納瓦爾：關於人性的 44 個殘酷真相（最新podcast，中文翻譯）

關聯人物

納瓦爾‧拉維肯 Naval Ravikant

Intro 導讀：

Read the full transcript of entrepreneur and investor Naval Ravikant’s interview on Modern Wisdom Podcast episode titled “44 Harsh Truths About Human Nature” [Mar 31, 2025]. Chris Williamson hosts the podcast. 閱讀企業家兼投資人納瓦爾·拉維坎特（Naval Ravikant）在《現代智慧》播客中題為「關於人性 44 個殘酷真相」[2025 年 3 月 31 日]的完整訪談文字稿。該播客由克里斯·威廉森（Chris Williamson）主持。

44 Harsh Truths About Human Nature – Naval Ravikant 《關於人性的 44 個殘酷真相》 – Naval Ravikant

Happiness vs. Success 

1.幸福與成功

CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Happiness is being satisfied with what you have. Success comes from dissatisfaction. Is success worth it then? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：幸福是對你所擁有的感到滿足。成功來自於不滿足感。那麼，成功值得追求嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oof. I’m not sure that statement is true anymore. I made that statement a long time ago, and a lot of these things are just notes to myself and they’re highly contextual. They come in the moment, they leave in the moment. NAVAL RAVIKANT：唉，我不確定那句話現在還是否正確。我很久以前說過那句話，這些話多半是給自己的備忘錄，且高度依賴當時的情境。它們在某一片刻出現，也在某一片刻消逝。 Happiness is a very complicated topic, but I always like the Socrates story where he goes into the marketplace and they show him all these luxuries and fineries and he says, “How many things there are in this world that I do not want,” and that’s a form of freedom, so not wanting something is as good as having it. 幸福是一個非常複雜的話題，但我總喜歡蘇格拉底的故事，他走進市場，人們向他展示各種奢華和精緻的物品，他說：「這世界上有多少東西是我不想要的」，這是一種自由的形式，所以，不想要某樣東西就等同於擁有它。 In the old story with Alexander and Diogenes, Alexander goes out and conquers the world and he meets Diogenes who’s living in a barrel. Diogenes says “Get out of the way, you’re blocking my sun,” and Alexander says “Oh how I wish I could be like Diogenes in the next life,” and Diogenes says, “I don’t wish to be Alexander.” 在亞歷山大與第歐根尼的古老故事中，亞歷山大征服了世界，遇見了住在桶子裡的第歐根尼。第歐根尼說：「讓開，你擋住了我的陽光。」亞歷山大說：「哦，我多希望來生能像第歐根尼一樣。」第歐根尼回答：「我可不想成為亞歷山大。」 So there are two paths to happiness: one path is success, where you get what you want and satisfy your material needs. The other is like Diogenes, where you just don’t want it in the first place. I’m not sure which one is more valid, and it also depends what you define as success. If the end goal is happiness, then why not cut to the chase and just go straight for it? 所以通往幸福有兩條路：一條是成功之路，你得到你想要的，滿足你的物質需求。另一條像第歐根尼那樣，根本就不去渴望它。我不確定哪一條更有效，也取決於你如何定義成功。如果最終目標是幸福，那為什麼不直接切入正題，直奔幸福而去呢？ Does Happiness Hinder Success? 幸福會阻礙成功嗎？ Does being happy make you less successful? That is conventional wisdom, that may even be the practical earned experience of your reality. You find that when you’re happy you don’t want anything so you don’t get up and do anything. 快樂會讓你變得不那麼成功嗎？這是普遍的看法，甚至可能是你現實中實際獲得的經驗。你會發現當你快樂時，你不想要任何東西，所以你不會起身去做任何事。 On the other hand, you still got to do something. You’re an animal, you’re here to survive, you’re here to replicate, you’re driven, you’re motivated, you’re going to do something. You’re not just going to sit there all day. Some people do, maybe it’s in their nature, but I think most people still want to act, they want to live in the arena. 另一方面，你仍然得做點什麼。你是動物，你在這裡是為了生存，是為了繁衍，你有驅動力，有動機，你會去做些事情。你不會整天坐著不動。有些人會，也許那是他們的天性，但我認為大多數人仍然想行動，他們想活在競技場上。 I found for myself as I’ve become happier—that’s a big word, but you know, more peaceful, more calm, more present, more satisfied with what I have—I still want to do things, I just want to do bigger things. I want to do things that are more pure, more aligned with what I think needs to be done and what I can uniquely do. So in that sense I think that being happier can actually make you more successful, but your definition of success will likely change along the way. 我發現自己隨著變得更快樂——這是一個大詞，但你知道的，更平和、更冷靜、更專注於當下，對我所擁有的更滿足——我仍然想做事，只是想做更大的事。我想做更純粹的事，更符合我認為需要完成的事情，以及我獨特能做的事。所以從這個意義上說，我認為更快樂其實可以讓你更成功，但你的成功定義很可能會隨著過程改變。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is that a realization you think you could have gotten to had you not had some success in the first place? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你認為如果你一開始沒有取得一些成功，你能夠有這樣的領悟嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: At least for me, I always wanted to take the path of material success first. I was not going to go be an ascetic and sit there and renounce everything. That just seems too unrealistic and too painful. NAVAL RAVIKANT：至少對我來說，我一直想先走物質成功的道路。我不會去當一個苦行僧，坐著放棄一切。那看起來太不現實，也太痛苦了。 In the story of Buddha, he starts out as a prince and then he sees that it’s all kind of meaningless because you’re still going to get old and die, and then he goes into the woods looking for something more. I’ll take the happy route that involves material success. Thank you. 在佛陀的故事中，他一開始是個王子，然後他發現這一切都有些無意義，因為你終究會變老和死亡，於是他進入森林尋找更多的東西。我會選擇那條包含物質成功的快樂之路。謝謝。 The Path to Freedom 

通往自由之路 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I think it’s quicker in some ways. One of your insights is it’s far easier to achieve our material desires than it is to renounce them. 克里斯·威廉森：我認為在某些方面這樣做更快。你的一個見解是，實現我們的物質慾望遠比放棄它們容易得多。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: It depends on the person, but I think you have to try that path. If you want something, go get it. I quipped that the reason to win the game is to be free of it, so you play the games, you win the games, and then hopefully, you get bored of the games. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這取決於個人，但我認為你必須嘗試那條路。如果你想要什麼，就去爭取。我開玩笑說，贏得遊戲的原因是為了擺脫它，所以你玩遊戲，贏得遊戲，然後希望你會對遊戲感到厭倦。 You don’t want to just keep looping on the same game over and over, although a lot of these games are very enticing and have many levels that are relatively open-ended. Then you become free of the game, in the sense that you’re no longer trying to win it—you know you can win it—and either you move to a different game or you play the game for the sheer joy of it. 你不會想一直重複玩同一款遊戲，儘管這些遊戲中有許多非常吸引人且擁有相對開放式的多個關卡。然後你會從遊戲中解脫出來，意即你不再試圖贏得遊戲——你知道你可以贏——然後你要麼轉向另一款遊戲，要麼純粹為了樂趣而玩這款遊戲。 Suffering and Progress 

苦難與進步 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Another one of yours: most of the gains in life come from suffering in the short term so you can get paid in the long term. That’s classic—winning the marshmallow test on a daily basis. But there’s an interesting challenge where I think people need to avoid becoming a suffering addict, sort of using suffering as the proxy for progress as opposed to the outcome of the suffering. Right? 克里斯·威廉森：另一句你說過的話：人生中的大多數收穫來自於短期的痛苦，這樣你才能在長期獲得回報。這是經典——每天都在贏得棉花糖測試。但有一個有趣的挑戰，我認為人們需要避免成為痛苦成癮者，將痛苦當作進步的代名詞，而不是痛苦的結果。對吧？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s like, I was in pain not eating the marshmallow. I was in pain doing this work. I have attached well-being and satisfaction to pain, not to what the pain gets me on the other side of it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：就像我不吃棉花糖時感到痛苦一樣。我在做這份工作時也感到痛苦。我將幸福感和滿足感與痛苦聯繫在一起，而不是與痛苦背後所帶來的結果聯繫在一起。 If you define pain as physical pain, then it’s a real thing, it happens, and you can’t ignore it, but that’s not what we mean by suffering. Suffering is mostly mental anguish and mental pain, and it just means you don’t want to do the task at hand. 如果你將痛苦定義為身體上的痛，那確實是真實存在的，會發生，你無法忽視，但那不是我們所說的「受苦」。受苦主要是心理上的痛苦和精神上的折磨，意思是你不想做眼前的這件事。 If you are fine doing the task at hand then you wouldn’t be suffering, and then the question is what’s more effective: to suffer along the way or just to interpret it in a way that it’s not suffering? You hear from a lot of successful people, they look back and they say, “Oh the journey was the fun part.” That was actually the entertaining part and I should have enjoyed it more. It’s a common regret. 如果你對眼前的任務感到自在，那你就不會受苦，問題是什麼更有效：是在過程中受苦，還是以一種不受苦的方式去解讀它？你會聽到很多成功人士回顧時說，「哦，旅程才是有趣的部分。」那其實才是娛樂的部分，我本應該更享受它。這是很常見的遺憾。 Learning from Your Past Self 從過去的自己身上學習 There’s a little thought exercise I like to do which is, you can go back into your own life and try to put yourself in the exact position you were in five years ago, ten years ago, fifteen years ago, twenty years ago. You try to remember who you were with, what you were doing, what you were feeling, what were your emotions, what were your objectives, and really try to transport yourself back and see if there’s any advice you’d give yourself, anything you’d do differently. 我喜歡做一個小小的思考練習，那就是你可以回到自己過去的生活，試著把自己放在五年前、十年前、十五年前、二十年前的確切位置。你試著回想當時和誰在一起，正在做什麼，感覺如何，情緒是什麼，目標是什麼，並且真正嘗試把自己帶回去，看看是否會給自己任何建議，或者會做出什麼不同的選擇。 Now you don’t have new information, don’t pretend you could have gone back and bought a stock or bought Bitcoin or whatever, but just knowing what you know now in terms of your temperament and a little bit of age-related experience, how would you have done things differently? 現在你沒有新的資訊，不要假裝你可以回去買股票或比特幣之類的，但只是根據你現在所知道的，關於你的性情和一些與年齡相關的經驗，你會怎麼做出不同的決定？ I think it’s a worthwhile exercise to do. For me, I would have done everything the same except I would have done it with less anger, less emotion, less internal suffering because that was optional. It wasn’t necessary. 我認為這是一個值得做的練習。對我來說，我會做的事情都一樣，只是我會帶著較少的憤怒、較少的情緒、較少的內心痛苦去做，因為那些都是可選的，並非必要。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And I would argue that someone who can do the job at least peacefully, but maybe happily, is going to be more effective than someone who has unnecessary emotional turmoil. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我認為能夠至少平靜地，甚至快樂地完成工作的人，會比那些有不必要情緒動盪的人更有效率。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, you end up with a series of miserable successes, right? The outcome may have been the same, but the entire experience of getting there… NAVAL RAVIKANT：嗯，你最終會得到一連串令人痛苦的成功，對吧？結果可能是一樣的，但整個達成過程的體驗…… The Journey Is All There Is 旅程就是一切 And the journey is not only the reward, the journey is the only thing there is. Even success, it’s human nature to bank it very quickly, right, because the normal loop that we run through is you sit around, you’re bored, then you want something, then when you want something you decide you’re not going to be happy until you get that thing, then you start your bout of suffering or anticipation while you strive to get that thing. 而旅程不僅是獎賞，旅程是唯一存在的事物。即使是成功，人類的天性是很快就把它視為理所當然，對吧，因為我們通常的循環是你坐著無聊，然後你想要某樣東西，當你想要某樣東西時，你決定在得到那個東西之前不會快樂，然後你開始經歷一段痛苦或期待的過程，努力去獲得那個東西。 If you get that thing then you get used to it, and then you get bored again, then a few months later you want something else, and if you don’t get it then you’re unhappy for a bit, and then you get over it then you want something else. That’s the normal cycle. So whether you’re happy or unhappy at the end, it tends not to last. 如果你得到了那個東西，你就會習慣它，然後你又會感到無聊，幾個月後你又想要別的東西，如果你得不到它，你會不快樂一陣子，然後你會克服它，接著你又想要別的東西。這是正常的循環。所以無論你最後是快樂還是不快樂，這種感覺通常不會持久。 Now I don’t want to be glib and say that there’s no point in making money or being successful. There absolutely is—money solves all your money problems, so it is good to have money. 現在我不想輕率地說賺錢或成功毫無意義。當然有意義——錢能解決你所有的金錢問題，所以擁有錢是件好事。 That said, there are those stories, I don’t know if you’ve seen those studies, I don’t know how real these are, a lot of these psych studies don’t replicate, but it’s a fun little study that shows that people who break their back and people who win the lottery are back to their baseline happiness two years later. 話雖如此，有些故事，我不知道你是否看過那些研究，我也不確定這些研究有多真實，很多心理學研究無法複現，但這是一個有趣的小研究，顯示那些背部受傷的人和中樂透的人，兩年後的幸福感都回到了他們的基線水平。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yep.  克里斯·威廉森：是的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Again, don’t know if that’s entirely true. I think money can buy you happiness if you earned it, because then along the way you have both pride and confidence in yourself, and you have a sense of accomplishment, and you set out to do something and you were right, so I’ll bet that lingers, and then as I said, it solves your money problems. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：我不確定那是否完全正確。我認為如果你是靠自己賺來的錢，錢確實能買到幸福，因為在這個過程中，你會對自己感到自豪和有信心，會有成就感，並且你設定了目標並且達成了，所以我敢打賭這種感覺會持續存在，而且正如我所說，它解決了你的金錢問題。 So I don’t want to be too glib about it, but I would say in general, this loop that we run through of desire, dopamine, fulfillment, unfulfillment—you have to enjoy the journey. The journey is all there is. Ninety-nine percent of your time is spent on the journey, so what kind of a journey is it if you’re not going to enjoy it? 所以我不想過於輕率地說，但我會說，通常我們經歷的這個慾望、多巴胺、滿足、不滿足的循環——你必須享受這段旅程。旅程就是一切。你有百分之九十九的時間都在旅程中度過，如果你不打算享受它，那這會是怎樣的一段旅程呢？ Managing Desires  管理慾望 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How do you shortcut that desire contract? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你如何縮短那個慾望的契約？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: You could focus, you could decide that I don’t want most things. I think we have a lot of unnecessary desires that we just pick up everywhere, have opinions on everything, judgments on everything, so I think just knowing that those are the source of unhappiness will make you be choosy about your desires. NAVAL RAVIKANT：你可以專注，你可以決定我不想要大多數東西。我認為我們有很多不必要的慾望，這些慾望是我們到處撿來的，對所有事情都有意見，對所有事情都有評判，所以我認為只要知道這些是痛苦的根源，就會讓你對自己的慾望更加挑剔。 And frankly if you want to be successful, you have to be choosy about your desires, you have to focus. You can’t be great at everything. You’re just going to waste your energy and waste your time. 坦白說，如果你想成功，你必須對慾望有所取捨，你必須專注。你不可能在所有事情上都很出色。你只會浪費你的精力和時間。 Is Fame Worth It?  名聲值得嗎？ CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is fame a worthwhile goal? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：成名是一個值得追求的目標嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It gets you invited to better parties. It gets you to better restaurants. Fame is this funny thing where a lot of people know you, but you don’t know them, and it does get you put on a pedestal. It can get you what you want at distance, so I wouldn’t say it’s worthless. Obviously people want it for a reason, it’s high status so it attracts the opposite sex, especially for men it attracts women. NAVAL RAVIKANT：成名會讓你被邀請參加更好的派對，去更好的餐廳。成名是一件有趣的事，很多人認識你，但你卻不認識他們，而且它確實會讓你被置於神壇上。成名可以讓你在遠距離獲得你想要的東西，所以我不會說它毫無價值。顯然人們想要成名是有原因的，它代表高地位，因此會吸引異性，尤其是對男性來說，會吸引女性。 That said, it is high cost. It means you have no privacy, you do have weirdos and lunatics, you do get hit up a lot for weird things, and you’re on a stage so you’re forced to perform. You’re forced to be consistent with your past proclamations and actions, and you’re going to have haters and all that nonsense. 不過，成名代價很高。這意味著你沒有隱私，你會遇到怪人和瘋子，經常會被要求做一些奇怪的事情，而且你處在舞台上，必須表現自己。你必須與過去的言論和行為保持一致，還會有仇恨者和各種無理取鬧。 But the fact that we do it, the fact that we all seem to want it means that it would be disingenuous to say, “Oh no, no, I’m famous, but you don’t want to be.” That said, I think fame, like anything else, is best produced as a byproduct of something potentially more worthwhile. Wanting to be famous and craving to be famous and being famous for being famous, these are sort of traps. 但事實是我們都這麼做，我們似乎都想要成名，說「哦不，我成名了，但你不想成名」這種話是不真誠的。不過，我認為成名，就像其他任何事一樣，最好是作為某些更有價值事情的副產品。渴望成名、追求成名，或是為了成名而成名，這些都是陷阱。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Fame bait. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：追求名聲。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah exactly, so it’s better that it’s earned fame. For example, earn respect in the tribe by doing things that are good for the tribe. Who are the most famous people in human history? They’re people who sort of transcended the self, the Buddhas and the Jesuses and the Mohammads of the world. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，名聲最好是靠實力贏得的。例如，通過為部落做有益的事情來贏得部落的尊重。人類歷史上最有名的人是誰？他們是那些超越自我的人，像佛陀、耶穌和穆罕默德這樣的人物。 Who else is famous? The artists are famous—art lasts for a long time. The scientists are famous—they discover a thing. The conquerors are famous, presumably because they conquered for their tribe, was someone that they were fighting for. 還有誰很有名？藝術家很有名——藝術能長久流傳。科學家很有名——他們發現了新事物。征服者也很有名，可能是因為他們為自己的部落征服了敵人，為他們所戰鬥的人。 So generally the higher up you rise by doing things for greater and greater groups of people, even though it may be considered tyrannical or negative, like Genghis Khan is famous, but to the Mongols he was doing good, to the rest of them not so much. The higher level you’re operating at, the more people you’re taking care of, the more you sort of earn respect and fame, and I think those are good reasons to be famous. 一般來說，當你為越來越多的人群做事而地位越來越高時，即使這可能被視為暴虐或負面，比如成吉思汗很有名，但對蒙古人來說他是在做好事，對其他人則不然。你所處的層級越高，照顧的人越多，你就越能贏得尊重和名聲，我認為這些都是成名的好理由。 If fame is empty, if you’re famous just because your name showed up in a lot of places or your face showed up in a lot of places, then that’s a hollow fame and I think deep down you will know that and so it’ll be fragile and you’ll always be afraid of losing it and then you’ll be forced to perform. 如果名聲是空洞的，如果你只是因為名字或臉孔出現在很多地方而出名，那麼那是一種空洞的名聲，我想你內心深處會知道這一點，因此它會很脆弱，你總是害怕失去它，然後你會被迫去表演。 So the kind of fame that pure actors and celebrities have, I wouldn’t want, but the kind of fame that’s earned because you did something useful, why dodge that? 所以純粹的演員和名人擁有的那種名聲，我不想要，但那種因為你做了有用的事情而贏得的名聲，為什麼要逃避呢？ Changing Your Mind  改變你的想法 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: No, you can’t. There’s a challenge I think, especially if people make very loud public proclamations about things. You mentioned there about, you’re almost a hostage to the things that you used to say. Being able to update your opinions and change your mind looks very similar to the internet as hypocrisy does. The difference between me saying something in the past and saying something different now is perhaps I’ve learned, perhaps I’ve updated my beliefs. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：不，你不能。我認為這是一個挑戰，尤其是當人們對某些事情發表非常大聲的公開聲明時。你提到過，你幾乎成了你過去所說話語的俘虜。能夠更新你的觀點和改變你的想法，看起來和網路上的偽善非常相似。我過去說過某些話，現在說不同的話，差別可能在於我學到了東西，可能是我更新了我的信念。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right. But so few people do it in a legitimate way. I think that the grifter shill—you’d see this is the smoking gun that shows that he didn’t really believe that thing all along. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。但真正以正當方式做到這點的人太少了。我認為那種騙子推銷員——你會看到這是他從來不真正相信那件事的鐵證。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I went to a retreat in LA a couple of years ago, and there was a guy that I used to follow, a big business and productivity advice content creator, really successful, and he just totally stepped back from everything, went monk mode and focused on his business. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：幾年前我去洛杉磯參加一個靜修，有個我以前追蹤過的人，一位非常成功的商業和生產力建議內容創作者，他完全退出了一切，進入了隱士模式，專注於他的事業。 Living Authentically  真誠生活 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I asked him why, and he said, “I started feeling like I had to live up to in private the things that I was saying in public.” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我問他為什麼，他說：「我開始覺得自己必須在私下做到我公開說的那些事。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right. It’s what Emerson said, “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” But essentially, look, all learning is error correction. Every knowledge creation system works through making guesses and correcting errors. So by definition, if you’re learning, you’re going to be wrong most of the time and you’ll be updating your priors. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。正如愛默生所說：「愚蠢的一致性是小心眼的妖精。」但本質上，所有學習都是錯誤修正。每一個知識創造系統都是透過猜測並修正錯誤來運作的。所以從定義上來說，如果你在學習，你大多數時間會是錯的，並且會不斷更新你的先驗知識。 For example, I did this Joe Rogan podcast, I don’t know, eight or nine years ago, and people will call out like the one thing that didn’t turn out to be correct. They just beat on it because it helps them in their mind raise their status a little bit – “I caught him in an error.” 例如，我大約在八、九年前做過一次 Joe Rogan 的播客，有人會挑出唯一一件結果不正確的事。他們就是一直批評，因為這能讓他們在心裡稍微提升自己的地位——「我抓到他犯錯了」。 If you catch someone in a blatant lie where they believe one thing and say another, that’s legit – that’s a character flaw. They shouldn’t be lying. But on the other hand, if they just made a guess at something and got it wrong, that’s different. Mostly it’s about the AI AGI thing, and I think I’m still right about that, but it’s a different story. 如果你抓到某人明顯說謊，他心裡相信一件事卻說另一件，那是合理的——那是品格缺陷，他們不該說謊。但另一方面，如果他們只是對某件事做了猜測而錯了，那就不同了。大多數情況是關於人工智慧和通用人工智慧的問題，我認為我在這方面仍然是對的，但那是另一回事了。 People who think we have achieved AGI just fail a Turing test from their side. It’s funny how people latch onto single proclamations, but the reality is all of us are dynamical systems. We’re always changing, always learning, always growing, and hopefully we’re correcting errors. But what you don’t want to be doing is lying in public because you’re trying to look good. I think people can smell that. 認為我們已經達成人工通用智能（AGI）的人，只是從他們的角度未能通過圖靈測試。有趣的是，人們總是抓住單一的宣言不放，但現實是我們所有人都是動態系統。我們不斷變化，不斷學習，不斷成長，希望我們也在修正錯誤。但你絕不應該在公開場合說謊，因為你想要表現得好。我認為人們能夠察覺到這一點。 What this world really lacks right now is authenticity, because everybody wants something. They want to be seen as something, they want to be something that they’re not. So you catch a lot of people saying things that they don’t really believe, and I think people are very sensitive to that. Bullshit radars have become hypersensitized to try and work out whether or not this person means the thing that they’re saying. 現在這個世界真正缺乏的是真誠，因為每個人都想要某些東西。他們想被看作某種樣子，他們想成為自己並非的那種人。所以你會聽到很多人說出他們並不真正相信的話，而我認為人們對此非常敏感。騙局雷達已經變得過度敏感，試圖判斷這個人是否真的意味著他們所說的話。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Most of us are wrong most of the time, especially in any new endeavor. There’s a difference between being wrong and disingenuous though. 克里斯·威廉森：我們大多數人在大多數時候都是錯的，尤其是在任何新的嘗試中。不過，犯錯和不真誠是有區別的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Correct. Purposely wrong. Exactly. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：沒錯。故意錯誤。完全正確。 I think that’s the big difference. If someone is wrong, no big deal, as long as they have a genuine reason for saying what they’re saying or believing what they’re believing. But if they are lying to elevate their status or their appearance or to live up to some expectation, that’s the mistake. And that’s a mistake not just for the listener, but a mistake for themselves, because then you’re going to get trapped in the hall of mirrors. You yourself are going to be consistent with your past proclamation, so if you’re lying to others, you’re going to be lying to yourself. 我認為這是最大的區別。如果有人錯了，沒什麼大不了的，只要他們說的話或相信的事有真誠的理由。但如果他們說謊是為了提升自己的地位或形象，或者為了符合某些期望，那就是錯誤。這不僅是對聽者的錯誤，也是對他們自己的錯誤，因為這樣你會陷入鏡廳迷宮。你自己會與過去的宣言保持一致，所以如果你對別人說謊，你也會對自己說謊。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You’re puppeted by a person that you are not even. 克里斯·威廉森：你被一個你根本不是的人操控著。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. It’s like, what was the line? You’re basically trying to impress people who don’t care about you. And they don’t like the real you, and if they saw the real you, they wouldn’t care. And the people who would like the real you don’t get to see the real you, so they pass you by. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：沒錯。就像那句話說的，你基本上是在試圖取悅那些不在乎你的人。他們不喜歡真正的你，如果他們看到真正的你，他們也不會在乎。而那些會喜歡真正的你的人卻看不到真正的你，所以他們就錯過了你。 You only want the respect of the very, very few people that you respect. Trying to demand respect from the masses is a fool’s errand. 你只想得到你非常非常尊重的少數人的尊重。試圖從大眾那裡強求尊重是愚蠢的行為。 Status Games vs. Wealth Creation 地位遊戲與財富創造 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Satisfaction games, the allure of accruing, whether it’s fame, actual fame, or just the competition comparison trap, it’s always there. There’s a real draw of being swayed by social approval, but how should people learn to get less distracted by status games in that way? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：滿足感遊戲，積累的誘惑，無論是名聲、真正的名聲，還是僅僅是競爭比較的陷阱，它總是存在。被社會認可所左右確實有很大的吸引力，但人們應該如何學會不那麼容易被這種地位遊戲分心呢？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think it just helps to see that status games don’t matter as much as they used to. In old society, let’s go back to hunter-gatherer times, there was no such thing as wealth – you just had what you could carry. There was no stored wealth, so wealth creation games didn’t exist. All that existed was status games. If you were high status, then you got what little was available first, but even back then you had to earn your status by taking care of the tribe. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為看到地位遊戲不再像以前那麼重要會有所幫助。在古代社會，讓我們回到狩獵採集時代，根本不存在財富這回事——你只能擁有你能攜帶的東西。沒有儲存的財富，所以也不存在財富創造的遊戲。當時唯一存在的就是地位遊戲。如果你地位高，那麼你會優先獲得那有限的資源，但即使在那時，你也必須通過照顧部落來贏得你的地位。 Now we have wealth creation where you can actually create a product or a service. You can scale that product or service and you can provide abundance for a lot of people, and that’s not zero-sum, that’s a positive-sum game. I can be wealthy, you can be wealthy, we can create things together. And clearly since we are all collectively far, far wealthier than we were in hunter-gatherer times, wealth creation is positive. 現在我們有了財富創造，你可以實際創造一個產品或服務。你可以擴大該產品或服務的規模，並為許多人提供豐富的資源，這不是零和遊戲，而是正和遊戲。我可以富有，你也可以富有，我們可以一起創造事物。顯然，既然我們集體比狩獵採集時代富裕得多，財富創造就是正面的。 But status is limited. There’s limited status to go around. It’s a ranking ladder, it’s a hierarchy, and so if one person rises in status, somebody else has to lower in status. Now you can have multiple kinds of status, so you can expand some kinds of status, but it’s not like wealth creation where it can go infinitely, where we can all be living in the stars and moon bases or Mars colonies. 但地位是有限的。地位的分配是有限的。這是一個排名階梯，是一個階層制度，所以如果一個人的地位上升，必然會有其他人的地位下降。當然你可以有多種不同的地位，因此可以擴展某些類型的地位，但這並不像財富創造那樣可以無限擴張，我們不可能都生活在星際、月球基地或火星殖民地。 Just realize the status games are inherently limited. They’re always combative. They always require direct combat, whereas wealth creation games can be just you creating products – you don’t have to fight anybody else. 只要明白地位遊戲本質上是有限的。它們總是充滿競爭性，總是需要直接的對抗，而財富創造遊戲則可以只是你創造產品——你不必與其他人爭鬥。 Yes, in the marketplace your product has to succeed, but that’s not quite the same as invective against other people or being angry with other people or feeling pushed down or pushed up or having a beef with somebody. So I would argue that wealth creation games are both more pleasant, they’re positive-sum, and they actually have concrete material returns. If you have more money you can buy more things. 是的，在市場上你的產品必須成功，但這與對他人的謾罵、對他人的憤怒、感覺被壓制或被抬高，或者與某人有矛盾並不完全相同。所以我認為財富創造遊戲既更愉快，又是正和遊戲，並且實際上有具體的物質回報。如果你有更多錢，你就能買更多東西。 Show me where you can exchange your status at the bank. 告訴我在哪裡可以在銀行兌換你的地位。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Exactly, it’s vague and fuzzy. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：沒錯，這很模糊且不清晰。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Now, you see people get rich, they have money, what do they want? They want status, so they go to Hollywood, start starring in movies, they donate to non-profits, they go to Cannes or Davos, and they start trying to trade the money for status. NAVAL RAVIKANT：現在你看人們變得富有，他們有錢了，他們想要什麼？他們想要地位，所以他們去好萊塢，開始主演電影，他們捐款給非營利組織，他們去坎城或達沃斯，開始試圖用錢換取地位。 People always want what they don’t have, and we are evolutionarily hardwired for status because as I said, wealth creation didn’t really exist until the agricultural revolution when you could store grain. Then the industrial revolution took it to another level and now the information age is taking it to yet another level. 人們總是想要自己沒有的東西，而我們在進化上對地位有著天生的需求，因為正如我所說，財富創造直到農業革命時期才真正出現，當時你可以儲存穀物。然後工業革命將其提升到另一個層次，現在資訊時代又將其推向另一個層次。 There’s never been an easier time to make money. Yes, it’s still hard, but there’s never been an easier time to create wealth, because there’s so much leverage out there, there’s so much opportunity. You still have to go find it, it’s not easy, it’s not going to fall on your lap and you have to learn something and know something and do something interesting, but nevertheless it’s possible to many more people. A few hundred years ago you were born a serf, you were going to die a serf, there was almost no way out of that. 從來沒有比現在更容易賺錢的時代。是的，這仍然很難，但從來沒有比現在更容易創造財富，因為有如此多的槓桿，有如此多的機會。你仍然必須去尋找它，這並不容易，它不會自動落到你手上，你必須學習、了解並做一些有趣的事情，但儘管如此，這對更多人來說是可能的。幾百年前你生來是農奴，死時也是農奴，幾乎沒有出路。 That’s changed, and so I would argue that you’re better off focusing on wealth games than status games. If you’re trying to build up, for example, your following on a social network and get famous and then get rich off of being famous, that’s a much harder path than getting rich first, and then going for your fame afterwards would be my advice. 這已經改變了，所以我會主張你最好專注於財富遊戲而非地位遊戲。例如，如果你試圖在社交網絡上建立追隨者，然後成名，再靠成名致富，這條路比先致富再追求名聲要困難得多，這是我的建議。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: A lot of people do that, as you said. It’s funny how people who have achieved such a level of wealth – you think why do you need the status, given that most people use status to then try and cash in to achieve wealth? If you’ve achieved “fuck you money” already, if you’re post-money or asset-heavy as it’s known, why are you trying to go in the other direction? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：正如你所說，很多人都是這麼做的。有趣的是，那些已經達到如此財富水平的人——你會想，既然大多數人是利用地位來換取財富，為什麼你還需要地位呢？如果你已經擁有「去他 X 的錢」，或者說你已經是資產豐厚，為什麼還要往相反的方向走？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: As you said, because we’ve got an illustrious history biologically of wanting status, and wealth is kind of novel. It’s new. Wealth is something that you have to understand more intellectually. Yeah, there’s a physical component, more food, more survival, but to truly understand the effects and the powers and the abilities and limitations, and the advantages and disadvantages of wealth, you have to use your neocortex a lot more. NAVAL RAVIKANT：正如你所說，因為我們在生物學上有著追求地位的輝煌歷史，而財富則有點新穎。財富是新的東西。你必須更理性地去理解財富。是的，財富有一個物質層面，比如更多的食物和生存，但要真正理解財富的影響、力量、能力和限制，以及優勢和劣勢，你必須更多地運用你的新皮質。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Does that mean the reason to play the game is to win the game and be done with it? Is it harder to win and to be done with for status than it is for wealth? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那是否意味著玩這個遊戲的理由就是為了贏得遊戲並結束它？為了地位而贏得並結束遊戲是否比為了財富更難？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s a good observation, I hadn’t thought that through, but you’re right. I think people will always want more status, but I think you can be satisfied at a certain level of wealth. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這是一個很好的觀察，我之前沒想過這點，但你說得對。我認為人們總是想要更多的地位，但我覺得你可以在某個財富水平上感到滿足。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Well, you always have this sort of sense, and this is what leaderboards are. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：嗯，你總會有這種感覺，這也是排行榜存在的意義。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. And it is zero-sum. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。而且這是零和遊戲。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And it is, I guess, you know, the Forbes richest people on the planet. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我想，這就是福布斯全球最富有的人們。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. That one’s harder to climb the ladder on, but the fact that, for example, iTunes and YouTube can put you in competition against your contemporaries every single day, and make you go up and down and show you likes and comments and ratings subscribers… NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。這個攀登階梯比較難，但事實是，例如，iTunes 和 YouTube 可以讓你每天都與同輩競爭，讓你起起落落，並展示給你看點讚、評論、評分和訂閱者…… CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is how much you’re up. Exactly. They keep you running on that treadmill forever. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：就是你上升了多少。沒錯。他們讓你永遠在那個跑步機上奔跑。 Jimmy Carr has this cool idea where he says trajectory is more important than position. So, if you are number one hundred and one in the world, but last year you were number two hundred, versus you’re number two in the world, but last year you were number one, there is this sense of the deceleration is very, very tangible. Jimmy Carr 有個很酷的想法，他說軌跡比位置更重要。所以，如果你是世界排名第一百零一，但去年是第二百，與你是世界第二，但去年是第一，這種減速感是非常非常明顯的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And again it goes back to evolution. Something that is bleeding eventually dies, unless you stop the bleeding, so you’re hardwired not to lose what you have. Because we evolved in conditions where we’re so close to just not surviving, you don’t want to give anything up. It’s hardwired into us to not give anything up. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這又回到了進化的問題。流血的東西最終會死，除非你阻止流血，所以你天生就不會輕易失去你所擁有的。因為我們是在幾乎無法生存的環境中進化而來的，你不想放棄任何東西。這種不放棄的本能深植於我們體內。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: So you grip tightly? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：所以你會緊緊抓住？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。 The Importance of Self-Esteem 自尊心的重要性 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The worst outcome in the world is not having self-esteem. Why? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：世界上最糟糕的結果就是沒有自尊心。為什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s a tough one. I look at the people who don’t like themselves and that’s the toughest slot because they’re always wrestling with themselves. It’s hard enough to face the outside world, and no one’s going to like you more than you like yourself, so if you’re struggling with yourself then the outside world becomes an insurmountable challenge. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這是一個很難回答的問題。我看那些不喜歡自己的人，那是最艱難的狀態，因為他們總是在與自己掙扎。面對外部世界已經夠難了，沒有人會比你自己更喜歡你自己，所以如果你在與自己抗爭，那麼外部世界就會變成一個無法逾越的挑戰。 It’s hard to say why people have low self-esteem. It might be genetic, it might just be circumstantial. A lot of times I think it’s because they just weren’t unconditionally loved as a child and that sort of seeps in at a deep core level, but self-esteem issues can be the most limiting. 很難說人們為什麼會有低自尊。可能是遺傳，也可能只是環境因素。很多時候我認為是因為他們在孩提時期沒有被無條件地愛，那種感覺會滲透到內心深處，但自尊問題可能是最具限制性的。 One interesting thought is that to some extent self-esteem is a reputation you have with yourself. You’re watching yourself at all times, you know what you’re doing and you have your own moral code. Everyone has a different moral code, but if you don’t live up to your own moral code, the same code that you hold others to, it will damage your self-esteem. So perhaps one way to build up your self-esteem is to live up to your own code – very rigorously have one and then live up to it. 一個有趣的想法是，在某種程度上，自尊是一種你對自己擁有的聲譽。你時刻在觀察自己，知道自己在做什麼，並且有自己的道德準則。每個人都有不同的道德準則，但如果你無法達到自己所堅持的道德準則，也就是你對他人所要求的標準，這將損害你的自尊。因此，也許建立自尊的一種方法是嚴格地擁有並遵守自己的準則。 Another way to raise your self-esteem might be to do things for others. If I look back on my life and what are the moments that I’m actually proud of, they’re very far and few between. It’s not that often and it’s not the things you would expect – it’s not the material success, it’s not having learned this thing or that. It’s when I made a sacrifice for somebody or something that I loved. That’s when I’m actually, ironically, most proud. 提升自尊的另一種方法可能是為他人做事。如果我回顧自己的人生，真正讓我感到驕傲的時刻非常稀少。這些時刻並不常見，也不是你所期待的那些——不是物質上的成功，也不是學會了這個或那個技能。而是當我為某個人或某件我所愛的事物做出犧牲時。諷刺的是，那正是我最感自豪的時刻。 Now that’s through an explicit mental exercise, but I’ll bet you at some level I’m recording that implicitly. So that tells me that even if I am not being loved, the way to create love is to give love, to express love through sacrifice and through duty. And so I think doing things like that can build up your self-esteem really fast. 現在這是透過一個明確的心理練習，但我敢打賭在某種程度上我是在隱性地記錄這些。所以這告訴我，即使我沒有被愛，創造愛的方法就是付出愛，通過犧牲和責任來表達愛。因此，我認為做這樣的事情可以非常快速地建立你的自尊。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It’s interesting when you talk about sacrifice, because a lot of the time people say, “I sacrificed so much for my job.” It’s like, yeah, but that was you sacrificing something that you wanted less for something that you wanted more, as opposed to genuinely taking some sort of cost. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：當你談到犧牲時很有趣，因為很多時候人們會說，「我為了工作犧牲了很多。」就像，是的，但那是你為了你更想要的東西而犧牲了你較不想要的東西，而不是實際承擔某種代價。 The Price of Integrity  正直的代價 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And, yeah, I wonder whether if self-esteem is you adhering to your internal values, your actions aligning with your values, even when it’s difficult or perhaps even more so when it’s difficult. I wonder whether there is a price that people who are more introspective, high integrity pay because they think, well, you’ve got this heavier set of overheads that you need to pay in some way. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，我在想自尊是否就是你堅守內在價值觀，你的行動與你的價值觀一致，即使這很困難，或者甚至更是在困難時更是如此。我在想那些更內省、高度正直的人是否付出了一種代價，因為他們認為，你有一套更重的負擔需要以某種方式支付。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, being ethical were profitable, everybody would do it, right? So, at some level it does involve a sacrifice, but that sacrifice can also be thought of as you’re thinking for the long term rather than the short term. For example, virtues are a set of beliefs that if everybody in society followed them as individuals, it would lead to win-win outcomes for everybody. NAVAL RAVIKANT：嗯，如果做道德的事能賺錢，大家都會這麼做，對吧？所以，在某種程度上，這確實涉及到犧牲，但這種犧牲也可以被視為你在為長遠而非短期思考。例如，美德是一套信念，如果社會中的每個人都作為個體遵循這些信念，將會為每個人帶來雙贏的結果。 So if I am honest and you are honest, then we can do business more easily, we can interact more easily because we can trust each other. Even though there might be a few liars in the system, as long as there aren’t too many liars and too many cheaters, a high trust society where everybody’s honest is better off, and I think a lot of the virtues work this way. 所以如果我誠實，你也誠實，那麼我們就能更輕鬆地做生意，我們也能更輕鬆地互動，因為我們可以互相信任。即使系統中可能有少數說謊者，只要說謊者和作弊者不多，一個高度信任且人人誠實的社會會更好，我認為許多美德就是這樣運作的。 If I don’t go around sleeping with your wife and you don’t sleep with mine, and if I don’t take all the food that’s at the table first and so on, then we all get along better and we can play win-win games. 如果我不去和你的妻子睡覺，而你也不和我的妻子睡覺，並且如果我不先把桌上的所有食物都拿走，等等，那麼我們大家相處得會更好，我們可以玩雙贏的遊戲。 Game Theory and Society  博弈論與社會 In game theory the most famous game is Prisoner’s Dilemma, but that’s all about everybody cheating and the Nash equilibrium, the stable equilibrium there is everybody cheats. The only way you can play a win-win game is if you have long term iterated moves, but that’s not actually the most common game played in society. 在博弈論中，最著名的遊戲是囚徒困境，但那全是關於每個人都作弊，以及納什均衡，穩定的均衡是每個人都作弊。你唯一能玩雙贏遊戲的方式是有長期反覆的行動，但那其實不是社會中最常玩的遊戲。 The most common game played is one called a stag hunt, where if we cooperate we can bring down a big stag and both have big dinners, but if we don’t cooperate then we have to go hunt like rabbits and we each have small dinners. 最常玩的遊戲叫做「鹿狩獵」，如果我們合作，我們可以捕捉一隻大鹿，兩人都能享用豐盛的晚餐，但如果我們不合作，那我們就得像獵兔子一樣各自狩獵，晚餐都很簡單。 That game has two stable equilibriums – one could be where we’re both hunting the rabbit, and one could be where we’re hunting the stag. So the high trust society is a more virtuous society where I can trust you to come hunt the stag with me and show up on time and do the work and divide it up properly. 那個遊戲有兩個穩定的均衡點——一個可能是我們兩個都在追捕兔子，另一個可能是我們在一起狩獵雄鹿。所以，高信任社會是一個更有美德的社會，在那裡我可以信任你會和我一起去狩獵雄鹿，準時出現，完成工作並且合理分配。 So you want to live in a system where everybody has their own set of virtues and follows them, and then we all win. But I would argue you don’t need to do that for sacrifice, you don’t need to do that for other people, you can do it just purely for yourself. You will have higher self-esteem, you will attract other high virtue people. 所以你想生活在一個每個人都有自己的一套美德並遵循它們的體系中，然後我們都能獲勝。但我會說，你不需要為了犧牲而這麼做，也不需要為了別人，你可以純粹為了自己這麼做。你會擁有更高的自尊，並吸引其他有高尚美德的人。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Would I go on a stag hunt with me? 克里斯·威廉森：我會和我自己一起去狩獵雄鹿嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Correct. Yeah, that’s right. If you’re the kind of person who long term signals ethics and virtues, then you’ll attract other people who are ethical and virtuous, whereas if you are a shark, you will eventually find yourself swimming entirely amongst sharks and that’s an unpleasant existence. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：沒錯。是的，沒錯。如果你是那種長期展現倫理和美德信號的人，那麼你會吸引其他有倫理和美德的人；而如果你是鯊魚，你最終會發現自己完全游在鯊魚之中，那是一種不愉快的存在。 This goes back to the equivalent of the marshmallow test. The marshmallow test does not replicate – it got hit hard in the replication crisis recently, but it is about trading off the short term for the long term. I think for a lot of these so-called virtues, there are long-term selfish reasons to be virtuous. 這可以追溯到類似棉花糖測試的概念。棉花糖測試並沒有被成功複製——它最近在複製危機中受到重創，但它的核心是權衡短期與長期。我認為對於許多所謂的美德，從長遠來看，行善是有自私的理由的。 Self-Doubt and Confidence 自我懷疑與自信 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah. Did you deal with self-doubt in the past? Is that something that was a hurdle for you to overcome? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的。你過去有面對過自我懷疑嗎？那對你來說是一個需要克服的障礙嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yes and no. I think I dealt with self-doubt in the sense that, “Oh, I don’t know what I’m doing, and I need to figure it out,” but I didn’t doubt myself in the way of “somebody else knows better than me for me” or that “I’m an idiot” or “I’m not worthwhile.” NAVAL RAVIKANT：是也不是。我認為我面對過自我懷疑，意思是「喔，我不知道自己在做什麼，我需要弄清楚」，但我並沒有懷疑自己是「有人比我更了解我」或「我是個白痴」或「我不值得被重視」。 I guess I had the benefit that I grew up with a lot of love. The people around me loved me unconditionally and so that just gave me a lot of confidence. Not the kind of confidence that would say I have the answer, but the kind of confidence that I will figure it out and I know what I want, or only I am a good arbiter of what I want. 我想我有一個優勢，那就是我在充滿愛的環境中長大。身邊的人無條件地愛著我，這給了我很大的自信。這種自信不是那種我擁有答案的自信，而是我會找到答案的自信，我知道自己想要什麼，或者只有我自己才是判斷自己想要什麼的最佳裁判。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, that level of self-belief I suppose allows you to determine what is it that matters to me, my self-esteem. Should I chase this thing or not? I can make a fair judgment on that as opposed to being so swayed. It’s such a good point about even if you think you’re not consciously logging the stuff that you’re doing, there is some part that’s in the back of your mind. Was it the daemon? Is that what the ancient Greeks or something used to talk about? 克里斯·威廉森：是的，我想這種自信程度讓你能夠判斷什麼對我來說重要，我的自尊心。我要不要追求這件事？我可以做出公平的判斷，而不是被輕易左右。你說得很對，即使你覺得自己沒有有意識地記錄自己所做的事情，腦海深處還是有某部分在運作。那是惡魔嗎？古希臘人之類的曾經談論過這個嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. In computer science, there’s a concept of a daemon, which is a program that’s always running in the background. You can’t see it. But yeah, it probably comes from the ancient Greek daemon. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。在電腦科學中，有一個守護進程（daemon）的概念，指的是一個一直在背景運行的程式。你看不到它。但它很可能源自古希臘的 daemon。 What you know that you don’t even know you know is far greater than what you know you know. You can’t even articulate most of the things you know. There are feelings you have that have no words for them. There are thoughts you have that are felt within the body or subconsciously that you never articulate to yourself. 你知道但甚至不知道自己知道的東西，遠遠超過你知道自己知道的東西。你甚至無法表達大多數你所知道的事物。你有些感覺是無法用言語形容的。你有些想法是在身體內或潛意識中感受到的，卻從未對自己表達過。 You can’t articulate the rules of grammar, yet you exercise them effortlessly when you speak. So I would argue that your implicit knowledge and your knowledge that is unknown to yourself is far greater than the knowledge you can articulate and that you can communicate. 你無法明確說出語法規則，但當你說話時卻能輕鬆運用它們。所以我會說，你的隱性知識和你自己未知的知識，遠遠超過你能表達和傳達的知識。 At some level you’re always watching yourself, that’s what your consciousness is, right? It’s the thing that’s watching everything, your mind, including your body. So if you want to have high self-esteem, then earn your own self-respect. 在某種層面上，你總是在觀察自己，那就是你的意識，對吧？它是觀察一切的東西，包括你的心靈和身體。所以如果你想擁有高自尊，那就先贏得自己的自我尊重。 I have this idea, the internal golden rule. So the golden rule says treat others the way that you want to be treated. The internal golden rule says treat yourself like others should have treated you, and it was a repost to maybe people that didn’t grow up with unconditional love. 我有一個想法，內在的黃金法則。黃金法則說的是以你希望被對待的方式去對待他人。內在的黃金法則則是說，要像別人應該對待你那樣對待自己，這可能是對那些沒有在無條件愛中成長的人的一種回應。 The Nature of Love  愛的本質 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah. On the love thing… 克里斯·威廉森：是的，關於愛的事情…… NAVAL RAVIKANT: One of the interesting things about love is you can try to remember the feeling of being loved. So go back to when someone was in love with you or someone did love you, and really remember that feeling, like really sit with it and try to recreate it within yourself. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：關於愛，有一件有趣的事是你可以試著回想被愛的感覺。回到有人愛你或曾經愛過你的時候，真正地記住那種感覺，像是靜靜地感受它，並試著在自己內心重新創造那種感覺。 Then go to the feeling of you loving someone and when you were in love. I’m not even talking about romantic love necessarily, so be a little careful there. I’m talking more about love for a sibling or a child or something like that, or a parent. Think about when you felt love towards someone or something, and now which is better? 然後回想你愛著某人的感覺，以及你曾經墜入愛河的時刻。我並不一定指的是浪漫的愛，所以在這點上要稍微小心。我說的是對兄弟姐妹、孩子或類似的親人，或父母的愛。想想你曾經對某人或某事感受到愛的時候，現在哪一種感覺比較好？ I would argue that the feeling of being in love is actually more exhilarating than the feeling of being loved. Being loved is a little cloying, it’s a little too sweet, you kind of want to push the person away, it’s a little embarrassing, and you know that if that person is too much into it that you feel constrained. 我會主張，墜入愛河的感覺其實比被愛的感覺更令人振奮。被愛有點讓人感到膩煩，太甜膩了，你會有點想推開那個人，有點尷尬，而且你知道如果那個人太過投入，你會感到受限。 On the other hand, the feeling of being in love is very expansive, it’s very open, it actually makes you a better version of yourself, it makes you want to be a better person. So you can create love anytime you want, it’s just that craving to receive it that’s the problem. 另一方面，墜入愛河的感覺非常開闊，非常自由，它實際上讓你成為更好的自己，讓你想成為一個更好的人。所以你隨時都可以創造愛，問題只是你渴望被愛的那種渴望。 The Cost of Pride  驕傲的代價 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The most expensive trait is pride. How come? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：最昂貴的特質是驕傲。為什麼會這樣？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh, that was a recent one. I tweeted that just because I think that pride is the enemy of learning. When I look at my friends and colleagues, the ones who are still stuck in the past and have grown the least are the ones who were the proudest because they sort of feel like they already had the answers and so they don’t want to correct themselves publicly. NAVAL RAVIKANT：喔，那是最近的一句推文。我發推文是因為我認為驕傲是學習的敵人。當我看我的朋友和同事時，那些仍然停留在過去、成長最少的人，往往是最驕傲的，因為他們覺得自己已經有了答案，所以不願意公開承認錯誤。 This goes back to the fame conversation – you get locked into something you said, it made you famous, you’re known for that and now you want to pivot or change. So pride prevents you from saying “I’m wrong.” 這又回到名聲的話題——你被自己說過的話鎖住了，那句話讓你成名，你因此被認識，現在你想轉變或改變。但驕傲阻止你說「我錯了」。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What’s pride in this context here? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：在這個語境中，驕傲是什麼意思？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It could be as simple as you’re trading stocks and then you don’t admit you were wrong, so you hang on to a lousy trade. It could be that you made a decision to marry someone or move somewhere or enter a profession, it doesn’t work out, and then you don’t admit that you were wrong, so you get stuck in it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這可能很簡單，比如你在交易股票，然後你不承認自己錯了，所以你一直持有一筆糟糕的交易。也可能是你決定結婚、搬家或從事某個職業，結果不如預期，然後你不承認自己錯了，所以你就陷在其中。 It’s mostly about getting trapped in local maxima, as opposed to going back down and climbing up the mountain again. And that’s why it’s an expensive trait, because you continue to need to repay it in one form or another. 這主要是關於被困在局部最大值，而不是回頭再重新攀登高峰。這就是為什麼這是一種昂貴的特質，因為你會以某種形式不斷地為此付出代價。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, you’re just stuck at a suboptimal point. It’s going to cost you money, it’s going to cost you success. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，你只是卡在一個次優的點上。這會讓你損失金錢，也會讓你失去成功的機會。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And time. NAVAL RAVIKANT：還有時間。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And time. 克里斯·威廉森：時間到了。 The Willingness to Start Over 願意重新開始的心態 NAVAL RAVIKANT: The great artists always have this ability to start over, whether it’s Paul Simon or Madonna or YouTube. I’m dating myself a little bit, but even the great entrepreneurs, they’re just always willing to start over. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：偉大的藝術家總是具備重新開始的能力，無論是保羅·西蒙、瑪丹娜還是 YouTube。我有點自曝年齡，但即使是偉大的企業家，他們也總是願意重新開始。 I’m always struck by the Elon Musk story where he did PayPal as X.com originally, actually, was his financial institution that got merged into PayPal. 我總是被埃隆·馬斯克的故事所打動，他最初創立的 PayPal 其實是 X.com，那是一家金融機構，後來合併成了 PayPal。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Well, it’s good that you’ve got the domain, you know what I mean? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：嗯，你擁有這個網域名稱，這很好，你懂我的意思吧？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, exactly. I’ll park that, I’ll hold on to it. He’s been using it for quite a while, and he said something like along the lines of, “I made two hundred million dollars from the sale of PayPal, I put one hundred million dollars into SpaceX, eighty million dollars in Tesla, twenty million in Solar City, and I had to borrow money for rent.” NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，沒錯。我會先放著，先保留著。他已經用了很長一段時間，他說過類似這樣的話：「我從賣掉 PayPal 賺了兩億美元，我投入了一億美元到 SpaceX，八千萬美元到 Tesla，兩千萬美元到 Solar City，結果我還得借錢付房租。」 This guy is a perennial taker. He’s always willing to start over. He doesn’t have any pride about being seen as successful or being seen as a failure. He’s willing to put it all in. 這傢伙是個不停索取的人。他總是願意重新開始。他不在乎被看作成功者或失敗者。他願意全力以赴。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Back himself again each time. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：每次都再次相信自己。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Back himself again each time, but the key thing is he’s always willing to start over. Even now when he’s sort of made his new startup as USA. He’s basically trying to fix it like he would fix one of his startups. NAVAL RAVIKANT：每次都會再次相信自己，但關鍵是他總是願意重新開始。即使現在他已經將美國作為他的新創公司，他基本上還是試圖像對待他的創業公司一樣去修復它。 I think that is a willingness to look like a fool, and that is a willingness to start over, and a lot of people just don’t have that. They become successful, they become rich, they become famous, and that’s it, they’re stuck. They don’t want to go back to zero, and creating anything great requires zero to one, and that means you go back to zero, and that’s really painful and hard to do. 我認為這是一種願意看起來像個傻瓜的態度，也是一種願意重新開始的態度，而很多人就是沒有這種態度。他們變得成功、變得富有、變得有名，然後就停滯不前。他們不想回到零的起點，而創造任何偉大的事物都需要從零到一，這意味著你必須回到零，這真的很痛苦也很難做到。 Choosing Happiness  選擇幸福 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Talking about risk, something I’ve been thinking about a lot to do with you. Any moment when you’re not having a good time, when you’re not really happy, you’re not doing anyone any favors. I think lots of people have become unusually familiar with suffering silently in that sort of a way of not having a high bar for your expectation for quality of life. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：談到風險，這是我一直在思考與你有關的事情。任何時刻當你不開心、不快樂時，你d。我認為很多人已經異常習慣於默默承受痛苦，並且對生活品質的期望標準並不高。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. A lot of it is just you’re memeing yourself into a bad outcome because you think that somehow suffering is glorious, or that it makes you a better person. My old quip was, “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you happy? Why can’t you figure that one out?” NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。很多時候，你只是因為認為受苦是光榮的，或者受苦能讓你成為更好的人，而不自覺地把自己帶入一個糟糕的結果。我的老話是，「如果你這麼聰明，為什麼不快樂？你為什麼想不通這個問題？」 The reality is you can be smart and happy, there are plenty of people in human history who are smart and happy, and I think it just starts with saying, “Yeah, you know what, I’m going to be happy.” 現實是，你可以既聰明又快樂，歷史上有很多既聰明又快樂的人，我認為這一切都始於一句話：「是的，你知道嗎，我要快樂。」 There was a guy that I met in Thailand a long time ago and he used to work for Tony Robbins. He had a great attitude, and we were sitting around and he said, “I realized one day that someone out there had to be the happiest person in the world, like that person just has to exist.” He said, “Why not me? I’ll take on that burden, I’ll be that guy.” I heard that and I thought, “Wow that’s pretty good, that’s a good frame,” but he knew how to reframe things. 很久以前我在泰國遇到一個人，他曾經為 Tony Robbins 工作。他態度很好，我們坐在一起時，他說：「我有一天意識到，這個世界上一定有一個人是最幸福的，那個人一定存在。」他說：「為什麼不是我呢？我願意承擔這個責任，我要成為那個人。」我聽了之後想，「哇，這真不錯，這是一個很好的思維框架」，但他知道如何重新框定事情。 I think a lot of happiness is just a choice in the sense that you make. First you just identify yourself as “actually I’m going to be a person that’s going to be happy, I’m going to figure it out,” and you just figure it out along the way. 我認為很多快樂其實是一種選擇，首先你要認定自己「其實我要成為一個快樂的人，我會想辦法做到」，然後你就在過程中慢慢找到方法。 You’re not going to lose your other predilections, you’re not going to lose your ambition or desire for success. I think a lot of people have this fear that “Oh if I’m happy then I won’t want to be successful.” No, you’ll just want to do things that are more aligned with the happy version of you and you’ll be successful at those things. Believe me, the happy version of you is not going to look back at the unhappy version and say, “Oh man, that guy was going to be more successful, I wish I was him.” You’re actually trying to be successful so you’ll be happy. 你不會失去你其他的偏好，你不會失去你的野心或對成功的渴望。我認為很多人都有這樣的恐懼：「哦，如果我快樂了，那我就不想成功了。」不，你只是會想做那些更符合快樂版的你的事情，並且你會在那些事情上取得成功。相信我，快樂版的你不會回頭看不快樂的你，然後說：「哦，天啊，那個人會更成功，我真希望我是他。」你其實是在努力成功，為的是讓自己快樂。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Oh, so do… CHRIS WILLIAMSON：哦，所以是… NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s the whole point. You’ve gotten it backwards. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這就是重點。你搞反了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You unlocked one of my trap cards. One of my favorite insights is that we sacrifice the thing we want for the thing that’s supposed to get it. So we sacrifice happiness in order to be successful, so that when we’re finally sufficiently successful, we can actually be happy. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你觸發了我的一張陷阱卡。我最喜歡的見解之一是，我們為了應該能帶來想要的東西而犧牲了真正想要的東西。所以我們犧牲快樂以求成功，這樣當我們終於足夠成功時，我們才能真正快樂。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And if you have some sort of simultaneous equation, and you just sort of stripped success off from both sides… Yeah, at least in my own life, I have not found there to be a trade off. If anything, I have found that the happier I get, the more I am going to do the things that I’m good at and aligned with and that will make me even happier, and so I actually end up more successful, not less. NAVAL RAVIKANT：如果你有某種聯立方程式，然後你把成功從兩邊都剝離掉……是的，至少在我自己的生活中，我並沒有發現這是一種取捨。事實上，我發現我越快樂，就越會去做那些我擅長且與我價值觀相符的事情，而這些事情又會讓我更快樂，所以我實際上變得更成功，而不是更不成功。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The aligned with thing is interesting. I’m gonna try and put this across as delicately as I can. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那個「與價值觀相符」的部分很有趣。我會盡量委婉地表達這個意思。 The Freedom of Self-Prioritization 自我優先的自由 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I would say from the bit of time that we’d spent together, you have a really interesting trait of holistic selfishness. You’re sort of prepared to put yourself first. You seem largely unfazed by saying or doing things that might result in other people feeling a little bit awkward if it’s truthful for you. It’s like unapologetically self prioritizing, I guess. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：從我們相處的這段時間來看，我會說你有一種非常有趣的特質——整體性的自私。你願意把自己放在第一位。你似乎對說出或做出可能讓別人感到有點尷尬的事情並不在意，只要那對你來說是真實的。這就像是不加歉意地優先考慮自己，我想就是這樣。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, I think everybody is, maybe unapologetic is the part that’s relatively rare, but I think everybody puts themselves first. That’s just human nature. You’re here because you survive, you’re a separate organism. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我認為每個人都是這樣，也許無所歉意這一點比較罕見，但我認為每個人都會把自己放在第一位。這就是人性。你之所以在這裡，是因為你存活下來了，你是一個獨立的有機體。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Interesting. I’m maybe, but I know we like to virtue signal and pretend we’re doing it for each other. How many times does somebody say, “Yeah, of course, I’d love to come to the wedding.” They’re like, “I don’t want to be at the fucking wedding.” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：有趣。我可能是這樣，但我知道我們喜歡展示美德，假裝我們是為了彼此而做的。多少次有人說：「是的，當然，我很樂意參加婚禮。」但他們心裡想的是：「我根本不想去那該死的婚禮。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I don’t go to weddings. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我不去參加婚禮。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: But this is my point. Right. So I don’t think you’re necessarily right with that. I think that people don’t put themselves first. I sometimes think that they compromise what it is that they want in order to appease socially what’s in front of them. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：但這就是我的觀點。對吧。所以我不認為你完全正確。我認為人們並不總是把自己放在第一位。我有時覺得他們會妥協自己想要的東西，以迎合眼前的社交需求。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I just view it as everyone’s wasting their time on it. Don’t do something you don’t want to do. Why are you wasting your time? There’s so little time on this earth. Life goes fast, what is it, four thousand weeks that’s your lifespan? And yes, we hear that, but we don’t remember it, but I guess I’m keenly aware of how little time I have, so I’m just not going to waste it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我只是覺得大家都在浪費時間。不要做你不想做的事。你為什麼要浪費時間？人生在世的時間很少。生命過得很快，大約只有四千週的壽命？是的，我們聽過這個說法，但我們不會記得，但我想我非常清楚自己有多少時間，所以我就是不想浪費它。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How have you got more comfortable at being the unapologetic self prioritizer? 克里斯·威廉森：你是如何變得更能坦然接受自己無所顧忌地優先考慮自己的？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I’ve gotten utterly more and more ruthless on it, mainly it’s that I see or hear people’s freedom, and then that liberates me further. So I read a blog post by P. Marka, aka Marc Andreessen, where he said don’t keep a schedule, and I took that to heart, so I deleted my calendar and I don’t keep a schedule, I try to remember it all in my head, if I can’t remember it, I’m not going to add it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我在這方面變得越來越無情，主要是因為我看到或聽到人們的自由，然後那反過來又讓我更加自由。所以我讀了一篇由 P. Marka，也就是 Marc Andreessen 寫的部落格文章，他說不要制定行程表，我把這句話放在心上，於是我刪除了我的行事曆，不再制定行程表，我試著全部記在腦海裡，如果記不住，我就不會加進去。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I’m glad you got your own time. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我很高興你有自己的時間。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, exactly, I had to look things up at the last minute. But ironically, don’t even know if Mark himself follows that, but he made the correct point. I read a little story about Jack Dorsey doing all his business off his iPhone and iPad and not even going into a Mac, and I said, okay, I want to do that, so I’m going operate through text messaging and I put up my nasty email. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，沒錯，我得在最後一刻查東西。但諷刺的是，我甚至不知道 Mark 自己是否遵守這點，但他說的確實是對的。我讀過一個小故事，說 Jack Dorsey 完全用他的 iPhone 和 iPad 處理所有業務，甚至不使用 Mac，我說，好吧，我也想這麼做，所以我打算通過簡訊操作，並且我設置了我的垃圾郵件信箱。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Does that feel like more freedom? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那感覺像是更自由嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It does, yeah, because you’re on the go, so I have a nasty email autoresponder that says I don’t check email and don’t text me either, right? If you need to find me, you’ll find me. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，因為你一直在忙，所以我有一個很厲害的電子郵件自動回覆器，上面寫著我不查看電子郵件，也不要發簡訊給我，對吧？如果你需要找到我，你自然會找到我。 Obviously, some of this is a luxury of success, but some of these habits I adopted long before actually, the hostile email autoresponder started a long time ago. I used to own the domain, I let it go, dontdocoffee.com, I used to reply from that email just so people would get the point, but I stopped being rude about it, now I just ghost, I just disappear. 顯然，這其中有些是成功帶來的奢侈，但我其實很早以前就養成了這些習慣，那個敵意滿滿的電子郵件自動回覆器早就開始了。我曾經擁有一個網域，我放棄了，dontdocoffee.com，我曾經用那個郵箱回覆，只是讓人們明白我的意思，但我後來不再那麼無禮了，現在我只是消失，直接不理會。 My wife knows not to ever book or schedule me for anything, I’m not expected to go to couples dinners, I’m not expected to go to birthdays, I’m not expected to go to weddings. If somebody tries to rope her into having me show up, she says he makes his own decisions, you gotta ask him directly. 我妻子知道絕對不要替我預約或安排任何事情，我不被期望參加情侶晚餐，不被期望參加生日派對，也不被期望參加婚禮。如果有人想拉她讓我出席，她會說他自己會做決定，你得直接問他。 Embracing Serendipity  擁抱意外的美好機緣 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What about vice versa? Well, you’re not killing serendipity in a way, are you? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那反過來呢？你不會在某種程度上扼殺了偶然性吧？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: No. I’m freeing up all my time, so my entire life is serendipity. I get to interact with whoever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want, but I hear the invite, then make the decision. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不會。我是在釋放我所有的時間，所以我的整個人生都是偶然的。我可以隨時隨地與任何我想互動的人互動，但我會先聽邀請，然後再做決定。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Because if there’s fewer things incoming, you’re assuming that you know best for you. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：因為如果進來的事情變少了，你是在假設你最了解自己。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I don’t commit to anything in the future, so I’ll say, okay, if that thing is interesting, I’ll see if I can get in that day when I’m in the mood, but there’s nothing worse than something coming up that your past self committed you to, that your present self doesn’t want to do. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我不會對未來做任何承諾，所以我會說，好吧，如果那件事有趣，我會看看當天心情好的時候能不能參加，但沒有什麼比過去的自己承諾了某件事，而現在的自己卻不想做更糟的了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Goddamn it, positive. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：該死，肯定是正面的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, and then it destroys your entire calendar. It destroys your day because there’s like, oh, this one hour slot which is sitting like a turd on my calendar that I have to schedule my whole day around. I can’t do anything twenty minutes before, twenty minutes afterwards. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是啊，然後它毀了你整個行事曆。它毀了你的一天，因為有一個小時的時段就像一坨屎一樣坐在我的行事曆上，我得圍繞它安排整天。前後二十分鐘我都不能做任何事。 Even for phone calls, if someone wants to do a phone call, say, okay, just text me when you’re free, I’ll text you when I’m free, we’ll just do it on the fly. It’s a much better way of living than this overly scheduled cal.com or iCal, whatever. 即使是電話，如果有人想打電話，說好吧，等你有空就發訊息給我，我有空也會發訊息給你，我們就隨時通話。這比那種過度排程的 cal.com 或 iCal 什麼的生活方式好多了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The over scheduled life is not worth living? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：過度排程的生活不值得過？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s not. I think it’s a terrible way to live life. That’s not how we evolved, it’s not how we grew up, it’s not how we were as children hopefully, unless you have a helicopter parent or a tiger mom. Your natural order is freedom. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不是的。我認為那是一種糟糕的生活方式。那不是我們進化的方式，也不是我們成長的方式，更希望不是我們小時候的樣子，除非你有一個直升機父母或虎媽。你的自然秩序是自由。 I had a friend who said to me once, “You know, I never want to have to be at a specific place at a specific time” and I was like, oh my god, that’s freedom. When I heard that, that changed my life right there. 我有一個朋友曾經對我說：「你知道嗎，我從來不想必須在特定的時間出現在特定的地方」，我當時心想，天啊，那就是自由。當我聽到這句話時，我的人生就在那一刻改變了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You’re still alarm clock less? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你還是不設鬧鐘嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yes, I’m alarm clock less. Today, I did set my alarm clock just so I wouldn’t miss this. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我不設鬧鐘。今天我倒是設了鬧鐘，只是為了不錯過這個時刻。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Very important, yeah. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：非常重要，沒錯。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: But just so you know, I set the alarm clock for 11am in case I was stricken with the flu, slept in. I was still not going to set my alarm clock for 8am or 9am, and sure enough, got up many hours before that. But it was sort of a backup emergency alarm. In fact, sometimes when there’s something that I need to do, I don’t want to look at a calendar, so I’ll just set an alarm for it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：但讓你知道，我把鬧鐘設定在上午 11 點，以防我得了流感，睡過頭。我仍然不會把鬧鐘設定在上午 8 點或 9 點，果然，我在那之前好幾個小時就起床了。但那算是一個備用的緊急鬧鐘。事實上，有時候當我有事情要做時，我不想看日曆，所以我會直接設定一個鬧鐘提醒。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Just sink a little bit more into that, like, that kind of “fuck you” energy, that self prioritizing energy, because I think people rationally love the idea of this. I’m going to do what only I want to do, even if they’ve got the level of freedom. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：更深入地感受那種「去你的」能量，那種以自我為優先的能量，因為我認為人們理性上很喜歡這個想法。我會做我自己想做的事，即使他們擁有一定程度的自由。 Freedom and Productivity  自由與生產力 NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s not “fuck you” energy in the sense that I think everyone should live their life that way to the greatest extent possible. Obviously we have our requirements around work and obligations that are genuinely important to us, but don’t fritter away your life on randomly scheduled things and things that aren’t important, don’t matter, and events and weddings and tedious dinners with tedious people that you don’t want to go to. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這並不是說每個人都應該盡可能以「去你的」態度生活。顯然，我們有工作和責任上的需求，這些對我們來說是真正重要的，但不要把生命浪費在隨意安排的事情上，或那些不重要、不相關的活動、婚禮以及與你不想見的無聊人共進的無聊晚餐。 To the extent you can bring freedom into your life, optimize for that, you’ll actually be more productive. You won’t just be happier, more free, you will be more productive, because then you can focus on what is in front of you, whatever the biggest problem of that day. 在你能將自由帶入生活的範圍內，優化它，你實際上會更有生產力。你不僅會更快樂、更自由，還會更有效率，因為那時你可以專注於眼前的事，無論當天最大的問題是什麼。 When I wake up in the morning, the first four hours are when I have the most energy and that’s when I want to solve all the hard problems, and the next four hours are when I kind of want to do some more outdoorsy activities or I want to work out or maybe I can have some meetings, but I’ll try to do those last second based on whatever the day’s priorities demand. The last four hours I kind of want to wind down, I want to hang out with the kids, and I want to play games, or read a book or something like that. 當我早上醒來時，頭四個小時是我精力最充沛的時候，那時我想解決所有困難的問題，接下來的四個小時我比較想做一些戶外活動，或者鍛煉身體，或者開會，但我會根據當天的優先事項盡量把這些安排在後面。最後的四個小時我想放鬆一下，想和孩子們一起玩，玩遊戲，或者讀書之類的。 So, having that flexibility and freedom is really important, so you can just put whatever is most needed into the slot at that moment. Instead if I have like a meeting at 2pm and then I have to get a thing and some emails done, I put that off till 6pm and I’m rushing, I’m not going to be productive. 因此，擁有這種彈性和自由非常重要，這樣你就可以在當下把最需要的事情放進那個時間段。相反，如果我下午兩點有會議，然後還得處理一些事情和郵件，我把它們推遲到晚上六點，結果匆忙應付，效率不會高。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You’re certainly not free. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你當然不自由。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I’m definitely not free, but also another thing that I really believe is that inspiration is perishable. Act on it immediately. So when you’re inspired to do something, do that thing. If I’m inspired to write a blog post, I want to do it at that moment. If I’m inspired to send a tweet, I want to do it that moment. If I’m inspired to solve a problem, I want it that moment. If I’m inspired to read a book, I want to read it right then. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我當然不是自由自在，但我非常相信靈感是易逝的。要立即行動。所以當你有靈感去做某件事時，就去做那件事。如果我有靈感寫一篇部落格文章，我想在那一刻就寫。如果我有靈感發一則推文，我想在那一刻就發。如果我有靈感解決一個問題，我想在那一刻就解決。如果我有靈感讀一本書，我想立刻讀它。 If I want to learn something, do it at the moment of curiosity, the moment the curiosity arrives, I go learn that thing immediately. I download the book, I get on Google, I get on ChatGPT, whatever, I will figure that thing out on the spot, and that’s when the learning happens. It doesn’t happen because I’ve scheduled time, because I’ve set an hour aside, because when that time arrives I might be in a different mood, I might just want to do something different. 如果我想學習某件事，我會在好奇心出現的那一刻立刻去做。當好奇心來臨時，我會立刻去學那件事。我會下載書籍，使用 Google，使用 ChatGPT，無論如何，我會當場弄懂那件事，學習就是在那時發生的。不是因為我安排了時間，也不是因為我預留了一小時，因為當那個時間到來時，我可能心情不同，可能想做別的事。 So I think that spontaneity is really important, you’re going to learn best when you’re having fun, when you genuinely are enjoying the process, not when you’re forced to sit there and do it. How much do you remember from school? You know you were forced to learn geography, history, mathematics on this schedule at this time according to this person. Didn’t happen. All the stuff that sticks with you is what you learned when you wanted to, when you genuinely had the desire, and that freedom, that ability to act on something the moment you want to is so liberating that most of us go through our lives with very little tastes of that. If you live your entire life that way, that is a recipe for happiness. 所以我認為自發性真的很重要，當你在享受過程、真正感到快樂時，你會學得最好，而不是被迫坐著去做。你還記得學校裡學了多少東西嗎？你知道你被迫按照某個人的時間表，在特定時間學習地理、歷史、數學。那並沒有發生。所有真正留在你腦海裡的東西，都是你想學的時候學的，當你真正有渴望時學的，而那種自由，那種能夠在想做的那一刻行動的能力，是如此解放人心，以至於我們大多數人在生活中很少能嘗到那種滋味。如果你一生都這樣生活，那就是幸福的秘訣。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It feels like efficiency that you have. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：感覺你擁有的是效率。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Efficient also. You have the inspiration that is going to be the most frictionless time to ever do that particular task. NAVAL RAVIKANT：也是效率。你擁有的靈感，將是完成那項特定任務時最順暢無阻的時刻。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: So I’ve had the inspiration to do that. I’ll put that off until a time when I no longer really want to do it quite so much. And while I do want to do that thing, I’ll do something else that I needed to do because it’s on the schedule. It does not work. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：所以我有了做那件事的靈感。但我會把它推遲到我不再那麼想做的時候。而當我想做那件事時，我會去做一些我需要做的、因為排在日程上的其他事情。這樣是行不通的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Procrastination is because you don’t want to do that thing right now. You want to do something else. Go do that something else. I reject this frame that efficiency and productivity and success are counter to happiness and freedom. They actually go together. NAVAL RAVIKANT：拖延是因為你現在不想做那件事。你想做別的事情。去做那件別的事吧。我拒絕這種觀點，認為效率、生產力和成功與幸福及自由是相互矛盾的。事實上，它們是相輔相成的。 The happier you are, the more you can sustain doing something, the more likely you’re going to do something that will in turn make you even happier and you’ll continue to do it and you’ll outwork everybody else. The more free you are, the better you can allocate your time, and the less you’re caught up in a web of obligations and commitments, and the more you can focus on the task at hand. 你越快樂，就越能持續做某件事，你越有可能做出讓自己更快樂的事情，並且會持續下去，最終你會比其他人更努力。你越自由，就越能更好地分配時間，越不會被各種義務和承諾所束縛，越能專注於手頭的任務。 Finding Your Authentic Work 尋找你真實的工作 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: This is related to another insight of yours. The less you want something, the less you’re thinking about it, the less you’re obsessing over it, the more you’re going to do it in a natural way. The more you’re going to do it for yourself, you’re going to do it in a way that you’re good at, and you’re going to stick with it. The people around you will see the quality of your work is higher. But this seems like a difficult tension to navigate because an obsessive attention to detail is a competitive advantage of your work as well. So you have these two things sort of conflicting with each other. 克里斯·威廉森：這與你另一個見解有關。你越是不渴望某件事，越少去思考它，越少去執著於它，你就越能以自然的方式去做。你會更多地為自己去做，以你擅長的方式去做，並且會堅持下去。你周圍的人會看到你的工作質量更高。但這似乎是一個難以駕馭的矛盾，因為對細節的執著關注也是你工作的一個競爭優勢。所以這兩者之間存在某種衝突。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: No one is gonna beat you at being you. Find what feels like play to you, but looks like work to others. So it looks like work to them, but to you it feels like play, it’s not work. So you’re gonna out compete them because you’re doing it effortlessly, you’re doing it for fun, they’re doing it for work, they’re doing it for some byproduct. To you, it’s art, it’s beauty, it’s joy, it’s flow, it’s fulfilling. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒有人能比你更擅長做你自己。找到對你來說像是在玩樂，但對別人看起來像是在工作的事情。對他們來說看起來像工作，但對你來說感覺像是在玩，這就不是工作。所以你會勝過他們，因為你做這件事毫不費力，是為了樂趣，他們卻是為了工作，是為了某種副產品。對你來說，這是藝術，是美，是喜悅，是流動，是充實。 You must enjoy podcasting. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be good at it. You wouldn’t have nine hundred episodes either. If you decided that the right way to get ahead in life was to go write books, nobody would have heard of you. Chris Williamson’s book would be a complete flop, that’s not who you are. You’re a podcaster. You enjoy talking to people, you enjoy interviewing them. 你一定很享受播客製作。如果不享受，你不可能做得好，也不會有九百集。如果你決定人生前進的正確方式是去寫書，沒有人會聽過你。克里斯·威廉森的書會徹底失敗，那不是你。你是個播客主持人。你喜歡與人交談，喜歡採訪他們。 The more you do things that are natural to you, the less competition you have. You escape competition through authenticity by being your own self. 你越多做那些對你來說自然的事情，你的競爭就越少。你透過真誠做自己來逃離競爭。 Productize Yourself  將自己產品化 If I had to summarize how to be successful in life in two words, I would just say productize yourself. That’s it. Just figure out what it is that you naturally do that the world might want that you can scale up and turn into a product, and it’ll eventually be effortless for you. Yes, there’s always work required, but it won’t even feel like work to you, it’ll feel like play to you, and modern society gives us that opportunity. 如果我要用兩個字來總結如何在人生中取得成功，我會說「產品化自己」。就是這樣。只要找出你天生會做、世界可能需要且你能擴大規模並將其轉化為產品的東西，最終這對你來說會變得輕而易舉。是的，總是需要付出努力，但對你來說甚至不會覺得是在工作，而會覺得像是在玩樂，現代社會給了我們這樣的機會。 Know, if you were two thousand years ago, you’re born on a farm, your choices are very limited, right, you’re going to do stuff on that farm. Now you can literally wake up and you can move to a different city, you can switch careers, you can switch jobs, you can change the people that you’re with, you know you can change so many things about who you are and who you’re with and what you’re doing that there is infinite opportunity out there for you, literally infinite. 你要知道，如果你是在兩千年前出生在農場，你的選擇非常有限，對吧，你只能在那個農場做事。現在你可以 literally 醒來後搬到不同的城市，你可以轉換職業，你可以換工作，你可以改變你身邊的人，你知道你可以改變關於你是誰、你和誰在一起以及你在做什麼的許多事情，對你來說有無限的機會，真的是無限的。 So it’s much better to treat this like a search function to find the people who need you the most, to find the work that needs you the most, to find the place you’re best suited to be at, and it’s worthwhile to spend time in that exploration before diving into exploitation. The biggest mistake in a world with so many choices is premature commitment. If you prematurely commit to being a lawyer or a doctor and now you’ve got like five years invested into that, you might have just completely missed, you might just end up in the wrong profession, wrong place, the wrong people for thirty years of your life grinding away, and yes, the best time to figure that out was before, but the second best time is now, so just change it. 因此，將這視為一種搜尋功能，去找到最需要你的人、最需要你投入的工作、以及你最適合待的地方，會好得多。在投入利用之前，花時間進行這樣的探索是值得的。在這個選擇眾多的世界裡，最大的錯誤就是過早承諾。如果你過早決定成為律師或醫生，並且已經投入了五年時間，你可能完全錯過了其他機會，可能會在錯誤的職業、錯誤的地方、與錯誤的人一起度過三十年的辛苦歲月。是的，最好的時間是在之前發現這點，但第二好的時間就是現在，所以就改變吧。 Say No By Default  預設拒絕 And also presumably kill things that aren’t working very quickly. By default, you should kill everything, you know, if you can’t decide, the answer is no, and most things you just be saying no to. Part of my keeping my calendar free is just by default saying no to everything. Do I want to create a calendar just to add your event, right, or to add your need or your desire? 同時，也應該迅速終止那些不起作用的事物。預設情況下，你應該終止一切，如果無法決定，答案就是不，大多數事情你都應該說不。我保持行事曆空閒的一部分原因，就是預設對所有事情說不。我是否想要建立一個行事曆，只是為了加入你的活動，或者加入你的需求或願望？ One of the other things about, know, early on in life you’re looking for opportunities, so you’re saying yes to everything, and that is a phase that you go through, that is the exploration phase. Later when you found the thing you want to work on, you’re in the exploitation phase, you have to say no to everything by default, and if you don’t say no to everything by default, if you have to even explicitly go out of your way to say no to something, that will take up time. 生命早期你會尋找各種機會，所以你會對所有事情說「是」，這是一個你會經歷的階段，稱為探索階段。後來當你找到想要專注的事情時，你就進入了利用階段，必須預設對所有事情說「不」，如果你不預設對所有事情說「不」，甚至必須特別花心思去拒絕某件事，那將會佔用你的時間。 For example, know there are lot of people out there who are into hustle culture, and a big piece of hustle culture is like, well you’re not going get something if you don’t ask for it, so they’ll hustle people, they’ll always be sending you requests, messages. This is a famous person problem but I have it, and people are always asking me for things and I kind of squirm when I get these messages and I’m sure you get these two text messages, emails saying, “Hey Chris, my friend so and so should really be on your podcast” or “you should come to my event,” “you should write a forward for my book,” and you kind of squirm when you get this right, and you have to figure out how to say no. 例如，現在有很多人熱衷於「拼搏文化」，而拼搏文化的一大核心就是，如果你不主動爭取，就不會得到什麼，所以他們會不斷地向人推銷，總是發送請求和訊息。這是名人常見的問題，但我也有這種困擾，人們總是向我索求各種東西，當我收到這些訊息時會感到有些不自在，我相信你也會收到這樣的簡訊或電子郵件，像是「嘿，克里斯，我的朋友某某真的應該上你的播客」或「你應該來參加我的活動」、「你應該為我的書寫序」，收到這些時你會感到不舒服，你必須學會如何說「不」。 One of the things I learned along the way is that if you wouldn’t ask somebody else to do it and then you get that request yourself, can just dismiss it, you don’t have to respond, you don’t even let it enter your brain. You have to be able to delete emails and text messages without flinching if you want to scale, and scaling is very important, scaling your time is really important. Every interruption will take you out of flow, so the only way you can remain in flow is if you get either very good at ignoring these things by default or closing yourself off like a hermit like our mutual friend Tim Ferriss does, or you just become emotionally capable of not registering these as something that causes turbulence inside of you. 