方法得到毒品。每当关乎金钱，我的第二大脑就突然出现了，那些定理就变得有意思了。当你后面着火时，你会比在比赛中跑得都快。然后没实际行动的时候我就回归平庸。另外，作为交易员，我们的数学是针对我们的问题的，就像手套。不像是做学问的，为理论找应用。对实际问题应用数学完全是另一回事；意味着在写等式之前对问题有一个深入的理解。所以我发现12年量化金融领域工作后拿一个博士比拿简单的学位容易得多得多。
在工作期间我发现经济学家和社会科学家几乎总是对问题应用错误的数学，这就是后来《黑天鹅》的论调。他们的统计工具不仅是错，而且错得离谱--直到今天同样如此。他们的方法低估了“尾部事件”，那些不常见但非常有影响的事件。他们的傲慢使他们拒绝接受这个事实。这一发现使我在我二十几岁，1987市场崩盘后，取得了经济独立。所以我感觉我对怎样应用概率，怎样思考和控制不确定性能发表一些看法。概率论是哲学和科学的逻辑；它触及许多科目：神学，哲学，心理学，科学，和一般的风险工程--凑巧的是，概率论是八世纪（当时称作3elm el musadafat）在地中海东部诞生的，用来解密消息。所以过去的三十年里，我浏览不同的科目，同时搔扰别人，搞过分自重的人们的恶作剧。你拿一篇医学文章，问一个非常自以为是的科学家怎样解释p-值；你会吓着作者。
我的第二个好运来自2008经济危机。我感到报了仇，冒了风险，赚了一笔。但是跟着我就出名了。我发现我憎恨出名，名人，鱼子酱，香槟，复杂的食物，昂贵的葡萄酒和评酒师。我喜欢mezze和本地产的Arak baladi，包括带墨汁的墨斗鱼（sabbidej)，不多也不少。富人们的喜好大多是由那些为从他们身上赚钱的系统定的。我自己的喜好在一个和无聊的富人们吃了一顿米其林3星晚餐后变得非常明确：我到尼克的比萨店点了一角$6.95的比萨饼。那次以后，我再也没有吃过米其林或其他有着复杂名字的食物。我尤其对哪些喜欢扎名人堆儿的人(IAND:International Association of Name-Droppers)过敏。因此，一年的闪光灯下的生活后，我回到了我的图书馆（Amioun或纽约），开始了新工作：做技术活儿的研究员。当我读自己的简历时，我总觉得那是另外一个人的：它描述了我做过的而不是我正在和希望做的。
我在叙述我的一生。提供建议的时候我总是很犹豫，因为我得到的每一个重大的建议最后都证明是错的；我非常高兴没有听从它们。人们告诉我要专注，我从没专注过。人们告诉我不要拖拉，《黑天鹅》拖了20年。它卖了3百万册。人们劝我别在书中加入虚构人物，我仍虚构了Nero Tulip和胖Tony因为不然我会觉得枯燥。人们告诉我不要侮辱纽约时报和华尔街日报，我越侮辱，它们对我越好，更想发表我的观点。人们告诉我背痛就不要举重，我迷上了举重，从那以后，没有了背痛。
如果我不得不重新活一次，我会比以前更加固执和不妥协。一个人不应做任何不负责的事。如果你给人出主意，你就要承担损失的风险。这是“白银法则”的延伸。下面我教你们几招：
- 不要读报纸，或以任何形式追踪新闻。
- 如果一件事没道理，你就要大声地说出来。你会受小的损失，但你会变得Anti-fragile**--长远来看人们会信任你。我没出名
时，有一次在彭博(Bloomberg)的采访中途撂了挑子，因为采访记者胡说八道。三年以后，彭博杂志为我写了封面报道。
这个星球上的所有经济学家都痛恨我（当然，AUB的除外）。我经历了两次名誉抹黑运动，得到了自汉尼拔（Hannibal）以来最
勇敢的黎巴嫩人,Ralph Nader, 的鼓励。我冒着风险揭露孟山都（Monsanto）这样邪恶的大公司，并因此受到了名誉上的攻击。
- 更尊敬门卫而非老板。
- 如果一件事是枯燥的，避免它--除了交税和探望岳父母。为什么？因为你的生理是最好的歪理探测器；用它来指导你的人生。
我的书中还有很多类似的规则。当下我就用一句格言作结尾。以下几条是万万不行的：
没有力量的肌肉（有肌肉却没力量），
没有信任的友谊，
没有风险地（发表）观点，
没有美感的改变，
没有价值观的年纪，
没有营养的食物，
没有公平感的权力，
没有严格考证的事实，
没有博学的学位，
没有坚韧的好战，
没有文明的进步，
没有深度的复杂，
没有内容的流利，和最重要的，
不能宽容的宗教。
* AUB是American University of Beruit的缩写。直译是贝鲁特美国大学。
** 我没有翻译fragile, robust和anti-fragile这三个词。《Anti-fragile》一书解释了它们之间的关系。
简单地说，fragile就是字典意义：脆弱。robust是坚强／固。我见过将robustness翻译成“鲁棒性”的。但
和通常的理解不同，Taleb认为robust不是fragile的反义词。Anti-fragile才是。它指的是小的打击和挫
折使人／事物变得更坚强--就像尼采说的：“那些杀不死我们的使我们更强壮。“
Commencement Address
Nassim Taleb
May 27, 2016
Dear graduating students,
This is the first commencement I have ever attended (I did not attend my own
commencement). Further, I have to figure out how (sic) lecture you on success
when I do not feel succesful yet--and it is not a false modesty. For I have a
single definition of success: you look in the mirror every evening, and wonder
if you disappoint the person you were at 18 or 20, right before the age when
people start getting corrupted by life. Let him or her be the only judge; not
your reputation, not your wealth, not your standing in the community, not the
decorations on your lapel. If you do not feel ashamed, you are successful. All
other definitions of success are modern constructions; fragile modern
constructions.
