AI 时代如何清晰思考：5 小时完整课程

简要说明Brief Description

一门关于在人工智能时代清晰思考的完整课程。演讲者将介绍认知、自我控制、选择架构、生物学与环境、决策，以及旨在帮助观众更有意识地进行推理和行动的实用技巧。A full course on thinking clearly in the era of AI. The speaker introduces cognition, self-control, choice architecture, biology and environment, decision-making, and practical techniques intended to help viewers reason and act more deliberately.

目录Table of Contents

• 简介与课程概览
  Introduction and Course Overview
• 课程讨论：第一部分
  Course Discussion: Part One
• 课程讨论：第二部分
  Course Discussion: Part Two
• 课程讨论：第三部分
  Course Discussion: Part Three
• 课程讨论：第四部分
  Course Discussion: Part Four
• 课程讨论：第五部分
  Course Discussion: Part Five
• 课程讨论：第六部分
  Course Discussion: Part Six
• 课程讨论：第七部分
  Course Discussion: Part Seven
• 课程讨论：第八部分
  Course Discussion: Part Eight
• 课程讨论：第九部分
  Course Discussion: Part Nine
• 课程讨论：第十部分
  Course Discussion: Part Ten

简介与课程概览Introduction and Course Overview

所以，这部视频长达 5 个小时，而看到最后，你将会明白如何在一个明确靠你不清晰地思考来获利的世界里保持清晰思考。我不是什么特别注重生产力的人。我是一名企业主，会在互联网上分享我学到的东西。呃，过去 3 年里，我每年的利润都超过 100 万美元，而在过去 12 个月里，我赚了将近 500 万美元。我之所以说这些，是因为我坚信，一旦你弄清楚如何思考ેણSo this video is 5 hours long and by the end of it you will understand how to think clearly in a world that explicitly profits out of you not doing so. I'm not a big productivity guy. I am a business owner who shares what I've learned on the internet. Uh I've made over a million dollars a year in profit for the last 3 years and I've made almost $5 million in the last 12 months. I say all of this because I firmly believe that once you figure out how to think

显然，你也会学到如何清晰地行动。因此，清晰思考是我们在许多现实环境中取得成效的基础。就我而言，你知道，是创业；但对你来说，可能是其他事情。所以在我看来，在过去大约两三年里，人工智能和其他算法对我们独立思考的能力产生了负面影响。作为一个经常谈论许多事情的人，我这门课程的目标之一是clearly, you will learn as well how to act clearly. And so it is the thinking clearly that is the foundation behind being effective in a lot of real world settings. In my case, you know, entrepreneurship, but in your case, maybe something else. So in my view, over the course of the last maybe 2 or 3 years, AI and other algorithms have negatively impacted our ability to think for ourselves. One of the goals of my course as somebody that talks a lot

关于人工智能，我的看法是，它应该帮助人们从这些模型手中重新取回一部分自己的思考能力，并希望最终达到这样一种状态：你既能独立进行深度思考，获得深度思考带来的种种益处，同时又能有效利用这项技术，因为我相信它确实有望得到非常有效的应用。现在，如果你经常看我的频道，可能不会知道这一点，但在我创业之前，我实际上about AI is to help people take some of their ability to think back from these models and hopefully get to a place where you can both think deeply for yourself and achieve the myriad gains that thinking deeply gives you while also being able to utilize this technology effectively because I believe it does have the promise to be used very effectively. Now you guys won't know this if you watch my channel often but before I went into business I actually

我在一所研究型大学学习了大约 5 年的行为神经科学。在此期间，我曾在多个不同的实验室工作。我们对动物进行实验，以确定各种因素如何影响它们进行真正思考的能力。在相关文献中，这被称为它们的认知。呃，我改变过它们的进食时间安排，改变过它们可以和谁待在一起，改变过它们笼子里的照明条件，改变过它们是如何被studied behavioral neuroscience for around 5 years at a research university. And during this time I worked in a variety of labs. We performed experiments on animals to determine how various things affected their ability to literally think. In the literature, this is referred to as their cognition. Uh I changed stuff like their eating schedules. I changed who they got to hang out with. I changed the lighting in their cages. I changed how they were

接受过训练，诸如此类。因此，我将在本课程中讲解的许多原则，都直接源自我当年在大学里的经历。最后，在进入课程之前，我想明确说明，这不是什么 AI 垃圾内容。嗯，所有内容都是我亲自撰写的，使用的正是我将要与大家分享的同一套原则。我让 Claude Fable 根据数据生成了图表，但所有文字都是我写的，而且我为此投入了非常非常多的时间。trained and so on and so forth. And so a lot of the principles that I'm going to be talking about in this course are taken directly from my time back in university. Lastly, before we get into the course, I want to make it clear that this is not AI slop. Um, I wrote all of this myself using the same principles that I'm going to share with you. I had Claude Fable generate diagrams based on the data, but all the words are mine and I poured many, many hours into this

因为坦率地说，我认为这可能是我能与你分享的最有价值的内容之一。所以，闲话少说，让我来向你展示如何清晰地思考。首先，这些术语中有很多乍看之下可能会让你觉得毫无意义，我会尽力解释它们，但你之后会在课程中学到这些内容。你不可能学不会。because I frankly think it is probably one of the most valuable things that I could share with you. So, without further ado, let me show you how to think clearly. First, a lot of these terms will probably seem kind of senseless to you at face value, and I'll do my best to explain them, but you're going to learn them later on in the course. There's no way that you can't.

我计划深入探讨这一切背后的研究，以及实际应用。总体思路是，让你在课程结束时既掌握深层的基础理论，能够将现实生活中的问题归入我为你提供的类别中，同时也获得可执行的内容，也就是切实可行的策略和能够立即实施的技巧，让你们在课程结束后马上就能运用这些方法，去解决自己正在苦苦应对的问题。I'm planning on going in depth into both research and then practical applications of all this stuff. The whole idea being that you walk away with both deep underlying theory which will allow you to categorize problems in real life into the bins that I provide you, but also actionables aka real strategies and immediately implementable techniques that you guys could take immediately after this course to go and solve problems that you're struggling with.

我要做的是先讲课程中的硬件部分，最后再聊软件，然后带大家学习那些可以立即付诸实践的技能。下面是本课程的大纲。我会从认知的生物学基础开始讲起。接着，我们将讨论如何以科学的方式定义自我控制。What I'm going to do is frontload with the hardware sections of the course and then finally we'll chat software before running you guys through those immediately actionable skills. So here is the outline of our course. I'm going to start with the biological basis of cognition. Then we'll talk about scientifically defining self-control.

之后我们会讨论一个叫作选择架构的概念。然后我会讲解行动和行为中的阻力。接下来我们会开始优化我们的生理状态。然后我们会优化我们的环境、工作空间、虚拟环境，等等。接着我会介绍一个古希腊人讨论过的概念，叫作意志薄弱（akrasia），指的是你明明知道某件事，却无法去做，以及如何解决这一问题。然后我们会快速过一遍期望值方法论，以及Afterwards we'll talk a concept called choice architecture. Then I'll discuss friction in action and behavior. Afterwards we'll start optimizing our biology. Then we'll optimize our environment, our workspace, our virtual environment, and so on. Then I'll cover a concept the ancient Greeks talked about called accasia, which is where you know something but you cannot do it and how to solve that. We'll then run through expected value methodology and

如何使用它来完成任务。然后，我将介绍局部极大值和全局极大值，这是微积分和优化数学传授给我的一种思维模型。how to use it to accomplish tasks. I'll then cover local and global maxim, which is a mental model handed to me by calculus and optimization math.

之后，我们将讲解所谓的注意力残留。我会谈到“地图与疆域”之类的模型。这非常重要。对于最近看过《奥德赛》的人来说，你们将了解到尤利西斯或奥德修斯契约。然后我会讲幂律。我会讲链式法则。我还会教大家机会成本。Afterwards, we'll cover what is called attentional residue. I'll talk about models like the map versus the territory. Extremely important. You'll learn about Ulyses or Adysius contracts for people here that have seen the Odyssey recently. I'll then talk power law. I'll talk the chain law. I'll teach you guys about opportunity cost.

激励机制，也就是所谓的善心。如果你们还没听说过切斯特顿栅栏——这是一种非常有力的思维技巧——我来带你们了解一下切斯特顿栅栏。然后我会讲讲贝叶斯定理，以及用自然频率来理解贝叶斯概率论。这是解决问题的一种非常有效的方法。Incentives, what's called good heart. If you guys haven't heard of Chesterton's fence, which is a strong thinking technique, I'll run you guys through Chesterton's fence. I'll then talk about Beijian theorem and Beijian probability theory in natural frequencies. This is a very strong way to solve problems.

你将学习 firmmy 近似值，即估算数量级和大小的方法。我会带大家了解每小时费率和卸载规则、计划谬误，以及如何通过乘法摆脱这些问题。我还会讲解探索—利用权衡，这在人工智能代理和模型领域正变得越来越重要。最后，我们还会介绍一些可以立即付诸行动的技巧，比如 taps 和 noticing。我会向大家展示如何进行所谓的事前验尸。我会……You'll learn firmmy approximates which are ways of estimating magnitudes and sizes. I'll run you guys through hourly rate and offload rules, planning fallacies, and how to multiply your way out of them. I'll cover the explore exploit trade-off, which is increasingly relevant with AI agents and models. And then finally, we'll actually cover these immediately actionable techniques like taps, noticing. I'll show you guys how to run what are called premortems. I'll

然后我会向大家展示如何以非常战略且战术化的方式使用五分钟计时器，通过结构化决策来解决问题；最后，在本课程结束时，我还会向大家展示如何明智地使用 AI，而不会被这些模型在认知上压垮或摧毁。then show you guys how to use five minute timers in a very strategic and tactical way to solve problems using structured decision-m and then finally at the end of this course I'm going to show you guys how to use AI intelligently and not be overwhelmed or destroyed cognitively by these models.

现在，显然这里的信息量非常大，因此我应该花一点时间讨论一下，怎样才能最好地学习这门课程，并真正把它记进你的大脑。因为你们会发现，进行一些这种元层面的规划，哪怕只花片刻时间，也能显著提高大脑将这些信息巩固为长期有用知识的能力。那么，你究竟应该如何学习这门课程呢？我建议你先从观看或Now, that's obviously a lot of information and because of that, I should take a moment to discuss how best to take this course and actually cram it in your brain because as you guys will find the sort of meta planning, even a few moments of that significantly improves the ability of your brain to consolidate this information into something useful over time. So, how do you actually take this course? Well, I would recommend you start by watching or

以 1.5 倍速被动地听课程。显然，这会花费你很多时间，但没有以 1 倍速播放那么久。完成后，我会以 1 倍速观看课程。这样实际上会把速度放慢。每个章节结束后，你们会发现我在底部添加了这些行动问题。我喜欢这样做，因为测验，也就是你需要回答的一些简短小问题，会迫使你从……中提取信息listening to the course passively at 1.5x speed. Now, this will obviously take you a lot of time, but not as much time as if you played it at 1x. After you're done, I would watch the course at 1x speed. So, that actually slow it down. After every section, you guys will find that I've added these action questions down to the bottom. Now, I like to do that because quizzes, short little questions that you answer, force you to retrieve information from the

我们刚刚把它塞进你脑海的各个角落。你会发现，编码，也就是将信息输入系统，与检索，也就是从系统中提取信息，有很大的不同。如果你真的想巩固这些概念，那么对这两个过程进行实验和练习都很重要。因此，我建议你以 1 倍速回放后，回答那些行动问题，这样才能真正充分利用这些材料。最后，这整个various corners of your mind that we've just stuffed it in. And what you'll find is encoding or putting information into the system is quite different from retrieval, which is getting information out of the system. It's important that you experiment and practice both if you really want to consolidate concepts. So I'd recommend after you play it back at 1x speed, answer those action questions if you really want to get the most out of the material. Finally, this entire

文档就在描述中的链接里，大家可以下载下来，然后将其作为短期、长期的伴侣指南，或学习伙伴之类的，按你们的需要使用。document is available just in the link in the description. So you guys can download it and then keep it as a companion guide uh for the short term, for the long term, for a study partner or whatever it is that you want.

那么，我们来谈谈认知的生物学基础，好吗？对于那些不了解的人来说，思考也被称为认知。呃，这是一种生物过程，而如果你想学习如何优化它，理解这一生物过程非常重要。我不会坐在这里，假装要给你们上一堂生物学或神经生物学入门课。所以，我会省略大部分细节，而我只是想要So, let's talk about the biological basis of cognition, shall we? For those of you guys that don't know, thinking, it's also referred to as cognition. Uh, it is a biological process and understanding that biological process is very important if you want to learn how to optimize it. I'm not going to sit here and then pretend to give you guys, you know, a biology or a neurobiology 101. So, I'm going to spare you most of the details and instead I just want to

给你留下的，可能是我在大学里寻求认知科学实验室工作期间找到的最有用的定义，尽管我最终没能得到那份工作，但这个定义仍然很有用。现在，认知，也就是你的思考能力，由三个部分组成：注意力、工作记忆，以及执行功能。换句话说，你产生的任何一个想法，甚至包括你此刻正在产生的想法，都……leave you with probably the most useful definition I found so far back when I was pursuing work in a cognitive sciences lab in university which I I did not end up getting but this was still useful nonetheless. Now cognition your ability to think is composed of three parts. You have your attention, you have your working memory and then you have your executive function. Now put another way any thought that you have even the thoughts that you are having right now

你正在观看这门课程，是三件事共同作用的结果。第一件事就是注意力本身。理解注意力的一个好方式，是把它想象成一名守门人：它从外部世界持续涌入的海量感官信息中，只放行其中很小的一部分。比如，如果你戴着耳机，耳机在耳中的感觉；你的电脑在哪里；你的手腕放在桌面上的感觉；以及周围各种各样的背景声音。as you are watching this course is a byproduct of three things. The first is attention itself and a good way of picturing attention is like a gatekeeper that lets in a small slice of the incredible amount of sensory information that is constantly flooding in from the outside world. Think things like the feeling of the headphones in your ear if you are wearing them or where your computer is or your wrists on the desk or the various background noises

外界的风声、鸟儿扑打翅膀的声音、家人的声音，不管是什么，所有这些信息此刻都在不断涌入你的大脑。然而，你并不会一直意识到它们。为什么呢？这是因为注意力就像一束聚光灯。你的大脑可以把这束聚光灯投向它希望你关注的事物。因此，注意力就像一个守门人，也像那束聚光灯一样，选择我们究竟要照亮环境中的哪些事物。outside, wind, flapping of birds, sounds from your family members, whatever it is. All of this is currently flooding into your brain constantly. Yet, you're not constantly aware of it. Why? Well, that's because attention is like a spotlight. Your brain can put that spotlight on the things that it wants you to attend to. And so attention is a gatekeeper like that spotlight that chooses what it is in our environment we're actually going to be lighting.

工作记忆是下一步。它就像一张工作台。如果你们曾经使用过任何类型的重型机械或工具，就会知道，那张工作台通常可以同时放下几样东西。工作台的整体理念就是：把某样东西放到工作台上，对它进行处理，处理完后把它移走，完成它，然后把它收起来。你要清空工作台，这样其他人，或者说未来的你，就可以放上新的 乐彩Working memory is the next step. And that is like a workbench. If you guys have ever worked with any sort of heavy machinery or tools, you'll know that that workbench, you know, can typically hold a few things simultaneously. And the whole idea of a workbench is you put something on the workbench, you work on it, you get rid of it, you finish it, and then you put it out away. You clear the workbench so that somebody else or let's say you in the future can put new

工作台上的项目，然后再次重复这一过程。这就是工作记忆，这是一种非常好的概念化方式。接下来是执行功能。我发现，理解执行功能的最佳方式，是把它想象成监工，或者如果你们有建筑施工经验的话，也可以想象成总承包商。这些人最终决定哪些东西放到工作台上，以及由谁在工作台上处理这些东西。你们有所有这些东西items on the workbench and then repeat that process again. That is what working memory is and that's an excellent way of conceptualizing it. The next is executive function. The best way I found of conceptualizing executive function is like a foreman or a general contractor if you guys have experience with construction. These are the people that ultimately decide what goes on the workbench and who works on the workbench. You have all these things

它们会不断从你的注意力涌入工作记忆，因为注意力是负责放行信息的守门人。而执行功能则像工头，决定哪些内容该被丢弃、何时应该停止一项任务并转向另一项任务，等等。that are constantly flooding into your working memory from your attention because it is the gatekeeper that permits things. Well, the executive function is the foreman that decides what gets thrown out, when you should stop one task and move to another, etc.

它们是你思维的项目经理。现在的问题是，目前大多数人类几乎没有注意力，工作记忆非常差，执行功能也不太健全。They are the project managers of your thinking. Now, the problem is the majority of human beings currently operate with next to no attention, very poor working memory, and not very functional executive function.

实际上，这会让你一直感到头脑模糊。你知道，你真的很难集中注意力去做任何真正重要的事情。你很难把一个想法贯彻到合乎逻辑的结论。很多时候，事情可能会让你感到困惑，或者觉得不必要地困难；像这门课程之类的内容，可能会让你觉得进展得有点太快了。这常常让你一直感到沮丧，也会让你在情绪上相对地……In practice, this leads to you feeling fuzzy all the time. You know, you you really struggle focusing on anything that is actually important. You struggle with carrying an idea through to its logical conclusion. A lot of the time things probably feel confusing or unnecessarily difficult and things like maybe this course just feel like they're happening a little bit too quickly. This often frustrates you constantly and it also leads to a relatively emotionally

脆弱状态，我会在课程中进一步讲解。那么，实际上该如何解决这个问题呢？我的意思是，这听起来像是个相当严重的问题，对吧？我们有注意力、工作记忆和执行功能。这些显然都是深奥的认知科学概念，而你正在第一次学习它们。fragile state which I'll cover more in the course. So, how do you actually fix this? I mean, it sounds like a pretty big problem, right? We have attention, we have working memory, we have executive function. These are obviously deep cognitive science concepts, and you're learning them for the first time.

就像电子游戏中的角色创建界面一样，你实际上可以把我将在本课程中讲解的各种硬件和软件优化所带来的额外属性点，直接加到你的注意力、工作记忆，以及执行功能这些技能上。你知道，我们可以通过健康优化、更好的营养、昼夜节律优化等方式，找到硬件层面的改进。然后随着时间的推移，我们可以把这些免费收益分配给Just like a video game character creator screen, you can actually just pour bonus stats from various hardware and software optimizations that I will teach you in this course directly into these skills of your attention, your working memory, and then your executive function. You know, we can find hardware improvements through things like health optimization, better nutrition, circadian rhythm optimization and so on. And then in time we can distribute these free wins to

诸如注意力、工作记忆和执行功能等方面，从而让你能够提升其中的每一项。然后，我们还可以运用各种软件领域的成功经验——也就是解决问题的技巧，诸如此类——从根本上进一步改善你的执行功能。parts like your attention, working memory and executive function to allow you to level up each of these. Then we can also take various software wins which are problem solving techniques and so on and so forth to also fundamentally improve your executive function as well.

而这就是我们今天要做的全部事情。我会像个穴居人一样逐一排查，找出所有你可能白白放弃的额外奖励属性，然后把它们组合起来，打造出你见过的最强电子游戏角色。And that is simply all we are going to be doing today. I'm going to be going through like a caveman, finding all the extra bonus stats that you're probably leaving on the table, and we're just going to combine them to make the best video game character you've ever seen.

那么，我们来简单了解一下大脑背后的生物学原理。现在，如果你之前还不知道，人类大脑的代价极其高昂。按重量计算，大脑约占我们总体重的2%，但与此同时，它在静息状态下消耗的能量约占我们身体总能量的20%。这意味着，按单位重量计算，大脑实际上是整个身体中代谢成本最高的组织。你可以从这里的这张图中看到这一点。尽管So, let's cover a little bit about the biology behind the brain. Now, if you didn't already know, the human brain is extremely expensive. By weight, the brain makes up around 2% of our total body weight, but at the same time, it consumes approximately 20% of our body's energy at rest. That means that per unit weight, the brain is actually the most metabolically expensive tissue in the entire body. And you can see that with this graph right over here. Despite

其占据的身体质量比例很小，只有大约2%左右。但它却占据了静息能量消耗的20%以上。显然，这种比例是极不相称的。它是一个非常、非常轻的器官，却需要大量能量来供其运转。正因为单位所需的能量如此之高，有两个重要的影响和思考框架，我希望你在本课程中对此加以思考。第一，如果某种东西在能量方面代价高昂，那么进化以及其他having a small share of body mass, only around 2% or so. It includes over 20% of all resting energy usage. And obviously, this is very disproportionate. A very, very light organ, but one that requires a lot of energy to fuel. Now because of this incredible amount of energy per unit, there are two major implications and frames that I want you to think about this course through. The first is that if something is expensive energetically, then evolution and other

压力总会迫使它将成本降至最低，而大脑也不例外。这意味着，大脑总是更倾向于习惯，而不是决策。它会倾向于凭猜测，而不是进行计算；会倾向于熟悉的旧事物，而不是新事物，诸如此类。pressures will always force it to minimize costs and the brain is no exception to that. That means that the brain will always prefer a habit to a decision. It'll prefer, you know, a guess to a calculation. it'll prefer, you know, the old to the new and so on.

你可以把它想成大脑在规划自己的能量，就像电子表格之类的东西，假设能量是一种资源，大脑会尽量以人类可能做到的最低能耗来运行。现在，我将要和大家讨论的许多技巧，比如组块化或实施意图，呃，等等之类的，之所以有效，是因为它们利用了这种与生俱来的吝啬机制——这种机制目前正默认运行着，但是You can think of this as the brain budgeting its energy, you know, like a spreadsheet or something like that, trying to spend as little energy as humanly possible, assuming energy is a resource. Now, many of the techniques that I'm going to be discussing with you guys, things like chunking or implementation intentions, uh, and so on and so forth, they work because they exploit this inherent stinginess which is currently operating by default, but

而且你确实可以学会利用它来更清晰地思考，并提高效率。更令人惊讶的是，大脑的能量消耗其实是固定的。我的意思是，在一天当中，与简单、轻松的任务相比，即使执行困难的任务，整个大脑的能量消耗实际上也没有统计学意义上的显著增加。局部能量消耗的差异最多也只能达到约5%。which you can actually learn to utilize to think more clearly and be more effective. Now, much more surprising than that is that the brain's energy consumption is actually fixed. What I mean by this is throughout the day there's actually no statistically significant increase in whole brain energy consumption during difficult tasks versus simple and easy tasks. At most any local energy consumption difference caps out at around 5% or so.

这有着很有趣的含义，因为这意味着，从代谢的角度来看，解一道微积分题、真正绞尽脑汁地思考它，所消耗的能量和你只是盯着窗户看所消耗的能量一样多。[倒吸一口气] 我认为，这正是为什么提升思考能力和做事效率是有意义的核心原因，因为一个基本事实是：从代谢的角度来看，你的大脑都会消耗掉那些热量。Now this has interesting implications because it means that from a metabolic perspective you burn just as much energy solving a calculus problem and really racking your brain with it than you would if you were to just stare at the window. [gasps] Now, this I think is at the core of why it makes sense to improve your ability to think and be effective because the core reality is from a metabolic perspective, your brain is going to be burning those calories

总之，为什么不尽可能高效且有效地利用那些卡路里呢？我觉得，作为一种动物，我有道德和伦理上的责任，要以一种能够积极影响世界的方式，利用好那些该死的卡路里中的每一分。我认为，如果你们理解了这种视角，这很可能会自然而然地激励你们也去学习如何做到这一点。anyway. Why not use those calories as efficiently and as effectively as possible? Part of me feels like as an animal, I have a moral and ethical duty to use every one of those damn calories in a way such that I positively impact the world. And I think that if you guys understand that perspective, it'll probably inherently motivate you to learn how to do that as well.

现在，有一种关于意志力的观念，认为你能在思考上投入的努力是有限的，而且这种资源会自然地逐渐耗尽。Now, there's this notion of willpower, which is the idea that there's a certain amount of effort you can apply to thinking, and that it is a naturally depletable resource.

好吧，从这个角度来想想。望着窗外和随后做一大堆具有极高经济价值的工作，消耗的能量是一样的。那么，这种会被耗尽的资源究竟在哪里呢？科学实际上并不支持这种解释。接下来我会向你们解释，你们如何运用一种更好的意志力概念来真正把事情做成。总之，现在你们只需要知道，大脑是Well, think about it from this perspective. Looking out the window and then doing a bunch of extremely economically valuable work consumes the same amount of energy. So, where is that depletable resource? The science doesn't actually check out with that explanation. And I'm going to explain to you guys in a moment how you guys can use a better concept of willpower to actually get things done. Anyway, for now, just know that the brain is

昂贵。它始终处于开启状态。它也非常节俭，会尽可能地精打细算地使用能量，通常通过始终降低总容量来实现。这一切都给你施加了非常强的约束或优化压力；你知道，如果想要清晰地思考，就必须设法在其中周旋。expensive. It is always on. It's also very stingy and it budgets its energy as much as possible, typically by reducing the total capacity at all times. All of this puts you under a very strong constraint or optimization pressure, which you know, if you want to think clearly, you have to maneuver.

