如果我们和泰格·伍兹一起学习打高尔夫球，他和另一个高尔夫新手争论应该如何挥杆。如果我们完全忽略二人过往的业绩与成就对此争议进行评价，这对于我们的学习与进步有害还是有益呢？显然，抛弃两人在高尔夫领域专业度的巨大差异，将他俩观点进行平等的对待，绝对是有害且愚蠢的做法。最好还是听一下泰格·伍兹的说法，不要让某些一无所知的人不停打断他。我认为有必要让泰格·伍兹能够在传授完技巧之后回答一些问题，与之同时我坚信，理解事情的逻辑远比直接接收理论更重要，那么作为一名高尔夫新手，当然不应该只因为伍兹赢得过无数奖项，有一些高尔夫球的经验就对伍兹的话照单全收。也就是说，我认为，一个新手应该不停地向伍兹讨教，直到他自信找到窍门为止。与此同时，如果新手认为高尔夫冠军说的不对，自己是对的，那他肯定既愚蠢又自大。他应该将自己的疑惑以问题的方式提出来，而不是盲目自大。如果团队里所有人认为高尔夫新手和泰格·伍兹的话具有同等价值，那只会拖累整个团队的学习进度。在桥水联合寻求真相时，我更是深以为然。当然，我们应该本着开放的心态坚持提问，但是如果对有着优秀业绩与毫无业绩的人的看法不加甄别，那也是不明智的。
29d) Leverage your communication. While open communication is very important, the challenge is figuring out how to do it in a time-efficient way. It is helpful to use leveraging techniques like open e-mails posted on a FAQ board. If the reporting ratios are organized as described in the principles on organizational design, there should be ample time for this. The challenges become greater the higher you go in the reporting hierarchy because the number of people affected by your actions and who have opinions and/or questions grows larger than just two reporting levels down. In such cases, you will need even greater leverage and prioritization (e.g., having some of the questions answered by a well -equipped party who works for you, asking people to prioritize their questions by urgency or importance, etc) .
29d) 充分利用各种沟通手段。自由沟通是非常重要的，问题是如何最有效地进行沟通。你可以利用各种方式，比如将公开邮件发布到常见问题专栏上。如果你已经按照前述原则提前进行了组织规划，那么应该拥有充分的时间来进行沟通。你所处的汇报等级越高，沟通难度也就越大，因为此时受你行为影响的人数众多，那么相应对你的决策有想法和问题的人数也就越大，这比只需要向下两级要更为复杂。在这种情况下，你需要更大的影响力，更加注重事务的轻重缓急。比如，某些问题可以让有能力回答的下属来回答。还可以让人们在提问时标出问题的优先程度，是紧急还是重要，等等。
... 30) Don’t treat all opinions as equally valuable. Almost everyone has an opinion, but many are worthless or harmful. The views of people without track records are not equal to the views of people with strong track records. Treating all people equally is more likely to lead away from truth than toward it. People without records of success who are nonetheless confident about how things should be done are either naïve or arrogant. In either case, they’re potentially dangerous to themselves and others. However, all views should be considered in an open-minded way, albeit placed in the proper context of experience and track record. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding: can you handle your responsibilities well? As a general rule, if you can, then you can have an opinion of how to do it—if you can’t, you can’t.
... 30) 不是所有观点都具有同等价值。每个人都有观点，但是这其中有许多是毫无价值甚至是有害的。过往业绩为零的人的观点肯定无法与有优秀业绩的人相提并论。对所有人一视同仁只能离真相越来越远。那些既没有经验又夸夸其谈的人不是太天真就是过于自负。不论是哪种情况，他们对自己和他人而言都是潜在的危险因素。然而，在考虑了经验和过往业绩之后，还是应该对所有的观点都持开放的态度。实践出真知：你是否能承担自己的责任？这是一个通用的原则，如果你能，那说明你对如何做这件事有发言权，反之则没有。
30a) A hierarchy of merit is not only consistent with a meritocracy of ideas but essential for it. Not only is better decision-making enhanced, so is time management. It’s not possible for everyone to debate everything all the time and still get work done effectively.
30a) 能力层级不仅需要与观点优先原则相一致，更是后者的必然要求。这样做不仅能够促进明智决策，更能加强时间管理。让每个人不停地就每个问题都进行辩论的同时还能让工作高效完成是不可能的。
... 31) Consider your own and others’ “believabilities.” By believability, I mean the probability that a person’s view will be right. While we can never know this precisely, we can roughly assess it according to the quality of a person’s reasoning and their track record. Of course, different people will have different views of their own and other’s believability, which is fine. Just recognize that this is a reality that is relevant in a number of ways. Ask, “Why should I believe you?” and “Why should I believe myself?”
