... 19) 树立从错误中吸取教训的观念，传递并强化这个观念。我们必须坦诚对待错误，客观分析错误。管理者应该努力营造一种文化，使从错误中吸取教训的学习方式常规化，惩罚打压或掩盖错误的行为。在桥水，一个人所能犯的最糟糕的错误就是不能直面错误，就是躲避错误而不是强调错误。强调错误，诊断错误，思考未来的改进方案，将这些吸取的新知识加入到流程手册中，所以这些都是取得进步的必要步骤。
19a) The most valuable tool we have for this is the issues log (explained fully later) , which is aimed at identifying and learning from mistakes. Using this tool is mandatory because we believe that enforcing this behavior is far better than leaving it optional.
19a) 最有效的工具是建立“问题日志”（后详），旨在鉴别问题，并从中吸取教训。要求员工必须使用问题日志这一工具，因为我们认为强制要求记录日志会比选择性使用效果好得多。
... 20) Constantly Get in Synch
... 20）不断争取意见统一
So…
因此:
... 21) Constantly get in synch about what is true and what to do about it. Getting in synch helps you achieve better answers through considering alternative viewpoints. It can take the forms of asking, debating, discussing, and teaching how things should be done. Sometimes it is to make our views on our strengths, weaknesses, and values transparent in order to reach the understanding that helps us move forward. Sometimes it is to be clear about who will do what and the game plan for handling responsibilities. So this process can be both a means of finding the best answers and pushing them ahead. Quality conversations about what is true and what should be done will produce better outcomes and many fewer misunderstandings in the future.
... 21) 要在去伪存真和解决方案上争取意见统一。争取意见统一能够使你通过参考不同意见从而获得更好的解决方案。形式可以是多种多样的，比如提问、辩论、讨论或者教别人如何解决问题。有时，我们需要公开对自己长处、短处、价值观的看法，以此达成谅解，帮助我们前行。有时，我们需要明确分工，对于处理任务有一个计划方案。因此，这一流程既能找到最优方案，又能敦促解决方案的实施。关于去伪存真和解决方案的高质量进行沟通，能够带来更优产出，也会在未来避免很多误解。
... 22) Talk about “Is it true?” and “Does it make sense?” In a culture that values both independent thinking and innovation, each individual has both the right and the obligation to ensure that what they do, and what we collectively do, in pursuit of excellence, makes sense to them. So, get in synch about these things.
... 22) 养成对“这是对的么？”和“这事有意义么？”这两个问题反复讨论的习惯。在我们的文化里，独立思考和创新思维受到同样的重视。在追求卓越的过程中，确保保个人做的事和集体做的事都有意义，这既是每个人的权利也是每个人的义务。因此，我们需要就这些问题争取意见统一。
...23) Fight for right. Discuss or debate important issues with the right relevant parties in an open-minded way until the best answers are determined. This process will maximize learning and mutual understanding. Thrash it out to get to the best answer.
... 23) 认为对的事情，要据理力争。与合适的相关方本着开放的态度讨论或辩论重要问题直到确定最佳方案。这一过程能够将学习效果和互相理解最大化。据理力争，直到获得最佳方案。
... 24) Be assertive and open-minded at the same time. Just try to find out what is true.Don’t try to ‘win’ the argument. Finding out that you are wrong is even more valuable than being right, because you are learning.
... 24）既要立场坚定，也要开诚布公。我们的目的是探寻真相而不是赢得辩论。找出你的错往往比证明自己是对的更有价值，因为你在学习。
24a) Ask yourself whether you have earned the right to have an opinion. Opinions are easy to produce, so bad ones abound. Knowing that you don’t know something is nearly as valuable as knowing it. The worst situation is thinking you know something when you don’t.
24a) 在想表达意见的时候，先问问自己，是否拥有发表观点的权利。 观点来之容易，错误的观点则不可避免。知道自己无知与知识本身的价值相等，即便他们对讨论的话题知之甚少。
24b) Recognize that you always have the right to have and ask questions.
24b) 要知道自己始终拥有提问的权利。
24c) Distinguish open-minded people from closed-minded people. Open- minded people seek to learn by asking questions; they realize that what they know is little in relation to what there is to know and recognize that they might be wrong. Closed- minded people always tell you what they know, even if they know hardly anything about the subject being discussed. They are typically made uncomfortable by being around those who know a lot more about a subject, unlike open-minded people who are thrilled by such company.
