How to Get Rich 如何致富
通过沉浸式翻译阅读了纳瓦尔的How to Get Rich，受益匪浅，保存下来，反复阅读。
Dec 28 2019 12月 28 2019
How to Get Rich 如何致富
3:35:35
Get podcast
A collection of all my interviews about my ‘How to Get Rich’ tweetstorm.
收集了我关于我的“如何致富”推文风暴的所有采访。
Seek Wealth, Not Money or Status 追求财富，而不是金钱或地位
Wealth is assets that earn while you sleep
财富是趁你睡觉赚钱的资产
Naval is a prolific tech investor and founder of AngelList
Naval是一位多产的科技投资者，也是AngelList的创始人
Nivi: You probably know Naval from his Twitter account.
Nivi：你可能从他的Twitter账户上认识Naval。
We’re going to talk about his tweetstorm, “How To Get Rich (without getting lucky).” We’ll go through most of the tweets in detail, give Naval a chance to expand on them and generally riff on the topic. He’ll probably throw in ideas he hasn’t published before.
我们来谈谈他的推特风暴，“如何致富（不走运）。我们将详细浏览大部分推文，让 Naval 有机会扩展它们并大致讨论该主题。他可能会提出他以前没有发表过的想法。
Naval’s the co-founder of AngelList and Epinions. He’s also a prolific tech investor in companies like Twitter, Uber and many more.
Naval 是 AngelList 和 Epinions 的联合创始人。他还是Twitter、Uber等公司的多产科技投资者。
I’m the co-founder of AngelList with Naval. And I co-authored the Venture Hacks blog with him back in the day.
我是 Naval 的 AngelList 的联合创始人。我当时和他一起合著了 Venture Hacks 博客。
Naval: The “How to Get Rich” tweetstorm definitely hit a nerve and went viral. A lot of people say it was helpful and reached across aisles.
Naval：“如何致富”的推特风暴无疑触动了神经并迅速传播开来。很多人说它很有帮助，并且跨越了过道。
People outside of the tech industry—people in all walks of life—want to know how to solve their money problems. Everyone vaguely knows they want to be wealthy, but they don’t have a good set of principles to do it by.
科技行业以外的人——各行各业的人——都想知道如何解决他们的金钱问题。每个人都隐约知道自己想变得富有，但他们没有一套好的原则来做到这一点。
Wealth is assets that earn while you sleep
财富是趁你睡觉赚钱的资产
Nivi: What’s the difference between wealth, money and status?
Nivi：财富、金钱和地位有什么区别？
Naval: Wealth is the thing you want. Wealth is assets that earn while you sleep; it’s the factory of robots cranking out things. Wealth is the computer program running at night that’s serving other customers. Wealth is money in the bank that is reinvested into other assets and businesses.
Naval：财富是你想要的东西。财富是趁你睡觉时赚取的资产;这是机器人的工厂。财富是夜间运行的计算机程序，为其他客户提供服务。财富是银行里的钱，再投资于其他资产和业务。
A house can be a form of wealth, because you can rent it out; although that’s a less productive use of land than running a commercial enterprise.
房子可以成为财富的一种形式，因为你可以把它出租;尽管与经营商业企业相比，这是对土地的高效利用。
My definition of wealth is oriented toward businesses and assets that can earn while you sleep.
我对财富的定义是面向可以在你睡觉时赚钱的企业和资产。
Wealth buys your freedom 财富买你的自由
You want wealth because it buys you freedom—so you don’t have to wear a tie like a collar around your neck; so you don’t have to wake up at 7:00 a.m. to rush to work and sit in commute traffic; so you don’t have to waste your life grinding productive hours away into a soulless job that doesn’t fulfill you.
你想要财富，因为它能给你带来自由——所以你不必在脖子上系领带;因此，您不必在早上 7：00 起床匆匆忙忙地上班并坐在通勤交通中;因此，您不必浪费您的生命来磨练富有成效的时间，从事一份没有灵魂的工作，这并不能满足您。
The purpose of wealth is freedom; it’s nothing more than that. It’s not to buy fur coats, or to drive Ferraris, or to sail yachts, or to jet around the world in a Gulf Stream. That stuff gets really boring and stupid, really fast. It’s about being your own sovereign individual.
财富的目的是自由;仅此而已。不是为了买皮大衣，不是为了开法拉利，不是为了驾驶游艇，也不是为了在墨西哥湾流中环游世界。这些东西变得非常无聊和愚蠢，非常快。这是关于成为你自己的主权个体。
You’re not going to get that unless you really want it. The entire world wants it, and the entire world is working hard at it.
除非你真的想要它，否则你不会得到它。全世界都想要它，整个世界都在努力。
It is competitive to some extent. It’s a positive sum game—but there are competitive elements to it, because there’s a finite amount of resources right now in society. To get the resources to do what you want, you have to stand out.
它在某种程度上具有竞争力。这是一个正和游戏，但其中有竞争的成分，因为现在社会上的资源是有限的。要获得资源来做你想做的事，你必须脱颖而出。
Money is how we transfer wealth
金钱是我们转移财富的方式
Money is how we transfer wealth. Money is social credits; it’s the ability to have credits and debits of other people’s time.
金钱是我们转移财富的方式。金钱是社会信用;它是拥有他人时间的贷方和借方的能力。
If I do my job right and create value for society, society says, “Oh, thank you. We owe you something in the future for the work that you did. Here’s a little IOU. Let’s call that money.”
如果我做好自己的工作，为社会创造价值，社会会说：“哦，谢谢你。我们将来欠你一些你所做的工作。这里有一张小借条。我们把这笔钱叫做钱吧。
That money gets debased because people steal the IOUs; the government prints extra IOUs; and people renege on their IOUs. But money tries to be a reliable IOU from society that you are owed something for something you did in the past.
这笔钱贬值是因为人们偷了借条;政府印制额外的借据;人们背弃了他们的借条。但金钱试图成为社会的可靠借据，即你欠你过去所做的事情。
We transfer these IOUs around; money is how we transfer wealth.
我们转移这些借条;金钱是我们转移财富的方式。
Status is your rank in the social hierarchy
地位是你在社会等级制度中的等级
There are fundamentally two huge games in life that people play. One is the money game. Money is not going to solve all of your problems; but it’s going to solve all of your money problems. I think people know that. They realize that, so they want to make money.
从根本上说，人们在生活中玩两个巨大的游戏。一是金钱游戏。金钱并不能解决你所有的问题;但它将解决你所有的金钱问题。我想人们知道这一点。他们意识到了这一点，所以他们想赚钱。
At the same time, deep down many people believe they can’t make it; so they don’t want any wealth creation to happen. They virtue signal by attacking the whole enterprise, saying, “Well, making money is evil. You shouldn’t do it.”
与此同时，在内心深处，许多人认为他们做不到;所以他们不希望发生任何财富创造。他们通过攻击整个企业来发出美德信号，说：“好吧，赚钱是邪恶的。你不应该这样做。
But they’re actually playing the other game, which is the status game. They’re trying to be high status in the eyes of others by saying, “Well, I don’t need money. We don’t want money.”
但他们实际上是在玩另一个游戏，即地位游戏。他们试图在别人眼中保持崇高的地位，说：“好吧，我不需要钱。我们不要钱。
Status is your ranking in the social hierarchy.
地位是你在社会等级中的排名。
Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Everybody in the world can have a house. Because you have a house doesn’t take away from my ability to have a house. If anything, the more houses that are built, the easier it becomes to build houses, the more we know about building houses, and the more people can have houses.
财富不是零和游戏。世界上每个人都可以拥有一所房子。因为你有房子并不能剥夺我拥有房子的能力。如果有的话，建造的房子越多，盖房子就越容易，我们对盖房子的了解就越多，可以拥有房子的人就越多。
Wealth is a very positive-sum game. We create things together. We’re starting this endeavor to create a piece of art that explains what we’re doing. At the end of it, something brand new will be created. It’s a positive-sum game.
财富是一个非常正和的游戏。我们一起创造东西。我们开始努力创造一件艺术品来解释我们正在做的事情。最后，将创造一些全新的东西。这是一个正和游戏。
Status is a very old game
地位是一个非常古老的游戏
Status, on the other hand, is a zero-sum game. It’s a very old game. We’ve been playing it since monkey tribes. It’s hierarchical. Who’s number one? Who’s number two? Who’s number three? And for number three to move to number two, number two has to move out of that slot. So, status is a zero-sum game.
另一方面，地位是一场零和博弈。这是一个非常古老的游戏。我们从猴子部落开始就一直在玩它。它是分层的。谁是第一名？谁是第二名？谁是第三名？为了让三号移动到二号，二号必须离开那个位置。所以，地位是一场零和游戏。
Politics is an example of a status game. Even sports is an example of a status game. To be the winner, there must be a loser. Fundamentally, I don’t like status games. They play an important role in our society, so we can figure out who’s in charge. But you play them because they’re a necessary evil.
政治是地位博弈的一个例子。甚至体育也是地位游戏的一个例子。要成为赢家，必须有一个输家。从根本上说，我不喜欢状态游戏。他们在我们的社会中发挥着重要作用，因此我们可以弄清楚谁在负责。但你玩它们，因为它们是必要的邪恶。
On an evolutionary basis—if you go back thousands of years—status is a much better predictor of survival than wealth. You couldn’t have wealth before the farming age because you couldn’t store things. Hunter-gatherers carried everything on their backs.
在进化的基础上——如果你回到几千年前——地位比财富更能预测生存。在农业时代之前，你不可能拥有财富，因为你不能储存东西。狩猎采集者背着一切。
Hunter-gatherers lived in entirely status-based societies. Farmers started going to wealth-based societies. The modern industrial economies are much more heavily wealth-based societies.
狩猎采集者生活在完全基于地位的社会中。农民开始进入以财富为基础的社会。现代工业经济是以财富为基础的社会。
People creating wealth will always be attacked by people playing status games
创造财富的人总是会受到玩地位游戏的人的攻击
There’s always a subtle competition going on between status and wealth. For example, when journalists attack rich people or the tech industry, they’re really bidding for status. They’re saying, “No, the people are more important. And I, the journalist, represent the people, and therefore I am more important.”
地位和财富之间总是存在着微妙的竞争。例如，当记者攻击富人或科技行业时，他们实际上是在争取地位。他们说，“不，人更重要。而我，记者，代表人民，因此我更重要。
The problem is, to win at a status game you have to put somebody else down. That’s why you should avoid status games in your life—because they make you into an angry combative person. You’re always fighting to put other people down and elevate yourself and the people you like.
问题是，要想在地位游戏中获胜，你必须让别人失望。这就是为什么你应该避免在生活中玩地位游戏——因为它们会让你成为一个愤怒好斗的人。你总是在努力贬低别人，提升自己和你喜欢的人。
Status games are always going to exist; there’s no way around it. Realize that most of the time when you’re trying to create wealth, you’re getting attacked by someone else and they’re trying to look like a goody-two shoes. They’re trying to up their own status at your expense.
状态游戏总是会存在的;没有办法绕过它。要知道，大多数时候，当你试图创造财富时，你会受到别人的攻击，他们试图看起来像一双好鞋。他们试图以牺牲你为代价来提升自己的地位。
They’re playing a different game. And it’s a worse game. It’s a zero-sum game, instead of a positive-sum game.
他们正在玩一个不同的游戏。这是一场更糟糕的比赛。这是一个零和游戏，而不是一个正和游戏。
Make Abundance for the World 为世界创造富足
Wealth isn’t about taking something from somebody else
财富不是从别人那里拿走东西
Ethical wealth creation makes abundance for the world
合乎道德的财富创造，为世界带来富足
Naval: I think there is this notion that making money is evil, right? It’s rooted all the way back down to “money is the root of all evil.” People think that the bankers steal our money. It’s somewhat true in that, in a lot of the world, there’s a lot of theft going on all the time.
Naval：我认为有一种观念认为赚钱是邪恶的，对吧？它的根源一直追溯到“金钱是万恶之源”。人们认为银行家偷了我们的钱。这在某种程度上是正确的，因为在世界上很多地方，一直有很多盗窃行为在发生。
The history of the world, in some sense, is this predator/prey relationship between makers and takers. There are people who go out and create things, and build things, and work hard on things.
从某种意义上说，世界的历史就是制造者和接受者之间的这种捕食者/猎物关系。有些人出去创造东西，建造东西，在事情上努力工作。
Then there are people who come along with a sword, or a gun, or taxes, or crony capitalism, or Communism, or what have you. There’s all these different methods to steal.
然后有些人带着剑，或枪，或税收，或裙带资本主义，或共产主义，或你所拥有的。有所有这些不同的方法可以偷窃。
Even in nature, there are more parasites than there are non-parasitical organisms. You have a ton of parasites in you, who are living off of you. The better ones are symbiotic, they’re giving something back. But there are a lot that are just taking. That’s the nature of how any complex system is built.
即使在自然界中，寄生虫也比非寄生生物多。你体内有一大堆寄生虫，它们靠你为生。更好的人是共生的，他们正在回馈一些东西。但是有很多事情正在采取。这就是任何复杂系统构建的本质。
What I am focused on is true wealth creation. It’s not about taking money. It’s not about taking something from somebody else. It’s from creating abundance.
我关注的是真正的财富创造。这不是拿钱。这不是要从别人那里拿走东西。它来自创造富足。
Obviously, there isn’t a finite number of jobs, or finite amount of wealth. Otherwise we would still be sitting around in caves, figuring out how to divide up pieces of fire wood, and the occasional dead deer.
显然，工作数量不是有限的，财富也不是有限的。否则，我们仍然会坐在山洞里，弄清楚如何分配柴火和偶尔的死鹿。
Most of the wealth in civilization, in fact all of it, has been created. It got created from somewhere. It got created from people. It got created from technology. It got created from productivity. It got created from hard work. This idea that it’s stolen is this horrible zero-sum game that people who are trying to gain status play.
文明中的大部分财富，事实上，所有的财富，都是被创造出来的。它是从某个地方创建的。它是由人创造的。它是由技术创造的。它是从生产力中创造出来的。它是从辛勤工作中创造出来的。这种被偷走的想法是那些试图获得地位的人玩的可怕的零和游戏。
Everyone can be rich 每个人都可以变得富有
But the reality is everyone can be rich. We can see that by seeing, that in the First World, everyone is basically richer than almost anyone who was alive 200 years ago.
但现实是，每个人都可以变得富有。我们可以看到，在第一世界，每个人基本上都比200年前活着的几乎任何人都富有。
200 years ago nobody had antibiotics. Nobody had cars. Nobody had electricity. Nobody had the iPhone. All of these things are inventions that have made us wealthier as a species.
200年前，没有人使用抗生素。没有人有车。没有人有电。没有人有iPhone。所有这些东西都是使我们作为一个物种更加富有的发明。
Today, I would rather be a poor person in a First World country, than be a rich person in Louis the XIV’s France. I’d rather be a poor person today than aristocrat back then. That’s because of wealth creation.
今天，我宁愿做第一世界国家的穷人，也不愿做路易十四统治下的法国的富人。我宁愿今天做一个穷人，也不愿做一个贵族。那是因为财富的创造。
The engine of technology is science that is applied for the purpose of creating abundance. So, I think fundamentally everybody can be wealthy.
技术的引擎是科学，它是为了创造富足而应用的。所以，我认为从根本上说，每个人都可以变得富有。
This thought experiment I want you to think through is imagine if everybody had the knowledge of a good software engineer and a good hardware engineer. If you could go out there, and you could build robots, and computers, and bridges, and program them. Let’s say every human knew how to do that.
我想让你们仔细思考的这个思想实验是想象一下，如果每个人都有一个好的软件工程师和一个好的硬件工程师的知识。如果你能走出去，你可以建造机器人、计算机、桥梁，然后对它们进行编程。假设每个人都知道如何做到这一点。
What do you think society would look like in 20 years? My guess is what would happen is we would build robots, machines, software and hardware to do everything. We would all be living in massive abundance.
你认为20年后的社会会是什么样子？我的猜测是，我们将制造机器人、机器、软件和硬件来做任何事情。我们都会生活在巨大的富足中。
We would essentially be retired, in the sense that none of us would have to work for any of the basics. We’d even have robotic nurses. We’d have machine driven hospitals. We’d have self-driving cars. We’d have farms that are 100% automated. We’d have clean energy.
我们基本上已经退休了，从某种意义上说，我们谁都不必为任何基本工作。我们甚至会有机器人护士。我们会有机器驱动的医院。我们会有自动驾驶汽车。我们将拥有 100% 自动化的农场。我们将拥有清洁能源。
At that point, we could use technology breakthroughs to get everything that we wanted. If anyone is still working at that point, they’re working as a form of expressing their creativity. They’re working because it’s in them to contribute, and to build and design things.
在这一点上，我们可以利用技术突破来获得我们想要的一切。如果有人在那个时候还在工作，那么他们就是在表达自己的创造力。他们正在工作，因为他们有责任做出贡献，建造和设计东西。
I don’t think capitalism is evil. Capitalism is actually good. It’s just that it gets hijacked. It gets hijacked by improper pricing of externalities. It gets hijacked by improper yields, where you have corruption, or you have monopolies.
我不认为资本主义是邪恶的。资本主义其实是好的。只是它被劫持了。它被外部性的不当定价所劫持。它被不当的收益所劫持，你有腐败，或者你有垄断。
Free Markets Are Intrinsic to Humans 自由市场是人类与生俱来的
We use credits and debits to cooperate across genetic boundaries
我们使用贷方和借方进行跨越基因界限的合作
Free markets are intrinsic to the human species
自由市场是人类与生俱来的
Naval: Overall capitalism [meaning free markets] is intrinsic to the human species. Capitalism is not something we invented. Capitalism is not even something we discovered. It is in us in every exchange that we have.
Naval：总的来说，资本主义（意为自由市场）是人类固有的。资本主义不是我们发明的。资本主义甚至不是我们发现的东西。在我们所拥有的每一次交流中，它都在我们身上。
When you and I exchange information, I want some information back from you. I give you information. You give me information. If we weren’t having a good information exchange, you’d go talk to somebody else. So, the notion of exchange, and keeping track of credits and debits, this is built into us as flexible social animals.
当你和我交换信息时，我想从你那里得到一些信息。我给你信息。你给我信息。如果我们没有良好的信息交流，你会去找别人谈谈。因此，交换的概念，以及跟踪贷方和借方，这是我们作为灵活的社会动物所固有的。
We are the only animals in the animal kingdom that cooperate across genetic boundaries. Most animals don’t even cooperate. But when they do, they cooperate only in packs where they co-evolve together, and they share blood, so they have some shared interests.
我们是动物王国中唯一跨越基因界限合作的动物。大多数动物甚至不合作。但是当他们这样做时，他们只在他们共同进化的群体中合作，他们共享血液，所以他们有一些共同的兴趣。
Humans don’t have that. I can cooperate with you guys. One of you is a Serbian. The other one is a Persian by origin. And I’m Indian by origin. We have very little blood in common, basically none. But we still cooperate.
人类没有。我可以和你们合作。你们中有一个是塞尔维亚人。另一个是波斯血统。我是印度人。我们的共同点很少，基本上没有。但我们仍然合作。
What lets us cooperate? It’s because we can keep track of debits and credits. Who put in how much work? Who contributed how much? That’s all free market capitalism is.
是什么让我们合作？这是因为我们可以跟踪借方和贷方。谁投入了多少工作？谁贡献了多少？这就是自由市场资本主义的全部。
So, I strongly believe that it is innate to the human species, and we are going to create more and more wealth, and abundance for everybody.
所以，我坚信这是人类与生俱来的，我们将为每个人创造越来越多的财富和富足。
Everybody can be wealthy. Everybody can be retired. Everybody can be successful. It is merely a question of education and desire. You have to want it. If you don’t want it, that’s fine. Then you opt out of the game.
每个人都可以变得富有。每个人都可以退休。每个人都可以成功。这只是一个教育和欲望的问题。你必须想要它。如果你不想要它，那也没关系。然后你选择退出游戏。
But don’t try to put down the people who are playing the game. Because that’s the game that keeps you in a comfortable warm bed at night. That’s the game that keeps a roof over your head. That’s the game that keeps your supermarkets stocked. That’s the game that keeps the iPhone buzzing in your pocket.
但不要试图贬低正在玩游戏的人。因为这就是让你在晚上躺在舒适温暖的床上的游戏。这就是让你头顶上有屋顶的游戏。这就是让你的超市保持库存的游戏。这就是让 iPhone 在口袋里嗡嗡作响的游戏。
So, it is a beautiful game that is worth playing ethically, rationally, morally, socially for the human race. It’s going to continue to make us all richer and richer, until we have massive wealth creation for anybody who wants it.
所以，这是一款美丽的游戏，值得人类在伦理上、理性上、道德上、社会上玩。它将继续使我们越来越富有，直到我们为任何想要它的人创造巨大的财富。
Too many takers and not enough makers will plunge a society into ruin
太多的接受者和没有足够的制造者将使一个社会陷入毁灭
Nivi: It’s not just individuals secretly despising wealth, right? There are countries, groups, political parties that overtly despise wealth. Or at least seem to.
Nivi：不只是个人在暗中鄙视财富，对吧？有些国家、团体、政党公然鄙视财富。或者至少看起来是这样。
Naval: That’s right. What those countries, political parties, and groups are reduced to is playing the zero-sum game of status. In the process to destroy wealth creation, they drag everybody down to their level.
Naval：没错。这些国家、政党和团体沦为在玩地位的零和游戏。在破坏财富创造的过程中，他们把每个人都拖到他们的水平。
Which is why the U.S. is a very popular country for immigrants because of the American dream. Anyone can come here, be poor, and then work really hard and make money, and get wealthy. But even just make some basic money for their life.
这就是为什么由于美国梦，美国是一个非常受移民欢迎的国家。任何人都可以来到这里，变得贫穷，然后努力工作，赚钱，变得富有。但即使只是为他们的生活赚一些基本的钱。
Obviously, the definition of wealth is different for different people. A First World citizen’s definition of wealth might be, “Oh, I have to make millions of dollars, and I’m completely done.”
显然，财富的定义因人而异。第一世界公民对财富的定义可能是，“哦，我必须赚数百万美元，我完全完成了。
Whereas to a Third World poor immigrant just entering the country, and we were poor immigrants who came here when I as fairly young, to the United States, wealth may just be a much lower number. It may just be, “I don’t have to work a manual labor job for the rest of my life that I don’t want to work.”
而对于一个刚进入美国的第三世界贫穷移民来说，我们是贫穷的移民，在我很小的时候就来到这里，对美国来说，财富可能只是一个低得多的数字。它可能只是，“我不必一辈子从事我不想工作的体力劳动工作。
But groups that despise it will essentially bring the entire group to that level. If you get too many takers, and not enough makers, society falls apart. You end up with a communist country.
但是鄙视它的群体基本上会把整个群体带到那个水平。如果你得到太多的接受者，而没有足够的制造者，社会就会分崩离析。你最终会得到一个共产主义国家。
Look at Venezuela, right? They were so busy taking, and dividing, and reallocating, that people are literally starving in the streets, and losing kilograms of body weight every year just from sheer starvation.
看看委内瑞拉，对吧？他们忙于获取、分割和重新分配，以至于人们在街上挨饿，每年都因为饥饿而减掉公斤的体重。
Another way to think about it is imagine an organism that has too many parasites. You need some small number of parasites to stay healthy.
另一种思考方式是想象一个有太多寄生虫的生物体。你需要一些少量的寄生虫来保持健康。
You need a lot of symbiotes. All the mitochondria in all of our cells that help us respirate and burn oxygen. These are symbiotes that help us survive. We couldn’t survive without them.
你需要很多共生体。我们所有细胞中的所有线粒体都帮助我们呼吸和燃烧氧气。这些是帮助我们生存的共生体。没有他们，我们就无法生存。
But, to me, those are partners in the wealth creation that creates the human body. But if you just were filled with parasites, if you got infected with worms, or a virus, or bacteria that were purely parasitical, you would die. So, any organism can only withstand a small number of parasites. When the parasitic element gets too far out of control, you die.
但是，对我而言，这些是创造人体的财富创造的伙伴。但是，如果你只是充满了寄生虫，如果你感染了蠕虫、病毒或纯粹寄生的细菌，你就会死去。 因此，任何生物都只能承受少量的寄生虫。当寄生元素失控得太远时，你就会死亡。
Again I’m talking about ethical wealth creation. I’m not talking about monopolies. I’m not talking about crony capitalism. I’m not talking about mispriced externalities like the environment.
我再次谈论道德财富创造。我不是在谈论垄断。我不是在谈论裙带资本主义。我不是在谈论像环境这样被错误定价的外部因素。
I’m talking about free minds, and free markets. Small-scale exchange between humans that’s voluntary, and doesn’t have an outsized impact on others.
我说的是自由思想和自由市场。人与人之间的小规模交流是自愿的，不会对他人产生太大的影响。
I think that kind of wealth creation, if a society does not respect it, if the group does not respect it, then society will plunge into ruin, and darkness.
我认为这种财富的创造，如果一个社会不尊重它，如果群体不尊重它，那么社会就会陷入毁灭和黑暗。
Making Money Isn’t About Luck 赚钱与运气无关
Become the kind of person who makes money
成为那种赚钱的人
Making money isn’t about luck
赚钱与运气无关
Naval: Obviously, we want to be wealthy, and we want to get there in this lifetime without having to rely on luck.
Naval：显然，我们想变得富有，我们想在这一生中到达那里，而不必依靠运气。
A lot of people think making money is about luck. It’s not. It’s about becoming the kind of person that makes money.
很多人认为赚钱是关于运气的。事实并非如此。这是关于成为那种赚钱的人。
I like to think that if I lost all my money and if you drop me on a random street in any English-speaking country, within 5, 10 years I’d be wealthy again. Because it’s a skill set that I’ve developed and I think anyone can develop.
我想，如果我失去了所有的钱，如果你把我扔到任何一个英语国家的随机街道上，在5年、10年内，我就会再次变得富有。因为这是我培养的一套技能，我认为任何人都可以发展。
In 1,000 parallel universes, you want to be wealthy in 999 of them. You don’t want to be wealthy in the 50 of them where you got lucky. We want to factor luck out of it.
在 1,000 个平行宇宙中，你想在其中 999 个宇宙中变得富有。你不想在你幸运的 50 个中变得富有。我们想把运气因素考虑在内。
There’s four kinds of luck that we’re talking about. This came from a book. Marc Andreessen, wrote a blog post about it.
我们谈论的是四种运气。这来自一本书。马克·安德森（Marc Andreessen）写了一篇关于它的博客文章。
1. Blind luck 1.盲目运气
The first kind of luck you might say is blind luck. Where I just got lucky because something completely out of my control happened. That’s fortune, that’s fate.
你可能会说的第一种运气是盲目的运气。我只是很幸运，因为发生了一些完全无法控制的事情。这就是运气，这就是命运。
2. Luck from hustling 2. 熙熙攘攘的运气
Then there’s luck that comes through persistence, hard work, hustle, motion. Which is when you’re running around creating lots of opportunities, you’re generating a lot of energy, you’re doing a lot of things, lots of things will get stirred up in the dust.
然后是运气，来自坚持、努力、忙碌、运动。当你四处奔波，创造很多机会，你产生很多能量，你做了很多事情，很多事情都会被搅动在尘埃中。
It’s almost like mixing a petri dish and seeing what combines. Or mixing a bunch of reagents and seeing what combines. You’re generating enough force and hustle and energy that luck will find you.
这几乎就像混合培养皿，看看是什么结合在一起。或者混合一堆试剂，看看有什么结合。你正在产生足够的力量、喧嚣和能量，运气会找到你。
We, as a group, you could argue, got together because of that. Nenad had put up these great videos online, I saw them on Twitter. In that sense, he generated his own luck by creating videos until people like me keep finding him.
我们可以说，作为一个群体，正因为如此而走到了一起。Nenad 在网上发布了这些很棒的视频，我在 Twitter 上看到了它们。从这个意义上说，他通过制作视频来创造自己的运气，直到像我这样的人不断找到他。
3. Luck from preparation 3. 准备的运气
A third way is that you become very good at spotting luck. If you are very skilled in a field, you will notice when a lucky break happens in that field. When other people who aren’t attuned to it won’t notice. So you become sensitive to luck and that’s through skill and knowledge and work.
第三种方式是你变得非常善于发现运气。如果你在一个领域非常熟练，你会注意到那个领域何时发生幸运的突破。当其他不适应它的人不会注意到时。所以你对运气变得敏感，这是通过技能、知识和工作。
**4. Luck from your unique character
- 来自你独特性格的运气**
Then the last kind of luck is the weirdest, hardest kind. But that’s what we want to talk about. Which is where you build a unique character, a unique brand, a unique mindset, where then luck finds you.
那么最后一种运气是最奇怪、最难的那种。但这就是我们想谈的。在这里，你建立了一个独特的性格，一个独特的品牌，一个独特的心态，然后运气找到了你。
For example, let’s say that you’re the best person in the world at deep sea underwater diving. You’re known to take on deep sea underwater dives that nobody else will even attempt to dare.
例如，假设您是世界上最擅长深海水下潜水的人。众所周知，您会进行其他人甚至不敢尝试的深海水下潜水。
Then, by sheer luck, somebody finds a sunken treasure ship off the coast. They can’t get it. Well, their luck just became your luck, because they’re going to come to you to get that treasure. You’re going to get paid for it.
然后，纯粹是运气好，有人在海岸附近发现了一艘沉没的宝船。他们无法得到它。好吧，他们的运气变成了你的运气，因为他们会来找你得到那个宝藏。你会为此得到报酬。
Now, that’s an extreme example. The person who got lucky by finding the treasure chest, that was blind luck. But them coming to you and asking you to extract it and having to give you half, that’s not luck.
现在，这是一个极端的例子。那个幸运地找到宝箱的人，那是盲目的运气。但是他们来找你，要求你提取它，不得不给你一半，这不是运气。
You created your own luck. You put yourself in a position to be able to capitalize on that luck. Or to attract that luck when nobody else has created that opportunity for themselves. When we talk about “without getting lucky,” we want to be deterministic, we don’t want to leave it to chance.
你创造了自己的运气。你把自己放在一个能够利用这种运气的位置上。或者在没有其他人为自己创造机会的情况下吸引这种运气。当我们谈论“没有运气”时，我们想要确定性，我们不想让它碰运气。
In 1,000 parallel universes, you want to be wealthy in 999 of them
在 1,000 个平行宇宙中，你想在其中 999 个宇宙中变得富有
Nivi: Do you want to elaborate a little bit more on the idea that in a 1,000 parallel universes you want to get rich in 999 of them? I think some people are going to see that and say, “that sounds impossible, it sounds like it’s too good to be true.”
Nivi：你是否想更详细地阐述一下，在1000个平行宇宙中，你想在999个平行宇宙中致富？我想有些人会看到这一点并说，“这听起来不可能，听起来好得令人难以置信。
Naval: No, I don’t think it’s impossible. I think that you may have to work a little bit harder at it given your starting circumstances. I started as a poor kid in India, so if I can make it, anybody can, in that sense.
Naval：不，我不认为这是不可能的。我认为考虑到你的起步环境，你可能需要更加努力地工作。我最初是在印度的一个穷孩子，所以如果我能成功，从这个意义上说，任何人都可以。
Now, obviously, I had all my limbs and I had my mental faculties and I did have an education. There are some prerequisites you can’t get past. But if you’re listening to this video or podcast, you probably have the requisite means at your disposal, which is a functioning body and a functioning mind.
现在，很明显，我有我所有的四肢，我有我的智力，我确实受过教育。有一些先决条件是你无法克服的。但是，如果你正在听这个视频或播客，你可能拥有必要的手段，那就是一个正常的身体和一个正常运作的头脑。
And I’ve encountered plenty of bad luck along the way. The first little fortune that I made, I instantly lost in the stock market. The second little fortune that I made, or I should have made, I basically got cheated by my business partners. It’s only the third time around has been a charm.
一路走来，我遇到了很多厄运。我赚到的第一笔小财，我瞬间在股市上输了。我赚到的第二笔小财，或者我应该赚到的，我基本上被我的商业伙伴骗了。这已经是第三次了。
And, even then, it has been in a slow and steady struggle. I haven’t made money in my life in one giant payout. It’s always been a whole bunch of small things piling up. It’s more about consistently creating wealth by creating businesses, including opportunities and creating investments. It hasn’t been a giant one-off thing.
即便如此，它也一直在缓慢而稳定地挣扎。我这辈子都没有赚到一笔巨额奖金。总是一大堆小东西堆积如山。它更多的是通过创造业务来持续创造财富，包括机会和创造投资。这并不是一件一次性的事情。
Wealth stacks up one chip at a time, not all at once
财富一次堆积一个筹码，而不是一次全部堆积起来
My personal wealth has not been generated by one big year. It stacks up little bit, chips at a time. More options, more businesses, more investments, more things that I can do.
我的个人财富不是由一个大年产生的。它一点点堆叠起来，一次一个芯片。更多的选择，更多的业务，更多的投资，更多我可以做的事情。
Same way that someone like Nenad, illacertus, he’s building his brand online. He’s building videos. It’s not like any one video is going to suddenly shower him with riches overnight. It’s going to be a long lifetime of learning, of reading, of creating that’s going to compound.
就像像 Nenad 和 illacertus 这样的人一样，他正在在线建立自己的品牌。他正在制作视频。这不像任何一个视频会在一夜之间突然给他带来财富。这将是一个漫长的学习、阅读、创造的一生，这些都会复合。
We’re talking about getting wealthy so you can retire, so you have your freedom. Not retire in the sense that you don’t do anything. But in the sense that you don’t have to be any place you don’t want to be, you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do, you can wake up when you want, you can sleep when you want, you don’t have a boss. That’s freedom.
我们谈论的是变得富有，这样你就可以退休了，这样你就有了自由。不要在你什么都不做的意义上退休。但从某种意义上说，你不必去任何你不想去的地方，你不必做任何你不想做的事情，你想醒来就醒来，想睡觉就睡，你没有老板。这就是自由。
We’re talking about enough wealth to get to freedom. Especially thanks to the Internet these days, though, opportunities are massively abundant. I, in fact, have too many ways to make money, I don’t have enough time. I have opportunities pouring out of my ears and the thing I keep running out of is time.
我们谈论的是足够的财富来获得自由。不过，特别是多亏了如今的互联网，机会非常丰富。其实我赚钱的方法太多了，我没有足够的时间。我有机会从我的耳朵里涌出，而我总是用完的就是时间。
There’s just so many ways to create wealth, to create products, to create businesses, to create opportunities, and to, as a byproduct, get paid by society that I can’t even handle it all.
创造财富、创造产品、创造企业、创造机会以及作为副产品获得社会报酬的方法太多了，我什至无法处理所有这些。
Make Luck Your Destiny 让运气成为你的命运
Build your character in a way that luck becomes deterministic
以一种运气成为决定性的方式建立你的角色
Nivi: I think it’s pretty interesting that the first three kinds of luck that you described there are very common cliches for them that everybody knows. And then for that last kind of luck that comes to you out of the unique way that you act, there’s no real cliche for it.
Nivi：我觉得很有意思的是，你描述的前三种运气都是大家都知道的非常常见的陈词滥调。然后，对于你独特的行为方式给你带来的最后一种运气，这并不是真正的陈词滥调。
So, for the first three kinds, there’s “dumb luck,” or “blind luck.” That’s the first kind of luck. The second kind of luck there’s the cliché that “fortune favors the bold.” That’s a person who gets lucky just by stirring the pot and acting. The third kind of luck, people say that “chance favors the prepared mind.”
所以，对于前三种，有“愚蠢的运气”或“盲目的运气”。这是第一种运气。第二种运气是陈词滥调，即“幸运眷顾大胆的人”。那是一个光是炒锅演戏就走运的人。第三种运气，人们说“机会偏爱有准备的头脑”。
But for the fourth kind of luck, there isn’t a common cliché out there that matches the unique character of your action, which I think is interesting and perhaps an opportunity and it also shows that people aren’t necessarily taking advantage of that kind of luck the way they should be.
但对于第四种运气，没有一个常见的陈词滥调与你行动的独特性相匹配，我认为这很有趣，也许是一个机会，这也表明人们不一定会以他们应该的方式利用这种运气。
Naval: I think also at that point, it starts becoming so deterministic that it stops being luck. So, the definition starts fading from luck to more destiny. So, I would characterize that fourth one as you build your character in a certain way and then your character becomes your destiny.
Naval：我认为也是在那个时候，它开始变得如此确定，以至于它不再是运气。因此，这个定义开始从运气逐渐消失，走向更多的命运。所以，我会描述第四个，因为你以某种方式建立你的角色，然后你的角色成为你的命运。
Build your character so opportunity finds you
塑造你的性格，让机会找到你
One of the things I think that is important to making money, when you want the kind of reputation that makes people do deals through you. I use the example of like, if you’re a great diver then treasure hunters will come and give you a piece of the treasure for your diving skills.
我认为赚钱很重要的一件事是，当你想要那种让人们通过你做交易的声誉时。我举个例子，如果你是一个伟大的潜水员，那么寻宝者会来给你一块宝藏，以奖励你的潜水技能。
If you’re a trusted, reliable, high-integrity, long-term thinking deal maker, then when other people want to do deals but they don’t know how to do them in a trustworthy manner with strangers, they will literally approach you and give you a cut of the deal or offer you a unique deal just because of the integrity and reputation that you have built up.
如果你是一个值得信赖、可靠、正直、有长远思维的交易撮合者，那么当其他人想做交易，但他们不知道如何以值得信赖的方式与陌生人做交易时，他们会从字面上接近你，给你一笔交易，或者仅仅因为你建立的诚信和声誉而为你提供独特的交易。
Warren Buffett, he gets offered deals, and he gets to buy companies, and he gets to buy warrants, and bailout banks and do things that other people can’t do because of his reputation.
沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett），他得到了交易机会，他可以购买公司，他可以购买认股权证，救助银行，并做一些其他人因为他的声誉而无法做的事情。
But of course that’s fragile. It has accountability on the line, it has a strong brand on the line, and as we will talk about later, that comes with accountability attached.
但这当然是脆弱的。它有问责制，它有一个强大的品牌，正如我们稍后将讨论的那样，这伴随着问责制。
But I would say your character, your reputation, these are things that you can build that then will let you take up advantage of opportunities that other people may characterize as lucky but you know that it wasn’t luck.
但我想说的是，你的性格，你的声誉，这些都是你可以建立的东西，然后会让你利用其他人可能认为是幸运的机会，但你知道这不是运气。
Nivi: You said that this fourth kind of luck is more or less a destiny. There’s a quote from that original book that was in Marc’s blog posts from Benjamin Disraeli, who I think was the former prime minister of the UK. The quote to describe this kind of luck was, “we make our fortunes and we call them fate.”
尼薇：你说这第四种运气或多或少是一种命运。本杰明·迪斯雷利（Benjamin Disraeli）在马克的博客文章中引用了那本原著中的一句话，我认为他是英国前首相。描述这种运气的名言是，“我们创造财富，我们称之为命运。
You have to be a little eccentric to be out on the frontier by yourself
你必须有点古怪才能独自出征
There were a couple other interesting things about this kind of luck that were mentioned in the blog post, I think it’ll be good for the listeners to hear about is that, this fourth kind of luck can almost come out of eccentric ways that you do your things and that eccentricity is not necessarily a bad thing in this case. In fact, it’s a good thing.
关于这种运气，在博客文章中还提到了其他一些有趣的事情，我认为听众听到的是，第四种运气几乎可以来自你做事的古怪方式，在这种情况下，古怪不一定是坏事。事实上，这是一件好事。
Naval: Yeah, absolutely. Because the world is a very efficient place, so, everyone has dug through all the obvious places to dig and so to find something that’s new and novel and uncovered, it helps to be operating on a frontier.
Naval：是的，当然。因为这个世界是一个非常高效的地方，所以，每个人都挖掘了所有明显的地方，所以要找到一些新的、新颖的和未被发现的东西，在前沿运作是有帮助的。
Where right there you have to be a little eccentric to be out on the frontier by yourself, and then you have to be willing to dig deeper than other people do, deeper than seems rational just because you’re interested.
在那里，你必须有点古怪才能独自走到边疆，然后你必须愿意比其他人更深入地挖掘，比看起来理性更深，仅仅因为你感兴趣。
Nivi: Yeah, the two quotes that I’ve seen that express this kind of luck in addition to that Benjamin Disraeli one, are this one from Sam Altman where he said, “extreme people get extreme results.” I think that’s pretty nice. And then there’s this other one from Jeffrey Pfeffer, who is a professor at Stanford that, “you can’t be normal and expect abnormal returns.” I’ve always enjoyed that one too.
尼维：是的，除了本杰明·迪斯雷利（Benjamin Disraeli）的那句话之外，我还看到过两句表达这种运气的名言，这是山姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）的一句话，他说：“极端的人会得到极端的结果。我认为这很好。斯坦福大学教授杰弗里·普费弗（Jeffrey Pfeffer）说，“你不能正常，并期望得到异常的回报。我也一直很喜欢那个。
Naval: Yeah. And one quote that I like which is the exact opposite of that is, “play stupid games win stupid prizes.” A lot of people spend a lot of their time playing social games like on Twitter where you’re trying to improve your social standing and you basically win stupid social prizes which are worthless.
Naval：是的。我喜欢的一句话与此完全相反，“玩愚蠢的游戏赢得愚蠢的奖品。很多人花了很多时间玩社交游戏，比如在Twitter上，你试图提高你的社会地位，你基本上赢得了愚蠢的社会奖品，这些奖品是毫无价值的。
Nivi: I guess the last thing that I have from this blog post is the idea that by pursuing these kinds of luck especially the last one, basically everything but dumb luck, by pursuing them you essentially run out of unluck. So, if you just keep stirring the pot and stirring the pot, that alone you will run out of unluck.
Nivi：我想我从这篇博文中得到的最后一件事是，通过追求这些运气，尤其是最后一种运气，基本上除了愚蠢的运气之外，你基本上没有运气。所以，如果你只是不停地搅拌锅和搅拌锅，仅此一项你就会倒霉。
Naval: Yeah, or it could just be reversion to the mean. So, then you at least neutralized luck so that it’s your own talents that come into play.
Naval：是的，或者它可能只是回归均值。所以，你至少抵消了运气，这样你自己的才能就会发挥作用。
You Won’t Get Rich Renting Out Your Time 你不会因为出租你的时间而致富
You can’t earn non-linearly when you’re renting out your time
当你出租你的时间时，你不能非线性地赚钱
You won’t get rich renting out your time
你不会因为出租你的时间而致富
Nivi: Next you go into more specific details on how you can actually get rich, and how you can’t get rich. The first point was about how you’re not going to get rich: “You are not going to get rich renting out your time. You must own equity, a piece of the business to gain your financial freedom.”
Nivi：接下来，你将更具体地介绍如何真正致富，以及如何致富。第一点是关于你如何不致富：“你不会因为出租你的时间而致富。你必须拥有股权，这是企业的一部分，才能获得财务自由。
Naval: This is probably one of the absolute most important points. People seem to think that you can create wealth, and make money through work. And it’s probably not going to work. There are many reasons for that.
Naval：这可能是最重要的一点。人们似乎认为你可以创造财富，并通过工作赚钱。而且它可能不会起作用。造成这种情况的原因有很多。
But the most basic is just that your inputs are very closely tied to your outputs. In almost any salaried job, even at one that’s paying a lot per hour like a lawyer, or a doctor, you’re still putting in the hours, and every hour you get paid.
但最基本的是，你的输入与你的输出密切相关。在几乎任何有薪的工作中，即使是像律师或医生这样时薪很高的工作，你仍然在投入时间，而且每个小时你都会得到报酬。
So, what that means is when you’re sleeping, you’re not earning. When you’re retired, you’re not earning. When you’re on vacation, you’re not earning. And you can’t earn non-linearly.
所以，这意味着当你睡觉时，你没有赚钱。当你退休时，你就没有收入了。当你在度假时，你没有赚钱。而且你不能非线性地赚钱。
If you look at even doctors who get rich, like really rich, it’s because they open a business. They open like a private practice. And that private practice builds a brand, and that brand attracts people. Or they build some kind of a medical device, or a procedure, or a process with an intellectual property.
如果你看看那些有钱的医生，比如真正有钱的医生，那是因为他们开了一家公司。他们像私人诊所一样开放。私人诊所建立了一个品牌，这个品牌吸引了人们。或者他们制造某种具有知识产权的医疗设备、程序或过程。
So, essentially you’re working for somebody else, and that person is taking on the risk, and has the accountability, and the intellectual property, and the brand. So, they’re just not gonna pay you enough. They’re gonna pay you the bare minimum that they have to, to get you to do their job. And that can be a high bare minimum, but it’s still not gonna be true wealth where you’re retired.
所以，从本质上讲，你是在为别人工作，而这个人正在承担风险，并承担责任、知识产权和品牌。所以，他们只是不会付给你足够的钱。他们会付给你最低限度的工资，让你做他们的工作。这可能是一个很高的最低限度，但在你退休的地方，它仍然不会是真正的财富。
Renting out your time means you’re essentially replaceable
把你的时间租出去意味着你基本上是可以被替换的
And then finally you’re actually just not even creating that much original for society. Like I said, this tweetstorm should have been called “How to Create Wealth.” It’s just “How to Get Rich” was a more catchy title. But you’re not creating new things for society. You’re just doing things over and over.
最后，你实际上甚至没有为社会创造那么多原创。就像我说的，这场推特风暴应该被称为“如何创造财富”。只是“如何致富”是一个更吸引人的标题。但你不是在为社会创造新事物。你只是一遍又一遍地做事。
And you’re essentially replaceable because you’re now doing a set role. Most set roles can be taught. If they can be taught like in a school, then eventually you’re gonna be competing with someone who’s got more recent knowledge, who’s been taught, and is coming in to replace you.
你基本上是可以被替换的，因为你现在正在做一个固定的角色。大多数固定角色都可以教授。如果它们可以像在学校一样被教授，那么最终你将与一个拥有更多最新知识、被教导并取代你的人竞争。
You’re much more likely to be doing a job that can be eventually replaced by a robot, or by an AI. And it doesn’t even have to be wholesale replaced over night. It can be replaced a little bit at a time. And that kind of eats into your wealth creation, and therefore your earning capability.
你更有可能从事一项最终可以被机器人或人工智能取代的工作。它甚至不必在一夜之间批量更换。它可以一次更换一点点。这会影响你的财富创造，从而影响你的赚钱能力。
So, fundamentally your inputs are matched to your outputs. You are replaceable, and you’re not being creative. I just don’t think that, that is a way that you can truly make money.
因此，从根本上说，您的输入与输出相匹配。你是可以替代的，你没有创造力。我只是不认为，这是一种真正赚钱的方式。
You must own equity to gain your financial freedom
您必须拥有股权才能获得财务自由
So everybody who really makes money at some point owns a piece of a product, or a business, or some kind of IP. That can be through stock options, so you can be working at a tech company. That’s a fine way to start.
因此，每个真正赚钱的人都拥有一件产品、一项业务或某种知识产权。这可以通过股票期权来实现，所以你可以在一家科技公司工作。这是一个很好的开始。
But usually the real wealth is created by starting your own companies, or by even investors. They’re in an investment firm, and they’re buying equity. These are much more the routes to wealth. It doesn’t come through the hours.
但通常真正的财富是通过创办自己的公司，甚至是投资者来创造的。他们在一家投资公司，他们正在购买股权。这些更多的是通往财富的途径。它不会通过几个小时。
You want a career where your inputs don’t match your outputs
你想要一个你的投入与你的产出不匹配的职业
You really just want a job, or a career, or a profession where your inputs don’t match your outputs. If you look at modern society, again this is later in the tweetstorm. Businesses that have high creativity and high leverage tends to be ones where you could do an hour of work, and it can have a huge effect. Or you can do 1,000 hours of work, and it can have no effect.