... 31) 思考自己和别人的可信度。所谓可信度，就是某人观点正确的概率。可信度肯定无法做到精确评估，但你通过某人的逻辑思维能力和他的过往业绩可以看出个大概。当然，虽然不同人对自己以及他人的「可信度」评估有差异，这没关系，你只需认识到可信度的评估在很多方面都有参考价值。比如，你可以问“我为什么应该相信你呢？”以及“我为什么要相信我自己呢？”
31a) Ask yourself whether you have earned the right to have an opinion. As a general rule, if you have a demonstrated track record, then you can have an opinion of how to do it—if you don’t, you can’t, though you can have theories and questions.
31a) 在想表达意见的时候，问问自己，是否拥有发表观点的权利。作为一个通用原则，如果你有卓越的过往成就，那么你就可以就如何做这件事发表观点，反之则不可以，即使你针对这个问题有自己的理论与意见。
31b) People who have repeatedly and successfully accomplished the thing in question and have great explanations when probed are most believable. Those with one of those two qualities are somewhat believable; people with neither are least believable.
31b) 若有人多次成功解决悬而未决的问题，面对质疑也能讲得头头是道，这种人的观点最可信。那些拥有以上两种特质之一的人，有一定的可信度，而两者都做不到的，可信度最低。
At the same time, people’s ideas should always be assessed on their merit in order to encourage them to always think in an open-minded way. I have seen that inexperienced people can have great ideas, sometimes far better than more experienced people, though often much worse. So we must be attuned to both the good and the bad and allow people to build their own track records and their own level of believability. Because of Bridgewater’s radical openness, you can see how we make our assessments of that.
与此同时，人们的观点可信度应该总是与他们的能力挂钩，以此来鼓励大家以开放性态度思考问题。我见过一些毫无经验的人拥有很棒的点子，有的时候甚至要比更有经验的人的点子更棒，然而大多数时候，前者的观点只会比后者差。所以我们应该不断适应好与坏，使人们不断更新自己的成就记录及自身可信度。在桥水联合基金，我们正是基于此来进行评估的。
Someone new who doesn’t know much, has little believability, or isn’t confident in his views should ask questions. On the other hand, a highly believable person with experience and a good track record who is highly confident in his views should be assertive. Everyone should be upfront in expressing how confident they are in their thoughts. A suggestion should be called a suggestion; a firmly held conviction should be presented as such. Don’t make the mistake of being a dumb shit with a confident opinion.
那些不太了解情况、可信度低的新人，或者对自己的看法不自信的人，应该多提问。与此相反，一个经验丰富、可信度高、业绩良好、自信十足的人，就应该更坚定自己的看法。每个人都应该直接表达对自己的看法有多自信，建议就是建议，坚定的信念就是坚定的信念。千万不要做一个一无所知却盲目自信的傻瓜。
31c) If someone asks you a question, think first whether you’re the responsible party/right person to be answering the question.
31c) 如果有人问你一个问题，首先考虑自己是不是能够解答这个问题的人。
... 32) Spend lavishly on the time and energy you devote to “getting in synch” because it’s the best investment you can make. You will inevitably need to prioritize because of time constraints, but beware of the tremendous price of skimping on quality communication.
...32) 为了“意见统一”，花再多的时间与精力都不为过，因为这是最有价值的投资。由于时间限制，你必须将所有事排出优先顺序，但是又必须谨防筛选过度带来沟通质量的牺牲。
... 33) If it is your meeting to run, manage the conversation. There are many reasons why meetings go poorly, but frequently it is because of a lack of clarity about the topic or the level at which things are being discussed (e.g., the principle/machine level, the case at hand level, or the specific fact level) . To manage the meetings well:
... 33) 如果是你主持会议，请协调好会议中各方的讨论。 会议进行不顺利的原因有很多，但是最常碰到的问题就是主题不明确，讨论问题的层次不清晰。比如，要分清哪些问题是原则和机制层面的，哪些是手头待处理的问题，哪些是具体的事实问题。让会议顺利进行，要做到以下几点：
33a) Make it clear who the meeting is meant to serve and who is directing the meeting.Every meeting is for the purpose of meeting someone’s goals; that person is the responsible party for the meeting and decides what s/he wants to get out of it and how s/he will do so. Meetings without a clear responsible party run a high risk of being directionless and unproductive.
33a) 弄清每一次会议的责任方和主持方。每一次会议都是为了实现某人的目的，此人就是会议的负责人，决定会议目的和会议模式。没有明确负责人的会议很可能会毫无方向，也无法实现效果。
33b) Make clear what type of communication you are going to have in light of the objectives and priorities. For example, if the goal of the meeting is to have people with different opinions work through their differences to try to get closer to what is true and what to do about it (i.e., open-minded debate) , you will run it differently than if the meeting is meant to educate. Debating issues takes time. That time increases geometrically depending on the number of people participating in the discussion, so you have to carefully choose the right people in the right numbers to suit the decision that needs to be made. In any discussion try to limit the participation to those whom you value most in light of your objectives. The worst way to pick people is based on whether their conclusions align with yours.
