评论
打印
So, I'd like to talk about the development of human potential,
我想谈一谈人的潜能发展，
and I'd like to start with maybe the most impactful modern story of development.
就从可能是最有影响力的现代发展故事开始说起吧。
Many of you here have probably heard of the 10,000 hours rule. Maybe you even model your own life after it.
大家都应该听说过“一万小时定律”，或许你的生活也遵循此道。
Basically, it's the idea that to become great in anything,
其基本观点就是，想在任何方面变得优秀，
it takes 10,000 hours of focused practice, so you'd better get started as early as possible.
需要花费上万小时刻意练习，因此行动越早越好。
The poster child for this story is Tiger Woods. His father famously gave him a putter when he was seven months old.
该理论的典型代表就是泰格·伍兹。尽人皆知，他7个月大时，父亲给了他一根推杆。
At 10 months, he started imitating his father's swing.
10个月时，他开始模仿父亲挥杆。
At two, you can go on YouTube and see him on national television.
他2岁时的视频已经可以在YouTube和全国电视上找到。
Fast-forward to the age of 21, he's the greatest golfer in the world. Quintessential 10,000 hours story.
快进到21岁，他已是全世界最优秀的高尔夫球手了，典型的一万小时故事。
Another that features in a number of bestselling books is that of the three Polgar sisters,
另一个被写进众多畅销书中的典范，就是波尔加三姐妹的故事，
whose father decided to teach them chess in a very technical manner from a very early age.
他们的父亲决定在她们很小的时候，就用职业训练的方式教她们下国际象棋。
And, really, he wanted to show that with a head start in focused practice, any child could become a genius in anything.
事实上，他是想证明抢先起跑、刻意练习，所有孩子都能成为任何领域的天才。
And in fact, two of his daughters went on to become Grandmaster chess players.
而实际上，他的两个女儿确实都成为了国际象棋大师。
So when I became the science writer at "Sports Illustrated" magazine, I got curious.
所以当我成为《体育画报》的科普作家时，我不禁感到好奇。
If this 10,000 hours rule is correct, then we should see that elite athletes get a head start in so-called "deliberate practice."
如果这个一万小时定律没错，那我们就应该看到那些优秀运动员通过所谓的“刻意练习”，获得领先位置。
This is coached, error-correction-focused practice, not just playing around.
是有教练指导，聚焦于纠错的练习，并不只是随便玩玩。
And in fact, when scientists study elite athletes, they see that they spend more time in deliberate practice -- not a big surprise.
事实上，科学家在研究运动员时，发现这些运动员把更多时间花在了刻意练习上，这并不令人意外。
When they actually track athletes over the course of their development, the pattern looks like this:
当他们追踪运动员的职业发展历程时，他们的模式是这样的：
the future elites actually spend less time early on in deliberate practice in their eventual sport.
未来的骄子们在他们最终的运动项目早期花在有意识的练习上的时间反而更少。
They tend to have what scientists call a "sampling period,"
他们通常都经历了一个科学家所谓的“试水期”。
where they try a variety of physical activities, they gain broad, general skills,
在此期间，他们会尝试各种体育运动，从中获取广泛、通用的技能，
they learn about their interests and abilities and delay specializing until later than peers who plateau at lower levels.
并从中发现自己的兴趣和能力，与在较低水平就遭遇瓶颈同龄人相比，他们把术业专攻的时间推迟得更晚。
And so when I saw that, I said, "Gosh, that doesn't really comport with the 10,000 hours rule, does it?"
当我看到这个情况时，我感叹道：“天啊！这可不符合一万小时定律啊！”
So I started to wonder about other domains that we associate with obligatory, early specialization, like music.
因此我开始对其他领域，那些强制性提早进入专业化训练的领域感到好奇，诸如音乐。
Turns out the pattern's often similar.
结果发现它们的模式大多相似。
This is research from a world-class music academy, and what I want to draw your attention to is this:
这项研究来自于一所顶级的音乐学院，我想让大家关注的是：
the exceptional musicians didn't start spending more time in deliberate practice than the average musicians until their third instrument.
相比一般的音乐家，那些杰出的音乐家并没有花更多时间在刻意练习上，而是会尝试到第三样乐器。
They, too, tended to have a sampling period, even musicians we think of as famously precocious, like Yo-Yo Ma.
