Naval 谈销售：可信度胜过技巧

嗨，你正在收听 Naval 播客。我是他的常驻联合主持人 Nivi。人生只需要知道两件事：如何构建和如何销售。今天我们来聊聊销售这一面。Naval 是一位特别有天赋的销售者，有些人甚至指责他拥有自己的现实扭曲场。

Hi, you're listening to the Naval podcast. This is his regular co-host, Nivi. There's only two things you need to know in life, how to build and how to sell. Today, we're going to talk about the sales side. Naval is a particularly gifted seller and some people have accused him of having his own reality distortion field.

是的，我从未上过销售课。我从未试图擅长销售。我甚至不知道销售是什么。我不销售。我只是试图弄清楚事情，然后如果我相信某件事，我会尽可能准确和诚实地传达给对方。这当中没有任何销售技巧。我想我全部的销售训练就是看了《拜金一族》。我觉得那部电影不错，推荐给你。我读过罗伯特·西奥迪尼的《影响力》，他关于说服的原始著作。第二本可以跳过。像大多数续集一样，没必要读。里面有一个好主意，就是锚定，但仅此而已。罗伯特·西奥迪尼推广了 CLASSR，即一致性、喜好、权威、稀缺、社会认同和互惠。这是影响他人的六种方式，然后他在后续书中增加了第七种，基本上就是锚定。但事实上，我并不相信销售。如果你觉得有人在向你推销，如果你觉得自己被推销了，那会让人反感。人类天生就抗拒被推销。所以，我认为更重要的是可信度。可信度远比销售重要。

Yes, so I've never taken a class on sales. I never tried to be good at sales. I don't even know what sales is. I don't sell. I just try to figure things out and then if there's something I believe in, I try to convey that as accurately and honestly as possible to the other person. And there's no sales skills involved. I think the full extent of my sales training is I watched Glengarry Glen Ross. I think that was good. I recommend it. I read Robert Cialdini's Influence, his original book on persuasion. You can skip the second one. Like most sequels, it's just not needed. It has one good idea in there, which is anchoring, but that's it. Robert Cialdini popularized CLASSR, which is consistency, liking, authority, scarcity, social proof, and reciprocity. Those are like the six ways in which you influence people and then his subsequent book, he added a seventh, which is basically anchoring. But yeah, I actually don't believe in sales. If you feel like someone is selling to you and if you feel like you're being sold, it's a turnoff. Humans are hardwired to resist being sold to. So, I think what matters much more is credibility. Credibility is way more important than sales.

如果你想擅长销售，那么你真正想要的是可信。你希望人们信任你。你希望成为那种引导人们远离糟糕交易、糟糕社区和糟糕房子的房地产经纪人，这样当合适的机会出现时，他们会信任你。你真的必须放下自我，设身处地为他人着想，弄清楚他们想要什么。一旦你弄清楚他们想要什么，你就可以进行销售了。但我不是那种你可以找来完成销售配额的人，比如这周或这个月必须卖出 50 套软件。但我要告诉你的是，你一生中最想打动的人是那些能看穿你的人。他们会看穿你的销售策略。他们会看穿你的推销。而这些人是最顶尖的。所以，如果你想与最顶尖的人合作，如果你想成功销售最伟大的东西，那么你必须非常可信。而要可信，你必须真实。你必须说实话。你必须知识渊博。他们必须真正信任你，相信你不是只做对自己有利的事。你在考虑长远。你很诚实。你理解自己在说什么，并且能简单解释，因为没有人是万事通。他们不会很快跟上。所以你必须想办法类比并传达给他们。这并不总是有效。你不能执着于结果。你不能把每件事都卖给每个人。

If you want to be good at sales, quote and quote, then really what you want is you want to be credible. You want people to trust you. You want to be the real estate agent that steers people away from bad deals and bad neighborhoods and bad houses, so that when the right one comes along for them, they trust you. You really have to take your ego out of it, put yourself in the other person's shoes, and figure out what they want. And then once you've figured out what they want, then you can, quote and quote, make the sale. But I'm not the guy you would talk to for making the sales quota, where you have to sell like 50 pieces of software this week or this month. But, what I can tell you is that the people you most want to impress in life are the ones who can see right through you. And they will see right through your sales tactics. They will see right through your pitching them. And these people are the top of the top. So, if you want to work with the people who are at the top of the top, if you want to successfully sell the biggest things that are out there, then you have to be very credible. And to be credible, you have to be authentic. You have to tell the truth. You have to be knowledgeable. They have to really trust you and that you're not just doing what's expedient for you. You're thinking about the long term. You're being honest. You understand what you're talking about and you can explain it simply because nobody's an expert in everything. They're not going to come up to speed quickly enough. So, you do have to figure out how to analogize it and to convey it to them. And it doesn't always work. You can't be attached to the outcome. You can't sell everyone on everything.

我知道有一种模式确实有效，有些人非常激进。他们就像‘永不放弃。继续敲打。继续坚持。继续猛攻，最终你会突破。’我不是那种人。我只是懒。我喜欢去容易的地方。所以，如果我的销售或推销没有引起某人的共鸣，我就继续前进。我立刻继续前进。我只是不断寻找会共鸣的人。

I know there is a model out there that does work where some people are incredibly aggressive. They're like, 'Never give up. Just keep hammering. Just keep going on it. Just keep beating on it and eventually you'll break through.' I'm not one of those people. I'm just lazy. I like to go where it's easy. So, if my sale, quote unquote, or if my pitch does not resonate with somebody, I move on. I move on instantly. And I just keep looking for the person whom it will resonate with.