你真的只是想要一份工作，或者一份职业，或者一个你的投入与你的产出不匹配的职业。如果你看看现代社会，这又是推特风暴的后期。具有高创造力和高杠杆率的企业往往是您可以完成一个小时工作的企业，并且可以产生巨大的影响。或者你可以做1000个小时的工作，它可以没有效果。
For example, look at software engineering. One great engineer can for example create bitcoin, and create billions of dollars worth of value. And an engineer who is working on the wrong thing, or not quite as good, or just not as creative, or thoughtful, or whatever, can work for an entire a year, and every piece of code they ship ends up not getting used. Customers don’t want it.
例如，看看软件工程。例如，一位伟大的工程师可以创造比特币，并创造价值数十亿美元的价值。一个工程师如果做错了事情，或者做得不太好，或者只是没有那么有创造力，或者没有思想，或者其他什么，可以工作一整年，而他们交付的每一段代码最终都不会被使用。客户不想要它。
That is an example of a profession where the input and the outputs are highly disconnected. It’s not based on the number of hours that you put in.
这是一个输入和输出高度脱节的职业的例子。它不是基于你投入的小时数。
Whereas on the extreme other end, if you’re a lumberjack, even the best lumberjack in the world, assuming you’re not working with tools, so the inputs and outputs are clearly connected. You’re just using an ax, or a saw. You know, the best lumberjack in the world may be like 3x better than one of the worst lumberjacks, right? It’s not gonna be a gigantic difference.
而在极端的另一端，如果你是一个伐木工人，即使是世界上最好的伐木工人，假设你不使用工具，所以输入和输出是明确连接的。你只是在用斧头或锯子。你知道，世界上最好的伐木工人可能比最差的伐木工人之一好 3 倍，对吧？这不会是一个巨大的差异。
So, you want to look for professions and careers where the inputs and outputs are highly disconnected. This is another way of saying that you want to look for things that are leveraged. And by leveraged I don’t mean financial leveraged alone, like Wall Street uses, and that has a bad name. I’m just talking about tools. We’re using tools.
因此，您想寻找输入和输出高度脱节的职业和职业。这是另一种说法，即您要寻找被利用的东西。我所说的杠杆并不是指像华尔街那样单独使用金融杠杆，这有一个坏名声。我只是在谈论工具。我们正在使用工具。
A computer is a tool that software engineers use. If I’m a lumberjack with bulldozers, and automatic robot axes, and saws, I’m gonna be using tools, and have more leverage than someone who is just using his bare hands, and trying to rip the trees out by the roots.
计算机是软件工程师使用的工具。如果我是一个伐木工人，有推土机、自动机器人斧头和锯子，我会使用工具，并且比那些赤手空拳的人更有影响力，并试图从根部拔掉树木。
Tools and leverage are what create this disconnection between inputs and outputs. Creativity, so the higher the creativity component of a profession, the more likely it is to have disconnected inputs and outputs.
工具和杠杆是造成输入和输出之间脱节的原因。创造力，因此职业的创造力成分越高，输入和输出脱节的可能性就越大。
So, I think that if you’re looking at professions where your inputs and your outputs are highly connected, it’s gonna be very, very, hard to create wealth, and make wealth for yourself in that process.
所以，我认为，如果你在看那些你的投入和产出高度相关的职业，那么创造财富，并在这个过程中为自己创造财富将是非常非常困难的。
Live Below Your Means for Freedom 为自由而活在自己的能力之下
People busy upgrading their lifestyles just can’t fathom this freedom
忙于升级生活方式的人们无法理解这种自由
People living below their means have freedom
入不敷出的人有自由
Nivi: Any other big things you should avoid, other than renting out your time?
Nivi：除了出租时间之外，你还应该避免其他大事吗？
Naval: Yeah, there are two tweets that I put out that are related. The first one I was talking about where someone, like, how your lifestyle has to upgrade, shouldn’t get upgraded too fast. And that one basically said, people who are living far below their means enjoy a freedom that people busy upgrading their lifestyles just can’t fathom.
Naval：是的，我发布了两条相关的推文。我谈论的第一个问题是关于某人，比如，你的生活方式必须如何升级，不应该升级得太快。那基本上是说，那些生活远远低于他们能力的人享有一种自由，而人们忙于升级他们的生活方式是无法理解的。
And I think that’s very important, just to not upgrade your lifestyle all the time. To maintain your freedom. And it just gives you freedom of operation. You basically, once you make a little bit of money, you still want to be living like your old self, so that just the worry goes away. So, don’t run out to upgrade that house, and lifestyle, and all that stuff.
我认为这非常重要，只是不要一直升级你的生活方式。为了维护你的自由。它只是为您提供操作自由。基本上，一旦你赚了一点钱，你仍然想像以前的自己一样生活，这样烦恼就消失了。所以，不要跑出去升级那所房子，生活方式，以及所有这些东西。
The most dangerous things are heroin and a monthly salary
最危险的东西是海洛因和月薪
Let’s say you’re getting paid $1,000 an hour. The problem is, is that when you go into a work lifestyle like that, you don’t just suddenly go from making $20 an hour to making $1,000 an hour. That’s a progression over a long career.
假设您每小时获得 1,000 美元的报酬。问题是，当你进入这样的工作生活方式时，你不会突然从每小时 20 美元变成每小时 1,000 美元。这是漫长职业生涯中的进步。
And as that happens, one subtle problem is that you upgrade your lifestyle as you make more, and more money. And that upgrading of the lifestyle kind of ups what you consider to be wealth, and you stay in this wage slave trap.
当这种情况发生时，一个微妙的问题是，随着你赚得更多、更多的钱，你会升级你的生活方式。生活方式的升级会增加你认为的财富，而你却陷入了这个工资奴隶的陷阱。
So, I forget who said it, maybe it was Nassim Taleb. But he said, “The most dangerous things are heroin, and a monthly salary.” Right, because they are highly addictive. The way you want to get wealthy is you want to be poor, and working, and working, and working.
所以，我忘了是谁说的，也许是纳西姆·塔勒布。但他说，“最危险的东西是海洛因，还有月薪。是的，因为它们很容易上瘾。你想变得富有的方式就是你想变得贫穷，工作，工作，工作，工作。
Ideally, you’ll make your money in discrete lumps
理想情况下，您将以离散的块状方式赚钱
And this is for example how the tech industry works. Where you don’t make any money for ten years, and then suddenly at year eleven, you might have a giant payday.
例如，这就是科技行业的运作方式。你十年没有赚到钱，然后突然到了第十一年，你可能会有一个巨大的发薪日。
Which is by the way one reason why these very high marginal tax rates for the so-called wealthy are flawed because the highest risk-taking, most creative professions you literally lose money for a decade over your life, while you take massive risk, and you bleed, and bleed, and bleed.
顺便说一句，这就是为什么这些对所谓富人的非常高的边际税率是有缺陷的原因之一，因为风险最高、最具创造力的职业，你一生中实际上会损失十年的钱，而你却冒着巨大的风险，你流血，流血，流血。
And then suddenly in year eleven, or year fifteen, you might have one single big payday. But then of course Uncle Sam show up, and basically say, “Hey, you know what, you just made a lot money this year. Therefore, you’re rich. Therefore, you’re evil and you’ve got to hand it all over to us.” So, it just destroys those kinds of creative risk taking professions.
然后突然间，在十一年级或十五年级，你可能有一个大发薪日。但当然，山姆大叔出现了，基本上说，“嘿，你知道吗，你今年赚了很多钱。因此，你很有钱。所以，你是邪恶的，你必须把它全部交给我们。所以，它只是摧毁了那些创造性的冒险职业。
But ideally you want to make your money in discrete lumps, separated over long periods of time, so that your own lifestyle does not have a chance to adapt quickly, and then you basically say, “Okay, now I’m done. Now I’m retired. Now I’m free. I’m still gonna work because you got to do something with your life, but I’m gonna work on only the things that I want, when I want.” And so you have much more creative expression, and much less about money.
但理想情况下，你想把你的钱分成离散的块状，在很长一段时间内分开，这样你自己的生活方式就没有机会快速适应，然后你基本上会说，“好吧，现在我完成了。现在我退休了。现在我自由了。我仍然会工作，因为你必须用你的生活做点什么，但我只会在我想要的时候做我想要的事情。所以你有更多的创造性表达，而对金钱的关心要少得多。
Give Society What It Doesn’t Know How to Get 给社会它不知道如何得到的东西
Society will pay you for creating what it wants and delivering it at scale
社会会付钱给你，因为你创造了它想要的东西，并大规模地交付了它
Give society what it wants, but doesn’t know how to get—at scale
为社会提供它想要的东西，但不知道如何获得——大规模
Nivi: You’re not gonna get rich renting out your time. But you say that, “you will get rich by giving society what it wants, but does not yet know how to get at scale.”
Nivi：你不会因为出租你的时间而致富。但你说，“你会通过给社会它想要的东西来致富，但还不知道如何扩大规模。
Naval: That’s right. So, essentially as we talked about before, money is IOUs from society saying, “You did something good in the past. Now here’s something that we owe you for the future.” And so society will pay you for creating things that it wants.
Naval：没错。所以，从本质上讲，正如我们之前谈到的，金钱是来自社会的借据，说：“你过去做了一些好事。现在，这是我们欠你的未来的东西。因此，社会会付钱给你，让你创造它想要的东西。
But society doesn’t yet know how to create those things because if it did, they wouldn’t need you. They would already be stamped out big time.
但社会还不知道如何创造这些东西，因为如果这样做了，他们就不需要你了。他们已经被大力淘汰了。
Almost everything that’s in your house, in your workplace, and on the street used to be technology at one point in time. There was a time when oil was a technology, that made J.D. Rockefeller rich. There was a time when cars were technology, that made Henry Ford rich.
你家里、工作场所和街上的几乎所有东西都曾经是技术。曾几何时，石油是一种技术，使J.D.洛克菲勒变得富有。曾几何时，汽车是技术，这让亨利·福特变得富有。
So, technology is just the set of things, as Alan Kay said, that don’t quite work yet [correction: Danny Hillis]. Once something works, it’s no longer technology. So, society always wants new things.
所以，正如艾伦·凯（Alan Kay）所说，技术只是一套还不能完全起作用的东西[更正：丹尼·希利斯（Danny Hillis）]。一旦某件事奏效，它就不再是技术了。所以，社会总是想要新事物。
Figure out what product you can provide and then figure out how to scale it
弄清楚你可以提供什么产品，然后弄清楚如何扩展它
And if you want to be wealthy, you want to figure out which one of those things you can provide for society, that it does not yet know how to get, but it will want, that’s natural to you, and within your skillset, within your capabilities.
如果你想变得富有，你要弄清楚你能为社会提供哪一种东西，它还不知道如何得到，但它会想要，这对你来说是很自然的，在你的技能范围内，在你的能力范围内。
And then you have to figure out how to scale it. Because if you just build one of it, that’s not enough. You’ve got to build thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions, or billions of them. So, everybody can have one.
然后你必须弄清楚如何扩展它。因为如果你只建造一个，那是不够的。你必须建造数千个、数十万个、数百万个或数十亿个。所以，每个人都可以拥有一个。
Steve Jobs, and his team of course figured out that society would want smartphones. A computer in their pocket that had all the phone capability times 100, and be easy to use. So, they figured out how to build that, and then they figured out how to scale it.
史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）和他的团队当然发现，社会需要智能手机。他们口袋里的一台电脑，拥有 100 倍的所有电话功能，并且易于使用。所以，他们想出了如何构建它，然后他们想出了如何扩展它。
And they figured out how to get one into every First World citizen’s pocket, and eventually every Third World citizen too. And so because of that they’re handsomely rewarded, and Apple is the most valuable company in the world.
他们想出了如何让每个第一世界公民的口袋里都有一个，最终每个第三世界公民也一样。正因为如此，他们得到了丰厚的回报，苹果是世界上最有价值的公司。
Nivi: The way I tried to put it was that the entrepreneur’s job is to try to bring the high end to the mass market.
Nivi：我试图说的是，企业家的工作是努力将高端产品推向大众市场。
Naval: It starts as high end. First it starts as an act of creativity. First you create it just because you want it. You want it, and you know how to build it, and you need it. And so you build it for yourself. Then you figure out how to get it to other people. And then for a little while rich people have it.
Naval：它从高端开始。首先，它开始于一种创造性的行为。首先，你创建它只是因为你想要它。你想要它，你知道如何构建它，你需要它。所以你为自己建造它。然后你弄清楚如何把它带给其他人。然后有一段时间，有钱人拥有它。
Like, for example rich people had chauffeurs, and then they had black town cars. And then Uber came along, and everyone’s private driver is available to everybody. And now you can even see Uber pools that are replacing shuttle buses because it’s more convenient. And then you get scooters, which are even further down market of that. So, you’re right. It’s about distributing what rich people used to have to everybody.
例如，富人有司机，然后他们有黑色的城镇汽车。然后优步出现了，每个人都可以使用每个人的私人司机。现在，您甚至可以看到优步游泳池正在取代穿梭巴士，因为它更方便。然后你会得到踏板车，这是更低的市场。所以，你是对的。这是关于将富人过去拥有的东西分配给每个人。
But the entrepreneur’s job starts even before that, which is creation. Entrepreneurship is essentially an act of creating something new from scratch. Predicting that society will want it, and then figuring out how to scale it, and get it to everybody in a profitable way, in a self-sustaining way.
但企业家的工作甚至在此之前就开始了，这就是创造。创业本质上是一种从头开始创造新事物的行为。预测社会会想要它，然后弄清楚如何扩大规模，并以有利可图的方式，以自我维持的方式将其提供给每个人。
The Internet Has Massively Broadened Career Possibilities 互联网极大地拓宽了职业可能性
The Internet allows you to scale any niche obsession
互联网允许您扩展任何利基痴迷
The Internet has massively broadened the possible space of careers
互联网极大地拓宽了职业的可能空间
Nivi: Let’s look at this next tweet, which I thought was cryptic, and also super interesting, about the kind of job or career that you might have. You said, “The internet has massively broadened the possible space of careers. Most people haven’t figured this out yet.”
Nivi：让我们看看下一条推文，我认为这条推文很神秘，也非常有趣，关于你可能拥有的工作或职业。你说，“互联网极大地拓宽了职业的可能空间。大多数人还没有弄清楚这一点。
Naval: The fundamental property of the internet more than any other single thing is it connects every human to each other human on the planet. You can now reach everyone.
Naval：互联网的基本属性比任何其他事物都重要，它把地球上的每个人彼此联系在一起。您现在可以联系到所有人。
Whether it’s by emailing them personally, whether it’s by broadcasting to them on Twitter, whether it’s by posting something on Facebook that they find, whether it’s by putting up a website they come and access.
无论是亲自给他们发电子邮件，还是在Twitter上向他们广播，无论是在Facebook上发布他们找到的东西，还是通过建立一个他们来访问的网站。
It connects everyone to everyone. So, the internet is an inter-networking tool. It connects everybody. That is its superpower. So, you want to use that.
它将每个人与每个人联系起来。因此，互联网是一种互联工具。它连接着每个人。这就是它的超能力。所以，你想使用它。
What that helps you figure out is the internet means you can find your audience for your product, or your talent, and skill no matter how far away they are.
这可以帮助您弄清楚的是，互联网意味着您可以为您的产品找到您的受众，或者您的才能和技能，无论他们距离多远。
For example, Nenad, who is Illacertus, if you look at his videos pre-internet, how would he get the message out there? It would just be … what would he do? He would run around where he lives in his neighborhood showing it to people on a computer, or a screen? Or he would try to get it played at his local movie theater? It was impossible. It only works because he can put it on the internet.
例如，Nenad，谁是 Illacertus，如果你看他在互联网之前的视频，他会如何传达信息？那只是……他会怎么做？他会在他住的地方跑来跑去，在电脑或屏幕上向人们展示它？或者他会尝试在当地的电影院播放它？这是不可能的。它之所以有效，是因为他可以把它放在互联网上。
And then how many people in the world are really interested in it? Or even in interested in what we’re talking about are really gonna absorb it, right? It’s gonna be a very small subset of humanity. The key is being able to reach them.
那么世界上有多少人真正对它感兴趣呢？甚至对我们正在谈论的东西感兴趣，真的会吸收它，对吧？这将是人类的一个非常小的子集。关键是能够接触到他们。
The Internet allows you to scale any niche obsession
互联网允许您扩展任何利基痴迷
So, what the internet does is allows any niche obsession, which could be just the weirdest thing. It could be like people who collect snakes, to like people who like to ride hot air balloons, to people who like to sail around the world by themselves, just one person on a craft, or someone who’s obsessed with miniature cooking. Like, there’s this whole Japanese miniature cooking phenomenon. Or there’s a show about a woman who goes in people’s houses, and tidies it up, right?
因此，互联网所做的是允许任何小众的痴迷，这可能是最奇怪的事情。它可能像收集蛇的人，喜欢乘坐热气球的人，喜欢自己环游世界的人，只有一个人在船上，或者痴迷于微型烹饪的人。比如，有一种完整的日本微型烹饪现象。或者有个节目是关于一个女人走进人们的房子，然后收拾它，对吧？
So, whatever niche obsession you have, the internet allows you to scale. Now that’s not to say that what you build will be the next Facebook, or reach billions of users, but if you just want to reach 50,000 passionate people like you, there’s an audience out there for you.
因此，无论您对利基市场有什么痴迷，互联网都可以让您扩展。这并不是说你建立的东西会成为下一个Facebook，或者达到数十亿用户，但如果你只是想达到50,000名像你一样充满激情的人，那么你就有适合你的受众。
So the beauty of this is that we have 7 billion human beings on the planet. The combinatorics of human DNA are incredible. Everyone is completely different. You’ll never meet any two people who are even vaguely similar to each other, that can substitute for each other.
因此，这样做的美妙之处在于，我们这个星球上有70亿人。人类DNA的组合学令人难以置信。每个人都是完全不同的。你永远不会遇到任何两个彼此之间隐约相似的人，可以相互替代。
It’s not like you can say, “Well, Nivi, just left my life. So, I can have this other person come in, and he’s just like Nivi. And I get the same feelings, and the same responses, and the same ideas.” No. There are no substitutes for people. People are completely unique.
你不能说，“好吧，尼维，刚刚离开了我的生活。所以，我可以让另一个人进来，他就像尼维一样。我得到同样的感受，同样的反应，同样的想法。不。人是无可替代的。人是完全独特的。
So, given that each person has different skillsets, different interests, different obsessions. And it’s that diversity that becomes a creative superpower. So, each person can be creatively superb at their own unique thing.
因此，鉴于每个人都有不同的技能、不同的兴趣、不同的痴迷。正是这种多样性成为一种创造性的超级大国。因此，每个人都可以在自己独特的事情上发挥创造力。
But before that didn’t matter. Because if you were living in a little fishing village in Italy, like your fishing village didn’t necessarily need your completely unique skill, and you had to conform to just the few jobs that were available. But now today you can be completely unique.
但在此之前并不重要。因为如果你住在意大利的一个小渔村，就像你的渔村一样，不一定需要你完全独特的技能，你只需要遵守为数不多的工作。但现在你可以完全独一无二。
You can go out on the internet, and you can find your audience. And you can build a business, and create a product, and build wealth, and make people happy just uniquely expressing yourself through the internet.
你可以在互联网上走出去，你可以找到你的听众。你可以建立一个企业，创造一个产品，积累财富，让人们快乐，只是通过互联网独特地表达自己。
The space of careers has been so broadened. E-sports players, you know, people making millions of dollars playing Fortnite. People creating videos, and uploading them. YouTube broadcasters. Bloggers, podcasters. Joe Rogan, I read, true or false, I don’t know, but I read that he’s gonna make about $100 million a year on his podcast. And he’s had 2 billion downloads.
职业空间如此广阔。电子竞技玩家，你知道，人们在玩《堡垒之夜》时赚了数百万美元。人们创建视频并上传它们。YouTube 广播公司。博主，播客。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan），我读过，是真是假，我不知道，但我读到他每年将在他的播客上赚大约1亿美元。他的下载量达到了20亿次。
Even PewDiePie… there’s a hilarious tweet that I retweeted the other day. PewDiePie is the number one trusted name in news. This is a kid I think in Sweden, and he’s got three times the distribution of the top cable news networks. Just on his news channel. It’s not even on his entertainment channel.
甚至 PewDiePie…前几天我转发了一条搞笑的推文。PewDiePie 是新闻界最受信任的名字。我认为这是一个在瑞典的孩子，他的发行量是顶级有线电视新闻网的三倍。就在他的新闻频道上。它甚至不在他的娱乐频道上。
Escape competition through authenticity
通过真实性逃避竞争
The internet enables any niche interest, as long as you’re the best at it to scale out. And the great news is because every human is different, everyone is the best at something. Being themselves.
互联网支持任何利基兴趣，只要您最擅长扩展即可。好消息是，因为每个人都是不同的，每个人都是最好的。做自己。
Another tweet I had that is worth kind of weaving in, but didn’t go into this tweetstorm, was a very simple one. I like things when I can compress them down because they’re easy to remember, and easy to hook onto. But that one was, “Escape competition through authenticity.”
我的另一条推文值得一提，但没有进入这场推文风暴，这是一个非常简单的推文。我喜欢可以压缩的东西，因为它们很容易记住，也很容易上钩。但那个是，“通过真实性来逃避竞争。
Basically, when you’re competing with people it’s because you’re copying them. It’s because you’re trying to do the same thing. But every human is different. Don’t copy.
基本上，当你与人竞争时，那是因为你在复制他们。这是因为你正在尝试做同样的事情。但每个人都是不同的。不要复制。
I know we’re mimetic creatures, and René Girard has a whole mimesis theory. But it’s much easier than that. Don’t imitate. Don’t copy. Just do your own thing. No one can compete with you on being you. It’s that simple.
我知道我们是拟态生物，而勒内·吉拉德（René Girard）有一个完整的拟态理论。但这比这容易得多。不要模仿。不要复制。做你自己的事。没有人能与你竞争成为你。就是这么简单。
And so the more authentic you are to who you are, and what you love to do, the less competition you’re gonna have. So, you can escape competition through authenticity when you realize that no one can compete with you on being you. And normally that would have been useless advice pre-internet. Post-internet you can turn that into a career.
因此，你对自己的身份和你喜欢做的事情越真实，你的竞争就越少。所以，当你意识到没有人可以与你竞争成为你时，你可以通过真实性来逃避竞争。通常情况下，在互联网出现之前，这将是无用的建议。后互联网时代，你可以把它变成一种职业。
Play Long-Term Games With Long-Term People 与长期的人一起玩长期游戏
All returns in life come from compound interest in long-term games
生活中所有的回报都来自长期博弈的复利
Play long-term games with long-term people
与长期的人一起玩长期游戏
Nivi: Talk a little bit about what industries you should think about working in. What kind of job you should have? And who you might want to work with? So, you said, “One should pick an industry where you can play long-term games with long-term people.” Why?
Nivi：谈谈你应该考虑在哪些行业工作。你应该从事什么样的工作？您可能想与谁合作？所以，你说，“人们应该选择一个可以与长期的人进行长期游戏的行业。为什么？
Naval: Yeah, this is an insight into what makes Silicon Valley work, and what makes high trust societies work. Essentially, all the benefits in life come from compound interests. Whether it’s in relationships, or making money, or in learning.
Naval：是的，这是对硅谷运作的原因以及高度信任社会运作原因的见解。从本质上讲，生活中的所有好处都来自复利。无论是在人际关系中，还是在赚钱中，还是在学习中。
So, compound interest is a marvelous force, where if you start out with 1x what you have, and then if you increase 20% a year for 30 years, it’s not that you got 30 years times 20% added on. It was compounding, so it just grew, and grew, and grew until you suddenly got a massive amount of whatever it is. Whether it’s goodwill, or love, or relationships, or money. So, I think compound interest is a very important force.
所以，复利是一种了不起的力量，如果你从你拥有的 1 倍开始，然后如果你在 30 年内每年增加 20%，并不是说你得到了 30 年乘以 20% 的附加。它是复合的，所以它只是增长，增长，增长，直到你突然得到大量的任何东西。无论是善意，还是爱情，还是人际关系，还是金钱。所以，我认为复利是一个非常重要的力量。
You have to be able to play a long-term game. And long-term games are good not just for compound interest, they’re also good for trust. If you look at prisoner’s dilemma type games, a solution to prisoner’s dilemma is tit-for-tat, which is I’m just going do to you what you did last time to me, with some forgiveness in case there was a mistake made. But that only works in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma, in another words if we play a game multiple times.
你必须能够玩一个长期的游戏。长期博弈不仅有利于复利，也有利于信任。如果你看一下囚徒困境类型的游戏，解决囚徒困境的方法就是针锋相对，那就是我要对你做你上次对我做的事情，如果犯了错误，我会原谅你。但这只适用于迭代的囚徒困境，换句话说，如果我们多次玩一个游戏。
So, if you’re in a situation, like for example you’re in Silicon Valley, where people are doing business with each other, and they know each other, they trust each other. Then they do right by each other because they know this person will be around for the next game.
所以，如果你处在某种情况下，比如你在硅谷，那里的人们彼此做生意，他们彼此认识，他们彼此信任。然后他们互相做对了，因为他们知道这个人会在下一场比赛中出现。
Now of course that doesn’t always work because you can make so much money in one move in Silicon Valley, sometimes people betray each other because they’re just like, “I’m going to get rich enough off this that I don’t care.” So, there can be exceptions to all these circumstances.
当然，这并不总是奏效的，因为在硅谷，你可以一次赚到这么多钱，有时人们会互相背叛，因为他们只是想，“我会从中变得足够富有，我不在乎。因此，所有这些情况都可能有例外。
But essentially if you want to be successful, you have to work with other people. And you have to figure out who can you trust, and who can you trust over a long, long period of time, that you can just keep playing the game with them, so that compound interest, and high trust will make it easier to play the game, and will let you collect the major rewards, which are usually at the end of the cycle.
但从本质上讲，如果你想成功，你必须与其他人合作。你必须弄清楚你可以信任谁，在很长很长一段时间内你可以信任谁，这样你就可以继续和他们一起玩游戏，这样复利和高信任会让玩游戏变得更容易，并让你收集主要奖励，这些奖励通常是在周期结束时。
So, for example, Warren Buffett has done really well as an investor in the U.S. stock market, but the biggest reason he could do that was because the U.S. stock market has been stable, and around, and didn’t get for example seized by the government during a bad administration. Or the U.S. didn’t plunge into some war. The underlying platform didn’t get destroyed. So, in his case, he was playing a longterm game. And the trust came from the U.S. stock market’s stability.
因此，例如，沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）作为美国股市的投资者做得非常好，但他能做到这一点的最大原因是因为美国股市一直很稳定，而且在糟糕的政府期间没有被政府抓住。或者美国没有陷入战争。底层平台没有被破坏。所以，就他而言，他正在玩一场长期游戏。这种信任来自美国股市的稳定。
When you switch industries, you’re starting over from scratch
当你转换行业时，你是从头开始
In Silicon Valley, the trust comes from the network of people in the small geographic area, that you figure out over time who you can work with, and who you can’t.
在硅谷，信任来自狭小地理区域的人际网络，随着时间的推移，你会弄清楚你可以和谁合作，谁不能和谁合作。
If you keep switching locations, you keep switching groups… let’s say you started out in the woodworking industry, and you built up a network there. And you’re working hard, you’re trying to build a product in the woodworking industry. And then suddenly another industry comes along that’s adjacent but different, but you don’t really know anybody in it, and you want to dive in, and make money there.
如果你不停地切换位置，你就会不停地切换群组……假设您从木工行业开始，并在那里建立了一个网络。你正在努力工作，你正试图在木工行业制造产品。然后突然间，另一个行业出现了，它相邻但又不同，但你真的不认识其中的任何人，你想潜入其中，在那里赚钱。
If you keep hopping from industry to … “No, actually I need to open a line of electric car stations for electric car refueling.” That might make sense. That might be the best opportunity. But every time you reset, every time you wander out of where you built your network, you’re going to be starting from scratch. You’re not going to know who to trust. They’re not going to know to trust you.
如果你继续从行业跳到……“不，其实我需要开一排电动汽车加油站，给电动汽车加油。”这可能是有道理的。这可能是最好的机会。但是，每次重置时，每次离开建立网络的地方时，您都将从头开始。你不会知道该相信谁。他们不会知道信任你。
There are also industries in which people are transient by definition. They’re always coming in and going out. Politics is an example of that, right? In politics new people are being elected. You see in politics that when you have a lot of old-timers, like the Senate, people who have been around for a long time, and they’ve been career politicians.
根据定义，在一些行业中，人是短暂的。他们总是进进出出。政治就是一个例子，对吧？在政治上，新人正在被选举出来。你在政治上看到，当你有很多老前辈，比如参议院，他们已经存在了很长时间，他们一直是职业政治家。
There’s a lot of downside to career politicians like corruption. But an upside is they actually get deals done with each other because they know the other person is going to be in the same position ten years from now, and they’re going to have to keep dealing with them, so they might as well learn how to cooperate.
职业政治家有很多缺点，比如腐败。但一个好处是，他们实际上可以与对方达成交易，因为他们知道对方在十年后将处于相同的位置，他们将不得不继续与他们打交道，所以他们不妨学习如何合作。
Whereas every time you get a new incoming freshman class in the House of Representatives, which turns over every two years with a big wave election. Nothing gets done because of a lot fighting. “Because I just got here, I don’t know you, I don’t know if you’re going to be around, why should I work with you rather than just try to do whatever I think is right?”
而每次你在众议院获得一个新的新生班级时，众议院每两年就会有一次大浪潮选举。由于经常打架，什么也做不了。“因为我刚到这里，我不认识你，我不知道你是否会在身边，我为什么要和你一起工作，而不是尝试做我认为正确的事情？”
So, it’s important to pick an industry where you can play long-term games, and with long-term people. So, those people have to signal that they’re going to be around for a long time. That they’re ethical. And their ethics are visible through their actions.
因此，选择一个可以长期玩游戏的行业，并与长期的人一起玩是很重要的。所以，这些人必须发出信号，表明他们将存在很长时间。他们是合乎道德的。他们的道德通过他们的行动可见一斑。
Long-term players make each other rich
长期玩家让彼此致富
Nivi: In a long-term game, it seems that everybody is making each other rich. And in a short-term game, it seems like everybody is making themselves rich.
Nivi：在长期博弈中，似乎每个人都在让彼此变得富有。在短期博弈中，似乎每个人都在致富。
Naval: I think that is a brilliant formulation. In a longterm game, it’s positive sum. We’re all baking the pie together. We’re trying to make it as big as possible. And in a short term game, we’re cutting up the pie.
Naval：我认为这是一个绝妙的表述。在长期博弈中，这是正和。我们都在一起烤馅饼。我们正在努力让它尽可能大。在短期游戏中，我们正在切馅饼。
Now this is not to excuse the socialists, right? The socialists are the people who are not involved in baking the pie, who show up at the end, and say, “I want a slice, or I want the whole pie.” They show up with the guns.
现在这不是为社会主义者开脱，对吧？社会主义者是那些不参与烤馅饼的人，他们在最后出现，并说：“我想要一片，或者我想要整个馅饼。他们带着枪出现。
But I think a good leader doesn’t take credit. A good leader basically tries to inspire people, so the team gets the job done. And then things get divided up according to fairness, and who contributed how much, or as close to it as possible, and took a risk, as opposed to just whoever has the longest knife… the sharpest knife at the end.
但我认为一个好的领导者不会把功劳放在心上。一个好的领导者基本上会试图激励人们，这样团队才能完成工作。然后事情会根据公平性进行划分，谁贡献了多少，或者尽可能接近它，并承担了风险，而不仅仅是谁拥有最长的刀……最后最锋利的刀。
Returns come from compound interest in iterated games
回报来自迭代游戏的复利
Nivi: So, these next two tweets are, “Play iterated games. All returns in life, whether in wealth, relationships, or knowledge come from compound interest.”
Nivi：所以，接下来的两条推文是，“玩迭代游戏。生活中的所有回报，无论是财富、人际关系还是知识，都来自复利。
Naval: When you have been doing business with somebody, you’ve been friends with somebody for ten years, twenty years, thirty years, it just gets better and better because you trust them so easily. The friction goes down, you can do bigger, and bigger things together.
Naval：当你和某人做生意时，你已经和某人做了十年、二十年、三十年的朋友，它变得越来越好，因为你很容易信任他们。摩擦力下降了，你们可以一起做更大、更大的事情。
For example, the simplest one is getting married to someone, and having kids, and raising children. That’s compound interest, right? Investing in those relationships. Those relationships end up being invaluable compared to more casual relationships.
例如，最简单的就是与某人结婚，生孩子，抚养孩子。这就是复利，对吧？投资于这些关系。与更随意的关系相比，这些关系最终是无价的。
It’s true in health and fitness. You know, the fitter you are, the easier it is to stay fit. Whereas the more you deteriorate your body, the harder it is to come back, and claw your way back to a baseline. It requires heroic acts.
在健康和健身方面也是如此。你知道，你越健康，就越容易保持健康。然而，你的身体越恶化，就越难恢复，并抓住你的方式回到基线。它需要英勇的行为。
Nivi: Regarding compound interest, I think I saw retweet something a while back. Maybe it was from Ed Latimore. It went something along the lines of, “Get some traction. Get purchase, and don’t lose it” [correction: the tweet is by @mmay3r]. So, the idea was to gain some initial traction, and never fall back, just keep ratcheting up, and up.
Nivi：关于复利，我想我前段时间看到转发了一些东西。也许它来自埃德·拉铁摩尔。它的思路是这样的，“获得一些牵引力。购买，不要丢失它“[更正：推文由 @ mmay3r 提供]。所以，我们的想法是获得一些最初的牵引力，永远不要后退，只是不断提高，不断提高。
Naval: I don’t remember it exactly. But I think that was right. Yes, it was like, “Get traction, and don’t let go.” It was a good one, yes.
Naval：我记不太清楚了。但我认为这是对的。是的，这就像，“获得牵引力，不要放手。这是一个很好的，是的。
Pick Partners With Intelligence, Energy and Integrity 选择具有智慧、活力和诚信的合作伙伴
You can’t compromise on any of these three
你不能在这三个方面中的任何一个妥协
Pick business partners with high intelligence, energy and integrity
挑选高智商、高能、诚信的商业伙伴
Naval: In terms of picking people to work with, pick ones that have high intelligence, high energy, and high integrity, I find that’s the three-part checklist that you cannot compromise on.
Naval：在挑选合作对象方面，选择那些高智商、高能量和高正直的人，我发现这是你不能妥协的三部分清单。
You need someone who is smart, or they’ll head in the wrong direction. And you’re not going to end up in the right place. You need someone high-energy because the world is full of smart, lazy people.
你需要一个聪明的人，否则他们会走向错误的方向。而且你不会在正确的地方结束。你需要一个精力充沛的人，因为这个世界到处都是聪明、懒惰的人。
We all know people in our life who are really smart, but can’t get out of bed, or lift a finger. And we also know people who are very high energy, but not that smart. So, they work hard, but they’re sort of running in the wrong direction.
我们都知道生活中的人真的很聪明，但不能下床，也不能抬起一根手指。我们也认识一些人，他们精力充沛，但不是那么聪明。所以，他们努力工作，但他们有点跑错了方向。
And smart is not a pejorative. It’s not meant to say someone is smart, someone else is stupid. But it’s more that everyone is smart at different things. So, depending on what you want to do well, you have to find someone who is smart at that thing.
聪明不是贬义词。这并不是说某人很聪明，其他人很愚蠢。但更重要的是，每个人在不同的事情上都很聪明。所以，根据你想做好的事情，你必须找到一个聪明的人。
And then energy, a lot of times people are unmotivated for a specific thing, but they’re motivated for other things. So, for example, someone might be really unmotivated to go to a job, and sit in an office. But they might be really motivated to go paint, right?
然后是能量，很多时候人们对特定的事情没有动力，但他们对其他事情有动力。因此，例如，某人可能真的没有动力去工作，坐在办公室里。但他们可能真的有动力去画画，对吧？
Well, in that case they should be a painter. They should be putting art up on the internet. Trying to figure out how to build a career out of that, rather than wearing a collar around their neck, and going to a dreary job.
好吧，在这种情况下，他们应该是一个画家。他们应该把艺术作品放到互联网上。试图弄清楚如何以此为基础建立事业，而不是在脖子上戴着项圈，然后去做一份沉闷的工作。
And then high integrity is the most important because otherwise if you’ve got the other two, what you have is you have a smart and hard working crook, who’s eventually going to cheat you. So, you have to figure out if the person is high-integrity.
然后高度的诚信是最重要的，否则如果你有另外两个，你所拥有的就是你有一个聪明而勤奋的骗子，他最终会欺骗你。所以，你必须弄清楚这个人是否正直。
And as we talked about, the way you do that is through signals. And signals is what they do, not what they say. It’s all the non-verbal stuff that they do when they think nobody is looking.
正如我们所讨论的，你这样做的方式是通过信号。信号是他们做什么，而不是他们说什么。当他们认为没有人在看时，他们所做的都是非语言的东西。
Motivation has to come intrinsically
动机必须来自内在的
Nivi: With respect to the energy, there was this interesting thing from Sam Altman a while back, where he was talking about delegation, and he was saying, “One of the important things for delegation is, delegate to people who are actually good at the thing that you want them to do.”
Nivi：关于能量，Sam Altman刚才谈到了一件有趣的事情，他谈到了授权，他说，“授权的重要事情之一是，授权给那些真正擅长你希望他们做的事情的人。
It’s the most obvious thing, but it seems like… you want to partner with people who are naturally going to do the things that you want them to do.
这是最明显的事情，但似乎……你想与那些自然会做你想让他们做的事情的人合作。
Naval: Yeah. I almost won’t start a company, or hire a person, or work with somebody if I just don’t think they’re into what I want them to do.
Naval：是的。我几乎不会创办一家公司，或者雇用一个人，或者与某人一起工作，如果我只是认为他们不喜欢我希望他们做的事情。
When I was younger, I used to try and talk people into things. I had this idea that you could sell someone into doing something. But you can’t. You can’t keep them motivated. You can get them inspired initially. It might work if you’re a king like Henry V, and you’re trying to get them to just charge into battle, and then they’ll figure it out.
当我年轻的时候，我曾经试图说服人们做事。我有一个想法，你可以推销某人做某事。但你不能。你不能让他们保持积极性。你可以从一开始得到他们的启发。如果你是像亨利五世这样的国王，你可能会起作用，你试图让他们冲锋陷阵，然后他们会想办法的。
But if you’re trying to keep someone motivated for the long-term, that motivation has to come intrinsically. You can’t just create it, nor can you be the crutch for them if they don’t have that intrinsic motivation. So, you have to make sure people actually are high-energy, and want to do what you want them to do, and what you want to work with them on.
但是，如果你想让某人长期保持动力，那么这种动力必须是内在的。你不能只是创造它，如果他们没有这种内在的动机，你也不能成为他们的拐杖。所以，你必须确保人们确实精力充沛，想做你想让他们做的事情，以及你想和他们一起工作的事情。
Integrity is what someone does, despite what they say they do
诚信是某人的所作所为，无论他们说什么
Reading signals is very, very important. Signals are what people do despite what they say. So, it’s important to pay attention to subtle signals. We all know that socially if someone treats a waiter, or waitress in a restaurant really badly, then it’s only a matter of time until they treat you badly.
读取信号非常非常重要。信号是人们不管他们说了什么而做的事情。因此，注意微妙的信号很重要。我们都知道，在社交上，如果有人对服务员或餐厅的女服务员非常糟糕，那么他们对待你不好只是时间问题。
If somebody screws over an enemy, and is vindictive towards them, well it’s only a matter of time before they redefine you from friend to enemy, and you feel their wrath. So, angry, outraged, vindictive, short-term thinking people are essentially that way in many interactions in real life.
如果有人搞砸了敌人，并对他们进行报复，那么他们将你从朋友重新定义为敌人只是时间问题，你会感受到他们的愤怒。因此，愤怒、愤怒、报复、短视思维的人在现实生活中的许多互动中基本上都是这样。
People are oddly consistent. That’s one of the things you learn about them. So, you want to find long-term people. You want to find people who seem irrationally ethical.
人们出奇地一致。这是你从他们身上学到的东西之一。所以，你想找到长期的人。你想找到那些看起来不道德的人。
For example, I had a friend of mine whose company I invested in, and the company failed, and he could have wiped out all of the investors. But he kept putting more and more personal money in. Through three different pivots he put personal money in until the company finally succeeded. And in the process, he never wiped out the investors.
例如，我有一个朋友，我投资了他的公司，但公司倒闭了，他本可以消灭所有的投资者。但是他不断投入越来越多的个人资金。通过三个不同的支点，他把个人资金投入进去，直到公司最终成功。在这个过程中，他从未消灭过投资者。
And I was always grateful to him for that. I said, “Wow, that’s amazing that you were so good to your investors. You didn’t wipe them out.” And he got offended by that. He said, “I didn’t do it for you. I didn’t do it for my investors. I did it for me. It’s my own self-esteem. It’s what I care about. That’s how I live my life.” That’s the kind of person you want to work with.
为此，我一直很感激他。我说，“哇，你对你的投资者这么好，真是太神奇了。你没有消灭他们。他因此被冒犯了。他说：“我不是为你做的。我这样做不是为了我的投资者。我为我做了。这是我自己的自尊。这是我关心的。这就是我的生活方式。这就是你想与之合作的那种人。
Another quote that I like, I have a tweet on this. I think I read this somewhere else, so I’m not taking credit for this. But I kind of modified it a little bit. Which is that “self-esteem is the reputation that you have with yourself.” You’ll always know.
我喜欢的另一句话，我有一条关于这个的推文。我想我在其他地方读过这篇文章，所以我没有把功劳归功于此。但我稍微修改了一下。那就是“自尊是你对自己的声誉”。你会永远知道的。
So, good people, moral people, ethical people, easy to work with people, reliable people, tend to have very high self-esteem because they have very good reputations with themselves, and they understand that.
所以，好人，有道德的人，有道德的人，容易与人共事，可靠的人，往往有很高的自尊心，因为他们对自己有很好的声誉，他们明白这一点。
It’s not ego. Self-esteem and ego are different things. Because ego can be undeserved, but self-esteem at least you feel like you lived up to your own internal moral code of ethics.
这不是自我。自尊和自我是不同的东西。因为自我可能是不值得的，但自尊至少你觉得你辜负了你自己内在的道德准则。
And so it’s very hard to work with people who end up being low integrity. And it’s hard to figure out who is high integrity and low integrity. Generally, the more someone is saying that they’re moral, ethical, and high integrity, the less likely they are to be that way.
因此，与那些最终诚信不正直的人一起工作是非常困难的。而且很难弄清楚谁是高诚信和低诚信。一般来说，一个人越是说他们有道德、有伦理和高度正直，他们就越不可能那样。
It’s very much like status signalling. If you overtly bid for status, if you overtly talk about being high status, that is a low status move. If you openly talk about how honest, reliable, and trustworthy you are, you’re probably not that honest and trustworthy. That is a characteristic of con men.
这很像状态信号。如果你公然竞标地位，如果你公开谈论高地位，那就是低地位的举动。如果你公开谈论你是多么诚实、可靠和值得信赖，你可能没有那么诚实和值得信赖。这是骗子的特征。
So, yeah, pick an industry in which you can play long-term games with long-term people.
所以，是的，选择一个可以与长期的人玩长期游戏的行业。
Partner With Rational Optimists 与理性乐观主义者合作
Don’t partner with cynics and pessimists; their beliefs are self-fulfilling
不要与愤世嫉俗者和悲观主义者合作;他们的信念是自我实现的
Don’t partner with pessimists
不要与悲观主义者合作
Nivi: Let’s do this last tweet. You said, “Don’t partner with cynics, and pessimists. Their beliefs are self-fulfilling.”
Nivi：让我们做最后一条推文。你说，“不要与愤世嫉俗者和悲观主义者合作。他们的信念是自我实现的。
Naval: Yes. Essentially, to create things, you have to be a rational optimist. Rational in the sense that you have to see the world for what it really is. And yet you have to be optimistic about your own capabilities, and your capability to get things done.
Naval：是的。从本质上讲，要创造事物，你必须是一个理性的乐观主义者。理性的意思是，你必须看到世界的真实面目。然而，你必须对自己的能力以及你完成任务的能力持乐观态度。
We all know people who are consistently pessimistic, who will shoot down everything. Everyone in their life has the helpful critical guy, right? He thinks he’s being helpful, but he’s actually being critical, and he’s a downer on everything.
我们都知道那些一贯悲观的人，他们会击落一切。每个人在他们的生活中都有乐于助人的批判性人物，对吧？他认为自己在提供帮助，但实际上他很挑剔，他对一切都很失望。
That person will not only never do anything great in their lives, they’ll prevent other people around them from doing something great. They think their job is to shoot holes in things. And it’s okay to shoot holes in things as long as you come up with a solution.
那个人不仅永远不会在他们的生活中做任何伟大的事情，而且他们会阻止他们周围的其他人做一些伟大的事情。他们认为他们的工作是在事物上打洞。只要你想出一个解决方案，就可以在事情上打洞。
There’s also the classic military line, “Either lead, follow, or get out of the way.” And these people want a fourth option, where they don’t want to lead, they don’t want to follow, but they don’t want to get out of the way. They want to tell you why the thing is not going to work.
还有一句经典的军事台词，“要么领导，要么跟随，要么让开。这些人想要第四种选择，他们不想领导，他们不想跟随，但他们不想让开。他们想告诉你为什么这个东西行不通。
And all the really successful people I know have a very strong action bias. They just do things. The easiest way to figure out if something is viable or not is by doing it. At least do the first step, and the second step, and the third, and then decide.
我认识的所有真正成功的人都有非常强烈的行动偏见。他们只是做事。弄清楚某事是否可行的最简单方法是去做。至少做第一步，第二步，第三步，然后决定。
So, if you want to be successful in life, creating wealth, or having good relationships, or being fit, or even being happy, you need to have an action bias towards getting what you want.
所以，如果你想在生活中取得成功，创造财富，或拥有良好的人际关系，或保持健康，甚至快乐，你需要对得到你想要的东西有一种行动偏见。
Partner with rational optimists
与理性乐观主义者合作
And you have to be optimistic about it. Not irrationally. You know, there’s nothing worse than someone who is foolhardy and chasing something that’s not worth it.
你必须对此持乐观态度。不是不合理的。你知道，没有什么比一个鲁莽的人追逐不值得的东西更糟糕的了。
That’s why I say rational optimist. But you have to be rational. Know all the pitfalls. Know the downsides, but still keep your chin up.
这就是为什么我说理性乐观主义者。但你必须保持理性。了解所有陷阱。知道缺点，但仍然保持下巴向上。
You’ve got one life on this planet. Why not try to build something big? This is the beauty of Elon Musk, and why I think he inspires so many people, it’s just because he takes on really, really big audacious tasks. And he provides an example for people to think big.
你在这个星球上只有一条生命。为什么不尝试做一些大事呢？这就是埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的魅力所在，也是我认为他激励了这么多人的原因，只是因为他承担了非常非常大胆的任务。他为人们提供了一个大胆思考的榜样。
And it takes a lot of work to build even small things. I don’t think the corner grocery store owner is working any less hard than Elon Musk, or pouring any less sweat and toil into it. Maybe even more.
即使是小东西也需要做很多工作。我不认为街角杂货店老板的工作比埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）少，或者少花点汗水和辛劳。也许更多。
But for whatever reason, education, circumstance, they didn’t get the chance to think as big, so the outcome is not as big. So, it’s just better to think big. Obviously, rationally, within your means, stay optimistic.
但无论出于何种原因，教育，环境，他们没有机会思考那么大，所以结果没有那么大。所以，最好从大处着眼。显然，理性地，在你力所能及的范围内，保持乐观。
The cynics and the pessimists, what they’re really saying, it’s unfortunate, but they’re basically saying, “I’ve given up. I don’t think I can do anything. And so the world to me just looks like a world where nobody can do anything. And so why should you go do something because if you fail, then I’m right, which is great. But if you succeed, then you just make me look bad.”
