激情与技艺何帆我的几个小伙伴开了个专栏，名字叫“三个学术民工”。他们轮班执勤，写得不亦乐乎。他们写过国际贸易中的价值链，也关注过人民币国际化，借日本当年的经验谈了中国企业的海外投资，也曾在介绍亚洲基础设施投资银行的时候信手拈来，讲过亚洲开发银行的遥远往事。我是他们专栏的忠实读者，非常喜欢几位小伙伴从容淡定、娓娓道来的风格，喜欢他们能够始终保持着对世间万物的好奇。为什么他们会自称“学术民工”呢？或许是因为金融界人士发明了“金融民工”的自嘲称呼。金融业看起来高大上，但其实是一个极其复杂的生态系统，在生物链的顶端是熠熠生辉的大人物，但在生物链的底端是一群西装革履、忙忙碌碌、凄凄惶惶的“小蚂蚁”。学术界和金融界的相似之处在于，都是看起来神圣辉煌，实际上一地鸡毛。年轻学者面临的竞争压力越来越大。自嘲是缓解压力的一种有效途径。但我觉得以“民工”比拟青年学者，或有偏颇。我一直觉得学者的工作和农民很像。把学者比作农民，是对学者的褒奖。在田间地头种地的农民，需要的技术水平往往高于在工厂流水线上的“民工”。在纽约闲居的时候，我突发奇想，想在后院里种菜，一动手，才知道农活之不易。你需要知道时令、需要浇水施肥、需要培土除草，当真是个技术活。学者和农民一样，大部分时间是在做个体劳动。收成好不好，看天气愆伏，更看自己付出的努力。披星戴月，早出晚归，功夫花到了，自然收获会更多，投入和产出之间的关系相当清晰。做学问不比做生意或是当官，若是做生意或是当官，遇到的不确定性太大，很多因素非人力所能决定。学术就简单得多。学术成果是谁的，相对容易确定，如同一块麦田或菜园是哪个农民种的，容易分得明白一样。做学问是一种风险相对较小，当然收益也相对不高的职业。如果这一假说成立，一个推理就是适合做学问的大多是中等智力水平、中等道德水平的人。倘要更贴切一点，学者的工作更像“工匠”。经济学远未达到科学的境界，按照杨小凯的说法，最多是化学诞生之前的炼金术水平。有时候经济学的逻辑是对的，但就是在现实中得不出符合理论推理的结果。有时候经济学家会蒙对，但答案正确并不一定意味着解题思路是对的。我们的确能够发现，有些经济学家的水平比别的经济学家更高，但为什么会高呢？不一定是因为他宣扬的理论更胜一筹，还取决于其他一些微妙因素，这些很微妙的因素都是“tacit knowledge”，比如对经济的直觉，比如说服别人的能力。这些技能是怎么学到的？其实大部分不是学到的，而是悟到的。怎么悟出来的？在大部分情况下，是日久天长浸淫其中，耳濡目染，熏陶出来的。无他，但手熟尔。日下流行的一本书叫《工匠精神》，是一本励志的书，写得不好，但这个提法能给人启发。好的工匠有一种对技艺的追求，心无旁骛、精益求精。仔细去玩味，每个看似普通的工作中都蕴涵着禅的境界。插一盆花，做一道菜，打一把镰，刻一枚章，都能让人陶醉其中，以至物我两忘。看着一块粗糙的石头慢慢在你的手中变成光洁润滑的雕像，会给人一种造物主才能享受到的快乐。“其中有真意，欲辩已忘言。”工匠比学者更为高贵的地方在于，大部分工匠都比学者谦卑。这也是为什么凯恩斯曾经感叹，要是经济学家都能像牙医一样，既有能力又谦虚就好了。有一本关于一流经济学家的访谈录，书名叫《激情与技艺》（Passion and Craft）。我们这些学习经济学的学生，从初级宏观、微观经济学，到中级、高级宏观、微观经济学，从初级经济计量学，到各式各样的高级经济计量学，无非是为了磨练自己的技巧。但只有技巧，不过是个匠人。在无数匠人中能够脱颖而出，你还需要激情。对知识的渴求，对真理的敬畏，对未知的好奇，对已知的体察，都需要那种矢志不渝的激情。财经专栏文章，在大家看来不过是雕虫小技，卑之无甚高论。几位小伙伴之所以能够坚持下来，还出了一本书，就是因为他们对经济学的热爱。中有足乐，耽此忘返。希望他们对经济学的热爱，能如星芒烛光，给寂寞的夜行旅人一点籍慰和鼓励。

Passion and Skill He Fan: A few of my friends opened a column called "Three Academic Migrant Workers". They work shifts and write with pleasure. They have written about value chains in international trade, paid attention to the internationalization of the renminbi, talked about the overseas investment of Chinese companies based on Japan's experience in the past, and talked about the distant past of the Asian Development Bank when introducing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I am a big reader of their column, and I really like the calm and eloquent style of several friends, and I like that they can always maintain their curiosity about all things in the world. Why do they call themselves "academic migrant workers"? Perhaps because people in the financial world invented the self-deprecating term "financial migrant worker". The financial industry looks tall, but it is actually an extremely complex ecosystem, at the top of the biological chain are shining big people, but at the bottom of the biological chain is a group of suit-ready, busy, miserable "little ants". The similarities between academia and finance are that both look sacred and brilliant, but are actually chicken feathers. Young academics face increasing competitive pressures. Self-deprecation is an effective way to relieve stress. But I think comparing "migrant workers" to young scholars may be biased. I've always felt that the work of academics is very similar to that of farmers. Comparing scholars to farmers is a compliment to scholars. Farmers who farm in the fields often need a higher level of technology than "migrant workers" on the factory assembly line. When I was living in New York, I had a whim to grow vegetables in my backyard, and when I started it, I realized that farm work is not easy. You need to know the season, you need to water and fertilize, you need to cultivate soil and weed, it is really a technical job. Scholars, like farmers, spend most of their time doing individual labor. Whether the harvest is good or not, depends on