强壮与脆弱

如果你可以失去全部财产，用不着为此而变得谦卑，那你才算是地位稳固。[1]

要测试一个人对重复性错误的抵抗力，可以当众问他“是不是还过得很艰苦”或者“是不是还在损失金钱”，看他的反应。

强壮是不会失去耐心的进步。

如果在两种选择之间摇摆不定，那就两种都别选。

民族国家喜欢战争，城邦喜欢商业，家庭喜欢稳定，个人喜欢娱乐。

当你在乎喜欢你作品的少数人甚于不喜欢你作品的多数人时（艺术家），你是强壮的；当你在乎不喜欢你作品的少数人甚于喜欢你作品的多数人时（政客），你是脆弱的。

理性主义者想象着没有傻瓜的社会；经验主义者想象着不受傻瓜影响的社会，或者更棒的是，不受理性主义者影响的社会。

学者只有在试图一无用处时才能发挥作用（例如在数学和哲学中），而在试图发挥作用时则会很危险。

对于强壮的人，错误提供了信息；对于脆弱的人，错误就是错误。

要衡量你对名誉损失的抵抗力，想想你收到一名记者的邮件时会有什么情绪反应（害怕，开心，无聊）。

作为一名作家的主要坏处在于，你公开或者私下做的任何事情都不会损害你的名誉，特别是在英国。

当仇恨对象改变时，原先的仇恨就结束了；一般人没法同时拥有多于一个的敌人。正因为如此，由时而结成同盟、时而互相征战的城邦组成的系统才是强壮的系统。

我发现，讨厌大政府却喜欢大企业是一件不搭调的事，但反过来则不是。

你乘坐的洲际航班晚点一个小时、三个小时、六个小时有多少次？提前一个小时、三个小时、六个小时到达又有多少次？这解释了为什么缺陷的程度总是比预计的更严重，而不是更轻微。

[1]这是我曾曾曾曾曾祖爷爷提出来的。

ROBUSTNESS AND FRAGILITY

You are only secure if you can lose your fortune without the additional worse insult of having to become humble.

To test someone's robustness to reputational errors, ask a man in front of an audience if he is "still doing poorly" or if he is "still losing money" and watch his reaction.

Robustness is progress without impatience.

When conflicted between two choices, take neither.

Nation-states like war; city-tates like commerce; families like stability; and individuals like entertainment.

Robust is when you care more about the few who like your work than the multitude who dislike it (artists); fragile when you care more about the few who dislike your work than the multitude who like it (politicians).

The rationalist imagines an imbecile-free society; the empiricist an imbecile-proof one, or, even better, a rationalist-proof one.

Academics are only useful when they try to be useless (say, as in mathematics and philosophy) and dangerous when they try to be useful.

For the robust, an error is information; for the fragile, an error is an error.

The best test of robustness to reputational damage is your emotional state (fear, joy, boredom) when you get an email from a journalist.

The main disadvantage of being a writer, particularly in Britain, is that there is nothing you can do in public or private that would da mage your reputation.

Passionate hate (by nations and individuals) ends by rotation to another subject of hate; mediocrity cannot handle more than one enemy. This makes warring statelings with shifting alliances and enmities a robust system.

I find it inconsistent (and corrupt) to dislike big government while favoring big business——but (alas) not the reverse.

How often have you arrived one, three, or six hours late on a transatlantic flight as opposed to one, three , or six hours early? This explains why deficits tend to be larger, rarely smaller, than planned.