以下是以上内容的中文翻译： 安妮·杜克，一位前顶尖扑克牌玩家和畅销书作家，对决策制定提供了独特的视角，尤其是在何时放弃方面。这个播客深入探讨了放弃的复杂性，阻止人们停止行动的认知偏差，以及制定更好决策的策略。 杜克强调了文化中反对放弃的偏见，这种偏见被诸如“放弃者永不获胜”之类的说法强化。然而，她认为失败不仅仅在于停止；还在于坚持那些不再有价值的事情，或者仅仅因为困难就停止那些仍然有价值的事情。她介绍了认知偏差，比如沉没成本谬误，在这种谬误中，人们在决定是否继续时，会考虑过去的投入（时间、金钱、精力），从而阻碍了他们客观地评估未来的前景。理想情况下，一个人应该只在愿意从今天重新开始的情况下继续，而不考虑过去的成本。 杜克强调预期价值，即概率和收益的加权平均值，是关键的决策工具。她说明了预期价值是主观的，与个人的目标和价值观息息相关。对一个人来说具有积极预期价值的东西，对另一个人来说可能是消极的。她以攀登珠穆朗玛峰为例，讨论了一个人应该在死亡和严重受伤的概率高于攀登初衷时停止攀登。 为了对抗这些偏差，杜克引入了“停止标准”的概念。为放弃做好计划包括识别未来表明需要停止的信号，并在看到这些信号时承诺采取具体行动。一个例子是在登山时设定一个折返时间，无论距离山顶有多近，以避免危险情况。这有助于防止合理化和“目标蔓延”，即人们改变最初的原因来为继续行动辩护。 杜克还谈到了“结果论”或“结果偏差”，即仅凭结果来判断决策的质量。好的结果掩盖了糟糕的决策，反之亦然，阻碍了学习。她以皮特·卡罗尔为例，他做出了可能在统计上更好的决策，但仍然输了。为了评估决策，应该考虑长期最佳预期价值决策。 关于直觉，杜克承认它的潜在准确性，但强调在不明确底层假设的情况下，很难识别错误。她提倡明确模型，并根据这些模型判断决策。这个过程包括识别定义“好的”投资或决策的品质。通过明确这些品质，可以减少噪音、偏差，并通过允许团队成员更快地学习来提高团队绩效。 杜克强调在小组环境中独立收集判断的重要性。她提倡使用“名义小组”框架，即个人在小组讨论之前独立地表达自己的观点。这可以防止最初的观点影响他人，并允许更开放和诚实地表达不同的观点。 在寻求建议时，杜克强调通过隐瞒自己的观点和过去决策的结果来引出公正的意见的重要性。这确保了顾问提供真实的评估，而不受结果偏差的影响，并防止最初的观点影响他人。 从她的扑克经验中，杜克强调了运气的有害作用。虽然运气存在于每一种情况下，但不应该支配未来的决策。专注于好的决策，不要专注于这些决策的结果。从扑克中得到的最大教训是避免人类对积极自我叙事的需要，这往往会导致对损失的合理化。 杜克回忆起与比尔·盖茨的一次会面，他们讨论了诈唬。她解释说，诈唬不一定是为了欺骗，而是为了创造不确定性，从而最大化长期收益。她强调根据对手的比赛风格调整诈唬策略，以及不同的环境将如何影响一个人应该或不应该诈唬。 关于冒险中的性别差异，杜克承认，平均而言，男性比女性更倾向于冒险。她提倡多元化的团队，以从不同的角度受益。她也承认她不知道如何解决高风险职位上女性缺乏的问题。她过去认为，通过代表，这个问题会自行解决，但她发现并非如此。 杜克对决策制定的兴趣源于她在认知科学博士课程期间，尤其是在研究不确定性下的学习时。后来，她的扑克经验为探索决策挑战提供了一个真实的实验室。 目前，杜克对虚假信息和不实信息感到好奇，不是从人们撒谎的角度，而是从需要理解如何建模真实数据点以得出合理决策的角度。她以疫苗接种为例，尽管当时超过 80% 的人口接种了疫苗，但接种疫苗后死于新冠的人数多于未接种疫苗的人数。 在建议年轻人时，杜克强调接受运气的重要性，同时专注于提高决策的质量。随着时间的推移，更好的决策会积累起来，改变一个人的生活轨迹，并为更美好的社会做出贡献。

Annie Duke, a former top poker player and bestselling author, offers a unique perspective on decision-making, particularly when to quit. The podcast delves into the complexities of quitting, the cognitive biases that prevent people from stopping, and strategies for making better decisions. Duke highlights the cultural bias against quitting, reinforced by phrases like "quitters never win." However, she argues that failure isn't simply about stopping; it's about clinging to things that are no longer worthwhile or stopping something that is still worthwhile simply because it is difficult. She introduces cognitive biases like the sunk cost fallacy, where people consider past investments (time, money, effort) when deciding whether to continue, hindering their ability to evaluate future prospects objectively. Ideally, one should only continue if willing to start fresh today, irrespective of past costs. Duke emphasizes expected value, the weighted average of probabilities and payoffs, as a critical decision-making tool. She illustrates how expected value is subjective, tied to individual goals and values. Something of positive expected value for one might be negative for another. She uses the example of climbing Mount Everest, discussing that a person should stop climbing when the probability of death and severe injury is higher than your intention at the beginning of the climb. To combat these biases, Duke introduces the concept of "kill criteria." Planning for quitting involves identifying future signals that indicate a need to stop and committing to specific actions upon seeing those signals. An example is setting a turnaround time while mountaineering, regardless of how close one is to the summit, to avoid dangerous conditions. It helps prevent rationalization and "thesis creep," where people alter their initial reasons to justify continuing. Duke also tackles the "resulting" or "outcome bias," where the quality of a decision is judged solely by its outcome. Good results overshadow bad decisions and vice-versa, hindering learning. She gives the example of Pete Caroll, who made what was likely the better decision, statistically, but still lost. For evaluating a decision, one should consider best expected value decision over time. Regarding intuition, Duke acknowledges its potential accuracy but stresses the difficulty in identifying errors without making the underlying assumptions explicit. She advocates for making models explicit and judging decisions based on those models. This process involves identifying the qualities that define a "good" investment or decision. By making those qualities explicit, it reduces noise, bias, and helps improve team performance by allowing team members to learn faster. Duke underscores the importance of independent judgment collection in group settings. She advocates using the ‘nominal group’ framework, where individuals formulate their opinions independently before group discussions. This prevents initial opinions from influencing others and allows for more open and honest expression of diverse perspectives. When seeking advice, Duke emphasizes the importance of eliciting unbiased opinions by withholding one's own viewpoint and the outcome of past decisions. This ensures that advisors provide their true assessment without being influenced by resulting bias and prevents initial opinions from influencing others. Drawing from her poker experience, Duke emphasizes the detrimental role of luck. While luck is present in every situation, it should not dictate future decision-making. Focus on good decisions, don't focus on the outcome of those decisions. The biggest lesson from poker is avoiding the human need for a positive self-narrative, which often leads to rationalizing losses. Duke recalls an encounter with Bill Gates where they discussed bluffing. She explains bluffing isn't necessarily about deception but about creating uncertainty to maximize long-term earnings. She emphasizes adapting bluffing strategies based on the play styles of opponents, and how different environments will affect how a person should or should not bluff. On gender differences in risk-taking, Duke acknowledges that, on average, men tend to be more risk-seeking than women. She advocates for diverse teams to benefit from varied perspectives. She also acknowledges she does not know how to solve the lack of women in risk taking positions. She thought in the past, that by representing, the issue would resolve itself, but has not found that to be the case. Duke's interest in decision-making emerged during her cognitive science PhD program, particularly when studying learning under uncertainty. Later, her poker experience provided a real-world laboratory for exploring decision-making challenges. Currently, Duke is curious about misinformation and disinformation, not from the perspective of people lying, but from the need to understand how to model true data points to arrive at a sound decision. She gives the example of vaccinations and that more vaccinated people were dying of COVID than unvaccinated, despite that over 80% of the population at the time was vaccinated. In advising young people, Duke emphasizes the importance of accepting luck while focusing on improving the quality of one's decisions. Over time, better decisions accumulate, changing the trajectory of one's life and contributing to a better society.