我注意到 Naval 使用的一个技巧是，他疯狂地使用‘是的，而且’。无论你对他说什么，他都会‘是的，而且’，即使他不同意。他会说‘是的’，也许扩展你的观点，然后转向他想谈的话题。他不会立即反驳你或直接说‘不’。

One of the quote unquote techniques I've noticed Naval use is that he uses yes and like crazy. Whatever you say to him, he's going to yes and it even if he disagrees with it. He'll say yes, maybe expand on your point, and then pivot to what he wants to talk about. He's not going to immediately disagree with you or give you a very direct no.

那是一种技巧。有时我也会直接反驳别人。但我要说的是，大多数聪明人，如果他们告诉你某件事，那是真诚的。他们有理由相信。通常你能看到那个理由。所以，‘是的’来自于你真正理解‘哦，好的。那是你的问题。我明白了。’所以你必须理解它。但如果我完全不同意他们，我会直接不同意。我会说‘不，我认为那不是真的，原因如下。’顺便说一句，我经常不同意，通常当我不同意时，我会感到羞愧。那时我学会谦虚，因为我经常犯错。所以‘是的，而且’是一个好策略，虽然我不把它当作策略。它更像是理性共情，即你推理到他们的立场，看看他们的立场是否有效。如果有效，你就说‘是’，然后强化为什么你的立场有效，因为希望你的立场经过深思熟虑也是有效的。

That's a technique. And there are times when I do contradict people outright. But, I will say that most smart people, if they're telling you something, then it's genuine. They have a reason to believe that. And usually you can see that reason. And so, so where the yes comes from, where you truly understand, 'Oh, okay. That's your issue. I get it.' So, you have to understand it. But, if I completely disagreed with them, I would just disagree. I would just say, 'No, I don't think that's true, and here's why.' And by the way, I do disagree a lot, and usually when I disagree, that's when I get humiliated. That's when I learn to be humble, because that's when I'm often wrong. So, yes and is a good strategy, although I don't use it as a strategy. It's more about rational empathy, which is you reason your way to their position, and you see if their position is valid. And if it is, then you say yes, but then you reinforce why your position is valid, cuz hopefully your position is thought through and also valid.

我注意到的下一件事是，Naval 极其开放，甚至到了我认为荒谬的地步。

The next thing I've noticed in Naval is that he's just incredibly open-minded to the point of what I consider to be ridiculous.

我想保持客观。客观意味着放下自我。这意味着你不能总是从自己的角度思考，因为对方有完全不同的视角。多年来，有几个人来找我寻求建议，他们真的把我当作顾问，我总是不解为什么。然后有一个人直接告诉我：‘你有一种做法，你给我建议，但从来不是来自你自己。感觉就像我在和自己对话，只是方式略有不同。你不是在告诉我你的想法或你想让我听到的，你想让我做的。’我努力做到那样。那就是客观。那就是诚实。而且是自私的诚实，因为我想为自己做出正确的决定，这意味着我必须尽可能客观。顺便说一句，我犯过很多错误。我可能 80% 的时候都是错的。所以，考虑到这一点，我不敢想象如果我不客观、不诚实会发生什么。我会戴着眼罩走路，可能 95% 的时候都是错的。

I think I want to be objective. Objective means getting the ego out of it. It means that you can't always think of it from your perspective, because the other person has a completely different perspective. I've had a couple of people who come to me for advice through the years, and they'll literally use me as a counselor, and I'm always kind of scratching my head why. And then one of them just told me outright, he said, 'Well, you have this thing you do, where you give me advice, but it never comes from you. It feels like it's me talking to myself, but in a slightly different way. You're not just telling me what you think or what you want me to hear, what you want me to do.' I try for that. That's objectivity. That's honesty. And it's selfish honesty, because I want to make the right decisions for myself, which means that I have to try to be as objective as possible. And by the way, I make huge numbers of mistakes. I'm probably wrong 80% of the time. So, given that, I shudder to think what would happen if I wasn't objective, if I wasn't honest. I'd just be walking around with blinders on, and probably be wrong 95% of the time.

我注意到的下一个技巧是，Naval 同时做到了真实和积极。如果你向我寻求建议，我可以真实，也可以积极，但同时做到两者极其困难，这是一项非常罕见的技能。

The next technique I've noticed in Naval is that he is truthful and positive at the same time. If you ask me for advice, I can be truthful, or I can be positive, but it's incredibly difficult, and it's a really rare skill to be able to do both at the same time.

是的，这是我个人对魅力的定义。魅力是同时投射自信和爱的能力。或者只是力量和善意。我认为如果你真正有同理心，如果你确实关心对方的感受和福祉，那么你会想办法把信息传达得得体。

Yeah, it's my definition of charisma. Charisma is the ability to project confidence and love simultaneously. Or just power and good intentions. I think if you genuinely are empathic, if you do care about the other person's feelings and well-being, then you're going to figure out how to deliver the message nicely.

我的密友会告诉你，我并不积极，也不友善，我甚至会严厉批评别人。我喜欢取笑别人，喜欢在言语上占上风，喜欢机智幽默，有时会对人很刻薄。但这些都是我最亲近的人，我不必太在意他们的想法，因为他们了解我的思维方式，我也了解他们的，我知道他们承受得住，他们只想直截了当。但我认为诚实是基石。如果必须在两者中选一个，诚实更重要。惹恼或激怒别人但保持诚实，比友善更重要。不过我认为两者可以兼得，几乎在所有情况下都能做到。现实是，如果你诚实但不友善，别人不会听你的。所以问题就变成了：你是想证明自己是对的，还是想真正有效？如果你真的想有效，就必须学会用友善来包装诚实。当然，这也有弱点。比如我非常不擅长解雇人。我解雇过人，但很少，需要很大决心。我在这方面慢慢进步了，但过去一直很差。在大多数公司里，我都依赖联合创始人来做这件事。这恰恰源于这一点：我不喜欢不友善。所以当需要解雇某人时，即使他们可能拖累团队或不适合这个岗位，我也会共情，思考他们可能受到的伤害和感受。这对我来说非常困难。我唯一能接受的解雇方式是：我必须确信他们在其他岗位会更有效，然后帮助他们找到那个岗位，或者至少为他们提供推荐。我很少在没有想清楚他们更适合哪里之前就解雇人。

