纳瓦尔论财富：从资产到知识

大家好，欢迎收听。距离《纳瓦尔宝典》首次出版已经过去了 5 年。为了纪念这个时刻，纳瓦尔和我决定为大家制作一个特别版。我们花了一整天时间，录制了超过 4 小时的对话。现在，我们在这里与你分享，更新并扩展了书中的核心思想。和《纳瓦尔宝典》中的其他内容一样，这个版本除了在你喜欢的平台上提供的音频书之外，也是免费提供的。这本书通过口口相传而成长，被赠送和推荐，最终以 40 种语言传播到全球数百万人。我希望你能帮助这些好想法继续传播。谢谢你的加入。让我们开始吧。过去几年，我看到你越来越深入地研究 David Deutsch 的思想，至少从我这里看，你把他提出的解释和你关于创造财富的现有理论联系起来，财富的定义如何演变、扩展并变得普遍，既适用于文明层面，也同样适用于你作为个人所做的决定。

Hello and welcome. It's been 5 years since The Almanac of Naval first came out. And to honor that, Naval and I wanted to do a special edition for you. We spent the day together and recorded over 4 hours of our conversation. Now, we're sharing that here with you, updating and expanding the key ideas in the book. Like everything else in the Almanac of Naval, this version is being made available for free in addition to the audio book available on your favorite platform. This book has grown as a word-of-mouth phenomenon, being gifted and recommended, ultimately reaching millions of people all over the world in 40 languages. I hope you will help these good ideas continue to spread. Thank you for joining us. Let's dive in. Over the last few years, seeing you go deeper and deeper into David Deutsch's ideas and at least from my seat, see the explanations that he puts forth and the connecting threads that you draw into your sort of existing theories about building wealth and how the definition of wealth evolves and expands and becomes universal and applies at the civilization level in the same rules all the way down to the decisions that you make as an individual.

Deutsch 对财富的定义比我的更好。我对财富的定义非常聚焦于赚钱的欲望。所以我的定义是：财富是你在睡觉时也能赚钱的资产。我想摆脱朝九晚五的陷阱，摆脱投入与产出挂钩的陷阱。我不想辛苦工作。我以前常说，我想成为生活中每个方面做事最少却最成功的人。不仅仅是商业，甚至包括我的人际关系、日常幸福、锻炼和工作。我和所有聪明人一样，很懒，对吧？

Deutsch had a better definition of wealth than I did. My definition of wealth was very focused by my desire to make money. And so my definition of wealth was assets that earn while you sleep. And so I wanted to break out of the 9-to-5 trap of the input tied to output trap. And I didn't want to have to work hard. I always used to say I want to be the most successful guy for doing the least work in every aspect of my life. Not just in business, but even my personal relationships, even my day-to-day happiness, even my exercise and work. I'm like all smart people, I'm lazy, right?

最高杠杆的解决方案是什么？

What's the highest leverage solution?

没错。懒惰是一种杠杆、效率，等等。这不是说我想要无所事事地坐着。而是这样我才有时间做其他事情。我可以专注于健康，花时间陪孩子，自我教育。我不必只是一个不停工作的机器人。所以我对财富的定义是：好吧，让我们摆脱朝九晚五的陷阱。让我的资产在我睡觉时工作。哪些资产可以在睡觉时工作？资本是一个明显的例子。你投资钱，但资本实际上在做什么？当你“投资资本”时，你是在放弃未来资产的权利——这些资产是社会因为你过去的工作而欠你的，假设这些工作都是正当获得的。然后你放弃这些，以便企业可以雇佣人员并使用资本机器来建造新东西。

That's right. Laziness is a form of leverage, efficiency, what have you. And it's not lazy in the sense that I want to sit around and do nothing. It's just that then I have time to do other things. I can focus on my health. I can spend time with my children. I can educate myself. I don't just have to be a drone working away. And so my definition of wealth was around, okay, let's break out of the 9-to-5 trap. Let's have my assets work while I sleep. And what are those assets that can work while I sleep? Well, capital is an obvious one. You invest money, but what is that capital actually doing? When you quote unquote invest capital, what you're doing is you're giving up the right to future assets that society owed you for having done work in the past, assuming it was all properly earned. And then you're giving that up so that businesses can employ people and use capital machinery to build new things.

嗯，另一个可以在你睡觉时赚钱的资产就是企业的一部分。它可以是一台机器，比如一台 3D 打印机在你睡觉时工作。它可以是一台计算机在进行计算。它可以是一个 GPU 集群在计算下一个 AI 模型。它可以是一个组织，一个按某种方式运作的人员流程，你只需检查并确保组装、目标等所有部分都正确，其中一些人在不同时区、不同时间工作。也可以是知识产权。

Well, another asset that could earn while you sleep is just a piece of a business. It could be literally a machine, a 3D printer working while you're sleeping. It could be a computer doing computation. It could be a GPU cluster computing the next AI model. It could be an organization, a process of people who are operating a certain way and you kind of check in and make sure the assembly and the goals and all those pieces are correct and some of them working in different time zones in different hours. Could be intellectual property.

可以是知识产权。可以是一段媒体内容，它一直在传播，人们要么付费，要么它为你带来访问量、知名度或其他东西。所以，没错。这就是我对财富的定义，我认为如果你只是想赚钱，这是一个很好的实用定义。

It could be intellectual property. It could be a piece of media that's out there that just continues to circulate and people either pay for it or it gets you access or notoriety or something else. So, exactly. So that was my definition of wealth and I think it's a good practical definition of wealth if you're just trying to make money.

你看，

See,

但 David Deutsch 对财富的定义更深刻、更哲学。它从社会或文明一直延伸到个人，扩展和缩放得非常漂亮。他对财富的定义是：你能够影响的物理变换集合。“影响”是指使之存在。举个例子，如果我有很多钱，那么我就有财富，因为我可以去买一台机器，这台机器可以简单到是一台挖掘机，用来挖沟或盖房子，或者我可以雇人去做某事等等。所以其中肯定有巨大的存储资本成分。但财富的更大一部分仍然是你能影响的物理变换集合。而创造物理变换的绝大部分能力来自技术，来自杠杆技术。比如 10 个穴居人或 10 个旧石器时代的人，他们的改变事物的能力不如 10 个现代人。这是因为知识。如果你仔细观察，你会发现知识是巨大的乘数，而不是资本。所以这是马克思完全错误的一点。马克思主义彻底失败的众多原因之一。撇开明显的错误激励不谈，价值不在于资本，不在于工厂，而在于知识。如果你把 Elon Musk 从 SpaceX 中移除，你无法捕捉他的财富。财富消失了，因为知识消失了。SpaceX 的价值降低了。它不是一块可以分割的馅饼。它是一群非常聪明的人，由共同使命凝聚在一起，不断影响变革，而你为他们提供资金并押注于此。

But David Deutsch's definition of wealth is deeper and more philosophical. And it extends and scales really nicely all the way from a society or civilization down to a single individual. And his definition of wealth is the set of physical transformations that you can affect. Effect as in bring into existence. So an example of that would be, okay, if I have a lot of money stored up then I have wealth because I can go buy a machine and the machine could be as simple as a backhoe that's digging trenches or building houses, or it could be I can hire people to go do something, etc. So there's definitely a huge stored capital component to it. But the bigger part of wealth is again it's a set of physical transformations that you can affect. And the vast majority of the capability to create physical transformations comes from technology and it comes from leverage technology. Like 10 cavemen or 10 paleolithic people wouldn't have the same ability to change things as 10 modern humans do. And that's because of knowledge. If you pay careful attention, you realize that knowledge is the big multiplier. It's not the capital. So this is one thing where Marx was completely wrong. One of the many reasons why Marxism completely fails. Leave aside the obvious that it has wrong incentives, the value is not in the capital. It's not in the factories. It's in the knowledge. If you removed Elon Musk from SpaceX, you can't capture his wealth. It disappears because the knowledge just disappears. SpaceX is less valuable. It is not a pie to be divided up. It is a group of very intelligent people held together by a common mission who are continually affecting change and you're funding them and betting on that.

它不是一块金子，你可以切下一块拿走然后熔化。顺便说一句，即使是金子也没有多大价值。黄金是实际价值的指针。它只是一种稀缺金属，你可以用来交易价值。但实际价值不在黄金中。价值在于做事的人。所以当一个社会获得新知识时，它变得更富有。当一个人获得新知识时，他变得更富有。例如，按传统标准我很富有，但我的赚钱能力也是前所未有的。为什么？因为我拥有巨大的知识，人们知道我有知识，因此我可以在非常大的层面上影响变革。我因为什么而出名？因为我的创业公司？不，不是。我最自豪的是什么？创业公司来来去去。我为此感到自豪，是因为我成为了竞技场中的人，真正做了一些事情。我似乎受欢迎的原因，仅仅是因为我思考并以某种方式表达事物，这就是知识，对吧？这让我回到之前我们讨论的永恒知识和智慧，以及现代知识。现代知识比如关于事物的知识，如何制造汽车、计算机、机器人等等。这些知识是可传播的。一个人可以发现它，然后传递给下一个人。

It's not a piece of gold that you can slice off a chunk and take it and then melt it down. Even that, by the way, doesn't have much value. Gold doesn't have much value. Gold is a pointer to actual value. It's just a scarce metal you can use to trade value. But the actual value is not in the gold. The value is in the people doing things. So as a society gains new knowledge, it becomes wealthier. As an individual gains new knowledge, they become wealthier. For example, I am wealthy by conventional standards, but my earning power is also the highest it's ever been. Why? Because I have tremendous knowledge and people have knowledge that I have knowledge and so because of that, I can affect change at a very big level. What do I get famous for? For doing my startups? No, not really. What am I proudest of? Startups come and go. I'm proud of it in the sense that I got to be a man in the arena and I got to actually do something. What I seem to have gotten popular for is just for thinking through and then articulating things in a certain way and that's knowledge, right? And this brings me back to earlier we were talking about timeless knowledge and wisdom and kind of modern knowledge. Modern knowledge like knowledge about things, knowledge how to build cars and computers and robots and all that. That knowledge is transmissible. One person can discover it, they can convey it to the next person.

下一个人就可以接手、复制和拷贝它，让每个人都更富有。关于人性的知识，关于什么是美好生活、什么是人生目的的知识。正如亚里士多德所说，“Eudaimonia”——我可能说错了，我不懂拉丁语或希腊语。

The next person can then take it on and duplicate and copy it, making everybody wealthier. Knowledge about human nature, knowledge about what is a good life, what is the purpose of life. As Aristotle said, 'Eudaimonia' or I'm saying that wrong. I don't speak Latin or Greek.

元音很多。

It's a lot of vowels.

是的，元音很多，但它基本上就是：如何过上幸福的生活？这是一门非常实用的哲学。那些知识、那些智慧很难传达。智慧非常简单。如果智慧可以沟通，我们都会变得智慧，一切就都完成了。但它总是必须与个人经验缝合在一起，并且必须在听者内心重新创造。你不能只是复制。它不是你可以复制的过程。所以智慧是你需要一遍又一遍地听到的东西。你需要以一千种不同的方式、在一千种不同的情境中听到它，直到你经历自己的人生。然后你做了某件事，它突然就通了，你会想：“哦，这个人用这种特别的方式说过，此刻与我产生了共鸣。”然后你仔细思考，把它缝合进你的世界观。它成为你价值体系的一部分。问题是，如果你已经以某种方式听过它，要么太早，要么太多次，它就成了陈词滥调，每个人都会翻白眼，对吧？所以我认为世界上一些最伟大的智慧就在童谣里，比如《划船歌》。你能找到比这更伟大的智慧吗？很难。“轻轻划船，顺流而下，快快乐乐，快快乐乐，人生不过一场梦。”这里面有很多智慧。人生就像一条河，它有一定的流速。你确实想划船，你不想只是坐在那里。你要温和地对待它，不要太用力地扑腾。你要保持良好的态度。快快乐乐的，人生是一场梦，因为一切都会消失，你也会离去。所以这里面有很多智慧。它以一种巧妙的方式包装，通过押韵和简单的词语跨越时间，甚至孩子们也能记住。但与此同时，如果我把这作为智慧写进书里给你，你只会嘲笑它，因为它太陈词滥调、太简单了。你听它听得太早了。

Yeah, it's a lot of vowels, but it's basically like, how do you live a happy life? That's a very practical philosophy. That knowledge, that wisdom is very hard to convey. Wisdom is very simple. If wisdom could be communicated, we'd all be wise and we'd all be done. But it always has to be stitched in with personal experience and it has to be recreated inside the listener. You cannot just copy. It's not a process that you can copy. So wisdom is something that you need to hear over and over and over again. And you need to hear it in a thousand different ways, in a thousand different contexts until you're going through your own life. And then you do something and it clicks and you're like, 'Oh, this guy said that in this particular way and that resonates with me in this moment.' And then you think it through and you stitch it into your worldview. It becomes part of your value system. And the problem is if you've already heard it said a certain way either too early or too many times, it's a cliche and everyone's going to roll their eyes, right? So one of the things I think some of the greatest wisdom in the world is in nursery rhymes, like 'Row, Row, Row Your Boat.' Find me a greater piece of wisdom than that. It's very hard. 'Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.' There's a lot of wisdom in that. Life is like a river, it is kind of flowing at a certain pace. You do want to row, you don't want to just sit there. You want to be gentle about it, you don't want to splash around too hard. You want to keep a good attitude. Merrily, life is a dream because the whole thing disappears and you're gone. So there's a lot of wisdom in there. And it's packaged in a clever way that persists across time with rhyming and simple words that even children can commit. But at the same time, if I gave that to you as wisdom in a book, you would just laugh because it's too cliche, too simple. You heard it too early.

是的，我觉得 Naval 的批评者，所谓的，最常见的批评就是：“哦，那是幸运饼干里的话，或者是陈词滥调，或者人人都知道。”我的回应是，那就是 Lindy 效应。陈词滥调就是 Lindy。我在那里所做的，而且我主要是对自己说的，所以即使我编辑我的推文，因为我认为我更容易以不同于最初措辞的方式记住它，就是试图以一种有趣的方式说出一些真实的东西。就是这样。即使真理以前被说过，任何关于人性的真理以前都被说过，它本质上就是重复。我不介意重复它，因为它以一种有趣的方式呈现，而且我刚刚以一种会让我记住的方式想通了它。也许别人会在我这样说的时候，以一种对他们来说会记住的方式想通它。更有趣的是，也许他们会回应一些东西，让我重新评估和扩展我刚才的想法。也许我会遇到有趣的人。这就是我发推的原因。

Yeah, I feel like the Naval detractors, quote unquote, the most common criticism is like, 'Oh, it's fortune cookie or it's a cliche or everybody knows that.' And my response is like, that's Lindy. Cliche is Lindy. All I'm trying to do there is, and I'm saying it mostly for myself, so even when I edit my tweets, because I think I'm more likely to remember it in a different way than I originally phrased it, is I'm trying to say something true in an interesting way. That's literally it. And even if the truth has been said before, and any truth about human nature has been said before, it is a repetition by definition. I don't mind repeating it because it's in an interesting way, and I just figured it out in such a way that it's going to stick with me. And maybe someone else there will figure it out in a way that'll stick with them when I say it this way. And more interestingly, maybe they'll say something back which will cause me to re-evaluate and expand what I just thought. And maybe I'll meet someone interesting. That's why I tweet.

所以任何与不是全新的话题相关的东西都会变成陈词滥调。所以如果你只想坚持全新的话题，你还剩下什么？嗯，你只剩下当代叙事，比如金·卡戴珊早餐吃了什么，或者唐纳德·特朗普今天与最高法院大法官在什么政策上争吵。对我来说，这些东西很有趣，但如果这就是我们要谈论的全部，那就请离开吧。我不觉得这对我的生活有任何增益。

And so anything having to do with any topic that is not brand new is going to be cliched. So if you want to only stick to brand new topics, what are you left with? Well, you're left with contemporary storytelling like what did Kim Kardashian have for breakfast or what policies Donald Trump is fighting with the Supreme Court justice over today. To me, that stuff is entertaining, but if that's all we're going to talk about, then please leave. I don't find that additive to my life in any way.

或者我们可以谈论新事物。我们可以谈论 AI 模型的最新突破。我们可以谈论图像生成的最新方法，或者人们建造无人机的最新方式等等，但只有非常非常少的人有资格谈论这些。他们不一定把所有那些突破都发在 Twitter 上。你也不是每次都在那里吸收深奥的技术信息。我们大多数人也无法分辨什么是真实的、什么是虚假的、什么是炒作、什么是伪造。所以我觉得如果你要讨论任何重要且永恒的东西，你绝对会遇到陈词滥调。

Or we can talk about things that are new. We can talk about the latest breakthrough in an AI model. We can talk about the latest way to do image generation or the latest way people are building drones or what have you, but only a very, very small number of people are qualified to talk about that. They're not necessarily putting all those breakthroughs on Twitter. Nor are you there to absorb deep technical information each time. Nor can most of us tell apart what's real from what's not and what's hyping and what's fake. So I feel like if you're going to discuss anything important and timeless, you are absolutely going to run into cliches.

是的。大卫·多伊奇，财富的定义与财富创造的伦理相联系。我认为看到知识、财富和伦理财富创造之间的联系是一个巨大的解锁，因为我认为这可能是最大的前兆，让人们在甚至内化线程中其余想法之前就卡住了：如果你不相信伦理财富创造是可能的，你就会拒绝整个游戏。

Yeah. David Deutsch, the definition of wealth connected with the ethics of wealth creation. I think that was one seeing the connections between knowledge, wealth, and ethical wealth creation was a huge unlock because I think that's maybe the biggest precursor that gets people stuck before even internalizing the rest of the ideas in the thread is like if you don't believe ethical wealth creation is possible, you will reject the whole game.

没错。是的。你会过早地变得愤世嫉俗。

That's right. Yes. You will get bitter too early.

人们这样做的时候挺糟糕的。对资本主义的常见批评都围绕着裙带关系、美联储印钞、向银行家输送利益等等。毫无疑问，当涉及金钱、涉及财富时，不仅是一部分努力，而是大部分努力都会用于抽取、控制、保卫、争夺、分割财富。大部分。如果你看看自然界，寄生物种的数量是独立物种的六倍，对吧？所以大多数东西都在互相吞噬，试图靠别的东西生存。只有少数在向着天空中的太阳伸展，努力生存。所以对人们来说，抢夺东西似乎总是比创造东西更容易。当社会最终有太多人专注于分蛋糕而不是烤蛋糕时，那些社会就会崩溃。而且很容易变得愤世嫉俗。我的意思是，你看到银行救助。但我会争辩说，那些都不是自由市场资本主义。那是彻头彻尾的政府干预。挑选赢家，挑选输家，这并不是说资本主义意味着每个人都公平竞争。资本主义是你提出一套最低限度的结构化规则，最低可行规则，让人们能够进行公平的游戏，其中很多原本会用于偷窃财产或互相争斗的能量被引导到创造财产上。所以这就是为什么资本主义的基础是尊重私有财产。如果我改良了一块土地，或者我创造了某样东西，我可以保留那个改良成果。

And it kind of sucks when people do that. The common critiques of capitalism are all around cronyism or the Federal Reserve money printing or handing out favors to bankers and so on. There's no question when money is involved, when wealth is involved, not just a portion of the efforts, but the majority of efforts will go into siphoning, controlling, defending, fighting over, slicing up wealth. The majority. If you look in nature, there are six times as many species that are parasites as are standalone, right? So most things are eating each other and trying to live off of something else. And there are a few that are reaching for the sun in the sky and trying to survive. And so it's just always seems easier to people to grab something than to create something. And when society ends up with too many people focused on slicing up the pie rather than baking it, then those societies collapse. And it's easy to be cynical. I mean, you watch the bank bailouts. But I would argue none of that is free market capitalism. That is government intervention through and through. Picking winners, picking losers, which is not to say that capitalism means everybody plays fair. Capitalism is you come up with a minimum structured set of rules, the minimum viable that allows people to play the fair game where a lot of the energy that would get directed into stealing property or fighting each other gets channeled into creating property. So that's why the basis of capitalism is respect for private property. If I improve a piece of land or if I create something, I can keep that improvement.

是的，你必须想办法处理污染的外部性和公共物品等问题。但基本的自由市场资本主义在很大程度上已经解决了这些问题，并且带来了历史上最伟大的财富增长和人类繁荣。人们忘记了这一点。他们没有花足够的时间去看那些每天靠一美元生活或无法保护私有财产的地方。那些社会只会彻底崩溃，陷入全面战争。

And yes, you have to figure out how to deal with the externalities of pollution and with public goods and so on and so forth. But basic free market capitalism figured that out to a pretty large extent and has been responsible for the greatest increase in wealth and human flourishing in history. And people forget that. They don't spend enough time looking at places where people are living on a dollar a day or don't have the ability to protect private property. Those societies just melt down into full-on warfare.

我们不会考虑资本主义质量评分。

We don't think about a capitalism quality score.

没错，就应该这样。美国现在大约有三分之一到 40% 是社会主义，因为这么多 GDP 由政府控制，包括州、联邦和地方政府。另外还有 20% 到 30% 受监管影响，或者处于教育和医疗等基本准政府运营的行业。所以即使在这里，私营部门也相当小，而且在萎缩。这就像在人们放弃或逃离之前，它能承受多大的负担？美国的失败案例是最优秀和最聪明的人不再移民到这里。所以我确实认为你可以关注所有这些不公平，然后崩溃。但与此同时，这是人类历史上财富创造最伟大的时期。知识、资本和杠杆的创造比以往任何时候都多。所以如果你中等聪明，不怕努力工作，而且灵活，你可以做得非常好。你必须从脑海中消除整个游戏被操纵的想法。

That's right. That's what it should be. The US is about one-third or 40% socialist now because that's how much GDP is controlled by the government, including state, federal, and local governments. Then you've got another 20 or 30% that is drawn by regulation or in sectors like education and healthcare, which are basically quasi-government run. So even here, the private sector is quite small and shrinking. It's just like how much of a load can that carry before people give up or flee? The failure case for the US is the best and brightest no longer immigrate here. So I do think you can focus on all that unfairness and melt down. But at the same time, this is the greatest period for wealth creation in human history. There's more knowledge, more capital, more leverage being created than any other time. So if you're moderately intelligent, not afraid of working hard, and flexible, you can do extremely well. You have to get it outside of your mind that the whole game is rigged.

是的。就像，在生活中，运气成分很大。你存在本身就是运气。有很多因素你无法控制，但人生很长。人们非常一致。复利确实有效。你可以通过纯粹的意志力和努力工作超越运气。如果你不相信这一点，那你就是个愤世嫉俗者。而愤世嫉俗者的信念是自我实现的。你会陷入泥潭。然而，那些乐观、愿意努力工作、愿意忽略其中不道德或基于运气的本质的人，他们才是唯一有机会的人。至少我的经验是，那些人在长期尺度上做得很好。所以可能是 10 到 30 年。不会是两年。没有快速致富的计划。那只是有人在向你推销东西。在足够长的时间尺度上，你可以摆脱困境。但首先要相信这是可能的。如果你认为不可能，那对你来说就是不可能的。我认为这是你会在伟大企业家身上注意到的共同主题。史蒂夫·乔布斯和埃隆·马斯克承担了他们认为不可能的任务，因为他们环顾四周说：“如果别人能做到，为什么我不能？”所以我认为这种心态非常重要。

Yeah. It's just like, look, in life, there is a lot of luck. The fact that you even exist is luck. There are a lot of factors out of your control, but life is long. People are very consistent. Compounding does work. And you can rise past the luck just through sheer force of will and hard work. If you don't believe in that, then you're a cynic. And cynics' beliefs are self-fulfilling. You will be stuck in the mud. However, people who are optimistic, willing to work hard, and willing to look past the unethical or luck-based nature of it all, they're the only ones who have a chance. At least my experience has been that those people do well on long time scales. So it might be 10 to 30 years. It's not going to be two years. There are no get-rich-quick schemes. That's just someone selling you something. On a long enough time scale, you can rise out of the muck. But it starts with believing that it's possible. If you don't think it's possible, then it's impossible for you. I think this is a common theme you will notice across the great entrepreneurs. Steve Jobs and Elon Musk take on what they consider to be impossible tasks because they look around and say, 'If other people can do it, why can't I?' So I think that mindset is super important.

我喜欢 Deutsch 的一点是，他对此持非常乐观的态度。这不仅仅是一种信念。他确实用很好的解释来构建人类进步的原因。他说我们应该乐观，因为我们在英国启蒙运动中发现了这个模式，那是他们的哲学运动，我们基本上明白了可以通过追求好的解释来推进科学和社会。这意味着我们在追求真理。我们提出猜想。这些猜想接受批评。每个猜想都可以被批评，然后我们通过实验来检验。我们相互测试理论。我们找出什么有效，然后把有效的东西传播给其他人，从而推动社会前进。他表明，这就是我们过去几百年运作的方式。这样的时期在过去也存在过，也许是在意大利文艺复兴时期，也许是在希腊启蒙时代，也许是从工业革命开始。如果我们变得反理性、说没有真理、放弃追求好的解释或禁止批评，从而失去或熄灭它，那将是愚蠢的。这就是审查制度所做的。或者相信某些人，比如大科学，总是有答案。所以只要我们不放弃这种进步的方法，就有理由乐观。这种猜想和批评导致好解释的方法才是真正的科学方法。我们小时候被教科学方法。但那并不是真正的工作原理。那是一个非常理想化的虚构试管实验室版本。但现实是，在正确的环境下，给予正确的自由，我们一直在对生活中的一切进行科学探索。每个人都在努力改善自己的生活。所以每个关心健康和健身的人都是一个小科学家，进行各种不同的实验：哪种饮食适合我，哪种锻炼适合我。他们不断提出新假设，听到新假设，尝试新事物，看看什么有效，什么无效。所以他们以自己的方式做着同样的事情。所有追求真理的系统都是这样运作的。在科学中，你可以称之为猜想和批评。在技术和商业中，你可以称之为创新和公司倒闭，对吧？公司创造东西，失败的公司就倒闭了。在进化中，你可以称之为突变。基因发生突变，然后选择将那些不合格的从基因库中移除。但所有追求真理的系统都是这样运作的：我们提出猜想，要么是随机的，比如突变，要么是刻意的，比如科学或技术创新或商业创新，然后有一个过滤过程。就连 Taleb 也以完全不同的方式谈论这一点。他有整个“风险共担”的概念。风险共担不仅仅是“我自己的钱处于风险中”。风险共担是“如果我不成功，随着时间的推移我会被淘汰”。如果我承担风险，我就应该承担风险。他认为坏资本主义就是别人承担风险。这就是银行家所做的。好资本主义是我承担风险，然后我承担该风险的后果或回报。这就是为什么对 Taleb 来说，你能做的最道德的事情就是成为一个风险承担者。你成为一名企业家，你去承担风险。不要把它转嫁给别人或社会。

What I like about Deutsch also is that he has a very optimistic view on this. It's not just a belief. He really does structure it in good explanations as to why human progress happens. He says we should be optimistic because we discovered this model in the British Enlightenment, which was their philosophical movement where we basically figured out that we can advance science and society through the quest for good explanations. That means we are truth-seeking. We make conjectures. Those conjectures are open to criticism. Every conjecture can be criticized, and then we hold them up to experiment. We test theories against each other. We find out what works, and whatever works we circulate and promulgate to other people, and then we advance society forward. He's shown that this is how we've been operating for the last few hundred years. Time periods like this have existed in the past, maybe during the Italian Renaissance, maybe during the Greek sort of enlightenment age, maybe during the Industrial Revolution onwards. We would be foolish to lose that or extinguish it by being anti-rational, saying there's no such thing as truth, giving up the quest for good explanations, or banning criticism. That's what censorship does. Or by believing that certain people, like big science, always have the answers. So there is reason to be optimistic as long as we don't let go of this method of advancing. This method of conjecture and criticism leading to good explanations is the real scientific method. We get taught the scientific method when we're kids. That's not really how it works. That's a very idealized fiction test tube laboratory version. But the reality is that under the right circumstances, given the right freedoms, we're constantly scientific about everything in our lives. Every person is trying to improve their life. So everyone who cares about being healthy and fit is a little scientist running all the different experiments: which kind of diet works for me, which kind of exercise works for me. They're constantly making new hypotheses, hearing new hypotheses, trying new things, seeing what worked and what didn't. So they're doing the same thing in their own way. All truth-seeking systems work this way. In science, you can call it conjecture and criticism. In technology and business, you can call it innovation and companies going out of business, right? Companies create things, and the ones that fail go out of business. In evolution, you can call it mutation. The genes mutate, and then selection removes the ones that didn't cut it from the gene pool. But all truth-seeking systems work this way: we make conjectures, either random like in mutation or deliberate like in science or through technology innovation or business innovation, and then there is a filtering process. Even Taleb talks about this in a completely different way. He has this whole skin in the game thing. Skin in the game isn't just merely 'I have my own money at stake.' Skin in the game is 'I get cut out over time if I don't succeed.' If I take risk, I should bear the risk. That's what he considers bad capitalism: when other people bear the risk. That's what banksters do. Good capitalism is when I take a risk and then I bear the consequences or the rewards of that risk. Which is why, to Taleb, the most ethical thing you can do is be a risk taker. You be an entrepreneur, you go and you bear risk. Don't pass it off to other people or society.

而“利益攸关”的出现，并非因为你一开始就投入了利益，而是随着时间的推移，那些糟糕的风险承担者被淘汰了，他们要么损失了资本，要么失去了生命，要么毁掉了声誉。而那些优秀的风险承担者最终受益，并将他们获得的利益传播给社会其他成员。所以，即使是他的“利益攸关”这个说法，在某种程度上也与多伊奇的猜想和批评同构。

And then the skin in the game arises not from the fact that you had some skin in the game, but that over time the people who were bad risk takers got weeded out and they either lost capital, they lost their lives, or they lost their reputations. And the people who were good risk takers ended up benefiting and then spreading the benefits that they gained to the rest of society. So even his skin in the game phrasing is somewhat isomorphic to Deutsche's conjecture and criticism.

是的，我认为这就是为什么“问责制”是对“企业家承担风险”这样一个重要的重新定义，因为问责制内在地要求你个人承担收益和损失。你不想要为了冒险而冒险。你想要的是显著地、直接地、公开地承担风险。

Yeah, I think that's why accountability was such an important reframe from entrepreneurs take risk because accountability bakes in this you personally bear the upside and the downside. You don't want risk for risk's sake. You want to conspicuously, directly, and publicly take a risk.

是的。这就是为什么我认为巴菲特和芒格有点反对投资银行上市，因为投资银行过去是合伙制或有限责任公司，个人合伙人要承担风险。有限责任公司的保护是有限的。如果合伙人做了坏事，风险可以传导到他们身上。反过来，一旦你作为一家大型匿名公司上市，你就可以躲在 CEO 后面。你可以进入董事会，他们可以承担可能让社会破产的风险。社会不得不救助他们，因为他们加了杠杆，把整个金融体系置于风险之中。但不知何故，他们自己仍然拿到报酬，逍遥法外，还能保住个人资产。他们安然无恙。所以，这是通过公司责任盾牌将风险推给社会。我认为巴菲特和芒格指出这不是一件好事。

Yeah. This is why I think Buffett and Munger were a little opposed to investment banks going public because investment banks used to be partnerships, LLCs where the individual partners would take on risk. LLCs only protect you so much. If the partners do something bad, you can have risk flow through to them. On the flip side, once you go public as a big faceless corporation, you can hide behind the CEO. You can be on the board and they can take risks that can bankrupt society. Society has to bail them out because they levered up and they put the whole financial system at risk. But somehow they themselves still get paid and walk scot-free and get to keep their personal assets. They're fine. So it's this pushing risk off into society through a corporate liability shield. I think Buffett and Munger pointed out that that was not a good thing.

是的，芒格就是一个很好的例子。那些让不道德行为变得不可能的人，是文明中一些有效的圣人，对吧？所以，他谈到了复式记账法和收银机等等。

Yeah, Munger is a great example. The people who make unethical behavior impossible are some of the effective saints of the civilization, right? So, he talks about double entry bookkeeping and a cash register and so on.

是的。我的意思是，问题在于不道德是一条模糊的界限，对吧？不同的人有不同的道德观。当你自己不在圈内做任何事、斗争或建设时，更容易显得道德，因为你可以站在道德高地上。所以，学者和记者可以在实际上什么都不做的时候假装是最道德的人，对吧？所以反过来，例如在 AI 竞赛中，人们吞噬了所有受版权保护的内容，然后说“哎呀，对不起，我吃了你的作业又吐了出来”。所以这是一个艰难的对话，不是一个放之四海而皆准的油滑答案。

Yeah. I mean, the problem is unethical is a fuzzy line, right? Different people have different morality. It's easier to be moral when you're not in the ring yourself doing anything or fighting anything or building anything because then you can just get on your moral high horse. So, academics and journalists can pretend to be the most moral people when they don't actually do anything, right? So on the flip side you have like for example in the AI race, people are swallowing up all the copyrighted content then later saying oops, sorry I ate your homework and spit it back out. So this is a difficult conversation, it's not like a one-size-fits-all glib answer.

从某种意义上说，我们进行资本主义的方式中的伦理和道德是否是进步的瓶颈？你是说伦理或道德是进步的瓶颈吗？

Is there a sense where ethics and morals around how we conduct capitalism is like the bottleneck of progress? You're saying are ethics or morals a bottleneck to progress?

是的。当我们思考资本主义的有效性与创造者和索取者的人数之间的关系时。

Yeah. As we think about how effective capitalism is in relation to how many people are makers versus takers.

是的。还有文化、监管以及许多其他输入因素。

Yeah. And there's culture and there's regulation and there's so many inputs to that.

是的，有。我认为实际上进步的最大障碍，信不信由你，是规模。机构的规模、国家的规模、群体的规模。因为群体越大，群体思维就越严重。群体不承认错误。群体不寻求真理。群体寻求共识。只有个人或非常小的团队才能寻求真理。大群体必须有共识，否则就会分崩离析。他们互相争斗，然后退化。所以群体不会改变想法。群体不会道歉。那是乌合之众。所以我认为最好的情况是，当你有小群体的人，每个人都对收益和损失负责。他们有利益攸关，能够承担风险。例如在宗教方面，你想看到在欧洲有数百种宗教时，它们各自尝试自己的东西，然后来到新世界，你就能看到哪些有效，哪些无效。在技术和商业领域，你想看到许多城邦有不同的政策。你想看到许多公司相互竞争。所以，人类在作为小群体竞争时表现最好。

Yeah, there are. I think actually the biggest impediment to progress, believe it or not, is size. Size of institutions, size of countries, size of groups. Because the larger the group you have, the more groupthink you have. Groups don't admit mistakes. Groups don't search for truth. Groups search for consensus. Only individuals or very small teams of people can search for truth. Large groups have to have consensus or they fall apart. They fight with each other and they degenerate. So groups don't change their minds. Groups don't apologize. It's mobs. And so I think the best situation comes from when you have small groups of people who are each responsible for both the benefits and the losses. They have skin in the game and are able to take risks. So for example in religion, you want to see back in Europe when it was hundreds of religions and they were each trying their own thing and they came to the new world and then you kind of got to see which worked and which didn't. In technology and in business, you want to see lots of city states with different policies. You want to see lots of companies competing with each other. So, humans do best when we're small groups competing.

但问题在于，竞争会演变成战争。所以，当宗教相邻时，它们造成了大量流血事件。这些小城邦总是最终互相争斗并被吞并。这些小企业最终被更大的企业吞并，或者当其中一个掌权时产生垄断效应。所以一个理想的社会真正懂得如何联邦化，如何创造大量小规模的竞争，但不是物理上的动能竞争，而是虚拟竞争，懂得如何利用所有这些竞争能量来创造伟大的事物。因此，美国受益于联邦制，拥有 50 个州和 50 种不同的监管体系，以及在治理层面进行的 50 种不同实验，并且受益于资本主义，即许多小公司相互竞争。但系统崩溃的地方在于，当你有少数大型垄断企业，或者大银行接管了政府，或者政府运行教育和医疗，或者当所有 50 个州只被允许在小事上竞争，而三个字母的机构和巨额联邦税从华盛顿控制一切时。那时系统就开始崩溃了。所以我认为最繁荣的系统是那些拥有小国家、小部落和小公司以非暴力方式相互竞争的系统。而整个诀窍在于如何保持它们各自的主权，并防止竞争变成动能冲突和物理上的相互征服。对我来说，这将是最道德的体系，因为你无法让我们所有人都同意什么是道德和伦理，对吧？那是不可能的。这就是为什么整个 AI 对齐是个笑话。我们甚至无法对齐人类，我们怎么能对齐 AI？所有 AI 对齐在实践中归结为，该 AI 的所有者、发明者或创造者想要给它套上缰绳，告诉它该做什么。

But the problem with this is that competition breaks into warfare. So, religions are responsible for a lot of bloodshed when they're next to each other. These little city states always end up fighting and being consolidated. These little businesses end up being swallowed up by larger ones or there's monopoly effects when one of them ends up in charge. So an ideal society really understands how to federalize, how to create lots and lots of small competing but not in a physical kinetic competition but in a virtual competition, figures out how to harness all of that competitive energy to create great things. And so the US benefited from being federalist, from having 50 states with 50 different regulatory systems and 50 different experiments being run on the governance level, and it benefits from capitalism which is lots of small companies competing. But where it breaks down is when you have a small number of big monopolies or you have big banks that have taken over the government or the government running education and healthcare or when you end up with all 50 states only being allowed to compete in small things but you have three-letter agencies and giant federal taxes running everything from DC. So that's when the system starts breaking down. So I think that the most flourishing systems are the ones where you have small countries, you have small tribes and you have small companies competing against each other in a nonviolent way. And the whole trick is how do you keep them each sovereign and from making it kinetic and overrunning each other physically. To me, that would be the most moral system because you can't get us all to agree on what's moral and what's ethical, right? That's an impossible thing. That's why the whole AI alignment thing is a joke. We can't even align humans, how are we going to align AIs? All AI alignment really boils down to in practice is the owner or inventor or creator of that AI wants to put on a leash and tell it what to do.

是的，当我们只关注我们自己、我们控制的事物以及我们为自己做出的决定时，很容易与人保持一致。但一旦我开始认为在道德和伦理上有必要控制你做什么，突然间我们就在道德和伦理上产生了真正的分歧。

Yeah, it's very easy to be aligned with people when we have a focus only on what we ourselves and what we control and decisions that we make for ourselves. But as soon as I start to think it's morally and ethically necessary to control what you do, now all of a sudden we have a real disagreement about morals and ethics.

没错。存在激励对齐，比如我可以给你同一家企业的股权，然后我们就激励对齐了。

That's right. There's incentive alignment which is I can give you equity in the same business and then we're incentive aligned.

尽管你仍然可以选择忽略那个激励，去做别的事情。但所有其他形式的对齐，实际上都归结为胁迫。对吧？也许我们因为同属一个宗教、同一个部落、住在同一个屋檐下、一起做生意而对齐。但当你谈论对齐那些不住在一起、没有亲缘关系的陌生人时，我认为唯一的方法就是用棍棒打到他们服从为止。你懂的，他们听话，那不过是威权主义，是暴力，是战争，而这一切支撑着所有事物。社会运行在薄薄的文明表层上，但归根结底，持枪的人永远掌权。有时他们会忘记这一点十年或二十年，但要么他们重新夺回权力，要么外部势力介入并接管。这就是为什么我认为社会通过了太多轻浮的法律，人们假装法律不是由持枪者执行的。每一条法律，小到停车罚单，都是由持枪者执行的——因为如果你不交罚单，他们就会传唤你上法庭；如果你不去法庭，他们就会派人去你家；如果你不回应，他们就会发出逮捕令；如果你不自首，持枪的人就会来抓你。所以，归根结底，如果你顺着这条链往下看，很少有人意识到这一点：一切都是由持枪者执行的。然后你给那些持枪者枪，告诉他们执行法律。当然，人性使然，尤其是当组织变得更大时，他们会开始有偏袒地执行法律。他们会更严厉地对待敌人，更宽松地对待朋友。就像那位南美独裁者名言说的：对我的朋友，一切；对我的敌人，法律。因为法律不过是最大帮派达成的共识。作为社会，我们与这一点脱节了。尤其是在现代民主国家，那些没有实际权力、没有系统利益的人投票来控制拥有实际权力的人，这造成了不稳定的局面。我们可能会陷入一种情况——这其实是个很有趣的问题：未来我们会看到更多城邦吗？更多小型独裁政权或由有组织的武装人员组成的亲缘团体割据小领地？还是我们会僵化成少数几个非常大的国家？在我看来，没有什么比全球政府更糟糕的了——一个统治一切的单一政府，因为它是一刀切的，是全景监狱，更可能最终像中国或俄罗斯那样控制，而不是真正的民主共和国。而且，民主国家有选举独裁者的习惯，那是一条单行道。

Although you may still choose to ignore that incentive and do something different. But really all other forms of alignment tend to boil down to coercion. Right? Maybe we're aligned because we're part of the same religion. We're part of the same tribe. We live in the same household. We're doing the same business together. But the moment you're talking about aligning strangers who don't live next to each other that don't have kinship, I think the only way you can align them is by clubbing one of them until they pay. You know, they listen, that's just authoritarianism. That's just force. That's violence. That's warfare, which undergirds everything. Like society runs on this thin veneer of civilization, but ultimately underneath the people with the guns are always in charge. And sometimes they forget it for a decade or two decades at a time, but either they take back over or someone from the outside comes in and takes over. Which is why I think as a society we have too many frivolous laws being passed where people pretend like the law is not being enforced by people with guns. Every law down to like your parking ticket is enforced by somebody with a gun because if you don't pay that parking ticket, then they're going to summon you to court. And then if you don't go to court, then they're going to send somebody to your house. And if you don't answer that, then they'll put out a warrant for your arrest. And if you don't turn yourself in, then people with guns will come after you. So, at the end of the day, if you just follow that down, it's amazing how few people seem to realize this. But everything is enforced by people with guns. And then those people with guns, you're giving them guns and telling them to enforce laws. And of course, it's human nature, especially as that organization becomes larger, they will start enforcing it preferentially. You know, they'll enforce it a little bit harder against their enemies and a little bit softer against their friends. It's like that South American dictator who famously said, you know, for my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law, right? Because the law is just whatever the biggest gang agrees upon. And as a society, we become very disconnected from that. Especially in modern democracies where people who don't have any physical power, any stake in the system are voting to control people who do have physical power. It creates an unstable situation. And you know we might end up in a situation where well I don't know this is actually a very interesting question. Do we end up with more city states in the future? Do we end up with more small dictatorships or small kinships of organized people with weapons carving out little fiefs? Or do we ossify into a small number of very large states? In my mind there's nothing worse than a global government like a single government running everything because it's a one-size-fits-all. It's a panopticon and it's much more likely to end up like you know China or Russia kind of control them democratic the truly democratic republic. And even because democracies have a habit of electing dictators and that's a one-way street.