愤世嫉俗者和悲观主义者，他们真正在说什么，这是不幸的，但他们基本上是在说，“我已经放弃了。我认为我无能为力。所以对我来说，这个世界就像一个没有人可以做任何事情的世界。所以你为什么要去做某事，因为如果你失败了，那么我是对的，这很好。但如果你成功了，那么你只会让我看起来很糟糕。
We descended from pessimists
我们是悲观主义者的后裔
Nivi: Yes, it’s probably better to be an irrational optimist, then it is to be a rational cynic.
尼维：是的，做一个非理性的乐观主义者可能更好，然后做一个理性的愤世嫉俗者。
Naval: There’s a completely rational frame on why you should be an optimist. Historically, if you go back 2,000 years, 5,000 years, 10,000 years, two people are wandering through a jungle, they hear a tiger. One’s an optimist, and says, “Oh, it’s not headed our way.” The other one says, “I’m a pessimist, I’m out of here.” And the pessimist runs and survives, and the optimist gets eaten.
Naval：关于为什么你应该成为一个乐观主义者，有一个完全合理的框架。从历史上看，如果你回到2000年、5000年、10000年前，两个人在丛林中徘徊，他们听到了老虎的声音。一个人是个乐观主义者，然后说，“哦，它没有朝着我们的方向发展。另一个说，“我是一个悲观主义者，我离开了这里。悲观主义者逃跑并生存，乐观主义者被吃掉。
So, we’re descended from pessimists. We’re genetically hardwired to be pessimists. But modern society is far, far safer. There are no tigers wandering around the street. It’s very unlikely that you will end up in total ruin, although you should avoid total ruin.
所以，我们是悲观主义者的后裔。我们天生就是悲观主义者。但现代社会要安全得多。街上没有老虎徘徊。你不太可能最终陷入彻底的毁灭，尽管你应该避免彻底的毁灭。
Much more likely that the upside is unlimited, and the downside is limited. So, adapting for modern society means overriding your pessimism, and taking slightly irrationally optimistic bets because the upside is unlimited if you start the next SpaceX, or Tesla, or Uber, you can make billions of dollars of value for society, and for yourself, and change the world.
更有可能的是，上行空间是无限的，下行空间是有限的。因此，适应现代社会意味着克服你的悲观情绪，并采取略微非理性的乐观赌注，因为如果你开始下一个SpaceX，特斯拉或优步，你可以为社会和你自己创造数十亿美元的价值，并改变世界。
And if you fail, what’s the big deal? You lost a few million dollars of investor money, and they’ve got plenty more, and that’s the bet they take on the chances that you will succeed.
如果你失败了，有什么大不了的？你损失了几百万美元的投资者资金，而他们还有更多，这就是他们对你成功机会的赌注。
It made sense to be pessimistic in the past. It makes sense to be optimistic today, especially if you’re educated and living in a First World country. Even a Third World country. I actually think the economic opportunities in Third World countries are much larger.
过去悲观是有道理的。今天保持乐观是有道理的，特别是如果你受过教育并生活在第一世界国家。甚至是第三世界国家。实际上，我认为第三世界国家的经济机会要大得多。
The one thing you have to avoid is the risk of ruin. Ruin means stay out of jail. So, don’t do anything that’s illegal. It’s never worth it to wear an orange jumpsuit. And stay out of total catastrophic loss. That could mean that you stay out of things that could be physically dangerous, hurt your body.
你必须避免的一件事是毁灭的风险。废墟意味着远离监狱。所以，不要做任何违法的事情。穿橙色连身裤从来都不值得。并避免完全灾难性的损失。这可能意味着你要远离那些可能对身体有危险、伤害你身体的事情。
You have to watch your health. And stay out of things that can cause you to lose all of your capital, all of your savings. So, don’t gamble everything on one go. But take rationally optimistic bets with big upside.
你必须注意你的健康。远离可能导致你失去所有资本和所有积蓄的事情。所以，不要一次性赌上所有东西。但采取理性乐观的赌注，有很大的上行空间。
BOCTAOE 博克陶
Nivi: I think there’s people that will try and build up your ideas, and build on your ideas, no matter how far fetched they might seem. And then there are people who list all of the obvious exceptions, no matter how obvious they are.
Nivi：我认为有些人会尝试建立你的想法，并建立在你的想法之上，无论它们看起来多么牵强。还有一些人列出了所有明显的例外，无论它们多么明显。
And fortunately in the startup world, I don’t even really get exposed to the people that are giving you the obvious exceptions, and all the reasons it’s not going to work. I barely get exposed to that anymore.
幸运的是，在创业界，我甚至没有真正接触到那些给你明显例外的人，以及它不起作用的所有原因。我几乎不再接触它了。
Naval: That’s what Twitter is for. Scott Adams got so annoyed by this that he came up with a phrase, an acronym, which is “but of course there are obvious exceptions”, BOCTAOE. And he used to pin that acronym at the end of his articles for a while.
Naval：这就是Twitter的用途。斯科特·亚当斯（Scott Adams）对此感到非常恼火，以至于他想出了一个短语，一个首字母缩略词，即“但当然有明显的例外”，BOCTAOE。有一段时间，他曾经把这个首字母缩略词固定在文章的末尾。
But Twitter is overrun with nitpickers. Whereas exactly as you were pointing out, Silicon Valley has learned that the upside is so great that you never look down on the kid who’s wearing a hoodie and has coffee on his shoes. And just looks like a slob because you don’t know if he’s going to be the next Mark Zuckerberg, or the next Reid Hoffman.
但Twitter上充斥着吹毛求疵的人。然而，正如你所指出的，硅谷已经了解到，好处是如此之大，以至于你永远不会看不起那个穿着连帽衫、鞋子上沾着咖啡的孩子。而且看起来就像一个懒汉，因为你不知道他是否会成为下一个马克·扎克伯格，或者下一个里德·霍夫曼。
So, you’ve got to treat everybody with respect. You’ve got to look up to every possibility, and opportunity because the upside is so unlimited, and the downside is so limited in the modern world, especially with financial assets and instruments.
所以，你必须尊重每一个人。你必须关注每一种可能性和机会，因为在现代世界中，上行空间是无限的，而下行空间是有限的，尤其是在金融资产和工具方面。
Arm Yourself With Specific Knowledge 用特定知识武装自己
Specific knowledge can be found by pursuing your genuine curiosity
通过追求你真正的好奇心，可以找到具体的知识
Arm yourself with specific knowledge
用特定知识武装自己
Nivi: Do you want to talk a little bit about the skills that you need, in particular specific knowledge, accountability, leverage and judgment. So, the first tweet in this area is “Arm yourself with specific knowledge accountability and leverage.” And I’ll throw in judgment as well. I don’t think you covered that in that particular tweet.
Nivi：你想谈谈你需要的技能吗，特别是具体的知识、责任感、影响力和判断力。因此，该领域的第一条推文是“用特定的知识、责任感和杠杆作用武装自己”。我也会做出判断。我不认为你在那条特定的推文中谈到了这一点。
Naval: If you want to make money you have to get paid at scale. And why you, that’s accountability, at scale, that’s leverage, and just you getting paid as opposed to somebody else getting paid , that’s specific knowledge.
Naval：如果你想赚钱，你必须获得大规模的报酬。为什么是你，这是问责制，这是规模，这是杠杆，只是你得到报酬，而不是其他人得到报酬，这是具体的知识。
So, specific knowledge is probably the hardest thing to get across in this whole tweetstorm, and it’s probably the thing that people get the most confused about.
因此，具体知识可能是整个推特风暴中最难传达的东西，也可能是人们最困惑的事情。
The thing is that we have this idea that everything can be taught, everything can be taught in school. And it’s not true that everything can be taught. In fact, the most interesting things cannot be taught. But everything can be learned. And very often that learning either comes from some innate characteristics in your DNA, or it could be through your childhood where you learn soft skills which are very, very hard to teach later on in life, or it’s something that is brand new so nobody else knows how to do it either, or it’s true on the job training because you’re pattern matching into highly complex environments, basically building judgment in a specific domain.
问题是我们有这样的想法，什么都可以教，什么都可以在学校教。并不是说一切都可以教。事实上，最有趣的东西是无法教的。但一切都可以学习。很多时候，这种学习要么来自你DNA中的一些先天特征，要么可能是在你的童年时期，你学到了在以后的生活中非常非常难以教授的软技能，或者它是全新的东西，所以没有人知道如何去做，或者在职培训中是正确的，因为你正在与高度复杂的环境进行模式匹配。 基本上是在特定领域建立判断力。
Classic example is investing, but it could be in anything. It could be in judgment in running a fleet of trucks, it could be judgment in weather forecasting.
典型的例子是投资，但它可以是任何东西。它可能是运行卡车车队的判断，也可能是天气预报的判断。
So, specific knowledge is the knowledge that you care about. Especially if you’re later in life, let’s say your post 20, 21, 22, you almost don’t get to choose which specific knowledge you have. Rather, you get to look at what you have already built by that point in time, and then you can build on top of it.
所以，具体的知识是你关心的知识。特别是如果你在晚年，比如说你的 20、21、22 岁以后，你几乎无法选择你拥有哪些特定知识。相反，你可以看看你在那个时间点已经构建了什么，然后你可以在上面构建。
Specific knowledge can’t be trained
无法训练特定知识
The first thing to notice about specific knowledge is that you can’t be trained for it. If you can be trained for it, if you can go to a class and learn specific knowledge, then somebody else can be trained for it too, and then we can mass-produce and mass-train people. Heck, we can even program computers to do it and eventually we can program robots to walk around doing it.
关于特定知识，首先要注意的是你不能接受这方面的培训。如果你能接受培训，如果你能去上课学习特定的知识，那么其他人也可以接受培训，然后我们就可以大规模生产和大规模培训人。哎呀，我们甚至可以对计算机进行编程来做到这一点，最终我们可以对机器人进行编程，让它四处走动。
So, if that’s the case, then you’re extremely replaceable and all we have to pay you is the minimum wage that we have to pay you to get you to do it when there are lots of other takers who can be trained to do it. So really, your returns just devolve into your cost of training plus the return on investment on that training.
所以，如果是这样的话，那么你是非常可替代的，我们所要付给你的只是我们必须付给你的最低工资，当有很多其他接受者可以接受培训时，你必须这样做。所以实际上，你的回报只是转移到你的培训成本加上培训的投资回报。
So, you really want to pick up specific knowledge, you need your schooling, you need your training to be able to capitalize on the best specific knowledge, but the part of it that you’re going to get paid for is the specific knowledge.
所以，你真的想学习特定的知识，你需要你的学校教育，你需要你的培训，以便能够利用最好的特定知识，但你将获得报酬的部分是特定知识。
Specific knowledge is found by pursuing your curiosity
通过追求你的好奇心来发现特定的知识
For example, someone who goes and gets a degree in psychology and then becomes a salesperson. Well if they were already a formidable salesperson, a high grade salesmanship to begin with, then the psychology degree is leverage, it arms them and they do much better at sales.
例如，有人去获得心理学学位，然后成为一名销售人员。好吧，如果他们已经是一个强大的销售人员，一个高级的销售技巧，那么心理学学位就是杠杆，它武装了他们，他们在销售方面做得更好。
But if they were always an introvert never very good at sales and they’re trying to use psychology to learn sales, they’re just not going to get that great at it.
但是，如果他们总是一个内向的人，从来不擅长销售，并且他们试图用心理学来学习销售，他们就不会那么擅长。
So, specific knowledge is found much more by pursuing your innate talents, your genuine curiosity, and your passion. It’s not by going to school for whatever is the hottest job, it’s not for going into whatever field investors say is the hottest.
因此，通过追求你与生俱来的才能、你真正的好奇心和你的热情，可以找到更多的特定知识。上学不是为了最热门的工作，也不是为了进入投资者认为最热门的领域。
Very often specific knowledge is at the edge of knowledge. It’s also stuff that’s just being figured out or is really hard to figure out.
很多时候，特定知识处于知识的边缘。这也是刚刚弄清楚或很难弄清楚的东西。
So, if you’re not 100% into it somebody else who is 100% into it will outperform you. And they won’t just outperform you by a little bit, they’ll outperform you by a lot because now we’re operating the domain of ideas, compound interest really applies and leverage really applies.
所以，如果你不是 100% 投入其中，那么其他 100% 投入其中的人会比你表现更好。他们不仅会比你好一点，而且会比你好很多，因为现在我们正在经营创意领域，复利确实适用，杠杆也确实适用。
So, if you’re operating with 1,000 times leverage and somebody is right 80% of the time, and somebody else is right 90% of time, the person who’s right 90% of the time will literally get paid hundreds of times more by the market because of the leverage and because of the compounding factors and being correct. So, you really want to make sure you’re good at it so that genuine curiosity is very important.
所以，如果你以 1,000 倍的杠杆率运作，而某人在 80% 的时间里是正确的，而其他人在 90% 的时间里是正确的，那么在 90% 的时间里正确的人实际上会因为杠杆和复利因素而从市场上获得数百倍的报酬。所以，你真的要确保你擅长它，所以真正的好奇心非常重要。
Building specific knowledge will feel like play to you
建立特定的知识对你来说就像在玩
So, very often, it’s not something you sit down and then you reason about, it’s more found by observation. You almost have to look back on your own life and see what you’re actually good at.
所以，很多时候，它不是你坐下来然后你推理的东西，它更多的是通过观察发现的。你几乎必须回顾自己的生活，看看你真正擅长什么。
For example, I wanted to be a scientist and that is where a lot of my moral hierarchy comes from. I view scientists sort of at the top of the production chain for humanity. And the group of scientists who have made real breakthroughs and contributions that probably added more to human society, I think, than any single other class of human beings.
例如，我想成为一名科学家，这就是我的很多道德等级的来源。在我看来，科学家处于人类生产链的顶端。我认为，这群科学家取得了真正的突破和贡献，他们可能比任何其他人类阶层都对人类社会的贡献更大。
Not to take away anything from art or politics or engineering or business, but without the science we’d still be scrambling in the dirt fighting with sticks and trying to start fires.
不要从艺术、政治、工程或商业中夺走任何东西，但如果没有科学，我们仍然会在泥土中挣扎，用棍棒打架，试图生火。
My whole value system was built around scientists and I wanted to be a great scientist. But when I actually look back at what I was uniquely good at and what I ended up spending my time doing, it was more around making money, tinkering with technology, and selling people on things. Explaining things, talking to people.
我的整个价值体系都是围绕着科学家建立的，我想成为一名伟大的科学家。但是，当我真正回顾我特别擅长的事情以及我最终花时间做的事情时，更多的是赚钱、修补技术和向人们推销东西。解释事情，与人交谈。
So, I have some sales skills, which is a form specific knowledge that I have. I have some analytical skills around how to make money. And I have this ability to absorb data, obsess about it, and break it down and that is a specific skill that I have. I also just love tinkering with technology. And all of this stuff feels like play to me, but it looks like work to others.
所以，我有一些销售技巧，这是我所拥有的特定形式的知识。我有一些关于如何赚钱的分析技能。我有这种能力来吸收数据，痴迷于它，并分解它，这是我拥有的一项特定技能。我也只是喜欢修补技术。所有这些东西对我来说都像是玩，但对其他人来说却像是工作。
So, there are other people to whom these things would be hard and they say like, “Well, how do I get good at being pithy and selling ideas?” Well, if you’re not already good at it or if you’re not really into it, maybe it’s not your thing, focus on the thing that you are really into.
所以，还有其他人认为这些事情很难，他们会说，“好吧，我如何善于精辟和推销想法？好吧，如果你还不擅长它，或者你不是真的喜欢它，也许这不是你的事，专注于你真正喜欢的事情。
This is ironic, but the first person to actually point out my real specific knowledge was my mother. She did it as an aside, talking from the kitchen and she said it when I was like 15 or 16 years old. I was telling a friend of mine that I want to be an astrophysicist and she said, “No, you’re going to go into business.”
这很讽刺，但第一个真正指出我真正具体知识的人是我的母亲。她是旁白，在厨房里说话，她在我 15 或 16 岁的时候说过。我告诉我的一个朋友，我想成为一名天体物理学家，她说，“不，你要去做生意。
I was like, “What, my mom’s telling me I’m going to be in business. I’m going to be an astrophysicist. Mom doesn’t know she’s talking about.” But mom knew exactly what she was talking about.
我当时想，“什么，我妈妈告诉我我要做生意。我要成为一名天体物理学家。妈妈不知道她在说什么。但妈妈很清楚她在说什么。
She’d already observed that every time we walk down the street, I would critique the local pizza parlor on why they were selling their slices a certain way with certain toppings and why their process of ordering was this way when it should have been that way.
她已经观察到，每次我们走在街上时，我都会批评当地的披萨店，为什么他们以某种方式出售带有某些配料的切片，以及为什么他们的订购过程是这样的，而本来应该这样。
So, she knew that I had more of a business curious mind, but then my obsession with science combined to create technology and technology businesses where I found myself.
所以，她知道我有更多的商业好奇心，但后来我对科学的痴迷结合在一起，创造了我发现自己的技术和科技企业。
So, very often, your specific knowledge is observed and often observed by other people who know you well and revealed in situations rather than something that you come up with.
所以，很多时候，你的特定知识被观察，并且经常被其他熟悉你的人观察，并在情境中被揭示出来，而不是你想出的东西。
Specific Knowledge Is Highly Creative or Technical 特定知识具有高度的创造性或技术性
Specific knowledge is on the bleeding edge of technology, art and communication
特定知识处于技术、艺术和通信的最前沿
Specific knowledge can be taught through apprenticeships
特定知识可以通过学徒制教授
Naval: To the extent that specific knowledge is taught, it’s on the job. It’s through apprenticeships. And that’s why the best businesses, the best careers are the apprenticeship or self-taught careers, because those are things society still has not figured out how to train and automate yet.
Naval：在某种程度上，教授特定知识，这是在工作中。这是通过学徒制。这就是为什么最好的企业，最好的职业是学徒制或自学成才的职业，因为这些是社会还没有弄清楚如何培训和自动化的东西。
The classic line here is that Warren Buffett went to Benjamin Graham when he got out of school. Benjamin Graham was the author of the Intelligent Investor and sort of modernized or created value investing as a discipline. And Warren Buffett went to Benjamin Graham and offered to work for him for free.
这里的经典台词是沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）离开学校后去了本杰明·格雷厄姆（Benjamin Graham）。本杰明·格雷厄姆（Benjamin Graham）是《聪明的投资者》一书的作者，他将价值投资作为一门学科进行了现代化或创造。沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）去找本杰明·格雷厄姆（Benjamin Graham），并提出免费为他工作。
And Graham said, “Actually, you’re overpriced, free is overpriced.” And Graham was absolutely right. When it comes to a very valuable apprenticeship like the type that Graham was going to give Buffet, Buffet should have been paying him a lot of money. That right there tells you that those are skills worth having.
格雷厄姆说，“实际上，你定价过高，免费定价过高。格雷厄姆是绝对正确的。当谈到格雷厄姆要给巴菲特的那种非常有价值的学徒时，巴菲特应该付给他很多钱。就在那里告诉你，这些都是值得拥有的技能。
Specific knowledge is often highly creative or technical
特定知识通常具有很强的创造性或技术性
Specific knowledge also tends to be technical and creative. It’s on the bleeding edge of technology, on the bleeding edge of art, on the bleeding edge of communication.
特定知识也往往具有技术和创造性。它处于技术的最前沿，处于艺术的前沿，处于沟通的前沿。
Even today, for example, there are probably meme lords out there on the Internet who can create incredible memes that will spread the idea to millions of people. Or are very persuasive – Scott Adams is a good example of this. He is essentially becoming one of the most credible people in the world by making accurate predictions through persuasive arguments and videos.
例如，即使在今天，互联网上也可能有模因领主，他们可以创造令人难以置信的模因，将这个想法传播给数百万人。或者非常有说服力——斯科特·亚当斯（Scott Adams）就是一个很好的例子。他通过有说服力的论点和视频做出准确的预测，基本上正在成为世界上最可信的人之一。
And that is specific knowledge that he has built up over the years because he got obsessed with hypnosis when he was young, he learned how to communicate through cartooning, he embraced Periscope early, so he’s been practicing lots of conversation, he’s read all the books on the topic, he’s employed it in his everyday life. If you look at his girlfriend, she’s this beautiful young Instagram model.
这是他多年来积累的具体知识，因为他从小就痴迷于催眠，他学会了如何通过漫画进行交流，他很早就接受了潜望镜，所以他一直在练习很多对话，他阅读了所有关于这个主题的书籍，他在日常生活中使用它。如果你看看他的女朋友，她就是这个美丽的年轻Instagram模特。
That is an example of someone who has built up a specific knowledge over the course of his career. It’s highly creative, it has elements of being technical in it, and it’s something that is never going to be automated.
这是一个在职业生涯中积累了特定知识的人的例子。它非常有创意，它有技术元素，而且它永远不会被自动化。
No one’s going to take that away from him, because he’s also accountable under one brand as Scott Adams, and he’s operating with the leverage of media with Periscope and drawing Dilbert cartoons and writing books. He has massive leverage on top of that brand and he can build wealth out of it if he wanted to build additional wealth beyond what he already has.
没有人会从他身上夺走这一点，因为他也像斯科特·亚当斯（Scott Adams）一样在一个品牌下负责，他正在利用媒体与Periscope合作，画Dilbert漫画和写书。他在该品牌之上拥有巨大的影响力，如果他想在他已经拥有的财富之外积累额外的财富，他可以从中积累财富。
Specific knowledge is specific to the individual and situation
特定知识特定于个人和情况
Nivi: Should we be calling it unique knowledge or does specific knowledge somehow make more sense for it?
Nivi：我们应该称它为独特的知识，还是特定的知识在某种程度上对它更有意义？
Naval: You know, I came up with this framework when I was really young. We’re talking decades and decades. It’s now probably over 30 years old. So, at the time specific knowledge stuck with me so that is how I think about it.
Naval：你知道，我在很小的时候就想出了这个框架。我们谈论的是几十年和几十年。它现在可能已经有 30 多年的历史了。所以，当时特定的知识一直困扰着我，所以我就是这样想的。
The reason I didn’t try and change it is because every other term that I found for it was overloaded in a different way. At least specific knowledge isn’t that used. I can kind of rebrand it.
我没有尝试更改它的原因是因为我为它找到的所有其他术语都以不同的方式超载。至少没有使用特定知识。我可以重塑它。
The problem with unique knowledge is, yeah, maybe it’s unique but if I learn it from somebody else it’s no longer unique, then we both know it. So, it’s not so much that it is unique, it’s that it is highly specific to the situation, it’s specific to the individual, it’s specific to the problem, and it can only be built as part of a larger obsession, interest, and time spent in that domain.
独特知识的问题是，是的，也许它是独一无二的，但如果我从别人那里学到它，它就不再是独一无二的，那么我们都知道它。所以，与其说它是独一无二的，不如说它对情况是高度特定的，它是针对个人的，它是针对问题的，它只能作为更大的痴迷、兴趣和时间的一部分来构建在那个领域。
It can’t just be read straight out of a single book, nor can it be taught in a single course, nor can it be programmed into a single algorithm.
它不能直接从一本书中读出来，也不能在一门课程中教授，也不能被编程成单一的算法。
You can’t be too deliberate about assembling specific knowledge
你不能太刻意地收集特定的知识
Nivi: Speaking of Scott Adams, he’s got a blog post on how to build your career by getting in, say, the top 25 percentile at three or more things. And by doing that, you become the only person in the world who can do those three things in the 25th percentile.
Nivi：说到斯科特·亚当斯（Scott Adams），他有一篇博文，内容是关于如何通过在三件或更多事情上进入前25个百分位来建立自己的职业生涯。通过这样做，你成为世界上唯一一个可以在第25个百分位做这三件事的人。
So, instead of trying to be the best at one thing, you just try to be very, very good at three or more things. Is that a way of building specific knowledge?
所以，与其试图在一件事上做到最好，不如试着在三件或更多的事情上做得非常非常好。这是建立特定知识的一种方式吗？
Naval: I actually think the best way is just to follow your own obsession. And somewhere in the back of your mind, you can realize that, actually, this obsession I like and I’ll keep an eye out for the commercial aspects of it.
Naval：实际上，我认为最好的方法就是追随自己的痴迷。在你脑海中的某个地方，你可以意识到，实际上，我喜欢这种痴迷，我会密切关注它的商业方面。
But I think if you go around trying to build it a little too deliberately, if you become too goal-oriented on the money, then you won’t pick the right thing. You won’t actually pick the thing that you love to do, so you won’t go deep enough into it.
但我认为，如果你试图过于刻意地建立它，如果你在金钱上变得过于以目标为导向，那么你就不会选择正确的东西。你不会真正选择你喜欢做的事情，所以你不会深入其中。
Scott Adams’ observation is a good one, predicated on statistics. Let’s say there’s 10,000 areas that are valuable to the human race today in terms of knowledge to have, and the number one in those 10,000 slots is taken.
斯科特·亚当斯（Scott Adams）的观察是建立在统计数据基础上的。假设有 10,000 个领域在知识方面对当今人类有价值，而这 10,000 个名额中的第一名被占用。
Someone else is likely to be the number one in each of those 10,000, unless you happen to be one of the 10,000 most obsessed people in the world that at a given thing.
在这 10,000 人中，其他人很可能是第一名，除非你碰巧是世界上最痴迷的 10,000 人之一。
But when you start combining, well, number 3,728 with top-notch sales skills and really good writing skills and someone who understands accounting and finance really well, when the need for that intersection arrives, you’ve expanded enough from 10,000 through combinatorics to millions or tens of millions. So, it just becomes much less competitive.
但是，当你开始将 3,728 号与一流的销售技巧和非常好的写作技巧以及非常了解会计和金融的人结合起来时，当对这种交叉点的需求到来时，你已经从 10,000 人通过组合扩展到数百万或数千万。因此，它的竞争力大大降低。
Also, there’s diminishing returns. So, it’s much easier to be top 5 percentile at three or four things than it is to be literally the number one at something.
此外，回报也在递减。因此，在三四件事上成为前 5 个百分位比在某件事上成为第一名要容易得多。
Build specific knowledge where you are a natural
在你自然的地方建立特定的知识
I think it’s a very pragmatic approach. But I think it’s important that one not start assembling things too deliberately because you do want to pick things where you are a natural. Everyone is a natural at something.
我认为这是一种非常务实的方法。但我认为重要的是，不要太刻意地组装东西，因为你确实想选择你自然的东西。每个人都是天生的。
We’re all familiar with that phrase, a natural. “Oh, this person is a natural at meeting men or women, this person is a natural socialite, this person is a natural programmer, this person is a natural reader.” So, whatever you are a natural at, you want to double down on that.
我们都熟悉这句话，一个自然的。“哦，这个人天生善于结识男人或女人，这个人是天生的社交名媛，这个人是天生的程序员，这个人是天生的读者。所以，无论你是天生的，你都想加倍努力。
And then there are probably multiple things you’re natural at because personalities and humans are very complex. So, we want to be able to take the things that you are natural at and combine them so that you automatically, just through sheer interest and enjoyment, end up top 25% or top 10% or top 5% at a number of things.
然后可能有很多事情是你天生的，因为个性和人类非常复杂。所以，我们希望能够把你天生擅长的事情结合起来，这样你就自动地，仅仅通过纯粹的兴趣和享受，在很多事情上最终达到前25%或前10%或前5%。
Learn to Sell, Learn to Build 学会销售，学会建造
If you can do both, you will be unstoppable
如果你能做到这两点，你将是不可阻挡的
Learn to sell, learn to build
学会销售，学会建造
Nivi: Talking about combining skills, you said that you should “learn to sell, learn to build, if you can do both, you will be unstoppable.”
Nivi：谈到结合技能，你说你应该“学会销售，学会建造，如果你能两者兼而有之，你就会势不可挡。
Naval: This is a very broad category. It’s two broad categories. One is building the product. Which is hard, and it’s multivariate. It can include design, it can include development, it can include manufacturing, logistics, procurement, it can even be designing and operating a service. It has many, many definitions.
Naval：这是一个非常广泛的类别。这是两大类。一是构建产品。这很难，而且是多变量的。它可以包括设计，可以包括开发，可以包括制造、物流、采购，甚至可以是设计和运营服务。它有很多很多的定义。
But in every industry, there is a definition of the builder. In our tech industry it’s the CTO, it’s the programmer, it’s the software engineer, hardware engineer. But even in the laundry business, it could be the person who’s building the laundry service, who is making the trains run on time, who’s making sure all the clothes end up in the right place at the right time, and so on.
但在每个行业中，都有一个建设者的定义。在我们的科技行业，它是首席技术官，它是程序员，它是软件工程师，硬件工程师。但即使在洗衣行业，也可能是建立洗衣服务的人，让火车准时运行的人，确保所有衣服在正确的时间到达正确的地方，等等。
The other side of it is sales. Again, selling has a very broad definition. Selling doesn’t necessarily just mean selling individual customers, but it can mean marketing, it can mean communicating, it can mean recruiting, it can mean raising money, it can mean inspiring people, it could mean doing PR. It’s a broad umbrella category.
另一方面是销售。同样，销售有一个非常广泛的定义。销售不一定只意味着销售个人客户，但它可能意味着营销，它可能意味着沟通，它可能意味着招聘，它可能意味着筹集资金，它可能意味着激励人们，它可能意味着做公关。这是一个广泛的伞形类别。
The Silicon Valley model is a builder and seller
硅谷模式是建设者和销售者
So, generally, the Silicon Valley startup model tends to work best. It’s not the only way, but it is probably the most common way, when you have two founders, one of whom is world class at selling, and one of whom is world class at building.
因此，一般来说，硅谷的创业模式往往效果最好。这不是唯一的方法，但这可能是最常见的方法，当你有两个创始人时，其中一个是世界级的销售，另一个是世界级的建筑。
Examples are, of course, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak with Apple, Gates and Allen probably had similar responsibilities early on with Microsoft, Larry and Sergey probably broke down along those lines, although it’s a little different there because that was a very technical product delivered to end users through a simple interface.
当然，例如，苹果公司的史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）和史蒂夫·沃兹尼亚克（Steve Wozniak），盖茨（Gates）和艾伦（Allen）可能在Microsoft的早期就承担了类似的责任，拉里（Larry）和谢尔盖（Sergey）可能沿着这些思路崩溃了，尽管那里有点不同，因为这是一个非常技术性的产品，通过一个简单的界面交付给最终用户。
But generally, you will see this pattern repeated over and over. There’s a builder and there’s a seller. There’s a CEO and CTO combo. And venture and technology investors are almost trained to look for this combo whenever possible. It’s the magic combination.
但一般来说，你会看到这种模式一遍又一遍地重复。有一个建筑商，有一个卖家。有一个CEO和CTO组合。风险投资和技术投资者几乎都受过训练，只要有可能，就会寻找这种组合。这是神奇的组合。
If you can do both you will be unstoppable
如果你能做到这两点，你将是不可阻挡的
The ultimate is when one individual can do both. That’s when you get true superpowers. That’s when you get people who can create entire industries.
最终是当一个人可以同时做到这两点时。那是你获得真正的超能力的时候。那时你就会找到能够创造整个行业的人。
The living example is Elon Musk. He may not necessarily be building the rockets himself, but he understands enough that he actually makes technical contributions. He understands the technology well enough that no one’s going to snow him on it, and he’s not running around making claims that he doesn’t think he can’t eventually deliver. He may be optimistic on the timelines but he thinks this is within reasonableness for delivery.
活生生的例子是埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）。他可能不一定自己在制造火箭，但他足够了解，他实际上做出了技术贡献。他非常了解这项技术，没有人会把他放在上面，而且他不会到处跑来跑去，声称他不认为自己最终无法实现。他可能对时间表持乐观态度，但他认为这在合理的交付范围内。
Even Steve Jobs developed enough product skills and was involved enough in the product that he also operated in both of these domains. Larry Ellison started as a programmer and I think wrote the first version of Oracle, or was actually heavily involved in it.
甚至史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）也发展了足够的产品技能，并参与了足够的产品，以至于他也在这两个领域开展业务。拉里·埃里森（Larry Ellison）最初是一名程序员，我认为他编写了甲骨文的第一个版本，或者实际上大量参与其中。
Marc Andreessen was also in this domain. He may not have had enough confidence in his sales skills, but he was the programmer who wrote Netscape Navigator, or a big chunk of it. So, I think the real giants in any field are the people who can both build and sell.
马克·安德森（Marc Andreessen）也属于这一领域。他可能对自己的销售技巧没有足够的信心，但他是编写 Netscape Navigator 的程序员，或者说是其中的很大一部分。所以，我认为任何领域的真正巨头都是既能建造又能销售的人。
I’d rather teach an engineer marketing than a marketer engineering
我宁愿教工程师营销，也不愿教营销人员工程
And usually the building is a thing that a sales person can’t pick up later in life. It requires too much focused time. But a builder can pick up selling a little bit later, especially if they were already innately wired to be a good communicator. Bill Gates famously paraphrases this as, “I’d rather teach an engineer marketing, than a marketer engineering.”
通常，建筑物是销售人员在以后的生活中无法拿起的东西。它需要太多的专注时间。但是建筑商可以稍后再开始销售，特别是如果他们天生就已经天生就是一个很好的沟通者。比尔·盖茨（Bill Gates）有一句名言：“我宁愿教营销工程师，也不愿教营销人员工程。
I think if you start out with a building mentality and you have building skills and it’s still early enough in your life, or you have enough focused time that you think you can learn selling, and you have some natural characteristics or you’re a good salesperson, then you can double down on those.
我认为，如果你一开始就有一种建筑的心态，你有建筑技能，而且在你生命中还处于早期阶段，或者你有足够的专注时间，你认为你可以学习销售，你有一些天生的特征，或者你是一个好的销售人员，那么你可以加倍努力。
Now, your sales skills could be in a different than traditional domain. For example, let’s say you’re a really good engineer and then people are saying, well, now you need to be good at sales, well, you may not be good at hand-to-hand sales, but you may be a really good writer.
现在，您的销售技能可能与传统领域不同。例如，假设你是一个非常优秀的工程师，然后人们说，好吧，现在你需要擅长销售，好吧，你可能不擅长手把手的销售，但你可能是一个非常好的作家。
And writing is a skill that can be learned much more easily than, say, in-person selling, and so you may just cultivate writing skills until you become a good online communicator and then use that for your sales.
写作是一种比面对面销售更容易学习的技能，因此您可以培养写作技巧，直到您成为一名优秀的在线沟通者，然后将其用于销售。
On the other hand, it could just be that you’re a good builder and you’re bad at writing and you don’t like communicating to mass audiences but you’re good one-on-one, so then you might use your sales skills for recruiting or for fundraising, which are more one-on-one kinds of endeavors.
另一方面，可能只是你是一个很好的建设者，你不擅长写作，你不喜欢与大众交流，但你擅长一对一，所以你可能会利用你的销售技巧进行招聘或筹款，这更像是一对一的努力。
This is pointing out that if you’re at the intersection of these two, don’t despair because you’re not going to be the best technologist and you’re not going to be the best salesperson, but in a weird way, that combination, back to the Scott Adams skill stack, that combination of two skills is unstoppable.
这是在指出，如果你处于这两者的交叉点，不要绝望，因为你不会成为最好的技术专家，你也不会成为最好的销售人员，但以一种奇怪的方式，这种组合，回到斯科特·亚当斯的技能堆栈，这两种技能的结合是不可阻挡的。
Long term, people who understand the underlying product and how to build it and can sell it, these are catnip to investors, these people can break down walls if they have enough energy, and they can get almost anything done.
从长远来看，那些了解底层产品以及如何构建它并可以出售它的人，这些人对投资者来说是猫薄荷，这些人如果有足够的精力就可以打破壁垒，他们几乎可以完成任何事情。
Nivi: If you could only pick one to be good at, which one would you pick?
Nivi：如果你只能选一个擅长的，你会选哪一个？
Naval: When you’re trying to stand out from the noise building is actually better because there’re so many hustlers and sales people who have nothing to back them up. When you’re starting out, when you’re trying to be recognized, building is better.
Naval：当你试图从噪音中脱颖而出时，建筑实际上会更好，因为有太多的骗子和销售人员没有任何东西可以支持他们。当你刚起步时，当你试图被认可时，建筑会更好。
But much later down the line building gets exhausting because it is a focus job and it’s hard to stay current because there’s always new people, new products coming up who have newer tools, and frankly more time because it’s very intense, it’s a very focused task.
但是很久以后，构建变得筋疲力尽，因为这是一项专注的工作，很难保持最新状态，因为总是有新的人，新产品出现，他们有更新的工具，坦率地说，更多的时间，因为它非常紧张，这是一项非常专注的任务。
So, sales skills actually scale better over time. Like for example, if you have a reputation for building a great product, that’s good, but when you ship your new product, I’m going to validate it based on the product. But if you have a reputation for being a good person to do business with and you’re persuasive and communicative then that reputation almost becomes self-fulfilling.
因此，随着时间的推移，销售技巧实际上可以更好地扩展。例如，如果你以构建一个伟大的产品而闻名，那很好，但是当你发布你的新产品时，我将根据产品来验证它。但是，如果你有一个好人做生意的名声，而且你很有说服力和沟通能力，那么这个名声几乎就变成了自我实现。
So, I think if you only had to pick up one, you can start with building and then transition to selling. This is a cop-out answer, but I think that is actually the right answer.
所以，我认为如果你只需要拿起一个，你可以从建造开始，然后过渡到销售。这是一个逃避的答案，但我认为这实际上是正确的答案。
Read What You Love Until You Love to Read 读你喜欢的，直到你爱读
You should be able to pick up any book in the library and read it
您应该能够在图书馆拿起任何一本书并阅读它
Read what you love until you love to read
阅读你喜欢的东西，直到你喜欢阅读
Nivi: Before we go and talk about accountability and leverage and judgment, you’ve got a few tweets further down the line that I would put in the category of continuous learning.
Nivi：在我们开始讨论问责制、杠杆和判断力之前，你有几条推文，我会把它们归入持续学习的范畴。
They’re essentially, “there is no skill called business. Avoid business magazines and business class, study microeconomics, game theory, psychology, persuasion, ethics, mathematics and computers.”
他们本质上是，“没有一种技能叫做商业。避免商业杂志和商务课程，学习微观经济学、博弈论、心理学、说服学、伦理学、数学和计算机。
There’s one other comment that you made in a Periscope that was, “you should be able to pick up any book in the library and read it.” And the last tweet in this category was, “reading is faster than listening, doing is faster than watching.”
你在潜望镜中还有一条评论是，“你应该能够拿起图书馆里的任何一本书并阅读它。这个类别的最后一条推文是，“阅读比听快，做比看快。
Naval: Yeah, the most important tweet on this, I don’t even have in here unfortunately, which is, the foundation of learning is reading. I don’t know a smart person who doesn’t read and read all the time.
Naval：是的，关于这个最重要的推文，不幸的是，我什至没有在这里，那就是，学习的基础是阅读。我不认识一个聪明的人，他不会一直阅读和阅读。
And the problem is, what do I read? How do I read? Because for most people it’s a struggle, it’s a chore. So, the most important thing is just to learn how to educate yourself and the way to educate yourself is to develop a love for reading.
问题是，我读什么？我该如何阅读？因为对大多数人来说，这是一场斗争，这是一件苦差事。所以，最重要的是学会如何教育自己，而教育自己的方法是培养对阅读的热爱。
So, the tweet that is left out, the one that I was hinting at is, “read what you love until you love to read.” It’s that simple.
所以，被遗漏的推文，我暗示的那条是，“阅读你喜欢的东西，直到你喜欢阅读。就是这么简单。
Everybody I know who reads a lot loves to read, and they love to read because they read books that they loved. It’s a little bit of a catch-22, but you basically want to start off just reading wherever you are and then keep building up from there until reading becomes a habit. And then eventually, you will just get bored of the simple stuff.
我认识的每个人都喜欢读书，他们喜欢读书，因为他们读了他们喜欢的书。这有点像第22条军规，但你基本上想从阅读开始，无论你身在何处，然后从那里继续积累，直到阅读成为一种习惯。然后最终，你会对简单的东西感到厌倦。
So you may start off reading fiction, then you might graduate to science fiction, then you may graduate to non-fiction, then you may graduate to science, or philosophy, or mathematics or whatever it is, but take your natural path and just read the things that interest you until you kind of understand them. And then you’ll naturally move to the next thing and the next thing and the next thing.
所以你可以从读小说开始，然后你可能会读科幻小说，然后你可能会读非小说，然后你可能会读科学、哲学、数学或其他什么，但要走你的自然道路，只读你感兴趣的东西，直到你理解它们。然后你会自然而然地转向下一件事，下一件事，下一件事。
Read the original scientific books in a field
阅读某个领域的原始科学书籍
Now, there is an exception to this, which is where I was hinting with what things you actually do want to learn, which is, at some point there’s too much out there to read. Even reading is full of junk.
现在，有一个例外，这就是我暗示你真正想学习的东西的地方，那就是，在某些时候，有太多的东西需要阅读。就连读书也充满了垃圾。
There are actually things you can read, especially early on, that will program your brain a certain way, and then later things that you read, you will decide whether those things are true or false based on the earlier things.
实际上，有些东西你可以读，尤其是早期，它会以某种方式对你的大脑进行编程，然后你读的东西以后，你会根据前面的东西来决定这些东西是真是假。
So, it is important that you read foundational things. And foundational things, I would say, are the original books in a given field that are very scientific in their nature.
因此，阅读基础知识很重要。我想说，基础的东西是特定领域的原创书籍，这些书籍本质上是非常科学的。
For example, instead of reading a business book, pick up Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Instead of reading a book on biology or evolution that’s written today, I would pick up Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Instead of reading a book on biotech right now that may be very advanced, I would just pick up The Eighth Day of Creation by Watson and Crick. Instead of reading advanced books on what cosmology and what Neil Degrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking have been saying, you can pick up Richard Feynman’s Six Easy Pieces and start with basic physics.
例如，与其阅读商业书籍，不如拿起亚当·斯密的《国富论》。与其读一本今天写的关于生物学或进化论的书，我宁愿拿起达尔文的《物种起源》。与其读一本关于生物技术的书，那可能非常先进，我宁愿拿起沃森和克里克的《创造的第八天》。与其阅读关于宇宙学以及尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森和斯蒂芬·霍金一直在说的话的高级书籍，不如拿起理查德·费曼的《六件简单曲》，从基础物理学开始。
Don’t fear any book 不要害怕任何一本书
If you understand the basics, especially in mathematics and physics and sciences, then you will not be afraid of any book. All of us have that memory of when we were sitting in class and we’re learning mathematics, and it was all logical and all made sense until at one point the class moved too fast and we fell behind.
如果你了解基础知识，尤其是数学、物理和科学，那么你就不会害怕任何一本书。我们所有人都记得我们坐在课堂上学习数学的时候，这一切都是合乎逻辑的，一切都是有道理的，直到有一次班级走得太快，我们落后了。
Then after that we were left memorizing equations, memorizing concepts without being able to derive them from first principles. And at that moment, we’re lost, because unless you’re a professional mathematician, you’re not going to remember those things. All you’re going to remember are the techniques, the foundations.
在那之后，我们只能背诵方程式，背诵概念，却无法从第一性原理中推导出来它们。在那一刻，我们迷失了，因为除非你是一个专业的数学家，否则你不会记住这些事情。你要记住的只是技术，基础。
So, you have to make sure that you’re building on a steel frame of understanding because you’re putting together a foundation for skyscraper, and you’re not just memorizing things because you’re just memorizing things you’re lost. So the foundations are ultra important.
所以，你必须确保你建立在理解的钢架上，因为你正在为摩天大楼奠定基础，你不仅仅是记住东西，因为你只是在记住你失去的东西。因此，基础非常重要。
And the ultimate, the ultimate is when you walk into a library and you look at it up and down and you don’t fear any book. You know that you can take any book off the shelf, you can read it, you can understand it, you can absorb what is true, you can reject what is false, and you have a basis for even working that out that is logical and scientific and not purely just based on opinions.
终极，终极是当你走进图书馆，你上下打量它，你不怕任何书。你知道你可以把任何一本书从书架上拿下来，你可以阅读它，你可以理解它，你可以吸收什么是真实的，你可以拒绝什么是虚假的，你甚至有一个基础来解决这个问题，这是合乎逻辑的和科学的，而不仅仅是基于意见。
The means of learning are abundant; the desire to learn is scarce
学习手段丰富;学习的欲望是稀缺的
The beauty of the internet is the entire library of Alexandria times 10 is at your fingertips at all times. It’s not the means of education or the means of learning are scarce, the means of learning are abundant. It’s the desire to learn that’s scarce. So, you really have to cultivate the desire.
互联网的美妙之处在于整个亚历山大乘以 10 的图书馆随时触手可及。不是教育手段或学习手段稀缺，而是学习手段丰富。学习的欲望是稀缺的。所以，你真的要培养欲望。
And it’s not even cultivating you’ve to not lose it. Children have a natural curiosity. If you go to a young child who’s first learning language, they’re pretty much always asking: What’s this? What’s that? Why is this? Who’s that? They’re always asking questions.
它甚至不是修炼，你必须不失去它。孩子们有天生的好奇心。如果你去找一个刚开始学习语言的孩子，他们几乎总是会问：这是什么？什么？为什么会这样？那是谁？他们总是在问问题。
But one of the problems is that schools and our educational system, and even our way of raising children replaces curiosity with compliance. And once you replace the curiosity with the compliance, you get an obedient factory worker, but you no longer get a creative thinker. And you need creativity, you need the ability to feed your own brain to learn whatever you want.
但问题之一是，学校和我们的教育体系，甚至我们养育孩子的方式，都用顺从取代了好奇心。一旦你用顺从取代了好奇心，你就会得到一个听话的工厂工人，但你不再得到一个创造性的思想家。你需要创造力，你需要有能力养活自己的大脑来学习任何你想学的东西。
The Foundations Are Math and Logic 基础是数学和逻辑
Mathematics and logic are the basis for understanding everything else
数学和逻辑是理解其他一切的基础
The ultimate foundations are math and logic
最终的基础是数学和逻辑
Naval: Foundational things are principles, they’re algorithms, they’re deep seated logical understanding where you can defend it or attack it from any angle. And that’s why microeconomics is important because macroeconomics is a lot of memorization, a lot of macro bullshit.
Naval：基础的东西是原则，它们是算法，它们是根深蒂固的逻辑理解，你可以从任何角度捍卫它或攻击它。这就是为什么微观经济学很重要，因为宏观经济学是很多记忆，很多宏观废话。
As Nassim Taleb says, it is easier to macro bullshit than it is the micro bullshit. Because macroeconomics is voodoo-complex-science meets politics. You can’t find two macroeconomists to agree on anything these days, and different macroeconomists get used by different politicians to peddle their different pet theories.
正如纳西姆·塔勒布（Nassim Taleb）所说，宏观废话比微观废话更容易。因为宏观经济学是巫毒教——情结——科学与政治相遇。如今，你找不到两个宏观经济学家在任何事情上达成一致，不同的宏观经济学家被不同的政客用来兜售他们不同的宠物理论。
There are even macroeconomists out there now peddling something called Modern Monetary Theory which basically says, hey, except for this pesky thing called inflation, we can just print all the money that we want. Yes, except for this pesky thing called inflation. That’s like saying, except for limited energy, we can fire rockets off into space all day long.
现在甚至有宏观经济学家在兜售一种叫做现代货币理论的东西，它基本上是说，嘿，除了这个讨厌的东西叫做通货膨胀，我们可以印出我们想要的所有钱。是的，除了这个讨厌的东西叫做通货膨胀。这就像说，除了有限的能量，我们可以整天向太空发射火箭。
It’s just nonsense, but the fact that there are people who have “macroeconomist” in their title and are peddling Modern Monetary Theory just tells you that macroeconomics as a so-called science has been corrupted. It’s now a branch of politics.