Now, my close friends will tell you that I am not positive, and I'm not nice, and that I can really rip into people. I like making fun of people. I like winning little verbal combats. I like being witty, and I can be brutal with people. But those are the people closest to me. Those are the people where I don't have to even worry too much about what they think, because they know how I think, and I know how they think, and I know they can take it. And they just want to cut the chase. But I think honesty is the bedrock. If you have to pick one of the two, honesty is more important. It is more important to annoy somebody or to anger them and be honest than it is to be kind. But I think you can do both. In almost all situations, you can do both. And the reality is if you're honest but not kind, they're not going to listen to you. So, then it's a question of do you want to be right, or do you want to be effective? And if you actually want to be effective, then you have to figure out how to layer it in with some kindness. Now, there are weaknesses in there, too. Like I'm very bad at firing people. I have fired people. It's rare. It takes a lot for me to fire someone. And I've gotten better at it over time, but I historically have been very bad at it. And most companies I've leaned on my co-founders to be the ones doing that. That basically comes from exactly this point. I just don't like to be unkind. So, when it's time to fire someone, even though they might be a drag on the team, or it's not the right place for them, I'm empathic, so I think through all the ways they could be hurt, and how their feelings are, and all of that. So, it gets very difficult for me. And really, the only way I found to fire people that works for me is I have to be convinced that they're going to be more effective somewhere else in some other role. And then I have to help them find that role or at least be available as a reference for them on that role. It's very rare that I'm going to fire somebody and I haven't thought through like where they would be more effective.

顺便说一句，我所说的“真实且积极”，其中的“积极”是指你离开对话时充满干劲，愿意去实践刚才讨论的内容。

By the way, when I say truthful and positive, what I mean by positive is that you leave the conversation with Naval energized to actually work on the discussion you just had.

是的，这引出了领导力与管理的好定义。管理是告诉别人做什么，领导力是让他们愿意去做。我认为领导力是组织必须推动的核心之一。你必须激励人们想要工作，但这不能是虚假的。它必须是一个真正的激励因素，与他们的能力、自身目标以及他们想要的生活相结合。所以你必须花时间倾听他们的需求，然后找出与你目标的重叠之处，再激励他们去实现。安托万·德·圣-埃克苏佩里有一句名言。我推荐这位伟大的作家，他写了《风沙星辰》和《空军飞行员》。他有一句很棒的话，大意是：“如果你想造一艘船，不要只是召集人手，发号施令，砍木头，生火。相反，要教会他们渴望浩瀚无垠的大海。”所以，如果我招募某人，我总是向他们推销我认为正确、诚实、真实的东西，那就是创业公司。这是更好的创业和生活方式，比在大公司工作有趣得多。你不是机器上的一个齿轮，你有更多的自主权，更多的乐趣，可以赚更多的钱。是的，短期内很辛苦，但从长远来看，一旦你做过创业公司，就很难再去大公司工作。一旦你拥有大量自主权或为自己工作，就很难在传统意义上被雇佣。我认为我最受欢迎的推文之一是：“尝过自由的滋味会让你变得无法被雇佣。”这就是我的意思，尤其对于那些有才华、有技能、自我驱动的人。不是每个人都这样，但如果你是自我驱动、高能动性的人，一旦你自由了，你就变得无法被雇佣。就像一个孩子在家上学后变得无法适应学校。他们尝到了自由的滋味。当你不自由时，你无法发挥最佳水平。

Yeah, so this goes to a good definition of leadership versus management. Management is telling people what to do and leadership is making them want to do it. And I think leadership is one of the core core things that you have to drive in an organization. You just have to inspire people to want to do the work, but it can't be fake. It has to be a true motivator rolled into their capabilities and their own objectives, what they want out of life. So, you do have to take the time to listen to what those people want and then figure out where there's an overlap in what you want done. And then inspire them to go do it. There's a famous Antoine de Saint-Exupéry line. I recommend this great author. He wrote Wind, Sand and Stars and Airman's Odyssey. So, he has a great line which goes something like, "If you want to build a ship, don't just gather the men and issue orders and cut the wood and start the fires. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea." So, if I'm recruiting someone, I'm always pitching them on what I think is correct, it's honest, it's authentic, which is that startup So, it's just a much better way to build businesses, to live your life, and much more fun to work in the large companies. You're not a cog in a machine. You have a lot more autonomy. You have a lot more fun. You can make a lot more money. And yes, in the short term it's grueling, but in the long term, once you've done startups, it's very difficult to go work for a big company. Once you have worked with a lot of autonomy or work for yourself, it's very hard to be employable in a traditional sense. I think one of my most popular tweets was, "A taste of freedom can make you unemployable. And that's kind of what I mean, especially for talented skilled people who are self-motivated. Not everyone is that way, but if you are one of the self-motivated high agency people, when you've been free, you become unemployable. It's like a kid who's been whole school becomes unschoolable. They've just tasted freedom. And you're not going to do your best work when you're not free.

