行为经济学的人生智慧--（心帐理论）Behavioral Economics and Its Implication -- Mental Accounting

一个故事： 

      甲去买烟，烟29元，但他没火柴，跟店员说：“顺便送一盒火柴吧。”店员没给。      

      乙去买烟，烟29元，他也没火柴，跟店员说：“便宜一毛吧。”最后，他用这一毛买一盒火柴。    

      这是最简单的心理边际效应。第一种：店主认为自己在一个商品上赚钱了，另外一个没赚钱。赚钱感觉指数为1。第二种：店主认为两个商品都赚钱了，赚钱指数为2。当然心理倾向第二种了。同样，这种心理还表现在买一送一的花招上，顾客认为有一样东西不用付钱，就赚了，其实都是心理边际效应在作怪。     

人生启示：

        变换一种方式往往能起到意想不到的效果! 通常很多事情换一种做法结果就不同了。人生道路上，改善心智模式和思维方式是很重要的。    

行为经济学的解释：

　　心帐理论（Mental accounting）的四个结论是关于如何合并 (把多个经济活动整合成一个帐户)和单列（把一个或多个经济活动分解成多个帐户）心理帐户的。合并让人们在痛苦和损失时好受很多，单列使得人们在不增加真实经济好处的情况下更爽。

下面逐一介绍这四个结论。

　　第一结论： 

　　如果有多个经济活动均涉及到收益/甜头/好处，尽可能的单列他们。 

　　实验例子：老牛中了一个75块的足球彩票。 

　　老朱中了个50的足球彩票，和一个25块的福利彩票。 

　　他俩谁更爽？ 

　　大部分人都说老朱爽。 

　　解释：斯诶勒往心帐理论里加入了交易效用，即每个经济活动本身带来的效用（可正可负）。单列后的涉及盈利的多个经济活动提供了多个正的交易效用，中两次奖当然比中一次爽了。还记得前景理论吧，前景理论也可解释结论一：根据S曲线，因为收益的效用是边际递减的，所以 U(A)+U(B) &gt； U(A+B)。 

　　生活应用：没听说过谁把所有的圣诞礼物放一个盒子里的，大家是能包几个盒子就包几个。 

　　商业应用：企业做广告，特别是面向家庭主妇的电视广告，那种让您限时拨打800电话，购物免费送东西的，一般都送您几件便宜货，而不是一件贵的东西。

　　第二结论： 

　　如果有多个经济活动均涉及到开支/损失/霉头/灾难，尽可能的合并他们。 

　　实验例子：老牛某日倒车撞了保险杆，修理费用1400块；那天还超速吃了罚单，120块；乱停车吃了罚单，40块。 

　　老朱倒车撞了保险杆，修车费用1600块。 

　　他俩谁更不爽？ 

　　这还用说吗？当然是老牛更不爽了。 

　　解释：心帐理论还是用交易效用解释。单列后的经济活动提供了多个负的交易效用（倒多次霉当然比倒一次更不爽了）。前景理论也可解释。因为损失的效用也是边际递减的，所以 U(-A)+U(-B) &lt； U(-A-B)。 

　　生活应用：出了很多倒霉事千万不要跟领导/老婆一一汇报，报个总数就行了。领导/老婆嘛，掌握大方向管理大问题，小小细节就不要麻烦她了。 

　　商业应用：您车上的option（选件）就是这么卖给您的。有经验的汽车销售员常常报一个加了option的总价格，而不是单独强调某一个option的价格，让您觉得和base model一比，总开支没加多少。 

　　推广开来，当企业销售昂贵的东西的时候，尽可能的创造选件（options）并把它们卖给顾客（当鞋店里有人向你推销鞋油的时候，您买的那双鞋多半在200块以上），嘟嘟嘟嘟，顾客在心帐理论第二结论的重火力下纷纷倒下。

　　第三结论： 

　　如果有某个经济活动涉及到开支/损失，找个另外有收益的经济活动并且收益超过前述损失的，合并他们。 

　　实验例子：老牛等老板发奖金，自己估计是300块。奖金到手，哦耶，果然是300块。但是一周后HR打电话说奖金发错了，要老牛退回50块。 

　　老朱也等老板发奖金，自己估计也是300块。但是一周后，奖金到手只有250块。 

　　他俩谁更不爽？ 

　　大多数人认为这次还是老牛更不爽（又是老牛！） 

　　解释： 同第二结论。 

　　生活应用：对领导/老婆报喜不报忧，那肯定是错误的（并有生命危险）；报喜也报忧，您能做得更好。在此提醒广大中老年男网友：好事喜事不要轻易报给领导。要攒起来等坏事出现的时候再一起合并上报。同时也提醒少数青少年朋友，坏事不要急于坦白给您的父母，等好事出现时一起合并再报。什么？找不到好事？你完了！ 

　　商业应用：从收入中扣除开支比直接让人承担开支更好受一些。这广泛应用于从月收入中扣除一部分来支付各种商业保险和分期付款（当然，分期付款还有另外的机制起作用，有时间细谈。）

　　第四结论： 

　　如果有某个经济活动涉及到大笔开支/损失，同时有某个经济活动减少了一点该损失，把该经济活动单列出来。 

　　第四结论又叫一线希望（silver lining）结论。 

　　实验例子：老牛炒股某日损失了4900块。 

　　老朱炒股某日损失5000块。但是回家的路上他拣到了100块钱。 

　　他俩谁更不爽？ 

　　怎么还是老牛？（原因：心帐理论没有掌握好。） 

　　解释： 参照前景理论的S曲线。 

　　生活应用：要善于在逆境绝境完全损失中寻找闪光点，哪怕就是一点，也要给找出来。 

　　商业应用：Mail-in Rebate。 买大件，先付钱，回头再给您退点钱，高兴吧？（Rebate的另外的机制是，最多一半的人真的去申请rebate）。

500 Days of Summer

The following is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Especially you Jenny Beckman. Bitch. 


"It's so unexpected. I just think it's so unexpected." "It works like a miracle."


Are you gonna chose the one you love or the one who loves you?  What amazes you is when you realize the two are one. What devastates you is when you realize that she is just trying to make you fall in love with her. She doesn't love. She only loves the feeling of being loved. She only loves herself. She just does what she wants. But she's never sure what she really wants, except that she knows subconsciously that she wants to be wanted. It's pretty easy to fall in love with her, but you might be totally ruined when you do and then discover the one she really loves is not you, but herself. Slick, though she doesn't try to be like that intentionally...


Summer has been a mysterious character all through. Tom didn't understand her. We didn't understand her. And And actually, Summer is the kind of girl who doesn't even know what she wants. 