我想看看我们能否在商业和判断的语境中运用一些大卫·多伊奇的思想。对吧。如果好的解释难以变动，或者好的产品难以变动。

I want to see if we can play with some of the David Deutsch ideas in a business and judgment context. Right. If good explanations are hard to vary or good products hard to vary.

完全正确。好的产品难以变动。难以变动意味着你不能改变细节而不让东西崩溃、散架或不再是一个好的解释。识别它们的方法之一是回顾解释并问自己：“它怎么可能不是这样？没有其他东西能符合所有事实。”就像拼图时把一块拼图放在正确位置：“哦，当然必须是这一块，因为如果没有这块凸起和这个凹槽，其他任何一块都放不进去。”同样，好的产品难以变动。以 iPhone 为例，很难改变它的特性而不破坏它的卓越之处。事实上，2007 年发布时的原始外形与今天的外形仍然非常相似，没有真正改变，对吧？他们抓住了基本外形，就像笔记本电脑的外形一样，至今没有变回最初的样子。所以好的产品非常难以变动。它们确实有一套独特的互锁部件，使整体大于部分之和。复杂性理论中有一个概念叫涌现。涌现是指你把大量不同的部件放在一起，产生了一些你未曾预料的新东西，一种新能力出现了。但有趣的是，你放在下面的部件并没有获得更多自由，你给了它们约束。你实际上以某种方式将它们锁定在一起。通过限制它们运作的方式，上方涌现出了新能力。所以是约束创造了上方的能力。这有点反直觉，对吧？因为你会认为更多自由会带来更多自由。不，在这种情况下是约束。同样，看看公司或合同：合同是我们自愿进入的约束，以便在未来创造某物。比如婚姻合同是为了在家庭中生育孩子；公司合同是为了创建一个股权实体，我们事先约定如何分配收益、谁做什么工作、如何获得资本。所以为了创造事物，你必须能够约束事物。一旦事物锁定在一起，它们就难以变动。你不能移除一个组件，也不能改变一个组件而不让整个东西崩溃。这就是为什么好的产品是简单的。简单并不意味着过分简单，也不意味着像“解释给五岁小孩”那样简单，而是意味着你移除了不必要的部分。

Absolutely. Good products are hard to vary. So hard to vary means that you can't change the details without the thing breaking or falling apart or no longer being a good explanation. So one of the ways you recognize them is you look back at the explanation and you say, 'Well, how could it have been otherwise? There's no other thing which would fit all the facts.' It's like when you put a puzzle piece in the right spot in a puzzle like, 'Oh, of course it had to be that one because no other piece will fit if it doesn't have this piece and this part and this part jutting out and this hole over here.' So the same way good products are hard to vary. So if you look at an iPhone for example, it's hard to change the characteristics of the iPhone without breaking what makes it great. And in fact, their original form factor when they launched, I think it was in 2007 is still quite similar to the form factor today. It hasn't really changed, right? They nailed the basic form factor same way with like the laptop form factor, right? It still hasn't changed back from the original days. So good products are very hard to vary. They do have a very unique set of interlocking parts that then allows them to be greater than the whole. You know, there's this concept in complexity theory called emergence. And emergence is when you take a whole bunch of different parts and you put them together and something new emerges that you did not expect. A new capability emerges. But one of the interesting parts is that the parts that you put together below, you didn't give them more freedom. You gave them constraints. You actually locked them together in certain ways. And by constraining the way in which they could operate, some new capability emerged above. So it was the constraints that created the capability above. And so that's a little counterintuitive, right? Because you would think more freedom leads to more freedom. No, in this case it was constraints. Same way like if you look at a corporation or a contract, a contract is a voluntary constraint that we enter into to go create something in the future. Like a marriage contract is to go create children in the household. Or like a company is a contract to go create an equity bearing entity where we agree in advance how we're going to split up the proceeds and who's going to do the work and how you're going to get the capital. So to be able to create things, you actually have to be able to constrain things. Once the things are locked together, they're hard to vary. You can't remove a component, nor can you change a component without the thing falling apart. And that's why a good product is simple. It actually, by simple I don't mean inordinately simple. It doesn't mean like ELI5 simple necessarily but it means that you remove the parts that are unnecessary.

优雅。

Elegant.

优雅。是的。安托万·德·圣-埃克苏佩里有句名言：飞机机翼设计完美，不是因为没有什么可添加的，而是因为没有什么可去掉的。你不能去掉它。它是柏拉图式的，是机翼的柏拉图理想形态，难以变动。所以好的产品同样难以变动。如今人们遇到的一个难题是：为什么所有东西都趋同于同一设计？为什么所有汽车看起来都一样？因为我们现在做风洞测试，知道那是最有效的模型，而我们想要高效。所以所有汽车现在都看起来像被风吹过一样。

Elegant. Yes. So there was an Antoine de Saint-Exupéry quote where he says you know the airplane wing is perfectly designed not because there's nothing left to add but because there's nothing left to take away. Right. You can't take it away. It is platonic. It is the platonic ideal of an airplane wing. It is hard to vary. So a good product is similarly hard to vary. You know, one of the conundrums that people come up with these days is why are all things converging on the same design? Why do all cars look the same? Right? It's because we're doing wind tunnel testing now and so we know that that's like the most efficient model and we want efficient. So all the cars now look windswept.

很难脱离那种设计。除非你是为了讽刺或引人注目，比如马斯克的特斯拉 Cybertruck：‘我太强了，我不在乎。’但我敢打赌那玩意儿也经过风洞测试。它是有棱角的风洞测试，而不是流线型的风洞测试。但好的产品很难被改变，因为它们也封装了知识。随着你获得知识，你把它融入产品中。技术所做的是知识的自动化。你弄明白一件事，然后想办法自动化它，然后想办法规模化这种自动化，再想办法分发这种规模化的自动化。那些嵌入的知识很难改变，因为其背后是一个好的解释。一旦你弄明白如何制造电动汽车，一旦你掌握了电池的知识，大多数汽车转向电动几乎是必然的。你可能需要一些越野车或军用车辆使用汽油，出于生存能力和救灾原因，但对于普通日常消费者来说，他们不想开车去加油站，加那种可能爆炸的臭油，然后把它塞进这个鲁布·戈德堡机械装置里，再让受控爆炸驱动活塞，同时他们坐在座位上。50 年后，这看起来就像你看到的那些骑着蒸汽机的人——你知道，早期的汽车简直就是带锅炉和煤的蒸汽机。它会变成那样，对吧？一旦你弄明白了电动汽车，你就会意识到我们其实想要电动汽车。不仅是不用去加油站，它们活动部件更少，更容易修理，更干净，污染更少。而且，如果你想要自动驾驶汽车，电动汽车表现更好，因为汽车给自己充电比加油容易得多。如果你有可更换电池，也许可以 24/7 运行，停机时间很少。它能更好地利用资本，降低成本。所以它就成了这样。一旦你看到电动汽车运行良好，你就会意识到那是下一代难以改变的产品。所以我认为所有好产品都有这个特性。从某种意义上说，如果你销售多个版本的产品，你最好有非常好的理由。

It's hard to vary out of that design. Unless you're doing it to be ironic or to stand out, like maybe you know Elon with the Cybertruck: 'I got so much power, I don't care.' But I'll bet you that thing is wind tunnel tested too. It's angular and wind tunnel tested, as opposed to streamlined and wind tunnel tested. But good products are hard to vary because they also encapsulate knowledge, and as you gain knowledge, you put that into the product. What technology does is it's the automation of knowledge. You figure something out, then you figure out how to automate it, then you figure out how to scale that automation, and you figure out how to distribute that scaled automation. That embedded knowledge is hard to vary because underneath it is a good explanation. Once you figure out how to make electric cars, once you have the knowledge for batteries, it's kind of inevitable that most cars will go electric. You may need some off-road vehicles or military vehicles around gasoline for survivability reasons and disaster relief reasons, but for the average everyday consumer, they don't want to drive to the gas station and get smelly oil that can blow up on them and put it into this Rube Goldberg machine of parts and then have controlled explosions driving pistons while they go down the seat. It's going to look in 50 years like when you see those images of guys riding steam engines—you know, like the early cars are literally steam engines with boilers and coal. It's going to look like that, right? And once you figure out electric cars, then you realize actually we want electric cars. Not only so you don't have to go to the gas station, they have fewer moving parts, it's easier to repair, it's less messy, it's less polluting. But also because if you want self-driving cars, electric cars do better because it's much easier for a car to recharge itself than it is for it to refuel itself. And if you have swappable batteries, maybe you can operate 24/7 with very little downtime. And it can capitalize better, bring the cost down. So it becomes what it is. Once you see electric cars working, you realize that that is a hard to vary product for the next generation. So I think all good products have this characteristic. In a sense, if you're selling multiple versions of your product, you better have a really good reason for that.

嗯，这就引出了另一个点，好的产品有惊人的影响力。

Well, that gets to the other one, which is good products have a surprising reach.

完全正确。伟大的产品，就像好的解释一样，可以触及你从未想过的许多应用。你知道，史蒂夫·乔布斯和团队从来没有拿着 iPhone 或 iPad 说：‘哦，这对埃克森美孚和做石油工作的公司来说太棒了，因为他们有一个很酷的应用程序来规划物流、工作流程和追踪。’不，他们不会想到那个层面。或者一个更相关的例子可能是，当 iPhone 问世时，黑莓在企业领域根深蒂固，史蒂夫·鲍尔默，上帝保佑他，嘲笑 iPhone 没有键盘。史蒂夫·鲍尔默做了很多正确的事，所以我不愿意挑他的毛病。我的意思是，他为微软和他自己都做得很好，所以也许我不该过多指责他，但确实有人说：‘黑莓有键盘。企业永远不会容忍没有键盘的手机。’他们没有考虑到的是，没有键盘、有多点触控、有出色的屏幕和软件键盘，能解决很多问题。而现在有了语音——如今，你最不想做的就是给手机加键盘。多亏了 AI，一切都转向语音。一旦你构建了那个产品，它就有了影响力，一旦它进入每个消费者的口袋，那些消费者就会把产品带到工作中，他们会想：‘为什么我在工作用黑莓，在家用 iPhone，而 iPhone 好得多？’知识就是多伊奇的定义。知识是在环境中持续存在的东西。它在环境中自我复制。编码了如何适应环境的正确知识的基因会复制。那些基因被传递下去。错误的、不正确的基因不会在环境中复制。它们会被从基因库中淘汰。思想也是如此。如果我给你一个赚钱的想法，或者我给你一个一般原则，或者我给你一个具体的事情去做，但它失败了，你就不会保留那个知识。你不会传播那个知识。所以知识在环境中是持久的。一旦你创造了知识，一旦多点触控屏幕的知识被创造出来，键盘的知识就过时了，至少在那个背景下。黑莓被 iPhone 取代，是因为人们把家里的 iPhone 带到工作中使用，而不是用黑莓。IT 人员被否决了，因为归根结底，他们是为公司其他部门提供服务的，而不是管理公司。而且技术具有深刻的赢家通吃网络效应。所有技术都是如此。只是有些情况更明显。比如 Facebook 或 WhatsApp 有非常明显的网络效应。苹果也有，因为它们是开发者平台。但即使是像亚马逊这样的公司，你本以为不会有网络效应。过去，我们认为会有无数电子商务商店陷入一场你死我活的竞争。结果并非如此。结果是一个巨大的赢家，就像互联网一样，每件事都有一个巨大的赢家，然后是一个长尾的小玩家，但它摧毁了中间层。它摧毁了平庸的中间层，那些依赖地理或法规生存的中间层。它们被超级聚合器和长尾击垮了。但所有技术都有网络效应和规模经济。所以最好的产品可以在最大的用户基础上摊销其开发成本，因此它考虑得最周全。它拥有最多的支持。它拥有最新的尖端技术。不管你多有钱，你都买不到更好的手机。花多少钱也买不到比最新款 iPhone 或最新款安卓手机更好的手机。就是这样，对吧？我们都能用上同样的手机，因为智能手机供应链和当前智能手机设计已经投入了数千亿美元的研发预算。

Absolutely. Great products, just like good explanations, can reach to lots of applications that you never thought of. You know, Steve Jobs and crew never sat around with the iPhone or the iPad saying, 'Oh, this will be great for Exxon and companies doing oil work because there's a cool app for them for figuring out their logistics and workflow and tracking.' No, they don't go to that level. Or a more relevant example might be when the iPhone came along, you know, the Blackberry was entrenched in enterprise and Steve Ballmer, God bless him, made fun of the iPhone for not having a keyboard. Steve Ballmer did lots of things right, so I hate to pick him out. I mean, he did very well for Microsoft and for himself, so maybe I won't call him out as much, but there were people who basically said, 'Well, the BlackBerry has a keyboard. The enterprise will never tolerate a phone without a keyboard.' And what they didn't account for is that there are so many things solved by not having a keyboard, by having the multi-touch, and by having a great screen and software keyboard. And nowadays voice—like nowadays, the last thing you want to do is add a keyboard to a phone. It's all going voice based thanks to AI. Once you've built that product, it has reach, and once it reaches into every consumer's pocket, well, those consumers bring those products to work and they're like, 'Why am I using a Blackberry at work and I'm using an iPhone at home and the iPhone is so much better?' And the knowledge is the Deutsch definition. Knowledge is the thing that stays persistent in the environment. It replicates itself in the environment. Genes that encode proper knowledge on how to adapt to the environment, they replicate. Those genes get passed down. Genes that are incorrect, that are false, they do not replicate in the environment. They get weeded out of the gene pool. The same is true of ideas. If I give you an idea for how to make money, or if I give you even a general principle, or I give you a specific thing to go out and do and it fails, you're not going to keep that knowledge. You're not going to spread that knowledge. So knowledge is persistent in the environment. And once you've created knowledge, and once the knowledge of multi-touch screens was created, then the knowledge of keyboards was obsolete, at least in that context. And the Blackberries got replaced by iPhones when people who brought their iPhones in from home would use them at work instead of using Blackberries. And the IT guys got outvoted because ultimately they're there to provide a service to the rest of the company and not to run the company. And then also technology has deeply winner-take-all network effects. All technology does. It just is more obvious in some cases than others. Like something like a Facebook or a WhatsApp has an extremely visible network effect. Apple does too because they're developer platforms. But even things like Amazon, which you would have thought would not have a network effect. Back in the day, we thought there'd be zillions of e-commerce stores in a death struggle to the bottom. Turns out it's not the case. Turns out there's one huge winner, and just like the internet does, which is it has one huge winner for everything and then has a long tail of very small players, but it destroys the middle. It destroys the mediocre middle, which was relying on geography or regulations to survive. They get blown away by the mega aggregator and then by a long tail. But all of technology has network effects and has scale economies. So the best product gets to amortize its development over the largest user base and so it has the most things thought through. It has the most support. It has the most latest bleeding-edge technology. Doesn't matter how rich you are, you can't buy a better phone. There's no amount of money you can spend to buy a better phone than the latest iPhone or the latest Android phone. Like that's it, right? We all have access to the same phone because there is an R&D budget of hundreds of billions of dollars that has gone into the smartphone supply chain and into the current smartphone designs.

所以如果你很有钱，你能做的就是把东西镶上钻石，用一种可悲的方式试图显得特别，但实际上你看起来就像个白痴。或者像汽车，真正昂贵的车并不更好，只是更奇怪。我认为今天地球上没有比特斯拉 Model Y 更好的车了，那是 2025 年的。客观来说，如果你看它做的其他车做不到的事情，它基本上是全方位最好的车。你花一百万美元买不到更好的车，只能买到更滑稽或更奇怪的车。更极端的变量，更极端。然后你只是表现出自己是个滑稽古怪、试图炫耀地位的人。没有比被看作试图用钱买地位更糟糕的炫耀方式了。

So if you're rich, all you can do is you can like encrust it with diamonds in a kind of a sad attempt to look special, but you really just look like an idiot. Or it's like cars, like really expensive cars are not better. They're just weirder. I don't think there's a better car on the planet today than probably the Tesla Model Y. That's, you know, 2025. Like objectively speaking, if you look at all the things that it does that other cars don't do, it's kind of the all-around best car. You can't spend a million dollars to buy a better car. You can just spend a million dollars to buy a goofier car or a weirder car. More extreme variables, more extreme. And then you're just showing yourself as someone who's goofy and weird and trying to signal for status. And there's no worse way to signal status than to be shown as trying to buy status.

我有一个理论：作为人类，我们总是在寻找完美和永恒的东西，因为这与我们拥有的不完美和短暂的生命相反。我们可以在灵性中寻找它——对上帝的追寻；我们可以在科学中寻找它——对万物统一完美理论的追寻。在艺术和美中也有类比，比如西斯廷教堂，试图在很长一段时间内封装某种完美的东西。所以我个人想专注于这一点，但这里有一个挣扎，因为你也想看新事物。世界总是在移动和进步，尤其是在事物、物体、学习、技术和科学领域。你想看最新的东西。你不想学 30 年前的科学，你想学我们今天知道的最好的科学，技术也一样。这有实用价值：了解 AI、自动驾驶汽车、机器人技术等等。所以了解快速变化和知识前沿的东西总是好的，但同时你也想研究永恒的东西。那是人性；人性不会改变。所以在这方面你要依赖古人。你知道，你想读叔本华，你想读《道德经》等等，或者《圣经》，因为人不会改变。所以对于我的推文，我有点挣扎，甚至对于写作或播客，我花时间思考，我挣扎的是我想花大量时间在永恒的东西上，因为那些知识会伴随我的余生，但我也想花时间在及时的东西上，即最现代的内容。现在我必须寻找那些真正有用的现代东西。实际上，现代的东西是关于像我想了解 AI、自动驾驶汽车、机器人技术、太空旅行和探索、无人机。但我不想了解金·卡戴珊今天在做什么。那是无用的知识。事实上，我甚至不需要从她和她与他人的互动中学习任何关于人性的教训，因为这些教训过去已经被叔本华、康德或类似的人更好地写下来了，对吧？柏拉图。所以当谈到哲学和人性时，那是永恒的材料，值得学习。在某种意义上它有点陈词滥调——我们可以讨论什么是陈词滥调——但它有点陈词滥调。但与此同时，吸收它非常重要，因为这是最深刻的指导原则。你知道，哲学是研究如何过好生活的学问。我想亚里士多德称之为 eudaimonia 或类似的东西，可能发音不对，但那值得研究。但与此同时，在科学和技术世界，研究最现代的最新东西也值得。至少对于我们的书、我们的工作、我们的写作，我不喜欢把及时的东西放进去。陷阱是那些与事物运作知识无关、而是关于人物或八卦或新闻的及时东西。我想很多人说过这个，最近塔勒布说过：要知道新闻有多没用，只需读昨天的报纸，对吧？你消费的信息的半衰期是多少？它在未来多久会相关？这主要取决于它在过去多久相关。

I had this theory that as humans we're always searching for something perfect and permanent because that's the opposite of the life that we have which is an imperfect and impermanent life. And we can search for it in spirituality, the quest for God; we can search for it in science, which is the quest for the grand unified perfect theory of everything. There are analogies in art and beauty, in the Sistine Chapel, trying to encapsulate something perfect for a long, long period of time. And so I feel like I personally want to focus on that, and there's a struggle because you also want to look at new things. The world is always moving and advancing, especially in the domain of things and objects and learning and technology and science. You want to look at the most recent things. You don't want to learn the science from 30 years ago. You want to learn the science best we know today, and the same about technology. And that has practical value: knowing about AI or self-driving cars or robotics or what have you. So it's always good to know about what's moving quickly and is on the forefront of knowledge, but at the same time you also want to study the timeless. And that's human nature; human nature doesn't change. So there you want to rely upon the olden people. You know, you want to read Schopenhauer and you want to read the Dao De Jing and so on, or the Bible, because people don't change. And so with my tweets, I kind of struggle with, or even with writing or podcasting, thinking time that I spend, what I struggle with is I want to spend a lot of time on the timeless because that knowledge carries through the rest of my life, but I also want to spend time on the timely, which is the most modern stuff. Now there I have to look for the modern stuff that's actually useful. It's actually the modern stuff about things like I want to know about AI. I want to know about self-driving cars. I want to know about robotics. I want to know about space travel and space exploration. I want to know about drones. But I don't want to know what Kim Kardashian is doing today. Like that's useless knowledge. In fact, I don't even need to know any lessons in human nature from her and her interactions with other people because those lessons have been written down better by Schopenhauer or Kant or someone like that in the past, right? Plato. So when it comes to philosophy and human nature, that's timeless material. It's worth learning. It's somewhat clichéd in the sense that we can get into what cliché is, but it's somewhat clichéd. But at the same time it's very important to absorb because these are the deepest guiding principles. You know, philosophy is kind of the study of how to live a good life. I think Aristotle called that eudaimonia or something like that, probably saying the word wrong, but that's worth studying. But at the same time, it's worth studying the ultra-modern most recent stuff when it comes to the world of science and technology and things. At least for our book, our work, our writing, I don't like putting timely things in there. And the trap is timely things that have nothing to do with knowledge of how things work but rather knowledge of people or just gossip or news. I think a lot of people have said this, Taleb most recently, that you know, to see how worthless news is, just read yesterday's newspaper, right? What's the half-life of the information that you're consuming? How long will it be relevant in the future? It is predominantly based on how long has it been relevant in the past.

是的，这跟多伊奇的工作有点关系，他会说一个好的解释，判断它是好解释的一个方法，就是它有跨度，跨越空间和时间的跨度。所以它适用于很多你没想到的东西。它解释了你认为超出其领域的东西，或者最初那个理论是为了解释一个局部事物而提出的，但它几乎总是最终解释了一个全局事物。例如，像地球的轴倾角理论，你可能提出它来解释为什么有季节。但当你到南半球时，季节翻转了，你不能改变这一点。你不能把解释北半球季节的那部分理论拿走，然后到了南半球就扔掉它。那个理论有深度跨度或广度跨度。所以最好的理论既深又广。

Yeah, this ties into a little bit with Deutsch's work, which is he'll say a good explanation, one of the ways you know it's a good explanation, is that it has reach, and reach across space and time. So it applies to lots of things that you didn't expect. It explains things which you would think were out of its domain, or it was originally that theory was postulated to explain a local thing, but it almost always ends up explaining a global thing. So for example, like in the axial tilt theory of the earth, you know, you might have come up with that to explain why there are seasons. But then the seasons flip when you go to the southern hemisphere and you can't change that. You can't take the part of the theory that explains seasons in the northern hemisphere and then throw it out when you get to the southern hemisphere. That theory has deep reach or wide reach. So the best theories are deep and wide.

另一个完全不同的角度是杰德·麦肯纳。我不知道你有没有读过杰德·麦肯纳，但他是个疯狂的匿名开悟者，对吧？他写了一些非常有趣的书，从《灵性开悟：最该死的事》开始。我强烈推荐给那些不神秘、完全不灵性，但知道有些不对劲、缺失、错误的人。就像莫菲斯描述《黑客帝国》时说的：“你脑子里有根刺”，对吧？“你感觉到了吗，尼奥？”就像你脑子里有根刺。是的。所以如果你觉得脑子里有根刺，杰德·麦肯纳是一个好的起点。他有一个所谓的真理或上帝存在的证明。实际上这是对一位叫安瑟伦的僧侣的古老证明的改写。我不知道他是否意识到这一点，但这是对现有证明的改写。无论如何，这不是真正的证明，不是数学证明，但它确实依赖于这个想法：嘿，你相信真理存在吗？如果你相信真理存在，那么你知道那是一个不同于你相信没有真理的宇宙，对吧？如果你相信真理存在，那么你相信真理可以在某个地方或某个时间不存在，或者可以是暂时的吗？答案是否定的。所以如果你沿着那条推理链，你会意识到真理必须具有最广和最深的跨度。

And another completely different angle on the same thing is Jed McKenna. He has this, I don't know if you ever read Jed McKenna, but he's kind of this crazy anonymous enlightened dude, right? And he writes these really funny books starting with Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing. And I highly recommend them for people who are not mystical, not spiritual at all, but yet they know something is off, something is missing, something is wrong. It's like, I think it was Morpheus the way he describes the Matrix. He goes, "A splinter in your mind," right? "Do you feel that, Neo?" It's like a splinter in your mind. Yeah. So if you feel like there's a splinter in your mind, Jed McKenna is a good starting point. And he has this proof, quote unquote, of the existence of truth or God or what have you. And it's actually a rework of a very old proof by a monk named Anselm. I don't know if he realized that, but it's a rework of an existing proof. Anyway, it's not really a proof. It's not a mathematical proof, but it does rely on this idea that hey, do you believe that truth exists? And if you believe that truth exists, then you know that's a different universe than one where you believe that there is no truth, right? And if you believe that if truth exists, then do you believe that truth can be non-existent in a certain place or a certain time or it can be temporal? And the answer is no. And so if you kind of follow that chain of reasoning, you realize that truth would have to have the widest and deepest reach.

再说一次，它必须是一个包罗万象的理论。无论是在科学、灵性还是技术领域，我认为我们都在寻找某种完美和永恒的东西。作为人类，我们永远会感到不满足。人类的心灵在找到那个东西之前永远不会满足，而这正是成就的驱动力。一个人越有成就，就越能升级，去追求更广泛、更深刻、更遥远的东西。比如，多伊奇不满足于仅仅做一个物理学家；他还在研究他所谓的四个最深刻的理论：计算、自然选择进化论和认识论，因为他试图用一种大统一理论来解释一切。你知道，每一种哲学的核心都必须具有某种普遍性的吸引力，对吧？就像解释一切一样。这几乎是人类的本性。甚至当前整个 AGI 热潮，也是关于“哦，我们要发明上帝了。它将解释一切。这是最后一项技术。”我不知道人类是怎么回事，但它一直驱使我们走向那个方向。每个人都想要一个万有理论。

Again, it would have to be this all-encompassing theory. So whether in science, whether in spirituality, whether in technology, I think we're all just looking for something perfect and permanent. And as humans, we're always going to be dissatisfied. The human mind will always be dissatisfied until it finds that, and that's kind of the drive for achievement. And the more accomplished somebody becomes, the more they get to level up and go for something even broader, even deeper, even further. So you know, Deutsch, for example, isn't just content with being a mere physicist; he's also studying what he calls the four deepest theories: computation, theory of evolution by natural selection, and epistemology, because he's trying to explain everything in kind of a grand unified theory. And you know, every philosophy at its core has to have some appeal to universality, right? To like explaining everything. It's just kind of human nature. Even the whole current AGI craze, it's about like, oh, we're going to invent God. It's going to explain everything. This is the last technology. I don't know what it is about humans, but it keeps driving us towards that. Everybody wants a theory of everything.

我们是绝对主义者。

We're absolutists.

是的。马克思主义就有点像那样，你知道。它有点像我们都是平等的，我们都一样，我们都是意识，我们都只是一体。显然马克思主义有很多问题。我不会坐在这里整天批判马克思主义，尽管我很乐意。但它也有那种普遍主义的意图。所以，从深层来看，这种对一切答案的追求不断渗透到我们生活的每一次努力中。无论你是否意识到，它总是潜伏在下面。

Yeah. Marxism is kind of that, you know. It's kind of like we're all equal, we're all the same, you know, we're all consciousness, we're all just one. Obviously Marxism has lots of problems. I'm not going to sit here and critique Marxism all day long, although I would be happy to. But it is also that there's that universalist intent in there. So, in a deep way, this quest for the answer to everything keeps seeping back into every endeavor of our lives. And whether you realize it or not, it's always lurking underneath.

你说你的赚钱能力比以往任何时候都高，并且随着时间的推移稳步增长。我很好奇想分解一下其中的组成部分。比如它是如何变化的？转折点是什么？即使你有点变得更退休了，我想你会说，不那么刻意了。

You said that your earning power is higher than it's ever been and has been on a steady increase over time. I'm curious to sort of break down the components of that. Like how has that changed? What are the inflection points? Even as you've sort of gotten more retired, I guess you would say, less deliberate.

是的。公平地说，我现在算是半退休。我工作很努力。我有一家新公司，对吧？在某种程度上，我可能投入了和以前一样多的工作。但你知道，其中绝大部分都投入到了我非常在意的新公司，它还在隐身模式。但你知道，其中一部分用于做一些零散的投资，帮助生态系统中我认识的一些人，还有我的老公司。但在赚钱能力方面，一部分来自积累的资本，所以我可以资助自己的项目。一部分来自声誉，所以人们会信任我，资助我等等。但很多来自于知道该追求什么、如何构建新公司、如何启动、如何招募优秀人才的知识，早期就意识到，哦，别费心招募那个人，即使他很优秀，因为他自我太强，不会融入；或者不要推销得太用力，因为以后会出问题。或者去追求这类人，你知道，一开始需要更多的技术构建者，更少的营销人员等等，否则你只会过早地制造太多需求，等等。所以这只是一堆被提炼成原则的实用知识。

Yeah. To be fair, right now I'm like minimally retired. I'm working hard. I got a new company, right? In a way, I'm probably putting in as much work as I ever have. But you know, the vast majority of it goes into my new company, which I really care about. Still in stealth mode. But you know, some of it goes into making a few investments here or there, helping out some people that I know in the ecosystem, plus my old companies. But in terms of earning power, some of that comes from stored capital, so I can fund my own projects. Some of that comes from reputation, so people will kind of trust me and fund me and so on. But a lot of it just comes through knowledge of knowing what to go after, how to structure a new company, how to get it going, how to recruit good people, recognizing early on like, oh, don't bother recruiting that person even though they're good because they're too high ego, they won't fit in, or don't sell too hard because it'll just come unstuck later. Or go after these kinds of people, you know, you need more technical builders at the beginning and less of the marketers and so on, because otherwise you're just going to create too many requirements too early, etc., etc. So it's just a lot of practical know-how which has been folded into principles.

你知道，每件事都有学习曲线。我想是叔本华或塞内卡，两者之一。我认为是塞内卡，他在一封给卢西利乌斯的信中大致说过，正确的学习方式是从具体到一般，而不是从一般到具体。这意味着你在现实中做事，你遇到现实，你测试它，你从中学习，然后你进行概括。然后这让你知道那个格言、箴言、原则或价值体系何时适用，何时不适用。因为接受别人的价值观和箴言的一个问题是，你不知道它们何时适用，何时不适用。所以当人们在推特上说，你自相矛盾了。就好像，嗯，用不同的方式使用那个词，它在这种情况下不适用。不是的，你知道，即使我不使用很多形容词，我的意思是，在大多数情况下，按照我的思考方式，这个适用。而在其他情况下，按照我的思考方式，另一个东西适用。我只是给自己一个启发式，不是要盲目遵循。而这些人是在寻找数学证明。

You know, there's kind of a learning curve to everything. I think it was either Schopenhauer or Seneca, one of the two. I think this was Seneca where he basically said, it's one of his letters to Lucilius. He said something along the lines that the right way to learn is from the specific to the general and not from the general to the specific. And what that means is you do things in reality, you encounter reality, you test it, you learn from it, and then you generalize. And then that lets you know when that maxim or that aphorism or that principle or that value system, when it applies and when it does not. Because one of the problems with picking up other people's values and aphorisms, you don't know when they apply, when they don't. So when people say on Twitter, well, you contradicted yourself. It's like, well, using that word a different way, it doesn't apply in this case. It's not, you know, even though I don't use a lot of adjectives, what I mean is in most cases, in the way that I'm thinking about it, this applies. And in other cases, the way I'm thinking about it, this other thing applies. And I'm just giving myself a heuristic, which is not to be blindly followed. And these people are looking for math proofs.

是的。你在创造一般时是从具体的框架出发的。

Yeah. You came in with the frame of the specific when you created the general.

没错。我创造了一般来帮助我应对未来的具体情境，但每个情境都是具体的，所以它可能同时适用多个一般原则，它们相互竞争，其中一个或多个会覆盖其他。这就是如何从具体到一般。但相反的情况是当你进入学术界。你知道，你在学校学了很多东西，你学到了所有这些宏大的理论，然后到了实际领域，你滔滔不绝地讲理论，却不知道哪个理论在何时何地适用，或者你只是为当前的事情学到了错误的理论。这时你最终就会成为纳西姆·塔勒布所说的 IYI，即“有知识的白痴”。基本上就是过度教育而实践不足的人。

That's right. I created the general to help me navigate future specifics, but each situation is specific, you know, so it may have multiple general things applied to it that compete, and one of them overrides or multiple of them override. So that's how you go from the specific to the general. But the opposite is when you go to academia. You know, you study too many things in school, you learn all these grand theories, and then out in the field you're spouting theories but you don't know which one applies where and when, or you've just learned the wrong theory for the current thing. And that's when you kind of end up as what Nassim Taleb calls an IYI, an Intellectual Yet Idiot. And it's basically someone who's overeducated and underpracticed.

那么，建立判断力的秘诀就是这些启发式、格言、想法，以及将它们付诸实践的经验的结合吗？

So is the recipe for building judgment then the combination of these heuristics, these maxims, these ideas, and the experience to plug in to sort of license them up?

经验。首先你必须去做。首先，你知道，另一句格言是：如果你想成为哲人王，先成为王，对吧？先成为王，那更难，而那会让你成长。成为王的过程会自动把你变成哲学家。成为哲学家的过程会让你离王更远，你也不会成为一个非常有用的哲学家。没有硬性规定。有些人在实践上做得不多，却是了不起的哲学家，但他们非常非常罕见。但没错，我的意思是，你想在竞技场上。比如，埃隆。我正在写一本关于他的书，他有一般原则，但这些原则来自于做事。

Experience. First you got to do. First, you know, another aphorism is if you want to be a philosopher king, first be a king, right? First become a king, that's the harder one, and that's the one that'll make you. The process of becoming a king will turn you into a philosopher automatically. The process of becoming a philosopher will take you further from being a king, and you won't be a very useful philosopher either. No hard and fast rules. There are people who didn't do a lot practically speaking that were incredible philosophers, but they're very, very, very rare. But yeah, I mean, you want to be in the arena. Like, for example, Elon. I'm working on a book about him, and he has general principles, but those principles come from doing things.

他知道速度的价值，比如埃隆就以做事快著称，他能缩短周期时间。这是他的核心原则，他有很多具体的实现方式：工程师可以自己定需求，你总是要扫清一切障碍，不躲在邮件后面。他脑子里有很多源自这个大原则的启发式方法。

He knows the value, for example, of speed. Elon is famous for how fast he does things and he gets cycle time down. That is a core principle for him, and he has a lot of detailed implementations of what that means practically: engineers get to set their own requirements, you always unblock everything, you don't hide behind email. He has many heuristics in his head that derive from that big principle.

但如果我只是坐在学术界，有人告诉我速度就是一切，要追求速度，那我就会很愚蠢地去做。我会一直跑来跑去，喘不过气来，不知道怎么应用。所以，生活是在竞技场中度过的。你必须通过做事来学习。只学不做是错误的。我小时候很喜欢读书，读了很多，几百本甚至几千本，数不清了。大多数书我拿起来读，然后发现‘哦，这本书我十年前读过，但忘了。’读到三分之二时才发现，因为我对不深刻或不太有用的东西记性很差。我以前还为此自豪，现在意识到大部分阅读都是无用的。那都是学术性的书本知识，很多只是小说。现在我读得少了，但更有目的性。我读书是因为真的感兴趣，想学点东西或弄明白什么。我读少量内容，然后大量思考。我把阅读当作激发自己思考的方式，而不是单纯吸收别人的东西然后复述。塔勒布很多东西我记不住。比如他的反脆弱概念，我记不住，因为我在生活中找不到太多实际例子来应用真正的反脆弱。真正的反脆弱不只是韧性，而是通过逆境变得更强。是的，我能看到一些例子，比如举重中的毒物兴奋效应，但很多情况下我找不到实际应用。我理解塔勒布为什么这么做——他的整个投资策略就是反脆弱的；系统崩溃他赚更多，或者仅仅是波动性就让他赚钱——但我找不到那么多例子。所以反脆弱这个概念我记不住，尽管我知道那是大多数人认为对他影响最大的书，也是他最看重的。但对我没用。我不读那本书，但我一直在重读《非对称风险》，因为那本书有很多可以应用的精华。我可以对自己说，‘哦，那是我在具体生活中注意到的东西的概括。’少数派规则就是一个好例子。我不断看到少数派规则到处出现。所以你的生活中确实需要实际应用。你必须去做。即使到今天，我想变得更聪明、更有智慧，也意味着我必须工作。

But if I just sat around academia and somebody told me that speed is everything, go with speed, I'd just be kind of idiotic about it. I'd be running around hyperventilating all the time. I wouldn't know how to apply it. So, again, life is lived in the arena. You have to do the things to learn the things. It's a mistake to just learn and not do. When I was a kid, I was a big fan of reading and I used to read a lot. I read hundreds, maybe thousands of books. I've lost count. Most books I pick up and read, and I'll be like, 'Oh, I read this book 10 years ago, I just forgot about it.' And I'm two-thirds of the way through the book because I have a terrible memory for things that don't stick with me or aren't incredibly useful. I used to be proud of that fact. Now I realize most of my reading was worthless. It was all academic book knowledge. A lot of it was just fiction. These days I read less, but very deliberately. I read because I'm really interested in something and I'm trying to learn or figure something out. I'll read small amounts and then think a lot. I use reading as a way to spark my own thinking, rather than just taking in things from other people and regurgitating them later. A lot of Taleb doesn't stick with me. For example, his anti-fragile thing doesn't really stick with me because I can't find many actual examples in my life where I can apply true anti-fragility. True anti-fragility is not just resilience; it's that you actually get stronger through adversity. Yes, I can see some cases like hormetic effects in weightlifting, but there are many cases where I don't find a practical application. I get why Taleb does it—his entire investing strategy is anti-fragile; if the system collapses, he makes more, or just volatility makes him more—but I don't find as many examples. So the concept of anti-fragility doesn't stick with me, even though I know that's the book most people think had the biggest impact on them and he values it the most. It doesn't work for me. I don't read that book, but I'm always rereading Skin in the Game because that one has many nuggets I can apply. I can say, 'Oh, that's the generalization of something I noticed in my specific life.' The minority rule is a good example. I keep seeing the minority rule show up everywhere. So you do need the practical applications in your life. You have to do. Even to the extent today that I want to become smarter and wiser, that means I have to work.

是的，我想说你在不断地注入经验和原则。

Yeah, I was going to say you're continuously injecting experience and principle.

没错。你从经验开始，从具体知识开始。然后具体知识变成更通用的知识。然后你可以把它转化为价值观，与你现有的价值观结合。这能提升你的判断力。我认为在这个无限杠杆的时代，判断力是最重要的。如果你知道往哪里走，人们会为此付钱给你。船长被选中是因为他能把团队凝聚起来，告诉大家我们要去哪里，并激励大家前往。但去哪里是最重要的部分。如果有两个苹果公司 CEO 候选人，苹果是目前全球最有价值的公司，也许现在是英伟达，但无所谓。两个候选人，一个 80%的时候正确，一个 85%的时候正确。公司价值数万亿美元。你会让谁掌舵？你会付给那个 85%正确的人多得多的钱。每年多付几十亿美元，因为他掌舵的是数万亿美元的船。方向比任何其他单一因素都重要。最后，我想说判断力非常重要。判断力来自经验和反思。你经历事情，诚实地反思，然后建立判断力。到了某个点，你的判断力会变得非常好，甚至无法解释或表达。早期你不知道该做什么，必须理性思考并接受反馈。最终你变得非常擅长做决定，不再需要请教别人。是的，你可以获得一些反馈来辅助判断，但你知道自己是最有资格做决定的人。所以你运用判断力，并能向别人解释为什么这么做。但到了某个点，你的判断力好到无法表达。这时它被称为品味。你只是觉得‘这不对，我们就该这么做，我就想这么做。’但那就是品味。达到那个境界的人，比如里克·鲁宾或史蒂夫·乔布斯，都有很好的品味。我认为他们是最有创造力的人，能创造出最伟大的艺术和商业作品，因为他们有很好的品味。我猜马斯克在 SpaceX 就有品味，他身边也有几个有品味的核心工程师。如果你看看领先的 AI 实验室，当研究人员愿意谈论他们如何选择做哪些实验、不做哪些实验时，归根结底是品味。他们有品味，比如‘我要投入几千块 GPU 跑几百小时，花很多钱，很可能一无所获。但我的直觉、我的品味，也就是我发展出来的直觉，告诉我是否值得一试。’

Correct. You start with experience, you start with specific knowledge. Then the specific knowledge turns into more generalized knowledge. Then you can take that and turn it into values, which tie into your existing values. It improves your judgment. I think ultimately in this age of infinite leverage, judgment is the most important thing. If you knew where to navigate, people will pay you for that. The captain of a ship is chosen based on his ability to get the team together and tell them where we're going, inspire them to go there. But where to go is the most important part. If you have two candidates for CEO of Apple, the most valuable company in the world currently, maybe it's Nvidia, but whatever. You have two candidates for the CEO of the company. One is right 80% of the time and one is right 85% of the time. The company's worth trillions of dollars. Who are you going to put in charge? You'll pay the guy who is right 85% of the time a lot more. You'll pay him billions of dollars more per year because he's steering a multi-trillion dollar ship. The direction matters more than any other single thing. And finally, I would say that judgment is really important. Judgment comes through experience and reflection. So you experience things, you have honest reflection about those things, and you build your judgment. Then at some point, your judgment becomes so good that you cannot even explain it or articulate it anymore. There's a point early on where you don't know what to do and you have to rationally think through what to do and take feedback. Eventually you get so good at making decisions that you don't go to other people. Yes, you can get a little bit of feedback to inform your judgment, but you know you're in the best position to make up your mind. So you exercise the judgment and you can articulate to other people why you did that. But there comes a point where your judgment is so good that you can't even articulate it. That's when it's called taste. When you're just like, 'It doesn't feel right to me. This is just the way we should do it. This is the way I want to do it.' But at that point it's taste. People who have gotten to that point, like the Rick Rubins of the world or the Steve Jobs of the world, have really good taste. I think those are the people who are the most creative and create the greatest works of art and business because they have really good taste. I would guess that Musk, for example, on SpaceX he has taste, and there are a few key engineers around him who have taste. If you look at the leading AI labs and you see the tweet threads from some of the researchers there when they care to talk about how they're choosing which experiments to run, which ones not to run, it boils down to taste. They have taste about, 'I'm going to throw thousands of GPUs at this for hundreds of hours and spend lots of money and probably wind up with nothing. But my intuition, my taste tells me, my developed intuition, which is my taste, tells me whether to try it out or not.'

