大家想知道，这是怎么发生的？直接原因，也是政府媒体首先归咎的罪魁，就是次贷危机。那次贷危机又是怎么发生的呢？次贷在美国搞的轰轰烈烈，真正能说个清楚所以然的恐怕不多。国内两个金融行业的朋友，跟我打电话后第一件事就是问我，什么是次贷危机。简单说来，买房子是不用一次付清的，mortgage就是房贷，可以根据信用记录来决定贷款额度的。信用记录好偿付能力高的人，可以多借点钱买大房子；不然就应该安安稳稳住小房子。可惜前些年市场虚高的时候，房价不停的涨，有人借钱买了房子，房价涨了他就赚了。就继续买更大的房子。如果他直接把就房子卖了套现也还好，但糟糕的是，金融衍生品不需要这么麻烦，直接用房子做collateral就好了，用升了值的旧房抵押，借更多的钱买更大更新的房子。在市场热度掩盖本来规律导致错误判断的时候，本来借不到钱买不到大房子的人，也有人愿意借钱给他，让他搞大房子。只要房价不停的涨，大家皆大欢喜，建筑承包商地产商房主各数各的钱。房市泡沫一破，大家一起玩完。

次贷危机为什么影响这么大呢？从消费角度来讲，房子绝对是普通百姓的支出最大头。现在最大头垮了，买了不该买的大房子，房贷还不上了，当然没钱旅游没钱血拼了，孩子可能也没钱上大学了。这样普通商品市场（相对于房地产市场）上需求就降了，商品供应商就赚不到那么多钱了。商家转不到钱就会少进货，工厂就赚不到钱了。商家工厂赚不到钱，就要节省开支降薪裁员了。这样失业率就上去了，销售额（revenue）就下去了，利润（income）股票什么的都一股脑的不行了。山姆大叔就出来喊话了，不是我政府的问题，是消费者不消费的问题。这是政府的逻辑，是错误的。消费者没房子住吃不上饭，你还要人买这买那拼命消费，相当于那个隋朝的皇帝：大臣说今年大饥荒没米饿死了很多百姓，皇帝说为啥不吃肉汤？消费者不消费只是现象，不是原因不是本质。

(Fortune) -- They're often at the top of companies, or in sales -- those lucky people who seem to be born persuasive, with a seemingly magical ability that makes others listen to them, trust them, and act on what they say.

But, "regardless of actual job title, we all persuade for a living," says Kurt Mortensen, founder of a consulting firm called the Persuasion Institute (www.persuasioninstitute.com).

He has a point: Whether you're a salesperson, a team leader trying to coax a group to work in a smarter way, an employee asking for a raise, or simply someone with great ideas to share with co-workers or higher-ups, the one skill essential to success is persuasiveness.

Mortensen, who spent 15 years studying all the available research on how to influence others, came up with his own system, detailed in his latest book, Persuasion IQ: The 10 Skills You Need to Get Exactly What You Want (Amacom Books, $21.95). I recently spoke with Mortensen about his ideas. Some excerpts from our conversation:

Q. Why did you spend 15 years studying persuasiveness?

A. Frankly, I was mad. I had spent $50,000 on an MBA and picked up some great core skills - marketing, finance, and so on - but none of it seemed to be helping me get ahead in my career. I soon found out that the technical knowledge B-schools were teaching [when he got his degree in 1993] account for only about 15% of anyone's business success. The other 85% comes from so-called people skills, of which the ability to persuade is the most important. So I set out to learn as much as I could about it.

Q. What was the most striking thing you learned?

A. It turns out that there are more than 100 methods of getting someone else to trust you and agree with you, but most of us only use the same three or four techniques we learned when we were children. These include whining until you get your way; or bullying, especially if you're a boss; or bribery, which is saying, "I'll do that for you if you do this for me." In the grown-up business world, those methods are often not very useful. Most people really need to learn some new techniques. Using the techniques we learned as kids may get us short-term compliance, but why settle for that when you could have long-term influence?

Q. Can you give us an example of an effective grown-up persuasion technique?

A. Yes. Let's take, for instance, how we handle objections, whether from a customer or some other audience, such as a boss we're asking for a raise. Early on in life, we learn to perceive objections as opposition, so we get defensive. An unskilled persuader, often without realizing it, will show tension, uneasiness, or irritation when someone raises an objection, usually because the objection or concern stirs up the persuader's own insecurities: "Aren't I doing a good enough job explaining this? Didn't I go over that already?" This way of thinking will only make matters worse.

By contrast, great persuaders who have learned new persuasion skills know how to welcome objections. Instead of seeing them as opposition, these persuaders see objections as a natural, and valuable, part of the process. They use their audience's concerns as a way to open a dialogue, a chance to exchange ideas and discover new areas of common ground. Truly great persuaders may cut to the chase by addressing an objection before it's even been voiced, just to get that communications ball rolling.

Q. What kind of consulting work do you do? What do your corporate clients want?

A. Companies bring me in to address problems with customer service, or with managers who are having trouble motivating people. Or there are situations where employees are lying to managers, saying they'll do things they never intended to do. Or sometimes it's a question of salespeople who can't win customers' trust. You know, there was a big study at Harvard a few years ago that showed that when people get fired, 66% of the time it's because of "people issues," not a lack of technical proficiency. It's the inability to figure out what others really want or need and address that. And I do see lots of those problems in the companies where I consult.

Q. In the book you mention "the Wobegon effect." Want to tell us a bit about that?

A. In Garrison Keillor's fictional town Lake Wobegon, all the children are above average -- and when I ask a roomful of businesspeople to rate their own people skills, 90% say they're above average. We rate ourselves very high on thinking people like us, people trust us, we're great at getting along with other people, and so on. That's the Wobegon effect. What I'm saying is that really successful people are open to the idea that they may have strengths and weaknesses in their people skills, and the weaknesses may be holding them back.