这只是无稽之谈，但有些人的标题中带有“宏观经济学家”并兜售现代货币理论的事实只是告诉你，宏观经济学作为一门所谓的科学已经被破坏了。它现在是政治的一个分支。
So, you really want to focus on the foundations. The ultimate foundation are mathematics and logic. If you understand logic and mathematics, then you have the basis for understanding the scientific method. Once you understand the scientific method, then you can understand how to separate truth from falsehood in other fields and other things that you’re reading.
所以，你真的想把重点放在基础上。最终的基础是数学和逻辑。如果你懂逻辑和数学，那么你就有了理解科学方法的基础。一旦你理解了科学方法，那么你就可以理解如何在其他领域和你正在阅读的其他事情中区分真理和谬误。
It’s better to read a great book slowly than to fly through a hundred books quickly
慢慢读一本好书，总比快速读完一百本书要好
So, be very careful about reading other people’s opinions and even be careful when reading facts because so-called facts are often just opinions with a veneer [of pseudoscience] around them.
所以，在阅读别人的意见时要非常小心，甚至在阅读事实时也要小心，因为所谓的事实往往只是带有[伪科学]外衣的观点。
What you are really looking for are algorithms. What you are really looking for is understanding. It’s better to go through a book really slowly and struggle and stumble and rewind, than it is to fly through it quickly and say, “Well, now I’ve read 20 books, I’ve read 30 books, I’ve read 50 books in the field.”
你真正在寻找的是算法。你真正在寻找的是理解。最好是慢慢地读完一本书，挣扎、跌跌撞撞、倒带，而不是快速地读完它，然后说：“好吧，现在我已经读了20本书，我已经读了30本书，我已经读了50本书。
It’s like Bruce Lee said, “I don’t fear the man who knows a thousand kicks and a thousand punches, I fear the man who’s practiced one punch ten thousand times or one kick ten thousand times.” It’s that understanding that comes through repetition and through usage and through logic and foundations that really makes you a smart thinker.
就像李小龙说的，“我不怕懂一千脚千拳的人，我怕练过一拳一万次或一脚一万次的人。正是这种通过重复、使用、逻辑和基础而产生的理解，真正使你成为一个聪明的思考者。
Learn persuasion and programming
学习说服和编程
Nivi: To lay a foundation for learning for the rest of your life I think you need two things, if I was going to try and sum it up. One, practical persuasion and two, you need to go deep in some technical category, whether it’s abstract math, or you want to read Donald Knuth’s books on algorithms, or you want to read Feynman’s lectures on physics.
Nivi：为了给你的余生的学习打下基础，我认为你需要两件事，如果我要试着总结的话。一是实用说服，二是你需要深入研究某个技术范畴，无论是抽象数学，还是想读唐纳德·克努斯（Donald Knuth）关于算法的书，或者你想读费曼（Feynman）的物理学讲座。
If you have practical persuasion and a deep understanding of some complex topic, I think you’ll have a great foundation for learning for the rest of your life.
如果你有实际的说服力和对一些复杂话题的深刻理解，我认为你将为余生的学习打下坚实的基础。
Naval: Yeah. In fact let me expand that a little bit. I would say that the five most important skills are of course, reading, writing, arithmetic, and then as you’re adding in, persuasion, which is talking. And then finally, I would add computer programming just because it’s an applied form of arithmetic that just gets you so much leverage for free in any domain that you operate in.
Naval：是的。事实上，让我稍微扩展一下。我想说的是，最重要的五项技能当然是阅读、写作、算术，然后当你加入时，说服力，也就是说话。最后，我要加上计算机编程，因为它是一种应用形式的算术，可以让你在你经营的任何领域免费获得如此多的杠杆作用。
If you’re good with computers, if you’re good at basic mathematics, if you’re good at writing, if you’re good at speaking, and if you like reading, you’re set for life.
如果你擅长计算机，如果你擅长基础数学，如果你擅长写作，如果你擅长口语，如果你喜欢阅读，你就注定要终生受益。
There’s No Actual Skill Called ‘Business’ 没有所谓的“商业”实际技能
Avoid business schools and magazines
避开商学院和杂志
There’s no actual skill called ‘business’
没有所谓的“商业”实际技能
Naval: In that sense, business to me is bottom of the barrel. There’s no actual skill called business, it’s too generic. It’s like a skill called “relating.” Like “relating to humans.” That’s not a skill, it’s too broad.
Naval：从这个意义上说，对我来说，生意是桶底。没有实际的技能叫做商业，它太笼统了。这就像一种叫做“关系”的技能。就像“与人类有关”。这不是一项技能，它太宽泛了。
A lot of what goes on in business schools, and there is some very intelligent stuff taught in business schools – I don’t mean to detract from them completely – some of the things taught in business school are just anecdotes. They call them “case studies.”
商学院里发生的很多事情，商学院教授的一些非常聪明的东西——我并不是要完全贬低它们——商学院教授的一些东西只是轶事。他们称它们为“案例研究”。
But they’re just anecdotes, and they’re trying to help you pattern match by throwing lots of data points at you, but the reality is, you will never understand them fully until you’re actually in that position yourself.
但它们只是轶事，它们试图通过向你抛出大量数据点来帮助你进行模式匹配，但现实是，除非你自己真正处于那个位置，否则你永远不会完全理解它们。
Even then you will find that basic concepts from game theory, psychology, ethics, mathematics, computers, and logic will serve you much, much better.
即便如此，你也会发现博弈论、心理学、伦理学、数学、计算机和逻辑学的基本概念会为你提供更好的服务。
I would focus on the foundations, I would focus with a science bent. I would develop a love for reading, including by reading so-called junk food that you’re not supposed to read. You don’t have to read the classics. That [reading] is the foundation for your self-education.
我会专注于基础，我会专注于科学。我会培养对阅读的热爱，包括阅读你不应该阅读的所谓垃圾食品。你不必阅读经典。这[阅读]是你自我教育的基础。
Doing is faster than watching
做比看快
Nivi: What did you mean when you said that “doing is faster than watching?”
Nivi：你说“做比看快”是什么意思？
Naval: When it comes to your learning curve, if you want to optimize your learning curve… One of the reasons why I don’t love podcasts, even though I’m a generator of podcasts, is that I like to consume my information very quickly.
Naval：说到你的学习曲线，如果你想优化你的学习曲线……我不喜欢播客的原因之一，即使我是播客的生成者，也是我喜欢非常快速地消费我的信息。
And I’m a good reader, or a fast reader and I can read very fast but I can only listen at a certain speed. I know people listen at 2x, 3x, but everyone sounds like a chipmunk and it’s hard to go back, it’s hard to highlight, it’s hard to pinpoint snippets and save them in your notebook, and so on.
我是一个很好的读者，或者说是一个快速的读者，我可以读得很快，但我只能以一定的速度听。我知道人们以 2 倍、3 倍的速度收听，但每个人听起来都像花栗鼠，很难回头，很难突出显示，很难确定片段并将它们保存在笔记本中，等等。
Similarly, a lot of people think they can become really skilled at something by watching others do it, or even by reading about others doing it. And going back to the business school case study, that’s a classic example.
同样，很多人认为他们可以通过观察别人做某事，甚至通过阅读别人做某事来变得非常熟练。回到商学院的案例研究，这是一个典型的例子。
They study other people’s businesses, but in reality, you’re going to learn a lot more about running a business by operating your own lemonade stand or equivalent. Or even opening a little retail store down the street.
他们研究别人的生意，但实际上，您将通过经营自己的柠檬水摊或同等产品来了解更多关于经营企业的知识。甚至在街边开一家小零售店。
That is how you’re going to learn on the job because a lot of the subtleties don’t express themselves until you’re actually in the business.
这就是你在工作中学习的方式，因为很多微妙之处在你真正进入这个行业之前不会表现出来。
For example, everyone’s into mental models these days. You go to Farnam Street, you go to Poor Charlie’s Almanack, and you can learn all the different mental models. But which ones matter more? Which ones do you apply more often? Which ones matter in which circumstances? That’s actually the hard part.
例如，现在每个人都喜欢心智模型。你去法南街，你去《可怜的查理年鉴》，你可以学习所有不同的心智模型。但哪些更重要？您更频繁地使用哪些？哪些在什么情况下很重要？这实际上是最困难的部分。
For example, my personal learning has been that the principal-agent problem drives so much in this world. It’s an incentives problem. I’ve learned that tit-for-tat iterated prisoner’s dilemma is the piece of game theory that is worth knowing the most. You can almost put down the game theory book after that.
例如，我个人的学习是，委托代理问题在这个世界上驱动着如此多的东西。这是一个激励问题。我了解到，针锋相对的囚徒困境是最值得了解的博弈论。在那之后，你几乎可以放下博弈论的书了。
By the way, the best way to learn game theory is to play lots of games. I never even read game theory books. I consider myself extremely good at game theory. I’ve never opened up a game theory book and found a result in there where I didn’t think, “Oh, yeah, that’s common sense to me.”
顺便说一句，学习博弈论的最好方法是玩很多游戏。我什至从未读过博弈论书籍。我认为自己非常擅长博弈论。我从来没有打开一本博弈论的书，在那里找到一个结果，我没有想过，“哦，是的，这对我来说是常识。
The reason is that I grew up playing all kinds of games and I ran into all kinds of corner cases with all kinds of friends, and so it’s just second nature to me. You can always learn better by doing it on the job.
原因是我从小玩各种游戏长大，我和各种各样的朋友一起遇到了各种极端情况，所以这对我来说只是第二天性。通过在工作中这样做，你总是可以更好地学习。
The number of ‘doing’ iterations drives the learning curve
“做”迭代的次数推动了学习曲线
But doing is a subtle thing. Doing encapsulates a lot. For example, let’s say, I want to learn how to run a business. Well, if I start a business where I go in every day and I’m doing the same thing, let’s say I’m running a retail store down the street where I’m stocking the shelves with food and liquor every single day, I’m not going to learn that much because I’m repeating things a lot.
但做是一件微妙的事情。做包含很多东西。例如，假设我想学习如何经营一家企业。好吧，如果我开始做一家公司，我每天都在做同样的事情，假设我在街上经营一家零售店，我每天都在货架上摆放食物和酒，我不会学到那么多东西，因为我经常重复事情。
So, I’m putting in thousands of hours, but they are thousands of hours doing the same thing. Whereas if I was putting in thousands of iterations, that would be different. So, the learning curve is across iterations [not iterations].
所以，我投入了数千小时，但他们却在做同样的事情。然而，如果我投入数千次迭代，情况会有所不同。因此，学习曲线是跨迭代的 [而不是迭代]。
So if I was trying new marketing experiments in the store all the time, I was constantly changing up the inventory, I was constantly changing up the branding and the messaging, I was constantly changing the sign, I was constantly changing the online channels that are used to drive foot traffic in, I was experimenting with being open at different hours, I had the ability to walk around and talk to other store owners and getting their books and figure out how they run their businesses.
因此，如果我一直在商店里尝试新的营销实验，我不断地改变库存，我不断地改变品牌和信息，我不断地改变标志，我不断地改变用于吸引客流量的在线渠道，我正在尝试在不同的时间营业， 我有能力四处走动，与其他店主交谈，拿到他们的书，弄清楚他们是如何经营生意的。
It’s the number of iterations that drives the learning curve. So, the more iterations you can have, the more shots on goal you can have, the faster you’re going to learn. It’s not just about the hours put in.
迭代次数是推动学习曲线的动力。所以，你可以拥有的迭代次数越多，你的射门次数就越多，你学习的速度就越快。这不仅仅是投入的时间。
If you’re willing to bleed a little every day, you may win big later
如果你愿意每天流一点血，你以后可能会赢大钱
It’s actually a combination of the two, but I think just the way we’re built and the way that the world presents itself, the world offers us very easily the opportunity to do the same thing over and over and over again. But really, we’d be better served if we went off and found ways to do new things from scratch.
这实际上是两者的结合，但我认为，就像我们的构建方式和世界呈现方式一样，世界很容易为我们提供机会，让我们一遍又一遍地做同样的事情。但实际上，如果我们走出去，找到从头开始做新事情的方法，我们会得到更好的服务。
And doing something new the first time is painful, because you’re wandering into uncertain territory and high odds are that you will fail. So you just have to get very, very comfortable with frequent small failures.
第一次做一些新的事情是痛苦的，因为你正在徘徊在不确定的领域，而且你很可能会失败。因此，您只需要对频繁的小故障感到非常非常满意。
Nassim Taleb talks about this also. He made his fortune, his wealth by being a trader who basically relied upon black swans. Nassim Taleb made money by losing little bits of money every day and then once in a blue moon he would make a lot of money when the unthinkable happened for other people.
纳西姆·塔勒布（Nassim Taleb）也谈到了这一点。他通过做一个基本上依赖黑天鹅的商人来发家致富。纳西姆·塔勒布（Nassim Taleb）通过每天损失一点点钱来赚钱，然后在蓝月亮中，当其他人发生不可想象的事情时，他会赚很多钱。
Whereas most people want to make little bits of money every day and in exchange they’ll tolerate lots of blow-up risk, they’ll tolerate going completely bankrupt.
虽然大多数人都想每天赚一点钱，作为交换，他们会忍受大量的爆炸风险，但他们会容忍完全破产。
We’re not evolved to bleed a little bit every day. If you’re out in the natural environment, and you get a cut and you’re literally bleeding a little bit every day, you will eventually die. You’ll have to stop that cut.
我们没有进化到每天流一点血。如果你在自然环境中，你被割伤了，你每天都在流血，你最终会死。你必须停止这种削减。
We’re evolved for small victories all the time but that becomes very expensive. That’s where the crowd is. That’s where the herd is. So, if you’re willing to bleed a little bit every day but in exchange you’ll win big later, you will do better.
我们一直在为小的胜利而进化，但这变得非常昂贵。这就是人群所在的地方。这就是牛群所在的地方。所以，如果你愿意每天流一点血，但作为交换，你以后会赢得大奖，你会做得更好。
That is, by the way, entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs bleed every day.
顺便说一句，那就是企业家精神。企业家每天都在流血。
They’re not making money, they’re losing money, they’re constantly stressed out, all the responsibility is upon them, but when they win they win big. On average they’ll make more.
他们没有赚钱，他们在赔钱，他们不断地感到压力，所有的责任都落在他们身上，但当他们赢了，他们就会赢得大奖。平均而言，他们会赚得更多。
Embrace Accountability to Get Leverage 拥抱问责制以获得影响力
Take risks under your own name and society will reward you with leverage
以自己的名义承担风险，社会会用杠杆回报你
You need accountability to get leverage
你需要问责制才能获得影响力
Nivi: Why don’t we jump into accountability, which I thought was pretty interesting and I think you have your own unique take on it. So the first tweet on accountability was, “Embrace accountability and take business risks under your own name. Society will reward you with responsibility, equity, and leverage.”
Nivi：我们为什么不开始问责，我认为这很有趣，我认为你有自己独特的看法。因此，关于问责制的第一条推文是，“拥抱问责制，以自己的名义承担商业风险。社会会以责任、公平和杠杆来奖励你。
Naval: Yeah. So to get rich, you’re going to need leverage. Leverage comes in labor, comes in capital, or it can come through code or media. But most of these, like labor and capital, people have to give to you. For labor, somebody has to follow you. For capital, somebody has to give you money or assets to manage or machines.
Naval：是的。所以要想致富，你需要杠杆。杠杆来自劳动力，来自资本，也可以通过代码或媒体。但其中大部分，比如劳动力和资本，人们必须给你。对于劳动，必须有人跟着你。对于资本，必须有人给你钱或资产来管理或机器。
So to get these things, you have to build up credibility and you have to do those under your own name as much as possible, which is risky. So accountability is a double-edged thing. It allows you to take credit when things go well and to bear the brunt of the failure when things go badly.
所以要得到这些东西，你必须建立信誉，你必须尽可能多地以自己的名义做这些事情，这是有风险的。因此，问责制是一把双刃剑。它可以让你在事情进展顺利时获得荣誉，并在事情进展不顺利时首当其冲地承受失败的冲击。
Take business risks under your own name
以自己的名义承担商业风险
So in that sense, people who are stamping their names on things aren’t foolish. They’re just confident. Maybe it turns out to be foolish in the end, but if you look at a Kanye or an Oprah or a Trump or an Elon or anyone like that, these people can get rich just off their name because their name is such powerful branding.
所以从这个意义上说，那些在事物上印上自己名字的人并不愚蠢。他们只是很自信。也许最终被证明是愚蠢的，但如果你看看侃爷、奥普拉、特朗普、埃隆或类似的人，这些人可以仅仅因为他们的名字而致富，因为他们的名字是如此强大的品牌。
Regardless of what you think of Trump, you have to realize that the guy was among the best in the world at just branding his name. Why would you go to Trump Casino? Used to be because Trump. Why would you go to a Trump tower? Because of Trump.
不管你对特朗普有什么看法，你都必须意识到，这个家伙是世界上最好的人之一。你为什么要去特朗普赌场？曾经是因为特朗普。你为什么要去特朗普大厦？因为特朗普。
When it came time to vote, I think that a lot of voters just went in and said, “Trump.” They recognize the name, so the name recognition paid off.
到了投票的时候，我想很多选民只是进去说，“特朗普。他们认出了这个名字，所以这个名字的认可得到了回报。
Same thing with Oprah. She puts her brand on something, her name on something and it flies off the shelves, and it’s like an instant validator.
奥普拉也是如此。她把她的品牌放在某样东西上，把她的名字放在某样东西上，然后它就从货架上飞走了，它就像一个即时的验证者。
These people also take risks for putting their name out there. Obviously Trump is now probably hated by half or more than half of the country and by a big chunk of the world as he sticks his name out there.
这些人也冒着风险把自己的名字放在那里。显然，特朗普现在可能被一半或一半以上的国家和世界上很大一部分人所憎恨，因为他把自己的名字贴在那里。
By putting your name out there, you become a celebrity, and fame has many, many downsides. It’s better to be anonymous and rich than to be poor and famous, but even famous and rich has a lot of downsides associated with it. You’re always in the public eye.
把你的名字放在那里，你就会成为名人，而名声有很多很多的缺点。匿名和富有比贫穷和出名要好，但即使是有名和有钱也有很多与之相关的缺点。你总是在公众的视线中。
A well-functioning team has clear accountability for each position
一个运作良好的团队对每个职位都有明确的责任
Accountability is quite important, and when you’re working to build a product or you’re working in a team or you’re working in a business, we constantly have drummed into our heads how important it is to be part of a team. Absolutely agree with that.
问责制非常重要，当你在努力构建产品时，或者你在团队中工作，或者你在企业中工作时，我们不断地在脑海中灌输成为团队一员的重要性。绝对同意这一点。
A lot of our training socially is telling us to not stick our necks out of the crowd. There’s a saying that I hear from our Australian friends that the tall poppy gets cut. Don’t stick your neck out, but I would say that actually a really, really well-functioning team is small and has clear accountability for each of the different portions.
我们的很多社交训练都告诉我们不要把脖子伸到人群中。我从澳大利亚朋友那里听到一种说法，高大的罂粟花被砍掉了。不要伸出脖子，但我想说的是，实际上一个非常非常运作良好的团队很小，并且对每个不同的部分都有明确的责任。
You can say, “Okay, this person’s responsible for building the product. This person’s responsible for the messaging. This person’s responsible for raising money. This person’s responsible for the pricing strategy and maybe the online advertising.” So if somebody screws up, you know exactly who’s responsible. While at the same time if something goes really well, you also know exactly who’s responsible.
你可以说，“好吧，这个人负责构建产品。此人负责消息传递。此人负责筹集资金。这个人负责定价策略，也许还负责在线广告。因此，如果有人搞砸了，你确切地知道谁应该负责。同时，如果事情进展顺利，你也确切地知道谁负责。
If you have a small team and you have clearly delineated responsibilities, then you can still keep a very high level of accountability. Accountability is really important because when something succeeds or fails, if it fails, everybody points fingers at each other, and if it succeeds, everybody steps forward to take credit.
如果你有一个小团队，并且你有明确的责任划分，那么你仍然可以保持非常高的问责制。问责制真的很重要，因为当某件事成功或失败时，如果失败了，每个人都会互相指责，如果成功了，每个人都会挺身而出，获得荣誉。
We’ve all had that experience when we were in school and we got a group assignment to do. There were probably a few people in there who did a lot of the work. Then there are a few people who just did a lot of grandstanding or positioning to do the work. We’re all familiar with this from a childhood sense, but it’s sort of uncomfortable to talk about.
我们在学校的时候都有过这样的经历，我们有一个小组作业要做。那里可能有几个人做了很多工作。然后有一些人只是做了很多哗众取宠或定位来做这项工作。我们从童年的感觉中都熟悉这一点，但谈论起来有点不舒服。
People who can fail in public have a lot of power
可以在公共场合失败的人拥有很大的权力
Clear accountability is important. Without accountability, you don’t have incentives. Without accountability, you can’t build credibility. But you take risk. You take risk of failure. You take risk of humiliation. You take risk of failure under your own name.
明确的问责制很重要。没有问责制，你就没有激励措施。没有问责制，你就无法建立信誉。但你要冒险。你冒着失败的风险。你冒着被羞辱的风险。您以自己的名义承担失败的风险。
Luckily in modern society, there’s no more debtors’ prison and people don’t go to jail or get executed for losing other people’s money, but we’re still socially hard wired to not fail in public under our own names. The people who have the ability to fail in public under their own names actually gain a lot of power .
幸运的是，在现代社会中，不再有债务人的监狱，人们也不会因为失去别人的钱而入狱或被处决，但我们仍然在社会上硬生生地以自己的名义在公共场合失败。有能力以自己的名义在公共场合失败的人，实际上获得了很大的权力。
For example, I’ll give a personal anecdote. Up until about 2013, 2014, my public persona was an entirely around startups and investing. Only around 2014, 2015 did I start talking about philosophy and psychological things and broader things.
例如，我会给出一个个人轶事。直到 2013 年、2014 年左右，我的公众形象完全围绕着初创公司和投资。直到 2014 年、2015 年左右，我才开始谈论哲学、心理学和更广泛的事情。
It made me a little nervous because I was doing it under my own name. There were definitely people in the industry who sent me messages through the back channel like, “What are you doing? You’re ending your career. This is stupid.”
这让我有点紧张，因为我是以自己的名义做的。业内肯定有人通过后台渠道给我发信息，比如，“你在做什么？你正在结束你的职业生涯。这太愚蠢了。
I kind of just went with it. I took a risk. Same with crypto. Early on, I took a risk.
我有点顺其自然。我冒了风险。与加密货币相同。很早以前，我就冒了风险。
But when you put your name out there, you take a risk with certain things. You also get to reap the rewards. You get the benefits.
但是当你把你的名字放在那里时，你就要承担某些事情的风险。您还可以获得奖励。你得到了好处。
Take Accountability to Earn Equity 承担责任以赢得公平
If you have high accountability, you’re less replaceable
如果你有很高的责任感，你就不那么容易被取代
Accountability is how you’re going to get equity
问责制是你获得公平的方式
Naval: Accountability is important because that’s how you’re going to get leverage. That’s how you’re going to get credibility. It’s also how you’re going to get equity. You’re going to get a piece of the business.
Naval：问责制很重要，因为这是你获得影响力的方式。这就是你获得信誉的方式。这也是你获得股权的方式。你会得到一份生意。
When you’re negotiating with other people, ultimately if someone else is making a decision about how to compensate you, that decision will be based on how replaceable you are. If you have high accountability, that makes you less replaceable. Then they have to give you equity, which is a piece of the upside.
当你与其他人谈判时，最终如果其他人正在决定如何补偿你，这个决定将基于你的可替代性。如果你有很高的责任感，那你就不那么容易被取代。然后他们必须给你股权，这是好处的一部分。
Taking accountability is like taking equity in all your work
承担责任就像在你的所有工作中保持公平
Equity itself is a good example because equity is also a risk-based instrument. Equity means you get paid everything after all the people who need guaranteed money are paid back.
股票本身就是一个很好的例子，因为股票也是一种基于风险的工具。公平意味着在所有需要保证资金的人都得到偿还后，你会得到一切报酬。
If you look at the hierarchy of capital in a company, the employees get paid first. They get paid the salary first. In legal [bankruptcy] proceedings, the salaries are sacrosanct. If you’re a board member and the company spends too much money and has back salaries to pay, the government can go after you personally to pay back the salaries. The employees get the most security, but in exchange for that security, they don’t have as much upside.
如果你看一下公司的资本等级制度，员工首先得到报酬。他们首先获得薪水。在法律[破产]程序中，工资是神圣不可侵犯的。如果你是董事会成员，而公司花了太多钱，而且有拖欠的工资，政府可以亲自追究你，要求你偿还工资。员工获得了最大的安全感，但作为安全感的交换，他们没有那么多的上升空间。
Next in line would be the debt holders who are maybe the bankers who lend money to the company for operations and they need to make their fixed coupon every month or every year, but they don’t get much more upside beyond that. They might be making 5, 10, 15, 20, 25% a year, but that’s what their upside is limited to.
接下来是债务持有人，他们可能是向公司借钱进行运营的银行家，他们需要每月或每年支付固定息票，但除此之外，他们并没有获得更多的上行空间。他们可能每年赚 5%、10%、15%、20%、25%，但这就是他们的上行空间。
Finally there are the equity holders. These people are actually going to get most of the upside. Once the debt holders are paid off and the salaries are paid off, whatever remains goes to them.
最后是股权持有人。这些人实际上将获得大部分好处。一旦还清了债务持有人，还清了工资，剩下的就归他们所有了。
But if there isn’t enough money to pay off the salaries and the debt holders, or if there’s just barely enough to pay off the salary and the debt holders, which is what happens with most businesses, most of the times, the equity holders get nothing.
但是，如果没有足够的钱来偿还工资和债务持有人，或者如果勉强够偿还工资和债务持有人，这是大多数企业发生的事情，大多数时候，股权持有人一无所获。
The equity holders take on greater risk, but in exchange, they get nearly unlimited upside. You can do the same with all of your work. Essentially, taking accountability for your actions is the same as taking an equity position in all of your work. You’re taking greater downside risk for greater upside.
股权持有人承担更大的风险，但作为交换，他们获得了几乎无限的上涨空间。你可以对你的所有工作做同样的事情。从本质上讲，对你的行为负责与在你的所有工作中采取公平立场是一样的。您正在承担更大的下行风险以获得更大的上行空间。
Realize that in modern society, the downside risk is not that large. Even personal bankruptcy can wipe the debts clean in good ecosystems. I’m most familiar with Silicon Valley, but generally people will forgive failures as long as you were honest and made a high integrity effort.
要知道，在现代社会，下行风险并没有那么大。即使是个人破产，也可以在良好的生态系统中清除债务。我最熟悉的是硅谷，但一般来说，只要你诚实并做出高度正直的努力，人们就会原谅失败。
There’s not really that much to fear in terms of failure, and so people should be taking on a lot more accountability than they actually are.
就失败而言，其实没有什么可担心的，所以人们应该承担比实际更多的责任。
Nivi: Is accountability actually fragile or do you really just mean that we’re hardwired not to fail in public, so it just feels like it’s a fragile thing?
Nivi：问责制真的是脆弱的，还是你真的只是说我们天生就不能在公共场合失败，所以感觉这是一件脆弱的事情？
Naval: I think it could actually be fragile. An example of accountability is you’re an airplane pilot. As a captain, you’re taking on accountability for the entire plane.
Naval：我认为它实际上可能很脆弱。问责制的一个例子是你是一名飞机飞行员。作为机长，你要对整架飞机负责。
Let’s say that something goes wrong with the aircraft. You can’t later blame it on anyone else. You can’t blame it on the steward or the stewardess. You can’t blame it on the copilot. You’re the captain. You’re responsible for the ship. If you screw up, you crash the ship, and there are immediate consequences.
假设飞机出了问题。你以后不能把它归咎于其他人。你不能把它归咎于管家或空姐。你不能把它归咎于副驾驶。你是队长。你要对这艘船负责。如果你搞砸了，你就会让船坠毁，并立即产生后果。
In the old days, the captain was expected to go down with the ship. If the ship was sinking, then literally the last person who got to get off was the captain. I think accountability does come with real risks, but we’re talking about a business context.
在过去，船长被期望与船一起下沉。如果船正在下沉，那么最后一个下船的人就是船长。我认为问责制确实会带来真正的风险，但我们谈论的是商业环境。
The risk here would be that you would probably be the last one to get your capital back out. You’d be the last one to get paid for your time. The time that you’ve put in, the capital that you’ve put into the company, these are what are at risk.
这里的风险是，你可能是最后一个拿回资金的人。您将是最后一个获得时间报酬的人。你投入的时间，你投入公司的资本，这些都是有风险的。
Even if a business fails and your name’s on it, that’s not as bad as if it turns out to be an integrity issue. Bernie Madoff, for example, Madoff investments, that name is never going to be good again in the investment community. You could be Bernie Madoff’s great-great-great-grandson. You are not going to go into the investment business because he ruined the family name.
即使一家企业失败了，你的名字也出现在上面，这并不像它被证明是一个诚信问题那么糟糕。伯尼·麦道夫（Bernie Madoff），例如麦道夫投资公司（Madoff investments），这个名字在投资界再也不会好听了。你可以是伯尼·麦道夫的曾曾曾孙。你不会因为他毁了家族的姓氏而进入投资行业。
I think these days the accountability risk with a name happens more around integrity, rather than it does around purely economic failure.
我认为，如今，与名字有关的问责风险更多地发生在诚信方面，而不是纯粹的经济失败。
Accountability is reputational skin in the game
问责制是游戏中的声誉皮肤
Nivi: The big takeaway for me on accountability is that you will be rewarded directly in proportion with your accountability. I also think this is why people like Taleb rail against CEOs who get rewards without accountability.
Nivi：对我来说，关于问责制的一大收获是，你将获得与你的问责制成正比的奖励。我还认为，这就是为什么像塔勒布这样的人反对那些在没有问责制的情况下获得奖励的首席执行官。
Naval: Yeah. Taleb’s Skin In The Game is required reading. If you want to get anywhere in modern life and understand how modern systems work, then Skin In The Game would be near the top of my list to read.
Naval：是的。Taleb’s Skin In The Game 是必读的。如果您想了解现代生活的任何地方并了解现代系统的工作原理，那么 Skin In The Game 将是我阅读列表的顶部。
Accountability, skin in the game, these concepts go very closely hand in hand. I think of accountability as reputational skin in the game. It’s putting your personal reputation on the line as skin in the game.
问责制，游戏中的皮肤，这些概念非常紧密地齐头并进。我认为问责制是游戏中的声誉皮肤。它把你的个人声誉作为游戏中的皮肤岌岌当当。
Accountability is a simple concept. The only part of accountability that may be a little counterintuitive is that we’re currently socially brainwashed to not take on accountability, not in a visible way.
问责制是一个简单的概念。问责制中唯一可能有点违反直觉的部分是，我们目前被社会洗脑，不承担责任，而不是以可见的方式承担责任。
I think there are ways to take on accountability where every member of a team can take on accountability for their portion. That is how you get a well-functioning team while still putting credits and losses in the correct columns.
我认为有一些方法可以承担责任，团队的每个成员都可以对自己的部分负责。这就是你如何获得一个运作良好的团队，同时仍然将功劳和损失放在正确的列中。
Labor and Capital Are Old Leverage 劳动力和资本是旧的杠杆
Everyone is fighting over labor and capital
每个人都在为劳动力和资本而战
Our brains aren’t evolved to comprehend new forms of leverage
我们的大脑并没有进化到理解新形式的杠杆
Nivi: Why don’t we talk a little bit about leverage?
Nivi：我们为什么不谈谈杠杆呢？
The first tweet in the storm was a famous quote from Archimedes, which was, “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the Earth.”
暴风雨中的第一条推文是阿基米德的一句名言，那就是：“给我一个足够长的杠杆和一个站立的地方，我将移动地球。
The next tweet was, “Fortunes require leverage. Business leverage comes from capital, people and products with no marginal costs of replication.”
下一条推文是，“财富需要杠杆。商业杠杆来自资本、人员和产品，没有边际复制成本。
Naval: Leverage is critical. The reason I stuck in Archimedes quote in there is… normally I don’t like putting other people’s quotes in my Twitter. That doesn’t add any value. You can go look up those people’s quotes. But this quote I had to put in there because it’s just so fundamental. I read it when I was very, very young and it had a huge impression on me.
Naval：杠杆至关重要。我坚持阿基米德引用的原因是……通常我不喜欢把别人的名言放在我的推特上。这不会增加任何价值。你可以去查那些人的报价。但是我不得不把这句话放在那里，因为它太基本了。我在很小的时候就读过它，它给我留下了深刻的印象。
We all know what leverage is when we use a seesaw or a lever. We understand how that works physically, but I think what our brains aren’t really well-evolved to comprehend is how much leverage is possible in modern society and what the newest forms of leverage are.
我们都知道当我们使用跷跷板或杠杆时，杠杆是什么。我们理解这在物理上是如何运作的，但我认为我们的大脑还没有真正进化到理解的是，在现代社会中，有多少杠杆是可能的，以及最新的杠杆形式是什么。
Society overvalues labor leverage
社会高估了劳动力杠杆
The oldest form of leverage is labor, which is people working for you. Instead of me lifting rocks, I can have 10 people lift rocks. Then just by my guidance on where the rock should go, a lot more rocks get moved than I could do myself. Everybody understands this because we’re evolved to understand the labor form of leverage, so what happens is society overvalues labor as a form of leverage.
最古老的杠杆形式是劳动力，即为你工作的人。我可以让 10 个人举起石头，而不是我举起石头。然后，只要我指导岩石应该去哪里，就会移动比我自己能做的更多的岩石。每个人都明白这一点，因为我们被进化到理解杠杆的劳动形式，所以社会高估了劳动作为一种杠杆形式。
This is why your parents are impressed when you get a promotion and you have lots of people working underneath you. This is why when a lot of naive people, when you tell them about your company, they’ll say, “How many people work there?” They’ll use that as a way to establish credibility. They’re trying to measure how much leverage and impact you actually have.
这就是为什么当你升职时，你的父母会留下深刻的印象，而且你手下有很多人。这就是为什么当很多天真的人，当你告诉他们你的公司时，他们会说，“有多少人在那里工作？他们会以此作为建立可信度的一种方式。他们试图衡量你实际拥有的影响力和影响力。
Or when someone starts a movement, they’ll say how many people they have or how big the army is. We just automatically assume that more people is better.
或者当有人发起运动时，他们会说他们有多少人或军队有多大。我们只是自动假设人越多越好。
You want the minimum amount of labor that allows you to use the other forms of leverage
您需要最少的劳动力，以便您使用其他形式的杠杆
I would argue that this is the worst form of leverage that you could possibly use. Managing other people is incredibly messy. It requires tremendous leadership skills. You’re one short hop from a mutiny or getting eaten or torn apart by the mob.
我认为这是您可能使用的最糟糕的杠杆形式。管理他人是非常混乱的。它需要巨大的领导能力。你离兵变或被暴徒吃掉或撕裂只有一步之遥。
It’s incredibly competed over. Entire civilizations have been destroyed over this fight. For example, communism, Marxism, is all about the battle between capital and labor, das kapital and das labor. It’s kind of a trap.
竞争非常激烈。整个文明在这场战斗中被摧毁了。例如，共产主义，马克思主义，都是关于资本与劳动、资本与劳动之间的斗争。这有点像一个陷阱。
You really want to stay out of labor-based leverage. You want the minimum amount of people working with you that are going to allow you to use the other forms of leverage, which I would argue are much more interesting.
你真的想远离基于劳动力的杠杆。你希望与你一起工作的人最少，这将允许你使用其他形式的杠杆，我认为这更有趣。
Capital has been the dominant form of leverage in the last century
资本是上个世纪的主要杠杆形式
The second type of leverage is capital. This one’s a little less hardwired into us because large amounts of money moving around and being saved and being invested in money markets, these are inventions of human beings the in last few hundred to few thousand years. They’re not evolved with us from hundreds of thousands of years.
第二种杠杆是资本。这对我们来说不那么硬，因为大量的钱四处流动，被储蓄并投资于货币市场，这些都是人类在过去几百到几千年里的发明。它们不是从数十万年前与我们一起进化而来的。
We understand them a little bit less well. They probably require more intelligence to use correctly, and the ways in which we use them keep changing. Management skills from a hundred years ago might still apply today, but investing in the stock market skills from a hundred years ago probably don’t apply to the same level today.
我们不太了解他们。它们可能需要更多的智能才能正确使用，而我们使用它们的方式也在不断变化。一百年前的管理技能在今天可能仍然适用，但投资一百年前的股票市场技能可能不适用于今天的同一水平。
Capital is a trickier form of leverage to use. It’s more modern. It’s the one that people have used to get fabulously wealthy in the last century. It’s probably been the dominant form of leverage in the last century.
资本是一种更棘手的杠杆形式。它更现代。这是人们在上个世纪用来变得非常富有的。它可能是上个世纪的主要杠杆形式。
You can see this by who are the richest people. It’s bankers, politicians in corrupt countries who print money, essentially people who move large amounts of money around.
你可以从谁是最富有的人身上看出这一点。是银行家，腐败国家的政客印钞票，本质上是转移大量资金的人。
If you look at the top of very large companies, outside of technology companies, in many, many large old companies, the CEO job is really a financial job. They’re really financial asset managers. Sometimes, an asset manager can put a pleasant face on it, so you get a Warren Buffet type.
如果你看看非常大的公司，在科技公司之外，在很多很多大型老公司中，CEO的工作实际上是一份财务工作。他们真的是金融资产管理者。有时，资产管理人可以摆出一副讨人喜欢的样子，所以你会得到沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffet）的风格。
But deep down, I think we all dislike capital as a form of leverage because it feels unfair. It’s this invisible thing that can be accumulated and passed across generations and suddenly seems to result in people having gargantuan amounts of money with nobody else around them or necessarily sharing in it.
但在内心深处，我认为我们都不喜欢资本作为一种杠杆形式，因为它感觉不公平。正是这种看不见的东西可以积累并代代相传，突然间似乎导致人们拥有巨额金钱，而周围没有其他人，也不一定分享。
That said, capital is a powerful form of leverage. It can be converted to labor. It can be converted to other things. It’s very surgical, very analytical.
也就是说，资本是一种强大的杠杆形式。它可以转化为劳动力。它可以转换为其他东西。这是非常外科手术，非常分析的。
If you are a brilliant investor and give $1 billion and you can make a 30% return with it, whereas anybody else can only make a 20% return, you’re going to get all the money and you’re going to get paid very handsomely for it.
如果你是一个才华横溢的投资者，捐出10亿美元，你可以获得30%的回报，而其他人只能获得20%的回报，你会得到所有的钱，你会得到非常丰厚的报酬。
It scales very, very well. If you get good at managing capital, you can manage more and more capital much more easily than you can manage more and more people.
它的扩展性非常非常好。如果你善于管理资本，你可以管理越来越多的资本，比你管理越来越多的人要容易得多。
You need specific knowledge and accountability to obtain capital
您需要特定的知识和责任感才能获得资金
It is a good form of leverage, but the hard part with capital is how do you obtain it? That’s why I talked about specific knowledge and accountability first.
这是一个很好的杠杆形式，但资本的难点在于你如何获得它？这就是为什么我首先谈到具体知识和问责制。
If you have specific knowledge in a domain and if you’re accountable and you have a good name in that domain, then people are going to give you capital as a form of leverage that you can use to then go get more capital.
如果你在一个领域有特定的知识，如果你有责任感，并且你在这个领域有一个好名声，那么人们就会给你资本作为一种杠杆形式，你可以用它来获得更多的资本。
Capital also is fairly well understood. I think a lot of the knocks against capitalism come because of the accumulation of capital.
资本也相当容易理解。我认为，很多对资本主义的打击都是因为资本的积累。
Product and Media Are New Leverage 产品和媒体是新的杠杆
Create software and media that work for you while you sleep
创建适合您睡眠的软件和媒体
Product and media are the new leverage
产品和媒体是新的杠杆
Naval: The most interesting and the most important form of leverage is this idea of products that have no marginal cost of replication. This is the new form of leverage.
Naval：最有趣和最重要的杠杆形式是这种没有边际复制成本的产品的想法。这是杠杆的新形式。
This was only invented in the last few hundred years. It got started with the printing press. It accelerated with broadcast media, and now it’s really blown up with the Internet and with coding.
这是最近几百年才发明的。它从印刷机开始。它随着广播媒体的兴起而加速发展，现在它真的被互联网和编码炸毁了。
Now, you can multiply your efforts without having to involve other humans and without needing money from other humans.
现在，您可以增加您的努力，而无需让其他人参与进来，也不需要其他人的钱。
This podcast is a form of leverage. Long ago, I would have had to sit in a lecture hall and lecture each of you personally. I would have maybe reached a few hundred people and that would have been that.
这个播客是一种杠杆形式。很久以前，我不得不坐在演讲厅里，亲自给你们每个人讲课。我可能会接触到几百人，仅此而已。
Then 40 years ago, 30 years ago, I would have to be lucky to get on TV, which is somebody else’s leverage. They would have distorted the message. They would taken the economics out of it or charged me for it. They would have muddled the message, and I would have been lucky to get that form of leverage.
然后40年前，30年前，我必须幸运地上电视，这是别人的筹码。他们会歪曲信息。他们会从中剔除经济效益，或者向我收取费用。他们会把信息弄得一团糟，而我很幸运能得到这种形式的杠杆。
Today, thanks to the Internet, I can buy a cheap microphone, hook it up to a laptop or an iPad, and there you are all listening.
今天，多亏了互联网，我可以买一个便宜的麦克风，把它连接到笔记本电脑或iPad上，你们都在听。
Product leverage is where the new fortunes are made
产品杠杆是创造新财富的地方
This newest form of leverage is where all the new fortunes are made, all the new billionaires. The last generation, fortunes were made by capital. That was the Warren Buffets of the world.
这种最新形式的杠杆是所有新财富、所有新亿万富翁的创造地。上一代人，财富是由资本创造的。这就是世界上的沃伦·巴菲特。
But the new generation’s fortunes are all made through code or media. Joe Rogan making 50 to a 100 million bucks a year from his podcast. You’re going to have a PewDiePie. I don’t know how much money he’s rolling in, but he’s bigger than the news. The Fortnite players. Of course Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page and Sergey Brin and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. That is all code-based leverage.
但新一代的财富都是通过代码或媒体创造的。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）每年从他的播客中赚取5000万到1亿美元。你将拥有一个PewDiePie。我不知道他赚了多少钱，但他比新闻还大。Fortnite玩家。当然，杰夫·贝佐斯、马克·扎克伯格、拉里·佩奇、谢尔盖·布林、比尔·盖茨和史蒂夫·乔布斯。这就是所有基于代码的杠杆。
Combining all three forms of leverage is a magic combination
将所有三种形式的杠杆结合起来是一个神奇的组合
Now, the beauty is when you combine all of these three. That’s where tech startups really excel, where you take just the minimum, but highest output labor that you can get, which are engineers, and designers, product developers. Then you add in capital. You use that for marketing, advertising, scaling. You add in lots of code and media and podcasts and content to get it all out there.
现在，美妙之处在于当你将这三者结合起来时。这就是科技创业公司真正擅长的地方，在那里你只拿走你能得到的最低但最高的产出劳动力，即工程师、设计师、产品开发人员。然后你加上资本。你用它来营销、广告、扩展。您可以添加大量代码、媒体、播客和内容，以将其全部内容呈现出来。
That is a magic combination, and that’s why you see technology startups explode out of nowhere, use massive leverage and just make huge outsize returns.
这是一个神奇的组合，这就是为什么你会看到科技初创公司突然爆发，使用巨大的杠杆，并获得巨大的回报。
Product and media leverage are permissionless
产品和媒体杠杆是无需许可的
Nivi: Do you want to talk a little bit about permissioned versus permissionless?
Nivi：您想谈谈许可与非许可吗？
Naval: Probably the most interesting thing to keep in mind about the new forms of leverage is they are permissionless. They don’t require somebody else’s permission for you to use them or succeed.
Naval：关于新的杠杆形式，最有趣的事情可能是它们是未经许可的。它们不需要其他人的许可即可使用它们或成功。
For labor leverage, somebody has to decide to follow you. For capital leverage, somebody has to give you money to invest or to turn into a product.
为了劳动力杠杆，必须有人决定跟随你。对于资本杠杆，必须有人给你钱来投资或变成产品。
Coding, writing books, recording podcasts, tweeting, YouTubing, these kinds of things, these are permissionless. You don’t need anyone’s permission to do them, and that’s why they are very egalitarian. They’re great equalizers of leverage.
编码、写书、录制播客、发推文、YouTubing，诸如此类的事情，这些都是无需许可的。你不需要任何人的许可就可以做这些事情，这就是为什么他们非常平等。它们是杠杆的出色均衡器。
As much as people may rail on Facebook and YouTube, they’re not going to stop using it because this permissionless leverage, where everyone can be a broadcaster, is just too good.
尽管人们可能会在Facebook和YouTube上抨击，但他们不会停止使用它，因为这种无需许可的杠杆作用，每个人都可以成为广播公司，实在是太好了。
The same way you can rail upon Apple for having a slightly closed ecosystem in the iPhone, but everyone’s writing apps for it. As long as you can write apps for it, you can get rich or reach users doing that, why not?
同样，你可以指责苹果在iPhone中有一个略微封闭的生态系统，但每个人都在为它编写应用程序。只要你能为它编写应用程序，你就可以致富或吸引用户，为什么不呢？
The robot army is already here—code lets you tell them what to do
机器人大军已经来了——代码可以让你告诉他们该做什么
I think of all the forms of leverage, the best one in modern society … This is glib. This is a little overused. This is why I tell people learn to code. It’s that we have this idea that in the future there’s going to be these robots and they’re going to be doing everything.
我想到了所有形式的杠杆，现代社会中最好的杠杆……这是油嘴滑舌。这有点过度使用。这就是为什么我告诉人们学习编程。我们的想法是，未来会有这些机器人，它们将无所不能。
That may be true, but I would say that the majority of the robot revolution has already happened. The robots are already here and there are way more robots than there are humans, it’s just that we pack them in data centers for heat and efficiency reasons. We put them in servers. They’re inside the computers. All the circuits, it’s robot minds inside that’s doing all the work.
这可能是真的，但我想说的是，大部分机器人革命已经发生了。机器人已经在这里，机器人比人类多得多，只是出于热量和效率的原因，我们将它们打包在数据中心。我们把它们放在服务器中。它们在计算机内部。所有的电路，里面的机器人都在做所有的工作。
Every great software developer, for example, now has an army of robots working for him at nighttime, while he or she sleeps, after they’ve written the code and it’s just cranking away.
例如，每个伟大的软件开发人员现在都有一大群机器人在夜间为他工作，当他或她睡觉时，在他们写完代码之后，它就会运转起来。
The robot army is already here. The robot revolution has already happened. We’re about halfway through it. We’re just adding in much more of the hardware component these days as we get more comfortable with the idea of autonomous vehicles and autonomous airplanes and autonomous ships and maybe autonomous trucks. There’re delivery bots and Boston Dynamics robots and all that.
机器人大军已经来了。机器人革命已经发生。我们已经完成了一半。这些天来，我们只是增加了更多的硬件组件，因为我们越来越适应自动驾驶汽车、自动驾驶飞机、自动驾驶船舶，也许还有自动驾驶卡车。有送货机器人和波士顿动力公司的机器人等等。
But robots who are doing web searching for you, for example, are already here. The ones who are cleaning up your video and audio and transmitting it around the world are already here. The ones who are answering many customer service queries, things that you would have had to call a human for are already here.