是的，你发过一条推文。培养直觉需要时间，但一旦培养好了，就不要听别的了。

Yeah, you had a tweet. It takes time to develop your gut, but once it's developed, don't listen to anything else.

完全正确。这只是品味的另一种说法。就是你的直觉。它可以体现在对人上。

Exactly. And this is just another way of saying taste. It's your gut feel. And it can be around people.

年长的人对他人的判断力非常强，因为我们始终在积累人际互动的经验。无论做什么，我们都在与他人互动。因此，我们积累了关于与谁合作、信任谁、不信任谁、不与谁合作的经验。这最终成为你的直觉。随着年龄增长，你必须相信自己的直觉。

Older people have very good judgment about other people because the one thing we are always gaining experience in is human interaction. No matter what we're doing, we're interacting with other people. So we build up experience about who to work with, who to trust, who not to trust, and who not to work with. That ends up as your gut feel. As you get older, you have to trust your gut feel.

你现在投资主要是凭感觉、凭品味吗？

Is your investing now primarily feel like taste?

是的，几乎完全如此。我讨厌把它说出来。很多时候我现在会放弃一些东西。这不只是对公司的品味，而是理解自己的品味——我喜欢什么、不喜欢什么。所以有很多公司我不投资，因为我不想和创始人一起散步。我没学到任何东西，或者我真心对这个领域不感兴趣。我不好奇，不会熬夜阅读或思考它。所以这感觉像是一件苦差事。或者可能是这样：我在地球上只有短暂的一生，我想和这种赚钱方式关联吗？大概不想。还有其他赚钱的方式。所以这显然是财富之后的问题或财富之后的品味。这不只是对生意的品味，也是理解我重视什么、如何花时间、我希望留下什么遗产、我会为什么感到自豪、我会从中学到什么。再次强调，这又回到了努力变懒。懒意味着不工作。不工作意味着不做你不想做的事。如果你想做，那就不是工作。所以理想的生活是：我所做的每一件事、我关联的每一件事、我关联的每一个人，都是即使免费我也愿意做的，并且和真正喜欢相处的人在一起，向他们学习。对我来说，这些人非常能干、自我很低所以不用处理那些废话、非常聪明所以你总能学到东西。

Yes, almost entirely. I hate articulating it. A lot of times I pass on things now. It's not just taste about the company; it's an understanding of my own tastes in the sense of what I like and what I don't. So there are many companies I don't invest in because I don't want to take a walk with the founder. I didn't learn anything, or I am just genuinely not interested in the category. I'm not curious about it. I'm not going to stay up late reading about or thinking about it. So it's going to feel like a chore. Or it could be like, I've got one short life on this earth. Do I want to be associated with this way of making money? Probably not. There are other ways to make money. So obviously that's a post-wealth problem or post-wealth taste. It's not just taste about the business; it's also an understanding of what I value, how I want to spend my time, what I want my legacy to look like, what I'm going to be proud of, what I'm going to learn from. Again, this is back to an effort to being lazy. Lazy means not working. Not working means not doing things you don't want to do. If you want to do it, it's not work. So an ideal life would be where everything I am doing and everything I am associated with, everyone I'm associated with, is something I would do anyway almost for free, and being with people I really enjoy being around and learning from them. So for me, that's people who are very capable, very low ego so you don't have to deal with all the nonsense, and very intelligent so you're always learning from them.

纯粹靠判断力获得报酬真的理想吗？这是你谈过的，但当我们讨论时，很难将你的劳动与判断力分开，至少在一定程度上，对吧？

Is it actually ideal to be paid purely for your judgment? That's something you've talked about, but as we're talking through this, it's very hard to extricate your labor from your judgment, at least to some ratio, right?

是的，没错。这就是为什么我另一条推文里说，如果你要算数学账，它们确实互相矛盾：做什么和与谁一起做比多努力更重要。但还是要尽可能努力，而做什么和与谁一起做比多努力更重要。但你仍然必须尽可能努力。所以它不应该感觉像工作。这又回到了：它对你来说应该像玩，但对别人来说像工作。这才是你真正想做的。那是理想化的。你不可能一直做到。显然不光是努力。埃隆在运营多少家公司？街角杂货店的老板在店里投入的时间比埃隆在他任何一家公司投入的时间都多。所以不纯粹是努力。话虽如此，没有努力你不可能成为拥有良好判断力、良好人脉和强大能力的人，你也不会足够快地积累知识。正是在你超级努力、真正深入某件事的时候，你才会取得最大的突破。我记得大学时有一个计算机科学项目，要写一个编译器。编译器很难写。它把高级编程语言分解成越来越低级的语言，直到最终变成计算机能理解的一组指令。写编译器在 CS 里是高级任务，就像写操作系统一样。所以不是闹着玩的。我记得我去计算机实验室时，要花好几个小时才能把问题加载到脑子里，回顾前几天的代码才能重新进入状态：好的，这里我是这个意思，这部分卡住了，这部分很糟糕，这是个补丁，这部分工作得很好很漂亮。但如果我离开一段时间，就要花好几个小时才能重新进入状态。所以我发现写那个编译器最高效的时段是 24 到 36 小时不睡觉的时段。我会连续 36 小时喝可口可乐，只是编码或思考并走动，编码、思考、走动。然后当我终于睡着时，问题就从脑子里掉出来了，我要花几天恢复，然后必须把整个问题重新加载回脑子里。那是个夸张的例子，但总的来说，很多突破发生在你深入一个问题的时候。它需要努力和时间。即使是我新公司的联合创始人，他非常聪明、自我很低、很愉快、非常努力。他醒着就在工作。他现在可能正在工作，而我在这里和你闲聊。我注意到和他在一起：我们每天谈话，深入交流，经常聊天。聊了一个小时后，我已经准备挂电话放弃了，我们已经覆盖了所有话题。所以我们只是兜圈子闲聊，然后重大突破就会到来。重大洞见会出现。我们会说，“啊，但还有这个。”“哦，是的。现在一切都连起来了。”你的大脑需要时间渗透一个问题。所以你在一个问题上投入的时间越多，就越有可能取得突破。就像如果你试图解决一个非常难的问题，我的一种技巧是把它加载到背景潜意识中。我想让我的直觉处理它，这样 48 小时后我就能在淋浴时获得突破。你不能安排那个。你不能定时。所以你必须如此强烈地专注于问题，以至于你的整个大脑都吸收它，甚至你的潜意识也意识到，“好的，这很重要。”你梦到它。然后在某个未知的时间尺度上，你会获得一些洞见或创造力。

Yeah, that's right. This is why another tweet I had, they do contradict each other if you want to talk math, where it's like, what you do and who you do it with is more important than how hard you work. But work as hard as you can, and what you do and who you do it with are more important than how hard you work. But you still have to work as hard as you can. So it shouldn't feel like work. This goes back to it should feel like play to you but look like work to others. That's really what you want to be doing. That's idealized. You're not going to be able to do that full time. It's obviously not just hard work. How many companies is Elon running? The guy running the corner grocery store puts more hours in the grocery store than Elon puts into any one of his companies. So it's not just purely about hard work. That said, you don't get to be someone with great judgment, great connections, and great capabilities without working hard, and you will not build up your knowledge fast enough. It's when you're working super hard, when you're really intensely into something, that's when you actually make the biggest breakthroughs. I remember back in college, I had this computer science project where we had to write a compiler. A compiler is a difficult thing to write. It takes a high-level programming language and breaks it down to lower and lower levels until finally into a set of instructions the computer can understand. Writing compilers is up there in CS, like writing an operating system. So it's no joke. I remember when I would go into the computer lab, it would take me hours just to load the problem into my head, to go through my own code from the previous few days to come back to speed: okay, this is what I meant over here, this is the part where I'm stuck, this part is janky, this is a patch, this thing works over here and it's beautiful. But it would take me hours just to get back into it if I'd been out of it for a little while. So I found that the most productive sessions writing that compiler were 24 to 36 hour sessions where I wouldn't sleep. I would be up for 36 hours drinking Coca-Cola, just coding or thinking and walking, coding and thinking and walking. Then when I finally fell asleep, the problem would fall out of my head, and it would take me a few days to recover, and then I would have to reload the whole problem back into my head. That's an exaggerated example, but I think in general, a lot of breakthroughs happen when you're deeply into a problem. It just takes hard work and time. Even with my co-founder of my new company, who is brilliant, super low ego, very pleasant, and very hardworking. If he's awake, he's working. He's probably working right now while I'm goofing off recording this with you. I've noticed with him: we talk every day, have deep conversations, catch up a lot. It'll be an hour into the conversation when I'm already ready to hang up and give up, and we've already covered all the topics. So we're just circling and shooting the breeze, and the big breakthrough will come. The big insight will come. We're like, "Ah, but also this." "Oh, yes. And now it all connects together." It just takes time for your brain to percolate through a problem. So the more time you devote to a given problem, the more likely you are to have a breakthrough. It's like if you're trying to solve a really hard problem, one technique I have is to load it into my background subconscious. I want my intuition working on it so I can have that shower breakthrough 48 hours later. You can't put that on a schedule. You can't time that. So what you have to do is intensely focus on the problem so that your whole mind absorbs it, and even your subconscious figures out, "Okay, this is important." You're dreaming about it. Then on some unknown time scale, you'll have some insight or some creativity.

但除非你早期用前额叶皮层手动完成了所有艰苦工作，否则你不会有那种直觉。所以我确实认为努力很重要，不能放弃。但如果感觉像苦差事，你在强迫自己走流程，那你就会输，因为有人不觉得这是工作，他们觉得有趣、好玩或至少是充实的，他们在和你竞争。

But you're not going to have that unless you did the hard work of working through all of it manually with your foreground with your neocortex early on. So I do think hard work is important. You can't give it up. But if it feels like work, if you're forcing yourself to go through the motions, then you're going to lose because somebody who doesn't feel like it's work is competing with you and for them it's entertaining or fun or at least fulfilling.

没错。你花时间在显性知识上，然后它变成隐性的。然后有一个阶段它仍然是隐性的，但你还能表达出来。我知道这是个类比，不严格准确，但我会说有一个阶段你每次都得用逻辑推理，那是基础决策；然后有一个阶段你的潜意识可以参与进来，这时你有了判断力和品味；再然后有一个阶段你的整个身体都会对它做出反应，因为身体里有智慧、有知识，到那时就只是品味了，你就完成了那件事。当然不是彻底完成，它还会进步，但你已经站在了手艺的顶端。蒙提·派森的约翰·克里斯说过一句很棒的话，我一直记得：你只需让你的思维以友好而持久的方式靠在问题上。

That's right. Yeah. You spend time on the explicit and then it becomes implicit. And then there's a phase where it's still implicit but you can still articulate it. And you know this is an analogy, not strictly correct, but I would say there's a point where you have to reason through it every time using logic and that's basic decision-making, and there's a part where your subconscious can kind of enter into it, and then I would say now you have judgment and developing taste, and then I think there's a point where your whole body reacts to it, right, because there is wisdom in the body, there's knowledge in the body, and at that point it's just taste and then you're done with that thing. I mean, you're not done, obviously it's always going to improve, but now you're top of the craft. John Cleese, the guy from Monty Python, had a great quote about this that stuck with me, which is: you simply have to let your mind rest against the problem in a friendly, persistent way.

没错，说得真好。他说得对。你的思维必须参与进来，你必须专注，但它得靠在问题上，因为你在推动它，但你又不会放弃。而且是以友好而持久的方式。

That's right. That's actually really well put. Yeah, he's right. Your mind has to be involved and you have to focus on it, but it has to rest against the problem because you're pushing on it, but in a way you're not going to give up. And yeah, in a friendly persistent way.

友好而持久。对，你不能放弃。友好让你不放弃。正是如此，他说得对。

Friendly and persistent. Yeah. You can't give up. And friendly so you don't give up. Exactly. He's right.

是的。我觉得他和奥格威都有一些非常有趣的方法来激活他们的潜意识，用于解决问题。

Yeah. I think him and Ogilvy have these really interesting ways of sort of activating their subconscious around problem solving.

是的。我认为所有真正有创造力的人，既非常非常努力，又知道这必须是有趣的，否则你永远达不到那个境界。有位画家说过一句话，好像是毕加索还是谁，我不记得名字了，但这句话很好。他说：十年来，我每周画七天，每天画十六个小时，现在他们叫我天才。

Yeah. Everyone who I think is deeply creative both works really really hard, yet knows that it has to be enjoyable otherwise you'll never get there. There was a line by a painter, I think Pablo Picasso or something like that. I don't remember the name, but the line was good. And he said, you know, for 10 years I've painted seven days a week, 16 hours a day, and now they call me a genius.

AI 有判断力吗？

Does AI have judgment?

呃，不，我不这么认为。我不会指望 AI 来行使判断力。AI 拥有的是不可思议的信息检索能力。它可以交叉关联所有人类知识，如果人类之前已经解决过，它能给出常规的正确答案，在大多数已解决问题上是正确的。比如你想了解某个法律点，它可以阅读所有法律文本，告诉你根据所有传统观点当前的法律解释是什么。但如果你想做有创意的事、没人解决过的新事，或者处理高度复杂且非常具体的问题，你不应该让 AI 来做那个判断。所以我不认为 AI 有判断力，我认为它是终极杠杆信息检索工具。此外，人类有价值观、观点、约束原则，这些支撑着他们相信什么为真、什么为假的基础。这对每个人来说是独特的，适应于他们所处的环境。而 AI 采取一刀切的方法，依据教科书、传统文献或数据标注者的想法。我认为 AI 对人们来说看起来像魔法，因为很难理解这些巨大的数据集在高度数学化的维度中能做什么。它们能检索和交叉关联的信息量令人震惊。就像你每次运行 Google 搜索，仔细阅读前一千条结果，交叉关联它们，然后把它们拼接起来，过程中也会犯一些错误，就像 AI 一样。但那种研究水平加上一些强大的计算能力——它能写程序，能找出低于人类创造力但高于普通计算器的算法。所以我认为 AI 是不可思议的捷径，但只是给出答案的捷径，用于解决不需要完美答案的问题。我听过一句俏皮话：AI 在错误答案可以接受时很棒。你不会因为答案错误而死亡，不会因为答案错误而损失很多钱。但对于任何需要创造力或边缘判断的事情——这才是你真正赚钱的地方，你为创造力付费——AI 只是提升了所有人的水平。如果你有 AI，人人都有 AI。你得到 AI 答案，每个人都得到 AI 答案。没有阿尔法，没有优势了。所以从这个意义上说，AI 抬高了潮水。现在，你还能获得优势，因为大多数人没有使用 AI，或者没有大量使用，或者不知道如何很好地用于前沿问题。所以，像任何技术一样，如果你是早期采用者，如果你很好地利用它，你会做得非常好。这是我在推特上的俏皮话：不是 AI 要取代软件工程师，而是 AI 会让软件工程师取代其他所有人。我坚持这个观点，因为软件工程师总是使用最新工具，他们是结构化的逻辑系统思考者，试图构建一个系统来解决特定问题。现在有了 AI，他们可以解决越来越多的问题。他们可以让汽车自动驾驶，让机器人行走，让专家系统或 AI 系统在不需要人类参与的情况下做出一定级别的决策。这给了软件工程师惊人的杠杆。所以那些说编程已死、去学艺术或手艺的人，他们是白痴，完全错了。软件工程师比以往任何时候都更富有、更强大。

Uh, no. I don't think so. I wouldn't count on AI to exercise judgment. What AI has is incredible information retrieval capability. So it can cross-correlate all human knowledge and if humans have figured it out before, it can give you the conventional correct answer which is going to be correct in most cases for solved problems. So if you're trying to figure out the law on a specific point, it can read all the legal texts and tell you what the current interpretation of the law is according to all the conventional wisdom. But if you're looking to do something creative or something brand new that no one has yet figured out, or you're dealing with a highly complex problem with a very specific situation, you don't have the AI make that judgment call for you. So I don't think of AI as necessarily having judgment, but I think of it as the ultimate leverage information retrieval tool. Also, humans have values, points of view, binding principles, things that undergird the foundation of what they believe to be true and what they believe to be false. This is idiosyncratic to the person, adapted to their environment. The AI takes a one-size-fits-all approach according to what's in textbooks or conventional literature or what the data labelers thought. I think AI just looks like magic to people because it's very hard to wrap your mind around what these incredibly huge datasets operating in all these highly mathematical dimensions are capable of. The amount of information they can retrieve and cross-correlate is astounding. It's like if you ran a Google search every time and read all top thousand results very carefully, cross-correlated them, and were able to stitch them together, and you would make a few mistakes along the way just like the AI does. But that level of research combined with some tremendous calculation abilities—it can write programs and figure out algorithms below the level of human creativity but above a mere calculator. So I think AI are incredible shortcuts, but shortcuts to giving you answers to solve problems where you don't need a perfect answer. One quick quip I heard was: AI is great when wrong answers are okay. You're not going to die because the answer is wrong, you're not going to lose a lot of money because the answer is wrong. But for anything creative or requiring judgment at the edge, which is what you really get paid for—you get paid for creativity. So AI lifts the boat for everybody. If you have AI, everybody's AI. You get the AI answer, everybody gets the AI answer. There's no alpha, no edge anymore. So in that sense, AI raises the tide. Right now, you're going to get an edge because most people aren't using AI or aren't using it for a lot, or they don't know how to use it well enough for bleeding edge problems. So again, like any piece of technology, if you're an early adopter, if you leverage it well, you're going to do extremely well. This was my quip on Twitter: it's not that AI is going to replace software engineers, it's that AI is going to let software engineers replace everybody else. And I stand by that, because software engineers are always using the latest tools, they're structured logical systems thinkers trying to build a system to solve a specific problem. And now thanks to AI, they can solve more and more problems. They can make cars drive themselves, make robots walk around, make expert systems or AI systems that will make certain levels of decisions without humans having to be in the loop. That just gives software engineers amazing leverage. So all the people saying that programming is dead, go learn art or the trades, they're idiots. They're just completely wrong. And software engineers are getting richer and more powerful than ever.

最近的一个证明就是马克·扎克伯格用上亿美元的薪酬包招募单个机器学习工程师，因为杠杆最高的工程师是那些构建 AI 系统的人，他们下面是使用这些 AI 系统的人，再下面则是被这些工程师使用 AI 系统所影响的每一个人。

And the most recent proof of that just popped up with Mark Zuckerberg paying hundred million dollar packages to recruit individual machine learning engineers because the most leveraged engineers are the ones who are building these AI systems and then the ones below them are the ones who are using these AI systems and then even below them is everybody's affected by these engineers using these AI systems.

是的。你之前说过，机器人革命已经来了，只是被塞进了数据中心，那是 10 年前的事了。

Yeah. You had talked before about like the robot revolution is already here. It's just packed into data centers and that was 10 years ago.

没错。机器人革命已经存在很久了。地球上有数万亿个机器人，但它们只是被塞进数据中心。它们不需要腿和胳膊，它们只是计算。

That's right. Yeah. The robot revolution has been here for a long time. There's trillions of robots on the planet. But they're just packed into data centers. They don't need legs and arms. They're just computing.

但现在有了 AI 和 AI 智能体。我想，一个熟练使用这些工具的人能获得的杠杆是数量级的。

But now there's AI and AI agents. And I imagine, you know, the leverage that somebody who's fluent with those tools can get is orders of magnitude.

这是巨大的。我的意思是，现在你可以用自然语言编程它们。现在它们可以访问自然语言数据库。现在你可以通过倒入大量数据来编程它们，甚至不需要编程。它们自己编程，然后为你编程。但结构化思维仍然有帮助。比如我学计算机科学和物理时最有用的课程，实际上是我喜欢的计算机硬件、计算机网络、统计学和许多更深层物理的课程，不是因为我会直接用到它们，而是因为它们帮助我理解概念，帮助我以特定方式思考。所以即使你不写网络代码，了解计算机底层是如何进行网络通信的也非常有用，因为这样你就知道什么是可能的。史蒂夫·乔布斯和他的团队，他们的天才使他们能够组装出像 iPhone 这样的产品，是因为他们深刻理解了什么是可能的，什么是技术上可行的，什么是最前沿的，什么是勉强可行的，什么是几乎不可能的，以及什么是真正不可能的。所以他们知道这些不同事物之间的界限，并且他们从材料科学、制造、供应链和可交付性、成本、计算机编程、硬件、电气工程、电池需求和空间需求、带宽需求等方面都了解。他们有理解所有这些不同部分的人，能够做出权衡，组装出这个完美的、像珠宝一样的小型智能手机，它突然就成了你口袋里的真正个人电脑。这就是 iPhone 伟大的原因。我认为现代最伟大的产品仍然是 iPhone。我对他们在 AI 方面取得的成就感到敬畏。但如果你只看现在每个人渴望且不愿放弃的设备，至少在 2025 年这个时间点，如果你对人们说你可以拥有任何你想要的东西，但如果你不拿那个东西，你就完全不能拥有它，他们会都选择 iPhone。在此之前，我认为能激发同样程度渴望的最后一个产品可能是 MacBook，再之前是 Macintosh。所以向苹果致敬，但他们是地球上最好的产品构建者，因为他们深刻理解了所有艰难的权衡，深入到细节技术层面。即使你给乔布斯和他的团队 AI 来做所有的氛围编码和氛围设计，如果他们不深入了解 AI 隐藏的抽象是什么、它在什么地方犯错、它不理解什么、以及所有部分如何组合在一起，他们也无法构建出那么好的产品。因为他们是在真正创造新东西。如果你在创造新东西，你仍然需要理解一切，直到最深的细节层面。只是 AI，至少是 2025 年当前结构的 AI，会为你去除枯燥的部分。如果以前有人做过，那么你知道，以较低的幻觉率，它们今天可能就能为你做。而且它们越来越好。所以最终所有以前做过的事情你都可以让它们做。但这没关系。你不能从已经做过的事情中获得有意义的报酬，也不应该想要。那非常无聊。一个好的创业者会告诉你的一件事是，他们讨厌日复一日做同样的事情。这表明自动化的失败和想象力的失败。所以好的创业者会自动化事情。顺便说一句，这就是为什么我遇到的创业者中没有一个人说“哦，AI 是坏事”。对创业者来说，它是一个工具，一个机会。创业者并不害怕 AI 取代他们，对吧？没有创业者会被 AI 取代。他们可能会被另一个更好地使用 AI 的创业者取代。他们需要擅长 AI，就像他们需要擅长任何工具一样。创业者不害怕 AI 取代他们，就像他们不害怕 MacBook 取代他们、AirPods 取代他们或自动驾驶汽车取代他们一样。这只是一个机会。所以我的愿景、信念和希望是，每个人都想有创造力。每个人都想掌控自己的命运。每个人都想创造新事物。每个人都想参与其中并接受挑战。也许对某些人来说已经太晚了，因为他们已经愤世嫉俗地放弃了。但我认为每个孩子肯定都是这样。每个孩子一开始都超级有创造力。每个孩子一开始都想改变周围的现实，做新的、令人愉快的事情。没有孩子想要枯燥的工作。没有孩子从第一天就放弃希望。所以我确实认为新一代会利用这些东西。

It's massive. I mean, now you can program them speaking natural languages. Now they can access natural language databases. Now you can program them just by pouring in huge amounts of data. Not even having to program them. They program themselves that they program for you. But it still helps to be a structured thinker. Like my most useful classes when I was doing computer science and physics were actually things on you know like I love my courses on computer hardware on computer networking on statistics on a lot of the deeper physics and not because I got to use those directly but because it just helped me with concepts just helped me think in certain ways. So even if you aren't writing networking code, knowing how the computer is doing networking underneath is incredibly useful because then you know what's possible. Steve Jobs and his team, their genius that allowed them to assemble things like the iPhone was because they understood at a very deep level what was possible, what was technologically possible, what was in the bleeding edge, what was barely possible, what was almost impossible, and what was actually impossible. So they knew the lines between those different things and they knew it in terms of the material science. They knew it in terms of manufacturing. They knew it in supply chains and deliverability. They knew it in costing. They knew it in computer programming. They knew it in hardware. They knew in electrical engineering. They knew it in battery requirements and space requirements and knew in bandwidth requirements. They had people who understood all these different pieces and could make the trade-offs to assemble this perfect jewel like little smartphone that all of a sudden was a true personal computer in your pocket. And that's what made the iPhone great. I would argue the greatest product of the modern age is still the iPhone. I mean, I'm in awe what they've managed to do in AI. But if you just look at the one device that every human craves and would not give up right now, at least this moment in time in 2025, if you went to people and said you can have one of anything you want, but if you don't take that thing, you can't have it at all, they would all take the iPhone. So the last product before that that I think inspired that same level of desire was probably the MacBook and before that it was a Macintosh. So kudos to Apple, but they were the best product builders on the planet because they understood all the hard trade-offs deep down at the detail technical levels. Even if you'd given Jobs and his team AI to do all the vibe coding and all the vibe design, they could not have built that good of a product without knowing deep down what is the abstraction that the AI was hiding, where was it making mistakes, what did it not understand, and how do all the pieces fit together? Because they were truly creating something new. And if you're creating something new, you still need to understand everything down to the deep detail levels. It's just the AI at least as currently structured in 2025. These modern AIs, they will take the drudgery out of it for you. If it's been done before, then you know with a small hallucination rate, they can probably do it for you today. And they're getting better and better. So eventually all the stuff that's been done before you can have them do. But that's okay. You can't get paid in any meaningful way for things that have already been done before. Nor should you want to be. It's incredibly boring. One of the things that a good entrepreneur will tell you is they hate it when they're doing the same thing day in day out. That shows that there's a failure of automation and a failure of imagination. So good entrepreneurs automate things. And that's why, by the way, there's no entrepreneur I've met who says, "Oh, AI is a bad thing." To an entrepreneur, it's a tool. It's an opportunity. The entrepreneurs are not scared of AI replacing them, right? No entrepreneur is going to be replaced by an AI. They might be replaced by another entrepreneur who uses AI better. And they need to get good with AI just like they need to get good with any tool. Entrepreneurs are not afraid of AI replacing them any more than they were afraid of MacBooks replacing them or AirPods replacing them or self-driving cars replacing them. It's just another opportunity. So I mean my vision and belief and hope is that every human being wants to be creative. Every human being wants to control their own destiny. Every human being wants to make new things. Every human being wants to be engaged and challenged. And maybe it's too late for some people because they've given up cynically. But I think certainly every child does. Every child starts out super creative. Every child starts out just wanting to alter their reality around them and to do new and delightful things. No child wants drudgery. No child has given up hope on day one. So I do think that newer generations will take advantage of these things.

是的。我认为有些人很容易把创业者看作一个固定的阶层，而不是每个人都可能成为的角色。你之前说过，地球上有 70 亿人。我希望有一天有 70 亿家公司。我觉得很多工具和结构都在朝着那个方向发展。这是一件好事。幸福。我非常喜欢把它看作一种高度个人化的技能，可以像健身、营养或我们谈到的财富一样学习。这似乎是你思想中非常常见的线索，比如基本原则和个人应用的结合。

Yeah. I think you know it's tempting for some people to see entrepreneur as a fixed class of people rather than something that everyone could aspire to be. And you said before, you know, there are 7 billion people on the planet. I hope one day there are 7 billion companies. And I feel like a lot of the tools and structure were moving in that direction. It's a good thing. Happiness. I really like the frame of it being a highly personal skill that can be learned like fitness or nutrition or as you we talked about wealth. And that really seems like a very common thread of your ideas like the combination of foundational principles and personal application.

是的。我的意思是，幸福是那种对不同人意味着不同东西的词。有些人会说我不想幸福。

Yeah. I mean look happiness is it's one of those words that just means different things to different people. Some people will say I don't want to be happy.

别人会说，你什么意思，我天生不快乐或天生不快乐？每个人都有借口、理由或解读。这是一个非常个人化的话题，我很难谈论。我的最新想法是，幸福这种东西根本不存在，对吧？所以我可以给出 20 个相互矛盾的说法。每一个，你要么会认为它是陈词滥调或荒谬，要么会让你思考。希望它能让你思考。但我的最新想法是，我并不真正关心幸福，甚至不确定它是否真的存在。幸福是心灵的构造，是一个想法。你会有想法说，“哦，我现在很快乐。”然后当这些想法消失时，发生了什么？你是不快乐还是快乐？那里什么都没有。对吧？这是佛教中“无我”的概念，对吧？当你有一个想法时，那个想法进来了。那个想法声称是自我。那个想法从某个我们称之为自我的实体中浮现，而这个实体定义得非常模糊。当你仔细寻找它时，很难弄清楚那到底是什么。所以从这个意义上说，幸福就像自我本身只是一个想法。所以幸福只是一个想法，不快乐也只是一个想法。所以你可以有快乐的想法，也可以有不快乐的想法，某些行为和心态会导致更多的快乐想法，而某些行为和心态会导致更多的不快乐想法。然而，如果你认同这个想法，如果你说，我就是那个想法，是我在拥有那个想法。那么在那一刻，你创造了一个在拥有那个想法时快乐的“我”。然后当那个想法消失时，那里不再有“我”，不再有想法，也不再有快乐。然后当不快乐的想法出现时，你认同它，那么你创造了一个想法：我是不快乐的，我正在拥有不快乐的想法，那就是我，我是不快乐的。然后当那个想法消失时，那里没有人，没有想法，也没有不快乐。然后整个构造是通过在你脑海中来来去去的想法创造出来的。我甚至犹豫是否要说“心灵”，因为当你没有心灵的想法时，这个心灵在哪里？对吧？我们在这里谈论的一切都存在于想法的层面。但如果你不强烈地陷入那些想法或认同那些想法，那么你就不会有快乐或不快乐的概念。而且世界上肯定没有外在的幸福。

Other people will say what do you mean I'm naturally unhappy or I'm naturally not happy? Everyone has an excuse or a reason or interpretation. It's such a personal topic, it's very hard for me to talk about. I mean, my latest thinking on it is like there's no such thing as happiness, right? And so, I can give you 20 contradictory statements on it. Each one of them, you know, either you'll dismiss as a cliche or absurdity or will make you think. Hopefully, it'll make you think. Um, but my latest thinking on it is like, I don't really care about happiness and I'm not even sure it really exists. You know, happiness is a construct of the mind. It's an idea and it's a you have thoughts that say, 'Oh, I'm happy now.' And then when those thoughts are gone, what's going on? Are you unhappy or are you happy? There's nothing there. Right? This is the old Buddhist thing of like no self, right? When you have a thought, that thought comes in. That thought claims to be the self. That thought emerges from somewhere from an entity that we call the self that is very very poorly defined. And when you look for it carefully, it's very hard to make out what the heck that thing is. So in that sense happiness is just like the self is itself is just a thought. So happiness is just a thought and unhappiness is just a thought. And so you can have happy thoughts or you can have unhappy thoughts and there's certain behaviors and mindsets that will lead towards more happy thoughts and there are certain behaviors and mindsets that will lead to more unhappy thoughts. However, if you identify with the thought, if you're like, I am that thought. It's me having that thought. Then at that moment, you've created a me that is happy while you're having that thought. And then when that thought disappears, there's no me there anymore and there's no thought and there's no happy. And then when the unhappy thought is there and you identify with it, then you've created a thought that I'm unhappy and I'm having unhappy thought and that's me and I'm unhappy. And then when that thought disappears, there's no one there and there's no thought and there's no unhappiness. And then that whole construct is created through thoughts that are kind of coming and going in your mind. And I even hesitate to say mind because like where is this mind when you're not having a thought of the mind, right? It's like everything that we talk about here of this topic exists at the level of thought. But if you are not strongly into those thoughts or identify with those thoughts, then you're not going to have a concept of happy or unhappy. And there's certainly no happiness outside in the world.

两者含义非常不同。一个意思是世界上没有外在的幸福，因为这是你内在的心理构造。所以你可以重新解读你的过去，重新解读你的处境，从而经常改变那些事情或你的习惯。但第二个意思是，外部世界没有幸福，而且外部世界极其无常，不受你控制。外部世界总有让你不快乐的理由。同样，外部世界也没有不快乐。你是在脑海中编造出来的，因为它没有按照你想要的方式发展。

Both in very different meanings. One meaning is there's no happiness outside in the world because this is a mental construct you have internally. And so you can reinterpret your past. You can reinterpret your situation to often change those things or your habits. But the second is that there's no happiness in the outside world and that the outside world is incredibly impermanent. It's out of your control. There are always reasons to be unhappy for the outside world. The same way there's no unhappiness in the outside world too. You're making that up in your mind cuz it's not going the way you want it to.

是的。

Yeah.

而世界本身并不在乎。那个外部世界不能让你比你自己允许的更不快乐。当然也有明显的例外。比如如果你身体疼痛，你的身体是不快乐的。这会让你的心灵不快乐，会让你强烈认同疼痛，你就会不快乐。对吧？事实上，你可以说整个心灵构造的存在就是为了感受那个东西，为了回应疼痛。你知道，对疼痛的一种定义是，疼痛要求回应，对吧？疼痛是一个东西，它说：“现在注意我。放下你正在做的事情。停止做白日梦。现在注意我。”而情感痛苦是它的变体。

And the world itself doesn't care. And that outside world can't make you any more unhappy than you let it. Now there are obvious exceptions to this. Like if you're in physical pain, your body is unhappy. That will make your mind unhappy. That will make you strongly identify with the pain and you will be unhappy. Right? That's why in fact you could argue that the whole mind construct exists. It's to feel that thing to respond to pain. You know, one definition of love of pain is that pain demands a response, right? Pain is a thing. It's like pay attention to me right now. Drop what you're doing. Stop daydreaming. Pay attention to me right now. And emotional pain is a variation on that.

是的。

Yeah.

但幸福和不快乐，这些都是非常个人化的概念。我想说我对这个的新想法，我最新的想法，可能会改变。我不是一个开悟的人，不是一个永远快乐的人。所以这真的只是一个人的个人探索。我对此的最新想法是，我不一定想要幸福。我有点想要那种禅宗式的“对事物本来的样子感到满意”。我认为当我的欲望很少并且有意识地选择时，处于那种状态会有所帮助。当我出于非自私的原因做事时——这本身在某种程度上也是自私的——比如如果我做比自己更大的事情，那么无论最终结果如何，我都会更容易接受。例如，如果我真心想让世界变得更美好——我不是说我是——但假设我是特蕾莎修女或类似的人，我真心想让世界变得更美好。如果世界不让我把它变得更美好，我不会觉得这是针对我个人的，对吧？因为这不是一个个人使命。同样，当有人为了上帝或为了孩子而无私地做事时，当事情没有完全按照你希望的方式发展时，实际上痛苦会更少。所以拥有更高的动机在这方面是有帮助的。你知道，抑郁的人总是在反刍自己，他们真的在想自己。所以不想自己是有帮助的。我对此的简单推文是：你越想自己，你就越不快乐。就这么简单。所以我更感兴趣的是平静。现在，我是否一直想要平静？我不知道。这似乎有点无聊。有一种论点认为，无聊——这是叔本华的论点——揭示了存在的空虚。因为当你什么都不做，当你满足于短暂的一刻，你所有的欲望都满足了，你只是闲坐着。会发生什么？无聊立刻出现。为什么？因为存在本身有些空虚。所以你想去做别的事情。这是悲观的观点。乐观的观点是，实际上那是心灵。你的心灵沉迷于快乐，所以它想跳起来去做一些愉快的事情，因为它习惯了这样。可能有助于认识到所有的问题都是心灵为了一个好的理由而创造的。我不是说心灵是坏东西。它在那里是为了保护你的身体，但我们有一种方式去承担那些不影响我们的问题。政治是一个很好的例子。你知道，世界另一端的战争或政党等等。你的心灵只是捡起那些不重要的问题和欲望。所以，是的，如果你是佛陀，你可以活在无心中。

But happiness and unhappiness, these are very personal concepts. I would say my new thinking on this, my latest thinking, subject to change. I'm not an enlightened being. I'm not a perpetually happy person. So it's literally just one person's personal exploration. My latest thinking on this is that I don't necessarily want happiness. I kind of want just, you know, the zen thing of being okay with things the way they are. And I think it helps to be in that state when my desires are few and consciously chosen. When I am doing things for nonselfish reasons and that is selfish in a way. Like if I do things that are larger than myself, then I will be more okay with whatever the ultimate outcome is. Like for example, if I'm genuinely trying to make the world a better place, I'm not saying I am, but say I was Mother Teresa or some equivalent and I was genuinely trying to make the world a better place. I wouldn't take it personally if the world wouldn't let me make it a better place, right? Because it's not a personal mission. The same way when someone's doing it for God or someone's doing it for their children in a selfless way, it actually hurts less when you know things don't work out exactly the way that you want them to. So having higher motives is helpful that way. You know, depressed people are ruminating upon themselves. They're really thinking about themselves. So not thinking about yourself is helpful. My simple tweet on this was the more you think about yourself, the less happy you're going to be. It's that simple. So I'm more interested in peace. Now, do I want peace all the time? I don't know. It seems kind of boring. There's one argument that boredom, this is a Schopenhauer argument, that boredom reveals the emptiness of existence. Because when you're not doing anything, when you're satisfied for one brief moment, all your desires are fulfilled, you're kind of just sitting around. What happens? Boredom shows up immediately. Why? Because existence itself is somewhat empty. And so then you want to go and do something else. This is the pessimistic viewpoint. The optimistic viewpoint is actually that's the mind. Your mind is addicted to pleasure and so it wants to jump up and go do something pleasurable because that's what it's used to. What may help to realize that all problems are mind created for a good reason. I'm not saying the mind is a bad thing. It's there to protect your body, but we have a way of taking on problems that don't affect us. Politics is a good example. You know, wars halfway around the world or political parties or so on. And your mind just picks up problems and desires that are just not important. And so, yeah, if you're Buddha, you can live in no mind.

但如果你是一个普通人，至少一个理性的人可以通过培养对无法控制之事的战略性漠然来找到一定程度的平静。我以前说得更好，但现在我稍微修正一下，因为我在现场重构而不是引用。我认为你只需要抓住自己。冥想的目的不是让你开悟，它做不到。它甚至不一定能让你立刻更快乐、解决问题或让你平静下来。冥想的目的只是让你自我观察。当你自我观察、更有自我意识时，你会捕捉到你的头脑在做一些不符合长期利益的事情。然后你可以重置它，或者停下来问：'这是真的吗？这真的是我想经历的吗？这是一个非常重要的欲望吗？这是我需要为之痛苦的事情吗？哪个更容易：重新解释这个，还是实际处理根本问题？'因为我们总是在找事情做。所以，如果我只是想所谓的快乐——再说一次，我不确定是否存在这种东西——如果我想平静，我就什么都不做，但我会无聊。现在，这是个问题吗？是的，我认为这是个问题。我不想无聊。我能超越头脑的层面，像禅僧一样吗？也许。但我也挺喜欢生活。我喜欢拥有某些天赋。我喜欢自我实现。我喜欢做事。假设佛教徒是对的，我是梵天。那我为什么不一直做梵天？我为什么来这里？这是古老的问题：我为什么在这里？我认为我在这里的唯一实际答案就是做我所做的事。所以如果我只是做我所做的事而不多想，它自然会把我带到一个快乐的地方。这又回到了'划啊划，划你的船'，顺着溪流缓缓而下。只要我继续划，轻柔地做，我就在玩我注定要玩的游戏。

But if you're a normal person, at least a rational person can find some level of peace by cultivating a strategic indifference to things outside their immediate control. I've said this better in the past, but I'm caveating it a little now because I'm reconstructing on the fly rather than quoting. I think you just have to catch yourself. The purpose of meditation is not to get you enlightened. It's not going to do that. It's not even necessarily to make you happier immediately or to solve a problem or to calm you down. The purpose of meditation is just to become self-observant. When you're self-observant and more self-aware, you catch your mind doing things that are not in your long-term best interests. Then you can reset it or stop and say, 'Is this true? Is this something I really want to go through? Is this a really important desire? Is this something I need to suffer over? What's easier: reinterpreting this or actually dealing with the underlying problem?' Because we're always just picking up things to do. So anyway, if I just wanted to be quote unquote happy—again, I'm not sure there's such a thing—if I wanted to be peaceful, I would just do nothing, but I would get bored. Now, is that a problem? Yeah, I think that's a problem. I don't want to be bored. Could I rise above the level of the mind and be like a Zen monk? Maybe. But I also kind of like life. I like having certain gifts. I like self-actualizing. I like doing things. Let's say the Buddhists are right and I am Brahman. Then why don't I just stay Brahman? Why did I come here? It's the age-old question: Why am I here? I think the only practical answer to why am I here is to do what I do. So if I just do what I do without overthinking it, it's naturally going to lead me to a place of happiness. This is back to 'Row, row, row your boat,' gently down the stream. As long as I keep rowing and I'm doing gently, I'm playing the game I'm meant to play.