本期节目由 USVCA 呈现，这是一个每个美国人都可以投资的公共风险基金。风险投资对大多数投资者来说遥不可及。你只能眼巴巴地看着公司在私募市场复合增长到万亿美元估值，而等待它们上市。USVCA 就是为了改变这一点而成立的。它是一个跨阶段的单一高增长风险投资组合，SEC 注册，专业管理，无需认证资格，最低投资额仅 500 美元。目前仅限美国投资者。该基金包括 OpenAI、Anthropic、xAI 和 Vercel。随着 USVCA 增加公司，投资者也将拥有这些公司的一部分。Naval 是投资委员会主席。风险投资不适合你明天需要的钱。它有风险且流动性差。不要投资任何你输不起的钱。但如果你有胃口，可能没有比真正的风险投资更努力地部署每一美元的方式了。世界上最聪明的年轻人以疯狂的时间工作来建设未来。投资很简单。访问 usvca.com/podcast。在投资前，请仔细阅读基金招股说明书中的目标、风险、费用和支出，网址为 usvca.com。投资 USVCA 具有投机性、高风险，且股票缺乏流动性，没有公开交易市场。该基金是新的，财务信息有限。它可能无法实现其投资目标或提供分配，投资者可能损失全部或大部分投资。过往业绩不保证未来回报。由 Alps Distributors Inc. 分销。

This episode is presented by USVCA, public venture fund that every American can invest in. Venture capital has been unreachable for most investors. You've got your nose up to the glass watching companies compound to trillion-dollar valuations in the private markets while you wait for them to go public. USVCA was built to change that. It's a single basket of high-growth venture capital across stages, SEC registered, professionally managed with no accreditation requirement and a low $500 minimum. It's for US investors only for now. The fund includes OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, and Vercel. As USVCA adds companies, investors will own a piece of those, too. And Naval is chairman of the investment committee. Venture is not for the money you need tomorrow. It's risky and illiquid. Don't invest anything you can't afford to lose. But if you have the appetite, there may be no harder working way to deploy a dollar than true venture capital. The smartest young people in the world working insane hours to build the future. Investing is easy. Go to usvca.com/podcast. Before investing, carefully read the objectives, risks, fees, and expenses in the fund's prospectus at usvca.com. Investing in USVCA is speculative, high risk, and shares are illiquid with no public trading market. The fund is new with limited and financial information. It may not achieve its investment objectives or provide distributions, and investors may lose all or a substantial portion of their investment. Past performance does not guarantee returns. Distributed by Alps Distributors Inc.

所以，你想以最小的团队规模来完成你设定的工作范围。我认为每个男人，有些女人，但肯定是男人，在进化上就是这样。我们在狩猎采集部落中进化。男人们会去打猎，对吧？他们会聚集在一起，十到二十个人，拿起长矛，进行长时间的狩猎，追逐猎物。然后他们可能在一天、一周或一个月后回来，带回食物、皮毛等部落所需的一切。这已经刻在我们的基因里。我们天生就适合与小团队一起执行任务。从人们跳上船航行到西印度群岛或新大陆，到人们去打仗，再到人们去创业，都是如此。所以当你读到像《升空》这样的故事，讲述马斯克和他的团队建造第一枚 SpaceX 火箭，或者《麦金塔之路》讲述乔布斯和他的团队建造第一台 Macintosh，还有其他书如《新机器的灵魂》等等。

So, you want to be in the minimum size group to do the scope of the job that you set out to do. And I think deep down every man, some women, but definitely men are evolved this way. We evolved in hunter-gatherer tribes. And so, men would go on the hunt, right? They would gather together, there'd be 10 or 20 of them, and they'd grab their spears, and they'd go on a long hunt, and they'd chase something down. And then they'd come back from the hunt, maybe a day, a week, a month later, and they'd have food and pelts and all things for the tribe. That's baked into us. We're designed to go on missions with small groups. Everything from people jumping on a boat and sailing to the West Indies or to the New World, or people going to war, or people going to build a business. So, when you read these stories, like Lift Off, which is a story of Musk and his team building the first SpaceX rocket, or The Macintosh Way, which is about Jobs and his team building the first Macintosh, and there are other various books like there's Soul of a New Machine, etc.

这些故事非常鼓舞人心，因为我认为在内心深处，这是每个人都真正渴望的：如果你在创造某样东西，你希望与一小群非常能干的人在一起，每个人都尽自己最大的努力，这样你可以完全信赖他们，然后你就能最大限度地发挥创造力，最终获得不可思议的成果。我们的整个社会都建立在这个基础之上。在博弈论中，一个常见的游戏是囚徒困境，讲的是我们被警察逮捕，两个人中谁会出卖对方，激励是背叛对方。但现实生活是另一个游戏。现实社会往往是所谓的猎鹿博弈。猎鹿博弈是：如果我们各自单独狩猎，可以杀死一只兔子；但如果我们一起狩猎，就能捕到一头鹿，得到更多的肉。这才是正常社会的模式。在低信任度的社会里，人们互不信任，或者结构使得合作不可能——税收太高、监管太多、官僚主义严重、很多事情非法——你无法进行猎鹿博弈，结果就是大量的小微企业和普遍的贫困。在一个结构良好的社会里，你可以进行猎鹿博弈。你信任别人。有法治。你知道如果一起创造东西，你不会被欺骗。你会得到公平的份额。你可以与高素质的人结盟。政府不会拿走一切。没有规则禁止它。你周围都是志同道合的人。你处于高信任的环境中。人们在社交网络中互相认识，互相考察，有声誉。然后你可以组建 10 人、20 人、50 人、100 人、200 人的团队，去做那些被认为不可能的事情。这非常令人振奋。我认为这就是你想要的方式：与高信任的人在小团队中解决真正困难的问题。你天生就适合这样。你渴望这样。所以当我向人们推销加入你的公司时，我推销的就是这个。我告诉他们：‘嘿，这就是你该在的地方。在这里你会实现自我。在这里你会得到最大的乐趣。’我用的一个招聘技巧是保持极高的标准。所以你就告诉人们：‘嘿，你可以走进来面试任何人。你可以挑选坐在这个办公室里的任何人，现在就面试他们。如果你不觉得他们很出色，就不要加入。他们都那么优秀。’