我在過程中學到的一件事是，如果你不會要求別人去做某件事，而當你自己收到這樣的請求時，可以直接忽略它，你不必回應，甚至不必讓它進入你的腦海。如果你想擴大規模，你必須能夠毫不猶豫地刪除電子郵件和簡訊，擴大規模非常重要，擴大你的時間管理尤其重要。每一次打斷都會讓你脫離專注狀態，所以你唯一能保持專注的方法是，要麼習慣性地忽略這些事情，要麼像我們共同的朋友提姆·費里斯那樣，像隱士一樣封閉自己，或者你必須在情感上能夠不將這些視為會在你內心引起動盪的事物。 ALSO READ:  TD Jakes on 3 Types of Friends (Transcript) 另見：TD Jakes 談三種朋友類型（文字記錄） CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That not registering it emotionally thing, is that fundamental? That’s so fundamental to so many things in life. Can we dig into that a little bit? Is it because again, I’ve only seen you as you. Right? I didn’t know you twenty years ago. I didn’t know you as a child. So I’ve only seen you with this holistic selfishness, the integrated self prioritization, whatever we—I don’t know what we called it. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那種情感上不去註冊的感覺，是不是很根本？這對生活中很多事情來說都非常根本。我們能不能深入探討一下？是不是因為，我只見過現在的你。對吧？我二十年前不認識你，也不認識你小時候的樣子。所以我只見過你這種整體的自私，整合的自我優先，不管我們——我不知道我們怎麼稱呼它。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Selfish is fine. I’ll take selfish. I’m selfish. I’m a very selfish person. Don’t contact me. NAVAL RAVIKANT：自私沒關係。我接受自私。我很自私。我是一個非常自私的人。別聯繫我。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That emotional reaction—whatever that is. Also get the sense too that maybe people have lived obligation life for so long that they actually kinda struggle to tap into what it is that they want. They’ve hidden their wants and their desires and their needs, they deprioritized themselves so much for so long. They go, what do I want, actually? What is it? Do I want to go to this thing or not? Because all I’ve done is be puppeted. Right? I’ve been marionetted by other people’s desires for so so so long. I can’t even tap into that anymore, and saying no feels like a war crime. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那種情感反應——不管那是什麼。我也感覺到，也許人們活在責任生活中太久了，以至於他們其實很難觸及自己真正想要的是什麼。他們隱藏了自己的渴望和需求，長期以來把自己放在次要位置。他們會想，我到底想要什麼？到底是什麼？我想去這個地方嗎？還是不想？因為我所做的只是被操控。對吧？我被別人的慾望牽著走了太太太久，我甚至無法觸及自己的想法，而說「不」感覺像是犯了戰爭罪。 Observe Your Thoughts Objectively 客觀地觀察你的想法 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So I think it’s really good to be able to view your own mind and your own thoughts objectively, and that is the big benefit of meditation. It creates a small gap between your conscious observation self and your mind, and that lets you then look at your thoughts and evaluate them a little bit like you would a third party’s statements. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為能夠客觀地觀察自己的心靈和思想是非常好的，這也是冥想的一大好處。它在你的有意識的觀察自我與你的心靈之間創造了一個小小的間隙，讓你能夠像評估第三方的陳述一樣，去審視和評價自己的想法。 If you just take your mind to be you and they’re integrated in one and the same at all times and you’re reacting from the mind, then you’re not even going question things that come into your mind. Anything that comes in that creates your reaction will immediately create a reaction, but if you can observe your thoughts a little bit and not in some woo woo way, but you can even just do it through therapy, can do it through journaling, you can do it any way you’d like, you can just take long walks, don’t have to meditate and do lotus position, all that is unnecessary. 如果你只是把你的心靈當作你自己，並且它們始終融為一體，而你又是從心靈反應的，那麼你甚至不會質疑進入你心靈的事物。任何進入並引發你反應的東西都會立即產生反應，但如果你能稍微觀察你的想法，不是以某種玄學的方式，而是你甚至可以通過治療、寫日記，或者任何你喜歡的方式來做到，你也可以只是長時間散步，不必非得冥想或打坐蓮花姿勢，這些都不是必需的。 But if you can observe your own thoughts and view them a little objectively, then you can start being a little more choosy, a little more critical, and you can realize that there are no problems in the real world other than maybe things that inflict pain on your body. Everything else has to become a problem in your mind first. You have to view it and interpret it and create a narrative that it is a problem before it becomes the problem. 但如果你能觀察自己的想法，並稍微客觀地看待它們，那麼你就可以開始變得更有選擇性，更加批判，並且你會意識到，現實世界中除了可能對你的身體造成痛苦的事情外，並沒有真正的問題。其他一切必須先在你的心中成為問題。你必須先看待它、解釋它，並創造一個敘述，認為它是個問題，問題才會成為問題。 Then you realize that a lot of your emotional energy is spent on reacting to things that your mind is automatically saying are problems, and you don’t need all those problems. Do you really need that many problems in your life? Again I would say try to focus on just one overarching problem and then go solve that problem. 然後你會發現，你花了很多情緒能量去回應那些你的心靈自動認為是問題的事情，而你並不需要那麼多問題。你真的需要生活中有那麼多問題嗎？我還是會說，試著專注於一個總體的問題，然後去解決那個問題。 It’s like if you want to be successful, define success very concretely, focus on that and everything else, when it enters your mind it becomes a problem, whether it’s a judgment about the girl walking down the street or the car that just cut in front of you or whether it’s like you know this, your accountant did this stupid thing, like yes it’s going to trigger you but observe for a moment that like it’s triggering me, I’ve created a problem, do I really want to have this problem right now, do I want to spend the energy on this problem or do I want that going somewhere else? 就像如果你想要成功，就要非常具體地定義成功，專注於那個目標，其他一切當它進入你的腦海時就成為問題，無論是對街上走過的女孩的評判，還是剛剛插隊的車，或者是你知道的，你的會計做了愚蠢的事，是的，這會觸發你的情緒，但先觀察一下，這觸發了我，我創造了一個問題，我真的想現在擁有這個問題嗎？我想把精力花在這個問題上，還是想把它轉移到別處？ And it doesn’t have to be that over, you don’t have to, the mind mud wrestling with itself is also a problem. 而且不必那麼過度，你不必這樣，心靈與自己掙扎也是一種問題。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I have, my problems have got problems and I have a real problem about fixing my problems. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我有，我的問題還有問題，而我對解決我的問題有真正的問題。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, exactly, and so you just, you’re going to be much happier and much more focused, again I think happiness and focus and success can kind of complement each other. You’re going to have much more energy, just think about it as mental energy, you’re have much more mental energy to focus on the actual problems you want to solve if you don’t start unconsciously, subconsciously, reactively picking up problems everywhere. So before anything can be a problem that takes up your emotional energy, you have to accept it as a problem, you can be choosy about your problems, and I’m not saying I’m perfect in that regard, but I think I’m better than I used to be. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，沒錯，所以你會更快樂，也會更專注。我認為快樂、專注和成功是可以相輔相成的。你會有更多的能量，這裡指的是心理能量，如果你不會無意識、潛意識地、反應性地到處撿問題，你就會有更多心理能量專注於你真正想解決的問題。在任何事情成為佔用你情緒能量的問題之前，你必須先接受它是個問題，你可以挑選你的問題，我不是說我在這方面完美，但我覺得我比以前好多了。 Choose Your Problems Wisely 明智地選擇你的問題 Well, lots of people are addicted to solving problems, right, so much so that sometimes people create problems when we don’t have any, simply so that we can solve them. We have that going on, and then even worse is we take on problems that we can’t affect. 好吧，很多人都沉迷於解決問題，對吧，以至於有時候人們會在沒有問題的情況下製造問題，只是為了讓自己去解決它們。我們就是這樣，甚至更糟的是，我們還會承擔那些我們無法影響的問題。 So, you know, another one of my little quips was, you know, a rational person can sort of find peace by cultivating indifference to things that are out of their control, and I’m as guilty as anybody of doomsurfing on X or social media and getting worked up about things that I can’t do anything about, right? Like do I want to be fighting those battles in my mind when I literally cannot do anything about it? 所以，你知道，我另一個小格言是，一個理性的人可以通過培養對自己無法控制的事情的漠不關心來找到內心的平靜，而我和任何人一樣，經常在 X 或社交媒體上瀏覽災難新聞，為那些我無能為力的事情感到焦慮，對吧？我真的想在心裡打那些我根本無法改變的戰鬥嗎？ So if you find yourself looping on a problem like you’re watching the news too much and you’re getting caught up in a problem you can’t do anything about, you have to step away from that, and modern media is a delivery mechanism for mimetic viruses, and what’s happened now is you know, one hundred years ago, five hundred years ago, if something wasn’t happening in your immediate vicinity, you wouldn’t hear about it. It wouldn’t be a problem for you, but now every single one of the world’s problems has turned into a mimetic virus, which is going into the battlefield of the news and is trying to infect your mind in real time. Hyper speed. 所以如果你發現自己在一個問題上不斷循環，就像你看新聞看太多，陷入一個你無法改變的問題中，你必須從中抽身，而現代媒體是一種模仿病毒的傳播機制，現在的情況是，你知道，一百年前、五百年前，如果某件事不在你身邊發生，你根本不會聽說，那對你來說也不是問題，但現在世界上的每一個問題都變成了一種模仿病毒，進入新聞戰場，試圖以超高速即時感染你的心智。 So that, yeah, so that you become obsessed with the war in Ukraine, is really far away, or you get obsessed with climate change or you get obsessed with AI doom or you get obsessed with whatever, and there’s nothing as riveting as the old religion, the world is ending, the world is ending, pay attention, the world is ending. 所以，對，你會變得對烏克蘭戰爭著迷，而那離你非常遙遠，或者你會對氣候變遷著迷，或者你會對人工智慧末日著迷，或者你會對任何事情著迷，而沒有什麼比舊宗教更吸引人了，那就是世界末日，世界末日，注意看，世界末日。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Cassandra Complex at global scale. 克里斯·威廉森：全球規模的卡珊德拉情結。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Cassandra Complex at global scale and I would argue that large percentages of population are essentially just infected with these mimetic viruses that have taken over their brain and are causing them to do incredible gyration about things that probably aren’t even true or are greatly exaggerated, but even to the extent they are true, are things that that person can do nothing about and they should put their own house in order first. NAVAL RAVIKANT：全球規模的卡珊德拉情結，我認為大部分人口基本上都被這些模仿病毒感染，這些病毒佔據了他們的大腦，導致他們對可能根本不真實或被大幅誇大的事情做出難以置信的扭曲反應，但即使這些事情是真的，對那個人來說也是無能為力的，他們應該先整理好自己的家務事。 So you know another little line I have for myself is your family is broken but you’re going to fix the world, right? People are running out there to try and fix the world and their own lives are a— 所以你知道我對自己說的另一句話是，你的家庭已經破碎，但你卻想去改變世界，對吧？人們跑出去試圖改變世界，而他們自己的生活卻是一團糟—— CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Oh my god. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：天啊。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right, and I think it defies credibility if you can’t fix your own life first. I’m not going to take you seriously if you can’t fix your own life, like all these philosophers who you know seem like people you emulate and so smart or like these brilliant celebrities and they go off and commit suicide, well you just kind of invalidated your whole way of life. It’s like that line of in No Country for Old Men where the killer is waiting for the protagonist and protagonist shows up and the killer says, “Well you know if your set of rules brought you here, then what good are your rules?” Didn’t work. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，我認為如果你連自己的生活都無法改善，那就很難讓人相信你。我不會認真看待你，如果你無法改善自己的生活，就像那些你崇拜、看起來很聰明的哲學家，或者那些聰明的名人，他們最後選擇自殺，那你整個生活方式就被否定了。這就像《老無所依》裡的那句台詞，殺手在等主角，主角出現後殺手說：「如果你的規則把你帶到這裡，那你的規則有什麼用？」結果規則沒用。 I am self, I’m holistically selfish in that I want to be objectively successful in everything I set out to want. 我是自我中心的，我是全面性的自私，因為我想在我設定的所有目標中都能客觀地成功。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Mhmm.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：嗯嗯。 Don’t Settle for Mediocrity 不要滿足於平庸。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, and you have one life, don’t settle for mediocrity. Don’t settle for mediocrity, and I think the only, like, people debate intelligence for example, right? We talk about IQ tests and all that, but I think the only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life, and there are two parts to that. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，你只有一次生命，不要滿足於平庸。不要滿足於平庸，我認為唯一的，比如說，人們會爭論智力，對吧？我們談論智商測試等等，但我認為智力的唯一真正考驗是你是否能從生活中得到你想要的東西，而這有兩個部分。 One is getting what you want, so you know how to get it, and the second is wanting the right things, knowing what to want in the first place. I could want to be a, you know, six foot eight basketball player, and I’m not going to get that, so it’s wanting the wrong thing. 一是得到你想要的東西，也就是你知道如何去獲得它；第二是想要正確的東西，首先知道該想要什麼。我可能想成為一個身高六英尺八寸的籃球運動員，但我不會達到那個目標，所以這就是想錯了東西。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s wanting something that you can’t get. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那就是想要你得不到的東西。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s wanting something you can’t get. There’s also wanting something that you don’t want. NAVAL RAVIKANT：那就是想要你得不到的東西。還有一種情況是想要你其實不想要的東西。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, wanting something that’s a booby prize. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，想要的東西卻像是個安慰獎。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: There are plenty of booby prizes out there too, right? I don’t know if that won, don’t know if won in about twenty or so. Yeah, prizes that are just not worth having, or that create their own problems. But if you’re not careful, you can end up in a place in life not only that you don’t want to be, but one that you didn’t even mean to get to. NAVAL RAVIKANT：外面也有很多安慰獎，對吧？我不知道那是不是贏了，不知道大約二十個左右是不是贏了。是的，有些獎根本不值得擁有，或者會帶來自己的問題。但如果你不小心，你可能會在人生中到達一個不僅你不想去的地方，甚至是你根本沒打算去的地方。 Navigating Life’s Decisions 掌舵人生的抉擇 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s if you’re kind of proceeding unconsciously. And usually I think people end up there because they are going on autopilot with sort of societal expectations or other people’s expectations, or out of guilt or out of mimetic desire. Peter Thiel has this whole thing from Renee Gerard about how mimetic desires are desires picked up from other people, and some of those are automatically baked into society like go to law school, go to med school, go to business school. Or they might be from watching what your friends are doing and what the other monkeys are doing, or it might be what your parents’ expectations are. NAVAL RAVIKANT：那是當你無意識地前進時的情況。通常我認為人們會走到那裡，是因為他們在自動駕駛模式下，遵循社會期望或他人的期望，或者出於內疚，或出於模仿慾望。彼得·蒂爾引用了 Renee Gerard 的觀點，模仿慾望是從他人那裡獲取的慾望，其中一些是自動融入社會的，比如去讀法學院、醫學院、商學院。或者可能是看著你的朋友在做什麼，其他猴子在做什麼，或者是你父母的期望。 Guilt is just society’s voice speaking in your head, socially programmed so you’ll be a good little monkey and do things that are good for the tribe. But I think the best outcomes come when you think it through for yourself and decide for yourself, and I don’t think people spend enough time deciding. 罪惡感只是社會的聲音在你腦海中說話，是社會編程讓你成為一隻乖巧的小猴子，做對部落有益的事情。但我認為最好的結果是當你自己思考並自己決定時，而我覺得人們並沒有花足夠的時間去做決定。 For example, we run on these four-year cycles. In Silicon Valley, you go join a startup, you vest your stock over four years, that’s the standard. In college, you go for four years, high school you go for four years. Some things take longer – you have children, they hit puberty nine years later, that’s like a nine-year cycle until that relationship changes. But we’re used to these fairly long cycles, multi-year cycles, in which we are committed to things. You go to law school, four or five year cycle. You go be a lawyer, forty year cycle. 例如，我們運行在這些四年週期中。在矽谷，你會加入一家新創公司，你的股票會在四年內逐步歸屬，這是標準。在大學，你讀四年，高中你也讀四年。有些事情需要更長時間——你有了孩子，他們九年後進入青春期，那就像是一個九年的週期，直到那段關係改變。但我們習慣了這些相當長的週期，多年週期，在這期間我們對事情有所承諾。你去讀法學院，四到五年的週期。你成為律師，四十年的週期。 These are very long cycles. The amount of time we spend deciding what to do and who to do it with is very short, very, very short. We spend three months deciding, one month deciding on a job where we’re going to be for ten years or five years. And because a lot of discovery is path dependent, where the next thing you find on the path is dependent on where you were on the previous path, you sort of start going down this vector that is a very long distance. 這些是非常長的週期。我們花在決定要做什麼以及和誰一起做的時間非常短，非常非常短。我們花三個月決定，一個月決定一份我們將待十年或五年的工作。因為很多發現是路徑依賴的，下一個你在路上發現的東西取決於你之前所在的路徑，你會開始沿著一個非常長距離的向量前進。 People decide frivolously which city to live in, and that’s going to decide who their friends are, what their jobs are, their opportunity, their weather, their food supply, their air supply, quality of life. It’s such an important decision but people spend so little time thinking it through. I would argue that if you’re making a four-year decision, spend a year thinking it through, like really thinking it through. Twenty-five percent of the time. 人們輕率地決定住在哪個城市，而這將決定他們的朋友是誰、他們的工作、機會、天氣、食物供應、空氣供應、生活品質。這是一個非常重要的決定，但人們花在思考上的時間卻非常少。我會說，如果你要做一個四年的決定，花一年時間認真思考，真的認真思考。花百分之二十五的時間。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, exactly, there’s the secretary theorem. Don’t know if you know that one? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，沒錯，有個秘書定理。不知道你是否聽過？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Is that after you’ve done this many people, pick the best one of the next however many? NAVAL RAVIKANT：那是在你面試了這麼多人之後，從接下來的幾個人中選出最好的那個？ CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s right. Yeah. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：沒錯。是的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: The secretary theorem is this computer science professor trying to figure out how much time he should spend interviewing secretaries and then how long to keep the secretary. So, let’s say he’s going to have a secretary for ten years, does he keep searching for one year, two years, three years, one month, two months, what is the optimal time? NAVAL RAVIKANT：秘書定理是這樣一位計算機科學教授試圖弄清楚他應該花多少時間面試秘書，然後應該留用秘書多久。比方說，他打算有一個秘書工作十年，他應該找秘書找一年、兩年、三年、一個月、兩個月，什麼才是最佳時間？ And it turns out that the optimal time is somewhere around a third. About a third of the way through, you take the best person you’ve worked with and try to find someone that good or better. So by the time you’ve gone about a third of the way through, you have seen enough that you now have a sense of what the bar is, and then anybody who meets or exceeds that bar is good enough. This applies to dating, this applies to jobs and careers, this applies generally. 結果發現最佳時間大約是三分之一左右。大約在三分之一的過程中，你會選擇你遇過的最好的人，然後嘗試找到一個同樣好或更好的人。所以當你走過大約三分之一的過程時，你已經看過足夠多的人，對標準有了感覺，然後任何達到或超過這個標準的人都足夠好了。這個理論適用於約會、工作和職業，普遍適用。 But the interesting thing about the secretary theorem is that it’s actually not time based. It’s not based on one third of the time, it’s iteration based. 但秘書定理有趣的地方在於，它其實不是基於時間的，不是基於三分之一的時間，而是基於迭代次數。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The number of candidates. The number of shots you took on goal. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：候選人的數量。你射門的次數。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. So, you want to have lots and lots of iterations. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。所以，你需要進行大量的反覆嘗試。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: So in that sense you need to bail out quickly, and you need to be decisive quickly. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：所以從這個角度來看，你需要快速退出，並且迅速果斷。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. You need to take opportunities quickly, and bail out quickly. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。你需要迅速抓住機會，並且快速退出。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Like, if you go back and you look through failed relationships, probably the biggest regret will be staying in the relationship after your year was over. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：比如說，如果你回頭看看那些失敗的感情，最大的遺憾可能就是在那段關係該結束的時候還繼續維持下去。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly, you should have left sooner. The moment you knew it wasn’t going to work out, you should have moved on. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，你應該更早離開。當你知道這段關係不會有結果的那一刻，你就該往前走。 Iterations vs. Repetitions 迭代與重複 So in that sense, I think Malcolm Gladwell popularized this idea of ten thousand hours to mastery. I would say it’s actually ten thousand iterations to mastery. 從這個角度來看，我認為馬爾科姆·格拉德威爾普及了「一萬小時達到精通」的觀念。但我會說，實際上是「一萬次迭代達到精通」。 It’s not actually ten thousand, it’s some unknown number, but it’s about the number of iterations that drive the learning curve, and iteration is not repetition. Repetition is a different thing. Repeating is doing the same thing over and over. Iteration is modifying it with learning and then doing another version of it. So that’s error correction. So if you get ten thousand error corrections in anything, you will be an expert at it. 其實並不是一萬次，而是一個未知的數字，但大約是推動學習曲線的迭代次數，而迭代並非重複。重複是另一回事，重複是一次又一次地做同樣的事情。迭代則是在學習後進行修改，然後做出另一個版本。這就是錯誤修正。所以如果你在任何事情上進行了一萬次錯誤修正，你就會成為該領域的專家。 Overcoming Cynicism and Pessimism 克服憤世嫉俗與悲觀主義 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Don’t partner with cynics and pessimists. You mentioned there about the people who’ve got a nightmare going on at home and are trying to fix the world, but a lot of the time that cynicism and pessimism we find in ourselves. We see the world whether it’s because we’ve imbibed what the news or the negative people around us have said, or it’s a bit more endogenous than that. It’s just sort of in us. It’s the way that we see the world. How can people avoid cynicism and pessimism within themselves? 克里斯·威廉森：不要與憤世嫉俗者和悲觀主義者合作。你提到那些家裡有一團亂麻，卻試圖改變世界的人，但很多時候，我們在自己身上也會發現這種憤世嫉俗和悲觀。我們看待世界，無論是因為我們吸收了新聞或周圍負面人的言論，還是這種情緒更內生於我們自身，這就是我們看待世界的方式。人們如何避免內心的憤世嫉俗和悲觀呢？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Cynicism and pessimism is a tough one. We’re naturally hardwired for it. Again, I go back to evolution, I’m sorry to keep harping on evolution, but within biology there’s very few good explanatory theories and theory of evolution by natural selection is probably the best one. So if you can’t explain something about life or psychology or human nature through evolution, then you probably don’t have a good theory for it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：憤世嫉俗和悲觀主義是很難克服的。我們天生就有這種傾向。我還是要回到進化論，抱歉一直強調進化論，但在生物學中，很少有好的解釋理論，而自然選擇的進化論可能是最好的理論。所以如果你無法通過進化來解釋生命、心理學或人性的一些現象，那麼你可能沒有一個好的理論來解釋它。 I would say that pessimism is another one that comes out of this, which is in the natural environment, you’re hardwired to be pessimistic because let’s say that I see something rustling in the woods. If I move towards it and it turns out to be food and prey, then good, I get to eat one meal. But if it turns out to be a predator, I get eaten, and that’s the end of that. So we are hardwired to avoid ruin and just dying, so we are naturally hardwired to be pessimists. 我會說悲觀主義也是由此而來的，在自然環境中，你天生就被設計成悲觀的。比方說，我看到樹林裡有東西在沙沙作響。如果我走過去，結果是食物和獵物，那很好，我可以吃一頓飯。但如果結果是掠食者，那我就會被吃掉，事情就結束了。所以我們天生就被設計成避免毀滅和死亡，因此我們自然地傾向於悲觀。 But modern society is very different. Despite whatever problems you may have with modern society, it is far far safer than living in the jungle and just trying to survive, and the opportunities and the upside are non-linear. 但現代社會非常不同。儘管你可能對現代社會有各種問題，但它比在叢林中掙扎求生要安全得多，而且機會和上升空間是非線性的。 For example, when you’re investing, if you short a stock, the most money you can make is 2x – if the stock goes to zero, you double your money. But if the stock is the next Nvidia and it goes 100x or 1000x, you make a lot of money. So upside through leverage is nearly unlimited. 例如，當你在投資時，如果你做空一支股票，你能賺到的最多錢是兩倍——如果該股票跌到零，你的錢就翻倍了。但如果該股票是下一個 Nvidia，漲了 100 倍或 1000 倍，你就能賺很多錢。所以通過槓桿獲得的上行空間幾乎是無限的。 Also in modern society because there’s so many different people you can interact with, if you go on a date and it fails, there are infinite more people to go on a date with. In a tribal system there might have been twenty people and you can’t even get through all of them. So modern society is far more forgiving of failure and you just have to neocortically realize and override that. You have to realize that you’re much more running a search function to find the thing that’ll work and then that one thing will pay off in massive compounding. 同時在現代社會，由於你可以與許多不同的人互動，如果你去約會但失敗了，還有無限多的人可以約。在部落制度中，可能只有二十個人，你甚至無法和他們全部約會。所以現代社會對失敗更寬容，你只需要用新皮質去意識並覆蓋這一點。你必須意識到，你更像是在運行一個搜尋功能，去找到那個有效的東西，而那一個東西將帶來巨大的複利回報。 Once you find your mate for the rest of your life, you find your wife or your husband, then you can compound in that relationship. It’s okay if you had fifty failed dates in between. The same way once you find the one business you’re meant to plow into and it’ll compound returns, it’s okay if you had fifty small failed ventures or fifty small failed job interviews. The number of failures doesn’t matter, and so there’s no point in being a pessimist. 一旦你找到你生命中的伴侶，找到你的妻子或丈夫，你就能在這段關係中複利增長。即使你中間經歷了五十次失敗的約會也沒關係。同樣地，一旦你找到那個你注定要全力投入的事業，並且它會帶來複利回報，即使你曾經有五十次小型失敗的創業或五十次小型失敗的面試也沒關係。失敗的次數並不重要，所以沒有必要成為悲觀主義者。 I would say you want to be skeptical about specific things. Every specific opportunity is probably a fail, but you want to be optimistic in the general. 我會說你應該對具體的事情保持懷疑。每一個具體的機會很可能都是失敗的，但你應該對整體保持樂觀。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How do you navigate that tension? 克里斯·威廉森：你如何在這種矛盾中找到平衡？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I mean exactly as I said, I’m optimistic in the general that if something fails right now, then this is a little woo-woo, but it wasn’t meant to be, it was a learning experience, it was an iteration. As long as I learned something from it then it’s a win. If I didn’t learn from it then it’s a loss, but as long as you’re learning and you keep iterating fast and cutting your losses quickly, then when you find the right thing, you have to be optimistic and compound into it. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：我的意思正如我所說，我對整體保持樂觀，如果某件事現在失敗了，這聽起來有點玄，但那不是命中注定的，那是一個學習經驗，是一次迭代。只要我從中學到了東西，那就是勝利。如果我沒有學到，那就是失敗，但只要你在學習，並且持續快速迭代，迅速止損，那麼當你找到正確的方向時，你必須保持樂觀並持續投入。 So you don’t want to jump into the first thing, you don’t want to marry the first person you date necessarily unless you got very lucky, but you want to investigate and explore very, very quickly until you find the match, and then you have to be willing to go all in. You have to be willing to move your chips to the center of the table, so both those approaches are required. 所以你不想一開始就跳進去，你不一定要和你約會的第一個人結婚，除非你非常幸運，但你想要非常非常快地調查和探索，直到找到合適的人，然後你必須願意全心投入。你必須願意把籌碼推到桌子中央，所以這兩種方法都是必須的。 Beyond Labels and Identity 超越標籤與身份認同 It’s a barbell strategy, it’s sort of black or white, and most people are sort of stuck in this gray bit, like “I’m half in, but I kind of don’t really know if I am.” 這是一種槓鈴策略，有點像非黑即白，而大多數人都卡在灰色地帶，像是「我半心半意，但又不太確定自己是否真的投入」。 Also think like labels like pessimists, optimists, cynic, introvert, extrovert – these are very self-limiting. Humans are very dynamic. There are times when you feel like being introverted, there are times when you feel like being extroverted, there are contexts in which you’ll be pessimistic, are contexts in which you’ll be optimistic. 也要想想像悲觀主義者、樂觀主義者、憤世嫉俗者、內向者、外向者這些標籤——這些都非常限制自己。人類是非常有動態的。有時你會想要內向，有時你會想要外向，有些情境下你會悲觀，有些情境下你會樂觀。 Leave all those labels alone. It’s better just to look at the problem at hand, look at reality the way it is, try to take yourself out of the equation in a sense. Like obviously you’re involved, but motivated reasoning is the worst kind of reasoning. You’re not going to find truth through highly motivated reasoning. You have to be objective, and objective means trying to take yourself out of it as much as possible or at least your personality out of it as much as possible. 不要理會那些標籤。最好是直接看眼前的問題，客觀看待現實，試著在某種程度上將自己排除在外。當然，你是參與其中的，但有動機的推理是最糟糕的推理方式。你不可能通過高度有動機的推理找到真相。你必須保持客觀，而客觀意味著盡可能將自己，至少是你的個性，排除在外。 To the extent you run with this thick identity and personality, it’s going to cloud your judgment, it’s going to try and lock you into the past. If you say “I’m a depressed person,” yeah, you’re going to be unhappy. That’s a way of locking yourself into your past. Even saying “I have trauma, I have PTSD” – yeah, you feel something, there are memories, there are flashes, there are occasional bad feelings, but don’t define yourself by it because then you’ll lock it into your identity and just going to loop on it. 如果你堅持帶著這種強烈的身份認同和個性，這會模糊你的判斷，會試圖將你鎖定在過去。如果你說「我是個憂鬱症患者」，是的，你會感到不快樂。這是一種將自己鎖定在過去的方式。即使說「我有創傷，我有創傷後壓力症候群（PTSD）」——是的，你會感受到一些東西，有記憶，有閃回，有偶爾的不適感，但不要用這些來定義自己，因為那樣你會將它們鎖定在你的身份中，然後不斷地陷入其中。 It’s better to stay flexible because reality is always changing and you have to be able to adapt to it. Adaptation is also intelligence, adaptation is survival. Adaptation is kind of how you’re here. You’re here because you’re an adapter and your ancestors were adapters. So to adapt, you’ll see things clearly, and if you’re seeing them through your own identity, it’s going to cloud your judgment. 保持彈性比較好，因為現實總是在變化，你必須能夠適應它。適應也是一種智慧，適應就是生存。適應某種程度上就是你存在的原因。你之所以在這裡，是因為你是個適應者，你的祖先也是適應者。所以要適應，你會看得很清楚，但如果你是透過自己的身份來看事情，這會影響你的判斷。 Defining Happiness  定義幸福 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Moving on to sort of thinking about happiness, obviously, a topic of yours. It’s honestly the one that I feel least qualified to talk about. Is it like a guy that’s got long arms teaching you how to bench press, or a dude that’s really tall teaching you how to dead lift, someone that feels like they came from behind the eight ball? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：接著談談幸福，顯然這是你的話題。老實說，這是我覺得自己最不具資格談論的主題。這就像一個手臂很長的人教你如何臥推，或者一個很高的人教你如何硬舉，感覺像是從劣勢中逆轉過來的人嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, it’s you’re asking a crazy person about their thoughts, so I just thought it through. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，你是在問一個瘋子他的想法，所以我只是仔細思考了一下。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is happiness still more about peace than it is about joy? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：幸福是否仍然更多關乎內心的平靜，而非喜悅？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s just one of those overloaded words that means different things to different people, so I’m not even sure we’re communicating the same language. But what is happiness? I think it’s just basically being okay with where you are. Not wanting. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這只是其中一個被過度使用的詞彙，對不同的人有不同的意義，所以我甚至不確定我們是否在用同一種語言交流。但什麼是幸福？我認為基本上就是對你所處的狀態感到滿意。不再渴求。 The Nature of Happiness  幸福的本質 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Not wanting things to be different than the way they are. Not having the sense that anything is missing in this moment. Needing something to change your current positive situation being contingent on an adjustment. I’m getting something from the outside world. Ironically, I think most people, if you were to ask them when they were happiest for a sustained period of time, not for a brief moment, because pleasure can override happiness and create kind of this illusion of happiness. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不希望事情與現狀有所不同。不覺得此刻缺少什麼。需要某種改變來調整你當前的積極狀態。我從外在世界獲取某些東西。具有諷刺意味的是，我認為大多數人，如果你問他們何時曾經長時間感到快樂，而不是短暫的瞬間，因為快樂可以凌駕於幸福之上，並創造一種幸福的幻覺。 But if you ask people when they were happy for a sustained period of time, they were probably doing some variation of nothing. 但如果你問人們何時曾長時間感到快樂，他們大概是在做某種形式的無所事事。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s interesting, because in the chase is this sort of lack, this contingency, but then you get bored. If you just sit around all the time, you get bored, so you want adventure, you want surprise, like there’s the funny thought experiment of the bliss machine, which is suppose I could drill a hole in your head and put electrode in, and they did this with monkeys, and I can put a wire in there, and I can stimulate just the right part of your brain, and I can put you in bliss, and you would just be in bliss, would you would you want that? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這很有趣，因為在追求的過程中會有一種缺失感，一種不確定性，但接著你又會感到無聊。如果你一直閒著不動，你會感到無聊，所以你想要冒險，你想要驚喜，就像有個有趣的思想實驗叫做幸福機器，假設我可以在你頭上鑽個洞，放入電極，他們曾經對猴子做過這個實驗，我可以把一根線插進去，刺激你大腦的某個特定部位，讓你處於幸福狀態，你會一直處於幸福狀態，你會想要這樣嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Might be nice. For how long? NAVAL RAVIKANT：可能不錯。能持續多久？ CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Do it and I’ll tell you. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：做了你就知道了。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right. So most people will say, well I don’t want that, I want meaning, I don’t want just bliss, want meaning, and you’re like, okay, well I’ll put an electrode in there and I’ll give you meaning, how about that? And if you kind of run this thought experiment long enough, I think most people realize, actually, what I want is I want surprise. I want the world to surprise me, and I want to wrestle with it in ways that are somewhat predictable but somewhat not, and you kind of end up back where you started. NAVAL RAVIKANT：對。大多數人會說，我不想要那個，我想要意義，我不只想要幸福，我想要意義，你會說，好吧，那我就給你插電極，給你意義，怎麼樣？如果你把這個思想實驗做久一點，我想大多數人會意識到，實際上，我想要的是驚喜。我想要世界給我驚喜，我想以某種既可預測又不可預測的方式與它搏鬥，最後你會回到你一開始的地方。 So, I don’t know if necessarily, for some people, pure happiness is the ultimate goal. They want to, you know, just be blissfully happy wherever they are, whenever they are, but I think other people, most people would say, well I’m here in this world, I’m here in this life, I don’t understand it or why, but I want to be engaged, I want to be surprised, I want to do things, I want to accomplish things, I want to want things and then get them. Right? That’s kind of the whole game that we’re all playing here. 所以，我不確定對某些人來說，純粹的快樂是否一定是最終目標。他們想要的，是無論身處何地、何時，都能幸福快樂，但我認為其他人，大多數人會說，我來到這個世界，來到這一生，我不明白為什麼，但我想要參與其中，我想要驚喜，我想做事情，我想完成事情，我想渴望某些東西，然後得到它們。對吧？這大概就是我們大家都在玩的整個遊戲。 The Value of Surprise  驚喜的價值 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Surprise is a really interesting, the sort of unpredictability, I think total bro science here, but I’m pretty sure that that’s kind of how dopamine works, that things are a bit better than you expected. That within that it means that if you for the perennial insecure overachievers that cloy for control, that really want to be able to the schedule is perfectly done and we know the itinerary, we know where we’re going to be at this time, you’re, in some ways, I guess, reducing down the capacity for surprise because everything has become very contrived, prescribed, done in advance, laid out. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：驚喜是一件非常有趣的事，那種不可預測性，我覺得這完全是兄弟科學，但我很確定多巴胺就是這樣運作的，事情比你預期的要好一點。在這之中，對於那些永遠不安、過度追求成就、渴望掌控一切的人來說，他們真的想要行程完美無缺，我們知道行程安排，我們知道我們會在什麼時間在哪裡，從某種程度上，我想，你是在減少驚喜的可能性，因為一切都變得非常刻意、規定、事先安排、鋪排好了。 Your ability to be surprised actually diminishes. 你被驚喜的能力其實會減弱。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, if nothing worked out the way you expected, if it was all serendipity and you didn’t want that, you would just be a ball of anxiety. On the other hand, if everything worked out as you expected and wanted, you’d be so bored you might as well be dead. So there’s some, you know, the river of life kind of flows between these two banks and enjoy it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，如果事情完全沒有如你所預期的那樣發展，如果一切都是偶然的，而你又不想要這樣，那你就會變成一團焦慮。另一方面，如果一切都如你所期望和想要的那樣順利，你會感到無比無聊，甚至不如死了算了。所以，生命之河就在這兩岸之間流淌，享受其中吧。 Self-Reflection and Unhappiness 自我反思與不快樂 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You say thinking about yourself is the source of all unhappiness, but presumably you need to work on yourself and your weaknesses as well. So some degree of reflection is important, and if thinking about yourself as a source of unhappiness, is this a price that you need to pay? I need to sort of reflect inward. I’m going to have to diminish this level of happiness for a little while, and then I can use this new level, I’ve got my brown belt on and I can go out into the world as a brown belt. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你說思考自己是所有不快樂的根源，但顯然你也需要努力改進自己和自己的弱點。所以某種程度的反思是重要的，如果把思考自己視為不快樂的來源，這是否是你必須付出的代價？我需要向內反省。我得暫時降低這種幸福感，然後我可以利用這個新的層次，我已經戴上了棕帶，然後我可以以棕帶的身份走向世界。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: What I’m specifically referring to that is, if you’re thinking about your personality and your ego and the character of you, and you’re obsessing over that, that’s where a lot of depression and unhappiness sort of lingers and gets cultivated. So thinking about woe is me, this happened to me, that happened to me, I have this personality, I have this issue, I deserve this, I didn’t get that, that’s you’re just strengthening a little beast in there that is insatiable, and that’s where I think a lot of unhappiness comes from. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我特別指的是，如果你一直在思考你的個性、自我和你的性格，並且對此過度執著，那就是許多憂鬱和不快樂滋生和持續存在的地方。所以，當你一直在想「哀我命薄，這件事發生在我身上，那件事發生在我身上，我有這樣的個性，我有這樣的問題，我應得這個，我沒得到那個」，你只是在強化內心那個永不滿足的小怪獸，而我認為很多不快樂就是從那裡來的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What’s the beast? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那個怪獸是什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s the ego, but that word is so overused that I kind of hate to use the word, but it’s like a recurring collection of thoughts that are very self obsessed and will never be satisfied, and very concretized as well, so they’re not malleable, not particularly flexible. But you’re just adding to them by thinking about them all the time, you’re creating narratives and stories and identities, but that’s different from solving personal problems. NAVAL RAVIKANT：那是自我，但這個詞被用得太濫了，我有點不喜歡用這個詞，但它就像是一連串反覆出現的想法，非常自我中心，永遠不會感到滿足，而且非常固化，不易改變，也不太有彈性。但你一直思考它們，只是在不斷增加它們，你在創造敘事、故事和身份認同，但這和解決個人問題是不同的。 So if you encounter something, you learn from something, you’re reflecting upon the learning, then you can reflect upon it, absorb it and then just move on, but sitting there saying I’m Chris, I’m Naval, I deserve this, this happened to me, that person wronged me, this is who I am, this shouldn’t have happened, I need to go get revenge on this, I need to fix that or change this, I mean that I think is where a lot of mental illness is from. 所以如果你遇到什麼事情，從中學習，反思所學，那麼你可以反思它、吸收它，然後繼續前進，但如果你只是坐在那裡說我是克里斯，我是納瓦爾，我應得這個，這件事發生在我身上，那個人冤枉了我，這就是我，我不該遇到這種事，我需要去報復，我需要修正那個或改變這個，我認為很多心理疾病就是從這裡來的。 So it depends if you are thinking about something to solve a problem and get it off your chest, and get it off your mind. If it leaves your mind clearer at the end of it, then I think it was worthwhile. If it leaves your mind busier at the end of it, then you’re probably going in wrong. 所以這取決於你是否在思考某件事以解決問題，並將它從心頭釋放出去。如果最後你的心境變得更清明，那我認為這是值得的。如果最後你的心境變得更混亂，那你可能走錯方向了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is this a justification for detachment, cultivated ignorance, distraction? 克里斯·威廉森：這是否是在為超然、刻意無知、分心找藉口？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Detachment is not a goal, detachment is a byproduct. It’s just a byproduct of just realizing, you know, what matters and what doesn’t, and just for one moment on the self thing, I think everybody craves thinking about something more than themselves. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：超然不是目標，超然是一種副產品。它只是意識到什麼重要、什麼不重要的副產品。關於自我這點，我認為每個人都渴望思考一些比自己更重要的事情。 If you want to be happy to some extent, you have to forget about your personal problems, and one way to do that is take on other problems, bigger problems, and that could be a mission, that could be spirituality, that could be kids, it could be caring about the planet, although I think people take that a little far, and then they get kind of oppressive and tyrannical and supportive abstract concepts, but so these can be taken too far, just like religion, for example, just like anything in excess. 如果你想在某種程度上感到快樂，你必須忘記個人的問題，而做到這一點的一種方法是承擔其他問題，更大的問題，那可能是一個使命，可能是靈性，可能是孩子，也可能是關心地球，儘管我認為人們有時會走得太遠，然後變得有點壓迫性和專制，支持抽象的概念，但這些也可能被過度推崇，就像宗教一樣，比如說，任何事物過猶不及。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, anything in excess, right? CHRIS WILLIAMSON: 是啊，任何事物過猶不及，對吧？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: But generally, the less you think about yourself, the more you can think about a mission, or about God, or about a child, or something like that. NAVAL RAVIKANT: 但通常，你越少思考自己，就越能思考使命、上帝、孩子或類似的東西。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: So, I remember Vinny Himath, the founder of Loom, said, I am rich, and I have no idea to do what to do with my life, and you replied, God, kids, on mission, pick at least one. CHRIS WILLIAMSON: 我記得 Loom 的創辦人 Vinny Himath 說過，我很富有，但不知道該怎麼過我的人生，而你的回應是，上帝、孩子、使命，至少選一個。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. Preferably all three. It’s very liberating. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。最好三者兼具。這非常令人解放。 Overthinking and Depression 過度思考與憂鬱症 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think overthinking about yourself is probably the—it may not be the cause of depression, but it certainly doesn’t help. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為過度思考自己可能不是憂鬱症的原因，但肯定無助於改善。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Rumination. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：反芻思維。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. I kind of had a self induced Stockholm Syndrome from this sort of a thing, because I like to think about stuff, and you provide yourself with an endless number of things to think about. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。我有點像是自我誘發的斯德哥爾摩症候群，因為我喜歡思考事情，而你會給自己無盡的思考題目。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: So you’re kind of the prisoner and the prison guard at the same time. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：所以你同時是囚犯和獄卒。 And I had Abigail Schrier on the show, she wrote this book called Bad Therapy, sort of pushing back against therapy culture for kids, specifically for kids, but there was a blast radius that covered pretty much everything, including kind of CBT, and I’m like, we’re getting perilously close to some really evidence based stuff here, but the more that I’ve thought about it, and the more that I’ve looked at the evidence, there is like basically a direct correlation between how much you think about yourself and how miserable you are. 我曾邀請 Abigail Schrier 上節目，她寫了一本書叫《壞治療》，主要是針對兒童的治療文化提出反思，特別是針對兒童，但其影響範圍幾乎涵蓋所有，包括認知行為療法（CBT），我覺得我們正危險地接近一些真正有證據支持的東西，但我越想越覺得，越看證據，基本上你思考自己越多，你就越痛苦，兩者之間有直接的相關性。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Therapy is great if it lets you vent and it solves the thing, and then a session later you’re done, you’re clear. But if you’re just looping on the same thing forever, then it’s actually the opposite. You’re bathing in it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：治療很好，如果它讓你宣洩情緒並解決問題，然後下一次療程你就結束了，心情清明。但如果你只是無限循環同一件事，那反而是相反的，你是在浸泡在痛苦中。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You’re indulging in it. Yeah. How have your “become happy” techniques developed over time? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你正在沉溺其中。是的。你的「變得快樂」技巧隨著時間如何發展？ Happiness Without Techniques 無需技巧的快樂 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. I used to have a lot of them. Now I kind of try not to have any because I think the techniques themselves are kind of a struggle. It’s sort of like bidding for status implies you’re low status, it reveals that you’re low status, so someone who’s basically trying to show off, comes across as low status, the same way someone who’s trying to be happy is sort of saying I’m unhappy and creating that frame, so it’s better just to not even think in terms of happiness. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我以前有很多技巧。現在我盡量不使用任何技巧，因為我認為技巧本身就是一種掙扎。這有點像爭取地位意味著你地位低，這暴露了你地位低，所以一個基本上想炫耀的人，反而顯得地位低，就像一個試圖快樂的人，某種程度上是在說我不快樂，並創造了這樣的框架，所以最好根本不要用快樂來思考。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Position yourself as being in lack in order to attain. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：將自己定位為缺乏狀態以求得獲得。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. I don’t even think in terms of happiness, unhappiness anymore. I just kind of just do my thing. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。我甚至不再以快樂或不快樂來思考。我只是做我自己的事。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Again, another question that’s similar to a bunch of them. Do you think you could have got there had you have not done the procedural systematic sort of step by step by step, this is what it is, and then come out the other side? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：又是一個類似之前很多問題的問題。你覺得如果你沒有按照那種程序化、系統化、一步一步來的方式，然後走到另一端，你還能達到那個境界嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I don’t think there are any formulas, I think it’s unique to each person. It’s like asking a successful person, how did you become successful? Each one of them will give you a different story, you can’t follow anyone else’s path, and most of them are even probably telling you some narratized version of it that isn’t quite true. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我不認為有任何公式，我覺得這對每個人來說都是獨特的。這就像問一個成功人士，你是怎麼成功的？他們每個人都會給你不同的故事，你無法跟隨別人的路徑，而且他們大多數人甚至可能在講述一個經過敘事加工、不完全真實的版本。 I mean, that’s something that I continually realize, especially as I get to spend more time around people that are successful, and you hear it’s very important to prioritize work life balance, right? That’s one of the most common things that people who have attained success say. 我的意思是，這是我不斷意識到的事情，尤其是當我有更多時間與成功人士相處時，你會聽到「工作與生活平衡很重要」這句話，對吧？這是大多數成功人士最常說的話之一。 The Path to Success  通往成功之路 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s not my experience. If you look at—you shouldn’t be asking somebody who is successful what they do to continue their success now. You should be asking them what did they do to attain their success when they are where you were. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我的經驗並非如此。如果你觀察——你不應該問一個已經成功的人，他們現在是如何持續成功的。你應該問他們，在他們處於你現在的位置時，他們是如何達成成功的。 And the people who are really extraordinarily successful didn’t sit around watching success porn. They just went and did it. They just had, they had such an overwhelming desire to be successful at the thing that they were doing that they just went and did that thing, they didn’t have time to study and learn and listen, and they just did it. It’s the overwhelming desire that’s the most important, and the focus that comes from that. 那些真正非凡成功的人並沒有坐著看成功的幻想影片。他們只是去做了。他們有著強烈的渴望想在自己所做的事情上取得成功，他們就去做了，沒有時間去研究、學習或聆聽，他們只是去做。最重要的是那種壓倒性的渴望，以及由此產生的專注力。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It’s a tweet of yours that was, people who are good at making wealth, or people who are good at attaining wealth don’t need to teach anybody else how to do it. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你曾發過一條推文，說那些擅長創造財富或擅長獲取財富的人，不需要教別人如何做到這一點。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, you don’t need mentors, you need action, that was one of them. Another one is, you know, the people who actually know how to make money don’t need to sell you a course on it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，你不需要導師，你需要的是行動，這是其中之一。另一個是，你知道，真正懂得賺錢的人不需要向你推銷相關課程。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: There it is. Yeah, there’s lots of variations on it, but if you don’t, another one, if you don’t lie awake at night thinking about it, you don’t want it badly enough. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：就是這樣。是的，這有很多變化，但如果你沒有，還有一個，如果你晚上不躺在床上思考它，那麼你就不夠渴望它。 Sleep and Priorities  睡眠與優先順序 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, I think you’ve, I’ve heard you talk before about how sort of unclosed loops problems that you’re working on can cause you to be sleepless, and this—I’m not a good sleeper. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我想你之前談過未完成的問題會讓你失眠，而我——我不是一個睡眠好的人。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Tell me about that. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：跟我說說那件事。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh, I mean, my eight sleep hates me. It’s always hard to me. I failed at sleeping again. Brian Johnson thinks I’m going to die early. He’s probably right. NAVAL RAVIKANT：喔，我的八睡（eight sleep）討厭我。對我來說總是很難。我又睡不好了。布萊恩·約翰遜認為我會早死。他大概是對的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How much do you reckon you sleep at night? Do have any idea? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你估計你晚上睡多少？有什麼概念嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh, it’s so random. Some nights I’ll sleep eight hours, some nights I’ll sleep four hours, but it’s literally just random. NAVAL RAVIKANT：喔，這很隨機。有些晚上我會睡八個小時，有些晚上只睡四個小時，但真的就是隨機的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Are you bothered about that? Are you trying to optimize? Are a sleep coach teaching you how to— CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你會因此感到困擾嗎？你在嘗試優化嗎？有睡眠教練教你怎麼做嗎—— NAVAL RAVIKANT: I don’t flog myself over things. If I want to sleep, I’ll sleep. If I don’t want to sleep, don’t sleep. It’s not a—I don’t think I’m doing anything right or wrong. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我不會因為這些事情責備自己。如果我想睡，我就睡；如果我不想睡，就不睡。我不認為我在做什麼對或錯的事。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You don’t label it good night, bad night? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你不會把它標籤為好眠或壞眠嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: No. I work out every day because I think it gives me more energy and I’ve gotten into a good habit with it. Maybe I’ll do the same thing with sleep, maybe I’ll develop a good habit, but I’m not going to beat myself up over it. There’ll come a point where it’s important to me and when it’s important to me, I’ll just do it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不會。我每天都運動，因為我覺得這讓我更有活力，而且我已經養成了好習慣。也許我會對睡眠做同樣的事，或許我會養成好習慣，但我不會因此責備自己。會有一個時刻，當睡眠對我來說變得重要時，我就會去做。 You know, most of, like for example, you look at people with addictions, right, overeating or smoking or whatever, they can kind of go through all the different methods, but it’s half hearted, and then one day they’re like, oh shit, I’ve got lung cancer, my dad has lung cancer, they drop it immediately. So I think a lot of change is more about desire and understanding than it is about forcing yourself or trying to domesticate yourself. 你知道的，大多數情況下，比如說，你看看有成癮問題的人，對吧，暴飲暴食或吸煙什麼的，他們可能會嘗試各種方法，但都是半心半意的，然後有一天他們會想，糟了，我得了肺癌，我爸爸也得了肺癌，他們就會立刻戒掉。所以我認為很多改變更多是關於渴望和理解，而不是強迫自己或試圖馴服自己。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It’s efficiency again, I guess, you know, aligning the thing that you want to do with the way that you feel about what it is that you want to do. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我想這又是效率的問題，你知道的，就是將你想做的事情與你對這件事的感受對齊。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, it’s not getting caught up in a half desire or mimetic desire, it’s really just being aware of what it is that you actually want at this point in time, and when you want something, then you will act on it with maximal capability. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，不要被半心半意的慾望或模仿慾望所困擾，真正重要的是清楚知道你此刻真正想要的是什麼，當你想要某件事時，你就會以最大的能力去行動。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Mhmm. Mhmm. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：嗯嗯。嗯嗯。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And that’s the time to act on it. In the meantime, just doing it because other people tell you you should do it or society tells you you should do it or you feel slightly guilty about it, these are half hearted efforts, and half hearted efforts don’t get you there. NAVAL RAVIKANT：那才是行動的時機。與此同時，僅僅因為別人告訴你應該做，或社會告訴你應該做，或你對此感到些許愧疚而去做，這些都是半心半意的努力，而半心半意的努力無法帶你達到目標。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: As you get older, one thing that becomes harder to ignore is your testosterone levels. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：隨著年齡增長，有一件事變得越來越難忽視，那就是你的睪固酮水平。 Dealing with Anxiety and Stress 應對焦慮與壓力 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You mentioned anxiety before. “Imagine how effective you’d be if you weren’t anxious all the time” is one of yours, and anxiety is the emotion du jour of the twenty-first century. Lots of driven people are very anxious, very paranoid – that’s what’s caused them to be effective. It pays to be so attentive, detail-oriented, not letting things go, staying up at night thinking about it. That’s the paranoia coming in. What have you come to learn about anxiety and dealing with it? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你之前提到過焦慮。「想像一下如果你不總是焦慮，你會有多有效率」是你說過的一句話，而焦慮是二十一世紀的當代情緒。許多有衝勁的人都非常焦慮，非常多疑——這正是促使他們有效率的原因。保持如此專注、注重細節、不輕易放手，熬夜思考問題，這就是多疑心態的表現。你對焦慮以及如何應對它有什麼新的認識？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Anxiety and stress are interesting – they’re very related. Stress is when your mind is being pulled in two different directions at the same time. If you look at an iron beam, when it’s under stress, it’s because it’s being bent in two different directions. When your mind is under stress, it’s because it has two conflicting desires at once. NAVAL RAVIKANT：焦慮和壓力很有趣——它們彼此密切相關。壓力是當你的心智同時被拉向兩個不同方向。你看一根鐵樑，當它承受壓力時，是因為它被彎曲向兩個不同方向。當你的心智承受壓力時，是因為它同時有兩個相互矛盾的慾望。 For example, you want to be liked but you also want to do something selfish, and you can’t reconcile the two, so you’re under stress. You want to do something for somebody else, but you want to do something for yourself. You don’t want to go to work but you want to make money – so you’re under stress. 例如，你想被喜歡，但你同時也想做一些自私的事情，而你無法調和這兩者，所以你感到壓力。你想為別人做些事情，但你也想為自己做些事情。你不想去上班，但你又想賺錢——所以你感到壓力。 One of the ways to get through stress is to acknowledge that you actually have two conflicting desires and either resolve it, pick one and be okay losing the other, or decide later. But at least just being aware of why you’re stressed can help alleviate a lot of stress. 克服壓力的方法之一是承認你其實有兩個相互矛盾的慾望，然後要麼解決它，選擇其中一個並接受失去另一個，要麼稍後再決定。但至少意識到自己為什麼感到壓力，可以幫助減輕很多壓力。 Anxiety, I think, is sort of this pervasive unidentifiable stress where you’re just stressed out all the time and you’re not even sure why. You can’t even identify the underlying problem. The reason for that is because you have so many unresolved problems, unresolved stress points that have piled up in your life that you can no longer identify what the problems are. There’s this mountain of garbage in your mind with a little bit of it poking out the top like an iceberg – that’s anxiety. But underneath there’s a lot of unresolved things. 我認為焦慮是一種普遍存在且難以辨識的壓力，你總是感到緊張，卻不確定原因。你甚至無法找出根本問題。原因是你有太多未解決的問題和壓力點堆積在生活中，以至於你無法辨認出問題所在。你的腦海中有一座垃圾山，只有一小部分像冰山一角般露出水面——那就是焦慮。但在底下還有許多未解決的事情。 You need to go through very carefully every time you’re anxious and ask, “Why am I anxious this time?” If you don’t know why, sit and think about it. Write down what the possible causes could be. Meditate on it. Journal. Talk to a therapist. Talk to friends. See when that stress goes away. If you can identify, unravel, and resolve these issues, then I think that helps get rid of anxiety. 每當你感到焦慮時，都需要非常仔細地檢視，並問自己：「這次我為什麼會焦慮？」如果你不知道原因，就坐下來思考。寫下可能的原因。冥想。寫日記。與治療師交談。與朋友談談。看看壓力何時消失。如果你能識別、解開並解決這些問題，我認為這有助於消除焦慮。 A lot of anxiety is piled up because we move through life too quickly, not observing our own reactions to things. We don’t resolve them. This goes counter to what I was saying earlier about not reflecting too much on things, but you reflect on the problems to observe them and solve them. You don’t reflect on them to feel better about yourself. 很多焦慮是因為我們生活節奏太快，沒有觀察自己對事情的反應而累積起來的。我們沒有解決這些反應。這與我之前說的不要過度反思事情的觀點相反，但你是為了觀察和解決問題而反思，而不是為了讓自己感覺更好而反思。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: To indulge them. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：縱容它們。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, if you’re doing it just to feel better about yourself, that could be strengthening your personality and your ego, and could be creating a more fragile personality. NAVAL RAVIKANT：嗯，如果你這麼做只是為了讓自己感覺更好，那可能會強化你的個性和自我，並可能造成一個更脆弱的個性。 One big anxiety resolver for me is ruminating on death. I think that’s a good one. You’re going to die. It’s all going to zero. You cannot take anything with you. I know this is trite, and I know we don’t spend enough time thinking about the big questions – we kind of give up on them when we’re very young. 對我來說，一個能解決大焦慮的方法就是反覆思考死亡。我覺得這是一個很好的方法。你終將死去，一切都會歸零。你無法帶走任何東西。我知道這聽起來老生常談，也知道我們不夠常花時間思考那些重大問題——我們在很年輕的時候就放棄了它們。 A little child might ask the big questions like “Why are we here?”, “What’s the meaning of life?”, “What is this all about?”, “Is there Santa Claus?”, “Is there God?” But then as adults, we’re taught not to think about these things. We’ve given up on them. But I think the big questions are the big questions for good reasons, and if you can keep the idea in front of you at all times that you’re going to die and that everything goes literally to zero, what’s the distress about? 小孩子可能會問一些大問題，比如「我們為什麼在這裡？」「生命的意義是什麼？」「這一切到底是怎麼回事？」「聖誕老人存在嗎？」「上帝存在嗎？」但長大後，我們被教導不要去想這些事情。我們已經放棄了它們。但我認為這些大問題之所以是大問題，是有充分理由的，如果你能時刻記住你終將死去，一切真的會歸零，那還有什麼好煩惱的呢？ The Brevity of Life  生命的短暫 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: For better or worse, life is very short. How should people deal with its briefness? 克里斯·威廉森：無論好壞，生命都非常短暫。人們應該如何面對生命的短暫呢？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Enjoy it. Make the best of it. You know, it’s even briefer than that. Each moment just disappears, it’s gone. There’s only a present moment, and it’s gone instantly. NAVAL RAVIKANT：享受它。充分利用它。你知道，這甚至比那還要短暫。每一刻都會消失，瞬間就沒了。只有當下這一刻，而它瞬間即逝。 So if you’re not there for it, if you’re stressed out, or you’re anxious, or you’re thinking about something else, you missed it. Any moment when you’re not in that moment, you are dead to that moment. You might as well be dead because your mind is off doing something else or living in some imagined reality that is just a very poor substitute for the actual reality. 所以如果你不在那一刻，如果你感到壓力、焦慮，或者在想別的事情，你就錯過了它。任何時候當你不在當下，你對那一刻來說就是死的。你不如說是死了，因為你的心思在做別的事，或者活在某個想像的現實中，而那只是對真實現實的極差替代品。 One of my recent realizations was, what is wasted time? What is the waste of time? I don’t like to waste time, but what is wasted time? Everything is wasted time in a sense because nothing matters in the ultimate, but in each moment the thing matters. In each moment, what’s happening in front of you literally has all the meaning in the world, and so what matters is just being present for the thing. 我最近的一個領悟是，什麼是浪費時間？什麼是時間的浪費？我不喜歡浪費時間，但什麼是浪費時間？從某種意義上說，一切都是浪費時間，因為從終極來看，什麼都不重要，但在每一刻，事情是重要的。在每一刻，眼前發生的事情字面上擁有全世界的意義，所以重要的是要活在當下，專注於眼前的事物。 If you’re doing something that you want to do and you’re fully there for it, there’s not wasted time. If you don’t want to do it and your mind is running away from it, and you’re reacting against it, and you’re wishing you were somewhere else, and you’re thinking about some other thing, or you’re anticipating some future thing or regretting some past thing or being fearful of something, then that’s wasted time. 如果你正在做自己想做的事情，並且全心投入其中，那就沒有浪費時間。如果你不想做，心思卻在逃避，對此產生抗拒，渴望身處別處，思緒飄向其他事物，或是期待未來某件事、後悔過去某件事，或是害怕某些事情，那就是浪費時間。 That’s time that’s being wasted when you’re not actually present for the reality in front of you. So my definition of wasted time – yes, I do want some material things in life, and there are things that have more value than others within this life, but this life is very short and bounded. The true waste of time is time that you are not present for, when you are not there for it, when you are not doing the thing you want to do to the best of your capability such that you’re immersed in it. 那是當你沒有真正活在眼前現實中時所浪費的時間。所以我對浪費時間的定義是——是的，我確實想要生活中的一些物質東西，生活中有些東西比其他東西更有價值，但這一生非常短暫且有限。真正浪費的時間是你沒有活在當下的時間，當你不在那裡，當你沒有以最佳能力去做你想做的事情，讓自己完全沉浸其中的時間。 If you’re not immersed in this moment, then you’re wasting your time. 如果你沒有沉浸在此刻，那你就是在浪費時間。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: People get worried about dying and no longer being here, but they don’t realize that so much of their life is spent not being here in any case. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：人們擔心死亡和不再存在，但他們沒有意識到，他們生命中有很大一部分時間本來就沒有活在當下。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. But I think people crave being here for it, and when you’re here for it, you’re actually not thinking about yourself. You are more immersed in the thing, the moment, the task at hand. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。但我認為人們渴望活在當下，而當你活在當下時，你其實不會去想自己。你會更專注於事物、當下的時刻和手頭的任務。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: We don’t want peace of mind, we want peace from our mind. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我們不想要心靈的平靜，我們想要從心靈中獲得和平。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. The mind is what kills each you alive if you let it, and there’s more to you than the mind. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。如果你任由心靈主宰，它會殺死活著的你，而你不僅僅是心靈。 Beyond the Mind  超越心靈 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How so? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：怎麼說？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, I mean, I don’t want to disassemble the body, so to speak, right, because… NAVAL RAVIKANT：嗯，我的意思是，我不想拆解這個身體，可以這麼說，對吧，因為… CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Please go on. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：請繼續說。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: At the end of the day, everything arises within your consciousness. You’ve nowhere else to experience it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：歸根究底，一切都在你的意識中產生。你沒有其他地方可以體驗它。 That consciousness is relatively static in a sense that it’s been exactly the same from the moment you were born to the moment you die. Everything that you experience from your body, your mind to the world to everything is within that consciousness, and that thing, that base layer of being – and this is what the Buddhists will tell you – is the real thing. 那個意識在某種意義上是相對靜止的，從你出生的那一刻到你死去的那一刻，它一直都是一樣的。你從身體、心靈到世界的一切經驗都在那個意識之中，而那個東西，那個存在的基礎層——這正是佛教徒會告訴你的——才是真實的東西。 Everything that comes and goes in the middle, including your mind, including your body is unreal, and trying to find stability in those transient things is your castle that you’re building on sand that’s going to crumble. 中間所有來來去去的事物，包括你的心靈，包括你的身體，都是不真實的，而試圖在這些短暫的事物中尋找穩定，就像你在沙地上建造城堡，終將崩塌。 Life is going to play out the way it’s going to play out. There will be some good and some bad. Most of it is actually just up to your interpretation. You’re born, you have a set of sensory experiences, and then you die. How you choose to interpret those experiences is up to you, and different people interpret them in different ways. 生命將會以它自己的方式展開。會有一些美好，也會有一些不如意。大部分其實取決於你的詮釋。你出生，經歷一系列感官體驗，然後你死去。你如何選擇詮釋這些經驗由你決定，不同的人會有不同的解讀方式。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It’s the old line about two people walking down the street, they’re having the exact same experience, one is happy, one is sad, right? It’s a narrative in their heads, it’s how they choose to interpret. 克里斯·威廉森：這就像那句老話，兩個人走在街上，他們經歷完全相同的事情，一個快樂，一個悲傷，對吧？這是他們腦海中的敘事，是他們選擇如何詮釋。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So I think when I said that it was a long time ago, I was talking more about having positive interpretations and negative interpretations, but these days I think it’s better just not to have any interpretations. And to just allow things to be. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：所以我想我之前說那句話是在很久以前，我指的是有正面詮釋和負面詮釋，但現在我認為最好是不要有任何詮釋，只是讓事情自然存在。 You’re still going to have interpretations. You can’t stop it, and nor should you try, but even that having an interpretation is just a thing you can leave alone. 你仍然會有各種詮釋。你無法阻止它，也不應該嘗試阻止，但即使有詮釋這件事，也只是你可以放下的事情。 Valuing Your Time  珍惜你的時間 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I really want to try and just dig in a little more to the best way to remind people that they should value their time, just how brief it is – that the time that you spend ruminating, being distracted, fears of the past, regrets… CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我真的很想深入探討如何最好地提醒人們應該珍惜自己的時間，時間是多麼短暫——你花在反覆思考、分心、對過去的恐懼和遺憾上的時間…… NAVAL RAVIKANT: I don’t want to tell anybody how to live their life. I would just say that to the extent that you want to improve your quality of life, the easiest and best way to do that is to observe your own mind and your own thoughts and be a little more observant of yourself objectively. Then you’ll kind of realize your own loops and patterns. It takes time, it’s not overnight, it’s not instantaneous. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我不想告訴任何人該如何生活。我只想說，如果你想提升生活品質，最簡單且最好的方法就是觀察你自己的心智和思緒，並更客觀地觀察自己。然後你會逐漸意識到自己的循環和模式。這需要時間，不是一蹴而就的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: So you mean letting go is not a one-time event? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：所以你的意思是放手不是一次性的事件？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, and letting go is not necessarily even the right answer. If you’re trying to be an enlightened being and you want to live like a god and everything’s going to be perfect and be a Buddha, sure you can let go, but I think in practice it’s actually quite hard to do. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，而且放手不一定是正確的答案。如果你想成為一個開悟的人，想像神一樣生活，一切都完美無缺，成為佛陀，當然你可以放手，但我認為實際上這是相當困難的。 I think you’re going to find a lot of fulfillment out of life by just doing what you want to do and genuinely exploring what it is that you want rather than doing what other people expect you to do or society expects you to do or what you might just think should be done by default. I think most older successful people will tell you that their life was best when they lived it unapologetically on their own terms. 我認為你會從生活中找到很多滿足感，只要做你想做的事，真誠地探索你想要的是什麼，而不是做別人期望你做的事，或社會期望你做的事，或你可能認為理所當然應該做的事。我想大多數年長且成功的人會告訴你，他們的人生最美好時刻是當他們毫無歉意地按照自己的方式生活時。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Be selfish. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：要自私。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Holistic selfishness. NAVAL RAVIKANT：整體性的自私。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: There you go. Exactly. We can clip that little… CHRIS WILLIAMSON：就是這樣。完全正確。我們可以剪輯那個小片段… NAVAL RAVIKANT: I’m telling you about… NAVAL RAVIKANT：我正在告訴你關於… CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s really selfish. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那真的是很自私。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. And then we just keep running about it. Bad guy. Great. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。然後我們就一直在討論這個。壞人。太棒了。 Trusting Your Gut vs. Your Head 信任你的直覺還是理智 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I had this insight, a question, I guess. How much do you think that we should trust the voice in our heads? Because half of wisdom suggests to rely on your sort of bottom-up intuition, and then half of it has to be sort of top-down rational as possible. How do you navigate the tension between head and gut in this way? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我有個領悟，一個問題吧。你認為我們應該多大程度上信任腦海中的聲音？因為一半的智慧建議依賴你那種自下而上的直覺，而另一半則必須盡可能採取自上而下的理性。你如何在這種頭腦與直覺的張力中找到平衡？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think the gut is what decides, the head is kind of what rationalizes it afterwards. The gut is the ultimate decision maker, and what is the gut? The gut is refined judgment, it’s taste, aggregated. It could be aggregated through evolution, in your genes and your DNA, or it could be aggregated through your experiences and what you’ve thought through. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為直覺是決定因素，理智則是在事後為其合理化。直覺是最終的決策者，那麼什麼是直覺呢？直覺是精煉的判斷，是品味的總和。這種總和可以透過演化，在你的基因和 DNA 中累積，也可以透過你的經驗和深思熟慮而形成。 The mind is good at solving new problems, new problems in the external world that have defined edges – beginnings and ends and objectives. What the mind is actually really bad at is making hard decisions. So when you have a hard decision to make, I find it’s better to ruminate on it, think through all the pros and cons, but then you sleep on it, you wait a couple of days, you wait until the gut answer appears with conviction and it feels right. 心智擅長解決新的問題，尤其是外在世界中有明確界限——有開始、有結束、有目標的新問題。心智真正不擅長的是做出艱難的決定。所以當你必須做出艱難決定時，我發現最好是反覆思考，權衡所有利弊，然後睡一覺，等待幾天，直到直覺帶著確信浮現，並且感覺正確。 When you’re younger, it takes longer because you just don’t have as much experience, and when you’re older, it can happen much faster, which is why old people are more set in their ways as a consequence. They know what they want, they know what they don’t want. 當你年輕時，這個過程會比較久，因為你沒有那麼多經驗；而當你年長時，這個過程會快得多，這也是為什麼老人往往更固執己見的原因。他們知道自己想要什麼，也知道自己不想要什麼。 So it takes time to develop your gut instinct and judgment, but once you’ve developed them, don’t trust anything else because you can’t go against your gut – it’ll bite you in the end. 所以培養你的直覺和判斷力需要時間，但一旦你培養出來了，就不要相信其他任何東西，因為你無法違背你的直覺——最終它會反噬你。 Relationships and Personal Growth 關係與個人成長 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Usually in relationships that failed you can look back and say, “Oh actually I knew it was going to fail because of this reason, but I kind of went ahead anyway because I wanted it to be this way, right? I wanted this person to be a different way than they are, or I wanted to get a different thing out of it than I thought I was going to, than I knew I was going to get, but I just wanted it.” So sometimes desire will override your judgment. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：通常在失敗的關係中，你回頭看會說，「哦，其實我知道它會失敗，原因是這個，但我還是硬著頭皮往前走，因為我想要它是這樣的，對吧？我想這個人是另一種樣子，或者我想從中得到不同的東西，超出我原本知道會得到的，但我就是想要。」所以有時候慾望會壓倒你的判斷。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Wistful thinking. It traps you into a pathway that just chews up time. NAVAL RAVIKANT：一種惆悵的想法。它會把你困在一條只會消耗時間的路徑上。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What’s that insight of yours? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你的那個洞見是什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Think we can’t change ourselves, but we can; we think we can change other people, but we can’t. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我們認為自己無法改變自己，但其實可以；我們認為可以改變別人，但其實不行。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Exactly. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：完全正確。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think to add to that, you can’t change other people, you can change your reaction to them, you can change yourself, but other people only change through trauma or their own insight on their own schedule, and never in a way that you like. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我想補充一點，你無法改變別人，你可以改變你對他們的反應，你可以改變自己，但別人只有通過創傷或他們自己的洞見，按照他們自己的節奏改變，而且永遠不會以你喜歡的方式改變。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Al Anon teaches that people do sometimes change, but rarely in relationships and never when they’re told to. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：Al Anon 教導我們，人們有時會改變，但在關係中很少發生，且絕不會在被要求時改變。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Absolutely. The fastest way to alienate somebody is to tell them to change. NAVAL RAVIKANT：完全正確。讓人疏遠的最快方法就是告訴他們要改變。 Learning Without Pressure 無壓力學習 NAVAL RAVIKANT: In fact, the Dale Carnegie School of Public Speaking operates by getting you up there and realizing that the number one problem with public speaking is that people are very self-conscious. People who are practicing in the Dale Carnegie School of Public Speaking start speaking and the people in the audience are only allowed to compliment them, genuine compliments, not fake compliments, on things that they did well. You’re not allowed to criticize them on things that they did poorly and eventually they develop self confidence. NAVAL RAVIKANT：事實上，戴爾·卡內基演講學校的運作方式是讓你站上台，並意識到公開演講的最大問題是人們非常在意自己。參加戴爾·卡內基演講學校的人開始演講時，觀眾只能給予真誠的讚美，而非虛假的讚美，針對他們做得好的地方。觀眾不被允許批評他們做得不好的地方，最終他們會建立自信。 The same way, there’s the Michel Thomas School of Language Learning. What they do is you listen to a teacher talking to a student—they’re not teaching you, you’re not expected to remember or memorize anything—you just listen to a student stumbling over the language. It’s a better way to learn because you yourself don’t feel flustered or tested or graded. You’re not in your own head as much. 同樣地，還有米歇爾·托馬斯語言學校。他們的做法是讓你聽老師和學生的對話——他們不是在教你，你也不需要記住或背誦任何東西——你只是聽學生在語言上磕磕絆絆。這是一種更好的學習方式，因為你自己不會感到慌亂、被考驗或被評分。你不會那麼陷入自己的思緒中。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Correct, you’re not in your own head and you’re just observing. You might even be laughing at the student or agreeing with the teacher or sympathizing with the student, but because you are a passive observer you can be more objective about it. You aren’t threatened or fearful and you can learn better. 克里斯·威廉森：沒錯，你不會陷入自己的思緒，而只是旁觀者。你甚至可能會對學生發笑，或同意老師的說法，或對學生表示同情，但因為你是被動的觀察者，你可以更客觀地看待這一切。你不會感到威脅或恐懼，學習效果也會更好。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Coming back to the original point of you can’t change people, if you do want to change someone’s behavior, I think the only effective way to do it is to compliment them when they do something you want. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：回到最初的觀點，你無法改變別人，如果你真的想改變某人的行為，我認為唯一有效的方法就是當他們做了你想要的事情時，給予讚美。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Positive reinforcement. 克里斯·威廉森：正向強化。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah exactly, not to insult them or be negative or critical when they do something you don’t want. We can’t help it, it’s obviously in our nature to criticize and I do it as well, but it reminds me that when somebody does something praiseworthy, don’t forget to praise them. Definitely go out of your way, and it’ll be genuine—it has to be genuine, it can’t be fake. People want authenticity, but just don’t forget to praise people when they do something praiseworthy, and you’ll get more of that behavior. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，完全正確，並不是要侮辱他們或在他們做了你不喜歡的事情時變得消極或批評。我們無法控制，批評顯然是我們的天性，我自己也會這樣做，但這讓我想起，當有人做了值得讚揚的事情時，不要忘了讚美他們。一定要特意去做，而且必須是真誠的——必須是真誠的，不能虛假。人們渴望真誠，但就是不要忘了在別人做了值得讚揚的事情時讚美他們，這樣你會得到更多這樣的行為。 Relationship Clarity  關係清晰度 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: There was a really famous thread on Reddit about five questions to ask yourself if you’re uncertain about your relationship. One of the questions was, “Are you truly in love with your partner or just their potential or the idea of them?” That’s the “they show such great promise” thinking. They look at their ability for change and growth. They’re on the right path. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：Reddit 上有一個非常著名的討論串，談到如果你對你的關係感到不確定，應該問自己的五個問題。其中一個問題是，「你是真正愛你的伴侶，還是只是愛他們的潛力或對他們的想像？」這就是「他們展現出如此巨大的潛力」的思維。他們看重的是伴侶改變和成長的能力。他們走在正確的道路上。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: The partner matching thing is so hard. When people come and ask me, “Should I be with this person?” Well, if you’re asking me, the answer is clearly no, right? Because you wouldn’t have to ask if you were with the right person. Or when you ask someone why they’re in a relationship with somebody and they start reading out his or her resume, that’s also a bad sign. NAVAL RAVIKANT：配對伴侶這件事真的很難。當有人來問我，「我應該和這個人在一起嗎？」嗯，如果你問我，答案顯然是否定的，對吧？因為如果你和對的人在一起，你根本不需要問這個問題。或者當你問某人為什麼會和某人在一起，而他們開始念出對方的履歷，那也是一個壞徵兆。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What do you mean? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你是什麼意思？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s like, “Oh, we have so much in common, we like to golf together.” That’s not a basis for a relationship. Or “Oh, you know, she’s a ballerina,” or “He went to Harvard.” These are resume items, not who the person actually is. NAVAL RAVIKANT：就像是，「喔，我們有很多共同點，我們喜歡一起打高爾夫。」這不是建立關係的基礎。或者「喔，你知道，她是個芭蕾舞者，」或「他去了哈佛。」這些都是履歷上的項目，不是那個人真正的樣子。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What’s a better answer? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那什麼才是更好的答案？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: “I just love being with this person. I just trust them. I enjoy being around them. I love how capable he is. I love how kind she is. I love her spirit. I love his energy.” NAVAL RAVIKANT：「我就是喜歡和這個人在一起。我就是信任他們。我喜歡和他們相處。我喜歡他有多麼能幹。我喜歡她有多麼善良。我喜歡她的精神。我喜歡他的能量。」 The more materially and concretely definable the reasons are you’re together, the worse they are. The ineffable is actually where the true love lies. 你們在一起的理由越是物質且具體可定義，情況就越糟。真正的愛其實存在於那無法言喻的地方。 Because real love is a form of unity, it’s a form of connection, it’s connecting spirit. My consciousness meets your consciousness. The underlying drive in love, in art, in science, in mysticism, is the desire for unity, it’s the desire for connection. 因為真正的愛是一種合一，是一種連結，是靈魂的連結。我的意識與你的意識相遇。愛、藝術、科學、神秘主義背後的驅動力，是對合一的渴望，是對連結的渴望。 As Borges famously wrote, in every human there’s a sense that something infinite has been lost. There’s a God-shaped hole in you you’re trying to fill, and so we’re always trying to find that connection. Love is trying to find it in one other person and saying, “You’re male, I’m female,” or whatever your predilections are, and now we connect, now we form a whole, a connected whole. 正如博爾赫斯著名所言，每個人心中都有一種感覺，覺得失去了一些無限的東西。你內心有一個神形的空洞，你試圖填補它，所以我們總是在尋找那種連結。愛就是試圖在另一個人身上找到它，然後說：「你是男性，我是女性，」或者無論你的偏好是什麼，現在我們連結了，現在我們形成了一個整體，一個連結的整體。 In mysticism it’s about sitting down to meditate and feeling the whole. In science it’s like atoms bouncing is mechanics but that generates heat, so thermodynamics and motion or kinetics are one combined theory—that’s a whole. Electricity and magnetism are one thing, that’s the whole, creates that sense of awe. 在神秘主義中，是關於坐下來冥想並感受整體。在科學中，就像原子彈跳是力學，但那會產生熱，因此熱力學和運動學或動力學是結合在一起的理論——那是一個整體。電和磁是一體的，那就是整體，創造出那種敬畏感。 In art, I feel an emotion, I create a piece of art around it, and then you see that painting, or you see the Sistine Chapel, or you read the poem and you feel that emotion, so again it’s creating unity, it’s creating connection. I think everybody craves that, and so when you really love somebody, it’s because you feel a sense of wholeness by being around them, and that sense of wholeness probably doesn’t have anything to do with what school they went to or what career they’re in. 在藝術中，我感受到一種情感，圍繞它創作一件藝術品，然後你看到那幅畫，或看到西斯汀教堂，或讀那首詩，你會感受到那種情感，所以這又是在創造統一，創造連結。我認為每個人都渴望那種感覺，所以當你真正愛一個人時，是因為你在他們身邊感受到一種完整感，而那種完整感很可能與他們上過什麼學校或從事什麼職業無關。 Just tying that into “life is short”—if you’re faced with a difficult choice and you cannot decide, the answer is no. The reason is modern society is full of options. 把這與「生命短暫」聯繫起來——如果你面臨一個困難的選擇而無法決定，答案是否定的。原因是現代社會充滿了選擇。 Decision Making Principles 決策原則 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Knowing this rationally sounds great, but having the courage to commit to it in reality is a different task. Cutting your losses quickly in the big three—relationships, jobs, and locations—is hard. What would you say to someone who may cerebrally be able to agree with you? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：理性上知道這點聽起來很棒，但在現實中有勇氣去實踐卻是另一回事。在三大領域——人際關係、工作和居住地——迅速止損是很困難的。你會對那些理智上能同意你觀點的人說些什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: My cousin said this about me. He said, “What I really noticed about you is your ability to walk away from situations that are just not great enough for you, or not good enough for you.” And I think that is a characteristic that I have. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我表弟曾這樣形容我。他說：「我真正注意到的是你能夠離開那些對你來說不夠好或不夠理想的情況。」我認為這是我身上的一個特質。 I will not accept second best outcomes in my life. Ultimately, you will end up wherever is acceptable to you. You will get out of life whatever is acceptable to you. 我不會接受生活中的次優結果。最終，你會停留在你能接受的地方。你從生活中得到的，也將是你能接受的。 There are certain things to me that are very important where I will not settle for second best, but then there are a lot of other things I just don’t care about. If I spend all my time caring about those things, I don’t have the energy for the few things that matter. 