Q. A big part of persuasion is establishing trust. How do you do that?

A. One interesting aspect of it is credibility. When someone meets you for the first time, if you reveal a weakness, you are likely to win that person's trust. That's because people are looking for a weakness, and they will assign one to you, so you might as well control the process. Also, we've all been taught never to let a weakness show, so it's disarming to come right out and state one. I don't mean a huge weakness, like you're an axe murderer. I mean, for example, let's say you're a one-person business and your competition is a huge company. You might say, "Look, I know we're small, but that means we can focus on your particular needs better than the big guys" -- or whatever you can find to say that will turn that weakness into a strength. First acknowledge it, bring it out into the open, and then turn it in your favor.

Q. What's the biggest mistake most people make in trying to persuade others?

A. Well, it depends on the person, but one very common error is to over-persuade. I think we've all been on the receiving end of this, where someone is giving you 101 reasons why you should agree with them or do what they want you to do, and you were already convinced 10 minutes ago and now you just want them to go away. The irony is that, if you really listen, a person will tell you everything you need to know to persuade them. But most people are so busy thinking about what they're going to say next that they miss all those signals. Persuasion is first and foremost a matter of paying attention. It's not inherent - it's a skill you can learn.

一段时间不更新博客，人气骤减。随便搞上两篇，人气飙升。场子旺，托大家的福啊。

从丹佛JSM归来，有很多东东要跟大家分享。今天分享找工作的经验，以飨读者。

本来没准备现在找工作的，而且这个会也差点没去成。结果阴差阳错去搞了这么个会，稀里糊涂面了十来家公司，也算是试了试水深水浅，至少是打湿了自己的脚。

先逐个说说面试的经历。

Millennium 是家小公司，历史不长药不多，统计部门不到10来人。人很nice，工作环境感觉相对稳定，最年轻的员工也呆了5年。前些年被日本的Takeda并购了，保持独立研发，多出了亚洲市场和雄厚的财政支持。

Amgen，500强。面我的是中国同胞。问了很多research的问题，感觉对我做的dimension reduction很感兴趣。结果问我DR和SVM的模拟比较，我还没答出来。后来问了堆technical的问题，什么p-value; fractional factorial design; least squares的假设什么的，也是搞出一身冷汗。这位仁兄是preclinical的，临走还问我要DR的程序。

IBM, 本来对这个机会很激动。毕竟是从小景仰的公司，读书看报了解多多。结果面的很悲惨。一说大家就明白了，面我的是小日本。山本一直皮笑肉不笑的，让人心里滲渗的。又是问research的问题，关键是问的没什么水平，不太搭边。跟他说不明白，到头来说我答非所问。最惨的不是我，是小日本旁边的一美国青年。此人一看就是被山本打压很久的下属摸样，30分钟内就说了一句话，还是说50 choose 2等于49，不是一般的紧张啊。这是一次失败的相亲，互相没对上眼儿。

顺便说说Google。谷歌没给我面试，只是prescreen了一把就没了消息。谷歌问的每个问题都跟data有关。你做过最大的数据有多大？做过的最有趣的data是啥？怎么整 missing data？不愧是最information intensive的公司。

Monsanto 这个有点搞笑。前20分钟相谈甚欢。后来问我看了job description觉得自己哪些方面比较match；我其实没看过，就随便掰胡过去了。紧接着问我将来去什么地方工作，我吸了口气，真诚的说去药厂。她看了看她的同事又看了看我，说：可我们是搞农业的，不是药厂啊？

开始以为要被Novartis Oncology放鸽子，结果30分钟的interview晚了15分钟。面我的是个欧洲女人。话不多，眼睛很大会说话，年轻的时候一定很漂亮。该director明显对我兴趣缺缺，嫌我没什么实际经验。嘴上没说什么，大眼睛闪一闪说：下一个。

Fox Chase是费城的一个研究所，面我的小年轻跟我很谈的来。感觉是一个可以边拿工钱边发文章的地方。后来遇见他，还跟他说了我Monsanto的搞笑经历。

Abbott在Chicago，聊的还行。不知道会不会有正面消息。

Eli Lilly可能是双方都比较high的了，聊的很开。比较扯的是他问我对工作地点有什么要求，我说不想有台风。他收敛了笑容跟我说：我们Indianapolis每年都有台风啊。然后费很大力气跟我说其实台风不太影响波立斯同志的工作生活。

啰啰嗦嗦这么多，无非是想说这么个道理：面试一定要认真准备，不要像我哪壶不开提哪壶。不用紧张，保持适度兴奋。展现真实的自己很重要，要尽量表现能引起对方兴趣的东东。

最重要的最后说，去业界工作的话，相关实习经历很重要。想去药厂就早去药厂实习；想去银行就早去银行实习；想做发考题就老老实实做好research。

话说从前有个老和尚，身边有个老爱抱怨的小孩。有一天，老和尚对小孩说：出去找把盐。小孩找到盐，回来。老和尚说：把盐放到装满水的杯子里。小孩照办。老和尚说：喝一口味道怎样。小孩尝了尝，皱皱眉，说，苦。老和尚说：把水倒到湖里。小孩照办。老和尚：再尝尝味道怎样。小孩俯下身，舀了一口，说：很新鲜。老和尚：你尝到苦味了么？小孩：没有。

老和尚幽幽的发话了：人生的痛苦，不多也不少。人遇到的痛苦就那么多，但是体会到多少却取决于自己。只有心胸开阔，才能战胜痛苦。当你遇到了苦难，不要做一只杯子，要成为湖泊。

(*^__^*) 嘻嘻……，我就是那爱抱怨的小孩；美眉，你就是那幽幽的老和尚。