是的。我认为这本书真正引起人们共鸣的一点是财富和幸福原则的结合。很多人只谈其中一个，但从不谈两者之间的张力和对比。我认为很多人向你寻求的——无论你是否认为自己是个好例子，我都很好奇——是一个投入但平静的人。

Yeah. I think one of the things that really seems to resonate with people about this book is the combination of principles about wealth and happiness. So many people talk about one or the other, but never the tension, the contrast between the two. I think what a lot of people look to you for—and whether you consider yourself a good example of this or not, I'll be curious to hear—is someone who's engaged but peaceful.

是的，我不确定我完全平静。但肯定比以前平静多了。我不像禅僧那样平静。但我可能比一般紧张的创始人平静得多。有钱有帮助，我不撒谎。但我觉得我在赚大钱之前就已经更平静了。那是因为我当时处于一个压力非常大的时期，我不得不想办法应对。我读了一些书——克里斯蒂安·莫蒂和奥修——还用了些迷幻药，就像湾区的其他人一样。但不是像有些人去火人节、用迷幻药、为迷幻药而活。不，那是一个信息：你得到信息，就挂断电话。然后我做了很多冥想、很多阅读、很多思考、很多内省。我无法指出任何单一的银弹，但所有这些都有帮助。它帮助我保持平静，同时做我的事，不痛苦。再说一次，我有点想要懒人解决一切的方法。我想要懒人开悟的方法。我想要懒人致富的方法。我想要懒人心态解决艺术和创造力的方法。懒人是指做那些对我来说不像工作的事情。思考对我来说不像工作。思考大问题——不去想它们比去想它们更费力。如果我深夜独自踱步，午夜时分，我会自然地开始思考：'这一切到底是什么？'你怎么能不对自己的存在感到好奇？我认为我们都放弃了。我们就像：'哦，是的，好吧。曾经有一段时间我对自己的存在感到好奇。我在某个年龄就克服了。现在我只是一只猴子，要做一堆事情然后死去。'

Yeah, I'm not sure I'm completely peaceful. But definitely more peaceful than I used to be. I'm not as peaceful as a Zen monk. But I'm probably way more peaceful than your average nervous founder. Some of it helps to have money. I'm not going to lie about it. But I think I got more peaceful before I'd made a bunch of money. It was because I was in a very high stress period and I just had to figure out how to deal with it. I read some books—Christian Morty and Osho—and I did some psychedelics, like everybody else in the Bay Area. But not in a way where some people go to Burning Man, do psychedelics, and live for them. No, it's a message: you get the message, you hang up the phone. Then I did a lot of meditation, a lot of reading, a lot of thinking, a lot of introspection. I can't point to any single silver bullet, but all of it helped. It helped me be then and peaceful while I go about the thing, not be miserable. Again, I kind of want the lazy man solution to everything. I want the lazy man solution to enlightenment. I want the lazy man solution to wealth. I want the lazy mindset solution to art and creativity. By lazy, I mean working on something that doesn't feel like work to me. Thinking doesn't feel like work to me. Thinking on the big questions—it would be more work to not think about them than to think about them. If I'm pacing around late at night, midnight, by myself, I will naturally start pondering like, 'What is this all about?' How could you not be curious about your existence? I think we all just give up. We're like, 'Oh, yeah, okay. There was a point where I was curious about my existence. I got over that when I was a certain age. Now I'm just a monkey that's going to do a bunch of things and then die.'

我想这很有趣。这取决于你是在享受与这些问题搏斗，还是觉得它们折磨人。

I suppose it has fun. It depends whether you're having fun wrestling with those questions or whether you find them torturous.

我认为它们是不可避免的。我认为每个人都在与它们搏斗。只是承认这一点并不流行。

I think they're inevitable. I think everybody wrestles with them. It's just not popular to acknowledge it.

我认为我对 Twitter 的贡献不是做了独特的事情，而是最早做这件事的人之一。现在有很多账号以非常有趣的方式说同样或不同的事情。我只是做得很早。我认为人们在生活中划定界限。史蒂夫·乔布斯对我来说是创业的典范，原因之一是他不仅是商人，还是艺术家，用过 LSD 并谈论它，做冥想，几乎成了僧侣，还是个禅宗佛教徒。他也试图解决生活中的一切，所有大问题。我思考过，最终得出的结论是——我最近发过一条推文，实际上，忘了确切措辞，但我知道原则。重要的是：首先，你必须保持健康。你生来健康，但不会一直健康。你拖得越久越好。这就是为什么我们受到像布莱恩·约翰逊或任何健身大师的启发。你必须保持健康，这是基础。然后你想变得富有。如果你说你不想富有，那是在撒谎。每个人都至少想要一定程度的财富。也许不是。如果你在社会主义上标榜美德，也许你不想要。或者如果你不想比同龄人高太多，你不想要。但你想要一定程度的舒适和财富。你不用担心钱。

I think the contribution I made to Twitter was not by doing something unique, but by being one of the first to do it. Now there are a lot of accounts that frankly say the same things or different things in very interesting ways. I was just early in doing that. I think people draw boundaries in life. One of the reasons why Steve Jobs was to me the apotheosis of entrepreneurship was because he was not just a business person but also an artist, did LSD and talked about it, did his meditation, almost became a monk, and was a Zen Buddhist. He also tried to solve everything in life, all the big questions. I thought it through and kind of what I came back to is—I had a recent tweet on this, actually, forget the exact wording, but I know the principles. What's important: first, you have to stay healthy. You're born healthy, you don't finish healthy. The longer you can drag that out, the better. That's why we're inspired by people like Brian Johnson or whoever your fitness guru is. You got to stay healthy, that's the baseline. Then you want to get wealthy. You'd be lying if you said you don't want to be wealthy. Everyone wants at least some level of wealth. Maybe not. If you're virtue signaling socialism, maybe you don't want it. Or if you don't want to be too high above your peers, you don't want it. But you want some level of comfort and wealth. You don't have to worry about money.

没有人想要更少的财富。他们不想倒退。

Nobody wants less wealth. They don't want to go backward.

没错。你知道那句老话吗？钱不能解决你所有的问题，但它能解决你所有的钱的问题。

That's right. And you know, what's the old line? Money doesn't solve all your problems, but it solves all your money problems.

所以你想解决所有金钱问题，然后剩下的还有什么？每次我绕圈子思考这个问题，都会回到我感兴趣的只有三件事。听起来可能老套，但我会深入探讨：真理、爱和美。真理就是：我想知道所有真实的事情，消除所有虚假的东西。我想在精神层面、哲学层面、科学层面、技术层面、人性层面，知道所有真实的事情。真理是永恒的。真理是最接近完美的东西。真理影响深远。真理会让我的生活变得更好。即使它让我的生活变得更糟，我也想知道真相。这一点非常独特。真理和爱是两样即使让生活更糟，你仍然会接受的东西。比如爱你的孩子：即使这会让你的生活更糟，但让他们过得更好，你还是想爱你的孩子，因为沉浸在爱中感觉很好，很充实。而真理：即使真相让生活更糟，比如发现我们都是《黑客帝国》里泡在缸中的大脑，你仍然想知道真相。事实上，在电影《黑客帝国》中，尼奥挣脱了矩阵，而锡安比矩阵更糟糕——一个糟糕的生存环境，一个真实城市。还有另一个人，我忘了名字。

So you want to solve all your money problems and then what remains? Right, well, every time I go around in circles on it, I come back to just three things that I'm interested in. And it's going to sound clichéd, but I'll dive into them: truth, love, and beauty. Truth is just: I want to know all the things that are true and I want to eliminate all the things that are false. I want to know all the things that are true on a spiritual level, on a philosophical level, on a scientific level, on a technological level, on a human nature level. Truth is permanent. Truth is the closest thing to perfect. Truth has wide reach. Truth will make my life better. Even if it makes my life worse, I want to know the truth. It's very unique in that way. Truth and love are two things where even if it makes your life worse, you would still take them. Like being in love with your kids: even if it makes your life worse but makes them better off, you want to love your kids because it feels good to be in love. It feels fulfilling. And truth: even if the truth makes your life worse, like if it turns out that we're all Matrix brains in a vat, you still want to know that. In fact, in the movie The Matrix, Neo breaks out of the Matrix, and Zion is worse than the Matrix—it's a shitty existence, a real city. And there's another guy, I forget the name.

赛弗。

Cipher.

什么？

What's that?

赛弗。

Cipher.

赛弗。对，赛弗。赛弗想回到矩阵，因为他宁愿吃假牛排、喝假酒。但赛弗是个可悲的角色。赛弗是一个警示。没人会说“对，我就是赛弗”。每个人都想成为尼奥，因为他们知道不能活在谎言中。所以真理极其重要。在我做的每一件事中，无论大小，我都想知道真相。

Cipher. Yeah, Cipher. Cipher wants to go back into the Matrix because he'd rather eat the fake steak and drink the fake wine. But Cipher is a pathetic character. Cipher is a warning. Nobody says, 'Oh, yeah, I'm Cipher.' Right. Everybody wants to be Neo because they know that you can't live a lie. So truth is super important. In everything I do, in every little thing and big thing, I want to know the truth.

你确实说过，越接近真理，就越接近平静。

You did say that the closer you get to truth, the closer you get to peace.

是的。我想我表达的方式是：越接近真理，内心就越安静。这是有意选择的。因为当你知道了什么是真实的，你就会少受苦，少花时间纠结于虚假。你脑海中大部分思绪都与虚假有关。佛教徒会认为，最终的虚假是自我的概念，它是一个定义非常模糊、部分物理部分心理的构造，不知何故在思绪中持续存在。你解决的真实或虚假的事情越多，内心的杂念就越少，直到那些超级智慧、开悟的人内心完全安静，因为他们看穿了自我的幻觉，没有独立的自我，没有独立的持续自我体验。所以如果你的思绪变少了，那就是你走在正确方向上的标志。话虽如此，根据我的经验，你的思绪并不会真的减少很多。但希望焦虑会减少。这在冥想中会发生。如果你冥想，你会发现——至少我发现——前 20 分钟你的思绪四处狂奔。然后某个时刻它平静下来，大约 30、40、50 分钟后，它一片空白，实际上是一种非常幸福的状态。或者根据冥想方式不同可能不同，但肯定不会有那么多杂念。这很大程度上是因为你在解决问题，而你的很多问题不需要现实世界的解决；它们只需要被承认。一个经典练习是：当你有一种情绪，一种强烈的感觉时，你只是关注它，然后解构它。你会想，“好吧，身体里有一种小小的感觉。那种身体感觉真的不愉快吗？”其实不是。比如只是胸口空落落的，感觉没那么糟。还有一个与之相关的想法。那么，那个想法不愉快吗？想法本身不会感到痛苦。它只是一个……那么是谁把它归类为不愉快的？是你。那么，那个情况下的“你”是什么？只是另一个想法。所以是一个想法在说，“我不希望这个其他想法在这里，”然后与身体感觉相关联。但实际上，当你解构它时，你会意识到除非有真正的紧急情况，否则并没有太多东西。

Yeah. I think the way I said it is: the closer you get to truth, the more silent you become inside. That's deliberately chosen. Because when you know what is true, you suffer less and you spend less time ruminating about falsehoods. Most of the thoughts going through your mind are concerned with falsehoods. The Buddhists would argue that the ultimate falsehood is a notion of the self, which is this very poorly defined, partial physical, partial mental construct that somehow persists across thoughts. And the more things you resolve as being true or false, the less mental chatter you should have, all the way to the point that the super wise, enlightened people are completely silent inside because they've seen through the illusion of self and they have no separate self, no separate persistent self experience. So if your mind is chattering less, that is a sign that you're heading in the right direction. That said, in my experience, your mind doesn't really chatter much less. But hopefully there's less anxiety. This happens in meditation. If you're doing meditation, you'll find that, at least I find, the first 20 minutes your mind goes berserk all over the place. And then at some point it calms down, and for about 30, 40, 50 minutes in, it's just blank, and it's actually a very blissful state. Or it can be different depending on how you meditate, but it's certainly not going to be chattering as much. A lot of that is because you're resolving problems, and a lot of your problems don't need real-world resolutions; they just need to be acknowledged. One of the classic practices is: when you have an emotion, when you have a strong feeling, you just pay attention to it and you deconstruct it. You're like, 'Okay, there's a little feeling associated within the body. Is that bodily sensation actually unpleasant?' Not really. It's just like a hollowness in the chest, for example, and doesn't feel that bad. And there's a thought associated with it. Well, is that thought unpleasant? The thought itself can't feel pain. It's just a... so who's classifying it as unpleasant? Well, you are. Well, what is 'you' in that case? It's just another thought. So it's one thought saying, 'I don't want this other thought here,' and then associated with a bodily sensation. But really, when you deconstruct it, you'll realize that unless there's an actual emergency, there's not a whole lot there.

当你擅长这样做，或者当你开始看穿那个把戏时，它就能帮你度过不愉快的处境。几年前我有一个非常不愉快的处境，我极度不开心。但我不会忘记：还有一部分我在观察那个非常不开心的部分，心里想，“哈哈，你这是在演戏，为了让自己感觉重要，但实际上这里什么都没有。”没有东西被攻击。没有东西被伤害。你没有身体上的痛苦。只是一个你在思考的处境，你在唤起这种深深的不快乐，制造一出戏剧。你在创造一个舞台和戏剧来感觉重要。我认为很多时候我们不快乐，只是沉迷于感觉重要这个想法。这又回到了对永恒的渴望。我们想感觉重要。我们想感觉永恒。我们不想面对自己的死亡。

When you get good at doing that, or when you start seeing that game, it will help you get through unpleasant situations. I had one very unpleasant situation a few years ago where I was extremely unhappy. But I won't forget this: there was also a part of me that was just watching that very unhappy part and just being like, 'Haha, it's a little act you're putting on to feel important, but there's nothing actually here.' Nothing is being attacked. Nothing is being hurt. You're not in physical pain. It's just a situation that you're thinking through, and you're conjuring up this deep unhappiness and creating a drama. You're creating a stage and a drama to feel important. I think a lot of times when we're unhappy, we're just obsessed with this idea of feeling important. And it's back to this desire for permanence. We want to feel important. We want to feel permanence. We don't want to feel our own mortality.

还有真理，以及爱和美。对，所以那是另外两样东西。

There's truth, and there's love and beauty. Right. So those are the other two things.

哦对。对。对。对。对。

Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

关于爱，我想说，一旦你的健康得到照顾，物质需求得到满足，你就会追求真理、爱和美。我们谈过真理。爱，我认为很重要，因为人们想要被爱，这帮助他们克服对死亡的恐惧。这让他们感觉更安全。就像猴子在黑暗中围着篝火挤在一起，害怕森林里的东西。但我自己意识到的一件事是：去爱比被爱更好。如果有人太爱你，比如你妈妈总是过来拥抱你，或者某个女孩或男孩迷恋你，那可能会有点腻。感觉像是一种负担。你几乎不想要那样。但当你爱上某人时，那才是你兴奋的时候。那才是你兴高采烈的时候。所以这违反直觉，但爱上某人或某事实际上对你非常有益。它确实涉及牺牲，涉及风险。但我认为那些在生活中放弃爱的人，生活有点可悲。你太快变得愤世嫉俗。你不一定非要爱人类。你可以爱宇宙、上帝、动物，等等。

And on love, I would say that once your health is taken care of, once your material needs are taken care of, you pursue truth, love, and beauty. We talked about truth. Love, I think, is important because people want to be loved because that helps them get over their mortality. It makes them feel a little safer. Monkeys huddling in the dark around the campfire, scared of what's out there in the woods. But one thing I've realized for myself is that it's better to be in love than to be loved. If somebody loves you too much, like your mom coming up and hugging you all the time, or some girl or some guy is obsessed with you, it can get a little cloying. It feels like a burden. You almost don't want that. But when you feel in love with somebody, that's when you're high. That's when you're elated. So that's counterintuitive, but falling in love with someone or something is actually very beneficial to you. It does involve sacrifice. It involves risk. But I think that people who give up on love in their lives, it's kind of a sad life. You get too jaded too fast. You don't have to love people necessarily. You can love the universe, God, animals, what have you.

但每个人都需要在生活中找到比自己更爱的东西——使命、家庭、孩子、宗教，否则人生会很悲惨。最后，我们是活跃的生物。这是我和佛陀、禅宗僧侣们真正分道扬镳的地方。是的，砍柴挑水，但那不是人类的繁荣，对吧？这时多伊奇就很有帮助了。我们是普遍的阐释者。我们注定要解决问题，逆转熵增，推进文明和知识。所以我们可以创造。创造力是我们最高的艺术形式。因此我们应该创造。你可以被动面对死亡，说“一切都不重要”；或者你可以主动说“一切都不重要，我只要创造最好的东西，按自己的定义过最好的生活”。所以我想创造东西。那么你想创造什么？如何知道某样东西值得创造？它很美，很难被改变，内部嵌有深刻的解释和知识。人们想使用美的东西。所以你要创造传达情感、人们想用的美的东西。对我来说，这就是为什么 iPhone 是有史以来最伟大的艺术品之一——它是一个美丽的物件，像珠宝一样，但又极其有用。它蕴含了大量知识，很难被改变，并且确实让世界变得更美好。

But everybody needs to find something in their life that they love more than themselves. Their mission, their family, their children, their religion, otherwise it's going to be a miserable life. And then lastly, you know, we are active creatures. So this is where I really diverge from all the Buddhas and all the Zen monks and so on. Yeah, the chop would carry water, but that's not human flourishing, right? This is where Deutsch comes in really helpful. We're universal explainers. We're meant to solve problems. We're meant to reverse entropy. We're meant to advance civilization in the universe and knowledge. And so we can create. Creativity is our highest art form. So we should be creating. And you can be passive in the face of death and say, well, none of it matters. Or you can be active and say nothing matters. I'm just going to create the best thing. I'm going to live the best life by your own definition. So I want to create things. And what do you want to create? Well, how do you know something is worth creating? Well, it's beautiful. It's hard to vary. It has deep explanations and knowledge embedded inside of it. People want to use beautiful things. So, you want to create beautiful things that convey emotion that people want to use. And to me, that's why something like an iPhone is among the greatest works of art ever created because it is a beautiful object. It's like a piece of jewelry, but it's also incredibly useful. It embodies a lot of knowledge. It's very hard to vary. And it did change the world for the better.

是的。那条推文原话是：“保持健康，获得财富，寻求真理，给予爱，创造美。”

Yeah. The exact tweet was, "Stay healthy, get wealthy, seek truth, give love, and create beauty."

就是这样。这就是我想做的。

That's it. That's what I want to do.

我想纹在眼皮上的那句话是：任何你过得不好、不真正快乐的时刻，你都没有帮到任何人。你的不快乐并不会让其他人过得更好。我不知道为什么，不知道这是从哪里学来的，还是只是我试图让自己显得严肃——但似乎培养不快乐会带来一种严肃感，尤其是作为领导者或试图认真对待某事时，你会带出一个不快乐的自己。我发现这是个错误，之后应该发条推文。

The one I want to tattoo on my eyelids is any moment where you're not having a great time, when you're not really happy, you're not doing anyone any favors. It's not like your unhappiness is making anyone else better off. And I don't know why. I don't know where it was modeled to me or if it's just me trying to take myself seriously but like there's something about cultivating unhappiness that brings seriousness to a situation like especially as a leader or you know trying to take something seriously you sort of bring an unhappy version of yourself I find and I know that's a mistake I should tweet this afterward.

急性不快乐是真实的或有用的，但慢性不快乐是自我陶醉。

Acute unhappiness is real or is useful, but chronic unhappiness is an ego trip.

对吧？因为慢性不快乐就是你只想更强烈地感受自己。你想感到分离，感到重要。你有一个包裹在其中的身份。你的身份越薄，就越能看到现实，因为身份常常挡在你和真实世界之间。这是终极的动机性推理。

Right? Because chronic unhappiness is you just want to feel more you. You want to feel separate. You want to feel important. You know, you have an identity wrapped up in it. Like the thinner your identity, the more you can see reality because identity is what often stands between you and seeing reality the way it is. It's the ultimate motivated reasoning.

当某件事与你的身份相矛盾时，你会与之抗争，甚至以命相搏。比如，如果你是白人，我说白人很烂，那就是你的身份，对吧？你会反击。或者黑人很烂，等等。这就是种族主义的问题。人们无法改变自己的身份。所以当你种族主义时，你立刻把他们变成敌人，这引发了战争。所以你必须保持身份单薄。你不想选择自己的身份，对吧？身份是你无法摆脱的东西。但任何选择的身份都是紧身衣，把你锁在里面。这对幸福如此，对真理也是如此。这里我想说，不快乐的人曾经有一段时间不快乐对他们有用。我之前提到过威廉·格拉瑟，他是我最喜欢的心理学作家，他写了一系列关于他称之为选择理论的好书。但他最有争议的观察之一是，抑郁实际上是一种选择，或者是一系列选择的结果。它是你小时候做出的一系列选择的结果，后来变成了无意识的习惯，并且自我延续。当你小时候，作为婴儿，你通过哭闹来吸引父母的注意，每次哭他们都会回应。后来你发现对陌生人哭没用，只会把他们赶走。所以你开始微笑或交流。但最终你遇到这样的情况：你想得到某人的注意——父母、老师或同龄人——但他们不给你。于是你内心哭泣，你发出信号：你如此不快乐，以至于愿意伤害自己。这就是抑郁。你通过自己的不快乐伤害自己，并开始反复思考。它可能在短期内有效，把一些人拉近。但它可能导致你无意识或潜意识地陷入抑郁，却没有意识到这是一种习得行为。我不是说没有化学因素。显然，饥饿有化学因素，运动能力、智力也有遗传因素，但你可以让它变得更糟。说一切都是化学失衡并不能解释任何东西。这就像问“我们为什么在这里？”回答“因为大爆炸的粒子碰撞”，太简化了。所以解释必须与问题在同一层次。当我们问“我为什么不快乐？”时，忘掉化学失衡。你要改变你的大脑，对吧？吸毒只会以其他方式搞乱你。每个长期服用这些药物的人最终都放弃了自身其他基本的东西。而且，很多最优秀的艺术家在其他方面也是疯狂的，对吧？所以你不想平均化你的心态。抑郁可能是一系列糟糕选择的结果，这些选择变成了坏习惯，它们确实创造了自我，因为它们创造了一个独立的“我”的身份，然后你开始如此认同那个“我”。就像“我还能是谁？我只是一个不快乐的人，但这也让我聪明、特别、有趣，让我未被发现”等等。所以你可以围绕它构建整个身份。很难撤销那个身份，因为你会想“那什么让我独特？”，但这是值得做的。顺便说一句，如果你读杰德·麦肯纳，精神分析家，他在做什么？他在经历整个身份并剥离它。

When something contradicts your identity, you're going to fight it. You're going to fight it with your life. You know, if you're white and I say white people suck, like that's your identity, right? Now, you're going to fight that or black people suck, whatever, right? So, that's the problem with racism. Like, people can't change their identity. And so, when you're racist, you make enemies out of them immediately. And it creates warfare. So, you got to keep your identity thin. You don't want to choose your identity, right? Identity is like what you can't get away from. But any chosen identity is a straight jacket. It's locking you in. And that's true for happiness, but it's true for truth. And here I would say like people who are unhappy like there was a time when it served them. I think I mentioned him earlier, William Glasser, who was kind of my favorite psychologist type writer and he wrote a series of really good books around something he calls choice theory. But one of his most controversial observations is that depression is really a choice or it's a series of choices that was made. It's a result of a series of choices that were made when you were a child that then became an unconscious habit and it's self-perpetuating. So when you were young, you know, as a baby, you start out you're crying to get your parents attention and every time you cry, they come and they respond and then eventually you figure out actually with strangers crying doesn't work. It just forces them away. So you start smiling or you start communicating but eventually you run into situations where you're trying to get someone's attention whether it's your parents or your teachers or your peers and they won't give you the attention. So you cry internally. You signal that you are so unhappy that you're willing to hurt yourself. And that's what depression is. It's hurting yourself through your own unhappiness and you start ruminating on it. And it may be effective for a little period of time. It pulls some people closer together and it can lead to a situation where you are now unconsciously or subconsciously ending up depressed not realizing that this is a learned behavior. Now I'm not saying that there couldn't be a chemical component there. There obviously always is there chemical components to hunger. There's chemical components to athleticism to intelligence you know genetic components but you can make it worse. And saying that it's all chemical imbalances doesn't explain anything. That's like saying like why are we here? Well, it's because of particle collisions from the big bang, right? It's too reductive. So, the explanation has to be offered at the same level as the question. So, when we say like, why am I unhappy? Forget the chemical imbalance. You're going to change your brain, right? And doing drugs will just mess you up in other ways. Every person who takes like these long-term drugs on these things, they end up giving up something else fundamental about themselves. And hey, a lot of the best artists were crazy in other ways, right? So you don't want to average out your mindset. So the depression may be the result of a series of bad choices that then became bad habits and they do create an ego because they create a separate identity of me and then you start identifying with that me so much. It's like well who else would I be? Well, I'm just an unhappy person but that's also what makes me brilliant, makes me special and makes me interesting. It makes me undiscovered and all that. So you can wrap a whole identity around it. And it's hard to undo that identity because then you're like, well, what makes me unique, but it's worth doing. By the way, this is like if you read Jed McKenna, right, spiritual atysis, what is he doing? He's going through his whole identity and stripping it away.

我觉得他过度戏剧化了那有多痛苦。但这是一种有趣的方法。

I think he over dramatizes how painful that was. But it's kind of an interesting method.

那是你经历过的过程。

That's a process that you went through.

不。不。

No. No.

解构你的身份？

Deconstructing your identity?

不。嗯，也许有一点。不是有意识的。我不认为任何人提出的任何技巧对你有效。我不认为心理技巧有用，因为思维是无限复杂的，能够产生任何想法，并且能够从一个心理空间点瞬间跳到另一个。对吧？正因为如此，没有一条路径能通过另一个人的思维。所以你可以被他人启发，但正确的想法能瞬间改变你，而错误的练习即使每天做三十年也不会带来改变。

No. Yeah, maybe a little bit. Not consciously. I don't think any of the techniques that anybody lays out will work for you. I don't think mental techniques work because the mind is infinitely complicated and capable of any thought and it's capable of reaching any point in mental space to any other point in mental space in one jump. Right? And because of that there's no pathway through another person's mind. So you can be inspired by other people, but the right idea can change you in an instant whereas the wrong practice done 30 years every day will not make a difference.

我的意思是，通过这个框架，看待一个不快乐的人、一个长期不快乐的人，是一种非常乐观的方式——就像你的改变速度或改变的积极程度没有限制。

I mean through that frame it's a very optimistic way to look at someone who's unhappy, someone who's chronically unhappy, like there's no limit to how fast you can change or how positive that change could be.

没错。变得富有和快乐最重要的事情就是意识到你可以做到。这是你的选择。你可以两者都做，也可以两者都是，尝试两者都没有错。

That's right. The most important thing with getting wealthy and being happy is just realize you can do it. It's your choice. You can do both and you can be both and there's nothing wrong with trying to do both.

这一整节的开篇推文是：人生三件大事是财富、健康和幸福。我们按这个顺序追求它们，但重要性却是相反的。我很好奇，这个顺序是否应该反过来追求，或者你认为它们的最佳路径是找到平衡并同时追求它们？

The opening tweet of this whole section is the three big ones in life are wealth, health and happiness. We pursue them in that order but their importance is reversed. And I was curious whether the order should be pursued backwards or you think they're all like the optimal path is to sort of find balance and pursue them all in parallel.

我对顺序没有强烈的感觉。我对组成部分更有感觉，对吧？你可以按不同的顺序追求它们。比如有些人天生就快乐，自然而然地快乐，没有什么能摧毁它。他们总是快乐，这是最大的天赋，对吧？所以我认为它最重要。就像有些人即使不健康，他们仍然快乐。他们确实存在，你知道他们是有福的。所以如果你能得到那个，你就基本搞定了。因为其他两个只是通往那两个东西的尝试路径或先决条件。但如果你不需要其他两个作为先决条件，如果你是这些神奇的人之一，那么尽管直接去获得快乐并快乐吧。至于财富和健康，是的，我认为健康比财富更重要。问任何一个不健康的老人，他们会用很多钱来换回健康。或者就像我引用过的孔子那句老话：健康的人想要一万样东西，生病的人只想要一样。这非常真实。当你生病时，你只想恢复。所以健康非常重要，然后财富，你知道它解决你所有的物质问题，也非常重要。老实说，我不会放弃其中任何一个。话虽如此，如果你只能选一个，快乐会是第一，但你不应该只选一个。你有三条腿的凳子。我认为大多数人会想要全部三个。财富最好在年轻时追求，因为你精力更充沛。你更灵活。你义务更少。你在居住地点和做什么等方面更可塑。你只是更乐观。你可以以后追求，只是更难。你知道那首老歌怎么唱的吗？凡事都有季节。如果你在十几岁，你应该学习和做事。如果你在二十几岁，你可能想非常努力地工作，可以说是在竞技场上。三十几岁，你想开始收获。那时你有联系人，你仍然精力充沛。四十几岁，你肯定想收获。这时你真的要注意健康。你最好现在就开始快乐，因为剩下的时间不多了。然后五十几岁，你可以做你的政治回馈、对社会贡献、做慈善和公益。六十几岁，你可以成为哲学家，因为经历了足够多的事情，你想透了足够多的事情。所以这些事情都有一种自然的季节。我想回到罗马时代，我不太读罗马历史，但我的感觉是古时候，十几岁时你会学习。二十几岁时你会去打仗。三十几岁时你会做生意。四十几岁时你会从政。五十几岁时你做哲学。对吧？大致如此。每个桶里可能差几年。所以凡事都有季节。所以你想先获得财富。年轻时健康被认为是理所当然的。然后随着年龄增长，你想保持健康。然后你最好在某个时候弄清楚如何快乐，因为你不想成为那个随着变老而越来越愤怒、苦涩、更苦涩、更愤世嫉俗的暴躁老人。我们都见过非常老的人那样。我在老人身上只看到两个极端。要么是对一切都满意的人，他们与世界和解了；要么是对一切都怨恨的人，对吧？因为我们随着年龄增长，会朝着我们所在的方向变得更像自己。C.S. 刘易斯谈到这个，对他来说道德和自由意志意味着你做的每一个小行动都会累积，你是 30、50、100 年这些累积行动的产物，你应该为每一个小行动负责，因为它带你更接近天堂或更接近地狱，如果你一直做小的错误决定，它们会导致中等错误决定，再导致大的错误决定，很难回头，最终你过了一个失败的人生。所以是的，我认为如果你遵循季节哲学，凡事都有季节，你从财富开始，保持健康，然后获得快乐。但重要性是相反的，那些天生快乐的人拥有最大的天赋。他们不需要其他。而那些没有健康的人并不真正关心财富。这就是为什么我坚持这个顺序，但我对此没有非常强烈的感觉。

I don't feel strongly about the order. I feel more strongly about the components, right? You could pursue them in different orders. Like some people are just born happy, naturally happy, nothing destroys it. They're just always happy and that's the greatest gift, right? So that's why I think it is the most important. Like even some people who will be unhealthy and they'll still be happy. They do exist and you know they're blessed. So if you can get that one, you're pretty much set. Because the others are just attempted routes towards those two things or prerequisites for those two things. But if you don't need the other two as a prerequisite, if you're one of these magical people, then by all means, just go get happiness right away and be happy. In terms of the wealth and health, yeah, I think the health is more important than the wealth. Ask any old unhealthy guy and they'll trade you a lot of money for getting their health back. Or it's the old Confucius line, which I quoted before, but you know, a healthy man wants 10,000 things. A sick man only wants one thing. And it's very true. When you're sick, you just want to get back up. So health is very important and then wealth, you know it solves all your material problems, is also really important. I wouldn't give up any of the three to be honest. That said, if you can only choose one, happiness would be the number one but you shouldn't have to choose one. You have three legs of a stool. Most people I think will want all three. And wealth is best pursued when you're younger just because you're higher energy. You're more flexible. You have less obligations. You're more malleable in terms of where you live and what you do and all that. You're just more optimistic. You can pursue it later. It's just harder. You know what does that old song go? Like for everything there is a season. And you know, if you're in your teens, you should be learning and doing. If you're in your 20s, you probably want to be working very hard and in the arena, so to speak. In your 30s, you want to start harvesting. That's when you have your contacts and you still have a lot of energy. In your 40s, you definitely want to be harvesting. And this is where you really want to be watching your health. And you better be getting happy by now because there's not enough time left. And then when you're in your 50s, you can do your political gives backs and your contribution to society and be philanthropic and charitable and when you're 60s you can be a philosopher because enough experiences happen you've thought through enough things. So there is kind of a natural season to all these things. I think back in the Roman days I don't read much about the history of Rome but my sense is in olden times when you were in your teens you would study. When you were in your 20s is when you would go to war. When you were in your 30s, you would do your business. When you're 40s, you would serve in politics. In your 50s, you do your philosophy. Right? Something along those lines. Maybe a few years here and there in each bucket. So there is a season for everything. So, you want to get wealth first. Health is taken for granted when you're young hopefully. Then you want to preserve your health as you get older. And then you better figure out how to get happy when you're at a certain point because you don't want to be that grumpy old person who's just getting angrier and bitter, more bitter and more cynical at the world as you get older. We've all seen that in very old people. There's only two extremes that I see in old people. They're either the ones who are fine with everything. You know, they've made their peace with the world and the ones who are bitter about everything, right? Because we become more of ourselves in whatever direction we're in as we get older. CS Lewis talks about this where to him morality and free will mean that every little action you make they compound and you are the product of 30, 50, 100 years of these compounding actions and you should take responsibility for each little action because it leads you closer to heaven or closer to hell and if you just keep making small bad decisions they lead to medium-sized bad decisions lead to large bad decisions it's very hard to come back and you end up having a failed life. So yeah, I think if you follow the season's philosophy, for everything there's a season, you start with wealth, you preserve your health and then you get happy. But the importance kind of is the reverse where the people who are just naturally happy, they have the greatest gift. They don't need the others. And the people who don't have their health don't really care about their wealth. So that's why I kind of stand by the ordering, but I don't feel super strongly about it.

是的。很多人陷入的一种失败模式是，他们花了太多时间追求财富。他们牺牲了快乐。他们牺牲了健康，然后太晚才发现他们远远超过了财富的标杆。他们赚了比需要多得多的钱，或者身份变得过于神圣而无法改变。

Yeah. A failure mode that a lot of people fall into is they spend so much time pursuing wealth. They sacrifice happiness. They sacrifice health and then they find out way too late that they've way overshot their wealth bar. They've earned way more money than they need or they've just become the identity become too enshrined for them to change.

是的，我觉得健康这部分每个人随着年龄增长都会明白。没有人想变得更不健康。

Yeah, I feel like the health part everybody figures out as they get older. Nobody wants to be less healthy.

每个人都想更健康，因为不健康的反馈回路非常紧密。痛苦会要求回应，最终痛苦会显现。所以每个人都想更健康。我觉得人们会明白这一点，尤其是当他们变得富有之后，他们对自己的时间有更多控制权，可以投入时间到健康上。如今，坦白说，有 GLP-1 药物，所以人们可以减肥。肥胖可能是最大的大众市场不健康驱动因素，所以这个问题正在被解决。但幸福这个难题很棘手。很多人甚至不相信它是可能的。我要说，我大多数赚了很多钱的同代人并不快乐。而且不仅仅是“不快乐”。他们缺乏一种想象力，无法按自己的意愿构建生活。他们过着非常结构化的生活，模仿他们年轻时的模式，而且不一定是好的方式。我会说他们像是被束缚住了。比如，孩子在上学所以我不能旅行。我没有请帮手，因为我们应该自己洗碗。这些都是像亿万富翁一样的人，却这样行事，对吧？或者他们就是不能跳出框框思考。他们去参加义务性的会议、活动、节日或仪式，这些都很乏味。就像和乏味的人开乏味的会议。我发现太多人无法像他们破解职业或商业那样去破解自己的生活。我指的是好的意义上的破解。

Everybody wants to be healthier because the feedback loop for not being healthy is very tight. Pain demands a response and eventually the pain will show up. So everybody wants to be healthier. I feel like people figure that out, especially once they get wealthy, they have more control over their time, they can devote time to health. These days, frankly, you have GLP-1s, so people can lose weight. Obesity was probably the biggest mass market driver of unhealthiness, so that is being solved. But the happiness one is a tough one. A lot of people don't even believe it's possible. I would say most of my contemporaries who have made a lot of money are not happy people. And not even just not happy. They don't have an imagination that they can build their life on their own terms. They live very structured lives that are modeled after what they had in their youth, and not necessarily in a good way. I would say they're in straight jackets. Like, kids are in school so I can't travel. I didn't hire help because we're supposed to do our own dishes. These are like billionaires who act like this, right? Or they just don't think out of the box. They go to obligatory meetings or functions or festivals or ceremonies that are just tedious. It's like tedious meetings with tedious people. I find too many of them are not able to hack their life the same way they hack their career or hack their business. I mean hack in a good way.

自主性。

Agency.

自主性。是的。他们在生活的其他方面自主性很低，但在工作上自主性很高。然后他们的心态和性情，就是天生不快乐。他们无法享受自己，无法过得开心，不是真正享受自己正在做的事情。或者他们有艰难的家庭生活或艰难的关系。所有这些都源于你自己的心理健康。

Agency. Yeah. They're low agency about the rest of their life. They're very high agency about their work. And then their mindsets and temperaments, they're just not naturally happy. They're not able to enjoy themselves. They're not able to have a good time. They're not genuinely enjoying what they're doing. Or they have tough family lives or tough relationships. All of which is downstream of your own mental well-being.

这是吸引我关注你几十年来分享的一切的原因之一，那就是对生活中一切的高度自主感。

That's one of the things that sort of drew me towards everything that you had shared over decades now is a sense of high agency over everything in life.

我拥有很棒的生活。如果人们知道我的生活有多好，我会被赶出城。我的生活真的很好。基本上，在一天中的任何时刻，我都在做我想做的事。这是经过深思熟虑的，是考虑过的，不是义务性的。它的设计方式让我与家人和我关心的人保持了非常真实的关系。但我不做任何我不想做的事。我享受我想做的事。如果我不享受，我会非常非常快地改变它。是的，这不是按照任何人的规则生活。一切都是为我量身打造的。

I have an amazing life. If people knew how good my life was, I'd be run out of town. My life is really good. Basically, at any given time during the day, I'm doing what I want to be doing. It's well thought through. It's considered. It's not obligatory. It's designed in such a way that it keeps very good authentic relationships with my family and the people that I care about. But I'm not doing anything I don't want to do. And I'm enjoying what I want to do. And if I'm not enjoying it, I'm changing it very, very quickly. And yes, it is not living by anybody's rules. Everything is built for me.

你曾称自己懒惰，但我认为这实际上可能是一种对努力与产出比的关注。

You've called yourself lazy, but I think it's actually probably a focus on the effort to output ratio.

是的。我想要每件事上的 80/20。我想要 95/99 的那个，分形 80/20。我想在生活的每个方面都做到付出最少而收获最多。然后开拓更多事业。实际上，即使在哲学家中，我喜欢叔本华，因为他如此追求真理，但他看起来并不享受自己的生活。而像奥修这样的人，尽管他有点古怪，我不同意他说的所有话，但至少他在享受生活。

Yeah. I want the 80/20 in everything. I want the 95/99 one, the fractal 80/20. I want to get the most that I can while doing the least, but in every aspect of my life. And then open up more business. And actually, even among the philosophers, I love Schopenhauer because he's so truth-oriented, but he did not look like he was enjoying his life. Whereas someone like Osho, even though he's a bit of a whack job and I don't agree with everything he says, at least he was enjoying his life.

奥修客观上是享受生活的，那些狂欢和 17 辆劳斯莱斯，或者纪录片里那些东西。

Osho was objectively enjoying his life, the orgies and 17 Rolls-Royces or whatever is in the documentary.

我不同意那些，但他确实过得很快乐。对我来说，听奥修或史蒂夫·乔布斯讲话比听那些非常成功甚至开悟但看起来阴沉、低落或痛苦的人更有趣。

I don't agree with any of that, but he was definitely having a good time. And it's more interesting to me to listen to an Osho or Steve Jobs rather than somebody who was very successful or even enlightened but just seems dour or down or miserable.

是的。

Yeah.

嗯，我认为幸福工作、幸福篇章、幸福理念的一个支撑支柱是对感知的自主性。

Well, I think one of the sort of loadbearing pillars of the happiness work, the happiness chapters, the happiness ideas is agency over perception.

对感知的自主性。理解没有外部力量影响你的情绪。无论感觉如何，你都可以控制自己如何解读正在发生的事情。

Agency over perception. Understanding that there are no external forces affecting your emotions. No matter what it feels like, you can control how you interpret the things that are happening.

改变你对过去的解读。你存储的不是过去的记忆，而是对过去记忆的解读。所以改变这些解读或重新审视这些解读可能痛苦但有用。这需要一定程度的谦逊。

Changing your interpretation of the past. You don't store memories of your past. You store interpretations of memories of your past. And so changing those interpretations or revisiting those interpretations can be painful but useful. It requires a certain level of humility.