"Why'd you dance with me."
'Cause I wanted to.
You just do what you want, don't you? You never wanted to be anybody's girlfriend, but now you're somebody's wife. I don't think I'll ever understand that. I mean it doesn't make sense.


You know what sucks? Realizing that everything you believe in is complete and utter bullshit.


"It just wasn't me that you were right about."


Summer. I really do hope that you are happy.

The Concept of Cost

Cost may be one of the most confusing yet one of the most important concepts in intermediate economics. It is a key element of decision making, so it is worthwhile to clarify this concept.

There are several important types of cost to understand and be able to distinguish:

a. Opportunity cost
Opportunity cost includes all costs associated with an alternative, whether the costs are explicit or implicit (such as foregone opportunities). Opportunity cost depends on the decision being made and the time (and corresponding circumstances) at which that decision is being made.

b. Economic versus accounting costs
When making economic decisions, we must be sure to consider all relevant explicit and implicit costs.

c. Sunk versus nonsunk costs
Sunk costs are those that are unavoidable for the purposes of the decision under consideration. They should be ignored when making the decision. Nonsunk costs are avoidable for the purposes of the decision under consideration. They should be taken into consideration when making the decision.

d. Fixed versus sunk costs
Some costs may not vary with changes in (positive) output level, but still be avoidable by producing zero output. These costs may be referred to as avoidable fixed costs. They are not sunk.

To Compromise or To Be Tenacious

People do have different views on one issue. Due to different experiences and personalities, people tend to look at the same thing from different angle. No particular one angle is right or wrong -- all the angles are a reflection of the truth, and none of them grasp the whole picture.

People understanding these will their best to avoid imposing our perspective onto others. We should avoid asking people to do what WE think is good for THEM. One man's honey is another man's poison. But when other people try to impose their opinions on us, what should we do? To compromise or to be tenacious to our principles?

Like Hamlet's ultimate question, there's no appropriate answer to that, and I believe the key to decide what to do depends on who you want to be. Be a peace-maker, then compromise; be a principle-sticker, then be tenacious.

It is you who can make the decision. But no matter what you choose, be content with your choice. Every choice you make defines you, and if you always choose they way you want to be defined that way, then you choice is always a perfect one.

Susan Blackmore on memes and "temes"

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html


Cultural evolution is a dangerous child for any species to let loose on its planet. By the time you realize what's happening, the child is a toddler, up and causing havoc, and it's too late to put it back.We humans are Earth's Pandoran species. We're the ones who let the second replicator out of its box, and we can't push it back in. We're seeing the consequences all around us.

Now that, I suggest, is the view that comes out of taking memetics seriously. And it gives us a new way of thinking about not only what's going on on our planet, but what might be going on elsewhere in the cosmos. So first of all I'd like to say something about memetics and the theory of memes, and secondly, how this might answer questions about who's out there, if indeed anyone is.

So, memetics. Memetics is founded on the principle of universal Darwinism. Darwin had this amazing idea. Indeed, some people say it's the best idea anybody ever had. Isn't that a wonderful thought, that there could be such a thing as a best idea anybody ever had? Do you think there could?Audience: No. (Laughter) Susan Blackmore: Someone says no, very loudly, from over there.Well, I say yes, and if there is, I give the prize to Darwin.

Why? Because the idea was so simple, and yet it explains all design in the universe. I would say not just biological design, but all of the design that we think of as human design. It's all just the same thing happening. What did Darwin say? I know you know the idea, natural selection, but let me just paraphrase "The Origin of Species," 1859, in a few sentences.

What Darwin said was something like this -- if you have creatures that vary, and that can't be doubted -- I've been to the Galapagos and I've measured the size of the beaks and the size of the turtle shells and so on, and so on. And 100 pages later --(Laughter) And if there is a struggle for life, such that nearly all of these creatures die -- and this can't be doubted, I've read Malthus and I've calculated how long it would take for elephants to cover the whole world if they bred unrestricted, and so on and so on. And another 100 pages later. And if the very few that survive pass onto their offspringwhatever it was that helped them survive, then those offspring must be better adapted to the circumstances in which all this happened than their parents were.

You see the idea? If, if, if, then. He had no concept of the idea of an algorithm. But that's what he described in that book, and this is what we now know as the evolutionary algorithm. The principle is you just need those three things -- variegation, selection and heredity. And as Dan Dennett puts it, if you have those then you must get evolution. Or design out of chaos without the aid of mind.

There's one word I love on that slide. What do you think my favorite word is? Audience: Chaos. SB: Chaos? No. What? Mind? No. Audience: Without.SB: No, not without. (Laughter) You try them all in order: Mmm...? Audience: Must. Must, at must. Must, must. This is what makes it so amazing. You don't need a designer, or a plan, or foresight or anything else. If there's something that is copied with variation and it's selected, then you must get design appearing out of nowhere. You can't stop it.Must is my favorite word there.

Now, what's this to do with memes? Well, the principle here applies to anything that is copied with variation and selection. We're so used to thinking in terms of biology, we think about genes this way. Darwin didn't of course, he didn't know about genes. He talked mostly about animals and plants, but also about languages evolving and becoming extinct. But the principle of universal Darwinism is that any information that is varied and selected will produce design.

And this is what Richard Dawkins was on about in his 1976 bestseller, "The Selfish Gene." The information that is copied, he called the replicator.It selfishly copies. Not meaning it kind of sits around inside cells going, "I want to get copied."But that it will get copied if it can, regardless of the consequences. It doesn't care about the consequences because it can't, because it's just information being copied. And he wanted to get away from everybody thinking all the time about genes, and so he said, "Is there another replicator out there on the planet?" Ah, yes, there is.

Look around you, here will do, in this room. All around us, still clumsily drifting about in its primeval soup of culture, is another replicator.Information that we copy from person to person by imitation, by language, by talking, by telling stories,by wearing clothes, by doing things. This is information copied with variation and selection.This is design process going on. He wanted a name for the new replicator. So he took the Greek word mimeme, which means that which is imitated. Remember that, that's the core definition.That which is imitated. And abbreviated it to meme, just because it sounds good and made a good meme, an effective spreading meme. So that's how the idea came about. It's important to stick with that definition.

The whole science of memetics is much maligned,much misunderstood, much feared. But a lot of these problems can be avoided by remembering the definition. A meme is not equivalent to an idea.It's not an idea, it's not equivalent to anything else, really. Stick with the definition. It's that which is imitated. Or information which is copied from person to person. So, let's see some memes.

