Which one should we follow—the decision-making methods taught at Harvard Business School, or the I Ching from three thousand years ago?/哈佛商學院教的決策方法，和三千年前的易經，到底誰聽誰的？

What Harvard Teaches About Decisions—and What a 3,000-Year-Old Book Says Back

A consulting friend told me: "Wen Laoshi, I spent five years learning rational decision models—SWOT, decision trees, Monte Carlo simulations. But you're telling me a book of 64 ancient symbols helps people make decisions?"

I said: "All your models share one assumption. Know what it is?"

He shook his head.

"They assume you have enough information."

He paused. "I guess... that's true."

Rational decision models assume sufficient information. I-Ching assumes information is never sufficient.

That gap is roughly the distance between you and your 2 AM anxiety.

The Reversal

Western decision theory has a hidden thread running through it. Herbert Simon won the Nobel Prize studying "how people actually make decisions." His final conclusion: humans can't be fully rational.

He called it "bounded rationality."

In other words, Western decision science took sixty years to arrive at the starting point where I-Ching stood three thousand years ago—your information is always incomplete, yet you still must decide.

The difference is what comes next. The West says: use what you have, find a "good enough" answer. I-Ching says: what about the missing information? Look at what change itself is telling you.

One finds the optimal solution within the known. The other finds direction within the unknown.

They look like two roads. They're actually two stages of the same road.

Cross-Domain Example

A team of Taiwanese scholars conducted rigorous research comparing I-Ching's decision model against five mainstream Western models—rational, bounded rationality, intuitive, implicit favorite, and garbage-can models.

The conclusion surprised them: I-Ching's model overlaps significantly with bounded rationality and intuitive models. Both acknowledge humans can't achieve full rationality.

But one critical difference: Western models barely address "sudden change." Black swans, unexpected disruptions—these are treated as anomalies. In the I-Ching framework, change is the core variable.

Every hexagram contains "changing lines." Every stable situation already contains seeds of transformation.

Western decision theory says: calculate first, then act. I-Ching says: the parts you can't calculate are precisely what you need to pay attention to.

Closure

So do they conflict?

Not at all. Western decision theory is still in undergraduate school. I-Ching already graduated.

One helps you calculate what's known. The other helps you see what's unknown.

You can use both.

Book a decision consultation—40 minutes to clear up your doubts

—————————————————————————————————————————

哈佛商學院教的決策方法，和三千年前的易經，到底誰聽誰的

一個做諮詢的朋友跟我說："聞老師，我學了五年理性決策模型，SWOT 分析、決策樹、蒙特卡洛模擬，全都會。但你跟我講易經六十四卦能幫人做決策？"

我說："你那些模型都有一個共同的前提，你知道是什麼嗎？"

他搖頭。

"它們都假設你有足夠的資訊。"

他想了想。

"好像……確實。"

理性決策模型的前提是資訊充分。易經的前提是資訊永遠不充分。

這兩句話之間的距離，就是你和焦慮之間的距離。

反轉 · 不是衝突，是“補課”

西方決策學有一條暗線，從赫伯特·西蒙開始。他拿了諾貝爾經濟學獎，研究了一輩子"人怎麼做決策"。最後的結論是：人做不到完全理性。

這叫"有限理性"。

換句話說，西方決策學用了六十年，走到了易經三千年前就站在的起點——你的資訊永遠不夠用，但你還得做決定。

區別在於接下來怎麼走。西方說：那就用現有資訊，求一個"夠好"的答案。易經說：不夠的資訊怎麼辦？看看變化本身在說什麼。

一個在已知裏找最優解。一個在未知裏找方向。

看起來是兩條路。其實是一條路的兩個階段。

跨界 · 一篇學術論文的意外發現

臺灣有一組學者做過一個正經研究，把易經的決策模型和西方五種主流決策模型逐一比較——理性模型、有限理性模型、直覺模型、隱 favorites 模型、垃圾桶模型。

結論出乎他們意料：易經的決策模型和有限理性、直覺模型高度重合。都承認人做不到完全理性。

但有一個關鍵差異：西方模型幾乎不討論"突變"。突發事件、黑天鵝、計畫外變化——這些在西方框架裏屬於"異常值"。而在易經框架裏，變化才是核心變數。

六十四卦每一卦都有"變爻"。每一個穩定局面裏都預埋了轉折的種子。

西方決策學說：先算清楚再說。易經說：算不清楚的部分，恰恰是你最需要關注的部分。

收束

所以它們衝突嗎？

不衝突。只是西方決策學還在讀本科的時候，易經已經研究生畢業了。

一個幫你算清楚已知的部分。一個幫你看清未知的部分。

你可以兩個都用。

 預約一次決策諮詢——40 分鐘解惑