当然，他们也有那一段“试水期”，即便我们能想到的像马友友那样早慧的音乐家。
He had a sampling period, he just went through it more rapidly than most musicians do.
他也有一个“试水期”，只不过相比大多数音乐家，他的“试水期”更短而已。
Nonetheless, this research is almost entirely ignored,
即便如此，这项研究却几乎被完全忽略了，
and much more impactful is the first page of the book "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,"
取而代之更具影响力的是《虎妈的战歌》这本书的首页，
where the author recounts assigning her daughter violin.
作者讲述了强制安排女儿学小提琴的故事。
Nobody seems to remember the part later in the book where her daughter turns to her and says, "You picked it, not me," and largely quits.
似乎无人记得书中后面的部分，她女儿说：“学琴是你选的，不是我，”而且几乎完全放弃了。
So having seen this sort of surprising pattern in sports and music,
所以在体育和音乐方面，了解到这类出人意料的情况后，
I started to wonder about domains that affect even more people, like education.
我开始对其他能影响更多人的领域充满好奇，诸如教育领域。
An economist found a natural experiment in the higher-ed systems of England and Scotland.
一位经济学家在英格兰和苏格兰的高等教育体系里发现了一个自然实验。
In the period he studied, the systems were very similar,
在他开展研究期间，这两个体系十分相似，
except in England, students had to specialize in their mid-teen years to pick a specific course of study to apply to,
除了在英格兰，学生需要在十几岁时选择一门专业学科进行专攻，
whereas in Scotland, they could keep trying things in the university if they wanted to.
而在苏格兰，如果他们愿意，可以继续在大学不断尝试。
And his question was: Who wins the trade-off, the early or the late specializers?
这个经济学家提出的问题是：谁是最后赢家，先来者，还是后到者？
And what he saw was that the early specializers jump out to an income lead because they have more domain-specific skills.
经济学家发现，那些专攻者会在收入上领先，因为他们拥有更多专业领域的能力。
The late specializers get to try more different things, and when they do pick, they have better fit, or what economists call "match quality."
而那些晚专攻者可以做更多不同尝试，一旦做出了选择，匹配度也会更高，用经济学家的话来说，就是“匹配质量”更好。
And so their growth rates are faster. By six years out, they erase that income gap.
因此他们的收入增长更快，六年之后，这种收入差距被抹平。
Meanwhile, the early specializers start quitting their career tracks in much higher numbers,
与此同时，更多早期专攻者开始退出原定的职业路线，
essentially because they were made to choose so early that they more often made poor choices.
究其根源，是因为他们太早被迫做出选择，通常他们的选择并不明智。
So the late specializers lose in the short term and win in the long run.
所以，虽然晚专攻者短期来看处于落后地位，却赢在长期发展。
I think if we thought about career choice like dating, we might not pressure people to settle down quite so quickly.
如果我们把选择职业看作约会，就不会逼对方尽快安定下来。
So this got me interested, seeing this pattern again, in exploring the developmental backgrounds of people whose work I had long admired,
再次看到这种模式让我非常好奇，想探究那些人的发展背景，他们的工作我向来羡慕不已，
like Duke Ellington, who shunned music lessons as a kid to focus on baseball and painting and drawing.
像艾灵顿公爵，他小时候曾逃掉音乐课，去专心练习棒球、油画和绘画。
Or Maryam Mirzakhani, who wasn't interested in math as a girl -- dreamed of becoming a novelist
或者像玛丽安·米尔札哈尼，小时候对数学没有兴趣，而是梦想成为小说家，
and went on to become the first and so far only woman to win the Fields Medal, the most prestigious prize in the world in math.
但她最终成为了第一个，也是迄今为止唯一一个获得“菲尔兹奖”的女性，这是数学界最有声望的奖项。
Or Vincent Van Gogh had five different careers, each of which he deemed his true calling before flaming out spectacularly,
又或是梵高，曾从事过5种不同的职业，每一个都曾被他认为是真正的使命，却都辉煌的幻灭了，
and in his late 20s, picked up a book called "The Guide to the ABCs of Drawing." That worked out OK.