24c) 区分思想开放的人和思想保守的人。 思想开放的人通过问问题来学习，他们知道自己所知与未知相比实在微不足道，也承认自己可能会犯错。思想保守的人会不停向你诉说他们的见解，即便他们对讨论的话题一无所知。思想保守的人通常会因为身处一群专业人士之中感到不安，而思想开放的人则最见贤思齐，不亦乐乎。
24d) Don’t have anything to do with closed- minded, inexperienced people. They won’t do you any good and there’s no helping them until they open their minds, so they will waste your time in the meantime. If you must deal with them, the first thing you have to do is open their minds. Being open-minded is far more important than being bright or smart.
24d) 对思想保守、缺乏经验之人，还是敬而远之吧。他们对你毫无益处，如果他们一直故步自封对自己也没有好处。这种人只会浪费你的时间，如果你必须与他们打交道，那么首先你需要解放他们的思想。保持开放性思维要比聪明睿智重要的多。
24e) Be wary of the arrogant intellectual who comments from the stands without having played on the field. And avoid that trap yourself.
24e) 对那些夸夸其谈的纸上谈兵之人要尤为警惕。 不要被他们忽悠。
24f) Watch out for people who think it’s embarrassing not to know. They’re dangerous.
24f) 小心那些面子至上，不好意思说自己不知道的人。(因为会为此而假装说自己知道其实并不了解的事）他们是危险的。
... 25) Make sure responsible parties are open-minded about the questions and comments of others. They are required to explain the thinking behind a decision openly and transparently so that all can understand and assess it. Further, in the event of disagreement, an appeal should be made to either the manager’s boss or an agreed- upon, knowledgeable group of others, generally including people more believable than and senior to the decision-maker. The person(s) resolving the dispute must do this objectively and fairly; otherwise our system will fail at maintaining its meritocracy of ideas.
... 25) 确保主要负责人对于他人提出的问题与评论都是持开放态度的。 他们必须本着开放和透明的精神向大家解释决策背后的深思熟虑，以便让每个人都能够理解并评估决策。。此外，当出现意见不合时，应该向其他比决策者更权威的人士提出申诉，包括决策者的上级、其他约定方和专业小组。相关人员必须以客观、公正的态度来解决纠纷，否则我们的系统将无法保证观点至上原则的执行。
... 26) Recognize that conflicts are essential for great relationships because they are the means by which people determine whether their principles are aligned and resolve their differences. I believe that in all relationships, including the most treasured ones, 1) there are principles and values each person has that must be in synch for the relationship to be successful and 2) there must be give and take. I believe there is always a kind of negotiation or debate between people based on principles and mutual consideration. What you learn about each other via that “negotiation” either draws you together or drives you apart. If your principles are aligned and you can work out your differences via a process of give and take, you will draw closer together. If not, you will move apart. It is through such open discussion, especially when it comes to contentious issues, that people can make sure there are no misunderstandings. If that open discussion of differences doesn’t happen on an ongoing basis, the gaps in perspectives will widen until inevitably there is a major clash. Ironically, people who suppress the mini-confrontations for fear of conflict tend to have huge conflicts later, which can lead to separation, precisely because they let minor problems fester. On the other hand, people who address the mini-conflicts head-on in order to straighten things out tend to have the great, long-lasting relationships. That’s why I believe people should feel free to say whatever they really think.
... 26) 要意识到，冲突对于建立重要关系是大有裨益的，因为通过冲突人们才能确定对方的原则是否与自己一致，便于化解分歧。我相信在所有的关系之中，包括那些最令人珍视的关系，1）为了建立良好的关系，有一些原则和价值观是必须达成一致的；2）必须有人给予，有人接受。人们总会基于原则和互谅进行一些协商和辩论。通过协商，增进了对彼此的了解，而这种了解可以让双方更加亲密，也可能让你们分道扬镳。如果你们的原则一致，通过给予与接受，你们彼此磨合，则会更加亲密。反之，你们将渐行渐远。只有通过这种自由讨论，尤其是针对极具争议话题的讨论，相关方才能确保他们不存在误解。如果这种针对彼此之间差异性的讨论不是持续进行的，那么观点上的间隙便会持续扩大直至出现重大冲突。令人感到讽刺的是，那些为避免冲突而试图压制小小不合的人，往往会在之后经受更大的冲突，最终可能分崩离析。而这一结果正是由于他们让小问题不断恶化造成的。与此相反，如果大家能够正视小矛盾，不断将关系捋顺，则更有可能获得健康、长久的关系。因此，我认为人们应该毫无保留地勇敢说出自己的真实想法。
26a) Expect more open-minded disagreements at Bridgewater than at most other firms.They fuel the learning that helps us be at our best. Sometimes when there are disagreements, people get angry. But you should remind them that the management at most other companies doesn’t welcome disagreement or encourage open debate. As a result, there is less of both. So instead of getting angry, they should welcome the fact that disagreements and open debate are encouraged here.