對我來說，有些事情非常重要，我絕不會妥協於次優，但也有很多其他事情我根本不在意。如果我把所有時間都花在關心那些事情上，我就沒有精力去關注那些真正重要的少數幾件事。 In decision making, I have a few heuristics for myself. Other people can use their own, but mine are: 在決策時，我對自己有幾個啟發式原則。其他人可以使用他們自己的，但我的原則是： 1. If you can’t decide, the answer is no. If you’re offered an opportunity, if you have a new thing that you’re saying yes or no to that is a change from where you’re starting, the answer is by default always no. 1. 如果你無法決定，答案就是不。如果有人給你一個機會，或者你有一件新事物需要你說是或不是，而這會改變你目前的狀態，答案預設永遠是「不」。 2. If you have two decisions, A or B, and both seem very equal, take the path that’s more painful in the short term, the one that’s going to be painful immediately, because your brain is always trying to avoid pain. Any pain that is imminent, it is going to treat as much larger than it actually is. 2. 如果你有兩個選擇，A 或 B，且兩者看起來非常相等，選擇短期內較痛苦的那條路，也就是會立即帶來痛苦的那條，因為你的大腦總是試圖避免痛苦。任何即將發生的痛苦，它都會被大腦視為比實際更大。 ALSO READ:  How to Control Emotion and Influence Behavior: Dawn Goldworm at TEDxEast (Transcript) 另請參閱：如何控制情緒並影響行為：Dawn Goldworm 在 TEDxEast 的演講（逐字稿） CHRIS WILLIAMSON: This is kind of like a decision making equivalent of a Taleb surgeon? The surgeon that doesn’t look as good because he’s more likely to be a good surgeon. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這有點像是決策領域的塔勒布外科醫生？那種外表看起來不那麼出色，卻更可能是好外科醫生的醫生。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, it’s similar in that appearances are deceiving because you’re avoiding conflict, you’re avoiding pain. So take the path that’s more painful in the short term because your brain has created this illusion that the short term pain is greater than the long term pain. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，有點類似，因為表象會欺騙人，因為你在避免衝突，避免痛苦。所以選擇那條短期內更痛苦的路，因為你的大腦創造了一種錯覺，讓你覺得短期的痛苦比長期的痛苦更大。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Because long term, you’ll commit your future self to all kinds of long term pain. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：因為從長遠來看，你會讓未來的自己承受各種長期的痛苦。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Mañana, mañana. Exactly. NAVAL RAVIKANT：明天，明天。完全正確。 3. Take the choice that will leave you more equanimous in the long term—more mental peace in the long term. Whatever clears your mind more and will have you having less self-talk in the future, if you can model that out, that is probably the better route to go. 3. 選擇那個能讓你長期保持更平靜——長期擁有更多心靈平和的選擇。無論是什麼能讓你的思緒更清晰，未來自我對話更少，如果你能模擬出來，那大概是更好的路徑。 The Three Key Life Decisions 三個關鍵的人生決定 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I would focus decision making down on the three things that really matter, because everything else is downstream of these three decisions, especially early in life. Later in life you have different things to optimize for, but early in life you’re trying to figure out who you’re with, what you’re doing, and where you live. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我會將決策聚焦在真正重要的三件事上，因為其他一切都是這三個決定的下游結果，尤其是在生命的早期階段。人生後期你會有不同的優化目標，但在早期，你正試圖弄清楚你和誰在一起、你在做什麼，以及你住在哪裡。 I think on all three of those, you want to think pretty hard about it. People do some of these unconsciously. With who you’re with, very often it’s like, “We were in a relationship, we stumbled along, it felt okay, it had been enough time, so we got married.” 我認為這三件事你都應該認真思考。人們有時會無意識地做出這些決定。關於你和誰在一起，很多時候是這樣的：「我們在一段關係中，偶然走到一起，感覺還不錯，時間也夠久了，所以我們結婚了。」 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Not great reasons. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這些理由不太好。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Maybe not terrible reasons either. People who overthink these things sometimes don’t get the right answer, but maybe here, if you’re the kind of person that’s not going to settle for second best, you iterate on a closed timeframe, so you don’t run out the clock, and then you decide. NAVAL RAVIKANT：也許也不算是糟糕的理由。那些過度思考這些事情的人有時反而得不到正確答案，但也許在這裡，如果你是那種不願意將就第二好的類型，你會在有限的時間內反覆思考，避免拖延，然後做出決定。 On what you do, you try a whole bunch of different things until you find the one that feels like play to you, looks like work to others, you can’t lose at it, get some leverage, try to find some practical application of it and go into that. 在你所做的事情上，你會嘗試各種不同的東西，直到找到那個對你來說像是在玩樂，對別人看起來像是在工作，你無法在其中失敗，能夠獲得一些槓桿，並試圖找到它的實際應用，然後投入其中。 And then where you live is really important. I don’t think people spend enough time on that one. People pick cities randomly based on where they went to school, or where their family happened to be, or where their friend was, or they visited one weekend and really liked it. 然後你居住的地方真的很重要。我覺得人們在這方面花的時間不夠。人們隨意選擇城市，可能是基於他們上學的地方，或者家人所在的地方，或者朋友所在的地方，或者他們某個週末去過並且非常喜歡的地方。 You really want to think it through, because where you live really constrains and defines your opportunities. It’s going to determine your friend circle, your dating pool, your job opportunities, the food and air and water quality that you receive, your proximity to your family, which might be important as you get older and have kids. Very, very important decision. 你真的需要好好思考，因為你居住的地方會限制並定義你的機會。它會決定你的朋友圈、你的約會對象範圍、你的工作機會、你所接觸到的食物、空氣和水質，以及你與家人的距離，這在你年紀漸長、有了孩子後可能會很重要。這是一個非常非常重要的決定。 Weather, quality of life, how much you stay inside or outside, how long you’ll live based on that—I think people choose that one probably more poorly than the other two. They put a lot less thought into that one. 天氣、生活品質、你待在室內或室外的時間長短、以及基於這些因素你能活多久——我認為人們在這方面的選擇可能比前兩者更差。他們對這一點考慮得少得多。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: In some ways, yeah, but also you’re so right, how many people fall backward into a relationship and before they know it, “We’re living together, we got a dog, we got a kid, we’re married.” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：在某些方面，是的，但你說得很對，有多少人是無意識地陷入一段關係，然後還沒意識到，「我們已經同居了，我們有了狗，有了孩子，我們結婚了。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, and then when you have kids, because that’s half of you and half of them running around, you’re never going to separate yourself from that. So once you have a child with somebody, then the most important thing in the world to you is half that other person, whether you like them or not. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，然後當你有了孩子，因為那是你的一半和他們的一半在四處奔跑，你永遠無法將自己與那個分開。所以一旦你和某人生了孩子，對你來說世界上最重要的事情就是那個人的一半，不管你喜不喜歡他們。 Nature vs. Nurture  天性與教養 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Jeffrey Miller had a tweet a long time ago that I always think about. He said, “Every parenting book in the world could be replaced with one book on behavioral genetics.” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：Jeffrey Miller 很久以前發過一條推文，我一直記得。他說：「世界上所有的育兒書都可以被一本關於行為遺傳學的書取代。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I am a big believer in genetics. I do think a lot of behavior is downstream of genetics, and I think we underplay that. We like to overplay nurture and underplay nature for societal reasons, but nature is a big deal. The temperament of the person you marry is probably going to be reflected in your child by default. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我非常相信基因學。我確實認為很多行為是基因的下游結果，而我們往往低估了這一點。出於社會原因，我們喜歡過度強調後天環境而忽視先天本性，但本性是非常重要的。你所嫁娶的人的氣質，很可能會在你的孩子身上自然反映出來。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: People should watch for a securely attached kid, pick a securely attached partner. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：人們應該注意選擇一個安全依附的孩子，並選擇一個安全依附的伴侶。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, the secret to a happy relationship is two happy people, right? So I would say if you want to be happy, then be with a happy person. Don’t think you’re going to be with someone who’s unhappy and then make them happy down the road. Or if you’re okay with them being unhappy, but there are other things you like about them, that’s fine, but this goes back to conversation. Conversations are unhappiness with other things. NAVAL RAVIKANT：幸福關係的秘密是兩個快樂的人，對吧？所以我會說，如果你想快樂，那就和一個快樂的人在一起。不要以為你會和一個不快樂的人在一起，然後將來讓他們變快樂。或者如果你能接受他們不快樂，但你喜歡他們的其他方面，那也沒關係，但這又回到了溝通。溝通就是對其他事情的不滿。 The Importance of Values in Relationships 價值觀在關係中的重要性 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, and actually, we talked a little bit about how people do connect successfully on spirit and those things, but that’s maybe a little too abstract. If you want to get a little more practical, could be based on values, and values are the set of things you won’t compromise on. Values are the tough decisions of, my parent got sick, do they move in with us or do we put them in nursing home? Do we give the children money or do we not? Do we move across the country to be closer to our family or do we stay put where we are? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，實際上，我們之前也談過人們如何在精神層面上成功連結，但那可能有點太抽象。如果你想更實際一點，這可能基於價值觀，而價值觀是一套你不會妥協的東西。價值觀是那些艱難的決定，比如我的父母生病了，他們是搬來和我們住還是送進養老院？我們要不要給孩子錢？我們是搬到全國另一端去靠近家人，還是留在原地？ Do we argue about politics? Do we care or do we not? Right? The values are way more important than checklist items, and I think if people were to align much more on their values, they would have much more successful relationships. The emotional pain of fearing change, I have this thing, the job, the location, the partner, I’m going to enter or not enter this thing, for the most part it’s leaving. 我們會不會為政治爭吵？我們在乎還是不在乎？對吧？價值觀比清單上的項目重要得多，我認為如果人們能在價值觀上更一致，他們的關係會更成功。害怕改變的情感痛苦，我有這種感覺，工作、地點、伴侶，我是否要進入或不進入這件事，大多數情況下是離開。 I think we have this sort of loss aversion that we really feel. Evolve loss aversion, it’s painful separating yourself in front of your friends. It’s embarrassing. And how would you advise people to get past themselves with that loss aversion, that fear of change? 我認為我們有一種損失厭惡的感覺，這種感覺非常強烈。演變出損失厭惡，當你在朋友面前與自己分離時，這是痛苦的。這令人尷尬。你會如何建議人們克服這種損失厭惡，克服對改變的恐懼？ Overcoming Fear of Change 克服對改變的恐懼 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh my god. I’m going to… Yeah. It’s the hardest thing in the world, starting over. It’s back to the zero to one thing, it’s the mountain climbing thing, you’re not going to find your path to the top of the mountain in the first go around, sometimes you go up there, you get stuck and you come back down, and the difference between all the successful people and the ones who are not, is the ones who are successful want it so badly they’re willing to go back and start over, again and again, whether in their career, or in their relationships, or in anything else. NAVAL RAVIKANT：天啊。我會……是的。這是世界上最難的事情，重新開始。這回到從零到一的概念，就像爬山一樣，你不會在第一次嘗試時就找到通往山頂的路，有時你會爬上去，卡住了然後又下來，所有成功者和不成功者之間的差別在於，成功者渴望成功到願意一次又一次地重新開始，無論是在事業、感情還是其他任何方面。 The more seriously you take yourself, the unhappier you’re going to be. 你越是認真看待自己，你就會越不快樂。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You learned how to take yourself less seriously? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你學會了怎麼不那麼把自己看得太嚴肅嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, fame doesn’t help on that one, because that is one of the traps of fame. People are always talking about you, they have a certain view of you, and you start believing that, and then you take yourself seriously, and then that limits your own actions. You can’t look like a fool anymore, you can’t do new things anymore. If tomorrow I announce I’m a breakdancer, right, that’s going to be met with a lot of scorn and ridicule. NAVAL RAVIKANT：嗯，名聲在這方面幫不了忙，因為那是名聲的陷阱之一。人們總是在談論你，他們對你有一定的看法，而你開始相信那個看法，然後你就會把自己看得很嚴肅，這會限制你自己的行動。你不能再看起來像個傻瓜了，不能再做新鮮事了。如果明天我宣布我是個霹靂舞者，對吧，那肯定會遭到很多輕蔑和嘲笑。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I’d back you if you want to make that pivot. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：如果你想轉型，我會支持你。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, the truth is if I want to be a breakdancer, I’d be breakdancing, but you know, like I’m starting a new company, zero to one again, from scratch, let’s do it, you know, one more time, and not just going and raising a big VC fund or retiring or what have you, but that’s because I want to build the product, I want to see it exist. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，事實是如果我想當霹靂舞者，我就會去跳霹靂舞，但你知道，我正在創辦一家公司，從零開始，再次從無到有，來吧，再來一次，而且不是去籌集大筆風投基金或退休什麼的，而是因為我想打造產品，我想看到它的存在。 So I think that you constantly just have to force yourself, have to remind yourself. Look, deep down, you’re still the same Chris you were when you were nine years old. Deep down, you’re still a kid, you know, you’re still curious about the world, you still have a lot of the same predilections and desires at once, you’ve got a nice veneer on it. 所以我認為你必須不斷地強迫自己，必須不斷提醒自己。看，內心深處，你仍然是那個九歲時的克里斯。內心深處，你仍然是個孩子，你知道的，你仍然對世界充滿好奇，你仍然擁有許多相同的偏好和慾望，只是外表上多了一層光鮮亮麗的包裝。 But one of the nice things when you have kids is you realize how much closer they are to you in personality and knowledge and know how. Like I look at my son who’s eight and I just notice like wow he probably has sixty to eighty percent of my knowledge and development wisdom and he has a lot more freedom and he has a lot more spontaneity, in some ways he’s smarter, and there’s not a big gap here left to close. This kid’s going to be done very soon, caught up to me, and so to the extent that I think I know better or that I’m somewhere or that I’m someone, it’s just an illusion, it’s just a belief. 但有了孩子後，一件很棒的事是你會發現他們在個性、知識和技能上與你有多麼接近。比如我看著我八歲的兒子，我就會注意到，哇，他大概擁有我六成到八成的知識和成長智慧，而且他有更多的自由和更多的自發性，在某些方面他更聰明，這裡沒有太大的差距需要彌補。這孩子很快就會完成，追上我，所以在某種程度上，我以為我知道得比較多，或者我在某個位置，或者我是某個人，這只是一種幻覺，只是一種信念。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What’s the lineage between that and taking yourself too seriously? 克里斯·威廉森：這和把自己看得太重之間有什麼關聯？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I shouldn’t take myself too seriously because there’s nothing here to take that seriously, and if I take myself too seriously then I’m going to get trapped, I’m going to circumscribe myself again into a limited set of behaviors and outcomes that keep me from being free, keep me from being spontaneous, keep me from being happy. So it just goes back to, you know, don’t think about yourself too much. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我不應該把自己看得太嚴肅，因為這裡沒有什麼值得那麼嚴肅對待的事情，如果我把自己看得太嚴肅，那我就會被困住，我會再次把自己限制在一套有限的行為和結果中，這會阻礙我自由、阻礙我自發、阻礙我快樂。所以，歸根結底，就是不要過度思考自己。 The Advice We Already Know 我們早已知道的建議 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: There’s a special type of pain in realizing that the advice that you need to hear right now is something that almost always you learned a long time ago, and that you’re basically sort of the same person you were as you were nine. You know, a lot of the time people ask questions like, what advice do wish that you would give yourself ten years ago? Right. People ask themselves that question. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：意識到你現在需要聽的建議，幾乎總是你很久以前就學過的東西，並且你基本上還是那個九歲時的自己，這種痛苦是特別的。你知道，很多時候人們會問這樣的問題：你希望十年前的自己會給什麼建議？對，人們會問自己這個問題。 Almost invariably, the advice that you would give yourself ten years ago is still the advice that you need to hear today. 幾乎可以肯定的是，十年前你會給自己的建議，仍然是你今天需要聽到的建議。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Absolutely, that’s why I did that exercise of thinking back, you know, ten years, twenty years, thirty years ago, what advice would I give myself, for me it’s just be less emotional. Don’t take everything so seriously. Do the same things, but do them without all the emotional turbulence, and so that’s the advice I’m giving myself going forward. NAVAL RAVIKANT：絕對是這樣，這也是為什麼我會做那個回想的練習，想想十年前、二十年前、三十年前，我會給自己什麼建議，對我來說就是少點情緒化。不要把所有事情都看得那麼嚴重。做同樣的事情，但不要帶著所有情緒的波動去做，這就是我未來給自己建議的方向。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s funny how we need that distance to be able to be a little bit more objective, to have a little bit more perspective, and it’s almost a little bit of a trick, right, because typically when you do that, say, would you tell a friend that was going through this? Right. And then you try and turn the advice to the friend around onto yourself, but you always think, I’m not the friend. You’re okay, you, ten years ago, there’s enough distance in that, you go, oh, I actually am still that person. There’s just a single line between that. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是啊，是啊，是啊。有趣的是，我們需要那種距離感，才能更客觀一點，擁有更多的視角，這幾乎有點像是一種技巧，對吧？因為通常當你這麼做的時候，比如說，你會對一個正在經歷這些事情的朋友說什麼？然後你試著把給朋友的建議轉回給自己，但你總會想，我不是那個朋友。沒關係，你，十年前的你，有足夠的距離感，你會發現，喔，我其實仍然是那個人。兩者之間只有一線之隔。 Understanding vs. Discipline 理解與紀律 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, related to this story is I think understanding is way more important than discipline. Now, Jocko would have a fit, but you know, on physical things discipline is important. If I want to build a good body, got to work out on a regular basis, but on mental things, I think understanding is way more important. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，與這個故事相關的是，我認為理解比紀律重要得多。現在，Jocko 可能會大發雷霆，但你知道，在身體方面，紀律很重要。如果我想鍛鍊出好身材，就必須定期運動，但在心理方面，我認為理解重要得多。 Once you see the truth of something, you cannot unsee it. All of us have had experiences where we’ve seen a behavior in a person and then it just changes what we think about that person, we no longer want to be friends with them, or we deeply respect them if it was really good behavior that maybe was observed unintentionally. 一旦你看清了某件事的真相，你就無法再視而不見。我們所有人都有過這樣的經歷：看到一個人的行為，然後這改變了我們對那個人的看法，我們不再想和他們做朋友，或者如果那是無意中觀察到的非常好的行為，我們會深深尊敬他們。 So when we really do see something clearly, it changes our behavior immediately, and that is far more efficient than trying to change your behavior through repetition. 所以當我們真正清楚地看到某件事時，它會立即改變我們的行為，這比通過重複來改變行為要高效得多。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Could you give me an example? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你能給我一個例子嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: If you were, let’s say that you have a friend and then that person turns out to be a thief, you see that person stealing something, you’re done with them. NAVAL RAVIKANT：假設你有一個朋友，結果那個人竟然是小偷，你看到他偷東西，你就不再理會他了。 If you are, you know, the smoking lung cancer example is a good one, right, someone close to you, or anytime someone close to you dies, or you even hear about someone dying, you hear about someone, what’s the first thing you do? The first thing, assuming that you weren’t that close to them, obviously your closeness is different, but if you weren’t that close to them, but you know, you hear about someone in your extended social circle dying, you immediately start trying to distinguish yourself from them. 如果你是，比如說吸煙導致肺癌的例子就很貼切，對吧？當你身邊有人去世，或者你聽說有人去世，第一件事你會做什麼？第一件事，假設你和他們並不親近，當然親近程度不同，但如果你不太親近，只是聽說你社交圈裡有人去世，你會立刻開始試圖與他們區分開來。 You know, “oh well how old is this person, were they a smoker, did they have an issue, do I have that issue?” Right, you immediately start comparing, and what you’re doing there is you’re sort of just trying to see if there’s an overlap here, but if you see the truth in something, if you’re like, “oh my god, this person was the same age as me and they died,” and that’s starting to happen at my age, where I’m starting to hear about extended circle people. Just reminds you, time is really short. 你會想，「喔，那個人多大年紀？他們有抽煙嗎？他們有什麼健康問題嗎？我有這些問題嗎？」你會立刻開始比較，而你在做的就是試圖看看是否有重疊的地方。但如果你看到某件事的真相，比如說，「天啊，這個人和我同齡，卻去世了」，這種情況在我這個年紀開始變得常見，我開始聽說社交圈裡有人去世。這會提醒你，時間真的很短暫。 There’s a truth there, there’s a truth there that you cannot unsee. Or, for example, I think, you into bodybuilding or something back when? I don’t know. 這裡有一個真相，有一個你無法忽視的真相。或者，比如說，我想，你以前是不是曾經練過健美什麼的？我不知道。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Just like bro lifting stuff. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：就像兄弟們在舉重一樣。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Okay, bro lifting. Yeah. Right, but there probably was a point where you were being really agro in the gym and you injured yourself. NAVAL RAVIKANT：好吧，兄弟們在舉重。是的，但可能有一段時間你在健身房非常激烈，結果受傷了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Many times. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：很多次。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right, and each one of those was a deep understanding of don’t go beyond this point, right? There was a truth there. So again, when you see these things in such a way that you can’t unsee them, that changes your behavior instantly, and I would argue that that introspection to find those truths is actually very useful. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，而每一項都是對「不要超越這個界限」的深刻理解，對吧？那裡面有一個真理。所以，當你以這種方式看到這些事情，無法再視而不見時，你的行為會立即改變，我認為這種內省去發現那些真理其實非常有用。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is that a justification for more experimentation, exploration, experience in life, so they’re trying to find serendipity because all of these experiences are going to teach you a inescapable lesson? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這是否成為更多實驗、探索和生活經驗的理由，因為他們試圖尋找意外的驚喜，因為所有這些經歷都會教給你一個無法逃避的教訓？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: You’re going to do what you’re going to do, I mean your level of exploration I think is sort of up to you, but life is always throwing truth back at you. It’s about whether you choose to see it, whether you choose to acknowledge it, even if it’s painful, truth is often painful, right? If it wasn’t, we’d all be seeing truth all the time, reality is always reflecting truth, that’s all it is. NAVAL RAVIKANT：你會做你想做的事，我的意思是你的探索程度取決於你自己，但生活總是在向你反映真相。關鍵在於你是否選擇去看見它，是否選擇去承認它，即使它是痛苦的，真相往往是痛苦的，對吧？如果不是這樣，我們都會一直看到真相，現實總是在反映真相，僅此而已。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Why would you not have accessed it already? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你為什麼還沒有接觸到它？ Wisdom Must Be Discovered Personally 智慧必須親自發現 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly, you know, all the philosophy that’s out there, for example, it’s almost trite, like most people they look at philosophy like until they discover it for themselves, because wisdom is the set of things that cannot be transmitted. If they could be transmitted, you know, we’d read the same five philosophy books, it would all be done, we’d all be wise. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，你知道，所有現有的哲學，比如說，幾乎是陳詞濫調，大多數人都是在自己發現之前才會去看哲學，因為智慧是一套無法傳遞的東西。如果能夠傳遞，你知道，我們都讀同樣的五本哲學書，事情就結束了，我們都會變得有智慧。 You have to learn it for yourself, it has to be rediscovered for yourself in your own context, you have to have specific experiences that then allow you to generalize and see the truth in those things in such a way that you’re not going to unsee them, but each person is going to see them in a different way. I can tell you that Socrates story, and it’s not going to resonate until there’s something that other people desire that you realize you yourself don’t want, and the moment that happens, then you’ll see the truth in the general statement. 你必須自己學習，必須在你自己的情境中重新發現，你必須有特定的經驗，這些經驗讓你能夠概括並看到其中的真理，以至於你不會再忽視它們，但每個人看到的方式都會不同。我可以告訴你蘇格拉底的故事，但直到你意識到有些其他人渴望的東西是你自己不想要的那一刻，這個故事才會引起共鳴，當那一刻發生時，你就會看到那個普遍陳述中的真理。 Unteachable Lessons  無法教授的課題 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I want to just read you a two minute essay that I wrote a couple of weeks ago. It’s called Unteachable Lessons. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我想讀給你聽一篇我幾週前寫的兩分鐘短文，標題是《無法教授的課題》。 I’ve been thinking about the special category of lesson, one which you cannot discover without experiencing it firsthand. There is a certain subset of advice that for some reason we all refuse to learn through instruction. These are unteachable lessons. 我一直在思考一種特殊類別的課程，那種你必須親身經歷才能發現的課程。有一類建議，出於某種原因，我們都拒絕通過指導來學習。這些是無法教導的課程。 No matter how arduous or costly or effortful it is going to be for us to find out ourselves, we prefer to disregard the mountains of warnings from our elders, songs, literature, historical catastrophes, public scandals, and instead think some version of, “yeah, that might be true for them, but not for me.” We decide to learn the hard lessons the hard way over and over again. 無論我們自己去發現這些課程會多麼艱難、多麼昂貴或多麼費力，我們寧願忽視長輩的無數警告、歌曲、文學、歷史災難、公共醜聞，反而會想著「是啊，那可能對他們來說是真的，但對我不一定。」我們決定一次又一次地用艱難的方式學習這些艱難的課程。 Unfortunately, they all seem to be the big things too. It’s never new insights about how to put up level shelves or charmingly introduce yourself at a cocktail party. Instead, we spend most of our lives learning firsthand the most important lessons that the previous generations already warned us about. 不幸的是，這些課程似乎都是重大課題。它們從來不是關於如何掛平整的架子或在雞尾酒會上迷人地自我介紹的新見解。相反，我們大部分人生都在親身學習那些前人早已警告過我們的最重要課題。 Things like money won’t make you happy, fame won’t fix your self worth, you don’t love that pretty girl, she’s just hot and difficult to get, nothing is as important as you think it is when you’re thinking about it, you will regret working too much. Worrying is not improving your performance. All your fears are a waste of time. You should see your parents more. You’ll be fine after the breakup and be grateful that you did it. It’s perfectly okay to cut toxic people out of your life. 錢財不會讓你快樂，名聲也無法修復你的自我價值，你並不愛那個漂亮女孩，她只是性感且難以追求，當你在思考時，沒有什麼事情像你想的那麼重要，你會後悔工作太多。擔憂並不會提升你的表現。你所有的恐懼都是浪費時間。你應該多看看你的父母。分手後你會沒事，並感激自己做了這個決定。把有毒的人從你的生活中剔除是完全沒問題的。 And even reading this list back, I’m rolling my eyes at how fucking trite it is. These are all basic bitch, obvious insights that everybody has heard before. But if they’re so basic, why does everyone so reliably fall prey to them throughout our lives? And if they’re so obvious, why do people who have recently become famous or wealthy or lost a parent or gone through a breakup start to proclaim these facts with the renewed grandiose ceremony of someone who’s just gone through religious revelation? 即使回頭讀這份清單，我也會對它的老生常談感到翻白眼。這些都是基本且顯而易見的見解，大家以前都聽過。但如果它們如此基本，為什麼我們一生中總是如此可靠地陷入這些陷阱？如果它們如此明顯，為什麼那些剛成名、剛致富、剛失去親人或剛經歷分手的人，會以剛經歷宗教啟示般的盛大儀式來宣揚這些事實？ It’s also a very contentious list of points to say on the Internet. If you interview a billionaire who says that all of his money didn’t make him happy or a movie star who said that her fame felt like a prison, the Internet will tear them apart for being ungrateful and out of touch. So not only do we refuse to learn these lessons, we even refuse to hear the message from those warning us about them. 這也是一份在網路上非常具爭議性的觀點清單。如果你訪問一位億萬富翁，他說所有的錢並沒有讓他快樂，或者一位電影明星說她的名聲感覺像監獄，網路會因為他們忘恩負義和脫離現實而撕裂他們。因此，我們不僅拒絕學習這些教訓，甚至拒絕聽取那些警告我們的人所傳達的信息。 And even more than that, I think for every one of these, if I consider a bit deeper, I can recall a time, including right now, where I convinced myself that I am the exception to the rule, that my particular mental makeup or life situation or historical wounds or dreams for the future render me immune to these lessons being applicable. No. No. No. My inner landscape would be solved by skirting around the most well known wisdom of the ages. No. No. No. I can thread this needle properly. Watch me dance through the minefield and avoid all of the tripwires that everyone else kicks. 更甚者，我認為對於這些每一條，如果我稍微深入思考，我都能回想起某個時刻，包括現在，我曾說服自己我是規則的例外，我特有的心理構造、生活狀況、歷史傷痛或對未來的夢想使我免於這些教訓的適用。不，不，不。我的內心世界不會因為繞過這些歷代最著名的智慧而得到解決。不，不，不。我能正確地穿過這個針眼。看我如何在地雷區中舞動，避開所有其他人會踢到的陷阱線。 The Value of Unteachable Lessons 無法教導的教訓的價值 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And then you kick one, and you share a knowing look, the kind that can only occur between two people who’ve been hurt in the exact same way, and a voice in the back of your mind will say, I told you so. That’s unteachable lesson. It’s a good essay. NAVAL RAVIKANT：然後你踢到一個陷阱，你們會交換一個會心的眼神，只有兩個以完全相同方式受過傷的人之間才會有的那種眼神，腦海深處會有一個聲音說，我早就告訴過你了。那就是無法教導的教訓。這是一篇很好的文章。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I think one of the reasons why these lessons are unteachable is because they’re too broad, they have to be applied in context. A number of the ones that you laid out contradict each other, like spend more time with your parents and don’t work so hard, but at the same time, you do want to be successful, right? I think a lot of these lessons come from down on high, from as you said, like the famous movie star or the billionaire saying, “Oh, you don’t need money to be happy,” it’s like, well okay then give it up. 克里斯·威廉森：我認為這些課程之所以無法教導，是因為它們太過籠統，必須在具體情境中應用。你列出的許多教訓彼此矛盾，比如說多花時間陪伴父母，不要太拼命工作，但同時你又想要成功，對吧？我覺得這些教訓很多是從高處傳下來的，就像你說的，那些著名影星或億萬富翁說：「你不需要錢才能快樂」，那好吧，那就放棄錢吧。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right? So in reality I think many of these contradict each other. It’s like if you went to school and you just studied philosophy for four years, you would not know how to live life because you wouldn’t know which philosophical doctrine to apply in which circumstance. You have to actually live life, go through all of the issues to figure out what it is that you want, what’s the context in which some of these things apply and some of them don’t. Yes you want to visit your parents more often, but you don’t want to live with your parents and you don’t want necessarily see them every day or every weekend depending on the parent. You might not get along with one of them, so I think it is highly contextual. NAVAL RAVIKANT：對吧？所以實際上我認為這些很多是互相矛盾的。就像如果你去學校只學哲學四年，你也不會知道如何生活，因為你不知道在什麼情況下應該應用哪種哲學理論。你必須真正去生活，經歷所有問題，才能弄清楚你想要什麼，哪些情況下某些理論適用，哪些不適用。是的，你想更常去看望父母，但你不想和父母同住，也不一定想每天或每個週末都見他們，這取決於父母的情況。你可能和其中一位不合得來，所以我認為這非常依情境而定。 That said, I would argue that once you figure it out for yourself, you can kind of carve these variations on these maxims that apply to you, and then you’ll have a specific experience that helps you remember it and actually execute on it. 話雖如此，我認為一旦你自己弄清楚了，你就可以為自己雕琢出這些格言的變體，這些變體適用於你，然後你會有一個具體的經驗幫助你記住它並真正去執行。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And you can also phrase it in a way where it’s not trite anymore. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你也可以用一種不再陳詞濫調的方式來表達它。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s personal. So a lot of my maxims in those to self are carved in a way that they’re modernized. They’re saying something true, which might be trite if I didn’t say it in a new way or in an interesting way that is more relevant to me today. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這是個人的。所以我很多給自己的格言都是以現代化的方式雕琢出來的。它們說的是一些真理，如果我不是用一種新的方式或更貼近我今天的有趣方式來說，可能會顯得陳腐。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: There was a Nobel Prize winner who said something to the effect of “everything worth saying may have been said before, but given that nobody was listening, it must be said again.” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：有位諾貝爾獎得主曾說過類似這樣的話：「所有值得說的話可能以前都說過了，但因為沒有人在聽，所以必須再說一次。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, it has to be said again, it has to be recontextualized for the modern age. Things do change, technology changes things, culture changes, people change. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，這必須再次強調，並且需要在現代背景下重新詮釋。事情確實會改變，科技改變事物，文化改變，人們也會改變。 Wisdom vs. Appearing Wise 智慧與看似聰明 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: On that, I’ve heard you say, you talk about the difference between seeming wise and being wise, that you tried to appear smart as a kid. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：關於這點，我聽你說過，你談到看似聰明和真正聰明之間的差別，你說你小時候試著讓自己看起來很聰明。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Still do. NAVAL RAVIKANT：現在仍然如此。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Rote memorization, masquerading as insight and wisdom. I’d certainly feel that, you know, a lot of the show, for me, I think, has been, was and still is, a redemption arc from this decade of my life where I completely suppressed any intellectual curiosity. Like, okay, I’ll be a professional party boy for ten years, stand on the front door of a nightclub and give out VIP wristbands and have access to all of the pretty girls or the cool parties or whatever it might be. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：死記硬背，假裝成洞察力和智慧。我確實覺得，對我來說，這個節目很大程度上是一個救贖的過程，來自我人生這十年裡完全壓抑任何知識好奇心的階段。就像，好吧，我會當一個專業的派對男孩十年，站在夜店門口發放 VIP 手環，能接觸到所有漂亮的女孩或酷炫的派對，無論是什麼。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Seems like it worked out okay. NAVAL RAVIKANT：看起來結果還不錯。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It did in some ways, but it was a good way to spend my twenties. But to sort of come back above water, two degrees, one of which was a master’s, and then this, like, just shut down any of that learning. I did that while I was at uni. While I was at uni, I was running the events. So it was actually a decade and a half. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：在某些方面確實如此，但這是我度過二十多歲的好方式。但要重新站起來，拿了兩個學位，其中一個是碩士，然後就像完全關閉了那種學習。我是在大學期間這麼做的。大學時期，我還在經營活動。所以其實是十多年。 I think there was a big redemption arc within this show, and I constantly have to kind of wipe the slime off me of this sense that I need to prove myself. That’s why it really resonates with me when you’re memorizing things that indicate that you don’t understand them, or that sort of rote memorization and regurgitation masquerading as wisdom, because people use fluency as a proxy for truthfulness and insights. They use the complexity of your language and your communication. 我認為這個節目中有一個很大的救贖弧線，而我不斷地必須擦去那種我需要證明自己的感覺帶來的黏膩感。這就是為什麼當你背誦那些顯示你不理解的東西，或者那種死記硬背和反芻假裝成智慧的行為時，這真的讓我產生共鳴，因為人們用流利度作為真實性和洞察力的替代指標。他們用你語言和溝通的複雜性來衡量。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, there’s a lot of jargon out there. I think it’s the mark of a charlatan to explain a simple thing in a complex way, and so when you see people using very complicated language to explain simple things, they’re either trying to impress you and obfuscate, or they don’t understand it themselves. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，外面有很多行話。我認為用複雜的方式解釋簡單的事情是騙子的標誌，所以當你看到有人用非常複雜的語言來解釋簡單的事情時，他們要麼是在試圖給你留下深刻印象並混淆視聽，要麼他們自己根本不理解。 Authenticity vs. Performance 真實性與表演性之間的對比 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: But there’s an allure in that though. This was one of the things I had to do when I went to therapy. I don’t think I’ve talked about this before. I needed to turn off “podcast Chris” when I stepped into therapy because most of the time that I spend one on one in a deep conversation that’s undistracted throughout the week, I’d trained myself over, you know, when I started doing it, seven hundred episodes now, nine hundred and whatever. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：但這其中確實有一種吸引力。這是我去做心理治療時必須做的一件事。我想我以前沒談過這件事。當我走進治療室時，我需要關掉「播客版的克里斯」，因為我大部分一對一的深度對話時間，都是在一整週中不受干擾地進行的，而我在開始做這件事時，已經訓練自己了，現在已經有七百集，甚至九百多集了。 I knew what I could say to this therapist to just sort of veer off a little and create some nice story, put a bow on it, push it across the table, watch your eyes light up a little bit, like a little grin or a self-deprecating joke or whatever. I’m like, you’re not here. You’re performing. You’re doing the Chris Williamson thing with the sort of jazz hands. 我知道該對這位治療師說什麼，稍微偏離一點，編造一個漂亮的故事，給它加個蝴蝶結，推到桌子上，看著你的眼睛微微發亮，露出一點笑容，或者自嘲的玩笑之類的。我心想，你不在這裡。你是在表演。你在做克里斯·威廉森的那套帶有爵士手勢的表演。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I have my own version. So you have podcast Chris. I have podcast guest Naval. Very often, I’ll think of something, I’ll have some, what I think is an insight, and I want to tweet it or write it down, but in my mind, I’m talking about it on a podcast. That’s kind of how my mind registers it, and for a while, I thought this was a bad thing, and I tried to eradicate podcast Naval, and then I just realized that’s just how it comes out, so I might as well just be okay with it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我有我自己的版本。你有播客主持人 Chris，我有播客嘉賓 Naval。很多時候，我會想到一些東西，覺得那是個洞見，想要發推文或寫下來，但在我腦海中，我是在播客裡談論它。這就是我思考的方式，一開始我覺得這是件壞事，試圖消除播客 Naval，但後來我意識到這就是我的表達方式，所以我乾脆接受它。 Now, do you know the reason I’m on this podcast? I haven’t done a proper formal interview, straight up, top ten, twenty podcasts in a long time. Since Rogan, maybe? 現在，你知道我為什麼會來這個播客嗎？我很久沒有做過正式的訪談了，直接說，是前十名、二十名的播客。自從 Rogan 之後，可能吧？ CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Probably since Rogan. You went out at the top, right? That was the theory. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：大概是從 Rogan 開始吧。你當時是巔峰退場，對吧？那是當時的理論。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, it’s still at the top. And then, you know, I’ve done some stuff with Tim Ferriss, a good friend, but that’s been more co-hosting. I haven’t been a guest. And then I did one or two random things where I just stumbled into a thing, but it wasn’t like this, and I reached out to you for this one. NAVAL RAVIKANT：其實我還是在巔峰。然後，我也和 Tim Ferriss，一位好朋友，合作過一些節目，但那更多是共同主持，我沒有當過嘉賓。後來我偶爾參加過一兩次隨機的節目，但不像這次這樣，是我主動聯繫你的。 I have lots of people reaching out to me for podcasts. I did not answer them. I reached out to you, and the reason is a really funny one. It’s because when I am playing Podcast Naval in my head, for some reason, you’re on the other side, and I don’t know why. I literally don’t know why. It’s not like I’ve even seen many of your podcasts. I think I’ve seen some snippets here and there, but for some reason, you were the guy in the podcast, in podcast Naval. And so I was like, oh, I might as well just do it. So I reached out to you. 有很多人聯繫我想做播客。我沒有回覆他們。我主動聯繫了你，原因非常有趣。因為當我在腦海中扮演播客中的 Naval 時，不知為何，你就在另一邊，我也不知道為什麼。我真的不知道為什麼。也不是說我看過你很多播客，我想我只看過一些片段，但不知怎的，你就是那個播客裡的那個人，播客中的 Naval。所以我想，哦，那我乾脆就做了。於是我聯繫了你。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I wonder if this will close that loop or further entrench it. I wonder if you’ve made it way worse now, and you’re just going to have—well, first off, it was a dream, and now it’s reality plus a dream. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我在想這會不會讓這個循環結束，或者讓它更加根深蒂固。我在想你是不是讓事情變得更糟了，現在你會有——嗯，首先，這曾經是一場夢，現在是現實加夢境。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: There are enough people that I turned down where I said I’m just not doing podcasts, that I feel bad about that. I gotta go back and do those podcasts, but I probably wear out my welcome. I have nothing new to talk about, so I don’t know what I’m going to say. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我拒絕了足夠多的人，他們邀請我做播客，我說我就是不做播客，對此我感到有些愧疚。我得回去做那些播客，但我可能會讓人覺得我不受歡迎了。我已經沒有新話題可談了，所以我不知道我會說什麼。 Conversations vs. Interviews 對話與訪談 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Well, I appreciate you. You’d said on Rogan, and this was something to kind of pay it back to you, I had a five-headed Mount Rushmore of guests before I started this show, and it was Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Alain de Botton from the School of Life, you, and Rogan, and that was my hydra of a Mount Rushmore. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：嗯，我很感激你。你曾在羅根節目上說過，這也是我想回報你的原因，在我開始這個節目前，我心中有一個五人組的拉什莫爾山嘉賓名單，那就是喬丹·彼得森、山姆·哈里斯、生命學校的阿蘭·德波頓、你和羅根，這就是我那個多頭的拉什莫爾山。 And I knew someone had asked you at some point, maybe it was a tweet or something after Rogan, or maybe even said it on Rogan where you said, I don’t like to say the same thing twice, at least not in the same way. I don’t like sequels. 我知道有人曾經問過你，也許是在羅根節目之後的推特上，或者甚至是在羅根節目上你說過，你不喜歡重複說同樣的話，至少不以同樣的方式說。我不喜歡續集。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. Yeah. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。是的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And I really, really respected that. You know, that was 2019. You said it was eight or nine years ago. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我真的非常尊重這一點。你知道，那是 2019 年。你說那是八、九年前的事了。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I have a terrible memory. Yeah. You’re right. 2019, right before COVID. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我的記憶很差。是的，你說得對。2019 年，就在 COVID 之前。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And, I really appreciated that, because there is something in the content game you can continue to sort of—I’m sure I’ll have said many things today that the audience will have already heard. But, caring enough about having novel insights or at least having a new perspective on similar insights. In the space of six years since you were on Joe, the first thing I said to you today was, I’m not convinced I actually fully agree with that thing that I used to say, which is cool. Right? That’s you showing that the position that you put in the ground previously is not a tether. It’s not you being held to it anymore. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我真的很感激這一點，因為在內容創作領域，你可以持續地——我相信我今天會說出許多觀眾已經聽過的話。但，足夠在意擁有新穎的見解，或者至少對類似見解有新的視角。在你六年前上 Joe 節目之後，今天我對你說的第一句話是，我不確定我是否完全同意我以前常說的那句話，這很酷，對吧？這表示你之前立下的立場並不是束縛，不再是你必須堅守的立場。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think the reason why I wanted to be on this is because for some reason I have the impression that you engage in conversations, and I like conversations. I don’t like interviews. This is why I was doing my last startup Air Chat, which was all about conversations, and conversations to me are more genuine. They’re more authentic. There’s a give and take, there’s a back and forth, there’s a genuine curiosity. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我想我之所以想參加這個節目，是因為某種原因我有一種印象，覺得你會進行對話，而我喜歡對話。我不喜歡訪談。這也是為什麼我之前創辦的初創公司 Air Chat 完全是關於對話的，對我來說，對話更真誠、更真實。它有來有往，有互動，有真正的好奇心。 It’s not to say the other podcasters don’t do it, they absolutely do do it, but for some reason in my mind, I had you as the guy that I would actually have a conversation with, and sure enough, you just read me your essay, which I don’t think anybody else would really do, right? That implies there’s a give and take, there’s a genuine curiosity, and I think that’s useful, because then, certain inexplicit knowledge that I had will be surfaced for myself, and I think that’s helpful. 並不是說其他播客主持人不這麼做，他們絕對會這麼做，但不知為何在我心中，我把你當成那個我會真正與之對話的人，果然，你只是讀給我聽你的文章，我覺得沒有人會真的這麼做，對吧？這意味著有來有往，有真正的好奇心，我認為這很有用，因為這樣我自己一些未明說的知識就會被激發出來，我覺得這很有幫助。 Finding Resonance in Others 在他人身上尋找共鳴 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Well, you’re seeing, to kind of break the fourth wall a bit, you’re seeing very much of some of the gateway drug insights that you had that you just don’t get to choose. I’m aware that you kind of have an anti-guru sentiment in you, like a very strong, like, don’t listen to me. I don’t know what I’m doing. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：好吧，為了打破第四面牆一點點，你會看到一些你無法選擇的入門藥物般的洞見。我知道你內心有一種反導師的情緒，非常強烈，就像是「別聽我說，我不知道自己在做什麼」。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Guru is a trap. Do not follow me. Do not bow to me. Do not do any of the other things to me. NAVAL RAVIKANT：導師是一個陷阱。不要跟隨我。不要向我鞠躬。也不要對我做任何其他事情。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: But, if you see resonance in another person, and I think this is what we’re all trying to find. People can complain about the mountains of content creation that happens, and maybe rightly so. But if you’re able to find someone and you see in them a little bit of you, maybe not even much of you, but like, oh, that bit of them, their self-esteem or the way they look at relationships or what they want to do, the kind of life they want or the level of peace of mind that they want to have. If you find in somebody else a little bit of that, it’s kind of like what you’re saying before. You can no longer be unconvinced of that, and it steps in and becomes a part of you. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：但是，如果你在另一個人身上看到共鳴，我認為這正是我們都在努力尋找的。人們可以抱怨大量的內容創作，或許這是有道理的。但如果你能找到某個人，並在他們身上看到一點點自己的影子，甚至可能不多，但像是他們的自尊、他們看待關係的方式、他們想做的事、他們想要的生活類型或他們想要擁有的心靈平靜程度。如果你在別人身上找到一點點這樣的東西，就像你之前說的那樣，你就無法再不信服它，它會介入並成為你的一部分。 And, yeah, you’re maybe seeing reflected back to you some percolated, very meandering insight from however long ago. Maybe in five years time, you’ll be like, you know that thing that you said about the lessons and the blah blah blah? It’s cool. That’s like synthesis. 對，你可能會看到一些從很久以前就開始醞釀、非常曲折的見解反映回來。也許五年後，你會想，那個你說過的關於教訓和那些什麼什麼的東西？挺酷的。那就像是綜合的結果。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: The reason I spend a lot of time in San Francisco is because it’s a gravitational attractor for the smartest people in the world, and despite all of the many problems the city had, because it’s mismanaged beyond belief, it does just seem to pull in the young, smart, creative people. Not just the ones who are building technology, but they’re exploring every facet of life and they’re weird and sometimes it’s repulsive and it’s bizarre, but you talk to these people and you just see a very intelligent person coming at life in a completely different way. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我花很多時間待在舊金山的原因是，這裡是世界上最聰明的人們的引力中心，儘管這座城市有許多問題，因為管理極其不善，但它確實吸引了年輕、聰明、有創意的人們。不僅僅是那些在建造科技的人，他們在探索生活的各個面向，他們很怪異，有時令人反感，也很奇異，但當你和這些人交談時，你會看到一個非常聰明的人以完全不同的方式看待生活。 Putting it to the combinatorics of human DNA which are uncountable, and giving you a weird perspective that can twist your mind around, and to do that you always have to be learning. You can’t be in a guru mentality. If I’m with somebody and they’re listening to every word I say and hanging on it, that’s not interesting for me, I’m not going to learn anything. I want people who are intelligent, who will say something back that is a little different, and I may not agree with it, but it’s going to leave a mark, it’s going leave an impression. It’s going to leave an impression to the extent that both that they are correct, and that I choose to listen, and I’ll choose to listen if I don’t view myself as higher status or smarter than them. 將其放在人類 DNA 的組合數學中，這些組合是無法計數的，並給你一個奇特的視角，能讓你的思維繞個彎，為了做到這一點，你必須不斷學習。你不能抱持著大師心態。如果我和某人在一起，他們聽我說的每一句話並緊緊抓住，那對我來說並不有趣，我不會學到任何東西。我想要的是聰明的人，他們會回應一些稍微不同的觀點，雖然我可能不完全同意，但這會留下痕跡，會留下印象。這種印象會在他們是正確的程度上留下，而我選擇去聆聽，當我不把自己看得比他們地位高或更聰明時，我才會選擇去聽。 The Value of Authentic Relationships 真誠關係的價值 NAVAL RAVIKANT: The flip side of that is I’m not really impressed by high status people. In fact, most of my friends who have gone on to become very famous or successful, the less I spend time with them. Partially because they get surrounded by an army of sycophants—it’s just hard to break through. And because I don’t want anything from them, I don’t like situations in which transactional relationships are implied. NAVAL RAVIKANT：相反的情況是，我對高地位的人並不真正感到佩服。事實上，我大多數成為非常有名或成功的朋友，我與他們相處的時間反而越來越少。部分原因是他們被一群諂媚者包圍——很難突破這層關係。而且因為我不想從他們那裡得到什麼，我不喜歡暗示有交易性關係的情況。 That’s clearly a gift to people of that status, because the higher they climb up that hierarchy, the fewer people don’t want anything from them. So in that way, you want to be an even better friend. But they get surrounded by people who do want things from them and are so good at pretending they don’t, that it’s just not worth my time to try and break out from that group. 這顯然是對那種地位人士的一種恩賜，因為他們在那個階層爬得越高，不想從他們那裡得到任何東西的人就越少。所以從這個角度來看，你會想成為一個更好的朋友。但他們周圍總是被那些想從他們身上得到東西的人包圍，而這些人又非常擅長假裝自己沒有這樣的意圖，讓我根本不值得花時間去試圖擺脫那個圈子。 So, it does get lonely at the top, so to speak, but it’s also by choice, because it’s a champagne problem. 所以，可以說在頂端確實會感到孤獨，但這也是一種選擇，因為這是一個香檳問題。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, you can be your own best friend too. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，你也可以成為你自己的最佳朋友。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I am my own best friend actually, so I really do enjoy spending time with myself. The smartest people aren’t interested in appearing smart and don’t care what you think. A lot of life is not giving a shit, but a lot of the best things in life come out of that. NAVAL RAVIKANT：其實我就是我自己最好的朋友，所以我真的很享受與自己相處的時光。最聰明的人不會在意表現得聰明，也不在乎你怎麼看他們。生活中有很多事情是不在乎的，但很多人生中最美好的事物正是從這種不在乎中產生的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Does this mean, sort of talking about that rote memorization masquerading as wisdom and insight thing, which I think perhaps podcasts like this will have contributed to? You hear someone like Alan Watts who’s like a painter with words—very simple, very sort of unpretentious—but if you’re intellectually curious, you only see the production of his thoughts. You don’t necessarily see the work that’s gone into the thoughts behind, so you confuse the presentation of them for the insight. Does that make sense? 克里斯·威廉森：這是否意味著，談論那種死記硬背卻假裝成智慧和洞見的現象，我想像這樣的播客可能也有助長這種情況？你聽像艾倫·瓦茲這樣的人，他用言語作畫——非常簡單，非常不矯揉造作——但如果你有求知慾，你只會看到他思想的產出。你不一定會看到支撐這些思想背後的努力，所以你會把表達方式誤認為是洞見。這樣說有道理嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Of course, yeah. A lot of my stuff is more polished. One of the funny things right before this podcast was I thought, “Oh, maybe I should go back and read my old tweets just so I remember what I said and I can articulate it well.” Then I realized that’s just performance. I would just be memorizing my own stuff to perform. NAVAL RAVIKANT：當然，沒錯。我的很多內容都是經過打磨的。這次播客之前有件有趣的事，我想，「哦，也許我應該回去看看我以前的推文，這樣我就能記得我說過什麼，並且能夠好好表達。」然後我意識到那只是表演。我只是在背誦自己的東西來表演而已。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s an extra special level of hell that you’ve descended into. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那是你墮入的一個特別地獄層次。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly, memorizing me to be more me. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，背誦自己以變得更像自己。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Bingo.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：正中紅心。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And I still live up to some expectations or some famous personality that I now have to become, some straight jacket that I have to put on. So, I’m having to live up to in private the things that I prefer. Pretty quickly I saw through that—it’s nonsense, and it also constrains my time and it’s just work. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我仍然得符合某些期望，或成為某個我現在必須成為的知名人物，像是必須穿上的緊身衣。所以，我必須在私下裡達到那些我偏好的標準。我很快就看穿了這一點——這是胡說八道，而且還限制了我的時間，這只是工作而已。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I think that’s your meditation practice at work there, that mindfulness gap to be like, “Yeah. There’s that thing again.” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我覺得這就是你的冥想練習在起作用，那種正念的空隙，讓你能說：「是的，那件事又來了。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly, hello. It’s not about changing your thoughts, it’s not about fixing your thoughts, it’s not about changing yourself, it’s just about being observant of yourself so that whatever change needs to happen will happen. You trying to change yourself is very circular—the mind trying to change the mind. The mind doesn’t like wrestling with itself. I don’t think it gets you anywhere. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，哈囉。這不是關於改變你的想法，也不是修正你的想法，更不是改變你自己，而是關於觀察自己，讓任何需要發生的改變自然發生。你試圖改變自己是非常循環的——心靈試圖改變心靈。心靈不喜歡與自己搏鬥。我覺得這不會帶你到任何地方。 The Best Ways to Spend Wealth 花費財富的最佳方式 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You’ve spent a lot of time either creating wealth or thinking about how to create wealth. What have you learned are the best places to spend wealth? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你花了很多時間在創造財富或思考如何創造財富。你學到的最佳花費財富的地方是什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I actually think Elon had this one figured out, which is he plowed his own money back into his own businesses to go and do bigger and better things for humanity. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我其實認為埃隆已經想通了，他把自己的錢再投入到自己的企業中，去為人類做更大更好的事情。 You could give it to nonprofits, but a lot of nonprofits are grifty, or it’s people who didn’t earn it trying to spend it, or they don’t have tight feedback loops on having a good effect. One of the things I want to do as an aside is I want to create a little school for young physicists, but that’s my nonprofit thing. I’ve actually underwritten media and some physics stuff. I don’t like to talk about my so-called philanthropy, because I think that makes it less real, that makes it more status oriented. 你可以把錢捐給非營利組織，但很多非營利組織都有些投機取巧，或者是那些沒有賺到錢的人試圖花掉這些錢，或者他們沒有嚴密的反饋機制來確保有良好的效果。我想做的一件事是，我想為年輕的物理學家創建一所小學校，這是我的非營利項目。我其實也資助過媒體和一些物理相關的東西。我不喜歡談論我所謂的慈善事業，因為我覺得那樣會讓它顯得不真實，反而更像是為了地位。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Like less philanthropic. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：像是比較不慈善的感覺。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, exactly. Then people look at how charitable my charity is, and people also come hunting for money, so there’s all that disease. I don’t believe in giving to schools—they have enough money. Ivy Leagues have enough money and they don’t know how to spend it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，沒錯。然後人們會看我慈善機構的慈善程度，也有人會來尋找錢財，所以這其中有各種問題。我不相信捐錢給學校——他們已經有足夠的資金。常春藤盟校有足夠的錢，但他們不知道如何花用。 I think the best use of money is creating a product for people that they voluntarily buy and they get value out of. In that sense, I think Steve Jobs and Elon and entrepreneurs like that have created a lot of value for the world. One of the things I can do is take my own money and invest it in myself to go and build the next great thing that I think needs to exist, and that’s basically what I’m doing right now. I’m doing a new business, I’m self-funding it, I’m applying a lot of money into it. I’m going to build something that I think is beautiful, that I want to see exist. 我認為金錢最好的用途是創造一個產品，讓人們自願購買並從中獲得價值。從這個角度來看，我認為史蒂夫·賈伯斯、埃隆以及像他們這樣的企業家為世界創造了大量價值。我能做的一件事是拿自己的錢投資自己，去打造我認為必須存在的下一個偉大事物，這基本上就是我現在正在做的事。我正在做一個新事業，自籌資金，投入大量資金。我將打造一個我認為美好的東西，我希望它能存在。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Have you spoken about this yet, or is it still dark? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你有談過這件事嗎，還是還在保密階段？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s so early. Maybe I’ll show it to you in a few months. Hopefully months, and I’m excited about it, and that’s a good use of money. NAVAL RAVIKANT：還很早。也許幾個月後我會給你看。希望是幾個月，我對此感到興奮，這是金錢的好用途。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What about the worst places to spend wealth? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那麼，花錢最糟糕的地方是哪些呢？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: What is the old line, if it flies, floats, fornicates? NAVAL RAVIKANT：那句老話是什麼來著，如果它會飛、會浮、會交配？ CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Very nice way to change the final F. Very impressive. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：把最後一個 F 換成那樣真是太妙了。非常令人印象深刻。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh, that’s the way I heard it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：喔，我聽到的就是那樣說的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I’m pretty sure it’s Felix Dennis who had that quote. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我很確定那句話是費利克斯·丹尼斯說的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, he said, “If it flies, floats, or fornicates, rent it.” I think the last one was a little too—it’s wrong. He didn’t have a family, didn’t have kids, so he missed the big one. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，他說過，「如果它會飛、會漂浮，或者會交配，就租它。」我覺得最後那句有點太……錯了。他沒有家庭，沒有孩子，所以錯過了最重要的一點。 But yeah, there are lots of bad ways to spend money. I believe in investment, I don’t believe in consumption. You’re born with a short housing position, you close that out, you get yourself a nice house, get yourself some help to free up your time, so you’re not doing things that other people can do better. Treat people well—always overpay and expect the best, pay them like they’re the best and then expect the best. 不過，是的，有很多花錢的壞方法。我相信投資，不相信消費。你天生就有一個短期的房產持倉，當你結束它後，給自己買一棟好房子，找些幫手來釋放你的時間，這樣你就不會做那些別人能做得更好的事。善待他人——總是多付錢並期待最好，付他們像對待最優秀的人一樣的薪水，然後期待他們做到最好。 Overall I think a good use of money is to take risks and build things and do things that other people can’t do, align it with your own unique talents so you can keep delivering to the world. I’m not going to sit idle, I’m not going to retire, that’s a waste of whatever time I have left on this earth. If I’m doing something I enjoy, then I’m already in perpetual retirement. Because work is just a set of things you have to do that you don’t want to do. So if you want to do it, it’s not work. 總的來說，我認為錢的好用法是冒險、創造和做別人做不到的事，並與你獨特的才能相結合，這樣你才能持續為世界做出貢獻。我不會閒著，我不會退休，那是在浪費我在這個世界上剩下的時間。如果我在做我喜歡的事，那我已經處於永恆的退休狀態。因為工作只是你必須做但不想做的一系列事情。所以如果你想做，那就不是工作。 There are things that I want to do that don’t feel like work. I can put money behind them and I can use that to instantiate them into reality. I don’t want to say “make the world a better place” because that’s too trite, but it’s more just create a product that I am proud of that wouldn’t exist otherwise, that other people will get tremendous value from. 有些事情我想做，但感覺不像是在工作。我可以投入資金，並利用這些資金將它們實現為現實。我不想說「讓世界變得更美好」，因為那太老套了，但更像是創造一個我引以為傲、否則不會存在的產品，並且其他人能從中獲得巨大的價值。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And it’s been enabled through wealth because you’re able to take a level of risk that you wouldn’t have been able to otherwise. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這是因為財富使你能夠承擔原本無法承擔的風險。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly, yeah. Wealth gives you freedom. It gives you freedom to explore more options, and in my case it gives me freedom to start businesses without having to ask other people for permission, or to warp my vision based on their desires to make a return, or how they think money should be made. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，對。財富給你自由。它讓你有自由去探索更多選擇，對我來說，它讓我有自由創業，而不必向別人請示許可，也不必根據他們想要獲利的期望，或他們認為賺錢的方式來扭曲我的願景。 Beyond the “How to Get Rich” Thread 超越「如何致富」的討論串 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is there anything that you’d add to the “How to Get Rich” thread? Is there anything where you thought, “If I could go in and edit and add one more…” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你會想在「如何致富」的討論串中補充什麼嗎？有沒有什麼是你覺得「如果我能進去編輯，還想再加一點……」的？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh, there’s like ten thousand things. I could talk about that topic forever, to be honest. That thread was so short, and it was so limited, and it was so crafted in a sense, although I wrote it very spontaneously. It left so much on the cutting room floor that I could just talk about that topic for days, but it’s all contextual. NAVAL RAVIKANT：喔，有一萬件事可以說。說實話，我可以永遠談這個主題。那個討論串太短了，內容也很有限，而且在某種程度上是經過精心設計的，雖然我是很即興地寫的。它留下了太多未被呈現的內容，我可以談這個主題好幾天，但這一切都要看情境。 Business is very, very contextual. You have to look at the particular business and understand what’s being done and why it’s being done and how it’s being done, and then you can tear it apart or reassemble it properly. I like to think that that is actually where I have specific knowledge and expertise. My specific knowledge and expertise is not in happiness and not in philosophy. Yes, my life is very hacked to be very unique, but I don’t think that’s where my specific knowledge is. 商業是非常、非常有情境性的。你必須觀察特定的商業，了解正在做什麼、為什麼要這麼做，以及如何去做，然後你才能拆解它或正確地重新組合它。我喜歡認為這正是我擁有特定知識和專業技能的地方。我的特定知識和專業並不在於幸福感或哲學。是的，我的人生經歷非常獨特，但我不認為那是我特定知識的所在。 My specific knowledge is in being able to analyze a business, especially a technology business, and take it apart at the seams and predict in advance what is likely to work and what is not likely to work—Clubhouse notwithstanding, because you’re still going to be wrong most of the time. It’s like playing the lottery, but you know one or two of the ticket numbers in advance. You only have to be right a few times or even just once to get the big score. 我的特定知識在於能夠分析一個企業，特別是科技企業，並從細節中拆解它，提前預測什麼可能會成功，什麼不太可能成功——儘管有 Clubhouse 的例外，因為你大多數時候仍然會判斷錯誤。這就像玩彩票，但你事先知道一兩個號碼。你只需要幾次甚至一次判對，就能贏得大獎。 Peter Thiel started PayPal, but he made all his money on Facebook. Now he’s done more since then obviously, but that was the big winner. That’s true in any power law distribution—number one is going to return more than two through N put together, two will return more than three through N put together. You’re operating in a highly leveraged intellectual domain, so the outcomes are going to be non-linear. 彼得·蒂爾創立了 PayPal，但他賺大錢是在 Facebook。當然，他之後做了更多事情，但那是最大的贏家。在任何冪次分布中都是如此——第一名的回報會超過第二名到第 N 名的總和，第二名的回報會超過第三名到第 N 名的總和。你在一個高度槓桿化的智慧領域運作，因此結果將是非線性的。 I know a lot about the topic, but it’s highly contextual. It makes a lot more sense if there’s a specific business in front of me, a specific entrepreneur, and I can take that apart. There are certain companies where I’ll say, “This is not going to work because you the entrepreneur are doing this for the wrong reasons. You’re doing A so you can get to B—just go to B. Or you’re doing this to make money when really the person who’s doing this because they love the product is going to beat you. Or you’re raising money from the wrong people who are in it for the wrong reasons. Or your co-founder is not in it for the right reasons, or you don’t have the right kind of co-founder, or your vesting schedule is wrong, or you’re starting the business in the wrong place, or you’re approaching it from this angle instead of that angle.” 我對這個主題了解很多，但這高度依賴情境。如果面前有一個具體的企業、一位具體的創業者，我能夠拆解分析，那就更有意義。有些公司我會說：「這行不通，因為你這位創業者出於錯誤的原因在做這件事。你做 A 是為了達到 B——那就直接去做 B。或者你做這件事是為了賺錢，但真正熱愛產品的人會打敗你。或者你從錯誤的人那裡募資，他們的動機不正確。或者你的共同創辦人動機不對，或者你沒有合適的共同創辦人，或者你的股權歸屬計劃有問題，或者你在錯誤的地方創業，或者你是從這個角度而非那個角度來看待這件事。」 Of course I’ll be wrong too, but I’ve just seen a lot of data, I have my theories around it, and that’s where I feel very comfortable operating. 當然我也會犯錯，但我看過很多數據，對此有我的理論，這讓我在這方面感到非常自在。 The problem is when I have to talk about how to create wealth—and “how to get rich” is a clickbait title deliberately—but when I talk about how to create wealth in the abstract, it’s very difficult. You have to just say the timeless stuff, you have to be right in almost every context, and so it really limits what you can say. 問題在於當我必須談論如何創造財富時——「如何致富」是一個故意用來吸引點擊的標題——但當我抽象地談論如何創造財富時，這非常困難。你必須說出那些永恆不變的道理，幾乎在任何情境下都要正確，因此這真的限制了你能說的內容。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The lack of specificity makes it challenging. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：缺乏具體性使得這件事變得具有挑戰性。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Correct. It’s back to philosophy, but when I can get specific about it, that’s when the real knowledge is becoming useful. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。這又回到了哲學層面，但當我能具體說明時，那才是真正知識開始變得有用的時候。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You could be like a wealth counselor for people. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你可以成為人們的財富顧問。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, part of the reason why I started doing podcasts—and this is ego at play, so I’ll admit it freely—when I was tweeting, I kind of pioneered philosophy Twitter, or a certain kind of practical philosophy Twitter. In one hundred and forty characters I would try to say something true in an interesting way that was insightful to me at the time. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我開始做播客的部分原因——這是自我在作祟，我會坦率承認——當我在推特上發文時，我算是哲學推特的先驅，或者說是一種實用哲學推特。在一百四十個字元內，我會嘗試以一種當時對我來說有洞見且有趣的方式說出真理。 But then that got copied, there’s thousands of us now—thousands of people spitting it out, ChatGPT trying to create these things all day long. Although I like to think that my stuff is incompressible—I’m saying it in the tightest way possible, which is kind of a little failed poetry background. 但後來這種方式被模仿了，現在有成千上萬的人在這樣做——成千上萬的人不停地吐出這些內容，甚至連 ChatGPT 整天都在嘗試創造這些東西。雖然我喜歡認為我的內容是無法壓縮的——我用最精簡的方式表達，這多少帶有我那點失敗的詩歌背景。 What I realized was if you truly have a deep understanding of something, then you can talk about it all day long. You can re-derive everything you need from that understanding, no memorization required. You can get it from first principles, and every piece of what you know is like a Lego block that just fits in and forms a steel frame—it’s solid, it’s locked in there. So on a podcast I can unload much more deeply about some of these topics. 我意識到的是，如果你對某件事有真正深刻的理解，那麼你可以整天談論它。你可以從這種理解中重新推導出你所需的一切，完全不需要死記硬背。你可以從基本原理出發，而你所知道的每一部分就像一塊樂高積木，恰好嵌合並形成鋼鐵框架——堅固且牢不可破。所以在播客中，我可以更深入地探討這些主題。 The Value of Understanding Over Memorization 理解的價值勝過死記硬背 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So for example, we can talk about any business you like, but it has to be in context, it has to be real, it has to be an actual problem, then we can solve it. I’ll just really love that heuristic of if you’re having to memorize something, it’s because you don’t understand it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：舉例來說，我們可以談任何你喜歡的生意，但必須有脈絡，必須是真實的，必須是實際存在的問題，然後我們才能解決它。我真的很喜歡這個啟發式原則：如果你必須死記硬背某件事，那是因為你不理解它。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You don’t understand it, that’s right. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你不理解，沒錯。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: If you have to memorize something, it’s because you don’t understand it, and if you understand something, you don’t have to memorize it. Again, you know, just to sort of call out lot of what I tried to do, this redemption arc thing of if I sound smart, that’s like being smart. NAVAL RAVIKANT：如果你必須死記硬背某件事，那是因為你不理解它；如果你理解了某件事，你就不需要死記硬背。再說一次，我只是想指出我嘗試做的很多事情，這種救贖弧線，如果我聽起來很聰明，那就像是真的聰明一樣。 ChatGPT has memorized the entire Internet. Good luck competing with that. You’re not going to beat the memorization. You’re not even going to beat the library of memorization. You’re going to beat any ten books in memorization, so memorization is not the thing. Understanding is the thing. ChatGPT 已經記住了整個互聯網。祝你好運去跟它競爭。你不會贏過死記硬背的能力。你甚至不會贏過那個記憶的圖書館。你只能贏過任何十本書的死記硬背，所以死記硬背不是重點，理解才是重點。 Being able to exercise judgment is the thing. Taste is the thing, and understanding judgment, taste, these come out of having real problems and then solving them and then finding the commonalities. 能夠行使判斷力才是關鍵。品味是關鍵，而理解判斷力、品味，這些都源自於面對真正的問題，然後解決它們，並找到其中的共通點。 Philosophy and Universal Truths 哲學與普遍真理 What is philosophy? Everyone, you live long enough, you’ll be a philosopher. Philosophy is just when you find the hidden generalizable truths among the specific experiences that you’ve had in life, and then you know how to navigate future specific experiences based on some heuristics, and you create a philosophy around that. 什麼是哲學？每個人，只要你活得夠久，你就會成為哲學家。哲學就是當你在生活中找到那些隱藏的、可普遍應用的真理，然後你知道如何根據某些啟發式方法來應對未來的具體經驗，並圍繞這些建立一套哲學。 Any subject pursued deeply enough will eventually lead to philosophy. Mastery in anything, literally anything, will lead you to being a philosopher. You just have to stick with it long enough and generalize the truths back out, and these are universal truths. It’s back to the unity and variety. You can find unity in anything if you go deep enough. 任何學科只要深入追求，最終都會導向哲學。無論是什麼領域的精通，真的任何事情，都會讓你成為哲學家。你只需要堅持足夠久，並將真理加以概括，這些就是普遍真理。這又回到了統一性與多樣性的問題。只要你足夠深入，任何事物中都能找到統一性。 And that’s why the trite stuff unfortunately sort of keeps coming back around, you’re like, well look, this is cliche for kind of a reason. It’s cliche for reasons, but you know, sometimes you learn new things, sometimes you do figure out new things too, even in philosophy. 這也是為什麼那些陳詞濫調不幸地總是反覆出現，你會想，這些是老生常談是有原因的。它們成為陳詞濫調是有原因的，但你知道，有時候你會學到新東西，有時候你甚至會在哲學中發現新事物。 For example, science has advanced, as science has advanced, it’s actually expanded our boundaries of philosophy. When we used to think that the earth was the center of the universe, you would actually have a different philosophical outlook than when you think the universe is vast and we’re infinitesimally small. It will give you a different philosophical outlook, the same way if you think that nature is driven by angels and demons and gods versus if there are laws of physics that are computable and understandable, that will lead you to a different philosophical outlook. 例如，隨著科學的進步，科學實際上擴展了我們對哲學的界限。當我們曾經認為地球是宇宙的中心時，你的哲學觀點會與你認為宇宙浩瀚無垠且我們微不足道時有所不同。這會給你帶來不同的哲學觀點，就像你認為自然是由天使、惡魔和神靈驅動，與你認為自然有可計算且可理解的物理定律時，會導致不同的哲學觀點。 If you think that knowledge is something that is passed down from above and through generations versus something that is created on the fly and then tested against reality, that will lead to a different philosophical outlook. If you think humans are created by God as opposed to humans evolved from some unicellular organism, yeah, still doesn’t solve the original problem, who created that, but at least it takes you further back. 如果你認為知識是從上方傳下來並代代相傳的東西，與你認為知識是在當下創造並經過現實檢驗的東西，這會導致不同的哲學觀點。如果你認為人類是由上帝創造的，而不是人類從某種單細胞生物進化而來，這仍然無法解決最初的問題——誰創造了那個？但至少這讓你追溯得更遠。 Even sim theory is an attempt at reformulating philosophy based on what we know about computers, even though it kind of leads to a lot of the same conclusions as Creator, but it is at least philosophy that is informed by technology and by science. So philosophy can also evolve. 即使模擬理論也是基於我們對電腦的認知來重新構思哲學的嘗試，儘管它在某種程度上導致了與創造者理論相似的結論，但它至少是受科技和科學啟發的哲學。因此，哲學也能夠進化。 Moral philosophy evolves, right? There was a time when every culture practically that was a conquering culture practiced slavery, now almost all cultures abhor slavery, that’s moral philosophy having evolved. 道德哲學是會進化的，對吧？曾經幾乎所有征服文化都實行奴隸制，但現在幾乎所有文化都厭惡奴隸制，這就是道德哲學的進化。 There was even like, this sounds too ludicrous to be true, and I don’t know if it fully is true, but there were a fairly large group of doctors based on studies who believed until the 1980s that babies couldn’t feel pain, and so even to this day I think circumcision is done without anesthesia, because under the theory that very young children, babies don’t feel pain, and that’s ludicrous, and there was a study that came out in the 80s that said no no they do feel pain, it’s like oh yeah of course, right? 甚至有一件事聽起來荒謬到難以置信，我也不確定它是否完全屬實，但直到 1980 年代，有相當多的醫生基於研究相信嬰兒不會感覺疼痛，所以直到今天我想割禮仍然是在沒有麻醉的情況下進行，因為根據理論非常年幼的孩子、嬰兒不會感覺疼痛，這是荒謬的，80 年代有一項研究指出不不，他們確實會感覺疼痛，這就像是，當然了，對吧？ So people can be stuck in bad philosophical traps for a long period of time, so even philosophy can make progress, and as an example, one of the realizations that I had, and this is thanks to David Deutsch and my friend James Pearson also thinking it through a little bit, is that there are these timeless old questions that we run into where the answers seem like paradoxes, so we stop thinking about them. 所以人們可能會長時間陷入糟糕的哲學陷阱，即使哲學也能取得進展。舉例來說，我的一個領悟——這要感謝大衛·德意志和我的朋友詹姆斯·皮爾森也稍微思考過這個問題——是我們會遇到一些永恆的老問題，這些問題的答案看起來像悖論，因此我們就停止思考它們。 Resolving Philosophical Paradoxes 解決哲學悖論 So an example is free will, do you have free will, or does anything matter, is there a meaning to life? And we get stuck in them because for example, is there a meaning to life? Like yes, life has a meaning because you’re right here, you create your own meaning, this moment has all the meaning you could imagine, it’s all the meaning there is. On the other hand you’re going die, it all goes to zero, heat, death, the universe has no meaning, right? So which one is it? 舉例來說，自由意志，你是否擁有自由意志，或者一切是否有意義，生命是否有意義？我們會陷入這些問題中，例如，生命是否有意義？答案是有的，生命有意義，因為你就在這裡，你創造了自己的意義，這一刻擁有你能想像的所有意義，這就是全部的意義。另一方面，你終將死去，一切歸零，熱寂、死亡，宇宙沒有意義，對吧？那到底是哪一個呢？ Well the reason why it seems paradoxical is because you’re asking the question of a human here now at a certain scale and a certain time, and then you’re answering it from the viewpoint of the universe over infinite time, so you pull the trick, you switch the level at which you’re answering the question, and questions should be answered at the level at which they’re asked. 這看似悖論的原因是因為你在某個特定的尺度和時間點以人的角度提出問題，然後卻從宇宙無限時間的視角來回答問題，所以你玩了個把戲，切換了回答問題的層次，而問題應該在提出的層次上被回答。 So if you ask the question, is there meaning? You Chris are asking that question. Yes, yes to Chris there is meaning, there’s meaning right here, this is a meaning, you can interpret any meaning you want onto it. Don’t ask the question as Chris and then answer it as God or as the universe. That’s the trick that you’re playing. That’s why it seems paradoxical. 所以如果你問這個問題，有沒有意義？你，克里斯，正在問這個問題。是的，對克里斯來說是有意義的，這裡就有意義，這就是一種意義，你可以對它解讀任何你想要的意義。不要以克里斯的身份問問題，然後以上帝或宇宙的身份回答。這就是你玩的把戲。這也是為什麼它看起來矛盾的原因。 The same way you can say, do I have free will? People debate free will all day long. The question is answered at the wrong frame, so they ask the question, do I as an individual have free will? Hell yeah, I have free will. My mind body system can’t predict what I’m going to do next. The universe is infinitely complex. I’m making a choice in my mind and I’m doing something. There’s my free will. 同樣的，你也可以問，我有自由意志嗎？人們整天爭論自由意志。問題是在錯誤的框架下被回答，所以他們問這個問題，我作為一個個體有自由意志嗎？當然有，我有自由意志。我的心身系統無法預測我接下來會做什麼。宇宙是無限複雜的。我在心中做出選擇，然後付諸行動。這就是我的自由意志。 So answer at the level at which you were asked, of course I have free will because I feel like I have free will and I treat you like you have free will and you treat me like I have free will, we have free will. The problem then is you start trying to answer the question as if you’re the universe, you’re like, well on the universal scale, big bang particle collisions, no one makes any choices, you know, how could you be any different than what the universe wants you to be, and it’s all one block universe, so you don’t have free will. 所以請在被問及的層次上回答，當然我有自由意志，因為我感覺自己有自由意志，我也把你當作有自由意志的人，你也把我當作有自由意志的人，我們都有自由意志。問題在於，當你開始試圖以宇宙的角度來回答這個問題時，你會說，在宇宙的尺度上，大爆炸、粒子碰撞，沒有人在做選擇，你知道，你怎麼可能與宇宙想讓你成為的樣子不同呢？而且這是一個整體的區塊宇宙，所以你沒有自由意志。 Don’t answer the question at the level at which it wasn’t asked. So if God asked the question, is there free will? No, there is no free will. The universe asked the question, there is no free will, but if an individual asks the question right now, then yes there is free will. 不要在問題未被提出的層次上回答問題。所以如果是上帝問這個問題：「有自由意志嗎？」答案是否定的，沒有自由意志。如果是宇宙問這個問題，答案也是沒有自由意志，但如果是個人現在問這個問題，那麼答案是有自由意志。 So a lot of these paradoxes resolve themselves, philosophical paradoxes that people have been struggling with since the beginning of time, when you just realize they’re you’re answering them at a scale and time different than they were asked. 所以許多這些悖論，哲學上的悖論，自古以來人們一直在掙扎的問題，當你意識到你是在不同的尺度和時間點回答問題時，這些悖論就會自我解決。 Changing Beliefs  改變信念 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Speaking of updating beliefs, is there anything that you changed your mind around recently? Very recently? I mean, all the time. But are you talking about, like, philosophical existential things, or like technological things? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：說到更新信念，你最近有沒有改變過什麼想法？非常最近的？我是說，幾乎一直都有。但你是指哲學存在主義的事情，還是科技方面的事情？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. Philosophical existential things, or anything that comes to mind, if there’s anything that’s front of mind where you go, yeah, that’s a pretty big OS update. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。哲學存在主義的事情，或者任何你腦海中浮現的東西，如果有什麼讓你覺得，嗯，這真的是一次很大的作業系統更新。 I’m less laissez faire than I used to be on a societal level, I think that culture and religion are good cooperating systems for humans, and so if you want to operate in a high trust society, you need to have sets of rules that people need to follow and obey, so they get along even if they’re, you know, one size fits all doesn’t work for everybody. 我在社會層面上比以前不那麼放任自流了，我認為文化和宗教是人類良好的合作系統，所以如果你想在一個高度信任的社會中運作，你需要有一套規則讓人們遵守和服從，這樣他們才能和諧相處，即使你知道，一刀切的規則並不適用於每個人。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It’s moved up a little bit from libertarian? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這比自由意志主義稍微往上移了一點嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, I mean, pure libertarians get outcompeted and die. Why? They get overrun because they’re every man for himself. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我的意思是，純粹的自由意志主義者會被競爭擊敗並消亡。為什麼？因為他們各自為政，無法團結一致。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: They can’t coordinate. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：他們無法協調。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: They can’t coordinate, exactly right. So, the coordination problems, like culture exists to solve fundamental coordination problems, religion solves coordination problems, ethnicity solves coordination problems historically, and when you break down those coordination systems too fast and don’t replace them with anything else, you get societal breakdown, so you can have very malfunctioning societies. NAVAL RAVIKANT：他們無法協調，完全正確。所以，協調問題，比如文化的存在是為了解決根本的協調問題，宗教解決協調問題，歷史上族群也解決協調問題，當你太快瓦解這些協調系統卻沒有用其他東西取代它們時，就會導致社會崩潰，因此你會有非常失靈的社會。 You know, go to Japan versus go to any western city and you can see the difference being a culture that’s working and a culture that’s not. So I think that that’s like a broader set of things that I’ve changed my mind on a fair bit. I used to be much more laissez faire on that stuff, let’s put it that way. 你知道，去日本和去任何西方城市，你可以看到一個運作良好的文化和一個不運作的文化之間的差異。所以我認為這是一組更廣泛的事情，我在這方面改變了不少看法。可以這麼說，我以前對這些事情要自由放任得多。 What else? I mean, on child raising, I’ve gotten a lot looser, you know, I’m still not like completely laissez faire, but I’m much more realized like kids are going to be kids and you kind of let them do their thing. 還有什麼呢？我是說，在養育孩子方面，我變得寬鬆了很多，你知道，我還不是完全放任自流，但我更能意識到孩子就是孩子，你得讓他們做他們自己的事。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You’ve gone to- Debate with them. Is it Talib that has the ascending levels of like anarchism versus conservatism, is that his insight? Like, the local level, I’m this. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你跟他們辯論過。是 Talib 提出了從無政府主義到保守主義的層級遞升，這是他的見解嗎？就像在地方層面，我是這樣的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. It seems like you’ve gone the other way. It’s like, at the child level, I’m an anarchist. At the societal level, I’m a conservative. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。看起來你走了相反的路。就孩子層面來說，我是無政府主義者；在社會層面，我是保守派。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: No, he was quoting somebody else, some brothers, I forget which ones, but he was making the point eloquently as he often does, that at the family local level, he’s a communist. At the family level, you’re a communist. At maybe the extended family level, you’re a socialist. At the local level, you know, you’re kind of a Democrat and so on, until at the federal level you’re a libertarian. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不，他是在引用別人說的話，是某些兄弟，我忘了是哪些，但他像往常一樣雄辯地指出，在家庭的地方層面，你是共產主義者。在家庭層面，你是共產主義者。在可能的大家庭層面，你是社會主義者。在地方層面，你知道，你有點像民主黨人，依此類推，直到在聯邦層面你是自由意志主義者。 You’ve done it the other way, you know, being a libertarian with the kids and you’re being a religious conservative at societal level. That’s a way of looking at it. Don’t know if the scale is that simple. 你也可以反過來看，對孩子們是自由意志主義者，而在社會層面你是宗教保守派。這是一種看待問題的方式。不知道這個尺度是否那麼簡單。 Thoughts on AI  對人工智慧的看法 What else do I change my mind on? I think the modern AI is really cool, I think it’s, but I think these are natural language computers. They’re starting to show evidence of kind of reasoning at some levels, but I don’t think they do creativity. 我還會改變什麼想法？我認為現代的人工智慧真的很酷，我覺得它是，但我認為這些是自然語言電腦。它們開始在某些層面展現出某種推理的跡象，但我不認為它們具備創造力。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: One of my favorite takes is from Dwarkash Patel, and he says, if you gave any human on the planet 0.00001 percent of the consumption that LLM has, any LLM, they would have come up with thousands of new ideas. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我最喜歡的一個觀點來自 Dwarkash Patel，他說，如果你給地球上任何一個人類 0.00001%的LLM消費量，任何LLM，他們都會想出成千上萬的新點子。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right. Give me one new idea. One fundamental new idea. Just being generated. Yeah, like I’m big into poetry, every poem ever written by an LM is garbage, I think even their fiction writing is terrible, even the new GPT-four zero five, with all due respect to Sam and crew, I think they’re terrible writers. NAVAL RAVIKANT：對。給我一個新的點子。