而在年近三十的时候，他拿起了一本《绘画入门指南》，结果一发不可收拾。
Claude Shannon was an electrical engineer at the University of Michigan who took a philosophy course just to fulfill a requirement,
克劳德·香农曾就读于密歇根大学的电力工程专业，选修哲学只是为了满足学分要求，
and in it, he learned about a near-century-old system of logic
在课程中，他了解了有近百年历史的逻辑体系，
by which true and false statements could be coded as ones and zeros and solved like math problems.
其中真假陈述被编码为1和0，被当作数学问题一样解答。
This led to the development of binary code, which underlies all of our digital computers today.
于是，这一发现促进了二进位码的发展，奠定了今天所有数字计算机的基础。
Finally, my own sort of role model, Frances Hesselbein -- this is me with her
最后，我的榜样弗朗西斯·赫塞尔本，这是我们的合照，
she took her first professional job at the age of 54 and went on to become the CEO of the Girl Scouts, which she saved.
她在54岁时才开始从事第一份专职工作，并成为女童子军的首席执行官，而正是她拯救了这个机构。
She tripled minority membership, added 130,000 volunteers,
她使少数族裔成员人数增加了两倍，新招募了13万名志愿者，
and this is one of the proficiency badges that came out of her tenure -- it's binary code for girls learning about computers.
这是她任职期间颁发的精通奖章之一，是奖励学习电脑的女孩的二进位码。
Today, Frances runs a leadership institute where she works every weekday, in Manhattan.
现在，弗朗西斯经营着一家领导力培训机构，工作日在曼哈顿上班。
And she's only 104, so who knows what's next. We never really hear developmental stories like this, do we?
她只有104岁，谁知道她接下来还会干什么。我们几乎从来不会听到这样的成长故事，对吧？
We don't hear about the research that found that Nobel laureate scientists
我们很难听到研究报告指出，获得诺贝尔奖的科学家，
are 22 times more likely to have a hobby outside of work as are typical scientists. We never hear that.
有一项业余爱好的可能性比普通科学家高出22倍。从未听说过。
Even when the performers or the work is very famous, we don't hear these developmental stories.
即便表演者声名显赫，作品成绩斐然，我们也很难听到他们的成长故事。
For example, here's an athlete I've followed. Here he is at age six, wearing a Scottish rugby kit.
例如，这是一位我所关注的运动员。这是他6岁时穿着苏格兰橄榄球球服的照片。
He tried some tennis, some skiing, wrestling.
他尝试过网球、滑雪、摔跤。
His mother was actually a tennis coach but she declined to coach him because he wouldn't return balls normally.
他母亲是个网球教练，但拒绝训练他，因为他通常都不回球。
He did some basketball, table tennis, swimming. When his coaches wanted to move him up a level to play with older boys, he declined,
他也尝试了篮球、乒乓球、游泳，当他的教练想让他再进一级，和年纪更大点的男孩一同训练时，他表示拒绝，
because he just wanted to talk about pro wrestling after practice with his friends.
因为他只想在和朋友训练结束之后讨论一下职业摔跤。
And he kept trying more sports: handball, volleyball, soccer, badminton, skateboarding...
他还继续尝试了更多的体育项目：手球、排球、足球、羽毛球、滑板...
So, who is this dabbler? This is Roger Federer.
那么，这个浅尝者究竟是谁？他就是罗杰·费德勒。
Every bit as famous as an adult as Tiger Woods, and yet even tennis enthusiasts don't usually know anything about his developmental story.
成年后的他和泰格·伍兹一样大名鼎鼎，而即便是网球爱好者，对他的成长故事也一无所知。
Why is that, even though it's the norm?
即便这是常态，但背后的原因是什么呢？
I think it's partly because the Tiger story is very dramatic,
个人认为，部分原因是泰格的故事极富戏剧性，
but also because it seems like this tidy narrative that we can extrapolate to anything that we want to be good at in our own lives.
但也因为通过这个看似顺理成章的叙事，我们可以推断出任何我们想要在自己的生活中做得更好的事情。
But that, I think, is a problem, because it turns out that in many ways,
但我认为，这其中存在一个问题，因为我们发现，在很多方面，
golf is a uniquely horrible model of almost everything that humans want to learn.
高尔夫都是一种独特、糟糕的模式，几乎概括了所有人们想要学的东西。
Golf is the epitome of what the psychologist Robin Hogarth called a "kind learning environment."