Well, you sir, you've got those glasses hung around your neck in that particularly fetching way. I wonder whether you invented that idea for yourself,or copied it from someone else? If you copied it from someone else, it's a meme. And what about, ooh, I can't see any interesting memes here. All right everyone, who's got some interesting memes for me? Oh well, your earrings, I don't suppose you invented the idea of earrings. You probably went out and bought them. There are plenty more in the shops. That's something that's passed on from person to person. All the stories that we're telling, well of course, TED is a great memefest, masses of memes.

The way to think about memes though, is to think, why do they spread? They're selfish information, they will get copied if they can. But some of them will be copied because they're good, or true, or useful, or beautiful. Some of them will be copied even though they're not. Some, it's quite hard to tell why.

There's one particular curious meme which I rather enjoy. And I'm glad to say, as I expected, I found it when I came here, and I'm sure all of you found it too. You go to your nice posh international hotel somewhere, and you come in and you put down your clothes and you go to the bathroom, and what do you see? Audience: Bathroom soap. SB: Pardon? Audience: Soap. SB: Soap, yeah. What else do you see? Audience: (Inaudible) SB: Mmm mmm. Audience: Sink, toilet! SB: Sink, toilet, yes, these are all memes, they're all memes, but they're sort of useful ones, and then there's this one.(Laughter) What is this one doing? (Laughter) This has spread all over the world. It's not surprising that you all found it when you arrived in your bathrooms here. But I took this photograph in a toilet at the back of a tent in the eco-camp in the jungle in Assam. (Laughter) Who folded that thing up there, and why? (Laughter) Some people get carried away. (Laughter) Other people are just lazy and make mistakes. Some hotels exploit the opportunity to put even more memes with a little sticker. (Laughter) What is this all about? I suppose it's there to tell you that somebody'scleaned the place, and it's all lovely. And you know, actually all it tells you is that another person has potentially spread germs from place to place.(Laughter)

So think of it this way. Imagine a world full of brainsand far more memes than can possibly find homes. The memes are all trying to get copied,trying, in inverted commas, i.e., that's the shorthand for, if they can get copied they will. They're using you and me as their propagating copying machinery, and we are the meme machines.

Now, why is this important? Why is this useful, or what does it tell us? It gives us a completely new view of human origins and what it means to be human. All conventional theories of cultural evolution, of the origin of humans, and what makes us so different from other species. All other theories explaining the big brain, and language and tool use and all these things that make us unique, are based upon genes. Language must have been useful for the genes. Tool use must have enhanced our survival, mating and so on. It always comes back, as Richard Dawkins complained all that long time ago, it always comes back to genes.

The point of memetics is to say, "Oh no it doesn't."There are two replicators now on this planet. From the moment that our ancestors, perhaps two and a half million years ago or so, began imitating, there was a new copying process. Copying with variation and selection. A new replicator was let loose, and it could never be -- right from the start, it could never be that human beings who let loose this new creature, could just copy the useful, beautiful, true things, and not copy the other things. While their brains were having an advantage from being able to copy -- lighting fires, keeping fires going, new techniques of hunting, these kinds of things --inevitably they were also copying putting feathers in their hair, or wearing strange clothes, or painting their faces, or whatever.

So you get an arms race between the genes which are trying to get the humans to have small economical brains and not waste their time copying all this stuff, and the memes themselves, like the sounds that people made and copied -- in other words, what turned out to be language --competing to get the brains to get bigger and bigger. So the big brain on this theory is driven by the memes.

This is why, in "The Meme Machine," I called it memetic drive. As the memes evolve, as they inevitably must, they drive a bigger brain that is better at copying the memes that are doing the driving. This is why we've ended up with such peculiar brains, that we like religion, and music, and art. Language is a parasite that we've adapted to, not something that was there originally for our genes, on this view. And like most parasites it can begin dangerous, but then it co-evolves and adaptsand we end up with a symbiotic relationship with this new parasite.

And so from our perspective, we don't realize that that's how it began. So this is a view of what humans are. All other species on this planet are gene machines only, they don't imitate at all well, hardly at all. We alone are gene machines and meme machines as well. The memes took a gene machine and turned it into a meme machine.

But that's not all. We have new kind of memes now.I've been wondering for a long time, since I've been thinking about memes a lot, is there a difference between the memes that we copy -- the words we speak to each other, the gestures we copy, the human things -- and all these technological things around us? I have always, until now, called them all memes, but I do honestly think now we need a new word for technological memes.

Let's call them technomemes or temes. Because the processes are getting different. We began, perhaps 5,000 years ago, with writing. We put the storage of memes out there on a clay tablet, but in order to get true temes and true teme machines,you need to get the variation, the selection and the copying, all done outside of humans. And we're getting there. We're at this extraordinary point where we're nearly there, that there are machines like that. And indeed, in the short time I've already been at TED, I see we're even closer than I thought we were before.

So actually, now the temes are forcing our brains to become more like teme machines. Our children are growing up very quickly learning to read,learning to use machinery. We're going to have all kinds of implants, drugs that force us to stay awake all the time. We'll think we're choosing these things, but the temes are making us do it. So we're at this cusp now of having a third replicator on our planet. Now, what about what else is going on out there in the universe? Is there anyone else out there? People have been asking this question for a long time. We've been asking it here at TED already. In 1961, Frank Drake made his famous equation, but I think he concentrated on the wrong things. It's been very productive, that equation. He wanted to estimate N, the number of communicative civilizations out there in our galaxy.And he included in there the rate of star formation,the rate of planets, but crucially, intelligence.

I think that's the wrong way to think about it.Intelligence appears all over the place, in all kinds of guises. Human intelligence is only one kind of a thing. But what's really important is the replicators you have and the levels of replicators, one feeding on the one before. So I would suggest that we don't think intelligence, we think replicators.

And on that basis, I've suggested a different kind of equation. A very simple equation. N, the same thing, the number of communicative civilizations out there, we might expect in our galaxy. Just start with the number of planets there are in our galaxy.The fraction of those which get a first replicator.The fraction of those that get the second replicator.The fraction of those that get the third replicator.Because it's only the third replicator that's going to reach out -- sending information, sending probes, getting out there, and communicating with anywhere else.

OK, so if we take that equation, why haven't we heard from anybody out there? Because every step is dangerous. Getting a new replicator is dangerous. You can pull through, we have pulled through, but it's dangerous. Take the first step, as soon as life appeared on this earth. We may take the Gaian view. I loved Peter Ward's talk yesterday -- it's not Gaian all the time. Actually, life forms produce things that kill themselves. Well, we did pull through on this planet.