the weather, but also depends on the effort you put in. Wear the stars and the moon, go out early and return late, the effort is spent, the natural harvest will be more, and the relationship between input and output is quite clear. Learning is not as good as doing business or being an official, and if you do business or become an official, you encounter too much uncertainty, and many factors cannot be determined by manpower. Academics are much simpler. It is relatively easy to determine who the academic results are, just as it is easy to distinguish which farmer planted a wheat field or vegetable garden. Academic learning is a profession with relatively little risk and of course relatively low return. If this hypothesis is true, a reasoning is that most of the people suitable for learning are people of medium intellectual level and medium moral level. To put it more pertinently, scholars work more like "craftsmen." Economics is far from reaching the realm of science, and according to Yang Xiaokai, at most it is the level of alchemy before the birth of chemistry. Sometimes the logic of economics is correct, but in reality there is no result in line with theoretical reasoning. Sometimes economists are right, but a correct answer does not necessarily mean that the solution is correct. We can indeed find that some economists are higher than others, but why are they high? Not necessarily because the theory he preached is superior, but also on other subtle factors, such as "tacit knowledge," such as intuition about economics, such as the ability to persuade others. How are these skills learned? In fact, most of them are not learned, but realized. How did you come to know it? In most cases, it is immersed in it for a long time, and it is cultivated by ears and eyes. Without him, but with familiar hands. One of the popular books called "The Spirit of Craftsmanship" is an inspirational book that is not well written, but this formulation can be enlightening. A good craftsman has a pursuit of craftsmanship, without distractions and excellence. If you play carefully, every seemingly ordinary job contains the realm of Zen. Inserting a pot of flowers, making a dish, making a sickle, carving a medal, can make people so intoxicated that they forget everything. Watching a rough stone slowly turn into a smooth and lubricated statue in your hands will give a joy that only a Creator can enjoy. "There is a true meaning in it, and the desire to argue has been forgotten." What makes craftsmen more noble than scholars is that most craftsmen are humble more than scholars. That's why Keynes once lamented that if only economists could be as capable and humble as dentists. There's an interview with a leading economist called Passion and Craft. Those of us who study economics, from elementary macroeconomics and microeconomics, to intermediate, advanced macro, microeconomics, from primary econometrics, to all kinds of advanced econometrics, are nothing more than to hone our skills. But only skill, but a craftsman. To stand out among countless craftsmen, you also need passion. The thirst for knowledge, the reverence for truth, curiosity about the unknown, and awareness of the known require that unswerving passion. Financial column articles, in the eyes of everyone, are just small tricks of carving insects, and there is no high theory. The reason why several friends were able to persevere and publish a book was because of their love for economics. There is enough joy in it, and I forget to return. I hope that their love of economics can be like a starry candlelight, giving a little comfort and encouragement to lonely night travelers.（AI翻译）