但是，例如，为您进行网络搜索的机器人已经在这里了。那些正在清理您的视频和音频并将其传输到世界各地的人已经在这里。那些正在回答许多客户服务查询的人，您不得不打电话给人类的事情已经在这里了。
An army of robots is already here. It’s very cheaply available. The bottleneck is just figuring out intelligent and interesting things to do to them.
一支机器人大军已经来了。它非常便宜。瓶颈只是弄清楚对他们做明智而有趣的事情。
Essentially you can order this army of robots around. The commands have to be issued in a computer language, in a language that they understand.
从本质上讲，你可以命令这支机器人大军。命令必须以计算机语言发出，以他们理解的语言发出。
These robots aren’t very smart. They have to be told very precisely what to do and how to do it. Coding is such a great superpower because now you can speak the language of the robot armies and you can tell them what to do.
这些机器人不是很聪明。必须非常准确地告诉他们该做什么以及如何做。编码是一个伟大的超级大国，因为现在你可以说机器人军队的语言，你可以告诉他们该怎么做。
Nivi: I think at this point, people are not only commanding the army of robots within servers through code, they’re actually manipulating the movement of trucks, of other people. Just ordering a package on Amazon, you’re manipulating the movement of many people and many robots to get a package delivered to you.
Nivi：我认为在这一点上，人们不仅通过代码在服务器中指挥机器人大军，他们实际上也在操纵卡车和其他人的运动。只需在亚马逊上订购包裹，您就会操纵许多人和许多机器人的运动，以便将包裹交付给您。
People are doing the same things to build businesses now. There’s the army of robots within servers and then there’s also an army of actual robots and people that are being manipulated through software.
人们现在正在做同样的事情来建立企业。服务器中有机器人大军，然后还有一支真正的机器人和人大军，他们正在通过软件进行操纵。
Product Leverage is Egalitarian 产品杠杆是平等的
The best products tend to be available to everyone
最好的产品往往对每个人都可用
Product leverage is a positive-sum game
产品杠杆是一种正和博弈
Naval: Labor and capital are much less egalitarian, not just in the inputs, but in their outputs.
Naval：劳动和资本的平等性要低得多，不仅在投入上，而且在产出上。
Let’s say that I need something that humans have to provide like if I want a massage or if I need someone to cook my food. The more of a human element there is in providing that service, the less egalitarian it is. Jeff Bezos probably has much better vacations than most of us because he has lots of humans running around doing whatever he needs to do.
比方说，我需要人类必须提供的东西，比如我想要按摩或我需要有人做饭。在提供这种服务时，人为因素越多，它就越不平等。杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）的假期可能比我们大多数人都好得多，因为他有很多人跑来跑去做他需要做的任何事情。
If you look at the output of code and media, Jeff Bezos doesn’t get to watch better movies and TV than we do. Jeff Bezos doesn’t get to even have better computing experience. Google doesn’t give him some premium, special Google account where his searches are better.
如果你看一下代码和媒体的输出，杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）不会比我们看更好的电影和电视。 杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）甚至没有更好的计算经验。谷歌不会给他一些高级的、特殊的谷歌账户，让他的搜索更好。
It’s the nature of code and media output that the same product is accessible to everybody. It turns into a positive sum game where if Jeff Bezos is consuming the same product as a thousand other people, that product is going to be better than the version that Jeff would consume on his own.
代码和媒体输出的本质是每个人都可以访问相同的产品。它变成了一个正和游戏，如果杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）与其他一千人消费相同的产品，那么该产品将比杰夫自己消费的版本更好。
Status goods are limited to a few people
状态商品仅限少数人使用
Whereas with other products, that’s not true. If you look at something like buying a Rolex, which is no longer about telling time. It’s a signaling good. It’s all about showing off, “I have a Rolex.” That’s a zero-sum game.
而对于其他产品，情况并非如此。如果你看一下像购买劳力士这样的事情，这不再是关于报时。这是一个信号好。这一切都是为了炫耀，“我有一只劳力士。这是一场零和博弈。
If everybody in the world is wearing a Rolex, then people don’t want to wear Rolexes anymore because they no longer signal. It’s canceled out the effect.
如果世界上每个人都戴着劳力士，那么人们就不想再戴劳力士了，因为它们不再发出信号。它抵消了效果。
Rich people do have an advantage in consuming that product. They’ll just price it up until only they can have Rolexes. Then poor people can’t have Rolexes and Rolexes resume their signaling value.
富人在消费该产品方面确实有优势。他们只会把它定价，直到只有他们才能拥有劳力士。那么穷人就无法让劳力士和劳力士恢复其信号值。
The best products tend to be targeted at the middle class
最好的产品往往针对中产阶级
Something like watching Netflix or using Google or using Facebook or YouTube or even frankly modern day cars. Rich people don’t have better cars. They just have weirder cars.
比如看Netflix，使用谷歌，使用Facebook或YouTube，甚至坦率地说，现代汽车。有钱人没有更好的车。他们只是有更奇怪的汽车。
You can’t drive a Lamborghini on the street at any speed that makes sense for a Lamborghini, so it’s actually a worse car in the street. It just turned into a signaling good at that point. Your sweet spot, where you want to be, is somewhere like a Tesla Model 3 or like a Toyota Corolla which is an amazing car.
你不能在街上以任何对兰博基尼有意义的速度驾驶兰博基尼，所以它实际上是街上一辆更糟糕的汽车。在这一点上，它只是变成了一个信号好。你的最佳位置，你想去的地方，是像特斯拉Model 3或丰田卡罗拉这样的地方，这是一辆了不起的车。
A new Toyota Corolla is a really nice car, but because it’s mainstream, the technology has amortized the cost of production over the largest number of consumers possible.
新的丰田卡罗拉是一辆非常好的汽车，但由于它是主流，该技术已经将生产成本摊销到尽可能多的消费者身上。
The best products tend to be at the center, at the sweet spot, the middle class, rather than being targeted at the upper class.
最好的产品往往位于中心，处于最佳位置，中产阶级，而不是针对上层阶级。
Creating wealth with product leads to more ethical wealth
用产品创造财富会带来更多的道德财富
I think one of the things that we don’t necessarily appreciate in modern societies is as the forms of leverage have gone from being human-based, labor-based and being capital-based to being more product and code and media-based, that most of the goods and services that we consume are becoming much more egalitarian in their consumption.
我认为，在现代社会中，我们不一定欣赏的一件事是，随着杠杆的形式从基于人、以劳动力和资本为基础，转变为更多地以产品、代码和媒体为基础，我们消费的大多数商品和服务在消费中变得更加平等。
Even food is becoming that way. Food is becoming cheap and abundant, at least in the first world, too much so to our detriment. Jeff Bezos isn’t necessarily eating better food. He’s just eating different food or he’s eating food that’s prepared and served theatrically, so it’s almost like more of again the human element of performance.
甚至食物也变成了这样。食物正在变得廉价和丰富，至少在第一世界是这样，太多了，对我们不利。杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）不一定吃更好的食物。他只是在吃不同的食物，或者他吃的是戏剧准备和供应的食物，所以这几乎更像是表演中的人性元素。
But the labor element out of food production has gone down massively. The capital element has gone down massively. Even food production itself has become more technology-oriented, and so the gap between the haves and the have-nots is getting smaller.
但是，粮食生产中的劳动力成分已经大幅下降。资本要素已经大幅下降。甚至粮食生产本身也变得更加以技术为导向，因此贫富差距越来越小。
If you care about ethics in wealth creation, it is better to create your wealth using code and media as leverage because then those products are equally available to everybody as opposed to trying to create your wealth through labor or capital.
如果你关心财富创造中的道德规范，最好使用代码和媒体作为杠杆来创造你的财富，因为这样每个人都可以平等地获得这些产品，而不是试图通过劳动力或资本来创造你的财富。
You want to use the product that is used by the most people
您想使用大多数人使用的产品
What I’m referring to here is scale economies. Technology products and media products have such amazing scale economies that you always want to use the product that is used by the most people. The one that’s used by the most people ends up having the largest budget. There’s no marginal cost of adding another user, and so with the largest budget, you get the highest quality.
我在这里指的是规模经济。技术产品和媒体产品具有惊人的规模经济，以至于您总是希望使用大多数人使用的产品。被大多数人使用的那个最终拥有最大的预算。添加另一个用户没有边际成本，因此，使用最大的预算，您可以获得最高的质量。
The best TV shows are actually not going to be some obscure ones just made for a few rich people. They’re going to be the big budget ones, like the Game of Thrones or the Breaking Bad or Bird Box, where they have massive, massive budgets. They can just use those budgets to get to a certain quality level.
最好的电视节目实际上不会是一些晦涩难懂的节目，只是为少数富人制作的。它们将成为大预算的，比如《权力的游戏》或《绝命毒师》或《鸟盒》，它们拥有巨大的预算。他们可以使用这些预算来达到一定的质量水平。
Then rich people, to be different, they have to fly to Sundance and watch a documentary. You and I aren’t going to fly to Sundance because that’s something that bored rich people do to show off. We’re not going to watch a documentary because most of them just aren’t actually even that good.
然后有钱人，要与众不同，他们必须飞到圣丹斯看纪录片。你和我不会飞到圣丹斯，因为那是无聊的富人为了炫耀而做的事情。我们不会看纪录片，因为它们中的大多数实际上甚至没有那么好。
Again, if you’re wealthy today, for large classes of things, you spend your money on signaling goods to show other people that you’re wealthy, then you try and convert them to status. As opposed to actually consuming the goods for their own sake.
同样，如果你今天很富有，对于大类的东西，你把钱花在向别人展示你很有钱的信号上，然后你试图把他们转化为地位。而不是为了自己而实际消费商品。
Nivi: People and capital as a form of leverage have a negative externality and code and product have a positive externality attached to them, if I was going to sum up your point.
Nivi：人与资本作为一种杠杆形式，具有负外部性，而代码和产品则具有正外部性，如果我要总结一下你的观点的话。
Capital and labor are becoming permissionless
资本和劳动力正在变得无许可
I think that capital and labor are also starting to become a little more permissionless or at least the permissioning is diffuse because of the Internet. Instead of labor, we have community now, which is a diffused form of labor. For example, Mark Zuckerberg has a billion people doing work for him by using Facebook.
我认为资本和劳动力也开始变得更加无许可，或者至少由于互联网而分散了许可。我们现在有社区，而不是劳动，这是一种分散的劳动形式。例如，马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）有10亿人通过使用Facebook为他工作。
Instead of going to raise capital from someone who’s rich, now we have crowdfunding. You can raise millions and millions of dollars for a charity, for a health problem or for a business. You can do it all online.
现在我们有了众筹，而不是从有钱人那里筹集资金。您可以为慈善机构、健康问题或企业筹集数百万美元。您可以在线完成所有操作。
Capital and labor are also becoming permissionless, and you don’t need to necessarily do it the old fashioned way, where you have to go around and ask people for permission to use their money or their time.
资本和劳动力也变得未经许可，你不一定要以老式的方式去做，你必须四处走动，请求人们允许使用他们的金钱或时间。
Pick a Business Model with Leverage 选择具有杠杆作用的商业模式
An ideal business model has network effects, low marginal costs and scale economies
理想的商业模式具有网络效应、低边际成本和规模经济
Scale economies: the more you produce, the cheaper it gets
规模经济：生产越多，成本就越低
Nivi: One more question about leverage. Do you think a choice of business model or a choice of product can also bring a kind of leverage to it?
Nivi：还有一个关于杠杆的问题。你认为商业模式的选择或产品的选择是否也能给它带来某种杠杆作用？
For example, pursuing a business that has network effects. Pursuing a business that has brand effects. Or other choices of business model that people could manipulate that just give you free leverage.
例如，追求具有网络效应的业务。追求具有品牌效应的业务。或者人们可以操纵的其他商业模式选择，这些选择只是给你自由的杠杆。
Naval: Yeah, there’s some really good microeconomic concepts that are important to understand.
Naval：是的，有一些非常好的微观经济概念很重要。
One of those is scale economies, which is the more you produce of something the cheaper it gets to make it. That’s something that a lot of businesses have, Basic Economics 101.
其中之一是规模经济，即你生产的东西越多，制造它的成本就越低。这是很多企业都有的东西，基础经济学 101。
You should try and get into a business where making Widget Number 12 is cheaper than making Widget Number 5, and making Widget Number 10,000 is a lot cheaper than the previous ones. This builds up an automatic barrier to entry against competition and getting commoditized. That’s an important one.
您应该尝试进入一个制作 Widget Number 12 比制作 Widget Number 5 便宜的业务，并且制作 Widget Number 10,000 比以前的便宜得多。这为竞争和商品化建立了一个自动进入壁垒。这很重要。
Zero marginal cost of reproduction: producing more is free
零边际生产成本：生产更多是免费的
Another one is, and this is along the same lines, but technology products especially, and media products, have this great quality where they have zero marginal cost of reproduction. Creating another copy of what you just created is free.
另一个是，这是沿着同样的路线，但技术产品，特别是媒体产品，具有这种伟大的品质，它们的边际复制成本为零。创建您刚刚创建的内容的另一个副本是免费的。
When somebody listens to this podcast or watches a YouTube video about this, it doesn’t cost me anything for the next person who shows up. Those zero marginal cost things, they take a while to get going because you make very little money per user, but over time they can really, really add up.
当有人听这个播客或观看有关此的 YouTube 视频时，对于下一个出现的人，我不会花任何钱。那些零边际成本的东西，它们需要一段时间才能开始，因为你每个用户赚的钱很少，但随着时间的推移，它们真的可以加起来。
Joe Rogan is working no harder on his current podcast than he was on Podcast number 1, but on Podcast number 1,100 he’s making a million dollars from the podcast whereas for the previous one he probably lost money; for the first one. That’s an example of zero marginal cost.
乔·罗根 （Joe Rogan） 在他目前的播客上并不比他在 1 号播客上更努力，但在 1,100 号播客上，他从播客中赚了一百万美元，而对于前一个播客，他可能赔了钱;对于第一个。这是零边际成本的一个例子。
Network effects: value grows as the square of the customers
网络效应：价值随着客户的方块而增长
Then, the most subtle but the most important is this idea of network effects. It comes from computer networking. Bob Metcalfe, who created Ethernet, famously coined Metcalfe’s Law, which is the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of nodes in the network.
然后，最微妙但最重要的就是这种网络效应的想法。它来自计算机网络。创建以太网的鲍勃·梅特卡夫（Bob Metcalfe）创造了著名的梅特卡夫定律，即网络的价值与网络中节点数的平方成正比。
If a network of size 10 would have a value of a 100, a network of a size 100 would have a value of 10,000. It’s not just 10 times more, it’s 100 times more, because of the square; the difference is the square.
如果大小为 10 的网络的值为 100，则大小为 100 的网络的值为 10,000。它不仅多了 10 倍，而且多了 100 倍，因为正方形;区别在于正方形。
You want to be in a network effects business, assuming you’re not number two. If you’re number one in network effect business, you win everything. Example: if you look at Facebook, your friends and family social networking protocol. Who’s their competitor? Nobody, because they won everything through network effects. Which is why when people say, “Well, I can just switch away from Facebook,” they don’t realize that network effects create natural monopolies. They’re very, very powerful things.
你想从事网络效应业务，假设你不是第二名。如果你是网络效应业务的第一名，你就赢得了一切。例如：如果你看一下Facebook，你的朋友和家人的社交网络协议。谁是他们的竞争对手？没有人，因为他们通过网络效应赢得了一切。这就是为什么当人们说，“好吧，我可以离开Facebook”时，他们没有意识到网络效应会造成自然垄断。它们是非常非常强大的东西。
Network effect businesses are natural monopolies
网络效应企业是自然垄断的
One of the dirty secrets of Silicon Valley is that a lot of the winning businesses are natural monopolies. Even ride-sharing tends towards one winner-take-all system.
硅谷的一个肮脏的秘密是，许多获胜的企业都是自然垄断的。即使是拼车也倾向于一个赢家通吃的系统。
Uber will always have better economics than Lyft, as long as it’s moving more drivers and more riders around. Something like Google, there’s basically only one viable search engine. I do like DuckDuckGo, privacy reasons, but they’re just always gonna be behind because of network effects. Twitter: where else would you go for microblogging? Even YouTube has weak network effects, but they’re still powerful enough that there’s really no number two site that you go to, to consume your video on a regular basis. It even turns out in e-tail, Amazon Prime and kind of the convenience of stored credit cards and information creates a powerful network effect.
Uber 将永远比 Lyft 拥有更好的经济效益，只要它能吸引更多的司机和乘客。像谷歌一样，基本上只有一个可行的搜索引擎。我确实喜欢 DuckDuckGo，出于隐私原因，但由于网络效应，它们总是会落后。Twitter：你还会去哪里写微博？即使是 YouTube 的网络效应也很弱，但它们仍然足够强大，以至于您真的没有去的第二大网站来定期消费您的视频。它甚至在电子零售、亚马逊Prime以及存储信用卡和信息的便利性中产生了强大的网络效应。
In a network effect, each new user adds value to the existing users
在网络效应中，每个新用户都会为现有用户增加价值
What is a network effect? Let’s just define it precisely. A network effect is when each additional user adds value to the existing user base. Your users themselves are creating some value for the existing users.
什么是网络效应？让我们精确地定义它。网络效应是指每增加一个用户，就会为现有用户群增加价值。您的用户本身正在为现有用户创造一些价值。
The classic example that I think everybody can understand is, language. Let’s say that there’s 100 people living in the community and speak 10 different languages, and each person just speaks one of those 10. Well, you’re having to translate all the time; it’s incredibly painful. But if all 100 of you spoke the same language, it would add tremendous value.
我认为每个人都能理解的经典例子是语言。假设有 100 人住在社区里，说 10 种不同的语言，每个人只会说这 10 种语言中的一种。好吧，你必须一直翻译;这非常痛苦。但是，如果你们100个人都说同一种语言，那将增加巨大的价值。
The way that community will play out is, 10 people start off speaking 10 languages, and let’s say one extra person learns English. Well, now all of a sudden, 11 people know English, so the next person comes in to learn a new language is probably going to chose English. At some point, let’s say English gets to 20 or 25 people, it’s done. It’s just going to own the entire language marketplace, and the rest of the languages will get competed out.
社区的发展方式是，10 个人开始说 10 种语言，假设另外一个人学习英语。好吧，现在突然之间，有11个人懂英语，所以下一个来学习一门新语言的人可能会选择英语。在某个时候，假设英语达到 20 或 25 人，它就完成了。它只是将拥有整个语言市场，其余的语言将被竞争。
Which is why, long-term, the entire world is probably going to end up speaking English and Chinese. China’s closed off on the Internet, but the Internet itself is a great leveler, and people who want to communicate on the Internet are forced to speak English because the largest community of people on the Internet speaks English.
这就是为什么从长远来看，整个世界可能最终会说英语和中文。中国在互联网上是封闭的，但互联网本身就是一个很大的平衡器，想要在互联网上交流的人被迫说英语，因为互联网上最大的社区会说英语。
I always feel bad for my colleagues who grew up speaking foreign languages in foreign countries, because you don’t have access to so many books; so many books just haven’t been translated into other languages. If you only spoke French, or you only spoke German, or you only spoke Hindi, for example, you would be at a severe disadvantage in a technical education.
我总是为那些在国外说外语长大的同事感到难过，因为你没有那么多书;很多书只是没有被翻译成其他语言。例如，如果你只会说法语，或者你只会说德语，或者你只会说印地语，那么你在技术教育中将处于严重的劣势。
Invariably, if you go and get a technical education, you have to learn English just because you have to read these books that have this data that has not been translated. Languages are probably the oldest example of network effect.
无一例外，如果你去接受技术教育，你必须学习英语，因为你必须阅读这些书，这些书有这些数据没有被翻译过。语言可能是网络效应最古老的例子。
Money is another example. We should all probably be using the same money, except for the fact that geographic and regulatory boundaries have created these artificial islands of money. But even then, the world tends to use a single currency as the reserve currency at most times; currently, the US dollar.
钱是另一个例子。我们可能都应该使用同样的钱，除了地理和监管边界创造了这些人为的金钱孤岛。但即便如此，世界在大多数时候都倾向于使用单一货币作为储备货币;目前，美元。
Zero marginal cost businesses can pivot into network effect businesses
零边际成本企业可以转向网络效应业务
Network effects are a very powerful concept, and when you’re picking a business model, it’s a really good idea to pick a model where you can benefit from network effects, low marginal costs, and scale economies; and these tend to go together.
网络效应是一个非常强大的概念，当你选择一种商业模式时，选择一种可以从网络效应、低边际成本和规模经济中受益的模式是一个非常好的主意;这些往往是一起的。
Anything that has zero marginal costs of production obviously has scale economies, and things that have zero marginal costs of reproduction very often tend to have network effects, because it doesn’t cost you anything more to stamp out the thing. So then you can just create little hooks for users to add value to each other.
任何边际生产成本为零的东西显然都具有规模经济，而边际生产成本为零的东西往往往往会产生网络效应，因为消除这种东西不会花费更多。因此，您可以为用户创建一些小钩子，以相互增加价值。
You should always be thinking about how your users, your customers, can add value to each other because that is the ultimate form of leverage. You’re at the beach in the Bahamas or you’re sleeping at night and your customers are adding value to each other.
你应该始终考虑你的用户，你的客户，如何为彼此增加价值，因为这是杠杆的最终形式。你在巴哈马的海滩上，或者你晚上睡觉，你的客户正在互相增加价值。
Example: From Laborer to Entrepreneur 示例：从劳动者到企业家
From low to high specific knowledge, accountability and leverage
从低到高的具体知识、问责制和杠杆作用
Laborers get paid hourly and have low accountability
劳动者按小时计酬，责任感低
Naval: The tweetstorm is very abstract. It’s deliberately meant to be broadly applicable to all kinds of different domains and disciplines and time periods and places. But sometimes it’s hard to work without a concrete example. So let’s go concrete for a minute.
Naval：推特风暴非常抽象。它刻意广泛适用于各种不同的领域和学科以及时间段和地点。但有时如果没有具体的例子，就很难工作。因此，让我们花一分钟时间具体一点。
Look at the real estate business. You could start at the bottom, let’s say you’re a day laborer. You come in, you fix people’s houses. Someone orders you around, tells you, “Break that piece of rock. Sand that piece of wood. Put that thing over there.”
看看房地产业务。你可以从底部开始，假设你是一名临时工。你进来，你修好人们的房子。有人命令你四处走动，告诉你，“打破那块石头。打磨那块木头。把那东西放在那边。
There’s just all these menial jobs that go on, on a construction site. If you’re working one of those jobs, unless you’re a skilled trade, say, a carpenter or electrician, you don’t really have specific knowledge.
在建筑工地上，所有这些卑微的工作都在进行。如果你从事其中一项工作，除非你是一个熟练的行业，比如木匠或电工，否则你真的没有具体的知识。
Even a carpenter or an electrician is not that specific because other people can be trained how to do it. You can be replaced. You get paid your $15, $20, $25, $50, if you’re really lucky, $75 an hour, but that’s about it.
即使是木匠或电工也不是那么具体，因为其他人可以接受如何做培训。你可以被替换。你会得到 15 美元、20 美元、25 美元、50 美元的报酬，如果你真的幸运的话，每小时 75 美元，但仅此而已。
You don’t have any leverage other than from the tools that you’re using. If you’re driving a bulldozer that’s better than doing it with your hands. A day laborer in India makes a lot less because they have no tool leverage.
除了您正在使用的工具之外，您没有任何影响力。如果你驾驶的是推土机，那总比用手推土机好。印度的临时工赚得少得多，因为他们没有工具杠杆。
You don’t have much accountability. You’re a faceless cog in a construction crew and the owner of the house or the buyer of the house doesn’t know or care that you worked on it.
你没有太多的责任感。你是建筑工人中一个不露面的齿轮，房子的主人或房子的买家不知道或关心你为它工作过。
General contractors get equity, but they’re also taking risk
总承包商获得了股权，但他们也承担了风险
One step up from that, you might have a contractor, like a general contractor who someone hires to come and fix and repair and build up their house. That general contractor is taking accountability; they’re taking responsibility.
再往前走一步，你可能有一个承包商，比如总承包商，有人雇他来修理、修理和建造他们的房子。该总承包商正在承担责任;他们正在承担责任。
Now let’s say they got paid $250,000 for the job. Sorry, I’m using Bay Area prices, so maybe I’ll go rest of the world prices, $100,000 for the job to fix up a house, and it actually costs the general contractor, all said and done, $70,000. That contractor’s going to pocket that remaining $30,000.
现在假设他们为这份工作获得了 250,000 美元的报酬。对不起，我用的是湾区的价格，所以也许我会去世界其他地方的价格，100,000美元用于修缮房屋的工作，实际上总承包商花费了70,000美元。该承包商将把剩下的 30,000 美元收入囊中。
They got the upside. They got the equity but they’re also taking accountability and risk. If the project runs over and there’s losses, then they eat the losses. But you see, just the accountability gives them some form of additional potential income.
他们占了上风。他们获得了股权，但他们也承担了责任和风险。如果项目失败并且有损失，那么他们就会吃掉损失。但你看，只是问责制给了他们某种形式的额外潜在收入。
Then, they also have labor leverage because they have a bunch of people working for them. But it probably tops out right there.
然后，他们也有劳动力杠杆，因为他们有一群人为他们工作。但它可能就在那里达到顶峰。
Property developers pocket the profit by applying capital leverage
房地产开发商通过应用资本杠杆将利润收入囊中
You can go one level above that and you can look at a property developer. This might be someone who is a contractor who did a bunch of houses, did a really good job, then decided to go into business for themselves and they go around looking for beaten down properties that have potential.
你可以再往上一层，你可以看看房地产开发商。这可能是一个承包商，他做了一堆房子，做得很好，然后决定自己做生意，他们四处寻找有潜力的破旧房产。
They buy them, they either raise money from investors or front it themselves, they fix the place up, and then they sell it for twice what they bought it for. Maybe they only put in 20% more, so it’s a healthy profit.
他们买下它们，要么从投资者那里筹集资金，要么自己前置，他们把地方修好，然后以两倍的价格卖掉。也许他们只多投入了 20%，所以这是一个健康的利润。
So now a developer like that takes on more accountability, has more risk. They have more specific knowledge because now you have to know: which neighborhoods are worth buying in. Which lots are actually good or which lots are bad. What makes or breaks a specific property. You have to imagine the finished house that’s going to be there, even when the property itself might look really bad right now.
因此，现在像这样的开发人员承担了更多的责任，承担了更大的风险。他们有更具体的知识，因为现在你必须知道：哪些社区值得购买。哪些批次实际上是好的，哪些批次是坏的。是什么成就或破坏了特定属性。你必须想象完工的房子会在那里，即使房产本身现在看起来真的很糟糕。
There’s more specific knowledge, there’s more accountability and risk, and now you also have capital leverage because you’re also putting in money into the project. But conceivably, you could buy a piece of land or a broken-down house for $200,000 and turn it into a million dollar mansion and pocket all the difference.
有更具体的知识，有更多的问责制和风险，现在你也有资本杠杆，因为你也在为项目投入资金。但可以想象，你可以花 200,000 美元买一块土地或一栋破房子，把它变成一座价值百万美元的豪宅，然后把所有的差价都收入囊中。
Architects, large developers and REITs are even higher in the stack
建筑师、大型开发商和房地产投资信托基金（REITs）在堆栈中的地位甚至更高
One level beyond that might be a famous architect or a developer, where just having your name on a property, because you’ve done so many great properties, increases its value.
再往前一层，可能是著名的建筑师或开发商，只要在房产上写上你的名字，因为你做过这么多伟大的房产，就会增加它的价值。
One level up from that, you might be a person who decides, well, I understand real estate, and I now know enough of the dynamics of real estate that rather than just build and flip my own properties or improve my own properties, I’m gonna be a massive developer. I’m going to build entire communities.
再往上一层，你可能是一个决定的人，嗯，我了解房地产，我现在对房地产的动态有足够的了解，我不仅仅是建造和翻转我自己的房产或改善我自己的房产，我将成为一个大型开发商。我要建立整个社区。
Now another person might say, “I like that leverage, but I don’t want to manage all these people. I want to do it more through capital. So I’m gonna start a real estate investment trust.” That requires specific knowledge not just about investing in real estate and building real estate, but it also requires specific knowledge about the financial markets, and the capital markets, and how real estate trusts operate.
现在另一个人可能会说，“我喜欢这种杠杆，但我不想管理所有这些人。我想更多地通过资本来做这件事。所以我要开一家房地产投资信托公司。这不仅需要关于投资房地产和建设房地产的具体知识，还需要关于金融市场、资本市场以及房地产信托如何运作的具体知识。
Real estate tech companies apply the maximum leverage
房地产科技公司应用最大杠杆
One level beyond that might be somebody who says, “Actually, I want to bring the maximum leverage to bear in this market, and the maximum specific knowledge.” That person would say, “Well, I understand real estate, and I understand everything from basic housing construction, to building properties and selling them, to how real estate markets move and thrive, and I also understand the technology business. I understand how to recruit developers, how to write code and how to build good product, and I understand how to raise money from venture capitalists and how to return it and how all of that works.”
再往前一层，可能会有人说，“实际上，我想在这个市场中发挥最大的杠杆作用，以及最大的具体知识。那个人会说，“嗯，我了解房地产，我了解从基本的住房建设到建造房产和出售房产，再到房地产市场如何移动和繁荣，我也了解技术业务。我懂得如何招募开发人员，如何编写代码，如何构建好的产品，我懂得如何从风险投资家那里筹集资金，如何返还资金，以及所有这些工作是如何运作的。
Obviously not a single person may know this. You may pull a team together to do it where each have different skill sets, but that combined entity would have specific knowledge in technology and in real estate.
显然，没有一个人可能知道这一点。你可以把一个团队聚集在一起，每个人都有不同的技能组合，但这个组合后的实体将拥有技术和房地产方面的特定知识。
It would have massive accountability because that company’s name would be a very high risk, high reward effort attached to the whole thing, and people would devote their lives to it and take on significant risk.
它将承担巨大的责任，因为该公司的名字将是一个非常高风险、高回报的努力，人们会为此付出生命并承担重大风险。
It would have leverage in code with lots of developers. It would have capital with investors putting money in and the founder’s own capital. It would have labor of some of the highest quality labor that you can find, which is high quality engineers and designers and marketers who are working on the company.
它将在代码中与许多开发人员一起发挥杠杆作用。它将拥有投资者投入资金和创始人自有资本的资本。它将拥有一些你能找到的最高质量的劳动力，即为公司工作的高素质工程师、设计师和营销人员。
Then you may end up with a Trulia or a RedFin or a Zillow kind of company, and then the upside could potentially be in the billions of dollars, or the hundreds of millions of dollars.
然后，你最终可能会得到一家Trulia或RedFin或Zillow类型的公司，然后上行空间可能达到数十亿美元或数亿美元。
As you layer in more and more kinds of knowledge that can only be gained on the job and aren’t common knowledge, and you layer in more and more accountability and risk-taking, and you layer in more and more great people working on it and more and more capital on it, and more and more code and media on it, you keep expanding the scope of the opportunity all the way from the day-laborer, who might just literally be scrappling on the ground with their hands, all the way up to somebody who started a real estate tech company and then took it public.
随着你加入越来越多的知识，这些知识只能在工作中获得，而不是常识，你加入越来越多的责任感和冒险精神，越来越多的优秀人才参与其中，越来越多的资本参与其中，越来越多的代码和媒体参与其中， 你不断扩大机会的范围，从可能只是用手在地上刮擦的临时工，一直到创办房地产科技公司然后上市的人。
Judgment Is the Decisive Skill 判断力是决定性的技能
In an age of nearly infinite leverage, judgment is the most important skill
在一个杠杆几乎无限的时代，判断力是最重要的技能
In an age of infinite leverage, judgment becomes the most important skill
在一个无限杠杆的时代，判断力成为最重要的技能
Nivi: We spoke about specific knowledge, we talked about accountability, we talked about leverage. The last skill that Naval talks about in his tweetstorm is judgment, where he says, that “Leverage is a force multiplier for your judgment.”
Nivi：我们谈到了具体的知识，我们谈到了问责制，我们谈到了杠杆作用。纳瓦尔在他的推特风暴中谈到的最后一项技能是判断力，他说：“杠杆是你判断力的倍增器。
Naval: We are now living in an age of nearly infinite leverage, and all the great fortunes are created through leverage. Your first job is to go and obtain leverage, and you can obtain leverage through permission by getting people to work for you, or by raising capital.
Naval：我们现在生活在一个杠杆几乎无限的时代，所有的巨大财富都是通过杠杆创造的。你的第一份工作是去获得杠杆，你可以通过让人们为你工作或筹集资金来获得许可。
Or you can get leverage permissionlessly by learning how to code or becoming good communicator and podcasting, broadcasting, creating videos, writing, etc.
或者你可以通过学习如何编码或成为优秀的沟通者和播客、广播、创建视频、写作等来获得无许可的杠杆。
That’s how you get leverage, but once you have leverage, what do you do with it? Well, the first part of your career’s spent hustling to get leverage. Once you have the leverage, then you wanna slow down a bit, because your judgment really matters.
这就是你获得杠杆的方式，但一旦你有了杠杆，你会用它做什么？好吧，你职业生涯的第一部分花在了忙于获得杠杆上。一旦你有了杠杆，那么你就要放慢脚步，因为你的判断真的很重要。
It’s like you’ve gone from steering your sailboat around to now you’re steering an ocean liner or a tanker. You have a lot more at risk, but you have a lot more to gain as well. You’re carrying a much higher payload. In an age of infinite leverage, judgment becomes the most important skill.
这就像你已经从驾驶帆船到现在驾驶远洋客轮或油轮一样。你面临的风险更大，但你也有更多的收获。您携带的有效载荷要高得多。在一个杠杆无限的时代，判断力成为最重要的技能。
Warren Buffett is so wealthy now because of his judgment. Even if you were to take away all of Warren’s money, tomorrow, investors would come out of the woodwork and hand him a $100 billion because they know his judgment is so good, and they would give him a big chunk of that $100 billion to invest.
沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）现在之所以如此富有，是因为他的判断力。即使你拿走了沃伦所有的钱，明天，投资者也会从木工中走出来，交给他1000亿美元，因为他们知道他的判断力非常好，他们会把这1000亿美元中的很大一部分交给他投资。
Everything else you do is setting you up to apply judgment
你所做的其他一切都是为了让你应用判断力
Ultimately, everything else that you do is actually setting you up to apply your judgment. One of the big things that people rail on is CEO pay. For sure there’s crony capitalism that goes on where these CEOs control their boards and the boards give them too much money.
归根结底，你所做的其他一切实际上都是为了让你运用你的判断。人们抱怨的一件大事是CEO的薪酬。可以肯定的是，裙带资本主义仍在继续，这些首席执行官控制着他们的董事会，而董事会给了他们太多的钱。
But, there are certain CEOs who definitely earned their keep because their judgment is better. If you’re steering a big ship, if you’re steering Google or Apple, and your judgment is 10 or 20 percent better than the next person’s, society will literally pay you hundreds of millions of dollars more, because you’re steering a $100 billion ship.
但是，有些CEO肯定赢得了他们的保留，因为他们的判断力更好。如果你在驾驶一艘大船，如果你在驾驶谷歌或苹果，而你的判断力比下一个人好10%或20%，那么社会实际上会多付给你数亿美元，因为你正在驾驶一艘价值1000亿美元的船。
If you’re on course 10 or 20 percent of the time more often than the other person, the compounding results on that hundreds of billions of dollars you’re managing will be so large that your CEO pay will be dwarfed in comparison.
如果你上课的时间比其他人多10%或20%，那么你所管理的数千亿美元的复合结果将是如此之大，以至于你的CEO薪酬相比之下将相形见绌。
Demonstrated judgment, credibility around the judgment, is so critical. Warren Buffett wins here because he has massive credibility. He’s been highly accountable. He’s been right over and over in the public domain. He’s built a reputation for very high integrity, so you can trust him.
表现出判断力，围绕判断力的可信度，是如此关键。沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）在这里获胜，因为他拥有巨大的信誉。他一直很负责任。他一遍又一遍地在公共领域做对。他以非常高的诚信而闻名，所以你可以信任他。
A person like that, people will throw infinite leverage behind him because of his judgment. Nobody asks him how hard he works; nobody asks him when he wakes up or when he goes to sleep. They’re like, “Warren, just do your thing.”
这样的人，人们会因为他的判断力而在他身后投下无限的筹码。没有人问他工作有多努力;没有人问他什么时候醒来或什么时候睡觉。他们就像，“沃伦，做你的事吧。
Judgment, especially demonstrated judgment, with high accountability, clear track record, is critical.
判断力，尤其是表现出的判断力，具有高度的问责制和清晰的记录，至关重要。
Judgment is knowing the long-term consequences of your actions
判断力是知道你行为的长期后果
Nivi: Let’s define judgment. I would define it as knowing the long-term effects of your decisions, or being able to predict the long-term effects of your decisions.
Nivi：让我们来定义判断力。我将其定义为了解您的决策的长期影响，或者能够预测您的决策的长期影响。
Naval: It’s funny. My definition of wisdom is knowing the long term consequences of your actions, so they’re not all that different. Wisdom is just judgment on a personal domain.
Naval：这很有趣。我对智慧的定义是知道你行为的长期后果，所以它们并没有那么不同。智慧只是对个人领域的判断。
Wisdom applied to external problems I think is judgment. They’re highly linked. But, yes, it’s knowing the long term consequences of your actions and then making the right decision to capitalize on that.
我认为，应用于外部问题的智慧是判断。它们之间有着高度的联系。但是，是的，它知道你的行为的长期后果，然后做出正确的决定来利用它。
Without experience, judgment is often less than useless
没有经验，判断往往毫无用处
Judgment is very hard to build up. This is where both intellect and experience come in play.
判断力是很难建立的。这就是智力和经验发挥作用的地方。
There are many problems with the so-called intellectuals in the ivory tower, but one of the reasons why Nassim Taleb rails against them is because they have no skin in the game. They have no real-world experience, so they just apply purely intellect.
象牙塔里的所谓知识分子有很多问题，但纳西姆·塔勒布（Nassim Taleb）抨击他们的原因之一是因为他们在游戏中没有皮肤。他们没有现实世界的经验，所以他们只是纯粹地应用智力。
Intellect without any experience is often worse than useless because you get the confidence that the intellect gives you, and you get some of the credibility, but because you had no skin in the game, and you had no real experience, and no real accountability, you’re just throwing darts.
没有任何经验的智力往往比无用更糟糕，因为你得到了智力给你的信心，你得到了一些可信度，但因为你在游戏中没有皮肤，你没有真正的经验，也没有真正的责任，你只是在扔飞镖。
The real world is always far, far more complex than we can intellectualize. Especially all the interesting, fast-moving edge domains and problems, you can’t get there without experience. If you are smart and you iterate fast, it’s not even you put 10,000 hours into something, but you take 10,000 tries at something.
现实世界总是比我们所能想象的要复杂得多。尤其是所有有趣、快速发展的边缘领域和问题，没有经验就无法实现。如果你很聪明，而且迭代速度很快，那么你甚至不会在某件事上投入 10,000 小时，而是在某件事上尝试 10,000 次。
The people with the best judgment are among the least emotional
判断力最好的人是最不情绪化的人之一
If you are smart and you have a lot of quick iterations, and you try to keep your emotions out of it, the people with the best judgment are actually among the least emotional. A lot of the best investors are considered almost robotic in that regard, but I wouldn’t be surprised if even the best entrepreneurs often come across as unemotional.
如果你很聪明，你有很多快速迭代，并且你试图让你的情绪远离它，那么判断力最好的人实际上是最不情绪化的人之一。在这方面，许多最优秀的投资者几乎被认为是机器人，但如果即使是最优秀的企业家也经常给人留下冷漠的印象，我也不会感到惊讶。
There is sort of this archetype of the passionate entrepreneur, and yeah, they have to care about what they’re doing, but they also have to see very clearly what’s actually happening. The thing that prevents you from seeing what’s actually happening are your emotions. Our emotions are constantly clouding our judgment, and in investing, or in running companies, or in building products, or being an entrepreneur, emotions really get in the way.
有一种充满激情的企业家的原型，是的，他们必须关心自己在做什么，但他们也必须非常清楚地看到实际发生的事情。阻止你看到实际发生的事情的是你的情绪。我们的情绪不断影响着我们的判断力，在投资、经营公司、开发产品或成为企业家时，情绪确实会成为阻碍。
Emotions are what prevent you from seeing what’s actually happening, until you can no longer resist the truth of what’s happening, until it becomes too sudden, and then you’re forced into suffering; which is sort of a breaking of this fantasy that you had put together.
情绪是阻止你看到实际发生的事情的原因，直到你无法再抗拒正在发生的事情的真相，直到它变得太突然，然后你被迫陷入痛苦;这在某种程度上打破了你拼凑的这种幻想。
Nivi: To try and connect some of these concepts, I would say that, first, you’re accountable for your judgment. Judgment is the exercise of wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience; and that experience can be accelerated through short iterations.
Nivi：为了尝试将其中一些概念联系起来，我想说的是，首先，你要对自己的判断负责。判断力是智慧的运用。智慧来自经验;这种体验可以通过短迭代来加速。
Top investors often sound like philosophers
顶级投资者通常听起来像哲学家
Naval: And the reason why a lot of the top investors, a lot of the value investors, like if you read Jeremy Grantham, or you read Warren Buffet, or you read up on Michael Burry, these people sound like philosophers, or they are philosophers, or they’re reading a lot of history books or science books.
Naval：为什么很多顶级投资者，很多价值投资者，比如你读过杰里米·格兰瑟姆（Jeremy Grantham），或者你读过沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffet），或者你读过迈克尔·伯里（Michael Burry），这些人听起来像哲学家，或者他们是哲学家，或者他们正在阅读很多历史书或科学书籍。
Like what are they doing, shouldn’t they be reading investment books. No. Investment books are the worst place to learn about investment, because investment is a real-world activity that is highly multi-variate, all the advantages are always being competed away. It’s always on the cutting-edge.
就像他们在做什么一样，他们不应该阅读投资书籍吗？不。投资书籍是学习投资最糟糕的地方，因为投资是一项高度多变量的现实世界活动，所有的优势总是被竞争掉。它始终处于最前沿。
What you actually just need is very, very broad-based judgment and thinking. The best way to do that is to study everything, including a lot of philosophy. Philosophy also makes you more stoic, makes you less emotional, and so you make better decisions; you have better judgment.
你真正需要的是非常非常广泛的判断和思考。最好的方法是研究一切，包括很多哲学。哲学也会让你更坚忍，让你不那么情绪化，所以你会做出更好的决定;你有更好的判断力。
The more outraged someone is, the worse their judgment
一个人越愤怒，他们的判断就越差
One simple thing is I see … I go out on Twitter and it seems like half of Twitter is outraged at something at all times. You can go within someone’s Twitter feed and get at least some semblance of what it must be like to be in their head all the time.
一件简单的事情是我看到了……我去Twitter上，似乎有一半的Twitter在任何时候都对某些事情感到愤怒。你可以进入某人的 Twitter 提要，至少可以了解他们一直在脑海中的样子。
The more outraged somebody is, I guarantee you, the worse their judgment is. If someone’s constantly tweeting political outrage, and just see like an angry person getting into fights, you don’t want to hand this person the keys to your car, let alone the keys to your company.
我向你保证，一个人越愤怒，他们的判断就越糟糕。如果有人不断在推特上发表政治愤怒，只是看到一个愤怒的人打架，你不想把你车的钥匙交给这个人，更不用说你公司的钥匙了。
Set an Aspirational Hourly Rate 设定理想的小时费率
Outsource tasks that cost less than your hourly rate
外包成本低于小时费率的任务
Set and enforce an aspirational hourly rate
设定并强制执行理想的小时费率
Nivi: We covered the skills you need to get rich. They included specific knowledge, accountability, leverage, judgment and life-long learning. Let’s talk about the importance of working hard and valuing your time.
Nivi：我们介绍了致富所需的技能。它们包括特定知识、问责制、杠杆作用、判断力和终身学习。让我们谈谈努力工作和珍惜时间的重要性。
Naval: No one is going to value you more than you value you. Set a high personal hourly rate, and stick to it. When I was young, I decided I was worth a lot more than the market thought I was worth. And I started treating myself that way.
Naval：没有人会比你更看重你。设定一个较高的个人小时费率，并坚持下去。当我年轻的时候，我认为我的价值比市场认为的要高得多。我开始这样对待自己。
Factor your time into every decision. Say you value your time at $100 an hour. If you decide to spend an hour driving across town to get something, you’re effectively throwing away $100. Are you going to do that?
在每一个决定中都考虑到你的时间。假设您以每小时 100 美元的价格珍惜您的时间。如果你决定花一个小时开车穿过城镇去买东西，你实际上是在浪费 100 美元。你打算这样做吗？
Say you buy something from Amazon and they screw it up. Is it worth your time to return it? Is it worth the mental hassle? Keep in mind that you will have less time for work, including mentally high-output work. Do you want to use that time running errands and solving little problems? Or do you want to save it for the big stuff?
假设你从亚马逊买了东西，他们把它搞砸了。值得您花时间归还吗？值得精神上的麻烦吗？请记住，您将有更少的时间工作，包括精神上高产出的工作。你想利用这段时间跑腿和解决小问题吗？或者你想把它留给大东西？
The great scientists were terrible at managing their home lives. None of them had an organized room, or made social events on time, or sent their thank-you cards.
伟大的科学家在管理他们的家庭生活方面很糟糕。他们都没有一个有组织的房间，也没有按时举办社交活动，也没有发送感谢卡。
You can’t penny pinch your way to wealth
你不能一分钱捏着你的财富之路
You can spend your life however you want. But if you want to get rich, it has to be your top priority. It has to come before anything else, which means you can’t penny-pinch. This is what people don’t understand.
你可以随心所欲地度过你的生活。但如果你想致富，它必须是你的首要任务。它必须先于其他任何事情，这意味着你不能一分钱一分货。这是人们不明白的。
You can penny-pinch your way to basic sustenance. You can keep expenses low and maybe retire early. That’s perfectly valid. But we’re here to talk about wealth creation. If you’re going to create wealth, it has to be your number-one, overwhelming priority.
你可以一分钱一分货地获得基本生计。您可以保持较低的开支，也许可以提前退休。这是完全正确的。但我们在这里谈论的是财富创造。如果你要创造财富，它必须是你的首要任务。
My aspirational rate was $5,000/hr
我的理想费率是 5,000 美元/小时
Fast-forward to your wealthy self and pick an intermediate hourly rate. Before I had any real money and you could hire me, I set an aspirational rate of $5,000 an hour.
快进到你富有的自己，选择一个中间的小时费率。在我没有任何真金白银并且你可以雇用我之前，我设定了每小时 5,000 美元的理想费率。
Of course, I still ended up doing stupid things like arguing with the electrician or returning the broken speaker. But I shouldn’t have. And I did a lot less of it my friends. I would make a theatrical show out of throwing something in the trash or giving it to Salvation Army, rather than returning it or trying to fix it.
当然，我最终还是做了一些愚蠢的事情，比如与电工争吵或归还损坏的扬声器。但我不应该这样做。我的朋友们，我做的要少得多。我会把东西扔进垃圾桶或交给救世军，而不是归还或试图修理它。
I would argue with girlfriends, “I don’t do that. That’s not a problem that I solve.” I still argue that today with my wife and with my mother, when she hands me little to-do’s. I say, “I would rather hire you an assistant.” This was true even when I didn’t have money.
我会和女朋友争辩说，“我不那样做。这不是我能解决的问题。今天，我仍然和我的妻子和我的母亲争论这个问题，当她交给我一些小事时。我说，“我宁愿雇你一个助手。即使我没有钱，也是如此。
If you can outsource something for less than your hourly rate, do it
如果您可以以低于小时费率的价格外包某些东西，那就去做吧
Another way to think about this: If you can outsource something—or not do something—for less than your hourly rate, outsource it or don’t do it. If you can hire someone to do it for less than your hourly rate, hire them. That includes things like cooking. You may want to make your own healthy, home-cooked meals. But if you can outsource it, do that instead.