好了，既然我们已经总体介绍了大脑，现在来讲讲大脑中可能最重要的单一组成部分——大多数人都会认为它负责你思考得有多清晰。Okay, now that we've covered the brain in general, let's cover probably the most important singular component of the brain that most people would say is responsible for how clearly you think.

这就叫作你的工作记忆。现在，如果我让你立即重复一串 12 位的随机数字，比如我刚刚给你一份包含 12 个随机数字的列表，然后让你离开电脑，过一分钟再回来重复这些数字，你能做到吗？从统计上来说，不能。很少有人能做到。现在，这并不是因为你笨，尽管这可能也有一定关系。这是因为工作记忆极其有限且天然的容量……That's called your working memory. Now, if I asked you to repeat a sequence of 12 random digits immediately, like if I just gave you a random list of 12 numbers and then had you walk away from the computer and come back a minute later and then repeat them, would you be able to do so? Statistically, no. Very few people can. Now, it's not because you're dumb, although that may have something to do with it. It's because of the incredibly small and natural size of

人类的工作记忆。我马上就要向大家展示，大家如何能够增加或改善工作记忆的容量。目前心理学界的共识——许许多多的研究都支持这一点——是：在任意一个时刻，你的工作记忆大约可以容纳三到五个有意义的信息单元。因为这是一个三到五的范围，所以大多数研究人员会将其取整为大约四个。对于那些不在其中的人a human being's working memory. I'm going to show you guys how you guys can increase or improve the size of your working memory in a moment. The current consensus in psychology, which is supported by many, many studies, is that you can hold approximately three to five meaningful items in your working memory at any one moment in time. because it's a range of three to five. Most researchers will round this down to about four. For those in not in the

知道，一个有意义的项目也被称为一个块（chunk）。而块就是你的记忆所存储的任何信息单位。比如说，这些字母会是几个块？E I L N D A E。嗯，如果不清楚的话，那就是八个块长，因为它有八个字母。鉴于之前提到的上限是存储 3 到 5 个项目，约为 4 个，如果从统计角度来看，假设你们离开电脑一秒钟，然后再回来，你们大多数人都不会行know, a meaningful item is also referred to as a chunk. And a chunk is any unit of information that your memory stores. For instance, how many chunks would these letters be? E I L N D A E. Well, if it's not clear, that is eight chunks long because it's eight letters. Given the previous cap on 3 to five items stored approximately four, statistically if you were to walk away from the computer for a second and then come back afterwards most of you guys would not

实际上，我们确实能够重复那些字母。原因很简单：我们的工作记忆容量有限。我们一次只能在工作台上存放这么多东西。actually be able to repeat those letters. And the reason why is simply we do not have the working memory capacity. There are only so many things we can store on our workbench at once.

但这里的神奇之处在于“有意义的项目”中的“有意义”这一部分。现在，如果你把上面的那些字母 e i l n d a e 重新排列组合成有意义的内容，实际上就能从中拼出一个单词。比如说，如果你重新排列 e i l n d a，你会发现，把这些字母神奇地组合在一起，就变成了单词 deadline。现在，如果我只在屏幕上短暂地闪现一秒钟 deadline 这个词，然后我让你们稍等片刻……But the magic here is the meaningful part of meaningful items. Now, if you took those letters above, e i l n d a e, and then you reorganize them into something meaningful, you can actually get a word out of them. For instance, if you reorganize e i l n d a, you'll find that putting the letters together magically, it turns into the word deadline. Now, if I flash the word deadline on the screen for just a second and then I asked you guys a moment

后来，嘿，屏幕上闪过的是什么词？这问题不难回答，对吧？显然是“deadline”这个词。当然，我肯定能答对。later, hey, what word flashed on the screen? Not a very tough question to answer, right? It's the word deadline, obviously. Of course, I'd get it right.

这就引出了一个有趣的想法。为什么你单独记不住八个字母，比如 e、i、l、n、d、a、e？但当你把这些字母组织成一个单词时，记忆起来却变得非常容易。原因就在于意义。意义是一种能够将信息内在地组织成越来越高层次抽象的层次。So, that takes me to an interesting idea. Why can't you remember eight letters by themselves like e i l n dae? But when you organize all of those letters into a word that it becomes really easy. Well, it's because of meaning. Meaning is a layer that inherently organizes information into higher and higher levels of abstraction.

这意味着，与其将 E I L N D AE 的基础数据分别作为独立的信息块存储在工作记忆中，不如稍微拉远视角或重新组织一下信息，使其变得有意义，然后将整个内容作为一个信息块存储起来。Which means rather than store the base data of E I L N D AE into your working memory each as an individual chunk, you can actually just zoom out or reorganize the information a little bit into something that makes sense and then store the entire thing as a single chunk instead.

现在，这个过程会沿着抽象层级不断向上推进，同时一直减小组块的大小；随着你越来越熟练，你就能一次在工作记忆中存储越来越多的信息。换句话说，它能让你拉远视角，一次看到整体中更多的部分。正如你们所知，一次看到整体中较多的内容，才能做出好的决策并清晰地思考。比如，假设我这里有这样一个序列。你 tarindulaNow this continues up the ladder of abstraction, reducing chunk size the entire time, which as you get good at things allows you to store more and more information in your working memory at once. Put another way, it allows you to zoom out and see more of the picture at once. And as you guys know, seeing a lot of the picture at once is how you make good decisions and think clearly. So for example, let's say I had this sequence here. You tarindula

直接接受数据的表面含义。如果你们是在听而不是在看，我们这里有 22 个分块，也就是 22 个字母。这显然是大量数据，而如果不投入大量时间和精力，你们能够记住这一长串字符的可能性相当低。但如果我重新组织这些信息，你会发现，那些字母以特定方式排列后，实际上表示“季度纳税截止日期”。data at face value. If you guys are listening and not watching, we have 22 chunks here, 22 letters. Now, this is obviously a lot of data and the probability that you'd be able to memorize this whole long string of characters without spending a lot of time and energy invested on it is quite low. But if I reorganize that information, you'll find that those letters, if put in a specific way, actually mean quarterly tax deadline.

对于普通成年人来说，我们已经不再是22个组块了。季度意味着某种东西，税季意味着某种东西，截止日期也意味着某种东西。这意味着，我们已经把这22个组块转化成了仅仅三个。现在，如果我把“季度、税季、截止日期”显示在屏幕上，然后转身离开，你大概就能记住它，并在片刻之后复述给我，对吧？当然。但这里真正有趣的部分是，你实际上可以继续人片在线观看And to an average adult, we're no longer at 22 chunks anymore. Quarterly means something. Tax seems means something. And deadline means something. which means we will have transformed these 22 chunks into just three. Now, if I flash quarterly tax deadline on the screen and walked away, you'd probably be able to memorize that and be able to repeat that back to me in a few moments, right? Of course. But here's the really interesting part. You can actually go

再上升一个层级，这正是高超技能变得重要的地方。如果我把“季度纳税截止日期”这个词组放在一个普通成年人面前，而不是放在一位专门从事税务工作的会计师面前——你知道，他已经花了数年时间将“季度纳税截止日期”这一概念内化了。对他来说，这甚至已经不再是三个组块，而只是一个组块。为什么？因为他现在已经将“季度纳税截止日期”作为一个独立的概念储存起来了。一个季度纳税截止日期one level up and that is where a high degree of skill becomes important. If I put the term quarterly tax deadline, not in front of an average adult, but I put it in front of a specialized tax accountant, you know, who has spent years internalizing the concept of a quarterly tax deadline. To them, it's not even three chunks anymore. It's just one. Why? Because they are now storing quarterly tax deadline as a concept in and of itself. A quarterly tax deadline

它并不只是三个独立词语——“季度税”和“截止日期”——的组合。它是一件事。它是普通税务会计师生活中不断反复出现的一件事。他们总是在查找它，也总是期待它。他们会把它当作一个独立的概念来认识。这就引出了我的下一个观点。那些在某件事上表现卓越的人，通常能够记住远超普通成年人的内容，只要这些内容处于他们的能力范围之内。is not just the combination of three separate words, quarterly tax and deadline. It is a thing. It is a constant reoccurring thing in an average tax accountant's life. It's something they're always looking up to and forward to. They recognize that as a standalone idea. And that takes me to the following point. People who are exceptional at things can typically remember far more than an average adult so long as they are in their zone of competence. The

原因在于，他们一生都在把意义赋予越来越大的信息组块，这使他们能够在任何一个时刻对更多的数据进行组块处理。一个很好的例子就是国际象棋大师。世界闻名的象棋大师能够比你我更好地记住棋盘上棋子的位置。这并不是因为他们的大脑天生就比我们更优秀。严格来说，他们记住的组块数量并没有更多。他们所reason why is because throughout their lives, they've applied meaning to larger and larger groups of information, which allows them to chunk larger amounts of data in any single time. A good example of this is a chess master. A world famous chess master can remember the positions of pieces on a board far better than you or I can. And it's not because their brains are inherently better than ours. They do not remember any more chunks, so to speak. What they

他们所做的只是自行将所有信息组合成更大的信息块，然后把这些较少的信息块存储在我们和他们都可以使用的同一片区域中。你可能会在棋盘上看到32个不同的棋子，而他们只会看到三四种不同的模式，因此仅凭四个信息块，他们就能存储比我们多得多的信息。再举一个例子。你能记住下面这个数字吗？do is they've simply combined all of the information into larger chunks themselves and then they store those fewer chunks in the same area that you and I have available to us. Whereas you might see 32 distinct pieces on a board, they would see only three or four distinct patterns and thus can store far more information with just four chunks than we can. Another example. Can you remember the following number?

149217762001。好吧，如果我刚才只是把这串数字告诉你们，然后走开，一分钟后回来让你们复述，绝大多数人都做不到。原因在于，你们试图记住 12 个独立的组块。149217762001. Well, if I just said that to you guys and then walked away and came back in a minute and asked you to repeat it, the vast majority of you would not be able to do that. The reason why is because you're trying to remember 12 individual chunks.

但比如说，如果我告诉你，那串数字实际上只是三个片段：1492年，也就是哥伦布航行前往新大陆的那一年；1776年，也就是美国革命爆发的那一年；以及2001年，也就是双子塔倒塌的那一年。如果现在让你把这些数字复述给我，可能会容易得多，对吧？仅仅因为你现在知道1492，对吧？那是哥伦布抵达新大陆的年份……But for example, what if I told you that that number was actually just three chunks. 1492, which was the year that Columbus sailed to the New World, 1776, which is the year of the American Revolution, and 2001, which is the year that the Twin Towers fell. If I asked you to now repeat those numbers back to me, probably be far easier, right? Simply because you now know 1492, right? That's the year Columbus made it to the New

世界。1776，对吧？那是美国革命爆发的年份。2001年，对吧？那是双子塔倒塌的年份。显然，我是为美国观众做这个的。我是加拿大人，但希望你们能包容一下。好。那么，正如我们在这里这张图表中看到的，我们一开始有12个项目，这远远超出了我们的能力范围。你知道，1492年、1776年、2001年。要把它记成14921776、2001，确实非常非常困难。World. 1776, right? That's the year of the American Revolution. In 2001, right, that's the year that the Twin Towers fell. I'm doing this obviously for an Americanric audience. I'm Canadian, but hopefully you'll bear with me. Okay. And so, as we see on this diagram here, we started with 12 items, which was vastly over our capacity. You know, 1492, 1776, 2001. Very, very difficult sort of to remember it as 14921776,2001.

但由于我们现在正在赋予这些信息以含义，因此我们以一种能够将它们分割得更小、然后同时全部存放在工作台上的方式来组织它们。But because we're now applying meaning to this information, we're organizing it in a way that allows us to chunk them smaller and then store them all on our workbench simultaneously.

现在，如果我告诉你稍后要就这件事考考你，呃，你可能会记住它一周甚至更久。研究也已经证明了类似的情况。你可以看到一长串字符或数字。然后有人告诉你其中的含义是如何将它们组织成某种你能理解的概念。这样一周、一个月甚至一年之后，人们仍然能够理解这些信息，这显然高效得多，对吧？我的意思是，你能想象工作三天吗？Now, if I told you I was going to quiz you on this later, uh, you'd probably remember it for a week or more. And studies have shown things like that. You can be shown a long string of characters or numbers. You can then be told how the meaning organizes that into some sort of concept you understand. And a week, a month, a year later, people can still understand that information, which is obviously far more efficient, right? I mean, could you imagine working three

尝试将 12 个项目存储在工作记忆中，其难度可能是另一个人的好几倍；后者只需多了解一些底层模式和事实——在这个例子中，假设是历史——就能把它们归纳成仅仅三个组块。times as hard to try and store 12 items in your working memory as somebody else who just knows a little bit more about the underlying patterns and facts and and let's say in this case, history and can turn them into just three chunks.

如果不必如此，你为什么要付出三倍的努力呢？嗯，这是一个很好地利用大脑这种自然节能理念的例子。Why would you work three times as hard if you don't have to? Well, this is a good example of exploiting that natural energy conservation concept of the brain.

现在，从整体来看，这只是一个非常微小的例子。正如我之前和大家讨论过的，认知由三个部分组成：注意力、工作记忆和执行功能。而我们刚才一起讨论的“组块化”，只是略微改善工作记忆这一项能力的一种非常小而具体的方法。实际上，你可以通过几十种甚至上百种不同的方式来提升其中每一项。Now, this is just a very tiny example in the grand scheme of things. As I discussed with you guys earlier, cognition is composed of three parts. We have attention, working memory, and executive function. And what we just discussed together, chunking, is just one very small and tactical way to slightly improve the working memory stat. In reality, there are actually dozens, if not hundreds of different ways that you can improve each of these

三项统计数据。在思考极其重要的领域中表现出色的人。比如扑克、公开演讲、商业、记忆力、锦标赛，等等。three stats. High performers in avenues where thinking is very essential. So, think things like poker or public speaking or business, memory, championships, and so on and so forth.

他们会把我接下来要向大家展示的所有技巧，以非常聪明的方式全面应用起来，从而实现远超我们刚才通过 1492、1776、2001 这个例子看到的 300% 的生产力和思维提升。这正是我们最终要达到的目标。除了讨论这些技巧是什么之外，我还会向大家展示如何将它们应用到你们生活中的实际问题上。在此之前，我想和你们谈谈They will take all of the techniques that I'm about to show you guys and apply them across the board in a very intelligent way so that they can achieve productivity and thinking gains of well over the 300% that we just saw with that 1492 1776 2001 example. And that's ultimately where we're getting to. In addition to talking about what they are, I'm also going to show you guys how you can apply them to real problems in your life. Until then, I want to talk to you

大家，再多了解一点硬件方面的内容，以便充分阐释“思考”究竟意味着什么这一概念。正如前面提到的，我大约有五年的时间从事行为神经科学研究。其中相当一部分时间，我都是在实验室里做志愿者，后来又在那里工作；这些实验室的全部目标，就是操控动物所处的环境：它们的食物、笼中的同伴、周围的其他动物、它们的灯光开启或关闭的时间，呃，它们的guys a little bit more about the hardware to fully flesh out this idea of what thinking really means. Now, as mentioned, I spent about half a decade in behavioral neuroscience. And a lot of that time was spent volunteering and later working in laboratories whose whole goal was to manipulate the environment of animals, their food, their cage mates, the other animals around them, the time of day that their lights were on or off, uh their

训练，以及一大堆其他事情。然后紧接着通过一整套大型测试来测试他们最终的认知表现。所以你可以把这理解为：当时我是在做志愿者，后来则是专门受雇来分析哪些输入会带来更清晰或不那么清晰的思维。而我从那段经历中得到的关键结论是，反直觉的是，与其说清晰思考非常困难，不如说清晰思考、】【training, and a bunch of other things. and then immediately after test their resulting cognitive performance on big batteries of tests. And so you can think about this as you know I at the time was volunteering and then later paid specifically to analyze what inputs resulted in clearer or less clear thinking. And so the key takeaway I got from that experience was that counterintuitively rather than thinking clearly being very hard thinking clearly

其实相当容易。它们实际上非常简单、十分常规，却是极其强大的干预措施，能够大幅提升动物的表现。is actually quite easy. They're actually extremely simple and very mundane, but very powerful interventions that drastically improve animal performance.

我向你保证，你考虑到的不会超过其中一半。而在我看来，最强大、最令人印象深刻的那些，并不是需要注射、补充剂，或各种药物或治疗的措施。最强大的措施始终是诸如此类的细节：动物进食时间相差几小时，哪些灯比平时更早或更晚关掉，或者哪些笼舍伙伴会和哪些其他大鼠或小鼠一起玩耍。And I guarantee you, you will not have thought about more than half of them. And the most powerful and impressive ones to me were not the ones that required injections or supplementation or various drugs or treatments. The most powerful ones were always things like a few hours difference in the feeding times of the animals or which lights got turned off earlier or later than usual or which cage mates which other rats or mice did they get to play around with

在他们上床睡觉之前。你会发现，所有这些措施在许多情况下都产生了巨大且具有统计显著性的差异，使表现提升或受到影响的比例达到30%到50%，让他们基本上变成了完全不同的人。before they went to bed. And you'll find that all of these made a massive statistically significant difference in many cases between 30 to 50% of improved or impacted performance which turned them into basically different animals.

而这一切归根结底只是一些简单的改动，我觉得在座的各位可能都不会对此感到惊讶。这些简单的改动影响了他们的硬件。当然，显然不可能在大规模人群中进行这类实验，因为那是不道德的。And it all boiled down to simple changes that I don't think anybody here would probably bat their eyes at. These simple changes impacted their hardware. Now obviously it'd be unethical to perform these experiments at large on people.

好吗？好吧，我相信有些人不幸确实如此，但显然，除非有人明确选择参与，否则做这种事情是不道德的。不过，根据你所知道的神经科学家所进行的有限研究，很明显，人类与大多数这类实验中所研究的动物非常相似。Okay? Okay, I'm sure some people have unfortunately, but it would be unethical to do this sort of thing obviously unless somebody explicitly opted into it. But with what limited research that you know neuroscientists have done, it is clear that human beings are quite similar to the animals studied in most of these experiments.

你所吃的东西、接触到的灯光强度，或者你周围的人、你的朋友，甚至你所处环境中的颜色，这些方面的一些微小变化，都会产生影响。信不信由你，所有这些你原本可能完全不会注意到的变量，如果把它们叠加起来，实际上会对你长期清晰思考的能力，以及大脑基本正常运转的能力，产生巨大的影响。现在，我要给大家讲一系列例子。Small changes in what you eat or the strength of the lights that you are exposed to or maybe the people in your periphery or your friends or maybe the colors in your environment. Believe it or not, all of these variables that you might not have otherwise noticed at all, if you stack them up, can actually make a massive difference to your ability to think clearly over time for your brain to basically function. Now, I'm going to run you guys through a bunch of examples

本节将介绍其中的一些方法，然后列出一份详尽清单，涵盖所有可能用于优化你的生理机能或硬件、以提升思维能力的方法。我们在这门课程中只讨论思维，因此显然，如今你可以针对任何目的优化自己的生理机能。之后，我会把之前提到的程序交给大家，以尽可能充分地发挥这些硬件的潜力。of those in this section and then give you a big laundry list of all possible ways that you can optimize your biology or hardware for the purposes of thinking. And we're only going to do thinking in this course, so obviously you can optimize your biology for anything these days. Afterwards, I'm going to give you guys the programs that I talked about to stretch that hardware out as much as possible.

所以，如果你们还不知道的话，1997 年有一个非常著名的实验：研究人员把一群成年小鼠放进了他们所谓的“丰富环境”中。所谓丰富环境，基本上就是一个笼子，里面有更多的同伴、许多跑轮、许多隧道和玩具，等等等等。把它们与对照组小鼠进行比较时，这里的“对照组”就是指默认状态下、没有这些东西的小鼠。嗯，他们发现，处于这种环境中的小鼠——So, if you guys didn't know, there's this very famous 1997 experiment where a bunch of adult mice were put into what they called an enriched environment, which is more or less a cage that contains more cage mates, a bunch of running wheels, a bunch of tunnels and toys, and so on and so forth. when they were compared to control mice and control just means like the default the mice that did not have all of this. Um what they found is that mice in the

丰富环境中的动物，其大脑一个称为齿状回的区域颗粒细胞层厚度显著增加；该区域通常负责形成新的记忆。enriched environments showed massively increased granular cell layer thickness in an area of the brain called the dentate gyus which is the area of the brain that is typically responsible for new memory formation.

很酷的一点是，这完全仅通过居住环境就实现了。没有使用药物，也没有进行训练，这意味着非常字面地说，唯一的差别就是它们所处的环境在积极意义上更具刺激性，而那些没有获得这些增益的小鼠所处的环境则不是这样。实际上，你可以在这里的图表中看到，标准笼中的齿状回颗粒神经元以100为指数，数值就是100。在富集笼中，它配备了所有这些额外的The cool thing is this was achieved solely through housing. There were no drugs and no training involved, which means quite literally the only difference was that their environment was more stimulating in a positive sense than the mice that did not see these gains. And you can actually see on this graph here that the granular neurons in the dentate gyus index to 100 here in the standard cage were 100. In the enriched cage, which had all these extra

我之前谈到的那些指标，我们达到了115。现在，需要注意的重要一点是，这些小鼠并不需要通过拼命努力和辛苦劳作来获得这些改善。things that I talked about, we hit 115. Now, what's important to note here is that the mice did not have to, you know, hustle and grind for these improvements.

他们不必在凌晨 5 点起床，刷一堆 Instagram 上的励志 TikTok 视频，然后去健身房。说真的，他们的自律性根本没有提高。他们也不必观看那些关于如何改进硬件和软件的超全面课程。实际发生的一切，只是他们因环境所迫，被置于更好的围栏之中。They did not have to wake up at 5, watch a bunch of Instagram inspirational Tik Toks, and go to the gym. Really, they didn't get more disciplined at all. They also did not have to watch super comprehensive courses on how to improve your hardware and your software. All that happened was they were by circumstance put into better enclosures.

因此，他们的大脑，也就是他们的硬件，随之发展得更好。现在，来看看一项针对人类的类似研究。And as a result, their brains, their hardware followed suit and became better. Now, a similar study on human beings.

共有24名建筑师——呃，程序员、工程师、经理，基本上就是一群知识型员工——被安排在一个模拟办公室里整整六天。他们使用的办公桌完全相同，同事也和之前完全一样。据我所知，他们做的工作也完全相同。那项实验中唯一不同的东西，就是空气。There were 24 architects, uh, programmers, engineers, managers, just a bunch of knowledge workers basically that were put into a fake office for six full days. These had the exact same desks. They had the exact same co-workers as before. And to my knowledge, they were also doing the exact same work. The only thing that differed in that experiment was the air.

其中有多少来自外部，有多少二氧化碳存在于其中，以及有多少逸散气体，也就是所谓的挥发性有机化合物（通常会从油漆、地毯、家具等物品中释放出来，尤其是刚买来的时候）。现在，每天下午3点，这24名知识型工作人员都会接受完全相同的一组认知测试，以评估他们清晰思考的能力。how much of it came from outside, how much CO2 was inside of it, and how much offging there was, which is something called volatile organic compounds, which typically are gassed off of paint, carpets, furniture, and uh, you know, things like that, typically when they're purchased new. Now, every afternoon at 3 p.m., these 24 knowledge workers took the exact same set of cognitive tests to evaluate their ability to think clearly.

令人震惊的结果是，在空气非常洁净、通风良好的日子里，这些知识型员工的得分竟然是他们平时在办公室工作日的整整两倍。这可不是提高了10%，而是字面意义上的翻倍。而他们思维中改善最显著的具体方面，是策略能力，也就是规划、确定优先级，然后安排行动顺序的能力。Well, the shocking result is that on the days with very clean and well ventilated air, the scores of these knowledge workers were literally double what they were on their normal office days. That's not 10% better. That is literally double. And the specific part of their thinking that improved the most was their strategy, their ability to plan, prioritize, and then sequence actions.

这些都与执行功能有关，基本上就是他们清晰思考的能力。那个房间里没有一个人睡得更多。All of which are executive function related. basically their ability to think clearly. There wasn't a single person in that room that slept more.