But then, a long time later, billions of years later,we got the second replicator, the memes. That was dangerous, all right. Think of the big brain. How many mothers do we have here? You know all about big brains. They're dangerous to give birth to.Are agonizing to give birth to. (Laughter) My cat gave birth to four kittens, purring all the time. Ah, mm -- slightly different. (Laughter)

But not only is it painful, it kills lots of babies, it kills lots of mothers, and it's very expensive to produce.The genes are forced into producing all this myelin,all the fat to myelinate the brain. Do you know, sitting here, your brain is using about 20 percent of your body's energy output for two percent of your body weight. It's a really expensive organ to run.Why? Because it's producing the memes.

Now, it could have killed us off -- it could have killed us off, and maybe it nearly did, but you see, we don't know. But maybe it nearly did. Has it been tried before? What about all those other species?Louise Leakey talked yesterday about how we're the only one in this branch left. What happened to the others? Could it be that this experiment in imitation, this experiment in a second replicator, is dangerous enough to kill people off?

Well, we did pull through, and we adapted. But now, we're hitting, as I've just described, we're hitting the third replicator point. And this is even more dangerous -- well, it's dangerous again.Why? Because the temes are selfish replicatorsand they don't care about us, or our planet, or anything else. They're just information -- why would they? They are using us to suck up the planet's resources to produce more computers, and more of all these amazing things we're hearing about here at TED. Don't think, "Oh, we created the Internet for our own benefit." That's how it seems to us. Think temes spreading because they must. We are the old machines.

Now, are we going to pull through? What's going to happen? What does it mean to pull through? Well, there are kind of two ways of pulling through. One that is obviously happening all around us now, is that the temes turn us into teme machines, with these implants, with the drugs, with us merging with the technology. And why would they do that?Because we are self-replicating. We have babies.We make new ones, and so it's convenient to piggyback on us, because we're not yet at the stage on this planet where the other option is viable. Although it's closer, I heard this morning, it's closer than I thought it was. Where the teme machines themselves will replicate themselves.That way, it wouldn't matter if the planet's climatewas utterly destabilized, and it was no longer possible for humans to live here. Because those teme machines, they wouldn't need -- they're not squishy, wet, oxygen-breathing, warmth-requiring creatures. They could carry on without us.

So, those are the two possibilities. The second, I don't think we're that close. It's coming, but we're not there yet. The first, it's coming too. But the damage that is already being done to the planet is showing us how dangerous the third point is, that third danger point, getting a third replicator. And will we get through this third danger point, like we got through the second and like we got through the first? Maybe we will, maybe we won't. I have no idea. (Applause) Chris Anderson: That was an incredible talk. SB: Thank you. I scared myself. CA: (Laughter)

[Repost] 21 Health Benefits of a Cold Shower

“Cold water can do more than just wash away sweat, dirt, old skin cells, bacteria, and viruses:

What a Cold Shower Can Do For You

1. Enhance immunity against infections and cancer
2. Give your glands (thyroid, adrenals, ovaries/testes) a boost, improving hormonal activity
3. Jump-start your mood and motivation
4. Crank up your metabolism to fight type 2 diabetes, obesity, gout, rheumatic diseases, depression, and more
5. Normalize your blood pressure
6. Decrease chronic pain
7. Train and improve your blood circulation
8. Detoxify your body
9. Fight fatigue
10. Strengthen exhausted, irritable nerves
11. Rejuvenate, heal, and tone the skin
12. Deepen your breathing
13. Help with insomnia
14. Improve kidney function
15. Reduce swelling and edema
16. Improve lymphatic circulation, thereby increasing immune function
17. Reduce stress by regulating your autonomic nervous system
18. Regulate temperature, fighting chronically cold hands and cold feet and excessive sweating
19. Keep your hair healthy
20. Improve hemorrhoids and varicose veins
21. Reduce aches and pains
    http://www.cold-showers.com/a-doctors-view-on-cold-showers/

Be assured that what happened is the best for you

Student's question

Q: What's economy capital stock ? is that the same as gross invstment?  and if i buy built a house for 15000 ten years ago and sell it this year for 10000 how does it affect THIS YEAR GDP?

A: Capital stock is a stock variable, measuring the amount of capital at a certain time; while investment is a flow variable. Capital stock can be affected by investment. Actually two factors that influence capital stock are investment and depreciation. The capital stock will not affect GDP, which is a flow variable.

The problem you mentioned will not depend on the understanding of capital stock. Just note that the trade of the house will not affect this year's GDP, for nothing new is produced. Only purchase of new houses can be counted as investment.

What Are You Going to Do With That? By William Deresiewicz

The essay below is adapted from a talk delivered to a freshman class at Stanford University in May.

The question my title poses, of course, is the one that is classically aimed at humanities majors. What practical value could there possibly be in studying literature or art or philosophy? So you must be wondering why I'm bothering to raise it here, at Stanford, this renowned citadel of science and technology. What doubt can there be that the world will offer you many opportunities to use your degree?

But that's not the question I'm asking. By "do" I don't mean a job, and by "that" I don't mean your major. We are more than our jobs, and education is more than a major. Education is more than college, more even than the totality of your formal schooling, from kindergarten through graduate school. By "What are you going to do," I mean, what kind of life are you going to lead? And by "that," I mean everything in your training, formal and informal, that has brought you to be sitting here today, and everything you're going to be doing for the rest of the time that you're in school.

We should start by talking about how you did, in fact, get here. You got here by getting very good at a certain set of skills. Your parents pushed you to excel from the time you were very young. They sent you to good schools, where the encouragement of your teachers and the example of your peers helped push you even harder. Your natural aptitudes were nurtured so that, in addition to excelling in all your subjects, you developed a number of specific interests that you cultivated with particular vigor. You did extracurricular activities, went to afterschool programs, took private lessons. You spent summers doing advanced courses at a local college or attending skill-specific camps and workshops. You worked hard, you paid attention, and you tried your very best. And so you got very good at math, or piano, or lacrosse, or, indeed, several things at once.

Now there's nothing wrong with mastering skills, with wanting to do your best and to be the best. What's wrong is what the system leaves out: which is to say, everything else. I don't mean that by choosing to excel in math, say, you are failing to develop your verbal abilities to their fullest extent, or that in addition to focusing on geology, you should also focus on political science, or that while you're learning the piano, you should also be working on the flute. It is the nature of specialization, after all, to be specialized. No, the problem with specialization is that it narrows your attention to the point where all you know about and all you want to know about, and, indeed, all you can know about, is your specialty.