一個根本性的全新點子。剛剛產生的。是的，我非常喜歡詩歌，但由語言模型寫的每一首詩都是垃圾，我認為他們的小說寫作也很糟糕，即使是最新的 GPT-4.05，對 Sam 和團隊表示尊重，但我認為他們是糟糕的作家。 I find them really bad at summarizing, they’re really good at extrapolating, you know, paperwork, they’re very bad at actually distilling the essence of something and what’s important, they don’t have opinions or a point of view, but they’re still unbelievably powerful breakthroughs. 我發現它們在摘要方面真的很差，它們在推斷方面非常擅長，你知道，文書工作，它們在真正提煉事物的本質和重要性方面非常糟糕，它們沒有觀點或立場，但它們仍然是令人難以置信的強大突破。 They solve search, they solve natural language computing, they make English a programming language, they solve driving, they solve simple coding and backup coding, they solve translation, they solve transcription, they are a fundamental breakthrough in computing, is a different way to program a computer rather than you explicitly speak its language and write the code and then run the data through it. You just run enough data through it until it figures out how to write the program, that’s huge, but are they AGI? Not yet, and I don’t see a direct path from here to there, maybe we’ll have to solve a few more problems before that happens, and I think ASI is a fantasy, don’t think there’s any such thing as artificial super intelligence, where it has some kind of intelligence that humans can’t fathom. 它們解決了搜尋問題，解決了自然語言計算，使英語成為一種程式語言，解決了駕駛問題，解決了簡單編碼和備份編碼，解決了翻譯，解決了轉錄，它們是計算領域的根本性突破，是一種不同的編程方式，而不是你明確地說出它的語言並編寫代碼，然後運行數據。你只需運行足夠的數據，直到它學會如何編寫程式，這非常重要，但它們是通用人工智慧（AGI）嗎？還不是，我也看不到從這裡直接通往那裡的路徑，也許我們還得解決更多問題才會發生，我認為超級人工智慧（ASI）是幻想，不認為有什麼人工超級智慧存在，擁有某種人類無法理解的智慧。 ALSO READ:  How I Built My Life From Scratch: Trang Thach Nguyen Phuong (Transcript) 另見：我如何從零開始建立我的生活：Trang Thach Nguyen Phuong（文字記錄） CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Okay. Yeah. It seems like, I don’t know, if you’re from the Bostrom camp or whatever. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：好。是的。看起來，好像，不知道你是不是來自 Bostrom 那一派什麼的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: No. I’m not an AI doomer. I think that’s such a flawed line of reasoning. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不。我不是人工智慧末日論者。我覺得那種推理非常有缺陷。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: But let’s say that, you know, you came out of the lesswrong.com, like, slate star codec world, and there was this sort of lineage from computers and AI gets more powerful, more powerful, more powerful, and then you end up AGI, ASI. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：但假設你是從 lesswrong.com 出來的，比如說，slate star codec 那個世界，然後有這樣一個脈絡，從電腦和人工智慧越來越強大，越來越強大，最後你會達到通用人工智慧（AGI）、超級人工智慧（ASI）。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: ASI, yeah. NAVAL RAVIKANT：超級人工智慧（ASI），是的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And it seems like LLMs have been this sort of orthogonal move from that, which are you saying you don’t believe they are a step on that? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：看起來LLMs似乎是從那個方向上的一種正交移動，你的意思是你不認為它們是那個方向上的一步？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. I think it’s a different branch. I think Stephen Wolfram puts it better. It’s a different form of intelligence. It’s like if you see a jaguar in the jungle, it has a different form of intelligence, you’re like a plant has a form of intelligence, how it can like photosynthesize and grow, it’s a different form of intelligence. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。我認為這是另一個分支。我覺得 Stephen Wolfram 說得更好。這是一種不同形式的智慧。就像你在叢林中看到一隻美洲豹，它擁有不同形式的智慧；植物也有一種智慧，能進行光合作用並生長，這是一種不同形式的智慧。 And intelligence again, like love or like happiness, this overloaded word that means many things to many people, but by my definition, where, you know, the true test is you get what you want out of life, it doesn’t even have a life, it doesn’t even want anything, it’s different. 智慧再次來說，就像愛或幸福一樣，是一個過度使用的詞，對很多人來說意味著很多東西，但依照我的定義，真正的考驗是你是否能從生活中得到你想要的東西，而它甚至沒有生命，甚至不想要任何東西，它是不同的。 I do think it’s unbelievably useful, I’m glad that it exists. You don’t see it much yet in large scale production systems replacing humans because of the tendency to hallucinate, so you can’t put it into anything mission critical. 我確實認為它非常有用，我很高興它存在。你還不會在大規模生產系統中看到它取代人類，因為它有產生幻覺的傾向，所以你無法將它用於任何關鍵任務。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Confidently wrong one time out of ten. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：十分之一次自信錯誤。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Correct. And it doesn’t even know when it’s wrong, and maybe they’ll get that one out of ten down to one out of a hundred, but you kind of always want human oversight for critical things. I always feel so bitter. I’m petty sometimes. NAVAL RAVIKANT：正確。而且它甚至不知道自己何時錯誤，也許他們會把十分之一的錯誤率降到百分之一，但對於關鍵事情，你總是希望有人類監督。我總是感到很苦澀，有時候我很小氣。 The Future of AI and Self-Driving Cars 人工智慧與自駕車的未來 NAVAL RAVIKANT: My less equanimous version of me is petty, and I always want to teach it a lesson if it gets something wrong. I’m anthropomorphizing it, but it doesn’t have a point of view. They are going to get a lot better, and they might get to the point where the error rates are so low that you can put them into certain bounded problems. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我那不太平和的版本很小氣，如果它犯錯我總想教訓它。我在擬人化它，但它並沒有自己的觀點。它們會變得更好，可能會達到錯誤率非常低的程度，足以應用於某些有限的問題。 Self-driving will be solved completely because it’s a bounded problem. Cars don’t go off-road and drive through houses and stuff like that. The creative side of coding doesn’t go away. If anything, programmers get even more leveraged and more powerful, and rather than computing replacing programmers, programmers use AI to replace everybody else. 自動駕駛將會被完全解決，因為這是一個有界限的問題。車輛不會離開道路，穿越房屋之類的地方。編程的創造性一面不會消失。事實上，程式設計師會變得更加有影響力和強大，與其說計算機會取代程式設計師，不如說程式設計師會利用人工智慧取代其他所有人。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: On Tesla versus Waymo, would you bet on software or hardware for self-driving? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：關於特斯拉與 Waymo 的自動駕駛，你會押注軟體還是硬體？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think Tesla’s in the stronger longer-term position, but it’s hard to argue with what’s working right now and Waymo is working right now. I would not underestimate them because there’s a learning curve that you go through when you actually deploy something, and Waymo is way ahead in that regard. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為特斯拉在長期來看處於更強的位置，但很難否認目前有效的方案，而 Waymo 目前確實有效。我不會低估他們，因為當你真正部署某項技術時會經歷一個學習曲線，而 Waymo 在這方面領先很多。 Tesla’s camera-only approach, if it works, is superior—it’s much more scalable, and Tesla knows how to print cars. They can mass manufacture cars. But I think they’ll both be around, they’ll both be fine. It’s everybody else who doesn’t have a self-driving vehicle that’s screwed. 特斯拉僅用攝像頭的方案，如果成功，將更優越——它更具可擴展性，且特斯拉知道如何量產汽車。他們能大規模製造汽車。但我認為兩者都會存在，兩者都會很好。真正倒霉的是那些沒有自動駕駛車輛的其他人。 Declining Fertility Rates 生育率下降 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You mentioned kids there, and you had a tweet that said, “I’m not convinced that declining fertility needs to be proactively fought.” 克里斯·威廉森：你剛才提到孩子，並且你在推特上說過，「我不確定是否需要積極對抗生育率下降。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, think back—thirty years ago, twenty years ago, everybody was saying overpopulation of the earth is going to be a problem, Malthusian ending, we’re going to have too many people. And all of a sudden we’re going to have too few people. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：嗯，回想三十年前、二十年前，大家都在說地球人口過多會成為問題，馬爾薩斯式的結局，我們會有太多人。結果突然之間，我們又會有太少的人。 Part of it is just the doomerism meme is always alive and well. It just gets repackaged. We’re running out of oil, we have too much oil. The world is cooling, the world is warming. There’s always something to scream about—the world is ending, there’s no progress in technology, AI is going to blow up the world. People tend to overdo in both directions. 這部分原因是悲觀主義的迷因總是存在且活躍。它只是被重新包裝。我們的石油快用完了，我們又有太多石油。世界在變冷，世界在變暖。總有什麼事情讓人驚呼——世界末日來臨，科技沒有進步，人工智慧會毀滅世界。人們往往在兩個方向上都過度反應。 What is the actual fertility problem? People are having fewer kids because they’re choosing to have fewer kids. Women have gotten emancipation, independence in the workforce, they’re making more money. People don’t need kids as insurance policies. Maybe they’re living hedonistic lives—God bless them—they want to have more fun, they want to have fewer kids. I don’t see the act of choosing to have fewer kids as a problem. 實際的生育問題是什麼？人們生育較少的孩子，是因為他們選擇生育較少的孩子。女性獲得了解放，在職場上獨立，賺取更多收入。人們不再需要孩子作為保障。也許他們過著享樂主義的生活——願上帝保佑他們——他們想要更多樂趣，想要生育較少的孩子。我不認為選擇生育較少孩子是一個問題。 Let’s move one level up. It’s because of retirees. A large percentage of the population is essentially retiring at the guaranteed age of sixty-five or seventy thanks to social security, and they need other people to pay for it. They need more workers, and if the workforce is shrinking, then you have a small number of people who are supporting a large number of retirees. In democracies, you can’t take pensions away—the voters vote you out—so this slowly strangles the economy. 讓我們往上一層看。這是因為退休人員。由於社會保障制度，大部分人口基本上在六十五或七十歲這個有保障的年齡退休，他們需要其他人來支付這筆費用。他們需要更多的勞動者，如果勞動力在縮減，那麼就會有少數人支持大量的退休者。在民主國家，你無法取消退休金——選民會投票讓你下台——所以這會慢慢扼殺經濟。 So what do you do? You have a bunch of immigration, and then the whole culture changes. You end up in a low-trust society, and people start fighting over limited resources, and how do you control which immigrants come in, and how do you make sure that they’re good taxpayers after they’re in? 那你怎麼做呢？你有大量的移民，然後整個文化就改變了。你最終會陷入一個低信任的社會，人們開始為有限的資源爭鬥，你如何控制哪些移民可以進來，又如何確保他們進來後是良好的納稅人？ You end up in this trap where the low fertility rate is upstream of the downstream problems that are cultural and societal, but I’m not sure that you’re going to solve that by making people have more kids. How are you going to meme them into having more kids? I’m not even sure it’s necessarily a problem, because you have more resources now, you have less of a burden. 你最終會陷入這樣一個陷阱：低生育率是文化和社會下游問題的上游原因，但我不確定讓人們多生孩子能解決這個問題。你打算怎麼用「迷因」讓他們多生孩子？我甚至不確定這一定是個問題，因為你現在有更多資源，負擔也更輕。 There’s a flip side where every kid is a lottery ticket for invention, so there’s some benefit to having more kids, but you can’t force it. I think it’ll work itself out. Scott Adams has this great law which he calls the Adams law of slow-moving disasters: when disasters are very slow-moving, like peak oil or global warming or population collapse, and everyone can see them coming, economics and society are forced to solve them, because enough individual people have incentives to go solve them. 另一方面，每個孩子都是一張發明的樂透券，所以多生孩子確實有一些好處，但你不能強迫。我認為這問題會自我調整。斯科特·亞當斯有一條很棒的定律，他稱之為「亞當斯慢動作災難定律」：當災難非常緩慢地發生，比如石油峰值、全球暖化或人口崩潰，且每個人都能預見時，經濟和社會就被迫去解決它們，因為足夠多的個人有動機去解決這些問題。 I don’t know exactly how it gets solved, but I think it could get solved in various ways. Maybe people retire later, maybe AI and automation and robots take care of the older people, maybe we figure out how to have immigrants while still keeping a high-trust society, maybe we outsource more things, maybe we just have more land and housing to go around. 我不確定這個問題究竟會如何解決，但我認為它可能會以各種方式得到解決。也許人們會晚點退休，也許人工智慧、自動化和機器人會照顧年長者，也許我們會找到在保持高度信任社會的同時接納移民的方法，也許我們會外包更多事情，也許我們只是擁有更多土地和住房供應。 Believe me, if we were having too many kids, everybody would be complaining about how there’s no housing and there’s no land. So they’ll always find something to care about. I just don’t view this as something that any individual or government action is going to solve. I think economics and incentives over time will solve it, and I’m not even convinced it’s that big of a problem. 相信我，如果我們生太多小孩，大家一定會抱怨沒有住房和土地。所以他們總會找到值得關心的事情。我只是覺得這不是任何個人或政府行動能解決的問題。我認為經濟學和激勵機制隨著時間會解決這個問題，而且我甚至不確定這是不是一個很大的問題。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is there anything that you do think— 克里斯·威廉森：你認為有什麼事情是—— NAVAL RAVIKANT: It may be self-correcting too. If there are too few kids in society, the returns to having kids literally might just go up. It might just be easier to have incentive to now have a child because there’s so few around. They’re going to get the best job opportunities, resources. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：這也可能是自我修正的。如果社會上的小孩太少，生小孩的回報率可能真的會上升。因為小孩太少，現在可能更容易有動機去生一個。他們將會獲得最好的工作機會和資源。 You could come at it from a pain side, which is you look at all of the other people around who don’t have kids. Let’s say that pensions completely drop off and the only way that old people are able to survive is if their children pay them some sort of stipends. Well, that’s a pretty good incentive. 你可以從痛點的角度來看這件事，也就是你觀察周圍那些沒有孩子的人。假設退休金完全消失，老年人唯一能夠生存的方式就是靠他們的孩子給予某種津貼。那麼，這就是一個相當好的激勵措施。 I also think that people have been memed into thinking that kids make your life worse, and that’s pretty bad. 我也認為人們被網路迷因影響，認為有了孩子會讓生活變得更糟，這種想法相當糟糕。 The Joy of Parenthood  為人父母的喜悅 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What’s your experience been? 克里斯·威廉森：你的經歷是什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Kids make your life better in every possible way. If you want an automatic built-in meaning to life, have kids. NAVAL RAVIKANT：孩子在各方面都能讓你的生活變得更美好。如果你想要生命中自動內建的意義，那就生孩子吧。 I think there are these bad psych studies, like most psych studies unfortunately, that say that people are unhappy when they have kids. It’s because you’re catching them in the middle of changing a diaper and you’re saying, “Are you glad you had kids or not?” Or they don’t even say that, they say, “Are you happy or not?” And they say, “No, I’m not happy right now.” 我認為有些心理學研究很糟糕，就像大多數心理學研究一樣，不幸地說人們在有了孩子後會不快樂。那是因為你抓住他們正在換尿布的時刻，然後問他們：「你是否為有了孩子感到高興？」或者他們甚至不會這麼問，只問：「你快樂嗎？」他們回答：「不，我現在不快樂。」 But what they don’t realize is that person has found something more important than being happy in the moment—they found meaning, and the meaning comes from kids. If you ask parents, “Do you regret having kids?” I think it would be ninety-nine to one. It would be, “No, I don’t regret having kids. I love having kids. I’m so glad I had kids.” It’s incredibly rare to meet a parent that regretted having children. 但他們沒有意識到的是，那個人已經找到比當下快樂更重要的東西——他們找到了意義，而這個意義來自孩子。如果你問父母：「你後悔生孩子嗎？」我想答案會是九十九比一，會是「不，我不後悔生孩子。我愛我的孩子，我很高興自己有了孩子。」遇到後悔生孩子的父母是非常罕見的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It’s pretty good odds. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這機率相當不錯。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s extremely good odds. I think a lot of people get late into life and then they can admit that they should have had kids, but it’s kind of late in the game. NAVAL RAVIKANT：機率非常高。我認為很多人到了人生後期才承認自己應該有孩子，但那時已經有點太晚了。 A lot of times you see everybody who has a pet, and they’re pushing them around in a stroller. What is that? That’s a sublimated desire for children. 很多時候你會看到每個有寵物的人，都推著牠們坐在嬰兒車裡。那是什麼？那是一種對孩子的潛在渴望。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Malcolm Collins says that having a pet is to children as using porn is to sex. He basically thinks that it’s sort of a surrogate. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：Malcolm Collins 說養寵物對孩子來說，就像看色情片對性一樣。他基本上認為這是一種替代品。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s definitely in that direction. I like pets, I like animals, but I don’t like the idea of neutering or spaying something and then keeping it as a prisoner in the house and having to train it. I don’t want to be responsible for that. NAVAL RAVIKANT：確實是那個方向。我喜歡寵物，喜歡動物，但我不喜歡閹割或絕育動物，然後把牠們關在家裡當囚犯，還得訓練牠們。我不想為此負責。 Parenting Philosophy  育兒哲學 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Given that you’ve been thinking more about child-rearing, what do you hope that your kids learn from their childhood? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：既然你對育兒有更多的思考，你希望你的孩子從童年時光中學到什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: They just be happy and do what they want. I don’t have particular goals in mind for them. I think that’s another route to unhappiness. NAVAL RAVIKANT：他們只要快樂，做自己想做的事。我沒有為他們設定特定的目標。我認為那是通往不快樂的另一條路。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s different though, right, than learn versus goals. It’s not necessarily what do they want. What do you want them to want out of life? Like, you had that idea around your number one job as a parent is to provide unconditional love to your kids. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：不過那是不同的，對吧？學習和目標是兩回事。這不一定是他們想要什麼，而是你希望他們想要什麼樣的人生？比如說，你曾經有過這樣的想法，作為父母，你的首要任務是給孩子無條件的愛。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. So I want my kids to feel unconditionally loved, and I want them to have high self-esteem as a consequence of that. But I don’t get to choose anything—all I get to choose is my output. I can output love, I can’t choose what they feel, I can’t choose how they behave, I can’t choose what they want, I can’t choose what they turn out to be. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。所以我希望我的孩子們能感受到無條件的愛，並且因此擁有高度的自尊心。但我無法選擇任何事情——我唯一能選擇的是我的輸出。我可以輸出愛，但我無法選擇他們的感受，無法選擇他們的行為，無法選擇他們的願望，無法選擇他們最終成為什麼樣的人。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And downstream from that, there should be freedom, there should be a degree of freedom that comes from the self-esteem, that comes from the unconditional love. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：而在這之後，應該會有自由，應該會有一種來自自尊心、來自無條件愛的自由度。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, they should make their own mistakes and learn their own lessons and have their own desires and fulfill them as is appropriate. Like any parent, I wouldn’t want them to be hurt, wouldn’t want them to be unhappy, but I cannot control these things. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，他們應該自己犯錯、自己學習教訓，擁有自己的慾望並適當地實現它們。像任何父母一樣，我不希望他們受傷，不希望他們不快樂，但我無法控制這些事情。 Parenting Practices and Science 育兒實踐與科學 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You replied to my friend Rob Henderson, he was talking about how kids fall asleep more quickly when they’re being carried, and you said “cry it out and co-sleeping is dangerous. What’s IYI science?” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你回覆了我的朋友 Rob Henderson，他在談論孩子被抱著時更快入睡的情況，而你說「讓孩子哭著入睡和同床共眠是危險的。什麼是 IYI 科學？」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: IYI is from Nassim Taleb, it’s “intellectual yet idiot.” These are people who are over-educated, and they deny basic common sense. There’s a lot of that that goes on in child-rearing, thanks to really bad studies and bad public medical directives. NAVAL RAVIKANT：IYI 來自 Nassim Taleb，意指「知識分子卻是白痴」。這些人受過過度教育，卻否認基本的常識。在育兒方面，這種情況很常見，這多虧了非常糟糕的研究和不良的公共醫療指導。 For example, a few parents—maybe they’re drunk or they’re high or they have other issues—and they roll over their kid when they’re sleeping, the kid suffocates, or they neglect their kid. Because of that they say, “Well, don’t co-sleep with your kids.” 例如，有些父母——可能是喝醉了、吸毒了或有其他問題——在孩子睡覺時翻身壓到孩子，導致孩子窒息，或者他們忽視孩子。基於這些情況，他們就說：「不要和孩子同床共眠。」 Well, kids in every society through all of human history co-slept with their parents. Where else do you think they were sleeping? There weren’t houses with multiple rooms. We’ll put them in the other tent? It’s just nonsense. Co-sleeping has been around since the dawn of time. 好吧，從人類歷史以來，每個社會的孩子們都是與父母同睡的。你覺得他們還能睡在哪裡呢？那時候並沒有多間房子的房子。我們要把他們放到另一個帳篷裡嗎？這根本是無稽之談。與父母同睡自古以來就存在。 So has feeding kids cow milk or goat milk when breast milk runs out or is not available. Yet we’re told formula with soy and corn syrup, which was invented recently, is somehow better than cow milk, and cow milk can be dangerous for your kids, and co-sleeping is dangerous for your kids, and cry it out is the right answer. All of that is nonsense. 當母乳用盡或無法提供時，給孩子喝牛奶或羊奶也是如此。然而，我們被告知最近才發明的含有大豆和玉米糖漿的配方奶 somehow 比牛奶更好，牛奶對孩子有危險，與父母同睡對孩子有危險，讓孩子哭著自己入睡才是正確的做法。這些全都是胡說八道。 It’s very clear that we raised children throughout human history without these interventions. To me, the idea that you’re going to let your kid cry it out—I get why that’s done for practical reasons, so that you can get some sleep and you can go to work in the morning—but the reality is when you let the kid cry it out, you’re letting the kid bawl until it finally gives up. 很明顯，我們在人類歷史上養育孩子並不需要這些干預。對我來說，讓孩子哭著自己入睡的想法——我理解這樣做是出於實際原因，為了讓你能睡一會兒，早上能去上班——但事實是，當你讓孩子哭著自己入睡時，你就是讓孩子一直哭鬧，直到它最終放棄。 A kid left by itself to cry it out in the paleolithic wilderness is going to get eaten by a tiger. So this kid is starting off on the wrong foundation. The one I mentioned earlier about the idea that babies don’t feel pain—that’s ludicrous. 一個孩子如果在舊石器時代的荒野中被獨自留下哭泣，最終會被老虎吃掉。所以這個孩子一開始就建立在錯誤的基礎上。我之前提到過那種認為嬰兒不會感覺疼痛的想法——那是荒謬的。 The Dangers of Intellectual Yet Idiot Beliefs 知識分子卻愚蠢信念的危險 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I’ve never heard that before, it’s such a wild idea. 克里斯·威廉森：我以前從未聽過這種說法，真是個瘋狂的想法。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, I’m not saying that’s one hundred percent true. I read it on Twitter, and I did one level confirmation on it, but it’s so ludicrous that I should probably do two or three level confirmations before I talk about it. But there are definitely some people who believe that, enough that it was a thing in certain circles for a while. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：是的，我並不是說那百分之百是真的。我是在推特上看到的，並且做了一層確認，但這實在太荒謬了，我應該在談論之前做兩到三層確認。不過確實有些人相信這種說法，以至於它在某些圈子裡流行過一陣子。 I think we just go through these IYI beliefs, these intellectually yet idiot beliefs come from people who take a little bit of knowledge and extrapolate it too far. They think we know more than we know due to recent scientific studies, and these are junk science. These are low power studies on very certain contexts that then get over applied. Behavioral psychology is very guilty of this, but it’s true across a lot of science. 我認為我們只是經歷這些 IYI 信念，這些「智商高卻愚蠢」的信念來自於那些掌握一點知識卻過度推論的人。他們認為我們因為最近的科學研究而知道的比實際更多，而這些其實是垃圾科學。這些研究在非常特定的情境下進行，且樣本量小，卻被過度應用。行為心理學尤其容易犯這種錯誤，但這種情況在許多科學領域都存在。 So even with science you have to be skeptical. You have to look very carefully at whether it applies in the right context, if it comes from good sources, if they ran enough high-powered studies, if it’s widely accepted. 即使是科學，你也必須保持懷疑態度。你必須非常仔細地檢視它是否適用於正確的情境，是否來自可靠的來源，是否進行了足夠多的高效能研究，以及是否被廣泛接受。 There are a whole bunch of things you’re just not supposed to talk about. You can’t say anything negative about vaccines because God forbid, what if they don’t get the polio vaccine, right? And that’s part of the reason why the recent vaccine debate happened, because we’ve taken our worship for vaccines too far. 有很多事情你根本不應該談論。你不能對疫苗說任何負面話，因為天哪，如果他們不接種小兒麻痺疫苗怎麼辦？這也是最近疫苗辯論發生的部分原因，因為我們對疫苗的崇拜已經走得太遠了。 The same way there’s this whole SIDS thing, sudden infant death syndrome. It’s like, no, kids don’t suddenly mysteriously die. More likely there was neglect or there was a problem, and then whoever was the caretaker doesn’t want to admit to the problem or didn’t recognize the problem, but kids don’t just spontaneously die in the crib. 就像所謂的嬰兒猝死症（SIDS）一樣。事實上，孩子不會突然神秘地死亡。更可能的是存在疏忽或問題，而照顧者不願承認問題或未能察覺問題，但孩子不會在嬰兒床裡自發性死亡。 Parenting and Natural Instincts 育兒與天性本能 NAVAL RAVIKANT: They talk about swaddling babies. You swaddle babies, basically tie them up, mummify them, so you constrict them so they don’t die of SIDS where they roll over and they can’t get back. I mean, it’s just all this craziness around child raising. It’s a real minefield. NAVAL RAVIKANT：他們談論如何用襁褓包裹嬰兒。你用襁褓包裹嬰兒，基本上就是把他們綁起來，像木乃伊一樣包裹，這樣限制他們的活動，避免嬰兒猝死症（SIDS），因為他們翻身後無法翻回來。我是說，關於育兒的這些瘋狂規矩真是多得讓人頭痛，簡直是一個地雷區。 You have these scared parents, they’re having a kid for the first time and they open a book and they start reading how to raise children, and I would argue that your natural instincts on what to do with your child are actually pretty good. 你會看到這些害怕的父母，第一次有孩子，他們打開一本書開始閱讀如何養育孩子，而我會說，你對於如何照顧孩子的自然本能其實相當不錯。 It’s funny when my wife and I had our first baby, I remember at the hospital, first one was a natural birth at the birthing center, we went home and it was like, “there you go, that’s it,” and we’re like, “what do we do?” 很有趣的是，當我和我妻子有了第一個孩子時，我記得在醫院，第一胎是在產房自然分娩，我們回家後就像是，「好了，就這樣」，然後我們就想，「我們該怎麼做？」 Where’s the instruction manual? You take them home, and then you relax and you realize, actually instincts are pretty good. If the kid cries, check to see if they’re clean, feed them, all that. Your basic instincts are actually very, very good, and kids’ instincts are actually very, very good. They know what they want and they want things for a reason. 說好的說明書在哪裡？你把孩子帶回家，然後放鬆下來，會發現其實本能是相當不錯的。如果孩子哭了，檢查他們是否乾淨，餵食，這些基本的本能其實非常非常好，而孩子的本能也非常非常好。他們知道自己想要什麼，並且他們想要的東西是有原因的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And they can encourage you to give to them? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：他們會鼓勵你給他們東西嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yes, it’s usually children are not deficient adults who can’t reason, and to some extent that’s true, but mostly it’s not true. Mostly they have very good reasons for what they want, and you as a parent mostly have communication problems with them. They can’t yet communicate to you, you can’t communicate to them. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，通常孩子並不是缺乏理性的成年人，在某種程度上這是對的，但大多數情況下並非如此。他們大多有很好的理由想要某些東西，而你作為父母，大多數時候是與他們的溝通出了問題。他們還不能向你溝通，你也不能向他們溝通。 So early on with my kids, I tried to focus on teaching them explanatory theories and of course having them memorize is just the most frivolous solution. I’ll give you a very simple example. 所以在孩子還小的時候，我試著專注於教他們解釋性的理論，當然讓他們死記硬背只是最膚淺的解決方法。我給你一個非常簡單的例子。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Okay.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：好的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So, this is Twitter. And this is the “how to get rich without getting lucky” thread. So, first one. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這是推特。這是「如何在不靠運氣的情況下致富」的系列貼文。那麼，第一條。 Teaching Children to Think 教導孩子思考 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, a simple one is, you know, how does knowledge get created? If you follow the critical rationalism David Deutsch philosophy, then it’s by guessing and then by testing your guesses. So, whenever they ask me something like, “well, do you think that is?” I’ll say, “Well how would we figure out if that’s true?” So that’s a basic game you can play. NAVAL RAVIKANT：嗯，一個簡單的問題是，你知道知識是如何被創造出來的嗎？如果你遵循批判理性主義者大衛·德意志的哲學，那就是通過猜測然後測試你的猜測。所以每當有人問我類似「你認為那是真的嗎？」我會說，「我們怎麼知道那是否為真呢？」這是一個你可以玩的基本遊戲。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Involving them. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：讓他們參與其中。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Involving them, but another one is that a lot of the rules that you teach kids have to do with hygiene. You must brush your teeth, cover your mouth when you cough, clean up after yourself, don’t touch that, wash your hands after you do this, don’t eat food off the floor. But all of these are subsumed under the germ theory of disease. NAVAL RAVIKANT：讓他們參與其中，但另一點是你教孩子的許多規則都與衛生有關。你必須刷牙，咳嗽時要遮住嘴巴，自己弄髒了要清理，不要碰那個，做完這些事要洗手，不要吃地上的食物。但這些規則都是建立在疾病的病菌理論之上。 So if you instead go on YouTube and show them videos of germs, or if you have them look under a microscope at anything, they’re like, “ah!” They can infer what’s going on. There’s creepy crawlies everywhere and I got to watch out for them. 所以如果你改為在 YouTube 上給他們看病菌的影片，或者讓他們用顯微鏡觀察任何東西，他們會說：「啊！」他們能推斷發生了什麼。到處都有令人毛骨悚然的小蟲子，我得小心它們。 The Red Queen Hypothesis and Pathogens 紅后假說與病原體 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Then you can talk about how, if you look at humans, our real enemy are pathogens. I think a lot of aging and disease are actually downstream of our competition with pathogens over time, to a point that people still don’t fully appreciate. NAVAL RAVIKANT：然後你可以談談，如果你觀察人類，我們真正的敵人是病原體。我認為許多老化和疾病其實是我們與病原體長期競爭的下游結果，這一點人們至今仍未完全理解。 There’s a red queen hypothesis which is that we undergo sexual selection to mix up our genes, so every twenty years, every generation we mix up our genes. But if you look at how bacteria and viruses mutate through just random mutations, their mix-up rate on their genes and evolution rate is roughly the same as ours, even though they go through thousands of generations in those twenty years. 有一個紅皇后假說，認為我們通過性選擇來混合基因，因此每二十年、每一代我們都會混合基因。但如果你觀察細菌和病毒如何通過隨機突變進行變異，它們基因的混合率和進化速度大致與我們相同，儘管它們在這二十年中經歷了數千代。 Because they’re not doing sexual selection, they’re doing asexual replication and mutation, their evolutionary rate is roughly equivalent to ours. So we’re in a red queen race where we’re both running at roughly the same speed using very different strategies. 因為它們不是進行性選擇，而是進行無性繁殖和突變，所以它們的進化速度大致與我們相當。因此，我們處於一場紅皇后競賽中，雙方都以大致相同的速度奔跑，但採用非常不同的策略。 A lot of how we’ve evolved is around pathogens. Our immune system is one of the most expensive things to run in the body, so much is about immune system optimization. 我們的許多進化過程都與病原體有關。我們的免疫系統是身體中運作成本最高的系統之一，因此很多進化都是圍繞免疫系統的優化進行的。 Junk DNA in bacteria and CRISPR was discovered because in bacteria their DNA is evolved to fight viruses. The way it does that is by taking viral DNA and snipping it up every time there’s a viral attack and storing it in their own DNA so they have a copy so they can recognize it next time it attacks. 細菌中的垃圾 DNA 和 CRISPR 的發現，是因為細菌的 DNA 進化出來用以對抗病毒。它的方式是每次遭受病毒攻擊時，將病毒 DNA 剪切並儲存在自己的 DNA 中，這樣下次病毒攻擊時就能識別它。 Population Structure and Lifespan 人口結構與壽命 NAVAL RAVIKANT: A lot of the population structure of species determines how long their lifespans are. If in a given species there’s a very high rate of infection, then the older members of the population are carrying diseases that will then infect the young, so it’s important for that species to get rid of the old faster. So the higher the disease rate in a given population, the less long-lived the entire population, so the older ones don’t infect the younger ones. NAVAL RAVIKANT：物種的人口結構在很大程度上決定了它們的壽命長短。如果某個物種中感染率非常高，那麼年長的成員會攜帶疾病，進而感染年輕成員，因此該物種必須更快地淘汰年長者。因此，在某個族群中疾病率越高，整個族群的壽命就越短，這樣年長者就不會感染年輕者。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Oh that’s a hypothesis. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：哦，那只是一個假說。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s an interesting hypothesis. Homeostasis within the human body, how we’re always returning to a given level of things, that’s a fundamental part of our makeup – our temperature, pH, blood pressure and so on under homeostasis. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這是一個有趣的假說。人體內的恆定性，我們總是回到某個特定的狀態，這是我們構造的基本部分——體溫、pH 值、血壓等都在恆定性下維持穩定。 But if you engage in any kind of signaling, like you take a peptide for example, that’s a signaling molecule, you take a hormone externally, the body will counteract it. You take testosterone, the body will counteract it, it will down-regulate its own production very fast, and the body releases its own hormones in pulses rather than steady state. 但如果你進行任何形式的訊號傳遞，比如你服用一種肽，肽是一種訊號分子，或者你外部服用激素，身體會進行反制。你服用睪酮，身體會反制，會非常快速地下調自身的產生，且身體釋放激素是以脈衝形式而非穩定狀態。 Why Our Bodies Use Hormone Pulses 為什麼我們的身體使用激素脈衝 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Why is that? Well that’s because bacteria and viruses can infect your body and trick your body, they can take it over. Toxoplasmosis does this, rabies does this, they take over macroscopic structural bodies. Small bacteria and viruses would hack our bodies and literally take them over if we didn’t have defense mechanisms, and one of those defense mechanisms is homeostasis. NAVAL RAVIKANT：為什麼會這樣？那是因為細菌和病毒可以感染你的身體並欺騙你的身體，它們可以接管你的身體。弓形蟲病會這樣，狂犬病也會這樣，它們接管宏觀結構的身體。如果我們沒有防禦機制，小型細菌和病毒會駭入我們的身體並實際接管它們，而其中一種防禦機制就是體內平衡。 Anytime you see something getting out of whack, you immediately push back really hard on it because did I just get infected? Is something trying to take me over? 每當你看到某些東西失去平衡時，你會立即強烈反擊，因為我剛被感染了嗎？有東西想要接管我嗎？ It’s also why hormones get released in pulses at night rather than in steady state low levels. Enemy bacteria can release toxins or the same signaling molecules in small quantities, but they can’t pulse, they can’t coordinate to pulse. Your body can coordinate to pulse as a macroscopic object, but microscopic objects can’t coordinate to create the same pulses. 這也是為什麼荷爾蒙會在夜間以脈衝方式釋放，而不是維持在穩定的低濃度水平。敵對細菌可以釋放毒素或少量相同的訊號分子，但它們無法脈衝釋放，無法協調產生脈衝。你的身體作為一個宏觀物體可以協調產生脈衝，但微觀物體無法協調創造相同的脈衝。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Oh, that’s cool. 克里斯·威廉森：喔，那真酷。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So you know that it’s coming from you. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：所以你知道那是來自你自己。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is that why? 克里斯·威廉森：是這個原因嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Correct, you know it’s endogenous rather than exogenous. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，你知道這是內生的，而非外生的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I never knew that. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我從來不知道這點。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And that’s why we resist a lot of exogenous treatments, a lot of our medical treatments don’t work. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這就是為什麼我們抗拒許多外來的治療方法，很多醫療治療都無效的原因。 Bacteria and Viruses as Our Natural Predators 細菌與病毒作為我們的自然天敵 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Anyway, there’s a bunch more I could go on, but you see this in cancers where a lot of bacteria show up. The Epstein-Barr virus shows up in a lot of cancers. Now it seems like the gut microbiome influences so many things. NAVAL RAVIKANT：無論如何，我還有很多話可以說，但你會在許多癌症中看到這種情況，很多細菌會出現。Epstein-Barr 病毒也會出現在許多癌症中。現在看起來腸道微生物群影響了很多事情。 Basically, bacteria and viruses are at the top of the food chain compared to us. We are top of the well-known food chain, but bacteria and viruses eat us, fungus eats us. These microscopic predators are our natural predators. 基本上，細菌和病毒在食物鏈中位居我們之上。我們是眾所周知的食物鏈頂端，但細菌和病毒會吞噬我們，真菌也會吞噬我們。這些微觀掠食者是我們的天敵。 So a lot of aging, societal structure, hygiene, religious strictures against pork, circumcision, all of these things are designed to resist bacteria and viruses. So if you can teach children this philosophy at an early age, you shortcut all the debates. 所以很多老化、社會結構、衛生習慣、宗教對豬肉的禁忌、割禮，所有這些都是為了抵抗細菌和病毒而設計的。如果你能在孩子很小的時候教他們這種哲學，就能省去所有的爭論。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How effective have you been at teaching that philosophy to children? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你在向孩子們傳授這種哲學方面有多有效？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: That one I think I’ve been pretty effective, I’ve drilled that one at home. The one I haven’t quite gotten around to yet is evolution. I’m starting to do little bits of that, like we came from monkeys, what does that mean? Already got them thinking about some of the deeper questions. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這一點我覺得我做得相當有效，我在家裡已經反覆練習過了。還沒真正開始的是進化論。我開始做一些小嘗試，比如說我們是從猴子演化而來，這意味著什麼？已經讓他們開始思考一些更深層的問題了。 Philosophical Questions for Children 給孩子們的哲學問題 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I did ask my young son, “can nothing exist?” I thought that was a fun question, so I like to throw a fun question. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我曾問過我年幼的兒子，「無物能存在嗎？」我覺得這是一個有趣的問題，所以我喜歡拋出這樣有趣的問題。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How old is he now? Like four, three? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：他現在幾歲了？大概四歲，三歲？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: No, no, he’s eight. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不，不，他八歲。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Oh, right. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：喔，對。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: An eight-year-old and a six-year-old. I asked them both like, “can nothing exist?” And they had pretty good answers. Another one we played with the other day was like, “what is the matrix?” NAVAL RAVIKANT：一個八歲，一個六歲。我問他們兩個說，「什麼都不存在可能嗎？」他們給了相當不錯的答案。我們前幾天玩的另一個問題是，「什麼是矩陣？」 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Okay.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：好。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: You know, what is this? What is all this? I just find it entertaining. It’s just fun to talk about these questions with your kids. NAVAL RAVIKANT：你知道這是什麼嗎？這一切是什麼？我只是覺得很有趣。和你的孩子們討論這些問題真的很有趣。 I’m not saying that one is a good way of child raising. It’s not leading to any deeper learning. 我並不是說這是一種好的育兒方式。這並不會引導孩子進行更深層的學習。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Other than maybe just have them start, or continue to question the basic structure of reality, and not move past it so quickly. NAVAL RAVIKANT：或許只是讓他們開始，或者繼續質疑現實的基本結構，而不要那麼快就跳過它。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Also, take joy, you know, what’s the meta lesson that’s being taught there? Dad spends time asking questions to which there are not necessarily an answer, because there is something enjoyable in the process of learning and trying to decipher what’s happening. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：還有，享受其中，你知道，那裡傳達的元教訓是什麼？爸爸花時間提出一些不一定有答案的問題，因為在學習和嘗試解讀發生了什麼的過程中，有一種樂趣。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Possibly. Also, dad tries not too hard to teach people things. I don’t want to be didactic. NAVAL RAVIKANT：可能吧。而且，爸爸不會太刻意去教人東西。我不想顯得說教。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: He helps them to arrive at… CHRIS WILLIAMSON：他幫助他們達成…… NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, correct. Dad is here to help you solve problems when you have problems, and you constantly have problems. So if you come to dad, dad can help explain to you how he would solve the problem, but most of the time they don’t want that. Most of the time they just want me to solve the problem. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，沒錯。爸爸在這裡是為了幫你解決問題，當你有問題時，而你總是會有問題。所以如果你來找爸爸，爸爸可以幫你解釋他會如何解決問題，但大多數時候他們不想要那個。大多數時候他們只是想讓我解決問題。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Right, okay. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：對，好的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So sometimes I just have to play dumb. It’s like, “why is my Wi-Fi not working on my computer?” I’m like, “I don’t know, did you try turning on that thing?” NAVAL RAVIKANT：有時候我只能裝傻。就像，「為什麼我的電腦 Wi-Fi 不工作？」我會說，「我不知道，你有沒有試過開啟那個東西？」 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Look, you’ve got like a rebellious sovereign child, sovereign as they may be, but sometimes they still need… CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你看，你有一個叛逆的主權孩子，雖然他們是主權的，但有時他們仍然需要…… NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. Dad to step in. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。爸爸得介入。 Preserving Agency in Children 保持孩子的自主性 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So in addition to feeling loved and having high self-esteem, I think the most important trait that would be nice to not rob them of is agency. I want them to preserve their agency. They’re born naturally agentic and willful, but a lot of child raising can beat that out of them by essentially domesticating them. NAVAL RAVIKANT：所以除了感受到被愛和擁有高度自尊之外，我認為最重要且不應剝奪他們的特質是自主性。我希望他們能保有自主性。他們天生就有自主和意志力，但很多育兒方式會透過基本上將他們馴化來剝奪這些特質。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s right. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：沒錯。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And I would rather have wild animals and wolves than have well-trained dogs, because I’m not going to be around to take care of them. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我寧願擁有野生動物和狼，也不願有訓練有素的狗，因為我不會一直在身邊照顧他們。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, so they’re going to have to be able to look after themselves. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是啊，所以他們必須能夠照顧自己。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly. A friend of mine, Parsa on Air Chat, he had a great saying. He said he wants his children to be quick to learn and hard to kill. That was pretty good. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。我的一位朋友，Parsa，在 Air Chat 上有句很棒的話。他說他希望自己的孩子學習能力快，且難以被擊倒。這句話相當不錯。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是啊。 The Culture War  文化戰爭 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I remember you saying, just thinking about sort of future and culture and stuff like that, I remember you saying that the left had won the culture war, now they’re just driving around shooting the survivors. After the last six months of change that we’ve seen and sort of where we’re at at the moment, what do you think the future of the culture war looks like? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我記得你曾說過，談到未來、文化之類的東西時，你說左派已經贏得了文化戰爭，現在他們只是在四處開槍射擊倖存者。經過過去六個月的變化，以及我們目前所處的狀況，你認為文化戰爭的未來會是什麼樣子？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s not over yet. They definitely won earlier rounds, they took over institutions. I think now it’s much more of a fair fight, where you have people like Elon supporting different forces. NAVAL RAVIKANT：還沒結束。他們確實贏得了早期的回合，並接管了機構。我認為現在的情況更加公平，你會看到像埃隆這樣的人支持不同的勢力。 Through history, historians will argue about this, but there’s the “great man of history” thing, where it’s like, oh you have the Einsteins, you have the Teslas, you have the Genghis Khans and the Caesars. They determine the flow of history. 歷史上，歷史學家會對此爭論不休，但有一種「偉人史觀」，認為像愛因斯坦、特斯拉、成吉思汗和凱撒這樣的人物決定了歷史的走向。 And then there’s the other point of view that no, there are these massive forces at play – demographics and geography and so on, and then the particular great man doesn’t matter, they just come and go. Napoleon doesn’t matter, there would have been somebody else, the specific names are not important. 然後還有另一種觀點認為，不，確實存在這些龐大的力量在起作用——人口結構、地理位置等等，而特定的偉人並不重要，他們只是來來去去。拿破崙並不重要，會有其他人出現，具體的名字並不重要。 Because of the leftist turn that our institutions took in the last few decades, they now only subscribe to the great forces theory of history, not the great man theory of history. But I think now we’re seeing the two play out, where you’re seeing Trump and Elon and other individuals rising up and saying, “no, we resist.” 因為我們的制度在過去幾十年走向左傾，他們現在只認同歷史上的大勢力理論，而非偉人理論。但我認為現在我們看到兩者同時發生，你看到川普、伊隆和其他個人崛起，並說：「不，我們要抵抗。」 The Battle Between Collectivism and Individualism 集體主義與個人主義之爭 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, that’s interesting. And I think that unfortunately, the battle between these collectivist forces versus individuals is as old as humanity itself, and it is fundamental to the species. We are not a completely individualistic species—no man is an island, a single person can’t do anything by themselves—but we’re also not a borg, we’re not a beehive, we’re not an ant colony, we’re not all just drones marching along. So which is it? We’re somewhere in the middle, and the human race is always kind of bouncing between the two. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，這很有趣。我認為不幸的是，這些集體主義力量與個人之間的鬥爭，和人類本身一樣古老，且對這個物種來說是根本性的。我們不是完全的個人主義物種——沒有人是孤島，單一個人無法獨自完成任何事——但我們也不是博格，我們不是蜂巢，我們不是螞蟻群，我們也不是一群只會跟隨行進的無腦工蜂。所以到底是哪一種呢？我們介於兩者之間，人類總是在這兩者之間搖擺。 We like strong leaders, we like to be led, we like to coordinate our forces and do things, but at the same time we’re also all individuals willing to break away and do our own thing. Everyone’s always fighting to be a leader, there’s always status games going on, so there’s a pendulum that’s always swinging back and forth. In modern economics, the way that manifests is between sort of Marxism and capitalism. 我們喜歡強而有力的領導者，我們喜歡被領導，我們喜歡協調我們的力量並做事，但同時我們也是願意脫離群體、做自己事情的個體。每個人總是在爭奪成為領導者，總有地位的競爭在進行，因此這種擺盪的鐘擺總是在來回擺動。在現代經濟學中，這種現象表現在某種程度上的馬克思主義與資本主義之間。 Marxism is like “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” We’re all equal, there’s a millennial project, we’re all going to be equal in the end. Don’t try and stand out, but do what’s good for everybody. There’s a religious aspect to it. 馬克思主義就像是「各盡所能，按需分配」。我們都是平等的，有一個千禧年的計劃，最終我們都會平等。不要試圖出風頭，而是做對大家都有利的事。這其中帶有宗教的色彩。 Then the capitalist individualist is like a libertarian—every man for himself. You each do what you want and it will work out for the greater good. That’s Adam Smith, the invisible hand of the market will feed you. The baker should bake and the butcher should butcher and the candlestick makers should make candlesticks, and it’ll all work out. Each person does their best and they trade. 而資本主義的個人主義者則像是自由意志主義者——各人為己。你各自做你想做的事，這將促成更大的利益。這是亞當·斯密的理論，市場的無形之手會養活你。麵包師應該烘焙，屠夫應該屠宰，燭台製造者應該製造燭台，一切都會順利運作。每個人盡力而為，然後進行交易。 So which is it? Which theory is correct? I think there’s always going to be a battle between the two. 那麼到底是哪一個？哪個理論是正確的？我認為兩者之間永遠會有一場鬥爭。 The Modern Power of the Individual 個人的現代力量 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think the interesting thing is what’s going on now—there’s a modern flavor to it which changes it. The modern flavor is that the individual is getting more powerful because they’re becoming more leveraged. Someone like an Elon Musk can have the leverage of tens of thousands of brilliant engineers and producers working for him. He can have factories of robots manufacturing things, he can have hundreds of billions of dollars of capital behind him, and he can project himself through media to hundreds of millions of people. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為有趣的是現在發生的事情——它帶有一種現代的風味，這改變了整個局面。這種現代風味在於個人變得更有力量，因為他們獲得了更多的槓桿。像埃隆·馬斯克這樣的人，可以擁有成千上萬的優秀工程師和製造者為他工作。他可以擁有由機器人組成的工廠來生產產品，他可以擁有數千億美元的資本支持，並且他可以通過媒體向數億人展示自己。 That is more power than any individual could have had historically, so the great men of history are becoming greater. That said, that same leverage is increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots. In the wealth game, more people are winning overall and the average is going up, but in the status game, there are essentially more losers—there are more invisible men and women who are getting nothing out of life and have no leverage, relatively speaking. 這比歷史上任何個人所擁有的力量都要大，因此歷史上的偉人變得更加偉大。話雖如此，同樣的槓桿也在擴大有產者與無產者之間的差距。在財富遊戲中，整體上有更多人獲勝，平均水平在提升，但在地位遊戲中，基本上有更多的失敗者——有更多看不見的男女，他們從生活中一無所獲，且相對而言沒有槓桿。 Objectively speaking, they might be better off—they still have phones and they still have TVs. It’s not that we’re absolute creatures. We’re relative creatures. 客觀來說，他們可能過得更好——他們仍然有手機，仍然有電視。我們並非絕對的生物，我們是相對的生物。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Correct. 克里斯·威廉森：正確。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And so to the extent that we’re relative creatures, there are more losers than winners, and in a democracy, those people will outnumber the winners and they will vote the winners down. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：因此，在某種程度上，我們是相對的生物，輸家比贏家多，在民主制度中，這些人數會超過贏家，他們會投票反對贏家。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yep.  克里斯·威廉森：是的。 Power and Democracy  權力與民主 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And so that’s the battle that kind of goes on. The democracy has gotten very broad, and so one of my other quips is that it’s not the right to vote that gives you power, it’s power that gives you the right to vote. We’ve confused the two. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：這就是持續進行的鬥爭。民主已經變得非常廣泛，所以我另一個俏皮話是，賦予你投票權的不是投票權本身，而是權力賦予你投票的權利。我們混淆了這兩者。 What happened was, voting started as a way for people who had power to divide up the power and not fight amongst themselves. The winners of the revolution, the winners of the war, the people in the House of Lords and the House of Commons—they divide up power amongst themselves and say, “Hey, we have all the money, we have the power, we are the knights, we have the swords, we have the warriors, we could kill everybody, but we don’t want to just fight each other all day long. We don’t have to be Game of Thrones forever, so we’re going to divide up power by voting amongst ourselves.” 事情的起因是，投票最初是作為有權勢的人們分配權力、避免彼此爭鬥的一種方式。革命的勝利者、戰爭的勝利者、上議院和下議院的人們——他們在自己之間分配權力，並說：「嘿，我們擁有所有的錢，我們擁有權力，我們是騎士，我們有劍，我們是戰士，我們可以殺光所有人，但我們不想整天互相爭鬥。我們不必永遠像《權力遊戲》那樣，所以我們決定通過彼此投票來分配權力。」 But then as society goes on and becomes more and more peaceful, that franchise for voting gets spread. It gets spread to people who don’t have land, who don’t have power, who may not be able to inflict physical violence. Eventually you get to the point where everybody’s voting. Everybody’s voting for candy and fairies and all the free things in life. Then eventually people start voting to oppress each other—the fifty-one percent in any domain vote to suppress the forty-nine. Tyranny of the majority. 但隨著社會的發展，變得越來越和平，投票權逐漸擴散。它被擴散到沒有土地、沒有權力、可能無法施加暴力的人身上。最終，你會達到每個人都在投票的地步。每個人都在為糖果、仙女和生活中所有免費的東西投票。然後最終人們開始投票壓迫彼此——在任何領域中，51%的人投票壓制 49%。多數人的暴政。 But not all of them are willing to back that up with physical power, and so you can end up in a situation where people who don’t have physical power are using the institutions of the state to control the people who do have physical power. 但並非所有人都願意用武力來支持這一點，因此你可能會陷入這樣的情況：沒有武力的人利用國家的制度來控制那些擁有武力的人。 As a simple example, taking the United States—people who don’t have guns voting to disarm the people that do have guns. Well, if the people who do have guns get coordinated and care enough, you can’t do that. 舉個簡單的例子，以美國為例——沒有槍的人投票剝奪有槍的人的武裝。嗯，如果擁有槍的人能夠協調一致並且足夠關心，你是無法做到這一點的。 The Foundation of Power  權力的基礎 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think eventually these societal structures are unstable. They break down because eventually the people who have the power say, “No, wait a minute, you don’t get to vote. You only got to vote because you had power, and now you don’t have power and you’re somehow trying to vote.” NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為最終這些社會結構是不穩定的。它們會崩潰，因為最終擁有權力的人會說：「不，等等，你不能投票。你之所以能投票是因為你有權力，而現在你沒有權力了，卻還想投票。」 All of nature, all of society, all of capitalism, all of human endeavors are underpinned by physical violence, and that is a very hard truth to swallow and hard to get away from. 整個自然、整個社會、整個資本主義、所有人類的努力都建立在物理暴力之上，這是一個很難接受且無法逃避的殘酷事實。 Nature is red in tooth and claw. If you don’t fight, you don’t survive, you don’t live—you die. That’s true of everything alive today, and humans are no different. So giving up physical power and then thinking you can exercise political power fails, which is why every communist revolution, which is all about equality and kumbaya and brothers and sisters, ends up being run by a bunch of thugs. Because if you don’t have a way to divide up the wealth based on merit, then it’s always going to be based on power and influence. The thugs with the guns always win in the end. 自然界是殘酷的，充滿了牙齒和爪子。如果你不戰鬥，你就無法生存，無法活下去——你會死。這對今天所有活著的生物都是真實的，人類也不例外。所以放棄物理力量，然後認為你可以行使政治權力是行不通的，這也是為什麼每一次共產主義革命——那些關於平等、和諧與兄弟姐妹情誼的革命——最終都會被一群暴徒掌控。因為如果你沒有一種基於功績來分配財富的方法，那麼分配永遠會基於權力和影響力。擁有槍枝的暴徒最終總是勝利者。 So the question is just, can you keep the thugs with the guns paid and happy in a successful society where you’re allocating based on merit? Because if you can’t, then you do it based on power. I do think that this battle is not over, but that’s because it never stopped. It’s always been there from day one, it will continue. 問題就在於，你能否在一個根據能力分配資源的成功社會中，讓那些持槍暴徒保持薪水和滿意？因為如果不能，那你就只能依靠權力來分配。我確實認為這場戰鬥還沒有結束，但那是因為它從未停止過。它從第一天起就一直存在，並將繼續下去。 Navigating News Saturation 掌握新聞過載的導航術 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is it a battle to not care about the news in an age of news saturation? All of this stuff—headlines twenty-four hours a day stream directly into your consciousness through a device in your pocket. A lot of what we’ve spoken about today is freedom—freedom from having to think about things or care about things that you do not have control over or that you shouldn’t or that you don’t want to. Yet people are just submerged up to the bottom of their nostrils, basically drowning in worry. So is it a battle to sort of stay out of the news when you’re saturated in it? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：在新聞過載的時代，不去關心新聞是否成了一場戰鬥？所有這些東西——二十四小時不間斷的頭條新聞，通過你口袋裡的裝置直接流入你的意識。今天我們談論的很多內容都是關於自由——自由於不必去思考或關心那些你無法控制、或者不應該、或者不想去關心的事情。然而，人們卻幾乎淹沒在憂慮中，鼻孔以下全是水。那麼，在被新聞淹沒的情況下，保持遠離新聞是否成了一場戰鬥？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, I mean, as you’re saying, the human brain has not evolved to handle all the world’s emergencies breaking in real time, and you can’t care about everything, and you’ll go insane if you try. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t care at all—there’s no “should.” If you want to care, go ahead and care. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我的意思是，正如你所說，人類的大腦並沒有進化到能夠即時處理世界上所有緊急事件，你不可能對所有事情都關心，試著這樣做你會瘋掉。這並不意味著你不應該關心——沒有什麼「應該」。如果你想關心，那就去關心吧。 I would just say that you’re probably better off only caring about things that are local, or things that you can affect. If you really care about something that’s in the news, then by all means care about it, but make a difference—go do something about it. Make sure that it’s your overwhelming desire and you don’t have five other desires at the same time. 我只想說，你可能最好只關心那些本地的事情，或者你能夠影響的事情。如果你真的關心新聞上的某件事，那麼盡管去關心，但要有所作為——去做點什麼。確保那是你壓倒性的渴望，而不是同時有五個其他的渴望。 Also, realize the consequences of it—you’re going to be unhappy until that thing gets fixed, and that thing will often be out of your control. 同時，要意識到其後果——在那件事解決之前，你會感到不快，而那件事往往不在你的掌控之中。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yep, desire is a contract to be unhappy until you get what you want. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：沒錯，渴望就是一份合約，讓你在得到想要的東西之前一直不快樂。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly. For the most part, that’s something that is in your life, it’s like, “until I lose the weight,” “until I get the job.” It can be outside too. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。在大多數情況下，這是你生活中的一部分，就像「直到我減重成功」、「直到我找到工作」一樣。這也可能是外在的因素。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: If it’s “until the carbon dioxide parts per million are below this particular number,” that’s a tough one. Or all the people with Trump derangement syndrome—he’s living rent-free in their heads and driving them insane. I get it. There are politicians who have definitely driven me insane as well, but it comes at a very high cost, and it’s something that is out of your control that you cannot really influence, so it’s probably good to at least be conscious of it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：如果是「直到二氧化碳的百萬分比低於某個特定數字」，那就很難了。或者所有患有川普失常症的人——他們腦中無償佔據著川普的存在，讓他們發瘋。我明白。有些政治人物確實也讓我瘋狂過，但這代價非常高昂，而且這是你無法控制、無法真正影響的事情，所以至少意識到這點可能是件好事。 What Will Historians Study? 歷史學家將會研究什麼？ CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You mentioned historians before. One of my friends has a question. His equivalent of Peter Thiel’s question of “what is it that you believe that most people would disagree with?” His is, “what do you think is currently ignored by the media but will be studied by historians?” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你之前提到過歷史學家。我的一位朋友有個問題。他的問題相當於彼得·蒂爾的「你相信什麼是大多數人會不同意的？」他的問題是，「你認為目前媒體忽略了什麼，但將來會被歷史學家研究？」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: You’re asking me that question right now? What do I think is ignored by the media but will be studied by historians? Well, the media is only focused on very timely things, right, so it depends if you want to talk about timely or timeless. NAVAL RAVIKANT：你現在問我這個問題？我認為媒體忽略了什麼，但將來會被歷史學家研究？嗯，媒體只關注非常即時的事情，對吧，所以這取決於你想談的是即時的還是永恆的。 As a simple example, if I just look at things that maybe in the next five or ten years are going to make a massive difference that people are not focused enough on—and I think within two years this will be obvious, so I’m not making a prediction. Predictions are tough. 舉個簡單的例子，如果我只看未來五到十年內可能帶來巨大變化，但人們還沒有足夠關注的事情——我認為兩年內這將變得明顯，所以我不是在做預測。預測很難。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And you’re going to have to eat it in a few years. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：幾年後你就得承認錯了。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, I’m going to eat this in a few years, so I’m probably wrong, but two things that I pay attention to that I don’t think a lot of people do pay attention to: NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，幾年後我可能會吃這句話，所以我可能錯了，但有兩件事我會注意，而我覺得很多人並不注意： The State of Modern Medicine 現代醫學的現狀 NAVAL RAVIKANT: One is I think just how bad modern medicine is. I think people just put a lot more faith in modern medicine than is warranted. Like our best ideas for a lot of things are surgery, just cutting things out, treating things that are “extraneous”—like “oh you don’t really need a gallbladder, don’t really need an appendix, you don’t really need tonsils, all that’s surplus requirement.” That’s false. The human body is very efficient, all those things are needed. NAVAL RAVIKANT：其中一件事是我認為現代醫學有多糟糕。我覺得人們對現代醫學的信任遠超過其應有的程度。比如我們對很多事情最好的想法就是手術，直接切除，治療那些「多餘的」東西——像是「哦，你其實不需要膽囊，不需要闌尾，也不需要扁桃腺，這些都是多餘的器官。」這是錯的。人體非常高效，這些東西都是必需的。 I think the state of modern medicine is pretty bad. We don’t have many good explanatory theories in biology. We have germ theory of disease, we have evolution, we have cell theory, we have DNA genetics, morphogenesis, embryogenesis, and not much else. Everything else is rules of thumb, memorization—A affects B because it affects C and D, but we don’t understand the underlying explanation. It’s all just words pointing to words pointing to words. 我認為現代醫學的狀況相當糟糕。我們在生物學中沒有太多好的解釋理論。我們有疾病的病原體理論，有進化論，有細胞理論，有 DNA 遺傳學，有形態發生學，有胚胎發生學，但除此之外不多。其他的都是經驗法則、死記硬背——A 影響 B 是因為它影響了 C 和 D，但我們並不理解背後的根本解釋。這一切只是詞指向詞，再指向詞。 Biology is still in a very sorry state, and because we are not allowed to take risks that might kill people, we just don’t experiment enough in biology. A lot of treatments are just outright banned by large regulatory bodies, so we just don’t have the innovation. 生物學仍處於非常糟糕的狀態，因為我們不被允許冒可能致人於死的風險，所以我們在生物學上的實驗不夠多。許多治療方法被大型監管機構直接禁止，因此我們缺乏創新。 I think we’re still in the stone age when it comes to biology and we’ve got a long way to go, and I think people will look back aghast at this. I think this is Brian Johnson’s point—he’s like, “Let’s be extreme, let’s try to live forever. Let’s be more experimental, and I’ll start as N of one and start experimenting on myself.” 我認為在生物學方面我們仍處於石器時代，還有很長的路要走，我相信人們將會驚恐地回顧這段時期。我想這正是布萊恩·約翰遜的觀點——他說：「讓我們走極端，嘗試永生。讓我們更具實驗性，我會從自己開始，作為唯一的實驗對象。」 Even there I disagree with Brian on many things, like taking huge amounts of supplements. I think we just don’t know supplements outside of the natural context—like just eat liver, man. But that’s fine, and I wouldn’t be vegan either, but I really appreciate that he’s experimenting, he’s good-natured about it, he shares everything. We need more people like that. 即使如此，我在許多事情上仍不同意布萊恩，比如大量服用補充劑。我認為我們對補充劑的了解脫離了自然的脈絡——就像說，直接吃肝臟吧，兄弟。但這沒關係，我也不會成為純素者，但我非常欣賞他在做實驗，他態度良善，並且分享一切。我們需要更多這樣的人。 So I think the state of biology—people will look back and say, “Wow, that was the dark ages.” 所以我認為生物學的現狀——人們將會回顧並說：「哇，那真是黑暗時代。」 The Future of Warfare  戰爭的未來 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think another thing that we’ll look back on is that we still continue to underestimate how important drones are going to be in warfare. The future of all warfare is drones. There will be nothing else on the battlefield, because I think of the end state of drones as autonomous bullets. Not even autonomous—they’re self-directed. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為我們將來回顧時會發現，我們仍然低估了無人機在戰爭中的重要性。所有戰爭的未來都是無人機。戰場上將不會有其他東西，因為我認為無人機的最終形態是自主子彈。甚至不只是自主——它們是自我導向的。 If that’s the future we’re headed towards, that’s just like—why would you have an armed force? There’s going to be no aircraft carriers, there’s going to be no tanks, there’s going to be no infantrymen, there’s just going to be autonomous bullets against your autonomous bullets. Whichever ones win, the other side just surrenders because it’s over. I think that’s the second piece of it. 如果這是我們未來的方向，那就像是——為什麼還需要武裝部隊？將不會有航空母艦，不會有坦克，不會有步兵，只有自主子彈對抗你的自主子彈。無論哪一方勝利，另一方就會投降，因為戰鬥結束了。我認為這是第二個重點。 The Rise of GLP-1 Medications GLP-1 藥物的崛起 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think a third piece that is going to be kind of unexpected is the GLP-1s, which I know you and I have privately discussed before. I think these are the most breakthrough drugs since antibiotics, they’re probably more important than statins, they’re sort of miracle drugs. The downsides and side effects are so minor compared to the upsides beyond just weight loss. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為第三個會有點出乎意料的部分是 GLP-1，這是我和你私下討論過的。我認為這是自抗生素以來最具突破性的藥物，可能比他汀類藥物還重要，它們有點像奇蹟藥物。與其帶來的好處相比，副作用和不良反應非常輕微，不僅僅是減重效果。 They also seem to be addiction breakers, they seem to lower many kinds of cancer, they almost metabolically reverse aging up to a certain point, and I think they’re going to bend the curve on healthcare costs. 它們似乎也能打破成癮，似乎能降低多種癌症的發生率，幾乎在某種程度上代謝性地逆轉老化，我認為它們將改變醫療成本的曲線。 The big question people are going to be asking over the next five years is why are Americans paying thousands of dollars a month for this when people overseas are getting them for free, or can order them from China for free. 未來五年人們會問的一個大問題是，為什麼美國人每月要花費數千美元購買這些藥物，而海外的人卻能免費獲得，或者能從中國免費訂購。 If I were Bernie Sanders, the platform I would be running on is I would say, okay, we’re going to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to Novo and Eli Lilly, and we’re just going to make these free. There are hundreds of analogs of these things that work, these are not going to be limited to just the few that are being used today. Take one of them or two of them and make them free, and I think it’ll make a big difference. 如果我是伯尼·桑德斯，我會提出的政綱是，我們將支付數千億美元給 Novo 和 Eli Lilly，然後讓這些藥物免費提供。這些藥物有數百種類似品有效，並不會僅限於目前使用的幾種。選擇其中一兩種讓它們免費，我認為這會帶來很大的改變。 As you and I were discussing earlier, this does bend a lot of people out of shape who got there the old fashioned way, and they want to see obesity as a moral failing on people’s parts. It lowers their status if the signal is less of a signal. 正如你我之前討論的，這確實讓很多靠傳統方式達到那個狀態的人感到不滿，他們希望將肥胖視為人們的道德缺失。如果這個信號變弱了，他們的地位也會降低。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, so they’re incentivized to say, “Oh, well you don’t know the downsides, it’s irresponsible to suggest it’s going to cause cancer, have fun losing bone and muscle mass,” but none of that stuff is really true. 克里斯·威廉森：是的，所以他們有動機說，「哦，你不知道這些壞處，說它會致癌是不負責任的，祝你骨質和肌肉流失愉快」，但這些說法其實都不是真的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: The cancer stuff is actually beneficial. I know people who are taking these things for anti-aging reasons – they’re already fit but they just want to age better and have a stronger insulin metabolism. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：關於癌症的說法其實是有益的。我認識一些人是為了抗老而服用這些藥物——他們已經很健康了，只是想讓自己老得更好，並擁有更強的胰島素代謝能力。 There’s evidence now these things put off dementia, Alzheimer’s, colon cancer, cardiovascular disease – it’s insane. The list of benefits is insane. 現在有證據顯示這些東西能延緩失智症、阿茲海默症、大腸癌、心血管疾病——這真是瘋狂。好處的清單簡直瘋狂。 There’s no free lunch, but this is a class of drugs that prevents you from taking other drugs into your body. It prevents you from taking too much sugar, many calories in an era of abundance, prevents you from smoking. There’s an organization called Casper that is now doing a study on heroin addictions and they’re showing that this can lower opioid overdoses and heroin addiction. 天下沒有白吃的午餐，但這是一類能防止你服用其他藥物的藥物。它能防止你攝取過多糖分、在豐盛時代攝取過多熱量，也能防止你吸菸。有一個叫做 Casper 的組織正在進行一項關於海洛因成癮的研究，他們顯示這能降低鴉片類藥物過量和海洛因成癮。 There’s a lot of overwhelming medical evidence coming out, and I think something like ten percent of the population might have tried these. 有大量壓倒性的醫學證據出現，我認為大約有百分之十的人口可能嘗試過這些東西。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, that’s the number that I’ve seen. Massive. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，那是我見過的數字。非常龐大。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think about fifty percent of the population say that they would like to try it. I think the body positivity movement is dead, and we always kind of knew it was a scam. I mean it’s dying very, very quickly. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為大約有百分之五十的人口表示他們想嘗試。我覺得身體正面運動已經死了，我們一直都知道這是一場騙局。我的意思是它正在非常非常快速地消亡。 I quipped like “you can never be too rich, too thin, or too clean,” and immediately a whole bunch of people went nonlinear in my mentions. “Do you mean too thin, and what about the hygiene hypothesis?” Obviously there’s always exceptions, but people want to be thin and fit, and people want to be clean, back to the pathogen discussion that we had. 我開玩笑說「你永遠不會太富有、太瘦或太乾淨」，結果立刻有一大群人在我的留言中反應激烈。「你的意思是太瘦嗎？那衛生假說怎麼說？」顯然總有例外，但人們想要瘦且健康，人們也想要乾淨，回到我們之前討論的病原體話題。 I think overall that there’s going to be huge demand for these things, and our modern medical system is not built to supply these well. I don’t hold it against the pharma companies, I think they did their job by creating the thing, but I think next we need to step up and figure out how to make it broadly and cheaply available, as opposed to just milking it only for people with obesity who can get Medicare to sign off for it, or people paying out of pocket at very very high prices. 我認為整體來說，對這些東西的需求將會非常龐大，而我們現代的醫療系統並沒有很好地準備好供應這些。我不怪藥廠，我認為他們通過創造這些東西完成了他們的工作，但我認為接下來我們需要挺身而出，找出如何讓它廣泛且廉價地可用，而不是僅僅針對能讓醫療保險批准的肥胖患者，或是那些自掏腰包支付極高價格的人來榨取利潤。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The benefits of societal distribution of the safer GLP-1s is so large that whichever politicians tackle that is going to be richly rewarded. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：社會普及更安全的 GLP-1 所帶來的好處非常巨大，無論哪位政治人物推動這項政策，都將獲得豐厚的回報。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, obesity is the number one source of malnutrition worldwide. There’s twice as many people that are obese than are starving, so about half a billion people are starving and a billion people are obese. NAVAL RAVIKANT：肥胖是全球營養不良的首要原因。肥胖人口是飢餓人口的兩倍，所以大約有五億人飢餓，而有十億人肥胖。 So many problems are downstream of that. Look at how much of the federal budget goes into dialysis because of kidney failure, and why is that? It’s because of diabetes. So many of the problems that we have in modern society are downstream of obesity. 許多問題都是由此衍生的。看看聯邦預算中有多少用於因腎衰竭而進行的透析，這是為什麼呢？因為糖尿病。現代社會中許多問題都是肥胖的下游結果。 You know this – fitness is so important. Yes, in some people these things cause muscle and bone loss, but not in the people who are eating high protein and working out hard, so they can be taken in a way that’s safer. 你知道的——健身非常重要。是的，對某些人來說，這些藥物會導致肌肉和骨骼流失，但對於那些攝取高蛋白並且努力鍛煉的人來說，這些藥物可以以更安全的方式服用。 Some versions of these like liraglutide, the original one, they’ve been around for decades and the others have been around for about a decade. We already have, as you said, ten percent of the population taking them, so they’re already quite widely distributed. 這些藥物的某些版本，如原始的利拉魯肽，已經存在了數十年，而其他版本大約也有十年左右。我們已經有，如你所說，百分之十的人口在使用它們，所以它們已經相當廣泛地分布了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: A good sample size. 克里斯·威廉森：樣本量相當不錯。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, it’s a great sample size, what more do you need? If you have a bacterial infection that’s eating you, I don’t say “oh I have this antibiotic but it’s going to raise your blood pressure,” it’s like no, take the antibiotic. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：是的，這是一個很好的樣本量，還需要什麼呢？如果你有一個正在侵蝕你的細菌感染，我不會說「哦，我有這個抗生素，但它會讓你的血壓升高」，不，是「服用抗生素」。 If you’re going to kill yourself, I say take this antipsychotic and stay alive a little longer and solve it. I don’t say “oh it’s going to cause your heart rate to go up by three beats a minute.” 如果你打算自殺，我會說服用這種抗精神病藥，活得久一點，再去解決問題。我不會說「哦，它會讓你的心跳每分鐘增加三下」。 Similarly, if you’re poisoning yourself with toxins and overuse of substances that you shouldn’t be using – either heroin, alcohol, cigarettes, sugar or just sheer calories – take this GLP-1. They also improve digestion, you just have less food matter going through your stomach. Lower cancer risks across the board, there’s quite a few cancers that they lower. Cardiovascular benefits too. 同樣地，如果你正在用毒素和不該使用的物質過度傷害自己——無論是海洛因、酒精、香菸、糖分或是純粹的熱量過剩——服用這種 GLP-1。它們也能改善消化，你的胃裡通過的食物量會減少。全面降低癌症風險，有相當多種癌症的風險會降低。心血管方面也有益處。 I’ve been very surprised by the negative reception whenever you have a conversation about GLP-1s. 每當談到 GLP-1 時，我對其負面反應感到非常驚訝。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Indeed. 克里斯·威廉森：確實如此。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well think about how many sacred cows are being gored, right? All the people who are basically saying “you should work harder, you should be fit like I did.” It’s lowering their status. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：想想看，有多少神聖的牛被戳破了，對吧？所有那些基本上在說「你應該更努力工作，你應該像我一樣保持健康」的人。這降低了他們的地位。 Think about all the nutritionists and doctors and trainers who are now being put out of business in a way. It’s like why does the American military keep buying aircraft carriers in the age of drones? There’s an incentive bias, there’s very strong motivated reasoning, but it doesn’t matter. Ten percent of people are on it, everybody wants to be fit, it’s going to spread like wildfire. 想想所有現在在某種程度上被迫失業的營養師、醫生和教練。這就像為什麼美國軍方在無人機時代還繼續購買航空母艦？這裡存在激勵偏差，有非常強烈的動機性推理，但這並不重要。百分之十的人在使用它，每個人都想保持健康，這將像野火般迅速蔓延。 Getting Past Your Past  超越你的過去 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I was just thinking as you were talking that when we think about health, a lot of people kind of get captured by the way that they were brought up, the habits that they had from their childhood, or what mom and dad did, or genetic predisposition. I think you have as many reasons as many people to sort of feel hard done by challenges that you had earlier on in your life. Is getting past your past a skill, of not being owned today by your history, sort of not having that victimhood mentality? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：當你在說話時，我剛好在想，當我們談論健康時，很多人會被他們成長的環境、童年時期的習慣、父母的行為或遺傳傾向所影響。我想你和很多人一樣，有許多理由因為早年所面臨的挑戰而感到不公平。那麼，超越你的過去是一種技能嗎？就是不讓你的歷史左右你今天的生活，不抱持受害者心態？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. I did have a tough childhood, but I don’t think about it. I think there are a couple of things going on there. One is I did process it quite a bit, I thought about it, but I thought about it to get rid of it. I didn’t think about it to dwell on it, or to create an identity around it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我確實有一個艱難的童年，但我不會一直去想它。我認為這裡有幾件事。一是我確實處理過這些事情，我思考過，但我思考是為了擺脫它，而不是為了糾結或圍繞它建立身份認同。 I wanted to be successful. I wanted more than anything else to rise past that, and so I couldn’t have that as a burden on me, so I had to get rid of it. So to the extent that I dealt with it, it was for the express purpose of getting rid of it, not to create an identity or story or to reflect upon it or to say “look at me, at what I’ve accomplished and look how great I am.” 我想要成功。我比任何事情都更渴望超越那個階段，所以我不能讓它成為我的負擔，因此我必須擺脫它。所以在我處理它的過程中，目的明確就是為了擺脫它，而不是為了創造一個身份或故事，或是反思它，或是說「看看我，我取得了什麼成就，看我多了不起」。 I think at some point you wrestle with that thing and then you just realize you’re never going to untangle the whole thing. It’s a Gordian knot problem. Alexander found a tangled knot in India and it said, “the famous conqueror will come and will untie this knot, nobody else can untie the knot.” He took one look at it, pulled out his sword and just cut it. 我認為在某個時刻，你會與那件事掙扎，然後你會意識到你永遠無法解開整個結。這是一個戈爾迪安結的問題。亞歷山大在印度發現了一個糾結的結，傳說「著名的征服者將會來解開這個結，沒有人能解開它。」他看了一眼，拔出劍就直接砍斷了它。 At some point, you just have to cut your past. If your past is bothering you, you will eventually get tired of trying to untangle that knot and you will just drop it because you will realize life is short. The more you have, the more you want to accomplish in this life, actually the less time you have to unravel that thing. 在某個時刻，你必須斷開你的過去。如果你的過去困擾著你，你最終會厭倦試圖解開那個結，然後你會放下它，因為你會意識到生命是短暫的。你擁有的越多，你想在這一生中完成的事情越多，實際上你用來解開那個結的時間就越少。 I just wanted to actually get things done, so I had no time to deal with it, so I just cut it. It’s like a really bad relationship, but in this case, it’s a bad relationship with your own history, so you just drop it. 我只是想實際完成事情，所以我沒有時間去處理它，所以我就切斷了。這就像一段非常糟糕的關係，但在這種情況下，是你與自己過去的糟糕關係，所以你就放下它。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I think so much of what we’ve spoken about today is on the shortness of life, and the fact that every moment is precious. You had to take about, the most fundamental resource in your life is not time, it’s attention. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我認為我們今天談論的很多內容都關於生命的短暫，以及每一刻都是珍貴的。你必須明白，你生命中最根本的資源不是時間，而是注意力。 Attention: The Currency of Life 注意力：生命的貨幣 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. I used to think the currency of life is money, and yes money is important, and it does let you trade certain things for time, but it doesn’t really buy you time. Ask Warren Buffett how much time money can buy you, or Michael Bloomberg. They’re rich as Croesus, but they can’t buy more time, right, Brian Johnson notwithstanding. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。我曾經認為生命的貨幣是金錢，金錢確實重要，它確實能讓你用某些東西換取時間，但它並不能真正買到時間。問問沃倫·巴菲特金錢能買多少時間，或者邁克爾·布隆伯格。他們富可敵國，但他們買不到更多時間，對吧，布萊恩·約翰遜除外。 So you can’t trade money for time. Money is not the real currency of life, and time itself doesn’t even mean that much because as we talked about before, a lot of time can be wasted because you’re not really present for it, you’re not paying attention. 所以你無法用金錢來換取時間。金錢並不是生命的真正貨幣，而時間本身也不見得那麼重要，因為正如我們之前所說，很多時間會被浪費掉，因為你並沒有真正活在當下，沒有專注於它。 So the real currency of life is attention, it’s what you choose to pay attention to and what you do about it. Back to the point about the news media, you can put your attention on the news, but that’s how you’re spending the real currency of life, so just be aware of that. 所以生命的真正貨幣是注意力，是你選擇關注什麼以及你對此採取什麼行動。回到新聞媒體的話題，你可以把注意力放在新聞上，但那就是你在花費生命的真正貨幣，所以要意識到這一點。 If you want to, that’s fine, there’s no right or wrong here. Maybe it is your destiny to pick something in the news, learn about that problem, adopt that problem and solve it, but just be careful because your attention is the only thing that you have. 如果你願意，那也沒問題，這裡沒有對錯之分。也許你的命運就是選擇某個新聞事件，了解那個問題，接受那個問題並解決它，但請小心，因為你的注意力是你唯一擁有的東西。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And that can also be captured by your own past? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那也可能被你自己的過去所捕捉？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yes, you can fritter it away on anything you’d like. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，你可以隨意把它浪費在任何你想做的事情上。 The Advantage of Starting as a “Loser” 從「失敗者」開始的優勢 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is there an advantage to starting out as a loser? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：從失敗者開始有什麼優勢嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Absolutely, yeah. Because if you’re a loser, then you’ll want to be a winner, and then you’ll develop all the characteristics that’ll help you be a, quote unquote, “winner” in life. NAVAL RAVIKANT：絕對有，因為如果你是失敗者，你就會想成為贏家，然後你會培養出所有能幫助你成為所謂「贏家」的特質。 That said, I wouldn’t sentence my kids to it. I don’t think you can artificially do that. It’s sort of like imagine that you were three hundred years ago, born a serf, and then somehow you managed to escape off the farm and you become a landowner and then eventually you become minor nobility and aristocrat. Are you going to put your kids back on the farm and say “you’re going be a serf again”? 話雖如此，我不會讓我的孩子們去經歷那樣的生活。我覺得你無法人為地去製造那種經歷。這有點像是想像你三百年前出生在農奴家庭，然後你設法逃離了農場，成為了地主，最終成為了小貴族和貴族。你會把你的孩子送回農場，告訴他們「你們要重新當農奴」嗎？ I know they all like those stories. The kids themselves like those stories because it says, “I came from the school of hard knocks, my dad made me go shovel hay for a summer,” but it’s not real. You’re not going to trick them. 我知道他們都喜歡那些故事。孩子們自己也喜歡那些故事，因為故事裡說「我來自艱苦的學校，我爸讓我夏天去鏟乾草」，但那不是真實的。你騙不了他們。 I think what you can do is cultivate an appreciation and gratitude for what you have, and the only way to do that is just evidence it yourself. Just show yourself how you spend money, how you respect it, what you do with it, how you take care of people, who you’re responsible for. 我認為你能做的是培養對你所擁有的一切的感激和珍惜，而做到這點的唯一方法就是親自去證明。讓自己看到你如何花錢，如何尊重金錢，你用錢做什麼，如何照顧他人，以及你對誰負有責任。 The more resources you have, the greater the tribe you can take care of, the more of the tribe you can take care of. When you have no resources, you’re struggling to take care of yourself, and at that point it’s good to be selfish because you can’t save somebody else if you can’t even save yourself. 你擁有的資源越多，就能照顧的部落成員越多，能照顧的部落也越大。當你沒有資源時，你連自己都難以照顧，這時候自私是好的，因為如果你連自己都救不了，就無法救別人。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yes.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So you take care of yourself and you become the best version of yourself, but there are too many men who are able, fit, and have some money who are doing nothing with their lives, just sitting at home doing nothing, just indulging in themselves, maybe they go on dates and they get DoorDash. I have no respect for that. NAVAL RAVIKANT：所以你要照顧好自己，成為最好的自己，但有太多有能力、身體健康且有些錢的男人，卻什麼都不做，只是坐在家裡無所事事，沉溺於自己，也許他們會去約會，然後叫外送。我對這種人毫無尊重。 I think there’s nothing worse in society than a lazy man because he’s leaving his potential on the table. It’s bad for him. 我認為社會上沒有比懶惰的男人更糟糕的了，因為他放棄了自己的潛力。這對他自己很不好。 So the next thing you do is you go and you have a family and you take care of your family. Then you take care of your extended family – your cousins, brothers, uncles, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, everybody that you can. 接下來你要做的就是組建家庭，照顧你的家人。然後照顧你的大家庭——你的堂表兄弟、兄弟、叔叔、祖母、阿姨、姐妹，所有你能照顧到的人。 And then if you have more resources beyond that, then you go take care of your local tribe, you take care of your people, you start trying to do some good for the world. If you have more resources than that, you go take care of an even bigger tribe, and that’s how you earn both respect and self-confidence and you live up to your potential. 然後如果你有更多的資源，超出那個範圍，你就去照顧你的本地部落，照顧你的人，開始嘗試為世界做些好事。如果你有比那更多的資源，你就去照顧一個更大的部落，這就是你贏得尊重和自信，並且發揮你潛力的方式。 The Value of Giving Back 回饋的價值 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So the more you have, the more is rightfully expected of you, and I think it’s a good compact with society when highly capable people express and flex that capability by giving more and more and by doing more and more. Society rewards them with the one thing they can’t get otherwise which is status, right? Society should give you status in exchange for it. They should say, “Okay you did a good job, you took care of more people than just yourself and just the people immediately around you.” NAVAL RAVIKANT：所以你擁有的越多，社會對你的期望也越高，我認為這是與社會達成的一個良好契約，當高能力者通過不斷付出和行動來展現和發揮他們的能力時。社會會以他們無法從其他地方獲得的東西來獎勵他們，那就是地位，對吧？社會應該以地位來回報你。他們應該說：「好，你做得很好，你照顧的人不僅是你自己和你身邊的人。」 That’s what an alpha male to me is. An alpha male is not the one who gets to eat first, the alpha male eats last. The alpha male feeds everybody else first and then gets to eat last, and they do that out of their own self respect and pride, and society rewards them by calling them an alpha and giving them status. 這就是我心目中的阿爾法男性。阿爾法男性不是那個先吃的人，阿爾法男性是最後吃的人。阿爾法男性會先餵飽其他人，然後自己最後才吃，他們這樣做是出於自尊和驕傲，社會通過稱他們為阿爾法並賦予他們地位來獎勵他們。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I wonder whether some of the pushback that we’ve got against rich, wealthy, powerful people is disincentivizing. It is, like, who is it, Zuck who donated money in Zuckerberg General’s Hospital and then they wanted to pull his name off of it. I mean, that’s like- CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我在想，對富有、有權勢的人所受到的一些反彈，是否會產生反激勵作用。就像是，誰來著，扎克捐了錢給扎克伯格將軍醫院，然後他們想把他的名字從上面拿掉。我的意思是，那真的是—— NAVAL RAVIKANT: I didn’t see that, but that’s really- NAVAL RAVIKANT：我沒看到那件事，但那真的—— CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, that kind of stuff backfires, right? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是啊，那種事情會適得其反，對吧？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: You should reward people for doing- NAVAL RAVIKANT：你應該獎勵那些做事的人—— CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Well, you were saying before, you don’t just need to, in fact, actually actively avoid castigating people if you want their behavior to change when they get something wrong, but reinforcing it when they get something right, it’s happening at a societal level as well. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：嗯，你之前說過，如果你想改變人們的行為，當他們犯錯時，不僅不應該責罵他們，反而應該積極避免這樣做；而當他們做對了事情時，則應該加以強化，這種做法在社會層面上同樣適用。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Correct, I mean like the guys who make a lot of money and go out and buy sports teams, I wouldn’t do that, right? But the one who goes out and builds a hospital, or builds a rocket to take people to the moon, you know, rescue some astronauts, you should be rewarding him for that. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，我的意思是，那些賺很多錢然後去買運動隊的人，我不會那樣做，對吧？但如果有人去建醫院，或者建造火箭送人上月球，甚至去救援宇航員，你應該獎勵他這樣的行為。 Closing Thoughts  結語 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Naval, I really appreciate you. I hope that this has lived up to whatever weird daydreams you’ve been having. What have you got coming up? What can people expect from you over the next however long? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：Naval，我非常感謝你。我希望這次訪談能符合你那些奇怪白日夢的期待。你接下來有什麼計劃？人們可以期待你在未來一段時間內帶來什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Expect nothing. NAVAL RAVIKANT：別抱任何期望。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s the most Naval way that we could have finished this. Dude, it’s been a long time coming. I really do appreciate you for being here today. But I do hope to deliver something. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這是我們能以最具 Naval 風格的方式結束這次對話。老兄，這真是期待已久。我真的很感謝你今天能來這裡。但我希望能帶來一些收穫。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh, I think you have, so thank you. Thanks for having me. NAVAL RAVIKANT：哦，我覺得你做到了，非常感謝。謝謝邀請我。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Thank you too. Thanks for getting in my mind, and hopefully now you’re out. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我也謝謝你。謝謝你進入我的思緒，希望現在你已經走出來了。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: We’ll see. I mean, it might be even worse now. You’ve got the real memories to stick. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我們拭目以待。我的意思是，現在情況可能更糟。你會牢牢記住那些真實的回憶。 The reason to win the game is to be free of it. The reason to do podcast is to be done with it. 贏得比賽的原因是為了擺脫比賽。做播客的原因是為了結束它。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Alright. 克里斯·威廉森：好吧。