高尔夫被心理学家罗宾·贺加斯称为“友好学习环境”的典型。
Kind learning environments have next steps and goals that are clear, rules that are clear and never change,
友好的学习环境有着清晰的步骤和目标，以及明确且一成不变的规则，
when you do something, you get feedback that is quick and accurate, work next year will look like work last year.
当你行动时，能收到及时、准确的反馈，明年的工作和去年的工作基本大同小异。
Chess: also a kind learning environment.
象棋也提供了一种温和友好的学习环境。
The grand master's advantage is largely based on knowledge of recurring patterns, which is also why it's so easy to automate.
国际象棋特级大师的优势，很大程度是基于对反复出现的模式的把握，这也是象棋可以轻易自动化的原因。
On the other end of the spectrum are "wicked learning environments," where next steps and goals may not be clear.
另一个极端是“恶劣的学习环境”，没有清晰的步骤和目标。
Rules may change. You may or may not get feedback when you do something.
规则也可能改变。采取行动，不确定能否得到反馈。
It may be delayed, it may be inaccurate, and work next year may not look like work last year.
反馈可能延误，也许不准确，明年的工作和去年的工作也许大不相同。
So which one of these sounds like the world we're increasingly living in?
那么哪一种听起来更像我们所生活的世界？
In fact, our need to think in an adaptable manner and to keep track of interconnecting parts has fundamentally changed our perception,
事实上，我们对一种与时俱进的思维和持续追踪交互部分的需求，已经从根本上改变了我们的认知，
so that when you look at this diagram, the central circle on the right probably looks larger to you
所以当你看到这张图时，右边中央的圆圈可能看起来更大，
because your brain is drawn to the relationship of the parts in the whole,
因为你的大脑受到了整体和各部分关系的影响，
whereas someone who hasn't been exposed to modern work with its requirement for adaptable, conceptual thought,
相比之下，没有接触现代工作的人，会因为缺少现代工作对适应性、概念性思想的要求，
will see correctly that the central circles are the same size.
而正确的判断出两边中央的圆圈大小相同。
So here we are in the wicked work world, and there, sometimes hyperspecialization can backfire badly.
而目前我们身处的正是一种复杂多变的工作环境，有时过度专业化可能会适得其反。
For example, in research in a dozen countries that matched people for their parents' years of education, their test scores, their own years of education,
例如，在一项针对十多个国家的研究中，被研究者与其父母受教育的年限，他们自身的考试成绩以及教育年限进行匹配。
the difference was some got career-focused education and some got broader, general education.
其中的差别在于，部分人接受了职业教育，另一部分接受了更广泛的通识教育。
The pattern was those who got the career-focused education are more likely to be hired right out of training,
其中的模式是，接受职业教育的人，更有可能在训练结束后被直接录用，
more likely to make more money right away, but so much less adaptable in a changing work world
也更可能立刻赚到更多钱，而他们在一个不断变化的就业环境中适应性不强，
that they spend so much less time in the workforce overall that they win in the short term and lose in the long run.
在整体人力资本中投入的时间更少，便会赢在短期，而输在长期。
Or consider a famous, 20-year study of experts making geopolitical and economic predictions.
再来了解一下一个耗时20年、针对专家们进行的围绕地缘政治和经济预测的著名研究。
The worst forecasters were the most specialized experts,
最糟的预测者恰恰是某个领域的专家，
those who'd spent their entire careers studying one or two problems and came to see the whole world through one lens or mental model.
他们耗费毕生精力研究一到两个课题，只能以一种视角或者心智模式看世界。
Some of them actually got worse as they accumulated experience and credentials.
随着他们经验的积累和资历的提升，有些人甚至情况更糟。
The best forecasters were simply bright people with wide-ranging interests.
优秀的预测者则是那些兴趣广博的通达之人。
Now in some domains, like medicine, increasing specialization has been both inevitable and beneficial, no question about it.
当然，在某些领域，诸如医学，日益提升的专业化技能不可避免且大有裨益，这一点是毋庸置疑。
And yet, it's been a double-edged sword.
然而高度专业化仍是一把双刃剑。
A few years ago, one of the most popular surgeries in the world for knee pain was tested in a placebo-controlled trial.
几年前，有一种治疗膝盖疼痛的外科手术与安慰剂对照组试验一同展开。
Some of the patients got "sham surgery."
一些患者接受了“虚假手术”。
That means the surgeons make an incision, they bang around like they're doing something, then they sew the patient back up.