The problem with specialization is that it makes you into a specialist. It cuts you off, not only from everything else in the world, but also from everything else in yourself. And of course, as college freshmen, your specialization is only just beginning. In the journey toward the success that you all hope to achieve, you have completed, by getting into Stanford, only the first of many legs. Three more years of college, three or four or five years of law school or medical school or a Ph.D. program, then residencies or postdocs or years as a junior associate. In short, an ever-narrowing funnel of specialization. You go from being a political-science major to being a lawyer to being a corporate attorney to being a corporate attorney focusing on taxation issues in the consumer-products industry. You go from being a biochemistry major to being a doctor to being a cardiologist to being a cardiac surgeon who performs heart-valve replacements.

Again, there's nothing wrong with being those things. It's just that, as you get deeper and deeper into the funnel, into the tunnel, it becomes increasingly difficult to remember who you once were. You start to wonder what happened to that person who played piano and lacrosse and sat around with her friends having intense conversations about life and politics and all the things she was learning in her classes. The 19-year-old who could do so many things, and was interested in so many things, has become a 40-year-old who thinks about only one thing. That's why older people are so boring. "Hey, my dad's a smart guy, but all he talks about is money and livers."

And there's another problem. Maybe you never really wanted to be a cardiac surgeon in the first place. It just kind of happened. It's easy, the way the system works, to simply go with the flow. I don't mean the work is easy, but the choices are easy. Or rather, the choices sort of make themselves. You go to a place like Stanford because that's what smart kids do. You go to medical school because it's prestigious. You specialize in cardiology because it's lucrative. You do the things that reap the rewards, that make your parents proud, and your teachers pleased, and your friends impressed. From the time you started high school and maybe even junior high, your whole goal was to get into the best college you could, and so now you naturally think about your life in terms of "getting into" whatever's next. "Getting into" is validation; "getting into" is victory. Stanford, then Johns Hopkins medical school, then a residency at the University of San Francisco, and so forth. Or Michigan Law School, or Goldman Sachs, or Mc­Kinsey, or whatever. You take it one step at a time, and the next step always seems to be inevitable.

Or maybe you did always want to be a cardiac surgeon. You dreamed about it from the time you were 10 years old, even though you had no idea what it really meant, and you stayed on course for the entire time you were in school. You refused to be enticed from your path by that great experience you had in AP history, or that trip you took to Costa Rica the summer after your junior year in college, or that terrific feeling you got taking care of kids when you did your rotation in pediatrics during your fourth year in medical school.

But either way, either because you went with the flow or because you set your course very early, you wake up one day, maybe 20 years later, and you wonder what happened: how you got there, what it all means. Not what it means in the "big picture," whatever that is, but what it means to you. Why you're doing it, what it's all for. It sounds like a cliché, this "waking up one day," but it's called having a midlife crisis, and it happens to people all the time.

There is an alternative, however, and it may be one that hasn't occurred to you. Let me try to explain it by telling you a story about one of your peers, and the alternative that hadn't occurred to her. A couple of years ago, I participated in a panel discussion at Harvard that dealt with some of these same matters, and afterward I was contacted by one of the students who had come to the event, a young woman who was writing her senior thesis about Harvard itself, how it instills in its students what she called self-efficacy, the sense that you can do anything you want. Self-efficacy, or, in more familiar terms, self-esteem. There are some kids, she said, who get an A on a test and say, "I got it because it was easy." And there are other kids, the kind with self-efficacy or self-esteem, who get an A on a test and say, "I got it because I'm smart."

Again, there's nothing wrong with thinking that you got an A because you're smart. But what that Harvard student didn't realize—and it was really quite a shock to her when I suggested it—is that there is a third alternative. True self-esteem, I proposed, means not caring whether you get an A in the first place. True self-esteem means recognizing, despite everything that your upbringing has trained you to believe about yourself, that the grades you get—and the awards, and the test scores, and the trophies, and the acceptance letters—are not what defines who you are.

She also claimed, this young woman, that Harvard students take their sense of self-efficacy out into the world and become, as she put it, "innovative." But when I asked her what she meant by innovative, the only example she could come up with was "being CEO of a Fortune 500." That's not innovative, I told her, that's just successful, and successful according to a very narrow definition of success. True innovation means using your imagination, exercising the capacity to envision new possibilities.

But I'm not here to talk about technological innovation, I'm here to talk about a different kind. It's not about inventing a new machine or a new drug. It's about inventing your own life. Not following a path, but making your own path. The kind of imagination I'm talking about is moral imagination. "Moral" meaning not right or wrong, but having to do with making choices. Moral imagination means the capacity to envision new ways to live your life.

It means not just going with the flow. It means not just "getting into" whatever school or program comes next. It means figuring out what you want for yourself, not what your parents want, or your peers want, or your school wants, or your society wants. Originating your own values. Thinking your way toward your own definition of success. Not simply accepting the life that you've been handed. Not simply accepting the choices you've been handed. When you walk into Starbucks, you're offered a choice among a latte and a macchiato and an espresso and a few other things, but you can also make another choice. You can turn around and walk out. When you walk into college, you are offered a choice among law and medicine and investment banking and consulting and a few other things, but again, you can also do something else, something that no one has thought of before.

Let me give you another counterexample. I wrote an essay a couple of years ago that touched on some of these same points. I said, among other things, that kids at places like Yale or Stanford tend to play it safe and go for the conventional rewards. And one of the most common criticisms I got went like this: What about Teach for America? Lots of kids from elite colleges go and do TFA after they graduate, so therefore I was wrong. TFA, TFA—I heard that over and over again. And Teach for America is undoubtedly a very good thing. But to cite TFA in response to my argument is precisely to miss the point, and to miss it in a way that actually confirms what I'm saying. The problem with TFA—or rather, the problem with the way that TFA has become incorporated into the system—is that it's just become another thing to get into.

In terms of its content, Teach for America is completely different from Goldman Sachs or McKinsey or Harvard Medical School or Berkeley Law, but in terms of its place within the structure of elite expectations, of elite choices, it is exactly the same. It's prestigious, it's hard to get into, it's something that you and your parents can brag about, it looks good on your résumé, and most important, it represents a clearly marked path. You don't have to make it up yourself, you don't have to do anything but apply and do the work­—just like college or law school or McKinsey or whatever. It's the Stanford or Harvard of social engagement. It's another hurdle, another badge. It requires aptitude and diligence, but it does not require a single ounce of moral imagination.