苦難與進步 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Another one of yours: most of the gains in life come from suffering in the short term so you can get paid in the long term. That’s classic—winning the marshmallow test on a daily basis. But there’s an interesting challenge where I think people need to avoid becoming a suffering addict, sort of using suffering as the proxy for progress as opposed to the outcome of the suffering. Right? 克里斯·威廉森：另一句你說過的話：人生中的大多數收穫來自於短期的痛苦，這樣你才能在長期獲得回報。這是經典——每天都在贏得棉花糖測試。但有一個有趣的挑戰，我認為人們需要避免成為痛苦成癮者，將痛苦當作進步的代名詞，而不是痛苦的結果。對吧？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s like, I was in pain not eating the marshmallow. I was in pain doing this work. I have attached well-being and satisfaction to pain, not to what the pain gets me on the other side of it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：就像我不吃棉花糖時感到痛苦一樣。我在做這份工作時也感到痛苦。我將幸福感和滿足感與痛苦聯繫在一起，而不是與痛苦背後所帶來的結果聯繫在一起。 If you define pain as physical pain, then it’s a real thing, it happens, and you can’t ignore it, but that’s not what we mean by suffering. Suffering is mostly mental anguish and mental pain, and it just means you don’t want to do the task at hand. 如果你將痛苦定義為身體上的痛，那確實是真實存在的，會發生，你無法忽視，但那不是我們所說的「受苦」。受苦主要是心理上的痛苦和精神上的折磨，意思是你不想做眼前的這件事。 If you are fine doing the task at hand then you wouldn’t be suffering, and then the question is what’s more effective: to suffer along the way or just to interpret it in a way that it’s not suffering? You hear from a lot of successful people, they look back and they say, “Oh the journey was the fun part.” That was actually the entertaining part and I should have enjoyed it more. It’s a common regret. 如果你對眼前的任務感到自在，那你就不會受苦，問題是什麼更有效：是在過程中受苦，還是以一種不受苦的方式去解讀它？你會聽到很多成功人士回顧時說，「哦，旅程才是有趣的部分。」那其實才是娛樂的部分，我本應該更享受它。這是很常見的遺憾。 Learning from Your Past Self 從過去的自己身上學習 There’s a little thought exercise I like to do which is, you can go back into your own life and try to put yourself in the exact position you were in five years ago, ten years ago, fifteen years ago, twenty years ago. You try to remember who you were with, what you were doing, what you were feeling, what were your emotions, what were your objectives, and really try to transport yourself back and see if there’s any advice you’d give yourself, anything you’d do differently. 我喜歡做一個小小的思考練習，那就是你可以回到自己過去的生活，試著把自己放在五年前、十年前、十五年前、二十年前的確切位置。你試著回想當時和誰在一起，正在做什麼，感覺如何，情緒是什麼，目標是什麼，並且真正嘗試把自己帶回去，看看是否會給自己任何建議，或者會做出什麼不同的選擇。 Now you don’t have new information, don’t pretend you could have gone back and bought a stock or bought Bitcoin or whatever, but just knowing what you know now in terms of your temperament and a little bit of age-related experience, how would you have done things differently? 現在你沒有新的資訊，不要假裝你可以回去買股票或比特幣之類的，但只是根據你現在所知道的，關於你的性情和一些與年齡相關的經驗，你會怎麼做出不同的決定？ I think it’s a worthwhile exercise to do. For me, I would have done everything the same except I would have done it with less anger, less emotion, less internal suffering because that was optional. It wasn’t necessary. 我認為這是一個值得做的練習。對我來說，我會做的事情都一樣，只是我會帶著較少的憤怒、較少的情緒、較少的內心痛苦去做，因為那些都是可選的，並非必要。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And I would argue that someone who can do the job at least peacefully, but maybe happily, is going to be more effective than someone who has unnecessary emotional turmoil. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我認為能夠至少平靜地，甚至快樂地完成工作的人，會比那些有不必要情緒動盪的人更有效率。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, you end up with a series of miserable successes, right? The outcome may have been the same, but the entire experience of getting there… NAVAL RAVIKANT：嗯，你最終會得到一連串令人痛苦的成功，對吧？結果可能是一樣的，但整個達成過程的體驗…… The Journey Is All There Is 旅程就是一切 And the journey is not only the reward, the journey is the only thing there is. Even success, it’s human nature to bank it very quickly, right, because the normal loop that we run through is you sit around, you’re bored, then you want something, then when you want something you decide you’re not going to be happy until you get that thing, then you start your bout of suffering or anticipation while you strive to get that thing. 而旅程不僅是獎賞，旅程是唯一存在的事物。即使是成功，人類的天性是很快就把它視為理所當然，對吧，因為我們通常的循環是你坐著無聊，然後你想要某樣東西，當你想要某樣東西時，你決定在得到那個東西之前不會快樂，然後你開始經歷一段痛苦或期待的過程，努力去獲得那個東西。 If you get that thing then you get used to it, and then you get bored again, then a few months later you want something else, and if you don’t get it then you’re unhappy for a bit, and then you get over it then you want something else. That’s the normal cycle. So whether you’re happy or unhappy at the end, it tends not to last. 如果你得到了那個東西，你就會習慣它，然後你又會感到無聊，幾個月後你又想要別的東西，如果你得不到它，你會不快樂一陣子，然後你會克服它，接著你又想要別的東西。這是正常的循環。所以無論你最後是快樂還是不快樂，這種感覺通常不會持久。 Now I don’t want to be glib and say that there’s no point in making money or being successful. There absolutely is—money solves all your money problems, so it is good to have money. 現在我不想輕率地說賺錢或成功毫無意義。當然有意義——錢能解決你所有的金錢問題，所以擁有錢是件好事。 That said, there are those stories, I don’t know if you’ve seen those studies, I don’t know how real these are, a lot of these psych studies don’t replicate, but it’s a fun little study that shows that people who break their back and people who win the lottery are back to their baseline happiness two years later. 話雖如此，有些故事，我不知道你是否看過那些研究，我也不確定這些研究有多真實，很多心理學研究無法複現，但這是一個有趣的小研究，顯示那些背部受傷的人和中樂透的人，兩年後的幸福感都回到了他們的基線水平。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yep.  克里斯·威廉森：是的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Again, don’t know if that’s entirely true. I think money can buy you happiness if you earned it, because then along the way you have both pride and confidence in yourself, and you have a sense of accomplishment, and you set out to do something and you were right, so I’ll bet that lingers, and then as I said, it solves your money problems. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：我不確定那是否完全正確。我認為如果你是靠自己賺來的錢，錢確實能買到幸福，因為在這個過程中，你會對自己感到自豪和有信心，會有成就感，並且你設定了目標並且達成了，所以我敢打賭這種感覺會持續存在，而且正如我所說，它解決了你的金錢問題。 So I don’t want to be too glib about it, but I would say in general, this loop that we run through of desire, dopamine, fulfillment, unfulfillment—you have to enjoy the journey. The journey is all there is. Ninety-nine percent of your time is spent on the journey, so what kind of a journey is it if you’re not going to enjoy it? 所以我不想過於輕率地說，但我會說，通常我們經歷的這個慾望、多巴胺、滿足、不滿足的循環——你必須享受這段旅程。旅程就是一切。你有百分之九十九的時間都在旅程中度過，如果你不打算享受它，那這會是怎樣的一段旅程呢？ Managing Desires  管理慾望 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How do you shortcut that desire contract? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你如何縮短那個慾望的契約？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: You could focus, you could decide that I don’t want most things. I think we have a lot of unnecessary desires that we just pick up everywhere, have opinions on everything, judgments on everything, so I think just knowing that those are the source of unhappiness will make you be choosy about your desires. NAVAL RAVIKANT：你可以專注，你可以決定我不想要大多數東西。我認為我們有很多不必要的慾望，這些慾望是我們到處撿來的，對所有事情都有意見，對所有事情都有評判，所以我認為只要知道這些是痛苦的根源，就會讓你對自己的慾望更加挑剔。 And frankly if you want to be successful, you have to be choosy about your desires, you have to focus. You can’t be great at everything. You’re just going to waste your energy and waste your time. 坦白說，如果你想成功，你必須對慾望有所取捨，你必須專注。你不可能在所有事情上都很出色。你只會浪費你的精力和時間。 Is Fame Worth It?  名聲值得嗎？ CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is fame a worthwhile goal? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：成名是一個值得追求的目標嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It gets you invited to better parties. It gets you to better restaurants. Fame is this funny thing where a lot of people know you, but you don’t know them, and it does get you put on a pedestal. It can get you what you want at distance, so I wouldn’t say it’s worthless. Obviously people want it for a reason, it’s high status so it attracts the opposite sex, especially for men it attracts women. NAVAL RAVIKANT：成名會讓你被邀請參加更好的派對，去更好的餐廳。成名是一件有趣的事，很多人認識你，但你卻不認識他們，而且它確實會讓你被置於神壇上。成名可以讓你在遠距離獲得你想要的東西，所以我不會說它毫無價值。顯然人們想要成名是有原因的，它代表高地位，因此會吸引異性，尤其是對男性來說，會吸引女性。 That said, it is high cost. It means you have no privacy, you do have weirdos and lunatics, you do get hit up a lot for weird things, and you’re on a stage so you’re forced to perform. You’re forced to be consistent with your past proclamations and actions, and you’re going to have haters and all that nonsense. 不過，成名代價很高。這意味著你沒有隱私，你會遇到怪人和瘋子，經常會被要求做一些奇怪的事情，而且你處在舞台上，必須表現自己。你必須與過去的言論和行為保持一致，還會有仇恨者和各種無理取鬧。 But the fact that we do it, the fact that we all seem to want it means that it would be disingenuous to say, “Oh no, no, I’m famous, but you don’t want to be.” That said, I think fame, like anything else, is best produced as a byproduct of something potentially more worthwhile. Wanting to be famous and craving to be famous and being famous for being famous, these are sort of traps. 但事實是我們都這麼做，我們似乎都想要成名，說「哦不，我成名了，但你不想成名」這種話是不真誠的。不過，我認為成名，就像其他任何事一樣，最好是作為某些更有價值事情的副產品。渴望成名、追求成名，或是為了成名而成名，這些都是陷阱。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Fame bait. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：追求名聲。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah exactly, so it’s better that it’s earned fame. For example, earn respect in the tribe by doing things that are good for the tribe. Who are the most famous people in human history? They’re people who sort of transcended the self, the Buddhas and the Jesuses and the Mohammads of the world. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，名聲最好是靠實力贏得的。例如，通過為部落做有益的事情來贏得部落的尊重。人類歷史上最有名的人是誰？他們是那些超越自我的人，像佛陀、耶穌和穆罕默德這樣的人物。 Who else is famous? The artists are famous—art lasts for a long time. The scientists are famous—they discover a thing. The conquerors are famous, presumably because they conquered for their tribe, was someone that they were fighting for. 還有誰很有名？藝術家很有名——藝術能長久流傳。科學家很有名——他們發現了新事物。征服者也很有名，可能是因為他們為自己的部落征服了敵人，為他們所戰鬥的人。 So generally the higher up you rise by doing things for greater and greater groups of people, even though it may be considered tyrannical or negative, like Genghis Khan is famous, but to the Mongols he was doing good, to the rest of them not so much. The higher level you’re operating at, the more people you’re taking care of, the more you sort of earn respect and fame, and I think those are good reasons to be famous. 一般來說，當你為越來越多的人群做事而地位越來越高時，即使這可能被視為暴虐或負面，比如成吉思汗很有名，但對蒙古人來說他是在做好事，對其他人則不然。你所處的層級越高，照顧的人越多，你就越能贏得尊重和名聲，我認為這些都是成名的好理由。 If fame is empty, if you’re famous just because your name showed up in a lot of places or your face showed up in a lot of places, then that’s a hollow fame and I think deep down you will know that and so it’ll be fragile and you’ll always be afraid of losing it and then you’ll be forced to perform. 如果名聲是空洞的，如果你只是因為名字或臉孔出現在很多地方而出名，那麼那是一種空洞的名聲，我想你內心深處會知道這一點，因此它會很脆弱，你總是害怕失去它，然後你會被迫去表演。 So the kind of fame that pure actors and celebrities have, I wouldn’t want, but the kind of fame that’s earned because you did something useful, why dodge that? 所以純粹的演員和名人擁有的那種名聲，我不想要，但那種因為你做了有用的事情而贏得的名聲，為什麼要逃避呢？ Changing Your Mind  改變你的想法 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: No, you can’t. There’s a challenge I think, especially if people make very loud public proclamations about things. You mentioned there about, you’re almost a hostage to the things that you used to say. Being able to update your opinions and change your mind looks very similar to the internet as hypocrisy does. The difference between me saying something in the past and saying something different now is perhaps I’ve learned, perhaps I’ve updated my beliefs. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：不，你不能。我認為這是一個挑戰，尤其是當人們對某些事情發表非常大聲的公開聲明時。你提到過，你幾乎成了你過去所說話語的俘虜。能夠更新你的觀點和改變你的想法，看起來和網路上的偽善非常相似。我過去說過某些話，現在說不同的話，差別可能在於我學到了東西，可能是我更新了我的信念。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right. But so few people do it in a legitimate way. I think that the grifter shill—you’d see this is the smoking gun that shows that he didn’t really believe that thing all along. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。但真正以正當方式做到這點的人太少了。我認為那種騙子推銷員——你會看到這是他從來不真正相信那件事的鐵證。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I went to a retreat in LA a couple of years ago, and there was a guy that I used to follow, a big business and productivity advice content creator, really successful, and he just totally stepped back from everything, went monk mode and focused on his business. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：幾年前我去洛杉磯參加一個靜修，有個我以前追蹤過的人，一位非常成功的商業和生產力建議內容創作者，他完全退出了一切，進入了隱士模式，專注於他的事業。 Living Authentically  真誠生活 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I asked him why, and he said, “I started feeling like I had to live up to in private the things that I was saying in public.” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我問他為什麼，他說：「我開始覺得自己必須在私下做到我公開說的那些事。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right. It’s what Emerson said, “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” But essentially, look, all learning is error correction. Every knowledge creation system works through making guesses and correcting errors. So by definition, if you’re learning, you’re going to be wrong most of the time and you’ll be updating your priors. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。正如愛默生所說：「愚蠢的一致性是小心眼的妖精。」但本質上，所有學習都是錯誤修正。每一個知識創造系統都是透過猜測並修正錯誤來運作的。所以從定義上來說，如果你在學習，你大多數時間會是錯的，並且會不斷更新你的先驗知識。 For example, I did this Joe Rogan podcast, I don’t know, eight or nine years ago, and people will call out like the one thing that didn’t turn out to be correct. They just beat on it because it helps them in their mind raise their status a little bit – “I caught him in an error.” 例如，我大約在八、九年前做過一次 Joe Rogan 的播客，有人會挑出唯一一件結果不正確的事。他們就是一直批評，因為這能讓他們在心裡稍微提升自己的地位——「我抓到他犯錯了」。 If you catch someone in a blatant lie where they believe one thing and say another, that’s legit – that’s a character flaw. They shouldn’t be lying. But on the other hand, if they just made a guess at something and got it wrong, that’s different. Mostly it’s about the AI AGI thing, and I think I’m still right about that, but it’s a different story. 如果你抓到某人明顯說謊，他心裡相信一件事卻說另一件，那是合理的——那是品格缺陷，他們不該說謊。但另一方面，如果他們只是對某件事做了猜測而錯了，那就不同了。大多數情況是關於人工智慧和通用人工智慧的問題，我認為我在這方面仍然是對的，但那是另一回事了。 People who think we have achieved AGI just fail a Turing test from their side. It’s funny how people latch onto single proclamations, but the reality is all of us are dynamical systems. We’re always changing, always learning, always growing, and hopefully we’re correcting errors. But what you don’t want to be doing is lying in public because you’re trying to look good. I think people can smell that. 認為我們已經達成人工通用智能（AGI）的人，只是從他們的角度未能通過圖靈測試。有趣的是，人們總是抓住單一的宣言不放，但現實是我們所有人都是動態系統。我們不斷變化，不斷學習，不斷成長，希望我們也在修正錯誤。但你絕不應該在公開場合說謊，因為你想要表現得好。我認為人們能夠察覺到這一點。 What this world really lacks right now is authenticity, because everybody wants something. They want to be seen as something, they want to be something that they’re not. So you catch a lot of people saying things that they don’t really believe, and I think people are very sensitive to that. Bullshit radars have become hypersensitized to try and work out whether or not this person means the thing that they’re saying. 現在這個世界真正缺乏的是真誠，因為每個人都想要某些東西。他們想被看作某種樣子，他們想成為自己並非的那種人。所以你會聽到很多人說出他們並不真正相信的話，而我認為人們對此非常敏感。騙局雷達已經變得過度敏感，試圖判斷這個人是否真的意味著他們所說的話。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Most of us are wrong most of the time, especially in any new endeavor. There’s a difference between being wrong and disingenuous though. 克里斯·威廉森：我們大多數人在大多數時候都是錯的，尤其是在任何新的嘗試中。不過，犯錯和不真誠是有區別的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Correct. Purposely wrong. Exactly. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：沒錯。故意錯誤。完全正確。 I think that’s the big difference. If someone is wrong, no big deal, as long as they have a genuine reason for saying what they’re saying or believing what they’re believing. But if they are lying to elevate their status or their appearance or to live up to some expectation, that’s the mistake. And that’s a mistake not just for the listener, but a mistake for themselves, because then you’re going to get trapped in the hall of mirrors. You yourself are going to be consistent with your past proclamation, so if you’re lying to others, you’re going to be lying to yourself. 我認為這是最大的區別。如果有人錯了，沒什麼大不了的，只要他們說的話或相信的事有真誠的理由。但如果他們說謊是為了提升自己的地位或形象，或者為了符合某些期望，那就是錯誤。這不僅是對聽者的錯誤，也是對他們自己的錯誤，因為這樣你會陷入鏡廳迷宮。你自己會與過去的宣言保持一致，所以如果你對別人說謊，你也會對自己說謊。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You’re puppeted by a person that you are not even. 克里斯·威廉森：你被一個你根本不是的人操控著。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. It’s like, what was the line? You’re basically trying to impress people who don’t care about you. And they don’t like the real you, and if they saw the real you, they wouldn’t care. And the people who would like the real you don’t get to see the real you, so they pass you by. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：沒錯。就像那句話說的，你基本上是在試圖取悅那些不在乎你的人。他們不喜歡真正的你，如果他們看到真正的你，他們也不會在乎。而那些會喜歡真正的你的人卻看不到真正的你，所以他們就錯過了你。 You only want the respect of the very, very few people that you respect. Trying to demand respect from the masses is a fool’s errand. 你只想得到你非常非常尊重的少數人的尊重。試圖從大眾那裡強求尊重是愚蠢的行為。 Status Games vs. Wealth Creation 地位遊戲與財富創造 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Satisfaction games, the allure of accruing, whether it’s fame, actual fame, or just the competition comparison trap, it’s always there. There’s a real draw of being swayed by social approval, but how should people learn to get less distracted by status games in that way? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：滿足感遊戲，積累的誘惑，無論是名聲、真正的名聲，還是僅僅是競爭比較的陷阱，它總是存在。被社會認可所左右確實有很大的吸引力，但人們應該如何學會不那麼容易被這種地位遊戲分心呢？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think it just helps to see that status games don’t matter as much as they used to. In old society, let’s go back to hunter-gatherer times, there was no such thing as wealth – you just had what you could carry. There was no stored wealth, so wealth creation games didn’t exist. All that existed was status games. If you were high status, then you got what little was available first, but even back then you had to earn your status by taking care of the tribe. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為看到地位遊戲不再像以前那麼重要會有所幫助。在古代社會，讓我們回到狩獵採集時代，根本不存在財富這回事——你只能擁有你能攜帶的東西。沒有儲存的財富，所以也不存在財富創造的遊戲。當時唯一存在的就是地位遊戲。如果你地位高，那麼你會優先獲得那有限的資源，但即使在那時，你也必須通過照顧部落來贏得你的地位。 Now we have wealth creation where you can actually create a product or a service. You can scale that product or service and you can provide abundance for a lot of people, and that’s not zero-sum, that’s a positive-sum game. I can be wealthy, you can be wealthy, we can create things together. And clearly since we are all collectively far, far wealthier than we were in hunter-gatherer times, wealth creation is positive. 現在我們有了財富創造，你可以實際創造一個產品或服務。你可以擴大該產品或服務的規模，並為許多人提供豐富的資源，這不是零和遊戲，而是正和遊戲。我可以富有，你也可以富有，我們可以一起創造事物。顯然，既然我們集體比狩獵採集時代富裕得多，財富創造就是正面的。 But status is limited. There’s limited status to go around. It’s a ranking ladder, it’s a hierarchy, and so if one person rises in status, somebody else has to lower in status. Now you can have multiple kinds of status, so you can expand some kinds of status, but it’s not like wealth creation where it can go infinitely, where we can all be living in the stars and moon bases or Mars colonies. 但地位是有限的。地位的分配是有限的。這是一個排名階梯，是一個階層制度，所以如果一個人的地位上升，必然會有其他人的地位下降。當然你可以有多種不同的地位，因此可以擴展某些類型的地位，但這並不像財富創造那樣可以無限擴張，我們不可能都生活在星際、月球基地或火星殖民地。 Just realize the status games are inherently limited. They’re always combative. They always require direct combat, whereas wealth creation games can be just you creating products – you don’t have to fight anybody else. 只要明白地位遊戲本質上是有限的。它們總是充滿競爭性，總是需要直接的對抗，而財富創造遊戲則可以只是你創造產品——你不必與其他人爭鬥。 Yes, in the marketplace your product has to succeed, but that’s not quite the same as invective against other people or being angry with other people or feeling pushed down or pushed up or having a beef with somebody. So I would argue that wealth creation games are both more pleasant, they’re positive-sum, and they actually have concrete material returns. If you have more money you can buy more things. 是的，在市場上你的產品必須成功，但這與對他人的謾罵、對他人的憤怒、感覺被壓制或被抬高，或者與某人有矛盾並不完全相同。所以我認為財富創造遊戲既更愉快，又是正和遊戲，並且實際上有具體的物質回報。如果你有更多錢，你就能買更多東西。 Show me where you can exchange your status at the bank. 告訴我在哪裡可以在銀行兌換你的地位。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Exactly, it’s vague and fuzzy. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：沒錯，這很模糊且不清晰。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Now, you see people get rich, they have money, what do they want? They want status, so they go to Hollywood, start starring in movies, they donate to non-profits, they go to Cannes or Davos, and they start trying to trade the money for status. NAVAL RAVIKANT：現在你看人們變得富有，他們有錢了，他們想要什麼？他們想要地位，所以他們去好萊塢，開始主演電影，他們捐款給非營利組織，他們去坎城或達沃斯，開始試圖用錢換取地位。 People always want what they don’t have, and we are evolutionarily hardwired for status because as I said, wealth creation didn’t really exist until the agricultural revolution when you could store grain. Then the industrial revolution took it to another level and now the information age is taking it to yet another level. 人們總是想要自己沒有的東西，而我們在進化上對地位有著天生的需求，因為正如我所說，財富創造直到農業革命時期才真正出現，當時你可以儲存穀物。然後工業革命將其提升到另一個層次，現在資訊時代又將其推向另一個層次。 There’s never been an easier time to make money. Yes, it’s still hard, but there’s never been an easier time to create wealth, because there’s so much leverage out there, there’s so much opportunity. You still have to go find it, it’s not easy, it’s not going to fall on your lap and you have to learn something and know something and do something interesting, but nevertheless it’s possible to many more people. A few hundred years ago you were born a serf, you were going to die a serf, there was almost no way out of that. 從來沒有比現在更容易賺錢的時代。是的，這仍然很難，但從來沒有比現在更容易創造財富，因為有如此多的槓桿，有如此多的機會。你仍然必須去尋找它，這並不容易，它不會自動落到你手上，你必須學習、了解並做一些有趣的事情，但儘管如此，這對更多人來說是可能的。幾百年前你生來是農奴，死時也是農奴，幾乎沒有出路。 That’s changed, and so I would argue that you’re better off focusing on wealth games than status games. If you’re trying to build up, for example, your following on a social network and get famous and then get rich off of being famous, that’s a much harder path than getting rich first, and then going for your fame afterwards would be my advice. 這已經改變了，所以我會主張你最好專注於財富遊戲而非地位遊戲。例如，如果你試圖在社交網絡上建立追隨者，然後成名，再靠成名致富，這條路比先致富再追求名聲要困難得多，這是我的建議。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: A lot of people do that, as you said. It’s funny how people who have achieved such a level of wealth – you think why do you need the status, given that most people use status to then try and cash in to achieve wealth? If you’ve achieved “fuck you money” already, if you’re post-money or asset-heavy as it’s known, why are you trying to go in the other direction? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：正如你所說，很多人都是這麼做的。有趣的是，那些已經達到如此財富水平的人——你會想，既然大多數人是利用地位來換取財富，為什麼你還需要地位呢？如果你已經擁有「去他 X 的錢」，或者說你已經是資產豐厚，為什麼還要往相反的方向走？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: As you said, because we’ve got an illustrious history biologically of wanting status, and wealth is kind of novel. It’s new. Wealth is something that you have to understand more intellectually. Yeah, there’s a physical component, more food, more survival, but to truly understand the effects and the powers and the abilities and limitations, and the advantages and disadvantages of wealth, you have to use your neocortex a lot more. NAVAL RAVIKANT：正如你所說，因為我們在生物學上有著追求地位的輝煌歷史，而財富則有點新穎。財富是新的東西。你必須更理性地去理解財富。是的，財富有一個物質層面，比如更多的食物和生存，但要真正理解財富的影響、力量、能力和限制，以及優勢和劣勢，你必須更多地運用你的新皮質。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Does that mean the reason to play the game is to win the game and be done with it? Is it harder to win and to be done with for status than it is for wealth? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那是否意味著玩這個遊戲的理由就是為了贏得遊戲並結束它？為了地位而贏得並結束遊戲是否比為了財富更難？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s a good observation, I hadn’t thought that through, but you’re right. I think people will always want more status, but I think you can be satisfied at a certain level of wealth. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這是一個很好的觀察，我之前沒想過這點，但你說得對。我認為人們總是想要更多的地位，但我覺得你可以在某個財富水平上感到滿足。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Well, you always have this sort of sense, and this is what leaderboards are. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：嗯，你總會有這種感覺，這也是排行榜存在的意義。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. And it is zero-sum. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。而且這是零和遊戲。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And it is, I guess, you know, the Forbes richest people on the planet. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我想，這就是福布斯全球最富有的人們。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. That one’s harder to climb the ladder on, but the fact that, for example, iTunes and YouTube can put you in competition against your contemporaries every single day, and make you go up and down and show you likes and comments and ratings subscribers… NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。這個攀登階梯比較難，但事實是，例如，iTunes 和 YouTube 可以讓你每天都與同輩競爭，讓你起起落落，並展示給你看點讚、評論、評分和訂閱者…… CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is how much you’re up. Exactly. They keep you running on that treadmill forever. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：就是你上升了多少。沒錯。他們讓你永遠在那個跑步機上奔跑。 Jimmy Carr has this cool idea where he says trajectory is more important than position. So, if you are number one hundred and one in the world, but last year you were number two hundred, versus you’re number two in the world, but last year you were number one, there is this sense of the deceleration is very, very tangible. Jimmy Carr 有個很酷的想法，他說軌跡比位置更重要。所以，如果你是世界排名第一百零一，但去年是第二百，與你是世界第二，但去年是第一，這種減速感是非常非常明顯的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And again it goes back to evolution. Something that is bleeding eventually dies, unless you stop the bleeding, so you’re hardwired not to lose what you have. Because we evolved in conditions where we’re so close to just not surviving, you don’t want to give anything up. It’s hardwired into us to not give anything up. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這又回到了進化的問題。流血的東西最終會死，除非你阻止流血，所以你天生就不會輕易失去你所擁有的。因為我們是在幾乎無法生存的環境中進化而來的，你不想放棄任何東西。這種不放棄的本能深植於我們體內。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: So you grip tightly? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：所以你會緊緊抓住？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。 The Importance of Self-Esteem 自尊心的重要性 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The worst outcome in the world is not having self-esteem. Why? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：世界上最糟糕的結果就是沒有自尊心。為什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s a tough one. I look at the people who don’t like themselves and that’s the toughest slot because they’re always wrestling with themselves. It’s hard enough to face the outside world, and no one’s going to like you more than you like yourself, so if you’re struggling with yourself then the outside world becomes an insurmountable challenge. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這是一個很難回答的問題。我看那些不喜歡自己的人，那是最艱難的狀態，因為他們總是在與自己掙扎。面對外部世界已經夠難了，沒有人會比你自己更喜歡你自己，所以如果你在與自己抗爭，那麼外部世界就會變成一個無法逾越的挑戰。 It’s hard to say why people have low self-esteem. It might be genetic, it might just be circumstantial. A lot of times I think it’s because they just weren’t unconditionally loved as a child and that sort of seeps in at a deep core level, but self-esteem issues can be the most limiting. 很難說人們為什麼會有低自尊。可能是遺傳，也可能只是環境因素。很多時候我認為是因為他們在孩提時期沒有被無條件地愛，那種感覺會滲透到內心深處，但自尊問題可能是最具限制性的。 One interesting thought is that to some extent self-esteem is a reputation you have with yourself. You’re watching yourself at all times, you know what you’re doing and you have your own moral code. Everyone has a different moral code, but if you don’t live up to your own moral code, the same code that you hold others to, it will damage your self-esteem. So perhaps one way to build up your self-esteem is to live up to your own code – very rigorously have one and then live up to it. 一個有趣的想法是，在某種程度上，自尊是一種你對自己擁有的聲譽。你時刻在觀察自己，知道自己在做什麼，並且有自己的道德準則。每個人都有不同的道德準則，但如果你無法達到自己所堅持的道德準則，也就是你對他人所要求的標準，這將損害你的自尊。因此，也許建立自尊的一種方法是嚴格地擁有並遵守自己的準則。 Another way to raise your self-esteem might be to do things for others. If I look back on my life and what are the moments that I’m actually proud of, they’re very far and few between. It’s not that often and it’s not the things you would expect – it’s not the material success, it’s not having learned this thing or that. It’s when I made a sacrifice for somebody or something that I loved. That’s when I’m actually, ironically, most proud. 提升自尊的另一種方法可能是為他人做事。如果我回顧自己的人生，真正讓我感到驕傲的時刻非常稀少。這些時刻並不常見，也不是你所期待的那些——不是物質上的成功，也不是學會了這個或那個技能。而是當我為某個人或某件我所愛的事物做出犧牲時。諷刺的是，那正是我最感自豪的時刻。 Now that’s through an explicit mental exercise, but I’ll bet you at some level I’m recording that implicitly. So that tells me that even if I am not being loved, the way to create love is to give love, to express love through sacrifice and through duty. And so I think doing things like that can build up your self-esteem really fast. 現在這是透過一個明確的心理練習，但我敢打賭在某種程度上我是在隱性地記錄這些。所以這告訴我，即使我沒有被愛，創造愛的方法就是付出愛，通過犧牲和責任來表達愛。因此，我認為做這樣的事情可以非常快速地建立你的自尊。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It’s interesting when you talk about sacrifice, because a lot of the time people say, “I sacrificed so much for my job.” It’s like, yeah, but that was you sacrificing something that you wanted less for something that you wanted more, as opposed to genuinely taking some sort of cost. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：當你談到犧牲時很有趣，因為很多時候人們會說，「我為了工作犧牲了很多。」就像，是的，但那是你為了你更想要的東西而犧牲了你較不想要的東西，而不是實際承擔某種代價。 The Price of Integrity  正直的代價 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And, yeah, I wonder whether if self-esteem is you adhering to your internal values, your actions aligning with your values, even when it’s difficult or perhaps even more so when it’s difficult. I wonder whether there is a price that people who are more introspective, high integrity pay because they think, well, you’ve got this heavier set of overheads that you need to pay in some way. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，我在想自尊是否就是你堅守內在價值觀，你的行動與你的價值觀一致，即使這很困難，或者甚至更是在困難時更是如此。我在想那些更內省、高度正直的人是否付出了一種代價，因為他們認為，你有一套更重的負擔需要以某種方式支付。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, being ethical were profitable, everybody would do it, right? So, at some level it does involve a sacrifice, but that sacrifice can also be thought of as you’re thinking for the long term rather than the short term. For example, virtues are a set of beliefs that if everybody in society followed them as individuals, it would lead to win-win outcomes for everybody. NAVAL RAVIKANT：嗯，如果做道德的事能賺錢，大家都會這麼做，對吧？所以，在某種程度上，這確實涉及到犧牲，但這種犧牲也可以被視為你在為長遠而非短期思考。例如，美德是一套信念，如果社會中的每個人都作為個體遵循這些信念，將會為每個人帶來雙贏的結果。 So if I am honest and you are honest, then we can do business more easily, we can interact more easily because we can trust each other. Even though there might be a few liars in the system, as long as there aren’t too many liars and too many cheaters, a high trust society where everybody’s honest is better off, and I think a lot of the virtues work this way. 所以如果我誠實，你也誠實，那麼我們就能更輕鬆地做生意，我們也能更輕鬆地互動，因為我們可以互相信任。即使系統中可能有少數說謊者，只要說謊者和作弊者不多，一個高度信任且人人誠實的社會會更好，我認為許多美德就是這樣運作的。 If I don’t go around sleeping with your wife and you don’t sleep with mine, and if I don’t take all the food that’s at the table first and so on, then we all get along better and we can play win-win games. 如果我不去和你的妻子睡覺，而你也不和我的妻子睡覺，並且如果我不先把桌上的所有食物都拿走，等等，那麼我們大家相處得會更好，我們可以玩雙贏的遊戲。 Game Theory and Society  博弈論與社會 In game theory the most famous game is Prisoner’s Dilemma, but that’s all about everybody cheating and the Nash equilibrium, the stable equilibrium there is everybody cheats. The only way you can play a win-win game is if you have long term iterated moves, but that’s not actually the most common game played in society. 在博弈論中，最著名的遊戲是囚徒困境，但那全是關於每個人都作弊，以及納什均衡，穩定的均衡是每個人都作弊。你唯一能玩雙贏遊戲的方式是有長期反覆的行動，但那其實不是社會中最常玩的遊戲。 The most common game played is one called a stag hunt, where if we cooperate we can bring down a big stag and both have big dinners, but if we don’t cooperate then we have to go hunt like rabbits and we each have small dinners. 最常玩的遊戲叫做「鹿狩獵」，如果我們合作，我們可以捕捉一隻大鹿，兩人都能享用豐盛的晚餐，但如果我們不合作，那我們就得像獵兔子一樣各自狩獵，晚餐都很簡單。 That game has two stable equilibriums – one could be where we’re both hunting the rabbit, and one could be where we’re hunting the stag. So the high trust society is a more virtuous society where I can trust you to come hunt the stag with me and show up on time and do the work and divide it up properly. 那個遊戲有兩個穩定的均衡點——一個可能是我們兩個都在追捕兔子，另一個可能是我們在一起狩獵雄鹿。所以，高信任社會是一個更有美德的社會，在那裡我可以信任你會和我一起去狩獵雄鹿，準時出現，完成工作並且合理分配。 So you want to live in a system where everybody has their own set of virtues and follows them, and then we all win. But I would argue you don’t need to do that for sacrifice, you don’t need to do that for other people, you can do it just purely for yourself. You will have higher self-esteem, you will attract other high virtue people. 所以你想生活在一個每個人都有自己的一套美德並遵循它們的體系中，然後我們都能獲勝。但我會說，你不需要為了犧牲而這麼做，也不需要為了別人，你可以純粹為了自己這麼做。你會擁有更高的自尊，並吸引其他有高尚美德的人。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Would I go on a stag hunt with me? 克里斯·威廉森：我會和我自己一起去狩獵雄鹿嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Correct. Yeah, that’s right. If you’re the kind of person who long term signals ethics and virtues, then you’ll attract other people who are ethical and virtuous, whereas if you are a shark, you will eventually find yourself swimming entirely amongst sharks and that’s an unpleasant existence. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：沒錯。是的，沒錯。如果你是那種長期展現倫理和美德信號的人，那麼你會吸引其他有倫理和美德的人；而如果你是鯊魚，你最終會發現自己完全游在鯊魚之中，那是一種不愉快的存在。 This goes back to the equivalent of the marshmallow test. The marshmallow test does not replicate – it got hit hard in the replication crisis recently, but it is about trading off the short term for the long term. I think for a lot of these so-called virtues, there are long-term selfish reasons to be virtuous. 這可以追溯到類似棉花糖測試的概念。棉花糖測試並沒有被成功複製——它最近在複製危機中受到重創，但它的核心是權衡短期與長期。我認為對於許多所謂的美德，從長遠來看，行善是有自私的理由的。 Self-Doubt and Confidence 自我懷疑與自信 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah. Did you deal with self-doubt in the past? Is that something that was a hurdle for you to overcome? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的。你過去有面對過自我懷疑嗎？那對你來說是一個需要克服的障礙嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yes and no. I think I dealt with self-doubt in the sense that, “Oh, I don’t know what I’m doing, and I need to figure it out,” but I didn’t doubt myself in the way of “somebody else knows better than me for me” or that “I’m an idiot” or “I’m not worthwhile.” NAVAL RAVIKANT：是也不是。我認為我面對過自我懷疑，意思是「喔，我不知道自己在做什麼，我需要弄清楚」，但我並沒有懷疑自己是「有人比我更了解我」或「我是個白痴」或「我不值得被重視」。 I guess I had the benefit that I grew up with a lot of love. The people around me loved me unconditionally and so that just gave me a lot of confidence. Not the kind of confidence that would say I have the answer, but the kind of confidence that I will figure it out and I know what I want, or only I am a good arbiter of what I want. 我想我有一個優勢，那就是我在充滿愛的環境中長大。身邊的人無條件地愛著我，這給了我很大的自信。這種自信不是那種我擁有答案的自信，而是我會找到答案的自信，我知道自己想要什麼，或者只有我自己才是判斷自己想要什麼的最佳裁判。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, that level of self-belief I suppose allows you to determine what is it that matters to me, my self-esteem. Should I chase this thing or not? I can make a fair judgment on that as opposed to being so swayed. It’s such a good point about even if you think you’re not consciously logging the stuff that you’re doing, there is some part that’s in the back of your mind. Was it the daemon? Is that what the ancient Greeks or something used to talk about? 克里斯·威廉森：是的，我想這種自信程度讓你能夠判斷什麼對我來說重要，我的自尊心。我要不要追求這件事？我可以做出公平的判斷，而不是被輕易左右。你說得很對，即使你覺得自己沒有有意識地記錄自己所做的事情，腦海深處還是有某部分在運作。那是惡魔嗎？古希臘人之類的曾經談論過這個嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. In computer science, there’s a concept of a daemon, which is a program that’s always running in the background. You can’t see it. But yeah, it probably comes from the ancient Greek daemon. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。在電腦科學中，有一個守護進程（daemon）的概念，指的是一個一直在背景運行的程式。你看不到它。但它很可能源自古希臘的 daemon。 What you know that you don’t even know you know is far greater than what you know you know. You can’t even articulate most of the things you know. There are feelings you have that have no words for them. There are thoughts you have that are felt within the body or subconsciously that you never articulate to yourself. 你知道但甚至不知道自己知道的東西，遠遠超過你知道自己知道的東西。你甚至無法表達大多數你所知道的事物。你有些感覺是無法用言語形容的。你有些想法是在身體內或潛意識中感受到的，卻從未對自己表達過。 You can’t articulate the rules of grammar, yet you exercise them effortlessly when you speak. So I would argue that your implicit knowledge and your knowledge that is unknown to yourself is far greater than the knowledge you can articulate and that you can communicate. 你無法明確說出語法規則，但當你說話時卻能輕鬆運用它們。所以我會說，你的隱性知識和你自己未知的知識，遠遠超過你能表達和傳達的知識。 At some level you’re always watching yourself, that’s what your consciousness is, right? It’s the thing that’s watching everything, your mind, including your body. So if you want to have high self-esteem, then earn your own self-respect. 在某種層面上，你總是在觀察自己，那就是你的意識，對吧？它是觀察一切的東西，包括你的心靈和身體。所以如果你想擁有高自尊，那就先贏得自己的自我尊重。 I have this idea, the internal golden rule. So the golden rule says treat others the way that you want to be treated. The internal golden rule says treat yourself like others should have treated you, and it was a repost to maybe people that didn’t grow up with unconditional love. 我有一個想法，內在的黃金法則。黃金法則說的是以你希望被對待的方式去對待他人。內在的黃金法則則是說，要像別人應該對待你那樣對待自己，這可能是對那些沒有在無條件愛中成長的人的一種回應。 The Nature of Love  愛的本質 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah. On the love thing… 克里斯·威廉森：是的，關於愛的事情…… NAVAL RAVIKANT: One of the interesting things about love is you can try to remember the feeling of being loved. So go back to when someone was in love with you or someone did love you, and really remember that feeling, like really sit with it and try to recreate it within yourself. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：關於愛，有一件有趣的事是你可以試著回想被愛的感覺。回到有人愛你或曾經愛過你的時候，真正地記住那種感覺，像是靜靜地感受它，並試著在自己內心重新創造那種感覺。 Then go to the feeling of you loving someone and when you were in love. I’m not even talking about romantic love necessarily, so be a little careful there. I’m talking more about love for a sibling or a child or something like that, or a parent. Think about when you felt love towards someone or something, and now which is better? 然後回想你愛著某人的感覺，以及你曾經墜入愛河的時刻。我並不一定指的是浪漫的愛，所以在這點上要稍微小心。我說的是對兄弟姐妹、孩子或類似的親人，或父母的愛。想想你曾經對某人或某事感受到愛的時候，現在哪一種感覺比較好？ I would argue that the feeling of being in love is actually more exhilarating than the feeling of being loved. Being loved is a little cloying, it’s a little too sweet, you kind of want to push the person away, it’s a little embarrassing, and you know that if that person is too much into it that you feel constrained. 我會主張，墜入愛河的感覺其實比被愛的感覺更令人振奮。被愛有點讓人感到膩煩，太甜膩了，你會有點想推開那個人，有點尷尬，而且你知道如果那個人太過投入，你會感到受限。 On the other hand, the feeling of being in love is very expansive, it’s very open, it actually makes you a better version of yourself, it makes you want to be a better person. So you can create love anytime you want, it’s just that craving to receive it that’s the problem. 另一方面，墜入愛河的感覺非常開闊，非常自由，它實際上讓你成為更好的自己，讓你想成為一個更好的人。所以你隨時都可以創造愛，問題只是你渴望被愛的那種渴望。 The Cost of Pride  驕傲的代價 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The most expensive trait is pride. How come? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：最昂貴的特質是驕傲。為什麼會這樣？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh, that was a recent one. I tweeted that just because I think that pride is the enemy of learning. When I look at my friends and colleagues, the ones who are still stuck in the past and have grown the least are the ones who were the proudest because they sort of feel like they already had the answers and so they don’t want to correct themselves publicly. NAVAL RAVIKANT：喔，那是最近的一句推文。我發推文是因為我認為驕傲是學習的敵人。當我看我的朋友和同事時，那些仍然停留在過去、成長最少的人，往往是最驕傲的，因為他們覺得自己已經有了答案，所以不願意公開承認錯誤。 This goes back to the fame conversation – you get locked into something you said, it made you famous, you’re known for that and now you want to pivot or change. So pride prevents you from saying “I’m wrong.” 這又回到名聲的話題——你被自己說過的話鎖住了，那句話讓你成名，你因此被認識，現在你想轉變或改變。但驕傲阻止你說「我錯了」。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What’s pride in this context here? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：在這個語境中，驕傲是什麼意思？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It could be as simple as you’re trading stocks and then you don’t admit you were wrong, so you hang on to a lousy trade. It could be that you made a decision to marry someone or move somewhere or enter a profession, it doesn’t work out, and then you don’t admit that you were wrong, so you get stuck in it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這可能很簡單，比如你在交易股票，然後你不承認自己錯了，所以你一直持有一筆糟糕的交易。也可能是你決定結婚、搬家或從事某個職業，結果不如預期，然後你不承認自己錯了，所以你就陷在其中。 It’s mostly about getting trapped in local maxima, as opposed to going back down and climbing up the mountain again. And that’s why it’s an expensive trait, because you continue to need to repay it in one form or another. 這主要是關於被困在局部最大值，而不是回頭再重新攀登高峰。這就是為什麼這是一種昂貴的特質，因為你會以某種形式不斷地為此付出代價。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, you’re just stuck at a suboptimal point. It’s going to cost you money, it’s going to cost you success. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，你只是卡在一個次優的點上。這會讓你損失金錢，也會讓你失去成功的機會。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And time. NAVAL RAVIKANT：還有時間。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And time. 克里斯·威廉森：時間到了。 The Willingness to Start Over 願意重新開始的心態 NAVAL RAVIKANT: The great artists always have this ability to start over, whether it’s Paul Simon or Madonna or YouTube. I’m dating myself a little bit, but even the great entrepreneurs, they’re just always willing to start over. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：偉大的藝術家總是具備重新開始的能力，無論是保羅·西蒙、瑪丹娜還是 YouTube。我有點自曝年齡，但即使是偉大的企業家，他們也總是願意重新開始。 I’m always struck by the Elon Musk story where he did PayPal as X.com originally, actually, was his financial institution that got merged into PayPal. 我總是被埃隆·馬斯克的故事所打動，他最初創立的 PayPal 其實是 X.com，那是一家金融機構，後來合併成了 PayPal。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Well, it’s good that you’ve got the domain, you know what I mean? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：嗯，你擁有這個網域名稱，這很好，你懂我的意思吧？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, exactly. I’ll park that, I’ll hold on to it. He’s been using it for quite a while, and he said something like along the lines of, “I made two hundred million dollars from the sale of PayPal, I put one hundred million dollars into SpaceX, eighty million dollars in Tesla, twenty million in Solar City, and I had to borrow money for rent.” NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，沒錯。我會先放著，先保留著。他已經用了很長一段時間，他說過類似這樣的話：「我從賣掉 PayPal 賺了兩億美元，我投入了一億美元到 SpaceX，八千萬美元到 Tesla，兩千萬美元到 Solar City，結果我還得借錢付房租。」 This guy is a perennial taker. He’s always willing to start over. He doesn’t have any pride about being seen as successful or being seen as a failure. He’s willing to put it all in. 這傢伙永遠是個接受者。他總是願意重新開始。他不在乎被看作成功者或失敗者。他願意全力以赴。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Back himself again each time. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：每次都再次相信自己。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Back himself again each time, but the key thing is he’s always willing to start over. Even now when he’s sort of made his new startup as USA. He’s basically trying to fix it like he would fix one of his startups. NAVAL RAVIKANT：每次都會再次相信自己，但關鍵是他總是願意重新開始。即使現在他已經把他的新創公司當作美國來經營，他基本上還是試圖像對待他的創業公司一樣去修復它。 I think that is a willingness to look like a fool, and that is a willingness to start over, and a lot of people just don’t have that. They become successful, they become rich, they become famous, and that’s it, they’re stuck. They don’t want to go back to zero, and creating anything great requires zero to one, and that means you go back to zero, and that’s really painful and hard to do. 我認為這是一種願意看起來像個傻瓜的態度，也是一種願意重新開始的態度，而很多人就是沒有這種態度。他們變得成功、變得富有、變得有名，然後就停滯不前。他們不想回到零的起點，而創造任何偉大的事物都需要從零到一，這意味著你必須回到零，這真的很痛苦也很難做到。 Choosing Happiness  選擇幸福 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Talking about risk, something I’ve been thinking about a lot to do with you. Any moment when you’re not having a good time, when you’re not really happy, you’re not doing anyone any favors. I think lots of people have become unusually familiar with suffering silently in that sort of a way of not having a high bar for your expectation for quality of life. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：談到風險，這是我一直在思考與你有關的事情。任何時刻當你不開心、不快樂時，你並沒有幫助任何人。我認為很多人已經異常習慣於默默承受痛苦，並且對生活品質的期望標準並不高。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. A lot of it is just you’re memeing yourself into a bad outcome because you think that somehow suffering is glorious, or that it makes you a better person. My old quip was, “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you happy? Why can’t you figure that one out?” NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。很多時候，你只是因為認為受苦是光榮的，或者受苦能讓你成為更好的人，而不自覺地把自己帶入一個糟糕的結果。我的老話是，「如果你這麼聰明，為什麼不快樂？你為什麼想不通這個問題？」 The reality is you can be smart and happy, there are plenty of people in human history who are smart and happy, and I think it just starts with saying, “Yeah, you know what, I’m going to be happy.” 現實是，你可以既聰明又快樂，歷史上有很多既聰明又快樂的人，我認為這一切都始於一句話：「是的，你知道嗎，我要快樂。」 There was a guy that I met in Thailand a long time ago and he used to work for Tony Robbins. He had a great attitude, and we were sitting around and he said, “I realized one day that someone out there had to be the happiest person in the world, like that person just has to exist.” He said, “Why not me? I’ll take on that burden, I’ll be that guy.” I heard that and I thought, “Wow that’s pretty good, that’s a good frame,” but he knew how to reframe things. 很久以前我在泰國遇到一個人，他曾經為 Tony Robbins 工作。他態度很好，我們坐在一起時，他說：「我有一天意識到，這個世界上一定有一個人是最幸福的，那個人一定存在。」他說：「為什麼不是我呢？我願意承擔這個責任，我要成為那個人。」我聽了之後想，「哇，這真不錯，這是一個很好的思維框架」，但他知道如何重新框定事情。 I think a lot of happiness is just a choice in the sense that you make. First you just identify yourself as “actually I’m going to be a person that’s going to be happy, I’m going to figure it out,” and you just figure it out along the way. 我認為很多快樂其實是一種選擇，首先你要認定自己「其實我要成為一個快樂的人，我會想辦法做到」，然後你就在過程中慢慢找到方法。 You’re not going to lose your other predilections, you’re not going to lose your ambition or desire for success. I think a lot of people have this fear that “Oh if I’m happy then I won’t want to be successful.” No, you’ll just want to do things that are more aligned with the happy version of you and you’ll be successful at those things. Believe me, the happy version of you is not going to look back at the unhappy version and say, “Oh man, that guy was going to be more successful, I wish I was him.” You’re actually trying to be successful so you’ll be happy. 你不會失去你其他的偏好，你不會失去你的野心或對成功的渴望。我認為很多人都有這樣的恐懼：「哦，如果我快樂了，那我就不想成功了。」不，你只是會想做那些更符合快樂版的你的事情，並且你會在那些事情上取得成功。相信我，快樂版的你不會回頭看不快樂的你，然後說：「哦，天啊，那個人會更成功，我真希望我是他。」你其實是在努力成功，為的是讓自己快樂。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Oh, so do… CHRIS WILLIAMSON：哦，所以是… NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s the whole point. You’ve gotten it backwards. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這就是重點。你搞反了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You unlocked one of my trap cards. One of my favorite insights is that we sacrifice the thing we want for the thing that’s supposed to get it. So we sacrifice happiness in order to be successful, so that when we’re finally sufficiently successful, we can actually be happy. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你觸發了我的一張陷阱卡。我最喜歡的見解之一是，我們為了應該能帶來想要的東西而犧牲了真正想要的東西。所以我們犧牲快樂以求成功，這樣當我們終於足夠成功時，我們才能真正快樂。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And if you have some sort of simultaneous equation, and you just sort of stripped success off from both sides… Yeah, at least in my own life, I have not found there to be a trade off. If anything, I have found that the happier I get, the more I am going to do the things that I’m good at and aligned with and that will make me even happier, and so I actually end up more successful, not less. NAVAL RAVIKANT：如果你有某種聯立方程式，然後你把成功從兩邊都剝離掉……是的，至少在我自己的生活中，我並沒有發現這是一種取捨。事實上，我發現我越快樂，就越會去做那些我擅長且與我價值觀相符的事情，而這些事情又會讓我更快樂，所以我實際上變得更成功，而不是更不成功。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The aligned with thing is interesting. I’m gonna try and put this across as delicately as I can. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那個「與價值觀相符」的部分很有趣。我會盡量委婉地表達這個意思。 The Freedom of Self-Prioritization 自我優先的自由 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I would say from the bit of time that we’d spent together, you have a really interesting trait of holistic selfishness. You’re sort of prepared to put yourself first. You seem largely unfazed by saying or doing things that might result in other people feeling a little bit awkward if it’s truthful for you. It’s like unapologetically self prioritizing, I guess. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：從我們相處的這段時間來看，我會說你有一種非常有趣的特質——整體性的自私。你願意把自己放在第一位。你似乎對說出或做出可能讓別人感到有點尷尬的事情並不在意，只要那對你來說是真實的。這就像是不加歉意地優先考慮自己，我想就是這樣。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, I think everybody is, maybe unapologetic is the part that’s relatively rare, but I think everybody puts themselves first. That’s just human nature. You’re here because you survive, you’re a separate organism. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我認為每個人都是這樣，也許無所歉意這一點比較罕見，但我認為每個人都會把自己放在第一位。這就是人性。你之所以在這裡，是因為你存活下來了，你是一個獨立的有機體。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Interesting. I’m maybe, but I know we like to virtue signal and pretend we’re doing it for each other. How many times does somebody say, “Yeah, of course, I’d love to come to the wedding.” They’re like, “I don’t want to be at the fucking wedding.” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：有趣。我可能是這樣，但我知道我們喜歡展示美德，假裝我們是為了彼此而做的。多少次有人說：「是的，當然，我很樂意參加婚禮。」但他們心裡想的是：「我根本不想去那該死的婚禮。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I don’t go to weddings. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我不去參加婚禮。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: But this is my point. Right. So I don’t think you’re necessarily right with that. I think that people don’t put themselves first. I sometimes think that they compromise what it is that they want in order to appease socially what’s in front of them. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：但這就是我的觀點。對吧。所以我不認為你完全正確。我認為人們並不總是把自己放在第一位。我有時覺得他們會妥協自己想要的東西，以迎合眼前的社交需求。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I just view it as everyone’s wasting their time on it. Don’t do something you don’t want to do. Why are you wasting your time? There’s so little time on this earth. Life goes fast, what is it, four thousand weeks that’s your lifespan? And yes, we hear that, but we don’t remember it, but I guess I’m keenly aware of how little time I have, so I’m just not going to waste it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我只是覺得大家都在浪費時間。不要做你不想做的事。你為什麼要浪費時間？人生在世的時間很少。生命過得很快，大約只有四千週的壽命？是的，我們聽過這個說法，但我們不會記得，但我想我非常清楚自己有多少時間，所以我就是不想浪費它。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How have you got more comfortable at being the unapologetic self prioritizer? 克里斯·威廉森：你是如何變得更能坦然接受自己無所顧忌地優先考慮自己的？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I’ve gotten utterly more and more ruthless on it, mainly it’s that I see or hear people’s freedom, and then that liberates me further. So I read a blog post by P. Marka, aka Marc Andreessen, where he said don’t keep a schedule, and I took that to heart, so I deleted my calendar and I don’t keep a schedule, I try to remember it all in my head, if I can’t remember it, I’m not going to add it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我在這方面變得越來越無情，主要是因為我看到或聽到人們的自由，然後那反過來又讓我更加自由。所以我讀了一篇由 P. Marka，也就是 Marc Andreessen 寫的部落格文章，他說不要制定行程表，我把這句話放在心上，於是我刪除了我的行事曆，不再制定行程表，我試著全部記在腦海裡，如果記不住，我就不會加進去。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I’m glad you got your own time. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我很高興你有自己的時間。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, exactly, I had to look things up at the last minute. But ironically, don’t even know if Mark himself follows that, but he made the correct point. I read a little story about Jack Dorsey doing all his business off his iPhone and iPad and not even going into a Mac, and I said, okay, I want to do that, so I’m going operate through text messaging and I put up my nasty email. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，沒錯，我得在最後一刻查東西。但諷刺的是，我甚至不知道 Mark 自己是否遵守這點，但他說的確實是對的。我讀過一個小故事，說 Jack Dorsey 完全用他的 iPhone 和 iPad 處理所有業務，甚至不使用 Mac，我說，好吧，我也想這麼做，所以我打算通過簡訊操作，並且我設置了我的垃圾郵件信箱。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Does that feel like more freedom? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那感覺像是更自由嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It does, yeah, because you’re on the go, so I have a nasty email autoresponder that says I don’t check email and don’t text me either, right? If you need to find me, you’ll find me. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，因為你一直在忙，所以我有一個很厲害的電子郵件自動回覆器，上面寫著我不查看電子郵件，也不要發簡訊給我，對吧？如果你需要找到我，你自然會找到我。 Obviously, some of this is a luxury of success, but some of these habits I adopted long before actually, the hostile email autoresponder started a long time ago. I used to own the domain, I let it go, dontdocoffee.com, I used to reply from that email just so people would get the point, but I stopped being rude about it, now I just ghost, I just disappear. 顯然，這其中有些是成功帶來的奢侈，但我其實很早以前就養成了這些習慣，那個敵意滿滿的電子郵件自動回覆器早就開始了。我曾經擁有一個網域，我放棄了，dontdocoffee.com，我曾經用那個郵箱回覆，只是讓人們明白我的意思，但我後來不再那麼無禮了，現在我只是消失，直接不理會。 My wife knows not to ever book or schedule me for anything, I’m not expected to go to couples dinners, I’m not expected to go to birthdays, I’m not expected to go to weddings. If somebody tries to rope her into having me show up, she says he makes his own decisions, you gotta ask him directly. 我妻子知道絕對不要替我預約或安排任何事情，我不被期望參加情侶晚餐，不被期望參加生日派對，也不被期望參加婚禮。如果有人想拉她讓我出席，她會說他自己會做決定，你得直接問他。 Embracing Serendipity  擁抱意外的美好機緣 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What about vice versa? Well, you’re not killing serendipity in a way, are you? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那反過來呢？你不會在某種程度上扼殺了偶然性吧？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: No. I’m freeing up all my time, so my entire life is serendipity. I get to interact with whoever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want, but I hear the invite, then make the decision. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不會。我是在釋放我所有的時間，所以我的整個人生都是偶然的。我可以隨時隨地與任何我想互動的人互動，但我會先聽邀請，然後再做決定。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Because if there’s fewer things incoming, you’re assuming that you know best for you. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：因為如果進來的事情變少了，你是在假設你最了解自己。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I don’t commit to anything in the future, so I’ll say, okay, if that thing is interesting, I’ll see if I can get in that day when I’m in the mood, but there’s nothing worse than something coming up that your past self committed you to, that your present self doesn’t want to do. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我不會對未來做任何承諾，所以我會說，好吧，如果那件事有趣，我會看看當天心情好的時候能不能參加，但沒有什麼比過去的自己承諾了某件事，而現在的自己卻不想做更糟的了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Goddamn it, positive. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：該死，肯定是正面的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, and then it destroys your entire calendar. It destroys your day because there’s like, oh, this one hour slot which is sitting like a turd on my calendar that I have to schedule my whole day around. I can’t do anything twenty minutes before, twenty minutes afterwards. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是啊，然後它毀了你整個行事曆。它毀了你的一天，因為有一個小時的時段就像一坨屎一樣坐在我的行事曆上，我得圍繞它安排整天。前後二十分鐘我都不能做任何事。 Even for phone calls, if someone wants to do a phone call, say, okay, just text me when you’re free, I’ll text you when I’m free, we’ll just do it on the fly. It’s a much better way of living than this overly scheduled cal.com or iCal, whatever. 即使是電話，如果有人想打電話，說好吧，等你有空就發訊息給我，我有空也會發訊息給你，我們就隨時通話。這比那種過度排程的 cal.com 或 iCal 什麼的生活方式好多了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The over scheduled life is not worth living? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：過度排程的生活不值得過？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s not. I think it’s a terrible way to live life. That’s not how we evolved, it’s not how we grew up, it’s not how we were as children hopefully, unless you have a helicopter parent or a tiger mom. Your natural order is freedom. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不是的。我認為那是一種糟糕的生活方式。那不是我們進化的方式，也不是我們成長的方式，更希望不是我們小時候的樣子，除非你有一個直升機父母或虎媽。你的自然秩序是自由。 I had a friend who said to me once, “You know, I never want to have to be at a specific place at a specific time” and I was like, oh my god, that’s freedom. When I heard that, that changed my life right there. 我有一個朋友曾經對我說：「你知道嗎，我從來不想必須在特定的時間出現在特定的地方」，我當時心想，天啊，那就是自由。當我聽到這句話時，我的人生就在那一刻改變了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You’re still alarm clock less? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你還是不設鬧鐘嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yes, I’m alarm clock less. Today, I did set my alarm clock just so I wouldn’t miss this. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我不設鬧鐘。今天我倒是設了鬧鐘，只是為了不錯過這個時刻。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Very important, yeah. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：非常重要，沒錯。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: But just so you know, I set the alarm clock for 11am in case I was stricken with the flu, slept in. I was still not going to set my alarm clock for 8am or 9am, and sure enough, got up many hours before that. But it was sort of a backup emergency alarm. In fact, sometimes when there’s something that I need to do, I don’t want to look at a calendar, so I’ll just set an alarm for it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：但讓你知道，我把鬧鐘設定在上午 11 點，以防我得了流感，睡過頭。我仍然不會把鬧鐘設定在上午 8 點或 9 點，果然，我在那之前好幾個小時就起床了。但那算是一個備用的緊急鬧鐘。事實上，有時候當我有事情要做時，我不想看日曆，所以我會直接設定一個鬧鐘提醒。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Just sink a little bit more into that, like, that kind of “fuck you” energy, that self prioritizing energy, because I think people rationally love the idea of this. I’m going to do what only I want to do, even if they’ve got the level of freedom. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：更深入地感受那種「去你的」能量，那種以自我為優先的能量，因為我認為人們理性上很喜歡這個想法。我會做我自己想做的事，即使他們擁有一定程度的自由。 Freedom and Productivity  自由與生產力 NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s not “fuck you” energy in the sense that I think everyone should live their life that way to the greatest extent possible. Obviously we have our requirements around work and obligations that are genuinely important to us, but don’t fritter away your life on randomly scheduled things and things that aren’t important, don’t matter, and events and weddings and tedious dinners with tedious people that you don’t want to go to. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這並不是說每個人都應該盡可能以「去你的」態度生活。顯然，我們有工作和責任上的需求，這些對我們來說是真正重要的，但不要把生命浪費在隨意安排的事情上，或那些不重要、不相關的活動、婚禮以及與你不想見的無聊人共進的無聊晚餐。 To the extent you can bring freedom into your life, optimize for that, you’ll actually be more productive. You won’t just be happier, more free, you will be more productive, because then you can focus on what is in front of you, whatever the biggest problem of that day. 在你能將自由帶入生活的範圍內，優化它，你實際上會更有生產力。你不僅會更快樂、更自由，還會更有效率，因為那時你可以專注於眼前的事，無論當天最大的問題是什麼。 When I wake up in the morning, the first four hours are when I have the most energy and that’s when I want to solve all the hard problems, and the next four hours are when I kind of want to do some more outdoorsy activities or I want to work out or maybe I can have some meetings, but I’ll try to do those last second based on whatever the day’s priorities demand. The last four hours I kind of want to wind down, I want to hang out with the kids, and I want to play games, or read a book or something like that. 當我早上醒來時，頭四個小時是我精力最充沛的時候，那時我想解決所有困難的問題，接下來的四個小時我比較想做一些戶外活動，或者鍛煉身體，或者開會，但我會根據當天的優先事項盡量把這些安排在後面。最後的四個小時我想放鬆一下，想和孩子們一起玩，玩遊戲，或者讀書之類的。 So, having that flexibility and freedom is really important, so you can just put whatever is most needed into the slot at that moment. Instead if I have like a meeting at 2pm and then I have to get a thing and some emails done, I put that off till 6pm and I’m rushing, I’m not going to be productive. 因此，擁有這種彈性和自由非常重要，這樣你就可以在當下把最需要的事情放進那個時間段。相反，如果我下午兩點有會議，然後還得處理一些事情和郵件，我把它們推遲到晚上六點，結果匆忙應付，效率不會高。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You’re certainly not free. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你當然不自由。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I’m definitely not free, but also another thing that I really believe is that inspiration is perishable. Act on it immediately. So when you’re inspired to do something, do that thing. If I’m inspired to write a blog post, I want to do it at that moment. If I’m inspired to send a tweet, I want to do it that moment. If I’m inspired to solve a problem, I want it that moment. If I’m inspired to read a book, I want to read it right then. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我當然不是自由自在，但我非常相信靈感是易逝的。要立即行動。所以當你有靈感去做某件事時，就去做那件事。如果我有靈感寫一篇部落格文章，我想在那一刻就寫。如果我有靈感發一則推文，我想在那一刻就發。如果我有靈感解決一個問題，我想在那一刻就解決。如果我有靈感讀一本書，我想立刻讀它。 If I want to learn something, do it at the moment of curiosity, the moment the curiosity arrives, I go learn that thing immediately. I download the book, I get on Google, I get on ChatGPT, whatever, I will figure that thing out on the spot, and that’s when the learning happens. It doesn’t happen because I’ve scheduled time, because I’ve set an hour aside, because when that time arrives I might be in a different mood, I might just want to do something different. 如果我想學習某件事，我會在好奇心出現的那一刻立刻去做。當好奇心來臨時，我會立刻去學那件事。我會下載書籍，使用 Google，使用 ChatGPT，無論如何，我會當場弄懂那件事，學習就是在那時發生的。不是因為我安排了時間，也不是因為我預留了一小時，因為當那個時間到來時，我可能心情不同，可能想做別的事。 So I think that spontaneity is really important, you’re going to learn best when you’re having fun, when you genuinely are enjoying the process, not when you’re forced to sit there and do it. How much do you remember from school? You know you were forced to learn geography, history, mathematics on this schedule at this time according to this person. Didn’t happen. All the stuff that sticks with you is what you learned when you wanted to, when you genuinely had the desire, and that freedom, that ability to act on something the moment you want to is so liberating that most of us go through our lives with very little tastes of that. If you live your entire life that way, that is a recipe for happiness. 所以我認為自發性真的很重要，當你在享受過程、真正感到快樂時，你會學得最好，而不是被迫坐著去做。你還記得學校裡學了多少東西嗎？你知道你被迫按照某個人的時間表，在特定時間學習地理、歷史、數學。那並沒有發生。所有真正留在你腦海裡的東西，都是你想學的時候學的，當你真正有渴望時學的，而那種自由，那種能夠在想做的那一刻行動的能力，是如此解放人心，以至於我們大多數人在生活中很少能嘗到那種滋味。如果你一生都這樣生活，那就是幸福的秘訣。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It feels like efficiency that you have. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：感覺你擁有的是效率。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Efficient also. You have the inspiration that is going to be the most frictionless time to ever do that particular task. NAVAL RAVIKANT：也是效率。你擁有的靈感，將是完成那項特定任務時最順暢無阻的時刻。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: So I’ve had the inspiration to do that. I’ll put that off until a time when I no longer really want to do it quite so much. And while I do want to do that thing, I’ll do something else that I needed to do because it’s on the schedule. It does not work. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：所以我有了做那件事的靈感。但我會把它推遲到我不再那麼想做的時候。而當我想做那件事時，我會去做一些我需要做的、因為排在日程上的其他事情。這樣是行不通的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Procrastination is because you don’t want to do that thing right now. You want to do something else. Go do that something else. I reject this frame that efficiency and productivity and success are counter to happiness and freedom. They actually go together. NAVAL RAVIKANT：拖延是因為你現在不想做那件事。你想做別的事情。去做那件別的事吧。我拒絕這種觀點，認為效率、生產力和成功與幸福及自由是相互矛盾的。事實上，它們是相輔相成的。 The happier you are, the more you can sustain doing something, the more likely you’re going to do something that will in turn make you even happier and you’ll continue to do it and you’ll outwork everybody else. The more free you are, the better you can allocate your time, and the less you’re caught up in a web of obligations and commitments, and the more you can focus on the task at hand. 你越快樂，就越能持續做某件事，你越有可能做出讓自己更快樂的事情，並且會持續下去，最終你會比其他人更努力。你越自由，就越能更好地分配時間，越不會被各種義務和承諾所束縛，越能專注於手頭的任務。 Finding Your Authentic Work 尋找你真實的工作 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: This is related to another insight of yours. The less you want something, the less you’re thinking about it, the less you’re obsessing over it, the more you’re going to do it in a natural way. The more you’re going to do it for yourself, you’re going to do it in a way that you’re good at, and you’re going to stick with it. The people around you will see the quality of your work is higher. But this seems like a difficult tension to navigate because an obsessive attention to detail is a competitive advantage of your work as well. So you have these two things sort of conflicting with each other. 克里斯·威廉森：這與你另一個見解有關。你越是不渴望某件事，越少去思考它，越少去執著於它，你就越能以自然的方式去做。你會更多地為自己去做，以你擅長的方式去做，並且會堅持下去。你周圍的人會看到你的工作質量更高。但這似乎是一個難以駕馭的矛盾，因為對細節的執著關注也是你工作的一個競爭優勢。所以這兩者之間存在某種衝突。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: No one is gonna beat you at being you. Find what feels like play to you, but looks like work to others. So it looks like work to them, but to you it feels like play, it’s not work. So you’re gonna out compete them because you’re doing it effortlessly, you’re doing it for fun, they’re doing it for work, they’re doing it for some byproduct. To you, it’s art, it’s beauty, it’s joy, it’s flow, it’s fulfilling. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒有人能比你更擅長做你自己。找到對你來說像是在玩樂，但對別人看起來像是在工作的事情。對他們來說看起來像工作，但對你來說感覺像是在玩，這就不是工作。所以你會勝過他們，因為你做這件事毫不費力，是為了樂趣，他們卻是為了工作，是為了某種副產品。對你來說，這是藝術，是美，是喜悅，是流動，是充實。 You must enjoy podcasting. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be good at it. You wouldn’t have nine hundred episodes either. If you decided that the right way to get ahead in life was to go write books, nobody would have heard of you. Chris Williamson’s book would be a complete flop, that’s not who you are. You’re a podcaster. You enjoy talking to people, you enjoy interviewing them. 你一定很享受播客製作。如果不享受，你不可能做得好，也不會有九百集。如果你決定人生前進的正確方式是去寫書，沒有人會聽過你。克里斯·威廉森的書會徹底失敗，那不是你。你是個播客主持人。你喜歡與人交談，喜歡採訪他們。 The more you do things that are natural to you, the less competition you have. You escape competition through authenticity by being your own self. 你越多做那些對你來說自然的事情，你的競爭就越少。你透過真誠做自己來逃離競爭。 Productize Yourself  將自己產品化 If I had to summarize how to be successful in life in two words, I would just say productize yourself. That’s it. Just figure out what it is that you naturally do that the world might want that you can scale up and turn into a product, and it’ll eventually be effortless for you. Yes, there’s always work required, but it won’t even feel like work to you, it’ll feel like play to you, and modern society gives us that opportunity. 如果我要用兩個字來總結如何在人生中取得成功，我會說「產品化自己」。就是這樣。只要找出你天生會做、世界可能需要且你能擴大規模並將其轉化為產品的東西，最終這對你來說會變得輕而易舉。是的，總是需要付出努力，但對你來說甚至不會覺得是在工作，而會覺得像是在玩樂，現代社會給了我們這樣的機會。 Know, if you were two thousand years ago, you’re born on a farm, your choices are very limited, right, you’re going to do stuff on that farm. Now you can literally wake up and you can move to a different city, you can switch careers, you can switch jobs, you can change the people that you’re with, you know you can change so many things about who you are and who you’re with and what you’re doing that there is infinite opportunity out there for you, literally infinite. 你要知道，如果你是在兩千年前出生在農場，你的選擇非常有限，對吧，你只能在那個農場做事。現在你可以 literally 醒來後搬到不同的城市，你可以轉換職業，你可以換工作，你可以改變你身邊的人，你知道你可以改變關於你是誰、你和誰在一起以及你在做什麼的許多事情，對你來說有無限的機會，真的是無限的。 So it’s much better to treat this like a search function to find the people who need you the most, to find the work that needs you the most, to find the place you’re best suited to be at, and it’s worthwhile to spend time in that exploration before diving into exploitation. The biggest mistake in a world with so many choices is premature commitment. If you prematurely commit to being a lawyer or a doctor and now you’ve got like five years invested into that, you might have just completely missed, you might just end up in the wrong profession, wrong place, the wrong people for thirty years of your life grinding away, and yes, the best time to figure that out was before, but the second best time is now, so just change it. 因此，將這視為一種搜尋功能，去找到最需要你的人、最需要你投入的工作、以及你最適合待的地方，會好得多。在投入利用之前，花時間進行這樣的探索是值得的。在這個選擇眾多的世界裡，最大的錯誤就是過早承諾。如果你過早決定成為律師或醫生，並且已經投入了五年時間，你可能完全錯過了其他機會，可能會在錯誤的職業、錯誤的地方、與錯誤的人一起度過三十年的辛苦歲月。是的，最好的時間是在之前發現這點，但第二好的時間就是現在，所以就改變吧。 Say No By Default  預設拒絕 And also presumably kill things that aren’t working very quickly. By default, you should kill everything, you know, if you can’t decide, the answer is no, and most things you just be saying no to. Part of my keeping my calendar free is just by default saying no to everything. Do I want to create a calendar just to add your event, right, or to add your need or your desire? 同時，也應該迅速終止那些不起作用的事物。預設情況下，你應該終止一切，如果無法決定，答案就是不，大多數事情你都應該說不。我保持行事曆空閒的一部分原因，就是預設對所有事情說不。我是否想要建立一個行事曆，只是為了加入你的活動，或者加入你的需求或願望？ One of the other things about, know, early on in life you’re looking for opportunities, so you’re saying yes to everything, and that is a phase that you go through, that is the exploration phase. Later when you found the thing you want to work on, you’re in the exploitation phase, you have to say no to everything by default, and if you don’t say no to everything by default, if you have to even explicitly go out of your way to say no to something, that will take up time. 生命早期你會尋找各種機會，所以你會對所有事情說「是」，這是一個你會經歷的階段，稱為探索階段。後來當你找到想要專注的事情時，你就進入了利用階段，必須預設對所有事情說「不」，如果你不預設對所有事情說「不」，甚至必須特別花心思去拒絕某件事，那將會佔用你的時間。 For example, know there are lot of people out there who are into hustle culture, and a big piece of hustle culture is like, well you’re not going get something if you don’t ask for it, so they’ll hustle people, they’ll always be sending you requests, messages. This is a famous person problem but I have it, and people are always asking me for things and I kind of squirm when I get these messages and I’m sure you get these two text messages, emails saying, “Hey Chris, my friend so and so should really be on your podcast” or “you should come to my event,” “you should write a forward for my book,” and you kind of squirm when you get this right, and you have to figure out how to say no. 例如，現在有很多人熱衷於「拼搏文化」，而拼搏文化的一大核心就是，如果你不主動爭取，就不會得到什麼，所以他們會不斷地向人推銷，總是發送請求和訊息。這是名人常見的問題，但我也有這種困擾，人們總是向我索求各種東西，當我收到這些訊息時會感到有些不自在，我相信你也會收到這樣的簡訊或電子郵件，像是「嘿，克里斯，我的朋友某某真的應該上你的播客」或「你應該來參加我的活動」、「你應該為我的書寫序」，收到這些時你會感到不舒服，你必須學會如何說「不」。 One of the things I learned along the way is that if you wouldn’t ask somebody else to do it and then you get that request yourself, can just dismiss it, you don’t have to respond, you don’t even let it enter your brain. You have to be able to delete emails and text messages without flinching if you want to scale, and scaling is very important, scaling your time is really important. Every interruption will take you out of flow, so the only way you can remain in flow is if you get either very good at ignoring these things by default or closing yourself off like a hermit like our mutual friend Tim Ferriss does, or you just become emotionally capable of not registering these as something that causes turbulence inside of you. 我在過程中學到的一件事是，如果你不會要求別人去做某件事，而當你自己收到這樣的請求時，可以直接忽略它，你不必回應，甚至不必讓它進入你的腦海。如果你想擴大規模，你必須能夠毫不猶豫地刪除電子郵件和簡訊，擴大規模非常重要，擴大你的時間管理尤其重要。每一次打斷都會讓你脫離專注狀態，所以你唯一能保持專注的方法是，要麼習慣性地忽略這些事情，要麼像我們共同的朋友提姆·費里斯那樣，像隱士一樣封閉自己，或者你必須在情感上能夠不將這些視為會在你內心引起動盪的事物。 ALSO READ:  TD Jakes on 3 Types of Friends (Transcript) 另見：TD Jakes 談三種朋友類型（文字記錄） CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That not registering it emotionally thing, is that fundamental? That’s so fundamental to so many things in life. Can we dig into that a little bit? Is it because again, I’ve only seen you as you. Right? I didn’t know you twenty years ago. I didn’t know you as a child. So I’ve only seen you with this holistic selfishness, the integrated self prioritization, whatever we—I don’t know what we called it. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那種情感上不去註冊的感覺，是不是很根本？這對生活中很多事情來說都非常根本。我們能不能深入探討一下？是不是因為，我只見過現在的你。對吧？我二十年前不認識你，也不認識你小時候的樣子。所以我只見過你這種整體的自私，整合的自我優先，不管我們——我不知道我們怎麼稱呼它。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Selfish is fine. I’ll take selfish. I’m selfish. I’m a very selfish person. Don’t contact me. NAVAL RAVIKANT：自私沒關係。我接受自私。我很自私。我是一個非常自私的人。別聯繫我。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That emotional reaction—whatever that is. Also get the sense too that maybe people have lived obligation life for so long that they actually kinda struggle to tap into what it is that they want. They’ve hidden their wants and their desires and their needs, they deprioritized themselves so much for so long. They go, what do I want, actually? What is it? Do I want to go to this thing or not? Because all I’ve done is be puppeted. Right? I’ve been marionetted by other people’s desires for so so so long. I can’t even tap into that anymore, and saying no feels like a war crime. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那種情感反應——不管那是什麼。我也感覺到，也許人們活在責任生活中太久了，以至於他們其實很難觸及自己真正想要的是什麼。他們隱藏了自己的渴望和需求，長期以來把自己放在次要位置。他們會想，我到底想要什麼？到底是什麼？我想去這個地方嗎？還是不想？因為我所做的只是被操控。對吧？我被別人的慾望牽著走了太太太久，我甚至無法觸及自己的想法，而說「不」感覺像是犯了戰爭罪。 Observe Your Thoughts Objectively 客觀地觀察你的想法 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So I think it’s really good to be able to view your own mind and your own thoughts objectively, and that is the big benefit of meditation. It creates a small gap between your conscious observation self and your mind, and that lets you then look at your thoughts and evaluate them a little bit like you would a third party’s statements. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為能夠客觀地觀察自己的心靈和思想是非常好的，這也是冥想的一大好處。它在你的有意識的觀察自我與你的心靈之間創造了一個小小的間隙，讓你能夠像評估第三方的陳述一樣，去審視和評價自己的想法。 