The Ancient Greeks' main definition of sucess was to have had a heroic death.
But as we live in a less martial world, even in Lebanon, we can adapt our
definition of success as having taken a heroic route for the benefits of the
collective, as narrowly or broadly defined collective as you wish. So long as
all you do is not all for you: secret societies used to have a rule for uomo
d'onore: you do something for yourself and something for your other members. And
virtue is inseparable from courage. Life the courage to do something unpopular.
Take risks for the benefit of others; it doesn't have to be humanity, it can be
helping say Beirut Madinati or the local municipality. The more micro, the less
abstract, the better.
Success requires absence of fragility. I've seen billionaires terrified of
journalists, wealthy people who felt crushed because their brother in law got
very rich, academics with Nobel who were scared of comments on the web. The
higher you go, the worse the fall. For almost all people I've met, external
success came with increased fragility and a heightened state of insecurity. The
worst are those "former something" types with 4 page CVs who, after leaving
office, and addicted to the attention of servile bureaucrats, find themselves
discarded: as if you went home one evening to discover that someone suddenly
emptied your house of all its furniture.
But self-respect is robust--that's the approach of the Stoic school, which
incidentally was a Phoenician movement. (If someone wonders who are the Stoics
I'd say Buddhists with an attitude problem, imagine someone both very Lebanese
and Buddhist). I've seen robust people in my village Amioun who were proud of
being local citizens involved in their tribe; they go to bed proud and wake up
happy. Or Russian mathematicians who, during the difficult post-Soviet
transition period, were proud of making $200 a month and do work that is
appreciated by twenty people--and considered that showing one's decorations--or
accepting awards--were a sign of weakness and lack of confidence in one's
contributions. And, believe it or not, some wealthy people are robust--but you
just don't hear about them because they are not socialites, live next door, and
drink Arak baladi not Veuve Cliquot.
Now a bit of my own history. Don't tell anyone, but all the stuff you think
comes from deep philosophical reflection is dressed up: it all comes from an
ineradicable gambling instinct--just imagine a compulsive gambler playing high
priest. People don't like to believe it: my education came from trading and risk
taking with some help from school.
I was lucky to have a background closer to that of a classical Mediterranean or
a Medieval European than a modern citizen. For I was born in a library--my
parents had an account at Librarie Antoine in Bab Ed Driss and a big library.
They bought more books than they could read so they were happy someone was
reading the books for them. Also my father knew every erudite person in Lebanon,
particularly historians. So we often had Jesuit priests at dinner and because of
their multidisciplinary erudition they were the only role models: my idea of
education is to have professors just to eat with them and ask them questions. So
I valued erudition over intelligence--and still do. I initially wanted to be a
writer and philosopher; one needs to read tons of books for that--you had no
edge if your knoweldge was limited to the Lebanese Baccalaureat program. So I
skipped school most days and, starting at age 14, started reading voraciously.
Later I discovered an inability to concentrate on subjects others imposed on me.
I separated school for credentials and reading for one's edification.
I drifted a bit with no focus, and remained on page 8 of the Great Lebanese
Novel until the age of 23 (my novel was advancing one page per annum). Then I
got a break on the day when at Wharton I accidentally discovered probability
theory and became obsessed with it. But as I said it did not come from lofty
philosophizing and scientific hunger, only from the thrills and hormonal flush
one gets while gambling in the markets. A friend told me about complex financial
derivatives and I decided to make a career in them. It was a combination of
trading and complex mathematics. The field was new and uncharted. But they were
very, very difficult mathematically.