Moral imagination is hard, and it's hard in a completely different way than the hard things you're used to doing. And not only that, it's not enough. If you're going to invent your own life, if you're going to be truly autonomous, you also need courage: moral courage. The courage to act on your values in the face of what everyone's going to say and do to try to make you change your mind. Because they're not going to like it. Morally courageous individuals tend to make the people around them very uncomfortable. They don't fit in with everybody else's ideas about the way the world is supposed to work, and still worse, they make them feel insecure about the choices that they themselves have made—or failed to make. People don't mind being in prison as long as no one else is free. But stage a jailbreak, and everybody else freaks out.

In A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Joyce has Stephen Dedalus famously say, about growing up in Ireland in the late 19th century, "When the soul of a man is born in this country there are nets flung at it to hold it back from flight. You talk to me of nationality, language, religion. I shall try to fly by those nets."

Today there are other nets. One of those nets is a term that I've heard again and again as I've talked with students about these things. That term is "self-indulgent." "Isn't it self-indulgent to try to live the life of the mind when there are so many other things I could be doing with my degree?" "Wouldn't it be self-indulgent to pursue painting after I graduate instead of getting a real job?"

These are the kinds of questions that young people find themselves being asked today if they even think about doing something a little bit different. Even worse, the kinds of questions they are made to feel compelled to ask themselves. Many students have spoken to me, as they navigated their senior years, about the pressure they felt from their peers—from their peers—to justify a creative or intellectual life. You're made to feel like you're crazy: crazy to forsake the sure thing, crazy to think it could work, crazy to imagine that you even have a right to try.

Think of what we've come to. It is one of the great testaments to the intellectual—and moral, and spiritual—poverty of American society that it makes its most intelligent young people feel like they're being self-indulgent if they pursue their curiosity. You are all told that you're supposed to go to college, but you're also told that you're being "self-indulgent" if you actually want to get an education. Or even worse, give yourself one. As opposed to what? Going into consulting isn't self-indulgent? Going into finance isn't self-indulgent? Going into law, like most of the people who do, in order to make yourself rich, isn't self-indulgent? It's not OK to play music, or write essays, because what good does that really do anyone, but it is OK to work for a hedge fund. It's selfish to pursue your passion, unless it's also going to make you a lot of money, in which case it's not selfish at all.

Do you see how absurd this is? But these are the nets that are flung at you, and this is what I mean by the need for courage. And it's a never-ending proc­ess. At that Harvard event two years ago, one person said, about my assertion that college students needed to keep rethinking the decisions they've made about their lives, "We already made our decisions, back in middle school, when we decided to be the kind of high achievers who get into Harvard." And I thought, who wants to live with the decisions that they made when they were 12? Let me put that another way. Who wants to let a 12-year-old decide what they're going to do for the rest of their lives? Or a 19-year-old, for that matter?

All you can decide is what you think now, and you need to be prepared to keep making revisions. Because let me be clear. I'm not trying to persuade you all to become writers or musicians. Being a doctor or a lawyer, a scientist or an engineer or an economist—these are all valid and admirable choices. All I'm saying is that you need to think about it, and think about it hard. All I'm asking is that you make your choices for the right reasons. All I'm urging is that you recognize and embrace your moral freedom.

And most of all, don't play it safe. Resist the seductions of the cowardly values our society has come to prize so highly: comfort, convenience, security, predictability, control. These, too, are nets. Above all, resist the fear of failure. Yes, you will make mistakes. But they will be your mistakes, not someone else's. And you will survive them, and you will know yourself better for having made them, and you will be a fuller and a stronger person.

It's been said—and I'm not sure I agree with this, but it's an idea that's worth taking seriously—that you guys belong to a "postemotional" generation. That you prefer to avoid messy and turbulent and powerful feelings. But I say, don't shy away from the challenging parts of yourself. Don't deny the desires and curiosities, the doubts and dissatisfactions, the joy and the darkness, that might knock you off the path that you have set for yourself. College is just beginning for you, adulthood is just beginning. Open yourself to the possibilities they represent. The world is much larger than you can imagine right now. Which means, you are much larger than you can imagine.

William Deresiewicz is a contributing writer for The Nation and a contributing editor at The New Republic. His next book, A Jane Austen Education, will be published next year by Penguin Press.

William Deresiewicz 2010年在斯坦福大学的演讲：

我的题目提出的问题，当然，是一个传统地面向人文科学的专业所提出的问题：学习文学、艺术或哲学能有什么实效价值（practical value）？你肯定纳闷，我为什么在以科技堡垒而闻名的斯坦福提出这个问题呢？大学学位给人带来众多机会，这还有什么需要质疑的吗？

但那不是我提出的问题。这里的“做（do）”并不是指工作（job），“那(that)”并不是指你的专业（major）。]我们不仅仅是我们的工作，教育的全部也不仅仅是一门主修专业。（We are more than our jobs, and education is more than a major.）教育也不仅仅是上大学，甚至也不仅是从幼儿园到研究生院的正规学校教育。我说的“你要做什么”的意思是你要过什么样的生活（what kind of life are you going to lead?）？我所说的“那”指的是你得到的正规或非正规的任何训练，那些把你送到这里来的东西，你在学校的剩余时间里将要做的任何事。

我们不妨先来讨论你是如何考入斯坦福的吧。

你能进入这所大学说明你在某些技能（skills）上非常出色。你的父母在你很小的时候就鼓励你追求卓越（excel）。他们送你到好学校，老师的鼓励和同伴的榜样激励你更努力地学习。除了在所有课程上都出类拔萃之外，你还注重修养的提高，充满热情地培养了一些特殊兴趣。你用几个暑假在本地大学里预习大学课程，或参加专门技能的夏令营或训练营。你学习刻苦、精力集中、全力以赴。所以，你在数学、钢琴、曲棍球等众多方面都很出色。

掌握这些技能当然没有错，全力以赴成为最优秀的人也没有错。错误之处在于这个体系遗漏的地方：即任何别的东西（everything else）。我并不是说因为选择钻研数学，你在充分发展话语表达能力的潜力方面就失败了；也不是说除了集中精力学习地质学之外，你还应该研究政治学；也不是说你在学习钢琴时还应该学吹笛子。毕竟，专业化的本质就是要专业性。可是，专业化的问题在于它把你的注意力限制在一个点上，你所已知的和你想探知的东西都限界于此（it narrows your attention to the point where all you know about and all you want to know about）。真的，你能知道的一切就只是你的专业了。