If you just take your mind to be you and they’re integrated in one and the same at all times and you’re reacting from the mind, then you’re not even going question things that come into your mind. Anything that comes in that creates your reaction will immediately create a reaction, but if you can observe your thoughts a little bit and not in some woo woo way, but you can even just do it through therapy, can do it through journaling, you can do it any way you’d like, you can just take long walks, don’t have to meditate and do lotus position, all that is unnecessary. 如果你只是把你的心靈當作你自己，並且它們始終融為一體，而你又是從心靈反應的，那麼你甚至不會質疑進入你心靈的事物。任何進入並引發你反應的東西都會立即產生反應，但如果你能稍微觀察你的想法，不是以某種玄學的方式，而是你甚至可以通過治療、寫日記，或者任何你喜歡的方式來做到，你也可以只是長時間散步，不必非得冥想或打坐蓮花姿勢，這些都不是必需的。 But if you can observe your own thoughts and view them a little objectively, then you can start being a little more choosy, a little more critical, and you can realize that there are no problems in the real world other than maybe things that inflict pain on your body. Everything else has to become a problem in your mind first. You have to view it and interpret it and create a narrative that it is a problem before it becomes the problem. 但如果你能觀察自己的想法，並稍微客觀地看待它們，那麼你就可以開始變得更有選擇性，更加批判，並且你會意識到，現實世界中除了可能對你的身體造成痛苦的事情外，並沒有真正的問題。其他一切必須先在你的心中成為問題。你必須先看待它、解釋它，並創造一個敘述，認為它是個問題，問題才會成為問題。 Then you realize that a lot of your emotional energy is spent on reacting to things that your mind is automatically saying are problems, and you don’t need all those problems. Do you really need that many problems in your life? Again I would say try to focus on just one overarching problem and then go solve that problem. 然後你會發現，你花了很多情緒能量去回應那些你的心靈自動認為是問題的事情，而你並不需要那麼多問題。你真的需要生活中有那麼多問題嗎？我還是會說，試著專注於一個總體的問題，然後去解決那個問題。 It’s like if you want to be successful, define success very concretely, focus on that and everything else, when it enters your mind it becomes a problem, whether it’s a judgment about the girl walking down the street or the car that just cut in front of you or whether it’s like you know this, your accountant did this stupid thing, like yes it’s going to trigger you but observe for a moment that like it’s triggering me, I’ve created a problem, do I really want to have this problem right now, do I want to spend the energy on this problem or do I want that going somewhere else? 就像如果你想要成功，就要非常具體地定義成功，專注於那個目標，其他一切當它進入你的腦海時就成為問題，無論是對街上走過的女孩的評判，還是剛剛插隊的車，或者是你知道的，你的會計做了愚蠢的事，是的，這會觸發你的情緒，但先觀察一下，這觸發了我，我創造了一個問題，我真的想現在擁有這個問題嗎？我想把精力花在這個問題上，還是想把它轉移到別處？ And it doesn’t have to be that over, you don’t have to, the mind mud wrestling with itself is also a problem. 而且不必那麼過度，你不必這樣，心靈與自己掙扎也是一種問題。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I have, my problems have got problems and I have a real problem about fixing my problems. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我有，我的問題還有問題，而我對解決我的問題有真正的問題。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, exactly, and so you just, you’re going to be much happier and much more focused, again I think happiness and focus and success can kind of complement each other. You’re going to have much more energy, just think about it as mental energy, you’re have much more mental energy to focus on the actual problems you want to solve if you don’t start unconsciously, subconsciously, reactively picking up problems everywhere. So before anything can be a problem that takes up your emotional energy, you have to accept it as a problem, you can be choosy about your problems, and I’m not saying I’m perfect in that regard, but I think I’m better than I used to be. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，沒錯，所以你會更快樂，也會更專注。我認為快樂、專注和成功是可以相輔相成的。你會有更多的能量，這裡指的是心理能量，如果你不會無意識、潛意識地、反應性地到處撿問題，你就會有更多心理能量專注於你真正想解決的問題。在任何事情成為佔用你情緒能量的問題之前，你必須先接受它是個問題，你可以挑選你的問題，我不是說我在這方面完美，但我覺得我比以前好多了。 Choose Your Problems Wisely 明智地選擇你的問題 Well, lots of people are addicted to solving problems, right, so much so that sometimes people create problems when we don’t have any, simply so that we can solve them. We have that going on, and then even worse is we take on problems that we can’t affect. 好吧，很多人都沉迷於解決問題，對吧，以至於有時候人們會在沒有問題的情況下製造問題，只是為了讓自己去解決它們。我們就是這樣，甚至更糟的是，我們還會承擔那些我們無法影響的問題。 So, you know, another one of my little quips was, you know, a rational person can sort of find peace by cultivating indifference to things that are out of their control, and I’m as guilty as anybody of doomsurfing on X or social media and getting worked up about things that I can’t do anything about, right? Like do I want to be fighting those battles in my mind when I literally cannot do anything about it? 所以，你知道，我另一個小格言是，一個理性的人可以通過培養對自己無法控制的事情的漠不關心來找到內心的平靜，而我和任何人一樣，經常在 X 或社交媒體上瀏覽災難新聞，為那些我無能為力的事情感到焦慮，對吧？我真的想在心裡打那些我根本無法改變的戰鬥嗎？ So if you find yourself looping on a problem like you’re watching the news too much and you’re getting caught up in a problem you can’t do anything about, you have to step away from that, and modern media is a delivery mechanism for mimetic viruses, and what’s happened now is you know, one hundred years ago, five hundred years ago, if something wasn’t happening in your immediate vicinity, you wouldn’t hear about it. It wouldn’t be a problem for you, but now every single one of the world’s problems has turned into a mimetic virus, which is going into the battlefield of the news and is trying to infect your mind in real time. Hyper speed. 所以如果你發現自己在一個問題上不斷循環，就像你看新聞看太多，陷入一個你無法改變的問題中，你必須從中抽身，而現代媒體是一種模仿病毒的傳播機制，現在的情況是，你知道，一百年前、五百年前，如果某件事不在你身邊發生，你根本不會聽說，那對你來說也不是問題，但現在世界上的每一個問題都變成了一種模仿病毒，進入新聞戰場，試圖以超高速即時感染你的心智。 So that, yeah, so that you become obsessed with the war in Ukraine, is really far away, or you get obsessed with climate change or you get obsessed with AI doom or you get obsessed with whatever, and there’s nothing as riveting as the old religion, the world is ending, the world is ending, pay attention, the world is ending. 所以，對，你會變得對烏克蘭戰爭著迷，而那離你非常遙遠，或者你會對氣候變遷著迷，或者你會對人工智慧末日著迷，或者你會對任何事情著迷，而沒有什麼比舊宗教更吸引人了，那就是世界末日，世界末日，注意看，世界末日。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Cassandra Complex at global scale. 克里斯·威廉森：全球規模的卡珊德拉情結。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Cassandra Complex at global scale and I would argue that large percentages of population are essentially just infected with these mimetic viruses that have taken over their brain and are causing them to do incredible gyration about things that probably aren’t even true or are greatly exaggerated, but even to the extent they are true, are things that that person can do nothing about and they should put their own house in order first. NAVAL RAVIKANT：全球規模的卡珊德拉情結，我認為大部分人口基本上都被這些模仿病毒感染，這些病毒佔據了他們的大腦，導致他們對可能根本不真實或被大幅誇大的事情做出難以置信的扭曲反應，但即使這些事情是真的，對那個人來說也是無能為力的，他們應該先整理好自己的家務事。 So you know another little line I have for myself is your family is broken but you’re going to fix the world, right? People are running out there to try and fix the world and their own lives are a— 所以你知道我對自己說的另一句話是，你的家庭已經破碎，但你卻想去改變世界，對吧？人們跑出去試圖改變世界，而他們自己的生活卻是一團糟—— CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Oh my god. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：天啊。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right, and I think it defies credibility if you can’t fix your own life first. I’m not going to take you seriously if you can’t fix your own life, like all these philosophers who you know seem like people you emulate and so smart or like these brilliant celebrities and they go off and commit suicide, well you just kind of invalidated your whole way of life. It’s like that line of in No Country for Old Men where the killer is waiting for the protagonist and protagonist shows up and the killer says, “Well you know if your set of rules brought you here, then what good are your rules?” Didn’t work. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，我認為如果你連自己的生活都無法改善，那就很難讓人相信你。我不會認真看待你，如果你無法改善自己的生活，就像那些你崇拜、看起來很聰明的哲學家，或者那些聰明的名人，他們最後選擇自殺，那你整個生活方式就被否定了。這就像《老無所依》裡的那句台詞，殺手在等主角，主角出現後殺手說：「如果你的規則把你帶到這裡，那你的規則有什麼用？」結果規則沒用。 I am self, I’m holistically selfish in that I want to be objectively successful in everything I set out to want. 我是自我中心的，我是全面性的自私，因為我想在我設定的所有目標中都能客觀地成功。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Mhmm.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：嗯嗯。 Don’t Settle for Mediocrity 不要滿足於平庸。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, and you have one life, don’t settle for mediocrity. Don’t settle for mediocrity, and I think the only, like, people debate intelligence for example, right? We talk about IQ tests and all that, but I think the only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life, and there are two parts to that. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，你只有一次生命，不要滿足於平庸。不要滿足於平庸，我認為唯一的，比如說，人們會爭論智力，對吧？我們談論智商測試等等，但我認為智力的唯一真正考驗是你是否能從生活中得到你想要的東西，而這有兩個部分。 One is getting what you want, so you know how to get it, and the second is wanting the right things, knowing what to want in the first place. I could want to be a, you know, six foot eight basketball player, and I’m not going to get that, so it’s wanting the wrong thing. 一是得到你想要的東西，也就是你知道如何去獲得它；第二是想要正確的東西，首先知道該想要什麼。我可能想成為一個身高六英尺八寸的籃球運動員，但我不會達到那個目標，所以這就是想錯了東西。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s wanting something that you can’t get. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那就是想要你得不到的東西。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s wanting something you can’t get. There’s also wanting something that you don’t want. NAVAL RAVIKANT：那就是想要你得不到的東西。還有一種情況是想要你其實不想要的東西。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, wanting something that’s a booby prize. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，想要的東西卻像是個安慰獎。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: There are plenty of booby prizes out there too, right? I don’t know if that won, don’t know if won in about twenty or so. Yeah, prizes that are just not worth having, or that create their own problems. But if you’re not careful, you can end up in a place in life not only that you don’t want to be, but one that you didn’t even mean to get to. NAVAL RAVIKANT：外面也有很多安慰獎，對吧？我不知道那是不是贏了，不知道大約二十個左右是不是贏了。是的，有些獎根本不值得擁有，或者會帶來自己的問題。但如果你不小心，你可能會在人生中到達一個不僅你不想去的地方，甚至是你根本沒打算去的地方。 Navigating Life’s Decisions 掌舵人生的抉擇 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s if you’re kind of proceeding unconsciously. And usually I think people end up there because they are going on autopilot with sort of societal expectations or other people’s expectations, or out of guilt or out of mimetic desire. Peter Thiel has this whole thing from Renee Gerard about how mimetic desires are desires picked up from other people, and some of those are automatically baked into society like go to law school, go to med school, go to business school. Or they might be from watching what your friends are doing and what the other monkeys are doing, or it might be what your parents’ expectations are. NAVAL RAVIKANT：那是當你無意識地前進時的情況。通常我認為人們會走到那裡，是因為他們在自動駕駛模式下，遵循社會期望或他人的期望，或者出於內疚，或出於模仿慾望。彼得·蒂爾引用了 Renee Gerard 的觀點，模仿慾望是從他人那裡獲取的慾望，其中一些是自動融入社會的，比如去讀法學院、醫學院、商學院。或者可能是看著你的朋友在做什麼，其他猴子在做什麼，或者是你父母的期望。 Guilt is just society’s voice speaking in your head, socially programmed so you’ll be a good little monkey and do things that are good for the tribe. But I think the best outcomes come when you think it through for yourself and decide for yourself, and I don’t think people spend enough time deciding. 罪惡感只是社會的聲音在你腦海中說話，是社會編程讓你成為一隻乖巧的小猴子，做對部落有益的事情。但我認為最好的結果是當你自己思考並自己決定時，而我覺得人們並沒有花足夠的時間去做決定。 For example, we run on these four-year cycles. In Silicon Valley, you go join a startup, you vest your stock over four years, that’s the standard. In college, you go for four years, high school you go for four years. Some things take longer – you have children, they hit puberty nine years later, that’s like a nine-year cycle until that relationship changes. But we’re used to these fairly long cycles, multi-year cycles, in which we are committed to things. You go to law school, four or five year cycle. You go be a lawyer, forty year cycle. 例如，我們運行在這些四年週期中。在矽谷，你會加入一家新創公司，你的股票會在四年內逐步歸屬，這是標準。在大學，你讀四年，高中你也讀四年。有些事情需要更長時間——你有了孩子，他們九年後進入青春期，那就像是一個九年的週期，直到那段關係改變。但我們習慣了這些相當長的週期，多年週期，在這期間我們對事情有所承諾。你去讀法學院，四到五年的週期。你成為律師，四十年的週期。 These are very long cycles. The amount of time we spend deciding what to do and who to do it with is very short, very, very short. We spend three months deciding, one month deciding on a job where we’re going to be for ten years or five years. And because a lot of discovery is path dependent, where the next thing you find on the path is dependent on where you were on the previous path, you sort of start going down this vector that is a very long distance. 這些是非常長的週期。我們花在決定要做什麼以及和誰一起做的時間非常短，非常非常短。我們花三個月決定，一個月決定一份我們將待十年或五年的工作。因為很多發現是路徑依賴的，下一個你在路上發現的東西取決於你之前所在的路徑，你會開始沿著一個非常長距離的向量前進。 People decide frivolously which city to live in, and that’s going to decide who their friends are, what their jobs are, their opportunity, their weather, their food supply, their air supply, quality of life. It’s such an important decision but people spend so little time thinking it through. I would argue that if you’re making a four-year decision, spend a year thinking it through, like really thinking it through. Twenty-five percent of the time. 人們輕率地決定住在哪個城市，而這將決定他們的朋友是誰、他們的工作、機會、天氣、食物供應、空氣供應、生活品質。這是一個非常重要的決定，但人們花在思考上的時間卻非常少。我會說，如果你要做一個四年的決定，花一年時間認真思考，真的認真思考。花百分之二十五的時間。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, exactly, there’s the secretary theorem. Don’t know if you know that one? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，沒錯，有個秘書定理。不知道你是否聽過？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Is that after you’ve done this many people, pick the best one of the next however many? NAVAL RAVIKANT：那是在你面試了這麼多人之後，從接下來的幾個人中選出最好的那個？ CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s right. Yeah. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：沒錯。是的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: The secretary theorem is this computer science professor trying to figure out how much time he should spend interviewing secretaries and then how long to keep the secretary. So, let’s say he’s going to have a secretary for ten years, does he keep searching for one year, two years, three years, one month, two months, what is the optimal time? NAVAL RAVIKANT：秘書定理是這樣一位計算機科學教授試圖弄清楚他應該花多少時間面試秘書，然後應該留用秘書多久。比方說，他打算有一個秘書工作十年，他應該找秘書找一年、兩年、三年、一個月、兩個月，什麼才是最佳時間？ And it turns out that the optimal time is somewhere around a third. About a third of the way through, you take the best person you’ve worked with and try to find someone that good or better. So by the time you’ve gone about a third of the way through, you have seen enough that you now have a sense of what the bar is, and then anybody who meets or exceeds that bar is good enough. This applies to dating, this applies to jobs and careers, this applies generally. 結果發現最佳時間大約是三分之一左右。大約在三分之一的過程中，你會選擇你遇過的最好的人，然後嘗試找到一個同樣好或更好的人。所以當你走過大約三分之一的過程時，你已經看過足夠多的人，對標準有了感覺，然後任何達到或超過這個標準的人都足夠好了。這個理論適用於約會、工作和職業，普遍適用。 But the interesting thing about the secretary theorem is that it’s actually not time based. It’s not based on one third of the time, it’s iteration based. 但秘書定理有趣的地方在於，它其實不是基於時間的，不是基於三分之一的時間，而是基於迭代次數。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The number of candidates. The number of shots you took on goal. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：候選人的數量。你射門的次數。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. So, you want to have lots and lots of iterations. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。所以，你需要進行大量的反覆嘗試。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: So in that sense you need to bail out quickly, and you need to be decisive quickly. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：所以從這個角度來看，你需要快速退出，並且迅速果斷。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. You need to take opportunities quickly, and bail out quickly. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。你需要迅速抓住機會，並且快速退出。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Like, if you go back and you look through failed relationships, probably the biggest regret will be staying in the relationship after your year was over. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：比如說，如果你回頭看看那些失敗的感情，最大的遺憾可能就是在那段關係該結束的時候還繼續維持下去。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly, you should have left sooner. The moment you knew it wasn’t going to work out, you should have moved on. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，你應該更早離開。當你知道這段關係不會有結果的那一刻，你就該往前走。 Iterations vs. Repetitions 迭代與重複 So in that sense, I think Malcolm Gladwell popularized this idea of ten thousand hours to mastery. I would say it’s actually ten thousand iterations to mastery. 從這個角度來看，我認為馬爾科姆·格拉德威爾普及了「一萬小時達到精通」的觀念。但我會說，實際上是「一萬次迭代達到精通」。 It’s not actually ten thousand, it’s some unknown number, but it’s about the number of iterations that drive the learning curve, and iteration is not repetition. Repetition is a different thing. Repeating is doing the same thing over and over. Iteration is modifying it with learning and then doing another version of it. So that’s error correction. So if you get ten thousand error corrections in anything, you will be an expert at it. 其實並不是一萬次，而是一個未知的數字，但大約是推動學習曲線的迭代次數，而迭代並非重複。重複是另一回事，重複是一次又一次地做同樣的事情。迭代則是在學習後進行修改，然後做出另一個版本。這就是錯誤修正。所以如果你在任何事情上進行了一萬次錯誤修正，你就會成為該領域的專家。 Overcoming Cynicism and Pessimism 克服憤世嫉俗與悲觀主義 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Don’t partner with cynics and pessimists. You mentioned there about the people who’ve got a nightmare going on at home and are trying to fix the world, but a lot of the time that cynicism and pessimism we find in ourselves. We see the world whether it’s because we’ve imbibed what the news or the negative people around us have said, or it’s a bit more endogenous than that. It’s just sort of in us. It’s the way that we see the world. How can people avoid cynicism and pessimism within themselves? 克里斯·威廉森：不要與憤世嫉俗者和悲觀主義者合作。你提到那些家裡有一團亂麻，卻試圖改變世界的人，但很多時候，我們在自己身上也會發現這種憤世嫉俗和悲觀。我們看待世界，無論是因為我們吸收了新聞或周圍負面人的言論，還是這種情緒更內生於我們自身，這就是我們看待世界的方式。人們如何避免內心的憤世嫉俗和悲觀呢？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Cynicism and pessimism is a tough one. We’re naturally hardwired for it. Again, I go back to evolution, I’m sorry to keep harping on evolution, but within biology there’s very few good explanatory theories and theory of evolution by natural selection is probably the best one. So if you can’t explain something about life or psychology or human nature through evolution, then you probably don’t have a good theory for it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：憤世嫉俗和悲觀主義是很難克服的。我們天生就有這種傾向。我還是要回到進化論，抱歉一直強調進化論，但在生物學中，很少有好的解釋理論，而自然選擇的進化論可能是最好的理論。所以如果你無法通過進化來解釋生命、心理學或人性的一些現象，那麼你可能沒有一個好的理論來解釋它。 I would say that pessimism is another one that comes out of this, which is in the natural environment, you’re hardwired to be pessimistic because let’s say that I see something rustling in the woods. If I move towards it and it turns out to be food and prey, then good, I get to eat one meal. But if it turns out to be a predator, I get eaten, and that’s the end of that. So we are hardwired to avoid ruin and just dying, so we are naturally hardwired to be pessimists. 我會說悲觀主義也是由此而來的，在自然環境中，你天生就被設計成悲觀的。比方說，我看到樹林裡有東西在沙沙作響。如果我走過去，結果是食物和獵物，那很好，我可以吃一頓飯。但如果結果是掠食者，那我就會被吃掉，事情就結束了。所以我們天生就被設計成避免毀滅和死亡，因此我們自然地傾向於悲觀。 But modern society is very different. Despite whatever problems you may have with modern society, it is far far safer than living in the jungle and just trying to survive, and the opportunities and the upside are non-linear. 但現代社會非常不同。儘管你可能對現代社會有各種問題，但它比在叢林中掙扎求生要安全得多，而且機會和上升空間是非線性的。 For example, when you’re investing, if you short a stock, the most money you can make is 2x – if the stock goes to zero, you double your money. But if the stock is the next Nvidia and it goes 100x or 1000x, you make a lot of money. So upside through leverage is nearly unlimited. 例如，當你在投資時，如果你做空一支股票，你能賺到的最多錢是兩倍——如果該股票跌到零，你的錢就翻倍了。但如果該股票是下一個 Nvidia，漲了 100 倍或 1000 倍，你就能賺很多錢。所以通過槓桿獲得的上行空間幾乎是無限的。 Also in modern society because there’s so many different people you can interact with, if you go on a date and it fails, there are infinite more people to go on a date with. In a tribal system there might have been twenty people and you can’t even get through all of them. So modern society is far more forgiving of failure and you just have to neocortically realize and override that. You have to realize that you’re much more running a search function to find the thing that’ll work and then that one thing will pay off in massive compounding. 同時在現代社會，由於你可以與許多不同的人互動，如果你去約會但失敗了，還有無限多的人可以約。在部落制度中，可能只有二十個人，你甚至無法和他們全部約會。所以現代社會對失敗更寬容，你只需要用新皮質去意識並覆蓋這一點。你必須意識到，你更像是在運行一個搜尋功能，去找到那個有效的東西，而那一個東西將帶來巨大的複利回報。 Once you find your mate for the rest of your life, you find your wife or your husband, then you can compound in that relationship. It’s okay if you had fifty failed dates in between. The same way once you find the one business you’re meant to plow into and it’ll compound returns, it’s okay if you had fifty small failed ventures or fifty small failed job interviews. The number of failures doesn’t matter, and so there’s no point in being a pessimist. 一旦你找到你生命中的伴侶，找到你的妻子或丈夫，你就能在這段關係中複利增長。即使你中間經歷了五十次失敗的約會也沒關係。同樣地，一旦你找到那個你注定要全力投入的事業，並且它會帶來複利回報，即使你曾經有五十次小型失敗的創業或五十次小型失敗的面試也沒關係。失敗的次數並不重要，所以沒有必要成為悲觀主義者。 I would say you want to be skeptical about specific things. Every specific opportunity is probably a fail, but you want to be optimistic in the general. 我會說你應該對具體的事情保持懷疑。每一個具體的機會很可能都是失敗的，但你應該對整體保持樂觀。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How do you navigate that tension? 克里斯·威廉森：你如何在這種矛盾中找到平衡？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I mean exactly as I said, I’m optimistic in the general that if something fails right now, then this is a little woo-woo, but it wasn’t meant to be, it was a learning experience, it was an iteration. As long as I learned something from it then it’s a win. If I didn’t learn from it then it’s a loss, but as long as you’re learning and you keep iterating fast and cutting your losses quickly, then when you find the right thing, you have to be optimistic and compound into it. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：我的意思正如我所說，我對整體保持樂觀，如果某件事現在失敗了，這聽起來有點玄，但那不是命中注定的，那是一個學習經驗，是一次迭代。只要我從中學到了東西，那就是勝利。如果我沒有學到，那就是失敗，但只要你在學習，並且持續快速迭代，迅速止損，那麼當你找到正確的方向時，你必須保持樂觀並持續投入。 So you don’t want to jump into the first thing, you don’t want to marry the first person you date necessarily unless you got very lucky, but you want to investigate and explore very, very quickly until you find the match, and then you have to be willing to go all in. You have to be willing to move your chips to the center of the table, so both those approaches are required. 所以你不想一開始就跳進去，你不一定要和你約會的第一個人結婚，除非你非常幸運，但你想要非常非常快地調查和探索，直到找到合適的人，然後你必須願意全心投入。你必須願意把籌碼推到桌子中央，所以這兩種方法都是必須的。 Beyond Labels and Identity 超越標籤與身份認同 It’s a barbell strategy, it’s sort of black or white, and most people are sort of stuck in this gray bit, like “I’m half in, but I kind of don’t really know if I am.” 這是一種槓鈴策略，有點像非黑即白，而大多數人都卡在灰色地帶，像是「我半心半意，但又不太確定自己是否真的投入」。 Also think like labels like pessimists, optimists, cynic, introvert, extrovert – these are very self-limiting. Humans are very dynamic. There are times when you feel like being introverted, there are times when you feel like being extroverted, there are contexts in which you’ll be pessimistic, are contexts in which you’ll be optimistic. 也要想想像悲觀主義者、樂觀主義者、憤世嫉俗者、內向者、外向者這些標籤——這些都非常限制自己。人類是非常有動態的。有時你會想要內向，有時你會想要外向，有些情境下你會悲觀，有些情境下你會樂觀。 Leave all those labels alone. It’s better just to look at the problem at hand, look at reality the way it is, try to take yourself out of the equation in a sense. Like obviously you’re involved, but motivated reasoning is the worst kind of reasoning. You’re not going to find truth through highly motivated reasoning. You have to be objective, and objective means trying to take yourself out of it as much as possible or at least your personality out of it as much as possible. 不要理會那些標籤。最好是直接看眼前的問題，客觀看待現實，試著在某種程度上將自己排除在外。當然，你是參與其中的，但有動機的推理是最糟糕的推理方式。你不可能通過高度有動機的推理找到真相。你必須保持客觀，而客觀意味著盡可能將自己，至少是你的個性，排除在外。 To the extent you run with this thick identity and personality, it’s going to cloud your judgment, it’s going to try and lock you into the past. If you say “I’m a depressed person,” yeah, you’re going to be unhappy. That’s a way of locking yourself into your past. Even saying “I have trauma, I have PTSD” – yeah, you feel something, there are memories, there are flashes, there are occasional bad feelings, but don’t define yourself by it because then you’ll lock it into your identity and just going to loop on it. 如果你堅持帶著這種強烈的身份認同和個性，這會模糊你的判斷，會試圖將你鎖定在過去。如果你說「我是個憂鬱症患者」，是的，你會感到不快樂。這是一種將自己鎖定在過去的方式。即使說「我有創傷，我有創傷後壓力症候群（PTSD）」——是的，你會感受到一些東西，有記憶，有閃回，有偶爾的不適感，但不要用這些來定義自己，因為那樣你會將它們鎖定在你的身份中，然後不斷地陷入其中。 It’s better to stay flexible because reality is always changing and you have to be able to adapt to it. Adaptation is also intelligence, adaptation is survival. Adaptation is kind of how you’re here. You’re here because you’re an adapter and your ancestors were adapters. So to adapt, you’ll see things clearly, and if you’re seeing them through your own identity, it’s going to cloud your judgment. 保持彈性比較好，因為現實總是在變化，你必須能夠適應它。適應也是一種智慧，適應就是生存。適應某種程度上就是你存在的原因。你之所以在這裡，是因為你是個適應者，你的祖先也是適應者。所以要適應，你會看得很清楚，但如果你是透過自己的身份來看事情，這會影響你的判斷。 Defining Happiness  定義幸福 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Moving on to sort of thinking about happiness, obviously, a topic of yours. It’s honestly the one that I feel least qualified to talk about. Is it like a guy that’s got long arms teaching you how to bench press, or a dude that’s really tall teaching you how to dead lift, someone that feels like they came from behind the eight ball? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：接著談談幸福，顯然這是你的話題。老實說，這是我覺得自己最不具資格談論的主題。這就像一個手臂很長的人教你如何臥推，或者一個很高的人教你如何硬舉，感覺像是從劣勢中逆轉過來的人嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, it’s you’re asking a crazy person about their thoughts, so I just thought it through. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，你是在問一個瘋子他的想法，所以我只是仔細思考了一下。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is happiness still more about peace than it is about joy? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：幸福是否仍然更多關乎內心的平靜，而非喜悅？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s just one of those overloaded words that means different things to different people, so I’m not even sure we’re communicating the same language. But what is happiness? I think it’s just basically being okay with where you are. Not wanting. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這只是其中一個被過度使用的詞彙，對不同的人有不同的意義，所以我甚至不確定我們是否在用同一種語言交流。但什麼是幸福？我認為基本上就是對你所處的狀態感到滿意。不再渴求。 The Nature of Happiness  幸福的本質 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Not wanting things to be different than the way they are. Not having the sense that anything is missing in this moment. Needing something to change your current positive situation being contingent on an adjustment. I’m getting something from the outside world. Ironically, I think most people, if you were to ask them when they were happiest for a sustained period of time, not for a brief moment, because pleasure can override happiness and create kind of this illusion of happiness. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不希望事情與現狀有所不同。不覺得此刻缺少什麼。需要某種改變來調整你當前的積極狀態。我從外在世界獲取某些東西。具有諷刺意味的是，我認為大多數人，如果你問他們何時曾經長時間感到快樂，而不是短暫的瞬間，因為快樂可以凌駕於幸福之上，並創造一種幸福的幻覺。 But if you ask people when they were happy for a sustained period of time, they were probably doing some variation of nothing. 但如果你問人們何時曾長時間感到快樂，他們大概是在做某種形式的無所事事。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s interesting, because in the chase is this sort of lack, this contingency, but then you get bored. If you just sit around all the time, you get bored, so you want adventure, you want surprise, like there’s the funny thought experiment of the bliss machine, which is suppose I could drill a hole in your head and put electrode in, and they did this with monkeys, and I can put a wire in there, and I can stimulate just the right part of your brain, and I can put you in bliss, and you would just be in bliss, would you would you want that? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這很有趣，因為在追求的過程中會有一種缺失感，一種不確定性，但接著你又會感到無聊。如果你一直閒著不動，你會感到無聊，所以你想要冒險，你想要驚喜，就像有個有趣的思想實驗叫做幸福機器，假設我可以在你頭上鑽個洞，放入電極，他們曾經對猴子做過這個實驗，我可以把一根線插進去，刺激你大腦的某個特定部位，讓你處於幸福狀態，你會一直處於幸福狀態，你會想要這樣嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Might be nice. For how long? NAVAL RAVIKANT：可能不錯。能持續多久？ CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Do it and I’ll tell you. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：做了你就知道了。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right. So most people will say, well I don’t want that, I want meaning, I don’t want just bliss, want meaning, and you’re like, okay, well I’ll put an electrode in there and I’ll give you meaning, how about that? And if you kind of run this thought experiment long enough, I think most people realize, actually, what I want is I want surprise. I want the world to surprise me, and I want to wrestle with it in ways that are somewhat predictable but somewhat not, and you kind of end up back where you started. NAVAL RAVIKANT：對。大多數人會說，我不想要那個，我想要意義，我不只想要幸福，我想要意義，你會說，好吧，那我就給你插電極，給你意義，怎麼樣？如果你把這個思想實驗做久一點，我想大多數人會意識到，實際上，我想要的是驚喜。我想要世界給我驚喜，我想以某種既可預測又不可預測的方式與它搏鬥，最後你會回到你一開始的地方。 So, I don’t know if necessarily, for some people, pure happiness is the ultimate goal. They want to, you know, just be blissfully happy wherever they are, whenever they are, but I think other people, most people would say, well I’m here in this world, I’m here in this life, I don’t understand it or why, but I want to be engaged, I want to be surprised, I want to do things, I want to accomplish things, I want to want things and then get them. Right? That’s kind of the whole game that we’re all playing here. 所以，我不確定對某些人來說，純粹的快樂是否一定是最終目標。他們想要的，是無論身處何地、何時，都能幸福快樂，但我認為其他人，大多數人會說，我來到這個世界，來到這一生，我不明白為什麼，但我想要參與其中，我想要驚喜，我想做事情，我想完成事情，我想渴望某些東西，然後得到它們。對吧？這大概就是我們大家都在玩的整個遊戲。 The Value of Surprise  驚喜的價值 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Surprise is a really interesting, the sort of unpredictability, I think total bro science here, but I’m pretty sure that that’s kind of how dopamine works, that things are a bit better than you expected. That within that it means that if you for the perennial insecure overachievers that cloy for control, that really want to be able to the schedule is perfectly done and we know the itinerary, we know where we’re going to be at this time, you’re, in some ways, I guess, reducing down the capacity for surprise because everything has become very contrived, prescribed, done in advance, laid out. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：驚喜是一件非常有趣的事，那種不可預測性，我覺得這完全是兄弟科學，但我很確定多巴胺就是這樣運作的，事情比你預期的要好一點。在這之中，對於那些永遠不安、過度追求成就、渴望掌控一切的人來說，他們真的想要行程完美無缺，我們知道行程安排，我們知道我們會在什麼時間在哪裡，從某種程度上，我想，你是在減少驚喜的可能性，因為一切都變得非常刻意、規定、事先安排、鋪排好了。 Your ability to be surprised actually diminishes. 你被驚喜的能力其實會減弱。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, if nothing worked out the way you expected, if it was all serendipity and you didn’t want that, you would just be a ball of anxiety. On the other hand, if everything worked out as you expected and wanted, you’d be so bored you might as well be dead. So there’s some, you know, the river of life kind of flows between these two banks and enjoy it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，如果事情完全沒有如你所預期的那樣發展，如果一切都是偶然的，而你又不想要這樣，那你就會變成一團焦慮。另一方面，如果一切都如你所期望和想要的那樣順利，你會感到無比無聊，甚至不如死了算了。所以，生命之河就在這兩岸之間流淌，享受其中吧。 Self-Reflection and Unhappiness 自我反思與不快樂 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You say thinking about yourself is the source of all unhappiness, but presumably you need to work on yourself and your weaknesses as well. So some degree of reflection is important, and if thinking about yourself as a source of unhappiness, is this a price that you need to pay? I need to sort of reflect inward. I’m going to have to diminish this level of happiness for a little while, and then I can use this new level, I’ve got my brown belt on and I can go out into the world as a brown belt. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你說思考自己是所有不快樂的根源，但顯然你也需要努力改進自己和自己的弱點。所以某種程度的反思是重要的，如果把思考自己視為不快樂的來源，這是否是你必須付出的代價？我需要向內反省。我得暫時降低這種幸福感，然後我可以利用這個新的層次，我已經戴上了棕帶，然後我可以以棕帶的身份走向世界。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: What I’m specifically referring to that is, if you’re thinking about your personality and your ego and the character of you, and you’re obsessing over that, that’s where a lot of depression and unhappiness sort of lingers and gets cultivated. So thinking about woe is me, this happened to me, that happened to me, I have this personality, I have this issue, I deserve this, I didn’t get that, that’s you’re just strengthening a little beast in there that is insatiable, and that’s where I think a lot of unhappiness comes from. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我特別指的是，如果你一直在思考你的個性、自我和你的性格，並且對此過度執著，那就是許多憂鬱和不快樂滋生和持續存在的地方。所以，當你一直在想「哀我命薄，這件事發生在我身上，那件事發生在我身上，我有這樣的個性，我有這樣的問題，我應得這個，我沒得到那個」，你只是在強化內心那個永不滿足的小怪獸，而我認為很多不快樂就是從那裡來的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What’s the beast? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那個怪獸是什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s the ego, but that word is so overused that I kind of hate to use the word, but it’s like a recurring collection of thoughts that are very self obsessed and will never be satisfied, and very concretized as well, so they’re not malleable, not particularly flexible. But you’re just adding to them by thinking about them all the time, you’re creating narratives and stories and identities, but that’s different from solving personal problems. NAVAL RAVIKANT：那是自我，但這個詞被用得太濫了，我有點不喜歡用這個詞，但它就像是一連串反覆出現的想法，非常自我中心，永遠不會感到滿足，而且非常固化，不易改變，也不太有彈性。但你一直思考它們，只是在不斷增加它們，你在創造敘事、故事和身份認同，但這和解決個人問題是不同的。 So if you encounter something, you learn from something, you’re reflecting upon the learning, then you can reflect upon it, absorb it and then just move on, but sitting there saying I’m Chris, I’m Naval, I deserve this, this happened to me, that person wronged me, this is who I am, this shouldn’t have happened, I need to go get revenge on this, I need to fix that or change this, I mean that I think is where a lot of mental illness is from. 所以如果你遇到什麼事情，從中學習，反思所學，那麼你可以反思它、吸收它，然後繼續前進，但如果你只是坐在那裡說我是克里斯，我是納瓦爾，我應得這個，這件事發生在我身上，那個人冤枉了我，這就是我，我不該遇到這種事，我需要去報復，我需要修正那個或改變這個，我認為很多心理疾病就是從這裡來的。 So it depends if you are thinking about something to solve a problem and get it off your chest, and get it off your mind. If it leaves your mind clearer at the end of it, then I think it was worthwhile. If it leaves your mind busier at the end of it, then you’re probably going in wrong. 所以這取決於你是否在思考某件事以解決問題，並將它從心頭釋放出去。如果最後你的心境變得更清明，那我認為這是值得的。如果最後你的心境變得更混亂，那你可能走錯方向了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is this a justification for detachment, cultivated ignorance, distraction? 克里斯·威廉森：這是否是在為超然、刻意無知、分心找藉口？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Detachment is not a goal, detachment is a byproduct. It’s just a byproduct of just realizing, you know, what matters and what doesn’t, and just for one moment on the self thing, I think everybody craves thinking about something more than themselves. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：超然不是目標，超然是一種副產品。它只是意識到什麼重要、什麼不重要的副產品。關於自我這點，我認為每個人都渴望思考一些比自己更重要的事情。 If you want to be happy to some extent, you have to forget about your personal problems, and one way to do that is take on other problems, bigger problems, and that could be a mission, that could be spirituality, that could be kids, it could be caring about the planet, although I think people take that a little far, and then they get kind of oppressive and tyrannical and supportive abstract concepts, but so these can be taken too far, just like religion, for example, just like anything in excess. 如果你想在某種程度上感到快樂，你必須忘記個人的問題，而做到這一點的一種方法是承擔其他問題，更大的問題，那可能是一個使命，可能是靈性，可能是孩子，也可能是關心地球，儘管我認為人們有時會走得太遠，然後變得有點壓迫性和專制，支持抽象的概念，但這些也可能被過度推崇，就像宗教一樣，比如說，任何事物過猶不及。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, anything in excess, right? CHRIS WILLIAMSON: 是啊，任何事物過猶不及，對吧？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: But generally, the less you think about yourself, the more you can think about a mission, or about God, or about a child, or something like that. NAVAL RAVIKANT: 但通常，你越少思考自己，就越能思考使命、上帝、孩子或類似的東西。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: So, I remember Vinny Himath, the founder of Loom, said, I am rich, and I have no idea to do what to do with my life, and you replied, God, kids, on mission, pick at least one. CHRIS WILLIAMSON: 我記得 Loom 的創辦人 Vinny Himath 說過，我很富有，但不知道該怎麼過我的人生，而你的回應是，上帝、孩子、使命，至少選一個。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. Preferably all three. It’s very liberating. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。最好三者兼具。這非常令人解放。 Overthinking and Depression 過度思考與憂鬱症 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think overthinking about yourself is probably the—it may not be the cause of depression, but it certainly doesn’t help. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為過度思考自己可能不是憂鬱症的原因，但肯定無助於改善。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Rumination. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：反芻思維。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. I kind of had a self induced Stockholm Syndrome from this sort of a thing, because I like to think about stuff, and you provide yourself with an endless number of things to think about. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。我有點像是自我誘發的斯德哥爾摩症候群，因為我喜歡思考事情，而你會給自己無盡的思考題目。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: So you’re kind of the prisoner and the prison guard at the same time. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：所以你同時是囚犯和獄卒。 And I had Abigail Schrier on the show, she wrote this book called Bad Therapy, sort of pushing back against therapy culture for kids, specifically for kids, but there was a blast radius that covered pretty much everything, including kind of CBT, and I’m like, we’re getting perilously close to some really evidence based stuff here, but the more that I’ve thought about it, and the more that I’ve looked at the evidence, there is like basically a direct correlation between how much you think about yourself and how miserable you are. 我曾邀請 Abigail Schrier 上節目，她寫了一本書叫《壞治療》，主要是針對兒童的治療文化提出反思，特別是針對兒童，但其影響範圍幾乎涵蓋所有，包括認知行為療法（CBT），我覺得我們正危險地接近一些真正有證據支持的東西，但我越想越覺得，越看證據，基本上你思考自己越多，你就越痛苦，兩者之間有直接的相關性。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Therapy is great if it lets you vent and it solves the thing, and then a session later you’re done, you’re clear. But if you’re just looping on the same thing forever, then it’s actually the opposite. You’re bathing in it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：治療很好，如果它讓你宣洩情緒並解決問題，然後下一次療程你就結束了，心情清明。但如果你只是無限循環同一件事，那反而是相反的，你是在浸泡在痛苦中。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You’re indulging in it. Yeah. How have your “become happy” techniques developed over time? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你正在沉溺其中。是的。你的「變得快樂」技巧隨著時間如何發展？ Happiness Without Techniques 無需技巧的快樂 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. I used to have a lot of them. Now I kind of try not to have any because I think the techniques themselves are kind of a struggle. It’s sort of like bidding for status implies you’re low status, it reveals that you’re low status, so someone who’s basically trying to show off, comes across as low status, the same way someone who’s trying to be happy is sort of saying I’m unhappy and creating that frame, so it’s better just to not even think in terms of happiness. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我以前有很多技巧。現在我盡量不使用任何技巧，因為我認為技巧本身就是一種掙扎。這有點像爭取地位意味著你地位低，這暴露了你地位低，所以一個基本上想炫耀的人，反而顯得地位低，就像一個試圖快樂的人，某種程度上是在說我不快樂，並創造了這樣的框架，所以最好根本不要用快樂來思考。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Position yourself as being in lack in order to attain. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：將自己定位為缺乏狀態以求得獲得。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. I don’t even think in terms of happiness, unhappiness anymore. I just kind of just do my thing. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。我甚至不再以快樂或不快樂來思考。我只是做我自己的事。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Again, another question that’s similar to a bunch of them. Do you think you could have got there had you have not done the procedural systematic sort of step by step by step, this is what it is, and then come out the other side? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：又是一個類似之前很多問題的問題。你覺得如果你沒有按照那種程序化、系統化、一步一步來的方式，然後走到另一端，你還能達到那個境界嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I don’t think there are any formulas, I think it’s unique to each person. It’s like asking a successful person, how did you become successful? Each one of them will give you a different story, you can’t follow anyone else’s path, and most of them are even probably telling you some narratized version of it that isn’t quite true. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我不認為有任何公式，我覺得這對每個人來說都是獨特的。這就像問一個成功人士，你是怎麼成功的？他們每個人都會給你不同的故事，你無法跟隨別人的路徑，而且他們大多數人甚至可能在講述一個經過敘事加工、不完全真實的版本。 I mean, that’s something that I continually realize, especially as I get to spend more time around people that are successful, and you hear it’s very important to prioritize work life balance, right? That’s one of the most common things that people who have attained success say. 我的意思是，這是我不斷意識到的事情，尤其是當我有更多時間與成功人士相處時，你會聽到「工作與生活平衡很重要」這句話，對吧？這是大多數成功人士最常說的話之一。 The Path to Success  通往成功之路 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s not my experience. If you look at—you shouldn’t be asking somebody who is successful what they do to continue their success now. You should be asking them what did they do to attain their success when they are where you were. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我的經驗並非如此。如果你觀察——你不應該問一個已經成功的人，他們現在是如何持續成功的。你應該問他們，在他們處於你現在的位置時，他們是如何達成成功的。 And the people who are really extraordinarily successful didn’t sit around watching success porn. They just went and did it. They just had, they had such an overwhelming desire to be successful at the thing that they were doing that they just went and did that thing, they didn’t have time to study and learn and listen, and they just did it. It’s the overwhelming desire that’s the most important, and the focus that comes from that. 那些真正非凡成功的人並沒有坐著看成功的幻想影片。他們只是去做了。他們有著強烈的渴望想在自己所做的事情上取得成功，他們就去做了，沒有時間去研究、學習或聆聽，他們只是去做。最重要的是那種壓倒性的渴望，以及由此產生的專注力。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It’s a tweet of yours that was, people who are good at making wealth, or people who are good at attaining wealth don’t need to teach anybody else how to do it. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你曾發過一條推文，說那些擅長創造財富或擅長獲取財富的人，不需要教別人如何做到這一點。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, you don’t need mentors, you need action, that was one of them. Another one is, you know, the people who actually know how to make money don’t need to sell you a course on it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，你不需要導師，你需要的是行動，這是其中之一。另一個是，你知道，真正懂得賺錢的人不需要向你推銷相關課程。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: There it is. Yeah, there’s lots of variations on it, but if you don’t, another one, if you don’t lie awake at night thinking about it, you don’t want it badly enough. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：就是這樣。是的，這有很多變化，但如果你沒有，還有一個，如果你晚上不躺在床上思考它，那麼你就不夠渴望它。 Sleep and Priorities  睡眠與優先順序 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, I think you’ve, I’ve heard you talk before about how sort of unclosed loops problems that you’re working on can cause you to be sleepless, and this—I’m not a good sleeper. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我想你之前談過未完成的問題會讓你失眠，而我——我不是一個睡眠好的人。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Tell me about that. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：跟我說說那件事。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh, I mean, my eight sleep hates me. It’s always hard to me. I failed at sleeping again. Brian Johnson thinks I’m going to die early. He’s probably right. NAVAL RAVIKANT：喔，我的八睡（eight sleep）討厭我。對我來說總是很難。我又睡不好了。布萊恩·約翰遜認為我會早死。他大概是對的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How much do you reckon you sleep at night? Do have any idea? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你估計你晚上睡多少？有什麼概念嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh, it’s so random. Some nights I’ll sleep eight hours, some nights I’ll sleep four hours, but it’s literally just random. NAVAL RAVIKANT：喔，這很隨機。有些晚上我會睡八個小時，有些晚上只睡四個小時，但真的就是隨機的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Are you bothered about that? Are you trying to optimize? Are a sleep coach teaching you how to— CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你會因此感到困擾嗎？你在嘗試優化嗎？有睡眠教練教你怎麼做嗎—— NAVAL RAVIKANT: I don’t flog myself over things. If I want to sleep, I’ll sleep. If I don’t want to sleep, don’t sleep. It’s not a—I don’t think I’m doing anything right or wrong. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我不會因為這些事情責備自己。如果我想睡，我就睡；如果我不想睡，就不睡。我不認為我在做什麼對或錯的事。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You don’t label it good night, bad night? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你不會把它標籤為好眠或壞眠嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: No. I work out every day because I think it gives me more energy and I’ve gotten into a good habit with it. Maybe I’ll do the same thing with sleep, maybe I’ll develop a good habit, but I’m not going to beat myself up over it. There’ll come a point where it’s important to me and when it’s important to me, I’ll just do it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不會。我每天都運動，因為我覺得這讓我更有活力，而且我已經養成了好習慣。也許我會對睡眠做同樣的事，或許我會養成好習慣，但我不會因此責備自己。會有一個時刻，當睡眠對我來說變得重要時，我就會去做。 You know, most of, like for example, you look at people with addictions, right, overeating or smoking or whatever, they can kind of go through all the different methods, but it’s half hearted, and then one day they’re like, oh shit, I’ve got lung cancer, my dad has lung cancer, they drop it immediately. So I think a lot of change is more about desire and understanding than it is about forcing yourself or trying to domesticate yourself. 你知道的，大多數情況下，比如說，你看看有成癮問題的人，對吧，暴飲暴食或吸煙什麼的，他們可能會嘗試各種方法，但都是半心半意的，然後有一天他們會想，糟了，我得了肺癌，我爸爸也得了肺癌，他們就會立刻戒掉。所以我認為很多改變更多是關於渴望和理解，而不是強迫自己或試圖馴服自己。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It’s efficiency again, I guess, you know, aligning the thing that you want to do with the way that you feel about what it is that you want to do. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我想這又是效率的問題，你知道的，就是將你想做的事情與你對這件事的感受對齊。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, it’s not getting caught up in a half desire or mimetic desire, it’s really just being aware of what it is that you actually want at this point in time, and when you want something, then you will act on it with maximal capability. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，不要被半心半意的慾望或模仿慾望所困擾，真正重要的是清楚知道你此刻真正想要的是什麼，當你想要某件事時，你就會以最大的能力去行動。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Mhmm. Mhmm. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：嗯嗯。嗯嗯。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And that’s the time to act on it. In the meantime, just doing it because other people tell you you should do it or society tells you you should do it or you feel slightly guilty about it, these are half hearted efforts, and half hearted efforts don’t get you there. NAVAL RAVIKANT：那才是行動的時機。與此同時，僅僅因為別人告訴你應該做，或社會告訴你應該做，或你對此感到些許愧疚而去做，這些都是半心半意的努力，而半心半意的努力無法帶你達到目標。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: As you get older, one thing that becomes harder to ignore is your testosterone levels. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：隨著年齡增長，有一件事變得越來越難忽視，那就是你的睪固酮水平。 Dealing with Anxiety and Stress 應對焦慮與壓力 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You mentioned anxiety before. “Imagine how effective you’d be if you weren’t anxious all the time” is one of yours, and anxiety is the emotion du jour of the twenty-first century. Lots of driven people are very anxious, very paranoid – that’s what’s caused them to be effective. It pays to be so attentive, detail-oriented, not letting things go, staying up at night thinking about it. That’s the paranoia coming in. What have you come to learn about anxiety and dealing with it? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你之前提到過焦慮。「想像一下如果你不總是焦慮，你會有多有效率」是你說過的一句話，而焦慮是二十一世紀的當代情緒。許多有衝勁的人都非常焦慮，非常多疑——這正是促使他們有效率的原因。保持如此專注、注重細節、不輕易放手，熬夜思考問題，這就是多疑心態的表現。你對焦慮以及如何應對它有什麼新的認識？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Anxiety and stress are interesting – they’re very related. Stress is when your mind is being pulled in two different directions at the same time. If you look at an iron beam, when it’s under stress, it’s because it’s being bent in two different directions. When your mind is under stress, it’s because it has two conflicting desires at once. NAVAL RAVIKANT：焦慮和壓力很有趣——它們彼此密切相關。壓力是當你的心智同時被拉向兩個不同方向。你看一根鐵樑，當它承受壓力時，是因為它被彎曲向兩個不同方向。當你的心智承受壓力時，是因為它同時有兩個相互矛盾的慾望。 For example, you want to be liked but you also want to do something selfish, and you can’t reconcile the two, so you’re under stress. You want to do something for somebody else, but you want to do something for yourself. You don’t want to go to work but you want to make money – so you’re under stress. 例如，你想被喜歡，但你同時也想做一些自私的事情，而你無法調和這兩者，所以你感到壓力。你想為別人做些事情，但你也想為自己做些事情。你不想去上班，但你又想賺錢——所以你感到壓力。 One of the ways to get through stress is to acknowledge that you actually have two conflicting desires and either resolve it, pick one and be okay losing the other, or decide later. But at least just being aware of why you’re stressed can help alleviate a lot of stress. 克服壓力的方法之一是承認你其實有兩個相互矛盾的慾望，然後要麼解決它，選擇其中一個並接受失去另一個，要麼稍後再決定。但至少意識到自己為什麼感到壓力，可以幫助減輕很多壓力。 Anxiety, I think, is sort of this pervasive unidentifiable stress where you’re just stressed out all the time and you’re not even sure why. You can’t even identify the underlying problem. The reason for that is because you have so many unresolved problems, unresolved stress points that have piled up in your life that you can no longer identify what the problems are. There’s this mountain of garbage in your mind with a little bit of it poking out the top like an iceberg – that’s anxiety. But underneath there’s a lot of unresolved things. 我認為焦慮是一種普遍存在且難以辨識的壓力，你總是感到緊張，卻不確定原因。你甚至無法找出根本問題。原因是你有太多未解決的問題和壓力點堆積在生活中，以至於你無法辨認出問題所在。你的腦海中有一座垃圾山，只有一小部分像冰山一角般露出水面——那就是焦慮。但在底下還有許多未解決的事情。 You need to go through very carefully every time you’re anxious and ask, “Why am I anxious this time?” If you don’t know why, sit and think about it. Write down what the possible causes could be. Meditate on it. Journal. Talk to a therapist. Talk to friends. See when that stress goes away. If you can identify, unravel, and resolve these issues, then I think that helps get rid of anxiety. 每當你感到焦慮時，都需要非常仔細地檢視，並問自己：「這次我為什麼會焦慮？」如果你不知道原因，就坐下來思考。寫下可能的原因。冥想。寫日記。與治療師交談。與朋友談談。看看壓力何時消失。如果你能識別、解開並解決這些問題，我認為這有助於消除焦慮。 A lot of anxiety is piled up because we move through life too quickly, not observing our own reactions to things. We don’t resolve them. This goes counter to what I was saying earlier about not reflecting too much on things, but you reflect on the problems to observe them and solve them. You don’t reflect on them to feel better about yourself. 很多焦慮是因為我們生活節奏太快，沒有觀察自己對事情的反應而累積起來的。我們沒有解決這些反應。這與我之前說的不要過度反思事情的觀點相反，但你是為了觀察和解決問題而反思，而不是為了讓自己感覺更好而反思。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: To indulge them. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：縱容它們。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, if you’re doing it just to feel better about yourself, that could be strengthening your personality and your ego, and could be creating a more fragile personality. NAVAL RAVIKANT：嗯，如果你這麼做只是為了讓自己感覺更好，那可能會強化你的個性和自我，並可能造成一個更脆弱的個性。 One big anxiety resolver for me is ruminating on death. I think that’s a good one. You’re going to die. It’s all going to zero. You cannot take anything with you. I know this is trite, and I know we don’t spend enough time thinking about the big questions – we kind of give up on them when we’re very young. 對我來說，一個能解決大焦慮的方法就是反覆思考死亡。我覺得這是一個很好的方法。你終將死去，一切都會歸零。你無法帶走任何東西。我知道這聽起來老生常談，也知道我們不夠常花時間思考那些重大問題——我們在很年輕的時候就放棄了它們。 A little child might ask the big questions like “Why are we here?”, “What’s the meaning of life?”, “What is this all about?”, “Is there Santa Claus?”, “Is there God?” But then as adults, we’re taught not to think about these things. We’ve given up on them. But I think the big questions are the big questions for good reasons, and if you can keep the idea in front of you at all times that you’re going to die and that everything goes literally to zero, what’s the distress about? 小孩子可能會問一些大問題，比如「我們為什麼在這裡？」「生命的意義是什麼？」「這一切到底是怎麼回事？」「聖誕老人存在嗎？」「上帝存在嗎？」但長大後，我們被教導不要去想這些事情。我們已經放棄了它們。但我認為這些大問題之所以是大問題，是有充分理由的，如果你能時刻記住你終將死去，一切真的會歸零，那還有什麼好煩惱的呢？ The Brevity of Life  生命的短暫 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: For better or worse, life is very short. How should people deal with its briefness? 克里斯·威廉森：無論好壞，生命都非常短暫。人們應該如何面對生命的短暫呢？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Enjoy it. Make the best of it. You know, it’s even briefer than that. Each moment just disappears, it’s gone. There’s only a present moment, and it’s gone instantly. NAVAL RAVIKANT：享受它。充分利用它。你知道，這甚至比那還要短暫。每一刻都會消失，瞬間就沒了。只有當下這一刻，而它瞬間即逝。 So if you’re not there for it, if you’re stressed out, or you’re anxious, or you’re thinking about something else, you missed it. Any moment when you’re not in that moment, you are dead to that moment. You might as well be dead because your mind is off doing something else or living in some imagined reality that is just a very poor substitute for the actual reality. 所以如果你不在那一刻，如果你感到壓力、焦慮，或者在想別的事情，你就錯過了它。任何時候當你不在當下，你對那一刻來說就是死的。你不如說是死了，因為你的心思在做別的事，或者活在某個想像的現實中，而那只是對真實現實的極差替代品。 One of my recent realizations was, what is wasted time? What is the waste of time? I don’t like to waste time, but what is wasted time? Everything is wasted time in a sense because nothing matters in the ultimate, but in each moment the thing matters. In each moment, what’s happening in front of you literally has all the meaning in the world, and so what matters is just being present for the thing. 我最近的一個領悟是，什麼是浪費時間？什麼是時間的浪費？我不喜歡浪費時間，但什麼是浪費時間？從某種意義上說，一切都是浪費時間，因為從終極來看，什麼都不重要，但在每一刻，事情是重要的。在每一刻，眼前發生的事情字面上擁有全世界的意義，所以重要的是要活在當下，專注於眼前的事物。 If you’re doing something that you want to do and you’re fully there for it, there’s not wasted time. If you don’t want to do it and your mind is running away from it, and you’re reacting against it, and you’re wishing you were somewhere else, and you’re thinking about some other thing, or you’re anticipating some future thing or regretting some past thing or being fearful of something, then that’s wasted time. 如果你正在做自己想做的事情，並且全心投入其中，那就沒有浪費時間。如果你不想做，心思卻在逃避，對此產生抗拒，渴望身處別處，思緒飄向其他事物，或是期待未來某件事、後悔過去某件事，或是害怕某些事情，那就是浪費時間。 That’s time that’s being wasted when you’re not actually present for the reality in front of you. So my definition of wasted time – yes, I do want some material things in life, and there are things that have more value than others within this life, but this life is very short and bounded. The true waste of time is time that you are not present for, when you are not there for it, when you are not doing the thing you want to do to the best of your capability such that you’re immersed in it. 那是當你沒有真正活在眼前現實中時所浪費的時間。所以我對浪費時間的定義是——是的，我確實想要生活中的一些物質東西，生活中有些東西比其他東西更有價值，但這一生非常短暫且有限。真正浪費的時間是你沒有活在當下的時間，當你不在那裡，當你沒有以最佳能力去做你想做的事情，讓自己完全沉浸其中的時間。 If you’re not immersed in this moment, then you’re wasting your time. 如果你沒有沉浸在此刻，那你就是在浪費時間。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: People get worried about dying and no longer being here, but they don’t realize that so much of their life is spent not being here in any case. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：人們擔心死亡和不再存在，但他們沒有意識到，他們生命中有很大一部分時間本來就沒有活在當下。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. But I think people crave being here for it, and when you’re here for it, you’re actually not thinking about yourself. You are more immersed in the thing, the moment, the task at hand. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。但我認為人們渴望活在當下，而當你活在當下時，你其實不會去想自己。你會更專注於事物、當下的時刻和手頭的任務。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: We don’t want peace of mind, we want peace from our mind. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我們不想要心靈的平靜，我們想要從心靈中獲得和平。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. The mind is what kills each you alive if you let it, and there’s more to you than the mind. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。如果你任由心靈主宰，它會殺死活著的你，而你不僅僅是心靈。 Beyond the Mind  超越心靈 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How so? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：怎麼說？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, I mean, I don’t want to disassemble the body, so to speak, right, because… NAVAL RAVIKANT：嗯，我的意思是，我不想拆解這個身體，可以這麼說，對吧，因為… CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Please go on. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：請繼續說。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: At the end of the day, everything arises within your consciousness. You’ve nowhere else to experience it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：歸根究底，一切都在你的意識中產生。你沒有其他地方可以體驗它。 That consciousness is relatively static in a sense that it’s been exactly the same from the moment you were born to the moment you die. Everything that you experience from your body, your mind to the world to everything is within that consciousness, and that thing, that base layer of being – and this is what the Buddhists will tell you – is the real thing. 那個意識在某種意義上是相對靜止的，從你出生的那一刻到你死去的那一刻，它一直都是一樣的。你從身體、心靈到世界的一切經驗都在那個意識之中，而那個東西，那個存在的基礎層——這正是佛教徒會告訴你的——才是真實的東西。 Everything that comes and goes in the middle, including your mind, including your body is unreal, and trying to find stability in those transient things is your castle that you’re building on sand that’s going to crumble. 中間所有來來去去的事物，包括你的心靈，包括你的身體，都是不真實的，而試圖在這些短暫的事物中尋找穩定，就像你在沙地上建造城堡，終將崩塌。 Life is going to play out the way it’s going to play out. There will be some good and some bad. Most of it is actually just up to your interpretation. You’re born, you have a set of sensory experiences, and then you die. How you choose to interpret those experiences is up to you, and different people interpret them in different ways. 生命將會以它自己的方式展開。會有一些美好，也會有一些不如意。大部分其實取決於你的詮釋。你出生，經歷一系列感官體驗，然後你死去。你如何選擇詮釋這些經驗由你決定，不同的人會有不同的解讀方式。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It’s the old line about two people walking down the street, they’re having the exact same experience, one is happy, one is sad, right? It’s a narrative in their heads, it’s how they choose to interpret. 克里斯·威廉森：這就像那句老話，兩個人走在街上，他們經歷完全相同的事情，一個快樂，一個悲傷，對吧？這是他們腦海中的敘事，是他們選擇如何詮釋。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So I think when I said that it was a long time ago, I was talking more about having positive interpretations and negative interpretations, but these days I think it’s better just not to have any interpretations. And to just allow things to be. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：所以我想我之前說那句話是在很久以前，我指的是有正面詮釋和負面詮釋，但現在我認為最好是不要有任何詮釋，只是讓事情自然存在。 You’re still going to have interpretations. You can’t stop it, and nor should you try, but even that having an interpretation is just a thing you can leave alone. 你仍然會有各種詮釋。你無法阻止它，也不應該嘗試阻止，但即使有詮釋這件事，也只是你可以放下的事情。 Valuing Your Time  珍惜你的時間 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I really want to try and just dig in a little more to the best way to remind people that they should value their time, just how brief it is – that the time that you spend ruminating, being distracted, fears of the past, regrets… CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我真的很想深入探討如何最好地提醒人們應該珍惜自己的時間，時間是多麼短暫——你花在反覆思考、分心、對過去的恐懼和遺憾上的時間…… NAVAL RAVIKANT: I don’t want to tell anybody how to live their life. I would just say that to the extent that you want to improve your quality of life, the easiest and best way to do that is to observe your own mind and your own thoughts and be a little more observant of yourself objectively. Then you’ll kind of realize your own loops and patterns. It takes time, it’s not overnight, it’s not instantaneous. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我不想告訴任何人該如何生活。我只想說，如果你想提升生活品質，最簡單且最好的方法就是觀察你自己的心智和思緒，並更客觀地觀察自己。然後你會逐漸意識到自己的循環和模式。這需要時間，不是一蹴而就的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: So you mean letting go is not a one-time event? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：所以你的意思是放手不是一次性的事件？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, and letting go is not necessarily even the right answer. If you’re trying to be an enlightened being and you want to live like a god and everything’s going to be perfect and be a Buddha, sure you can let go, but I think in practice it’s actually quite hard to do. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，而且放手不一定是正確的答案。如果你想成為一個開悟的人，想像神一樣生活，一切都完美無缺，成為佛陀，當然你可以放手，但我認為實際上這是相當困難的。 I think you’re going to find a lot of fulfillment out of life by just doing what you want to do and genuinely exploring what it is that you want rather than doing what other people expect you to do or society expects you to do or what you might just think should be done by default. I think most older successful people will tell you that their life was best when they lived it unapologetically on their own terms. 我認為你會從生活中找到很多滿足感，只要做你想做的事，真誠地探索你想要的是什麼，而不是做別人期望你做的事，或社會期望你做的事，或你可能認為理所當然應該做的事。我想大多數年長且成功的人會告訴你，他們的人生最美好時刻是當他們毫無歉意地按照自己的方式生活時。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Be selfish. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：要自私。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Holistic selfishness. NAVAL RAVIKANT：整體性的自私。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: There you go. Exactly. We can clip that little… CHRIS WILLIAMSON：就是這樣。完全正確。我們可以剪輯那個小片段… NAVAL RAVIKANT: I’m telling you about… NAVAL RAVIKANT：我正在告訴你關於… CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s really selfish. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那真的是很自私。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. And then we just keep running about it. Bad guy. Great. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。然後我們就一直在討論這個。壞人。太棒了。 Trusting Your Gut vs. Your Head 信任你的直覺還是理智 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I had this insight, a question, I guess. How much do you think that we should trust the voice in our heads? Because half of wisdom suggests to rely on your sort of bottom-up intuition, and then half of it has to be sort of top-down rational as possible. How do you navigate the tension between head and gut in this way? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我有個領悟，一個問題吧。你認為我們應該多大程度上信任腦海中的聲音？因為一半的智慧建議依賴你那種自下而上的直覺，而另一半則必須盡可能採取自上而下的理性。你如何在這種頭腦與直覺的張力中找到平衡？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think the gut is what decides, the head is kind of what rationalizes it afterwards. The gut is the ultimate decision maker, and what is the gut? The gut is refined judgment, it’s taste, aggregated. It could be aggregated through evolution, in your genes and your DNA, or it could be aggregated through your experiences and what you’ve thought through. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為直覺是決定因素，理智則是在事後為其合理化。直覺是最終的決策者，那麼什麼是直覺呢？直覺是精煉的判斷，是品味的總和。這種總和可以透過演化，在你的基因和 DNA 中累積，也可以透過你的經驗和深思熟慮而形成。 The mind is good at solving new problems, new problems in the external world that have defined edges – beginnings and ends and objectives. What the mind is actually really bad at is making hard decisions. So when you have a hard decision to make, I find it’s better to ruminate on it, think through all the pros and cons, but then you sleep on it, you wait a couple of days, you wait until the gut answer appears with conviction and it feels right. 心智擅長解決新的問題，尤其是外在世界中有明確界限——有開始、有結束、有目標的新問題。心智真正不擅長的是做出艱難的決定。所以當你必須做出艱難決定時，我發現最好是反覆思考，權衡所有利弊，然後睡一覺，等待幾天，直到直覺帶著確信浮現，並且感覺正確。 When you’re younger, it takes longer because you just don’t have as much experience, and when you’re older, it can happen much faster, which is why old people are more set in their ways as a consequence. They know what they want, they know what they don’t want. 當你年輕時，這個過程會比較久，因為你沒有那麼多經驗；而當你年長時，這個過程會快得多，這也是為什麼老人往往更固執己見的原因。他們知道自己想要什麼，也知道自己不想要什麼。 So it takes time to develop your gut instinct and judgment, but once you’ve developed them, don’t trust anything else because you can’t go against your gut – it’ll bite you in the end. 所以培養你的直覺和判斷力需要時間，但一旦你培養出來了，就不要相信其他任何東西，因為你無法違背你的直覺——最終它會反噬你。 Relationships and Personal Growth 關係與個人成長 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Usually in relationships that failed you can look back and say, “Oh actually I knew it was going to fail because of this reason, but I kind of went ahead anyway because I wanted it to be this way, right? I wanted this person to be a different way than they are, or I wanted to get a different thing out of it than I thought I was going to, than I knew I was going to get, but I just wanted it.” So sometimes desire will override your judgment. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：通常在失敗的關係中，你回頭看會說，「哦，其實我知道它會失敗，原因是這個，但我還是硬著頭皮往前走，因為我想要它是這樣的，對吧？我想這個人是另一種樣子，或者我想從中得到不同的東西，超出我原本知道會得到的，但我就是想要。」所以有時候慾望會壓倒你的判斷。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Wistful thinking. It traps you into a pathway that just chews up time. NAVAL RAVIKANT：一種惆悵的想法。它會把你困在一條只會消耗時間的路徑上。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What’s that insight of yours? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你的那個洞見是什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Think we can’t change ourselves, but we can; we think we can change other people, but we can’t. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我們認為自己無法改變自己，但其實可以；我們認為可以改變別人，但其實不行。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Exactly. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：完全正確。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think to add to that, you can’t change other people, you can change your reaction to them, you can change yourself, but other people only change through trauma or their own insight on their own schedule, and never in a way that you like. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我想補充一點，你無法改變別人，你可以改變你對他們的反應，你可以改變自己，但別人只有通過創傷或他們自己的洞見，按照他們自己的節奏改變，而且永遠不會以你喜歡的方式改變。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Al Anon teaches that people do sometimes change, but rarely in relationships and never when they’re told to. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：Al Anon 教導我們，人們有時會改變，但在關係中很少發生，且絕不會在被要求時改變。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Absolutely. The fastest way to alienate somebody is to tell them to change. NAVAL RAVIKANT：完全正確。讓人疏遠的最快方法就是告訴他們要改變。 Learning Without Pressure 無壓力學習 NAVAL RAVIKANT: In fact, the Dale Carnegie School of Public Speaking operates by getting you up there and realizing that the number one problem with public speaking is that people are very self-conscious. People who are practicing in the Dale Carnegie School of Public Speaking start speaking and the people in the audience are only allowed to compliment them, genuine compliments, not fake compliments, on things that they did well. You’re not allowed to criticize them on things that they did poorly and eventually they develop self confidence. NAVAL RAVIKANT：事實上，戴爾·卡內基演講學校的運作方式是讓你站上台，並意識到公開演講的最大問題是人們非常在意自己。參加戴爾·卡內基演講學校的人開始演講時，觀眾只能給予真誠的讚美，而非虛假的讚美，針對他們做得好的地方。觀眾不被允許批評他們做得不好的地方，最終他們會建立自信。 The same way, there’s the Michel Thomas School of Language Learning. What they do is you listen to a teacher talking to a student—they’re not teaching you, you’re not expected to remember or memorize anything—you just listen to a student stumbling over the language. It’s a better way to learn because you yourself don’t feel flustered or tested or graded. You’re not in your own head as much. 同樣地，還有米歇爾·托馬斯語言學校。他們的做法是讓你聽老師和學生的對話——他們不是在教你，你也不需要記住或背誦任何東西——你只是聽學生在語言上磕磕絆絆。這是一種更好的學習方式，因為你自己不會感到慌亂、被考驗或被評分。你不會那麼陷入自己的思緒中。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Correct, you’re not in your own head and you’re just observing. You might even be laughing at the student or agreeing with the teacher or sympathizing with the student, but because you are a passive observer you can be more objective about it. You aren’t threatened or fearful and you can learn better. 克里斯·威廉森：沒錯，你不會陷入自己的思緒，而只是旁觀者。你甚至可能會對學生發笑，或同意老師的說法，或對學生表示同情，但因為你是被動的觀察者，你可以更客觀地看待這一切。你不會感到威脅或恐懼，學習效果也會更好。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Coming back to the original point of you can’t change people, if you do want to change someone’s behavior, I think the only effective way to do it is to compliment them when they do something you want. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：回到最初的觀點，你無法改變別人，如果你真的想改變某人的行為，我認為唯一有效的方法就是當他們做了你想要的事情時，給予讚美。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Positive reinforcement. 克里斯·威廉森：正向強化。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah exactly, not to insult them or be negative or critical when they do something you don’t want. We can’t help it, it’s obviously in our nature to criticize and I do it as well, but it reminds me that when somebody does something praiseworthy, don’t forget to praise them. Definitely go out of your way, and it’ll be genuine—it has to be genuine, it can’t be fake. People want authenticity, but just don’t forget to praise people when they do something praiseworthy, and you’ll get more of that behavior. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，完全正確，並不是要侮辱他們或在他們做了你不喜歡的事情時變得消極或批評。我們無法控制，批評顯然是我們的天性，我自己也會這樣做，但這讓我想起，當有人做了值得讚揚的事情時，不要忘了讚美他們。一定要特意去做，而且必須是真誠的——必須是真誠的，不能虛假。人們渴望真誠，但就是不要忘了在別人做了值得讚揚的事情時讚美他們，這樣你會得到更多這樣的行為。 Relationship Clarity  關係清晰度 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: There was a really famous thread on Reddit about five questions to ask yourself if you’re uncertain about your relationship. One of the questions was, “Are you truly in love with your partner or just their potential or the idea of them?” That’s the “they show such great promise” thinking. They look at their ability for change and growth. They’re on the right path. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：Reddit 上有一個非常著名的討論串，談到如果你對你的關係感到不確定，應該問自己的五個問題。其中一個問題是，「你是真正愛你的伴侶，還是只是愛他們的潛力或對他們的想像？」這就是「他們展現出如此巨大的潛力」的思維。他們看重的是伴侶改變和成長的能力。他們走在正確的道路上。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: The partner matching thing is so hard. When people come and ask me, “Should I be with this person?” Well, if you’re asking me, the answer is clearly no, right? Because you wouldn’t have to ask if you were with the right person. Or when you ask someone why they’re in a relationship with somebody and they start reading out his or her resume, that’s also a bad sign. NAVAL RAVIKANT：配對伴侶這件事真的很難。當有人來問我，「我應該和這個人在一起嗎？」嗯，如果你問我，答案顯然是否定的，對吧？因為如果你和對的人在一起，你根本不需要問這個問題。或者當你問某人為什麼會和某人在一起，而他們開始念出對方的履歷，那也是一個壞徵兆。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What do you mean? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你是什麼意思？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s like, “Oh, we have so much in common, we like to golf together.” That’s not a basis for a relationship. Or “Oh, you know, she’s a ballerina,” or “He went to Harvard.” These are resume items, not who the person actually is. NAVAL RAVIKANT：就像是，「喔，我們有很多共同點，我們喜歡一起打高爾夫。」這不是建立關係的基礎。或者「喔，你知道，她是個芭蕾舞者，」或「他去了哈佛。」這些都是履歷上的項目，不是那個人真正的樣子。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What’s a better answer? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那什麼才是更好的答案？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: “I just love being with this person. I just trust them. I enjoy being around them. I love how capable he is. I love how kind she is. I love her spirit. I love his energy.” NAVAL RAVIKANT：「我就是喜歡和這個人在一起。我就是信任他們。我喜歡和他們相處。我喜歡他有多麼能幹。我喜歡她有多麼善良。我喜歡她的精神。我喜歡他的能量。」 The more materially and concretely definable the reasons are you’re together, the worse they are. The ineffable is actually where the true love lies. 你們在一起的理由越是物質且具體可定義，情況就越糟。真正的愛其實存在於那無法言喻的地方。 Because real love is a form of unity, it’s a form of connection, it’s connecting spirit. My consciousness meets your consciousness. The underlying drive in love, in art, in science, in mysticism, is the desire for unity, it’s the desire for connection. 因為真正的愛是一種合一，是一種連結，是靈魂的連結。我的意識與你的意識相遇。愛、藝術、科學、神秘主義背後的驅動力，是對合一的渴望，是對連結的渴望。 As Borges famously wrote, in every human there’s a sense that something infinite has been lost. There’s a God-shaped hole in you you’re trying to fill, and so we’re always trying to find that connection. Love is trying to find it in one other person and saying, “You’re male, I’m female,” or whatever your predilections are, and now we connect, now we form a whole, a connected whole. 正如博爾赫斯著名所言，每個人心中都有一種感覺，覺得失去了一些無限的東西。你內心有一個神形的空洞，你試圖填補它，所以我們總是在尋找那種連結。愛就是試圖在另一個人身上找到它，然後說：「你是男性，我是女性，」或者無論你的偏好是什麼，現在我們連結了，現在我們形成了一個整體，一個連結的整體。 In mysticism it’s about sitting down to meditate and feeling the whole. In science it’s like atoms bouncing is mechanics but that generates heat, so thermodynamics and motion or kinetics are one combined theory—that’s a whole. Electricity and magnetism are one thing, that’s the whole, creates that sense of awe. 在神秘主義中，是關於坐下來冥想並感受整體。在科學中，就像原子彈跳是力學，但那會產生熱，因此熱力學和運動學或動力學是結合在一起的理論——那是一個整體。電和磁是一體的，那就是整體，創造出那種敬畏感。 In art, I feel an emotion, I create a piece of art around it, and then you see that painting, or you see the Sistine Chapel, or you read the poem and you feel that emotion, so again it’s creating unity, it’s creating connection. I think everybody craves that, and so when you really love somebody, it’s because you feel a sense of wholeness by being around them, and that sense of wholeness probably doesn’t have anything to do with what school they went to or what career they’re in. 在藝術中，我感受到一種情感，圍繞它創作一件藝術品，然後你看到那幅畫，或看到西斯汀教堂，或讀那首詩，你會感受到那種情感，所以這又是在創造統一，創造連結。我認為每個人都渴望那種感覺，所以當你真正愛一個人時，是因為你在他們身邊感受到一種完整感，而那種完整感很可能與他們上過什麼學校或從事什麼職業無關。 Just tying that into “life is short”—if you’re faced with a difficult choice and you cannot decide, the answer is no. The reason is modern society is full of options. 把這與「生命短暫」聯繫起來——如果你面臨一個困難的選擇而無法決定，答案是否定的。原因是現代社會充滿了選擇。 Decision Making Principles 決策原則 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Knowing this rationally sounds great, but having the courage to commit to it in reality is a different task. Cutting your losses quickly in the big three—relationships, jobs, and locations—is hard. What would you say to someone who may cerebrally be able to agree with you? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：理性上知道這點聽起來很棒，但在現實中有勇氣去實踐卻是另一回事。在三大領域——人際關係、工作和居住地——迅速止損是很困難的。你會對那些理智上能同意你觀點的人說些什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: My cousin said this about me. He said, “What I really noticed about you is your ability to walk away from situations that are just not great enough for you, or not good enough for you.” And I think that is a characteristic that I have. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我表弟曾這樣形容我。他說：「我真正注意到的是你能夠離開那些對你來說不夠好或不夠理想的情況。」我認為這是我身上的一個特質。 I will not accept second best outcomes in my life. Ultimately, you will end up wherever is acceptable to you. You will get out of life whatever is acceptable to you. 我不會接受生活中的次優結果。最終，你會停留在你能接受的地方。你從生活中得到的，也將是你能接受的。 There are certain things to me that are very important where I will not settle for second best, but then there are a lot of other things I just don’t care about. If I spend all my time caring about those things, I don’t have the energy for the few things that matter. 對我來說，有些事情非常重要，我絕不會妥協於次優，但也有很多其他事情我根本不在意。如果我把所有時間都花在關心那些事情上，我就沒有精力去關注那些真正重要的少數幾件事。 In decision making, I have a few heuristics for myself. Other people can use their own, but mine are: 在決策時，我對自己有幾個啟發式原則。其他人可以使用他們自己的，但我的原則是： 1. If you can’t decide, the answer is no. If you’re offered an opportunity, if you have a new thing that you’re saying yes or no to that is a change from where you’re starting, the answer is by default always no. 1. 如果你無法決定，答案就是不。如果有人給你一個機會，或者你有一件新事物需要你說是或不是，而這會改變你目前的狀態，答案預設永遠是「不」。 2. If you have two decisions, A or B, and both seem very equal, take the path that’s more painful in the short term, the one that’s going to be painful immediately, because your brain is always trying to avoid pain. Any pain that is imminent, it is going to treat as much larger than it actually is. 2. 如果你有兩個選擇，A 或 B，且兩者看起來非常相等，選擇短期內較痛苦的那條路，也就是會立即帶來痛苦的那條，因為你的大腦總是試圖避免痛苦。任何即將發生的痛苦，它都會被大腦視為比實際更大。 ALSO READ:  How to Control Emotion and Influence Behavior: Dawn Goldworm at TEDxEast (Transcript) 另請參閱：如何控制情緒並影響行為：Dawn Goldworm 在 TEDxEast 的演講（逐字稿） CHRIS WILLIAMSON: This is kind of like a decision making equivalent of a Taleb surgeon? The surgeon that doesn’t look as good because he’s more likely to be a good surgeon. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這有點像是決策領域的塔勒布外科醫生？那種外表看起來不那麼出色，卻更可能是好外科醫生的醫生。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, it’s similar in that appearances are deceiving because you’re avoiding conflict, you’re avoiding pain. So take the path that’s more painful in the short term because your brain has created this illusion that the short term pain is greater than the long term pain. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，有點類似，因為表象會欺騙人，因為你在避免衝突，避免痛苦。所以選擇那條短期內更痛苦的路，因為你的大腦創造了一種錯覺，讓你覺得短期的痛苦比長期的痛苦更大。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Because long term, you’ll commit your future self to all kinds of long term pain. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：因為從長遠來看，你會讓未來的自己承受各種長期的痛苦。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Mañana, mañana. Exactly. NAVAL RAVIKANT：明天，明天。完全正確。 3. Take the choice that will leave you more equanimous in the long term—more mental peace in the long term. Whatever clears your mind more and will have you having less self-talk in the future, if you can model that out, that is probably the better route to go. 3. 選擇那個能讓你長期保持更平靜——長期擁有更多心靈平和的選擇。無論是什麼能讓你的思緒更清晰，未來自我對話更少，如果你能模擬出來，那大概是更好的路徑。 The Three Key Life Decisions 三個關鍵的人生決定 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I would focus decision making down on the three things that really matter, because everything else is downstream of these three decisions, especially early in life. Later in life you have different things to optimize for, but early in life you’re trying to figure out who you’re with, what you’re doing, and where you live. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我會將決策聚焦在真正重要的三件事上，因為其他一切都是這三個決定的下游結果，尤其是在生命的早期階段。人生後期你會有不同的優化目標，但在早期，你正試圖弄清楚你和誰在一起、你在做什麼，以及你住在哪裡。 I think on all three of those, you want to think pretty hard about it. People do some of these unconsciously. With who you’re with, very often it’s like, “We were in a relationship, we stumbled along, it felt okay, it had been enough time, so we got married.” 我認為這三件事你都應該認真思考。人們有時會無意識地做出這些決定。關於你和誰在一起，很多時候是這樣的：「我們在一段關係中，偶然走到一起，感覺還不錯，時間也夠久了，所以我們結婚了。」 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Not great reasons. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這些理由不太好。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Maybe not terrible reasons either. People who overthink these things sometimes don’t get the right answer, but maybe here, if you’re the kind of person that’s not going to settle for second best, you iterate on a closed timeframe, so you don’t run out the clock, and then you decide. NAVAL RAVIKANT：也許也不算是糟糕的理由。那些過度思考這些事情的人有時反而得不到正確答案，但也許在這裡，如果你是那種不願意將就第二好的類型，你會在有限的時間內反覆思考，避免拖延，然後做出決定。 On what you do, you try a whole bunch of different things until you find the one that feels like play to you, looks like work to others, you can’t lose at it, get some leverage, try to find some practical application of it and go into that. 在你所做的事情上，你會嘗試各種不同的東西，直到找到那個對你來說像是在玩樂，對別人看起來像是在工作，你無法在其中失敗，能夠獲得一些槓桿，並試圖找到它的實際應用，然後投入其中。 And then where you live is really important. I don’t think people spend enough time on that one. People pick cities randomly based on where they went to school, or where their family happened to be, or where their friend was, or they visited one weekend and really liked it. 然後你居住的地方真的很重要。我覺得人們在這方面花的時間不夠。人們隨意選擇城市，可能是基於他們上學的地方，或者家人所在的地方，或者朋友所在的地方，或者他們某個週末去過並且非常喜歡的地方。 You really want to think it through, because where you live really constrains and defines your opportunities. It’s going to determine your friend circle, your dating pool, your job opportunities, the food and air and water quality that you receive, your proximity to your family, which might be important as you get older and have kids. Very, very important decision. 你真的需要好好思考，因為你居住的地方會限制並定義你的機會。它會決定你的朋友圈、你的約會對象範圍、你的工作機會、你所接觸到的食物、空氣和水質，以及你與家人的距離，這在你年紀漸長、有了孩子後可能會很重要。這是一個非常非常重要的決定。 Weather, quality of life, how much you stay inside or outside, how long you’ll live based on that—I think people choose that one probably more poorly than the other two. They put a lot less thought into that one. 天氣、生活品質、你待在室內或室外的時間長短、以及基於這些因素你能活多久——我認為人們在這方面的選擇可能比前兩者更差。他們對這一點考慮得少得多。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: In some ways, yeah, but also you’re so right, how many people fall backward into a relationship and before they know it, “We’re living together, we got a dog, we got a kid, we’re married.” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：在某些方面，是的，但你說得很對，有多少人是無意識地陷入一段關係，然後還沒意識到，「我們已經同居了，我們有了狗，有了孩子，我們結婚了。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, and then when you have kids, because that’s half of you and half of them running around, you’re never going to separate yourself from that. So once you have a child with somebody, then the most important thing in the world to you is half that other person, whether you like them or not. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，然後當你有了孩子，因為那是你的一半和他們的一半在四處奔跑，你永遠無法將自己與那個分開。所以一旦你和某人生了孩子，對你來說世界上最重要的事情就是那個人的一半，不管你喜不喜歡他們。 Nature vs. Nurture  天性與教養 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Jeffrey Miller had a tweet a long time ago that I always think about. He said, “Every parenting book in the world could be replaced with one book on behavioral genetics.” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：Jeffrey Miller 很久以前發過一條推文，我一直記得。他說：「世界上所有的育兒書都可以被一本關於行為遺傳學的書取代。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I am a big believer in genetics. I do think a lot of behavior is downstream of genetics, and I think we underplay that. We like to overplay nurture and underplay nature for societal reasons, but nature is a big deal. The temperament of the person you marry is probably going to be reflected in your child by default. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我非常相信基因學。我確實認為很多行為是基因的下游結果，而我們往往低估了這一點。出於社會原因，我們喜歡過度強調後天環境而忽視先天本性，但本性是非常重要的。你所嫁娶的人的氣質，很可能會在你的孩子身上自然反映出來。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: People should watch for a securely attached kid, pick a securely attached partner. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：人們應該注意選擇一個安全依附的孩子，並選擇一個安全依附的伴侶。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, the secret to a happy relationship is two happy people, right? So I would say if you want to be happy, then be with a happy person. Don’t think you’re going to be with someone who’s unhappy and then make them happy down the road. Or if you’re okay with them being unhappy, but there are other things you like about them, that’s fine, but this goes back to conversation. Conversations are unhappiness with other things. NAVAL RAVIKANT：幸福關係的秘密是兩個快樂的人，對吧？所以我會說，如果你想快樂，那就和一個快樂的人在一起。不要以為你會和一個不快樂的人在一起，然後將來讓他們變快樂。或者如果你能接受他們不快樂，但你喜歡他們的其他方面，那也沒關係，但這又回到了溝通。溝通就是對其他事情的不滿。 The Importance of Values in Relationships 價值觀在關係中的重要性 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, and actually, we talked a little bit about how people do connect successfully on spirit and those things, but that’s maybe a little too abstract. If you want to get a little more practical, could be based on values, and values are the set of things you won’t compromise on. Values are the tough decisions of, my parent got sick, do they move in with us or do we put them in nursing home? Do we give the children money or do we not? Do we move across the country to be closer to our family or do we stay put where we are? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，實際上，我們之前也談過人們如何在精神層面上成功連結，但那可能有點太抽象。如果你想更實際一點，這可能基於價值觀，而價值觀是一套你不會妥協的東西。價值觀是那些艱難的決定，比如我的父母生病了，他們是搬來和我們住還是送進養老院？我們要不要給孩子錢？我們是搬到全國另一端去靠近家人，還是留在原地？ Do we argue about politics? Do we care or do we not? Right? The values are way more important than checklist items, and I think if people were to align much more on their values, they would have much more successful relationships. The emotional pain of fearing change, I have this thing, the job, the location, the partner, I’m going to enter or not enter this thing, for the most part it’s leaving. 我們會不會為政治爭吵？我們在乎還是不在乎？對吧？價值觀比清單上的項目重要得多，我認為如果人們能在價值觀上更一致，他們的關係會更成功。害怕改變的情感痛苦，我有這種感覺，工作、地點、伴侶，我是否要進入或不進入這件事，大多數情況下是離開。 I think we have this sort of loss aversion that we really feel. Evolve loss aversion, it’s painful separating yourself in front of your friends. It’s embarrassing. And how would you advise people to get past themselves with that loss aversion, that fear of change? 我認為我們有一種損失厭惡的感覺，這種感覺非常強烈。演變出損失厭惡，當你在朋友面前與自己分離時，這是痛苦的。這令人尷尬。你會如何建議人們克服這種損失厭惡，克服對改變的恐懼？ Overcoming Fear of Change 克服對改變的恐懼 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh my god. I’m going to… Yeah. It’s the hardest thing in the world, starting over. It’s back to the zero to one thing, it’s the mountain climbing thing, you’re not going to find your path to the top of the mountain in the first go around, sometimes you go up there, you get stuck and you come back down, and the difference between all the successful people and the ones who are not, is the ones who are successful want it so badly they’re willing to go back and start over, again and again, whether in their career, or in their relationships, or in anything else. NAVAL RAVIKANT：天啊。我會……是的。這是世界上最難的事情，重新開始。這回到從零到一的概念，就像爬山一樣，你不會在第一次嘗試時就找到通往山頂的路，有時你會爬上去，卡住了然後又下來，所有成功者和不成功者之間的差別在於，成功者渴望成功到願意一次又一次地重新開始，無論是在事業、感情還是其他任何方面。 The more seriously you take yourself, the unhappier you’re going to be. 你越是認真看待自己，你就會越不快樂。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You learned how to take yourself less seriously? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你學會了怎麼不那麼把自己看得太嚴肅嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, fame doesn’t help on that one, because that is one of the traps of fame. People are always talking about you, they have a certain view of you, and you start believing that, and then you take yourself seriously, and then that limits your own actions. You can’t look like a fool anymore, you can’t do new things anymore. If tomorrow I announce I’m a breakdancer, right, that’s going to be met with a lot of scorn and ridicule. NAVAL RAVIKANT：嗯，名聲在這方面幫不了忙，因為那是名聲的陷阱之一。人們總是在談論你，他們對你有一定的看法，而你開始相信那個看法，然後你就會把自己看得很嚴肅，這會限制你自己的行動。你不能再看起來像個傻瓜了，不能再做新鮮事了。如果明天我宣布我是個霹靂舞者，對吧，那肯定會遭到很多輕蔑和嘲笑。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I’d back you if you want to make that pivot. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：如果你想轉型，我會支持你。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, the truth is if I want to be a breakdancer, I’d be breakdancing, but you know, like I’m starting a new company, zero to one again, from scratch, let’s do it, you know, one more time, and not just going and raising a big VC fund or retiring or what have you, but that’s because I want to build the product, I want to see it exist. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，事實是如果我想當霹靂舞者，我就會去跳霹靂舞，但你知道，我正在創辦一家公司，從零開始，再次從無到有，來吧，再來一次，而且不是去籌集大筆風投基金或退休什麼的，而是因為我想打造產品，我想看到它的存在。 So I think that you constantly just have to force yourself, have to remind yourself. Look, deep down, you’re still the same Chris you were when you were nine years old. Deep down, you’re still a kid, you know, you’re still curious about the world, you still have a lot of the same predilections and desires at once, you’ve got a nice veneer on it. 所以我認為你必須不斷地強迫自己，必須不斷提醒自己。看，內心深處，你仍然是那個九歲時的克里斯。內心深處，你仍然是個孩子，你知道的，你仍然對世界充滿好奇，你仍然擁有許多相同的偏好和慾望，只是外表上多了一層光鮮亮麗的包裝。 But one of the nice things when you have kids is you realize how much closer they are to you in personality and knowledge and know how. Like I look at my son who’s eight and I just notice like wow he probably has sixty to eighty percent of my knowledge and development wisdom and he has a lot more freedom and he has a lot more spontaneity, in some ways he’s smarter, and there’s not a big gap here left to close. This kid’s going to be done very soon, caught up to me, and so to the extent that I think I know better or that I’m somewhere or that I’m someone, it’s just an illusion, it’s just a belief. 但有了孩子後，一件很棒的事是你會發現他們在個性、知識和技能上與你有多麼接近。比如我看著我八歲的兒子，我就會注意到，哇，他大概擁有我六成到八成的知識和成長智慧，而且他有更多的自由和更多的自發性，在某些方面他更聰明，這裡沒有太大的差距需要彌補。這孩子很快就會完成，追上我，所以在某種程度上，我以為我知道得比較多，或者我在某個位置，或者我是某個人，這只是一種幻覺，只是一種信念。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What’s the lineage between that and taking yourself too seriously? 克里斯·威廉森：這和把自己看得太重之間有什麼關聯？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I shouldn’t take myself too seriously because there’s nothing here to take that seriously, and if I take myself too seriously then I’m going to get trapped, I’m going to circumscribe myself again into a limited set of behaviors and outcomes that keep me from being free, keep me from being spontaneous, keep me from being happy. So it just goes back to, you know, don’t think about yourself too much. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我不應該把自己看得太嚴肅，因為這裡沒有什麼值得那麼嚴肅對待的事情，如果我把自己看得太嚴肅，那我就會被困住，我會再次把自己限制在一套有限的行為和結果中，這會阻礙我自由、阻礙我自發、阻礙我快樂。所以，歸根結底，就是不要過度思考自己。 The Advice We Already Know 我們早已知道的建議 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: There’s a special type of pain in realizing that the advice that you need to hear right now is something that almost always you learned a long time ago, and that you’re basically sort of the same person you were as you were nine. You know, a lot of the time people ask questions like, what advice do wish that you would give yourself ten years ago? Right. People ask themselves that question. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：意識到你現在需要聽的建議，幾乎總是你很久以前就學過的東西，並且你基本上還是那個九歲時的自己，這種痛苦是特別的。你知道，很多時候人們會問這樣的問題：你希望十年前的自己會給什麼建議？對，人們會問自己這個問題。 Almost invariably, the advice that you would give yourself ten years ago is still the advice that you need to hear today. 幾乎可以肯定的是，十年前你會給自己的建議，仍然是你今天需要聽到的建議。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Absolutely, that’s why I did that exercise of thinking back, you know, ten years, twenty years, thirty years ago, what advice would I give myself, for me it’s just be less emotional. Don’t take everything so seriously. Do the same things, but do them without all the emotional turbulence, and so that’s the advice I’m giving myself going forward. NAVAL RAVIKANT：絕對是這樣，這也是為什麼我會做那個回想的練習，想想十年前、二十年前、三十年前，我會給自己什麼建議，對我來說就是少點情緒化。不要把所有事情都看得那麼嚴重。做同樣的事情，但不要帶著所有情緒的波動去做，這就是我未來給自己建議的方向。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s funny how we need that distance to be able to be a little bit more objective, to have a little bit more perspective, and it’s almost a little bit of a trick, right, because typically when you do that, say, would you tell a friend that was going through this? Right. And then you try and turn the advice to the friend around onto yourself, but you always think, I’m not the friend. You’re okay, you, ten years ago, there’s enough distance in that, you go, oh, I actually am still that person. There’s just a single line between that. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是啊，是啊，是啊。有趣的是，我們需要那種距離感，才能更客觀一點，擁有更多的視角，這幾乎有點像是一種技巧，對吧？因為通常當你這麼做的時候，比如說，你會對一個正在經歷這些事情的朋友說什麼？然後你試著把給朋友的建議轉回給自己，但你總會想，我不是那個朋友。沒關係，你，十年前的你，有足夠的距離感，你會發現，喔，我其實仍然是那個人。兩者之間只有一線之隔。 Understanding vs. Discipline 理解與紀律 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, related to this story is I think understanding is way more important than discipline. Now, Jocko would have a fit, but you know, on physical things discipline is important. If I want to build a good body, got to work out on a regular basis, but on mental things, I think understanding is way more important. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，與這個故事相關的是，我認為理解比紀律重要得多。現在，Jocko 可能會大發雷霆，但你知道，在身體方面，紀律很重要。如果我想鍛鍊出好身材，就必須定期運動，但在心理方面，我認為理解重要得多。 Once you see the truth of something, you cannot unsee it. All of us have had experiences where we’ve seen a behavior in a person and then it just changes what we think about that person, we no longer want to be friends with them, or we deeply respect them if it was really good behavior that maybe was observed unintentionally. 一旦你看清了某件事的真相，你就無法再視而不見。我們所有人都有過這樣的經歷：看到一個人的行為，然後這改變了我們對那個人的看法，我們不再想和他們做朋友，或者如果那是無意中觀察到的非常好的行為，我們會深深尊敬他們。 So when we really do see something clearly, it changes our behavior immediately, and that is far more efficient than trying to change your behavior through repetition. 所以當我們真正清楚地看到某件事時，它會立即改變我們的行為，這比通過重複來改變行為要高效得多。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Could you give me an example? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你能給我一個例子嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: If you were, let’s say that you have a friend and then that person turns out to be a thief, you see that person stealing something, you’re done with them. NAVAL RAVIKANT：假設你有一個朋友，結果那個人竟然是小偷，你看到他偷東西，你就不再理會他了。 If you are, you know, the smoking lung cancer example is a good one, right, someone close to you, or anytime someone close to you dies, or you even hear about someone dying, you hear about someone, what’s the first thing you do? The first thing, assuming that you weren’t that close to them, obviously your closeness is different, but if you weren’t that close to them, but you know, you hear about someone in your extended social circle dying, you immediately start trying to distinguish yourself from them. 如果你是，比如說吸煙導致肺癌的例子就很貼切，對吧？當你身邊有人去世，或者你聽說有人去世，第一件事你會做什麼？第一件事，假設你和他們並不親近，當然親近程度不同，但如果你不太親近，只是聽說你社交圈裡有人去世，你會立刻開始試圖與他們區分開來。 You know, “oh well how old is this person, were they a smoker, did they have an issue, do I have that issue?” Right, you immediately start comparing, and what you’re doing there is you’re sort of just trying to see if there’s an overlap here, but if you see the truth in something, if you’re like, “oh my god, this person was the same age as me and they died,” and that’s starting to happen at my age, where I’m starting to hear about extended circle people. Just reminds you, time is really short. 你會想，「喔，那個人多大年紀？他們有抽煙嗎？他們有什麼健康問題嗎？我有這些問題嗎？」你會立刻開始比較，而你在做的就是試圖看看是否有重疊的地方。但如果你看到某件事的真相，比如說，「天啊，這個人和我同齡，卻去世了」，這種情況在我這個年紀開始變得常見，我開始聽說社交圈裡有人去世。這會提醒你，時間真的很短暫。 There’s a truth there, there’s a truth there that you cannot unsee. Or, for example, I think, you into bodybuilding or something back when? I don’t know. 這裡有一個真相，有一個你無法忽視的真相。或者，比如說，我想，你以前是不是曾經練過健美什麼的？我不知道。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Just like bro lifting stuff. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：就像兄弟們在舉重一樣。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Okay, bro lifting. Yeah. Right, but there probably was a point where you were being really agro in the gym and you injured yourself. NAVAL RAVIKANT：好吧，兄弟們在舉重。是的，但可能有一段時間你在健身房非常激烈，結果受傷了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Many times. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：很多次。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right, and each one of those was a deep understanding of don’t go beyond this point, right? There was a truth there. So again, when you see these things in such a way that you can’t unsee them, that changes your behavior instantly, and I would argue that that introspection to find those truths is actually very useful. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，而每一項都是對「不要超越這個界限」的深刻理解，對吧？那裡面有一個真理。所以，當你以這種方式看到這些事情，無法再視而不見時，你的行為會立即改變，我認為這種內省去發現那些真理其實非常有用。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is that a justification for more experimentation, exploration, experience in life, so they’re trying to find serendipity because all of these experiences are going to teach you a inescapable lesson? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這是否成為更多實驗、探索和生活經驗的理由，因為他們試圖尋找意外的驚喜，因為所有這些經歷都會教給你一個無法逃避的教訓？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: You’re going to do what you’re going to do, I mean your level of exploration I think is sort of up to you, but life is always throwing truth back at you. It’s about whether you choose to see it, whether you choose to acknowledge it, even if it’s painful, truth is often painful, right? If it wasn’t, we’d all be seeing truth all the time, reality is always reflecting truth, that’s all it is. NAVAL RAVIKANT：你會做你想做的事，我的意思是你的探索程度取決於你自己，但生活總是在向你反映真相。關鍵在於你是否選擇去看見它，是否選擇去承認它，即使它是痛苦的，真相往往是痛苦的，對吧？如果不是這樣，我們都會一直看到真相，現實總是在反映真相，僅此而已。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Why would you not have accessed it already? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你為什麼還沒有接觸到它？ Wisdom Must Be Discovered Personally 智慧必須親自發現 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly, you know, all the philosophy that’s out there, for example, it’s almost trite, like most people they look at philosophy like until they discover it for themselves, because wisdom is the set of things that cannot be transmitted. If they could be transmitted, you know, we’d read the same five philosophy books, it would all be done, we’d all be wise. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，你知道，所有現有的哲學，比如說，幾乎是陳詞濫調，大多數人都是在自己發現之前才會去看哲學，因為智慧是一套無法傳遞的東西。如果能夠傳遞，你知道，我們都讀同樣的五本哲學書，事情就結束了，我們都會變得有智慧。 You have to learn it for yourself, it has to be rediscovered for yourself in your own context, you have to have specific experiences that then allow you to generalize and see the truth in those things in such a way that you’re not going to unsee them, but each person is going to see them in a different way. I can tell you that Socrates story, and it’s not going to resonate until there’s something that other people desire that you realize you yourself don’t want, and the moment that happens, then you’ll see the truth in the general statement. 你必須自己學習，必須在你自己的情境中重新發現，你必須有特定的經驗，這些經驗讓你能夠概括並看到其中的真理，以至於你不會再忽視它們，但每個人看到的方式都會不同。我可以告訴你蘇格拉底的故事，但直到你意識到有些其他人渴望的東西是你自己不想要的那一刻，這個故事才會引起共鳴，當那一刻發生時，你就會看到那個普遍陳述中的真理。 Unteachable Lessons  無法教授的課題 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I want to just read you a two minute essay that I wrote a couple of weeks ago. It’s called Unteachable Lessons. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我想讀給你聽一篇我幾週前寫的兩分鐘短文，標題是《無法教授的課題》。 I’ve been thinking about the special category of lesson, one which you cannot discover without experiencing it firsthand. There is a certain subset of advice that for some reason we all refuse to learn through instruction. These are unteachable lessons. 我一直在思考一種特殊類別的課程，那種你必須親身經歷才能發現的課程。有一類建議，出於某種原因，我們都拒絕通過指導來學習。這些是無法教導的課程。 No matter how arduous or costly or effortful it is going to be for us to find out ourselves, we prefer to disregard the mountains of warnings from our elders, songs, literature, historical catastrophes, public scandals, and instead think some version of, “yeah, that might be true for them, but not for me.” We decide to learn the hard lessons the hard way over and over again. 無論我們自己去發現這些課程會多麼艱難、多麼昂貴或多麼費力，我們寧願忽視長輩的無數警告、歌曲、文學、歷史災難、公共醜聞，反而會想著「是啊，那可能對他們來說是真的，但對我不一定。」我們決定一次又一次地用艱難的方式學習這些艱難的課程。 Unfortunately, they all seem to be the big things too. It’s never new insights about how to put up level shelves or charmingly introduce yourself at a cocktail party. Instead, we spend most of our lives learning firsthand the most important lessons that the previous generations already warned us about. 不幸的是，這些課程似乎都是重大課題。它們從來不是關於如何掛平整的架子或在雞尾酒會上迷人地自我介紹的新見解。相反，我們大部分人生都在親身學習那些前人早已警告過我們的最重要課題。 Things like money won’t make you happy, fame won’t fix your self worth, you don’t love that pretty girl, she’s just hot and difficult to get, nothing is as important as you think it is when you’re thinking about it, you will regret working too much. Worrying is not improving your performance. All your fears are a waste of time. You should see your parents more. You’ll be fine after the breakup and be grateful that you did it. It’s perfectly okay to cut toxic people out of your life. 錢財不會讓你快樂，名聲也無法修復你的自我價值，你並不愛那個漂亮女孩，她只是性感且難以追求，當你在思考時，沒有什麼事情像你想的那麼重要，你會後悔工作太多。擔憂並不會提升你的表現。你所有的恐懼都是浪費時間。你應該多看看你的父母。分手後你會沒事，並感激自己做了這個決定。把有毒的人從你的生活中剔除是完全沒問題的。 And even reading this list back, I’m rolling my eyes at how fucking trite it is. These are all basic bitch, obvious insights that everybody has heard before. But if they’re so basic, why does everyone so reliably fall prey to them throughout our lives? And if they’re so obvious, why do people who have recently become famous or wealthy or lost a parent or gone through a breakup start to proclaim these facts with the renewed grandiose ceremony of someone who’s just gone through religious revelation? 即使回頭讀這份清單，我也會對它的老生常談感到翻白眼。這些都是基本且顯而易見的見解，大家以前都聽過。但如果它們如此基本，為什麼我們一生中總是如此可靠地陷入這些陷阱？如果它們如此明顯，為什麼那些剛成名、剛致富、剛失去親人或剛經歷分手的人，會以剛經歷宗教啟示般的盛大儀式來宣揚這些事實？ It’s also a very contentious list of points to say on the Internet. If you interview a billionaire who says that all of his money didn’t make him happy or a movie star who said that her fame felt like a prison, the Internet will tear them apart for being ungrateful and out of touch. So not only do we refuse to learn these lessons, we even refuse to hear the message from those warning us about them. 這也是一份在網路上非常具爭議性的觀點清單。如果你訪問一位億萬富翁，他說所有的錢並沒有讓他快樂，或者一位電影明星說她的名聲感覺像監獄，網路會因為他們忘恩負義和脫離現實而撕裂他們。因此，我們不僅拒絕學習這些教訓，甚至拒絕聽取那些警告我們的人所傳達的信息。 And even more than that, I think for every one of these, if I consider a bit deeper, I can recall a time, including right now, where I convinced myself that I am the exception to the rule, that my particular mental makeup or life situation or historical wounds or dreams for the future render me immune to these lessons being applicable. No. No. No. My inner landscape would be solved by skirting around the most well known wisdom of the ages. No. No. No. I can thread this needle properly. Watch me dance through the minefield and avoid all of the tripwires that everyone else kicks. 更甚者，我認為對於這些每一條，如果我稍微深入思考，我都能回想起某個時刻，包括現在，我曾說服自己我是規則的例外，我特有的心理構造、生活狀況、歷史傷痛或對未來的夢想使我免於這些教訓的適用。不，不，不。我的內心世界不會因為繞過這些歷代最著名的智慧而得到解決。不，不，不。我能正確地穿過這個針眼。看我如何在地雷區中舞動，避開所有其他人會踢到的陷阱線。 The Value of Unteachable Lessons 無法教導的教訓的價值 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And then you kick one, and you share a knowing look, the kind that can only occur between two people who’ve been hurt in the exact same way, and a voice in the back of your mind will say, I told you so. That’s unteachable lesson. It’s a good essay. NAVAL RAVIKANT：然後你踢到一個陷阱，你們會交換一個會心的眼神，只有兩個以完全相同方式受過傷的人之間才會有的那種眼神，腦海深處會有一個聲音說，我早就告訴過你了。那就是無法教導的教訓。這是一篇很好的文章。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I think one of the reasons why these lessons are unteachable is because they’re too broad, they have to be applied in context. A number of the ones that you laid out contradict each other, like spend more time with your parents and don’t work so hard, but at the same time, you do want to be successful, right? I think a lot of these lessons come from down on high, from as you said, like the famous movie star or the billionaire saying, “Oh, you don’t need money to be happy,” it’s like, well okay then give it up. 克里斯·威廉森：我認為這些課程之所以無法教導，是因為它們太過籠統，必須在具體情境中應用。你列出的許多教訓彼此矛盾，比如說多花時間陪伴父母，不要太拼命工作，但同時你又想要成功，對吧？我覺得這些教訓很多是從高處傳下來的，就像你說的，那些著名影星或億萬富翁說：「你不需要錢才能快樂」，那好吧，那就放棄錢吧。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right? So in reality I think many of these contradict each other. It’s like if you went to school and you just studied philosophy for four years, you would not know how to live life because you wouldn’t know which philosophical doctrine to apply in which circumstance. You have to actually live life, go through all of the issues to figure out what it is that you want, what’s the context in which some of these things apply and some of them don’t. Yes you want to visit your parents more often, but you don’t want to live with your parents and you don’t want necessarily see them every day or every weekend depending on the parent. You might not get along with one of them, so I think it is highly contextual. NAVAL RAVIKANT：對吧？所以實際上我認為這些很多是互相矛盾的。就像如果你去學校只學哲學四年，你也不會知道如何生活，因為你不知道在什麼情況下應該應用哪種哲學理論。你必須真正去生活，經歷所有問題，才能弄清楚你想要什麼，哪些情況下某些理論適用，哪些不適用。是的，你想更常去看望父母，但你不想和父母同住，也不一定想每天或每個週末都見他們，這取決於父母的情況。你可能和其中一位不合得來，所以我認為這非常依情境而定。 That said, I would argue that once you figure it out for yourself, you can kind of carve these variations on these maxims that apply to you, and then you’ll have a specific experience that helps you remember it and actually execute on it. 話雖如此，我認為一旦你自己弄清楚了，你就可以為自己雕琢出這些格言的變體，這些變體適用於你，然後你會有一個具體的經驗幫助你記住它並真正去執行。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And you can also phrase it in a way where it’s not trite anymore. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你也可以用一種不再陳詞濫調的方式來表達它。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s personal. So a lot of my maxims in those to self are carved in a way that they’re modernized. They’re saying something true, which might be trite if I didn’t say it in a new way or in an interesting way that is more relevant to me today. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這是個人的。所以我很多給自己的格言都是以現代化的方式雕琢出來的。它們說的是一些真理，如果我不是用一種新的方式或更貼近我今天的有趣方式來說，可能會顯得陳腐。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: There was a Nobel Prize winner who said something to the effect of “everything worth saying may have been said before, but given that nobody was listening, it must be said again.” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：有位諾貝爾獎得主曾說過類似這樣的話：「所有值得說的話可能以前都說過了，但因為沒有人在聽，所以必須再說一次。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, it has to be said again, it has to be recontextualized for the modern age. Things do change, technology changes things, culture changes, people change. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，這必須再次強調，並且需要在現代背景下重新詮釋。事情確實會改變，科技改變事物，文化改變，人們也會改變。 Wisdom vs. Appearing Wise 智慧與看似聰明 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: On that, I’ve heard you say, you talk about the difference between seeming wise and being wise, that you tried to appear smart as a kid. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：關於這點，我聽你說過，你談到看似聰明和真正聰明之間的差別，你說你小時候試著讓自己看起來很聰明。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Still do. NAVAL RAVIKANT：現在仍然如此。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Rote memorization, masquerading as insight and wisdom. I’d certainly feel that, you know, a lot of the show, for me, I think, has been, was and still is, a redemption arc from this decade of my life where I completely suppressed any intellectual curiosity. Like, okay, I’ll be a professional party boy for ten years, stand on the front door of a nightclub and give out VIP wristbands and have access to all of the pretty girls or the cool parties or whatever it might be. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：死記硬背，假裝成洞察力和智慧。我確實覺得，對我來說，這個節目很大程度上是一個救贖的過程，來自我人生這十年裡完全壓抑任何知識好奇心的階段。就像，好吧，我會當一個專業的派對男孩十年，站在夜店門口發放 VIP 手環，能接觸到所有漂亮的女孩或酷炫的派對，無論是什麼。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Seems like it worked out okay. NAVAL RAVIKANT：看起來結果還不錯。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It did in some ways, but it was a good way to spend my twenties. But to sort of come back above water, two degrees, one of which was a master’s, and then this, like, just shut down any of that learning. I did that while I was at uni. While I was at uni, I was running the events. So it was actually a decade and a half. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：在某些方面確實如此，但這是我度過二十多歲的好方式。但要重新站起來，拿了兩個學位，其中一個是碩士，然後就像完全關閉了那種學習。我是在大學期間這麼做的。大學時期，我還在經營活動。所以其實是十多年。 I think there was a big redemption arc within this show, and I constantly have to kind of wipe the slime off me of this sense that I need to prove myself. That’s why it really resonates with me when you’re memorizing things that indicate that you don’t understand them, or that sort of rote memorization and regurgitation masquerading as wisdom, because people use fluency as a proxy for truthfulness and insights. They use the complexity of your language and your communication. 我認為這個節目中有一個很大的救贖弧線，而我不斷地必須擦去那種我需要證明自己的感覺帶來的黏膩感。這就是為什麼當你背誦那些顯示你不理解的東西，或者那種死記硬背和反芻假裝成智慧的行為時，這真的讓我產生共鳴，因為人們用流利度作為真實性和洞察力的替代指標。他們用你語言和溝通的複雜性來衡量。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, there’s a lot of jargon out there. I think it’s the mark of a charlatan to explain a simple thing in a complex way, and so when you see people using very complicated language to explain simple things, they’re either trying to impress you and obfuscate, or they don’t understand it themselves. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，外面有很多行話。我認為用複雜的方式解釋簡單的事情是騙子的標誌，所以當你看到有人用非常複雜的語言來解釋簡單的事情時，他們要麼是在試圖給你留下深刻印象並混淆視聽，要麼他們自己根本不理解。 Authenticity vs. Performance 真實性與表演性之間的對比 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: But there’s an allure in that though. This was one of the things I had to do when I went to therapy. I don’t think I’ve talked about this before. I needed to turn off “podcast Chris” when I stepped into therapy because most of the time that I spend one on one in a deep conversation that’s undistracted throughout the week, I’d trained myself over, you know, when I started doing it, seven hundred episodes now, nine hundred and whatever. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：但這其中確實有一種吸引力。這是我去做心理治療時必須做的一件事。我想我以前沒談過這件事。當我走進治療室時，我需要關掉「播客版的克里斯」，因為我大部分一對一的深度對話時間，都是在一整週中不受干擾地進行的，而我在開始做這件事時，已經訓練自己了，現在已經有七百集，甚至九百多集了。 I knew what I could say to this therapist to just sort of veer off a little and create some nice story, put a bow on it, push it across the table, watch your eyes light up a little bit, like a little grin or a self-deprecating joke or whatever. I’m like, you’re not here. You’re performing. You’re doing the Chris Williamson thing with the sort of jazz hands. 我知道該對這位治療師說什麼，稍微偏離一點，編造一個漂亮的故事，給它加個蝴蝶結，推到桌子上，看著你的眼睛微微發亮，露出一點笑容，或者自嘲的玩笑之類的。我心想，你不在這裡。你是在表演。你在做克里斯·威廉森的那套帶有爵士手勢的表演。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I have my own version. So you have podcast Chris. I have podcast guest Naval. Very often, I’ll think of something, I’ll have some, what I think is an insight, and I want to tweet it or write it down, but in my mind, I’m talking about it on a podcast. That’s kind of how my mind registers it, and for a while, I thought this was a bad thing, and I tried to eradicate podcast Naval, and then I just realized that’s just how it comes out, so I might as well just be okay with it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我有我自己的版本。你有播客主持人 Chris，我有播客嘉賓 Naval。很多時候，我會想到一些東西，覺得那是個洞見，想要發推文或寫下來，但在我腦海中，我是在播客裡談論它。這就是我思考的方式，一開始我覺得這是件壞事，試圖消除播客 Naval，但後來我意識到這就是我的表達方式，所以我乾脆接受它。 Now, do you know the reason I’m on this podcast? I haven’t done a proper formal interview, straight up, top ten, twenty podcasts in a long time. Since Rogan, maybe? 現在，你知道我為什麼會來這個播客嗎？我很久沒有做過正式的訪談了，直接說，是前十名、二十名的播客。自從 Rogan 之後，可能吧？ CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Probably since Rogan. You went out at the top, right? That was the theory. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：大概是從 Rogan 開始吧。你當時是巔峰退場，對吧？那是當時的理論。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, it’s still at the top. And then, you know, I’ve done some stuff with Tim Ferriss, a good friend, but that’s been more co-hosting. I haven’t been a guest. And then I did one or two random things where I just stumbled into a thing, but it wasn’t like this, and I reached out to you for this one. NAVAL RAVIKANT：其實我還是在巔峰。然後，我也和 Tim Ferriss，一位好朋友，合作過一些節目，但那更多是共同主持，我沒有當過嘉賓。後來我偶爾參加過一兩次隨機的節目，但不像這次這樣，是我主動聯繫你的。 I have lots of people reaching out to me for podcasts. I did not answer them. I reached out to you, and the reason is a really funny one. It’s because when I am playing Podcast Naval in my head, for some reason, you’re on the other side, and I don’t know why. I literally don’t know why. It’s not like I’ve even seen many of your podcasts. I think I’ve seen some snippets here and there, but for some reason, you were the guy in the podcast, in podcast Naval. And so I was like, oh, I might as well just do it. So I reached out to you. 有很多人聯繫我想做播客。我沒有回覆他們。我主動聯繫了你，原因非常有趣。因為當我在腦海中扮演播客中的 Naval 時，不知為何，你就在另一邊，我也不知道為什麼。我真的不知道為什麼。也不是說我看過你很多播客，我想我只看過一些片段，但不知怎的，你就是那個播客裡的那個人，播客中的 Naval。所以我想，哦，那我乾脆就做了。於是我聯繫了你。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I wonder if this will close that loop or further entrench it. I wonder if you’ve made it way worse now, and you’re just going to have—well, first off, it was a dream, and now it’s reality plus a dream. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我在想這會不會讓這個循環結束，或者讓它更加根深蒂固。我在想你是不是讓事情變得更糟了，現在你會有——嗯，首先，這曾經是一場夢，現在是現實加夢境。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: There are enough people that I turned down where I said I’m just not doing podcasts, that I feel bad about that. I gotta go back and do those podcasts, but I probably wear out my welcome. I have nothing new to talk about, so I don’t know what I’m going to say. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我拒絕了足夠多的人，他們邀請我做播客，我說我就是不做播客，對此我感到有些愧疚。我得回去做那些播客，但我可能會讓人覺得我不受歡迎了。我已經沒有新話題可談了，所以我不知道我會說什麼。 Conversations vs. Interviews 對話與訪談 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Well, I appreciate you. You’d said on Rogan, and this was something to kind of pay it back to you, I had a five-headed Mount Rushmore of guests before I started this show, and it was Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Alain de Botton from the School of Life, you, and Rogan, and that was my hydra of a Mount Rushmore. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：嗯，我很感激你。你曾在羅根節目上說過，這也是我想回報你的原因，在我開始這個節目前，我心中有一個五人組的拉什莫爾山嘉賓名單，那就是喬丹·彼得森、山姆·哈里斯、生命學校的阿蘭·德波頓、你和羅根，這就是我那個多頭的拉什莫爾山。 And I knew someone had asked you at some point, maybe it was a tweet or something after Rogan, or maybe even said it on Rogan where you said, I don’t like to say the same thing twice, at least not in the same way. I don’t like sequels. 我知道有人曾經問過你，也許是在羅根節目之後的推特上，或者甚至是在羅根節目上你說過，你不喜歡重複說同樣的話，至少不以同樣的方式說。我不喜歡續集。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. Yeah. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。是的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And I really, really respected that. You know, that was 2019. You said it was eight or nine years ago. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我真的非常尊重這一點。你知道，那是 2019 年。你說那是八、九年前的事了。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I have a terrible memory. Yeah. You’re right. 2019, right before COVID. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我的記憶很差。是的，你說得對。2019 年，就在 COVID 之前。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And, I really appreciated that, because there is something in the content game you can continue to sort of—I’m sure I’ll have said many things today that the audience will have already heard. But, caring enough about having novel insights or at least having a new perspective on similar insights. In the space of six years since you were on Joe, the first thing I said to you today was, I’m not convinced I actually fully agree with that thing that I used to say, which is cool. Right? That’s you showing that the position that you put in the ground previously is not a tether. It’s not you being held to it anymore. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我真的很感激這一點，因為在內容創作領域，你可以持續地——我相信我今天會說出許多觀眾已經聽過的話。但，足夠在意擁有新穎的見解，或者至少對類似見解有新的視角。在你六年前上 Joe 節目之後，今天我對你說的第一句話是，我不確定我是否完全同意我以前常說的那句話，這很酷，對吧？這表示你之前立下的立場並不是束縛，不再是你必須堅守的立場。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think the reason why I wanted to be on this is because for some reason I have the impression that you engage in conversations, and I like conversations. I don’t like interviews. This is why I was doing my last startup Air Chat, which was all about conversations, and conversations to me are more genuine. They’re more authentic. There’s a give and take, there’s a back and forth, there’s a genuine curiosity. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我想我之所以想參加這個節目，是因為某種原因我有一種印象，覺得你會進行對話，而我喜歡對話。我不喜歡訪談。這也是為什麼我之前創辦的初創公司 Air Chat 完全是關於對話的，對我來說，對話更真誠、更真實。它有來有往，有互動，有真正的好奇心。 It’s not to say the other podcasters don’t do it, they absolutely do do it, but for some reason in my mind, I had you as the guy that I would actually have a conversation with, and sure enough, you just read me your essay, which I don’t think anybody else would really do, right? That implies there’s a give and take, there’s a genuine curiosity, and I think that’s useful, because then, certain inexplicit knowledge that I had will be surfaced for myself, and I think that’s helpful. 並不是說其他播客主持人不這麼做，他們絕對會這麼做，但不知為何在我心中，我把你當成那個我會真正與之對話的人，果然，你只是讀給我聽你的文章，我覺得沒有人會真的這麼做，對吧？這意味著有來有往，有真正的好奇心，我認為這很有用，因為這樣我自己一些未明說的知識就會被激發出來，我覺得這很有幫助。 Finding Resonance in Others 在他人身上尋找共鳴 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Well, you’re seeing, to kind of break the fourth wall a bit, you’re seeing very much of some of the gateway drug insights that you had that you just don’t get to choose. I’m aware that you kind of have an anti-guru sentiment in you, like a very strong, like, don’t listen to me. I don’t know what I’m doing. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：好吧，為了打破第四面牆一點點，你會看到一些你無法選擇的入門藥物般的洞見。我知道你內心有一種反導師的情緒，非常強烈，就像是「別聽我說，我不知道自己在做什麼」。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Guru is a trap. Do not follow me. Do not bow to me. Do not do any of the other things to me. NAVAL RAVIKANT：導師是一個陷阱。不要跟隨我。不要向我鞠躬。也不要對我做任何其他事情。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: But, if you see resonance in another person, and I think this is what we’re all trying to find. People can complain about the mountains of content creation that happens, and maybe rightly so. But if you’re able to find someone and you see in them a little bit of you, maybe not even much of you, but like, oh, that bit of them, their self-esteem or the way they look at relationships or what they want to do, the kind of life they want or the level of peace of mind that they want to have. If you find in somebody else a little bit of that, it’s kind of like what you’re saying before. You can no longer be unconvinced of that, and it steps in and becomes a part of you. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：但是，如果你在另一個人身上看到共鳴，我認為這正是我們都在努力尋找的。人們可以抱怨大量的內容創作，或許這是有道理的。但如果你能找到某個人，並在他們身上看到一點點自己的影子，甚至可能不多，但像是他們的自尊、他們看待關係的方式、他們想做的事、他們想要的生活類型或他們想要擁有的心靈平靜程度。如果你在別人身上找到一點點這樣的東西，就像你之前說的那樣，你就無法再不信服它，它會介入並成為你的一部分。 And, yeah, you’re maybe seeing reflected back to you some percolated, very meandering insight from however long ago. Maybe in five years time, you’ll be like, you know that thing that you said about the lessons and the blah blah blah? It’s cool. That’s like synthesis. 對，你可能會看到一些從很久以前就開始醞釀、非常曲折的見解反映回來。也許五年後，你會想，那個你說過的關於教訓和那些什麼什麼的東西？挺酷的。那就像是綜合的結果。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: The reason I spend a lot of time in San Francisco is because it’s a gravitational attractor for the smartest people in the world, and despite all of the many problems the city had, because it’s mismanaged beyond belief, it does just seem to pull in the young, smart, creative people. Not just the ones who are building technology, but they’re exploring every facet of life and they’re weird and sometimes it’s repulsive and it’s bizarre, but you talk to these people and you just see a very intelligent person coming at life in a completely different way. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我花很多時間待在舊金山的原因是，這裡是世界上最聰明的人們的引力中心，儘管這座城市有許多問題，因為管理極其不善，但它確實吸引了年輕、聰明、有創意的人們。不僅僅是那些在建造科技的人，他們在探索生活的各個面向，他們很怪異，有時令人反感，也很奇異，但當你和這些人交談時，你會看到一個非常聰明的人以完全不同的方式看待生活。 Putting it to the combinatorics of human DNA which are uncountable, and giving you a weird perspective that can twist your mind around, and to do that you always have to be learning. You can’t be in a guru mentality. If I’m with somebody and they’re listening to every word I say and hanging on it, that’s not interesting for me, I’m not going to learn anything. I want people who are intelligent, who will say something back that is a little different, and I may not agree with it, but it’s going to leave a mark, it’s going leave an impression. It’s going to leave an impression to the extent that both that they are correct, and that I choose to listen, and I’ll choose to listen if I don’t view myself as higher status or smarter than them. 將其放在人類 DNA 的組合數學中，這些組合是無法計數的，並給你一個奇特的視角，能讓你的思維繞個彎，為了做到這一點，你必須不斷學習。你不能抱持著大師心態。如果我和某人在一起，他們聽我說的每一句話並緊緊抓住，那對我來說並不有趣，我不會學到任何東西。我想要的是聰明的人，他們會回應一些稍微不同的觀點，雖然我可能不完全同意，但這會留下痕跡，會留下印象。這種印象會在他們是正確的程度上留下，而我選擇去聆聽，當我不把自己看得比他們地位高或更聰明時，我才會選擇去聽。 The Value of Authentic Relationships 真誠關係的價值 NAVAL RAVIKANT: The flip side of that is I’m not really impressed by high status people. In fact, most of my friends who have gone on to become very famous or successful, the less I spend time with them. Partially because they get surrounded by an army of sycophants—it’s just hard to break through. And because I don’t want anything from them, I don’t like situations in which transactional relationships are implied. NAVAL RAVIKANT：相反的情況是，我對高地位的人並不真正感到佩服。事實上，我大多數成為非常有名或成功的朋友，我與他們相處的時間反而越來越少。部分原因是他們被一群諂媚者包圍——很難突破這層關係。而且因為我不想從他們那裡得到什麼，我不喜歡暗示有交易性關係的情況。 That’s clearly a gift to people of that status, because the higher they climb up that hierarchy, the fewer people don’t want anything from them. So in that way, you want to be an even better friend. But they get surrounded by people who do want things from them and are so good at pretending they don’t, that it’s just not worth my time to try and break out from that group. 這顯然是對那種地位人士的一種恩賜，因為他們在那個階層爬得越高，不想從他們那裡得到任何東西的人就越少。所以從這個角度來看，你會想成為一個更好的朋友。但他們周圍總是被那些想從他們身上得到東西的人包圍，而這些人又非常擅長假裝自己沒有這樣的意圖，讓我根本不值得花時間去試圖擺脫那個圈子。 So, it does get lonely at the top, so to speak, but it’s also by choice, because it’s a champagne problem. 所以，可以說在頂端確實會感到孤獨，但這也是一種選擇，因為這是一個香檳問題。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, you can be your own best friend too. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，你也可以成為你自己的最佳朋友。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I am my own best friend actually, so I really do enjoy spending time with myself. The smartest people aren’t interested in appearing smart and don’t care what you think. A lot of life is not giving a shit, but a lot of the best things in life come out of that. NAVAL RAVIKANT：其實我就是我自己最好的朋友，所以我真的很享受與自己相處的時光。最聰明的人不會在意表現得聰明，也不在乎你怎麼看他們。生活中有很多事情是不在乎的，但很多人生中最美好的事物正是從這種不在乎中產生的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Does this mean, sort of talking about that rote memorization masquerading as wisdom and insight thing, which I think perhaps podcasts like this will have contributed to? You hear someone like Alan Watts who’s like a painter with words—very simple, very sort of unpretentious—but if you’re intellectually curious, you only see the production of his thoughts. You don’t necessarily see the work that’s gone into the thoughts behind, so you confuse the presentation of them for the insight. Does that make sense? 克里斯·威廉森：這是否意味著，談論那種死記硬背卻假裝成智慧和洞見的現象，我想像這樣的播客可能也有助長這種情況？你聽像艾倫·瓦茲這樣的人，他用言語作畫——非常簡單，非常不矯揉造作——但如果你有求知慾，你只會看到他思想的產出。你不一定會看到支撐這些思想背後的努力，所以你會把表達方式誤認為是洞見。這樣說有道理嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Of course, yeah. A lot of my stuff is more polished. One of the funny things right before this podcast was I thought, “Oh, maybe I should go back and read my old tweets just so I remember what I said and I can articulate it well.” Then I realized that’s just performance. I would just be memorizing my own stuff to perform. NAVAL RAVIKANT：當然，沒錯。我的很多內容都是經過打磨的。這次播客之前有件有趣的事，我想，「哦，也許我應該回去看看我以前的推文，這樣我就能記得我說過什麼，並且能夠好好表達。」然後我意識到那只是表演。我只是在背誦自己的東西來表演而已。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s an extra special level of hell that you’ve descended into. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那是你墮入的一個特別地獄層次。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly, memorizing me to be more me. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，背誦自己以變得更像自己。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Bingo.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：正中紅心。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And I still live up to some expectations or some famous personality that I now have to become, some straight jacket that I have to put on. So, I’m having to live up to in private the things that I prefer. Pretty quickly I saw through that—it’s nonsense, and it also constrains my time and it’s just work. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我仍然得符合某些期望，或成為某個我現在必須成為的知名人物，像是必須穿上的緊身衣。所以，我必須在私下裡達到那些我偏好的標準。我很快就看穿了這一點——這是胡說八道，而且還限制了我的時間，這只是工作而已。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I think that’s your meditation practice at work there, that mindfulness gap to be like, “Yeah. There’s that thing again.” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我覺得這就是你的冥想練習在起作用，那種正念的空隙，讓你能說：「是的，那件事又來了。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly, hello. It’s not about changing your thoughts, it’s not about fixing your thoughts, it’s not about changing yourself, it’s just about being observant of yourself so that whatever change needs to happen will happen. You trying to change yourself is very circular—the mind trying to change the mind. The mind doesn’t like wrestling with itself. I don’t think it gets you anywhere. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，哈囉。這不是關於改變你的想法，也不是修正你的想法，更不是改變你自己，而是關於觀察自己，讓任何需要發生的改變自然發生。你試圖改變自己是非常循環的——心靈試圖改變心靈。心靈不喜歡與自己搏鬥。我覺得這不會帶你到任何地方。 The Best Ways to Spend Wealth 花費財富的最佳方式 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You’ve spent a lot of time either creating wealth or thinking about how to create wealth. What have you learned are the best places to spend wealth? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你花了很多時間在創造財富或思考如何創造財富。你學到的最佳花費財富的地方是什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I actually think Elon had this one figured out, which is he plowed his own money back into his own businesses to go and do bigger and better things for humanity. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我其實認為埃隆已經想通了，他把自己的錢再投入到自己的企業中，去為人類做更大更好的事情。 You could give it to nonprofits, but a lot of nonprofits are grifty, or it’s people who didn’t earn it trying to spend it, or they don’t have tight feedback loops on having a good effect. One of the things I want to do as an aside is I want to create a little school for young physicists, but that’s my nonprofit thing. I’ve actually underwritten media and some physics stuff. I don’t like to talk about my so-called philanthropy, because I think that makes it less real, that makes it more status oriented. 你可以把錢捐給非營利組織，但很多非營利組織都有些投機取巧，或者是那些沒有賺到錢的人試圖花掉這些錢，或者他們沒有嚴密的反饋機制來確保有良好的效果。我想做的一件事是，我想為年輕的物理學家創建一所小學校，這是我的非營利項目。我其實也資助過媒體和一些物理相關的東西。我不喜歡談論我所謂的慈善事業，因為我覺得那樣會讓它顯得不真實，反而更像是為了地位。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Like less philanthropic. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：像是比較不慈善的感覺。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, exactly. Then people look at how charitable my charity is, and people also come hunting for money, so there’s all that disease. I don’t believe in giving to schools—they have enough money. Ivy Leagues have enough money and they don’t know how to spend it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，沒錯。然後人們會看我慈善機構的慈善程度，也有人會來尋找錢財，所以這其中有各種問題。我不相信捐錢給學校——他們已經有足夠的資金。常春藤盟校有足夠的錢，但他們不知道如何花用。 I think the best use of money is creating a product for people that they voluntarily buy and they get value out of. In that sense, I think Steve Jobs and Elon and entrepreneurs like that have created a lot of value for the world. One of the things I can do is take my own money and invest it in myself to go and build the next great thing that I think needs to exist, and that’s basically what I’m doing right now. I’m doing a new business, I’m self-funding it, I’m applying a lot of money into it. I’m going to build something that I think is beautiful, that I want to see exist. 我認為金錢最好的用途是創造一個產品，讓人們自願購買並從中獲得價值。從這個角度來看，我認為史蒂夫·賈伯斯、埃隆以及像他們這樣的企業家為世界創造了大量價值。我能做的一件事是拿自己的錢投資自己，去打造我認為必須存在的下一個偉大事物，這基本上就是我現在正在做的事。我正在做一個新事業，自籌資金，投入大量資金。我將打造一個我認為美好的東西，我希望它能存在。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Have you spoken about this yet, or is it still dark? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你有談過這件事嗎，還是還在保密階段？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s so early. Maybe I’ll show it to you in a few months. Hopefully months, and I’m excited about it, and that’s a good use of money. NAVAL RAVIKANT：還很早。也許幾個月後我會給你看。希望是幾個月，我對此感到興奮，這是金錢的好用途。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What about the worst places to spend wealth? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那麼，花錢最糟糕的地方是哪些呢？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: What is the old line, if it flies, floats, fornicates? NAVAL RAVIKANT：那句老話是什麼來著，如果它會飛、會浮、會交配？ CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Very nice way to change the final F. Very impressive. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：把最後一個 F 換成那樣真是太妙了。非常令人印象深刻。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh, that’s the way I heard it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：喔，我聽到的就是那樣說的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I’m pretty sure it’s Felix Dennis who had that quote. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我很確定那句話是費利克斯·丹尼斯說的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, he said, “If it flies, floats, or fornicates, rent it.” I think the last one was a little too—it’s wrong. He didn’t have a family, didn’t have kids, so he missed the big one. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，他說過，「如果它會飛、會漂浮，或者會交配，就租它。」我覺得最後那句有點太……錯了。他沒有家庭，沒有孩子，所以錯過了最重要的一點。 But yeah, there are lots of bad ways to spend money. I believe in investment, I don’t believe in consumption. You’re born with a short housing position, you close that out, you get yourself a nice house, get yourself some help to free up your time, so you’re not doing things that other people can do better. Treat people well—always overpay and expect the best, pay them like they’re the best and then expect the best. 不過，是的，有很多花錢的壞方法。我相信投資，不相信消費。你天生就有一個短期的房產持倉，當你結束它後，給自己買一棟好房子，找些幫手來釋放你的時間，這樣你就不會做那些別人能做得更好的事。善待他人——總是多付錢並期待最好，付他們像對待最優秀的人一樣的薪水，然後期待他們做到最好。 Overall I think a good use of money is to take risks and build things and do things that other people can’t do, align it with your own unique talents so you can keep delivering to the world. I’m not going to sit idle, I’m not going to retire, that’s a waste of whatever time I have left on this earth. If I’m doing something I enjoy, then I’m already in perpetual retirement. Because work is just a set of things you have to do that you don’t want to do. So if you want to do it, it’s not work. 總的來說，我認為錢的好用法是冒險、創造和做別人做不到的事，並與你獨特的才能相結合，這樣你才能持續為世界做出貢獻。我不會閒著，我不會退休，那是在浪費我在這個世界上剩下的時間。如果我在做我喜歡的事，那我已經處於永恆的退休狀態。因為工作只是你必須做但不想做的一系列事情。所以如果你想做，那就不是工作。 There are things that I want to do that don’t feel like work. I can put money behind them and I can use that to instantiate them into reality. I don’t want to say “make the world a better place” because that’s too trite, but it’s more just create a product that I am proud of that wouldn’t exist otherwise, that other people will get tremendous value from. 有些事情我想做，但感覺不像是在工作。我可以投入資金，並利用這些資金將它們實現為現實。我不想說「讓世界變得更美好」，因為那太老套了，但更像是創造一個我引以為傲、否則不會存在的產品，並且其他人能從中獲得巨大的價值。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And it’s been enabled through wealth because you’re able to take a level of risk that you wouldn’t have been able to otherwise. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這是因為財富使你能夠承擔原本無法承擔的風險。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly, yeah. Wealth gives you freedom. It gives you freedom to explore more options, and in my case it gives me freedom to start businesses without having to ask other people for permission, or to warp my vision based on their desires to make a return, or how they think money should be made. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，對。財富給你自由。它讓你有自由去探索更多選擇，對我來說，它讓我有自由創業，而不必向別人請示許可，也不必根據他們想要獲利的期望，或他們認為賺錢的方式來扭曲我的願景。 Beyond the “How to Get Rich” Thread 超越「如何致富」的討論串 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is there anything that you’d add to the “How to Get Rich” thread? Is there anything where you thought, “If I could go in and edit and add one more…” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你會想在「如何致富」的討論串中補充什麼嗎？有沒有什麼是你覺得「如果我能進去編輯，還想再加一點……」的？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh, there’s like ten thousand things. I could talk about that topic forever, to be honest. That thread was so short, and it was so limited, and it was so crafted in a sense, although I wrote it very spontaneously. It left so much on the cutting room floor that I could just talk about that topic for days, but it’s all contextual. NAVAL RAVIKANT：喔，有一萬件事可以說。說實話，我可以永遠談這個主題。那個討論串太短了，內容也很有限，而且在某種程度上是經過精心設計的，雖然我是很即興地寫的。它留下了太多未被呈現的內容，我可以談這個主題好幾天，但這一切都要看情境。 Business is very, very contextual. You have to look at the particular business and understand what’s being done and why it’s being done and how it’s being done, and then you can tear it apart or reassemble it properly. I like to think that that is actually where I have specific knowledge and expertise. My specific knowledge and expertise is not in happiness and not in philosophy. Yes, my life is very hacked to be very unique, but I don’t think that’s where my specific knowledge is. 商業是非常、非常有情境性的。你必須觀察特定的商業，了解正在做什麼、為什麼要這麼做，以及如何去做，然後你才能拆解它或正確地重新組合它。我喜歡認為這正是我擁有特定知識和專業技能的地方。我的特定知識和專業並不在於幸福感或哲學。是的，我的人生經歷非常獨特，但我不認為那是我特定知識的所在。 My specific knowledge is in being able to analyze a business, especially a technology business, and take it apart at the seams and predict in advance what is likely to work and what is not likely to work—Clubhouse notwithstanding, because you’re still going to be wrong most of the time. It’s like playing the lottery, but you know one or two of the ticket numbers in advance. You only have to be right a few times or even just once to get the big score. 我的特定知識在於能夠分析一個企業，特別是科技企業，並從細節中拆解它，提前預測什麼可能會成功，什麼不太可能成功——儘管有 Clubhouse 的例外，因為你大多數時候仍然會判斷錯誤。這就像玩彩票，但你事先知道一兩個號碼。你只需要幾次甚至一次判對，就能贏得大獎。 Peter Thiel started PayPal, but he made all his money on Facebook. Now he’s done more since then obviously, but that was the big winner. That’s true in any power law distribution—number one is going to return more than two through N put together, two will return more than three through N put together. You’re operating in a highly leveraged intellectual domain, so the outcomes are going to be non-linear. 彼得·蒂爾創立了 PayPal，但他賺大錢是在 Facebook。當然，他之後做了更多事情，但那是最大的贏家。在任何冪次分布中都是如此——第一名的回報會超過第二名到第 N 名的總和，第二名的回報會超過第三名到第 N 名的總和。你在一個高度槓桿化的智慧領域運作，因此結果將是非線性的。 I know a lot about the topic, but it’s highly contextual. It makes a lot more sense if there’s a specific business in front of me, a specific entrepreneur, and I can take that apart. There are certain companies where I’ll say, “This is not going to work because you the entrepreneur are doing this for the wrong reasons. You’re doing A so you can get to B—just go to B. Or you’re doing this to make money when really the person who’s doing this because they love the product is going to beat you. Or you’re raising money from the wrong people who are in it for the wrong reasons. Or your co-founder is not in it for the right reasons, or you don’t have the right kind of co-founder, or your vesting schedule is wrong, or you’re starting the business in the wrong place, or you’re approaching it from this angle instead of that angle.” 我對這個主題了解很多，但這高度依賴情境。如果面前有一個具體的企業、一位具體的創業者，我能夠拆解分析，那就更有意義。有些公司我會說：「這行不通，因為你這位創業者出於錯誤的原因在做這件事。你做 A 是為了達到 B——那就直接去做 B。或者你做這件事是為了賺錢，但真正熱愛產品的人會打敗你。或者你從錯誤的人那裡募資，他們的動機不正確。或者你的共同創辦人動機不對，或者你沒有合適的共同創辦人，或者你的股權歸屬計劃有問題，或者你在錯誤的地方創業，或者你是從這個角度而非那個角度來看待這件事。」 Of course I’ll be wrong too, but I’ve just seen a lot of data, I have my theories around it, and that’s where I feel very comfortable operating. 當然我也會犯錯，但我看過很多數據，對此有我的理論，這讓我在這方面感到非常自在。 The problem is when I have to talk about how to create wealth—and “how to get rich” is a clickbait title deliberately—but when I talk about how to create wealth in the abstract, it’s very difficult. You have to just say the timeless stuff, you have to be right in almost every context, and so it really limits what you can say. 問題在於當我必須談論如何創造財富時——「如何致富」是一個故意用來吸引點擊的標題——但當我抽象地談論如何創造財富時，這非常困難。你必須說出那些永恆不變的道理，幾乎在任何情境下都要正確，因此這真的限制了你能說的內容。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The lack of specificity makes it challenging. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：缺乏具體性使得這件事變得具有挑戰性。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Correct. It’s back to philosophy, but when I can get specific about it, that’s when the real knowledge is becoming useful. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。這又回到了哲學層面，但當我能具體說明時，那才是真正知識開始變得有用的時候。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You could be like a wealth counselor for people. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你可以成為人們的財富顧問。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, part of the reason why I started doing podcasts—and this is ego at play, so I’ll admit it freely—when I was tweeting, I kind of pioneered philosophy Twitter, or a certain kind of practical philosophy Twitter. In one hundred and forty characters I would try to say something true in an interesting way that was insightful to me at the time. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我開始做播客的部分原因——這是自我在作祟，我會坦率承認——當我在推特上發文時，我算是哲學推特的先驅，或者說是一種實用哲學推特。在一百四十個字元內，我會嘗試以一種當時對我來說有洞見且有趣的方式說出真理。 But then that got copied, there’s thousands of us now—thousands of people spitting it out, ChatGPT trying to create these things all day long. Although I like to think that my stuff is incompressible—I’m saying it in the tightest way possible, which is kind of a little failed poetry background. 但後來這種方式被模仿了，現在有成千上萬的人在這樣做——成千上萬的人不停地吐出這些內容，甚至連 ChatGPT 整天都在嘗試創造這些東西。雖然我喜歡認為我的內容是無法壓縮的——我用最精簡的方式表達，這多少帶有我那點失敗的詩歌背景。 What I realized was if you truly have a deep understanding of something, then you can talk about it all day long. You can re-derive everything you need from that understanding, no memorization required. You can get it from first principles, and every piece of what you know is like a Lego block that just fits in and forms a steel frame—it’s solid, it’s locked in there. So on a podcast I can unload much more deeply about some of these topics. 我意識到的是，如果你對某件事有真正深刻的理解，那麼你可以整天談論它。你可以從這種理解中重新推導出你所需的一切，完全不需要死記硬背。你可以從基本原理出發，而你所知道的每一部分就像一塊樂高積木，恰好嵌合並形成鋼鐵框架——堅固且牢不可破。所以在播客中，我可以更深入地探討這些主題。 The Value of Understanding Over Memorization 理解的價值勝過死記硬背 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So for example, we can talk about any business you like, but it has to be in context, it has to be real, it has to be an actual problem, then we can solve it. I’ll just really love that heuristic of if you’re having to memorize something, it’s because you don’t understand it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：舉例來說，我們可以談任何你喜歡的生意，但必須有脈絡，必須是真實的，必須是實際存在的問題，然後我們才能解決它。我真的很喜歡這個啟發式原則：如果你必須死記硬背某件事，那是因為你不理解它。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You don’t understand it, that’s right. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你不理解，沒錯。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: If you have to memorize something, it’s because you don’t understand it, and if you understand something, you don’t have to memorize it. Again, you know, just to sort of call out lot of what I tried to do, this redemption arc thing of if I sound smart, that’s like being smart. NAVAL RAVIKANT：如果你必須死記硬背某件事，那是因為你不理解它；如果你理解了某件事，你就不需要死記硬背。再說一次，我只是想指出我嘗試做的很多事情，這種救贖弧線，如果我聽起來很聰明，那就像是真的聰明一樣。 ChatGPT has memorized the entire Internet. Good luck competing with that. You’re not going to beat the memorization. You’re not even going to beat the library of memorization. You’re going to beat any ten books in memorization, so memorization is not the thing. Understanding is the thing. ChatGPT 已經記住了整個互聯網。祝你好運去跟它競爭。你不會贏過死記硬背的能力。你甚至不會贏過那個記憶的圖書館。你只能贏過任何十本書的死記硬背，所以死記硬背不是重點，理解才是重點。 Being able to exercise judgment is the thing. Taste is the thing, and understanding judgment, taste, these come out of having real problems and then solving them and then finding the commonalities. 能夠行使判斷力才是關鍵。品味是關鍵，而理解判斷力、品味，這些都源自於面對真正的問題，然後解決它們，並找到其中的共通點。 Philosophy and Universal Truths 哲學與普遍真理 What is philosophy? Everyone, you live long enough, you’ll be a philosopher. Philosophy is just when you find the hidden generalizable truths among the specific experiences that you’ve had in life, and then you know how to navigate future specific experiences based on some heuristics, and you create a philosophy around that. 什麼是哲學？每個人，只要你活得夠久，你就會成為哲學家。哲學就是當你在生活中找到那些隱藏的、可普遍應用的真理，然後你知道如何根據某些啟發式方法來應對未來的具體經驗，並圍繞這些建立一套哲學。 Any subject pursued deeply enough will eventually lead to philosophy. Mastery in anything, literally anything, will lead you to being a philosopher. You just have to stick with it long enough and generalize the truths back out, and these are universal truths. It’s back to the unity and variety. You can find unity in anything if you go deep enough. 任何學科只要深入追求，最終都會導向哲學。無論是什麼領域的精通，真的任何事情，都會讓你成為哲學家。你只需要堅持足夠久，並將真理加以概括，這些就是普遍真理。這又回到了統一性與多樣性的問題。只要你足夠深入，任何事物中都能找到統一性。 And that’s why the trite stuff unfortunately sort of keeps coming back around, you’re like, well look, this is cliche for kind of a reason. It’s cliche for reasons, but you know, sometimes you learn new things, sometimes you do figure out new things too, even in philosophy. 這也是為什麼那些陳詞濫調不幸地總是反覆出現，你會想，這些是老生常談是有原因的。它們成為陳詞濫調是有原因的，但你知道，有時候你會學到新東西，有時候你甚至會在哲學中發現新事物。 For example, science has advanced, as science has advanced, it’s actually expanded our boundaries of philosophy. When we used to think that the earth was the center of the universe, you would actually have a different philosophical outlook than when you think the universe is vast and we’re infinitesimally small. It will give you a different philosophical outlook, the same way if you think that nature is driven by angels and demons and gods versus if there are laws of physics that are computable and understandable, that will lead you to a different philosophical outlook. 例如，隨著科學的進步，科學實際上擴展了我們對哲學的界限。當我們曾經認為地球是宇宙的中心時，你的哲學觀點會與你認為宇宙浩瀚無垠且我們微不足道時有所不同。這會給你帶來不同的哲學觀點，就像你認為自然是由天使、惡魔和神靈驅動，與你認為自然有可計算且可理解的物理定律時，會導致不同的哲學觀點。 If you think that knowledge is something that is passed down from above and through generations versus something that is created on the fly and then tested against reality, that will lead to a different philosophical outlook. If you think humans are created by God as opposed to humans evolved from some unicellular organism, yeah, still doesn’t solve the original problem, who created that, but at least it takes you further back. 如果你認為知識是從上方傳下來並代代相傳的東西，與你認為知識是在當下創造並經過現實檢驗的東西，這會導致不同的哲學觀點。如果你認為人類是由上帝創造的，而不是人類從某種單細胞生物進化而來，這仍然無法解決最初的問題——誰創造了那個？但至少這讓你追溯得更遠。 Even sim theory is an attempt at reformulating philosophy based on what we know about computers, even though it kind of leads to a lot of the same conclusions as Creator, but it is at least philosophy that is informed by technology and by science. So philosophy can also evolve. 即使模擬理論也是基於我們對電腦的認知來重新構思哲學的嘗試，儘管它在某種程度上導致了與創造者理論相似的結論，但它至少是受科技和科學啟發的哲學。因此，哲學也能夠進化。 Moral philosophy evolves, right? There was a time when every culture practically that was a conquering culture practiced slavery, now almost all cultures abhor slavery, that’s moral philosophy having evolved. 道德哲學是會進化的，對吧？曾經幾乎所有征服文化都實行奴隸制，但現在幾乎所有文化都厭惡奴隸制，這就是道德哲學的進化。 There was even like, this sounds too ludicrous to be true, and I don’t know if it fully is true, but there were a fairly large group of doctors based on studies who believed until the 1980s that babies couldn’t feel pain, and so even to this day I think circumcision is done without anesthesia, because under the theory that very young children, babies don’t feel pain, and that’s ludicrous, and there was a study that came out in the 80s that said no no they do feel pain, it’s like oh yeah of course, right? 甚至有一件事聽起來荒謬到難以置信，我也不確定它是否完全屬實，但直到 1980 年代，有相當多的醫生基於研究相信嬰兒不會感覺疼痛，所以直到今天我想割禮仍然是在沒有麻醉的情況下進行，因為根據理論非常年幼的孩子、嬰兒不會感覺疼痛，這是荒謬的，80 年代有一項研究指出不不，他們確實會感覺疼痛，這就像是，當然了，對吧？ So people can be stuck in bad philosophical traps for a long period of time, so even philosophy can make progress, and as an example, one of the realizations that I had, and this is thanks to David Deutsch and my friend James Pearson also thinking it through a little bit, is that there are these timeless old questions that we run into where the answers seem like paradoxes, so we stop thinking about them. 所以人們可能會長時間陷入糟糕的哲學陷阱，即使哲學也能取得進展。舉例來說，我的一個領悟——這要感謝大衛·德意志和我的朋友詹姆斯·皮爾森也稍微思考過這個問題——是我們會遇到一些永恆的老問題，這些問題的答案看起來像悖論，因此我們就停止思考它們。 Resolving Philosophical Paradoxes 解決哲學悖論 So an example is free will, do you have free will, or does anything matter, is there a meaning to life? And we get stuck in them because for example, is there a meaning to life? Like yes, life has a meaning because you’re right here, you create your own meaning, this moment has all the meaning you could imagine, it’s all the meaning there is. On the other hand you’re going die, it all goes to zero, heat, death, the universe has no meaning, right? So which one is it? 舉例來說，自由意志，你是否擁有自由意志，或者一切是否有意義，生命是否有意義？我們會陷入這些問題中，例如，生命是否有意義？答案是有的，生命有意義，因為你就在這裡，你創造了自己的意義，這一刻擁有你能想像的所有意義，這就是全部的意義。另一方面，你終將死去，一切歸零，熱寂、死亡，宇宙沒有意義，對吧？那到底是哪一個呢？ Well the reason why it seems paradoxical is because you’re asking the question of a human here now at a certain scale and a certain time, and then you’re answering it from the viewpoint of the universe over infinite time, so you pull the trick, you switch the level at which you’re answering the question, and questions should be answered at the level at which they’re asked. 這看似悖論的原因是因為你在某個特定的尺度和時間點以人的角度提出問題，然後卻從宇宙無限時間的視角來回答問題，所以你玩了個把戲，切換了回答問題的層次，而問題應該在提出的層次上被回答。 So if you ask the question, is there meaning? You Chris are asking that question. Yes, yes to Chris there is meaning, there’s meaning right here, this is a meaning, you can interpret any meaning you want onto it. Don’t ask the question as Chris and then answer it as God or as the universe. That’s the trick that you’re playing. That’s why it seems paradoxical. 所以如果你問這個問題，有沒有意義？你，克里斯，正在問這個問題。是的，對克里斯來說是有意義的，這裡就有意義，這就是一種意義，你可以對它解讀任何你想要的意義。不要以克里斯的身份問問題，然後以上帝或宇宙的身份回答。這就是你玩的把戲。這也是為什麼它看起來矛盾的原因。 The same way you can say, do I have free will? People debate free will all day long. The question is answered at the wrong frame, so they ask the question, do I as an individual have free will? Hell yeah, I have free will. My mind body system can’t predict what I’m going to do next. The universe is infinitely complex. I’m making a choice in my mind and I’m doing something. There’s my free will. 同樣的，你也可以問，我有自由意志嗎？人們整天爭論自由意志。問題是在錯誤的框架下被回答，所以他們問這個問題，我作為一個個體有自由意志嗎？當然有，我有自由意志。我的心身系統無法預測我接下來會做什麼。宇宙是無限複雜的。我在心中做出選擇，然後付諸行動。這就是我的自由意志。 So answer at the level at which you were asked, of course I have free will because I feel like I have free will and I treat you like you have free will and you treat me like I have free will, we have free will. The problem then is you start trying to answer the question as if you’re the universe, you’re like, well on the universal scale, big bang particle collisions, no one makes any choices, you know, how could you be any different than what the universe wants you to be, and it’s all one block universe, so you don’t have free will. 所以請在被問及的層次上回答，當然我有自由意志，因為我感覺自己有自由意志，我也把你當作有自由意志的人，你也把我當作有自由意志的人，我們都有自由意志。問題在於，當你開始試圖以宇宙的角度來回答這個問題時，你會說，在宇宙的尺度上，大爆炸、粒子碰撞，沒有人在做選擇，你知道，你怎麼可能與宇宙想讓你成為的樣子不同呢？而且這是一個整體的區塊宇宙，所以你沒有自由意志。 Don’t answer the question at the level at which it wasn’t asked. So if God asked the question, is there free will? No, there is no free will. The universe asked the question, there is no free will, but if an individual asks the question right now, then yes there is free will. 不要在問題未被提出的層次上回答問題。所以如果是上帝問這個問題：「有自由意志嗎？」答案是否定的，沒有自由意志。如果是宇宙問這個問題，答案也是沒有自由意志，但如果是個人現在問這個問題，那麼答案是有自由意志。 So a lot of these paradoxes resolve themselves, philosophical paradoxes that people have been struggling with since the beginning of time, when you just realize they’re you’re answering them at a scale and time different than they were asked. 所以許多這些悖論，哲學上的悖論，自古以來人們一直在掙扎的問題，當你意識到你是在不同的尺度和時間點回答問題時，這些悖論就會自我解決。 Changing Beliefs  改變信念 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Speaking of updating beliefs, is there anything that you changed your mind around recently? Very recently? I mean, all the time. But are you talking about, like, philosophical existential things, or like technological things? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：說到更新信念，你最近有沒有改變過什麼想法？非常最近的？我是說，幾乎一直都有。但你是指哲學存在主義的事情，還是科技方面的事情？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. Philosophical existential things, or anything that comes to mind, if there’s anything that’s front of mind where you go, yeah, that’s a pretty big OS update. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。哲學存在主義的事情，或者任何你腦海中浮現的東西，如果有什麼讓你覺得，嗯，這真的是一次很大的作業系統更新。 I’m less laissez faire than I used to be on a societal level, I think that culture and religion are good cooperating systems for humans, and so if you want to operate in a high trust society, you need to have sets of rules that people need to follow and obey, so they get along even if they’re, you know, one size fits all doesn’t work for everybody. 我在社會層面上比以前不那麼放任自流了，我認為文化和宗教是人類良好的合作系統，所以如果你想在一個高度信任的社會中運作，你需要有一套規則讓人們遵守和服從，這樣他們才能和諧相處，即使你知道，一刀切的規則並不適用於每個人。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It’s moved up a little bit from libertarian? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這比自由意志主義稍微往上移了一點嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, I mean, pure libertarians get outcompeted and die. Why? They get overrun because they’re every man for himself. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我的意思是，純粹的自由意志主義者會被競爭擊敗並消亡。為什麼？因為他們各自為政，無法團結一致。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: They can’t coordinate. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：他們無法協調。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: They can’t coordinate, exactly right. So, the coordination problems, like culture exists to solve fundamental coordination problems, religion solves coordination problems, ethnicity solves coordination problems historically, and when you break down those coordination systems too fast and don’t replace them with anything else, you get societal breakdown, so you can have very malfunctioning societies. NAVAL RAVIKANT：他們無法協調，完全正確。所以，協調問題，比如文化的存在是為了解決根本的協調問題，宗教解決協調問題，歷史上族群也解決協調問題，當你太快瓦解這些協調系統卻沒有用其他東西取代它們時，就會導致社會崩潰，因此你會有非常失靈的社會。 You know, go to Japan versus go to any western city and you can see the difference being a culture that’s working and a culture that’s not. So I think that that’s like a broader set of things that I’ve changed my mind on a fair bit. I used to be much more laissez faire on that stuff, let’s put it that way. 你知道，去日本和去任何西方城市，你可以看到一個運作良好的文化和一個不運作的文化之間的差異。所以我認為這是一組更廣泛的事情，我在這方面改變了不少看法。可以這麼說，我以前對這些事情要自由放任得多。 What else? I mean, on child raising, I’ve gotten a lot looser, you know, I’m still not like completely laissez faire, but I’m much more realized like kids are going to be kids and you kind of let them do their thing. 還有什麼呢？我是說，在養育孩子方面，我變得寬鬆了很多，你知道，我還不是完全放任自流，但我更能意識到孩子就是孩子，你得讓他們做他們自己的事。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You’ve gone to- Debate with them. Is it Talib that has the ascending levels of like anarchism versus conservatism, is that his insight? Like, the local level, I’m this. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你跟他們辯論過。是 Talib 提出了從無政府主義到保守主義的層級遞升，這是他的見解嗎？就像在地方層面，我是這樣的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. It seems like you’ve gone the other way. It’s like, at the child level, I’m an anarchist. At the societal level, I’m a conservative. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。看起來你走了相反的路。就孩子層面來說，我是無政府主義者；在社會層面，我是保守派。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: No, he was quoting somebody else, some brothers, I forget which ones, but he was making the point eloquently as he often does, that at the family local level, he’s a communist. At the family level, you’re a communist. At maybe the extended family level, you’re a socialist. At the local level, you know, you’re kind of a Democrat and so on, until at the federal level you’re a libertarian. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不，他是在引用別人說的話，是某些兄弟，我忘了是哪些，但他像往常一樣雄辯地指出，在家庭的地方層面，你是共產主義者。在家庭層面，你是共產主義者。在可能的大家庭層面，你是社會主義者。在地方層面，你知道，你有點像民主黨人，依此類推，直到在聯邦層面你是自由意志主義者。 You’ve done it the other way, you know, being a libertarian with the kids and you’re being a religious conservative at societal level. That’s a way of looking at it. Don’t know if the scale is that simple. 你也可以反過來看，對孩子們是自由意志主義者，而在社會層面你是宗教保守派。這是一種看待問題的方式。不知道這個尺度是否那麼簡單。 Thoughts on AI  對人工智慧的看法 What else do I change my mind on? I think the modern AI is really cool, I think it’s, but I think these are natural language computers. They’re starting to show evidence of kind of reasoning at some levels, but I don’t think they do creativity. 我還會改變什麼想法？我認為現代的人工智慧真的很酷，我覺得它是，但我認為這些是自然語言電腦。它們開始在某些層面展現出某種推理的跡象，但我不認為它們具備創造力。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: One of my favorite takes is from Dwarkash Patel, and he says, if you gave any human on the planet 0.00001 percent of the consumption that LLM has, any LLM, they would have come up with thousands of new ideas. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我最喜歡的一個觀點來自 Dwarkash Patel，他說，如果你給地球上任何一個人類 0.00001%的LLM消費量，任何LLM，他們都會想出成千上萬的新點子。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Right. Give me one new idea. One fundamental new idea. Just being generated. Yeah, like I’m big into poetry, every poem ever written by an LM is garbage, I think even their fiction writing is terrible, even the new GPT-four zero five, with all due respect to Sam and crew, I think they’re terrible writers. NAVAL RAVIKANT：對。給我一個新的點子。一個根本性的全新點子。剛剛產生的。是的，我非常喜歡詩歌，但由語言模型寫的每一首詩都是垃圾，我認為他們的小說寫作也很糟糕，即使是最新的 GPT-4.05，對 Sam 和團隊表示尊重，但我認為他們是糟糕的作家。 I find them really bad at summarizing, they’re really good at extrapolating, you know, paperwork, they’re very bad at actually distilling the essence of something and what’s important, they don’t have opinions or a point of view, but they’re still unbelievably powerful breakthroughs. 我發現它們在摘要方面真的很差，它們在推斷方面非常擅長，你知道，文書工作，它們在真正提煉事物的本質和重要性方面非常糟糕，它們沒有觀點或立場，但它們仍然是令人難以置信的強大突破。 They solve search, they solve natural language computing, they make English a programming language, they solve driving, they solve simple coding and backup coding, they solve translation, they solve transcription, they are a fundamental breakthrough in computing, is a different way to program a computer rather than you explicitly speak its language and write the code and then run the data through it. You just run enough data through it until it figures out how to write the program, that’s huge, but are they AGI? Not yet, and I don’t see a direct path from here to there, maybe we’ll have to solve a few more problems before that happens, and I think ASI is a fantasy, don’t think there’s any such thing as artificial super intelligence, where it has some kind of intelligence that humans can’t fathom. 它們解決了搜尋問題，解決了自然語言計算，使英語成為一種程式語言，解決了駕駛問題，解決了簡單編碼和備份編碼，解決了翻譯，解決了轉錄，它們是計算領域的根本性突破，是一種不同的編程方式，而不是你明確地說出它的語言並編寫代碼，然後運行數據。你只需運行足夠的數據，直到它學會如何編寫程式，這非常重要，但它們是通用人工智慧（AGI）嗎？還不是，我也看不到從這裡直接通往那裡的路徑，也許我們還得解決更多問題才會發生，我認為超級人工智慧（ASI）是幻想，不認為有什麼人工超級智慧存在，擁有某種人類無法理解的智慧。 ALSO READ:  How I Built My Life From Scratch: Trang Thach Nguyen Phuong (Transcript) 另見：我如何從零開始建立我的生活：Trang Thach Nguyen Phuong（文字記錄） CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Okay. Yeah. It seems like, I don’t know, if you’re from the Bostrom camp or whatever. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：好。是的。看起來，好像，不知道你是不是來自 Bostrom 那一派什麼的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: No. I’m not an AI doomer. I think that’s such a flawed line of reasoning. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不。我不是人工智慧末日論者。我覺得那種推理非常有缺陷。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: But let’s say that, you know, you came out of the lesswrong.com, like, slate star codec world, and there was this sort of lineage from computers and AI gets more powerful, more powerful, more powerful, and then you end up AGI, ASI. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：但假設你是從 lesswrong.com 出來的，比如說，slate star codec 那個世界，然後有這樣一個脈絡，從電腦和人工智慧越來越強大，越來越強大，最後你會達到通用人工智慧（AGI）、超級人工智慧（ASI）。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: ASI, yeah. NAVAL RAVIKANT：超級人工智慧（ASI），是的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And it seems like LLMs have been this sort of orthogonal move from that, which are you saying you don’t believe they are a step on that? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：看起來LLMs似乎是從那個方向上的一種正交移動，你的意思是你不認為它們是那個方向上的一步？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. I think it’s a different branch. I think Stephen Wolfram puts it better. It’s a different form of intelligence. It’s like if you see a jaguar in the jungle, it has a different form of intelligence, you’re like a plant has a form of intelligence, how it can like photosynthesize and grow, it’s a different form of intelligence. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。我認為這是另一個分支。我覺得 Stephen Wolfram 說得更好。這是一種不同形式的智慧。就像你在叢林中看到一隻美洲豹，它擁有不同形式的智慧；植物也有一種智慧，能進行光合作用並生長，這是一種不同形式的智慧。 And intelligence again, like love or like happiness, this overloaded word that means many things to many people, but by my definition, where, you know, the true test is you get what you want out of life, it doesn’t even have a life, it doesn’t even want anything, it’s different. 智慧再次來說，就像愛或幸福一樣，是一個過度使用的詞，對很多人來說意味著很多東西，但依照我的定義，真正的考驗是你是否能從生活中得到你想要的東西，而它甚至沒有生命，甚至不想要任何東西，它是不同的。 I do think it’s unbelievably useful, I’m glad that it exists. You don’t see it much yet in large scale production systems replacing humans because of the tendency to hallucinate, so you can’t put it into anything mission critical. 我確實認為它非常有用，我很高興它存在。你還不會在大規模生產系統中看到它取代人類，因為它有產生幻覺的傾向，所以你無法將它用於任何關鍵任務。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Confidently wrong one time out of ten. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：十分之一次自信錯誤。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Correct. And it doesn’t even know when it’s wrong, and maybe they’ll get that one out of ten down to one out of a hundred, but you kind of always want human oversight for critical things. I always feel so bitter. I’m petty sometimes. NAVAL RAVIKANT：正確。而且它甚至不知道自己何時錯誤，也許他們會把十分之一的錯誤率降到百分之一，但對於關鍵事情，你總是希望有人類監督。我總是感到很苦澀，有時候我很小氣。 The Future of AI and Self-Driving Cars 人工智慧與自駕車的未來 NAVAL RAVIKANT: My less equanimous version of me is petty, and I always want to teach it a lesson if it gets something wrong. I’m anthropomorphizing it, but it doesn’t have a point of view. They are going to get a lot better, and they might get to the point where the error rates are so low that you can put them into certain bounded problems. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我那不太平和的版本很小氣，如果它犯錯我總想教訓它。我在擬人化它，但它並沒有自己的觀點。它們會變得更好，可能會達到錯誤率非常低的程度，足以應用於某些有限的問題。 Self-driving will be solved completely because it’s a bounded problem. Cars don’t go off-road and drive through houses and stuff like that. The creative side of coding doesn’t go away. If anything, programmers get even more leveraged and more powerful, and rather than computing replacing programmers, programmers use AI to replace everybody else. 自動駕駛將會被完全解決，因為這是一個有界限的問題。車輛不會離開道路，穿越房屋之類的地方。編程的創造性一面不會消失。事實上，程式設計師會變得更加有影響力和強大，與其說計算機會取代程式設計師，不如說程式設計師會利用人工智慧取代其他所有人。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: On Tesla versus Waymo, would you bet on software or hardware for self-driving? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：關於特斯拉與 Waymo 的自動駕駛，你會押注軟體還是硬體？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think Tesla’s in the stronger longer-term position, but it’s hard to argue with what’s working right now and Waymo is working right now. I would not underestimate them because there’s a learning curve that you go through when you actually deploy something, and Waymo is way ahead in that regard. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為特斯拉在長期來看處於更強的位置，但很難否認目前有效的方案，而 Waymo 目前確實有效。我不會低估他們，因為當你真正部署某項技術時會經歷一個學習曲線，而 Waymo 在這方面領先很多。 Tesla’s camera-only approach, if it works, is superior—it’s much more scalable, and Tesla knows how to print cars. They can mass manufacture cars. But I think they’ll both be around, they’ll both be fine. It’s everybody else who doesn’t have a self-driving vehicle that’s screwed. 特斯拉僅用攝像頭的方案，如果成功，將更優越——它更具可擴展性，且特斯拉知道如何量產汽車。他們能大規模製造汽車。但我認為兩者都會存在，兩者都會很好。真正倒霉的是那些沒有自動駕駛車輛的其他人。 Declining Fertility Rates 生育率下降 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You mentioned kids there, and you had a tweet that said, “I’m not convinced that declining fertility needs to be proactively fought.” 克里斯·威廉森：你剛才提到孩子，並且你在推特上說過，「我不確定是否需要積極對抗生育率下降。」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, think back—thirty years ago, twenty years ago, everybody was saying overpopulation of the earth is going to be a problem, Malthusian ending, we’re going to have too many people. And all of a sudden we’re going to have too few people. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：嗯，回想三十年前、二十年前，大家都在說地球人口過多會成為問題，馬爾薩斯式的結局，我們會有太多人。結果突然之間，我們又會有太少的人。 Part of it is just the doomerism meme is always alive and well. It just gets repackaged. We’re running out of oil, we have too much oil. The world is cooling, the world is warming. There’s always something to scream about—the world is ending, there’s no progress in technology, AI is going to blow up the world. People tend to overdo in both directions. 這部分原因是悲觀主義的迷因總是存在且活躍。它只是被重新包裝。我們的石油快用完了，我們又有太多石油。世界在變冷，世界在變暖。總有什麼事情讓人驚呼——世界末日來臨，科技沒有進步，人工智慧會毀滅世界。人們往往在兩個方向上都過度反應。 What is the actual fertility problem? People are having fewer kids because they’re choosing to have fewer kids. Women have gotten emancipation, independence in the workforce, they’re making more money. People don’t need kids as insurance policies. Maybe they’re living hedonistic lives—God bless them—they want to have more fun, they want to have fewer kids. I don’t see the act of choosing to have fewer kids as a problem. 實際的生育問題是什麼？人們生育較少的孩子，是因為他們選擇生育較少的孩子。女性獲得了解放，在職場上獨立，賺取更多收入。人們不再需要孩子作為保障。也許他們過著享樂主義的生活——願上帝保佑他們——他們想要更多樂趣，想要生育較少的孩子。我不認為選擇生育較少孩子是一個問題。 Let’s move one level up. It’s because of retirees. A large percentage of the population is essentially retiring at the guaranteed age of sixty-five or seventy thanks to social security, and they need other people to pay for it. They need more workers, and if the workforce is shrinking, then you have a small number of people who are supporting a large number of retirees. In democracies, you can’t take pensions away—the voters vote you out—so this slowly strangles the economy. 讓我們往上一層看。這是因為退休人員。由於社會保障制度，大部分人口基本上在六十五或七十歲這個有保障的年齡退休，他們需要其他人來支付這筆費用。他們需要更多的勞動者，如果勞動力在縮減，那麼就會有少數人支持大量的退休者。在民主國家，你無法取消退休金——選民會投票讓你下台——所以這會慢慢扼殺經濟。 So what do you do? You have a bunch of immigration, and then the whole culture changes. You end up in a low-trust society, and people start fighting over limited resources, and how do you control which immigrants come in, and how do you make sure that they’re good taxpayers after they’re in? 那你怎麼做呢？你有大量的移民，然後整個文化就改變了。你最終會陷入一個低信任的社會，人們開始為有限的資源爭鬥，你如何控制哪些移民可以進來，又如何確保他們進來後是良好的納稅人？ You end up in this trap where the low fertility rate is upstream of the downstream problems that are cultural and societal, but I’m not sure that you’re going to solve that by making people have more kids. How are you going to meme them into having more kids? I’m not even sure it’s necessarily a problem, because you have more resources now, you have less of a burden. 你最終會陷入這樣一個陷阱：低生育率是文化和社會下游問題的上游原因，但我不確定讓人們多生孩子能解決這個問題。你打算怎麼用「迷因」讓他們多生孩子？我甚至不確定這一定是個問題，因為你現在有更多資源，負擔也更輕。 There’s a flip side where every kid is a lottery ticket for invention, so there’s some benefit to having more kids, but you can’t force it. I think it’ll work itself out. Scott Adams has this great law which he calls the Adams law of slow-moving disasters: when disasters are very slow-moving, like peak oil or global warming or population collapse, and everyone can see them coming, economics and society are forced to solve them, because enough individual people have incentives to go solve them. 另一方面，每個孩子都是一張發明的樂透券，所以多生孩子確實有一些好處，但你不能強迫。我認為這問題會自我調整。斯科特·亞當斯有一條很棒的定律，他稱之為「亞當斯慢動作災難定律」：當災難非常緩慢地發生，比如石油峰值、全球暖化或人口崩潰，且每個人都能預見時，經濟和社會就被迫去解決它們，因為足夠多的個人有動機去解決這些問題。 I don’t know exactly how it gets solved, but I think it could get solved in various ways. Maybe people retire later, maybe AI and automation and robots take care of the older people, maybe we figure out how to have immigrants while still keeping a high-trust society, maybe we outsource more things, maybe we just have more land and housing to go around. 我不確定這個問題究竟會如何解決，但我認為它可能會以各種方式得到解決。也許人們會晚點退休，也許人工智慧、自動化和機器人會照顧年長者，也許我們會找到在保持高度信任社會的同時接納移民的方法，也許我們會外包更多事情，也許我們只是擁有更多土地和住房供應。 Believe me, if we were having too many kids, everybody would be complaining about how there’s no housing and there’s no land. So they’ll always find something to care about. I just don’t view this as something that any individual or government action is going to solve. I think economics and incentives over time will solve it, and I’m not even convinced it’s that big of a problem. 相信我，如果我們生太多小孩，大家一定會抱怨沒有住房和土地。所以他們總會找到值得關心的事情。我只是覺得這不是任何個人或政府行動能解決的問題。我認為經濟學和激勵機制隨著時間會解決這個問題，而且我甚至不確定這是不是一個很大的問題。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is there anything that you do think— 克里斯·威廉森：你認為有什麼事情是—— NAVAL RAVIKANT: It may be self-correcting too. If there are too few kids in society, the returns to having kids literally might just go up. It might just be easier to have incentive to now have a child because there’s so few around. They’re going to get the best job opportunities, resources. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：這也可能是自我修正的。如果社會上的小孩太少，生小孩的回報率可能真的會上升。因為小孩太少，現在可能更容易有動機去生一個。他們將會獲得最好的工作機會和資源。 You could come at it from a pain side, which is you look at all of the other people around who don’t have kids. Let’s say that pensions completely drop off and the only way that old people are able to survive is if their children pay them some sort of stipends. Well, that’s a pretty good incentive. 你可以從痛點的角度來看這件事，也就是你觀察周圍那些沒有孩子的人。假設退休金完全消失，老年人唯一能夠生存的方式就是靠他們的孩子給予某種津貼。那麼，這就是一個相當好的激勵措施。 I also think that people have been memed into thinking that kids make your life worse, and that’s pretty bad. 我也認為人們被網路迷因影響，認為有了孩子會讓生活變得更糟，這種想法相當糟糕。 The Joy of Parenthood  為人父母的喜悅 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: What’s your experience been? 克里斯·威廉森：你的經歷是什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Kids make your life better in every possible way. If you want an automatic built-in meaning to life, have kids. NAVAL RAVIKANT：孩子在各方面都能讓你的生活變得更美好。如果你想要生命中自動內建的意義，那就生孩子吧。 I think there are these bad psych studies, like most psych studies unfortunately, that say that people are unhappy when they have kids. It’s because you’re catching them in the middle of changing a diaper and you’re saying, “Are you glad you had kids or not?” Or they don’t even say that, they say, “Are you happy or not?” And they say, “No, I’m not happy right now.” 我認為有些心理學研究很糟糕，就像大多數心理學研究一樣，不幸地說人們在有了孩子後會不快樂。那是因為你抓住他們正在換尿布的時刻，然後問他們：「你是否為有了孩子感到高興？」或者他們甚至不會這麼問，只問：「你快樂嗎？」他們回答：「不，我現在不快樂。」 But what they don’t realize is that person has found something more important than being happy in the moment—they found meaning, and the meaning comes from kids. If you ask parents, “Do you regret having kids?” I think it would be ninety-nine to one. It would be, “No, I don’t regret having kids. I love having kids. I’m so glad I had kids.” It’s incredibly rare to meet a parent that regretted having children. 但他們沒有意識到的是，那個人已經找到比當下快樂更重要的東西——他們找到了意義，而這個意義來自孩子。如果你問父母：「你後悔生孩子嗎？」我想答案會是九十九比一，會是「不，我不後悔生孩子。我愛我的孩子，我很高興自己有了孩子。」遇到後悔生孩子的父母是非常罕見的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: It’s pretty good odds. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這機率相當不錯。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s extremely good odds. I think a lot of people get late into life and then they can admit that they should have had kids, but it’s kind of late in the game. NAVAL RAVIKANT：機率非常高。我認為很多人到了人生後期才承認自己應該有孩子，但那時已經有點太晚了。 A lot of times you see everybody who has a pet, and they’re pushing them around in a stroller. What is that? That’s a sublimated desire for children. 很多時候你會看到每個有寵物的人，都推著牠們坐在嬰兒車裡。那是什麼？那是一種對孩子的潛在渴望。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Malcolm Collins says that having a pet is to children as using porn is to sex. He basically thinks that it’s sort of a surrogate. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：Malcolm Collins 說養寵物對孩子來說，就像看色情片對性一樣。他基本上認為這是一種替代品。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s definitely in that direction. I like pets, I like animals, but I don’t like the idea of neutering or spaying something and then keeping it as a prisoner in the house and having to train it. I don’t want to be responsible for that. NAVAL RAVIKANT：確實是那個方向。我喜歡寵物，喜歡動物，但我不喜歡閹割或絕育動物，然後把牠們關在家裡當囚犯，還得訓練牠們。我不想為此負責。 Parenting Philosophy  育兒哲學 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Given that you’ve been thinking more about child-rearing, what do you hope that your kids learn from their childhood? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：既然你對育兒有更多的思考，你希望你的孩子從童年時光中學到什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: They just be happy and do what they want. I don’t have particular goals in mind for them. I think that’s another route to unhappiness. NAVAL RAVIKANT：他們只要快樂，做自己想做的事。我沒有為他們設定特定的目標。我認為那是通往不快樂的另一條路。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s different though, right, than learn versus goals. It’s not necessarily what do they want. What do you want them to want out of life? Like, you had that idea around your number one job as a parent is to provide unconditional love to your kids. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：不過那是不同的，對吧？學習和目標是兩回事。這不一定是他們想要什麼，而是你希望他們想要什麼樣的人生？比如說，你曾經有過這樣的想法，作為父母，你的首要任務是給孩子無條件的愛。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. So I want my kids to feel unconditionally loved, and I want them to have high self-esteem as a consequence of that. But I don’t get to choose anything—all I get to choose is my output. I can output love, I can’t choose what they feel, I can’t choose how they behave, I can’t choose what they want, I can’t choose what they turn out to be. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。所以我希望我的孩子們能感受到無條件的愛，並且因此擁有高度的自尊心。但我無法選擇任何事情——我唯一能選擇的是我的輸出。我可以輸出愛，但我無法選擇他們的感受，無法選擇他們的行為，無法選擇他們的願望，無法選擇他們最終成為什麼樣的人。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And downstream from that, there should be freedom, there should be a degree of freedom that comes from the self-esteem, that comes from the unconditional love. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：而在這之後，應該會有自由，應該會有一種來自自尊心、來自無條件愛的自由度。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, they should make their own mistakes and learn their own lessons and have their own desires and fulfill them as is appropriate. Like any parent, I wouldn’t want them to be hurt, wouldn’t want them to be unhappy, but I cannot control these things. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，他們應該自己犯錯、自己學習教訓，擁有自己的慾望並適當地實現它們。像任何父母一樣，我不希望他們受傷，不希望他們不快樂，但我無法控制這些事情。 Parenting Practices and Science 育兒實踐與科學 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You replied to my friend Rob Henderson, he was talking about how kids fall asleep more quickly when they’re being carried, and you said “cry it out and co-sleeping is dangerous. What’s IYI science?” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你回覆了我的朋友 Rob Henderson，他在談論孩子被抱著時更快入睡的情況，而你說「讓孩子哭著入睡和同床共眠是危險的。什麼是 IYI 科學？」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: IYI is from Nassim Taleb, it’s “intellectual yet idiot.” These are people who are over-educated, and they deny basic common sense. There’s a lot of that that goes on in child-rearing, thanks to really bad studies and bad public medical directives. NAVAL RAVIKANT：IYI 來自 Nassim Taleb，意指「知識分子卻是白痴」。這些人受過過度教育，卻否認基本的常識。在育兒方面，這種情況很常見，這多虧了非常糟糕的研究和不良的公共醫療指導。 For example, a few parents—maybe they’re drunk or they’re high or they have other issues—and they roll over their kid when they’re sleeping, the kid suffocates, or they neglect their kid. Because of that they say, “Well, don’t co-sleep with your kids.” 例如，有些父母——可能是喝醉了、吸毒了或有其他問題——在孩子睡覺時翻身壓到孩子，導致孩子窒息，或者他們忽視孩子。基於這些情況，他們就說：「不要和孩子同床共眠。」 Well, kids in every society through all of human history co-slept with their parents. Where else do you think they were sleeping? There weren’t houses with multiple rooms. We’ll put them in the other tent? It’s just nonsense. Co-sleeping has been around since the dawn of time. 好吧，從人類歷史以來，每個社會的孩子們都是與父母同睡的。你覺得他們還能睡在哪裡呢？那時候並沒有多間房子的房子。我們要把他們放到另一個帳篷裡嗎？這根本是無稽之談。與父母同睡自古以來就存在。 So has feeding kids cow milk or goat milk when breast milk runs out or is not available. Yet we’re told formula with soy and corn syrup, which was invented recently, is somehow better than cow milk, and cow milk can be dangerous for your kids, and co-sleeping is dangerous for your kids, and cry it out is the right answer. All of that is nonsense. 當母乳用盡或無法提供時，給孩子喝牛奶或羊奶也是如此。然而，我們被告知最近才發明的含有大豆和玉米糖漿的配方奶 somehow 比牛奶更好，牛奶對孩子有危險，與父母同睡對孩子有危險，讓孩子哭著自己入睡才是正確的做法。這些全都是胡說八道。 It’s very clear that we raised children throughout human history without these interventions. To me, the idea that you’re going to let your kid cry it out—I get why that’s done for practical reasons, so that you can get some sleep and you can go to work in the morning—but the reality is when you let the kid cry it out, you’re letting the kid bawl until it finally gives up. 很明顯，我們在人類歷史上養育孩子並不需要這些干預。對我來說，讓孩子哭著自己入睡的想法——我理解這樣做是出於實際原因，為了讓你能睡一會兒，早上能去上班——但事實是，當你讓孩子哭著自己入睡時，你就是讓孩子一直哭鬧，直到它最終放棄。 A kid left by itself to cry it out in the paleolithic wilderness is going to get eaten by a tiger. So this kid is starting off on the wrong foundation. The one I mentioned earlier about the idea that babies don’t feel pain—that’s ludicrous. 一個孩子如果在舊石器時代的荒野中被獨自留下哭泣，最終會被老虎吃掉。所以這個孩子一開始就建立在錯誤的基礎上。我之前提到過那種認為嬰兒不會感覺疼痛的想法——那是荒謬的。 The Dangers of Intellectual Yet Idiot Beliefs 知識分子卻愚蠢信念的危險 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I’ve never heard that before, it’s such a wild idea. 克里斯·威廉森：我以前從未聽過這種說法，真是個瘋狂的想法。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, I’m not saying that’s one hundred percent true. I read it on Twitter, and I did one level confirmation on it, but it’s so ludicrous that I should probably do two or three level confirmations before I talk about it. But there are definitely some people who believe that, enough that it was a thing in certain circles for a while. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：是的，我並不是說那百分之百是真的。我是在推特上看到的，並且做了一層確認，但這實在太荒謬了，我應該在談論之前做兩到三層確認。不過確實有些人相信這種說法，以至於它在某些圈子裡流行過一陣子。 I think we just go through these IYI beliefs, these intellectually yet idiot beliefs come from people who take a little bit of knowledge and extrapolate it too far. They think we know more than we know due to recent scientific studies, and these are junk science. These are low power studies on very certain contexts that then get over applied. Behavioral psychology is very guilty of this, but it’s true across a lot of science. 我認為我們只是經歷這些 IYI 信念，這些「智商高卻愚蠢」的信念來自於那些掌握一點知識卻過度推論的人。他們認為我們因為最近的科學研究而知道的比實際更多，而這些其實是垃圾科學。這些研究在非常特定的情境下進行，且樣本量小，卻被過度應用。行為心理學尤其容易犯這種錯誤，但這種情況在許多科學領域都存在。 So even with science you have to be skeptical. You have to look very carefully at whether it applies in the right context, if it comes from good sources, if they ran enough high-powered studies, if it’s widely accepted. 即使是科學，你也必須保持懷疑態度。你必須非常仔細地檢視它是否適用於正確的情境，是否來自可靠的來源，是否進行了足夠多的高效能研究，以及是否被廣泛接受。 There are a whole bunch of things you’re just not supposed to talk about. You can’t say anything negative about vaccines because God forbid, what if they don’t get the polio vaccine, right? And that’s part of the reason why the recent vaccine debate happened, because we’ve taken our worship for vaccines too far. 有很多事情你根本不應該談論。你不能對疫苗說任何負面話，因為天哪，如果他們不接種小兒麻痺疫苗怎麼辦？這也是最近疫苗辯論發生的部分原因，因為我們對疫苗的崇拜已經走得太遠了。 The same way there’s this whole SIDS thing, sudden infant death syndrome. It’s like, no, kids don’t suddenly mysteriously die. More likely there was neglect or there was a problem, and then whoever was the caretaker doesn’t want to admit to the problem or didn’t recognize the problem, but kids don’t just spontaneously die in the crib. 就像所謂的嬰兒猝死症（SIDS）一樣。事實上，孩子不會突然神秘地死亡。更可能的是存在疏忽或問題，而照顧者不願承認問題或未能察覺問題，但孩子不會在嬰兒床裡自發性死亡。 Parenting and Natural Instincts 育兒與天性本能 NAVAL RAVIKANT: They talk about swaddling babies. You swaddle babies, basically tie them up, mummify them, so you constrict them so they don’t die of SIDS where they roll over and they can’t get back. I mean, it’s just all this craziness around child raising. It’s a real minefield. NAVAL RAVIKANT：他們談論如何用襁褓包裹嬰兒。你用襁褓包裹嬰兒，基本上就是把他們綁起來，像木乃伊一樣包裹，這樣限制他們的活動，避免嬰兒猝死症（SIDS），因為他們翻身後無法翻回來。我是說，關於育兒的這些瘋狂規矩真是多得讓人頭痛，簡直是一個地雷區。 You have these scared parents, they’re having a kid for the first time and they open a book and they start reading how to raise children, and I would argue that your natural instincts on what to do with your child are actually pretty good. 你會看到這些害怕的父母，第一次有孩子，他們打開一本書開始閱讀如何養育孩子，而我會說，你對於如何照顧孩子的自然本能其實相當不錯。 It’s funny when my wife and I had our first baby, I remember at the hospital, first one was a natural birth at the birthing center, we went home and it was like, “there you go, that’s it,” and we’re like, “what do we do?” 很有趣的是，當我和我妻子有了第一個孩子時，我記得在醫院，第一胎是在產房自然分娩，我們回家後就像是，「好了，就這樣」，然後我們就想，「我們該怎麼做？」 Where’s the instruction manual? You take them home, and then you relax and you realize, actually instincts are pretty good. If the kid cries, check to see if they’re clean, feed them, all that. Your basic instincts are actually very, very good, and kids’ instincts are actually very, very good. They know what they want and they want things for a reason. 說好的說明書在哪裡？你把孩子帶回家，然後放鬆下來，會發現其實本能是相當不錯的。如果孩子哭了，檢查他們是否乾淨，餵食，這些基本的本能其實非常非常好，而孩子的本能也非常非常好。他們知道自己想要什麼，並且他們想要的東西是有原因的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And they can encourage you to give to them? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：他們會鼓勵你給他們東西嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yes, it’s usually children are not deficient adults who can’t reason, and to some extent that’s true, but mostly it’s not true. Mostly they have very good reasons for what they want, and you as a parent mostly have communication problems with them. They can’t yet communicate to you, you can’t communicate to them. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，通常孩子並不是缺乏理性的成年人，在某種程度上這是對的，但大多數情況下並非如此。他們大多有很好的理由想要某些東西，而你作為父母，大多數時候是與他們的溝通出了問題。他們還不能向你溝通，你也不能向他們溝通。 So early on with my kids, I tried to focus on teaching them explanatory theories and of course having them memorize is just the most frivolous solution. I’ll give you a very simple example. 所以在孩子還小的時候，我試著專注於教他們解釋性的理論，當然讓他們死記硬背只是最膚淺的解決方法。我給你一個非常簡單的例子。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Okay.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：好的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So, this is Twitter. And this is the “how to get rich without getting lucky” thread. So, first one. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這是推特。這是「如何在不靠運氣的情況下致富」的系列貼文。那麼，第一條。 Teaching Children to Think 教導孩子思考 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, a simple one is, you know, how does knowledge get created? If you follow the critical rationalism David Deutsch philosophy, then it’s by guessing and then by testing your guesses. So, whenever they ask me something like, “well, do you think that is?” I’ll say, “Well how would we figure out if that’s true?” So that’s a basic game you can play. NAVAL RAVIKANT：嗯，一個簡單的問題是，你知道知識是如何被創造出來的嗎？如果你遵循批判理性主義者大衛·德意志的哲學，那就是通過猜測然後測試你的猜測。所以每當有人問我類似「你認為那是真的嗎？」我會說，「我們怎麼知道那是否為真呢？」這是一個你可以玩的基本遊戲。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Involving them. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：讓他們參與其中。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Involving them, but another one is that a lot of the rules that you teach kids have to do with hygiene. You must brush your teeth, cover your mouth when you cough, clean up after yourself, don’t touch that, wash your hands after you do this, don’t eat food off the floor. But all of these are subsumed under the germ theory of disease. NAVAL RAVIKANT：讓他們參與其中，但另一點是你教孩子的許多規則都與衛生有關。你必須刷牙，咳嗽時要遮住嘴巴，自己弄髒了要清理，不要碰那個，做完這些事要洗手，不要吃地上的食物。但這些規則都是建立在疾病的病菌理論之上。 So if you instead go on YouTube and show them videos of germs, or if you have them look under a microscope at anything, they’re like, “ah!” They can infer what’s going on. There’s creepy crawlies everywhere and I got to watch out for them. 所以如果你改為在 YouTube 上給他們看病菌的影片，或者讓他們用顯微鏡觀察任何東西，他們會說：「啊！」他們能推斷發生了什麼。到處都有令人毛骨悚然的小蟲子，我得小心它們。 The Red Queen Hypothesis and Pathogens 紅后假說與病原體 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Then you can talk about how, if you look at humans, our real enemy are pathogens. I think a lot of aging and disease are actually downstream of our competition with pathogens over time, to a point that people still don’t fully appreciate. NAVAL RAVIKANT：然後你可以談談，如果你觀察人類，我們真正的敵人是病原體。我認為許多老化和疾病其實是我們與病原體長期競爭的下游結果，這一點人們至今仍未完全理解。 There’s a red queen hypothesis which is that we undergo sexual selection to mix up our genes, so every twenty years, every generation we mix up our genes. But if you look at how bacteria and viruses mutate through just random mutations, their mix-up rate on their genes and evolution rate is roughly the same as ours, even though they go through thousands of generations in those twenty years. 有一個紅皇后假說，認為我們通過性選擇來混合基因，因此每二十年、每一代我們都會混合基因。但如果你觀察細菌和病毒如何通過隨機突變進行變異，它們基因的混合率和進化速度大致與我們相同，儘管它們在這二十年中經歷了數千代。 Because they’re not doing sexual selection, they’re doing asexual replication and mutation, their evolutionary rate is roughly equivalent to ours. So we’re in a red queen race where we’re both running at roughly the same speed using very different strategies. 因為它們不是進行性選擇，而是進行無性繁殖和突變，所以它們的進化速度大致與我們相當。因此，我們處於一場紅皇后競賽中，雙方都以大致相同的速度奔跑，但採用非常不同的策略。 A lot of how we’ve evolved is around pathogens. Our immune system is one of the most expensive things to run in the body, so much is about immune system optimization. 我們的許多進化過程都與病原體有關。我們的免疫系統是身體中運作成本最高的系統之一，因此很多進化都是圍繞免疫系統的優化進行的。 Junk DNA in bacteria and CRISPR was discovered because in bacteria their DNA is evolved to fight viruses. The way it does that is by taking viral DNA and snipping it up every time there’s a viral attack and storing it in their own DNA so they have a copy so they can recognize it next time it attacks. 細菌中的垃圾 DNA 和 CRISPR 的發現，是因為細菌的 DNA 進化出來用以對抗病毒。它的方式是每次遭受病毒攻擊時，將病毒 DNA 剪切並儲存在自己的 DNA 中，這樣下次病毒攻擊時就能識別它。 Population Structure and Lifespan 人口結構與壽命 NAVAL RAVIKANT: A lot of the population structure of species determines how long their lifespans are. If in a given species there’s a very high rate of infection, then the older members of the population are carrying diseases that will then infect the young, so it’s important for that species to get rid of the old faster. So the higher the disease rate in a given population, the less long-lived the entire population, so the older ones don’t infect the younger ones. NAVAL RAVIKANT：物種的人口結構在很大程度上決定了它們的壽命長短。如果某個物種中感染率非常高，那麼年長的成員會攜帶疾病，進而感染年輕成員，因此該物種必須更快地淘汰年長者。因此，在某個族群中疾病率越高，整個族群的壽命就越短，這樣年長者就不會感染年輕者。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Oh that’s a hypothesis. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：哦，那只是一個假說。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s an interesting hypothesis. Homeostasis within the human body, how we’re always returning to a given level of things, that’s a fundamental part of our makeup – our temperature, pH, blood pressure and so on under homeostasis. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這是一個有趣的假說。人體內的恆定性，我們總是回到某個特定的狀態，這是我們構造的基本部分——體溫、pH 值、血壓等都在恆定性下維持穩定。 But if you engage in any kind of signaling, like you take a peptide for example, that’s a signaling molecule, you take a hormone externally, the body will counteract it. You take testosterone, the body will counteract it, it will down-regulate its own production very fast, and the body releases its own hormones in pulses rather than steady state. 但如果你進行任何形式的訊號傳遞，比如你服用一種肽，肽是一種訊號分子，或者你外部服用激素，身體會進行反制。你服用睪酮，身體會反制，會非常快速地下調自身的產生，且身體釋放激素是以脈衝形式而非穩定狀態。 Why Our Bodies Use Hormone Pulses 為什麼我們的身體使用激素脈衝 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Why is that? Well that’s because bacteria and viruses can infect your body and trick your body, they can take it over. Toxoplasmosis does this, rabies does this, they take over macroscopic structural bodies. Small bacteria and viruses would hack our bodies and literally take them over if we didn’t have defense mechanisms, and one of those defense mechanisms is homeostasis. NAVAL RAVIKANT：為什麼會這樣？那是因為細菌和病毒可以感染你的身體並欺騙你的身體，它們可以接管你的身體。弓形蟲病會這樣，狂犬病也會這樣，它們接管宏觀結構的身體。如果我們沒有防禦機制，小型細菌和病毒會駭入我們的身體並實際接管它們，而其中一種防禦機制就是體內平衡。 Anytime you see something getting out of whack, you immediately push back really hard on it because did I just get infected? Is something trying to take me over? 每當你看到某些東西失去平衡時，你會立即強烈反擊，因為我剛被感染了嗎？有東西想要接管我嗎？ It’s also why hormones get released in pulses at night rather than in steady state low levels. Enemy bacteria can release toxins or the same signaling molecules in small quantities, but they can’t pulse, they can’t coordinate to pulse. Your body can coordinate to pulse as a macroscopic object, but microscopic objects can’t coordinate to create the same pulses. 這也是為什麼荷爾蒙會在夜間以脈衝方式釋放，而不是維持在穩定的低濃度水平。敵對細菌可以釋放毒素或少量相同的訊號分子，但它們無法脈衝釋放，無法協調產生脈衝。你的身體作為一個宏觀物體可以協調產生脈衝，但微觀物體無法協調創造相同的脈衝。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Oh, that’s cool. 克里斯·威廉森：喔，那真酷。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So you know that it’s coming from you. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：所以你知道那是來自你自己。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is that why? 克里斯·威廉森：是這個原因嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Correct, you know it’s endogenous rather than exogenous. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，你知道這是內生的，而非外生的。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I never knew that. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我從來不知道這點。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And that’s why we resist a lot of exogenous treatments, a lot of our medical treatments don’t work. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這就是為什麼我們抗拒許多外來的治療方法，很多醫療治療都無效的原因。 Bacteria and Viruses as Our Natural Predators 細菌與病毒作為我們的自然天敵 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Anyway, there’s a bunch more I could go on, but you see this in cancers where a lot of bacteria show up. The Epstein-Barr virus shows up in a lot of cancers. Now it seems like the gut microbiome influences so many things. NAVAL RAVIKANT：無論如何，我還有很多話可以說，但你會在許多癌症中看到這種情況，很多細菌會出現。Epstein-Barr 病毒也會出現在許多癌症中。現在看起來腸道微生物群影響了很多事情。 Basically, bacteria and viruses are at the top of the food chain compared to us. We are top of the well-known food chain, but bacteria and viruses eat us, fungus eats us. These microscopic predators are our natural predators. 基本上，細菌和病毒在食物鏈中位居我們之上。我們是眾所周知的食物鏈頂端，但細菌和病毒會吞噬我們，真菌也會吞噬我們。這些微觀掠食者是我們的天敵。 So a lot of aging, societal structure, hygiene, religious strictures against pork, circumcision, all of these things are designed to resist bacteria and viruses. So if you can teach children this philosophy at an early age, you shortcut all the debates. 所以很多老化、社會結構、衛生習慣、宗教對豬肉的禁忌、割禮，所有這些都是為了抵抗細菌和病毒而設計的。如果你能在孩子很小的時候教他們這種哲學，就能省去所有的爭論。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How effective have you been at teaching that philosophy to children? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你在向孩子們傳授這種哲學方面有多有效？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: That one I think I’ve been pretty effective, I’ve drilled that one at home. The one I haven’t quite gotten around to yet is evolution. I’m starting to do little bits of that, like we came from monkeys, what does that mean? Already got them thinking about some of the deeper questions. NAVAL RAVIKANT：這一點我覺得我做得相當有效，我在家裡已經反覆練習過了。還沒真正開始的是進化論。我開始做一些小嘗試，比如說我們是從猴子演化而來，這意味著什麼？已經讓他們開始思考一些更深層的問題了。 Philosophical Questions for Children 給孩子們的哲學問題 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I did ask my young son, “can nothing exist?” I thought that was a fun question, so I like to throw a fun question. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我曾問過我年幼的兒子，「無物能存在嗎？」我覺得這是一個有趣的問題，所以我喜歡拋出這樣有趣的問題。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: How old is he now? Like four, three? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：他現在幾歲了？大概四歲，三歲？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: No, no, he’s eight. NAVAL RAVIKANT：不，不，他八歲。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Oh, right. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：喔，對。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: An eight-year-old and a six-year-old. I asked them both like, “can nothing exist?” And they had pretty good answers. Another one we played with the other day was like, “what is the matrix?” NAVAL RAVIKANT：一個八歲，一個六歲。我問他們兩個說，「什麼都不存在可能嗎？」他們給了相當不錯的答案。我們前幾天玩的另一個問題是，「什麼是矩陣？」 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Okay.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：好。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: You know, what is this? What is all this? I just find it entertaining. It’s just fun to talk about these questions with your kids. NAVAL RAVIKANT：你知道這是什麼嗎？這一切是什麼？我只是覺得很有趣。和你的孩子們討論這些問題真的很有趣。 I’m not saying that one is a good way of child raising. It’s not leading to any deeper learning. 我並不是說這是一種好的育兒方式。這並不會引導孩子進行更深層的學習。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Other than maybe just have them start, or continue to question the basic structure of reality, and not move past it so quickly. NAVAL RAVIKANT：或許只是讓他們開始，或者繼續質疑現實的基本結構，而不要那麼快就跳過它。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Also, take joy, you know, what’s the meta lesson that’s being taught there? Dad spends time asking questions to which there are not necessarily an answer, because there is something enjoyable in the process of learning and trying to decipher what’s happening. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：還有，享受其中，你知道，那裡傳達的元教訓是什麼？爸爸花時間提出一些不一定有答案的問題，因為在學習和嘗試解讀發生了什麼的過程中，有一種樂趣。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Possibly. Also, dad tries not too hard to teach people things. I don’t want to be didactic. NAVAL RAVIKANT：可能吧。而且，爸爸不會太刻意去教人東西。我不想顯得說教。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: He helps them to arrive at… CHRIS WILLIAMSON：他幫助他們達成…… NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, correct. Dad is here to help you solve problems when you have problems, and you constantly have problems. So if you come to dad, dad can help explain to you how he would solve the problem, but most of the time they don’t want that. Most of the time they just want me to solve the problem. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，沒錯。爸爸在這裡是為了幫你解決問題，當你有問題時，而你總是會有問題。所以如果你來找爸爸，爸爸可以幫你解釋他會如何解決問題，但大多數時候他們不想要那個。大多數時候他們只是想讓我解決問題。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Right, okay. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：對，好的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So sometimes I just have to play dumb. It’s like, “why is my Wi-Fi not working on my computer?” I’m like, “I don’t know, did you try turning on that thing?” NAVAL RAVIKANT：有時候我只能裝傻。就像，「為什麼我的電腦 Wi-Fi 不工作？」我會說，「我不知道，你有沒有試過開啟那個東西？」 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Look, you’ve got like a rebellious sovereign child, sovereign as they may be, but sometimes they still need… CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你看，你有一個叛逆的主權孩子，雖然他們是主權的，但有時他們仍然需要…… NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. Dad to step in. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的。爸爸得介入。 Preserving Agency in Children 保持孩子的自主性 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So in addition to feeling loved and having high self-esteem, I think the most important trait that would be nice to not rob them of is agency. I want them to preserve their agency. They’re born naturally agentic and willful, but a lot of child raising can beat that out of them by essentially domesticating them. NAVAL RAVIKANT：所以除了感受到被愛和擁有高度自尊之外，我認為最重要且不應剝奪他們的特質是自主性。我希望他們能保有自主性。他們天生就有自主和意志力，但很多育兒方式會透過基本上將他們馴化來剝奪這些特質。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s right. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：沒錯。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And I would rather have wild animals and wolves than have well-trained dogs, because I’m not going to be around to take care of them. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我寧願擁有野生動物和狼，也不願有訓練有素的狗，因為我不會一直在身邊照顧他們。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, so they’re going to have to be able to look after themselves. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是啊，所以他們必須能夠照顧自己。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly. A friend of mine, Parsa on Air Chat, he had a great saying. He said he wants his children to be quick to learn and hard to kill. That was pretty good. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。我的一位朋友，Parsa，在 Air Chat 上有句很棒的話。他說他希望自己的孩子學習能力快，且難以被擊倒。這句話相當不錯。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是啊。 The Culture War  文化戰爭 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I remember you saying, just thinking about sort of future and culture and stuff like that, I remember you saying that the left had won the culture war, now they’re just driving around shooting the survivors. After the last six months of change that we’ve seen and sort of where we’re at at the moment, what do you think the future of the culture war looks like? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我記得你曾說過，談到未來、文化之類的東西時，你說左派已經贏得了文化戰爭，現在他們只是在四處開槍射擊倖存者。經過過去六個月的變化，以及我們目前所處的狀況，你認為文化戰爭的未來會是什麼樣子？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: It’s not over yet. They definitely won earlier rounds, they took over institutions. I think now it’s much more of a fair fight, where you have people like Elon supporting different forces. NAVAL RAVIKANT：還沒結束。他們確實贏得了早期的回合，並接管了機構。我認為現在的情況更加公平，你會看到像埃隆這樣的人支持不同的勢力。 Through history, historians will argue about this, but there’s the “great man of history” thing, where it’s like, oh you have the Einsteins, you have the Teslas, you have the Genghis Khans and the Caesars. They determine the flow of history. 歷史上，歷史學家會對此爭論不休，但有一種「偉人史觀」，認為像愛因斯坦、特斯拉、成吉思汗和凱撒這樣的人物決定了歷史的走向。 And then there’s the other point of view that no, there are these massive forces at play – demographics and geography and so on, and then the particular great man doesn’t matter, they just come and go. Napoleon doesn’t matter, there would have been somebody else, the specific names are not important. 然後還有另一種觀點認為，不，確實存在這些龐大的力量在起作用——人口結構、地理位置等等，而特定的偉人並不重要，他們只是來來去去。拿破崙並不重要，會有其他人出現，具體的名字並不重要。 Because of the leftist turn that our institutions took in the last few decades, they now only subscribe to the great forces theory of history, not the great man theory of history. But I think now we’re seeing the two play out, where you’re seeing Trump and Elon and other individuals rising up and saying, “no, we resist.” 因為我們的制度在過去幾十年走向左傾，他們現在只認同歷史上的大勢力理論，而非偉人理論。但我認為現在我們看到兩者同時發生，你看到川普、伊隆和其他個人崛起，並說：「不，我們要抵抗。」 The Battle Between Collectivism and Individualism 集體主義與個人主義之爭 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, that’s interesting. And I think that unfortunately, the battle between these collectivist forces versus individuals is as old as humanity itself, and it is fundamental to the species. We are not a completely individualistic species—no man is an island, a single person can’t do anything by themselves—but we’re also not a borg, we’re not a beehive, we’re not an ant colony, we’re not all just drones marching along. So which is it? We’re somewhere in the middle, and the human race is always kind of bouncing between the two. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，這很有趣。我認為不幸的是，這些集體主義力量與個人之間的鬥爭，和人類本身一樣古老，且對這個物種來說是根本性的。我們不是完全的個人主義物種——沒有人是孤島，單一個人無法獨自完成任何事——但我們也不是博格，我們不是蜂巢，我們不是螞蟻群，我們也不是一群只會跟隨行進的無腦工蜂。所以到底是哪一種呢？我們介於兩者之間，人類總是在這兩者之間搖擺。 We like strong leaders, we like to be led, we like to coordinate our forces and do things, but at the same time we’re also all individuals willing to break away and do our own thing. Everyone’s always fighting to be a leader, there’s always status games going on, so there’s a pendulum that’s always swinging back and forth. In modern economics, the way that manifests is between sort of Marxism and capitalism. 我們喜歡強而有力的領導者，我們喜歡被領導，我們喜歡協調我們的力量並做事，但同時我們也是願意脫離群體、做自己事情的個體。每個人總是在爭奪成為領導者，總有地位的競爭在進行，因此這種擺盪的鐘擺總是在來回擺動。在現代經濟學中，這種現象表現在某種程度上的馬克思主義與資本主義之間。 Marxism is like “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” We’re all equal, there’s a millennial project, we’re all going to be equal in the end. Don’t try and stand out, but do what’s good for everybody. There’s a religious aspect to it. 馬克思主義就像是「各盡所能，按需分配」。我們都是平等的，有一個千禧年的計劃，最終我們都會平等。不要試圖出風頭，而是做對大家都有利的事。這其中帶有宗教的色彩。 Then the capitalist individualist is like a libertarian—every man for himself. You each do what you want and it will work out for the greater good. That’s Adam Smith, the invisible hand of the market will feed you. The baker should bake and the butcher should butcher and the candlestick makers should make candlesticks, and it’ll all work out. Each person does their best and they trade. 而資本主義的個人主義者則像是自由意志主義者——各人為己。你各自做你想做的事，這將促成更大的利益。這是亞當·斯密的理論，市場的無形之手會養活你。麵包師應該烘焙，屠夫應該屠宰，燭台製造者應該製造燭台，一切都會順利運作。每個人盡力而為，然後進行交易。 So which is it? Which theory is correct? I think there’s always going to be a battle between the two. 那麼到底是哪一個？哪個理論是正確的？我認為兩者之間永遠會有一場鬥爭。 The Modern Power of the Individual 個人的現代力量 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think the interesting thing is what’s going on now—there’s a modern flavor to it which changes it. The modern flavor is that the individual is getting more powerful because they’re becoming more leveraged. Someone like an Elon Musk can have the leverage of tens of thousands of brilliant engineers and producers working for him. He can have factories of robots manufacturing things, he can have hundreds of billions of dollars of capital behind him, and he can project himself through media to hundreds of millions of people. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為有趣的是現在發生的事情——它帶有一種現代的風味，這改變了整個局面。這種現代風味在於個人變得更有力量，因為他們獲得了更多的槓桿。像埃隆·馬斯克這樣的人，可以擁有成千上萬的優秀工程師和製造者為他工作。他可以擁有由機器人組成的工廠來生產產品，他可以擁有數千億美元的資本支持，並且他可以通過媒體向數億人展示自己。 That is more power than any individual could have had historically, so the great men of history are becoming greater. That said, that same leverage is increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots. In the wealth game, more people are winning overall and the average is going up, but in the status game, there are essentially more losers—there are more invisible men and women who are getting nothing out of life and have no leverage, relatively speaking. 這比歷史上任何個人所擁有的力量都要大，因此歷史上的偉人變得更加偉大。話雖如此，同樣的槓桿也在擴大有產者與無產者之間的差距。在財富遊戲中，整體上有更多人獲勝，平均水平在提升，但在地位遊戲中，基本上有更多的失敗者——有更多看不見的男女，他們從生活中一無所獲，且相對而言沒有槓桿。 Objectively speaking, they might be better off—they still have phones and they still have TVs. It’s not that we’re absolute creatures. We’re relative creatures. 客觀來說，他們可能過得更好——他們仍然有手機，仍然有電視。我們並非絕對的生物，我們是相對的生物。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Correct. 克里斯·威廉森：正確。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And so to the extent that we’re relative creatures, there are more losers than winners, and in a democracy, those people will outnumber the winners and they will vote the winners down. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：因此，在某種程度上，我們是相對的生物，輸家比贏家多，在民主制度中，這些人數會超過贏家，他們會投票反對贏家。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yep.  克里斯·威廉森：是的。 Power and Democracy  權力與民主 NAVAL RAVIKANT: And so that’s the battle that kind of goes on. The democracy has gotten very broad, and so one of my other quips is that it’s not the right to vote that gives you power, it’s power that gives you the right to vote. We’ve confused the two. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：這就是持續進行的鬥爭。民主已經變得非常廣泛，所以我另一個俏皮話是，賦予你投票權的不是投票權本身，而是權力賦予你投票的權利。我們混淆了這兩者。 What happened was, voting started as a way for people who had power to divide up the power and not fight amongst themselves. The winners of the revolution, the winners of the war, the people in the House of Lords and the House of Commons—they divide up power amongst themselves and say, “Hey, we have all the money, we have the power, we are the knights, we have the swords, we have the warriors, we could kill everybody, but we don’t want to just fight each other all day long. We don’t have to be Game of Thrones forever, so we’re going to divide up power by voting amongst ourselves.” 事情的起因是，投票最初是作為有權勢的人們分配權力、避免彼此爭鬥的一種方式。革命的勝利者、戰爭的勝利者、上議院和下議院的人們——他們在自己之間分配權力，並說：「嘿，我們擁有所有的錢，我們擁有權力，我們是騎士，我們有劍，我們是戰士，我們可以殺光所有人，但我們不想整天互相爭鬥。我們不必永遠像《權力遊戲》那樣，所以我們決定通過彼此投票來分配權力。」 But then as society goes on and becomes more and more peaceful, that franchise for voting gets spread. It gets spread to people who don’t have land, who don’t have power, who may not be able to inflict physical violence. Eventually you get to the point where everybody’s voting. Everybody’s voting for candy and fairies and all the free things in life. Then eventually people start voting to oppress each other—the fifty-one percent in any domain vote to suppress the forty-nine. Tyranny of the majority. 但隨著社會的發展，變得越來越和平，投票權逐漸擴散。它被擴散到沒有土地、沒有權力、可能無法施加暴力的人身上。最終，你會達到每個人都在投票的地步。每個人都在為糖果、仙女和生活中所有免費的東西投票。然後最終人們開始投票壓迫彼此——在任何領域中，51%的人投票壓制 49%。多數人的暴政。 But not all of them are willing to back that up with physical power, and so you can end up in a situation where people who don’t have physical power are using the institutions of the state to control the people who do have physical power. 但並非所有人都願意用武力來支持這一點，因此你可能會陷入這樣的情況：沒有武力的人利用國家的制度來控制那些擁有武力的人。 As a simple example, taking the United States—people who don’t have guns voting to disarm the people that do have guns. Well, if the people who do have guns get coordinated and care enough, you can’t do that. 舉個簡單的例子，以美國為例——沒有槍的人投票剝奪有槍的人的武裝。嗯，如果擁有槍的人能夠協調一致並且足夠關心，你是無法做到這一點的。 The Foundation of Power  權力的基礎 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think eventually these societal structures are unstable. They break down because eventually the people who have the power say, “No, wait a minute, you don’t get to vote. You only got to vote because you had power, and now you don’t have power and you’re somehow trying to vote.” NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為最終這些社會結構是不穩定的。它們會崩潰，因為最終擁有權力的人會說：「不，等等，你不能投票。你之所以能投票是因為你有權力，而現在你沒有權力了，卻還想投票。」 All of nature, all of society, all of capitalism, all of human endeavors are underpinned by physical violence, and that is a very hard truth to swallow and hard to get away from. 整個自然、整個社會、整個資本主義、所有人類的努力都建立在物理暴力之上，這是一個很難接受且無法逃避的殘酷事實。 Nature is red in tooth and claw. If you don’t fight, you don’t survive, you don’t live—you die. That’s true of everything alive today, and humans are no different. So giving up physical power and then thinking you can exercise political power fails, which is why every communist revolution, which is all about equality and kumbaya and brothers and sisters, ends up being run by a bunch of thugs. Because if you don’t have a way to divide up the wealth based on merit, then it’s always going to be based on power and influence. The thugs with the guns always win in the end. 自然界是殘酷的，充滿了牙齒和爪子。如果你不戰鬥，你就無法生存，無法活下去——你會死。這對今天所有活著的生物都是真實的，人類也不例外。所以放棄物理力量，然後認為你可以行使政治權力是行不通的，這也是為什麼每一次共產主義革命——那些關於平等、和諧與兄弟姐妹情誼的革命——最終都會被一群暴徒掌控。因為如果你沒有一種基於功績來分配財富的方法，那麼分配永遠會基於權力和影響力。擁有槍枝的暴徒最終總是勝利者。 So the question is just, can you keep the thugs with the guns paid and happy in a successful society where you’re allocating based on merit? Because if you can’t, then you do it based on power. I do think that this battle is not over, but that’s because it never stopped. It’s always been there from day one, it will continue. 問題就在於，你能否在一個根據能力分配資源的成功社會中，讓那些持槍暴徒保持薪水和滿意？因為如果不能，那你就只能依靠權力來分配。我確實認為這場戰鬥還沒有結束，但那是因為它從未停止過。它從第一天起就一直存在，並將繼續下去。 Navigating News Saturation 掌握新聞過載的導航術 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is it a battle to not care about the news in an age of news saturation? All of this stuff—headlines twenty-four hours a day stream directly into your consciousness through a device in your pocket. A lot of what we’ve spoken about today is freedom—freedom from having to think about things or care about things that you do not have control over or that you shouldn’t or that you don’t want to. Yet people are just submerged up to the bottom of their nostrils, basically drowning in worry. So is it a battle to sort of stay out of the news when you’re saturated in it? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：在新聞過載的時代，不去關心新聞是否成了一場戰鬥？所有這些東西——二十四小時不間斷的頭條新聞，通過你口袋裡的裝置直接流入你的意識。今天我們談論的很多內容都是關於自由——自由於不必去思考或關心那些你無法控制、或者不應該、或者不想去關心的事情。然而，人們卻幾乎淹沒在憂慮中，鼻孔以下全是水。那麼，在被新聞淹沒的情況下，保持遠離新聞是否成了一場戰鬥？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, I mean, as you’re saying, the human brain has not evolved to handle all the world’s emergencies breaking in real time, and you can’t care about everything, and you’ll go insane if you try. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t care at all—there’s no “should.” If you want to care, go ahead and care. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我的意思是，正如你所說，人類的大腦並沒有進化到能夠即時處理世界上所有緊急事件，你不可能對所有事情都關心，試著這樣做你會瘋掉。這並不意味著你不應該關心——沒有什麼「應該」。如果你想關心，那就去關心吧。 I would just say that you’re probably better off only caring about things that are local, or things that you can affect. If you really care about something that’s in the news, then by all means care about it, but make a difference—go do something about it. Make sure that it’s your overwhelming desire and you don’t have five other desires at the same time. 我只想說，你可能最好只關心那些本地的事情，或者你能夠影響的事情。如果你真的關心新聞上的某件事，那麼盡管去關心，但要有所作為——去做點什麼。確保那是你壓倒性的渴望，而不是同時有五個其他的渴望。 Also, realize the consequences of it—you’re going to be unhappy until that thing gets fixed, and that thing will often be out of your control. 同時，要意識到其後果——在那件事解決之前，你會感到不快，而那件事往往不在你的掌控之中。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yep, desire is a contract to be unhappy until you get what you want. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：沒錯，渴望就是一份合約，讓你在得到想要的東西之前一直不快樂。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Exactly. For the most part, that’s something that is in your life, it’s like, “until I lose the weight,” “until I get the job.” It can be outside too. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。在大多數情況下，這是你生活中的一部分，就像「直到我減重成功」、「直到我找到工作」一樣。這也可能是外在的因素。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: If it’s “until the carbon dioxide parts per million are below this particular number,” that’s a tough one. Or all the people with Trump derangement syndrome—he’s living rent-free in their heads and driving them insane. I get it. There are politicians who have definitely driven me insane as well, but it comes at a very high cost, and it’s something that is out of your control that you cannot really influence, so it’s probably good to at least be conscious of it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：如果是「直到二氧化碳的百萬分比低於某個特定數字」，那就很難了。或者所有患有川普失常症的人——他們腦中無償佔據著川普的存在，讓他們發瘋。我明白。有些政治人物確實也讓我瘋狂過，但這代價非常高昂，而且這是你無法控制、無法真正影響的事情，所以至少意識到這點可能是件好事。 What Will Historians Study? 歷史學家將會研究什麼？ CHRIS WILLIAMSON: You mentioned historians before. One of my friends has a question. His equivalent of Peter Thiel’s question of “what is it that you believe that most people would disagree with?” His is, “what do you think is currently ignored by the media but will be studied by historians?” CHRIS WILLIAMSON：你之前提到過歷史學家。我的一位朋友有個問題。他的問題相當於彼得·蒂爾的「你相信什麼是大多數人會不同意的？」他的問題是，「你認為目前媒體忽略了什麼，但將來會被歷史學家研究？」 NAVAL RAVIKANT: You’re asking me that question right now? What do I think is ignored by the media but will be studied by historians? Well, the media is only focused on very timely things, right, so it depends if you want to talk about timely or timeless. NAVAL RAVIKANT：你現在問我這個問題？我認為媒體忽略了什麼，但將來會被歷史學家研究？嗯，媒體只關注非常即時的事情，對吧，所以這取決於你想談的是即時的還是永恆的。 As a simple example, if I just look at things that maybe in the next five or ten years are going to make a massive difference that people are not focused enough on—and I think within two years this will be obvious, so I’m not making a prediction. Predictions are tough. 舉個簡單的例子，如果我只看未來五到十年內可能帶來巨大變化，但人們還沒有足夠關注的事情——我認為兩年內這將變得明顯，所以我不是在做預測。預測很難。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And you’re going to have to eat it in a few years. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：幾年後你就得承認錯了。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, I’m going to eat this in a few years, so I’m probably wrong, but two things that I pay attention to that I don’t think a lot of people do pay attention to: NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，幾年後我可能會吃這句話，所以我可能錯了，但有兩件事我會注意，而我覺得很多人並不注意： The State of Modern Medicine 現代醫學的現狀 NAVAL RAVIKANT: One is I think just how bad modern medicine is. I think people just put a lot more faith in modern medicine than is warranted. Like our best ideas for a lot of things are surgery, just cutting things out, treating things that are “extraneous”—like “oh you don’t really need a gallbladder, don’t really need an appendix, you don’t really need tonsils, all that’s surplus requirement.” That’s false. The human body is very efficient, all those things are needed. NAVAL RAVIKANT：其中一件事是我認為現代醫學有多糟糕。我覺得人們對現代醫學的信任遠超過其應有的程度。比如我們對很多事情最好的想法就是手術，直接切除，治療那些「多餘的」東西——像是「哦，你其實不需要膽囊，不需要闌尾，也不需要扁桃腺，這些都是多餘的器官。」這是錯的。人體非常高效，這些東西都是必需的。 I think the state of modern medicine is pretty bad. We don’t have many good explanatory theories in biology. We have germ theory of disease, we have evolution, we have cell theory, we have DNA genetics, morphogenesis, embryogenesis, and not much else. Everything else is rules of thumb, memorization—A affects B because it affects C and D, but we don’t understand the underlying explanation. It’s all just words pointing to words pointing to words. 我認為現代醫學的狀況相當糟糕。我們在生物學中沒有太多好的解釋理論。我們有疾病的病原體理論，有進化論，有細胞理論，有 DNA 遺傳學，有形態發生學，有胚胎發生學，但除此之外不多。其他的都是經驗法則、死記硬背——A 影響 B 是因為它影響了 C 和 D，但我們並不理解背後的根本解釋。這一切只是詞指向詞，再指向詞。 Biology is still in a very sorry state, and because we are not allowed to take risks that might kill people, we just don’t experiment enough in biology. A lot of treatments are just outright banned by large regulatory bodies, so we just don’t have the innovation. 生物學仍處於非常糟糕的狀態，因為我們不被允許冒可能致人於死的風險，所以我們在生物學上的實驗不夠多。許多治療方法被大型監管機構直接禁止，因此我們缺乏創新。 I think we’re still in the stone age when it comes to biology and we’ve got a long way to go, and I think people will look back aghast at this. I think this is Brian Johnson’s point—he’s like, “Let’s be extreme, let’s try to live forever. Let’s be more experimental, and I’ll start as N of one and start experimenting on myself.” 我認為在生物學方面我們仍處於石器時代，還有很長的路要走，我相信人們將會驚恐地回顧這段時期。我想這正是布萊恩·約翰遜的觀點——他說：「讓我們走極端，嘗試永生。讓我們更具實驗性，我會從自己開始，作為唯一的實驗對象。」 Even there I disagree with Brian on many things, like taking huge amounts of supplements. I think we just don’t know supplements outside of the natural context—like just eat liver, man. But that’s fine, and I wouldn’t be vegan either, but I really appreciate that he’s experimenting, he’s good-natured about it, he shares everything. We need more people like that. 即使如此，我在許多事情上仍不同意布萊恩，比如大量服用補充劑。我認為我們對補充劑的了解脫離了自然的脈絡——就像說，直接吃肝臟吧，兄弟。但這沒關係，我也不會成為純素者，但我非常欣賞他在做實驗，他態度良善，並且分享一切。我們需要更多這樣的人。 So I think the state of biology—people will look back and say, “Wow, that was the dark ages.” 所以我認為生物學的現狀——人們將會回顧並說：「哇，那真是黑暗時代。」 The Future of Warfare  戰爭的未來 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think another thing that we’ll look back on is that we still continue to underestimate how important drones are going to be in warfare. The future of all warfare is drones. There will be nothing else on the battlefield, because I think of the end state of drones as autonomous bullets. Not even autonomous—they’re self-directed. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為我們將來回顧時會發現，我們仍然低估了無人機在戰爭中的重要性。所有戰爭的未來都是無人機。戰場上將不會有其他東西，因為我認為無人機的最終形態是自主子彈。甚至不只是自主——它們是自我導向的。 If that’s the future we’re headed towards, that’s just like—why would you have an armed force? There’s going to be no aircraft carriers, there’s going to be no tanks, there’s going to be no infantrymen, there’s just going to be autonomous bullets against your autonomous bullets. Whichever ones win, the other side just surrenders because it’s over. I think that’s the second piece of it. 如果這是我們未來的方向，那就像是——為什麼還需要武裝部隊？將不會有航空母艦，不會有坦克，不會有步兵，只有自主子彈對抗你的自主子彈。無論哪一方勝利，另一方就會投降，因為戰鬥結束了。我認為這是第二個重點。 The Rise of GLP-1 Medications GLP-1 藥物的崛起 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think a third piece that is going to be kind of unexpected is the GLP-1s, which I know you and I have privately discussed before. I think these are the most breakthrough drugs since antibiotics, they’re probably more important than statins, they’re sort of miracle drugs. The downsides and side effects are so minor compared to the upsides beyond just weight loss. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為第三個會有點出乎意料的部分是 GLP-1，這是我和你私下討論過的。我認為這是自抗生素以來最具突破性的藥物，可能比他汀類藥物還重要，它們有點像奇蹟藥物。與其帶來的好處相比，副作用和不良反應非常輕微，不僅僅是減重效果。 They also seem to be addiction breakers, they seem to lower many kinds of cancer, they almost metabolically reverse aging up to a certain point, and I think they’re going to bend the curve on healthcare costs. 它們似乎也能打破成癮，似乎能降低多種癌症的發生率，幾乎在某種程度上代謝性地逆轉老化，我認為它們將改變醫療成本的曲線。 The big question people are going to be asking over the next five years is why are Americans paying thousands of dollars a month for this when people overseas are getting them for free, or can order them from China for free. 未來五年人們會問的一個大問題是，為什麼美國人每月要花費數千美元購買這些藥物，而海外的人卻能免費獲得，或者能從中國免費訂購。 If I were Bernie Sanders, the platform I would be running on is I would say, okay, we’re going to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to Novo and Eli Lilly, and we’re just going to make these free. There are hundreds of analogs of these things that work, these are not going to be limited to just the few that are being used today. Take one of them or two of them and make them free, and I think it’ll make a big difference. 如果我是伯尼·桑德斯，我會提出的政綱是，我們將支付數千億美元給 Novo 和 Eli Lilly，然後讓這些藥物免費提供。這些藥物有數百種類似品有效，並不會僅限於目前使用的幾種。選擇其中一兩種讓它們免費，我認為這會帶來很大的改變。 As you and I were discussing earlier, this does bend a lot of people out of shape who got there the old fashioned way, and they want to see obesity as a moral failing on people’s parts. It lowers their status if the signal is less of a signal. 正如你我之前討論的，這確實讓很多靠傳統方式達到那個狀態的人感到不滿，他們希望將肥胖視為人們的道德缺失。如果這個信號變弱了，他們的地位也會降低。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, so they’re incentivized to say, “Oh, well you don’t know the downsides, it’s irresponsible to suggest it’s going to cause cancer, have fun losing bone and muscle mass,” but none of that stuff is really true. 克里斯·威廉森：是的，所以他們有動機說，「哦，你不知道這些壞處，說它會致癌是不負責任的，祝你骨質和肌肉流失愉快」，但這些說法其實都不是真的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: The cancer stuff is actually beneficial. I know people who are taking these things for anti-aging reasons – they’re already fit but they just want to age better and have a stronger insulin metabolism. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：關於癌症的說法其實是有益的。我認識一些人是為了抗老而服用這些藥物——他們已經很健康了，只是想讓自己老得更好，並擁有更強的胰島素代謝能力。 There’s evidence now these things put off dementia, Alzheimer’s, colon cancer, cardiovascular disease – it’s insane. The list of benefits is insane. 現在有證據顯示這些東西能延緩失智症、阿茲海默症、大腸癌、心血管疾病——這真是瘋狂。好處的清單簡直瘋狂。 There’s no free lunch, but this is a class of drugs that prevents you from taking other drugs into your body. It prevents you from taking too much sugar, many calories in an era of abundance, prevents you from smoking. There’s an organization called Casper that is now doing a study on heroin addictions and they’re showing that this can lower opioid overdoses and heroin addiction. 天下沒有白吃的午餐，但這是一類能防止你服用其他藥物的藥物。它能防止你攝取過多糖分、在豐盛時代攝取過多熱量，也能防止你吸菸。有一個叫做 Casper 的組織正在進行一項關於海洛因成癮的研究，他們顯示這能降低鴉片類藥物過量和海洛因成癮。 There’s a lot of overwhelming medical evidence coming out, and I think something like ten percent of the population might have tried these. 有大量壓倒性的醫學證據出現，我認為大約有百分之十的人口可能嘗試過這些東西。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, that’s the number that I’ve seen. Massive. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的，那是我見過的數字。非常龐大。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: I think about fifty percent of the population say that they would like to try it. I think the body positivity movement is dead, and we always kind of knew it was a scam. I mean it’s dying very, very quickly. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我認為大約有百分之五十的人口表示他們想嘗試。我覺得身體正面運動已經死了，我們一直都知道這是一場騙局。我的意思是它正在非常非常快速地消亡。 I quipped like “you can never be too rich, too thin, or too clean,” and immediately a whole bunch of people went nonlinear in my mentions. “Do you mean too thin, and what about the hygiene hypothesis?” Obviously there’s always exceptions, but people want to be thin and fit, and people want to be clean, back to the pathogen discussion that we had. 我開玩笑說「你永遠不會太富有、太瘦或太乾淨」，結果立刻有一大群人在我的留言中反應激烈。「你的意思是太瘦嗎？那衛生假說怎麼說？」顯然總有例外，但人們想要瘦且健康，人們也想要乾淨，回到我們之前討論的病原體話題。 I think overall that there’s going to be huge demand for these things, and our modern medical system is not built to supply these well. I don’t hold it against the pharma companies, I think they did their job by creating the thing, but I think next we need to step up and figure out how to make it broadly and cheaply available, as opposed to just milking it only for people with obesity who can get Medicare to sign off for it, or people paying out of pocket at very very high prices. 我認為整體來說，對這些東西的需求將會非常龐大，而我們現代的醫療系統並沒有很好地準備好供應這些。我不怪藥廠，我認為他們通過創造這些東西完成了他們的工作，但我認為接下來我們需要挺身而出，找出如何讓它廣泛且廉價地可用，而不是僅僅針對能讓醫療保險批准的肥胖患者，或是那些自掏腰包支付極高價格的人來榨取利潤。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: The benefits of societal distribution of the safer GLP-1s is so large that whichever politicians tackle that is going to be richly rewarded. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：社會普及更安全的 GLP-1 所帶來的好處非常巨大，無論哪位政治人物推動這項政策，都將獲得豐厚的回報。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well, obesity is the number one source of malnutrition worldwide. There’s twice as many people that are obese than are starving, so about half a billion people are starving and a billion people are obese. NAVAL RAVIKANT：肥胖是全球營養不良的首要原因。肥胖人口是飢餓人口的兩倍，所以大約有五億人飢餓，而有十億人肥胖。 So many problems are downstream of that. Look at how much of the federal budget goes into dialysis because of kidney failure, and why is that? It’s because of diabetes. So many of the problems that we have in modern society are downstream of obesity. 許多問題都是由此衍生的。看看聯邦預算中有多少用於因腎衰竭而進行的透析，這是為什麼呢？因為糖尿病。現代社會中許多問題都是肥胖的下游結果。 You know this – fitness is so important. Yes, in some people these things cause muscle and bone loss, but not in the people who are eating high protein and working out hard, so they can be taken in a way that’s safer. 你知道的——健身非常重要。是的，對某些人來說，這些藥物會導致肌肉和骨骼流失，但對於那些攝取高蛋白並且努力鍛煉的人來說，這些藥物可以以更安全的方式服用。 Some versions of these like liraglutide, the original one, they’ve been around for decades and the others have been around for about a decade. We already have, as you said, ten percent of the population taking them, so they’re already quite widely distributed. 這些藥物的某些版本，如原始的利拉魯肽，已經存在了數十年，而其他版本大約也有十年左右。我們已經有，如你所說，百分之十的人口在使用它們，所以它們已經相當廣泛地分布了。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: A good sample size. 克里斯·威廉森：樣本量相當不錯。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah, it’s a great sample size, what more do you need? If you have a bacterial infection that’s eating you, I don’t say “oh I have this antibiotic but it’s going to raise your blood pressure,” it’s like no, take the antibiotic. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：是的，這是一個很好的樣本量，還需要什麼呢？如果你有一個正在侵蝕你的細菌感染，我不會說「哦，我有這個抗生素，但它會讓你的血壓升高」，不，是「服用抗生素」。 If you’re going to kill yourself, I say take this antipsychotic and stay alive a little longer and solve it. I don’t say “oh it’s going to cause your heart rate to go up by three beats a minute.” 如果你打算自殺，我會說服用這種抗精神病藥，活得久一點，再去解決問題。我不會說「哦，它會讓你的心跳每分鐘增加三下」。 Similarly, if you’re poisoning yourself with toxins and overuse of substances that you shouldn’t be using – either heroin, alcohol, cigarettes, sugar or just sheer calories – take this GLP-1. They also improve digestion, you just have less food matter going through your stomach. Lower cancer risks across the board, there’s quite a few cancers that they lower. Cardiovascular benefits too. 同樣地，如果你正在用毒素和不該使用的物質過度傷害自己——無論是海洛因、酒精、香菸、糖分或是純粹的熱量過剩——服用這種 GLP-1。它們也能改善消化，你的胃裡通過的食物量會減少。全面降低癌症風險，有相當多種癌症的風險會降低。心血管方面也有益處。 I’ve been very surprised by the negative reception whenever you have a conversation about GLP-1s. 每當談到 GLP-1 時，我對其負面反應感到非常驚訝。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Indeed. 克里斯·威廉森：確實如此。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Well think about how many sacred cows are being gored, right? All the people who are basically saying “you should work harder, you should be fit like I did.” It’s lowering their status. 納瓦爾·拉維坎特：想想看，有多少神聖的牛被戳破了，對吧？所有那些基本上在說「你應該更努力工作，你應該像我一樣保持健康」的人。這降低了他們的地位。 Think about all the nutritionists and doctors and trainers who are now being put out of business in a way. It’s like why does the American military keep buying aircraft carriers in the age of drones? There’s an incentive bias, there’s very strong motivated reasoning, but it doesn’t matter. Ten percent of people are on it, everybody wants to be fit, it’s going to spread like wildfire. 想想所有現在在某種程度上被迫失業的營養師、醫生和教練。這就像為什麼美國軍方在無人機時代還繼續購買航空母艦？這裡存在激勵偏差，有非常強烈的動機性推理，但這並不重要。百分之十的人在使用它，每個人都想保持健康，這將像野火般迅速蔓延。 Getting Past Your Past  超越你的過去 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I was just thinking as you were talking that when we think about health, a lot of people kind of get captured by the way that they were brought up, the habits that they had from their childhood, or what mom and dad did, or genetic predisposition. I think you have as many reasons as many people to sort of feel hard done by challenges that you had earlier on in your life. Is getting past your past a skill, of not being owned today by your history, sort of not having that victimhood mentality? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：當你在說話時，我剛好在想，當我們談論健康時，很多人會被他們成長的環境、童年時期的習慣、父母的行為或遺傳傾向所影響。我想你和很多人一樣，有許多理由因為早年所面臨的挑戰而感到不公平。那麼，超越你的過去是一種技能嗎？就是不讓你的歷史左右你今天的生活，不抱持受害者心態？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yeah. I did have a tough childhood, but I don’t think about it. I think there are a couple of things going on there. One is I did process it quite a bit, I thought about it, but I thought about it to get rid of it. I didn’t think about it to dwell on it, or to create an identity around it. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，我確實有一個艱難的童年，但我不會一直去想它。我認為這裡有幾件事。一是我確實處理過這些事情，我思考過，但我思考是為了擺脫它，而不是為了糾結或圍繞它建立身份認同。 I wanted to be successful. I wanted more than anything else to rise past that, and so I couldn’t have that as a burden on me, so I had to get rid of it. So to the extent that I dealt with it, it was for the express purpose of getting rid of it, not to create an identity or story or to reflect upon it or to say “look at me, at what I’ve accomplished and look how great I am.” 我想要成功。我比任何事情都更渴望超越那個階段，所以我不能讓它成為我的負擔，因此我必須擺脫它。所以在我處理它的過程中，目的明確就是為了擺脫它，而不是為了創造一個身份或故事，或是反思它，或是說「看看我，我取得了什麼成就，看我多了不起」。 I think at some point you wrestle with that thing and then you just realize you’re never going to untangle the whole thing. It’s a Gordian knot problem. Alexander found a tangled knot in India and it said, “the famous conqueror will come and will untie this knot, nobody else can untie the knot.” He took one look at it, pulled out his sword and just cut it. 我認為在某個時刻，你會與那件事掙扎，然後你會意識到你永遠無法解開整個結。這是一個戈爾迪安結的問題。亞歷山大在印度發現了一個糾結的結，傳說「著名的征服者將會來解開這個結，沒有人能解開它。」他看了一眼，拔出劍就直接砍斷了它。 At some point, you just have to cut your past. If your past is bothering you, you will eventually get tired of trying to untangle that knot and you will just drop it because you will realize life is short. The more you have, the more you want to accomplish in this life, actually the less time you have to unravel that thing. 在某個時刻，你必須斷開你的過去。如果你的過去困擾著你，你最終會厭倦試圖解開那個結，然後你會放下它，因為你會意識到生命是短暫的。你擁有的越多，你想在這一生中完成的事情越多，實際上你用來解開那個結的時間就越少。 I just wanted to actually get things done, so I had no time to deal with it, so I just cut it. It’s like a really bad relationship, but in this case, it’s a bad relationship with your own history, so you just drop it. 我只是想實際完成事情，所以我沒有時間去處理它，所以我就切斷了。這就像一段非常糟糕的關係，但在這種情況下，是你與自己過去的糟糕關係，所以你就放下它。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I think so much of what we’ve spoken about today is on the shortness of life, and the fact that every moment is precious. You had to take about, the most fundamental resource in your life is not time, it’s attention. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我認為我們今天談論的很多內容都關於生命的短暫，以及每一刻都是珍貴的。你必須明白，你生命中最根本的資源不是時間，而是注意力。 Attention: The Currency of Life 注意力：生命的貨幣 NAVAL RAVIKANT: That’s right. I used to think the currency of life is money, and yes money is important, and it does let you trade certain things for time, but it doesn’t really buy you time. Ask Warren Buffett how much time money can buy you, or Michael Bloomberg. They’re rich as Croesus, but they can’t buy more time, right, Brian Johnson notwithstanding. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯。我曾經認為生命的貨幣是金錢，金錢確實重要，它確實能讓你用某些東西換取時間，但它並不能真正買到時間。問問沃倫·巴菲特金錢能買多少時間，或者邁克爾·布隆伯格。他們富可敵國，但他們買不到更多時間，對吧，布萊恩·約翰遜除外。 So you can’t trade money for time. Money is not the real currency of life, and time itself doesn’t even mean that much because as we talked about before, a lot of time can be wasted because you’re not really present for it, you’re not paying attention. 所以你無法用金錢來換取時間。金錢並不是生命的真正貨幣，而時間本身也不見得那麼重要，因為正如我們之前所說，很多時間會被浪費掉，因為你並沒有真正活在當下，沒有專注於它。 So the real currency of life is attention, it’s what you choose to pay attention to and what you do about it. Back to the point about the news media, you can put your attention on the news, but that’s how you’re spending the real currency of life, so just be aware of that. 所以生命的真正貨幣是注意力，是你選擇關注什麼以及你對此採取什麼行動。回到新聞媒體的話題，你可以把注意力放在新聞上，但那就是你在花費生命的真正貨幣，所以要意識到這一點。 If you want to, that’s fine, there’s no right or wrong here. Maybe it is your destiny to pick something in the news, learn about that problem, adopt that problem and solve it, but just be careful because your attention is the only thing that you have. 如果你願意，那也沒問題，這裡沒有對錯之分。也許你的命運就是選擇某個新聞事件，了解那個問題，接受那個問題並解決它，但請小心，因為你的注意力是你唯一擁有的東西。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: And that can also be captured by your own past? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：那也可能被你自己的過去所捕捉？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Yes, you can fritter it away on anything you’d like. NAVAL RAVIKANT：是的，你可以隨意把它浪費在任何你想做的事情上。 The Advantage of Starting as a “Loser” 從「失敗者」開始的優勢 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Is there an advantage to starting out as a loser? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：從失敗者開始有什麼優勢嗎？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Absolutely, yeah. Because if you’re a loser, then you’ll want to be a winner, and then you’ll develop all the characteristics that’ll help you be a, quote unquote, “winner” in life. NAVAL RAVIKANT：絕對有，因為如果你是失敗者，你就會想成為贏家，然後你會培養出所有能幫助你成為所謂「贏家」的特質。 That said, I wouldn’t sentence my kids to it. I don’t think you can artificially do that. It’s sort of like imagine that you were three hundred years ago, born a serf, and then somehow you managed to escape off the farm and you become a landowner and then eventually you become minor nobility and aristocrat. Are you going to put your kids back on the farm and say “you’re going be a serf again”? 話雖如此，我不會讓我的孩子們去經歷那樣的生活。我覺得你無法人為地去製造那種經歷。這有點像是想像你三百年前出生在農奴家庭，然後你設法逃離了農場，成為了地主，最終成為了小貴族和貴族。你會把你的孩子送回農場，告訴他們「你們要重新當農奴」嗎？ I know they all like those stories. The kids themselves like those stories because it says, “I came from the school of hard knocks, my dad made me go shovel hay for a summer,” but it’s not real. You’re not going to trick them. 我知道他們都喜歡那些故事。孩子們自己也喜歡那些故事，因為故事裡說「我來自艱苦的學校，我爸讓我夏天去鏟乾草」，但那不是真實的。你騙不了他們。 I think what you can do is cultivate an appreciation and gratitude for what you have, and the only way to do that is just evidence it yourself. Just show yourself how you spend money, how you respect it, what you do with it, how you take care of people, who you’re responsible for. 我認為你能做的是培養對你所擁有的一切的感激和珍惜，而做到這點的唯一方法就是親自去證明。讓自己看到你如何花錢，如何尊重金錢，你用錢做什麼，如何照顧他人，以及你對誰負有責任。 The more resources you have, the greater the tribe you can take care of, the more of the tribe you can take care of. When you have no resources, you’re struggling to take care of yourself, and at that point it’s good to be selfish because you can’t save somebody else if you can’t even save yourself. 你擁有的資源越多，就能照顧的部落成員越多，能照顧的部落也越大。當你沒有資源時，你連自己都難以照顧，這時候自私是好的，因為如果你連自己都救不了，就無法救別人。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yes.  CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是的。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So you take care of yourself and you become the best version of yourself, but there are too many men who are able, fit, and have some money who are doing nothing with their lives, just sitting at home doing nothing, just indulging in themselves, maybe they go on dates and they get DoorDash. I have no respect for that. NAVAL RAVIKANT：所以你要照顧好自己，成為最好的自己，但有太多有能力、身體健康且有些錢的男人，卻什麼都不做，只是坐在家裡無所事事，沉溺於自己，也許他們會去約會，然後叫外送。我對這種人毫無尊重。 I think there’s nothing worse in society than a lazy man because he’s leaving his potential on the table. It’s bad for him. 我認為社會上沒有比懶惰的男人更糟糕的了，因為他放棄了自己的潛力。這對他自己很不好。 So the next thing you do is you go and you have a family and you take care of your family. Then you take care of your extended family – your cousins, brothers, uncles, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, everybody that you can. 接下來你要做的就是組建家庭，照顧你的家人。然後照顧你的大家庭——你的堂表兄弟、兄弟、叔叔、祖母、阿姨、姐妹，所有你能照顧到的人。 And then if you have more resources beyond that, then you go take care of your local tribe, you take care of your people, you start trying to do some good for the world. If you have more resources than that, you go take care of an even bigger tribe, and that’s how you earn both respect and self-confidence and you live up to your potential. 然後如果你有更多的資源，超出那個範圍，你就去照顧你的本地部落，照顧你的人，開始嘗試為世界做些好事。如果你有比那更多的資源，你就去照顧一個更大的部落，這就是你贏得尊重和自信，並且發揮你潛力的方式。 The Value of Giving Back 回饋的價值 NAVAL RAVIKANT: So the more you have, the more is rightfully expected of you, and I think it’s a good compact with society when highly capable people express and flex that capability by giving more and more and by doing more and more. Society rewards them with the one thing they can’t get otherwise which is status, right? Society should give you status in exchange for it. They should say, “Okay you did a good job, you took care of more people than just yourself and just the people immediately around you.” NAVAL RAVIKANT：所以你擁有的越多，社會對你的期望也越高，我認為這是與社會達成的一個良好契約，當高能力者通過不斷付出和行動來展現和發揮他們的能力時。社會會以他們無法從其他地方獲得的東西來獎勵他們，那就是地位，對吧？社會應該以地位來回報你。他們應該說：「好，你做得很好，你照顧的人不僅是你自己和你身邊的人。」 That’s what an alpha male to me is. An alpha male is not the one who gets to eat first, the alpha male eats last. The alpha male feeds everybody else first and then gets to eat last, and they do that out of their own self respect and pride, and society rewards them by calling them an alpha and giving them status. 這就是我心目中的阿爾法男性。阿爾法男性不是那個先吃的人，阿爾法男性是最後吃的人。阿爾法男性會先餵飽其他人，然後自己最後才吃，他們這樣做是出於自尊和驕傲，社會通過稱他們為阿爾法並賦予他們地位來獎勵他們。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: I wonder whether some of the pushback that we’ve got against rich, wealthy, powerful people is disincentivizing. It is, like, who is it, Zuck who donated money in Zuckerberg General’s Hospital and then they wanted to pull his name off of it. I mean, that’s like- CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我在想，對富有、有權勢的人所受到的一些反彈，是否會產生反激勵作用。就像是，誰來著，扎克捐了錢給扎克伯格將軍醫院，然後他們想把他的名字從上面拿掉。我的意思是，那真的是—— NAVAL RAVIKANT: I didn’t see that, but that’s really- NAVAL RAVIKANT：我沒看到那件事，但那真的—— CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Yeah, that kind of stuff backfires, right? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：是啊，那種事情會適得其反，對吧？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: You should reward people for doing- NAVAL RAVIKANT：你應該獎勵那些做事的人—— CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Well, you were saying before, you don’t just need to, in fact, actually actively avoid castigating people if you want their behavior to change when they get something wrong, but reinforcing it when they get something right, it’s happening at a societal level as well. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：嗯，你之前說過，如果你想改變人們的行為，當他們犯錯時，不僅不應該責罵他們，反而應該積極避免這樣做；而當他們做對了事情時，則應該加以強化，這種做法在社會層面上同樣適用。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Correct, I mean like the guys who make a lot of money and go out and buy sports teams, I wouldn’t do that, right? But the one who goes out and builds a hospital, or builds a rocket to take people to the moon, you know, rescue some astronauts, you should be rewarding him for that. NAVAL RAVIKANT：沒錯，我的意思是，那些賺很多錢然後去買運動隊的人，我不會那樣做，對吧？但如果有人去建醫院，或者建造火箭送人上月球，甚至去救援宇航員，你應該獎勵他這樣的行為。 Closing Thoughts  結語 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Naval, I really appreciate you. I hope that this has lived up to whatever weird daydreams you’ve been having. What have you got coming up? What can people expect from you over the next however long? CHRIS WILLIAMSON：Naval，我非常感謝你。我希望這次訪談能符合你那些奇怪白日夢的期待。你接下來有什麼計劃？人們可以期待你在未來一段時間內帶來什麼？ NAVAL RAVIKANT: Expect nothing. NAVAL RAVIKANT：別抱任何期望。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: That’s the most Naval way that we could have finished this. Dude, it’s been a long time coming. I really do appreciate you for being here today. But I do hope to deliver something. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：這是我們能以最具 Naval 風格的方式結束這次對話。老兄，這真是期待已久。我真的很感謝你今天能來這裡。但我希望能帶來一些收穫。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: Oh, I think you have, so thank you. Thanks for having me. NAVAL RAVIKANT：哦，我覺得你做到了，非常感謝。謝謝邀請我。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Thank you too. Thanks for getting in my mind, and hopefully now you’re out. CHRIS WILLIAMSON：我也謝謝你。謝謝你進入我的思緒，希望現在你已經走出來了。 NAVAL RAVIKANT: We’ll see. I mean, it might be even worse now. You’ve got the real memories to stick. NAVAL RAVIKANT：我們拭目以待。我的意思是，現在情況可能更糟。你會牢牢記住那些真實的回憶。 The reason to win the game is to be free of it. The reason to do podcast is to be done with it. 贏得比賽的原因是為了擺脫比賽。做播客的原因是為了結束它。 CHRIS WILLIAMSON: Alright. 克里斯·威廉森：好吧。