These are incredibly inspiring, because I think deep down, this is what every person really craves: if you're building something, you want to be with a small team of highly competent people, each pulling their weight and doing their job to the best, so you can completely rely on them, and then you get to do your creativity at the max, and on the other side, you get this incredible outcome. Our whole society is built on that. In game theory, the popular game that comes up is the prisoner's dilemma, which is about being arrested by the police, and who's going to rat the other one out, with the incentive to cheat. But real life is a different game. Real life societies tend to be what's called a stag hunt. A stag hunt is if each of us hunts alone, we can kill a bunny, but if we hunt together, we can take down a stag and have a lot more meat. That's more the model in normal society. In low-trust societies where people don't trust each other, or where the structure makes it impossible to work together—taxes too high, regulations too high, too much bureaucracy, things illegal—you can't engage in stag hunts, and you end up with lots of small, tiny businesses and lots of poverty. In a well-structured society, you can engage in stag hunts. You trust people. There's rule of law. You know that if you build something together, you won't be ripped off. You'll get your fair share. You can ally with high-quality people. The government won't take everything. There aren't rules against it. You're around like-minded people. You're in a high-trust situation. People know each other in the social network. They check each other out. They have reputations. Then you can get together teams of 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 people who can do what was considered impossible. That is very invigorating. I think that's the way you want to function: with high-trust people in small groups to solve really hard problems. Deep down you're built for it. You crave it. So when I'm pitching people to join your company, that's what I'm pitching. I'm pitching them, 'Hey, this is where you're meant to be. This is where you will self-actualize. This is where you will have the most fun.' One recruiting trick I use is to keep the bar super high. So you just tell people, 'Hey, you can walk in here and interview anybody. You can pick anybody sitting on this office floor and interview them right now. If you don't think they're brilliant, don't join. They're all that good.'

我注意到的下一个技巧是，你不会推销任何你不受启发的东西。我问了我们的朋友、来自 Accomplice 的 Jeff Fagan，他对你的销售技巧怎么看，他形容这是一种传教士式的销售。

The next technique I've noticed is that you don't sell anything that you're not inspired about. I asked Jeff Fagan from Accomplice, a friend of ours, what he thinks about your sales skills and he described it as an evangelical sale.

哈。哦，天哪。我拒绝这种说法。我不知道，传教士式的？我认为这只是诚实。你必须真正对这件事感到兴奋。如果你对这件事不兴奋，你卖它干什么？卖你不在乎的东西，生活是很悲惨的。我知道在《华尔街之狼》和那些电影里，人们推崇‘嘿，把这支笔卖给我。把这把叉子卖给我。’我不在乎卖给你这支笔或这把叉子，除非我相信这是有史以来最好的笔。如果我相信这是有史以来最好的笔，我会免费卖给你。我热爱这支笔。所以对我来说，销售是可信度的副产品。显然，能言善辩和有同理心会有帮助。就实际的销售技巧而言，我知道整个 Cialdini 清单。我可能偶尔会在写邮件时用一下，快速过一遍，但我不会人为地在邮件或推销中塞满随意的评论，只是为了接近别人。生活中所有的框架，无论是你的锻炼框架、销售框架，还是你构建应用的框架，都是次要的，远远次于你的动机。如果你真正有动力去构建一个应用，你会找到办法的。如果你真正有动力去创办一家企业，你会找到办法的。商学院、商业书籍、应用开发的东西，所有这些都次要的。你可以事后用它们来分析事情，说‘哦，我就是这么做的’或者‘那就是那个技巧’。但现实是，你会因为受到激励而去做。我认为我那些隐晦的推文比公式更有效的原因之一，是因为它们真正关乎灵感和动力。如果你有足够的动力，你会找到办法的。这里也有一条微妙的界线。如果你是那种需要一直阅读励志推文、听励志播客的人，那你可能也成不了事，因为你在某种程度上必须自我激励。就像叔本华说的：‘阅读的意义在于点燃自己大脑中的火焰。’我会说同样的话，被激励的意义在于点燃自己心中的火焰。如果那火焰点不着，那你就会一直听励志播客，直到永远。读商业书籍没有价值。甚至商业播客对我来说也只是刷牙或跑步时的娱乐。它们不是真正学习有用东西的方式。如果你想学有用的东西，唯一的方法就是去做，带着热情、痴迷和真诚去做。

Huh. Oh, man. I reject that. I don't know, evangelical. I think it's just honest. You have to genuinely be excited about the thing. If you're not excited about the thing, what are you doing selling it? It's a miserable life if you're selling things that you don't care about. I know in Wolf of Wall Street and all those kinds of movies, it's lionized like, 'Hey, sell me this pen. Sell me this fork.' I don't care about selling you this pen or this fork, unless I believe it's the best pen ever made. If I believe it's the best pen ever made, I'll sell it for free. I love the pen. So for me, sales is a byproduct of credibility. Obviously, it helps to be articulate and empathetic. In terms of actual sales skills, I know the whole Cialdini checklist. I might use it once in a blue moon if I'm writing an email, I might just run down it, but I'm not going to artificially fill an email or a pitch with random comments just trying to close in on people. All frameworks in life, whether it's your working out framework, your sales framework, or even your building an app framework, are secondary and distant secondary to your motivation. If you are truly motivated to build an app, you will figure it out. If you're truly motivated to create a business, you will figure it out. The business school, the business books, the app development stuff, all of that is secondary. You can use that later ex post facto to analyze the thing in hindsight and say, 'Oh, that's how I did it.' Or, 'That's what that technique was.' But the reality is you will do it because you're motivated. One of the reasons why I think my cryptic tweets work better than formulas is because they're really about inspiration and motivation. If you are sufficiently motivated, you will figure it out. There's also a tricky line there. If you're the kind of person who needs to read motivational tweets and listen to motivational podcasts all the time, then you're probably not going to make it either, because you have to be self-motivated at some level. It's like Schopenhauer used to say, 'The point of reading is a kindling to light a fire in your own brain.' I would say the same way, the point of being motivated is kindling to light a fire in your own heart. And if that fire can't be lit, then you're just going to be listening to motivational podcasts until the end of time. There's no value in reading business books. Even business podcasts to me are a form of entertainment while I'm brushing my teeth or on the treadmill. They're not a way to actually learn anything useful. If you want to learn something useful, the only way to learn it is to go and do it and to do it with fervor and obsession and authenticity.