26a) 在桥水，我们期待比其他公司更多不拘于成见的分歧。分歧能够促进学习，帮助我们成为最好的自己，但人们却时常会因为分歧而生气。这时，你应该提醒大家，大多数公司不欢迎分歧，也不鼓励自由辩论：其结果得分歧与辩论越来越少。因此，面对分歧的正确态度，是与其生气，还不如鼓励分歧与公开辩论。
26b) There is giant untapped potential in disagreement, especially if the disagreement is between two or more thoughtful people - yet most people either avoid it or they make it an unproductive fight. That’s tragic.
26b) 分歧中蕴含巨大潜力，尤其对于两个或两个以上有独立思考能力的人之间的分歧而言，更是如此。然而大多数人要么避免分歧，要么将其化为一场毫无意义的斗争，这才是真正的悲剧。
Most people have a tough time disagreeing about the most trivial things, like whether they like the same restaurant, yet are happy to confidently express their opinions, however badly they are formed, if they get them out first. As a result, there is an overabundance of confident bad opinions around and very few thoughtful conclusions arising from learning from each other. It is common for conversations to be exchanges of sentences that begin “I think…” followed by their conclusions, and both parties believing that they had a good conversation and feeling good about each other, even though nothing was accomplished. If most people did the opposite—i.e., if they sought out and open-mindedly explored their disagreements—it would produce a radical increase in learning, and the world would be a much better place.
大多数人消耗太多的时间对琐事争论不休，比如讨论是否喜欢同一家餐馆。然而，他们却乐于自以为是地对于自己一无所知的事情发表见解，只要这个话题是自己起的头。于是，人们对于糟糕的观点过于自信，却只有极少通过互相学习、深思熟虑得来的结论。现在人们进行对话，双方大多是以“我觉得”来开头，后面紧跟着就是自己的结论，双方都自我感觉良好地认为这是一个很自然很流畅的沟通，但其实根本言之无物。如果大多数人能以开放的心态一心探索他们之间的分歧，则会极大提高学习效果，世界也将变的更美好。
... 27) Know when to stop debating and move on to agreeing about what should be done. I have seen people who agree on the major issues waste hours arguing over details. It’s more important to do big things well than to do small things perfectly. Be wary of bogging down amid minor issues at the expense of time devoted to solidifying important agreements.
... 27) 知道什么时候终止辩论，进而讨论一致的解决方案。 我见过太多人在大问题上能达成共识，却在细节上浪费过多的时间争执不休。与其将小事做到完美，不如将大事做好。谨防被琐碎之事拖累，牺牲掉本该投入到就大问题达成一致的时间。
27a) However, when people disagree on the importance of debating something, it should be debated. Operating otherwise would essentially give someone (typically the boss) a de facto veto right.
27a) 但是，当有人质疑就某事展开辩论的重要性时，辩论是有必要的。 辩论十分必要，否则无异于给了别人（尤其是上司）实际上的否决权。
27b) Recognize that “there are many good ways to skin a cat.” Your assessment of how responsible parties are doing their jobs should not be based on whether they’re doing it your way but whether they're doing it in a good way.
27b) 认识到“条条大路通罗马”。评价相关方是否负责任的完成了工作不应该看他们是不是按照你的方法来完成了任务，而应该看他们的方法是否是有效的。
27c) For disagreements to have a positive effect, people evaluating an individual decision or decision -maker must view the issue within a broader context. For example, if the responsible party being challenged has a vision, and the decision under disagreement involves a small detail, evaluate the decision within the context of the broader vision. The ensuing discussion resulting from challenging someone’s decision will help people understand all the considerations behind it.
27c) 要利用分歧获得具有积极意义的成果，评估个人抉择或决策者的观点时需要从更广更高的角度来看问题。 例如，如果被质疑的责任主体有自己的远见，而在分歧之下的决策涉及细节问题，那么请在更大的背景之下审查该决策。质疑某人决策而引发的讨论将有助于人们了解决策背后的诸多考量。
27d) Distinguish between 1) idle complaints and 2) complaints that are meant to lead to improvement.
27d) 要区分两个概念：1）无用的抱怨 2）旨在实现改善的合理诉求。
... 28) Appreciate that open debate is not meant to create rule by referendum. It is meant to provide the decision-maker with alternative perspectives in anticipation of a better answer. It can also be used to enhance understanding of others’ views and abilities and, over time, assess whether someone should be assigned a responsibility. It doesn’t mean there can’t be some designs in which a group oversees a person. But that’s designed and embedded in the organizational structure, specifying the people responsible for oversight who are chosen because of their knowledge and judgment.