专业化（specialization）的问题是它让你成为专家（specialist），切断你与世界上其他任何东西的联系，不仅如此，还切断你与自身其他潜能的联系（It cuts you off, not only from everything else in the world, but also from everything else in yourself.）。当然，作为大一新生，你的专业才刚刚开始。在你走向所渴望的成功之路的过程中，进入斯坦福是你踏上的众多阶梯中的一个。再读三年大学，三五年法学院或医学院或博士，然后再干若干年住院实习生或博士后或助理教授。总而言之，进入越来越狭窄的专业化轨道。你可能从政治学专业的学生变成了律师或者公司代理人，再变成专门研究消费品领域的税收问题的公司代理人。你从生物化学专业的学生变成了博士，再变成心脏病学家，再变成专门做心脏瓣膜移植的心脏病医生。

再次，做这些事没有任何错。只不过，在你越来越深入地进入这个轨道后，再记得你最初的样子（remember who you once were）就益发困难了。你开始怀念那个曾经谈钢琴和打曲棍球的人，思考那个曾经和朋友热烈讨论人生和政治以及在课堂内容的人在做什么。那个活泼能干的19岁年轻人已经变成了只想一件事的40岁中年人。（The 19-year-old who could do so many things, and was interested in so many things, has become a 40-year-old who thinks about only one thing.）难怪年长的人这么乏味无趣。（That's why older people are so boring.）“哎，我爸爸曾经是非常聪明的人，但他现在除了谈论钱和肝脏外再无其他。” （"Hey, my dad's a smart guy, but all he talks about is money and livers."）

还有另外一个问题。

或许你从来没有想过当心脏病医生，只是碰巧发生了而已。随大流最容易，这就是体制的力量。（It's easy, the way the system works, to simply go with the flow.）我不是说这个工作容易，而是说做出这种选择很容易。或者，这些根本就不是自己做出的选择。你来到斯坦福这样的名牌大学是因为聪明的孩子都这样（because that's what smart kids do.）。你考入医学院是因为它的地位高，人人都羡慕。你选择心脏病学是因为当心脏病医生的待遇很好。你做那些事能给你带来好处，让你的父母感到骄傲，令你的老师感到高兴，也让朋友们羡慕。从你上高中开始，甚至初中开始，你的唯一目标就是进入最好的大学，所以现在你会很自然地从“进入下个阶段”的角度看待人生（you naturally think about your life in terms of
"getting into" whatever's next）。“进入”就是能力的证明，“进入”就是胜利。先进入斯坦福，然后是约翰霍普金斯医学院，再进入旧金山大学做实习医生等。或者进入密歇根法学院，或高盛集团（GoldmanSachs）或麦肯锡公司（McKinsey）或别的什么地方。你迈出了这一步，下一步似乎就必然在等着你。
也许你确实想当心脏病学家。十岁时就梦想成为医生，即使你根本不知道医生意味着什么。你在上学期间全身心都在朝着这个目标前进。你拒绝了上大学预修历史课（AP history）时的美妙体验的诱惑，也无视你在医学院第四年的儿科学轮流值班时照看孩子的可怕感受。

但不管是什么，要么因为你随大流，要么因为你早就选定了道路，20年后某天醒来，你或许会纳闷到底发生了什么：你怎么变成现在这个样子，这一切意味着什么。不是它是什么，不在于它是否“大画面”（big picture）而是它对你意味着什么。 你为什么做它，到底为了什么。这听起来像老生常谈，但这个被称为中年危机（midlife crisis）的“有一天醒来”（"waking up one day"）一直就发生在每个人身上。

不过，还有另外一种情况，或许中年危机并不会发生在你身上。

让我通过告诉你们一个同伴的故事来解释我的意思吧，即她没有遭遇的情况。几年前，我在哈佛参加了一次小组讨论会，谈到这些问题。后来参加这次讨论的一个学生给我联系，这个哈佛学生正在写有关哈佛的毕业论文，讨论哈佛是如何给学生灌输她所说的“自我效能”（self-efficacy），一种相信自己能做一切的意识。自我效能或更熟悉的说法“自我尊重”（self-esteem）。她说在考试中得了优秀的有些学生会说“我得优秀是因为试题很简单。” 但另外一些学生，那种具有自我效能感或自我尊重的学生，考试得了优秀会说“我得优秀是因为我聪明。”
再次，认为得了优秀是因为自己聪明的想法并没有任何错，不过，哈佛学生没有认识到的是他们没有第三种选择（a third alternative）。当我指出这一点时，她十分震惊。我指出，真正的自尊意味着最初根本就不在乎成绩是否优秀。真正的自尊意味着对此问题的足够认识：尽管你在成长过程中的一切都在教导你要相信自己，但你所达到的登记，还有那些奖励、成绩、奖品、录取通知书等所有这一切，都不能来定义你是谁（defines who you are）。
她还说，这个年轻的女孩子说哈佛学生把他们的自我效能带到了世界上，如她所说的“创新”（innovative）。但当我问她“创新”意味着什么时，她能够想到的唯一例子不过是“世界大公司五百强的首席执行官”（ "being CEO of a Fortune 500"）。我告诉她这不是创新，这只是成功（that's just successful），而且是根据非常狭隘的成功定义而认定的成功而已。真正的创新意味着运用你的想象力，发挥你的潜力，创造新的可能性。（True innovation means using your imagination, exercising the capacity to envision new possibilities.）
但这里我并不是在谈论技术创新，不是发明新机器或者制造一种新药，我谈论的是另外一种创新，是创造你自己的生活（inventing your own life）。不是走现成的道路而是创造一条属于自己的道路。（Not following a path, but making your own path.）我谈论的想象力是道德想象力（moral imagination；眠按：这个是心理学专业名词）。“道德”在这里无关对错，而是与选择有关。道德想象力意味着创造自己新生的能力（envision new ways to live your life）。
它意味着不随波逐流（going with the flow），不是下一步要“进入”什么名牌大学或研究生院。而是要弄清楚自己到底想要什么，而不是父母、同伴、学校、或社会想要什么。即确认你自己的价值观（own values），思考迈向自己所定义的成功的道路，而不仅仅是接受别人给你的生活(simply accepting the life that you've been handed)，不仅仅是接受别人给你的选择。当今走进星巴克咖啡馆，服务员可能让你在牛奶咖啡（latte）、加糖咖啡（macchiato）、特制咖啡（espresso）等几样东西之间做出选择。但你可以做出另外的选择，你可以转身走出去。当你进入大学，人家给你众多选择，或法律或医学或投资银行和咨询以及其他，但你同样也可以做其他事，做从前根本没有人想过的事(something that no one has thought of before)。