另一种思考方式是：如果你可以以低于你的小时费率外包某事——或者不做某事——那就外包或不做。如果您可以以低于您的小时费率雇用某人来做这件事，请雇用他们。这包括烹饪之类的事情。您可能想自己做健康的家常饭菜。但是，如果您可以将其外包，请改为外包。
People say, “What about the joy of life? What about getting it right, just your way?” Sure, you can do that. But you’re not going to be wealthy, because you’ve made something else a priority.
人们说，“生命的乐趣呢？按照你的方式做对呢？当然，你可以这样做。但你不会变得富有，因为你把其他事情放在首位。
Paul Graham said it well for Y Combinator startups. He said you should be working on your product and getting product-market fit, and you should be exercising and eating healthy. That’s about it. That’s all you have time for while you’re on this mission.
保罗·格雷厄姆（Paul Graham）对Y Combinator的创业公司说得很好。他说，你应该在产品上下功夫，让产品与市场契合，你应该锻炼身体，吃得健康。仅此而已。这就是你在执行这项任务时的全部时间。
Your hourly rate should seem absurdly high
你的时薪应该高得离谱
Set a very high aspirational hourly rate for yourself, and stick to it. It should seem and feel absurdly high. If it doesn’t, it’s not high enough. Whatever you pick, my advice is to raise it.
为自己设定一个非常高的理想时薪，并坚持下去。它应该看起来和感觉高得离谱。如果没有，则说明不够高。无论你选择什么，我的建议是提高它。
For the longest time, I used $5,000 an hour. If you extrapolate that out as an annual salary, it’s multiple millions of dollars per year. I actually think I’ve beaten it, which is interesting given that I’m not the hardest worker. I work through bursts of energy when I’m motivated to work on something.
在很长一段时间里，我每小时用 5,000 美元。如果你把它推断为年薪，那就是每年数百万美元。实际上，我认为我已经击败了它，这很有趣，因为我不是最勤奋的人。当我有动力去做某事时，我会精力充沛地工作。
Work As Hard As You Can 尽你所能地工作
Even though what you work on and who you work with are more important
即使你的工作内容和与谁一起工作更重要
Work as hard as you can
尽你所能地努力工作
Naval: Let’s talk about hard work. There’s a battle that happens on Twitter a lot. Should you work hard or should you not? David Heinemeier Hansson says, “It’s like you’re slave-driving people.” Keith Rabois says, “No, all the great founders worked their fingers to the bone.”
Naval：让我们谈谈努力工作。Twitter上经常发生一场战斗。你应该努力工作还是不应该努力工作？大卫·海涅迈尔·汉森（David Heinemeier Hansson）说：“这就像你是奴隶驱使的人。基思·拉布瓦（Keith Rabois）说：“不，所有伟大的创始人都竭尽全力。
They’re talking past each other.
他们正在互相交谈。
First of all, they’re talking about two different things. David is talking about employees and a lifestyle business. If you’re doing that, your number one priority is not getting wealthy. You have a job, a family and also your life.
首先，他们谈论的是两件不同的事情。大卫谈论的是员工和生活方式业务。如果你这样做，你的首要任务不是变得富有。你有一份工作，一个家庭，还有你的生活。
Keith is talking about the Olympics of startups. He’s talking about the person going for the gold medal and trying to build a multi-billion dollar public company. That person has to get everything right. They have to have great judgment. They have to pick the right thing to work on. They have to recruit the right team. They have to work crazy hard. They’re engaged in a competitive sprint.
Keith正在谈论创业公司的奥运会。他说的是那个想要获得金牌并试图建立一家价值数十亿美元的上市公司的人。那个人必须把一切都做好。他们必须有很大的判断力。他们必须选择正确的工作。他们必须招募合适的团队。他们必须疯狂地努力工作。他们正在进行竞争激烈的冲刺。
If getting wealthy is your goal, you’re going to have to work as hard as you can. But hard work is no substitute for who you work with and what you work on. Those are the most important things.
如果致富是你的目标，你就必须尽你所能地努力工作。但是，努力工作并不能替代你与谁一起工作以及你做什么。这些是最重要的事情。
What you work on and who you work with are more important
你做什么，和谁一起工作更重要
Marc Andreessen came up with the concept of the “product-market fit.” I would expand that to “product-market-founder fit,” taking into account how well a founder is personally suited to the business. The combination of the three should be your overwhelming goal.
马克·安德森（Marc Andreessen）提出了“产品与市场契合”的概念。我会将其扩展到“产品-市场-创始人的契合度”，考虑到创始人个人对业务的适应程度。这三者的结合应该是你压倒性的目标。
You can save a lot of time by picking the right area to work in. Picking the right people to work with is the next most important piece. Third comes how hard you work. They are like three legs of a stool. If you shortchange any one of them, the whole stool is going to fall. You can’t easily pick one over the other.
通过选择合适的工作区域，您可以节省大量时间。选择合适的人一起工作是下一个最重要的部分。第三是你有多努力。它们就像凳子的三条腿。如果你把其中任何一个都换了，整个凳子都会掉下来。你不能轻易地选择一个而不是另一个。
When you’re building a business, or a career, first figure out: “What should I be doing? Where is a market emerging? What’s a product I can build that I’m excited to work on, where I have specific knowledge?”
当你在建立企业或事业时，首先要弄清楚：“我应该做什么？市场在哪里出现？我可以构建什么产品，我很高兴参与其中，并且我有特定的知识？
No matter how high your bar is, raise it
无论你的门槛有多高，都要提高它
Second, surround yourself with the best people possible. If there’s someone greater out there to work with, go work with them. When people ask for advice about choosing the right startup to join, I say, “Pick the one that’s going to have the best alumni network for you in the future.” Look at the PayPal mafia—they worked with a bunch of geniuses, so they all got rich. Pick the people with the highest intelligence, energy and integrity that you can find.
其次，让自己与最优秀的人在一起。如果有更伟大的人可以合作，那就去和他们一起工作。当人们询问如何选择合适的创业公司加入时，我会说，“选择一个将来会为你提供最好的校友网络的公司。看看PayPal黑手党——他们和一群天才一起工作，所以他们都变得富有了。选择你能找到的具有最高智慧、精力和正直的人。
And no matter how high your bar is, raise it.
无论你的门槛有多高，都要提高它。
Finally, once you’ve picked the right thing to work on and the right people, work as hard as you can.
最后，一旦你选择了正确的工作和合适的人，就尽可能地努力工作。
Nobody really works 80 hours a week
没有人真正每周工作 80 小时
This is where the mythology gets a little crazy. People who say they work 80-hour weeks, or even 120-hour weeks, often are just status signaling. It’s showing off. Nobody really works 80 to 120 hours a week at high output, with mental clarity. Your brain breaks down. You won’t have good ideas.
这就是神话变得有点疯狂的地方。那些说自己每周工作 80 小时，甚至每周工作 120 小时的人，通常只是状态信号。这是在炫耀。没有人真正每周工作 80 到 120 小时，而且头脑清晰。你的大脑崩溃了。你不会有好主意。
The way people tend to work most effectively, especially in knowledge work, is to sprint as hard as they can while they feel inspired to work, and then rest. They take long breaks.
人们最有效地工作的方式，尤其是在知识工作中，是尽可能努力地冲刺，同时他们感到工作受到启发，然后休息。他们需要长时间的休息。
It’s more like a lion hunting and less like a marathoner running. You sprint and then you rest. You reassess and then you try again. You end up building a marathon of sprints.
这更像是猎狮，而不是马拉松运动员跑步。你冲刺，然后你休息。您重新评估，然后再试一次。你最终会建立一个马拉松式的冲刺。
Inspiration is perishable
灵感是易腐烂的
Inspiration is perishable. When you have inspiration, act on it right then and there.
灵感是易腐烂的。当你有灵感时，立即采取行动。
If I’m inspired to write a blog post or publish a tweetstorm, I should do it right away. Otherwise, it’s not going to get out there. I won’t come back to it. Inspiration is a beautiful and powerful thing. When you have it, seize it.
如果我受到启发，想写一篇博文或发布一篇推文风暴，我应该马上去做。否则，它不会走出去。我不会再回来了。灵感是一件美丽而强大的事情。当你拥有它时，抓住它。
Impatience with actions, patience with results
对行动不耐烦，对结果有耐心
People talk about impatience. When do you know to be impatient? When do you know to be patient? My glib tweet on this was: “Impatience with actions, patience with results.” I think that’s a good philosophy for life.
人们谈论不耐烦。你什么时候知道不耐烦？你什么时候知道要有耐心？我对此的轻描淡写的推文是：“对行动不耐烦，对结果有耐心。我认为这是一个很好的人生哲学。
Anything you have to do, get it done. Why wait? You’re not getting any younger.
任何你必须做的事，都要完成。还等什么？你不会再年轻了。
You don’t want to spend your life waiting in line. You don’t want to spend it traveling back and forth. You don’t want to spend it doing things that aren’t part of your mission.
你不想把你的一生都花在排队等候上。你不想花钱来回旅行。你不想把钱花在做不属于你使命的事情上。
When you do these things, do them as quickly as you can and with your full attention so you do them well. Then be patient with the results because you’re dealing with complex systems and a lot of people.
当你做这些事情时，尽可能快地做，全神贯注，这样你才能把它们做好。然后对结果要有耐心，因为你要处理复杂的系统和很多人。
It takes a long time for markets to adopt products. It takes time for people to get comfortable working with each other. It takes time for great products to emerge as you polish away.
市场需要很长时间才能采用产品。人们需要时间来适应彼此之间的合作。随着您的打磨，伟大的产品需要时间才能出现。
Impatience with actions, patience with results.
对行动不耐烦，对结果有耐心。
If I discover a problem in one of my businesses, I won’t sleep until the resolution is at least in motion. If I’m on the board of a company, I’ll call the CEO. If I’m running the company, I’ll call my reports. If I’m responsible, I’ll get on it, right then and there, and solve it.
如果我在我的一个企业中发现一个问题，我不会睡觉，直到解决方案至少在行动中。如果我是一家公司的董事会成员，我会打电话给首席执行官。如果我在经营公司，我会打电话给我的报告。如果我负责，我会立即解决它。
If I don’t solve a problem the moment it happens—or if I don’t move towards solving it—I have no peace. I have no rest. I have no happiness until the problem is solved. So I solve it as quickly as possible. I literally won’t sleep until it’s solved—maybe that’s just a personal characteristic. But it’s worked out well in business.
如果我在问题发生的那一刻不解决它，或者如果我不去解决它，我就没有平安。我没有休息。在问题得到解决之前，我没有快乐。所以我尽快解决它。在它得到解决之前，我真的不会睡觉——也许这只是个人特征。但它在商业上运作良好。
Be Too Busy to ‘Do Coffee’ 太忙而无法“煮咖啡”
Ruthlessly decline meetings
无情地拒绝会议
Be too busy to ‘do coffee’ while keeping an uncluttered calendar
太忙了，没有时间“喝咖啡”，同时保持日历整洁
Naval: Another tweet was: “You should be too busy to ‘do coffee,’ while still keeping an uncluttered calendar.”
Naval：另一条推文是：“你应该太忙了，不能’喝咖啡’，同时仍然保持一个整洁的日历。
People who know me know I’m famous for simultaneously doing two things.
认识我的人都知道，我以同时做两件事而闻名。
First, I keep a very clean calendar. I have almost no meetings on it. When some people see my calendar, they almost weep.
首先，我有一个非常干净的日历。我几乎没有开会。当有些人看到我的日历时，他们几乎要哭了。
Second, I’m busy all the time. I’m always doing something. It’s usually work-related. It’s whatever high-impact thing that needs to be done, that I’m most inspired to do.
其次，我一直很忙。我总是在做一些事情。这通常与工作有关。这是任何需要做的高影响力的事情，我最有灵感去做。
The only way to do that is to constantly, and ruthlessly, decline meetings.
要做到这一点，唯一的办法就是不断地、无情地拒绝会议。
People want to “do coffee” and build relationships. That’s fine early in your career, when you’re still exploring. But later in your career—when you’re exploiting, and there are more things coming at you than you have time for—you have to ruthlessly cut meetings out of your life.
人们想要“喝咖啡”并建立关系。在你职业生涯的早期，当你还在探索的时候，这很好。但在你职业生涯的后期——当你在剥削时，有比你有时间做的事情更多——你必须无情地将会议从你的生活中剔除。
Ruthlessly cut meetings 无情地削减会议
If someone wants a meeting, see if they will do a call instead. If they want to call, see if they will email instead. If they want to email, see if they will text instead. And you probably should ignore most text messages—unless they’re true emergencies.
如果有人想要开会，看看他们是否会打个电话。如果他们想打电话，看看他们是否会改为发送电子邮件。如果他们想发电子邮件，看看他们是否会发短信。你可能应该忽略大多数短信——除非它们是真正的紧急情况。
You have to be utterly ruthless about dodging meetings. When you do meetings, make them walking meetings. Do standing meetings. Keep them short, actionable and small. Nothing is getting done in a meeting with eight people around a conference table. You are literally dying one hour at a time.
你必须完全无情地躲避会议。当你开会时，让他们走路开会。举行常设会议。保持简短、可操作和小巧。在会议桌旁有八个人的会议中，什么也做不了。你实际上是一次死一个小时。
Nivi: “Doing coffee” reminds me of an old quote, I think from Steve Jobs, when someone asked him why Apple didn’t come to a convention. His response was something like, “Because we wouldn’t be here working.”
Nivi：“做咖啡”让我想起了史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）的一句老话，当时有人问他为什么苹果不来参加大会。他的回答是，“因为我们不会在这里工作。
Naval: I used to have a tough time turning people down for meetings. Now I just tell them outright, “I don’t do non-transactional meetings. I don’t do meetings without a strict agenda. I don’t do meetings unless we absolutely have to.”
Naval：我曾经很难拒绝人们参加会议。现在我只是直截了当地告诉他们，“我不做非事务性的会议。我不会在没有严格议程的情况下开会。除非我们绝对有必要，否则我不会开会。
Nivi used to do this. When people asked us for get-to-know-you meetings, he would say, “We don’t do meetings unless it’s life-and-death urgent.” The person has to respond, “Yeah, it’s life-and-death urgent” or there’s no meeting.
Nivi 曾经这样做过。当人们要求我们开会时，他会说，“除非是生死攸关的紧急会议，否则我们不会开会。这个人必须回答，“是的，这是生死攸关的紧急事件”，否则就没有会议。
People will meet with you when you have proof of work
当您有工作证明时，人们会与您会面
Busy people will take your meeting when you have something important or valuable. But you have to come with a proper calling card. It should be: “Here’s what I’ve done. Here’s what I can show you. Let’s meet if this is useful to you, and I’ll be respectful of your time.”
当你有重要或有价值的事情时，忙碌的人会参加你的会议。但你必须带上一张合适的电话卡。它应该是：“这是我所做的。这是我可以向你展示的。如果这对你有用，我们见面吧，我会尊重你的时间。
You have to build up credibility. For example, when a tech investor looks at a startup, the first thing they want to see is evidence of product progress. They don’t just want to see a slide deck. Product progress is the entrepreneur’s resume. It’s an unfake-able resume.
你必须建立信誉。例如，当科技投资者关注一家初创公司时，他们首先希望看到的是产品进步的证据。他们不只是想看幻灯片。产品进步是企业家的简历。这是一份不可伪造的简历。
You have to do the work. To use a crypto analogy, you have to have proof of work. If you have that and you truly have something interesting, then you shouldn’t hesitate to put it together in an email and send it. Even then, when asking for a meeting, you want to be actionable.
你必须做这项工作。要使用加密类比，您必须有工作量证明。如果你有这个，而且你真的有一些有趣的东西，那么你应该毫不犹豫地把它放在一封电子邮件中并发送。即便如此，在要求开会时，您也希望具有可操作性。
Free your time and mind
释放您的时间和思想
If you think you’re going to “make it” by networking and attending a bunch of meetings, you’re probably wrong. Networking can be important early in your career. And you can get serendipitous with meetings. But the odds are pretty low.
如果你认为你会通过建立网络和参加一堆会议来“成功”，那么你可能错了。在职业生涯的早期，人际网络可能很重要。你可以通过会议获得偶然的机会。但几率很低。
When you meet people hoping for that lucky break, you’re relying on Type One luck, which is blind luck, and Type Two luck, which is hustle luck.
当你遇到希望幸运突破的人时，你依靠的是第一类运气，这是盲目的运气，第二类运气，这是喧嚣的运气。
But you’re not getting Type Three or Type Four luck, which are the better kinds. This is where you spend time developing a reputation and working on something. You develop a unique point of view and are able to spot opportunities that others can’t.
但你没有得到第三型或第四型的运气，这是更好的运气。这是您花时间建立声誉和从事某事的地方。你发展出独特的观点，能够发现其他人无法发现的机会。
A busy calendar and a busy mind will destroy your ability to do great things in this world. If you want to do great things—whether you’re a musician or entrepreneur or investor—you need free time and a free mind.
繁忙的日历和忙碌的头脑会破坏你在这个世界上做大事的能力。如果你想做伟大的事情——无论你是音乐家、企业家还是投资者——你都需要空闲时间和自由的思想。
Keep Redefining What You Do 不断重新定义你的工作
Become the best in the world at what you do
在你所做的事情上成为世界上最好的
Keep redefining what you do until you’re the best at what you do
不断重新定义你所做的事情，直到你成为你所做的事情的佼佼者
Nivi: We talked about the importance of working hard and valuing your time. Next, there are a few tweets on the topic of working for the long-term. The first tweet is: “Become the best in the world at what you do. Keep redefining what you do until this is true.”
Nivi：我们谈到了努力工作和珍惜时间的重要性。接下来，有几条关于长期工作的推文。第一条推文是：“在你所做的事情上成为世界上最好的。不断重新定义你的工作，直到这是真的。
Naval: If you really want to get paid in this world, you want to be number one at whatever you do. It can be niche—that’s the point. You can literally get paid for just being you.
Naval：如果你真的想在这个世界上获得报酬，你就想成为你所做的任何事情的第一名。它可以是小众的——这就是重点。从字面上看，你可以因为做你自己而获得报酬。
Some of the more successful people in the world are that way. Oprah gets paid for being Oprah. Joe Rogan gets paid for being Joe Rogan. They’re being authentic to themselves.
世界上一些比较成功的人就是这样。奥普拉因成为奥普拉而获得报酬。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）因成为乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）而获得报酬。他们对自己是真实的。
You want to be number one. And you want to keep changing what you do until you’re number one. You can’t just pick something arbitrary. You can’t say, “I’m going to be the fastest runner in the world,” and now you have to beat Usain Bolt. That’s too hard of a problem.
你想成为第一。你想不断改变你所做的事情，直到你成为第一名。你不能随便选择一些东西。你不能说，“我要成为世界上跑得最快的人”，现在你必须击败尤塞恩·博尔特。这太难了。
Keep changing your objective until it arrives at your specific knowledge, skill sets, position, capabilities, location and interests. Your objective and skills should converge to make you number one.
不断改变你的目标，直到它达到你的特定知识、技能、职位、能力、位置和兴趣。你的目标和技能应该融合在一起，使你成为第一名。
When you’re searching for what to do, you have two different foci to keep in mind. One is, “I want to be the best at what I do.” The second is, “What I do is flexible, so that I’m the best at it.”
当你在寻找要做什么时，你有两个不同的焦点要记住。一个是，“我想在我所做的事情上做到最好。第二个是，“我所做的事情是灵活的，所以我是最擅长的。
You want to arrive at a comfortable place where you feel, “This is something I can be amazing at, while still being authentic to who I am.”
你想到达一个舒适的地方，在那里你会觉得，“这是我可以做到的事情，同时仍然保持真实的我是谁。
It’s going to be a long journey. But now you know how to think about it.
这将是一段漫长的旅程。但现在你知道该怎么考虑了。
Find founder-product-market fit
找到创始人-产品-市场的契合度
The most important thing for any company is to find product-market fit. But the most important thing for any entrepreneur is to find founder-product-market fit, where you are naturally inclined to to build the right product for a market. That’s a three-foci problem. You have to make all three work at once.
对于任何公司来说，最重要的是找到产品与市场的契合度。但对于任何企业家来说，最重要的是找到创始人-产品-市场的契合度，你自然倾向于为市场构建合适的产品。这是一个三焦点问题。你必须让这三者同时工作。
If you want to be successful in life, you have to get comfortable managing multi-variate problems and multiple-objective functions at once. This is one of those cases where you have to map at least two or three at once.
如果你想在生活中取得成功，你必须同时管理多变量问题和多目标函数。这是您必须一次映射至少两个或三个的情况之一。
Escape Competition Through Authenticity 通过真实性逃避竞争
Nobody can compete with you on being you
没有人能与你竞争成为你
Competition will trap you in a lesser game
竞争会让你陷入一场较小的比赛
Nivi: Let’s discuss your tweet: “Escape competition through authenticity.” It sounds like part of this is a search for who you are.
Nivi：让我们讨论一下你的推文：“通过真实性来逃避竞争。这听起来像是在寻找你是谁。
Naval: It’s both a search and a recognition. Sometimes when we search our egos, we want to be something that we’re not. Our friends and family are actually better at telling us who we are. Looking back at what we’ve done is a better indicator of who we are.
Naval：这既是一种搜索，也是一种识别。有时，当我们寻找自我时，我们想成为我们不是的东西。我们的朋友和家人实际上更善于告诉我们我们是谁。回顾我们所做的事情可以更好地表明我们是谁。
Peter Thiel talks a lot about how competition is besides the point. It’s counterproductive. We’re highly memetic creatures. We copy everybody around us. We copy our desires from them.
彼得·泰尔（Peter Thiel）谈到了很多关于竞争如何超越重点的问题。这适得其反。我们是高度模因的生物。我们模仿我们周围的每个人。我们从他们那里复制我们的欲望。
If everyone around me is a great artist, I want to be an artist. If everyone around me is a great businessperson, I want to be a businessperson. If everybody around me is a social activist, I want to be a social activist. That’s where my self-esteem will come from.
如果我周围的每个人都是伟大的艺术家，我想成为一名艺术家。如果我周围的每个人都是伟大的商人，我想成为一名商人。如果我周围的每个人都是社会活动家，我想成为一名社会活动家。这就是我的自尊心的来源。
You have to be careful when you get caught up in status games. You end up competing over things that aren’t worth competing over.
当你陷入状态游戏时，你必须小心。你最终会争夺不值得争夺的东西。
Peter Thiel talks about how he was going to be a law clerk because everybody at law school wanted to clerk for a Supreme Court justice or some famous judge. He got rejected, and that’s what made him go into business. It helped him break out of a lesser game and into a greater game.
彼得·泰尔（Peter Thiel）谈到了他将如何成为一名法律助理，因为法学院的每个人都想为最高法院大法官或一些著名法官担任助理。他被拒绝了，这就是他进入商业领域的原因。它帮助他从较小的游戏中突围而出，进入更大的游戏。
Sometimes you get trapped in the wrong game because you’re competing. The best way to escape competition—to get away from the specter of competition, which is not just stressful and nerve-wracking but also will drive you to the wrong answer—is to be authentic to yourself.
有时你会因为竞争而陷入错误的游戏中。逃避竞争的最好方法——摆脱竞争的幽灵，这不仅会带来压力和伤脑筋，而且还会把你推向错误的答案——就是对自己真实。
No one can compete with you on being you
没有人能与你竞争成为你
If you are building and marketing something that’s an extension of who you are, no one can compete with you. Who’s going to compete with Joe Rogan or Scott Adams? It’s impossible. Is somebody else going write a better Dilbert? No. Is someone going to compete with Bill Watterson and create a better Calvin and Hobbes? No.
如果你正在构建和营销一些东西，这是你是谁的延伸，没有人可以与你竞争。谁将与乔·罗根或斯科特·亚当斯竞争？这不可能。其他人会写一个更好的 Dilbert 吗？不。有人会与比尔·沃特森竞争并创造一个更好的加尔文和霍布斯吗？不。
Artist are, by definition, authentic. Entrepreneurs are authentic, too. Who’s going to be Elon Musk? Who’s going to be Jack Dorsey? These people are authentic, and the businesses and products they create are authentic to their desires and means.
根据定义，艺术家是真实的。企业家也是真实的。谁会成为埃隆·马斯克？谁会成为杰克·多尔西？这些人是真实的，他们创造的企业和产品是真实的，符合他们的欲望和手段。
If somebody else came along and started launching rockets, I don’t think it would faze Elon one bit. He’s still going to get to Mars. Because that’s his mission, insane as it seems. He’s going to accomplish it.
如果其他人出现并开始发射火箭，我认为这不会让埃隆感到害怕。他仍然要去火星。因为这是他的使命，看起来很疯狂。他会完成的。
Authenticity naturally gets you away from competition. Does it mean that you want to be authentic to the point where there’s no product-market fit? It may turn out that you’re the best juggler on a unicycle. But maybe there isn’t much of a market for that, even with YouTube videos. So you have to adjust until you find product-market fit.
真实性自然会让你远离竞争。这是否意味着您想要真实到产品与市场不匹配的地步？事实证明，你是独轮车上最好的杂耍者。但也许这没有太大的市场，即使是 YouTube 视频。因此，您必须进行调整，直到找到适合产品市场的产品。
At least lean towards authenticity, towards getting away from competition. Competition leads to copy-catting and playing the completely wrong game.
至少倾向于真实性，倾向于远离竞争。竞争导致模仿和玩完全错误的游戏。
In entrepreneurship, the masses are never right
在创业中，群众从来都不是正确的
In entrepreneurship, the masses are never right. If the masses knew how to build great things and create great wealth, we’d all be rich by now.
在创业中，群众从来都不是正确的。如果大众知道如何建造伟大的事物并创造巨大的财富，那么我们现在都会变得富有。
When you see a lot of competition, sometimes that indicates the masses have already arrived. It’s already competed over too much. Or it’s the wrong trend to begin with.
当你看到很多竞争时，有时这表明群众已经到来。它已经竞争太多了。或者一开始就是错误的趋势。
On the other hand, if the whole market is empty, that can be a warning indicator. It can indicate you’ve gone too authentic and should focus more on the product-market part of founder-product-market fit.
另一方面，如果整个市场都是空的，这可能是一个警告指标。这可能表明你太真实了，应该更多地关注创始人-产品-市场契合度的产品-市场部分。
There’s a balance you have to find. Generally, people will make the mistake of paying too much attention to the competition. The great founders tend to be authentic iconoclasts.
你必须找到一个平衡点。一般来说，人们会犯一个错误，那就是过于关注竞争。伟大的创始人往往是真正的反传统者。
Combine your vocation and avocation
结合你的职业和爱好
Nivi: Do you think one way of getting to authenticity is by finding five or six various skills you already do and stacking them on top of each other, maybe not even in any purposeful way? If you are expressing who you are, you’re going to be expressing all of these skills anyway.
Nivi：你认为获得真实性的一种方法是找到五六种你已经做过的各种技能，并将它们堆叠在一起，甚至可能没有任何目的？如果你在表达你是谁，无论如何你都会表达所有这些技能。
Naval: If you are successful, in the long-term you’ll find you’re almost doing all of your hobbies for a living, no matter what they are. As Robert Frost said, “my goal in life is to unite my avocation with my vocation.” That’s really where life is going to lead you anyway.
Naval：如果你成功了，从长远来看，你会发现你几乎把所有的爱好都当成了谋生，不管它们是什么。正如罗伯特·弗罗斯特（Robert Frost）所说，“我的人生目标是将我的爱好与我的职业结合起来”，无论如何，这才是生活将要引导你的地方。
You’re right about the skill stack. Everyone has multiple skills. We aren’t one-dimensional creatures, even though that’s how we portray ourselves in online profiles to get employed. You meet somebody and they say, “I’m a banker.” Or, “I’m a bartender. Or “I’m a barber.”
你对技能堆栈的看法是对的。每个人都有多种技能。我们不是一维的生物，尽管这就是我们在在线个人资料中描绘自己以获得工作的方式。你遇到一个人，他们说，“我是银行家。“或者，”我是一名调酒师。“或者”我是理发师。
Specialize in being you 专心做你自己
But people are multivariate. They have a lot of skills. One banker might be good at finance. Another one might be good at sales. A third one might be good at macroeconomic trends and have a feel for markets. Another one might be really good at picking individual stocks. Another might be good at maintaining relationships, rather than selling new relationships. Everyone’s going to have various niches. And you’re going to have multiple niches. It’s not going to be just one.
但人是多元的。他们有很多技能。一位银行家可能擅长金融。另一个可能擅长销售。第三种可能擅长宏观经济趋势，对市场有感觉。另一个可能非常擅长挑选个股。另一个人可能善于维持关系，而不是出售新的关系。每个人都会有各种各样的利基市场。你将有多个利基市场。它不会只是一个。
As you go through your career, you’ll find you gravitate towards the things you’re good at, which by definition are the things you enjoy doing. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be good at them. You wouldn’t have put in the time.
当你在职业生涯中，你会发现你被你擅长的事情所吸引，根据定义，这些事情是你喜欢做的事情。否则，你不会擅长它们。你不会花时间。
Other people will push you towards the things you’re good at, too. Because your smart bosses, co-workers and investors will realize you’re world-class in this one thing. And you can recruit people to help you with other things.
其他人也会把你推向你擅长的事情。因为你聪明的老板、同事和投资者会意识到你在这件事上是世界级的。你可以招募人来帮助你做其他事情。
Ideally, you want to end up specializing in being you.
理想情况下，你希望最终专注于成为你自己。
Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes 玩愚蠢的游戏，赢得愚蠢的奖品
Competition will blind you to greater games
竞争会让你对更大的游戏视而不见
Businesses that seem like they’re in direct competition really aren’t
看似处于直接竞争状态的企业实际上并非如此
Nivi: When you’re being authentic, you don’t mind competition that much. It pisses you off and inspires some fear, jealousy and other emotions. But you don’t really mind because you’re oriented towards the goal and the mission. Worst-case, you might get some ideas from them. And often there are ways to work with the competition in a positive way that ends up increasing the size of the market for you.
Nivi：当你是真实的时，你就不会那么介意竞争。它惹恼了你，激发了一些恐惧、嫉妒和其他情绪。但你并不介意，因为你是以目标和使命为导向的。最坏的情况是，您可能会从他们那里得到一些想法。通常有一些方法可以以积极的方式与竞争对手合作，最终为您增加市场规模。
Naval: It depends on the nature of the business. The best Silicon Valley tech industry businesses tend to be winner-take-all. When you see competition, it can make you fly into a rage. Because it really does endanger everything you’ve built.
Naval：这取决于业务的性质。硅谷最好的科技行业企业往往是赢家通吃。当你看到竞争时，它会让你大发雷霆。因为它确实会危及你所建立的一切。
If I’m opening a restaurant and a more interesting version of the same restaurant opens in a different town, that’s fantastic. I’m going to copy what’s working and drop what’s not working. So it depends on the nature of the business.
如果我要开一家餐厅，而同一家餐厅的更有趣的版本在不同的城镇开业，那就太棒了。我将复制有效的内容并删除不起作用的内容。因此，这取决于业务的性质。
Often, businesses that seem to be in direct competition really aren’t. They end up adjacent or slightly different. You’re one step away from a completely different business, and sometimes you need to take that step. You’re not going to take it if you’re busy fighting over a booby prize.
通常，看似处于直接竞争状态的企业实际上并非如此。它们最终相邻或略有不同。您离完全不同的业务只有一步之遥，有时您需要迈出这一步。如果你正忙于争夺诱杀奖品，你不会接受它。
You’re playing a stupid game. You’re going to win a stupid prize. It’s not obvious right now because you’re blinded by competition. But three years from now, it’ll be obvious.
你在玩一个愚蠢的游戏。你会赢得一个愚蠢的奖品。现在还不明显，因为你被竞争蒙蔽了双眼。但三年后，这将是显而易见的。
My first company got caught in the wrong game
我的第一家公司陷入了错误的游戏
One of my first startups was Epinions, an online product review site that was independent of Amazon. That space eventually turned into TripAdvisor and Yelp, which is where we should have gone.
我最早的创业公司之一是Epinions，这是一个独立于亚马逊的在线产品评论网站。这个空间最终变成了TripAdvisor和Yelp，这是我们应该去的地方。
We should have done more local reviews. A review of a scarce item like a local restaurant is more valuable than one of an item like a camera that has 1,000 reviews on Amazon.
我们应该做更多的本地评论。对当地餐馆等稀缺物品的评论比对在亚马逊上有 1,000 条评论的相机等物品的评论更有价值。
Before we could get there, we got caught up in the comparison-shopping game. We merged with DealTime and competed with a bunch of price-comparison engines—mySimon, PriceGrabber, NexTag and Bizrate, which became Shopzilla. We were caught in fierce competition with each other.
在我们到达那里之前，我们陷入了比较购物游戏。我们与 DealTime 合并，并与一系列价格比较引擎竞争——mySimon、PriceGrabber、NexTag 和 Bizrate，后者后来成为 Shopzilla。我们陷入了激烈的竞争之中。
That whole space went to zero because Amazon won e-tail completely. There was no need for price comparison. Everyone just went to Amazon.
整个空间归零，因为亚马逊完全赢得了电子零售。没有必要进行价格比较。每个人都去了亚马逊。
We got the booby prize because we were caught up in competition with a bunch of our peers. We should have been looking at what the consumer really wanted and being authentic to ourselves, which was reviews, not price comparison. We should have gone further into esoteric items where customers had less data and wanted reviews more badly.
我们之所以获得诱杀奖，是因为我们陷入了与一群同龄人的竞争中。我们应该关注消费者真正想要的东西，并对自己保持真实，这是评论，而不是价格比较。我们应该更深入地研究客户数据较少且更渴望评论的深奥项目。
If we stayed authentic to ourselves, we would have done better.
如果我们对自己保持真实，我们会做得更好。
Eventually You Will Get What You Deserve 最终你会得到你应得的
On a long enough timescale, you will get paid
在足够长的时间范围内，您将获得报酬
On a long enough time scale, you will get paid
在足够长的时间范围内，您将获得报酬
Nivi: We’re talking about working for the long-term. The next tweet on that topic: “Apply specific knowledge, with leverage, and eventually you will get what you deserve.”
Nivi：我们谈论的是长期工作。关于该主题的下一条推文：“应用特定的知识，发挥杠杆作用，最终你会得到你应得的。
I would add: Apply judgment, apply accountability, and apply the skill of reading.
我想补充一点：运用判断力，运用问责制，运用阅读技巧。
Naval: This one is a glib way of saying, “It takes time.” Once you have all of the pieces in place, there’s still an indeterminate amount of time you have to put in. And if you’re counting, you’ll run out of patience before it arrives.
Naval：这句话说得很有道理，“这需要时间。一旦你把所有的部分都准备好了，你仍然需要投入不确定的时间。如果你在数数，你会在它到来之前耗尽耐心。
You have to make sure you give these things time. Life is long.
你必须确保你给这些事情时间。生命是漫长的。
Charlie Munger had a line on this. Somebody asked him about making money. He said what the questioner actually was asking was, “How can I become like you, except faster?”
查理·芒格（Charlie Munger）对此有一句话。有人问他关于赚钱的问题。他说，提问者实际上在问的是，“我怎么能变得像你一样，除了更快？
Everybody wants it immediately. But the world is an efficient place. Immediate doesn’t work. You have to put in the time. You have to put in the hours. You have to put yourself in that position with specific knowledge, accountability, leverage and an authentic skill-set in order to be the best in the world at what you do.
每个人都想要立即得到它。但世界是一个高效的地方。立即不起作用。你必须投入时间。你必须投入时间。你必须把自己放在那个位置上，拥有特定的知识、责任感、影响力和真实的技能，才能在你所做的事情上成为世界上最好的。
And then you have to enjoy it and keep doing it and doing it and doing it. Don’t keep track. Don’t keep count. Because if you do, you will run out of time.
然后你必须享受它，继续做，做，做。不要跟踪。不要数数。因为如果你这样做，你的时间就用完了。
Looking back on my career, the people who I identified as brilliant and hardworking two decades ago are all successful now, almost without exception. On a long enough timescale, you will get paid.
回顾我的职业生涯，二十年前我认为才华横溢、勤奋工作的人现在都成功了，几乎无一例外。在足够长的时间范围内，您将获得报酬。
But it can easily be 10 or 20 years. Sometimes it’s five. If it’s five, or three, and it’s a friend of yours who got there, it can drive you insane. But those are exceptions. And for every winner, there are multiple failures.
但它很容易是 10 或 20 年。有时是五个。如果它是五个或三个，而且是你的一个朋友到达那里，它可能会让你发疯。但这些都是例外。对于每一个赢家，都有多次失败。
One thing that’s important in entrepreneurship: You just have to be right once. You get many, many shots on goal. You can take a shot on goal every three to five years, maybe every 10 at the slowest. Or once every year at the fastest, depending on how you’re iterating with startups. But you only have to be right once.
在创业中，有一件事很重要：你只需要做对一次。你有很多很多的射门机会。你可以每三到五年射门一次，也许每10年一次，最慢的时候。或者最快每年一次，这取决于你如何与初创公司进行迭代。但你只需要做对一次。
What are you really good at, that the market values?
你真正擅长的是什么，市场看重的是什么？
Nivi: Your eventual outcome will be equal to something like the distinctiveness of your specific knowledge; times how much leverage you can apply to that knowledge; times how often your judgment is correct; times how singularly accountable you are for the outcome; times how much society values what you’re doing. Then you compound that with how long you can keep doing it and how long you can keep improving it through reading and learning.
Nivi：你的最终结果将等同于你特定知识的独特性;乘以您可以对该知识施加多大的杠杆作用;你的判断正确的频率;乘以你对结果的单一责任;乘以社会对你所做的事情的重视程度。然后，你可以继续做多长时间，以及你可以通过阅读和学习不断改进它多长时间。
Naval: That’s a really good way to summarize it. It’s worth trying to sketch that equation out.
Naval：这是一个很好的总结方式。值得尝试勾勒出这个方程式。
That said, people try to apply mathematics to what is really philosophy. I’ve seen this happen, where I say one thing and then I say another thing that seems contradictory if you treat it as math. But it’s obviously in a different context.
也就是说，人们试图将数学应用于真正的哲学。我见过这种情况发生，我说一件事，然后我说另一件事，如果你把它当作数学，这似乎是矛盾的。但这显然是在不同的背景下。
People will say, “You say, ‘Desire is suffering.’” You know, the Buddhist saying. “And then you ‘All greatness comes from suffering.’ So does that mean all greatness comes from desire?” This isn’t math. You can’t just carry variables around and form absolute logical outputs. You have to know when to apply things.
人们会说，“你说，’欲望就是痛苦’。你知道，佛教的谚语。“然后你’所有的伟大都来自苦难。’那么，这是否意味着所有的伟大都来自欲望？这不是数学。你不能只是随身携带变量并形成绝对的逻辑输出。你必须知道什么时候应用东西。
One can’t get too analytical about it.
人们不能对此进行过多的分析。
It’s what a physicist would call “false precision.” When you take two made-up estimates and multiply them together, you get four degrees of precision. Those decimal points don’t actually count. You don’t have that data. You don’t have that knowledge. The more estimated variables you have, the greater the error in the model.
这就是物理学家所说的“假精度”。当你把两个虚构的估计值相乘时，你会得到四个精度。这些小数点实际上并不计算在内。您没有这些数据。你没有这些知识。估计变量越多，模型中的误差就越大。
Adding more complexity to your decision-making process gets you a worse answer. You’re better off picking the single biggest thing or two. Ask yourself: What am I really good at, according to observation and people I trust, that the market values?
增加决策过程的复杂性会让你得到更糟糕的答案。你最好选择一两件最重要的事情。扪心自问：根据观察和我信任的人，我真正擅长的是什么，市场看重什么？
Those two variables alone are probably good enough. If you’re good at it, you’ll keep it up. You’ll develop the judgment. If you’re good at it and you like to do it, eventually people will give you the resources and you won’t be afraid to take on accountability. So the other pieces will fall into place.
仅这两个变量就足够了。如果你擅长它，你会坚持下去。你会做出判断。如果你擅长并且喜欢这样做，最终人们会给你资源，你不会害怕承担责任。因此，其他部分将落到位。
Product-market fit is inevitable if you’re doing something you love and the market wants it.
如果你正在做你喜欢的事情，而市场需要它，那么产品与市场的契合是不可避免的。
Reject Most Advice 拒绝大多数建议
Most advice is people giving you their winning lottery ticket numbers
大多数建议是人们给你他们的中奖彩票号码
The best founders listen to everyone but make up their own mind
最好的创始人会听取每个人的意见，但要自己下定决心
Nivi: One of the tweets from the cutting-room floor was: “Avoid people who got rich quickly. They’re just giving you their winning lottery ticket numbers.”
Nivi：剪裁室的一条推文是：“避开那些迅速致富的人。他们只是给你他们中奖的彩票号码。
Naval: This is generally true of most advice. It goes back to Scott Adams—systems not goals. If you ask a successful person what worked for them, they often read out the exact set of things that worked for them, which might not apply to you. They’re just reading you their winning lottery ticket numbers.
Naval：大多数建议都是如此。这可以追溯到斯科特·亚当斯（Scott Adams）——系统而不是目标。如果你问一个成功人士什么对他们有用，他们通常会读出对他们有用的确切方法，这可能不适用于你。他们只是在给你读他们的中奖彩票号码。
It’s a little glib. There is something to be learned, but you can’t take their exact circumstance and map it onto yours. The best founders I know read and listen to everyone. But then they ignore everyone and make up their own mind.
这有点滑稽。有一些东西需要学习，但你不能把他们的确切情况映射到你的身上。我认识的最好的创始人会阅读并倾听每个人的意见。但随后他们无视所有人，下定决心。
They have their own internal model of how to apply things to their situation. And they do not hesitate to discard information. If you survey enough people, all of the advice will cancel to zero.
他们有自己的内部模型，知道如何将事情应用于他们的情况。他们毫不犹豫地丢弃信息。如果你调查了足够多的人，所有的建议都将取消为零。
You have to have your own point of view. When something is sent your way, you have to quickly decide: Is it true? Is it true outside of the context of how that person applied it? Is it true in my context? And then, Do I want to apply it?
你必须有自己的观点。当某样东西被送到你面前时，你必须迅速决定：这是真的吗？在那个人如何应用它的上下文之外，这是真的吗？在我的上下文中是真的吗？然后，我要应用它吗？
You have to reject most advice. But you have to listen to enough of it, and read enough of it, to know what to reject and what to accept.
你必须拒绝大多数建议。但你必须听够它，读足够多的书，才能知道什么该拒绝，什么该接受。
Even in this podcast, you should examine everything. If something doesn’t feel true to you, put it down. Set it aside. If too many things seem untrue, delete this podcast.
即使在这个播客中，你也应该检查一切。如果某件事对你来说不真实，那就放下它。把它放在一边。如果太多事情看起来不真实，请删除此播客。
Advice offers anecdotes to recall later, when you get your own experience
建议提供了轶事，以便以后在您获得自己的经验时回忆
Nivi: I think the most dangerous part of taking advice is that the person who gave it to you isn’t going to be around to tell you when it doesn’t apply any more.
Nivi：我认为接受建议最危险的部分是，当它不再适用时，给你建议的人不会在身边告诉你。
Naval: I view the purpose of advice a little differently than most people. I view it as helping me have anecdotes and maxims that I can recall when I have my own direct experience and say, “Ah, that’s what that person meant.”
Naval：我对建议的目的的看法与大多数人略有不同。我认为它可以帮助我获得轶事和格言，当我有自己的直接经验时，我可以回忆起这些轶事和格言，并说：“啊，这就是那个人的意思。
Ninety percent of my tweets are maxims that become mental hooks to remind me when I’m in that situation again.
我百分之九十的推文都是格言，它们成为心理上的钩子，提醒我何时再次处于这种情况。
Like, “Oh, I’m the one who tweeted, ‘If you can’t see yourself working with someone for life, then don’t work with them for a day.’” As soon as I know I’m not going to be working with someone 10 years from now, then I have to start extricating myself from that relationship or investing less effort in it.
比如，“哦，我是那个在推特上发推文的人，’如果你看不到自己和某人一起工作一辈子，那么就不要和他们一起工作一天。一旦我知道我不会在10年后与某人合作，那么我就必须开始摆脱这种关系，或者减少投入的精力。
I use tweets to compress my own learnings. Your brain space is finite. You have finite neurons. You can think of these as pointers, addresses, mnemonics to help you remember deep-seated principles where you have the underlying experience to back it up.
我用推文来压缩我自己的学习。你的大脑空间是有限的。你有有限的神经元。你可以把这些看作是指针、地址、助记符，以帮助你记住根深蒂固的原则，在这些原则中，你有潜在的经验来支持它。
If you don’t have the underlying experience, then it reads like a collection of quotes. It’s cool. It’s inspirational for a moment. Maybe you make a nice poster out of it. But then you forget it and move on.
如果你没有基础经验，那么它读起来就像是引号的集合。这很酷。这暂时是鼓舞人心的。也许你用它做了一张漂亮的海报。但后来你忘记了它，继续前进。
These are compact ways for you to recall your own knowledge.
这些是您回忆自己知识的紧凑方式。
A Calm Mind, a Fit Body, a House Full of Love 平静的心灵，健美的身躯，充满爱的家
When you’re finally wealthy, you’ll realize it wasn’t what you were seeking in the first place
当你最终变得富有时，你会意识到这不是你最初想要的
When you’re wealthy, you’ll realize it wasn’t what you were seeking
当你富有时，你会意识到这不是你所追求的
Nivi: The last tweet on the topic of working for the long-term is: “When you’re finally wealthy, you’ll realize it wasn’t what you were seeking in the first place. But that’s for another day.”
Nivi：关于长期工作这个话题的最后一条推文是：“当你最终变得富有时，你会意识到这不是你最初想要的。但那是另一天的事了。
Naval: That’s a multi-hour topic in and of itself. First of all, I thought it was a really clever way to end the whole thing. It disarms a whole set of people who say, “What’s the point of getting rich?” There are a lot of people who like to virtue signal against the idea of wealth creation or making money.
Naval：这本身就是一个长达数小时的话题。首先，我认为这是结束整个事情的一个非常聪明的方式。它解除了一大群人的武装，他们说，“致富有什么意义？有很多人喜欢美德信号，反对创造财富或赚钱的想法。
It’s also true. Yes, money will solve all your money problems. But it doesn’t get you everywhere.
这也是事实。是的，钱会解决你所有的金钱问题。但它并不能让你无处不在。
The first thing you realize when you’ve made a bunch of money is that you’re still the same person. If you’re happy, you’re happy. If you’re unhappy, you’re unhappy. If you’re calm and fulfilled and peaceful, you’re still that same person. I know lots of very rich people who are extremely out of shape. I know lots of rich people who have really bad family lives. I know lots of rich people who are internally a mess.
当你赚了一大笔钱时，你意识到的第一件事是你仍然是同一个人。如果你快乐，你就快乐。如果你不快乐，你就不快乐。如果你平静、充实、平和，你仍然是同一个人。我认识很多非常有钱的人，他们身材极度走样。我认识很多有钱人，他们的家庭生活非常糟糕。我认识很多有钱人，他们内心一团糟。
A calm mind, a fit body and a house full of love must be earned
必须赢得一个平静的头脑，一个健康的身体和一个充满爱的房子
I would lean on another tweet that I put out. When I think back on it, I think it’s my favorite tweet. It’s not necessarily the most insightful. It’s not necessarily the most helpful. It’s not even the one I think about the most. But when I look at it, there’s such a certain truth in there that it resonates. And that is: “A fit body, a calm mind, a house full of love. These things cannot be bought—they must be earned.”