所以，回到氛围编码这个话题，氛围编码是我最新的痴迷。我有一种痴迷的性格。每六个月我就会对某件新事物着迷。随着时间的推移，我明白了，有些痴迷是坏的，比如暴饮暴食、吸毒、玩太多电子游戏——这些都是坏的痴迷。但也有好的痴迷。智力上的痴迷是好的痴迷。所以我学会了滋养我的智力痴迷。如果我对某项技术感兴趣，如果我热爱某个可能学到东西的播客，如果我开始做某种特定的锻炼，我就会滋养这种痴迷。我会特意去沉浸其中。我不追求平衡。我追求滋养我的痴迷。然后，一旦痴迷阶段过去——它不可避免地会过去——你会对那件事有点厌倦，但其中很大一部分会伴随你一生，你只需学会如何将它融入你日常的心理、个性和存在中。所以我会说，放纵你的痴迷。别担心商业书籍。

So, closing loop on vibe coding, vibe coding is my latest obsession. I have an obsessive personality. Every 6 months I get obsessed with something new. I learned over time, there are bad obsessions like overeating, doing drugs, playing too many video games—those are bad obsessions. But there are good obsessions. The intellectual obsessions are good obsessions. So I've learned to feed my intellectual obsessions. If I'm into some piece of technology, if I'm loving some podcast where I might be learning something, if I'm getting into some specific kind of workout, I feed that obsession. I go out of my way to indulge in it. I don't look for balance. I look to feed my obsessions. Then, once the obsession phase passes, like it inevitably does, you get a little tired of the thing, some large piece of it stays with you for the rest of your life and you just learn how to work it into your everyday psyche and personality and being. So I would say indulge your obsessions. Don't worry about business books.

如果你想擅长销售，那就找到你真正在乎的东西去卖。这样就不会难，也不会觉得是在销售。如果你觉得你在推销，那你很可能卖错了东西。但如果你只是充满热情，只是传达你的热情，你控制不住自己，那你就找到了该卖的东西。所以，如果你现在在做销售，却在卖你不关心的东西，你需要去找别的东西来卖。

Like if you want to be good at sales, then find something that you really care about that you want to sell and go sell that thing. And it won't be hard. It won't feel like sales. If it feels to you like you're selling, then you're probably selling the wrong thing. But if you're just being enthusiastic about it, if you're just conveying your enthusiasm, you can't control yourself, then you found the right thing to sell. So, if you're in the sales business right now, you're selling something you don't care about, you need to go find something else to sell.

让我把 Jeff 发给我的关于你传教士式销售的内容完整念出来。是这样的：传教士式销售先带你看到大局，然后让你愿意做小事。擅长讲故事。他充满激情，无论是牙刷、餐厅还是糟糕的创业公司，都配合得很好。

Let me give you the full text of what Jeff sent me about your evangelical sales. Here it is. Evangelical sell takes you through the big picture then makes you want to do the small things. Good at storytelling. He's so passionate whether it's a toothbrush, restaurant, or a shitty startup, it works well together.

嗯，那是外部视角。我根本不是这么想的。说实话，我甚至没想过这些。我只是在说话。如果你想真诚，想被那些能看穿你的人认真对待，就不要过度思考这些事。比如，如果我为一家公司融资，像我的新公司 Impossible，我们已经融了一轮，可能还会再融一轮。我对待融资的方式不是被外部时钟驱动。我不会说，'哦，九月了，让我把演示文稿做好去推销。'我实际上是等待。我专注于公司，专注于团队。我衡量自己的兴奋程度。当我的兴奋程度超过某个阈值时，我就知道可以融资了，因为我对业务现状真正感到兴奋，觉得公司确实值得新一轮融资。那时，去推销并不难。我只需要找一群人，向他们解释，如果他们不理解，那是他们的损失。我继续找下一个。我不会纠结于不理解的人，因为大多数人不会理解。但这更多是根据业务基本面衡量我内心的兴奋程度。如果我去融资，意味着业务已经发展到我足够兴奋的地步，我只需要真诚地传达我已经看到并知道是真实的东西。我不需要推销不真实的东西，不需要夸大任何事。我只需要真诚地传达那些让我兴奋的东西。

Well, that's the external view. It's totally not how I think about it. I don't even think about it, to be honest. I'm just talking. If you want to be genuine, if you want to be taken seriously by the people, again, who can see right through you, it's important not to overthink these things because for example, if I'm raising money for a company, like so for my new company, Impossible, we've raised a round already, and we're probably going to raise another one at some point. The way I approach that fundraising is I'm not driven by an external clock. I don't say, "Oh, it's September. Let me put the deck together now and go pitch it." I actually wait. I work on the company. I work on the team. And I measure my own excitement level. And when my own excitement level gets above a certain threshold, then I know I'm ready to go raise the money because now I'm genuinely excited about where the business is, and I feel like the business really deserves another round of financing. At that point, it's not hard for me to go and sell it. And at that point, I just have to go find a bunch of people, explain it to them, and if they don't get it, that's their loss. I just move on to the next one. I don't fixate on the person who didn't get it cuz most people won't get it. But, it's much more about measuring my own internal excitement level based on the fundamentals of where the business is at. And if I go out to raise money, that means the business is at the point where I'm excited enough about it that I now just have to genuinely convey what I already see and know to be true. I don't have to pitch something that isn't true. I don't have to exaggerate anything. I have to just genuinely convey what's down there that's getting me excited.