... 28) 赞赏自由辩论的讨论方式并不意味着要通过全体投票来制定规则。为获得最佳方案，本就应该为决策者提供更多的可选视角。自由辩论也能够增进对彼此观点和能力的了解，随着时间的推移，还可以检验一个人是否能担当重任。这并不意味着不能刻意规划让一个团队来监管一个人，但是这种规划是刻意置于组织架构之中的，需要说明的是，负责监管的人必须是因其知识与判断而被选定。
... 29) Evaluate whether an issue calls for debate, discussion, or teaching. Debate,discussion, and teaching are all ways of getting in synch, but they work differently and the approach you choose should reflect your goal and the relative believability of the people involved. Debate is generally among approximate equals; discussion is open-minded exploration among people of various levels of understanding; and teaching is between people of different levels of understanding.
... 29) 要评估事项是否需要辩论、讨论或传授。辩论、讨论和传授都是达成意见统一的方式，但是三者的运作方式不同，选择何种方式取决于你的目标和相关人员的理解能力。每个人在沟通前，都应该客观评估自己的专业程度与理解力，以保证沟通的效率。辩论一般应用于理解程度相等的人之间；讨论是不同理解程度人之间的自由探讨；而传授则是理解度高的人对理解度低的人的沟通方式。
29a) To avoid confusion, make clear which kind of conversation (debate, discussion, or teaching) you are having and recognize that the purpose is ultimately to get at truth, not to prove that someone is right or wrong.
29a) 为了避免产生误解，需要确定使用何种沟通方式（辩论、讨论或传授），同时需要认识到沟通的目的是为了寻求真相，而不是证明孰是孰非。
29b) Communication aimed at getting the best answer should involve the most relevant people. Not everyone should randomly probe everyone else, because that’s an unproductive waste of time. People should consider their own levels of believability and understanding to assess if the probing makes sense. As a guide, the most relevant people are your managers, direct reports, and/or agreed experts. They are the most impacted by and most informed about the issues under discussion, and so they are the most important parties to be in synch with. If you can’t get in synch, you should escalate the disagreement.
29b) 旨在获得最佳方案的沟通，应该邀请最相关人士参与其中。并不是每个人都应该无所顾忌的刺探他人，这将是无谓的时间浪费。每个人都应该斟酌自己的可信度和理解力来衡量沟通是否有意义。首先，你可以考虑最为相关的人，包括你的上级、直接下属以及约定了的专家。这些人是受决策影响最大的人，也是最了解情况的人，因此也是最应该征求意见的人。如果不能争取实现意见一致，就需要将分歧升级，提交上一级进行讨论。
29c) Communication aimed at educating or boosting cohesion should involve a broader set of people than would be needed if the aim were just getting the best answer. Less experienced, less believable people will be included. They may not be necessary to decide an issue, but if you aren’t in synch with them, that lack of understanding will likely undermine morale and the organization’s efficiency. In cases where you have people who are both not believable and highly opinionated (the worst combination) , you will drive their uninformed opinions underground if you don’t get in synch. Conversely, if you are willing to be challenged, and others behave the same way, you can demand that all critical communication be done openly.
29c) 旨在教育，增强凝聚力的沟通，如果目标是获得最佳方案，那么就应该听取更多人的意见。也应该听取那些不太有经验、可信度不太高的人的意见。这些人可能不会起到决定作用，但是如果不与他们达成一致，那么随之而来的理解缺失很可能会打压士气，影响公司效率。在最糟糕的情况下，会碰到既不可信又固执己见的人，如果此时不是必须达成一致，则可对他们的意见置之不理。相反，如果你乐于被挑战，而其他人也是如此，那么你也可以要求所有辩证沟通都自由展开。
Imagine if a group of us were trying to learn how to play golf with Tiger Woods, and he and a new golfer were debating how to swing the club. Would it be helpful or harmful to our progress to ignore their different track records and experience? Of course it would be harmful and plain silly to treat their points of view equally, because they have different levels of believability. It is better to listen to what Tiger Woods has to say, without constant interruptions by some know-nothing arguing with him. While I believe this is true, it would be most productive if Tiger Woods gave his instructions and then answered questions. However, because I’m pretty extreme in believing that it is important to obtain understanding rather than accepting doctrine at face value, I also think the new golfer shouldn’t accept what Tiger Woods has to say as right only because he has won loads of tournaments and has years of experience playing golf. In other words, I believe the new golfer shouldn’t stop questioning Tiger until he is confident he has found truth. At the same time, I also think the new golfer would be pretty dumb and arrogant to believe he’s probably right and the champion golfer is wrong. So he should approach his questioning with that perspective rather than overblown confidence. It would be really bad for the group’s learning if all the people in the group treated what the new golfer and Tiger Woods had to say as equally valuable. I feel exactly the same way about getting at truth at Bridgewater. While it’s good to be open-minded and questioning, it’s dumb to treat the views of people with great track records and experience the same as those without track records and experience.