没人服用补充剂或益智剂。没人付出更多努力。所有这些人实际上只是呼吸了稍微不同的空气，然后在某些电池测试中的表现就变成了原来的两倍，这有点疯狂，对吧？作为一名企业主，这对我来说极具吸引力，因为这意味着我可以用完全相同的投入实现 200% 的产出。你知道，我们把这定义为杠杆效应。这就是免费的钱。如果你只需做出一个微小的改变，就能实现 200% 的产出，而这个改变具有Nobody took supplements or neutropics. Nobody tried harder. All of these people literally just breathed slightly different air and then became twice as good at certain batteries as a result, which is kind of nuts, right? And as a business owner, that's extremely attractive to me because it means I can achieve 200% output with the exact same input. You know, we define that as leverage. It's free money. If you can make 200% with a minor change that has

对我的日常生活没有任何其他实质性影响，我他妈为什么不做呢？一般来说，你们可能也听说过这个概念，叫作“低垂的果实”。既然有低垂的果实，那你大概应该在可能的地方把它摘下来。它就挂得很低，对吧？接下来我就要在完全不增加额外工作量的情况下，和你们一起做这件事。我希望你们能够...no real other impact on my day-to-day, why the hell wouldn't I do it? In general terms, you guys might have also heard of this concept as lowhanging fruit. And when you have low hanging fruit, you should probably pluck it wherever possible. It's low hanging, right? That's what I'm going to be doing with you guys next with zero additional effort. I want you guys to be able to

课程讨论：第一部分Course Discussion: Part One

输出比你目前多一倍的内容。换句话说，就是把事情想得清楚一倍。接下来几节将讨论意志力的科学定义、选择架构、阻力、硬件优化和环境优化。你可以把它们理解为设计一个更好的笼子——就像那些工人待的笼子，或者那些老鼠待的笼子——相较于它们原本的环境而言。output twice as much as you are currently outputting. Or put another way, think twice as clearly. So our next few sections which are on the scientific definitions of willpower on choice architecture on friction on hardware optimization and on environment optimization you can think of as basically the human equivalent of designing a better cage like those workers were in or like those mice were in uh compared to their default

对应者。如今，作为一个曾为了提升表现而参与改造动物生存环境的人，我觉得人类竟然能如此掌控自己的环境，简直不可思议。counterparts. Now it's miraculous to me as somebody that's worked with modifying animal environments for performance reasons that human beings have as much control over our own environments as we do.

因为仔细想想，你确实可以设计自己的世界。比如，你可以选择住在哪里，可以买房或自己建房，也可以自愿让更好的同笼伙伴围绕在身边，比如家人、朋友、竞争对手、配偶等等。Because if you think about it, you can quite literally design your world. You can, for instance, choose where to live. You can buy or build your own home. You can surround yourself voluntarily with better cagemates, which are things like family, friends, competitors, your spouse, and so on.

当你这样做，真正去设计自己的环境或设计自己的笼子时，你会发现，至少在硬件方面，清晰思考就不再那么依赖高度自律，也不再那么依赖借助各种结构来思考、引导自己的思维；它更多只需要一些小小的工程化调整，而这些调整你实际上只需要做一次——比如决定搬到某个地方，或者，我不知道，买……When you do this and you actually design your environment or design your own cage, you'll find that for at least the hardware side of things, thinking clearly becomes way less a question of being really disciplined and using various structures to think and to guide your thinking and more really just a sense of minor engineering actions that you only really ever need to make once, which is when you make the decision to like move somewhere or I don't know buy

一栋新房子，或者与某个人交往而不与另一个人交往。好，这就引出了我们课程中的第一组行动问题。a new house or associate with a person and not associate with another person. Okay. And that takes me to the first set of action questions in our course.

首先，我之前让你记住的那个12位数字是多少？其实，我想让你先停下来想一想，我之前让你记住的那个12位数字是多少？First, what was that 12-digit number that I asked you to memorize from earlier? Actually, I want you to sit with it for a second and think, what was that 12digit number that I asked you to memorize from earlier?

第二个问题是，鉴于关于知识工作者以及二氧化碳/有机化合物的实验，在我们不深入探讨硬件优化的情况下，你们能不能不假思索地想到其他可能正限制着你们的生理因素？就现在而言，不需要列出任何极其详细的优化步骤。有什么想到的，大概率就说明那件事很值得优先解决。Second question is given the experiment on knowledge workers and CO2/organic compounds can you guys just off the top of your head without us going in depth on hardware optimizations think of any other biological limiters that you yourself might be facing and that's just right now without you having any extremely detailed list of of steps to optimize anything come to mind odds are that thing is probably pretty important to fix.

好，接下来聊聊意志力。类似地，意志力到底是什么鬼？大多数人会把意志力想成一个储备库。每次你运用自制力，都是从意志力储备里取出一点。比如说，今天早上你明明特别想按贪睡键，却还是没按；或者你明明特别想看手机，却忍住没看；又或者有人对你很无礼，但你把这事压在心里，……Okay, moving on to willpower. On a similar level, what the hell is willpower? Well, most people think of willpower as a reservoir. Every time that you use your self-control, they are withdrawing a small amount from their willpower reserve. Like, let's say you, you know, didn't hit snooze this morning even though you really wanted to, or you didn't check your phone even though you really wanted to, or somebody was rude to you, but you kind of buried it and

而是表现得礼貌一些。大多数人对意志力的理解是，它会一点点地消耗：这里消耗一点，那里消耗一点。最终，到了当天结束时，你的意志力储备就所剩无几了。were polite instead. The way that most people conceptualize willpower is that consumes a little bit of willpower, a unit here, a unit there. And then eventually what happens is at the end of the day your willpower reserve is low.

也许是因为你知道，你一整天都在努力抵抗很多诱惑。这样一来，你的意志力就比较低了；如果又有诱惑出现，或者发生了需要自控的事情，你可能就更容易放弃。然后到了某个时候，你通过睡眠给意志力储备充充电，第二天再重新开始这个过程。Maybe because you've had a, you know, a lot of temptation fighting all day. And then because it's low, you know, if another temptation comes around or something happens that requires self-control, maybe you're you're more likely to give up, you know, and at some point you refill your willpower reservoir with sleep and then just refill or redo the process tomorrow.

有意思的是，你有没有注意到，有些人能够始终头脑清醒、极度自律，而有些人却做不到？这是为什么呢？你觉得是因为他们意志力更强吗？其实并非如此。如今已有大量科学研究支持这一结论：有些人的意志力并不比其他人更强。Now, what's interesting is, have you ever noticed how some people are capable of staying extremely clear-minded and self-controlled, whereas other people cannot? Why is this? Do you think it's because they have more willpower? Well, it's not really. The answer, which has been backed by a tremendous amount of science at this point, is not that some people have more willpower than others.

原因在于，你认为意志力更强的人，一开始就根本不必面对和你同等程度的诱惑。我的意思是，思路清晰、自控力强的人通常根本不会让自己置身于有机会犯错的情境中。想一想就知道，如果你根本无法犯错，因为犯错并不是你可以采取的选项之一，就像在……It is that the people that you think have more willpower simply never have to fight the same level of temptation that you do in the first place. What I mean by this is people that maintain clear thinking and strong self-control usually just do not put themselves in situations where they have the opportunity to make a mistake at all. If you think about it logically, if you cannot make mistakes at all because that is not one of the possible moves available to you, like in

在电子游戏里，或者在棋盘上——告诉你个新鲜事，你大概会少犯些错，对吧？因为你根本无法走出导致失误的那一步。a video game or a chessboard, well, news flash, you're probably going to make fewer mistakes, right? Because you simply can't make the move that leads to a mistake.

想象一下把保龄球道两侧的护栏升起来打球。护栏升起来后，球掉进球沟根本就不算一种可能犯的错。我的意思是，我猜从技术上说这确实有可能，但你得搞砸得特别离谱，球才会掉进沟里。护栏升起来之后，如果你打球时稍微偏向一侧，就会撞掉一边的护栏，最后差不多还是能打到……Think bowling with the guardrails up. If you bowl with the guardrails up, landing in the gutters is simply not one of the possible mistakes. I mean, I guess it is technically a possible mistake, but damn, you'd have to screw up really hard to make it in the gutter. What happens when you bowl with the guardrails up is if you bowl and you're just a little bit off to a side, you knock off a guardrail and eventually end up virtually somewhere in the neighborhood of hitting

你想要的那个图钉。类似地，事实证明，抵制诱惑、逃避必须完成的工作，或应对类似问题所要付出的大部分努力，归根结底只是你得调整自己，在对你来说可能效率较低或不那么有利的时间工作，做一些不在常规日程安排内的事，或者在一天快结束时做事——那时你的引用……the pin that you want. Now, in a similar vein, it turns out that the majority of the effort involved in resisting temptation or avoiding work that you have to do or some sort of similar issue like that really just boils down to you having to adjust to do work at times that are maybe less effective or profitable for you. To do things outside of a regular schedule. to do things at times that are closer to the end of the day when your quote

所谓的储备已经比一天开始时低了，那时你的所谓储备还很充足。我想给大家举个例子。比如，一个人在开会时不看手机，通常会被认为是在抵制诱惑。这对他们有好处，对吧？但如果你从逻辑上想想，很多人开会时都不看手机。你知道大多数人是怎么做到的吗？他们只是unquote reserves have fallen low than at the beginning of the day when your quote unquote reserves are still high. I want to give you guys an example of this. A person that doesn't check their phone in the meeting, for instance, would commonly be referred to as resisting temptation. And that's good for them, right? But if you think about it logically, a lot of people don't check their phones during meetings. Do you know how most people do it? They just

在会议上不把手机带在身边。那些开会时不查看手机、把手机放在包里的人，总是得抵抗掏出手机查看短信或记下点什么的诱惑。而那些干脆完全不把手机带在身边的人呢，他们根本不必抵抗这种诱惑。他们的手机，你知道，就在三道门之外。要拿到手机是不可能的，除非做出一个……don't have their phones on them in the meeting. The people that don't check their phones in the meetings, that have them in their bags, constantly have to fight the temptation of pulling out their phone to check a text message or write something down. Whereas the people that simply do not have phones on them whatsoever, well, they never have to fight that temptation. Their phone is, you know, three doors down. It's impossible to get it without making a

让自己彻底出丑。基本上，在这个例子中，那些不查看手机的人之所以不看，是因为手机不在身边。他们调整并布置了自己的环境，让诱惑从一开始就不会出现。这只是一个很小的例子，接下来我会和你一起快速过一遍规模大得多、影响深远的生活方式改变。说清楚一点，这可能并不是你大脑底层实际发生的情况。total ass of yourself. Basically, the people that don't check their phone in this example because they don't have their phone on them, they have adjusted and built their environment such that temptation never shows up in the first place. And this is a very small example of much larger sweeping lifestyle changes that I'm going to run through with you. Now, to be clear, this is probably not what is going on in your brain under the hood.

实际上，可能并不存在什么意志力储备。你并不是每次拒绝某件事时都在消耗能量。正如前面提到的，我们望着窗外和专心做一项任务时，消耗的能量大致相同。不过，今天我想向你介绍一个概念，叫作“不对称赌注”。如果你认为自己的意志力有限，并按照这种理念行事，那很可能会导致你减少……There probably is not actually a reservoir of willpower. It's not like you're using up energy every time you say no to something. As mentioned, we use approximately the same amount of energy when staring out the window or, you know, working on a task. But I want to introduce a concept to you today called asymmetric bets. If you assume that your willpower was limited and then acted according to that philosophy, that would probably lead you to reducing

更多诱惑，对吧？所以即使你错了，你也已经为自己打造了一个更好的环境，而且现在可能还多了一些能力。同样，如果你认为自己的意志力是无限的，每次都可以只靠它，因为你是个牛逼的狠角色，对吧？temptations more. Right? So even if you are wrong, you will have built yourself a better environment and probably some extra capacity now. Similarly, if you assume that your willpower was unlimited and that you could just rely on it every time because you're a badass MF, right?

嗯，你会在最糟糕的时候当着所有人的面失败，这仅仅是因为这就是你一直以来的人生行事方式。那么从逻辑上说，如果你可以选择相信这一种说法或另一种说法，而其中一种会带你进入一个境况更好的世界——也就是说，你更少抵抗诱惑，因为你根本没有抵抗诱惑的机会；而另一种则让你更多地抵抗诱惑，这会让你……Well, you will fail in front of everybody at the worst possible time simply because that is the modus operandi with which you have lived your life. So logically then if you have possibility to believe one thing or the other thing and one thing leads to a universe where you are better off aka you resist temptation less because you just do not have the opportunity to resist temptation and the other one you resist temptation more which leads you

偶尔搞砸事情。难道你不该相信宇宙……相信那个会带来一个你完全不必抵制诱惑的宇宙的故事吗？显然是吧？to screwing up every now and then. Shouldn't you believe the univer believe in the story that results in the universe where you do not have to resist temptation at all? Obviously, right?

这是一种被称为工具理性的概念，我们稍后会稍微详细介绍。简单来说，就是选择最有效、最有用的信念体系来实现目标，即使它与现实略有出入。要点是，不要在你制定的任何计划中预设阻力。This is a concept known as instrumental rationality, which we'll cover a little bit later. But basically, it is where you choose the most effective and useful belief system to achieve a goal, even if it slightly differs from reality. The takeaway is do not build resisting into any of the plans that you come up with.

如果你提出的计划中有一个步骤——而且我们之后会经常这么做——是“你知道，我就是不再做那件我总会做的坏事了”，那这就不是计划，而是一种希望，而且相当不切实际。与其彻底消除 X，你应该努力做的是减少 X，具体来说就是减少你接触和滥用 X 的机会。如果你彻底消除某种诱惑，它自然就会减少，而且你也会想得更多。If one of the steps in your proposed plan, which we'll be doing a lot of later on, is you know, I just won't do that bad thing that I always do. Well, it's not a plan. It is a hope and it is quite unrealistic at that. Instead of eliminating X completely, what you should aim to do is just reduce X by reducing your access and opportunity to abuse X. If you remove some sort of temptation entirely, it will naturally go down for free and you will think more

显然，这是由此导致的结果。现在，说到一个你们此刻就能采取行动的实际例子——在观看这门课程时这样做，可以让你们从中多获得 10% 到 20% 的收益——你们现在房间里可能就有手机。有些人甚至可能正在用手机听或看这门课程。这样一来，你们就更有可能因为某种原因拿起手机，然后被某个……分散注意力。clearly as a result. Now, in terms of an actual immediately actionable example that you guys can do right now while watching this course to gain an additional 10 to 20% out of it, you guys probably have your phone in the room right now. And some of you may actually be listening or watching to this course on their phones. Now, by doing so, you are increasing the probability of picking up your phone for whatever reason and getting distracted by an

一个数量级，也就是 10 倍或更多。我建议你现在就这么做：如果你正在电脑上看我，而手机就在你的余光范围内，我建议你停下来，走过去拿起手机，把它拿到另一个房间，然后放在一个不在你余光范围内的地方。如果你是用手机听我说，因为这是你接触媒体的唯一途径，那么我建议你滑动一下。order of magnitude, which is 10x or more. What I'd recommend you do right now is if you are watching me on the computer and your phone is somewhere in your periphery, I'd recommend you actually stop, go grab your phone, pick it up, move it to another room, and then place it somewhere where it isn't directly in your periphery. And if you are listening to me while on your phone, because this is your only access to media, then I would recommend you swipe

从顶部向下滑，找到“请勿打扰”按钮，或者类似的选项，具体取决于你的操作系统，然后把它打开。如果你现在只做这一件事，如果你提前做出承诺，就能从这门课程中多获得 10% 到 20% 的收获。想象一下，如果我给你两个选项，就像《黑客帝国》里的红色药丸和蓝色药丸一样。一只手里拿着一美元，另一只手里拿着 110 美元，然后我说：“嘿，兄弟，你想要哪个？你想要……”down from the top, go to the do not disturb button, or the equivalent, depends on your operating system, and turn that on. If you just do that one thing right now, if you pre-commit, you will get 10 to 20% more out of this course. Imagine if I had two options available to you, kind of a red pill or blue pill like in the matrix. And on one hand, I had a dollar and on another hand I had a $110 and I said, "Hey brother, which one do you want? Do you want the

美元，还是你想要那110美元？"在这种情况下，合乎逻辑的做法是什么？显然就是这样说："嘿，把那些该死的美元给我。"显然如此。好吧，这正是我现在要给你的。你有能力规划接下来几个小时——也就是你听这段内容的时间——让自己全情投入，并尽可能减少分心。所以，这是一个很好的例子，说明了许多技巧。dollar or do you want the$110?" What would the logical thing be to do in that scenario? It would obviously be to be like, "Hey, give me the freaking dollars." Obviously. Well, that is what I am offering you right now. You have the ability to design the future few hours that you will be listening to this and to maximize your engagement and minimize your distractability during that time period. And so, this is a great example of a bunch of techniques

我们会把这些事情前后衔接地安排起来，帮助你思路更清晰、完成更多事情。不过我建议你现在就这么做，因为这样你就不会被那些突然冒出来的通知之类的东西意外分心了。对，你就不会突然被朋友在 Instagram 上发来的搞笑表情包打断——你手机上有 Instagram，是因为那些该死的默认通知总是把你的手机轰炸个不停。that we're going to line up back to back in order to help you think more clearly and get more done. But I'd recommend that you do so right now because if you do so, you won't be serendipitously distracted by like a rogue notification flavors. Yeah. You won't be randomly distracted by a friend of yours texting you a funny meme on Instagram, which you have because the damn default notifications always blow up your phone.

你知道，这样一来，背景里就不会一直有轻微的嗡嗡声，像我们在硬件优化部分会了解到的那样，它会占用你 5% 到 6% 的认知能力。[叹气并倒吸一口气] 你能想到还有什么比这更自由的吗？你简直就是拿起一个 100 克的物体，把它往右移动 10 米，然后立刻就能让效率提高 10% 或 20%。好，再举一个我家人可能会很讨厌的例子。You know, you won't have a little buzzing constantly occurring in the background, which pulls five or 6% of your cognitive capacity away from you like we'll learn about in the hardware optimization section. [sighs and gasps] Can you think of a freer? You're literally picking up a 100 gram object, moving it 10 meters to the right, and then immediately being 10 or 20% more effective. Okay, another good example of this which my family would probably hate

我以前会抽大麻，呃，主要是在社交场合。幸运的是，我其实不太喜欢大麻给我带来的感觉。你知道，我是在不列颠哥伦比亚省长大的，嗯，温哥华。所以我抽的是那些懂行的人都知道的 BC bud，而且我是在温哥华东区长大的。嗯，身边这东西很多，可以说是随处可见。所以后来我和朋友在派对之类的场合养成了这个习惯之后，我试过很多次，想就此戒掉，很多很多次……is that I used to smoke weed uh mostly in social settings luckily and I did not really like what weed did to me. You know, I was I grew up in a British Columbia, you know, Vancouver. So I was I was smoking that BC bud for anybody in the know and I grew up in East Van. Um so there was a lot of it an abundance, let's say, in my periphery. So I tried many times after, you know, picking up the habit with my friends at parties and stuff like that to just quit many, many,

很多次。但那时候，我对现在所知道的东西，其实只了解一半。我当时每次都试图靠意志力戒掉。毫不意外，每一次尝试都失败了。你知道，我通常能坚持一两个星期，拒绝、拒绝、再拒绝。但最后，总会有那么一个平平无奇的夜晚，我和朋友们出去玩，可能有点睡眠不足，也可能状态不太好，然后有人身上带着大麻。many times. But I didn't really know half of what I know now. And back then, I tried to quit every time based on my willpower. Not shockingly, every one of my attempts failed. You know, I would do pretty well for like a week or two saying no and no and no. But then finally, one random night, I'd go with my friends and maybe I'd be a little bit sleepd deprived. Maybe I wouldn't have been entirely in my best state and somebody would have some weed on them

他们会分一些给我，接着没过多久，我就开始抽大麻了。后来我总结出一条规律：只要我和X或Y一起玩，就会抽大麻；而不和X或Y一起玩时，我就不会抽。and they'd offer some to me and then next thing you know, I was smoking. So eventually I identified a rule and the rule was when I hung out with person X or person Y, I would lead to smoking weed. And then when I did not hang out with person X or person Y, I would not.

所以按逻辑来说，我当时是个——你知道，也就十八九岁、挺聪明的小伙子——就想：嗯，我能不能用这条规则让自己不再抽大麻？于是我就不再跟那些抽大麻的人混在一起了。奇迹般地，我也就不抽了。So logically, me being a, you know, I don't know, bright 18 or 19-year-old kid thought, hm, I wonder, can I use this rule not to smoke weed anymore? So what I did is I just stopped hanging out with the people that smoke weed. And miraculously, I stopped smoking weed.

而且已经有好一阵子了，我上次这么做还是很久以前。如果仔细想想，这是一个非常简单、微不足道的例子，说明我内心深处有一部分并不想继续做某个习惯性的事——这个习惯只是偶然养成的，可后来我却觉得自己被它束缚了很长一段时间。我们都有能力做到这一点。我们只需要停下来观察并留意——我会在软件……部分讲到这一点——周边各种往往会导致……的事情。And it's been a hot minute, quite a while since the last time I did. If you think about it, this is a very simple and minor example of a deep part of me not wanting to engage in a habit that I had picked up just by happen stance that I then felt chained to for for quite a long time. We all have the ability to do so. We simply need to stop and observe and notice, which I'll cover in the software uh section, various things in our periphery that tend to lead to

我们不希望采取的行动。一旦你设定了一个“如果……那么……”的规则，一切就会变得非常非常容易。所以关键的模式是：我在受到诱惑之前就做好了准备，而不是等到受到诱惑时才临时应对。我本来可以想出各种说法，比如告诉朋友们：“不，伙计们，今晚不行。”actions that we do not want. The second you've established an if then rule, everything becomes very very easy. So the key pattern is I put the work in before I got tempted, not during the temptation. I could have come up with a variety of things to say, maybe like I tell my friends, no, not tonight, guys.

我明天得早起。但这远不如直接制定一条规则有效，后者能从一开始就消除受到诱惑的可能性。I got to wake up early tomorrow. But that works far less effectively than just building a rulein to eliminate the possibility of temptation in the first place.

顺便说一句，我们不再一起出去玩了，真让人难受。你知道，这些人里有些确实挺不错，但显然，不跟他们来往，我的生活要好得多。我觉得这是个需要理解的核心问题：你是想让自己的生活变得更好，还是想被拖到和其他人一样的水平？我不一定想做那种事。嗯，也许从更深层次来看，我其实不想。也许只是表面上，在我受到诱惑的时候，诸如此类的……It sucks that we stop hanging out, by the way. you know, some of these people are pretty cool, but obviously my life is way better off. And I think that's a core thing to understand. Like, do you want your life to be better off or do you want to be dragged down to the level of everybody else? I don't necessarily want to do things like that. Um, maybe if you zoom out on a deep level, I don't want to. Maybe on a superficial level when I'm tempted and so on and so forth,

我确实如此。但显然，我更喜欢自己内心深处的那个版本，而那最终也是我想要提升并实现自我的那个自己。所以，如果你们发现自己也处于类似的情况，这就是一个非常简单、容易上手的小技巧。好，我们来想几个行动类问题。I do. But I obviously like the deep version of myself more and that's ultimately who I'm I'm looking to better and self-actualize. So if you find your guyselves in similar situations, that's a very simple and easy hack to do. Okay, let's think of some action questions.

想想这周你上一次屈服于某种诱惑是什么时候。也许是玩手机，也许是吃东西，也许是偷懒没去锻炼。Think of the last time this week that you lost to some sort of temptation. Maybe it is your phone. Maybe it is your food. Maybe it is skipping your workout.

无论你的具体挑战是什么。你觉得有没有办法重新布置一下环境，避免自己去做不想做的事？我举个例子。我家里有些垃圾食品，因为我和女朋友买了一大堆很好吃的奶油全味薯片，我想是 Miss Vicky's 牌的。这些薯片简直太棒了，特别好吃。但我的一个目标就是不吃这类……Whatever it is for your particular challenges. Was there a way that you think you could have reorganized your environment to avoid you doing the thing that you did not want to do? I'll give you guys an example. I had some junk food in the house because my girlfriend and I bought a bunch of these wonderful creamy all-d dressed potato chips from I think Miss Vicky's. And these things are incredible. They are so good. But one of my goals was not to eat these sorts of

极度超加工的薯片。嗯，总之，那周早些时候我们买了它，因为我们在庆祝什么事。有一天我突然饿了，就打开橱柜，发现它就在那儿。我把它吃了。如果家里没有那袋薯片，我显然也就不会吃它，对吧？我才不会一口气吃下可能是人类已知最超加工的脂肪，足足有 1,200 卡路里。听着，我不是说你必须……你……extremely ultrarocessed potato chips. Well, anyway, we had bought it earlier on in the week because we were celebrating something. I just got hungry one day. I opened up the cabinet and there it was. I ate it. If I had not had that at home, I obviously logically would not have eaten that bag of chips, right? I would not have just downed 1,200 calories worth of probably the most ultrarocessed fat known to man. Now listen, I'm not saying you have to, you

你知道，把日子过得像个该死的麻袋一样。你真的没必要这样。你可以享受生活，玩得开心。而且我也不是第一次吃这么一大袋薯片了。know, live your life like a freaking a sack. You really don't. You can enjoy your life and have fun. And it's not the first time I had a crazy bag of chips.