自我是挡在路上的东西。自我并不真实存在，它只是一个概念。但自我就像是你不想经历重新评估你认为自己是谁、什么让你重要的痛苦想法。所以你不愿意重新审视你的过去。无论什么原因，你和父母有冲突。现在你有一个身份，一个对过去的解读，认为你的父母是坏人，你和他们相处不好，因此你处于现在的境地。这是他们的错。这可能不是真的。这可能让你远离父母，可能让你的生活痛苦，也可能让他们痛苦。然后当你有了孩子，你的孩子无法接触祖父母。现实是，如果你回去尝试非常客观、中立，给他们怀疑的好处，意识到他们在基因上和你非常相似。他们只是有不同的环境，做出了他们必须做的艰难选择。也许这不完全是他们的错。也许你可以更宽容地看待它。如果你重新解读，那么你可以和他们拥有客观上更好的生活。但这需要你承受自我打击，意识到你并没有错。所以这意味着你生活中出问题的一些事情是你自己的糟糕选择。现在看到这个真相可能让你做出更好的选择，但这确实意味着你承受自我打击。你必须经历痛苦的想法。这就是冥想或理解自我本质有帮助的地方，因为那些想法不是你。会有一堆愉快的想法，一堆不愉快的想法，然后又有一堆愉快的想法。这些只是想法。想法实际上没有感觉，想法不会受伤，想法不做任何事，想法不意味着任何东西。稍微与它们断开联系以保持客观是有帮助的。所以这是冥想过程的一部分。

The ego is a thing that stands in the way. The ego doesn't really exist. It's just a concept. But the ego is like you don't want to go through the painful thoughts of re-evaluating who you think you are and what you think makes you important. So you're not willing to reexamine your past. For whatever reason, you had conflict with your parents. Now you have an identity, an interpretation of your past where your parents were bad people and you didn't get along with them, and therefore you're in the situation you're in. It's their fault. That's probably not true. It's probably keeping you away from your parents. It's probably making your life miserable. It's probably making them miserable. And then when you have kids, your kids don't have access to their grandparents. The reality is, if you just went back and tried to be very objective, neutral, and give them the benefit of the doubt and realize they're genetically very similar to you. They just had different circumstances and they made the hard choices they had to make. Perhaps it wasn't entirely their fault. Perhaps you can be more charitable about it. If you reinterpret that, then you could have an objectively better life with them. But it would require you to take the ego hit of realizing you weren't wrong. So that means some of the things that went wrong in your life were your own bad choices. Now seeing that truth might allow you to make better choices, but it does mean you take an ego hit. You have to have painful thoughts. This is where things like meditation or understanding the nature of the self help, because those thoughts aren't you. There are going to be a bunch of pleasant thoughts and a bunch of unpleasant thoughts and a bunch of pleasant thoughts again. These are just thoughts. Thoughts don't actually have feelings. Thoughts don't get hurt. Thoughts don't do anything. Thoughts don't mean anything. It helps to disconnect from them a little bit to be objective about it. So that's part of the process of meditation.

顺便说一句，这在迷幻药中也会发生，人们会重新解读自己的过去，然后变得更快乐，却不知道为什么，但真正的原因是他们在过去解决了问题并重新解读了它们。我想我也做过一些类似的事。不是作为一种有意识的刻意练习，比如“我要回顾我的过去并重新解读它”，而是当我对此持开放态度时，我想“我只想知道真相”，或者甚至当你精神上痛苦时，你只想摆脱它，你只想熬过去，你厌倦了它，你受够了，对吧？你受够了痛苦。那么，客观地重新评估那些想法会有所帮助。

By the way, it also happens in psychedelics where people will reinterpret their past and they'll come out happier not knowing why, but the real reason is because they've worked through problems in the past and they've reinterpreted them. I think I did some of that. Not as a conscious deliberate exercise, like 'I'm going to go through my past and reinterpret it,' but it's just that when I was open-minded about it and I was like, 'I just want to know the truth,' or even like you're mentally suffering, you just want to get over it, you just want to get through it, you're sick of it, you're done with it, right? You're done with the suffering. Then it helps to objectively re-evaluate those thoughts.

或者甚至只是放下它们，如果它们是有用的信念。即使你无法放下它是对还是错的解读，比如如果重新构建它对你的未来有用。

Or even just to let go of them if they were useful beliefs. Even if it's like you can't let go of it being a correct or incorrect interpretation, like if it's useful to you for your future to reframe it.

是的。这就是宽恕。宽恕就是你原谅他们，因为你重新解读了发生的事情。你会想，“好吧，也许不完全是他们的错。”但另一种情况是，这确实是他们的错，但我仍然必须真心原谅他们。这很难，但我要这样做，这样我才能继续前进，不让它占据我的思想和大脑。我不会坐在这里咬牙切齿，对整个事情感到愤怒，只是感觉很糟糕，因为愤怒让你痛苦。愤怒会使你的皮质醇飙升，刺激肾上腺，让你衰老，让你感觉不好。很多传统的恶习和罪恶，它们让你感觉不好。惩罚直接落在你身上。你立刻感受到它的负担。所以你克服它不是为了他们，不是为了原谅他们，而是为了原谅，只是为了把它从你的脑海中清除出去，清理你的思绪。

Yeah. That's what forgiveness is. Forgiveness is you forgive them because you reinterpret what happened. You're like, 'Okay, maybe it wasn't entirely their fault.' But another one is just like it was their fault, but I still have to genuinely forgive them. This is hard, but I'm going to do it so I can move on so it's not occupying my mind and my brain. And I'm not sitting here spitting venom and blood and just feeling angry about the whole thing, just feeling terrible because anger makes you miserable. Anger spikes your cortisol, gets your adrenal glands going, ages you, makes you feel bad. A lot of the vices and sins, the traditional ones, they make you feel bad. The punishment is directly on you. You feel the burden of it immediately. And so you get over it not because of them, not to forgive them, but to forgive, but to just get it out of your own mind, to clear your own mind.

是的。如果你无法出于无私而原谅自己，你也许可以出于自私。我喜欢玩一个思想实验：如果我们能测量每个人一个月或一年内的神经化学水平，地球上哪个人体验到了最主观的幸福？那个人是谁？他们在哪里？他们如何生活？他们相信什么？他们的习惯是什么？我认为很可能是一个有四个孩子的宗教水管工，或者类似志愿者的人。

Yeah. If you can't get yourself to forgive out of selflessness, you might be able to out of selfishness. A thought experiment I like to play with is: which human being, if we can measure everyone's neurochemical levels over a month or a year, like which human on earth is experiencing the most subjective happiness and who is that person and where are they and how are they living? What do they believe? And what are their habits? I think it's highly likely that it's a religious plumber with a family of four or something volunteers.

嗯，我的意思是，互联网令人惊叹的一点是，确实有开悟的人存在，而在过去他们是无法接触到的。你知道，你必须去偏远的山顶才能见到佛陀。

Well, I mean, one of the things that's amazing about the internet is that there are actual enlightened people out there, and in the past they were inaccessible. You know, you had to go to a remote mountaintop and meet the Buddha.

他们似乎像个神话。

They seemed like a myth.

是的。从神话角度来说，你一生中总共会遇到一千个人。你找到当今活佛的几率有多大？现在，多亏了互联网，YouTube 和 Twitter 上有几十个这样的人。Air Chat 上也有几个。我大概见过十几个。我和他们互动过。在和他们相处足够长的时间后，我验证了他们确实开悟了，这让我满意。我从他们身上学到了东西。所以，这些人存在。这一切都是可获得的。比如，你可以找到那些在传统的多巴胺快乐意义上并不快乐，但始终处于平静状态的人。没有什么能打扰他们。比如，被诊断出癌症对他们来说，会引发和收到停车罚单同样程度的恐惧和快乐。他们对此很幽默，你知道吗。所以这些人存在，他们完全平易近人。你甚至可以雇佣其中一些作为你的私人教练，或者你可以和他们一起看无数的 YouTube 视频。我的意思是，我现在就能说出 15 个。

Yeah. Mythologically, you would encounter a thousand people total in your life. What are the odds you're going to find the current living Buddha? Well, now thanks to the internet, there's dozens of them on YouTube, on Twitter. There were a couple on Air Chat. I've met probably close to a dozen of them. I've interacted with them. I verified to my own satisfaction that they are enlightened after spending enough time around them. And I learned from them. So, these people exist. This is all available. Like, you can go find people who are not happy in a conventional dopamine pleasure sense, but they're at peace at all times. Nothing bothers them. Like, getting diagnosed with cancer to them will invite the same level of fear and happiness that getting a parking ticket would. Like, they're funny with it, you know. And so these people exist, they're completely approachable. You can even hire some of them as your personal coach, or you can watch infinite YouTube videos with them. I mean, I can name you 15 of them right now.

如果你能说出几个名字，那就太好了。

It'd be great if you name a couple.

哦，我的意思是，有一些比较知名的，比如 YouTube 上的 Rupert Spira 和 Mooji。他们并不出名。有一个人叫 Nardinan，我和他相处了很多时间。他现在半出名了。他修习 Siddha Maha Yoga。他更像是经典的上师类型。还有一些我的私人朋友。Steven Belchure，他曾和我一起在 Air Chat 上。他也在 Twitter 上。James Pierce，你知道，他发了很多推文。Effortless Stoicism，Kapal Gupta，我以前和他合作过。还有 Ascendor，他在 YouTube 上。我最近在推文中提到了他。还有另一个人，在中西部某家餐馆当服务员。我忘了他的名字。我在推文中提到了他。还有 Saja。还有很多。我的意思是，我的 YouTube 上全是他们，我看了足够多的他们的视频，我知道这些人是货真价实的。他们不是骗子。

Oh, I mean, there are better known ones like Rupert Spira and Mooji on YouTube. They're not famous. There's a guy, Nardinan, who I spent a lot of time with. He's now semi-famous. He does Siddha Maha Yoga. He's kind of more the classic guru type. There are personal friends I have. Steven Belchure, who was on Air Chat with me. He's on Twitter too. James Pierce, you know, he's tweeted a lot. Effortless Stoicism, Kapal Gupta, who I worked with in the past. There's Ascendor who's on YouTube. I tweeted him out recently. There's another guy who works as a waiter at some restaurant in the Midwest. I forget his name. I tweeted him out. There's Saja. There's so many of them. I mean, my YouTube is filled with them and I've watched enough of their videos enough that I know that these are the real deal. These are not fakers.

当你和他们实际在一起时，能感觉到明显的不同吗？

Is it a palpable difference when you're in their physical presence?

不，没有什么花哨的光环让你飘飘欲仙。我的意思是，很多都是夸张的说法。但我认为你会发现，他们持续体验着无我。他们看穿了自我只是一个念头的事实。它是一个构建的身份，实际上没有一个“人”在那里真正感到快乐或不快乐。因此，他们现在基本上作为纯粹的觉知或意识而活。所以他们本质上与环境融为一体。他们感到一种平静，因为你的觉知是你一生中从未改变过的一件事。它是你从出生到死亡中完美而永恒的一件事。他们不再困惑，也不认为自己是一个独立的身心构造。所以没有什么能打扰他们。这大概是共同点。我通常识别他们的方法是，我在他们身边待足够长的时间，看到真正糟糕的事情发生在他们身上。你必须和他们待足够久，直到真正糟糕的事情发生，然后你看到他们的反应，甚至没有一丝波动。这就是你如何知道的。

No, there's no like fancy aura where you're going to be floating on cloud nine. I mean, a lot of that is hyperbole. But I think what you find is that they have the persistent experience of no self. They see through the fact that the self is just a thought. It's a constructed identity and there's no one there to actually really get happy or unhappy. So because of that, they now live basically as pure awareness or consciousness. And so they are essentially melded with their environment. They feel a sense of peace because your awareness is the one thing that's never changed about your entire life. It is the one thing that is perfect and permanent in your life from birth to death. And they are no longer confused or think of themselves as a separate body-mind construct. So nothing bothers them. That's kind of the common thing. And the way I usually figure them out is I just spend enough time around them that I see something genuinely bad happen to them. You have to hang around long enough for something genuinely bad to happen to them, and then you see their reaction, and there's not even a perturbation. And that's how you know.

有趣。而“开悟”这个词让它看起来是二元的。你是这么看的吗？

Interesting. And 'enlightened' makes it seem binary. Is that how you see it?

它是二元的。它是二元的，因为——这有点反直觉——它不是一条路径。它不像……哦，顺便说一句，Sadhguru 是另一个。我见过他们很多。我应该列个清单。我在 Twitter 上有一个公开的“求道者”列表，里面不一定都是开悟的人，但有几个是，还有正在努力的人。他们关心这个。他们是真正的求道者。话虽如此，我不确定是否有进步这回事，因为要么你相信你是一个独立的自我，要么你不相信。就这么简单。甚至不是相信。“相信”这个词不对。信念不够强。

It is binary. It is binary because, and this is a little counterintuitive, it's not a path. It's not like a... Oh, Sadhguru is another one, by the way. I met a bunch of them. I should keep a list. I have a seekers list on Twitter which is open, which tracks not necessarily enlightened people, but that has a couple of those on there, but also people who are working towards it. They care about it. They're genuine seekers. That said, I'm not sure there's any such thing as progress because it's either you believe that you are a separate self or not. It's that simple. Not even believe. Believe is the wrong word. Belief is not strong enough.

所以，要么你知道自己是一个独立的自我，要么你知道自己不是。现实是每个人都是不可知论者。

So, either you know that you're a separate self or you know that you are not. The reality is everyone's agnostic.

你知道，真正的无神论者和真正的宗教人士都很少。如果你真的是宗教人士，你会说，“好吧，一切都在上帝手中，一切都很好。”如果你真的是无神论者，你会说，“好吧，这一切都不重要，所以一切都很好。”对吧？但我们都是不可知论者。

You know, there are very few actual atheists and very few actual religious people. If you were actually religious, you'd just be like, 'Well, everything's in God's hands, everything's fine.' And if you were actually an atheist, you'd be like, 'Well, none of this matters, so everything's fine.' Right? But we're all agnostic.

这些人有关系和孩子吗……

Do these people have like relationships and kids and...

是的，这其实是个好问题，对吧？因为首先，“开悟”这个词很糟糕。它暗示着某种最终状态，一切都完美，你永远快乐。根本不是这样。只是你消失了，剩下的只有……有一个古老的哲学谜题叫“哲学僵尸问题”。它不一定被直接引用，但它的起点是：什么是意识，等等。意识有什么用？正是这个问题。哲学僵尸问题基本上说：假设你必须经历生活，解决问题，对环境做出反应，思考事情。你需要意识做什么？为什么不能只是一个机器人在做这一切？为什么你需要有意识的觉知？机器人可以反应刺激、解决问题、做所有那些事情。意识完全是不必要的。所以问题是：为什么要有意识？这是一个非常西方的概念。为什么要有意识？而所有开悟的人会告诉你：实际上，意识是唯一存在的东西。一切都在意识中出现，由意识构成，在意识中消失，并被意识所看见。除了意识，别无他物。你并没有体验外部世界的任何东西。你只是体验意识作为意识。所以那就是实际存在的一切。真正的意识观察一切，包括你的身体和你的思想。所以它不是你的身体，也不是你的思想。它是自己的东西，一切由它构成。所以那就是存在的一切，那就是你的一切。所以他们会反过来回答：为什么要有僵尸？你在问为什么要有意识？不。答案是：为什么要有僵尸？没有僵尸。僵尸不存在。没有独立的自我。外面没有别的东西。所以这是一个完全不同的框架。在这个意义上，没有开悟。没有独立的个体需要被开悟。只有生命。只有事情在发生。有思想出现和消失。它们相互连接，相互交谈。它们是有效的。它们存在。有身体和思想在走动。并且有对这些事物的觉知。你基本上是一个局部的觉知。你认为自己是什么，就是局部的觉知。这回到了最古老的问题，罗宾和马什过去常说的：我到底是谁？开悟的人——再次强调，这个词不好——达到那种状态的方式是，他们持续体验到无我，这成为他们新的默认状态。它是二元的。不是一条路径。

Yeah, it's actually a great question, right? Because you think of first of all, the word enlightenment is horrible. It implies that there's some state you end up in where everything is perfect and you're always happy. It's not the case at all. It's just that you disappear and all that's left is... There's a great old philosophical puzzle called the philosophical zombie problem. I saw it referred to not necessarily, but it starts off with what is consciousness and all that. What is consciousness for? It's exactly that question. The philosophical zombie problem basically says: let's say you have to go through life, solve problems, react to the environment, think through things. What do you need consciousness for? Why can't there just be a robot doing all of that? Why do you need conscious awareness? A robot could be reacting to stimuli, solving problems, doing all those things. Consciousness is completely unnecessary. So the question is: why consciousness? And this is a very western concept. Why consciousness? And all the enlightened people would tell you: actually consciousness is the only thing there is. Everything appears in consciousness, is made of consciousness, disappears in consciousness, and is seen by consciousness. There's nothing other than consciousness. You don't experience anything in the outside world. You just experience consciousness as consciousness. So that's all there actually is. The actual consciousness observes everything, including your body and your mind. So it's not your body, not your mind. It's its own thing, and everything is made of it. So that's all that exists, and that's all you are. So they would reverse the answer and say: why zombie? You're asking why consciousness? No. The answer is: why zombie? There's no zombie. The zombie doesn't exist. There is no separate self. There's nothing else out there. So this is a completely different frame. In that sense, there is no enlightenment. There's no separate being to be enlightened. There's just life. There's just stuff happening. There are thoughts appearing and disappearing. They connect to each other, talk to each other. They're valid. They exist. There are bodies and minds walking around. And there is an awareness of those things. You are basically a localized awareness. What you think you are is localized awareness. This goes back to the oldest question that Robin and Marshy used to talk about: just who am I? The way the enlightened people—again, bad word—get there is they have a persistent experience of no self, and that becomes their new default. It is binary. It's not a pathway.

其中一些人达到那种状态的方式——有些人是天生的，几乎生来如此。有些人有神秘体验。有些人有精神崩溃。克里希那穆提就是这样，对吧？他有一种叫“过程”的东西，不断回到他身上，看起来就像精神崩溃，加上他哥哥去世，他经历了一段艰难时期。有些人通过冥想达到，几十年的冥想。有些人通过奉献一生服务他人达到。他们的自我消失了，他们看透了。但我发现最有趣的是，他们只是做所谓的“自我审视”。自我审视就是寻找自我，寻找这个独立的自我。你确信你是埃里克。我确信我是墙。我们是什么意思？那是什么？这是一个非常模糊的定义。那到底是什么？找到这个不断谈论自己、指代自己的埃里克。找到这个受苦的埃里克。找到这个感到骄傲的埃里克。找到这个茁壮成长的埃里克。找到这个感觉良好的埃里克。找到这个感觉糟糕的埃里克。这家伙藏在哪里？这是谁？去寻找。你会发现，如果你一直找，永远无法确定它。它总是在你视野的边缘。就像艾伦·瓦茨描述的：你拿着一根燃烧的棍子旋转，看起来像有一个火轮。你没有火轮。你有的是一大堆思绪在旋转，让你相信里面有一个叫埃里克的角色。但并没有真正的埃里克。自我只是一个念头。这些只是正在发生的念头，让你相信那里有一个人。所以即使我在对你说话，有词语和思绪出来。那不是我。它们只是飞出来。我没有控制它们。没有一个独立的我坐在那里控制它们。然后有一刻，我为自己这样说并清晰地表达给你而感到有点骄傲。那种骄傲的感觉是什么？只是一种感觉。那种感觉指向谁？它不指向任何人。它没有指向任何人。它只是另一个念头。那个骄傲只是另一个没有目标的念头。如果我足够长时间地寻找那个目标，也许我最终会意识到那个目标不存在，或者那个目标从未存在过。如果那个目标从未存在过，那么那些指向虚假目标的念头最终会开始消失，因为它们是假的，是无用的。那种知识将不再在我的头脑中复制，用戴维·多伊奇的话说。然后我会平静下来，因为我不再会有这些自我情绪和起伏，我会意识到这里从来没有人，一直只有意识。有些人称之为上帝。

And one of the ways that some of them get there—some of them are just naturals, almost born that way. Some of them have a mystical experience. Some of them have a psychotic break. That's literally what Krishna already had, right? He had this thing called the process which kept coming back to him, and it just seems like a psychotic break plus his brother died and he went through a bad time. Some people get there through meditation, decades of meditation. Some people get there through just kind of devoting their life service to others. Their self disappears, they see through it. But the one that I found the most interesting was they just do what's called self-examination. Self-examination is just looking for the self, looking for this separate self. You're convinced you're Eric. I'm convinced I'm the wall. What do we mean by that? What is that? It's a very fuzzy definition. What is that exactly? Find me this Eric that's constantly talking about himself, referring to himself. Find me this Eric who suffers. Find me this Eric who feels pride. Find me this Eric who thrives. Find me this Eric who feels good. Find me this Eric who feels bad. Where is this guy hiding? Who is this? Look for that. And what you find is if you look, look, look, you can never pin it down. It's always on the edge of your vision. It's what Alan Watts described as: you take a burning stick and whirl it around, and it looks like you have a flaming wheel. You don't have a flaming wheel. What you have is a lot of thoughts going around that convince you there's this character in there called Eric. But there's no actual Eric. The self is just a thought. These are just thoughts that are happening that are convincing you there's someone there. So even when I'm speaking to you, there are words coming out and thoughts coming out. That's not me. They're just flying out. I'm not controlling them. There's no separate me sitting there controlling them. And then for a moment, I felt sort of proud of how I said this and articulated it to you. What is that feeling of pride? It's just a feeling. Who is that feeling referring to? It's not referring to anyone. There's no one it's referring to. It's just another thought. That pride was just another thought without a target. If I keep looking for that target long enough, then maybe I'll finally realize that target doesn't exist, or that target has never existed. And if that target has never existed, then eventually those thoughts that were going towards a fake target will start dying down because they're false, they're useless. That knowledge will no longer be replicated in my mind in the Deutschian sense. And then I will be at peace because I will no longer have these egotistical emotions and ups and downs, and I'll realize there was never anybody here and it was all just consciousness all along. And some people call that God.

我需要一段时间才能完全理解这一切。但这就是重点。

It's going to take me a while to grok all that. But that's the point.

是的。我的意思是，也许有些人非常幸运，它立刻发生在他们身上，而大多数人从不想要它，所以没关系。

Yeah. I mean, maybe some people are very lucky, it happens for them right away, and most people never want it, so it's fine.

是的。你……那些真正开悟的人……如果你问他们……我和他们所有人都以不同方式经历过这个，但我测试过他们。

Yeah. Do you... the truly enlightened people... if you ask them like... I've gone through this with all of them in different ways, but I've tested them.

我在这件事上有点自作聪明，但我测试过他们，看他们是否会在任何方面感到情感痛苦。我最喜欢的测试方式是微妙的，他们不会察觉。我喜欢问的一个问题是：如果你没有开悟呢？如果你失去了开悟呢？或者如果你从未开悟呢？他们完全能接受，因为真理不会因为你知道与否而改变。如果你不在场去知道真理，如果你在任何独立意义上都不存在，那么你知道与否都无关紧要。

I'm kind of a smartass about this, but I've tested them to see if they feel emotional pain in any way, right? And my favorite way to test them is subtle, where they don't know it's obvious. The one I like to ask is: what if you weren't enlightened? What if you lost your enlightenment? Or what if you had never been enlightened? They're completely okay with that, because the truth doesn't change if you know it or not. And if you are not around to know the truth, if you don't exist in any separate sense, it doesn't matter if you know it or not.

是的。如果它在那个问题下崩溃了，那它就是假的。那是你身份中属于开悟的部分。

Yeah. And if it breaks under that question, then it was false. It was part of your identity to the enlightened.

没错。

That's right.

有意思。

Interesting.

但回到你的问题，他们是否还能继续生活，有女朋友、生意和工作？绝对可以。他们确实如此。我提到的一些人有工作，一个在经营公司，一个很擅长约会。他们头脑完全清晰，身体功能健全。他们甚至有欲望、想要和需要，但没有自我。他们没有被一个容易受威胁、生气或抑郁的小我包裹。他们会采取你我会采取的行动，但更冷静，不会把任何事情个人化。他们仍然从环境中获得反馈并做出反应。如果说有什么不同，他们比以往更有能力，他们的欲望更真实，更少模仿，更少关注地位。他们是否比我这样动力更强的人动力更弱？是的，我还没见过像我一样有动力的开悟者。但我也没见过多少像我一样有动力的人。也许我一生中只遇到过五个比我更有动力的人。所以很难有交集。

But going back to your question about whether they can still go about their lives, have girlfriends, businesses, and jobs. Absolutely they can. They do actually. Some of the people I mentioned have jobs, one is running a company, one is really good at dating. They have full clarity of mind, fully functional bodies. They even have desires, wants, and needs, but they're not egoic. They're not wrapped up in a small sense of self that gets easily threatened, angry, or depressed. They'll take the actions you and I would take, but much more calmly and they won't take anything personally. They still get feedback from the environment and react. If anything, they're more capable than ever, and their desires are more genuine, less mimetic, less status-oriented. Are they less motivated than someone like me? Yeah, I haven't met an enlightened person as motivated as me. But I haven't met many people as motivated as me. Maybe I've met five people in my life who are more motivated. So it's hard to intersect that set.

我会接受这个交换吗，动力稍弱一点来换取……当然。我本来想问，你离得这么近，是否在追求那个，或者你是否觉得不可能不去追求，尽管我知道那是个陷阱。它就像最闪亮的物体。你为什么想创办下一家伟大的公司，当你可以成为佛陀，成为上帝本身？人类历史上最伟大、人人皆知的人物是耶稣、穆罕默德、佛陀。甚至不是凯撒之流，也许是爱因斯坦。但本质上是真理追寻者。真理追寻者最受尊敬，还有艺术家。历史记住的是艺术家和真理追寻者。而追寻真理的艺术家是其中最崇高的，比如达芬奇。尽管如此，这是另一种追逐，追逐某种永恒的东西，另一个闪亮的物体，追逐事物变得不同。开悟者的关键在于他们对一切如其所是感到满意，这包括对事物现状的不满意。他们自我实现。

And would I take that trade, being slightly less motivated for being... Sure. I was going to ask if you, having been so close, are seeking that or if you feel like it's impossible not to seek it even though I know that's a trap. It's like the shiniest of shiny objects. Why would you want to start the next great company when you could be the Buddha, when you could be God himself? The greatest people in human history that everyone knows are Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha. It's not even the Caesars of the world, maybe the Einsteins. But essentially truth seekers. Truth seekers are the most revered, and artists. History remembers artists and truth seekers. And the truth-seeking artists are the highest of them all, like Da Vinci. That said, it's another chase for something permanent, another shiny object, a chase for things being different than they are. The key thing about enlightened people is that they are fine with everything the way it is, which includes not being fine with the way things are. They self-actualize.

他们可能以更真实的方式自我实现，不同于开悟前的自我实现方式，但他们仍然自我实现。

They may self-actualize in more authentic ways that are different from how they would have self-actualized pre-enlightenment, but they still self-actualize.

我真的很感兴趣你打破这些错误二分法的方式。你刚才提到一个：开悟且缺乏动力的人可能更有效率。你随着变得更快乐而变得更有效率，尽管每个人都有这种恐惧：如果我变得快乐或接受现状，我会变得不那么高效。

I'm really interested in the ways you've broken these false dichotomies. You mentioned one just there: the enlightened and unmotivated are potentially more effective. You've gotten more effective as you've become happier, even though everyone has this fear that if I become happy or accept what is, I'll be less productive.

是的。你更愿意与什么战斗？一个开悟的终结者还是一个被自我包裹的终结者？被自我包裹的终结者更容易被操纵。可能有内疚、自我怀疑、愤怒，效率更低。一个开悟的终结者是真正的终结者。你需要立刻远离它。这很有趣。情绪有其位置。现代社会非常安全，所以我们感受到的很多愤怒源于愤怒曾用于身体暴力或身体原因的时代。但现在我们把它当作心理上的。很多现代痛苦来自于长期感受那些本应短暂强烈感受的事情。所以我不认为你因为更快乐而效率更低。你会选择做不同的事情。所以可能看起来你在变糟，因为你看起来动力不足或为不同的事情而动力十足，但你为某件事而动力十足，这件事会让你在快乐的同时更有效率。顺便说一句，没有人选择回到不那么快乐的状态。

Yeah. What would you rather battle? A terminator that is enlightened or a terminator that is wrapped in an ego? A terminator wrapped in ego is much easier to manipulate. Might have guilt, self-doubt, anger, will be less efficient. A terminator that is enlightened is a true terminator. You need to get away from that right away. It's interesting. There is a place for emotions. Modern society is very safe, so a lot of the anger we feel is derived from times when anger was there for physical violence or physical reasons. But we now take it on as mental. A lot of modern suffering comes from feeling things chronically that were meant to be felt acutely for brief periods. So I don't think you are less effective because you're happier. You will choose to do different things. So it may look like you're changing for the worse because you may look less motivated or motivated for a different thing, but you're motivated for something that is going to make you more effective while you're being happy. By the way, no one chooses to go back to being less happy.

对。是的。

Right. Yeah.

不，就像钱一样。没有人选择回到贫穷。

No, it's just like money. No one chooses to go back to being poor.

严格占优策略。正确。

Strictly dominant strategy. Correct.

变得快乐。

To become happy.

没错。这些是严格占优策略。这些是纯粹的善。所以当人们说“我不重视幸福”时，那是不对的。因为每次你快乐时，你都不想放弃它。每次你做让你更快乐一点的事情，你都不会放弃它。随着你经历人生，有一个阶段你有室友，然后你不再有室友，你不想回去。但然后你有了孩子，最差和最好的室友。孩子长大离开时也有点糟糕。你不想回到通勤。如果你有过长时间通勤，然后你开始步行上班或通勤很短，回去很糟糕。退休或为自己工作。这些都是单向门。很难再通过那些门回来。

That's right. These are strictly dominant strategies. These are unalloyed goods. So when people say, 'I don't value happiness,' that's just not true. Because every time you've been happy, you don't want to give that up. And every time you do something that makes you a little bit happier, you're not going to give that up. As you go through life, there's a point where you have roommates and you get to not having roommates, you don't want to go back. But then you have kids, the worst and best roommates. It kind of sucks when the kids grow up and leave too. You don't want to go back to commutes. If you've had long commutes and then you get to walk to work or have a short commute, it sucks to go back. Retirement or working for yourself. These are one-way doors. It's very hard to come back through those doors.

我问了关于开悟者在关系中的情况，因为很多人问我有什么不同意你的地方。我认为这是测试我是否只是一个完全迎合的谄媚者。我最纠结的事情之一是只有个体才能提升这个想法。

I asked about the enlightened people in their relationships because a lot of people ask me what's something I disagree with you on. I think as a test to see if I'm just a complete involved sycophant. One of the things I wrestle with the most is this idea that only the individual ascends.

你所有的经历都是个人的，客观上我理解你作为个体的感知是正确的，但我也知道，在我的生活经验和研究中，幸福很大程度上来自我们与周围人的关系。我想这其中一定有很多细微之处。你无法控制他们，但你是这些关系的参与者，它们确实会影响你日常的幸福。

All of your experiences are individual and like objectively I understand the correctness of your perception as individual but I also know that so much of happiness in my lived experience and research comes from our relationships with the people around us. I have to imagine there's a lot of nuance there. You can't control them but you are a participant in these relationships and they do affect your day-to-day happiness.

是的，我们会意见不同，因为我认为如果你被有需求的关系束缚，仅仅需要关系本身就是有需求的，那很难幸福。显然，我有家人，我非常爱他们，他们对我很重要，但我不会留在任何让我不幸福的关系里。我会尽我的责任，履行我的义务，即使他们不喜欢我，我也会照顾他们。但我不会创造或维持一段虚假的关系。这是事实。你身处每一段关系，都是因为那个人为你提供了某种价值，或者因为你的身份与之绑定，你对他们有某种义务。这没问题。但如果你的妻子明天变了，她被一个恶魔附身，对你做尽坏事，你会离开，对吧？所以除了纯粹的血缘关系——那不同，它基于基因层面——每一段关系都是交易性的。它确实有价值交换的成分，有给予和接受的期望。这听起来不错，但并不真实，是虚假的。而这就是真理艰难的地方。如果真理容易，每个人都会去做，对吧？但正是这些虚假的关系和虚假的义务让人难受。所以，我不会去参加朋友的生日派对，除非我觉得派对会很有趣。比如我不去婚礼，因为我认为它们基本上就是浪费你一天、甚至一周的大量时间——尤其是目的地婚礼。天哪，对吧。我不去那些义务性的场合，比如‘某某在庆祝纪念日，某某有这事，你必须去’，或者‘这些人需要你在场’。绝不。这就是我划清界限的地方。没有义务。关系会把你推向义务，而义务又会把你推向痛苦。这样你就无法享受关系中愉快的部分。现在，我生活中留下的是那些同样自由、同样低自我的人。我们经常聚在一起，但都是自愿的。我们都想见到彼此，并且都以最好的状态对待对方，因为我们想吸引对方。我们不把对方视为理所当然，这是关系中最糟糕的事情。你必须投资于你所有的关系，因为你希望它们保持活力。如果你珍视它们，你就投资它们。但没有虚假的依恋。是需求感摧毁了关系，或者创造了虚假的关系。显然，有家庭就有义务，你履行它们。实际上，我没有一个疏远的家庭成员。每个人都在我的生活中。所有家人都在。所以，这不是那种‘你的家庭破碎了，你去修复世界’的情况。家庭运作得很好，但同时，你必须自己幸福。你知道，幸福关系的秘诀是两个幸福的人。好吗？因为你无法通过配偶获得幸福。他们会拖累你，或者你会拖累他们。所以每个人找到自己的幸福很重要。幸福是个人的。他们每个人都必须为此努力。在关系中你能做的最糟糕的事情就是去找别人说：‘振作起来。开心点。你怎么了？为什么抑郁？’对吧？这没用，对吧？所以必须从个人层面解决，一旦你自己的事情理顺了，你才能与他人建立真正的关系。但把关系置于你自己的工作和幸福之前，我认为是个错误。你会两者皆失。

Yeah, we will disagree because I think that it's very difficult to be happy if you're bound up in needy relationships and just needing the relationship is needy. Now, obviously, I have my family and I love them very much and they're very important to me, but I'm not going to stay in any relationship that makes me unhappy. I will do my duty. I'll fulfill my obligations. I'll take care of them even if they don't like me. But I'm not going to create or sustain a false relationship. And this is truth. Every relationship you're in, you're in because that person provides some value for you or because your identity is tied up and you have some obligation towards them. And that's fine. But if your wife changed tomorrow, if she was inhabited by a demon who just did everything horrible to you, you would leave, right? So every relationship other than pure blood relationships which are different—they run on a genetic level. You know, you see your kids and you just go nuts in a good way. Every relationship is transactional. It does have a value exchange component. It does have an expectation of give and take. And it's kind of, you know, it sounds good but not true, but false. And this is where truth is hard. If truth was easy everyone would do it, right? But this is where these false relationships and these false obligations are tough. So like I don't go to my friends' birthdays unless I think the party is going to be fun. I don't go to weddings, for example, because I think they're largely just enormous amounts of time taken out of your day, you know, of your week—destination weddings. Oh my god, right. I don't go to obligatory things like, 'Oh, so and so is having an anniversary, so and so is having this thing, you have to go,' or 'These people need you there for this.' F no. That's where I draw the hard line. No obligations. And relationships drive you into obligations, and then the obligations drive you into pain. Now you're not having the pleasant part of the relationships. Now I'm left with in my life people who are similarly free, similarly low ego. We hang out all the time, but it's voluntarily. We all want to see each other and we're all being at our best to each other because we want to attract the other person. We don't take each other for granted, which is the worst thing that can happen in a relationship. You have to invest in all your relationships because you want to keep them alive. If you value them, you invest in them. But there's no false attachment. You know, it's the neediness that destroys a relationship or creates a fake relationship. Obviously, to have family, you have obligations and you fulfill them. And I actually don't have a single estranged family member. Everyone is in my life. Everyone in family. So, you know, it's not one of those 'your family's broken, you fix the world' situations. The family's functioning really well, but at the same time, you have to be happy on your own. You know, the secret to a happy relationship is two happy people. Okay? Because you can't be happy with your spouse. They'll drag you down or you'll drag them down. So it's important that each person find happiness. And happiness is personal. They each have to work on it. The worst thing you can do in a relationship is go to somebody else and say, 'Cheer up. Be happy. What's wrong with you? Why are you depressed?' Right? It doesn't work, right? So it has to be tackled at an individual level and then once your own house is in order then you can form genuine relationships with other people. But putting relationships ahead of your own work and your own happiness I think is a mistake. You will get neither.

我认为这是一个很好的表述：它们是有价值和重要的，你想按那个顺序去追求。如果我描述得正确，你的方法是希望它们尽可能真实。就像你不想进入一段关系试图让别人幸福。

I think that's a good formulation of like they are valuable and important. You want to pursue them in that order. And if I'm describing it correctly your approach, you want them to be maximally truthful. Like you don't want to go into a relationship trying to make someone else happy.

我也不希望他们为了让我幸福而做不诚实的事。我不希望他们觉得我是个负担或义务。你知道，我遇到的一个问题是，作为父母，我为孩子做事是因为我爱他们。我周围的人总是试图训练他们说谢谢。他们会说：‘哦，你爸爸给了你东西。你说谢谢了吗？’我说：‘别那样做。别训练他们。他们不是动物。’如果他们真心感激，它会以某种方式表达出来。我不需要它。我不是为了感激才做的，对吧？我不想像训练动物一样训练他们。如果他们真心感激，它会表现出来，你知道吗？如果不感激，就不会。但不要强迫。我不想要任何方向上的强迫义务关系。

And I don't want them to do things to make me happy that are dishonest. I don't want them to feel like I'm a burden or an obligation. You know, like one of the issues I have is, as a parent, I do things for my kids because I love them. And people around me are always trying to train them to say thank you. They'll say, 'Oh, your dad gave you something. Did you say thank you?' I'm like, 'Don't do that. Don't train them. They're not an animal.' If they genuinely feel gratitude, it'll come out in some way. I don't need it. I'm not doing it for the gratitude, right? And I don't want to train them like an animal. If they're genuinely thankful, it'll come out, you know? And if they're not, it won't. But don't force it. I don't want any forced obligations relationship in either direction.

是的。

Yeah.

我唯一相信的关系是平等关系。显然，有人为你工作，但即便如此，你总是希望尽可能把他们当作平等的人来对待，因为否则关系会变得形式化、仪式化、虚假、不幸福。你知道吗，有趣的是，如果你去参加像婚礼或大型派对这样的活动，很多时候你会发现很多关于幸福的表演——人们欢呼，是的——但真正的东西很少在那里。真正的幸福来自更小、更真实、更少强迫的互动。如果你被迫穿燕尾服，被迫在特定时间出现，被迫听演讲，被迫祝酒，被迫四处走动——那并不是真正让你幸福的东西。如果它真的让你幸福，你会每天都这样做。你会去每一个派对、每一场婚礼、每一个成人礼以及你被邀请的每一件事。但在某种程度上，那些事情是乏味的。你为别人做，他们也为你做。

The only relationships I believe in are peer relationships. Obviously people work for you but even then you always want to treat them as much like a peer as you can given the circumstances, because otherwise it ends up formalized, it ends up ritualistic, it ends up false, it ends up unhappy. You know, it's funny, if you go to an event like a wedding or a big party, a lot of times you'll find a lot of show about happiness—people cheering, yeah—but the genuine article is rarely there. The genuine happiness comes in smaller interactions that are more genuine and less forced. If you're forced to wear a tux, forced to show up at a certain time, forced to listen to a speech, forced to do a toast, forced to go around—it's just not what actually makes you happy. If it genuinely made you happy, you would be doing that every day. You'd be going to every party and every wedding and every bar mitzvah and everything you get invited to. But at some level, those things are tedious. You're doing them for other people and they're doing them for you.

就像谁是为了自己而做呢？所以我认为真正的庆祝是美好的，但它已经被过度仪式化了，比如情人节、必须送花、贺曼卡片，所有这些都只是形式。真正的幸福是当你真心感激某人，你为他们做善事只是因为你想做，你必须在生活中创造空间，创造能让你真实感受到这种情感的情境。我不想要任何形式化的东西。我从不想要卡片，不想要形式化的礼物，不想要奖章，不想要奖项。所有这些都没用。

Like who's doing it for themselves, right? So I think true celebration is a beautiful thing but it has been ritualized so much like Valentine's Day, having to send flowers, Hallmark cards, all this stuff is ritualistic. Real happiness is when you're genuinely grateful with somebody else and you know you do something kind for them because you just want to and you have to create space for that in your life and you have to create situations where you feel it authentically for people to genuinely inspire that in you. I don't want anything ritualistic. I never want a card. I never want a ritualistic gift. I don't want a medal. I don't want an award. All these things are useless.

我本想问你关于帮助人们找到在生活中如此诚实的勇气。但我认为这又回到了长期视角：真相，即使带来短期痛苦，比如“我不会为了让你开心而做这个，我也不希望你只是为了让我开心而做这个”，是创造长期幸福的最佳方式。

I was gonna ask you about helping people find the courage to be that truthful in their lives. But I think it just goes back to the long-term view like that the truth, even if it causes short-term pain of like, hey, I'm not going to do this to make you happy. I don't want you to do this just to make me happy, is the best way to create this long term.

完全正确。但我认为这甚至更深层：真相是不可妥协的。你能找到一个说“我不想要真相”的人吗？那是很少见的，对吧？

That's absolutely true. But I think it's even deeper than that. It's that truth is non-negotiable. Find me a single person who says I don't want the truth. That's a rare person, right?

嗯，就明确偏好而言，我认为可能有很多人选择活在谎言中。

Well, the express preference I think there's probably plenty of people living choosing to live lies.

我认为他们不想让别人失望，所以我们都被困在这个集体陷阱里。

I think they don't want to disappoint other people and I think so we're all caught in this collective trap.

对吧？就像新冠疫情做的一件好事是打破了通勤的集体陷阱，它让居家办公合法化。现在有些人可能做得太过，完全躺平了。但总的来说，它打破了社会对通勤、不必要的通勤和不必要会议的沉迷，这是好事。所以同样，如果我们能打破社会对排场和形式的沉迷，那也会很好。

Right? Like one of the things COVID did that was good was it broke the collective trap of commuting, right? It legitimized work from home. Now some people might take it too far and they just checked out completely. But overall it broke society of its addiction to commuting to unnecessary commuting to unnecessary meetings and that was good. So I think the same way like it would be good if we can break society of its addiction to pomp and circumstance.