33b) 根据会议目标与重点议题，确定会议的交流方式。比如，如果会议的目标是让持不同观点的人消除分歧，寻求真相，找到解决方案，那么会议方式就是自由辩论。这种会议要与那些旨在教育的传授会议开展模式不同。辩论问题比较耗时，所需时间随着参与讨论的人数的增加呈几何级增长。因此，你必须谨慎选择适当数量的合适人群参会。在任何会议沟通中，请尝试主动限制那些对你的目标最看重的人参会，最糟糕的参会选人方法是基于对方的结论与你相同的前提。
33c) Lead the discussion by being assertive and open-minded. Group-think and solo-think are both dangerous.
33c) 主持讨论要坚定自信，开诚布公。 集体思维或孤立思维都是危险的。
33d) A small group (3 to 5) of smart, conceptual people seeking the right answers in an open- minded way will generally lead to the best answer. Next best is to have decisions made by a single smart, conceptual decision-maker, but this is a much worse choice than the former. The worst way to make decisions is via large groups without a smart, conceptual leader. Almost everyone thinks they’re smart and conceptual, but only a small percentage of any group really is. Even when there is a large number of smart, conceptual leaders, more than five trying to make a decision is very inefficient and difficult. This is especially the case when people think they need to satisfy everyone.
33d) 组织三至五人的小组讨论，邀请思维灵活、概念清晰的成员开放地寻求最佳方案，这种情况一般能取得最好的效果。 次之，可以让一个聪明的决策者来做决定，但这一方案要比前者效果差很多。最糟糕的方式是在没有任何一个聪明的领导者领导的情况下，让一大群人来做决定。几乎每个人都认为自己既聪明又概念清晰，但是事实上每个团队中只有极少数人是这样的。即便是有一大群明智又有远见的领导者在一起，超过五个人的决策也将是十分低效与艰难的。即便是有一大群明智又有远见的领导者在一起，当人数超过 5 个人的时候，决策的产生也将是十分低效与艰难的。特别是人们还想做出让每个人都满意的决策下更是如此。
33e) 1+1=3. Two people who collaborate well will be about three times as effective as the two of them operating independently because they will see what the other might miss, they can leverage each other, and they can hold each other to higher standards. This symbiotic relationship of adding people to a group will have incremental benefits (2+1=4.25) up to a point at which there are no incremental gains and beyond which adding people produces incremental losses in effectiveness. That is because 1) the marginal benefits diminish as the group gets larger—e.g. two or three people might be able to cover most of the important perspectives so adding more people doesn't bring much more, and 2) larger group interactions are less efficient than smaller group interactions. Of course, what's best in practice is a function of 1) the quality of the people and the differences of the perspectives that they bring and 2) how well the group is managed. As noted before, each group should have someone who is responsible for managing the flow to get out of the meeting the most possible.
33e) 1+1=3. 两个合作无间的人的效率是两个各自为阵的人的三倍，因为前者能够看到彼此的疏漏，取长补短，将彼此都提升到一个新高度。这种增加人手的共生关系是具有增量效应的，2+1=4.25，直到一个临界点，增加人手不再产生增量效应，却开始影响效率。这种现象是因为：1）随着团队人数的增多，将产生边际效应。比如说，两三个人也许已经足以涵盖最重要的视角了，那么增加更多的人并不会带来更明显的收益；2）人数多的团队互动要比小团队互动效率更低。当然，实践中最佳模式是将参会人员的质量和不同视角与团队管理相结合的。如前所述，每一个团队都必须要有一个负责人来协调整个会议的流程，确保会议成效。
33f) Navigate the levels of the conversation clearly. When considering an issue or situation, there should be two levels of discussion: the case at hand and the relevant principles that help you decide how the machine should work. Since the case at hand is a manifestation of one or more relevant principles, you need to clearly navigate between these levels in order to 1) handle the case well, 2) improve the machine so that future cases like this will be handled better in the future, and 3) test the effectiveness of your principles.
33f) 确保对事件沟通层次的清晰。 在讨论某个问题或情势时，需要进行两个层级的讨论：手边的案件以及相关可以帮助决定机制如何运作的原则。相关的案件可能涉及一个或多个原则，你需要为不同层次之间设定明确的方向。以此确保：1）正确处理案件；2）改进机制使未来类似案件能得以顺利解决；3) 检验你的原则是否有效。
33g) Watch out for “topic slip.” Topic slip is the random and inconclusive drifting from topic to topic without achieving completion. Tip: Avoid topic slip by tracking the conversation on a whiteboard so everyone can see where you are.