我会依靠我发布的另一条推文。当我回想起来时，我认为这是我最喜欢的推文。这不一定是最有见地的。这不一定是最有帮助的。这甚至不是我想得最多的一个。但是当我看到它时，它有一种确定的真理，它引起了共鸣。那就是：“一个健康的身体，一个平静的头脑，一个充满爱的房子。这些东西是买不来的，必须靠挣来的。
Even if you have all the money in the world, you can’t have those three things. Jeff Bezos still has to work out. He still has to work on his marriage. And his internal mental state still very much won’t be controlled by external events. It’s going to be based on how calm and peaceful he is inside.
即使你拥有世界上所有的钱，你也不能拥有这三样东西。杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）仍然需要锻炼。他仍然需要为他的婚姻而努力。而他内在的精神状态，仍然不会被外界事件所控制。这将基于他内心的平静与和平。
So I think those three things—your health, your mental health and your close relationships—are things you have to cultivate. They can bring you a lot more peace and happiness than any amount of money ever will.
所以我认为这三件事——你的健康、你的心理健康和你的亲密关系——是你必须培养的东西。它们可以给你带来比任何金钱都多得多的和平与幸福。
Practical advice for a calmer internal state
让内心状态更平静的实用建议
How to get there is a tweetstorm I’ve been working on. I have probably 100 tweets on it. It’s very hard to say anything on the topic without getting attacked from 50 different directions, especially these days on Twitter. So I’ve been hesitant to do it. I want to target it for a very specific kind of person.
如何到达那里是我一直在研究的推特风暴。我大概有 100 条推文。很难在不受到来自 50 个不同方向的攻击的情况下就这个话题发表任何言论，尤其是这些天在 Twitter 上。所以我一直犹豫要不要这样做。我想针对一种非常特定的人。
There’s a bunch of people who don’t believe working on your internal state is useful. They’re too focused on the external. And that’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s who the “How to Get Rich” tweetstorm is for. There’s a bunch of people who believe the only thing worth working on is complete liberation. Like, you become the Buddha. They’ll attack anything in the middle as being useless. That’s fine, too. But most people aren’t there.
有一群人不相信在你的内部状态上工作是有用的。他们过于关注外部。没关系，这没有错。这就是“如何致富”推文风暴的对象。有一群人认为唯一值得努力的就是彻底的解放。就像，你成为佛陀。他们会攻击中间的任何东西，认为它们毫无用处。这也没关系。但大多数人不在那里。
I want to create a tweetstorm that offers practical advice for everyday people who want a calmer internal state. A set of understandings, realizations, half-truths and truths, that if you were to imbibe them properly—and, again, these are pointers to ideas you already have and experiences you already have—that if you keep these top of mind, slowly but steadily it will help you with certain realizations that will lead you to a calmer internal state. That’s what I want to work on.
我想创造一个推特风暴，为那些想要更平静的内心状态的普通人提供实用的建议。一套理解、领悟、半真半假的真理，如果你要正确地吸收它们——再说一遍，这些都是你已经拥有的想法和你已经拥有的经验的指针——如果你把这些放在首位，缓慢而稳定地，它将帮助你实现某些实现，引导你进入一个更平静的内在状态。这就是我想努力的方向。
Fitness is another big one, I’m just not the expert there. There are plenty of good people on Twitter that who are better at fitness than me.
健身是另一个大问题，我只是不是那里的专家。Twitter上有很多比我更擅长健身的好人。
A lot of divorces happen over money, a lot of battles happen over internal anger
很多离婚发生在金钱上，很多争吵发生在内心的愤怒上
I think a loving household and relationships actually fall naturally out of the other things. If you have a calm mind and you’ve already made money, you should have good relationships. There’s no reason why you shouldn’t. A lot of divorces happen over money. Unfortunately, that’s just the reality of it. Having money removes that part of it.
我认为一个充满爱的家庭和人际关系实际上自然而然地脱离了其他事情。如果你有一个冷静的头脑，你已经赚了钱，你应该有良好的人际关系。你没有理由不这样做。很多离婚都是因为钱而发生的。不幸的是，这只是现实。有钱可以消除这部分。
A lot of external battles happen because your internal state is not good. When you’re naturally internally peaceful you’re going to pick fewer fights. You’re going to be more loving without expecting anything in return. That will take care of things on the external-relationship front.
很多外部战斗的发生都是因为你的内部状态不好。当你内心自然平静时，你会选择更少的争吵。你会更有爱心，不期望任何回报。这将解决外部关系方面的问题。
Nivi: To summarize: Money solves your money problems. Money buys you freedom in the material world. And money lets you not do the things you don’t want to do.
Nivi：总结一下：金钱可以解决你的金钱问题。金钱在物质世界中买到自由。金钱让你不做你不想做的事情。
Naval: Yeah. To me the ultimate purpose of money is so you don’t have to be in a specific place, at a specific time, doing anything you don’t want to do.
Naval：是的。对我来说，金钱的最终目的是让你不必在特定的地方，在特定的时间，做任何你不想做的事情。
There Are No Get Rich Quick Schemes 没有快速致富的计划
Get rich quick schemes are just someone else getting rich off you
快速致富计划只是别人从你身上致富
There are no get rich quick schemes
没有快速致富的计划
Nivi: We skipped one tweet because I wanted to cover all of the tweets on the topic of the long-term. The tweet we skipped: “There are no get rich quick schemes. That’s just someone else getting rich off you.”
Nivi：我们跳过了一条推文，因为我想涵盖所有关于长期主题的推文。我们跳过的推文是：“ 没有快速致富的计划。那只是别人从你身上发财。
Naval: This goes back to the world being an efficient place. If there’s an easy way to get rich, it’s already been exploited. There are a lot of people who will sell you ideas and schemes on how to make money. But they’re always selling you some $79.95 course or some audiobook or seminar.
Naval：这要追溯到世界是一个高效的地方。如果有一种简单的致富方法，它已经被利用了。有很多人会向你推销如何赚钱的想法和计划。但他们总是向您出售一些 79.95 美元的课程或一些有声读物或研讨会。
Which is fine. Everyone needs to eat. People need to make a living. They might actually have really good tips. If they’re giving you actionable, high-quality advice that acknowledges it’s a difficult journey and will take a lot of time, then I think it’s realistic.
这很好。每个人都需要吃饭。人们需要谋生。他们实际上可能有非常好的提示。如果他们给你可操作的、高质量的建议，承认这是一段艰难的旅程，需要很多时间，那么我认为这是现实的。
But if they’re selling you some get rich quick scheme—whether it’s crypto or whether it’s an online business or seminar—they’re just making money off you. That’s their get rich quick scheme. It’s not necessarily going to work for you.
但是，如果他们向你推销一些快速致富的计划——无论是加密货币，还是在线业务或研讨会——他们只是在从你身上赚钱。这是他们快速致富的计划。它不一定适合你。
We don’t have ads because it would ruin our credibility
我们没有广告，因为这会破坏我们的信誉
One of the things about this whole tweetstorm and podcast is that we don’t have ads. We don’t charge for anything. We don’t sell anything. Not because I don’t want to make more money—it’s always nice to make more money; we’re doing work here—but because it would completely destroy the credibility of the enterprise. If I say, “I know how to get rich, and I’m going to sell that to you,” then it ruins it.
关于整个推特风暴和播客的一件事是我们没有广告。我们不收取任何费用。我们什么都不卖。不是因为我不想赚更多的钱——赚更多的钱总是好的;我们在这里做工作，但因为这会彻底破坏企业的信誉。如果我说，“我知道如何致富，我要把它卖给你”，那么它就会毁了它。
When I was young, one of my favorite books on the topic was “How To Get Rich,” by Felix Dennis, the founder of Maxim Magazine. He had a lot of crazy stuff in there. But he had some really good insights too.
在我年轻的时候，我最喜欢的一本关于这个主题的书是《如何致富》，作者是《马克西姆杂志》的创始人费利克斯·丹尼斯（Felix Dennis）。他那里有很多疯狂的东西。但他也有一些非常好的见解。
Whenever I read something by him or by GoDaddy founder Bob Parsons or Andrew Carnegie—people who are already very wealthy, and they clearly made their wealth in other fields, not by selling the how-to-get-rich line—they have a credibility. You just trust them.
每当我读到他或GoDaddy创始人鲍勃·帕森斯（Bob Parsons）或安德鲁·卡内基（Andrew Carnegie）的文章时，他们都已经非常富有了，他们显然是在其他领域发家致富的，而不是通过推销如何致富的路线。你只要相信他们。
They’re not trying to make money off of you. They’re obviously trying to win some status and some ego—you always have to have a motivation for doing something. But at least that’s a cleaner reason and why they’re probably not lying. They’re probably not fooling you. They’re not snowing you.
他们不是想从你身上赚钱。他们显然是想赢得一些地位和一些自我——你总是要有做某事的动力。但至少这是一个更清晰的理由，以及为什么他们可能没有撒谎。他们可能没有愚弄你。他们没有给你下雪。
Every founder has to lie to every employee
每个创始人都必须对每个员工撒谎
At some level every founder has to lie to every employee of the company they have. They have to convince them, “It’s better for you to work for me than to do what I did and go work for yourself.”
在某种程度上，每个创始人都必须对他们所拥有的公司的每一位员工撒谎。他们必须说服他们，“你为我工作比做我做过的事情去为自己工作要好。
I’ve always had a hard time with that.
我一直对此感到很难过。
The only honest way to do this, in my opinion, is to tell the entrepreneurs I recruit: “You’re going to be entrepreneurial in this company, and the day you’re ready to start your own next thing, I’m going to support you. I’m never going to get in the way of you starting a company. But this can be a good place for you to learn how to build a good team and build a good culture; how to find product-market fit; how to perfect your skills; and to meet some amazing people while you figure out exactly what it is you’re going to do. Because positioning, timing and deliberation are very important when starting a company.”
在我看来，唯一诚实的方法是告诉我招募的企业家：“你将在这家公司创业，当你准备好开始自己的下一件事的那一天，我会支持你。我永远不会妨碍你创办一家公司。但这可能是你学习如何建立一个好的团队和建立一个好的文化的好地方;如何找到产品与市场的契合度;如何完善你的技能;并结识一些了不起的人，同时弄清楚你要做什么。因为在创办公司时，定位、时机和深思熟虑非常重要。
What I’ve never been able to do is to look them in the face and say, “You must be at your desk by 8 a.m.” Because I’m not going to be at my desk by 8 a.m. I want my freedom. I’ve never been able to say to them, “You’re great at being a director today, and you’ll be a VP tomorrow,” putting them into that cold career path track. Because I don’t believe in it myself.
我从来没能做的就是看着他们的脸说，“你必须在早上 8 点之前到你的办公桌前。因为我不会在早上 8 点之前出现在我的办公桌前。我想要我的自由。我从来没能对他们说，“你今天很擅长当导演，明天你就会当副总裁”，把他们带入了那条冷酷的职业道路。因为我自己不相信。
Anyone giving advice on how to get rich should have made their money elsewhere
任何提供如何致富建议的人都应该在其他地方赚钱
If anyone is giving advice on how to get rich and they’re also making money off of it, they should have made their money elsewhere. You don’t want to learn how to be fit from a fat person. You don’t want to learn how to be happy from a depressed person. So, you don’t want to learn how to be rich from a poor person. But you also don’t want to learn how to be rich from somebody who makes their money by telling people how to be rich. It’s suspect.
如果有人在提供关于如何致富的建议，并且他们也从中赚钱，那么他们应该在其他地方赚钱。你不想从一个胖子那里学习如何健身。你不想从一个抑郁的人那里学习如何快乐。所以，你不想从一个穷人那里学习如何变得富有。但你也不想从那些通过告诉人们如何致富来赚钱的人那里学习如何致富。这是可疑的。
Nivi: Any time you see somebody who’s gotten rich following some guru’s advice on getting rich, remember that in any random process, if you run it long enough and if enough people participate in it, you will always get every single possible outcome with probability one.
Nivi：每当你看到有人按照上师的建议致富致富时，请记住，在任何随机过程中，如果你运行足够长的时间，如果有足够多的人参与其中，你总是会得到每一个可能的结果，概率为1。
Naval: There’s a lot of random error in there. This is why you have to absolutely and completely ignore business journalists and economist academics when they talk about private companies.
Naval：这里面有很多随机误差。这就是为什么当商业记者和经济学家学者谈论私营公司时，你必须绝对和完全地忽略他们。
I won’t name names, but when a famous economist rails on Bitcoin, or when a business journalist attacks the latest company that’s IPO’ing, it’s complete nonsense. Those people have never built anything. They’re professional critics. They don’t know anything about making money. All they know is how to criticize and get pageviews. And you’re literally becoming dumber by reading them. You’re burning neurons.
我不会说出名字，但当一位著名经济学家抨击比特币时，或者当一位商业记者攻击最新上市的公司时，这完全是无稽之谈。这些人从未建造过任何东西。他们是专业的评论家。他们对赚钱一无所知。他们所知道的只是如何批评和获得浏览量。通过阅读它们，你真的会变得更笨。你在燃烧神经元。
I’ll leave you with a quote from Nassim Taleb that I liked. He said, “To become a philosopher king, start with being a king, not being a philosopher.”
我会给你留下我喜欢的纳西姆·塔勒布（Nassim Taleb）的一句话。他说：“要成为哲学家国王，首先要成为国王，而不是哲学家”
Nivi: I’m glad you brought up Taleb, because I was going to finish this by saying: remember the title of his first book, “Fooled By Randomness.”
尼薇：我很高兴你提到了塔勒布，因为我要说：记住他第一本书的书名，“被随机性愚弄”。
Naval: One of the reasons we’re a little vague in this podcast is because we’re trying to lay down principles that are timeless, as opposed to giving you the winning lottery ticket numbers from yesterday.
Naval：我们在这个播客中有点含糊不清的原因之一是，我们试图制定永恒的原则，而不是给你昨天的中奖彩票号码。
Productize Yourself 将自己产品化
Figure out what you’re uniquely good at, and apply as much leverage as possible
弄清楚你特别擅长什么，并尽可能多地发挥杠杆作用
Figure out what you’re uniquely good at and apply as much leverage as possible
弄清楚你特别擅长什么，并尽可能多地发挥杠杆作用
Nivi: You summarized this entire tweetstorm with two words: “Productize yourself.”
Nivi：你用两个词总结了整个推特风暴：“将自己产品化”。
Naval: Productize has specific knowledge and leverage. Yourself has uniqueness and accountability. Yourself also has specific knowledge. So you can combine all of these pieces into these two words.
Naval：Productize拥有特定的知识和影响力。你自己有独特性和责任感。你自己也有特定的知识。所以你可以把所有这些部分组合成这两个词。
If you’re looking towards the long-term, you should ask yourself, “Is this authentic to me? Is it myself that I’m projecting?” And then, “Am I productizing it? Am I scaling it? Am I scaling with labor or capital or code or media?” It’s a very handy, simple mnemonic.
如果你着眼于长远，你应该问问自己，“这对我来说是真实的吗？我在投射的是我自己吗？然后，“我是在生产它吗？我在扩展它吗？我是否在用劳动力、资本、代码或媒体来扩大规模？这是一个非常方便、简单的助记词。
What is this podcast? This is a podcast called Naval. I’m literally productizing myself with a podcast.
这是什么播客？这是一个名为 Naval 的播客。我实际上是在用播客将自己产品化。
Nivi: You want to figure out what you’re uniquely good at—or what you uniquely are— and apply as much leverage as possible. So making money isn’t even something you do. It’s not a skill. It’s who you are, stamped out a million times.
Nivi：你要弄清楚你最擅长什么，或者你有什么独特之处，并尽可能多地发挥杠杆作用。所以赚钱甚至不是你做的事情。这不是一项技能。这就是你是谁，被踩了一百万次。
Find hobbies that make you rich, fit and creative
找到让你变得富有、健康和有创造力的爱好
Naval: Making money should be a function of your identity and what you like to do. Another tweet I really liked was, “Find three hobbies: One that makes you money, one that keeps you fit, and one that makes you creative.”
Naval：赚钱应该取决于你的身份和你喜欢做的事情。我非常喜欢的另一条推文是：“找到三个爱好：一个能让你赚钱，一个能让你保持健康，一个能让你有创造力。
I would change that slightly. I would say: One that makes you money, one that makes you fit, and one that makes you smarter. So in my case, my hobbies would be reading and making money, as I love working with startups, investing in them, brainstorming them, starting them. I love the ideation and initial creation phase around startups.
我会稍微改变一下。我会说：一个能让你赚钱，一个让你健康，一个让你更聪明。所以就我而言，我的爱好是阅读和赚钱，因为我喜欢与初创公司合作，投资它们，集思广益，创办它们。我喜欢围绕初创公司的构思和初始创建阶段。
On the hobby that keeps you fit, I don’t really have one. The closest thing I have is yoga, but that’s where I sort of fell apart. I think people who, early in life, discover something like surfing or swimming or tennis or some kind of a sport they continue doing throughout most of their life are very lucky, because they found a hobby that will make them fit.
关于让你保持健康的爱好，我真的没有。我最接近的东西是瑜伽，但那是我有点崩溃的地方。我认为那些在生命早期发现冲浪、游泳、网球或某种他们一生中大部分时间都在做的运动的人是非常幸运的，因为他们找到了一种可以使他们健康的爱好。
Accountability Means Letting People Criticize You 问责制意味着让人们批评你
You have to stick your neck out and be willing to fail publicly
你必须伸出脖子，愿意公开失败
Accountability means letting people criticize you
问责制意味着让人们批评你
Nivi: We finished discussing the tweetstorm. We’re going to spend some time on Q&A and discussing tweets that didn’t make it into the “How to Get Rich” tweetstorm. My first question: What are some common failures or things people typically do wrong when they try to apply this advice?
Nivi：我们讨论完了推特风暴。我们将花一些时间进行问答和讨论那些没有进入“如何致富”推文风暴的推文。我的第一个问题：当人们试图应用这个建议时，他们通常会遇到哪些常见的失败或错误的事情？
Naval: A lot of people don’t understand what specific knowledge is or how to “obtain” it. People don’t understand what accountability entails. They think accountability means being successfully accountable. No—it means you have to stick your neck out and fail publicly. You have to be willing to let people criticize you.
Naval：很多人不明白什么是特定知识，也不了解如何“获得”它。人们不明白问责制意味着什么。他们认为问责制意味着成功地承担责任。不，这意味着你必须伸出脖子，公开失败。你必须愿意让人们批评你。
One of the reasons I’m less active on Twitter lately is because every tweet summons an army of nitpickers and haters. It gets exhausting. You have to learn to ignore them, or you won’t survive on Twitter.
我最近在Twitter上不那么活跃的原因之一是因为每条推文都会召唤一群吹毛求疵的人和仇恨者。它变得筋疲力尽。你必须学会忽略它们，否则你将无法在Twitter上生存。
A lot of people try to reconcile this by asking, “Should I quit my 9-to-5 job or not?” That can be a hard decision. You don’t need to go to that extreme. You can start applying accountability, leverage and specific knowledge within your existing career. You don’t necessarily need to fork off and do something else completely different.
很多人试图通过问“我应该辞去朝九晚五的工作吗？这可能是一个艰难的决定。你不需要走到那个极端。你可以开始在你现有的职业生涯中应用问责制、杠杆作用和特定知识。你不一定需要分叉并做其他完全不同的事情。
The most interesting parts should be the ones you disagree with
最有趣的部分应该是你不同意的部分
People will use my advice as a way to agree and disagree with their existing biases. They’ll say, “I agree with that part,” and, “That part you’re completely wrong.” The most interesting tweets should be the ones you disagree with—because clearly I’ve proven I know a few things. If you disagree with it, maybe that’s an area where you can improve your thinking. I improve my thinking all the time.
人们会使用我的建议来同意和不同意他们现有的偏见。他们会说，“我同意那部分”，然后，“那部分你完全错了。最有趣的推文应该是那些你不同意的推文——因为很明显，我已经证明我知道一些事情。如果你不同意它，也许这是一个你可以改进思维的领域。我一直在提高我的思维。
In this tweetstorm I put down the minimum-viable principles. I shared only a small slice of what I’ve learned about how to make money; because 90% of it is suspect.
在这场推特风暴中，我写下了最小可行原则。我只分享了我所学到的关于如何赚钱的一小部分;因为其中 90% 是可疑的。
I put down the bedrock, the stuff I’m sure about. I have not yet seen a tweet successfully contradicting anything in this tweetstorm that would cause me to say, “I got that one wrong.”
我放下了基石，我确定的东西。我还没有看到一条推文成功地反驳了这场推文风暴中的任何内容，这会导致我说，“我弄错了。
Get the free leverage that’s available in tech
获得科技领域提供的免费杠杆
Some people will say, “This only applies to tech entrepreneurs.” I disagree. The real estate example was a good one in that regard.
有些人会说，“这只适用于科技企业家。我不同意。在这方面，房地产的例子就是一个很好的例子。
Technology drives leverage—so I’m going to push you in a tech direction to get that free leverage. Obviously, this message is being delivered through the Internet, so it’s going to have a pro-Internet bias.
技术推动了杠杆作用，所以我将推动你朝着技术方向发展，以获得这种自由的杠杆作用。显然，这个信息是通过互联网传递的，所以它会有一个亲互联网的偏见。
Don’t refuse to do things just because others can’t do them
不要因为别人做不到而拒绝做事
Some people believe it’s unfair to do anything with the opportunities they have because others don’t have the same opportunities. With a defeatist attitude like that, why even get out of bed in the morning? Ninety percent of people are dead.
有些人认为用他们拥有的机会做任何事情都是不公平的，因为其他人没有同样的机会。有了这样的失败主义态度，为什么早上还要起床呢？百分之九十的人都死了。
Many people live on a dollar or less a day. Do you? No. You play the hand you’re dealt to the best of your ability. Then you can take the winnings—the pot from that hand—and do whatever you want with it to fix the world.
许多人每天靠一美元或更少的生活。是吗？不。你尽你所能打出你得到的牌。然后你可以拿走奖金——那只手的底池——用它做任何你想做的事来修复世界。
But if you refuse to do things just because others can’t do them, you are living in denial. It’s an excuse to do nothing.
但是，如果你仅仅因为别人做不到而拒绝做事，你就生活在否认中。这是无所事事的借口。
Realize your philanthropic vision by running a business
通过经营企业实现您的慈善愿景
Others believe wealth creation is fundamentally at odds with an environmentally healthy planet. They view it as a giant zero-sum game. That’s a false narrative, too. Elon Musk is not playing a zero-sum game with the environment; there are plenty of entrepreneurs like him.
另一些人则认为，财富创造从根本上与环境健康的地球相悖。他们认为这是一场巨大的零和游戏。这也是一个错误的叙述。埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）不是在与环境玩零和游戏;像他这样的企业家很多。
There is a word environmentalists love: sustainability. If nothing else, for-profit businesses are financially sustainable. You can do a B Corporation, which has a dual mission.
环保主义者喜欢一个词：可持续性。如果不出意外，营利性企业在财务上是可持续的。你可以做一个B型公司，它有双重使命。
Many non-profit efforts would be better off as for-profit companies. They wouldn’t have to beg for grants. They would be financially sustainable. Some great founders realize their philanthropic visions by running a business.
许多非营利性公司作为营利性公司会更好。他们不必乞求赠款。它们在财务上是可持续的。一些伟大的创始人通过经营企业来实现他们的慈善愿景。
We Should Eventually Be Working for Ourselves 我们最终应该为自己工作
But we will have to make sacrifices and take on more risk
但我们将不得不做出牺牲并承担更多的风险
This advice is for anybody who wants to be entrepreneurial
这个建议是给任何想创业的人的
Nivi: Who is this advice targeted to? Is it for my Lyft driver? Is it for an Internet entrepreneur? Is it for somebody who wants to start a YouTube channel?
Nivi：这个建议是针对谁的？是给我的 Lyft 司机的吗？是给互联网创业者看的吗？是为想要开设 YouTube 频道的人准备的吗？
Naval: Because it comes from someone who’s steeped in Silicon Valley and tech companies, it’s always going to have a bias towards that.
Naval：因为它来自一个沉浸在硅谷和科技公司的人，所以它总是会偏向于此。
But I think it’s good for anybody who wants to be entrepreneurial. Anybody who wants to control their own life. Anybody who wants to deterministically and reliably improve their ability to create wealth over time, is patient, and is looking at the long haul.
但我认为这对任何想创业的人都有好处。任何想要控制自己生活的人。任何想要确定性地、可靠地提高他们随着时间的推移创造财富的能力的人，都是有耐心的，并且着眼于长远。
If you’re 80 years old, retired and running out of energy, it’s probably best to stay retired. But there are 80-year-olds who have a lot of energy, who want to do new things and live for the future.
如果你已经80岁了，退休了，精力耗尽了，那么最好保持退休状态。但也有80岁的老人，他们精力充沛，想做新的事情，为未来而活。
Obviously this can apply very easily to a young person. I would say 9 or 10 years old and up.
显然，这很容易适用于年轻人。我会说 9 岁或 10 岁及以上。
Midlife can be the most fruitful time to apply this advice
中年可能是应用此建议最富有成效的时期
The most difficult one is probably midlife. When we’re in our 30s, 40s and 50s, we already have a lot invested. We have a lot of obligations. Those are the years we’re earning; people are relying on us. We don’t want to change, because we don’t want to admit defeat.
最困难的可能是中年。当我们在 30 多岁、40 多岁和 50 多岁时，我们已经投入了很多。我们有很多义务。这些年是我们赚到的;人们依赖我们。我们不想改变，因为我们不想承认失败。
But that’s when it actually can be the most fruitful. It may be the most difficult pivot: You have a 9-to-5 job; you have a family relying on you.
但那是它实际上最富有成效的时候。这可能是最困难的支点：你有一份朝九晚五的工作;你有一个依靠你的家庭。
It may seem like the things in this podcast are far too idealistic, but maybe it can inform your weekend projects. Maybe it can inform your approach to education; for example, if you’re taking an online course at night. Maybe it can inform what roles you take on at your current company, because they move you closer and closer to points of leverage, points of judgment or points where you’re naturally talented, and you’re able to be more authentic. It might cause you to take on more accountability.
这个播客中的内容似乎过于理想化，但也许它可以为您的周末项目提供信息。也许它可以为您的教育方法提供信息;例如，如果您在晚上参加在线课程。也许它可以告诉你在现在的公司担任什么角色，因为它们让你越来越接近杠杆点、判断点或你天生有天赋的点，你能够更真实。它可能会使你承担更多的责任。
Even if applied piecemeal, these principles can guide you—regardless of what stage of life you are in, short of retirement. If you’re retired, test them to see if they’re true and then teach them to your kids or grandkids.
即使零敲碎打地应用，这些原则也可以指导你——无论你处于人生的哪个阶段，除了退休。如果您已经退休，请测试它们以查看它们是否属实，然后将它们教给您的孩子或孙子孙女。
There are many different ways to participate. It should apply to almost everybody who has a complete body, sound mind, and is looking to work.
有许多不同的参与方式。它应该适用于几乎所有拥有完整身体、健全头脑并希望工作的人。
Look up the value chain to find leverage
查找价值链以找到杠杆
Nivi: One way to apply this advice is to look at who is getting leverage off of the work that you’re doing. Look up the value chain—at who’s above you and who’s above them—and see how they are taking advantage of the time and work you’re doing and how they’re applying leverage.
Nivi：应用这个建议的一个方法是看看谁从你正在做的工作中获得了影响力。查看价值链——谁在你之上，谁在他们之上——看看他们如何利用你正在做的时间和工作，以及他们如何应用杠杆。
People naturally do this because they want to move up the corporate ladder; but that’s mostly about managing other people. You want to manage more capital, products, media and community.
人们自然而然地这样做，因为他们想在公司阶梯上更上一层楼;但这主要是关于管理其他人。您想管理更多的资本、产品、媒体和社区。
People think about moving up the ladder in their organization. But they don’t often think about moving to a different organization or creating their own company to get more leverage.
人们考虑在组织中向上移动。但他们通常不会考虑搬到不同的组织或创建自己的公司以获得更大的影响力。
You will do better in a small organization
在小型组织中，你会做得更好
Naval: In general, ceteris paribus—fancy Latin words for “all other things equal”—you will do better in a smaller organization than a larger one.
Naval：一般来说，ceteris paribus——花哨的拉丁语，意为“所有其他条件都相同”——在较小的组织中，你会比在较大的组织中做得更好。
You will have more accountability, and your work will be more visible. You’re more likely to be able to try different things, which can help you discover the thing you are uniquely good at. People will be more likely to give you leverage through battlefield promotions. You’ll have more flexibility. There will be more authenticity in how the company operates.
你将有更多的责任感，你的工作将更加引人注目。你更有可能尝试不同的事情，这可以帮助你发现你特别擅长的事情。人们更有可能通过战场促销为您提供影响力。您将拥有更大的灵活性。公司的运营方式将更加真实。
Here is a good progression for a career: Start in a large company and progressively move to smaller and smaller ones. It’s very hard to go from a small company to a larger company. Larger companies tend to be more about politics than merit; they’re more stable but less innovative.
这是职业生涯的良好发展：从一家大公司开始，然后逐渐转移到越来越小的公司。从一家小公司到一家大公司是非常困难的。大公司往往更注重政治而不是功绩;它们更稳定，但创新性较差。
The goal is that we are all working for ourselves
目标是我们都在为自己工作
The long-term goal is that we are all wealthy and working for ourselves. The people working for us are essentially robots. Today that’s software robots executing code in data centers. Tomorrow it could be delivery bots, flying bots and mechanical bots—and drones—that are carrying things around.
长期目标是我们都富有并为自己工作。为我们工作的人本质上是机器人。今天，这是在数据中心执行代码的软件机器人。明天，送货机器人、飞行机器人和机械机器人以及无人机可能会四处搬运东西。
This goes back to the idea that the best relationships are peer relationships. If there’s someone above you, that’s someone to learn from. If you’re not learning from them and improving, nobody should be above you.
这又回到了最好的关系是同伴关系的想法。如果有人在你之上，那就是一个值得学习的人。如果你不向他们学习和改进，没有人应该凌驾于你之上。
If there’s somebody below you, it’s because you’re teaching them and enabling them. If you’re not doing that, then get a robot; you don’t need a human below you.
如果有人在你下面，那是因为你在教导他们并帮助他们。如果你不这样做，那就找一个机器人;你不需要你下面的人。
This is utopian and still a long way off, but in the not-too-distant future anybody who wants to work for themself will be able to do it.
这是乌托邦式的，还有很长的路要走，但在不久的将来，任何想为自己工作的人都能做到。
You may have to make sacrifices and take on more risk. You may have to take on more accountability and live with less steady income. But more and more I think younger people are realizing that if they’re going to work, they’re going to work for themselves.
你可能不得不做出牺牲并承担更多的风险。你可能不得不承担更多的责任，并以不太稳定的收入生活。但我认为越来越多的年轻人意识到，如果他们要工作，他们就会为自己工作。
Being Ethical Is Long-Term Greedy 道德是长期的贪婪
If you cut fair deals, you will get paid in the long run
如果你削减了公平的交易，从长远来看，你会得到报酬
Ethics isn’t something you study; it’s something you do
道德不是你学习的东西;这是你要做的事情
Nivi: In the “How to Get Rich” tweetstorm you listed things you suggest people study, like programming, sales, reading, writing and arithmetic. One of the items that ended up on the cutting-room floor was ethics, which you also suggest people study.
Nivi：在“如何致富”的推文风暴中，你列出了你建议人们学习的东西，比如编程、销售、阅读、写作和算术。最终出现在剪辑室地板上的项目之一是道德，你也建议人们学习它。
Naval: I was going to put that out as a concession to people who believe making money is evil and that the only way to make it is to be evil. But then I realized ethics is not necessarily something you study. It’s something you think about—and something you do.
Naval：我本来打算把这句话作为对那些认为赚钱是邪恶的人的让步，而赚钱的唯一方法就是做恶。但后来我意识到，伦理学不一定是你学习的东西。这是你思考的事情，也是你做的事情。
Everyone has a personal moral code. Where we get our moral code differs for everybody. It’s not like I can point you to a textbook. I can point you to some Roman or Greek text, but that’s not suddenly going to make you ethical.
每个人都有个人的道德准则。我们从哪里得到我们的道德准则对每个人来说都是不同的。我不能给你指一本教科书。我可以给你指出一些罗马或希腊文本，但这不会突然让你变得有道德。
There’s the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Or there’s Nassim Taleb’s Silver Rule, which is, “Don’t do unto others what you don’t want them doing unto you. ”
有一条黄金法则：“己所不欲，勿施于人。或者有纳西姆·塔勒布（Nassim Taleb）的银法则，即“己所不欲，勿施于人。
Trust leads to compounding relationships
信任导致复杂的关系
Once you’ve been in business long enough, you will realize how much of it is about trust. It’s about trust because you want to compound interest. You want to work with trustworthy people for long periods of time without having to reevaluate every discussion or constantly look over your shoulder.
一旦你做生意的时间足够长，你就会意识到其中有多少是关于信任的。这是关于信任的，因为你想复利。您希望与值得信赖的人长期合作，而不必重新评估每一次讨论或不断回头看。
Over time you will gravitate to working with certain kinds of people. Similarly, those people will gravitate to working with other ethical people.
随着时间的流逝，您将倾向于与某些类型的人一起工作。同样，这些人也会倾向于与其他有道德的人一起工作。
Being ethical attracts other long-term players
道德会吸引其他长期参与者
Acting ethically turns out to be a selfish imperative. You want to be ethical because it attracts other long-term players in the network. They want to do business with ethical people.
事实证明，合乎道德的行为是一种自私的命令。你要有道德，因为它会吸引网络中的其他长期参与者。他们想与有道德的人做生意。
If you build a reputation for being ethical, people eventually will pay you just to do deals through you. Your involvement will validate deals and ensure they get done; because you wouldn’t be involved with low-quality stuff.
如果你建立了道德的声誉，人们最终会付钱给你，只是为了通过你做交易。您的参与将验证交易并确保交易完成;因为你不会参与低质量的东西。
In the long-run, being ethical pays off—but it’s the very long run. In the short-run, being unethical pays off, which is why so many people go for it. It’s short-term greedy.
从长远来看，道德是有回报的，但从长远来看。从短期来看，不道德是有回报的，这就是为什么这么多人去做这件事。这是短期的贪婪。
Being ethical is long-term greedy
有道德是长期的贪婪
You can be ethical simply because you’re long-term greedy. I can even outline a framework for different parts of ethics just based on the idea of long-term selfishness.
你可以仅仅因为你长期贪婪而有道德。我甚至可以根据长期自私的想法为道德的不同部分勾勒出一个框架。
For example, you want to be honest because it leaves you with a clear mind. You don’t want two threads running in your head, one with the lies you tell —and now have to keep track of—and the other with the truth. If you are honest, you only have to think about one thing at a time, which frees up mental energy and makes you a clearer thinker.
例如，你要诚实，因为它会让你头脑清醒。你不希望两条线索在你的脑海中运行，一条是你说的谎言——现在必须跟踪——另一条是真相。如果你是诚实的，你一次只需要思考一件事，这样可以释放精神能量，让你成为一个更清晰的思考者。
Also, by being honest you’re rejecting people who only want to hear pretty lies. You force those people out of your network. Sometimes it’s painful, especially with friends and family. But over the long-term you create room for the people who like you exactly the way that you are. That is a selfish reason to be honest.
此外，通过诚实，你拒绝了那些只想听漂亮谎言的人。你迫使这些人离开你的网络。有时这很痛苦，尤其是与朋友和家人在一起。但从长远来看，你会为那些喜欢你的人创造空间。说实话，这是一个自私的理由。
If you cut fair deals, you will get paid in the long run
如果你削减了公平的交易，从长远来看，你会得到报酬
Negotiations offer another good example. If you’re the kind of person who always tries to get the best deal for yourself, you will win a lot of early deals and it will feel very good.
谈判是另一个很好的例子。如果你是那种总是试图为自己争取最优惠的人，你会赢得很多早期交易，而且感觉会很好。
On the other hand, a few people will recognize that you’re always scrabbling and not acting fairly, and they will tend to avoid you. Over time those are the people who end up being the dealmakers in the network. People go to them for a fair shake or to figure out what’s fair.
另一方面，一些人会认识到你总是在拼命，行为不公平，他们会倾向于避开你。随着时间的流逝，这些人最终会成为网络中的交易撮合者。人们去找他们是为了公平地摇晃或弄清楚什么是公平的。
If you cut people fair deals, you won’t get paid in the short-term. But over the long-term, everybody will want to deal with you. You end up being a market hub. You have more information. You have trust. You have a reputation. And people end up doing deals through you in the long-run.
如果你削减了人们的公平交易，你不会在短期内得到报酬。但从长远来看，每个人都会想和你打交道。你最终会成为一个市场中心。您有更多信息。你有信任。你有名声。从长远来看，人们最终会通过你做交易。
A lot of wisdom involves realizing long-term consequences of your actions. The longer your time horizon, the wiser you’re going to seem to everybody around you.
很多智慧都涉及意识到你的行为的长期后果。你的时间跨度越长，你周围的每个人看起来就越聪明。
Envy Can Be Useful, or It Can Eat You Alive 嫉妒可能是有用的，也可能是活生生的
Envy can give you a powerful boost, or it can eat you alive
嫉妒可以给你强大的动力，也可以把你活活吃掉
Suffering through the wrong thing can motivate you to find the right thing
在错误的事情上受苦可以激励你找到正确的事情
Nivi: Do you want to tell us about jobs you had growing up and the one that kicked off your fanatical obsession with creating wealth?
Nivi：你想告诉我们你成长过程中的工作，以及让你开始狂热地痴迷于创造财富的工作吗？
Naval: This gets a little personal, and I don’t want to humble-brag. There was a thread going around Twitter—Name Five Jobs You’ve Held—and every rich person on there was signaling how they’ve held normal jobs. I don’t want to play that game.
Naval：这有点个人化，我不想谦虚地吹嘘。Twitter上流传着一个帖子——说出你做过的五份工作——上面的每一个富人都在暗示他们是如何从事正常工作的。我不想玩那个游戏。
I’ve had menial jobs. There are people who had it worse than me and people who had it better than me.
我做过卑微的工作。有些人比我更糟糕，有些人比我更好。
At one point in college I was washing dishes in the school cafeteria and said, “F this. I hate this. I can’t do this anymore.” I sweet-talked may way into a teaching assistant job for a computer science professor, even though I was completely unqualified. The job forced me to learn computer algorithms, so I could TA the rest of the course.
在大学里，有一次我在学校食堂洗碗，说：“F，这个。我讨厌这个。我不能再这样做了。我甜言蜜语地进入了计算机科学教授的助教工作，尽管我完全不合格。这份工作迫使我学习计算机算法，这样我就可以在课程的其余部分担任助教。
So my desire to learn computer algorithms came out of the suffering I experienced washing dishes—not that there’s anything wrong with washing dishes; it just wasn’t for me.
因此，我学习计算机算法的愿望来自我所经历的洗碗的痛苦——并不是说洗碗有什么问题;它只是不适合我。
I had an active mind. I wanted to make money and earn a living through mental activities, not through physical activities. Sometimes it takes suffering through the wrong thing to motivate you to find the right thing.
我有一个活跃的头脑。我想通过脑力活动而不是通过体育活动来赚钱和谋生。有时，需要经历错误的事情才能激励你找到正确的事情。
Being a lawyer was not what I was meant to do
成为一名律师不是我应该做的
Back in the day I had a prestigious internship at a big New York City law firm. I basically got fired for surfing Usenet.
过去，我在纽约市的一家大型律师事务所实习。我基本上是因为浏览Usenet而被解雇的。
This was before the Internet was a big thing. Usenet hosted newsgroups, and it was the only the only thing keeping me from being completely bored. I was an overpaid intern wearing a suit and tie. I got to hang out in the conference room and make photocopies when lawyers needed them.
这是在互联网成为一件大事之前。Usenet托管了新闻组，这是唯一让我不至于完全无聊的东西。我是一个穿着西装打领带的高薪实习生。我不得不在会议室里闲逛，并在律师需要时复印。
I was bored out of my skull. This was pre-iPhone (thank God for Steve Jobs for saving us all from unending boredom). I used to read The Wall Street Journal or anything I could get my hands on. I would’ve read the back of a brochure to keep from going insane, because listening to a bunch of corporate lawyers discuss how to optimize details of a contract is really dull.
我从头骨里钻出来了。这是iPhone之前（感谢上帝，史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）将我们所有人从无休止的无聊中拯救出来）。我曾经读过《华尔街日报》或任何我能接触到的东西。为了不发疯，我会阅读小册子的背面，因为听一群公司律师讨论如何优化合同的细节真的很无聊。
They wanted me to sit there quietly and not read the paper. They got mad and said, “That’s rude. That’s misbehavior.”
他们希望我安静地坐在那里，不要看报纸。他们生气了，说：“这太粗鲁了。这是不当行为。
I got called up and reprimanded a bunch of times. I was finally terminated—sent home in shame from my prestigious internship, destroying my chance to go to law school.
我被叫了好几次，被训斥了很多次。我最终被解雇了——从我享有盛誉的实习中羞愧地被送回家，毁了我上法学院的机会。
I was unhappy… for all of an hour. Ultimately, it’s one of the best things that ever happened to me. Otherwise, I would have ended up a lawyer. Not that I have anything against lawyers; it’s just not what I was meant to do.
我很不开心……整整一个小时。归根结底，这是发生在我身上的最好的事情之一。否则，我最终会成为一名律师。并不是说我反对律师;这不是我应该做的。
Envy can be useful or it can eat you alive
嫉妒可能是有用的，也可能是活生生的吃掉你
Nivi: You mentioned a catering job that kicked off your obsession with wealth.
Nivi：你提到了一份餐饮工作，这份工作开启了你对财富的痴迷。
Naval: That was an envy thing. When I was in high school, I needed a job to pay for my first semester of college.
Naval：那真是一件令人羡慕的事情。当我上高中时，我需要一份工作来支付我大学第一学期的费用。
It was the summer of 1990 or 1991. This was the Bush Senior recession—if anyone listening was alive back then to remember it—so it was actually really hard to get a job.
那是 1990 年或 1991 年的夏天。这是老布什时期的经济衰退——如果当时有人还活着的话，还记得它——所以实际上很难找到工作。
I ended up working for a catering company serving Indian food. One day, I had to serve at a birthday party for a kid in my school. So I was out there serving food and drinks to all of my classmates. That was incredibly embarrassing. I wanted to hide away and die right there.
我最终在一家提供印度菜的餐饮公司工作。有一天，我不得不在学校的一个孩子的生日派对上服务。所以我在那里为我所有的同学提供食物和饮料。这真是令人难以置信的尴尬。我想躲起来，死在那里。
But you know what? It’s all part of the plan. It’s all part of the motivation. If that didn’t happen, I probably wouldn’t be as motivated or as successful. It’s all fine. It was definitely a strong motivator.
但你知道吗？这都是计划的一部分。这都是动机的一部分。如果那没有发生，我可能不会那么有动力或那么成功。一切都很好。这绝对是一个强大的动力。
In that sense, envy can be useful. Envy also can eat you alive if you let it follow you around your entire life. But there are points in your life when it can be a powerful booster rocket.
从这个意义上说，嫉妒是有用的。嫉妒也可以活生生地吃掉你，如果你让它伴随你的一生。但是，在你的生活中，有些时候它可以成为强大的助推火箭。
Principal-Agent Problem: Act Like an Owner 委托代理问题：像所有者一样行事
If you think and act like an owner, it’s only a matter of time until you become an owner
如果你像一个所有者一样思考和行动，那么你成为所有者只是时间问题
A principal is an owner; an agent is an employee
委托人是所有者;代理人是雇员
Nivi: We spoke earlier about picking a business model that has leverage from scale economies, network effects and zero marginal cost of replication. There were a few other ideas on the cutting-room floor that I want to go through with you. The first one is the principal-agent problem.
Nivi：我们之前谈到过选择一种能够利用规模经济、网络效应和零边际复制成本的商业模式。在裁剪室的地板上，还有一些其他的想法，我想和你一起讨论。第一个是委托代理问题。
Naval: So mental models are all the rage. Everyone’s trying to become smarter by adopting mental models. I think mental models are interesting, but I don’t think explicitly in terms of mental-model checklists. I know Charlie Munger does, but that’s just not how I think.
Naval：所以心智模型风靡一时。每个人都试图通过采用心智模型来变得更聪明。我认为心智模型很有趣，但我并没有明确地从心智模型清单的角度思考。我知道查理·芒格（Charlie Munger）是这样想的，但这不是我的想法。
Instead, I tend to focus on the few lessons I’ve learned over and over in life that I think are incredibly important and seem to apply almost universally. One that keeps coming up from microeconomics—because as we’ve established, macroeconomics is not really worth spending time on—is what’s called the principal-agent problem.
相反，我倾向于关注我在生活中一遍又一遍地学到的几节课，我认为这些课非常重要，而且似乎几乎普遍适用。微观经济学不断出现的一个问题——因为正如我们已经确定的那样，宏观经济学并不值得花时间研究——这就是所谓的委托代理问题。
In this case it’s a principal, who is a person; rather than a principle that you would follow. A principal is an owner. An agent works for the owner, so you can think of an agent as an employee. The difference between a founder and an employee is the difference between a principal and an agent.
在这种情况下，它是委托人，他是一个人;而不是你会遵循的原则。委托人是所有者。代理为所有者工作，因此您可以将代理视为员工。创始人和雇员的区别就是委托人和代理人的区别。
A principal’s incentives are different than an agent’s incentives
委托人的激励与代理人的激励不同
I can summarize the principal-agent problem with a famous quote attributed to Napoleon or Julius Caesar:
我可以用拿破仑或凯撒大帝的一句名言来总结委托代理问题：
“If you want it done, Go. If not, Send.”
“如果你想完成它，那就去吧。如果没有，请发送。
Which is to say: If you want to do something right, do it yourself; because other people just don’t care enough.
也就是说：如果你想做正确的事情，就自己去做;因为其他人只是不够关心。
Now, the principal-agent problem pops up everywhere. In microeconomics, they try to characterize it this way: The principal’s incentives are different than the agent’s incentives, so the owner of the business wants what is best for the business and will make the most money. The agent generally wants whatever will look good to the principal, or might make them the most friends in the neighborhood or in the business, or might make them personally the most money.
现在，委托代理问题无处不在。在微观经济学中，他们试图这样描述：委托人的激励与代理人的激励不同，因此企业所有者想要对企业最有利并且能赚到最多的钱。代理人通常想要任何对委托人来说好看的东西，或者可能使他们成为社区或企业中最多的朋友，或者可能使他们个人获得最多的钱。
You see this a lot with hired-gun CEOs running public companies, where the ownership of the public company is distributed so widely that there’s no principal remaining. Nobody owns more than 1% of the company. The CEO takes charge, stuffs the board with their buddies and then starts issuing themself low-price stock options, or doing a lot of stock buybacks because their compensation is based directly tied to the stock price.
在经营上市公司的雇佣枪CEO身上，你经常看到这种情况，上市公司的所有权分布如此广泛，以至于没有剩余的本金。没有人拥有公司超过1%的股份。CEO负责，把他们的伙伴塞进董事会，然后开始给自己发行低价股票期权，或者进行大量的股票回购，因为他们的薪酬与股价直接挂钩。
If you can work on incentives, don’t work on anything else
如果你能在激励上下功夫，就不要在别的事情上下功夫
Agents have a way of hacking systems. This is what make incentive design so difficult. As Charlie Munger says, if you could be working on incentives, don’t work on anything else.
特工有一种黑客系统的方法。这就是激励设计如此困难的原因。正如查理·芒格（Charlie Munger）所说，如果你可以研究激励措施，就不要做其他任何事情。
Almost all human behavior can be explained by incentives. The study of signaling is seeing what people do despite what they say. People are much more honest with their actions than they are with their words. You have to get the incentives right to get people to behave correctly. It’s a very difficult problem because people aren’t coin-operated. The good ones are not just looking for money—they’re also looking for things like status and meaning in what they do.