对吧？就像情人节，应该随时与你爱的人自发自然地发生，而不是在 2 月 14 日，每个人都挤进同一家昂贵的餐厅，买同样的高价花，送同样的高价支票，打同样的勾。如果你没有自然的感觉，那就意味着你们的关系有问题，你应该修复它，或者转向另一段关系。但正确的答案不是每年都做这种虚假的“打勾”行为，把问题踢到以后，浪费所有人的时间。

Right? Like Valentine's Day, that should be happening all the time with the person you love spontaneously and naturally instead of February 14th, everybody tries to get in the same overpriced restaurant and buys the same overpriced flowers and gives the same overpriced checks the same box, right? And if you don't feel like doing it naturally, then that means there's something wrong with your relationship that you should fix or you should move on to another relationship. But what's not the correct answer is to do this falsehood of checking the box every year and kicking the can down the road just wasting everybody's time.

哦，我有一条完整的推文，讲很多伟大的美德都是自私的。我几乎可以把每一种美德重新解释为你为了长期自私而做的事情。这就是诀窍，对吧？现代的魔鬼是廉价的多巴胺。

Oh, I had this whole thread on how a lot of the great virtues are selfish. I can reinterpret almost every virtue as something you do for long-term selfishness. That's the trick, right? The modern devil is cheap dopamine.

所以我发了那条推文，这实际上是我发推的原因之一，因为有时我会得到很好的回应。我发了：“现代的魔鬼是廉价的多巴胺。”有人回复：“一直都是。”

So I tweeted that and this was actually one of the reasons why I tweet because sometimes I get a great response. So, I tweeted, "The modern devil is cheap dopamine." And someone responded, "Always has been."

没错。魔鬼一直是廉价毒品。回顾七宗罪，全都是廉价的多巴胺。它基本上是在说：“不要做让你现在感觉良好但以后会搞砸你的事。”所以反过来，我发的一条推文，我想埃隆·马斯克喜欢并评论了，那就是：美德是一套价值观，如果我们每个人都采纳它们，就会为社会带来双赢的结果。所以美德是对你个人长期有利的东西，是长期自私的，而且对集体长期有利，因为它们让我们能够玩迭代囚徒困境或迭代猎鹿游戏，从博弈论角度看，达到正均衡，产生好的博弈论结果。如果社会中的每个人都遵循甚至经典的圣经美德，整个社会都会提升，每个个体也会更好。这是真的。但我也认为，所有美德，如果你作为个体在足够长的时间框架内遵循它们，它们会让你个人过得更好。所以这是终极的棉花糖测试。顺便说一句，那个实验无法重复。所以抱歉提出来，但这是每个人都知道的行为心理学实验之一。但从某种意义上说，美好生活很大程度上就是棉花糖测试。

It's true. The devil has always been cheap dope. You go back the seven deadly sins, it's all cheap dopamine. It's basically saying, "Don't do something that makes you feel good right now because it's going to screw you over later." So on the flip side, one of the tweets that I sent out which I think Elon liked he commented on it was that virtues are the set of values that if we were to all take them on individually would lead to a win-win outcome for society. So the virtues are things that are long-term good for you as an individual and which is selfish long-term selfish and they're long-term good for the collective because they allow us to play iterated prisoners dilemma or to play stag iterated stag hunt kind of games in a positive equilibrium from a game theory perspective that lead to good game theoretic outcomes. If everybody in society followed even the classic biblical virtues, all society would level up and each individual would be better off. So that's true. But I also think that all the virtues if you were to follow them as an individual on a long enough time frame, they would make you individually better off. So it's the ultimate marshmallow test. By the way, that experiment doesn't replicate. So, sorry to bring it up, but it's one of those behavioral psych experiments everybody knows. But it is in some sense a lot of a good life is the marshmallow test.

而且有很多事情人们认为必须按标准方式做。比如慈善就是一个好例子，对吧？你必须去志愿做慈善，帮助远方的人。那么，帮助身边人呢？比如住在街对面的人、为你工作的人、与你共事的人。通常帮助这些人从自私的角度看非常有益。你可以从中得到一些回报。所以，这是慈善的一个好起点。它非常本地化、非常可行。这样你的钱不会浪费，你不会被骗，不会被挪用。这只是做点实事的一种方式。

And there are a lot of things that people think that you have to do it the standard way. Like philanthropy is a good example, right? You have to go volunteer for charity and help out people who are far away. Well, how about helping out people who are right next to you, right? People who live down the street, people who work for you, people who work with you. Generally helping out those people is selfishly very rewarding. You can get some benefit back from it. So, it's a good place to start with charity. It's very local, very actionable. So, your money is not being wasted. You're not being tricked. It's not being redirected. And it's just a way to do something practical.

我的另一条推文是：你的家庭一团糟，但你却要去拯救世界。

Another tweet I had was your family is broken, but you're going to fix the world.

对吧？这就是现代激进主义的通病：你为千里之外、从未亲眼见过的事情而激动，只因为听说它们在社会上流行。但现实是，你可以走到街对面帮助流浪汉、退伍军人、找工作的穷人等等，或者干脆去和你的叔叔或父母和解。当你连自己的家庭都搞不定时，你有什么资格说“我知道如何拯救世界”？对吧？帮助世界另一端的人没问题，但不要激动地说“我知道什么是对的”。当你连自己的本地问题都解决不了时。在解决本地问题之后，你才有资格解决全球问题。环保主义也是如此。每个人都担心二氧化碳。那么河流、森林等等呢？

Right? This is the whole modern activism disease where you're agitating about causes that are thousands of miles away that you've never laid eyes on based on what you hear because they're socially popular. But the reality is you could just go walk down the street and help the homeless person or the vet or the poor person looking for a job or what have you or literally go make amends with your uncle or your parents. What right do you have to say I know what's right to fix the world when you can't even get your local family going? Right? It's okay to help people on the other side of the world, but don't agitate for saying, "I know what's correct." When you can't even solve your own local problems. You get the right to solve global problems after you solve local problems. That's true in environmentalism, too. Everybody's worried about CO2. Well, what about rivers and forests and so on?

这又回到了你的推文：能力越大，部落越大。以及资源分配的迭代循环：社会将更多的信任、杠杆和影响力给予那些善于照顾身边人的人。

This goes back to your tweet, the greater your ability, the greater your tribe. And the sort of iterative loop of resource allocation where society gives more trust and more leverage and more influence to people who are doing a good job of taking care of the people around them.

是的。很久以前有人在推特上问过我关于埃隆·马斯克的事。那是很多很多年前，在他成为世界首富之前。

Yeah. Somebody asked me about Elon long time ago on Twitter. This is years and years ago before he was the richest man in the world and all that.

有人问我：“你怎么看埃隆？”我说，当一个人把毕生精力都用来给社会提供它需要的东西时，社会就别无选择，只能给他想要的一切，对吧？但你不能依赖这个，不能那么自私地去做，也不能算得那么精确。但归根结底，因为他的愿望是纯粹的——不管今天人们怎么说埃隆，先不提他——当你拥有超越自身的抱负时，其他人就会与你对齐，因为会有其他人觉得：你的动机是纯粹的，我也想要那个东西。所以让我们站在一起，你就成了一个谢林点。从博弈论的角度说，你成了其他想做成那件事的人的集结号。比如你说“我要去火星，我要让人类成为星际物种”，那么有很大一部分技术建造者群体——他们才华横溢、感到受挫——现在看到了实现这一目标的载体，就会真的去 SpaceX 下面造一个飞行器来实现它。所以，通过让使命超越自身，你就能聚集人才。类似马丁·路德·金发表“我有一个梦想”演讲时，它非常包容、非常高层、非常统一、非常普世，因此把人们凝聚在一起。这也是马克思主义具有如此诱人吸引力的原因，因为马克思说：“不，它是一块白板，我们都是平等的，我们都一样，圣灵，全是意识，大家团结起来。”这是一种对普世性的宗教式吸引。所以使命越普世，它聚集的人就越多，不管它是否有效。这有点讽刺。

Uh and somebody said, "What do you think of Elon?" And I said, well, you know, when someone devotes their entire life to giving society what it needs, then society has no choice but to give them everything they want, right? But you can't rely on that. You can't do it that selfishly or count that closely. But ultimately because his desire was pure regardless of what people say about Elon today, forgetting with Elon, but when you have aspirations that are larger than yourself, then other people will align with you because there are other people who feel that your motives are pure. I want that thing too. So let's line up and you become a Schelling point. In game theory sense, you become a rallying cry for other people who want to see that thing to mess around. You know in that sense if you say I want to go to Mars I want to make humans a spacefaring species. Well there is a large percentage of our technical builder population that shares that same vision that are brilliant that are felt stymied that now see a vehicle to do that. So they will literally go and build a vehicle under SpaceX to go do that. So by having that mission be larger than about yourself. You assemble people. Similar like Martin Luther King when he says I have a dream speech it's very inclusive. It's very high level. It's very unifying. It's universal. And so it pulls people together. It's also the reason why Marxism has such a seductive appeal because, you know, Marx says, "No, it's a blank slate. We're all equal. We're all the same. Holy Spirit, it's all consciousness. Everybody get together." It's a religious pull towards universality. So the more universal the mission, the more people it's going to pull together regardless of whether it's effective or not. That's sort of the irony here.

是的。这涉及到思想的模因学：它会根据其可传播性来传播，而不是根据其正确性。

Yeah. Well, this gets to the memetics of an idea: it will spread relative to its spreadability, not relative to its correctness.

它会根据可传播性传播，但会根据正确性存活。所以，一个文明如果因为一个坏思想有好的传播特性而采纳它，就会把自己从地图上抹掉，有点像苏联那样。结果现在剩下俄罗斯，但它不是苏联了，结构完全不同。例如，中国共产党在毛泽东领导下搞大跃进，造成了那么多苦难和饥荒，在那次事件中死去的中国人比二战中所有国家所有原因造成的伤亡总数还要多——不是中国人，只是中国人在大跃进中的死亡，对比二战中所有原因的所有伤亡，对吧？这正好说明一个坏思想能造成什么后果。但他们怎么存活下来的呢？他们转向了资本主义，开始搞地方农场——这是一种政府控制的资本主义，但本质上他们在经济中创造了一个资本主义部分，有私人农业，最终还有私人企业，虽然仍由国家资金支持，但他们越私有化，发展得越快。所以最终你必须采纳好思想或好解释，否则就会被淘汰。置身事外会消灭你。所以你说得对，坏思想可以传播，但不幸的是，这些坏思想被清除的方式，不一定是我们吸取了教训，而是那些拥有坏思想的实体、个人、机构无法存活，它们被淘汰了。

It will spread according to its spreadability, but then it'll survive according to its correctness. So, a civilization that adopts a bad idea because of its good spread characteristics wipes itself off the map, kind of like the Soviet Union did. And so, you're left with Russia now, but it's not the Soviet Union. It's completely different structure. For example, the Chinese Communist Party, you know when it was under Mao and they made the Great Leap Forward and there was all that suffering and starvation, more Chinese people died during that event than all the casualties in World War II from all people put together — not the Chinese just Chinese deaths — Great Leap Forward versus all casualties in all causes in World War II, right? So that just shows you what a bad idea can do. But then how did they survive? Well, they switched to capitalism, they started having local farms that could — it's a government-controlled capitalism, but essentially they created a capitalist section to their economy with private farming and eventually with private enterprises that are still backed by state money, but the more privatized they became, the faster they came up. So eventually you have to adopt good ideas or good explanations because you'll just get wiped out. The skin in the game will eliminate you. So you're right, bad ideas can spread and unfortunately the way those bad ideas get taken out is not that we necessarily learn our lessons so much, but it's that the entities, the people, the institutions that had those bad ideas don't survive. They get eliminated.

所以你确实想成为一个拥有大量正确思想的实体，这样才不会被淘汰。

So you really want to be an entity with a bunch of correct ideas so you don't get eliminated.

是的。我对多伊奇的知识定义有一个伪灵性的理解——他每次提到这个都会笑，因为他知道我喜欢这个，而且它有他不太喜欢的伪灵性背景——那就是：真理是多元宇宙中的一颗水晶。如果你接受量子物理的多元宇宙理论，这是最直接的诠释——如果你基本上相信观察者没有什么特别之处会导致坍缩，而且未被观察的观察者和被观察者都是一样的，那么最直接的诠释就是多元宇宙理论自然从中产生。它说：仅仅因为我看了某样东西，仅仅因为我看了那只猫，并不意味着猫在薛定谔的猫中是死是活。而是猫在多元宇宙的某些部分是死的，在其他部分是活的。我只是不知道自己在哪个宇宙，直到我打开盒子。如果你接受这个诠释，那么就有多元宇宙的结果。有无限个宇宙，它们总是根据“粒子向左还是向右？这件事发生了还是那件事发生了？”而分化成子部分。有各种事情可以导致这些宇宙分叉。但如果你看这些宇宙的内容，知识是一种倾向于传播的东西，因为它是正确的。真理存活下来，因为它匹配得上。你可以用真理做事。你避开谬误。所以真理为真的宇宙比谬误为真的宇宙更多，因为谬误是无限可变的。对于每一个真理，我有无限个错误解释。真理解释的数量是有限的。相对而言，你可以有大部分正确的解释。你永远得不到绝对真理。但正确解释的集合比谬误的集合小得多。然而，一旦真理被发现，因为它难以改变且会传播，谬误就会被消除。所以如果存在多元宇宙，并且有无限个版本的你——我再次认为量子物理有一个相当直接的诠释——如果存在多元宇宙，并且有无限个版本的你，那么那些最繁荣、最相似的版本实际上是你最真实的版本。那些找到了最多真理的版本。虚假的版本以各种方式分化。但真实的版本彼此更相似。而每个版本所领悟到的、穿透一切的真理，比所有虚假的变体更相似。所以你想成为的，是那个最以真理为导向的自我版本，那也就是最真实的自我版本。现在我们可以转到《瑞克和莫蒂》了，因为在《瑞克和莫蒂》里有无限个瑞克，对吧？有无限个宇宙，有无限个瑞克，瑞克是一个英雄科学家。还有一个瑞克委员会，因为无限个瑞克可以穿越多元宇宙。

Yeah. My pseudospiritual take on Deutsch's definition of knowledge, which he always laughs about when he mentions because he knows I'm into it and it has a pseudospiritual context to it which he's not into, is that truth is a crystal in the multiverse. So if you go with the multiverse theory of quantum physics, which is the most direct interpretation — if you basically believe there's nothing special about an observer that causes the collapse and that observers unobserved and the observed are all the same, then the most straightforward interpretation is that the multiverse theory naturally emerges from that. Then it says: just because I look at something, just because I look at the cat, doesn't mean that the cat is alive or dead in Schrödinger's cat. It's that the cat was dead in some parts of the multiverse and it was alive in other parts of the multiverse. And I just didn't know which universe I was in until I opened the box. And if you take that interpretation, then there is a multiverse of outcomes. There's an infinite number of universes that are always differentiating into subsections based on: did the particle go left or did it go right? Did this happen or did that happen? And there are various things that can cause those universes to diverge. But if you were to look at the content of those universes, knowledge is a thing that tends to spread because it's correct. Truth survives because it matches up. You can do things with truth. You avoid falsehoods. So there are more universes in which the true thing is true than the falsehood, because falsehoods are infinitely variable. For every truth I have, there's unlimited false explanations. There is a finite number of truth explanations. Relatively speaking, you can have mostly true explanations. You never get the absolute truth. But the set of true explanations is much smaller than the set of falsehoods. However, once the truth is found, because it is hard to vary and because it spreads, the falsehood gets eliminated. So if there's a multiverse and there are infinite versions of you — and again I think there's a pretty straightforward interpretation of quantum physics — if there's a multiverse and there's infinite versions of you, then the ones that are flourishing the most and the ones that are most alike are actually the most true versions of you. The ones that have found the most truth. The false ones are differentiated in all kinds of ways. But the true ones are more similar to each other. And the truth that each of them have realized that cuts through is more similar than all the variations of falseness. So what you want to be is you want to be the most truth-oriented version of yourself and that is the most true version of itself. And now we can segue into Rick and Morty because in Rick and Morty there's infinite Ricks, right? There's infinite universes, there's infinite Ricks and Rick is a hero scientist. And there's this council of Ricks where the infinite Ricks because they can cross across the multiverse.

他们聚在一起时，你会发现一件有趣的事：故事主角 Rick C137 是最 Rick 的，他很怪，但他是所有 Rick 中最正常的。其他 Rick 都在某些方面很古怪，都在某些方面很虚假。他们甚至称他为“Rick 中的 Rick”，对吧？我不知道这是他们深思熟虑的结果，还是偶然发现的，或者只是另一个原则，但我认为这是一个有趣的例子，说明你想成为什么样的自己。你想成为 Rick 中的 Rick。我想成为最天真的那个。你想成为 Eric 中的 Eric。那是最真实导向的自我，而要找到真理，就意味着最少的动机性推理，最低的自我，最少的自我。也就是那个在最高层面为最伟大、最普遍的原则运作的人。那个最懂科学、最懂哲学的人，很可能也是最能创造美的人，而且很可能最快乐。

They meet up and one of the funny things you notice is that Rick C137, which is the hero of the story, he's like the most... he's Rick, he's weird, but he's the most normal of the Ricks. The rest of them are all weird in some way. They're all false in some way. He and they even call him, they say he's the Rickest of the Ricks, right? So, I don't know if they thought this through or if they stumbled upon it or if it's just another principle that gets in here, but I view that as like a funny example of the version of yourself that you want to be. You want to be the Rickest of the Ricks. I want to be the most naive of all. You want to be the most Eric of the Erics. And that's the most truth-oriented version of yourself, and to find truth it means the least motivated reasoning, which means the lowest ego, which means the least self. Which means the one who's operating at the highest level for the greatest, most universal principles. It's the one who is the most knowledgeable about science and about philosophy and is probably the one who's most likely to be creating works of beauty and is just probably the happiest.

你怎么看待降低自我与找到真实性之间的相互作用？我觉得有些人把身份认同视为让自己独特的东西，而真实性也是拥抱那些让你独特的东西。

How do you think about the interaction between lowering of ego and finding authenticity? Like I think some people think of their identity as like the things that make them unique, and authenticity also as like leaning into the things that make you unique.

我认为真实性就是不装假，不戴面具。我们为什么要装假、戴面具？因为我们想以某种方式被看待。我们在乎别人怎么想。我们想融入。我们有一个想要投射的形象和身份。所以当你试图投射一个与真实自我不符的自我形象时，你就是不真实的。所以你需要摘掉面具。如果你摘掉面具，就会面临被尴尬的风险，人们会说：“哦，你不该那样做。”就像我第一次发推文时，收到风投的消息说：“哦，那很奇怪。我的合伙人说你不可投资。你是个怪人。你走偏了。”我认为真实性是不假装成别人或别的东西的结果。

I think of authenticity as just not putting on a fake persona, not having a mask. And why do we put on fake personas and masks? It's because we want to be seen a certain way. We care what other people think. We want to fit in. We have an image and an identity that we're trying to project. So when you're trying to project a self-image that doesn't match up to who you actually are, that's when you are inauthentic. So you need to take that mask off. And if you take that mask off, then you face the risk of embarrassment, which is people say, "Oh, you know, you're not supposed to do that." Like when I was first tweeting, I got messages from VCs saying, "Oh, that's weird. My partner says you're not backable. You're a weirdo. You've gone off the rails." I view authenticity as an output of not pretending to be someone or something other than you are.

所以，那就是戴面具。那就是太刻意。那就是炫耀地位。那就是用行话装聪明。那就是声称知道你不知道的东西，或者声称不知道你知道的东西。比如谦逊也是一个陷阱，像假谦逊，人们会指出来，叫“谦虚的炫耀”，但谦逊也是一种自我之旅。如果你真的低自我，就没有谦逊这回事，就像没有骄傲这回事一样；它们是一体的。所以，从长远来看，真实性会带来更好的生活，就像所有美德一样。它会赶走那些只因为以为你是别人而围在你身边的人，这样你就可以放下伪装。你不需要在他们面前小心翼翼。它会让你脱离那些需要假装、强迫、挣扎或努力维持的处境。所以它帮助你在关系和情境中找到正确的答案。但其中也有痛苦，因为涉及改变。

So, that's wearing masks. That's trying too hard. That's signaling status. That's using jargon to sound smart. That's claiming to know something that you don't know or claiming not to know something you do know. Like humility is also a trap, like false humility, you know people call it out, humble bragging, but humility is also an ego trip. If you're actually low ego, there's no such thing as humility any more than there is such a thing as pride; they kind of go together. So authenticity leads to a better life again in the long term, like all the virtues. So it removes the people who are around that are only there because they think you're someone that you're not, so you can drop the pretense. You have to walk on eggshells around them. It removes you from situations where you're having to pretend or force or struggle or work hard to stay in. And so it helps you navigate to the right answers in relationships and in situations. But there's pain involved because there's change.

你知道，部分情况是，是的，我很懒，但我不会接受糟糕的结果。我有能力离开次优的关系或处境。即使很痛苦，我也不会留在里面。

You know, part of the thing is like yes, I'm lazy, but I will not accept bad outcomes. You know, I have an ability to walk away from suboptimal relationships or situations. Even if it's painful, I just won't stay in them.

那只是针对你选择渴望的非常特定的一小部分事情吗？

Is that only for a very specific subset of things that you choose to desire?

适用于一切。

It's for everything.

你怎么决定把精力和标准放在哪里？

How do you decide like where to focus that energy, those standards?

这很难。我是说，我们总是掉进陷阱。现代社会有很多陷阱，多巴胺陷阱，对吧？你会被政治吸进去。你会被毒品吸进去。你会被屏幕成瘾、刷屏、色情、酒精吸进去。现代社会有太多陷阱了。他们让大麻合法化了，我内心的自由意志主义者想说，好吧，自愿的成年人，你想做什么就做什么。但实际上，我认为它吸走了年轻男性的能量。如果你一直嗨着，你就不可能雄心勃勃。它会彻底摧毁你去做任何事的能力和欲望。而且它是个创可贴。它是个掩盖问题的创可贴。这对社会可能没问题。这是现代的“面包与马戏”，但对个人不太好。我不在乎社会。我在乎个人。是的，社会必须运转。但我觉得现代社会已经放弃了这一点。我们走错了自由意志主义的方向，我们基本上说，不仅你可以自由做任何事，而且只要不立即伤害别人，就应该被庆祝。但然后整个社会就分崩离析了，因为每个人都是享乐主义者。没有人对系统有长期利益。没有共同的道德观。没有共同的规则。没有对基本问题的理解。然后你就得到了高犯罪率。你得到了肮脏。你得到了浪费的政府。国家成了宗教的替代品。人们的宗教本能非常强烈。宗教是人们的合作系统，如果你没有宗教系统，国家就会接管并创造一个。我不认为国家的美德和伦理感比旧宗教好多少。旧宗教对美德和伦理有更好的把握。当然，它们现代化不够快。所以它们对避孕、女性进入职场、同性恋权利等适应不良。但我认为我们把孩子和洗澡水一起倒掉了，我不认为宗教本能消失了。人们无论如何都会去寻找它。你有一条很棒的推文让我笑了：现代社会的问题是，无神论已经普及到了大众。

That's a hard one. I mean, we're always falling into traps. Modern society has a lot of traps, dopamine traps, right? You can get sucked into politics. You can get sucked into drug use. You can get sucked into screen addiction, scrolling, porn, alcohol. There's just so many traps in modern society. They've legalized weed, which the libertarian me wants to say, okay, consenting adult, do whatever you want. But in reality, I think it just sucks the energy out of young men. Like, you can't be ambitious if you're stoned all the time. It'll literally destroy your ability and desire to go and do anything. And it's a band-aid. It's a band-aid that's covering things up. Which may be fine for society. It's the modern bread and circuses, but not so good for the individual. And I don't care about society. I care about the individual. Yes, society has to be functional. But I feel like modern society's given up on that. We're taking the wrong part of libertarianism, which is we basically said not only you're free to do anything you want, but as long as it doesn't immediately hurt somebody else, it should be celebrated. But then society as a whole kind of falls apart because everyone's a hedonist. No one has a long-term stake in the system. There's no shared ethos. There's no shared rules. There's no understanding of the basics. And then you end up with high crime. You end up with dirt. You end up with wasteful government. And the state becomes a substitute for religion. The religious instinct is so strong in people. Religion is a cooperating system for people that if you don't have a religious system, then the state will take over and create one. And I don't think the state's sense of virtue and ethics is much better than the older religions. The older religions had a better grasp of virtue and ethics. Now, they didn't modernize fast enough. So they were poorly adapted towards things like contraception and women entering the workforce and lesbian and gay rights and so on. But I think we threw the baby out with the bathwater and I don't think the religious instinct is gone. People are going to search for it no matter what. You had a great tweet that made me laugh: the problem with modern society is that atheism has reached the masses.

是的，没错。我的意思是，大众的无神论真的很糟糕，因为人们需要一个操作系统，而大多数人不会自己搞明白，它必须是一个相对通用的操作系统。所以如果你没有，要么陷入无政府状态，要么由国家来规定，这意味着要么是寡头政治，要么是共产主义威权深渊。与此相关的是，我认为一个傻瓜完全相信宗教信仰，另一个傻瓜则认为它毫无价值。没错。宗教确实有巨大的价值。只是宗教本意是作为一种组织原则，让人们合作、互信，并朝着共同目标努力。

Yeah, that's right. Yeah. I mean like atheism in the masses is really bad because people need an operating system and most people are not going to figure it out for themselves and it has to be a relatively common operating system. So if you don't have one you either end up with anarchy or end up with the state dictating it, which either means you're in an oligarchy or you're in a communist authoritarian hole. And related to that is like I think a fool believes religious beliefs completely and another fool just believes it has no value. Right. Religion does have tremendous value. It's just that religion was meant as an organizing principle for people to cooperate and trust each other and to work towards common causes.

但它本意也应有强烈的个人探索和美德成分，而且绝对没有足够现代化，还被用于控制。所以再说一次，我的问题总是大东西、大众，对吧？所以我认为大宗教造成很多问题，但小宗教是好的。

But it was also meant to have a strong personal exploration and virtue component, and absolutely did not modernize enough, and it was used for control. So again, like my problem is always big stuff masses, right? So I think big religion causes a lot of problems, but I think little religion is good.

是的。乡村教堂。

Yeah. The village churches.

乡村教堂，也许还有一些更高层次的广泛统一原则，而且你知道，最终，原则越深，就越需要个人去探索和持有。我认为如果人们去探索宗教教义——选你最喜欢的宗教——如果探索宗教教义，每个人都会找到真正共鸣的部分，让他们的生活更好，然后你可以吸收。但我不打算争论哪个宗教更好。有一个很棒的法尔赛漫画，圣彼得在天堂门口。你知道这个吗？有几百人站在那里，他喊道：“摩门教。”正确答案是摩门教。其余的人就完蛋了。

Village churches, maybe some higher level broad unifying principles, and you know, finally, like the deeper the principle, the more personally it has to be explored and held. And I think if people were to explore religious teachings — pick your favorite religion — if you explore religious teachings, everybody would find components of it that really resonate and will make their lives better, and then you can sort of absorb. But I'm not going to have the argument about which religion is better. And there was a great Far Side cartoon where there's like, you know, St. Peter at the pearly gates. You know this one? And there's like hundreds of people standing there, and like he yells out, "Mormon." The correct answer is Mormon. It's like rest of you are screwed.

顺便说一句，我认为那是帕斯卡赌注的众多缺陷之一。你知道，那不是抛硬币。那是——

I think, by the way, that's one of the many flaws in Pascal's wager. You know, that it's not a coin flip. It's a —

哪个神？

Which god?

对。那是下一个问题。

Right. That's the next question.

你最具标志性的一句话是——你的人生目标是找到最需要你的人、事业、项目或艺术。

I'm one of your most iconic — is your goal in life is to find the people, business, project or art that needs you the most.

是的，我真的认为这是我们在很大程度上偏离进化过去的一个地方。所以更新你的先验很重要。过去，你在一个小社会、小文明的小部落里，只有你能步行遇到的人。所以做出错误选择、被拒绝的后果非常严重。所以你早婚；如果你被追求者或女人拒绝，那对你来说很糟糕。你的声誉完全是局部的。你必须融入。而现在恰恰相反。这是一个搜索功能。你可以飞到世界任何地方。如果你足够年轻、足够有动力，你可以进入任何职业。你可以和几乎任何人交往。有无穷的机会。这令人畏惧。这很可怕。实际上真的很可怕，因为如果你没有成功，你会抑郁，觉得是自己的错。但好消息是你不必留在任何糟糕的处境中。现在，关于找到最适合你的东西的论点有两个部分。第一部分是你有无穷的选择；这不一定是好事。这让人紧张。而且如果缺乏忠诚，对社会也不好。如果每个人总是跳槽，总是换地方，那么你对亲属、部落或邻里就没有忠诚。或者如果你总是换关系，对吧？你没有任何持久性。你没有孩子。但我认为探索范围很广。所以如果你被某人拒绝，不要哭。就像一次糟糕的谷歌搜索结果。按返回键，再搜一次，或者点击下一个链接。有无穷的多样性。我的意思是，你一生会遇到 1 万到 2 万人。而世界上有 80 亿人，你可以一直点击、点击、点击，找到新的约会对象。选择太多了。所以你应该广泛探索，直到找到合适的。但生活中所有好处都来自复利。所以你必须投资于某样东西。你必须投资于一个地方。你必须投资于人。你必须投资于事业。你必须投资于知识。你必须投资于职业。所以你必须投资于你的身体健康和身体。所以你知道，找到那份对你来说像玩、对别人像工作的工作。找到那个人——他们做自己就能让你快乐，你做自己也能让他们快乐。找到你可以复利的地方。你可以建房子。你可以建立家庭。你身边有你喜欢和信任的人。天气很重要，信不信由你。我的意思是，这很平淡，但很重要。这就是为什么人们经常谈论它。你必须找到你可以投资的东西，然后你得到复利。所以有探索阶段和利用阶段。利用是军事意义上的，不是奴隶制意义上的。

Yeah, I really think that this is one place where we diverge from our evolutionary past in a big way. And so it's important to update your priors. In the past, you were in a tribe of a small number of people in a small society, a small civilization, and it was just people you could meet on foot. So the consequences of making a bad choice, sort of getting rejected, were really high. So you got married early; if you were rejected by your suitor or the woman, then it was terrible for you. Your reputation was all entirely local. You had to fit in. And now it's the exact opposite. It's a search function. You can fly anywhere in the world. You can enter any career if you're young enough and motivated enough. You can hang out with almost any set of people. There's infinite opportunity. And that's daunting. It's scary. It's actually really scary, because then if you don't make it, you get depressed and you feel like it was your fault. But the good news is you don't have to stay in any bad situation. Now, that argument where you want to find the thing that fits you the best, there's two parts of it. The first part is you have infinite choice; that's not necessarily good. It's nerve-wracking. And it's kind of bad for society if there's no loyalty. If everyone's always job hopping, if everyone's always location hopping, then you have no loyalty to your kinship or your tribe or your neighborhood. Or if you're always relationship hopping, right? You don't build any permanence. You have no children. But I think what it is is the exploration range is wide. So if you get rejected by someone, don't cry. It's like a bad Google search result. Hit back and just search again or click on the next link. There's infinite variety. I mean, you're going to meet 10, 20,000 people in your life. And there's 8 billion, and you know, you can click click click and find new ones to date all the time. Like there's so much optionality. So, you should explore widely until you find a fit. But then all the benefits in life come from compound interest. So you have to invest in something. You have to invest in a place. You have to invest in people. You have to invest in business. You have to invest in knowledge. You have to invest in a career. So you have to invest in your physical health and your body. So you know, you find the work that feels like play to you and looks like work to others. You find the person who uniquely — you know they make you happy by being who they are, and you make them happy by being who you are. You find the location where you can compound. You can build a house. You can build a household. You have people around you that you like and trust. The weather matters a lot, believe it or not. I mean, it's pretty prosaic but it matters. That's why people talk about it so much. You have to find the thing into which you can just invest, and then you get compound interest. So there's an exploration phase and there's the exploitation phase. Exploitation in the military sense, not in the slavery sense.

执行阶段或——

Execution phase or —

探索阶段和执行阶段，或投资阶段。探索然后投资。所以你探索、探索、探索，直到找到适合你的，然后投资几乎毫不费力，一旦开始投资，你就得到复利回报。你不能跳过任何一个阶段。

Exploration phase and execution phase, or investment phase. Exploration and then investment. So you explore, explore, explore until you find out what is the right fit for you, and then it's almost effortless to invest in it, and then once you start investing, then you get the compound interest returns. You can't skip either phase.

所以在某些情况下我们探索得太少。通常在找工作时我们探索得太少。你知道，我们会花——我理解，有时受财务限制——但人们会花 3 周找工作，然后在那份工作上干 5 年。那是探索太少、投资太多。但另一方面，比如人们会单身到 50 岁，然后说：“哦，现在我需要安定下来。”好吧，探索太多、投资不足，对吧？或者因为某种原因决定太晚要孩子，太固执或过了生育年龄。所以这些需要平衡，但我认为现代社会让探索变得容易得多。所以你应该意识到好处仍然全在投资中。如果你从不投资任何东西，那是空虚的生活。那是没有灵魂的生活。你会糟糕地退出。

So in some situations we explore too little. Usually in job hunting we explore too little. You know, we'll spend like — and I get it, sometimes you're constrained by finances — but people will spend 3 weeks looking for a job and they'll be in the job for 5 years. That's too little exploration and too much investment. But then on the other side, like people will stay single till they're 50 and then be like, "Oh, now I need to settle down." Well, too much exploration and not enough investment, right? Or decide like it's too late to have kids for whatever reason, too set in their ways or past the biological age. So there's a balance to these, but I think modern society has made exploration a lot easier. And so, you should just realize that the benefits are still all in investment. If you never invest in anything, it's an empty life. It's a soulless life. You'll exit badly.

两者之间的过渡感觉像是关键所在。你知道，这是避免局部最优，或者理解你是否真的在正确的地方扎根和投资。

The transition between the two feels like where the rubber really meets the road. You know, it's avoiding kind of a local maxima or understanding whether you're actually in the right place to really root down and invest.

是的。我认为这就是经验派上用场的地方，对吧？那么我们如何学习？我们不是通过时间学习。这就是我认为马尔科姆·格拉德威尔错的地方。不是 1 万小时。好吗？他完全错了。我的意思是，我理解他的出发点。我不是在批评格拉德威尔，但这已经成了一个梗，对吧？这 1 万小时。实际上它是 1 万次迭代。什么是迭代？显然不是 1 万次，但重复迭代是我们学习的方式。迭代是当你——不是重复。它非常刻意。不要用“重复”这个词。迭代意味着你做某事，然后诚实地反思结果，做出改变，再试一次。

Yeah. I think this is where the experience comes in handy, right? So how do we learn? We don't learn through time. That's where I think Malcolm Gladwell was wrong. It's not 10,000 hours. Okay? He's completely wrong about that. I mean, I get where he's coming from. I'm not criticizing Gladwell, but it's become a meme, right? This 10,000 hours. What it really is is 10,000 iterations. And what are iterations? It's not 10,000 obviously, but it's repeated iterations is how we learn. And iterations are when you — it's not repetitions. It's very deliberate. Do not use the word repetitions. Iteration means you do something, then you honestly reflect upon the outcome, you make a change, and you try again.

然后你诚实地反思结果，做出改变，再试一次。在任何事情上重复足够多次，就能培养你的判断力。

Then you honestly reflect upon the outcome, you make a change, and you try again. You do this enough times in any endeavor, it will develop your judgment.

一旦你的判断力足够成熟，你就会开始不去尝试很多事情。你会拒绝很多事情，直到最后你说：“其实，我只想和这样的人在一起，或者我只想住在这样的地方，或者我只想做这样的事情。”就是这样。现在你完成了。现在你可以开始投入了。

And then once your judgment is well-developed enough, you will start not trying a whole bunch of things. You will reject a whole bunch of things until finally you say, 'Well, actually, I just want to be with this kind of person or I just want to live in this kind of place or I just want to do this kind of thing.' And that's it. Now you're done. Now you can start investing.

顺便说一句，所有这些都只是事后推理。我在做的时候并没有真正想清楚。回头看模式很容易，但在前进时很难看清。

Love, by the way, all this stuff is ex post facto reasoning. I never really thought this through while I was doing it. It's like really easy to look back and see the pattern. It's very hard to see it when you're moving forward.

是的。我们谈到的任何东西，我猜只有亲身经历过的人才会产生共鸣，他们会说：“啊，现在我有个词来形容它了。”然后他们就能给它贴上标签，这有助于以后记住。但你不能纯粹抽象地教别人，因为他们不知道什么时候适用于自己的情况。很多时候人们在 Twitter 或 Reddit 上问我建议，问题太宽泛了。我又不在你的处境里，我无法给你答案。我就是不知道。

Yeah. Anything that we talk about, my guess is it will only resonate with somebody if they went through the experience themselves and they're like, 'Ah, now I have a word for it.' And then they can attach a word for it and that helps them remember it more later. But you can't teach someone purely in the abstract because they don't know when it applies to their situation. A lot of times people ask me advice on Twitter or on Reddit and it's like way too broad. It's like I'm not in your situation. I can't give you the answer. I just don't know.

是的，我能给你的只是一个通用原则，可能适用也可能不适用，对吧？所以这很不令人满意，但这是事实。但这就是我喜欢像 Air Chat 和过去的 Clubhouse 这样的平台的原因，在那里有人可以问你一个问题，你可以和他们深入探讨。你可以问他们更深一层的问题，再深一层，再深一层，直到你发现，好吧，根据你告诉我的情况，如果我在那个处境，我会这样处理。

Yeah, all I can give you is a general principle which may or may not apply, right? So, this is pretty unsatisfying, but it's the truth. But this is where I like platforms like Air Chat and Clubhouse back in the day where someone could ask you a question, you could get into it with them. You could ask them the next level question, the next level question, the next level question until you find like, okay, well, if I was in a situation given what you've told me, here's how I would handle it.

是的，你可以从两个层面参与，要么是通用的，要么是具体的，但中间的任何东西都很难……

Yeah, there's kind of two levels you can engage on it, which is the general or the specific, but anything in the middle is really difficult to...

是的。通用的需要人们自己去应用。所以这些只是思维钩子，你知道，可能会引起共鸣，也可能不会。

Yeah. The general requires people to apply it themselves. So these are just mental hooks and you know may resonate may not.

我们谈到的一件事是，环境有点像你思想的上游，环境决定了你思考什么、如何思考，但开悟的头脑可以选择自己的环境，从而对此拥有主动权。

One thing we talked about is the environment being sort of upstream of your thoughts and environment determining so much of what you think how you think but that the enlightened mind sort of can choose its own environment and so taking agency over that.

是的。这是一个反馈循环，对吧？作为生物，我们注定要适应。我们适应环境，并在局部逆转熵，使环境更可控。但第一步是有意识地选择你的环境。这就是为什么在人际关系上，我有点说不要执着于某段特定的关系，即使它不适合你。你没有义务硬撑下去，除非你有孩子之类的，那就不一样了，对吧？

Yeah. It's a feedback loop, right? We are meant to adapt as living creatures. We adapt to our environment and we locally reverse entropy to make our environment more controllable. But the first step of that is choosing your environment consciously. And so that's why on relationships I was kind of saying don't get attached to a specific relationship even if it's not working for you. You don't have some obligation to struggle through unless you have kids or something then it's different, right?

你可以改变你的关系。你可以精心挑选你的关系，一旦你处于正确的关系中，事情就容易多了，因为你们更合拍。所以，我认为这也有点符合我的一条推文：唯一真正的智力测试是你是否得到了你生活中想要的东西，对吧？那是我自己最喜欢的一条，因为它是一个两部分测试。一是选择想要什么，然后得到它。不仅仅是，哦，我想成为一个 6 英尺 8 英寸高的篮球运动员。那不可能发生。所以，你必须想要正确的东西，那些可以实现的东西，但处于你能力范围的边缘，并且实现它们的过程不会让你痛苦。所以你选择想要什么，然后去得到你想要的，如果你选择了正确的东西并且得到了它，那就是唯一能确定你是否聪明的外部有效信号，对吧？

You can change your relationship. You can curate your relationship and then once you're in the right relationship, it's a lot easier because you're a better fit for each other. So, I think this also goes into my tweet a little bit like the only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life, right? And that was one of my favorites for myself because it's a two-part test. One is choosing what to want and then getting it. It's not just like, oh, I want to be a 6'8" tall basketball player. It's not going to happen. So, you have to want the right things, things that are even achievable, but kind of at the edge of your range of achievability and where the process of achieving them won't make you miserable. And so you choose what to want and then you go and get what you want and then if you chose the right things and you got it then that's the only external valid signal that can determine are you intelligent or not, right?

所以，我认为相关的是，你选择你的环境，然后你适应你的环境。但不要只是困在你的环境里。不要适应它。现代社会最大的礼物之一就是，你知道，你的第一个智商测试是你是否留在你出生的地方，对吧？很多人最终被困在他们出生的地方，也许那里对他们来说是最优的，但通常我猜不是。通常我猜外面有某个地方对他们更好。可能是隔壁镇，可能是另一个国家，可能是任何地方。但人们想要更好的生活，第一步是你去哪里寻找更好的生活。所以这是选择环境的一部分。

So, I think related, you choose your environment and then you adapt your environment. But don't just get stuck in your environment. Don't adapt it. Like one of the greatest gifts in modern society is that, you know, the first IQ test you have is do you stay where you were born, right? Like a lot of people end up stuck where they're born and maybe it was the optimal place for them, but usually I would guess not. Usually I would guess there was some place out there that was better for them. It might be the next town over. It might be another country. It could be anything. But people want better lives and the first step is where do you go for that better life. So that is part of choosing your environment.