让我再举一个反面的例子。

几年前我写过一篇涉及同类问题的文章。我说，那些在耶鲁和斯坦福这类名校的孩子往往比较谨慎，去追求一些稳妥的奖励。我得到的最常见的批评是：教育项目“为美国而教”（Teach for America）如何？从名校出来的很多学生毕业后很多参与这个教育项目，因此我的观点是错误的。我一再听到TFA这个术语。“为美国而教”当然是好东西，但引用这个项目来反驳我的观点恰恰是不得要领，实际上正好证明了我想说的东西。 “为美国而教”的问题或者“为美国而教”已经成为体系一部分的问题，是它已经成为另外一个需要“进入”的门槛。

从其内容来看，“为美国而教”完全不同于高盛或者麦肯锡公司或哈佛医学院或者伯克利法学院，但从它在精英期待的体系中的地位来说，完全是一样的。它享有盛名，很难进入，是值得你和父母夸耀的东西，如果写在简历上会很好看（it looks good on your résumé），最重要的是，它代表了清晰标记的道路（a clearly marked path.）。你根本不用自己创造，什么都不用做，只需申请然后按要求做就行了，就像上大学或法学院或麦肯锡公司或别的什么。它是社会参与方面的斯坦福或哈佛，是另一个栅栏，另一枚奖章。该项目需要能力和勤奋，但不需要一丁点儿的道德想象力。

道德想象力是困难的，这种困难与你已经习惯的困难完全不同。不仅如此，光有道德想象力还不够。如果你要创造自己的生活（invent your own life），如果你想成为真正的独立思想者（truly autonomous），你还需要勇气：道德勇气（moral courage）。不管别人说什么，有按自己的价值观行动的勇气，不会因为别人不喜欢而试图改变自己的想法。具有道德勇气的个人往往让周围的人感到不舒服。他们和其他人对世界的看法格格不入，更糟糕的是，让别人对自己已经做出的选择感到不安全或无法做出选择。只要别人也不享受自由，人们就不在乎自己被关进监狱。可一旦有人越狱，其他人都会跟着跑出去。
在《青年艺术家的肖像》（A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man）中，詹姆斯•乔伊斯（James Joyce）让主人公斯蒂芬•迪达勒斯（Stephen Dedalus）就19世纪末期的爱尔兰的成长环境说出了如下名言“当一个人的灵魂诞生在这个国家时，有一张大网把它罩住，防止它飞翔。你会给我谈论民族性、语言和宗教。我想冲出这些牢笼。”（"When the soul of a man is born in this country there are nets flung at it to hold it back from flight. You talk to me of nationality, language, religion. I shall try to fly by those nets."）

今天，我们面临的是其他的网。
其中之一是我在就这些问题与学生交流时经常听到的一个术语“自我放任”（"self-indulgent"）。“在攻读学位过程中有这么多事要做的时候（so many other things），试图按照自己的感觉生活难道不是自我放任吗？”“毕业后不去找个真正的工作（getting a real job）而去画画难道不是自我放任吗？”

这些是年轻人只要思考一下稍稍出格（a little bit different）的事就不由自主地质问自己的问题。更糟糕的是，他们觉得提出这些问题是理所应当（feel compelled）的。许多学生在毕业前夕的未来探索中跟我说，他们感受到来自同伴那里的压力（the pressure they felt from their peers），需要为创造性的生活或思想生活辩护（to justify a creative or intellectual life）。好像自己已经走火入魔了似的：抛弃确定无疑的东西是疯了，认为思想生活可行是疯了，想象你有权尝试是疯了。（You're made to feel like you're crazy: crazy to forsake the sure thing, crazy to think it could work, crazy to imagine that you even have a right to try.眠按：“羊霸王”比更外界的压力更厉害。）

想象我们现在面临的局面。这是美国社会的贫困——思想、道德和精神贫困的最明显症状，美国最聪明的年轻人竟然认为听从自己的好奇心行动就是自我放任。你们得到的教导是应该上大学，但你们同时也被告知如果真的想得到教育，那就是“自我放任”。如果你自我教育的话，更糟糕。这是什么道理？进入证券咨询业是不是自我放任？进入金融业是不是自我放任？像许多人那样进入律师界发财是不是自我放任？搞音乐，写文章就不行，因为它不能给人带来利益（what good does that really do anyone）。但为风险投资公司工作就可以。追求自己的理想和激情是自私的，除非它能让你赚很多钱。那样的话，就一点儿也不自私了。（It's selfish to pursue your passion, unless it's also going to make you a lot of money, in which case it's not selfish at all.）

你看到这些观点是多么荒谬了吗？这就是罩在你们身上的网，就是我说的需要勇气的意思。这是永不停息的过程（a never-ending process）。在两年前的哈佛事件中，有个学生谈到我说的大学生需要重新思考人生决定的观点，他说“我们已经做出了决定，我们早在中学时就已经决定成为能够进入哈佛的高材生。”我在想，谁会打算按照他在12岁时做出的决定生活呢？(who wants to live with the decisions that they made when they were 12?) 让我换一种说法，谁愿意让一个12岁的孩子决定他们未来一辈子要做什么呢？或者一个19岁的小毛孩儿？

你能做出的决定是你现在想什么，你需要准备好不断修改自己的决定。
让我说得更明白一些。我不是在试图说服你们都成为音乐家或者作家。成为医生、律师、科学家、工程师或者经济学家没有什么不好，这些都是可靠的、可敬的选择（valid and admirable choices）。我想说的是你需要思考它，认真地思考（think about it hard）。我请求你们做的，是根据正确的理由做出你的选择。我在敦促你们的，是认识到你的道德自由（moral freedom）并热情拥抱它。

最重要的是，不要过分谨慎。（Don't play it safe.）去拒否（RESIST）我们社会给予了过高奖赏的那些卑怯的价值观的诱惑：舒服、方便、安全、可预测的、可控制的。这些，同样是罗网。最重要的是，去拒否失败的恐惧感。是的，你会犯错误。可那是你的错误，不是别人的。你将从错误中缓过来，而且，正是因为这些错误，你更好地认识你自己。由此，你成为更完整和强大的人（a fuller and a stronger person）。
人们常说你们年轻人属于“后情感”一代（a "postemotional" generation），我想我未必赞同这个说法，但这个说法值得严肃对待。你们更愿意规避混乱、动荡和强烈的感情（avoid messy and turbulent and powerful feelings），但我想说，不要回避挑战自我（the challenging parts of yourself），不要否认欲望和好奇心（the desires and curiosities）、怀疑和不满（the doubts and dissatisfactions）、快乐和阴郁（the joy and the darkness），它们可能改变你预设的人生轨迹。大学刚开始，成年时代也才刚开始。打开自己，直面各种可能性吧。这个世界的深广远超你现在想象的边际。这意味着，你自身的深广也将远超你现在的想象。