上一次可不是这样。但最终结果是，我做了自己不想做的事，不是出于本意，只是因为身处那样的环境。那我为什么不只做自己真正想做的事呢？而且，我有能力做自己想做的事。如果我真的想吃那袋薯片，我完全可以重新安排周围的环境，让自己在想吃的时候拿到它们，但我没有。所以，从某种程度上说，是一个更愚笨、更年少的我，或者是别人，Not the last time. But the end result is I ended up doing something I didn't want to do, not because of intention, simply because of my environment. So why not only do the things that I actually want to do? And I have the power to do the things that I want to do. If I did want to have that bag of chips, I could have reconstructed my environment such that I got them when I wanted them, but I did not. So, at some level, a dumber, younger version of me or somebody else,

芯片制造商，你知道的，等等，基本上迫使我做了一件我并不完全想做的事。所以，想想你自己生活中有没有类似的例子。你有吗？如果有，好好考虑一下。接下来，找出你计划中某个需要你当下抵制某种诱惑的步骤。把这一步改写一下，让你完全不必抵制任何东西。也许，与其说是你下班回家之类的，然后有一大堆……the manufacturer of the chip, you know, and so on and so forth, essentially made me do something that I did not entirely want to do. So, think about an example like that from your own life. Do you have any? If so, consider them. Now, next, find some step in your plans that depends on you resisting something in the moment. Rewrite that step so nothing needs resisting at all. Maybe instead of you, I don't know, coming home from work or something and then having a big fat

糖果棒，首先就要移除你具备这种能力的可能性。那么，我们来聊聊手机。手机究竟是什么？最初，它是一种用来打电话的工具。后来，它扩展成既能发短信又能打电话的工具。但最终，它变成了一台几乎无所不能的通用计算机，能做的事情包括查看 GPS 路线、和朋友视频通话、拍照并发布照片等等。那……candy bar, remove the ability that you have to do that in the first place. So, let's talk phones. What is a phone really? Well, initially it was a tool used for making phone calls. Then it expanded into a tool used for both messaging and making phone calls. But eventually it exploded into a basically general purpose computer that could do everything from check your GPS route to video conference your friends to take photos and post them and more. How about

社交媒体？社交媒体最初只是一个给朋友发消息的简单工具。想想 AOL 聊天室、IRC 之类的。后来，为了增加功能，它逐渐变成了既能发消息、又能发布动态的工具。想想 MySpace 上那些最初的个人主页。最终，和其他一切一样，它膨胀成了一个包罗万象的应用，你可以在里面玩游戏，甚至还能买家具。你有没有问过自己……social media? Social media initially started as a simple tool for messaging your friends. Think things like AOL chat rooms, IRC, and so on. Eventually, in the pursuit of increased functionality, it became a tool used for both messaging and then posting updates. Think things like MySpace with like your original pages. Eventually, like everything else, it exploded into an everything app where you can play games and you can even buy furniture. Have you ever asked yourself

问题是，这一切究竟是谁想出来的，为什么？唉，残酷的现实是，围绕你的虚拟环境和现实环境所做的几乎所有决定，都是别人做出的，目的就是尽可能多地占用你的时间，而且通常毫无成效。仔细想想就知道了。你真的需要能在 Facebook 上玩《农场模拟 2000》吗？不需要。那么，它为什么会存在呢？嗯，the question, who came up with all of that and why? Well, the unfortunate reality is virtually all of the decisions around your virtual environment and your physical environment were made by other people for the express purpose of consuming more of your time, typically in an unproductive way. Think about it logically. You don't need to be able to play Farm Simulator 2000 on Facebook, do you? No. So, why does it exist? Well,

这是因为 Facebook 团队里有个聪明人注意到，在他们那个小消息框里嵌入游戏，会让用户的平均使用时长增加，你知道，10%、17%、25%之类的。仔细想想，你在互联网上做的绝大多数事情——其实一般生活中也是如此——都是别人替你做出的决定。这叫作选择架构。这个术语最早出自一本名为《助推》的书。真的。it's because there was some smart person on Facebook's team that noticed that having games embedded in their little message box increases the average user time spent by, you know, 10% or 17% or 25% or something. If you think about it, the vast majority of the time that you do something on the internet and really life in general, it is a decision that somebody made for you. This is called choice architecture. Now, this term was coined in a book called Nudge. Really

如果你们之前没听说过这本书，它很不错。它的核心意思是：你呈现选项的方式，或者选项呈现在你面前的方式，会影响最终选择了哪些选项。good book if you guys haven't heard of it before. And it basically means the way that you present options or the way that options are presented to you influences which options are chosen.

换句话说，不存在一种能够中立地呈现多个选项的方式。每当你让某人在 X、Y、A、B 或 C 之间做选择时，无论以何种方式，你总会在逻辑上影响他们的行为。Put another way, there is no single way to neutrally present more than one option. Anytime that you give somebody a choice between X or Y or A or B or C, in some way, shape or form, you will always be influencing their behavior logically.

一个很好的例子就是食堂经理。食堂经理实际上可以从根本上改变人们吃什么。不是把某样东西彻底从菜单上撤掉，而只是改变食物的呈现方式，或者讲述它的方式。比如说，菜单上有两样东西：一碗健康餐，还有一个不健康的墨西哥卷饼。如果健康餐的照片看起来糟透了，而不健康餐的照片——不健康的墨西哥卷饼的照片——是cuntegnA good example of this is a cafeteria manager. A cafeteria manager can actually fundamentally change what people eat. Not by taking anything off the menu entirely, but simply by changing the way in which the food is presented or the story is shaped. For instance, if you have two items, a healthy bowl and then an unhealthy burrito. If a photo of the healthy bowl looks like crap and the photo of the unhealthy bowl, unhealthy burrito is

品质高、外观诱人，人们就会多吃很多不健康的墨西哥卷饼。仔细想想，这对食堂经理来说是一项重大的责任，因为在10年、20年、30年，甚至50年的时间里，这一个举动理论上可能导致心脏病发作、中风、死亡等事件增加数百倍。如果这是一家非常繁忙的食堂，每天有几百人光顾，而你……high quality and attractive, people will eat way more of the unhealthy burrito. And if you think about it, that's a massive responsibility on behalf of the cafeteria manager because over 10 years or 20 years or 30 years or even 50 years, that single action could theoretically lead to hundreds of times more heart attacks, strokes, deaths, and so on and so forth. If this is a really busy cafeteria with several hundred people visiting every day and you've

哪怕只是让他们更倾向于选择某种非常不健康的食物，程度多出30%，显然他们就会吃得多得多，结果把身体搞垮，而这显然会带来后果，对吧？所以我想说的是，你一直都在被操纵。甚至今天把你带到我这个视频前的算法，也在某种程度上操纵了你。nudged them even 30% more towards a very unhealthy food option or something like that, obviously people are going to eat way more of it and as a result screw their bodies up and that obviously has consequences, right? So what I mean to say here is that you are being manipulated constantly. Even the algorithm that led you to my video here today was in part some sort of manipulation.

现在，在像你们目前遇到的这种罕见情况下，操纵可能是积极的，甚至最终能改善你的生活。但这只是例外，并非常态。绝大多数时候，也就是 99.999% 的时候，操纵都会切实削弱你清晰思考的能力，因为清晰思考的能力与你设定意图、再围绕这些意图进行推理的能力息息相关。但如果你正被引导着不……Now, in rare cases like the one that you guys currently have, manipulations can be positive and they can end up improving your life. But that is the exception and that is not the rule. The vast majority of the time, the 99.999% of the time, manipulations are actively detracting from your ability to think clearly because your ability to think clearly is tied to your ability to set intentions and then reason through those intentions. But if you are being led not

不是受你自己的意愿左右，而是受别人的意愿左右。显然，你并不是被引向自己的目标，而是被引向别人的目标。从社会学角度来看，一个很好的例子是器官捐献。一些欧洲国家实行主动加入制度，也就是说，除非你实际登记成为捐献者，否则你就不是捐献者；另一些国家则实行主动退出制度，也就是说，除非你登记退出，否则你会自动成为捐献者。现在他们对比了……by your own intentions, but by somebody else's, obviously you're not being led to your own ends. You are being led to someone others. A great example of this um from like a sociological perspective is organ donation. Some European countries run optin systems where you're not a donor unless you actually register to become a donor and then other ones run opt out systems which are where you are automatically a donor unless you register out of it. Now they compared

回到2003年，对这两组国家进行了研究，发现器官捐献总量存在惊人的差异，呃，基本上是由默认选项造成的。比如在德国这个选择加入制国家，只有12%的人登记为捐献者。the two groups of countries back in 2003 and found an insane difference in total organ uh uh essentially defaults. Now in Germany which is an opt-in country only 12% of people were registered as donors.

就在隔壁的奥地利实行选择退出制，99.98%的人登记成为器官捐献者。每个实行选择加入制的国家，比例都在28%左右或更低；而每个实行选择退出制的国家，比例都在85%左右或更高。In Austria which is right next door and which was an opt out uh uh region 99.98% of people registered to be an organ donor. Every single opt-in country was around 28% or less whereas every single opt out country was around 85% or more.

仔细想想，这就是选择架构能产生多大影响的最鲜明例子之一。这些政府只是很早就做出了一个选择：是默认把人们纳入器官捐献体系，还是让人们自己选择是否愿意捐献器官？基本上就是选择加入。选择加入制的国家几乎没有器官捐献；选择退出制的国家则……And if you think about it, that is one of the clearest examples of how impactful choice architecture can be. These governments simply made a choice really early on. Should we default people into organ collection or should we allow people to make the choice about whether they want their organs collected or not? You know, basically opt in. The countries that said opt in have virtually no organ collection. The countries that say opt out have

几乎所有的器官捐献。而这里的差异遵循幂律，差别大得惊人，稍后我会谈到这一点。现在，这些都是社会层面替你做出的选择。这清楚地表明，纸上一行字就能在多大程度上影响器官的可用性，或者更确切地说，影响人们在你死后会如何处置你的身体。这就引出了“默认选项”这个概念。想想看，自动播放就是一种默认设置，它……virtually all of the organ collection. And it is a hell of a power law difference here, which I'll cover later on. Now, these are societal level choices that are being made for you. And it shows clearly how much a single line on a piece of paper can impact things like your organ availability or more what people will do with your body after you die. And that takes me to this concept of default. If you think about it, autoplay is a default that is

被选中并设为默认选项，因为这会增加你的观看时长。手机上的通知之所以默认开启，是因为这样可以增加你打开应用的总次数。selected and defaulted to because it increases your watch time. Notifications on your phone are a default because they are selected to increase the total number of times you open an app.

在你比较不同 SaaS 服务时预先勾选年度套餐，是为了增加你的总支出，并最终提高留存率或降低流失率；而在收银台旁摆放糖果，则是为了让尽可能多的人最终冲动购买，因为他们会想：“嗯，我已经买了那些健康食品，再顺手买点糖果也行。”目前这样做并不违法。这只是在设计一个环境，令其中的……pre-selecting an annual plan when you are shopping around a SAS that is done to increase the total amount of money that you spend and your ultimate retention or churn and putting candy by a checkout is done to maximize the number of people who ultimately impulse buy because they're saying well I already got all that healthy stuff when I just throw in some candy too. It is not illegal right now to do this. It's just designing an environment in the

服务于某个 KPI。问题在于，那根本不是你的 KPI。我提这些并不是想把你吓个半死，也不是想误导你，只是想给你一个看待世界的新视角。下次有人让你做某种选择时，好吗？不妨问问自己，这个选择是在服务谁的利益。你知道，如果你得在 A 和 B 之间做选择，那这真的是你非做不可的选择吗？当你拿到一部手机，所有通知都……service of a KPI. The issue is it's just not your KPI. Now, I don't mention any of this because I want to freak you the hell out or mislead you. I just want to offer a new lens to look at the world through. Next time that you're presented with some sort of choice, okay, just ask whose interests are being served by this choice. You know, if you have a choice between A or B, is that a choice you need to make at all? When you get a phone and all of your notifications are

自动默认开启，或者你买了一台新的 Windows 电脑，里面预装了一堆游戏应用。为什么这些应用会自动预装？一开始为什么要把所有这些东西设置成这样？automatically defaulted to on, or you get a new Windows PC and you have a bunch of game apps that are auto pre-installed, why are they auto pre-installed? Why is all of that stuff set up the way that it is to begin with?

手机并不是自己进化出来的。它们是有人设计组装出来的。Windows PC 也是一样。现实是，背后有一张复杂、彼此交织的激励机制之网，但残酷的事实是，这些激励机制大多并非为了你的利益，而是与你作对。It's not like phones evolved. There's something that a person put together. Same thing with Windows PCs. The reality is there's a complicated interconnected web of incentives at play, but the harsh reality is most of those incentives are not for you. They're against you.

现在，你可以运用这些知识来设计自己的生活。正如前面提到的，你们可以自己设定默认规则，覆盖企业和大型组织的惯常默认规则。这样一来，你们就能更好地掌控自己每天做的事情。从数学上看，这非常有利于你。仔细想想，这也是一个明显的杠杆效应例子，因为你只需要做一次决定，而这非常……Now you can use this knowledge to design your own life. As mentioned, you guys can build defaults yourselves that overwrite the typical defaults of corporations and big organizations. And in doing so, you can have a lot more control over what it is that you do on a day-to-day basis. The math is very much in your favor. And it's another clear example of leverage if you think about it because you only ever have to make the decision one time while very

头脑清醒的时候，比如说，某个周日早晨，喝完一杯咖啡之后。尽管你只做过一次这样的决定，它仍会持续带来好处——甚至在之后每一个早上六点，当你睡眠不足、疲惫、懒散、咖啡因摄入少了一点，或者诸如此类的时候。我的意思是，你可以趁现在头脑状态不错时，先做出一个默认决定，然后强制以后每次遇到这种情况时都照着做。clear-headed, maybe on a, you know, Sunday morning after you've had your cup of coffee. And despite you making that decision once, it will continue to pay dividends even, you know, at every other 6 a.m. morning when you don't get a lot of sleep, you're tired, you're lazy, maybe you're a little less caffeinated, whatever. The point that I'm making is you can make a default decision right now when you're in a strong state of mind and then force all future instances

由你来做出默认选择，基本上就把它当作事情本来的样子。好吗？所以你知道，如果某家公司设定了一个默认选项，而你什么都不做，你得到的就是他们想要的结果。但如果是你设定了默认选项，而你什么都不做，你得到的就是你想要的结果。比如，你的笔记本电脑可能会自动打开你昨天浏览的标签页。而且你知道，通常睡觉前，你会浏览某种娱乐网站或社交网站免费观看of you to do the default decision and basically just treat that as how things are. Okay? So, you know, if a default is set by a company and you do nothing, you get what they want. But if you set a default and you do nothing, you get what you want. So, maybe your laptop automatically opens the tab that you were on yesterday. And you know, usually before you go to bed, you're on some sort of entertainment website or social

社交媒体。这意味着，默认情况下，早上你打开笔记本电脑时，映入眼帘的会是一堆社交媒体内容。假设有两个平行宇宙：一个宇宙里，你知道自己打开了那个标签页；另一个宇宙里，你打开的标签页是工作内容。你觉得在哪个宇宙里你会做更多工作？显然是打开着工作内容标签页的那个，对吧？你有能力控制这一点。标签页重新打开并不是一个……media. What that means is the default is when you go to your laptop in the morning, you are now seeing a bunch of social media. If there were two universes, one where you know you had that tab open and then another where you had a tab open with your work on it. You which of the two universes do you think you would do more work? Obviously the one where your tab is open with the work on it, right? You have the ability to control that. Tabs reopening are not a

默认设置。这是设计这些浏览器的人做出的安排，因为他们想让你在浏览器上待得更久。同样，你的冰箱也许把最不健康的零食放在了视线齐平的位置。于是每次你打开冰箱，它们都会是你最先看到的东西。而这就是一个你自己可能在不知不觉中设定的默认安排。default setting. That is something that the people that designed these browsers did because they want to keep you on them for longer. Likewise, maybe your refrigerator is organized so that the worst snacks are at eye level. And so every time you open it, they're literally the very first thing that you see. Now, that is a default that you yourself probably unknowingly created.

但这也是一个可以更改的默认设置。你的日历、你的虚拟环境呢？也许它全天候都能被预约，原因只是你从来没设置过工作时间，结果就是一整天不断收到各种烦人的通知，还有一群人找上门来占用你的时间。不过，你现在就可以掌控并更改这些设置。所以，这些都是默认设置。你可能只需要花几分钟……But it's also a default that you can change. How about your calendar, your virtual environment? Maybe it's bookable 24/7, and the reason is you just never set your working hours, and that results in a variety of annoying ass notifications that come in throughout the day, and a bunch of people that come in and steal your time. Well, you have the ability to control that and change that right now. So, all these are defaults. They take you maybe a few

不过这里很酷的一点是，如果你更改它们，你就会每天都反复获得收益，直到你去世，或者直到公司收回那个默认设置——收回那个默认设置。moments, but the cool benefit here is if you change them, you get repeated gains literally every day until you die or until the company claws back that claws back that default.

你究竟该如何找出生活中所有的默认选项？显然，这份清单还不错，但并不全面。为此，我会使用下面这个诊断工具。How do you actually identify all the defaults in your life? Since obviously this is a okay list, but it's not an exhaustive one. Well, I use the following diagnostic tool to do this.

对于一天中每个过渡时刻，我都会问自己：如果我什么都不做，会发生什么？比如，早上五点，当我打开电脑时，如果我什么都不做，默认会发生什么？环境设计的一个好例子，就是我在早上五点打开电脑时所做的安排。我打开电脑后，屏幕上除了 Chrome，没有其他应用程序。所以我会双击 Chrome。然后我会看着】【。For every transition in my day, I just ask myself, what happens if I do nothing? So for instance, at 5:00 a.m. in the morning when I access my computer, what happens by default if I do nothing? So a good example of, you know, environment design is what I have done to my computer at 5 a.m. when I access my computer. I open it up. There are no additional applications on my screen except for Chrome. So I will double click on Chrome. I then look at

我的书签栏里有所有工作内容的链接，它们是按顺序排列的，呃。真的就是 1、2、3、4、5。我点开其中一个，它就会打开我要开始工作的页面。my bookmarks bar, which includes links to all of the work laid out in serial uh capacity. Literally 1 2 3 4 5. I then click one and then it opens the page that I have to start doing my work on.

如果我尝试访问这些网站以外的任何网站，浏览器实际上都会屏蔽它们，直到下午 3 点。我的意思是，这是我一天中的一个过渡状态，对吧？我从刚起床切换到了工作状态。在这种情况下，如果我什么都不做，默认会发生什么？我会工作。If I try and access any sites outside of these, my browser will actually block them until 3 p.m. So, what I mean by this is that that's a transition state for my day, right? I went from waking to working. What happens by default if I do nothing in this situation? Well, I work.

我身体上就是没法工作。说白了，你想想看，我就像是上了 Wet n Wild 水上乐园的某种漂流滑道之类的，然后呢，我走到滑道那儿，滑了进去，滑道就把我带到终点了，我什么也做不了。好的一点是，那条滑道是我设计的，也是我把它做成了自己想要的样子。I physically can not work. I basically have, if you think about it, gone onto like some sort of Wet n Wild tube ride or something and, you know, I've gone up to like the slide and I've entered the slide and the slide takes me to the end destination and there's nothing I can do about it. The cool thing is I'm the one that architected that slide and I'm the one that made it how I wanted it to be.

而不是进入别人的幻灯片——里面可能有很多娱乐内容、干扰因素，或其他会削弱我的注意力、工作记忆或执行功能的东西。我得以亲自完成这一切。as opposed to entering somebody else's slide which maybe had a lot of entertainment on it or distractions or things that reduced my capacity for attention, working memory or executive function. I got to do all of this myself.

同样，因为我的手机不在房间里，你知道，如果我什么都不做，就没法轻松查看手机，必须起身走到别的地方去。仔细想想，这就意味着，如果我什么都不做，我默认就会很少使用手机。Similarly, since my phone is not in my room, you know, if I do nothing, I cannot check my phone easily without physically getting up and going somewhere else. Which if you think about it means that my default if I do nothing is I have very low usage of my phone.

这里的图表相当重要，因为如果你注意到，什么都不做就会带来对别人（比如某家公司）有利的结果，那么很可能这个默认状态就是你需要改变的。反过来，如果你什么都不做就能获得自己喜欢的积极结果，那么很可能你以某种方式塑造了这个默认状态，而这没有问题。所以，一些关于行动的问题会让你回顾过去 24 小时，并列出每一个……This graph here is quite important because if you notice that when you do nothing you achieve an outcome that is beneficial for somebody else like a company odds are that default is something that you need to change. Now if you do nothing and then you achieve a positive outcome that you like odds are you have in some way shape or form shaped that default and that is okay. So some action questions look at the last 24 hours and list every point at which

有些事情之所以发生，是因为你什么也没做。比如，你打开了什么？吃了什么？查看了什么？问问自己：这些默认选项中，哪些是你自己设定的，哪些又是由那些有动机从你和你的时间身上赚钱的公司或组织设定的。接下来，选出每周让你付出代价最大的一项默认选项，并写下只需做一次、就能改变它的调整。something happened because you did nothing. For instance, what did you open? What did you eat? What did you check? Ask yourself which of those defaults did you set and which ones did a company or an organization that is incentivized to make money off of you and your time set instead. Next, pick the single default that cost you the most each week and write down the one-time change that would change that.

你什么时候会做出那个改动？顺便说一下，待会儿我会带你快速了解许多很棒的改动方法。好，在我们开始优化硬件之前，还有最后一点要讲。如果从更高的层面来思考，这整门课程的黄金法则就是摩擦。我可能已经围绕这个词铺垫了大约30分钟。我这里说15分钟，但实际花的时间比我预想的长了一点。不过，在我们……之前，还是值得先把它明确定义一下。When will you make that change? By the way, I'll run you through a bunch of great ways to make changes in a moment. Okay, one final point before we begin the optimization of our hardware. The golden rule of this whole course, if you think about it, at a meta level, is friction. I've been dancing around that word for the last maybe 30 minutes or so. I say 15 here, but it took a little longer than I was expecting. But it's worth us clearly defining it before we

继续。我对摩擦的定义是，它是人与某种行为之间的成本。通常意味着多点一次鼠标，多走一步，多沿着走廊多走10英尺，或者得多输入一道密码，诸如此类。一个很好的例子是：如果你这个人想去健身房，这就是一种行为。凡是让你更难去健身房的因素，都属于摩擦。比如，你离健身房有多远，比如你住的地方……move on. The way I define friction is it's a cost between a person and a behavior. This typically means an extra click. It means an extra step. Means an extra 10-ft walk down a hallway. Means having to put in an extra password, and so on and so forth. A great example of this is if you, a person, wants to go to the gym, which is a behavior. Friction is anything that makes it harder for you to go to the gym. For instance, your distance from the gym, like where you

你住的地方和健身房之间的距离，就是一种阻力。如果你去注册健身房，但注册门户网站出了故障，这也是一种阻力。如果实际费用比你预期的稍高一些，这也是一种阻力。live versus where the gym is, that is friction. If you go to sign up to the gym, but the signup portal bugs out, that is friction. If there is a physical cost which is a little bit higher than you were anticipating, that is friction.

一般来说，如果你想减少某种行为，就要增加阻力。如果你想增加某种行为，就要减少阻力。因为正如前面提到的，你的大脑极其节能，只要有可能就会尽量节省能量，因为它消耗了全身能量储备的 20%。它会完成剩下的事。你只需要让某件事稍微难一点，让另一件事……In general, if you want to decrease a behavior, what you do is you add friction. If you want to increase a behavior, what you do is you remove friction. Because your brain, as mentioned, is extraordinarily energy conservative and it wants to conserve energy wherever possible because it consumes 20% of the entire body's energy reserves. It will do the rest. You simply need to make something a little bit harder and make the other thing,

想必这会让你想做的事情稍微容易一些。而且，你的环境会在你毫无察觉的情况下开始影响你的选择。presumably the thing you want to do, a little bit easier. And your environment will start shaping your choices without you even noticing.

关于摩擦力，最重要的一点是它与行为机会的大小成正比。例如，摩擦力通常会随着你参与某种行为的机会大小而变化。The most important point about friction is that it is proportionate. For instance, the size of the friction scales typically with the size of your opportunity to engage in the behavior.

所以，如果你把某件事做起来的难度平均提高到原来的三倍，你做这件事的次数可能就会减少到原来的三分之一。如果去健身房现在容易了三倍，比如健身房搬到了离你近了三倍的地方，或者——我也不知道——你有个朋友每天早上来接你，真的开车送你过去，就像我以前有过的那样，那么你去健身房的频率就会高得多。一个很好的例子是进食中的阻力。如果你So if you make something maybe three times as hard to do on average, you will do it maybe three times less. If going to the gym is now three times easier because maybe the gym has moved three times closer to you or maybe because I don't know you have a friend that picks you up in the morning and actually drives you and drops you off there like I used to have um then you will do it far more often. A good example of this is friction in food consumption. If you

大家回想一下我们关于食堂的例子：当时我们展示了一张看起来很诱人的碗装食物和墨西哥卷饼的照片，以及一张看起来不那么诱人的照片，而这影响了人们对食物的取用。很多研究都探讨了完全相同的理念，只不过重点都放在如何施加阻力上。我指的是让某件事变得更容易，或者稍微更难一些。在其中一项研究中，研究人员改变了食堂里三种食物之间的距离。guys think back to our cafeteria example where we had a good-looking photo and then a bad looking photo of a bowl and a burrito and that impacted the uptake of food. Lots of studies have been done on the exact same idea except instead all about applying friction. What I mean by that is making something easier or making something a little bit harder. So in one of these studies they changed the distance of three foods in a cafeteria.

