新的一年做個嶄新的自己

THE annual ritual of the New Year’s resolution — I’ll lose 10 pounds, get my finances in order, be more patient with my family, feel more grateful — misses the point. We try to steel our wills to do what we already know we should be doing. Kick-in-the-pants reminders, however stern, are missed opportunities for genuine self-renewal. (Not to mention that the shelf life of any motivational juice we generate in January tends to expire in February.)

制定新年規劃這個一年一度的常規動作——我要減重10磅，要解決財務問題，要更耐心地對待家人，要更知道感恩——總是放錯重點。我們竭力強化意志，去做已經意識到自己該做的那些事情。但好似“催命符”的備忘錄不管多嚴苛，都無法激勵人們進行真正的自我更新。（更別提1月份才成形的這些宏圖大志是多麼容易過期，2月份一到，它們往往就宣告破產。）

The turning over of a new year is an opportunity to create ourselves anew. How? The key, I suggest, is in shifting our understanding of the choices we make. For many people, the most important choices in life are sources of agony, dread, paralysis — even depression or suicide. It doesn’t have to be like this.

新年來臨之際是重新塑造自我的良機。如何塑造呢？我認爲，關鍵在於換個角度來理解我們所做的選擇。對很多人而言，生命中最重要的一些選擇是痛苦、恐懼、無力的根源，甚至會讓人產生抑鬱和自殺傾向。但事情並不一定非是如此不可。

A hypothetical example: Eve works as a textbook editor at a Boston publishing house and was approached by a small but prestigious imprint on the West Coast that was looking for a fiction editor. The job would be a big promotion, with a significant raise, and Eve had always wanted to work in fiction.

比方說，伊芙是波士頓某出版社的教科書編輯，西海岸一家正在尋找小說編輯的出版公司找到了她。該公司規模雖小，但卻久負盛名。接受這份工作，伊芙的職位會大大提升，薪水會大幅提高，而且她一直都想在小說領域發展。

But Eve is in crisis. Should she move her husband and young daughter from their cozy life in Boston, her home of 15 years, to the wilds of California? If she stays, will she be forsaking the opportunity of a lifetime? If she moves, will her new boss turn out to be a jerk? Will her child be bullied at school? What if her husband can’t find a good job? Will the family quarrel, the marriage dissolve, her boss fire her for being incompetent, and she and her child end up on food stamps in a homeless shelter?

但伊芙卻面臨着艱難的抉擇。她已經在波士頓生活了15年，該讓丈夫和年幼的女兒拋開這裏的愜意生活，與她一起搬走嗎？如果選擇留在波士頓，她能夠割捨一生中難得的機遇嗎？如果選擇搬去西海岸，要是發現新老闆是個混球可怎麼辦？要是她的孩子在學校挨欺負可怎麼辦？要是她丈夫找不到好工作可怎麼辦？家裏是否會爭吵不斷，婚姻是否會解體，老闆是否會因爲她無法勝任工作而炒她魷魚，她和孩子是否會落得在收容所靠食品券度日的田地？

Many people are like Eve and see their choices as, in essence, problems of computation. But choosing between jobs is not like computing the distance between Memphis and Mumbai. The view of choice as a matter of calculating maximal value is assumed in cost-benefit analysis, government policy making and much of economic theory. It’s even embedded in the apps you can download that purport to help you decide whether to buy a new car, get married or change jobs.

許多人都和伊芙差不多，他們其實把選擇看成了計算利害得失的問題。但在不同工作之間做出選擇，跟測量從孟菲斯到孟買的距離可不是一回事。把選擇看作對價值最大化的計算，是內化於成本收益分析、政府決策過程以及許多經濟理論之中的一種觀念。它甚至潛藏在可以從網上下載的某些旨在幫助你決定是否要買新車、是否要結婚、是否要換工作的應用程序之中。

At the heart of this model is a simple assumption: that what you should choose is always determined by facts in the world about which option has more value — facts that, if only you were smart enough to discover, would make decision-making relatively easy.

該模型的核心假設非常簡單：你的選擇總是取決於世界上的某些與哪個選項會帶來更大價值有關的事實——你只要聰明到足以發現這些事實，就能夠相對容易地做出決策。

But the assumption is false. When we compute distances, there are only three possibilities: one distance is more than, less than or equal to another. Similarly, when we compute value, there are only three possibilities: one thing is better than, worse than or just as good as another. But we shouldn’t assume that goodness is like distance. Values don’t have the same structure as facts.