也就是说，医生会（在患者膝盖上）切开一个切口，接着忙前忙后，就像在进行手术，然后将病人的伤口直接缝合。
That performed just as a well. And yet surgeons who specialize in the procedure continue to do it by the millions.
效果同样很不错。而专业外科医生则继续为数百万人实施了真正的手术。
So if hyperspecialization isn't always the trick in a wicked world, what is?
如果高度专业化并不是险恶世界的解药，什么才是呢？
That can be difficult to talk about, because it doesn't always look like this path.
这就很难说了，因为相关途径并不总是清晰明了。
Sometimes it looks like meandering or zigzagging or keeping a broader view.
有时看起来非常迂回曲折，或需要更广阔的视角。
It can look like getting behind. But I want to talk about what some of those tricks might be.
看起来可能让人觉得是落后了。但我想谈谈一些可能的解决方案。
If we look at research on technological innovation, it shows that increasingly, the most impactful patents
如果我们看看技术创新的研究，会发现越来越多最有影响力的专利作者，
are not authored by individuals who drill deeper, deeper, deeper into one area of technology as classified by the US Patent Office,
并不是那些在经过美国专利局分类的技术领域不断深入探索的研究者，
but rather by teams that include individuals who have worked across a large number of different technology classes
而是一个个团队，这些团队中包括了跨越大量不同技术类别的个人，
and often merge things from different domains.
并且经常将来自不同领域的信息结合在一起。
Someone whose work I've admired who was sort of on the forefront of this is a Japanese man named Gunpei Yokoi.
有一位这个领域的引领者，我很羡慕他的工作，他的名字叫横井军平，是个日本人。
Yokoi didn't score well on his electronics exams at school,
横井在学校的电子学考试成绩并不理想，
so he had to settle for a low-tier job as a machine maintenance worker at a playing card company in Kyoto.
所以他不得不退而求其次，在京都的一个扑克牌公司做一名底层的机器维护工。
He realized he wasn't equipped to work on the cutting edge, but that there was so much information easily available
他意识到自己并不具备在前沿领域工作的能力，但有太多的可以轻易获取的信息，
that maybe he could combine things that were already well-known in ways that specialists were too narrow to see.
也许他可以把那些众所周知的信息以专家们看不到的方式结合起来。
So he combined some well-known technology from the calculator industry
他将计算器行业的某项公开技术
with some well-known technology from the credit card industry and made handheld games. And they were a hit.
和信用卡行业的某项公开技术加以整合，推出了一款掌上游戏机，从而一鸣惊人。
And it turned this playing card company, which was founded in a wooden storefront in the 19th century, into a toy and game operation.
这项发明让这家成立于19世纪，拥有木质门店的扑克牌公司，摇身一变成为了一家玩具和游戏公司。
You may have heard of it; it's called Nintendo.
你们也许都听说过它，它就是任天堂。
Yokoi's creative philosophy translated to "lateral thinking with withered technology," taking well-known technology and using it in new ways.
横井的创意哲学可以诠释为“利用旧有技术进行横向思维”，即用创新方法使用已知的技术。
And his magnum opus was this: the Game Boy. Technological joke in every way.
他的代表作就是：游戏小子。无论从哪个角度听上去都是个技术笑话。
And it came out at the same time as color competitors from Saga and Atari,
它和竞争对手萨迦和雅达利同时推出了彩色游戏，
and it blew them away, because Yokoi knew what his customers cared about wasn't color.
最终力压对手，因为横井知道他的顾客最关心的并不是色彩。
It was durability, portability, affordability, battery life, game selection. This is mine that I found in my parents' basement.
而是耐久性、便携性、价格、电池寿命，还有游戏选择。这是我当年的游戏机，在我爸妈的地下室找到的。
It's seen better days. But you can see the red light is on.
它见证了掌上游戏机的辉煌时代。不过我们可以看到，红灯还能亮起。
I flipped it on and played some Tetris, which I thought was especially impressive because the batteries had expired in 2007 and 2013.
我开机之后，玩了一会儿俄罗斯方块，我觉得这一点尤其令人惊叹，因为这两套电池在2007年和2013年就过期了。
So this breadth advantage holds in more subjective realms as well.