但即便如此，我觉得你必须做点什么。我不认为你可以仅仅作为一个建议给予者度过一生。你知道，这对我来说感觉很假。理想的生活是为你自己和你的孩子写作，做有用、美丽和真实的事情。你为自己学习，而当你给别人建议时，是因为他们问了你，而且问的是具体的事情，这样才会有帮助。你不是为了成为建议给予者而给建议。我最不喜欢的风险投资家是那种说“我们是公司建设者。我们是团队背后的团队”的人。这就像，“不，你不是。创始人建立了公司。”你知道，他们承担了所有风险。你只是沾了一点光。你拿别人的资本冒险，健康的资本。是的，你是一个好的挑选者。外面有一些风险投资家确实参与其中，确实卷起袖子，确实把它当成自己的事。但很少。非常非常少，而且不是那些你想到的更出名的人。

But even then I feel like you have to do something. I don't think you can go through life as just an advice giver. You know it feels fake to me. It feels false to me. An ideal life is one where you write for yourself and your children and you do things that are useful and beautiful and true. You learn for yourself and to the extent that you're giving people advice, it's because they asked you and they asked you something specific and it can be helpful. You're not giving advice to become an advice giver. My least favorite VC is the type who like says, 'We're company builders. We're the team behind the team.' It's like, 'No, you're not. The founder built the company.' You know, they took all the risk. You're taking a little bit of credit. You risk somebody else's capital, healthy capital. And yes, you were a good picker. There are a few VCs out there who really do get involved and who really do roll up their sleeves and who really do take it personally. But there are few. They're very, very few and they're not the more famous ones that you would think about.

嗯，这就是你的 Twitter 独特之处，你几乎没有付出任何努力来积累粉丝。你只是分享给自己的笔记，是的，我认为人们看到了其中的真实性和价值。

Well, that's what's unique about your Twitter is that you've exerted zero effort to actually accrue a following. You just share notes to self and yeah, people I think see the authenticity of that and the value of it.

我看到了你关于嫉妒的一些想法——我觉得特别有用——和你说的关于智力的真正游戏或真正测试是你是否得到了你生活中想要的东西之间的联系。我发现如果你通过了那个测试，如果你得到了你独特想要的东西，还有什么可嫉妒的呢？你为什么会嫉妒别人？

I saw a connection between some of your thoughts on envy which has been particularly I think useful and what you said about the real game of intelligence or the real test of intelligence is whether you get what you want out of life. I find if you pass that test, if you get what you want that you uniquely wanted, what is there to be jealous of? Why would you be envious of anybody else?

这是一个非常好的观点。它们确实融合在一起。话虽如此，通过这个测试非常困难。我们的欲望通常超过我们的能力，而且我们一旦得到想要的，就会制造新的欲望。但是的，我必须提醒自己选择灵感而非嫉妒。

That's a very good point. They do coalesce together. That said, it's very hard to pass that test. Our desires usually outstrip our capabilities and we have a way of manufacturing new ones as soon as we get what we want. But yeah, I have to remind myself to choose inspiration over envy.

你知道，当你看到有人成功做成某件事时，我尽量不去嫉妒。因为在这个地球上，没有一个人我愿意与之交换人生——没有，连那些开悟者也不例外。没有一个人我愿意完全对调。所以从这个意义上说，嫉妒并不真实。但当你看到有人成功时，你可以说，他们不配，他们只是运气好。当然，这有一定道理，有些人身上这种成分更多，或者他们做事不道德，这很遗憾。这些说法没错，但纠结于此并不好。就像我们一开始讨论的，如果你纠结于生活中的所有不公，你永远什么都做不成。

You know, when you see somebody doing something successfully, what I try not to be is envious. In the sense that there's no one on planet Earth that I would swap my life with—no one, not even these enlightened beings. There's nobody that I would do a full wholesale substitute with. So in that sense, envy is not real. But when you look at someone being successful, you can say, well, they don't deserve it, they got lucky. Sure, there's an element of that, and with some people there's much more of that than others, or they're being unethical about it, which is unfortunate. So those are true, but it's not good to fixate on those. Just like we discussed at the beginning, if you fixate on all the unfairness in life, you'll never get anything done.

所以从非常实际的角度来说，你要找到其中鼓舞人心的部分。例如，我创办公司的一个原因就是受到埃隆和彼得·蒂尔等人的启发。埃隆激励我，因为他创办这些公司，他奋力冲刺，接手大项目，做困难的事。彼得·蒂尔则有点不同。蒂尔谈论的是做重要的事，创造你想要的确定的未来。但我没看到他亲自去做，对吧？他是投资者兼哲学家。所以我也可以成为那样的人——做个投资者兼哲学家。但我选择被他言行中最好的部分所激励，而忽略其余部分。这没什么不对，我只是喜欢那种激励。但如果要寻找纯粹的激励，那个我从未嫉妒、从未想交换人生、却深受启发的人是史蒂夫·乔布斯。即使在他活着的时候——人们死后更容易被激励而不嫉妒，真的。

So just on a very practical basis, you want to find the part that's inspirational. For example, one of the reasons why I'm doing a company is I'm inspired by guys like Elon and Peter Thiel. Elon inspires me because he does these companies, he charges hard, he takes on huge projects, and he does difficult things. Peter Thiel is a little different. Thiel talks about doing important things, creating the definite future that you want to live in. But I don't see him doing it himself, right? He's an investor and philosopher. So I could just be that guy—I could just be an investor philosopher. But I choose to be inspired by the best part of what he's saying and doing, and I sort of ignore the rest. There's nothing wrong with it, but I just like the inspiration part. But if I had to look for pure inspiration, the guy that I never envied, I never swapped with him, but I was super inspired by Steve Jobs. Even when he was alive, it's easy to be inspired and not envious when people are dead.

对吧？但即使在他活着的时候——我记得前几天有人说过，自从乔布斯去世后，硅谷就缺少了一位文化领袖。就像所有这些创业者——你仰望谁？我知道埃隆现在因为政府和政治那档子事被骂得很惨。人们总是选边站，但我认为诚实的人仍然喜欢埃隆并受他启发。但没有一个单一的文化领袖，让人看着他说：‘对，我希望我的生活就是那样。’这个人正在建造不可思议的东西。他们不只是为了钱。他们看起来相对快乐。他们有好的家庭生活。他们有道德伦理，虽然乔布斯也有负面故事。但你不能成为一个极端人物而不打破一些鸡蛋。这总会发生。你的个性会有一些负面，人们会想通过揭露这些故事来抬高自己。他们会想挖掘这些故事，把这个人拉下来，这样他们就能在地位阶梯上爬得更高。但自从乔布斯去世后，就没有那种单一的激励了。但也许我们不再生活在那种世界里了。大家也不再每晚都看沃尔特·克朗凯特的晚间新闻了。所以，从你能找到的地方获取激励吧。有很多微小的激励。

Right? But even when he was alive, I think somebody said this the other day. They said, since Steve Jobs passed, Silicon Valley is missing its cultural leader. It's like all these entrepreneurs—who do you look up to? I know Elon's pretty reviled now because of the whole thing with the administration and politics. People always pick sides on that, but I think the honest people still like Elon and are inspired by him. But there is no single cultural leader where somebody looks at that person and says, 'Yeah, I want my life to be that.' This person's building something incredible. They're not just doing it for the money. They seem relatively happy. They have a good family life. They have some ethics and morals, although yes, Steve has negative stories about him too. But you can't be an extreme character without breaking some eggs. It's just going to happen. You're going to have some negative sides to your personality, and people will want to elevate themselves by bringing those stories out. They'll want to unearth those stories and pull this person down so they can be higher up on the status ladder. But yeah, since Jobs passed, there isn't that single inspiration. But maybe we're not living in that kind of world anymore. Everyone doesn't tune in to Walter Cronkite for the evening news anymore either. So get your inspiration where you can. There's lots of mini inspiration.

知道我们不可避免地是模仿性生物，我们会受启发、会追随他人，那么有意识地选择英雄，或者有意识地选择那些英雄的特质，而不是偶然为之，这大概是我们大多数人能做到的最好程度了。

Knowing that we are sort of inevitably mimetic creatures and we're going to be inspired by and pick up and follow people, deliberately selecting heroes or deliberately selecting traits of those heroes, rather than doing it on accident, feels like maybe as good as most of us can do.

是的。这没问题。我的意思是，这又回到了共鸣。对方身上的某些东西会提醒你，你自己内心也有某种东西。

Yeah. And that's fine. I mean, it's again going to be resonance. It is something in that other person will remind you of something within yourself.

然后你可以得到一些验证：好吧，如果那个人能做到，我也能。比如史蒂夫·乔布斯——他学过书法和艺术，当过一段时间的禅宗佛教徒，服用过 LSD，相信皮克斯和 NeXT，一度失宠然后又回归。所有这些都让我有资格将灵性与科学融合。我不再那么害怕，因为乔布斯提供了存在的证明。即使他没有到处公开演讲——我其实很欣赏他这一点，他没有试图把自己定位成哲学家或导师之类。相反，他将这些体现在产品中。所以我认为这非常鼓舞人心，而且肯定与我内心的某些部分产生共鸣。我认为每个人都是完整的。每个人都有能力做任何事。你既能成为最大的天使，也能成为最大的恶魔。你既能取得下一个突破，也能一辈子抽大麻打游戏。你什么都能做。这是多伊奇理论的一部分——我不想说哲学，我会说这是多伊奇科学的一部分，因为他已经证明人类是图灵完备的。图灵完备意味着你是通用解释器。通用解释器意味着你可以在脑中模拟所有物理定律。任何能被思考的东西你都能思考。你可以有任何想法。你可以有任何突破。你可以有无限的创造力。每个人都有能力做任何事。而且我认为我们内心深处都知道这一点。只是我们在社会中受到限制，比如：‘哦，你是律师，你必须这样思考。你上过这所学校，你必须那样行事。你没上过大学，所以你只能思考或谈论这些事。你不能和那个人一起在公共场合小便。你不能那样独特地塑造你的人生。’或者另一方面，有些人是怪人——旧金山到处都是怪人——但他们被告知：‘你必须讨厌钱。你不能赚钱。你不能看起来正常。你必须讽刺。你必须是个嬉皮士。’你基本上可以做任何你想做的事。重要的是弄清楚什么能让你得到你想要的，并且首先想要正确的东西。我想我会说，我们最终都会明白，你想要的是长期的东西，是让你个人变得更好的东西，然后在那之后，你可以做让整个社会变得更好的事情。因为如果你只执着于自己，你不会快乐。

And then you can get some validation by saying, well okay, if that person can do it, I can too. I'll say like Steve Jobs—his having done calligraphy and art, having been a Zen Buddhist for a while, having done LSD, believing in Pixar and believing in NeXT, kind of falling out of favor and then coming back in. All of those things gave me license to just mix the spiritual and the scientific. I wasn't as afraid because there was existence proof through Jobs. Even if he wasn't running around publicly lecturing people—which I appreciate about him actually, that he wasn't out there trying to position himself as a philosopher or guru or anything like that. Rather, he was embodying it in his products. And so I think that's deeply inspirational and definitely there's resonance with parts of me. I think every human is whole. Every person is capable of everything. You're capable of being the biggest angel or the biggest demon. You're capable of having the next breakthrough or just kind of spending your whole life smoking dope and playing video games. You're capable of anything. And this is part of Deutsch's—I don't want to say philosophy, I would say it's part of Deutsch's science because he has shown that humans are Turing complete. Turing complete means you're a universal explainer. Universal explainer means you can simulate all the laws of physics in your head. Anything that can be thought can be thought by you. You can have any thought. You can have any breakthrough. You can have any amount of creativity. Everyone's capable of everything. And I think deep down we know that. And it's just we get limited in society by things like, 'Oh, you're a lawyer, you have to think this way. You went to this school, you have to behave that way. You didn't go to college, so you can only think or talk about these things. You can't piss in public with that person. You can't forge your life uniquely that way.' Or on the other side, there are people who are weirdos—San Francisco is full of weirdos—but they're told, 'You must hate money. You're not allowed to make money. You're not allowed to look normal. You have to be ironic. You got to be a hipster.' You can kind of do whatever you want. And the important thing is just figuring out what is going to get you what you want and wanting the right things in the first place. And I guess I would just argue that all of us eventually figure out that you want the long-term things, and the things that make you personally better off, and then after that you can do the things that make all of society better off. Because if you just obsess on yourself, you're not going to be happy.

嗯，这可能是个宏大的联想，但感觉就像你在写你的《沉思录》。

Well, it's probably a grandiose association, but it feels like you're writing your Meditations.

你知道，它们是公开的自我笔记，你在不断迭代。嗯，《沉思录》更真实，因为他没打算让日记出版。

You know, they're notes to self that are public that you're iterating on. Well, meditations was more authentic because he didn't mean for his journal to be published.

是的。所以，嗯，你有了观察者效应。

Yes. So, yeah, you have the observer effect.

是的，我的肯定没那么真实。我尽量在公开时保持真实，对吧？仅仅是公开本身就带有一定程度的虚假。

Yes, mine is less authentic for sure. I try to keep it as authentic as I can while being public, right? Just being public has some level of inauthenticity baked into it.

我真正钦佩的人是叔本华，因为他活着时写了那么多残酷的真相，没人喜欢他，但他知道自己说的是真话，所以不在乎。现在他死后非常有名，至少应该如此。我认为他是我遇到的最伟大的西方哲学家。也许我会写一本真正的书，死后出版，因为我确实活在这个世界里，现在世界超级互联，我有孩子等等。但那才是我说出所有残酷真相的时候。

The guy I really admire, Schopenhauer, because he wrote so much harsh truth while he was alive and nobody liked him, but he knew he was telling the truth, so he didn't care. And now he's posthumously incredibly famous or should be anyway. I think he's the greatest of the western philosophers that I've encountered. Maybe I'll write my real book and it gets published posthumously because I do live in this world and now the world is super connected and I have kids and all that. But that's when I tell all the harsh truths.

是的。你给一个当下对寻找目标、寻找意义感到不快乐的人的一条建议是：神、孩子、使命。

Yeah. One of the pieces of advice you gave somebody who was presently unhappy about finding purpose, finding meaning was God, kids, are missioned.

是的，没错。

Yeah, that's right.

嗯，是的，神、孩子、使命。我至少得找到三者之一。我很好奇这些对你个人来说是如何分解的。

Um, yeah, God, kids, are mission. I got to find one of the three at least. I was curious how those broke down for you personally.

我三者都有。嗯，我的神是个人的，你知道。我甚至无法表达。我甚至不确定我是否用“神”这个词，但它就在那里。我与这一切有自己独特的关系。孩子肯定有。爱他们。扩大范围。就是家庭。家庭很棒。亲近家人。爱你的家人。照顾他们。没有替代品。随着年龄增长，扩展你对家庭的定义。还有使命。是的。我的意思是，我有一个正在做的产品。我在和你录这个节目。我在努力自我实现，做我最擅长的事。

I got all three. Well, my God is personal, you know. I can't even articulate it. I'm not even sure I use the word God, but it's there. I have my own relationship with whatever this is. Kids definitely have them. Love them. Broaden that. Just family. Family is great. Be close to family. Love your family. Take care of them. There's no substitutes. And expand your definition of family as you get older. And mission. Yeah. I mean, I have a product that I'm working on. I'm recording this thing with you. I'm trying to self-actualize as to what I do best.

所以，使命非常狭窄，就是你目前在做的事情。不是更宏大的人类层面、文明层面。

So, the mission is very narrow to what you're working on now. It's not a grander human level, civilization level.

我想开悟。我不觉得自己有权在没有彻底探索这些深奥话题的情况下对人们说教。所以在某种程度上，我没写书的部分原因是我觉得那可能是欺诈。你知道，部分原因是我只是懒。所以这是个好借口，但可能确实是欺诈。

I'd like to be enlightened. I don't feel like I have a right to lecture people on these esoteric topics without myself having explored them all the way through. So on some level, part of the reason why I haven't written a book is because I feel like it might be fraudulent. You know, part of it is I'm just lazy. So it's a good excuse, but it might be fraudulent.

你会过度内省吗？

Can you overdose on introspection?

我认为那是另一回事。内省，如果你在寻找真相，如果你在思考，比如观察自己并提高自我意识，我认为你不会过度。我觉得你在过度之前就会感到无聊或分心。但如果你在反刍，如果你基本上在想，“哦，这不应该发生，这是错的，”你知道，你陷入了抑郁者那种思维循环，那么你绝对会过度。所以这取决于你在想什么。如果你在观察自己，那不同于你沉迷于自己或沉迷于某些问题，其中一些可能是真实的，但大多数是想象的。

I think it would be a different thing. Introspection, if you're trying to find truth, if you're like thinking, like watching yourself and increasing your self-awareness, I don't think you can. I think you get bored of it or distracted before you overdose on it. But if you're ruminating, if you're basically like, "Oh, this shouldn't have happened and this was wrong," and you know, you're caught in that mind loop that depressed people have, then you can absolutely overdo it. So it depends what you're thinking about. If you're observing yourself, that's different than if you're obsessing over yourself or you're obsessing over some problems, some of which can be real, but most of which are imagined.

比如我有一个有争议的观点，人们不喜欢这个，但如果我正确理解了一位哲学家，我发的一条推文是：谁说的越重要，它实际上越不重要。我认为这是真的。就像真相就是真相，不管它来自谁。但与此同时，有一些关于如何生活的哲学，这些不仅仅是简单的陈述，而是这个人的整个哲学，对吧？我现在不读书，我读作者。我不读作者，我读哲学家。对吧？所以我会读多伊奇，我会读奥修，我会读克里希那穆提，我会读叔本华，因为我喜欢他们，我会读他们所有的作品。在我读完他们所有的作品之前，我为什么要读别人？对吧？我会读塔勒布所有的作品，对吧？但我确实根据这些哲学家在生活中取得的结果来评判他们。所以如果某人有深刻的哲学，但他们似乎不快乐，没有得到他们想要的，他们对此痛苦，那么你知道，就像《老无所依》里的那句话：“如果你的规则把你带到这里，它们有什么用？”杀手在主角出现在错误的地方时说的，对吧？所以它应该把你带到一个好地方。所以有一些近代的现代作家和名人，我不点名，但他们基本上自杀了。所以我想，那哲学有多伟大？我很抱歉你自杀了，但显然你为哲学所做的一切都没有奏效。现在那里可能有一些我可以摘取的个别真理，但我不会深入投资你的哲学或具体化你的生活，因为它结局很糟。

Like one of the controversial takes I have, people don't like this, but if I'm reading a philosopher right, one tweet I just put was like: the more it matters who said it, the less it actually matters. I think that is true. Like truth is truth regardless of who it comes from. But at the same time, there are philosophies of how to live your life, and these aren't just like simple statements, these are like this person's entire philosophy, right? And I don't read books these days, I read authors. And I don't read authors, I read philosophers. Right? So I'll read Deutsch, I'll read Osho, I'll read Krishnamurti, I'll read Schopenhauer, and because I like them, I'll read everything by them. And until I'm done reading everything by them, why would I read anybody else? Right? I'll read everything by Taleb, right? But I do judge these philosophers on the outcomes they got in their lives. So if somebody has a deep philosophy but they seem like they were unhappy and they didn't get what they wanted, they were miserable about it, then you know, it's like that line from No Country for Old Men: "What good are your rules if they led you here?" The killer says that when the protagonist shows up in the wrong place, right? So it should lead you to a good place. So there are some modern writers of recent times and celebrities who I won't name, but they basically kill themselves. So I'm like, how great was that philosophy? Like I'm sorry you killed yourself, but clearly whatever you did for your philosophy did not work. Now there might be individual truths in there I can pluck out, but I'm not going to invest deeply in your philosophy or reify your life because it ended badly.

你有一条很棒的推文：“真正的真理是异端。它们无法被说出，只能被发现、低语，或许被阅读。”

You've got a great tweet: "The real truths are heresies. They cannot be spoken, only discovered, whispered, and perhaps read."

没错。所以那是我最幽默的书。

That's right. So it's my most humorous book.

但那是为什么呢？为什么有这么多力量与真相作对？

Why is that though? Like why are there so many forces working against truth?

因为社会必须保持团结。群体必须有共识。要有共识，你必须有一套共同的信念，这些信念是虚假的，但能让人们更容易相处。比如其中之一是人人平等，对吧？在圣灵意义上人人平等。在意识意义上人人平等。在普遍解释者意义上人人平等。但在几乎任何其他意义上，人并不平等，对吧？比如你工作多努力，你为社会或自己做得有多好，你的产品有多好，你能跳多高，你能打多重，你知道，你是否胜任这份或那份工作？不平等，对吧？但那是我们必须拥有的共同虚构，才能相处。如果我们没有那个共同虚构，我们就无法相处。我们开始互相争斗。所以这些虚假有些是有充分理由的。它们防止战争。它们允许群体共存，但它们不是真的。所以，我的意思是，那是一个简单的例子。还有很多，比如你在男女关系中经常看到，对吧？比如整个搭讪艺术家的事情，搭讪艺术家社群？那都是男人们分享关于女人的真相，这些真相他们不能在公开场合说，但似乎对某些女人有效，让他们能约会。你知道，比如那个领域的一个真相是，女人被男人身上的社会地位迹象所吸引。她们不一定被财富吸引，尽管财富可以是社会地位的迹象。她们不一定被身体素质甚至性格吸引。虽然我会争辩说，对于婚姻，女人被性格吸引，但你知道，对于约会，她们被男人身上的社会地位迹象所吸引。甚至不完全是社会地位。

Because society has to stay together. Groups have to have consensus. And to have consensus you have to have a shared set of beliefs that are false but make it easier to get along. And like one of those is everyone's equal, right? Everyone's equal in the Holy Ghost sense. Everyone's equal in this consciousness sense. Everyone's equal in the universal explainer sense. Everyone is not equal in almost any other sense, right? In terms of like how hard you work, how good are you doing for society or for yourself, how good is your product, how high can you jump, how hard can you hit, you know, are you qualified for this job or that job? Not equal, right? But that is a shared fiction that we have to have to get along. If we don't have that shared fiction, we don't get along. We start fighting each other. So some of these falsehoods are there for good reasons. They prevent warfare. They allow the group to coexist, but they're not true. So, I mean, that's a simple example. There are many like you see this a lot in male-female relationships, right? Like what is the whole pickup artist thing, the pickup artist society? That's all guys sharing truths about women that they're not allowed to say in public that seem to work on some number of women that allow them to go get dates. You know, like one of the truths in that domain is that women are attracted to signs of social status in men. It's not they're attracted to necessarily wealth, although wealth can be a sign of social status. They're not necessarily attracted to physicality or even character. Although I would argue for marriage, women are attracted to character, but you know, for dating, they're attracted to signs of social status in men. It's not even social status.

这是社会地位的信号，对吧？所以男人必须学会如何破解社会地位的信号。这就创造了一种游戏现象，它本身就是一种谎言，反过来影响女性。同样地，女性被教导相信男人是被你的性格和个性所吸引。他们后来可能会因为这些而留在你身边，但最初的吸引力完全是生理上的，对吧？所以这是另一个你不该多谈的真相。这些处于边缘地带，所以我可以稍微谈一谈。有些真相我完全不能谈，它们要深入得多。但我要告诉你，一些最伟大的哲学家正是通过告诉你残酷的真相来建立他们讲真话的能力。正因为如此，他们会在大多数其他哲学家被遗忘之后很久仍被阅读。

It's signs of social status, right? So then men have to learn how to hack signs of social status. That creates this game phenomenon which is its own falsehood going back at women. Equivalently, women are taught to believe that men are attracted to you for your character and your personality. They might stay with you for that later, but the initial attraction is all physical, right? And so that's another truth you're not supposed to talk about too much. These are on the edge, so I can talk about them a little bit. There are truths I just cannot talk about, way further down. But I would tell you that some of the greatest philosophers of all time establish their truth-telling capabilities by telling you the harsh truth. And because of that, they'll be read long after most of the rest of them are forgotten.

这也是阅读那些愿意讲真话的逝者所写的永恒完美书籍的价值所在。

And that's part of the value of reading those permanent perfect books from dead people who are willing to tell the truth.

他们已经去世了，要么是讲了真话，要么是死后出版，要么是匿名出版，要么就是根本不在乎。

They're dead, and they either told the truth, published posthumously, or published anonymously, or they just didn't care.

有趣的是，有些真理是自我延续或自我收敛的。它们让自己变得更加明显，而另一些则需要被主动掩盖。

It's interesting that some truths are self-perpetuating or self-converging. Like they are making themselves more evident, and others need to be actively obscured.

嗯，这其实又回到了你之前说的：有些东西可以传播，有些则不能。所以当一个真理传播开来，它就变成了陈词滥调，变成了传统智慧。如果一个谎言传播开来，那就是假新闻，到处都是，那是政治，是很多争斗的来源。一个不传播的谎言很快就会消失。然后还有那些不传播的真理。这些实际上是最有趣的。它们不传播的原因是传播是群体的功能。要传播，就需要有一个群体在其中传播。所以任何降低群体凝聚力的真理都不会传播。

Well, it actually goes back to what you said earlier: some things are spreadable and some things are not. So when you get a truth that spreads, it's cliché, it's conventional wisdom. If you get a lie that spreads, that's fake news, that's all over, that's politics, that's a lot of the combat that goes on. A lie that doesn't spread just disappears very quickly. And then there are the truths that don't spread. And those are actually the most interesting. The reason they don't spread is because spread is a function of groups. To spread, there needs to be a group to spread within. So any truth that lowers group cohesion will not spread.

然后就像一个 2x2 矩阵，对吧？

And then there's kind of like a 2x2 matrix, right?

是的。这是一个关于真理与可传播性的 2x2 矩阵。基本上你有传统智慧、假新闻、异端邪说和不存在的东西。就是这四种，或者我会说是胡说八道。所以问题在于每个人都知道传统智慧。异端邪说不会传播。所以大多数新闻都是假新闻。

Yeah. It's a 2x2 matrix of truth versus spreadability. And basically you have conventional wisdom, fake news, heresies, and non-existence. Those are the four, or nonsense I would say. So, the problem is everyone knows the conventional wisdom. The heresies don't spread. So most of the news is fake news.

根据定义，传统智慧不需要传播，因为它已经在那里了。异端邪说不会传播，因为它们不可传播，胡说八道也走不远。所以唯一能在环境中存活下来的就是假新闻。

By definition, conventional wisdom doesn't need to be spread because it's already out there. And heresies don't spread because they're not spreadable, and nonsense doesn't go anywhere. So the only thing that makes it through the environment is fake news.

嗯，这实际上是彼得·蒂尔的问题：挖掘异端邪说，对吧？

Well, it's actually Peter Thiel's question: digging for heresies, right?

没错。如果你想成为非共识的正确者，你需要押注于一个异端邪说。

That's right. If you want to be non-consensus correct, you need to bet on a heresy.

对。不过彼得只谈商业背景。

Right. Now, Peter only talks about business contexts.

是的。

Yeah.

但真正的异端邪说无处不在。它们存在于商业、科学、遗传学、人口学、社会科学、经济学中。是的，这非常有趣。

But the real heresies are everywhere. They're out there in business, in science, in genetics, demographics, social science, economics. Yeah, that's very interesting.

我会读一段摘录，看看这是否有所更新，特别是通过多伊奇。我的哲学归结为：一端是进化论，它有一个约束原则，因为它解释了关于人类的很多方面。另一端是佛教，它是最古老、最经得起时间考验的关于我们内在状态的精神哲学。

I'll read a clip and see if this is updated at all, particularly via Deutsch. My philosophy falls down to this: on one pole, evolution has a binding principle because it explains so much about humans. On the other is Buddhism, which is the oldest, most time-tested spiritual philosophy regarding our internal state.

是的，我仍然坚持这一点。我认为这两者仍然正确。我只想补充一点，通过多伊奇，量子物理学是我们对物质世界的最佳解释。他的认识论和他对难以变动的良好解释的替代——我在此基础上稍加补充：这帮助我思考它们通常做出有风险和狭窄的预测。这就是你如何区分真假。所以这是一个极其有用的补充。然后是计算，以及所有这些之间的联系。所以量子计算，量子物理学与认识论和自然选择进化论之间的联系，还有佛教灵性，我知道多伊奇对此毫无兴趣，也完全没有纳入他的世界观。但这就是你哲学的实用性所在，即管理我们心智的人性。佛教是这方面最好的表达。

Yeah, I mean, I still stand by that. I think those are both still true. I would just add to it that I think through Deutsch, quantum physics is our best explanation for the material world we live in. His epistemology and his replacement of good explanations that are hard to vary—I add on to that a little bit: it helps me to think of it also as they often make risky and narrow predictions. That's how you determine what's true from what's false. So that is an incredibly useful addition. And then computation, and the linkages between all of these. So quantum computation, linkage between quantum physics and epistemology and evolution by natural selection, and also with Buddhist spirituality, which I know Deutsch has zero interest in and does not factor into his worldview at all. But that's where the practicality of your philosophy comes in, of just managing the humanness of our minds. Buddhism is the best expression of that.

是的，它很实用，但我也认为它是真的。我不一定百分之百这样生活，但在理智上我相当确信佛教的解释是正确的，即意识就是一切，一切都在意识中产生，自我是一个虚构。我每天真的那样生活吗？但我暂时相信它是真的，而且我认为这是一个比说意识产生于物质更好的模型。我认为物质产生于意识。

Yeah, it's practical, but I also think it's true. I don't necessarily live my life 100% this way, but intellectually I'm pretty convinced that the Buddhist interpretation is correct, that consciousness is everything and everything arises within consciousness, that the self is a fiction. Do I live my actual life that way day-to-day? But I do believe it to be true tentatively, and I think it is a better model than saying that consciousness arises within matter. I think matter arises within consciousness.

这与多伊奇兼容吗？我是说他关于人类例外论以及我们是唯一已知的有意识存在的观点。

Is that compatible with Deutsch? I mean his thing about human exceptionalism and we are the only known conscious beings.

完全兼容。这是你无法确定的一件事：是一切都在我的意识中发生，还是我的意识在一切中发生？我们不知道有什么实验可以区分。

It's completely compatible. It's the one thing you can't determine: is everything taking place in my consciousness, or is my consciousness taking place in everything? There is no experiment we know of.

那会变得可知吗？

Will that ever be knowable?

我不想说永远不可能，因为有人可能会非常有创意，但我无法想出区分两者的方法。多伊奇有一个关于量子多重宇宙的实验，这实际上是他提出量子计算的方式。人们没有意识到这一点，但他提出量子计算理论是因为他试图为量子多重宇宙创造一个可证伪性实验。为了做到这一点，他必须创造一个 AGI 并将其视为观察者，进入其大脑，然后看看波函数坍缩是否发生在观察者内部而不是来自观察者。为了做到这一点，他想，那么我需要一个量子 AGI。而对于量子 AGI，我需要一台量子计算机。所以他推导出了量子计算的方程。量子计算就是这样诞生的。

I don't want to say never, because someone might get very creative, but I can't think of a way to distinguish between the two. Deutsch has an experiment for the quantum multiverse, which is actually how he came up with quantum computing. People don't realize this, but he came up with the theory of quantum computation because he was trying to create a falsifiability experiment for the quantum multiverse. And to do that, he had to create an AGI and treat that as an observer and get inside its brain and then see if wave function collapse happened inside the observer rather than from the observer. And to do that, he was like, well then I need a quantum AGI. And for a quantum AGI, I need a quantum computer. So then he worked out the equations for quantum computing. That's how quantum computing was born.

这太疯狂了。

That's crazy.

是的。从量子物理学，从多重宇宙理论而来。所以我不想说永远不可能，因为他想出来了——他实际上是在试图为量子多重宇宙找出一个可证伪性实验时发明了量子计算领域。

Yeah. From quantum physics, from the multiverse theory. So I don't want to say never, because he figured out—he literally invented the field of quantum computing while trying to figure out a falsifiability experiment for the quantum multiverse.

所以可能存在一个可证伪的实验，来区分物质性存在于意识之内，还是意识存在于物质性之内。

So there may be a falsifiable experiment to distinguish whether materiality exists inside consciousness or consciousness exists inside materiality.

那真是一个永恒的支线任务。

That's a pretty all-time side quest.

正是。但即便是他的实验也还无法运行。

Exactly. But even his experiment is not runnable yet.

是啊。

Yeah.

你知道，你首先需要一个 AGI，还需要量子计算机。

You know, you would need an AGI first and you need quantum computers first.

你之前提到过，你想在某个时候写一篇博客，关于如何将佛教的教义直接映射到虚拟现实模拟中。

You mentioned before that you wanted to write a blog post at some point about how you can map the tenets of Buddhism directly onto a virtual reality simulation.

哦，糟了，我都忘了那个了。嗯，是的。我觉得大致是这样的：如果你生活在一个模拟中，对吧？假设你明天发现你活在《黑客帝国》里。你脑子里有个念头，像“我在矩阵里，我得出去”，对吧？那基本上就像追求开悟。你在寻找真相，你不知道它是什么。这就是《黑客帝国》的全部意义，对吧？然后你发现了，比如说你逃出去了，对吧？然后你落入了另一个矩阵。你到了锡安。你怎么知道那不是另一个矩阵呢？对吧？你有一个“盗梦空间”问题。你怎么知道你在哪个梦里？你在哪一层梦？因为一旦你出来了，就意味着你能出来，这也意味着你同样不能相信这是真实的，对吧？这同样可能只是一个模拟。所以逃出模拟对你没有好处。它把你置于一个无限的陷阱中。于是你总是试图逃出矩阵。无论你在哪里，你永远不知道你是否在基础现实中。所以只有一种方法能让你确信你在基础现实中。现在，你可能已经死了，但如果你死了，就没有人能说服你。你无法体验死亡。所以那是不成立的。但真正逃出矩阵的唯一方法就是白色房间。在《黑客帝国》里，他们进入白色房间。那里一片空白。那是什么？那只是意识。除了那种纯粹的觉知，什么都没有，对吧？如果你处于纯粹的觉知中，那就意味着除了你在那里，你什么也没有模拟。就是这样。你唯一模拟的东西就是“我”。所以佛教中与之对应的是，当你意识到你只是纯粹的意识，而其他一切都是来去的形式。其他一切都是矩阵，对吧？都是模拟。现在，如果你处于那种模式，你就开悟了，你就处于矩阵中的白色房间。它们在功能上是等价的。你只是纯粹的意识。这真的很无聊。那么你在开悟前或开悟后做什么呢？嗯，有一句禅语：开悟前，砍柴挑水；开悟后，砍柴挑水。所以现在你意识到你很无聊。现在你明白了为什么矩阵或白色房间生成了整个矩阵，或者为什么上帝创造了无限的形式，或者为什么你作为上帝忘记了自己然后重新回到游戏中。因为外面太无聊了。所以你变成了赛弗。所以佛教和模拟理论大致引导你走向同样的方向。所以，如果我们设法创造了模拟，并把我们自己放进模拟中，一开始会很有趣。你会想，“我在模拟里，我可以做任何事。”然后你会想，“等等，我控制着模拟，这真的很无聊，”对吧？所以你就得忘记你在模拟中。你必须在模拟中抹去自己的记忆，这样你才能真正享受模拟，但随后你也会感到恐惧，在某个时刻你会感到紧张，觉得“我需要离开这个模拟。”然后当你试图离开模拟时，你会想，“我怎么知道我离开了模拟？”最后到了白色房间，你会想，“现在我离开了模拟。但这真的很无聊，”于是你创造一个模拟，抹去记忆，再跳进去。那就是你的重生。那就是你无尽的轮回。所以这就是我如何将佛教映射到模拟理论。

Oh, shoot. I'd forgotten that one. Yeah. I think the way it kind of goes is roughly something like: if you were living in a sim, right? Let's say you found out tomorrow you're living in the Matrix. There's a splinter in your mind like "I'm in the Matrix. I need to get out," right? So that would basically be like the quest for enlightenment. You'd be looking for truth. You didn't know what it was. This is what the Matrix is all about, right? And then you would find out, let's say you break out of it, right? And now you land in another Matrix. You land in Zion. How do you know that's not another Matrix, right? You have an inception problem. How do you know which dream you're in? Which dream level you're in? Because the moment you're out, it means you can get out, which means that you can't trust this is real either, right? This could just be a sim as well. So breaking out of the simulation does you no favors. It puts you in an infinite trap. And so then you're always trying to break out of the Matrix. No matter where you are, you never know if you're in base reality or not. So there's only one way you could be convinced you're in base reality. Right now, you could be dead, but if you're dead, there's no one to convince. You can't have an experience of being dead. So that's not valid. But there's only one way to truly break out of the Matrix, which is the white room. In the Matrix, they go into the white room. It's just blank. What is that? It's just consciousness. There's nothing there other than just that pure awareness, right? If you're in pure awareness, that means you're not simulating anything other than just you're there. That's it. You're the only thing you're simulating is "I." So the equivalent to that in Buddhism is when you realize you're just pure consciousness and everything else is just forms that come and go. Everything else is Matrix, right? It's all simulation. Now, if you're in that mode, you're enlightened and you're in the white room in the Matrix. They're functionally equivalent. You're all you are is pure consciousness. It's really boring. And so what do you do before enlightenment or after enlightenment? Well, there's a Zen saying: before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. So now you realize you're bored. And now you realize why the Matrix or the white room generates the entire Matrix, or why God creates infinite forms, or why you as God forget yourself and then go back into the game. It's because it's boring out there. So you go be Cypher. So Buddhism and simulation theory kind of lead you the same way. So, if we managed to create simulations and we put ourselves inside the simulation, at first it would be really fun. You'd be like, "I'm in a sim. I can do anything." And you're like, "Wait, I control the sim. This is really boring," right? And so then you'd have to forget that you're in a sim. You'd have to wipe your own memory in the sim so that you can actually enjoy the sim, but then you'd also feel fear and at some point you get this nervous feeling like "I need to get out of the sim." And then when you try to get out of the sim, you're like, "How do I know I'm out of the sim?" And then eventually get to the white room, you're like, "Now I'm out of the sim. But now this is really boring" and you create a sim, wipe your memory and dive back in. That's your rebirths. That's your infinite cycle of rebirths. So that's how I map Buddhism to simulation theory.

同样的结果，但模拟理论对我来说是个糟糕的理论。它无法证伪。它只是把问题踢到更远的地方。它做了一个概率论证。它说，嘿，我们很可能会发展这个，然后做那个，然后做这个，然后做那个。但有很多方式可能出错。比如模拟总是比现实分辨率低。外面的人总能控制里面的人。所以它有很多问题。另外，我认为我们天生渴望真相。所以我不认为有人想活在谎言中。即使是我自己，即使我生活在另一个现实中，我也不会创造一个虚假的现实让我忘记一切。或者如果我这样做了，我会给自己留一条出路，一个弹出按钮，我必须非常努力才能找到它。也许那叫做开悟。

The same outcome, but simulation theory to me is a lousy theory. It's unfalsifiable. It just kicks the can up the road. It makes a probabilistic argument. It says, hey, we're likely to develop this and then do that and then do this and then do that. But there are too many ways it could go wrong. Like the sim is always going to be lower resolution than reality. The people on the outside can always control the people on the inside. So there are all kinds of problems with it. Plus I think we inherently have a craving for truth. So I don't think anybody wants to live a lie. Even I myself, like even if I were living in some other reality, I would not create a fake reality where I would forget everything. Or if I did, I'd leave myself an out, an eject button, which I'd have to look really hard to find. Maybe that's called enlightenment.

没错。

Right.

嗯，我喜欢模拟理论，我发现它是一个有用的信念，因为你看人们，如果你从生活中需要的是不要太把自己当回事，保持高能动性，积极但不为你所积极的事情过度紧张。它实际上对大部分生活来说是一个相当有用的框架。

Well, I like that the simulation theory I find is a useful belief because you see the people, if what you need out of life is to not take yourself too seriously, to be high agency, to be active but not stress too much about what you're being active about. It's actually pretty useful frame for most of life.

那只是宗教。宗教会为你做同样的事情。

It's just religion. Religion would do the exact same thing for you.

正是。步骤更少，计算量更少，程序员更少。与其称之为上帝，你只是称之为伟大的程序员。

Exactly. With less steps, less computation involved, less programmers. Instead of calling it God, you're just calling it the great programmer.

是啊，而且可能朋友更多。

Yeah. And more friends probably.

所以社会上还有一种趋势，无论最新的科学世界观是什么，我们都会把它叠加到宗教上，对吧？所以当是太阳的时候，你靠太阳生、靠太阳死，那么太阳神拉就是太阳神，对吧？然后当国王掌权时，那就是神王。当牛顿出现时，我们有了机械宇宙，然后就像，哦，宇宙像一块大手表。它是一个机械宇宙。上帝死了。现在因为计算机崛起，宇宙是一台大计算机。

So there's also a tendency in society that whatever the latest scientific worldview is, we layer that onto religion, right? So when it was the sun, you lived and died by the sun, then the sun god Ra was a sun god, right? And then when the king was in charge, then it was a god king. And when Newton came along, we got the mechanical universe, then it was like, oh, the universe is like a big watch. It's a mechanistic universe. God is dead. And now because computers are ascendant, the universe is a big computer.

是啊。我们有一种方式，把永恒的问题变得当代化。

Yeah. We have a way of taking the permanent problems and making them contemporary.

是啊。我们总是通过当时最伟大知识的当代视角来看待它。

Yeah. We always view it through the contemporary lens of our greatest knowledge at that time.

是啊。但我会说，理解像相对论和量子物理这样的东西，研究宇宙学和物理学，比说宇宙是一台计算机更令人满意。说宇宙是一台计算机几乎过于简化了。它太刻意了。举个很简单的例子，计算机是一个状态机。状态机有步骤。步骤意味着一切都是离散的：发生这个，发生那个，发生那个。如果发生这个，就走那个分支，走那个分支。但一切都处于离散序列中，而这正是量子物理所说的。

Yeah. But I would argue that understanding things like relativity and quantum physics and studying cosmology and just sort of physics is more satisfying than saying the universe is a computer. Saying the universe is a computer is almost too reductive. It's trying too hard. As a very simple example, a computer is a state machine. A state machine has steps. Steps means everything is discrete: this happens and this happens and that happens. If this happens, then take that branch, take that branch. But everything is in a discrete sequence and that is kind of what quantum physics says.