如果 Naval 要向你推销什么、沟通或说服，总会有一个开场白。他会设定一个更大的背景，无论是问题情境、故事还是历史背景。他不会直接进入推销。那会是更大故事的一部分。我注意到的一点是，你愿意放弃任何你认为不好或不理想的交易，即使你处境有点紧张。

If Naval's going to pitch you on something or communicate or persuade, there's always going to be a preamble. There's going to be a larger context that he sets, whether it's the problem situation, a story, a historical setting. He's not going to jump right into the pitch. It's going to be part of a larger story. One thing I've seen is that you're willing to walk away from any deal that you don't think is a good deal or perhaps not the ideal deal even if you're in a slightly tight situation.

是的，我很少让自己陷入灾难，因为我多疑，所以我会提前计划。如果我为公司融资，我会在需要钱的几个月前就开始，最好是 6 到 12 个月前。不总是这样，但这是理想情况。所以我不想陷入背水一战的境地。你必须能够放弃交易。交易的问题是它们是长期的，你会被套牢。即使在婚姻中，你也可以离婚。糟糕的交易、糟糕的合同、糟糕的投资者，真的很难脱身。所以这取决于交易的性质。如果这种交易容易解除，那你可以宽容一点。但如果是那种交易，比如你从某人那里拿钱，以后甩不掉他们，他们会进入你的董事会，拥有优先股、否决权，对你如何经营业务有发言权，那你就不该接受坏交易。最好不要被困在坏交易里。合同是双方同意约束未来结果以换取合作。他们说，'好吧，未来我本可以做 XYZ，但现在我只做 Z。你本可以做 ABC，但你只做 A。'作为交换，因为我们以某种方式被约束在一起合作，我们创造更大的价值，并分享创造的成果。这是一个猎鹿博弈。我们要一起去猎鹿，这是分鹿的方式，但你不再追兔子，我也不再追兔子，我们一起猎鹿。所以这是约束。你给未来戴上了镣铐，关闭了选择。世界很大，选择权非常强大。有很多不同的路可以走。所以你必须确信这是更好的路之一，是你可用的最好路径之一。那么为什么要妥协？公司因此而死，创始人因此被解雇或离开，你因此得到次优的合作伙伴关系。所以多年来我学到，妥协是建立伟大企业的敌人。你内心知道这一点。你不需要问任何人。内心深处，你会有那种被强迫或义务的轻微下沉感。我不是说不务实，也不是说从不妥协，但我确实倾向于放弃次优交易，而不是为了完成而去做。

Yeah, I rarely let myself get to disaster cuz I am paranoid, so I plan in advance. If I'm raising for a company, I'll start raising months and months before we need it, preferably 6 to 12 months before we need it. Doesn't always happen, but that's the ideal. So, I don't want to be a situation where my back's against the wall. You have to be able to walk away from deals. The problem with deals is they're long-term. You're stuck in them. Even in a marriage, you can get a divorce. Bad deal, bad contract, bad investor, really hard to walk away. So, it depends on the nature of the deal. If it's a kind of deal that's easy to unwind if it doesn't work out, then sure, you can be a little more forgiving about it. But if it's a kind of deal, like say you're taking money from somebody and you can't get rid of them later, they're going to be on your board, they're going to have preferred stock, they're going to have veto rights, they're going to have a say in how you run your business, then you just don't take the bad deal. It is better not to be trapped in a bad deal. A contract is when two parties agree to constrain their future outcome in exchange for working together. So, they say, "Okay, in the future, I could have done XYZ, but now I'm going to limit myself to just Z. And you could have done ABC, but you're going to limit yourself to just A." Then in exchange, because we're now constrained to work together in a certain way, we create something of greater value and we can share the spoils from whatever we create. It's a stag hunt. We're going to go on a stag hunt together, and this is how we're going to split the stag, but you are going to stop chasing rabbits, and I'm going to stop chasing rabbits, and we're going to hunt the stag down. And so, it's constraining. So, you're putting shackles on yourself for the future. You're closing down your options. And the world is a big place. Optionality is very powerful. There's a lot of different paths you could have taken. So, you have have be convinced that this is one of the better paths. It's one of the best paths available to you. And so, why compromise? Companies died based on this. Founders end up getting fired or leaving based on this. You end up with suboptimal partnerships because of this. So, I've just learned over the years that compromise is the enemy of building a great business. And you know it in your gut. You don't have to ask anyone. Deep down, you'll have that slightly sinking feeling of being forced into something or obligation or whatever. And I'm not saying don't be pragmatic. I'm not saying never compromise, but I'm just saying I definitely lean on the side of walking away from suboptimal deals rather than doing something just to get it done.

我在你的交易中注意到的另一件事是，你总是专注于上行空间和增加蛋糕的大小，而不是分割它。所以，即使你对某情况的情感反应可能是'我为你做了很多，你什么都没给我。你欠我这个，欠我那个。'你永远不会进行那样的对话。更像是'如果我们可以解决这个问题，我可以继续帮助你。'所以你专注于未来能给他们什么。

The other thing I've noticed in your deal making is that you're always focused on the upside and increasing the size of the pie as opposed to splitting it up. So, even if your emotional response to a situation might be I've done a lot for you and you haven't given me anything. You owe me this. You owe me that. That's never going to be the conversation you're going to get. It's always more like I can keep helping you if we can work this out. So, you're focused on what you can give them in the future.