这种广度优势也适用于更主观的领域。
In a fascinating study of what leads some comic book creators to be more likely to make blockbuster comics,
在一项关于是什么导致了一些漫画作者更有可能创作出轰动漫画的有趣的研究中，
a pair of researchers found that it was neither the number of years of experience in the field
两位研究人员发现，决定因素既不是在该领域的多年经验，
nor the resources of the publisher nor the number of previous comics made.
也不是出版商的资源，更不是之前创作的漫画数量。
It was the number of different genres that a creator had worked across.
而是该作者所创作过的不同类型作品的数量。
And interestingly, a broad individual could not be entirely replaced by a team of specialists.
有趣的是，一个通才很难被一组专才所替代。
We probably don't make as many of those people as we could because early on,
我们可能没有尽可能多的去培养这类通才，因为在早期，
they just look like they're behind and we don't tend to incentivize anything that doesn't look like a head start or specialization.
他们只是看起来落后了，我们也不倾向于激励任何看起来不像是前沿技术或专业化的东西。
In fact, I think in the well-meaning drive for a head start,
事实上，我认为出于良好的动机，为了抢先一步，
we often even counterproductively short-circuit even the way we learn new material, at a fundamental level.
我们甚至经常在基础阶段有意寻求学习新知识的捷径，结果却适得其反。
In a study last year, seventh-grade math classrooms in the US were randomly assigned to different types of learning.
在去年的一项研究中，美国一组七年级的数学班级被随机分配了不同的学习方式。
Some got what's called "blocked practice." That's like, you get problem type A, AAAAA, BBBBB, and so on.
有些进行了所谓的“分组练习”。比如只让你解决A类问题，然后是B类，C类，等等。
Progress is fast, kids are happy, everything's great. Other classrooms got assigned to what's called "interleaved practice."
进展非常顺利，孩子们也很开心，一切都井然有序。其他一些班级则被要求进行所谓的“交错练习”。
That's like if you took all the problem types and threw them in a hat and drew them out at random.
就好比把各种类型的问题通通丢进一顶帽子，然后随机抽取进行解答。
Progress is slower, kids are more frustrated.
这种学习方式进展更缓慢，孩子们也更沮丧。
But instead of learning how to execute procedures, they're learning how to match a strategy to a type of problem.
但是比起学习如何执行程序，他们正在学习如何把每类问题与一类应对策略匹配。
And when the test comes around, the interleaved group blew the block practice group away. It wasn't even close.
在进行测试的时候，“交错练习”小组一举打败了“分组练习”小组，而且差距非常明显。
Now, I found a lot of this research deeply counterintuitive,
我发现诸多这类研究的结论都是违反直觉的，
the idea that a head start, whether in picking a career or a course of study or just in learning new material, can sometimes undermine long-term development.
也就是说，无论是选择一项职业、一门课程，还是单纯学习新知识，抢先一步有时会对长期发展产生负面影响。
And naturally, I think there are as many ways to succeed as there are people.
自然而然的，我也认为成功的人就有多少，成功的途径就有多少。
But I think we tend only to incentivize and encourage the Tiger path,
我们通常更倾向于激励和鼓舞人们跟随泰格成功的脚步，
when increasingly, in a wicked world, we need people who travel the Roger path as well.
然而在竞争激烈的世界中，我们则需要更多人选择罗杰式的道路。
Or as the eminent physicist and mathematician and wonderful writer, Freeman Dyson, put it
正如杰出的物理学家、数学家，以及优秀的作家弗里曼·戴森所说，
and Dyson passed away yesterday, so I hope I'm doing his words honor here
顺便告知各位，戴森昨天去世了，所以我也希望借此表达对他的敬意，
as he said: for a healthy ecosystem, we need both birds and frogs.
正如他所说：对于一个良好的生态系统，鸟类和蛙类同样重要。
Frogs are down in the mud, seeing all the granular details.
青蛙深入池底，细枝末节尽收眼底。
The birds are soaring up above not seeing those details but integrating the knowledge of the frogs. And we need both.
鸟类翱翔云天，无法触及那些细节，却能整合青蛙的所知所想。这两者我们都需要。
The problem, Dyson said, is that we're telling everyone to become frogs.
戴森说，主要问题是，我们正在告诉所有人去成为青蛙。
And I think, in a wicked world, that's increasingly shortsighted. Thank you very much.
而我认为，在一个复杂的世界里，这种做法正在变得越来越目光短浅。十分感谢。
