评论
打印
Thinking strategically is meta thinking. It's thinking about thinking.
战略思维是元思维。它是对思考的思考。
It is not responding to headlines.
它并不是对头条新闻做出回应。
It's not what CNN wants to talk to me about on any given day, or Fox News.
并不是CNN或福克斯新闻告诉我是什么就是什么。
It is instead trying to think about, for me, where the world is heading.
相反，对我来说，它指的是努力思考世界在走向何方。
That means pattern recognition, lots of different macro themes at the country level, at the company level, at the individual level, and how they create trade-offs in leaders that are affected frequently by many of them, but have very different priorities, needs, and timeframes.
这意味着模式识别，国家层面、公司层面和个人层面许多不同的宏观主题，以及它们如何在领导者中创造权衡，这些领导者经常受到很多因素的影响，但他们的优先事项、需求和时间框架截然不同。
It's very easy to say, okay, I just saw this headline, and I have a large amount of personal history and data, and that will allow me to immediately frame what I think that means, where I should place it in my existing worldview, and is there any information there that's dissonant?
如果说，好，我看到了这个标题，根据大量的个人经验和数据，我能迅速判断出它是什么意思，在我已有的世界观里该如何看待它，以及我有没有与其相左的意见，做到这些很容易。
That is completely un-strategic thinking.
这完全是非战略思维。
Strategic thinking is, what goes on outside of that?
战略思维是要思考，除了这些以外，还有什么？
It is how do I create my worldview? What would change it?
要思考如何创建我的世界观？什么会改变它？
What are the pieces that I prioritize?
我优先考虑的事项是什么？
What are the ones that aren't so important?
哪些事项不那么重要？
Why do I prioritize them that way? Does that make sense today?
我为什么要那样安排优先事项呢？如今看来那么做有道理吗？
What's changed in the last 10 years or 20 years?
在过去的10年或20年里，发生了什么变化？
The world changes so quickly, and yet people don't revisit their worldview nearly as quickly as the world changes.
世界变化如此之快，然而人们并不像世界变化那样迅速地重新审视他们的世界观。
And yet, of course, you should revisit your worldview on a continual basis, not because you were wrong, I mean you may have been wrong, but much more likely is, you had some level of rightness.
不过，你应该不断地重新审视你的世界观，不是因为你错了，虽然你也有可能是错了，但更多时候是因为你在某种程度上是正确的。
You weren't analytically wrong.
从分析上看，你并没有错。
The world moved, and if you are not moving, you're gonna become wrong.
世界在变，如果你不变，你就会是错的。
I mean, one thing, any analytic view will become wrong over time, and strategic thinking, I think, at its base is an effort to prevent that from happening.
我的意思是，任何分析观点都会随着时间的推移而变得错误，而我认为，战略思维的本质就是努力防止这种情况的发生。
Great strategic thinkers are curious and open.
伟大的战略思想家总是充满了好奇，而且思想开放。
They are fine with being wrong, admitting that they're wrong, talking about what that means, and moving on.
他们不介意犯错，会承认自己犯了错，谈论从中吸取的教训，然后继续前进。
They're also people that are very curious about different worldviews.
他们也是对不同世界观非常好奇的人。
People that have respect for worldviews and opinions, and analysis that are dramatically different from their own, and that engage with them, those are people who tend to be good strategic thinkers.
尊重与自己截然不同的世界观、观点和分析，并与其融会贯通，这样的人往往是优秀的战略思想家。
I don't necessarily say opposing worldviews, because worldviews don't need to be opposing.
我说的并不一定就是对立的世界观，因为世界观不一定是对立的。
They just need to be different.
它们只是有所不同。
I happen to be born in the United States, and that of necessity gives me a worldview of that context.
我碰巧出生在美国，而这必然会让我对那里的背景拥有一种世界观。
But if I same human being happen to be born in China, would that give me an opposing worldview?
但是，如果我碰巧出生在中国，那会不会让我有一个相反的世界观？
No, I would be the same person, I'd just have a different worldview.
不会，我还是我，只是我的世界观会有所不同而已。
People that are much more comfortable simply following folks that confirm their priors may be outstanding tactical thinkers, but are not good strategic thinkers.
那些更愿意简单地跟随那些认可他们的人，可能是杰出的战术思想家，但不是优秀的战略思想家。
Of course, this is not easy to do.
当然，要做到这一点并不容易。
I mean, it's kind of like going to the gym. The first time is daunting.
我是说，就像去健身房一样。第一次总会让人望而生畏。
Once you do it every morning, stopping doing it would feel daunting, but you have to actually build up that training, that practice, and it takes time because your brain doesn't like it when you start engaging with things that you don't agree with.
一旦你习惯了每天早上都去健身房，那么如果你不去才会感到畏惧，但你首先得养成那种训练和习惯，这需要时间，因为你刚开始做自己并不认可的事情的时候，大脑会感觉不悦。
It finds it unnerving.
它会察觉到不安。
But if you do it enough, and you start breaking down your own internal barriers to say, no, it's not that I don't like this person.
但如果你做得足够多，就会开始打破自己的内心障碍，你会觉得：不，不是我不喜欢这个人。
It's not that that opinion turns me off. It's just that they come from a different story.
并不是这个观点让我反感。只是他们有着不同的故事。
They're not villainous, right?
他们不是坏人，对吧？
The fact that you're Israeli or Palestinian doesn't make the other person wrong, they're both heroes of their own stories, they just have different stories.
你是以色列人还是巴勒斯坦人这一事实并不会让对方错误，他们都是各自故事中的英雄，只是故事不同而已。
If you are prepared to understand, accept, and embrace that, then you tend to be a better strategic thinker.
如果你准备好理解、接受这一点，那么你往往会成为一名更好的战略思想家。
Nelson Mandela would probably be at the top of my list in terms of global strategic thinkers.
纳尔逊·曼德拉很可能在我眼中的全球战略思想家排行榜上名列前茅。
He is not only someone of extraordinary moral courage and personal conviction, he also is someone that recognizes for the long future of his country that he needed to put aside personal vendettas, and even the desire to meet out immediate justice in order to ensure that his country had a future.
他不仅具有非凡的道德勇气和个人信念，他还认识到，为了国家长远的未来，他需要搁置个人恩怨，甚至想要立即伸张正义，以确保他的国家有一个未来。
He took the long view on values and ethics, and human development in a way that very few political figures really do.
他着眼于价值观和伦理以及人类发展的长远眼光，很少有政治人物真正能做到这一点。
My only regret is that I never had the opportunity to meet him personally.
我唯一的遗憾是我从来没有机会亲自见过他。
Maybe that allows me to lionize him more, because a lot of world leaders who I have a lot of respect for that I've spent a lot of time with personally do become more humanized in ways that don't always comport with how much you respect them once you've spent time with them.
也许这反而会让我更崇敬他，因为我跟许多我非常尊敬的世界领导人长久共处过，和他们共处的时候，他们的人性化程度与你对他们的尊重程度并不完全匹配。
That's not always true, but it's frequently true.
虽然并不是每回都这样，但也十有八九吧。