有一碗樱桃番茄，一碗豌豆，还有一碗胡萝卜。除此之外，他们没有更改标识，也完全没有移动任何食物。下面是一些结果。把樱桃番茄往外移了 10 英寸后，樱桃番茄的总食用量下降了 9%。这意味着，只是把樱桃番茄往离原来位置更远的地方挪了不到 1 英尺，人们的食用量就减少了约 9%。至于豌豆……There was a bowl of cherry tomatoes. There was a bowl of peas and then there was a bowl of carrots. Aside from that, they didn't change the signage or move any of the food at all. Here are some results. When they moved the cherry tomatoes 10 in further away, consumption of all cherry tomatoes dropped 9%. That means that by moving the cherry tomatoes literally less than 1 ft further from uh where they were before, people consumed approximately 9% less. When the peas

被移远10英寸后，食用量下降了13%。胡萝卜被移远10英寸后，食用量下降了9%。随后，研究人员甚至把盛豌豆用的餐具从勺子换成了夹子：勺子很容易舀起豌豆，而夹子很难用，也不太容易一次夹起很多。豌豆的总食用量下降了16.5%。were moved 10 in away, consumption dropped 13%. When the carrots were moved 10 in away, consumption dropped 9%. Then the researchers went as far as to replace the serving utensils for the peas from a spoon, which is quite easy to use to grab peas, to tongs, which are hard to use and you can't really get too many. Total consumption of peas dropped 16.5%.

现在，这种影响非常巨大。不是说要……Now, this is a massive effect. Not to

课程讨论：第二部分Course Discussion: Part Two

值得一提的是，所有这些实际上只花了几秒钟就实施了，对吧？看看这里这张图。你可以看到基线情况下取用的食物量。显然，伸手可及的勺子让基线摄入成为可能。当你把某样东西移到10英寸处时，摄入量减少了13.4%、8.9%。然后，当你把勺子换成夹子时，摄入量减少了16.5%。mention, all of this took only a few seconds to actually implement, right? Because look at this graph here. You could see food taken on baseline. The spoon at reach obviously allowed for baseline consumption. When you move something at 10 in, it reduced it by 13.4% 8.9%. And then when you replaced your spoon with tongs, it reduced it by 16.5%.

这一切对我来说都相当疯狂。下面这段话摘自一篇写于 2009 年的文章，作者是个非常聪明的人，呃，斯科特·亚历山大。我自己一直在反复思考这段话。重点是，你不必让事情变得不可能，才能阻止它发生。你只需要让它变得不方便。哪怕只是微不足道的不便——花上一两秒钟——也足以让大多数人在大多数时候打消念头。所以，All of this is pretty crazy to me. Here's a quote from an essay that was written back in 2009 by a really smart guy, uh, Scott Alexander. And I personally think about this quote all the time. The point is that you don't have to make things impossible to make them not happen. You just have to make them inconvenient. Even a trivial inconvenience, one that takes a second or two, is enough to stop the majority of people the majority of the time. So,

这是什么意思？你们有没有遇到过这样的情况：因为某个应用把你们登出了，所以你们决定不打开它？你们有没有因为某份报告是作为附件或 PDF 附上的，而不是放在邮件正文里或做成一个方便点击的链接，就没有去读它？或者你们有没有因为走到包边一看，发现包里没带要用的东西，或者没穿短裤之类的，于是就没去锻炼？又或者……what does this mean? Have you guys ever been in the following situation where you decided not to open an application because it signed you out? Have you ever not read some sort of report because maybe it was attached as an attachment or PDF rather than in the body of an email or an easy to click link? Or maybe have you ever not worked out because you went to your bag and then found that you just didn't have the stuff inside of the bag or you didn't have your shorts on or

类似这样？说实话，这些都不是真正的障碍。比如说，这些东西能阻止袋龙征服已知世界吗？不能，大概吧。但它们还是都对你起了作用。值得内化的一个好模型是：你的大脑一直在计算，要在周围环境中做任何事需要付出的启动成本，也就是阻力。所以，只要你在某个流程中增加或减少哪怕一秒的阻力，时间足够长的话，就能彻底改变你的人生。something like that? Realistically, none of these are real barriers. Like would this stuff have stopped Kangaskhan from conquering the known world? No, probably not. But they all still worked on you. A good model to internalize is that your mind is always calculating the startup cost to do anything in your environment, also known as the friction. So if you add or remove even a second of friction from a process, you can over a long enough time change your life completely.

就像我们在第一部分讨论认知的生物学基础时提到的，执行功能非常非常耗费资源。你知道，你们的工作记忆容量也相当有限，而且在任何一个时刻，你们真正能关注的环境中的事物也就那么几样。Like we talked about in the first section on the biological basis of cognition, executive function is very very expensive. You know, your working memory is also quite small, and you guys only really have enough space to attend to a couple of things in your environment at any one point in time.

这意味着，你的大脑总是在寻找降低成本的方法，因此总会默认选择“现在不做”，而不是“让我想想该如何迈出第一步”，因为前者是更高效的选择。What that means is your brain, which is always looking for a way to minimize costs, will always default to not now as the most efficient option as opposed to the let me figure out how to take the first step option.

最不可思议的是，从外面看，这一切都像是自律。你知道，我以前特别穷的时候，看到那些一个月赚一万、两万、一万五，甚至十万美元的人，总会想：这些人跟我们不是一个物种，他们天生就不一样，我永远也赶不上他们。我想想自己为了赚到两千美元，花了多少时间和精力。然后我又看看那个家伙……The crazy thing is from the outside, it all looks like discipline. You know, when I used to be really poor, I would look at people that were making 10K a month or 20K a month or 15K a month or maybe even 100K per month, and I would always think, you know, these people, they're a different species. They're just built different, and I'll never be able to catch up. I looked at how much time and effort it took me to make $2,000. And then I looked at the guy

赚到 1 万美元，然后我就想：不可能吧。这可是五倍的工作量啊，根本不可能。残酷的现实是，那些人并没有做五倍的工作。事实上，他们中的很多人做的工作可能只有我的一半，甚至只有我的四分之一。making $10,000, and then I went, there's no way. I mean, that's five times the work. That's impossible. The harsh reality is those people are not doing five times the work. In fact, many of them were probably doing half of the work that I was doing, maybe even a quarter of the work that I was doing.

主要区别在于，他们对环境进行了设计，使真正能为他们赚钱的事情能够轻松、自动地完成。The main difference was they had designed their environment to be able to do the things that actually make them money really easily and automatically.

而我当时是个挨家挨户推销的销售员，嗯，每天都得起床，硬着头皮熬过一番苦差事。很多时候，虽然我不得不这么做，但最终并没有真正坚持去做那项核心的基础性创收活动，只因为我把这件事弄得对自己来说太难了。Whereas I, I was a door-to-d dooror salesman at the time, um, had to get up and push through a slog every single day. Many of the times when I would have to do this, I would not actually carry through with my core foundational revenue generating activity simply because of how hard I had made it for myself.

这就引出了几个关于行动的问题。第一个是：说出一种你这个月想多做的行为。从产生想法到采取行动，目前中间隔着多少步？So that takes me to a few action questions. The first is name one behavior that you want to do more of this month. How many steps currently sit between the thought and then the action?

那么，做出哪一个改变可以减少步骤，让原本要做十件事才能去健身房——把短裤装进包里、拿上鞋和篮球、走出家门、坐公交车等等——变成只需要一步？你可以做出什么改变？And what single change can cut down the number of steps so that instead of going to the gym requiring 10 things where you got to get put your shorts in your bag and get your shoes and get the basketball and walk out the house and take the bus, instead of all of those steps, what changes can you make that would bring that to just one?

另一个问题是：说出上周占据你绝大部分时间的行为。你可以采取哪一步，让自己在做这件事之前停下来，从而每次都必须有意识地做出决定？现在该真正优化我们的硬件了。在开始之前，你们大概不会觉得这些内容有多高深。我的意思是，仔细想想，我们要聊的都是一些非常基础、简单的事情，比如饮食、睡眠、锻炼等等。The other question is, name the behavior that ate the vast majority of your last week. What one step could put you in front of it that would force a conscious decision every time? It is now time to actually optimize our hardware. Before we get started, none of this is probably going to seem very fancy to you guys. I mean, if you think about it, we're going to talk about some very elementary and basic things here. So, things like food, uh, sleep, exercise, and so on and so

等等。这些都是人们几十年来一直在认真讨论的事情。但如果按照我接下来要展示的方式对它们进行优化，参加这门课程的大多数人都可以期待认知功能提升 40% 到 80%。这可不是笔误。我的意思是，我们确实算过。嗯，这相当于在一套涵盖广泛领域的认知测验中，表现额外提升 1.5。forth. And these are all things that people have been realistically discussing for decades. But if you optimize them in the way that I will show you, most people that are taking this course can expect 40 to 80% improvements in cognitive function. And that is not a typo. I mean, we did the math. Um, that is literally 1.5 extra performance on a wide cognitive battery.

说清楚一点，我不是医生，以上内容也不构成医疗建议。我所做的是梳理了目前所有最新可获得的文献、荟萃分析，以及关于各种生物学干预措施的随机对照试验。我还根据普通人的 EV（预期价值）对这些措施进行了排名，之后会教大家如何做到这一点。所以，如果你们对此有任何不确定，我建议你们去和一位……谈谈。To make it clear, I'm not a doctor and none of this is medical advice. What I have done is I've gone through all the currently available up-to-date literature, the meta analyses, and the randomized controlled trials on various biological interventions. I've also ranked them according to EV or expected value, which I will teach you guys how to do later. for the median person. And so if you're unsure about any of this, I would encourage you guys to talk to a

合格的医生或你的 LLM。话说回来，我见过有人在生物黑客、冷水浸泡、疯狂堆叠各种补剂、促智药以及其他一堆东西上花掉数万美元，到头来认知能力也就提升个百分之一到百分之二。[嗤笑] 同样这些人被问到：“嘿，兄弟，你昨晚睡了多久？”时，却会信心满满地转过头告诉你：“我不知道，大概五六个小时吧。”如果你是……qualified doctor or your LLM. With that out of the way, I've seen people spend tens of thousands of dollars on biohacking and cold plunges and crazy supplement stacks and neutropics and all this other stuff ultimately to ek out maybe 1 to 2% improvement in cognitive capacity. [snorts] These same people when asked, "Hey bro, how much sleep did you get last night?" will confidently turn around and tell you, I don't know, maybe like five or six hours. If you're

如果你是那种人之一——如果你现在正把注意力放在时髦又闪闪发亮的东西上，或者沉迷于各种生物黑客技巧，却还没有把自己的健康提升到最佳状态——那你几乎肯定是在浪费时间。我建议你停下来。健康才是生物学上的黄金，想想看，这是我们所有人都能获得的，唾手可得。我觉得这就像赢了一场小规模冲突，却输掉了一场代际战争；又或者躲过了一颗子弹，结果却被一颗……击中。one of those people, if you are currently focusing on trendy and super shiny objects or maybe all these bio hacks without actually having maxed out your health, the biological gold, which if you think about it is available to us all, very low hanging fruit, you're almost certainly wasting your time, and I recommend you stop it. I think about it like winning a minor skirmish and then losing a generational war, or maybe dodging a bullet just to get hit by a

核弹。大家还记得认知的基础是什么吗？是注意力、工作记忆，然后是执行功能。接下来我要向大家展示如何运用生物学干预措施，逐一改善这些能力。首先，我要讲讲清晰思维的三大主要驱动因素：睡眠、营养和运动。我们会一次讲一个。对于其中每一项，我都会解释它如何……nuke. Do you guys remember the basis of cognition? It was attention, working memory, and then executive function. What I'm going to do is I'm going to show you guys how to use biological interventions to improve each of these in turn. To begin, I'm going to start by going through the three major drivers of clear thinking, which is sleep, nutrition, and exercise. And we're going to do that one at a time. For every one of these, I'm going to explain how it

有效的方法、你们能为此做些什么，以及我自己的日常安排。如果某些内容没有确凿证据支持，只是建议，我一定会告诉你们，因为我不想误导任何人，也不想让你们去做那些不一定有科学依据的事情。所以这张图展示了有效睡眠、营养和锻炼所处的位置。它们通常能带来所有潜在收益的大约 70% 到 80%。不过，还有一些……works, what you guys can do about it, and then also my own routine. And if something is not backed by hard evidence and it is just a suggestion, I will be sure to tell you because I don't want to mislead anyone or have you do things that is are not necessarily scientifically backed. So this graph shows where the effective sleep, nutrition, and exercise. These tend to be approximately 70 to 80% of all possible gains. Although there are some

还有其他一些内容我也会讲到。遗憾的是，现在大家的注意力都被一些花哨的东西吸引了，比如促智剂、呃，冷水浸泡、补剂组合、效率应用、晨间习惯、生物黑客之类的。others that I'll cover too. Unfortunately, the attention currently goes towards flashy things like neutropics, uh cold plunges, supplement stacks, productivity apps, morning routines, biohacks, all that stuff.

虽然其中一些很重要，但通常只有和前面三项结合起来时才会更加重要。还有一点值得记住：嗯，这一切的重点是，这些事情都不应该需要耗费太多意志力。这才是重点，对吧？我的目标其实是，让你在基本不做调整的情况下获得大部分这些好处——你只需要调整一下自己的日程安排。比如光照、呃，饮食、锻炼这些，While some of these are important, they're typically more important important in concert with the former three. And it's also a good point to remember that um the whole point of this is none of these should really require a tremendous amount of willpower. That's the whole point, right? My goal is really to get most of these gains done without really adjusting by only really adjusting your schedule. Things like your light, uh your diet, your exercise,

还有一些其他东西。计划是养成能让思路更清晰的习惯，并把它们变成默认做法；然后把那些会破坏思考的习惯，像我们在欧洲案例中看到的那样，改成需要主动选择启用的选项。and some other stuff. And the plan is to make habits that clarify your thinking and turn those into defaults and then take those that ruin your thinking and make them like we saw uh with the European examples optins.

格式通常是标题加上可执行的建议，以及预期的认知改善。任何预期的认知改善都只是我基于第一性原理推演出来的。嗯，也包括你知道的，对该主题文献和荟萃分析的总结。我还想让你知道，这些效果不能简单相加。所以你不能把 10% 到 15%、8% 和 14% 直接加起来。这些效果都是相乘的。所以不要把它理解成 10% 加 10%】【。The format typically is the title with the actional tip plus expected cognitive improvement. Any expected cognitive improvement is just what I've reasoned through first principles. Um as well as you know summarizing the literature and meta analyses on the subject. Um I also want you to know that these are not additive. So you're not just going to add the 10 to 15% with the 8% with the 14%. These are all multiplicative. So think about it not as 10% plus 10%

等于20%，但1.1 * 1.1 等于——我也不知道，1.11 还是什么。好。所以第一步就是排除睡眠障碍。按理说，你这辈子剩下的每个晚上都会睡觉，对吧？考虑到你睡觉的频率，确保自己睡得好，难道不是很有道理吗？想一想，稍微花点时间考虑这件事，投资回报就非常可观，对吧？而不幸的是，很多人……equals 20%, but 1.1 * 1.1 equals I don't know 1.11 or something. Okay. So the very first is to rule out a sleep disorder. Now logically you will sleep every night for the rest of your entire life. Right? Given how often you sleep, doesn't it make sense to ensure that you guys are sleeping well? If you think about it, that's a huge return on investment for just a few moments of your consideration, right? And the unfortunate news is a lot of people

他们几乎没花超过 5 分钟去思考一件自己注定要做一辈子约三分之一时间的事。所以，在开始优化任何东西之前——因为我接下来要给大家列出一长串能直接、可衡量地提升认知能力的睡眠改善技巧——先确保自己没有睡眠障碍，因为如果有的话，接下来的几条建议再怎么……都没用。haven't spent more than 5 minutes thinking about something they are literally going to be forced to do for about a third of their life. So, first before proceeding to optimize anything, cuz I'm going to give you guys a big laundry list of sleep improvement techniques which have direct and measurable impacts on cognition, just make sure you don't have a sleep disorder because if you do, uh, no amount of the next few tips are going to

考虑到这个问题主要出在硬件层面，而不是其他方面，这一点可能会对你有所帮助。最需要关注的是某种形式的睡眠呼吸障碍。遗憾的是，预计美国约有 30% 的男性会有这种情况。这是一个统称，既包括睡眠呼吸暂停，也包括它那个不那么容易被察觉的“表亲”——UARS。正如前面提到的，预计美国有 30% 的男性疑似患有这两种情况之一，而且这基本上主要是一种……help you given that the problem is mostly on the hardware level and not actually on anything else. The main one to look for, which unfortunately around 30% of uh men in the United States are expected to have, is some form of sleep disordered breathing. This is an umbrella term that includes sleep apnnea as well as its less audible cousin called Us. As mentioned, 30% of men in the US are suspected to have one of these two and it's simply mostly a

这时它就是体重带来的副作用。嗯，你知道，体重越重，气管周围受到的压迫就越大，而气管就是你用来呼吸的部位。结果，当你所有的肌肉都松弛下来时，这种压迫会导致你在半夜无法充分呼吸。因此，你通常会出现睡眠障碍。基本上，这会促使大脑每小时让你部分醒来几十次，以解决这个问题。你必须……byproduct of weight at this point. Um, you know, the more you weigh, the more compression occurs around your trachea, the thing you use to breathe. And as a result, that compression leads you to not being able to breathe fully in the middle of the night when all of your muscles collapse. As a result, you typically have disordered sleeping. Now, essentially, this triggers the brain to wake you up partially, dozens of times per hour to fix the issue. You have to

稍微醒一下，好深吸一口气，或者开始大声打鼾，这也会把你弄醒。你对此都不记得，但这仍会显著降低睡眠效率。很常见的情况是，在床上待大约8小时，实际睡眠却可能只有相当于5小时。症状也相当模糊。它们常常被误认为是性格特征，这一点我觉得挺好笑的。你知道，比如脑雾。wake up a little bit to take a really deep breath or you start snoring a lot, which kind of wakes you up as well. And you don't remember any of it, but it still reduces your sleep effectiveness significantly. A very common thing to do is to spend around 8 hours in bed and then only get the equivalent of maybe 5 hours of actual sleep. The symptoms are also quite vague. They're often misattributed as personality traits, which I find funny. You know, brain fog

或者在床上躺了9个小时，醒来还是疲惫不堪；或者总是那个昏昏欲睡的人，或者那个离不开咖啡的人，诸如此类。嗯，这些情况都与睡眠呼吸障碍有关，我不建议这样。顺便说一句，我之所以花足足两分钟聊这个，是因为我自己就有这种情况。很多年来，我都把早晨昏昏沉沉归咎于缺乏自律，以及一个……or waking up tired after 9 hours in bed or always being the sleepy person or the person that loves their coffee and so on and so forth. Um, all of this stuff is associated with sleep disordered breathing and it's not something that I would recommend. The whole reason why I spent a solid two minutes talking about this, by the way, is because I actually have that. And for many years, I attributed my groggginess in the mornings to a lack of discipline and a

缺乏规律作息。我也尝试过各种睡眠卫生方案和药物，但直到现在都没有效果。所以，如果你有以下任何情况：打鼾、醒来时感到疲惫、夜间用嘴呼吸、下颌较窄，或者喝大量咖啡或能量饮料，我建议你做一次睡眠检查，排除一下这种可能。如果你查出自己有这种情况，并且接受了治疗，你不仅会多活很多年……lack of routine. I also tried a bunch of different sleep hygiene protocols and medications. None of those worked until now. So, if you have any of these, snore, wake up tired, breathe through your mouth at night, you have a narrow jaw, maybe you drink an incredible amount of coffee or energy drinks, I would recommend getting a sleep study and and ruling it out. If you find out you have one and you do treat it, not only will you live many additional

年，但你的思维也会清晰得多。你还会几乎在瞬间——严格来说并非真的瞬间，但差不多——变得更健壮、更健康、更有活力。years, but you'll also think far more clearly. You'll also instantaneously basically, not actually, but almost become fitter, healthier, more vibrant.

而且从全局来看，这件事的成本也微乎其微。现在就想想这一点。如果你有一个，并且弄明白了它，你就已经获得了10%。And it also costs you very little in the grand scheme of things. Think about that right now. If you had one and you figured it out, you've just gained 10%.

就像“黑客帝国药丸”的比喻一样，你刚刚服下了这颗 110 美元的药丸。接下来是睡 7 到 9 个小时，这还能再带来 10% 到 20% 的提升。睡眠不足非常普遍。我敢打赌，目前正在观看这门课程的人中，超过一半存在某种程度的睡眠不足，无论他们是否意识到这一点。主要问题在于，真正危险的并非睡眠不足本身，而是我们根本察觉不到它。Like the matrix pill analogy, you will have just taken the $110. Next is to sleep somewhere between 7 to 9 hours for another 10 to 20%. Sleep deprivation is super common. I would wager more than half of the people that are currently watching this course have some form of sleep deprivation, knowingly or otherwise. The major issue is it's not actually the sleep deprivation itself that's so dangerous, but the fact that it is invisible to us

作为人类，因为你并不知道自己正在受苦。科学已经多次证明了这一点。在这个例子中，48名健康成年人在实验室里连续两周、全天候接受监测，他们每晚卧床时间被限制为4、6或8小时。因此，他们分别属于中度、轻度或完全没有睡眠剥夺。两周后的结果显示，六小时组的人累积的睡眠亏欠——也就是对表现造成的影响——相当于整整一两晚完全不睡觉。as humans because you don't know that you're suffering. And science has shown this many times. In this example, 48 healthy adults were monitored in a lab for 2 weeks 24/7 and they restricted either 4, 6, or 8 hours in bed. So moderate, mild, or not at all uh sleepd deprived. Results were over two weeks that people in the six-hour group accumulated as much of a sleep deficit, aka impact of performance, as an entire one or two whole nights without sleeping

一点也没有。然而，他们主观感受到的困倦程度，也就是他们自认为有多困，在最初几天之后并没有变化。这很有意思，因为研究人员发现，受试者无法可靠地察觉自身能力受损。at all. Yet, their perceived sleepiness, how they thought they were, did not change after the first few initial days. Which is interesting because the researchers found that subjects were unable to reliably detect their own impairment.

你可能会想，嘿，你知道，我睡 6 个小时也能撑下来。没问题，我是特别的。但从逻辑上讲，你用来判断这一点的工具，恰恰就是最终会受到损害的东西，对吧？那你到底怎么知道呢？你不可能知道。归根结底，我们用来思考自己是否睡眠不足的，正是我们的大脑。当然，地球上显然有少数人存在一种基因突变，使他们能够……You might be able to think, hey, you know, I can survive off 6 hours. No problem. I'm special. But logically speaking, the very instrument that you would use to determine that is the thing that is ultimately impaired. Right? So how the hell are you going to know? You can't. Our brain is ultimately the thing that we use to think through whether or not we are sleepd deprived. Now there are obviously a few people on Earth with a genetic mutation that allow them to

平均睡眠时间少得多。他们挺酷的，如果你感兴趣，可以去了解一下。遗憾的是，从统计学上看，你几乎肯定不是他们中的一员。所以，作为一个理智的人，试着解决这个问题。真正有意思的是，你知道，如果你每晚睡六个小时，正如这张图这里所显示的，嗯，你会发现，大概过了一周左右吧，我想，就假设一周左右，你会觉得自己更困了，sleep much less on average. They're pretty cool and you should look into that if you wanted to. Unfortunately, statistically you are almost certainly not one of them. So as a sensible person, try and fix this. What's really interesting is, you know, if you are sleeping six hours a night, as this graph shows right over here, um you could see that after, I don't know, maybe let's say a week or so, you say that you're sleepier,

你会觉得自己没实际那么困。说到底，你对自己的状态比现实情况更有信心。我不是说不睡觉会让你变得特别自信，所以你就应该去这么做。我的意思是，你会觉得自己比实际情况更有能力，因此会犯下许多本来可以避免的战略和战术错误。我有几位非常要好的朋友，他们可能一直每晚只睡五到六个小时。you say that you're less sleepy than you actually are. You essentially have more confidence than reality. And I don't mean that to mean not sleeping makes you super confident, you should go and do it. I mean, you think you are more capable than you realistically are, and as a result, you make a lot of strategic and tactical errors that you otherwise would not. I have a couple of really good friends that have probably been sleeping on somewhere between 5 to 6

过去三四年来的大部分时间里，每次都要好几个小时。我很不愿意这么说，但我眼看着他们的认知能力和战术能力在这段时间里明显退化。尽管我一再敦促，他们还是不断说：“哥们儿，这无所谓。我做不到。”hours for better part of the last 3 or 4 years. And I hate to say it, but I've watched them measurably degrade in their cognitive and and tactical capacities throughout that time. Despite repeated urgings, they continuously say things like, "Dude, it doesn't matter. I can't.

“不，哥们儿。我完全没事。我一点也不难受。”嗯，如果你懂我的意思，他们肯定是在图表的这一边。No, man. I'm totally fine. I don't feel bad at all." Well, they're definitely on this side of the graph, if you catch my drift.

现在值得注意的是，这里的不足程度取决于缺失的睡眠时长。比如，睡 6 小时比睡 8 小时更糟；如果你只睡 4 小时，那就比睡 6 小时更糟，等等。呃，我建议睡 7 到 9 小时。如果你真的认真想要改善这一点，我认为这条建议是不可妥协的。Now worth noting any deficit here is dose dependent. So 6 hours for instance is worse than 8 hours. If you see four hours it's worse than 6 hours etc. Uh my recommendation is 7 to 9. I would consider that non-negotiable if you really are serious about improving this.