Greed, and fear are teachers. I was like people with addictions who have a below
average intelligence but were capable of the most ingenious tricks to procure
their drugs. When there was money on the line, suddenly a second brain in me
manifested itself and these theorems became interesting. When there is fire, you
will run faster than in any competition. Then I became dumb again when there was
no real action. Furthermore, as a trader the mathematics we used was adapted to
our problem, like a glove, unlike academics with a theory looking for some
application. Applying math to practical problems was another business
altogether; it meant a deep understanding of the problem before putting the
equations on it. So I found getting a doctorate after 12 years in quantitative
finance much, much easier than getting simpler degrees.
I discovered along the way that the economists and social scientists were almost
always applying the wrong math to the problems, what became later the theme of
The Black Swan. Their statistical tools were not just wrong, they were
outrageously wrong--they still are. Their methods underestimated "tail events",
those rare but consequential jumps. They were too arrogant to accept it. This
discovery allowed me to achieve financial independence in my twenties, after the
crash of 1987. So I felt I had something to say in the way we used probability,
and how we think about, and manage uncertainty. Probability is the logic of
science and philosophy; it touches on many subjects: theology, philosophy,
psychology, science, and the more undane risk engineering--incidentally
probability was born in the Levant in the 8th Century as 3elm el musadafat, used
to decrypt messages. So the past thirty years for me have been flaneuring across
subjects, bothering people along the way, pulling pranks on people who take
themselves seriously. You take a medical paper and ask some scientist full of
himself how he interprets the "p-value"; the author will be terrorized.
The second break came to me when the crisis of 2008 happened and felt vindicated
and made another bundle putting my neck on the line. But fame came with the
crisis and I discovered that I hated fame, famous people, caviar, champagne,
complicated food, expensive wine and, mostly wine commentators. I like mezze
with local Arak baladi, including squid in its ink (sabbidej), no less no more,
and wealthy people tend to have their preferences dictated by a system meant to
milk them. My own preferences became obvious to me when after a dinner in a
Michelin 3 stars with stuffy and boring rich people, I stopped by Nick's pizza
for a $6.95 slice and I haven't had a Michelin meal since, or anything with
complex names. I am particularly allergic to people who like themselves to be
surrounded by famous people, the IAND (International Association of Name
Droppers). So, after about a year in the limelight I went back to the seclusion
of my library (in Amioun or near NY), and started a new career as a researcher
doing technical work. When I read my bio I always feel it is that of another
person: it describes what I did not what I am doing and would like to do.
I am just describing my life. I hesitate to give advice because every major
single piece of advice I was given turned out to be wrong and I am glad I didn't
follow them. I was told to focus and I never did. I was told to never
procrastinate and I waited 20 years for the Black Swan and it sold 3 million
copies. I was told to avoid putting fictional characters in my books and I did
put in Nero Tulip and Fat Tony because I got bored otherwise. I was told to not
insult the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, the more I insulted them
the nicer they were to me and solicit Op-Eds. I was told to avoid lifting
weights for a back pain and became a weightlifter: never had a back problem
since.
If I had to relive my life I would be even more stubborn and uncompromising than
I have been. One should never do anything without skin in the game. If you give
advice, you need to be exposed to losses from it. It is an extension to the
silver rule. So I will tell you what tricks I employ.
- do not read the newspapers, or follow the news in any way or form. To be
convinced, try reading last year's newspaper. It doesn't mean ignore the news;
it means that you got from the events to the news, not the other way around.
- If something is nonsense, you say it and say it loud. You will be harmed a
little but will be antifragile--in the long run people who need to trust you
will trust you. When I was still an obscure author, I walked out of a studio
Bloomberg Radio during an interview because the interviewer was saying nonsense.
Three years later Bloomberg Magazine did a cover story on me.
Every economist on the planet hates me (except of course those of AUB). I
suffeed two smear campaigns, and encouraged by the most courageous Lebanese ever
since Hannibal, Ralph Nader, I took reputational risks by exposing large evil
corporations such as Monsanto, and suffered a smear campaign for it.
- Treat the doorman with a bit more respect than the big boss.
- If something is boring, avoid it--save taxes and vists to the mother in law.
Why? Because your biology is the best nonsense detector; use it to navigate
your life.
There are a log of such rules in my books, so for now let me finish with a
maxim. The following are no-nos:
Muscles without strength, friendship without trust, opinion without risk, change
without aesthetics, age without values, food without nourishment, power without
fairness, facts without rigor, degrees without erudition, militarism without
fortitude, progress without civilization, complication without depth, fluency
without content, and, foremost, religion without tolerance.
Thanks for reading and I do find re-reading gives new perspectives.
I'd read newspapers but not for tracking news but for improving my English and I think that's totally legit ;-)