33g) 谨防讨论偏题。 偏题是指偏离主题的、任意的、无结论、没完没了的讨论。提示：为防止跑题，可使用白板记录对话，以便所有人都能注意到讨论进度。
33h) Enforce the logic of conversations. There is a tendency for people’s emotions to heat up when there is a disagreement, so focusing on the logic of your exchange will facilitate communication. If you are calm and analytical in listening to others’ points of view, it is more difficult for them to shut down a logical exchange than if you get emotional or allow them to get emotional. 33h) 增强沟通的逻辑性。当出现分歧的时候，人们总是容易情绪激动，此时，注重交流的逻辑性能够促进沟通。在听取对方观点时，如果你能够冷静进行分析，那么对方更容易进行有逻辑的交流，这种交流要比你或者对方情绪激动时高效得多。
33i) Worry about substance more than style. This is not to say that some styles aren’t more effective than others with different people and in different circumstances, but don’t let style or tone prevent you from getting in synch. I often see people complain about the delivery of a criticism in order to deflect from its substance. If you think someone’s style is an issue, box it as a separate issue to get in synch about (start by asking whether it’s true and whether it’s important) .
33i) 实质内容比形式更重要。 当然，不同的人在不同的情况下适用某些形式会比适用另一些形式效率更高。但是，不要让形式或风格限制了你们达成一致的步伐。我经常听到人们为了扯开话题而对批评的形式进行抱怨。如果你对某人的表述风格有意见，那么你应该单独就此问题争取达成一致， 比如可以问一下此人的表述风格是否是其真实情绪的流露，以及这种表述形式对于沟通而言是否真的重要等。
33j) Achieve completion in conversations. The main purpose of discussion is to achieve completion and get in synch, which leads to decisions and or actions. Conversations often fail to reach completion. This amounts to a waste of time because they don’t result in conclusions or productive actions. When there is an exchange of ideas, especially if there is a disagreement, it is important to end it by stating the conclusions. If there is agreement, say it; if not, say that. Where further action has been decided, get those tasks on a to-do list, assign people to do them, and specify due dates. Write down your conclusions, working theories, and to-do’s in places that will lead to their being used as foundations for continued progress.
33j) 在讨论中要得出一定结论。 讨论的主要目的就是要解决问题，达成一致，从而做出决断，付诸行动。讨论经常得不到完结，这完全是浪费时间，因为这种讨论无法得到任何结论，也无法转化成有价值的行动。当大家交换观点的时候，尤其是当有分歧出现的时候，必须要得出结论作出了断。如果能够达成一致，这就是结论，如果无法达成一致，这也是一种结论。如果决定进行下一步行动，就要将这些任务添加到待完成事项列表之中，分配人手来完成，制定截止日期。记录下得出的结论、工作理论以及待完成事项，使他们能够为取得持续进展打下坚实基础。
33k) Have someone assigned to maintain notes in meetings and make sure follow-through happens. Generally speaking, to avoid distraction during the discussion itself, prioritizing follow-ups and assignments should be done afterwards.
33k) 安排人做会议纪要，保证会议讨论的事项后续落实。一般而言，为保证讨论不偏题，对后续事项的优先排序和任务落实应该在会后进行。
33l) Be careful not to lose personal responsibility via group decision-making. Too often groups will make a decision to do something without assigning personal responsibilities so it is not clear who is supposed to do what. Be clear in assigning personal responsibilities.
33l) 需要注意的是，集体决策时不要忘记了个人的职责。很多情况下，集体可能会做出一个决策，但是并不安排具体的分工，所以谁该干什么完全不清楚。要记住明晰个人责任。
... 34) Make sure people don’t confuse their right to complain, give advice, and debate with the right to make decisions. Discussion does not mean rule by referendum. While our culture is marked by extreme openness, some people mistakenly assume we have group decision-making in which all views are treated equally and consensus rules. Since not all views are equally valuable, I don’t believe in consensus decision-making or referendums. We operate not only by open debate but also by clearly assigning personal responsibility to specific people. While these two values might seem at odds, personal responsibility and open debate work together to synthesize effective decision-making at Bridgewater. Everyone does not report to everyone here. Instead, responsibility and authority are assigned to individuals based on our assessment of their ability to handle them. I want the most capable individuals assigned to each job. We hold them accountable for their outcomes, but we also give them the authority to achieve those outcomes. It is perfectly okay for a responsible party to carry through a decision he thinks is best even when others who are knowledgeable disagree, although this disagreement should be considered and weighed seriously. We have, and should have, an explicit decision-making hierarchy, ideally based on merit.