嗯，顺便说一下，这件事你可以轻松做到。你只需要设定一个就寝闹钟，再设定一个起床闹钟，每天晚上和早上都在同一时间响，连续坚持大概一个月。比如说，你晚上10点上床，早上6点起床。你现在就可以停下来，直接在手机上设好闹钟；如果你有那种实体的挂钟式闹钟，也可以用它。嗯，也把闹钟设好。最初几次，你的早晨和夜晚几乎肯定会……Uh and you can do this easily by the way. All you have to do is set a bedtime alarm and then a wake up alarm at the same time every evening and morning for maybe a month or so. So let's say you go to bed at 10:00 and then you wake up at 6:00. You can actually stop right now and set alarms either on your phone or if you have one of those physical sort of wall clock alarms. Um, do that as well. The first few times your mornings and evenings are almost certainly going

一开始会比较难熬，但那只是因为你还不习惯。随着时间推移，你会开始在该感到疲倦的时候感到疲倦。这只是因为，和所有动物一样，包括我呃、你知道、曾经管理过的实验室里的那些老鼠，我们都受益于规律的作息。to be rough, but that's simply because you're not used to it. Over time, you'll begin getting tired right around the time that you're supposed to. And that's just because, like any animal, including the rats that were in the labs that I uh, you know, managed, uh, we thrive on regularity.

另一个简单的方法是改善起床时间，这能带来 6% 到 12% 的提升。这是一种非常有效的睡眠策略，而且从投资回报率的角度来看，几乎不需要付出任何成本。我以前在一个研究睡眠神经生物学的实验室工作。我们经常调整大鼠的喂食、清醒以及明暗周期安排。Another easy 6 to 12% improvement is through improving your wake time. So this is a very powerful sleep tactic and it also costs you virtually nothing if you think about it from an ROI perspective. So I used to work with a lab that dealt with the neurobiology of sleep. We changed rat feeding, waking and light dark schedules pretty often.

再给大家简单介绍一下这里的主要概念。它叫作昼夜节律时钟。你的昼夜节律时钟，就是身体内部的一套系统，会在一天中的不同时间向体内释放各种化学物质。比如皮质醇、肾上腺素，以及其他让人清醒的化学物质，通常都会在你醒来时释放。进化上的道理是：你醒了，就得赶紧行动，对吧？你得出门找食物、抵御剑齿虎，还得……And to give you guys a rundown of the main concept there. It's called the circadian clock. Your circadian clock is just a system internal to your body that injects you with various chemicals at various parts of the day. So cortisol, adrenaline, and other wake up chemicals basically usually as you wake up. The idea behind that evolutionarily was you're waking up, you better get to it, right? Going to have to go out, find food, fend off saber-tooth tigers, do

以及其他那些乱七八糟的东西。所以，皮质醇和肾上腺素在恰当的时候自然分泌出来，是非常有价值的，而且也与认知能力的大幅提升相关。我知道 TikTok 上那些女孩都在讨论怎么降低皮质醇，好让自己的脸看起来没那么浮肿之类的，但呃，皮质醇本身并不是坏东西。whatever the hell else. So cortisol and adrenaline naturally when they're applied at the right times are extremely valuable and they're also correlated with major improvements in cognition. I know that all the Tik Tok girlies are talking about reducing cortisol so their face looks less bloated or whatever, but uh cortisol is not inherently bad.

显然，我们体内的各种化学物质都有其存在的理由。所以，如果你曾有过这样的早晨：感觉自己状态特别好，那很大程度上是因为你的内部生物钟恰好与你醒来的时间同步了。几乎不费任何成本，就能让思维的清晰度和严谨性提升 6% 到 12%。现在，大多数人面临的问题是，我们的昼夜节律嘛，需要一两……Obviously, we have all of the chemicals we have in our body for a reason. So, if you've ever had a morning where you just feel on, a lot of those mornings are going to be because you just so happen to align your internal circadian clock with the time at which you are waking up. It's an easy 6 to 12% improvement to the clarity and rigor of your thinking virtually for free. Now, the issue for most people is that our circadian rhythms, you know, they need a couple of

需要连续数周保持规律的睡眠或起床周期，才能锁定一个时间点。遗憾的是，大多数人实际上并不会连续多天在同一时间醒来。weeks of consistent sleep or wake cycles to lock on to a time. And unfortunately, most people do not actually wake up at the same time for many days in a row.

相反，他们周一到周五会早起，但到了周六或周日的休息日，又会把这一切全毁了——假设他们上的是朝九晚五之类的班。Instead, they will wake up early Monday to Friday, but then they'll ruin it all on Saturday or Sunday on their days off, assuming they work a 9 to5 or something.

解决这个问题的最佳、最简单的方法，就是选定一个固定的起床时间，并在一周的每一天都坚持这个时间。这样一来，你的身体就会自然调整能量提升时段，让它恰好出现在你醒来的时候，或者至少在醒来后一小时左右。这不仅能提升你在那段时间内的短期或即时认知能力，也能让你一整天的认知能力都得到改善。接下来是减少……The best and easiest way to fix this is simply to pick a consistent wake time and then stick to it every day of the week. That way, your body will naturally self-correct the energy boost period to occur right at the time that you wake up, or at least within an hour or so of that time. And this doesn't just improve your short-term or acute cognit cognitive capacity during that hour period. It will improve that throughout the day as well. The next is to cut

控制咖啡因摄入，确保睡前10小时不摄入。当你这样做时，睡眠质量预计会提升3%到8%，这显然也会对你的认知能力产生连带的积极影响。这又是一项非常容易实现的硬件层面提升。现实情况是，大多数晚上大约10点睡觉的人，都会在中午12点之后喝咖啡。我的意思是，咖啡因的半衰期很长，也就是它在人体内停留的时间很长，因此这样做会直接而caffeine such that you are not taking it 10 hours before bed. When you do this, you can expect a 3 to 8% improvement in your sleep, which will obviously roll over to your cognition as well. And it's another very easy hardware gain. The reality is most people who sleep at, you know, 10 p.m. or so will drink coffee after 12:00 p.m. What I mean by that is since caffeine has a very long halflife, aka how long it stays in somebody's system, doing this will directly and

会立即影响你的睡眠质量，因为按道理说，咖啡因仍会在你的体内发挥作用，对吧？很多研究表明，睡前摄入咖啡因会影响你实际睡到的时长，从而导致与睡眠不足相同的问题。因此，在这项研究中，参与者在睡前 6 小时摄入了 400 毫克咖啡因。这些人实测睡眠时间整整少了一个小时，而且他们……immediately impact the quality of your sleep because logically caffeine will still be floating around in your body, right? Lots of studies show that caffeine right before sleep impacts how much you actually get, which leads to the same problem that you would otherwise get with sleep deprivation. So in this study, people were given 400 millig of caffeine 6 hours before their sleep. These folks literally lost a whole hour of measured sleep and they

他们甚至都不知道这件事。这意味着，他们就像我之前提到的那项研究中的人一样，认知能力不断受到影响，而他们从始至终都完全没有意识到。最重要的一条规则是：如果你晚上10点上床睡觉，就应该在中午停止摄入咖啡因，不能晚于中午。didn't even know it. Meaning that they were like those people in that study I talked about earlier accumulating impacts on their cognition and they were completely unaware of it the entire time. The major rule is if you go to bed at 10 p.m. you should stop caffeine consumption at noon and no later.

否则你就会发现，尽管你知道，你在12点喝了它，但如果你喝了——我也不知道，假设是200毫克吧——大约晚上10点喝下去，那么普通人或典型人群体内仍会残留大约50毫克，这大约相当于那杯咖啡含量的四分之一。[叹气] 对于那些没摄入过50毫克咖啡因的人来说，这个量相当可观。半夜时体内还有这些咖啡因在起作用，而这正是……Otherwise, you could see that despite the fact that, you know, you you drink it at 12, if you drink your I don't know, let's say 200 at about 10 pm or so, the average or typical person will still have approximately 50 milligs in their system, which is about a quarter of that coffee. [sighs] For those of you guys that haven't had 50 milligs of caffeine, that is pretty sizable. And to have that running around your system in the middle of the night, which is the

不过要注意，在半夜出现这种与你希望系统呈现的状态完全相反的情况，显然不利于长期健康。direct opposite sort of thing you want in your system in the middle of the night, mind you, um is obviously not very good from a long-term health perspective.

接下来，早晨要明亮，傍晚则要昏暗，让傍晚再暗 3% 到 8%。我的意思是，昼夜节律会驱动我们很多行为和表现，对吧？Next, get bright mornings and then dim evenings so that they're dark uh for an additional 3 to 8%. What I mean by that is circadian rhythms drive a lot of our behavior and our performance, right?

那么，你有没有想过这些东西是如何设定的？事实上，它们是由光设定的。你脑中有一些微小的区域会被光激活，随后使大脑的其他部分同步，也会使我们之前谈到的那些化学物质同步。所以，如果你想持续获得精力提升，并拥有更可预测的作息，就必须持续接受早晨的光照。一般来说，这看起来……Well, have you ever asked yourself how these things are set? The reality is they're set via light. So, there are tiny brain regions in your head which are activated by light which later entrain the rest of your brain and they also entrain those chemicals that we talked about earlier. So, if you want a consistent boost of energy as well as a far more predictable schedule, you have to get consistent morning light exposure. In general, what this looks

大概就是在醒来后一小时左右，接受 10 分钟左右的自然阳光照射。即使是阴天，光线通常也比你家厨房或办公室里亮得多。所以，我通常建议，除非你有一扇特别大的窗户，或者有某种人造光源——我一会儿会给大家看——否则你最好到户外去。到了晚上，则要完全反过来。睡前几个小时，你需要某种……like is about 10 minutes of natural sunlight within an hour or so of waking up. Even a cloudy day typically has a lot more light than, you know, your kitchen or an office. And so, my usual recommendation is unless you have a really big window or you have some sort of artificial light, which I'll show you guys in a moment, um you're going to want to go outside. And at night, you want the exact opposite. a couple of hours before bed, you want some sort of

昏暗、偏暖或低强度的光，这样就能扭转我之前提到的那整套皮质醇和肾上腺素反应，并开始让它平复下来。顺便说一下蓝光，我想很多人可能都在科普节目、YouTube 频道之类的地方听说过蓝光。蓝光让你无法入睡这个说法，可能不如屏幕上的实际内容本身影响大。大多数时候，如果dim or warm or low inensity light and that will, you know, reverse that whole cortisol adrenaline thing that I talked about earlier and start bringing it down. A note on blue light, by the way, since I think many of us will probably have heard about blue light from pop science shows or YouTube channels or whatever. The idea of blue light making you unable to sleep is probably less of an issue than the actual content on the screen itself. Most of the time if

你深夜还在刷手机，刷的是社交媒体平台，或者某种会让人陷入无休止刷屏的信息流。仔细想想，这些平台有动力给你们推送极具吸引力、又颇具争议的内容，好让你们继续刷下去。这些算法经过了调校，而且知道你们所在的时区。you're scrolling around really late at night, you're doing so on social media platforms or some sort of feeds where that facilitate doom scrolls and that if you think about it is incentivized to show you guys highly engaging and controversial content just to sort of keep you going. These algorithms are tuned and they know your time zones.

他们会故意这么做。我不是说算法本身是邪恶的。我的意思是，它们的目标就是让你一直待在线上，对吧？所以它们会给你看这些糟糕的东西，好让你保持清醒、继续刷下去。显然，没有哪个 Facebook 用户会因为睡不着而一直熬到凌晨一两点，对吧？所以，尽管我觉得夜间的蓝光很重要，我……They will they will do stuff like this on purpose. I don't mean the algorithms themselves are evil. I just mean like their goal is to keep you on, right? So they will show you these terrible things in order to keep you awake and keep you scrolling. Obviously, the there's nobody uh there's no Facebook user like a person that can't fall asleep uh until 1 or 2 a.m. in the morning, right? So, despite the fact that, you know, I think blue light at night is important, I

我觉得这件事远没有人们说得那么重要。我认为，防蓝光眼镜之类的东西虽然有帮助，但可能帮不到这种程度：比如说，我戴上防蓝光眼镜，就能继续在我的 X 账号上刷血腥内容和其他乱七八糟的东西。无论你晚上做什么，都绝对不该这么做。我的原则是，每天晚上都不再看社交媒体。我通常会提前几个小时就停下来。think it's a lot less important than people make it out to be. And I think blue light blockers and stuff like that, while they help, they probably don't help in the capacity of, hey, I can wear blue light blockers and keep scrolling through gore and whatever the hell else on my ex account. You definitely should not be doing that regardless of of what it is that you are doing at night. My rule is I just stop looking at socials every night. I do so like a couple hours

睡觉前。说实话，我尽量完全不看社交媒体，因为它们本质上对你有害。总之，另一个快速又简单的方法，可以让你的认知能力提升大约 2% 到 6%，就是在凉爽、黑暗的环境中睡觉。一般来说，你希望卧室凉爽、黑暗又安静。大多数人在十几摄氏度的环境下睡得最好。我是加拿大人，所以说的是摄氏度。我不知道这换算过来是多少。before I go to bed. And honestly, I try and not look at socials at all because they're just inherently terrible for you. Anyh who, another quick and easy way to gain somewhere between 2 to 6% to your um cognitive capacity is to sleep in a cold and a dark environment. So, in general, you want your bedroom to be cold, dark, and quiet. The majority of human beings sleep best at temperatures in the high teens. I'm Canadian, so in Celsius. And I do not know what that is

很遗憾，对于我南边那些热爱自由的兄弟们来说是这样。不过我知道，对我们来说，温度大概在 18 到 20 摄氏度之间。我个人的做法是用一种叫 Eight Sleep 的床垫垫层。我跟他们没有合作关系，不过这家公司挺不错的，有点像水冷系统。它的作用是，在我快要入睡之前，把床的温度降下来，让我接近 18、19 度左右。然后我睡着之后，它会调节并维持……for my Freedom Loving Brothers down south, unfortunately. But I know for us it's somewhere between like 18 to to 20 degrees C. Personally, the way that I do it is I have a mattress topper called an eight sleep. And I'm not affiliated, but these guys are pretty cool. Sort of like water cooled. And what it does is um right before I fall asleep, it reduces the temperature of the bed to get me close to that 18 19° range. And then as I sleep, it modulates and mediates the

温度。所以，根据已知科学原理，它基本上能让我处于最舒适的最佳状态，从而睡得更久。这东西不便宜。我想它要四千或五千美元左右，但如果你负担得起，我还是强烈推荐，因为它的投资回报率很高。你以后每天都要用它，不如尽可能让它发挥最大的投资回报。接下来，对于那些可能住在较温暖气候地区的人来说，你们……temperature. So, it keeps me basically, according to known science, in like the optimal space of comfort to be able to sleep for longer. This is not cheap. I think this costs four grand or five grand or something like that, but if you can afford it, I would highly recommend it again because of the ROI. You're doing this every day for the rest of your life, you might as well get as much of an ROI as possible. Now, for those of you guys in maybe warmer climates, you

你知道，我在加拿大这边，所以天气会很冷。嗯，你可以用空调风扇、遮光窗帘之类的。如果你住在特别靠北的地方，可能还需要用暖气，才能达到那个效果。另一个特别简单的小窍门，就是了解自己是否缺乏某些营养素，或者有没有类似的问题。现在我知道，这对很多人来说并不是最容易做到的，呃，尤其是那些身处英联邦地区的人，那里可能医疗……know, I'm up here in Canada, so it gets pretty cold. Um, you can use an AC fan, blackout curtains, and so on and so forth. If you're somewhere really north, you might need a heater as well to get to that point. Another really easy hack is just to understand whether or not you have any nutrient deficiencies or anything like that. Now, I understand this is not the most accessible to a lot of people, uh, especially those in like Commonwealth areas where maybe health is

是公开的，但我建议你在大约一两年的时间里，找机会做一次血液检查。想想看，你的大脑由血液供养。按单位质量计算，它是代谢活动最旺盛的器官。它约占体重的2%，却消耗20%的能量，但自身储存的能量非常少，这意味着血液的质量是营养中非常重要的一环。is public, but I would recommend at some point over a course of maybe a year or two, you should probably get some sort of blood test. If you think about it, your brain is fed by blood. It's the most metabolically active organ per unit mass. Around 2% of the mass and 20% of the energy, but it stores very little energy of its own, meaning that the quality of your blood is a very important part of your nutrition.

遗憾的是，我们现在的饮食都变得非常高效。我们吃超加工食品，或者吃那些天然矿物质等等已被剥离的食物，结果很多人最终会缺乏一种或多种这类营养素。这意味着，为了方便——比如每天都吃同样的东西——他们牺牲了营养素的多样性。顺便说一句，我自己也有这个问题。如果你缺乏某种营养素，很多时候它...Unfortunately, because our diets have all gotten very efficient. We eat ultrarocessed foods or we eat food of which natural minerals and so on and so forth have been stripped from, a lot of people end up deficient in one or more of these nutrients, which means they're sacrificing breadth of diversity of nutrients for the convenience of maybe the same thing every day. I'm guilty of this as well, by the way. Now, if you have a deficiency, a lot of the time it

会表现为一些看起来像懒惰、注意力不集中或思维不清晰之类的情况。如果你缺乏某种营养素，影响往往可达10%到15%，甚至更高。嗯，正如前面提到的，我不是医生，不能给你明确的医疗建议。will manifest as things that look like, you know, a laziness or a lack of focus or unclear thinking, etc. Often to the tune of 10 to 15% or more if you have a nutrient deficiency. Um, you know, as mentioned, I'm not a doctor and I can't give you clear medical advice on this.

所以，如果这听起来可能是你正在经历的情况，那就这么做。不过，很多人都有一些很常见的问题，比如缺铁，尤其是女性；嗯，铁蛋白；还有维生素B12，尤其是如果你不怎么吃肉，或者吃素、纯素；以及维生素D。So, do this if this sounds like it may or may not be something that you are experiencing. But some very common ones that a lot of people have are things like iron, especially in women. Um, feritin, uh, B12, especially if you don't eat a lot of meat or in a vegetarian or vegan diet, a vitamin D.

如果你住在加拿大或其他北方国家、北纬地区，而且现在是10月到4月之间，除非你有补充摄入，否则你很可能就有这个问题。呃，你知道，比如甲状腺功能减退之类的问题，等等。这些都是至少值得考虑一下、然后进一步了解的事情，看看你是否确实可能有其中某种问题，因为它们本质上都能给你带来5%或10%的提升。If you live in Canada or other northern countries, northern latitudes, and it's between October and April, you probably have this unless you supplement. Uh, you know, underactive thyroid problems, and so on and so forth. These are all things that are worth at least thinking about and then cluing into to see whether or not there's something that you you might realistically have because all of them essentially unlock you a good 5 or 10%.

我还会做某种代谢指标检测，只是想看看你的血糖状况如何。很多人可能会吃这些超加工食品，结果导致血糖长期偏高；在你患上糖尿病之类的问题之前很久，这就可能引发思维清晰度方面的问题，等等。是的，如果你和我一样身处公共医疗体系，你们可以通过医生转诊来做这些检查；或者也可以自费购买保险，如果……I would also get some form of metabolic marker just to see how your blood sugar is doing. A lot of people probably eat these ultrarocessed foods and then result in chronically high blood sugar that leads to clarity of thought issues long before you develop things like diabetes and so on and so forth. And yeah, you guys can do this through, you know, a doctor's referral if you're in a public healthare place like I am, or you can pay out of pocket for insurance if

你可能身处美国或其他比较注重隐私的地方。残酷的现实是，这可能最多只会占用你几百块钱，或者几个小时的时间，但只要你开始积极管理自己的健康，这笔投入就会让你终身受益。好了，我这里有一份常规检查项目清单，建议你们找个时间去做一下。这些都非常容易看懂。you're somewhere private like the US or other places. The harsh reality is this is probably going to be a few hundred or maybe a couple hours of your time max, but it will pay dividends for the rest of your life as you get proactive about managing your health. Okay, so I have a standard panel over here that I would recommend you guys get at some point in time. All of this is super easy to see.

先拿到结果，然后你可以把它们，呃，交给……我不知道，你自己的 LLM。你可以拿给任何你想和他讨论这些事情的医生，或者你信任的人，等等。呃，正如前面提到的，这是为了主动进行健康管理。Just get the results, then you can take them um to I don't know your own LLM. You take them to any doctor that you want to discuss these things, people you trust and so on and so forth. um for as mentioned proactive health purposes.

我做的另一件大事就是戒酒。通常这样做的人，在这些测试项目中会有大约 4% 到 10% 的提升。嗯，如果你想做成点什么，最后还是喝点酒算了。我不是说你必须完全戒酒。我的意思只是，如果你想要发挥出最佳表现，真的想最大限度地让思维保持清晰，那么酒精就不适合你。我希望你从这个角度来思考。Another big thing I do is I cut alcohol. People that do typically see somewhere between a four to a 10% improvement on a variety of these batteries. Um if you're going to get anything done, you might as well finish with booze. And I don't say you have to abstain completely. I just mean if you want the best performance and you really want to maximize the clarity of your thinking, alcohol just is not is not for you. I want you to think about this from the perspective

我之前谈到的那个。大家都说：“哦，喝一杯就好啦。为什么不呢？”我们并不是在有酒精的环境中进化的。酒精又不是……你知道我的意思吧，酒精并不是被创造出来的。显然，它是经过一系列自然发酵过程产生的，结果人们闻到一堆气味很怪的大麦之类的东西，然后就想：“哦，不知道为什么，我要不要把这个放进嘴里试试？”史前人类啊，真是的。不过，我想说的重点是……that I talked earlier. Everybody's like, "Oh, just have a drink. Why not? We didn't evolve with alcohol. It's not like alcohol, like alcohol was created, you know what I mean? Obviously, it was created through a bunch of natural fermentation processes that led people to, you know, smelling a bunch of very off smelling barley or whatever and then thinking, "Oh, maybe I'll put this in my mouth for whatever reason. Prehistoric people, man." But the point that I'm

这就是一个被赋予你的默认选项。比如去酒吧之类的，整个想法也是别人给你的默认选项。当然，你可以享受其中，也可以喜欢它。如果你发现自己喜欢，你可以有意识地把它变成某种选择。但很多人过着毫无意图的生活，或者他们觉得自己非得这么做，只是因为身边的人都是这样，或者因为他们碰巧身处这样的环境。making is this is a default that was given to you. The whole idea of like going out to the bar or whatever, that was a default that was given to you. You can certainly enjoy it and you can like it. And if you find that you like it, you can turn it into something with intention, but so many people live lives of no intention whatsoever or they think they have to simply because of the people that they're surrounded with or the environments that they happen to

一起长大。嗯，我给你这个许可：如果你真的不想做这些事，一件都不用做。大多数人其实根本不喜欢酒的味道。这是个鲜为人知的秘密，没人真正愿意聊。所以，任何年轻人尝一口——我也不知道，某种烈性酒——然后说：“这闻起来、尝起来都糟透了。”你没说错。确实如此。只不过人们往往会慢慢习惯，最后甚至开始享受其中的乐趣。grow up with. Um, take the permission from me. You don't have to do any of the stuff if you really don't want to. Most people don't actually even enjoy the taste of booze. It's one of those hidden secrets that nobody really likes talking about. So, anybody that's young that takes a sip of, I don't know, some super hard liquor and goes, "That smells and tastes like crap." You're not wrong. It does. It's just people tend to grow used to it and then eventually find joy in

这种痛苦。现在，对于我们这些关注认知的人来说，主要问题其实并不是肝病之类的。真正的问题是睡眠。酒精会让你更快入睡，这很合理，因为它是中枢神经系统抑制剂，对吧？但代价通常是扰乱你后半夜的睡眠，而这段时间你本该处于所谓的 REM 睡眠，也就是快速眼动睡眠阶段。the suffering. Now, the main issue for us cognition interested types is not actually like things like liver disease and so on and so forth. What it is is it's sleep. Alcohol lets you fall asleep faster, which makes sense since it's a central nervous system depressant, right? but it does so at the cost of actually disrupting the second half of your night usually, which is where you're supposed to be in what's called REM sleep or rapid eye movement sleep.

嗯，这对于让你第二天早上感觉休息得更充分至关重要。酒精会扰乱这一过程，影响你恢复精力的能力，也会妨碍记忆等内容的巩固。简单来说，就是把白天处于工作记忆中的信息转化并编码为记忆。Um, this is critical for making you feel more rested the next morning. And since alcohol disrupts that, it interferes with your ability to feel rested and then also consolidate things like memory and so on and so forth. Basically, take things that were in your working memory during the day and then turn those in encode those into memories.