几乎所有的人类行为都可以用激励来解释。对信号的研究是观察人们不管他们说了什么，但还是做了什么。人们对自己的行为比对自己的言语更诚实。你必须获得正确的激励措施，让人们行为正确。这是一个非常困难的问题，因为人们不是投币式的。好人不只是在寻找金钱，他们还在寻找地位和意义之类的东西。
As a business owner you are always going to be dealing with the principal-agent problem. You’re always going to be trying to figure out: How do I make this person think like me? How do I incent them? How do I give them founder mentality?
作为企业主，您总是要处理委托代理问题。你总是会试图弄清楚：我如何让这个人像我一样思考？我该如何激励他们？我如何给他们创始人心态？
Only founders can fully appreciate the importance of a founder mentality and just how difficult and gnarly principal-agent problem is.
只有创始人才能充分体会到创始人心态的重要性，以及委托代理问题是多么困难和棘手。
When you do deals, it’s better to have the same incentives
当你做交易时，最好有同样的激励措施
If you are a principal, you want to spend a lot of your time thinking about this problem. You want to be generous with your top lieutenants—in terms of ownership and incentives—even if they don’t necessarily realize it; because over time they will and you want them to be aligned with you.
如果你是校长，你想花很多时间思考这个问题。你想对你的高级副手慷慨大方——在所有权和激励方面——即使他们不一定意识到这一点;因为随着时间的流逝，他们会的，而你希望他们与你保持一致。
When you do business deals, it’s better to have an aligned partnership where you both have the same incentives than a partnership where you have the advantage in the deal. Because eventually the other person will figure it and the partnership will fall apart. Either way, it’s not going to be one of those things that you can invest in and enjoy the benefits of compound interest over decades.
当您进行商业交易时，最好是拥有一致的合作伙伴关系，因为你们都有相同的激励措施，而不是在交易中具有优势的合作伙伴关系。因为最终对方会弄清楚，伙伴关系会分崩离析。无论哪种方式，它都不会成为您可以投资并享受复利数十年好处的事情之一。
If you’re an employee, your most important job is to think like a principal
如果你是一名员工，你最重要的工作就是像校长一样思考
Finally, if you’re in a role where you’re an agent—you’re an employee—then your most important job is to think like a principal. The more you can think like a principal, the better off you’re going to be long-term. Train yourself how to think like a principal, and eventually you will become a principal. If you align yourself with a good principal, they will promote you or empower you or give you accountability or leverage that may be way out of proportion to your relatively menial role.
最后，如果你的角色是代理人——你是一名员工——那么你最重要的工作就是像校长一样思考。你越能像校长一样思考，你就越能长期发展。训练自己如何像校长一样思考，最终你会成为一名校长。如果你与一个好的校长保持一致，他们会提拔你或赋予你权力，或者给你责任或影响力，这可能与你相对卑微的角色不成比例。
I’m always impressed by founders who promote young people through the ranks and allow them to skip multiple levels despite their lack of experience. Invariably it happens because this agent—who’s way deep down in the organization—thinks like a principal.
我总是对那些通过晋升晋升的年轻人并允许他们跳过多个级别的创始人印象深刻，尽管他们缺乏经验。它总是因为这个代理人——他在组织深处——像校长一样思考。
If you can hack your way through the principal-agent problem, you’ll probably solve half of what it takes to run a company.
如果你能破解委托代理问题，你可能会解决经营一家公司所需的一半。
Nivi: The reason I asked about this one first is because I feel like I never see the principal-agent problem in my work. I tend to work in small teams where everybody is highly economically aligned, and the people have been filtered for a commitment to the mission, and everybody else who doesn’t work out moves on to another role elsewhere.
Nivi：我之所以先问这个问题，是因为我觉得我在工作中从未看到过委托代理问题。我倾向于在小团队中工作，每个人都在经济上高度一致，人们已经因为对使命的承诺而被过滤，而其他所有不工作的人都会转移到其他地方担任另一个角色。
Naval: These are all heuristics that you have designed to avoid having to deal with the single biggest problem in management.
Naval：这些都是你设计的启发式方法，以避免处理管理中最大的问题。
Deal with small firms to avoid the principal-agent problem
与小公司打交道，避免委托代理问题
Another example of a heuristic that helps you route around the principal-agent problem is to deal with the smallest firms possible. For example, when I hire a lawyer or a banker or even an accountant to work on my deals, I’ve become very cognizant about the size of the firm. Bigger firms—all other things being equal—are generally worse than small ones.
另一个启发式方法的例子是帮助你绕过委托代理问题，与尽可能小的公司打交道。例如，当我聘请律师或银行家甚至会计师来处理我的交易时，我已经非常了解公司的规模。在所有其他条件相同的情况下，大公司通常比小公司更糟糕。
Yes, the big firm has more experience. Yes, they have more people. Yes, they have a bigger brand. But you’ll find the principal and the agent are highly separated. Very often the principal will sell you and convince you to work with the firm, but then all the work will be done by an agent who simply doesn’t care as much. You end up getting substandard service.
是的，大公司有更多的经验。是的，他们有更多的人。是的，他们有一个更大的品牌。但你会发现委托人和代理人是高度分开的。很多时候，校长会把你卖掉，并说服你与公司合作，但随后所有的工作都将由一个根本不关心的代理人完成。你最终会得到不合标准的服务。
I prefer to work with boutiques. My ideal law firm is a law firm of one. My ideal banker is a solo banker. Now, you’re making other sacrifices and trade-offs in terms of that person’s resources—and you are betting big on that person. But you’ve got one throat to choke. There’s no one else to point fingers at; there’s nowhere to run. The accountability is extremely high.
我更喜欢与精品店合作。我理想的律师事务所是一家律师事务所。我理想的银行家是个人银行家。现在，你正在就那个人的资源做出其他牺牲和权衡——你正在对那个人下大赌注。但你有一个喉咙要窒息。没有其他人可以指责;无处可逃。问责制非常高。
If you are an agent, the best way to operate is to ask, “What would the founder do?” If you think like the owner and you act like the owner, it’s only a matter of time until you become the owner.
如果你是一个经纪人，最好的运作方式是问，“创始人会怎么做？如果你像主人一样思考，像主人一样行事，那么你成为主人只是时间问题。
Kelly Criterion: Avoid Ruin 凯利标准：避免毁灭
Don’t ruin your reputation or get wiped to zero
不要毁了你的声誉或被抹去为零
Don’t bet everything on one big gamble
不要把所有东西都押在一场大赌注上
Nivi: Let’s chat about the Kelly criterion.
Nivi：让我们聊聊凯利准则。
Naval: The Kelly criterion is a popularized mathematical formulation of a simple concept. The simple concept is: Don’t risk everything. Stay out of jail. Don’t bet everything on one big gamble. Be careful how much you bet each time, so you don’t lose the whole kitty.
Naval：凯利准则是一个简单概念的流行数学公式。简单的概念是：不要冒一切风险。远离监狱。不要把所有东西都押在一场大赌注上。注意你每次下注多少，这样你就不会输掉整只小猫。
If you’re a gambler, the Kelly criterion mathematically formulates how much you should wager per hand, even if you have an edge—because even when you have an edge, you can still lose. Let’s say you have 51-to-49 edge. Every gambler knows not to bet the whole kitty on that 51-to-49 edge—because you could lose everything and won’t get to come back to the average.
如果你是一个赌徒，凯利准则在数学上规定了你应该每手牌下注多少，即使你有优势——因为即使你有优势，你仍然可能输。假设您有 51 到 49 的边缘。每个赌徒都知道不要把整只小猫都押在51比49的优势上——因为你可能会输掉一切，而且无法回到平均水平。
Nassim Taleb famously talks about ergodicity, which is a fancy word for a simple concept: What is true for 100 people on average isn’t the same as one person averaging that same thing 100 times.
纳西姆·塔勒布（Nassim Taleb）谈到了著名的遍历性，这是一个简单概念的花哨词：平均100个人的真实情况与一个人平均100次相同。
Ruining your reputation is the same as getting wiped to zero
毁掉你的声誉就等于被抹去零
The easiest way to see that is with Russian roulette. Say six people play Russian roulette one time each, and each winner gets $1 billion. One person ends up dead and five people get $1 billion. Compare that to one person playing Russian roulette six times with the same gun. They are never going to end up a billionaire—they will be dead and worth zero. So risk-taking—especially when the averages that are calculated across large populations—is not always rational.
最简单的方法是使用俄罗斯轮盘赌。假设六个人每人玩一次俄罗斯轮盘赌，每个赢家获得 10 亿美元。一个人最终死亡，五个人获得10亿美元。相比之下，一个人用同一把枪玩六次俄罗斯轮盘赌。他们永远不会成为亿万富翁——他们将死去，身价为零。因此，冒险行为——尤其是当在大量人群中计算的平均值时——并不总是理性的。
The Kelly criterion helps you avoid ruin. The number one way people get ruined in modern business is not by betting too much; it’s by cutting corners and doing unethical or downright illegal things. Ending up in an orange jumpsuit in prison or having a reputation ruined is the same as getting wiped to zero—so never do those things.
凯利标准可帮助您避免毁灭。在现代商业中，人们被毁掉的首要方式不是下注太多;这是通过偷工减料和做不道德或彻头彻尾的非法事情。最终在监狱里穿着橙色连身衣或名誉受损，就像被抹去零一样——所以永远不要做这些事情。
Schelling Point: Cooperating Without Communicating 谢林点：合作而不沟通
People who can’t communicate can cooperate by anticipating the other person’s actions
无法沟通的人可以通过预测对方的行为来合作
Use social norms to cooperate when you can’t communicate
当你无法沟通时，使用社会规范进行合作
Nivi: Let’s talk about Schelling points.
Nivi：让我们谈谈谢林的观点。
Naval: The Schelling point is a game theory concept made famous by Thomas Schelling in his book, [*The Strategy of Conflict*](https://books.google.co.id/books?id=7RkL4Z8Yg5AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Strategy+of+Conflict&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin7MHuw6njAhX58HMBHe2OC3YQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=The Strategy of Conflict&f=false), which I recommend.
Naval：谢林点是托马斯·谢林（Thomas Schelling）在他的《冲突战略》（The Strategy of Conflict）一书中提出的博弈论概念，我推荐它。
It’s about multiplayer games where people respond based on what they think the other person’s response will be. He came up with a mathematical formalization to answer: How do you get people who cannot communicate with each other to coordinate?
这是关于多人游戏的，人们根据他们认为对方的反应做出反应。他想出了一个数学形式来回答：如何让无法相互沟通的人进行协调？
Suppose I want to meet with you, but I don’t tell you where or when to meet. You also want to meet with me, but we can’t communicate. That sounds like an impossible problem to solve—we can’t do it. But not quite.
假设我想和你见面，但我没有告诉你在哪里或什么时候见面。你也想和我见面，但我们无法沟通。这听起来像是一个不可能解决的问题——我们做不到。但并不完全是。
You can use social norms to converge on a Schelling point. I know you’re rational and educated. And you know I’m rational and educated. We’re both going to start thinking.
你可以利用社会规范来收敛于谢林点。我知道你很理性，受过教育。你知道我是理性的，受过教育的。我们俩都要开始思考了。
When will we meet? If we have to pick an arbitrary date, we’ll probably pick New Year’s Eve. What time will we meet? Midnight or 12:01 a.m. Where will we meet? If we’re Americans, the big meeting spot is probably New York City, the most important city. Where in New York City will we meet? Probably under the clock at Grand Central Station. Maybe you end up at the Empire State Building, but not likely.
我们什么时候见面？如果我们必须选择一个任意的日期，我们可能会选择除夕夜。我们什么时候见面？午夜或凌晨 12：01我们将在哪里见面？如果我们是美国人，最大的聚会地点可能是纽约市，最重要的城市。我们将在纽约市的哪个地方见面？可能在中央车站的时钟下。也许你最终会到达帝国大厦，但不太可能。
You can find Schelling points in business, art and politics
你可以在商业、艺术和政治领域找到谢林的观点
There are many games—whether it’s business or art or politics—where you can find a Schelling point. So you can cooperate with the other person, even when you can’t communicate.
在许多游戏中，无论是商业、艺术还是政治，你都可以找到谢林的观点。因此，即使无法沟通，您也可以与对方合作。
Here’s a simple example: Suppose two companies are competing heavily and hold an oligopoly. Let’s say the price fluctuates between $8 and $12 for whatever the service is. Don’t be surprised if they converge on $10 without ever talking to each other.
这里有一个简单的例子：假设两家公司竞争激烈，并拥有寡头垄断。假设无论服务是什么，价格都在 8 美元到 12 美元之间波动。如果他们在没有相互交谈的情况下聚集在 10 美元上，请不要感到惊讶。
Turn Short-Term Games Into Long-Term Games 将短期游戏变成长期游戏
Improve your leverage by turning short-term relationships into long-term ones
通过将短期关系转变为长期关系来提高您的杠杆作用
Pareto optimal solutions require a trade-off to improve any criterion
帕累托最优解需要权衡以改进任何准则
Nivi: Do you want to talk about Pareto optimal?
Nivi：你想谈谈帕累托最优吗？
Naval: Pareto optimal is another concept from game theory, along with Pareto superior.
Naval：帕累托最优是博弈论中的另一个概念，还有帕累托优势。
Pareto superior means something is better in some ways while being equal or better in other ways. It’s not worse in any way. This is an important concept when you’re negotiating. If you can make a solution Pareto superior to where it was before, you will always do that.
帕累托优越意味着某些东西在某些方面更好，而在其他方面相同或更好。无论如何，情况都不会更糟。当你在谈判时，这是一个重要的概念。如果你能使帕累托解决方案优于以前，你就会一直这样做。
Pareto optimal is when the solution is the best it can possibly be and you can’t change it without making it worse in at least one dimension. There is a hard trade-off from this point forward.
帕累托最优是指解决方案是最好的，并且您不能在不使其至少在一个维度上变得更糟的情况下改变它。从现在开始，有一个艰难的权衡。
These are important concepts to understand when you’re involved in a big negotiation.
当您参与大型谈判时，这些都是需要了解的重要概念。
Negotiations are won by whoever cares less
谈判由谁不那么在乎就赢了
I generally say, though: “Negotiations are won by whoever cares less.” Negotiation is about not wanting it too badly. If you want something too badly, the other person can extract more value from you.
不过，我通常说：“谈判是由谁赢得的。谈判就是不要太想要它。如果你太想要某样东西，对方可以从你身上榨取更多的价值。
If someone is taking advantage of you in a negotiation, your best option is to turn it from a short-term game into a long-term game. Try to make it a repeat game. Try to bring reputation into the negotiation. Try to include other people who may want to play games with this person in the future.
如果有人在谈判中占了你的便宜，你最好的选择是把它从短期游戏变成长期游戏。试着让它成为一个重复的游戏。尝试将声誉带入谈判。尝试包括将来可能想和这个人一起玩游戏的其他人。
An example of a high-cost, low-information single-move game is having your house renovated.
高成本、低信息的单步游戏的一个例子是翻新你的房子。
Contractors are notorious for overbooking, ripping people off, and being unaccountable. I’m sure contractors have their own side to it: “The homeowner has unreasonable demands.” “We found problems.” “The homeowner doesn’t want to pay for it.” “They don’t understand; they’re low-information buyers.”
承包商因超额预订、敲诈勒索和不负责任而臭名昭著。我敢肯定，承包商也有自己的一面：“房主有不合理的要求。“我们发现了问题。”“房主不想为此买单。”“他们不明白;他们是低信息量的买家。
It’s an expensive transaction. Historically it’s been very hard to find good contractors; and the contractor has little information on the homeowner.
这是一笔昂贵的交易。从历史上看，很难找到好的承包商;承包商对房主的信息很少。
Convert single-move games to multi-move games
将单步游戏转换为多步游戏
So you try to go through friends. You try to find people with good reputations. You’re converting an expensive single-move game with a high probability of cheating on both sides into a multi-move game.
所以你试着通过朋友。你试图找到有良好声誉的人。您正在将一个昂贵的单步游戏转换为多步游戏，双方都很有可能作弊。
One way to do that is to say: “Actually, I need two different projects done. The first project we’ll do together, and based on that I’ll decide if we do the second project.”
一种方法是说：“实际上，我需要完成两个不同的项目。第一个项目我们将一起做，在此基础上，我将决定是否做第二个项目。
Another way is to say: “I’m going to do this project with you, and I have three friends who want projects done who are waiting to see the outcome of this project.”
另一种方式是说：“我要和你一起做这个项目，我有三个朋友想要完成项目，他们正在等着看这个项目的结果。
Another way is to write a Yelp or Thumbtack review—especially if the contractor operates within a community and wants to protect their reputation in that community.
另一种方法是写一篇 Yelp 或 Thumbtack 评论——特别是如果承包商在一个社区内运营并希望保护他们在该社区中的声誉。
These are all ways to turn a single-move game into a longer term game and get past a position of poor negotiating leverage and poor information.
这些都是将单步博弈变成长期博弈的方法，并克服谈判筹码差和信息差的局面。
Compounding Relationships Make Life Easier 复合关系让生活更轻松
Life gets a lot easier when you know someone’s got your back
当你知道有人支持你时，生活会变得容易得多
Mutual trust makes it easy to do business
相互信任，做生意容易
Relationships offer a good example of compound interest. Once you’ve been in a good relationship with somebody for a while—whether it’s business or romantic—life gets a lot easier because you know that person’s got your back. You don’t have to keep questioning.
人际关系是复利的一个很好的例子。一旦你和某人保持了一段时间的良好关系——无论是商业还是浪漫——生活就会变得容易得多，因为你知道那个人会支持你。你不必一直质疑。
If I’m doing a deal with someone I’ve worked with for 20 years and there is mutual trust, we don’t have to read the legal contracts. Maybe we don’t even need to create legal contracts; maybe we can do it with a handshake. That kind of trust makes it very easy to do business.
如果我与一个共事了 20 年的人做交易，并且有相互信任，我们不必阅读法律合同。也许我们甚至不需要创建法律合同;也许我们可以通过握手来做到这一点。这种信任使做生意变得非常容易。
If Nivi and I start another company and things aren’t working out, I know we’re both going to be extremely reasonable about deciding what to do—how to exit or shut it down. Or if we’re scaling it, how to bring in new people. We have mutual trust, and that allows us to start businesses more easily and compounds the effect.
如果 Nivi 和我创办了另一家公司，但事情没有成功，我知道我们俩都会非常理性地决定该做什么——如何退出或关闭它。或者，如果我们要扩大规模，如何吸引新人。我们相互信任，这使我们能够更容易地开展业务，并加大效果。
The most under-recognized reason startups fail is because the founders fall apart.
创业公司失败最未被充分认识的原因是因为创始人分崩离析。
A startup is so difficult to pull off, so removing potential friction points between founders can be the difference between success and failure.
创业公司很难成功，因此消除创始人之间的潜在摩擦点可能是成功与失败的区别。
It’s better to have a few compounding relationships than many shallow ones
拥有一些复合关系比拥有许多肤浅的关系要好
Nivi: There are a couple of non-intuitive things about compounding. The first is that most of the benefits come at the end, so you may not see huge benefits up front.
Nivi：关于复利，有一些非直观的事情。首先是大多数好处都是在最后出现的，所以你可能不会在前期看到巨大的好处。
Sam Altman wrote, “I always want it to be a project that, if successful, will make the rest of my career look like a footnote.” Again, most of the benefits of compounding come at the end.
山姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）写道：“我一直希望它成为一个项目，如果成功，将使我职业生涯的其余部分看起来像一个脚注。同样，复利的大部分好处都来自最后。
Another thing that’s non-intuitive about compounding: It’s better to have a few deep compounding relationships than many shallow, non-compounding relationships.
关于复利的另一件不直观的事情是：拥有一些深层次的复利关系比拥有许多浅层次的非复合关系要好。
It takes just as much effort to create a small business as a large one
创建小型企业和创建大型企业所需的努力一样多
Naval: One thing about business that people don’t realize: it takes just as much effort to create a small business as it does to create a large one.
Naval：关于商业，人们没有意识到的一件事是：创建一家小企业和创建一家大型企业需要付出同样多的努力。
Whether you’re Elon Musk or the guy running three Italian restaurants in town, you’re working 80 hours a week; you’re sweating bullets; you’re hiring and firing people; you’re trying to balance the books; it’s highly stressful; and it takes years and years of your life.
无论你是埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）还是在镇上经营三家意大利餐馆的人，你每周工作80小时;你汗流浃背;你正在雇用和解雇人员;你试图平衡账目;压力很大;这需要你多年的生命。
In one case, you get companies worth $50-$100 billion and everyone’s adulation. In the other, you might make a little bit of money and you’ve got some nice restaurants. So think big.
在一个案例中，你得到价值500亿到1000亿美元的公司，每个人都在奉承。另一方面，你可能会赚一点钱，而且你有一些不错的餐馆。所以要想大。
Price Discrimination: Charge Some People More 价格歧视：向一些人收取更多费用
You can charge people for extras based on their propensity to pay
您可以根据人们的付款倾向向他们收取额外费用
Price discrimination is a technique for charging certain people more
价格歧视是一种向某些人收取更多费用的技术
Nivi: Are there any other microeconomic concepts, outside of zero marginal cost of replication and scale economies, that are important to understand?
Nivi：除了复制的零边际成本和规模经济之外，还有其他需要理解的微观经济概念吗？
Naval: Price discrimination is important. It means you can charge people based on their propensity to pay.
Naval：价格歧视很重要。这意味着您可以根据人们的付款倾向向他们收费。
Now, you can’t charge people different amounts just because you don’t like them. You have to offer them something extra. But it has to be something rich people care about.
现在，你不能仅仅因为你不喜欢他们而向人们收取不同的费用。你必须为他们提供一些额外的东西。但它必须是有钱人关心的事情。
Business-class seats routinely cost five or 10 times more than economy seats. But it costs the airline much less—maybe two or three times more than a standard seat—to provide perks like wider seats, more legroom and free drinks.
商务舱座位的价格通常是经济舱座位的 5 到 10 倍。但是，航空公司的成本要低得多——可能是标准座位的两到三倍——以提供更宽的座位、更多的腿部空间和免费饮料等福利。
Rich people and large enterprises are willing to pay more
有钱人和大企业愿意付出更多
Price discrimination works because rich people are willing to pay more. You just have to give them the extra little things they need to signal they’re rich or that little bit of comfort they want.
价格歧视之所以有效，是因为富人愿意支付更多费用。你只需要给他们一些额外的小东西，以表明他们很有钱，或者他们想要的一点点安慰。
A lot of enterprise software companies use price discrimination, especially with freemium products. The free or low-price version will do almost everything you want. But if you want the version that’s extra secure or hosted on your site or has multiple-user administration so the IT person can monitor everything, you’ll find yourself paying 10 or 100 times more.
许多企业软件公司使用价格歧视，尤其是在免费增值产品方面。免费或低价版本几乎可以满足您的所有需求。但是，如果您想要一个特别安全或托管在您的网站上的版本，或者具有多用户管理功能，以便 IT 人员可以监控所有内容，您会发现自己支付的费用要高出 10 或 100 倍。
Consumer Surplus: Getting More Than You Paid For 消费者剩余：得到的比你付出的更多
People are willing to pay more than what companies charge
人们愿意支付比公司收费更高的费用
Consumer surplus is the extra value you get when you pay less than you were willing
消费者剩余是当你支付的比你愿意的少时你得到的额外价值
Naval: Consumer surplus and producer surplus are important concepts. Consumer surplus is the excess value you get from something when you pay less than you were willing to pay.
Naval：消费者剩余和生产者剩余是重要的概念。消费者剩余是当你支付的金额低于你愿意支付的价格时，你从某物中获得的超额价值。
I get a lot of joy out of my morning Starbucks coffee. Obviously I’ve made some money. So if my coffee cost $20, I would pay it.
我从早上的星巴克咖啡中得到了很多快乐。显然我赚了一些钱。因此，如果我的咖啡花了 20 美元，我会付钱。
But Starbucks doesn’t know that. They can’t price the coffee at $20 just for me, because they’re selling the exact same product to others. So I’m getting a lot of consumer surplus out of the coffee.
但星巴克并不知道这一点。他们不能只为我定价 20 美元，因为他们向其他人出售完全相同的产品。所以我从咖啡中获得了大量的消费者剩余。
All businesses generate consumer surplus. It’s a good thing to keep in mind when someone’s harping on about how evil companies are. Amazon might be a trillion-dollar company, but I’ll bet they’re generating trillions of dollars in consumer surplus through people’s willingness to pay for convenience. A lot of people are willing to pay more than what Amazon charges.
所有企业都会产生消费者剩余。当有人喋喋不休地谈论公司有多邪恶时，记住这是一件好事。亚马逊可能是一家价值数万亿美元的公司，但我敢打赌，他们正在通过人们愿意为便利付费而产生数万亿美元的消费者盈余。很多人愿意支付比亚马逊收费更高的费用。
Net Present Value: What Future Income Is Worth Today 净现值：今天的未来收入值多少
See what future income is worth today by applying a discount to its future value
通过对未来收入的未来价值进行贴现，查看今天的未来收入价值
Figure out what future income is worth today by applying a discount rate
通过应用贴现率来计算今天的未来收入值多少
Nivi: Let’s talk about net present value (NPV).
Nivi：让我们谈谈净现值（NPV）。
Naval: Net present value is when you say, “That stream of payments I’m going to get in the future—what’s it worth today?”
Naval：净现值是指你说，“我将来会得到的那一连串的付款——它今天值多少钱？
Here’s a common example: You’re joining a startup and getting stock options, and the founder says, “This company is going to be worth $1 billion, and I’m giving you 0.1% of the company; therefore, you’re getting $1 million worth of stock.”
这里有一个常见的例子：你加入一家创业公司并获得股票期权，创始人说，“这家公司将价值 10 亿美元，我给你公司 0.1% 的股份;因此，你得到了价值100万美元的股票。
The founder is negotiating based on what it’s going to be worth in the future. You have to figure out what it’s worth today by applying a discount rate, or an interest rate, that accounts for the massive risk startups face.
创始人正在根据它未来的价值进行谈判。你必须通过应用贴现率或利率来弄清楚它今天的价值，这解释了初创公司面临的巨大风险。
You’ll end up with the amount the company is actually worth today. That’s the price at which a venture capitalist would invest in the company.
你最终会得到公司今天的实际价值。这就是风险投资家投资公司的价格。
If the founder recently raised a round at a $10 million valuation, then the company’s only worth 1% of what the founder says it will be worth. So your $1 million package is actually worth $10,000. You should get very comfortable doing rough net present value calculations in your head.
如果创始人最近以 1000 万美元的估值筹集了一轮融资，那么该公司的价值仅为创始人所说的价值的 1%。所以你 100 万美元的包裹实际上价值 10,000 美元。你应该很舒服地在脑海中进行粗略的净现值计算。
Externalities: Calculating the Hidden Costs of Products 外部性：计算产品的隐性成本
Externalities let you account for the true cost of products by including hidden costs
外部性允许您通过包括隐性成本来考虑产品的真实成本
Nivi: What’s a mispriced externality? You mentioned it on a previous episode.
Nivi：什么是错误定价的外部性？你在上一集中提到过。
Naval: An externality is where there’s an additional cost imposed by whatever product is being produced or consumed, that’s not accounted for in the price of the product. This can happen for many reasons. Sometimes you can fix it by putting the cost back into the price.
Naval：外部性是指生产或消费的任何产品都会带来额外的成本，而这些成本并未计入产品价格中。发生这种情况的原因有很多。有时您可以通过将成本重新计入价格来修复它。
Some of the most ardent critics of capitalism argue it’s destroying the environment. If you throw away capitalism because it’s destroying the environment, then guess what—we’re all headed back to pre-industrial times. That’s not going to be a good thing.
一些最狂热的资本主义批评者认为它正在破坏环境。如果你因为资本主义正在破坏环境而抛弃它，那么你猜怎么着——我们都回到了前工业时代。这不是一件好事。
Pricing externalities properly is more effective than feel-good measures
适当地为外部性定价比感觉良好的衡量标准更有效
Because the environment is finite and precious, we have to price it properly and fold that back into the cost of products and services.
由于环境是有限而宝贵的，我们必须对其进行适当的定价，并将其折回产品和服务的成本中。
If people are wasting water, releasing hydrocarbons into the atmosphere or polluting in other ways, society should charge them what it costs to clean up the pollution and return the environment to a pristine state. Perhaps that price has to be very, very, very high.
如果人们浪费水，向大气中释放碳氢化合物或以其他方式污染，社会应该向他们收取清理污染和使环境恢复到原始状态的费用。也许这个价格必须非常、非常、非常高。
If you raise the price high enough, you’ll knock out pollution. That’s much better than feel-good measures like banning plastic bags or restricting showers during a drought.
如果你把价格提高到足够高，你就会消除污染。这比禁止使用塑料袋或在干旱期间限制淋浴等感觉良好的措施要好得多。
Properly pricing externalities can save resources in a tremendous way
正确定价外部性可以极大地节省资源
California likes to run declarations and ads to scare people into avoiding showers during droughts. It would be better to raise the price of fresh water. The average consumer might pay a few pennies more for a shower, but the almond farmers—who consume a lot of water—will cut back; and almond farming may move to a part of the country where water is more abundant.
加州喜欢刊登声明和广告，吓唬人们在干旱期间避免阵雨。最好提高淡水的价格。普通消费者可能会多花几分钱洗澡，但消耗大量水的杏仁种植者会减少用水量;杏仁种植可能会转移到该国水资源更丰富的地区。
Properly pricing externalities can save resources in a tremendous way. It’s a good framework to use when you want to do things like save the environment, rather than doing feel-good things that won’t actually amount to anything.
正确定价外部性可以极大地节省资源。当你想做一些事情时，这是一个很好的框架，比如拯救环境，而不是做一些感觉良好的事情，但实际上没有任何意义。
Bonus: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself 奖励：找时间投资自己
If you have to work a “normal job,” take on accountability to build your specific knowledge
如果你必须从事一份“正常工作”，那就承担起责任感，建立你的特定知识
Nivi: A common question we get: “How do I find the time to start investing in myself? I have a job.”
Nivi：我们经常会问：“我如何找到时间开始投资自己？我有一份工作。
You have to rent your time to get started
您必须租用时间才能开始
In one of the tweets from the cutting room floor, you wrote: “You will need to rent your time to get started. This is only acceptable when you are learning and saving. Preferably in a business where society does not yet know how to train people and apprenticeship is the only model.”
在剪辑室的一条推文中，你写道：“你需要租用你的时间才能开始。这只有在您学习和储蓄时才可以接受。最好是在社会还不知道如何培训员工和学徒制是唯一模式的企业中。
Naval: Try to learn something that people haven’t quite figured out how to teach yet. That can happen if you’re working in a new and quickly expanding field. It’s also common in fields that are circumstantial—where the details matter and it’s always moving. Investing is one of those fields; so is entrepreneurship.
Naval：试着学习一些人们还没有完全弄清楚如何教的东西。如果您在一个新的且快速扩展的领域工作，就会发生这种情况。这在环境性领域也很常见——细节很重要，而且总是在变化。投资就是这些领域之一;企业家精神也是如此。
Chief of staff for a founder is one of the most coveted jobs for young people starting out in Silicon Valley. The brightest kids will follow an entrepreneur around and do whatever he or she needs them to do.
创始人的幕僚长是刚从硅谷起步的年轻人最梦寐以求的工作之一。最聪明的孩子会跟随企业家四处走动，做他或她需要他们做的任何事情。
In many cases, the person is way overqualified. Someone with multiple graduate degrees might be running the CEO’s laundry because that’s the most important thing at the moment.
在许多情况下，这个人的资格过高。拥有多个研究生学位的人可能会经营CEO的洗衣房，因为这是目前最重要的事情。
At the same time, that person gets to attend the most important meetings. They are privy to all the stress and theatrics, the fundraising decks and the innovation—knowledge that can only come from being in the room.
同时，这个人可以参加最重要的会议。他们知道所有的压力和戏剧性，筹款平台和创新 - 这些知识只能来自房间里。
Coming out of college, Warren Buffett wanted to work for Benjamin Graham to learn to be a value investor. Buffett offered to work for free, and Graham responded, “You’re overpriced.” What that means is you have to make sacrifices to take on an apprenticeship.
大学毕业后，沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）想为本杰明·格雷厄姆（Benjamin Graham）工作，学习成为一名价值投资者。巴菲特提出免费工作，格雷厄姆回应说：“你的价格过高了。这意味着你必须做出牺牲才能接受学徒生涯。
Find the part of the job with the steepest learning curve
找到学习曲线最陡峭的工作部分
If can’t learn in an apprenticeship model because you need to make money, try to be innovative in the context of your job. Take on new challenges and responsibilities. Find the part of the job with the steepest learning curve.
如果因为需要赚钱而无法在学徒模式中学习，请尝试在工作中进行创新。迎接新的挑战和责任。找到学习曲线最陡峭的工作部分。
You want to avoid repetitive drudgery—that’s just biding time until your job is automated away.
你要避免重复的苦差事——那只是在等待时间，直到你的工作被自动化。
If you’re a barista at the coffee shop, figure out how to make connections with the customers. Figure out how to innovate the service you offer and delight the customer. Managers, founders and owners will take notice.
如果您是咖啡店的咖啡师，请弄清楚如何与顾客建立联系。弄清楚如何创新您提供的服务并取悦客户。经理、创始人和所有者会注意到这一点。
Develop a founder mentality
培养创始人心态
The hardest thing for any founder is finding employees with a founder mentality. This is a fancy way of saying they care enough.
对于任何创始人来说，最困难的事情是找到具有创始人心态的员工。这是一种花哨的方式，表示他们足够关心。
People will say, “Well, I’m not the founder. I’m not being paid enough to care.” Actually, you are: The knowledge and skills you gain by developing a founder mentality set you up to be a founder down the line; that’s your compensation.
人们会说，“好吧，我不是创始人。我没有得到足够的报酬来照顾我。实际上，你是：你通过培养创始人心态获得的知识和技能使你成为未来的创始人;这是你的补偿。
You can get a lot out of almost any position. You just have to put a lot into it.
您几乎可以从任何位置获得很多。你只需要投入很多。
Accountability is something you can take on immediately
问责制是你可以立即承担的事情
Nivi: We’ve discussed accountability, judgment, specific knowledge and leverage. If I’m working a “normal” job, is specific knowledge the one I should focus on?
Nivi：我们已经讨论了问责制、判断力、具体知识和杠杆作用。如果我从事的是一份“正常”的工作，那么我应该关注特定知识吗？
Naval: Judgment takes experience. It takes a lot of time to build up. You have to put yourself in positions where you can exercise judgment. That’ll come from taking on accountability.
Naval：判断需要经验。这需要很多时间来建立。你必须把自己放在可以做出判断的位置上。这将来自承担责任。
Leverage is something that society gives you after you’ve demonstrated judgment. You can get it faster by learning high-leverage skills like coding or working with the media. These are permissionless leverage. This is why I encourage people to learn to code or produce media, even if it’s just nights and weekends.
杠杆作用是社会在你表现出判断力后给你的东西。您可以通过学习编码或与媒体合作等高杠杆技能来更快地获得它。这些是无需许可的杠杆。这就是为什么我鼓励人们学习编码或制作媒体，即使只是晚上和周末。
So, judgment and leverage tend to come later. Accountability is something you can take on immediately. You can say, “Hey, I’ll take charge of this thing that nobody wants to take charge of.” When you take on accountability, you’re also publicly putting your neck on the chopping block—so you have to deliver.
因此，判断力和杠杆作用往往来得晚一些。问责制是你可以立即承担的事情。你可以说，“嘿，我会负责这个没人愿意负责的事情。当你承担责任时，你也公开地把你的脖子放在砧板上——所以你必须兑现。
You build specific knowledge by taking accountability for things that other people don’t know how to do. Perhaps they’re things you enjoy doing or are naturally inclined towards doing anyway.
你通过对其他人不知道该怎么做的事情负责来建立特定的知识。也许它们是你喜欢做的事情，或者自然而然地倾向于做。
If you work in a factory, the hardest thing may be raising capital to keep the factory running. Maybe that’s what the owner is always stressed out about.
如果你在工厂工作，最困难的事情可能是筹集资金来维持工厂的运转。也许这就是主人总是感到压力的原因。
You might notice this and think, “I’m good at balancing my checkbook and have a good head for numbers; but I haven’t raised money before.” You offer to help and become the owner’s sidekick solving their fundraising problem. If you have a natural aptitude and take on accountability, you can put yourself in a position to learn quickly. Before long, you’ll become the heir apparent.
你可能会注意到这一点，并认为，“我擅长平衡我的支票簿，并且对数字有很好的头脑;但我以前没有筹集过资金。您主动提供帮助并成为所有者的助手，解决他们的筹款问题。如果你有天生的天赋并承担责任，你可以让自己处于快速学习的位置。用不了多久，你就会成为明显的继承人。
Early on, find things that interest you and allow you to take on accountability. Don’t worry about short-term compensation. Compensation comes when you’re tired of waiting for it and have given up on it. This is the way the whole system works.
尽早找到你感兴趣的事情，并让你承担责任。不要担心短期补偿。当你厌倦了等待它并放弃了它时，补偿就来了。这就是整个系统的工作方式。
If you take on accountability and solve problems on the edge of knowledge that others can’t solve, people will line up behind you. The leverage will come.
如果你承担起责任，在知识的边缘解决别人无法解决的问题，人们就会排在你身后。杠杆会来的。
Specific knowledge can be timely or timeless
具体的知识可以是及时的，也可以是永恒的
There are two forms of specific knowledge: timely and timeless.
具体知识有两种形式：及时的和永恒的。
If you become a world-class expert in machine learning just as it takes off and you got there through genuine intellectual interest, you’re going to do really well. But 20 years from now, machine learning may be second hat; the world may have moved on to something else. That’s timely knowledge.
如果你在机器学习起飞时就成为世界级的专家，并且你通过真正的智力兴趣到达那里，你就会做得很好。但20年后，机器学习可能成为第二类帽子;世界可能已经转向了别的东西。这是及时的知识。
If you’re good at persuading people, it’s probably a skill you picked up early on in life. It’s always going to apply, because persuading people is always going to be valuable. That’s timeless knowledge.
如果你善于说服别人，这可能是你从小就掌握的一项技能。它总是适用的，因为说服人们总是有价值的。这是永恒的知识。
Now, persuasion is a generic skill—it’s probably not enough to build a career on. You need to combine it in a skill stack, as Scott Adams writes. You might combine persuasion with accounting and an understanding of semiconductor production lines. Now you can become the best semiconductor salesperson and, later on, the best semiconductor company CEO.
现在，说服是一种通用技能——它可能不足以建立职业生涯。正如斯科特·亚当斯（Scott Adams）所写的那样，您需要将其组合到技能堆栈中。您可以将说服力与会计和对半导体生产线的理解结合起来。现在，您可以成为最好的半导体销售人员，然后成为最好的半导体公司首席执行官。
Timeless specific knowledge usually can’t be taught, and it sticks with you forever. Timely specific knowledge comes and goes; but it tends to have a fairly long shelf life.
永恒的特定知识通常无法传授，它永远伴随着你。及时的具体知识来来去去;但它往往具有相当长的保质期。
Technology is a good place to find those timely skills sets. If you can bring in a more generic specialized knowledge skill set from the outside, then you’ve got gold.
技术是找到这些及时技能集的好地方。如果你能从外部引入更通用的专业知识技能，那么你就得到了金子。
Technology is an intellectual frontier for gaining specific knowledge
技术是获取特定知识的知识前沿
Nivi: There were a couple other tweets from the cutting-room floor on this topic. The first: “The technology industry is a great place to acquire specific knowledge. The frontier is always moving forward. If you are genuinely intellectually curious, you will acquire the knowledge ahead of others.”
Nivi：关于这个话题，剪辑室里还有其他几条推文。第一个：“技术行业是获取特定知识的好地方。前沿总是在向前发展。如果你真的对知识充满好奇心，你就会比别人先获得知识。
Naval: Danny Hillis famously said technology is everything that doesn’t work yet. Technology is around us everywhere. The spoon was technology once; fire was technology once. When we figured out how to make them work, they disappeared in the background and became part of our everyday lives.
Naval：丹尼·希利斯（Danny Hillis）有句名言，技术是一切还行不通的东西。技术无处不在。勺子曾经是技术;火曾经是技术。当我们想出如何让它们工作时，它们就消失在背景中，成为我们日常生活的一部分。
Technology is, by definition, the intellectual frontier. It’s taking things from science and culture that we have not figured out how to mass produce or create efficiently and figuring out how to commercialize it and make it available to everybody.
顾名思义，技术是知识的前沿。它从科学和文化中汲取了我们尚未弄清楚如何大规模生产或高效创造的东西，并弄清楚如何将其商业化并让每个人都可以使用。
Technology will always be a great field where you can pick up specific knowledge that is valuable to society.
技术将永远是一个伟大的领域，您可以在其中获取对社会有价值的特定知识。
If you don’t have accountability, do something different
如果你没有责任感，那就做一些不同的事情
Nivi: Here’s another tweet from the cutting-room floor related to accountability: “Companies don’t know how to measure outputs, so they measure inputs instead. Work in a way that your outputs are visible and measurable. If you don’t have accountability, do something different.”
Nivi：这是另一条来自剪辑室的推文，与问责制有关：“公司不知道如何衡量产出，所以他们转而衡量投入。以您的输出可见且可衡量的方式工作。如果你没有责任感，那就做一些不同的事情。
Naval: The entire structure of rewarding people comes from the agricultural and industrial ages, when inputs and outputs matched up closely. The amount of hours you put into doing something was a reliable proxy for what kind of output you’d get.
Naval：奖励人员的整个结构来自农业和工业时代，当时投入和产出密切相关。你花在做某事上的时间是你会得到什么样的产出的可靠代理。
Today, it’s extremely nonlinear. One good investment decision can make a company $10 million or $100 million. One good product feature can be the difference between product-market fit and complete failure.
今天，它是极其非线性的。一个好的投资决策可以使一家公司获得 1000 万美元或 1 亿美元。一个好的产品特征可能是产品与市场契合度和完全失败之间的区别。
As a result, judgment and accountability matter much more. Often the best engineers aren’t the hardest workers. Sometimes they don’t work very hard at all, but they dependably ship that one critical product at just the right time. It’s similar to the salesperson who closes the huge deal that makes the company’s numbers for the quarter.
因此，判断和问责制更为重要。通常，最好的工程师并不是最勤奋的工人。有时他们根本不努力工作，但他们可靠地在正确的时间运送了一个关键产品。这类似于完成巨额交易的销售人员，该交易使公司本季度的数字成为可能。
People need to be able to tell what role you had in the company’s success. That doesn’t mean stomping all over your team—people are extremely sensitive to others taking too much credit. You always want to be giving out credit. Smart people will know who was responsible.
人们需要能够分辨出你在公司的成功中扮演了什么角色。这并不意味着在团队中到处踩踏——人们对别人的功劳非常敏感。你总是想给予信用。聪明的人会知道谁应该负责。
Some jobs are too removed from the customer for this type of accountability. You’re just a cog in a machine.
有些工作离客户太远了，无法承担这种责任。你只是机器上的一个齿轮。
Consulting is a good example. As a consultant, your ideas are delivered through someone else within the organization. You may not have visibility to the top people; you may be hidden behind a screen. That’s a trade-off you’re making in exchange for your independence.
咨询就是一个很好的例子。作为顾问，您的想法是通过组织内的其他人传递的。您可能无法看到高层人士;你可能隐藏在屏幕后面。这是你为换取独立性而做出的权衡。
You’ll develop thick-skin if you take on accountability
如果你承担责任，你会变得厚脸皮
When you have accountability, you get a lot more credit when things go right. Of course, the downside is you get hurt a lot more when things go wrong. When you stick your neck out, you have to be willing to be blamed, sacrificed and even attacked.
当你有问责制时，当事情进展顺利时，你会得到更多的荣誉。当然，不利的一面是，当事情出错时，你会受到更多的伤害。当你伸出脖子时，你必须愿意被指责、牺牲甚至攻击。
If you’re the kind of person who thrives in a high-accountability environment, you’re going to end up thick-skinned over time. You’re going to get hurt a lot. People are going to attack you if you fail.
如果你是那种在高度责任感的环境中茁壮成长的人，随着时间的推移，你最终会变得脸皮厚。你会受到很多伤害。如果你失败了，人们会攻击你。
Scale your specific knowledge with apprentices
与学徒一起扩展您的特定知识
Nivi: Once you get some specific knowledge, you can scale it by training your own apprentices and outsourcing tasks to them.
Nivi：一旦你掌握了一些特定的知识，你就可以通过培训自己的学徒并将任务外包给他们来扩展它。
Naval: For example, I made good investments and figured out the venture business. I could have kept doing that and making money. Instead, I co-founded Spearhead to train up-and-coming founders to become angels and venture investors. We give them a checkbook to start investing.
Naval：例如，我做了很好的投资，并弄清楚了风险投资业务。我本可以继续这样做并赚钱。相反，我与他人共同创立了 Spearhead，以培训崭露头角的创始人成为天使和风险投资者。我们给他们一本支票簿，让他们开始投资。
It’s an apprenticeship model. They come to us with deals they’re looking at, and we help them think it through. This model is more scalable than my personal investing.
这是一种学徒模式。他们带着他们正在看的交易来找我们，我们帮助他们考虑清楚。这种模式比我个人投资更具可扩展性。
Specific knowledge comes on the job, not in a classroom
具体知识来自工作，而不是在课堂上
At Spearhead we lead classes teaching founders about investing, and we also hold office hours to discuss specific deals they bring.
在华谊嘉信，我们开设课程，向创始人传授投资知识，我们还安排办公时间讨论他们带来的具体交易。
It turns out the classes and talks we lead are largely worthless. You can give all the generic advice people need in about an hour. After that, the advice gets so circumstantial that it essentially cancels to zero. But the office hours are incredibly useful.
事实证明，我们主持的课程和讲座基本上毫无价值。您可以在大约一个小时内提供人们需要的所有通用建议。在那之后，建议变得如此间接，以至于它基本上取消为零。但是办公时间非常有用。
This reinforces the notion that investing is one of those skills that can only be learned on the job. When you find a skill like that, you’re dealing with specific knowledge.
这强化了这样一种观念，即投资是只能在工作中学习的技能之一。当你找到这样的技能时，你正在处理特定的知识。
Another good indicator of specific knowledge is when someone can’t give a straight answer to the question: “What do you do every day?” Or you get an answer along the lines of, “Every day is different based on what’s going on.”
特定知识的另一个良好指标是，当某人无法直接回答这个问题时：“你每天做什么？或者你得到的答案是，“根据正在发生的事情，每一天都不同。
The thing is so complicated and dependent upon circumstances that it can’t be boiled down into a textbook form.
事情是如此复杂，取决于环境，以至于无法将其归结为教科书的形式。
Nivi: The mafia figured out this apprenticeship model a long time ago. The best way to end up running one of the families was to become the driver for the Don.
尼维：黑手党很久以前就想出了这种学徒模式。最终经营其中一个家庭的最好方法是成为唐的司机。
Naval: Tony Soprano was a businessman who had to enforce his own contracts. That’s a very complicated business.
Naval：托尼·女高音（Tony Soprano）是一位商人，他必须执行自己的合同。这是一项非常复杂的业务。
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
为清楚起见，此成绩单经过编辑。
Related 相关
Seek Wealth, Not Money or Status
追求财富，而不是金钱或地位FEB 28 2019 2月 28 2019
A Calm Mind, a Fit Body, a House Full of Love
平静的心灵，健美的身躯，充满爱的家MAY 21 2019 五月 21 2019
Accountability Means Letting People Criticize You
问责制意味着让人们批评你JUN 21 2019 6月 21 2019
wechat
alipay