量子计算、量子物理学说宇宙是离散的。但相对论不是这么说的。相对论说宇宙是连续的。所以这里就出现了矛盾。任何认为宇宙是一台计算机的模拟理论，都依赖于一种并不存在的计算方式。连量子计算也不行。它违反了相对论。这就是为什么所有基于算力的世界理论，比如史蒂芬·沃尔弗拉姆的基于算力的物理学，都会遇到这个问题——现实是连续的。所以他还有另一套东西，那个 hypograph 什么的，我不太懂，但我觉得它太方便地把我们时代的主导范式映射到宗教上，然后把上帝藏到幕后。

So quantum computation, quantum physics says the universe is discreet. But that is not what relativity says. Relativity says the universe is continuous. And so right there you run into a contradiction. Any sim theory that says the universe is a computer relies upon a kind of computation that does not exist. Not even quantum computation. It violates relativity. And this is why all the compute-based theories of the world, like Steven Wolfram's compute-based physics, run into this issue, which is that reality is continuous. So he then has this whole other thing, this hypograph thing, which I don't fully understand, but I just feel like it's too conveniently mapping the dominant paradigm of our times onto religion and then removing and then hiding God behind the curtain.

是的。我们应该对此保持怀疑。

Yeah. Which we should be suspicious of.

是的。我觉得这件事最好有自己的看法，因为别人无法让你满意，其他任何东西都无法让你满意。而且我认为，如果你能给它命名，那就有点问题；如果你能给它一个结构，那也有问题。

Yeah. I think it's easier just to have your own viewpoint on this, because no one else will satisfy you. Nothing else will satisfy you. And I think if you can put a name to it, it's kind of problematic, or if you can put a structure to it, it's problematic.

我非常喜欢这条推文，它像一块基石，总结了你分享的很多内容，因为它把很多看似矛盾的东西串在了一起：为比自己更大的东西而活，但只按自己的方式。

I really love this tweet as a capstone for a lot of what you've shared, because I feel like it ties together a lot of threads that might seem to have an apparent contradiction, which is: live for something larger than yourself, but only on your own terms.

哦，我喜欢这条。我都忘了。我喜欢这条。为比自己更大的东西而活，但只按自己的方式。你知道吗？我就要这么做。

Oh, I like that one. I'd forgotten about that one. I like that one. Live for something larger than yourself, but only on your own terms. You know what? I'm going to go do exactly that.

我喜欢这条。它真的能把所有事情理清楚。

I like that one. It's a really good way to disentangle everything.

是的，因为社会不想告诉你要按自己的方式生活，他们担心你会搞砸社会，变成罪犯、暴徒和享乐主义者。但那是愚蠢之人的路。不知道自己在做什么的人才会嗑太多药、犯太多法、做可怕的事。你不需要那样做。那不会让你快乐。那只是一个陷阱。一个你陷进去的陷阱。我们看一个吸毒者，那就是他们陷进去的陷阱。就像你看到有人犯罪一样，有更好的方法得到你想要的东西。如果你不那样做，你的生活实际上会更好。很多进步主义就来源于此。你仍然需要惩罚来劝阻人们，但与此同时，我觉得你必须按自己的方式生活，否则你根本不会去活；但你也必须为比自己更大的东西而活，否则会导致非常糟糕的结果，你也不会快乐。所以，是的，我会遵循这个建议。谢谢你。

Yeah, because society doesn't want to tell you to live on your own terms because they're afraid you're going to screw over society, that you're just going to be a criminal and a thug and a hedonist. But that's a path for unintelligent people. The person who doesn't know what they're doing is the one doing too many drugs or breaking too many laws or doing horrible things. You don't need to do that. It's not going to make you happy. It's just a trap. It's a trap that you're caught in. When we look at a drug addict, that's a trap they're caught in. The same way you see someone committing crimes, there are better ways to get what you want. You will actually have a better life if you don't do that. And that's where a lot of progressivism comes from. You still have to have punishments to dissuade people, but at the same time, I feel like you do have to live life on your own terms or you're not going to do it, but you have to live for something larger than yourself or it's going to lead to a very bad outcome and you're not going to be happy. So, yeah, I'm going to follow that advice. Thank you for that.

我的意思是，如果你不吸自己的货，那它就不是好货。

I mean, if you weren't getting high on your own supply, it wouldn't be good substance.

我喜欢找到自己的推文，然后说：‘哇，这条真棒。’

I love finding my own tweet and being like, 'Wow, that's really good.'

这就是我判断一本书快完成的方法：当我再次拿起它，发现它比我记忆中的更好。

That's how I know a book is almost ready, when I pick it up again and it's better than I remembered it.

是的。伟大的书也是分形的。你每次都能学到新东西。

Yeah. The great books are fractal, too. You learn something new every time.

我现在喜欢做的一件事是，比如我找到了一些叔本华和塞内加的作品，他们有很好的有声书和录音，但他们是密度很高的演讲者和作者。所以如果你听他们的东西，你会错过很多，因为那是写出来的，所以是用来读的。这就是为什么我发过那条推文：听书而不是读书，就像喝蔬菜而不是吃蔬菜，对吧？更高效，但你得到的是某种糖分快感。你没有按它本来的方式摄取。你没有得到所有好处，但总比没有好，对吧？比完全不消费要好。所以我一直在听很多通常以文字形式存在的作者的作品。我不得不接受的一件事是：你知道吗，我只能得到大约 20% 的吞吐量。尤其是叔本华，每个句子都是精心雕琢的。每个想法都是精心雕琢的。那家伙是个天才。

One of the things I like doing now is I found some Schopenhauer and Seneca, for example, they have good audio books and recordings of their stuff, but they're very high density speakers and authors. So if you listen to their stuff, you miss a lot because it was written, so it's meant to be read. Which is why I had this tweet about listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating them, right? It's more efficient, but you're getting kind of a sugar high. You're not taking it the way it was meant to be. You're not getting all the benefits, but it's better than nothing, right? It's better to do that than to not consume it. And so I've been listening to a bunch of authors who are normally written down. And one of the things I had to come to peace with was just like, you know what, I'm only going to get like 20% of the throughput. Especially Schopenhauer, every sentence is crafted. Every thought is crafted. That guy is a genius.

所以当你以口语速度听他时，我会想：等等，停。哦，我错过了。哦，那是什么？他指的是什么？哦，我走神了。所以我一直在暂停。但后来我最终放弃了。我就想：你知道吗，我就听我能听到的，吸收我能吸收的，以后我再回来重听，因为它太好了。我意识到，即使是阅读也有同样的问题。你读一段，能抓住一个句子就算幸运了，而且每次可能是不同的句子。但好书有一个特性：没有太多浪费的空间。所有句子在某个时候对某个人都是有用的。所以我非常看重作者这一点，叔本华在这方面尤其突出。我可以在五年内把同一篇文章读十遍，每次都能得到不同的东西。

And so when you listen to him at spoken speed, I'm like, wait, stop. Oh, I missed that. Oh, what was that? What was he referring to? Oh, I got lost in a daydream. So I'm constantly pausing it. But then I finally had to give up. I was just like, you know, I'm just going to listen to what I'm going to listen to. I'm going to absorb what I'm going to absorb and I'll just go back and listen to it again later, because it was that good. And what I've realized is even when reading you have the same issue. You read a paragraph, you'll be lucky if you pick up a sentence and it might be a different sentence every time, but the good books have the property that there's not much wasted space. All the sentences are useful at some point to somebody. And so I really value that in an author, and Schopenhauer has it in spades. I can go back and read the same essay 10 times over five years and I'll get something different out of it every time.

是的。你有那句话：把最好的 100 本书读了一遍又一遍。读其他的没有意义。

Yeah. You've got that: read the best hundred books over and over and over. There's no point in reading the rest.

是的。我只想读那些关于人性的永恒之作，作者极其聪明；或者非常现代、快速发展的领域里的前沿知识，我知道这些知识很快就会过时。但我做不到的是读当代历史或社会学。有些非常聪明的人似乎从大量阅读历史中获得了很大价值，我也读过一些历史，但我不需要读罗马帝国的细节。

Yeah. The only books I would want to read are the timeless ones about human nature, with people who are incredibly intelligent, or very modern recent stuff where there's a fast-moving field where I want to know what's on the cutting edge and I know that knowledge will be obsolete shortly. But the thing I can't do is read contemporary history or sociology. There are these very smart people who seem to get a lot of value out of reading a lot of history, and I've read some history, but I don't need to read the details of the Roman Empire.

我喜欢威尔·杜兰特。

I love Will Durant.

我喜欢《历史的教训》。我不会去读《文明的故事》全套。

I love Lessons of History. I'm not going to read the whole Story of Civilization.

是的。《文明的故事》全套 12 卷。细节太多了。

Yeah. Story of Civilization, all 12 volumes. It's like too much detail.

他的其他书，比如《落叶》和《历史英雄》，那些真正浓缩的东西。

His other books, like Fallen Leaves and Heroes of History, the really condensed stuff.

是的，《落叶》有点悲伤。我读不下去。我开始读，感觉他就像在说：‘哦，我老了，这很糟糕，这一切有什么意义？’这本书基本上就是这个意思。它把我放在一个我不想看到他的角度。也许后面会好起来，但我没读完。顺便说一句，即使是《历史的教训》，如果你只读这一本，那也不行。你需要读过足够多的具体历史，才能看出：哦，是的，我以前见过这个模式。

Yeah, Fallen Leaves is kind of sad. I couldn't make it through it. I started it and it was just like he was like, 'Oh, I'm getting old and this sucks and what was the point of all this?' That's what the book is basically saying. They cast him in a light that I didn't want to see him in. Maybe it gets better later, but I couldn't finish it. And by the way, even the Lessons of History, if all you read was Lessons of History, that would not work. You need to have read enough specific history that you can see, oh yeah, I've seen this pattern before.

我年轻时读过很多历史。所以当我读历史教训时，我就想，我知道他在说什么，我有个大概的了解，但我不会，你知道，我现在没时间读 18 卷关于成吉思汗的书。已经太晚了。我会读一本关于埃隆的书，因为它与我的当前世界高度相关。但成吉思汗的教训现在必须被大大浓缩。我们生活在 TikTok 一代。

So I've read plenty of history in my youth. So when I read the lessons of history, I be like, I know what he's referring to and I have a rough sense, but I'm not going to, you know, I don't have time to read 18 volumes on Genghis Khan now. Like it's too late for that. I'll read one volume on Elon because it's highly relevant to my current world as well. But the lessons of Genghis Khan have to be distilled down much more at this point. We live in the TikTok generation.

是的，我想你选书的机会成本很高，就像非常注意你给自己输入什么。

Yeah, I imagine your opportunity cost of book selection, like just paying very careful attention to what you're feeding yourself.

是的。而且我认为这其实很容易。我觉得你只要拿起一本书，随便翻翻，你就会知道。没有义务要读完一本书，或者翻一页，甚至按顺序读。巴菲特有句名言：你可以读这本书，但不能告诉任何人。你不能告诉任何人你读过。

Yeah. And I think it's actually pretty easy. I think you just pick up a book and you just glance through it and you'll know. There's no obligation to finish a book or turn a page or even read in sequence or in order or any of the sort. Buffett has a good line. It's like you can read the book, but you can't tell anyone about it. You can't tell anyone you read it.

是的，那是一本好书的标志。

Yeah, that's a sign of a good book.

当我重新审视所有这些想法时，我几次发现自己想知道：是否一切都最好间接追求？

Something I found myself wondering a couple times as I refresh on all these ideas. Is everything best pursued indirectly?

我见过，你知道，财富最好通过探索你真正的好奇心来追求。学习最好通过阅读你感兴趣的东西来进行。甚至地位最好通过服务他人来获得。幸福如果太直接追求就会难以捉摸。是的，可能并非一切都最好间接追求，但那些看似难以捉摸的东西之所以如此，是因为它们最好间接追求，对吧？我们已经弄清楚的东西，我们不会谈论，因为我们可以直接追求。但那些看似难以捉摸的东西，是因为它们最好间接追求。而且不同的事情有不同的原因。就财富而言，因为它是一个竞争游戏。所以真正热爱自己工作的人总会胜过不热爱的人。这就是间接性的一部分来源。

I've seen, you know, wealth is best pursued by exploring your genuine curiosity. Learning is best done by reading whatever you're interested in. Even status is best pursued by serving others. Happiness is elusive if it's pursued too directly. Yeah, it may not be that everything is best pursued indirectly, but the things that seem very elusive are that way because they're best pursued indirectly, right? The stuff we have figured out, we don't talk about because we can pursue it directly. But the stuff that seems elusive is because it's best pursued indirectly. And there are different reasons for different things. In the case of wealth, it's because it's a competitive game. So someone who's really into what they're doing will always out compete someone who's not into it. So that's where part of the indirectness comes from.

而且如果你做纯粹自私的事情，你就不会得到最好的人站在你这边。比如，如果你看看色情、赌博或加密货币，尤其是加密货币中的赌场部分，你不会得到最好的团队。你不会得到好的团队，因为最好的人不想做那些事。他们不想和你合作。所以你现在处于一个行业，你身边只有，抱歉我这么说，低质量的人。然后你的生活质量就会更低，你会遇到更不道德、更享乐主义的人。就幸福而言，你不能直接追求它，因为直接追求快乐会导致成瘾，进而导致不快乐，引起多巴胺耗竭。所以直接追求根本行不通。它会烧坏你试图以良好方式调节的受体。

And then if you're doing something purely selfish, you won't get the best people on your side. Like for example, if you look at like porn or gambling or crypto, like especially the casino is part of crypto, you don't get the best teams. You don't get good teams because the best people don't want to do that stuff. They don't want to work with you. So now you're in an industry where you just have, sorry if I call them out, but low-quality people working alongside you. And then you're just gonna have a lower quality of life and you're gonna have people who are less ethical and kind of like you know more hedonistic. In the case of happiness, you can't pursue it directly because the direct pursuit of pleasure causes addiction and that leads to unhappiness that causes dopamine burnout. So the direct pursuit of that simply doesn't work. It burns out the receptor, you know, that you're trying to modulate in a good way over the others.

地位最好通过曲线和支持他人来追求。

Status is best pursued by curving and supporting others.

是的。地位不能直接追求，因为地位是等级制度，而且是一种隐藏的等级制度。很难判断一个人的地位如何。他们必须自己推断出来。而说自己地位高是低地位的表现，因为如果你地位高，你不需要说出来。每个人都知道。所以直接追求地位是一种降低地位的活动。这就是为什么人们试图在贬低别人时表现得讽刺或聪明。你知道，他们试图通过说“哦，埃隆是纳粹。他是邪恶的。你知道，他做了那个敬礼”来贬低别人。我说，“不，你是个中等智商的人。你是个白痴。你应该看看视频，看看人们整天挥舞手臂时做了多少次所谓的敬礼。所以你只证明了你是个白痴。”但他们试图做的是降低他的地位。所以他们试图提升自己的地位。他们试图间接追求。所以我们看到的很多来自记者或 Twitter 或现代假新闻的坏行为，只是以一种隐蔽的方式追求地位。

Yeah. Status can't be pursued directly because status is hierarchy and it's a hidden hierarchy. Like it's very hard to tell who what status someone is. They have to glee it out. And saying that you're high status is low status because if you're high status, you don't have to say it. Everyone knows it. And so directly pursuing status is a low status is a status lowering activity. So that's why people try to be ironic or clever when they put people down. You know, they try to bring people down by saying, "Oh, he oh, Elon's a Nazi. He's evil. You know, he he did the salute." I'm like, "No, you're a midwit. You're an idiot. You should watch the video and see how many so-called salutes people do all day long when they're waving their arms around. So all you've proven is you're an idiot." But what they're trying to do is they're trying to bring him down to status. And so they're trying to elevate their own status. They're trying to pursue indirectly. So a lot of what we see as bad behavior from journalists or on Twitter or modern side with fake news is just the pursuit of status in a covert way.

而爱，你不想直接追求接受爱，因为爱是匮乏的，实际上不是你想要的。给予爱才是你想要的。你可以随时制造爱。我实际上羡慕，你知道，不是真的羡慕，但有一类人非常有爱心，能够给予真诚的爱而不谈论它。那些说“哦，爱爱爱”的人，他们经常用这个词，他们在追求地位，对吧？这只是另一种追求地位的方式。但那些真正能够感受并给予大量人爱的人，那是一种开悟的人。他们自己似乎总是很幸福。你最后一次看到一个非常有爱心但痛苦的人是什么时候？

And love, you don't want to pursue directly receiving love because love is needy and it's actually not the thing you want. It's giving love is the thing that you want. You can manufacture love anytime you want. I actually envy, you know, quotes not really envy but I there's a class of person who's just very loving, you know, and can give genuine love without talking about it. The people who are saying "oh love love love" they use the word a lot, they're pursuing status, right? It's just another way to pursue status. But the people who are genuinely capable of feeling and giving love to large quantities of people, like that's a form of an enlightened person. And they themselves always seem pretty happy. When's the last time you saw a person who's extremely loving but miserable?

这与多伊奇的乐趣标准有关吗？这不是一个好品牌，但……

Is this related to Deutsch's fun criterion? It's not a good brand, but it's...

哦，是的。不，多伊奇有一个独立版本的相同原则。他称之为乐趣标准，就像如果你不开心，就不要做。

Oh, yeah. No, Deutsch has an independent version of the same principle. He calls it the fun criterion, which is like if you're not having fun, don't do it.

现在，他的观点更极端一些。比如，不，不要教，你知道，这是认真对待孩子的一部分。比如，如果你的孩子不喜欢数学，就不要教他们。我想，“天哪，我的孩子会变成数学文盲，然后太老而学不会。”所以，我不确定我完全同意，但我理解他的意思，我相信它有巨大的价值。

Now, his is a little more extreme. Like his like no, don't teach, you know, this is part of the taking children seriously thing. Like don't teach your kids math if they don't enjoy it. I'm like, "God damn it, my kids are going to be mathematically innumerate and then too old to pick it up later." So, I'm not sure I follow it the whole way, but I get what he's saying and I believe there's huge merit to it.

是的。他称之为乐趣标准。如果你不开心，就不要做。我认为他是对的。随着年龄增长，我越做有趣的事情，就越真实。我并没有学得更少。相反，我学得更多。我只是不再因为不知道应该知道的事情而自责。相反，我最终学到了我真正感兴趣的东西，然后学得更多、更快。实际上，这与我再次开始创业有关，我现在正在做一家非常困难的公司。公司名字是“不可能计算机公司”。

Yeah. He calls it the fun criterion. If you're not having fun, don't do it. And I think he's right. Like, the older I get, the more I do things that are more fun, the more genuine it is. I'm not learning any less. If anything, I'm learning more. It's just I don't beat myself up anymore about not knowing about things that I should know about. And instead what happens is I end up learning the things that I'm genuinely interested in and then I learn more. I learn faster. Actually this is related to you know I've started doing startups again and I'm doing a very difficult company right now. The name of the company is The Impossible Computer Company.

好的。

Okay.

这真的很难。我们试图做的事情非常困难。可能是不可能的。而且公司的名字就是 Impossible Inc.。但我们有 ImpossibleComputer.com。所以我们做的事情基本上是不可能的。上周我和四个人谈过，他们都是各自领域的技术专家，稍微谈了一下我们在做什么。四个人都告诉我这是不可能的，或者四个人告诉我这是不可能的，原因完全不同，对吧？所以，这不是一个容易的任务。

It's really hard. What we're trying to do is really hard. It might be impossible. And literally the name of the company is Impossible Inc. But you know we have ImpossibleComputer.com. So what we're doing is basically impossible. I talked to four people last week, technical experts, each in their domain, a little bit about what we're doing. All four of them told me it was impossible or four told me it was impossible for four completely different reasons, right? So, it's not an easy task.

但我要告诉你，我这辈子从没学得这么快过，因为我对此充满好奇。每次遇到新东西，我就会说：“好，让我翻出论文。好，ChatGPT，启动 O3 Pro 引擎，再启动 Gemini 2.5 Pro。来吧，教我这个。教我这个。”不，不，用五岁小孩能懂的方式解释。不，不，退一步。那这个呢？我打电话给我的联合创始人，我说：“我们来做一次白板会议。我感觉自己像个白痴。这是什么？你什么意思？你没告诉我这个。哦，你觉得这是理所当然的。不，这是最难的部分，你知道吗？”所以我学到了很多，但这是因为我有动力。我有动力去学习。我有点动力。我想要一个好的答案，但我并不是真正被答案本身驱动。我想在想法迷宫中找到自己的路，弄清楚正确的答案。但真正尝试去做某事、去构建某物的具体行动，推动了我的学习曲线。如果没有那个非常具体的活动，我的学习速度会慢得多。那种动力非常重要，它极大地加速了我的学习曲线。实际上，我不喝咖啡因，部分原因是我又开始了健康生活，因为我希望时刻保持警觉和清醒，这样我就能跟上公司的节奏。

But I'll tell you, I've never learned faster in my life because I'm so curious about it. Like, every time something comes up, I'm like, "All right, let me pull up the paper. All right, ChatGPT, fire up the O3 Pro engines, you know, fire up Gemini 2.5 Pro. Let's go. Teach me this. Teach me this." No, no, explain like I'm five. No, no, back up. What about this? I call my co-founder. I'm like, "We're doing a whiteboard session. I feel like an idiot. What is this? What do you mean? You didn't tell me this. Oh, you take it for granted. No, this is the hardest part, you know?" So, I'm learning so much, but because I'm motivated. I'm motivated to go out and learn. I'm a little motivated. I want the answer to be a good answer, but I'm not truly motivated by the answer. I want to navigate my way through the idea maze, you know, the bism of the idea maze and figure out the right answer. But the concrete act of trying to do something and trying to build something is driving the learning curve. If I didn't have that very concrete activity, then I would not be learning at anywhere near the same rate. And that motivation has been really important. It's really accelerated my learning curve. Actually, I'm not drinking caffeine partially and I'm kind of back on more of a health kick because I want to be alert and awake all the time so I can just stay up with the company. I can keep up with it.

嗯，而且我相信，你还有额外的动力，那就是在建造从未有人建造过的东西。

Well, and you're additionally motivated, I'm sure, by building something that has never been built before.

完全正确。而且我正在投入——现在我们每个月烧掉我一百五十万美元。

Exactly. And I'm pouring—right now we're burning a million and a half dollars a month of my money.

所以，这又多了一层动力。

So, that's an additional layer of motivation.

也是利用动力。是的，完全正确。

Use motivation, too. Yeah. Exactly.

是啊。当你有了——你学得很快。

Yeah. You're learning very fast when you've got—

我们在花钱买什么？你刚签的那张五十万美元的支票是什么？哦，好吧。该死。

What are we spending money on? What is that half million dollar check you just wrote? Oh, okay. Damn it.

所以，你既有大胡萝卜又有大棒，这是学习的好配方。

So, you got a big carrot and a big stick and that's a good recipe for learning.

非常激励人心。是的。是的。嗯，我在这方面深受埃隆启发。我想我——你知道那个故事，他说他从出售 PayPal 中赚了 2 亿美元，然后把 1 亿美元投入 SpaceX，8000 万投入特斯拉，2000 万投入 SolarCity，还要借钱付房租。

Highly motivating. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I was very inspired by Elon on this. I think I—you know the story where he said he made $200 million from the sale of PayPal and he put $100 million into SpaceX and $80 million into Tesla and $20 million into SolarCity, to borrow money for rent.

我不知道这是不是真的，但这是个很棒的谎言。非常鼓舞人心。所以我想，好吧，如果你能做到，我也可以赌一把。嗯，而且那个故事甚至有点过于简化了，因为它是迭代发生的，对于任何身处燃烧平台的人来说，都知道那要痛苦得多。是的。嗯，比一次性更痛苦。

I don't know if that's true but it's a great lie. Very inspirational. So I'm like, well if you can do that I can make a bet too. Well, and that story even oversimplifies it a little because it happened iteratively, which for anybody who's on a burning platform knows like that's way more painful. Yes. Um, than a one time.

所以，他手里有 2 亿美元，他投了 1 亿，说这应该足够创办这些公司并让它们成功。然后它们就要死了。两家公司看起来都濒临死亡。他不得不把他剩下的所有钱都写进支票，包括他的房子。

So, he's sitting there with $200 million and he puts a hundred down and says that should be plenty to start these companies and get them there. And then they're going to die. They both look like they're on the verge of death. And he has to write checks for all of his remaining money, including his house.

是的。就像同时用一根细绳、一根线勉强让它们都活着，而它们都活了下来。

Yeah. Like at the same time functionally to keep them both alive by a shoestring, by a thread, and they both lived.

是的。我不知道这些故事有多真实，但它们很棒。弗雷德·史密斯也有一个，你知道，联邦快递的创始人，他不得不去拉斯维加斯赌掉最后的钱来发工资，他做到了。

Yeah. I don't know how real these stories are but they're good man. Fred Smith has one, you know, the founder of FedEx, of how like he had to go gamble the last money in Vegas to make payroll and he did.

是的。

Yeah.

或者史蒂夫·乔布斯，你知道，他在离开苹果后投入了大量财富。他并没有那么多钱，因为最初的苹果并不值那么多，但他把钱投进了皮克斯、NeXT。

Or Steve Jobs, you know, he poured a lot of his wealth post-Apple. He didn't have that much because the original Apple wasn't worth that much, but he sank it into Pixar, into NeXT.

是的。嗯，因为那些都是自筹资金的。有趣的是，罗斯·佩罗是乔布斯之后 NeXT 的重要支持者。但是，你知道，他差点在那里输光。所以，并不是说你必须冒险才能成功。更多的是，当别人都没有勇气时，你必须坚持自己的信念。你必须从零到一。你知道，零到一之间的空间是无限的。要实现那个飞跃，需要付出一切。

Yeah. Um, because those were all self-financed. Ross Perot, interestingly, was a big backer of NeXT after Jobs. But, you know, he almost lost it there. So, it's not that you have to risk the money to make it. It's more just that you have to have the courage of your convictions when nobody else does. You have to make it from zero to one. You know, the space between zero and one is infinite. To make that leap requires everything.

嗯，这是对资本的良好运用。你知道吗？除了把收益投入你相信的、在做前所未有之事的使命中，你还能做什么呢？

Well, it's a good use of capital. You know what? What else are you going to do with the earnings than put them into a mission that you believe in that's doing something that's unprecedented?

那可以买一栋大房子，俯视所有人。

That could buy a really big house and look down on everybody.

是的。我认为这就是——我的意思是，这就是为什么我认为埃隆受到如此多尊重的原因之一，他把一切都押上了。

Yeah. I think this is—I mean that's part of why Elon I think gets so much respect is he put everything on the line.

我的意思是，这家伙会睡在帐篷里的小木屋里，你知道，为了星舰发射。无论人们能给埃隆赋予什么动机，如果你想要负面，你可以赋予自我动机，但你不能赋予自私动机。他并不是想囤积财富。

I mean the guy will sleep in a tent on a log cabin, you know, for the Starship launch. And whatever motives people can ascribe to Elon, it's—you can ascribe, if you want to be negative, you can ascribe an ego motive, but you can't ascribe a selfishness motive. Like he's not trying to hoard it.

是的。

Yeah.

嗯，他承担了太多风险。

Um, he took too much risk.

是的。世界首富对他来说是副产品，而不是目标。

Yeah. World's richest man was a byproduct, not a goal for him.

但类似于你正在做的事情，人们很容易忽略，他基本上自己为特斯拉和 SpaceX 做了种子轮、A 轮和 B 轮融资，对吧？

But because in similar to what you're doing, he is easily overlooked that he did the pre-seed and the seed and the A and the B for both Tesla and SpaceX basically himself, right?

所以不仅是创始人，还是最大的出资人。我这里有两条总结性推文。要么创造财富或被动收入，要么成为僧侣，要么做你比金钱更热爱的事。剩下的就是驯服身心，寻求真理，创造爱和艺术。世界无法给你任何东西，你是自由的。

So not only founder but biggest funder. I got two capstone tweets here. Either create wealth or passive income or become a monk or do what you love more than money. What remains is taming the mind and the body, seeking truth, creating love and art. The world has nothing to offer you and you are free.

那是一个很大的目标清单。

That's a big checklist goals.

下一条更长。

The next one's even longer.

呃，我们再过一遍那条。要么创造财富或被动收入，要么成为僧侣，要么做你比金钱更热爱的事。

Uh we'll go through that one again. Either create wealth or a passive income or become a monk or do something you love more than money.

好的，所以第一行是我对退休的定义。比如，如果你在做你热爱的事，或者你是僧侣，或者你有被动收入，或者你现在有财富，你就可以退休了——基本上你就完成了。

Okay, so that first line is my definition of retirement. Like if you're doing something you love or if you're a monk or if you have a passive income or if you have wealth now, you can retire—like you're basically done.

所以退休后，剩下的就是驯服身心，寻求真理，创造爱和艺术。

So retire and then what remains is taming the mind and the body, seeking truth, creating love and art.

是的。所以这又回到了真、爱、美，对吧？或者我最喜欢的一条推文是，你知道，健康的身体、平静的心灵、充满爱的家。这些东西无法用钱买到，必须靠努力赢得。这又把同样的主题带回了财富、幸福、健康，以及平静心灵中的爱。

Yep. So that goes back to truth, love, and beauty, right? Or my favorite tweet of mine is, you know, a fit body, a calm mind, a house full of love. Like these things cannot be bought. They must be earned. And that's again puts the same themes back in wealth, happiness, health, and love in a calm mind.

是的。所以知道这一点，你为达成其中任何一项所做的任何事情，都必须让你处于能够获得那些无法用钱买到的东西的位置。

Yeah. So knowing that, you know, anything that you do to achieve any of those has to leave you in position to get those things that can't be bought.

对。对。然后是的。还有那条长的。

Right. Right. And then yeah. Then there's the long one.

嗯，世界无法给你任何东西。

Well, the world has nothing to offer you.

世界无法提供任何东西。

The world has nothing to offer.

是的。完全正确。现在，你知道，一个开悟的人会说，好吧，我刚发现我不存在，所以世界无法给我任何东西，因为世界不存在。就像它只是一个巨大的共识性意识幻觉。

Yeah. Exactly. Now, you know, an enlightened person would say, well, I just found out I don't exist, so the world has nothing to offer me because the world doesn't exist. Like it's all just one big consensual conscious hallucination.

是的。

Yeah.

对。所以那是一条更容易的路。

Right. So that's an easier path.

我想找到幸福和精神启迪之类的东西，但我不愿意为此放弃我的世俗生活。我是个贪婪的人，对吧？我可能是世上最贪婪的人，因为我想成为埃隆·马斯克，我想成为成功的创业者，我想成为蒂尔，我想成为成功的投资者，我想要美好的家庭生活，我想尽可能保持健康，我不介意出名。但我也想要启迪，我不愿意放弃它。所以对我来说，那些只追求财富和成功却不追求幸福或启迪的人，他们还不够贪婪。也许他们需要更自私一点，更贪婪一点。一个精彩的人生是在每个类别都达到 70-80%，而不是在一个上做到 150 而在其他上为零。

I guess I want to find happiness and spiritual enlightenment and all those things, but I'm not willing to give up my world for it. I'm a greedy one, right? I might be the greediest person alive because I want to be Elon Musk. I want to be a successful entrepreneur. I want to be Teal. I want to be a successful investor. I want a great household life. I want to be healthy as long as I can. I don't mind being famous. But I also want enlightenment. I'm not willing to give that up. So to me, the people who are aspiring to just be wealthy and successful but not happy or enlightened, they're not greedy enough. Maybe they need to be a little more selfish, a little more greedy. An amazing life is 70-80% in each of those categories without going 150 on one and zero in any other.

是的，你在每个方面都超过了门槛。我不认为这是巧合：在佛陀的故事里，佛陀是个王子；或者如果你读所有古老的启迪故事和《阿斯塔瓦克拉之歌》，总是国王或王子获得启迪，很少是农民。因为他们足够聪明，意识到穷人必须耕地，想办法养活自己，没有闲情逸致坐下来沉思并问“我是谁？”所以在传统中，要么你一开始就放弃一切成为苦行者，要么你从王子开始然后意识到一切皆空。困难的是有精力和动力成为王子，然后愿意放弃一切。那是一个伟大的英雄之旅，就像你列出的那些你想成为的角色：埃隆·马斯克、蒂尔、伟大的创始人、伟大的投资者。

Yeah, you get above the threshold on each of them. I don't think it's a coincidence that in the Buddha story, Buddha was a prince, or if you read all the old enlightenment stories and the Ashtavakra Gita, it's always the king or the prince who becomes enlightened. It's rarely the peasant, because they were smart enough to realize the poor man has to dig the fields, figure out how to feed himself. He doesn't have the luxury of sitting around and contemplating and saying 'Who am I?' So in the tradition, either you give up everything right at the beginning and become an ascetic, or you start as a prince and realize it's all worthless. The hard one would be having the energy and drive to become a prince and then be willing to give it all up. That's a big hero's journey, as you listed all those things you want to be: Elon Musk, Teal, a great founder, a great investor.

是的，我在这里必须降低期望，因为我老了，没有 20 岁年轻人的精力。我必须相应地限制我的欲望。

Yeah, I have to temper my expectations here because I'm old, so I don't have the energy level of a 20-year-old. I do have to bound my desires accordingly.

嗯，你已经实现了其中很多。我很好奇，你能以一种非常温和的方式持有这些欲望而不伤害自己吗？你是否找到了平衡，仍然在努力、仍然在希望，但又不过度？

Well, you've achieved a lot of them already. I'm curious, can you hold those desires in a very gentle way where they don't harm you? Have you found a balance with still striving, still hoping but not?

是的，我认为可以。这肯定比那些接受治疗、吸毒、精神崩溃或感到被攻击的人容易。但我曾经也是那样的人。我认为部分原因是年龄增长，但很多是内省和自我反思，意识到这一切最终都会归零。基督教里有句话：寿衣没有口袋。你什么也带不走。这只是一场伟大的冒险。我有个朋友用了一个好词：“终局内容”。就像马里奥游戏里，你玩过所有关卡，追逐桃花公主和库巴，最后通关了。然后他们给你一个全是金币、蘑菇和蟾蜍的关卡，你只是跑来跑去、跳跃，风险很低。这很有趣。这是终局内容。所以我觉得自己处于终局内容中，没什么可失去的。我可能会损失一些钱、一点名声，但我不在乎。我可以在公众面前丢脸。我可以毫无恐惧地玩耍，这意味着我可以追求最高的目标。坏处是，风投可能会说：“你说你毫无恐惧地玩耍？我要你彻夜不眠、充满恐惧、努力工作。”但我不确定这是唯一的建设方式。我不认为史蒂夫·乔布斯是出于恐惧。我甚至不认为埃隆是出于恐惧。所以我认为最好出于灵感行事。这意味着我可以尝试做真正困难且值得的事情。

Yeah, I think you can. It can definitely be easier than all the people who are in therapy or doing drugs or mental wrecks or feel attacked. But I was that person too. I think some of it is just aging. But a lot of it is introspection and self-reflection, realizing that this all goes to zero anyway. The line in Christianity: shrouds have no pockets. You don't take anything with you. It is all just a grand adventure. A friend of mine has a good phrase: 'endgame content.' Like in Mario games, you play through all the levels, chase Peach and Bowser, and at the end you're done. Then they give you a level with all gold and toads and mushrooms, you just run around and jump, the stakes are very low. It's entertaining. It's endgame content. So I feel like I'm in endgame content where I have nothing to lose. I might lose some money, a little reputation. I don't care about that. I'm fine falling on my face in public. I get to play without fear, and that means I can go for the highest goals. The downside is a VC might say, 'What do you mean you're playing without fear? I want you up all night, fearful, working hard.' But I'm not sure that's the only way to build something. I don't think Steve Jobs was coming from a place of fear. I don't even think Elon was coming from a place of fear. So I think it's better to operate out of inspiration. This means I can try to do something that's really difficult and worthwhile.

是的，也许一些真正有抱负的项目只能从那样的状态出发才能完成。

Yeah, there may be that some of those really aspirational projects can only be done from a place like that.

我也这么认为。我不认为苹果、特斯拉和 SpaceX 是自筹资金的公司是巧合。大多数伟大的公司要么是自筹资金，要么在真正需要风险投资之前就早早爆发了。谷歌爆发了；他们融资只是为了请约翰·杜尔和迈克·莫里茨加入董事会，但他们已经达到了逃逸速度。微软也一样；他们从一位投资者那里拿了一小笔钱，但已经起步了。亚马逊很快盈利。他们拿了小额投资，但这些巨头公司没有一家是通过一轮又一轮的标准路径磨出来的。真正最大的公司没有这样做。它们要么很快盈利，几乎不需要风险投资，要么由有远见的企业家自筹资金。很少有巨大的标志性伟大公司是通过一轮又一轮的风险投资建立起来的。

I think so. I don't think it's a coincidence that Apple, Tesla, and SpaceX are self-financed companies. Most of the great companies are either self-financed or they break out very early before they really need venture capital. Google broke out; they raised VC just to get John Doerr and Mike Moritz on the board, but they were already at escape velocity. Microsoft as well; they took a tiny check from one investor, but they were already off to the races. Amazon was profitable very quickly. They took a small investment, but none of these giant companies did round after round after round grinding it out through the standard path. The truly largest companies did not do that. They either got profitable very quickly and almost didn't need venture capital, or they were self-financed by a visionary entrepreneur. It's very rare that one of the huge iconic great companies was built by round after round of venture capital.

这真是异端邪说。

That's a heresy.

就是这样。我对投资者没有太多敬意。我不是不尊重他们；我认为他们是生态系统的重要组成部分，我是资本家，但我不认为他们需要自我表扬。

There you go. I don't have a lot of respect for investors. I don't disrespect them; I think they're an important part of the ecosystem and I'm a capitalist, but I don't think they need to pat themselves on the back.

你认为想要某些东西是相互排斥的吗？

Do you think wanting some things are mutually incompatible?

我的意思是，它们必须是相互排斥的，对吧？圣经里说：骆驼穿过针眼比富人进天堂还容易。我的理解是，如果你追求物质，就不能追求精神。你不可能既在物质生活中成功并为之奋斗，过着商人的生活，同时又成为佛陀。所以它们可能是相互矛盾的。有一天晚上我熬夜拉伸，心想：“我应该确保拉伸总是我日常的一部分。”

I mean, they have to be, right? The biblical phrase: easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. What I interpret that as is if you're pursuing material things, you can't pursue spiritual things. You can't both be successful in this material life and striving for it, living the life of a merchant, and also be a Buddha. So they might be mutually contradictory. I was up late one night stretching and I thought, 'I should just make sure stretching is always part of my routine.'

我当时想，我的日常是什么？我在这里想做什么？于是我就把它打出来，然后发了一条推文，我得到了最高的赞美之一，一个叫 M. Mayor 的人说，哦，你写了一本书。

I was like what is my routine? What am I trying to do here? So then I just typed that out and then I tweeted that out and I got one of the highest compliments I got a tweet which is this guy I think M. Mayor he said oh you wrote you wrote the book.

是的。

Yeah.

你用这条推文写了一本书。我看到很多人复制它，所以它显然引起了共鸣。

You put a book in a tweet with this one. And I've seen so many people replicate this, so it's clearly kind of resonant.

是的，不过里面有一个错误，有点糟糕。最后有一件事我会换掉。

Yeah, there was a mistake in there, though, which kind of sucks. There was one thing that I'll swap out at the end.

好的，等我到这里时纠正我。禁食、举重、冲刺、拉伸和冥想构建。

All right, correct me when I get here. Fast, lift, sprint, stretch, and meditate build.

等等。禁食、举重、冲刺、拉伸、冥想。所以，这都是身体方面的事情。

So, hold on. Fast, lift, sprint, stretch, meditate. So, that's all the physical stuff.

是的。有点像晨间例行公事，你知道，日常锻炼之类的东西。我喜欢它排在第一位，因为你把健康作为首要任务。

Yeah. Kind of the morning routines, you know, daily workout thing. And I like that it's first because you're starting with health as your first priority.

没错。

That's right.

构建、销售、写作、创造、投资和拥有。

Build, sell, write, create, invest, and own.

是的。所以，这是赚钱、财富的部分。是的。

Yeah. So, this is the making money the wealth part. Yeah.

产品化你自己。建立或购买企业的股权。阅读、反思、爱、寻求真理，并忽略社会。

Productize yourself. Build or buy equity in a business. Read, reflect, love, seek truth, and ignore society.

真理和爱，再加上一点健康的自私。

Truth and love along with a healthy dose of selfishness.

养成这些习惯。对其他一切说不。

Make these habits. Say no to everything else.

是的。习惯。因为这是你坚持它们的唯一方式。

Yeah. Habits. Because that's the only way you stick with them.

避免债务、监狱、成瘾、耻辱、捷径和媒体。

Avoid debt, jail, addiction, disgrace, shortcuts, and media.

对吧？所以我替换了这里的一部分，我想我把“捷径”换成了“糖”或其他东西。实际上在推文里。我有一条后续推文说：“哦，我希望我替换了。”我得查一下，但我想那就是我想替换的。我最喜欢的部分实际上是这里的代码，就是放松。胜利是必然的。

Right? So, I replace one part in here, which is I think I replaced shortcuts with sugar or something else. It's actually in the tweet. I have a followup on that tweet saying, "Oh, I wish I replaced." I have to look it up, but I think that's what I wanted to replace. And my favorite part is actually the code here, which is relax. Victory is assured.

没错。放松。那就是顺流而下的部分。

That's right. Relax. That's the gently down the stream part.

这正是我的想法。快乐地去做，温柔地前行。

I'd say exactly what I was thinking. Do it merrily and go gently.

正是。是的。

Exactly. Yeah.

谢谢。

Thank you.

谢谢。刮掉。

Thank you. Scrape.