所以，即使只喝一两杯，也会对你第二天造成巨大影响。我个人完全不喝酒。过去八年里，我可能总共喝过不到十二杯酒。而且几乎每一次，都是所谓的千载难逢的机会，比如在我最好的朋友婚礼上喝半杯啤酒之类的。尽管从整体上看，喝得相对不多，第二天早上我还是会感觉到它的影响。好吧。比如酒精。我会……So, even one or two drinks can massively impact your next day. I personally keep my alcohol consumption at zero. In the last eight years, I've probably had less than a dozen drinks. And virtually every one of those was at some quote unquote once in a lifetime opportunity, say half a beer at uh my best friend's wedding or something of that nature. And despite that being relatively small in the grand scheme of things, I still feel it the next morning. Okay. like alcohol. I'd

我强烈建议你们停止使用任何药物，不管这种药物是否是医生给你们开的。一个很好的例子就是大麻，或者说 weed，比例为 2% 到 6%。所以，如果你经常使用大麻，这个问题和饮酒非常相似，不过它作用的机制略有不同。highly recommend that you guys cut any sort of drug that may or may not be something that has been, you know, medically prescribed to you. A good example of that is cannabis or weed uh for 2 to 6%. So, if you're an active cannabis user, it's a very similar problem to alcohol, although it works through slightly different mechanisms.

它能帮助人们更快入睡，至少让人感觉自己入睡得更快，但很多时候，这是以牺牲睡眠质量为代价的。我戒烟后，几乎立刻就感觉思维清晰度有所提升，大概两三天就有了这种变化。从那以后，我再也没有失去过这一好处。另外，如果你已经到了觉得自己可能需要靠它才能入睡，或者至少认为自己需要靠它才能入睡的地步，那你真的应该尽快解决这个问题。UIt can help people fall asleep faster, at least feel like they're falling asleep faster, but a lot of the time it does this at the expense of sleep quality. When I stopped smoking, I felt almost immediate improvements in just mental clarity, maybe 2 or 3 days. And this is an advantage I've never once let go of since then. Also, if you're at the point where maybe you need this to fall asleep, or at least you think you do, you really should urgently fix this. U

因为依靠任何药物来助眠都很糟糕，这显然不好，也不是你想走的路。多摄入蛋白质和纤维（两者或许各增加 2% 到 4%）极其重要。because relying on any sort of drug to sleep is terrible, it's obviously bad and it's not where you want to go. Eating more protein and fiber for maybe 2 to 4% each is extremely important.

蛋白质有助于稳定血糖水平，也能延长饱腹感；如果你们超重，这种副作用还能帮助减重。它也有益于认知，并且与睡眠呼吸障碍循环有关。膳食纤维会减缓身体对其他食物中糖分的吸收，还能滋养肠道微生物群，而肠道微生物群与情绪和认知功能密切相关。虽然这些都还处于非常早期的阶段，我是说……Protein helps stabilize blood glucose levels as well as prolongs feelings of fullness, which is a side effect can help you lose weight if you guys are overweight. Also beneficial to cognition and then also has a tie-in to the sleep disordered breathing loop. Fiber slows down the absorption of sugar from other foods and also feeds your gut microbiome which is strongly associated with mood and cognitive function. And while all of this is very early on, I mean the

我这里说的这项研究，真正发表出来也就是最近几年的事，但意义不容小觑。有很多说法认为，一些重度抑郁障碍，或者各种精神状态异常、思维紊乱之类的问题，都是肠道微生物组失调造成的。所以这是可以改善的。我以前的纤维摄入量少得可怜。状态好的一天，我可能也就摄入5到10克。还有就是……research that I'm I'm talking about here has really only come out in the last couple of years, it is not insignificant. And there are a lot of suggestions that you know some major depressive disorders or uh you know a variety of like mental or disordered states of of thinking and so on and so forth are a result of a fractured gut microbiome. So you can fix that. Now I used to blow at fiber. I would eat maybe 5 to 10 grams in a good day. And just so

你知道，像我这种体型的人，建议摄入量可能接近40克左右。后来我通过摄入更多纤维来纠正这一点，立刻就发现自己一整天的精力都更充沛了，日常心情也有所改善。接下来是服用肌酸，认知能力大约能提升1%到3%；如果你睡眠不足，提升幅度会更大，因为肌酸可以缓解睡眠不足带来的影响。you know, the recommended intake for somebody about my size is probably closer to 40 gram or so. When I corrected that by eating more fiber, I noticed an immediate improvement in sustained energy levels throughout the day, as well as just my my mood on a day-to-day basis. The next is to take creatine for around a 1 to 3% improvement in cognition, more if you are sleepd deprived because creatine acts as a buffer for sleep deprivation.

目前，肌酸确实是唯一一种有可靠文献证据支持的补剂。嗯，研究人员已经对随机试验进行了许多系统综述，结果表明，肌酸可能有助于改善推理能力和短期记忆，尤其是对体内肌酸含量不高的人。Now, creatine is really the only supplement that has any real evidence support in the literature. Uh they've done lots of systematic reviews of randomized trials and it shows that creatine may improve reasoning in short-term memory specifically in people that do not have lots of creatine floating around in their bodies.

肌酸来源于肉类，通常是红肉，比如牛排，还有那种脂肪含量很高的肉类。所以，素食者、纯素食者等等，或者饮食更偏鱼素的人，通常摄入的肌酸会少一些。因此，在这类小众人群中补充肌酸，通常会产生更明显的效果；相比之下，如果给一个吃很多牛肉的人群补充肌酸，效果就没那么明显，但它仍然……Creatine comes from meat, typically red meat, so steaks and you know very fatty sort of gy meats as well, meaning vegetarians, vegans, and so on and so forth or people that have more pescatarian style diets typically do not get as much creatine. So when you supplement with creatine in that micro population, you typically have a more pronounced result than if you supplement with creatine in let's say a population that eats a lot of beef, but it's still

存在。它似乎也能改善压力管理，我觉得这很重要。[倒吸一口气] 现在，如果你打算服用补剂，再说一次，补剂在整体的效率和思维清晰度中只占很小一部分，所以我想说清楚：补剂是有好处的，但你不应该依赖它们。你或许应该服用肌酸。我建议每天摄入 3 到 5 克。花费大约 20 美分，而且……present. It also seems to impact stress management um for the better, which I think is important. [gasps] Now, if you're going to take a supplement, and again, supplements are such a small portion of the total productivity and clarity of thought pie that I just want to make it clear that like they're good, but you shouldn't rely on them. You should probably take creatine. I'd recommend 3 to 5 grams a day. costs around 20 cents or so and there's

风险几乎为零，但并非完全没有风险。显然，如果你担心，应该和医生谈谈。呃，不过，如果你举重，或者前一晚没睡好，那这些都显而易见。说到底，这基本上就是你能得到的最接近“Limitless”药丸的东西了。虽然这令人失望，但你知道，效果还是相当不错的。现在，想要大幅提升，就提高你的 V2 max，让认知能力提升 10% 到 20%。运动能改善认知表现。virtually zero risk. Not completely zero risk. Obviously, if you are concerned, talk about it with your doctor. Uh but if you lift weights or have had a poor night's sleep, all of this is a no-brainer. It's basically as close to the Limitless pill as you'll ever get, which is disappointing, but you know, still pretty good. Now, for a massive upgrade, raise your V2 max and get 10 to 20% better cognitive capacity. Now, exercise improves cognitive performance

从很多方面来说都是如此。有氧运动能改善大脑的血液流动。它会增加一种叫作 BDNF 的物质的表达，这是一种脑源性化学物质，能促进海马体中的神经发生；海马体是大脑中与记忆有关的区域。它还能提高胰岛素敏感性、改善胰岛素抵抗。除此之外，它也能改善睡眠，我们之前谈过这一点。不过，我们无法在人体中直接清晰地测量所有这些影响，因为，呃，要做到这一点要容易得多……in a lot of ways. Cardio improves blood flow to the brain. It increases expression of what's called BDNF, which is a brain derived chemical promoting neurogenesis in the hippocampus, which is a region of the brain involved in memory. It also improves your insulin sensitivity and resistance. And then it improves sleep as well, which we've talked about. Now, we can't directly measure all of these effects in humans clearly since uh it is way easier to

如果你能直接对动物实施安乐死，再把它的大脑切成两半，就能把这些事情全弄明白。不过，科学家们已经在啮齿动物身上观察到这类现象几十年了。而且有非常有力的证据表明，这一切都存在直接的因果关系。也就是说，运动与持续的认知表现和专注力之间，存在一个“如果……那么……”的循环。如果你只是让动物接触到跑轮，它们往往就会跑得更多，因为……figure all this stuff out if you can just euthanize the animal and chop its brain in half. But scientists have been seeing this sort of thing in rodents for many decades. And there's also very strong evidence that all of this is directly causitive. Meaning that there is a if then loop behind exercise and then sustained cognitive performance and focus. If you literally just give animals access to a running wheel and then they tend to run more because it's

在它们所处的环境中。嗯，它们大脑的记忆中枢会生成更多神经元。它们学习迷宫的速度也比久坐不动的个体快得多；后者指的是活动量不大的对照组。所以，如果你打算只追踪运动中的一个指标，我建议追踪你的 V2 max。这也是我目前正在做的事。我开始时的 V2 max 相对较低，既是因为我天生有一些生理劣势，也因为后来我只是……in their environment. Um they get more neurons created in the memory centers of the brain. They also learn mazes much faster than sedentary, which means controls that don't move a lot. So if you're going to track just one part of your exercise, my recommendation is to track your V2 max. And this is something that I'm currently in the process of doing having started from relatively low V2 max due to both um some biological disadvantages I was given and then just

缺乏有氧运动——你知道的——而我正看到巨大的改善。它也是衡量心血管健康状况的金标准，而且有意思的是，它对寿命长短的预测能力远胜于几乎任何其他风险因素。那么对于认知表现来说，a lack of you know cardiovascular exercise and I'm seeing massive improvements. It's also the gold standard for measuring cardiovascular fitness and it's also interestingly enough a much better predictor of longevity than almost any other risk factor. So for cognitive performance,

课程讨论：第三部分Course Discussion: Part Three

它很好地反映了大脑接收氧气并代谢氧气的能力。因为 V2 最大摄氧量的核心概念，就是你单位时间内实际能摄入多少氧气。考虑到我们都知道，大脑是身体里最需要氧气、也最需要能量的器官，那么，提升摄取能量的能力会改善大脑的运作能力，这也就说得通了，对吧？它也是一个非常好的关键绩效指标（KPI）。所以你可以……it's a good proxy for your brain's ability to receive and then metabolize oxygen. Because the whole idea behind V2 max is how much oxygen you can like actually take in per unit time. Given that, as we know, your brain is the most oxygen demanding and energy demanding organ of the body, kind of makes sense that becoming better at the process of taking in energy would improve your brain's ability to function, right? It's also a really good KPI. So you can

每季度在实验室测一次要花几百美元。或者，你也可以用近似估算值，比如通过智能手表、Whoop 手环、Apple Watch 等设备来获取。你也可以使用公式。有很多种公式，比如库珀方程，可以帮助你了解自己的健康状况随时间变化的趋势。现在，使用 Reit 方案还能再提升 5% 到 10%。Reit 是一种能在出乎意料短的时间内提高 V2 max 的方法。现在，measure this in a lab once every quarter costs a few hundred bucks. Or you can use an approximate estimate for maybe a smartwatch, a Whoop band, an Apple Watch, etc. Or you can also use a formula. There are a variety of them like the Cooper equation which helps you understand the direction uh of your health over time. Now another 5 to 10% improvement here in using the reit protocol. Reit is a way to improve your V2 max in surprisingly little time. Now,

因为这在技术上与 V2 max 有关，我并不是说这两者一定能叠加，但这是一种省钱又简单的办法，几乎不用费什么力气就能提高你的 V2 max 指标。它的原理是 REHIT，也就是低运动量高强度间歇训练。这种训练方法源自一项研究：研究人员让一群久坐不动的成年人骑健身自行车，每周进行三次、每次 10 分钟的训练。每次训练中两次，because this is technically linked to the V2 max, I'm not saying that these two stack necessarily, but this is a cheap and easy way for you to improve that V2 max marker for virtually no effort. The way it works is rehit, which stands for reduced exertion high-intensity interval training is based off a study where a bunch of sedentary adults were given a bike and asked to pedal for three 10-minute sessions per week. Twice per session,

他们会尽可能用力蹬车，持续10到20秒。每次10分钟的训练中，他们总共以最大能力运动40到60秒。六周后，男性的V2最大摄氧量提高了15%，女性提高了12%。我们还发现，男性的胰岛素敏感性提高了28%。需要说明的是，这些人每次锻炼时只进行了1分钟的高强度运动，其余9分钟都是轻松、缓慢地蹬车。这意味着，如果你按每周三次来计算……they pedal as hard as they could for 10 to 20 seconds. in total exerting maximum capacity for 40 to 60 seconds per 10-minute session. After six weeks, their V2 max improved by 15% in men and 12% in women. We also saw an improvement in insulin sensitivity of 28% in men. To be clear, these people did just one minute of hard work every time they worked out. The other 9 minutes was easy, slow pedaling. Which means that if you do the math on three times a week

在六周内，他们总共只进行了18分钟的高强度训练，就将 V2 max 提高了15%。基本上，每次训练都能让他们的 V2 max 提高近1%。要记住，这些都是久坐不动的成年人，也就是说，他们一开始的 V2 max 可能就很差。如果你年轻、健康，而且有一定体能，那么你不太可能每个 rehol 都让 V2 max 提高1%。显然，随着你不断这样做，这种边际效应会大幅减弱。times six weeks, they spent 18 minutes in total working very hard over 6 weeks to improve their V2 max by 15%. Every session essentially improve their V2 max by almost 1%. Keeping in mind that these were sedentary adults, aka they probably had poor V2 maxes to begin with. If you are young, healthy, and somewhat fit, you're unlikely to get 1% improvement of V2 max per rehol. And obviously you have a massive decrease in the impact of this marginally as you do

更多，但还是非常惊人。所以我现在开始做这个了，到现在为止总共做了——嗯，也许几周吧，因为我一直在旅行。嗯，通常是两次20秒冲刺。嗯，我每次锻炼结束后都会做这个。所以我的方案有点不同，但如果你考虑一下它的总训练量和总体效果，现在就是每周6天、每次40秒。嗯，你知道，这基本上相当于同样的……more, but it's still insane. So I'm starting to do this and I have been doing this now uh for maybe maybe a few weeks in total because I I've been traveling. Um this is usually two 20 second sprints. Um I will do this just after every workout. So my protocol is a little bit different, but if you think about the total capacity and total impact of this, it's now 40 seconds 6 days a week. um you know it is it's essentially equivalent to that same

就这个方案而言，关键是极高强度训练的总时长。我建议你把它安排在有氧运动之后，呃，也就是锻炼之后——如果你做的是力量训练之类的。别让自己去纠结要不要做，直接做就行。我的意思是，至少在最初的 6 到 8 周里，每次锻炼都让 V2 max 提高 1%，这可能是你能为认知能力做的最重要的一件事。protocol in terms of total number of minutes of like extremely difficult work. I'd recommend you just tie this into like after your cardio uh after your exercise if you're doing strength training or something like that. Just do not allow yourself the decision about whether or not to do this. Just do it. I mean a 1% improvement of V2 max every workout for at least maybe the first 6 to 8 weeks is probably the number one thing you can do for your cognition

目前，除了处理一些，你知道，重大的健康问题、睡眠呼吸障碍和营养缺乏之外。right now. aside from taking care of, you know, major health issues and sleep disordered breathing and nutrient deficiencies.

最后，我建议你把这些默认习惯叠加起来。我的意思是，只要固定下来其中几种习惯，你们最终就能把它们组合起来，大幅提高效率。比如，与其只在健身房锻炼——那里光线有限，而且由于是人工环境，有时会让你觉得只能在下午或晚上锻炼——为什么不在早晨到户外锻炼呢？这会给你们……Finally, I'd recommend you stack your defaults. What I mean by this is when you lock in even a few of these habits, you guys can eventually stack them together for far more efficiency. For instance, instead of just working out in a gym, which has limited light and which sometimes will make you feel pressured to do this in the afternoons or the evenings since it's an artificial environment, why don't you exercise outside in the mornings? This would give

你一醒来就立即接触明亮的光线，就能解决这个问题。你也会有固定的起床时间，这也能解决这个问题。当然，这还能让你得到锻炼。所以，这件事也就搞定了。如果能和朋友一起做就更好了，因为这样你也相当于有了一个笼友，而这对社交以及认知能力的提升都非常重要。you immediate exposure to bright light should knock that out. You'd have a consistent wake up time as well, which knocked that out. And it would also give you, of course, your exercise. So, you knock that out. Even better if you pair it with a friend because now you also have the equivalent of a cage mate, which is a very important part of socialization and then cognitive improvement.

好，在谈工作空间设计之前，我们先来过一遍几个行动类问题。睡眠、营养、运动这三个杠杆中，眼下哪一个对你来说最糟糕？你这周可以做哪项可能相当无聊的检测——比如居家睡眠检测、血液检查，或 V2 最大值测量——来确切了解情况？接下来，把你个人硬件方面那些容易实现的改进所对应的百分比都加起来。你能获得多少提升呢？All right, let's run through some acting action questions before talking about workspace design. Which of these three levers, sleep, nutrition, or exercise, is most broken for you right now? And what is the one probably pretty boring test? maybe a home sleep study or a blood panel or a V2 max measurement that you can do this week to find out for sure. Next, add up all of the percentages from your personal hardware lowhanging fruit. What gains would you

比如说，你目前正在白白错失多少？说清楚，我说的“加”不是字面意义上的相加，而是把它们全部乘在一起。say you are currently leaving on the table? And to be clear, I don't mean add as in the literal sense. I mean multiply them all together.

好，现在我们来谈谈工作空间设计。通过管理空气质量、控制光照摄入等做法，你就能轻而易举地取得一些成果。我想为这一部分投入应有的时间和精力，因为我认为大多数人目前所处的环境都不太理想。环境中有一个常见因素，大多数人无论如何都不会想到，那就是……All right, let's now talk about workspace design. You have in extremely lowhanging fruit by doing things like managing as mentioned your air quality, by managing your light intake and so on and so forth. And I wanted to give this section the time and energy that it deserved because I think most people are currently operating in sub-optimal environments. Now, a common part of your environment that most people just do not think about for the life of them is

他们的空气。我们目前的新陈代谢依赖氧气，并排出二氧化碳。等我们被接纳进这个有机体后，这种情况可能会改变，但目前，我们依靠氧气生存，并排出二氧化碳。因此，你应该牢记这一点生活。这意味着，当你待在密闭房间里时，你会不断消耗房间里的所有氧气，然后相应地排出二氧化碳。如果房间通风很差，随着时间推移，氧气和……之间的平衡就会发生变化。their air. Our metabolism currently runs on oxygen and output CO2. That may change when we get accepted into the organism, but for now, we run on oxygen and output CO2. And so, you should live with that in mind. What that means is when you're in a closed room, you are actively consuming all of the O2 in your room. And then you're pumping out in response the CO2. If your room ventilation is very poor, over time, what will occur is the balance of O2 and

那个房间里的 CO₂ 水平会发生变化。许多研究表明，氧气与二氧化碳比例不佳会开始对认知能力产生负面影响，而这大约发生在 CO₂ 浓度达到 800 ppm 时。粗略来说，室外空气——比如窗外的空气——二氧化碳浓度约为 420 ppm；而你呼出的空气中，二氧化碳浓度约为 40,000 ppm。这意味着，在一间面积不大且相对封闭、没有任何室外……的办公室里，CO2 in that room will shift. And many studies have shown that a poor O2 or CO2 ratio starts negatively impacting cognition right around when CO2 gets to about 800 parts per million. As a rule of thumb, air outside, like outside of your window, is 420 parts per million approximately. Whereas the ale that the air that you exhale is around 40,000 parts per million. That means that in a small and relatively closed office, one that does not have any outdoor

通风不足时，二氧化碳浓度可能在一两个小时内升至 1,000 ppm 以上，除非让新鲜空气进入，尤其是里面有多个人时。最糟糕的是，我们对此毫无察觉。ventilation, CO2 levels can climb to as much as over 1,000 parts per million in just an hour or two unless you get some fresh air in there, especially when there are multiple people. Now, the worst thing is we don't notice this.

很多研究都探讨过你感知这种轻微性能下降的能力，而事实是，大脑几乎根本察觉不到。所以，你的大脑会觉得这很正常。你不会头疼，也没有任何明显迹象表明你正在慢慢变成一个更糟糕的自己。嗯，我喜欢把这比作温水煮青蛙。Lots of studies have been performed on your ability to sense minor performance degradations like this, and the brain just virtually cannot. So, your brain thinks this is normal. You don't have a headache. you don't have any obvious sign that you are just slowly becoming a worse version of yourself. Um I like to think of it as a frog getting boiled.

只是现在这里的不是水，而是二氧化碳。你实际上可以在这里看到表现情况。如果把大约 550 ppm 作为基准参考值——假设是在某个办公室里——那么这就是 Allen 等人在 2016 年研究一大群办公室员工时的情况：二氧化碳浓度降到了 94，或者说升到了 945 ppm。表现几乎下降了 15%。当浓度达到 1400 ppm 时，许多现在正在收听的人……It's just now instead of water it is CO2. And you can actually see performance here. If this is your baseline reference at about 550 parts per million at some hypothetical office um this is when Allen at all in 2016 was studying a big group of office workers when CO2 went down to 94 or went up to 945 parts per million. So almost double performance went down 15%. When it was at 1400 parts per million, where many people that are currently listening to

目前生活在这种环境中的人，表现下降了 50%。现在听这门课程的人实在太多了，他们可能身处二氧化碳浓度很高的环境中，这会显著影响他们某些认知功能测评分数。显然，需要说明的是，认知功能分数并不代表你做的所有事情。它不会影响你……我不知道，比如说，专注于某些事情的能力。this right now are currently living and existing, performance went down 50%. There are way too many people listening to this course right now that are probably in highly CO2 out environments that are significantly impacting their ability to perform certain cognitive function scores. Obviously, to be clear, a cognitive function score does not mean everything that you do. It's not going to impact your ability to, I don't know, let's say like pay attention to things

或者之类的，听到一些东西，但它会影响你深入思考多个层次的能力，影响程度可能远超你在二氧化碳环境中所能想象的。所以，撇开这些不谈，你应该让空气流通起来。我的建议是买一个 200 美元的二氧化碳监测仪，听起来价格不低，我现在要给它做个产品植入。我没收钱，不过你知道，这就是我用的那款。它的作用大致就是显示……or whatever, hear things, but it will impact your ability to think multiple levels deeper than you probably would assume was possible in a CO2 environment. So, all this aside, you should get the air moving. My recommendation is to buy a $200 CO2 monitor, which sounds like a lot, and I'm going to do a product placement here. I wasn't paid for this, but you know, this is what I have. And what this does is it says more or less what the

房间里的当前 CO2 浓度是……你们可以看到，我这里的数值目前有点太高了。我这里的 CO2 浓度是 763 ppm（百万分之一）。如果再高一点，这里就会显示一个有点难过的表情。这个东西挺贵的。你们不一定非得买这个具体型号。我觉得这个牌子叫 Airthings 之类的。不过你们可以选各种不同的款式。只要它能测量 CO2 浓度并以 ppm 为单位显示，你们就……current CO2 levels in the room are. And you guys could see mine are currently a little too high. I have 763 parts per million of CO2. And uh if I go any further, I'm going to have a little sad face on here. Now, this is pretty expensive. You don't have to get this specific one. I think this one was the air things or something like that. But um you there there variety of different ones that you can get. As long as it measures CO2 and parts per million, you

你知道，快速上 Google 查一下，或者问问你的经纪人，应该就没问题。或者，干脆一直留条小缝，让窗户通向室外。像风扇这种是不够的，因为它只是在让空气循环。所以，你也可以在两段工作时间之间把门撑开。我以前在壁橱里工作时就常这么做。谢谢你，Matt Larson。know, do a quick little Google review or ask your agent, you're you're probably fine. Alternatively, just always have a little window cracked open to the outside world. like a fan is not enough because you're just recirculating the air. So, you can also prop your door open between work periods. That's something that I used to do when I would work in a closet. Thanks, Matt Larson.

我也会把空调打开。有些建筑有那种，你知道的，会从室外抽入空气再进行循环的通风系统。嗯，我个人更喜欢关着门工作，因为噪音。所以这意味着，如果我一天不通风几次，也就是每隔四五个小时开一次门，那么到一天结束时，二氧化碳浓度总会超过 1,200 ppm。仔细想想，这现在可能会导致比如一个……I'd also turn on the AC. Some buildings have like, you know, circulation that pulls air from the outside and then circulates it. Um, I personally prefer working with my door closed because of the noise. So that means that if I don't ventilate it a couple times a day, aka I open the door like once every four or five hours, this invariably leads to CO2 levels above 1,200 parts per million before EOD, which if you think about it is now capable of resulting in like a

认知功能可能下降了 30% 到 40%。嗯，要记住，二氧化碳也不会均匀分布在各处。嗯，具体分布在哪里，取决于它的密度，也取决于房间里的其他因素。 但我会说，这可以很好地作为衡量大脑运作状况的指标。我真希望能重新编程一下，让它显示一项额外的指标——也许我确实能做到——比如认知能力百分比……probably a 30 to 40% decrease in cognitive function. Um, keep in mind that CO2 is also not distributed everywhere. Um, depending on its weight density and depending on the other things in the room, CO2 could sit in different places. But this is this is a fair proxy, I would say, for how good your brain is doing. I wish I could actually reprogram this so that I showed an additional uh metric and maybe I can that shows like percentage cognitive

影响。也许你知道，等它升到763时，我已经达到3%或4%了。如果这样呈现给我，我的大脑就会警觉起来，心想：天哪，哥们，你这是在做坏事啊。impact. Maybe you know as it rises to 763 I'm already at 3 or 4% which you know if presented to me in this manner would alert my brain to being like holy crap dude you're doing something bad.