但這個假設是錯誤的。我們測算距離的時候，所面對的可能性只有三種：一段距離比另一段長，比另一段短，或者跟另一段相等。同樣，我們計算價值的時候，所面對的可能性也只有三種：一個事物比另一個好，比另一個糟，或者跟另一個差不多。但我們不該把事物的好壞和距離的長短等同起來。價值的體系和事實的體系是截然不同的。

Options can be “on a par” — different in value while being in the same overall neighborhood. If your alternatives are on a par, you can’t make a mistake of reason in choosing one instead of the other. Since one isn’t better than the other, you can’t choose wrongly. But nor are they equally good. When alternatives are on a par, when the world doesn’t determine a single right thing to do, that doesn’t mean that value writ large has been exhausted. Instead of looking outward to find the value that determines what you should do, you can look inward to what you can stand behind, commit to, resolve to throw yourself behind. By committing to an option, you can confer value on it.

各種選項可能會“平分秋色”——雖然價值不完全相同，但也相差無幾。如果你有一些平分秋色的選項，你無論選擇哪個，都不會犯判斷上的錯誤。因爲兩種選擇沒有優劣之分，你不可能做出錯誤的選擇。不過，它們也並非一樣好。當選項平分秋色時，當世界上並非只有唯一正確的答案時，那並不意味着真正的價值已經枯竭。與其從外部尋找價值來判斷自己應該做些什麼，你可以向內心來詢問自己能夠支持、承諾，以及決心投身於什麼。只要篤定於一個選項，你就爲它賦予了價值。

Of course, this isn’t to say that you should commit to being a first-class jerk, pedophile or murderer. That’s because being a jerk is not on a par with being a good person.

當然了，這並不是說你應該篤定於成爲一個頭號混蛋、戀童癖，或者殺人犯。這是因爲，做一個混蛋和做一個好人可不是平分秋色的選項。

When we choose between options that are on a par, we make ourselves the authors of our own lives. Instead of being led by the nose by what we imagine to be facts of the world, we should instead recognize that sometimes the world is silent about what we should do. In those cases, we can create value for ourselves by committing to an option. By doing so, we not only create value for ourselves but we also (re)create ourselves. Eve might resolve to make her life in Boston. Someone else, in her shoes, might resolve to start a new life in California. There is no error here, only different resolutions that create different sorts of people.

當我們在平分秋色的選項中做選擇時，我們就成了自己人生的創造者。我們不應該被我們想象中的世界現實牽着鼻子走，而是應該認識到，有時，這個世界不會告訴我們應該做什麼。在這種情況下，我們應該篤定一種選項，創造我們自己的價值。這樣做的話，我們不僅爲自己創造了的價值，我們也（重新）創造了自己。伊芙可能決心在波士頓生活。而面臨同樣的境遇，另一個人可能會決定在加州開始新的生活。這無所謂對錯，只是不同的解決方案造就不同類型的人罷了。

So Eve, faced with her choice, should reflect on what kind of person she can be. Can she be someone who abandons a contented life for a new adventure? A choice between alternatives that are on a par is a precious opportunity to create the sort of person she can commit to being, by committing to being that sort of person.

因此，伊芙在做出選擇時，應該考慮的是，她能成爲什麼樣的人。她能爲了新的冒險而放棄舒適的生活嗎？在平分秋色的選項中做決定是一個寶貴的機會，可以創造出一個自己能夠決心成爲的人，方法就是下決心成爲那種類型的人。

Many of the choices we face in the new year will be between alternatives that are on a par. Our task then is to reflect on what kind of person we can commit to being when making those choices. Can we commit to forgoing a much-needed new car and give the money to charity instead? Can we commit to staying in a secure 9-to-5 job rather than starting the business we’ve always dreamed of? Can we commit to having a parent with Alzheimer’s move in with us, rather than paying to put her in a nursing home?

我們在新年伊始面臨的許多選擇都是平分秋色的選項。因此，在做出這些決定時，我們的任務就是思考，我們能下決心成爲什麼樣的人。我們能放棄一輛急需的新車，把錢捐給慈善機構嗎？我們能滿足於朝九晚五的安穩工作，放棄創業的夢想嗎？我們願意把患有阿爾茨海默症的母親接來與我們同住，而不是花錢把她送到養老院嗎？

So in this new year, let’s not do the same old, same old; let’s not resolve to work harder at being the selves that we already are. Instead, let’s resolve to make ourselves into the selves that we can commit to being.

因此，在這個新年到來之際，我們不要年復一年地做同樣的事了；在新年的規劃中，不要下決心更努力地做本來的自己。相反，我們要把自己變成想要成爲的那個人。