嗯，我们生活在非线性回报的时代。未来的上行空间总是更大，可以是 100 倍、1000 倍、10000 倍。所以在蛋糕完全烤好之前，为小蛋糕争吵毫无意义。尤其是在科技行业，任何有经验的人都会告诉你，回报是幂律分布的。第一名赢家的价值超过第二名到第 n 名的总和。第二名大于第三名到第 n 名的总和，以此类推。在投资中，这意味着你在寻找那个全垒打的结果。

Well, we live in the age of non-linear returns. The upside is always bigger in the future, and the upside can be 100x, 1,000x, 10,000x bigger. So, there's no point in fighting over the small pie before it's fully baked. Especially in the tech business, anyone who's been in it for a while will tell you that it's power law distribution of returns. Their number one winner is worth more than numbers two through n put together. Number two is bigger than three through n put together, and so on. In investing, that means that you're looking for that one grand slam outcome.

你不会去找那种早早被卖掉的公司，即使那是一次成功的出售，它也不会成为幂律分布中的第一或第二。同样，当你做交易时，最重要的是你的时间。你必须保持你的时间和你的选择权可用。所以，如果你要放弃这些，那只有在你投入的时间或资本有潜力获得 100 倍或 1000 倍回报时才值得。因此，为分小利而争斗毫无意义。这说不通。但有时，大利益出现时，刀就上了桌，你会看到人们变得贪婪。在这种情况下，你确实必须保护自己。不幸的是，商业是战争的其他形式。所以，这确实会发生。我不会说一切都风平浪静，人人相处融洽。很多时候你会被坑，你必须为自己挺身而出。有时是为了原则，这样你将来就不会被利用。但总的来说，我认为你应该关注上行空间，并保护你的时间、声誉、心理健康和内心的平静。所以，如果你处于被利用的境地，并且知道如果不解决这个问题，未来一年都会夜不能寐，那你确实必须战斗。但如果你觉得可以抽身离开，可以找回时间，知道不再与这些人合作，或者知道这些利益太小不值得争斗，那就不要去做。总的来说，我认为人们花了太多时间在小利益上斤斤计较，而没有足够时间关注大的上行空间。而大的上行空间才是关键所在。

You're not looking for the company that gets sold early, even if it was a successful sale, it's still not going to be that number one or number two in the power law. The same way, when you're doing deals, the most important thing is your time. You have to keep your time and your optionality available. So, if you're going to give that up, it only makes sense to do that for something that has that opportunity to be a 100x or 1000x on your time or on your capital. So, there's no point in fighting to divide up small spoils. This doesn't make sense. Now, sometimes the big spoils come out and then the knives hit the table and then you see people get greedy. And in those cases, you do have to defend yourself. Unfortunately, business is war by other means. And so, that does happen. I'm not going to say it's all hunky-dory and everybody gets along. A lot of times you will get ripped off and you get to stand up for yourself. Sometimes it's on principle so that you don't get taken advantage of in the future. But, generally speaking, I think you want to focus on the upside and you want to preserve your time and your reputation and your mental health, your peace. So, if you are in a situation where you are being taken advantage of and you know that if you don't solve this, you won't sleep at night for the next year, you do have to fight. But, if you feel like I can walk away from this and I can recover my time and I know not to work with these people again or I know that these stakes are too small to bother fighting over, then you just don't do it. Generally, I think people spend too much time splitting hairs on small stakes and not enough time focusing on the big upside. And the big upside is entirely where it's at.

你看，我做的很多事情在赚钱方面并非最优。我并不完全是为了赚钱。桌上留了很多钱。我有一种习惯：做完一件事就重新开始，因为我会感到厌倦。所以，我的第一个小型风险基金非常成功，但那是一个很小的基金。我本可以用它去募集巨额资金，但我没有。这种模式在我管理的其他不同类型、不同结构、不同行业的基金中重复了多次，但我从未把一个大基金扩展到数十亿美元的规模。同样，即使是我创办的公司，到了某个阶段我也会退居二线。我没有继续运营并让它持续增长。也许在 Impossible 上会有所改变。我希望如此，因为我觉得它很有料。但尽管如此，我不相信盲目追求某件事、为之争斗、分割利益或做某个交易。我认为你总是要把自己置于最快乐、最平静的境地。因为这样你不仅会有生产力，还会获得快乐和平静，而这才是最终的目标。所以，如果你能对结果安然入睡，没有巨大的压力，相对放松，并对下一件事保持开放，那就是最好的结果。因为生命短暂。反复在同一件事上劳碌，只为赚取更多的钱，却让整个人生从你身边溜走，这有什么意义呢？最好在这一生中塞进几个不同的人生，每个都做你想做的事，追求你真正的兴趣。我相信，即使结果不是最好的，也会是好的。

Now, look, a lot of the stuff that I do is sub-optimal for making money. I'm not all about making money. There's a lot of money left on the table. I have a history of doing things once and then starting over cuz I get bored. So, my first little venture fund was hugely successful, but it was a tiny fund. I could have used that to go raise massive funds, but I didn't. And that pattern repeated multiple times across other funds that I ran of different types and different structures and different industries, but I never scaled up the one big fund into the multi-billion dollar fund. The same way even companies I started, at some point they got to a certain point where I stepped aside. I didn't keep running and keep growing it. Maybe that'll change with Impossible. I hope because I think it's very meaty. But, all of that said, I don't believe in just blindly pursuing something or fighting over something or splitting something or doing some deal. I think like you always have to put yourself in the situation where you are going to be most happy and most at peace. Because you get productivity out of that, but you also get happiness and peace, which are really the end goals at the end of the day. So, if you can sleep at night with the outcome and you don't have huge stress around it and you're relatively relaxed and you're open for the next thing, then that's the best outcome. Cuz life is short. What's the point of grinding on the same thing over and over to make an even bigger pile of money, but then your whole life ran you by. It's better to live a couple of different lives crammed within this one life, each one doing what you want, pursuing your own genuine interests. And I believe that even if it may not work out the absolute best, it'll work out fine.