这是另一个非常容易实现的提升。消除周围任何能听懂的讲话声，效率可提高 2% 至 6%。工作时不要听播客、带歌词的音乐，也不要听家人、朋友、伴侣或同事说话。Here's another really easy gain. Remove any intelligible speech in your environment for an improvement of 2 to 6%. Do not listen to podcasts, music with lyrics, or any family, friends, partners or colleagues while you work.

可以听器乐、棕噪音、风扇声、雨声或其他掩蔽声音。但关键是，任何可以听懂的内容都会对你长时间清晰思考的能力产生负面影响。这是因为，当你听到别人说话时，大脑会自动尝试理解那些话的含义。如果我听到一群人在说话，大脑就会一直在后台处理这些内容，因为注意力……It is okay to have instrumental music or brown noise or fans or rain or other masking sounds. But the key is anything that is intelligible will negatively impact your ability to think clearly over long periods of time. This is because when you talk, your brain will automatically try to figure out the meaning of what those words are. If I am hearing a bunch of other people say stuff, I will constantly be doing that background processing because attention

作为把关者，能力终究有限。我们总会让一些东西进入注意范围，即便我们并没有直接把注意力放在它们身上，也仅仅是因为它们太引人注意了。逻辑上想想，你知道，这会消耗大量认知资源。即使语音大部分都听不清，即便只是隔着一扇门之类的地方传来一阵含混的喃喃声，你仍然会看到表现有所下降。而第二……as a gatekeeper is only so good. We're always going to be letting in stuff that we're not directly putting the spotlight on. simply by virtue of how attention grabbing it is. And if you think about it logically, you know, when you do this, it consumes a lot of cognitive resources. Even when speech is mostly unintelligible, even if it's just a bunch of murmuring through a a door or something like that, you still see performance decreases. And the second

你在跟进一段对话时，推理能力实际上会受到很大的影响。根据实证结果，这种影响大约在44%到45%之间。当然，这个范围很宽，具体取决于你做的是什么任务。you follow a conversation, you actually have a major penalty to your reasoning, which um empirically ends up being somewhere between 40 4 to 45% or so, which is obviously a wide range, but it just depends on what task you're doing.

涉及用语言表达并通过文字推理的任务，往往表现差得多；而那些可能更多依赖空间能力的任务则不然。好吧。tasks that involve, you know, verbalizing and reasoning through words tend to do way worse than those that maybe are more spatially based. Okay.

[叹气并倒吸一口气] 那么，这到底是怎么运作的呢？嗯，正如我们在这里看到的，影响语音效果的往往是清晰度，而不是音量。嗯，有一次，我的一位客户在谈他们写作团队表现不佳的事。嗯，我可太喜欢这些家伙了。所以，如果他们当中有人正在听我说话，嗯，你们要知道，你们、你们真是最棒的。[sighs and gasps] So, how exactly does this work? Well, speech tends to get impacted by intelligibility, not loudness, as we see here. So, one time, um, a client of mine was discussing low performance of their writing team. Um, and I love these guys to death. So, if any one of them are listening to me, um, just know that, you know, you guys you guys are the best.

呃，我去过他们的办公室，注意到他们写作团队里的所有写作者都坐在一个宽敞开放的办公室里，彼此挨着，而且他们也经常互相交谈，可以说是一个关系紧密的团队。你知道，大家真的都很喜欢彼此，去上班也很有趣。不过，我注意到办公室里只要有一个人说话，其他人都能听见他说什么。按逻辑来说，而当时我还不知道自己现在知道的这些。Uh, I visited their office and I noticed that all of the writers on their writing team sat next to each other on a big open floor plan and they also often spoke to each other and it was what you would call a tight-knit team. You know, people really liked each other and it was fun to go to work. However, I noticed that when a single person in the office spoke, everybody else could hear what that person was saying. Now, logically, and I didn't know what I know

当时，不过我懂得也够多了。这意味着，办公室里其他所有人的写作能力都要打上 4% 到 45% 的折扣；我猜大概更接近 45%，因为写作显然直接依赖推理能力。所以这意味着，办公室里的每个人显然都一直发挥失常。为什么？因为你知道，假设那是一个有 10 个人的办公室，如果一个人有 10% 的时间在说话，那几乎可以说就是……at the time, but I knew enough. This meant that all other performers in the office had a tax on their ability to write between four to 45% and I would guess probably closer to 45% because writing is obviously directly reasoning based. So what that means is obviously everybody in their office was constantly underperforming. Why? Because you know if it's an let's say it was an office of 10 people if one person talks 10% of the time that is virtually literally the

只要人们在工作，就总会有人在旁边说话，影响他们进行口头推理的能力。所以我建议他们把最优秀的写手——也就是表现最出色的人——安排到封闭式办公室里待几周。呃，就几周而已。他们照做了。你猜怎么着？所有 KPI 都大幅飙升，简直判若云泥。我的意思是，当然，其中一部分可能让环境变得……entire time that people are working they're going to have somebody saying something which will be impacting their ability to reason verbally. So what I did is I suggested they move their best writers the people that were performing the most to closed offices for a few weeks. Uh just a few weeks and they obliged and wouldn't you know it all of their KPIs massively skyrocketed like night and day. And I mean, sure, some of it probably made the environment a

有点更难过，因为现在我们没有一群人聚在一起开玩笑、闲聊了。但说实话，企业的目的就是提高效率，对吧？他们当时虽然关系亲密、氛围融洽，但效率并不高。所以，你知道，他们只是改成午餐时间聚在一起，玩得很开心。接下来，我不建议你在所处环境中，为可理解的语音付出言语推理方面的代价。这完全是……little bit sadder because now we didn't have a bunch of people together cracking jokes and shooting the but I'll be honest, the purpose of business is to be effective, right? They were currently not being very effective despite being all close-knit and stuff like that. So, you know, instead, they just hung out during lunch and had a blast. Then, I would not recommend you pay the verbal reasoning tax on intelligible speech in your environment. It is completely

没必要。就我个人而言，我会同时使用泡沫耳塞并关上房门。我知道这听起来有点不合群，但呃，这能显著提升我的思维清晰度，而这归根结底正是我们想要的。needless. Personally, I use a combination of foam earplugs and a closed door. And I know this sounds a little antisocial, but uh significantly improves my clarity of thought, and that is ultimately what we're going for here.

所以，是啊，我的意思是，我没把耳塞带在身边。本来想拿给你看，但它们就是亮橙色的，我开始工作前会把它们塞进耳朵里。So yeah, I mean, I don't have the earplugs with me. I would have shown them to you, but they're just bright orange, and I stick them in my ear before I start working.

另一个简单、能带来 2% 到 5% 提升的方法，就是在窗边工作。正如前面提到的，你的昼夜节律取决于眼睛是否接收到光线。因此，要在自己的工作空间里优化这一点，我建议把书桌放在某种窗户旁边。比如我这里，左手边就有一扇巨大的落地窗。它不仅能为我的脸提供不错的光线，也能提升我的认知能力。Another easy 2 to 5% improvement is working next to a window. As mentioned, your circadian rhythm depends on your eyes receiving light. So to optimize this in your own workspace, my recommendation is have your desk near a window of some kind. So in my case, for instance, I have a big floor toseeiling window immediately to my left. Not only does this function as nice lighting for my face, it also improves my cognition.

现在，说到移动你的办公桌，仔细想想，这完全不花钱，是绝对免费的一个助力。但如果你没有窗户，比如说，你是在那种像壁橱或洞穴一样的办公室里工作，那你可以每天早上在桌上放一盏亮度很高的灯，把它当作替代光源，坐在灯旁边。比如，我这里就有一盏 10,000 勒克斯的灯，不过我不知道能不能把它拿进镜头里。Now, moving your desk, if you think about it, is free, absolutely free leverage, but if you don't have a window, let's say you're working in one of those closet style, cave style offices, um what you can do is use a powerful lamp on your desk every morning, use it as an alternative, sit near that. Um for instance, I have a 10,000 lux one right over here, which I don't know if I'll be able to pull in.

对，我觉得你们可能真的看不到这个。它就在画面外。看，在那儿。不管怎样，这是盏非常大、功率也很强的灯。花了我大概两百美元。冬天我起床前会用它。嗯，关于这个我稍后会再多说一点，不过基本上，在北方地区，由于地轴倾斜的缘故，每天要到上午九十点左右，你才能获得相当多的光照。Yes, I don't think you guys can see this really. It's just out of frame here. There it is. Anyway, it's a very big and very powerful light. Cost me 200 bucks or so. And I use it in the winters before I wake up. Um, I'll talk a little bit more about that later, but basically in northern environments just due to the way the Earth is tilted, you don't get anywhere near as much light in your average day uh until maybe 9 or 10 a.m.

而且大多数时候，我醒得比那还早。所以，如果我想启动自己的昼夜节律，就得这么做。接下来，把杂乱程度降低 1% 到 3%。我们刚才提到，注意力就像一束聚光灯，但它照亮的不只是聚光灯下的事物。守门人有时会让其他东西进入你的工作记忆，即使你并不想让它们进来。遗憾的是，正如我们所知，工作记忆的容量相当有限。And most of the time I'm awake before that. So, if I want my circadian rhythm to get jump started, that's what I have to do. Next up, reduce clutter for 1 to 3%. Now, attention, as mentioned, is a spotlight, but it doesn't just illuminate things that are underneath that spotlight. The gatekeeper sometimes allows additional things into your working memory, even if you didn't want to. And unfortunately, as we know, the working memory is quite limited

按组块来算。所以，你一次只能在工作记忆里保留一定数量的东西。也就是说，如果你的周围有一堆东西，哪怕只是桌面上的杂物，其中一些也会不由自主地进入你的注意范围，进而进入工作记忆。chunkwise. So, you can only keep a certain number of things in that puppy at any one time. Meaning, if you have a bunch of stuff in your environment, even clutter on your desk, some of that will enter your attention and thus your working memory without you wanting to.

现在，就像可理解的言语一样，你视野中的每个物体实际上都在争夺你的一小部分注意力。如果你必须不断抵挡这一切，就会消耗你的认知资源。当你专注时，视觉系统必须费力抑制环境中的所有杂乱事物，这被称为偏向竞争。也就是说，如果你的书桌上堆满了文件、线缆、邮件和其他杂物，你的大脑就……Now, just like intelligible speech, every object in your visual field is technically competing for some small share of your attention. If you have to constantly fight all of that off, it is consuming your resources. When you focus, your visual system has to spend effort suppressing all of the clutter in your environment, which is called biased competition. Meaning, if your desk is filled with papers, cables, mail, and other miscellaneous objects, your bra

每次你看向它时，大脑实际上都会消耗能量，稍微对它们的位置、姿态、朝向方式等等进行分类。your brain actually spends energy every time you look at it, slightly classifying their location, their position, the way that they're oriented, and so on and so forth.

所以，真的没必要承受这种苦。如果你曾经好奇，为什么真正富有的人家里通常都很干净，我觉得这就是其中一个原因。他们可能并没有意识到这一点，但这很可能是主要原因之一。So there's just no need to suffer that. And if you've ever wondered why really rich people's homes are typically quite clean, I think part of it is this. They likely don't know it at face value, but it is likely one of the major reasons.

他们只是觉得，桌面、厨房台面等地方没有杂物时，自己能更专注。They just feel like they can focus more when they don't have clutter on their desks or on their kitchens or so on and so forth.

接下来轻松提升的3%到6%，与其说取决于实体工作空间，不如说更多取决于虚拟和数字工作空间。而这一项建议就是将通知集中起来处理，轻松提升3%到6%。The next easy 3 to 6% has to do less with physical workspaces and more with virtual and digital workspaces. And this one is batching your notifications for an easy 3 to 6%.

如果你还不知道，手机和电脑的设计目的就是吸引并留住你的注意力。这是制造这些设备的公司的经济价值模式中固有的一部分。你花在手机和电脑上的时间越多，这些公司赚的钱就越多。因此，他们把默认通知级别设得很高。这些通知迎合了他们的利益驱动，让他们赚得盆满钵满。接下来我要做的，就是帮你一次性更改这些设置。In case you didn't know, phones and computers are designed to capture and hold your attention. It's inherent part of the economic value model of companies that make them. The more time you spend on your phones and computers, the more money these companies will make. So, they set their defaults as high levels of notifications. These play into their incentives and then make them tons of money. What I'm going to do here is help you change those settings a single time

然后因此思路变得清晰，从此一辈子都不再受它们困扰；在认知能力方面，你可以轻松、立刻提升 3% 到 6%，而在整体生活幸福感方面，提升幅度可能远不止这些。首先，每一条通知都会迫使你的大脑暂时在原本正在做的事情和这条通知之间切换任务。正如前面提到的，你的注意力和工作记忆都相当有限。所以，当某件显眼的事情出现在……and then gain clear thinking as a result and then be done with them for the rest of your life to easily and immediately pick 3 to 6% on the cognitive capacity side but probably far more than that on the general life happiness side. Now first every notification forces your brain to temporarily switch tasks between what it was doing and then the notification. As mentioned your attention and working memory is quite limited. So when something salient in

当你的环境中发生某件事，比如手机震动，或者我不知道，角落里的屏幕亮了起来，你的大脑实际上会不由自主地注意到它，不管你愿不愿意。这会产生一种副作用，叫作“注意力残留”：即使你把注意力转回工作，好吧，比如我看到通知后又看回屏幕，我的一部分注意力、一部分注意焦点，还是根本无法从手机上抽离。your environment occurs like maybe a phone buzzing or maybe like I don't know your screen turning on in the corner your mind will actually attend to it whether you want to or not. This leads to a byproduct called attentional residue where even if you shift back to work okay if I see the notif and then I go back to my screen a part of my attention a part of my spotlight is just impossible to wrench away from my phone.

这意味着我基本上会一直留意它，万一它又震动了，或者又亮起来了。因为你知道，从进化的角度来说，我会不断留意周围所有会动的东西，以防那是一条盘起来、随时准备攻击我的蛇，或者类似的东西。现在，研究文献指出，这会占用你10%到15%的认知能力，长达整整20分钟。而且很遗憾，你们很多人都会受到干扰，而且……That means I'm basically keeping track of it in case it buzzes again or in case it lights up again because, you know, evolutionarily I'm constantly keeping track of all the things in my environment that move in case it's a snake coiled up ready to attack me or something like that. Now, in the literature, this can cost you 10 to 15% of your cognitive capacity for as long as 20 freaking minutes. And many of you guys, unfortunately, get disrupted and

每隔不到 20 分钟就会被通知打断一次。这里有些人可能每隔 3 分钟就会被通知打断一次。换句话说，你基本上就像我举的办公室例子那样，因为总有人在背景里说话，所以你清晰思考的能力一直受到严重妨碍。好消息是，解决办法非常简单。你只要检查一下手机，关闭所有横幅通知、气泡通知和声音通知。然后，改为……distracted by notifications more than once every 20 minutes. Some people here probably get distracted by notes like every 3 minutes. Put it another way, you are basically like in my office example, permanently hobbling your ability to think clearly because you always have somebody saying something in the background. The good news is the fix is really easy. You just go through your phone, turn off all of the banners, bubbles, and sounds notice. And instead,

你可以使用 iOS 内置的“定时摘要”功能，将通知安排为每天分两到三批送达。而在 Android 上，你只需关闭所有通知，并在特定时间（比如上午 11 点或下午 4 点）查看手机。做法就是设置一个闹钟。you schedule your notifications to be delivered in two to three batches per day using the built-in and iOS feature called scheduled summary. Whereas in Android, you can just turn off all notifications and check your phone at specific times like 11 or 4 p.m. The way you do that is just by setting an alarm.

所以，大家能听清我说的话吧？与其像这样在一天中随时随机查看手机——好，按24小时来算——每隔几个小时就不停地看、看，然后还要面对之后那20分钟的注意力残留，不如选择几个时间段集中查看。一天里可能查看两三次。这样一来，你就不会总是处于表现能力降低20%的状态，而且这种状态可能会占到一天的50%……So, you guys hearing me right? Instead of checking your phone randomly over the course of the day as follows. Okay, 24-hour chunk. You're constantly just looking looking every couple of hours and then facing that 20 minutes of addentional residue afterwards. What you do is you choose the times to batch and check. Maybe you do two or three throughout the day. And now instead of constantly being in a state of 20% reduced performance for maybe 50% of the

全面损失10%，也许你只需要承受2%或3%的损失，同时仍能享受到使用这项非常酷的技术与人保持联系的好处。所以，我个人运营自己的所有社交媒体渠道时，也遵循同样的原则。想想看，嗯，我目前的一项主要收入来源是运营 Maker School。这是一个社群，保证你在90天内为一项 AI 或自动化服务找到第一位客户，否则我就把你的……dice or 10 percent across the board, maybe you only have to suffer two or 3% while still getting the upsides of using this really cool technology to to stay in touch with people. So I run all my social media channels personally using the same principle. If you think about it, um, one major revenue driver of mine right now is I run Maker School, which is a community that guarantees your first customer for an AI or automation service in 90 days or I give you your

退款。所以那个社区里有一大堆人。我的意思是，现在差不多有 2,500 人。他们一直在发帖，就像社交媒体通知一样。我本来可以整天不停地回复他们的帖子。但我选择把这些事集中处理。我每天会在一两个固定时段查看，然后批量回复，不让这件事占去我一天剩下的时间。这样一来，我就不会一直被牵着走。money back. So there's lots of people in that freaking community. I mean, almost 2,500 right now. And they make posts all the time. Just like a social media notification. I could respond to their post every day, all day throughout the day. But instead, what I do is I batch it. What I'll do is I will check in at one or two intervals every day. I will then respond in bulk and then I do not let it eat up the rest of my day. So rather than me being constantly pulled

这样我就不用从手头的事情上分心，然后再回来处理这件事。你知道，我只要专注于它并把它做完就行。这显然比我一天确认 40 次高效得多。除了能让我在一天剩下的时间里思路更清晰之外，这可能也能为你节省很多时间，因为你不用总是被打断，之后还得低效地继续工作。也就是说，你们既能获得直接的收益，比如……away from what I'm doing and then having to go back to this thing, you know, I can just focus on the thing and get it done. This is obviously far more efficient than me checking in 40 times a day. And in addition to helping me think clearer throughout the rest of my day, it also probably saves you a lot of time because you're not constantly being pulled away and then working in an inefficient manner. Meaning you have both the direct gains in terms of

提升性能，你还能获得时间方面的间接收益。另一个非常快速、简单的小技巧是让屏幕一次只专注于一项任务，从而提升 3% 到 8%。现在，和整洁规则类似，对吧？我们有很多时间待在虚拟环境中，而它基本上就像我们的物理环境。现在，这个屏幕几乎延伸到了三维空间。我能看到它远处的景象。因此，和那条规则类似，你应该尽量减少……上的杂乱。performance improvements and you also have the indirect gains in terms of time improvements as well. Another really quick and easy hack is to single task your screen for 3 to 8%. Now, similarly to the clutter rule, right, we spend a lot of time in a virtual environment which is basically like our physical environment. Now this screen almost extends into three dimensions. I could see far past it. So similar to that rule, you should minimize clutter on

你的环境。我通常会切换到全屏模式，不让其他应用或标签页出现在视野中。这样可以最大限度地减少注意力消耗，迫使自己专注于一项任务。your environment. The way that I do it is I go full screen with no other apps or tabs visible. This minimizes the attentional drag and forces me to actually just sit and focus on one task.

比如，录这段视频的时候，我只开着一个窗口。我可没有45台不同的显示器在我面前闪着股票行情，还有其他什么乱七八糟的玩意儿。我只有这个。For instance, while recording this video, I only have one window open. I do not have 45 different monitors blinking stock tickers at me and whatever the hell else. All I have is this.

所以我能做的就只有这些。有几个例外。显然，如果你们做的是设计工作量特别大的项目，或者你们是非常活跃的日内交易者之类的，或者需要不断在不同屏幕之间比较东西，那开几个窗口、几个标签页，方便地拖放内容、查看等等，带来的好处可能确实大于对认知造成的影响。Therefore, all I can do is this. Couple exceptions. Obviously, if you guys are doing explicit design heavy work, if you guys are crazy active day traders or whatever the hell, if you need to constantly compare things between one screen and another, you know, there can be some value in having a few windows open, a few tabs, the visual ease of dragging and dropping stuff and looking and and so on and so forth probably does outweigh the cognitive impact.

[叹气并倒吸一口气] 不过，其他所有时候、其他所有情况下，我都会关掉你的电子邮件、聊天应用，以及你打开的那 31 个标签页，除非你明确正在处理这些内容。我还会把地址栏和任务栏都隐藏起来，让你眼前只剩下手头这件事。我说的地址栏是什么意思？我是说，我真的会去 Chrome 右上角或左上角的设置里，或者其他浏览器的设置里……[sighs and gasps] However, all other times and in all other situations, I would close your email, your chat apps, and all of the 31 tabs you have open, unless you're explicitly working on getting those through. I'd also remove your URL bar, your taskbar, and give yourself nothing but the thing in front of you. What do I mean by URL bar? I mean, I would literally like go to the setting in the top right or top left hand corner of Chrome or or whatever

进入你所用操作系统的视图选项卡，然后选择关闭 URL 栏。我会滚动到最底部，选择关闭任务栏。这样我看屏幕时，就只会看到当前正在处理的内容。operating system you're on and going into the view tab and saying turn off URL bar. I'd go down to the bottom, I'd say, turn off taskbar. I make it so that when I look at my screen, I only have the thing that I'm currently working on.

这只会让你的效率大幅提升。好了，硬件部分就到这里。如果你们一直跟到现在，可能会发现自己的思维清晰度和专注力都有了叠加式的提升，对吧？把这些提升合在一起，大约能达到 150% 到 200%。当然，其中很多都只是估算。It just makes you far more efficient. All right, that's it for the hardware portion. If you guys have followed along with everything up until now, you're probably looking at a stacked multiplicative improvement in the clarity of your thinking and your focus, right? So, combine those to the tune of about 150 to 200% or so. And obviously, you know, a lot of these are estimates.

当然，我只是把科学研究的结论拿过来告诉你，然后让你把它们相乘。我想，嗯，你得透过自己的问题和自己苦苦应对的事情来推断它们对你自身注意力、工作记忆和执行功能的实际最终影响——如果你想把这些称作你的个人指标的话。比如，我觉得这里很多人可能面临的问题，远比二氧化碳浓度达到 800 ppm 严重得多。我觉得……Of course, I just took what the science said and then gave them to you and told you to multiply them. I think um you have to infer the actual end impact on your own stats, if you want to call them that, of attention, working memory, and executive function through the lens of like your own problems and the own things that you struggle with. For instance, I think a lot of people here probably suffer from way worse than the 800 parts per million CO2 issue. I think

很多人可能都面临着空气质量方面的环境问题，尤其是在东南亚，比如孟加拉国、印度等等。我觉得每个人都可以从那份长长的清单里挑出不同的问题来解决；只要挑出其中几个，我想情况至少就能改善 20% 到 30%，甚至可能改善 50% 或更多。a lot of people probably have ambient problems with air quality, especially in like Southeast Asia, you know, Bangladesh, India, and so on and so forth. I think they're like different things that everybody gets to pluck out of that big list, but so long as you plucked out a couple of them, I think you'll probably be at least, you know, 20 to 30% better, if not 50% or more.

嗯，而且因为这些改善的幅度都取决于你的起点——比如说，如果你有睡眠障碍，改善睡眠就会让你的身体机能显著提升，甚至可能达到睡眠没有障碍的人都能感受到的程度。我觉得，你知道，我们多少都会讲出属于自己的故事。总之，这么多容易取得的成果，表现还不错吧？Um, and because all of those scale with the magnitude of your starting place if you're sleep disordered for instance, fixing your sleep will lead to a significant improvement in your hardware that, you know, a non-sleep disordered person would probably feel. And I think, you know, we all sort of carve out our own story there. So anyway, not bad for a bunch of low-hanging fruit, huh?

这大概是你能找到的最自由的杠杆。从现在开始，我要转向软件，打造一套流程和算法工具箱，帮助你更清晰地思考。有一点非常有意思：软件比硬件灵活得多，也更容易扩展。That's about as free leverage as you could possibly find. From here on out, what I'm going to be doing is pivoting to software and creating a toolbox of processes and algorithms that help you think more clearly. A very interesting thing, software is infinitely more malleable and growable than hardware.

而我们的硬件——基本上也就是注意力、工作记忆和执行功能——相当固定，只能稍微调整或扩展。Whereas our hardware, basically our attention, working memory, executive function are fairly fixed and can only be nudged or expanded slightly.

更好的软件可以带来算法上的改进，幅度可达数千个百分点。我可不是随便这么说的。我认为，优秀的思考者确实比思维能力较差的人快好几个数量级，也强好几个数量级。这一切都是因为他们运用了我接下来要教给你的工具。最后再提几个行动方面的问题。我们讲软件之前，先回答这两个问题。呃，盘点一下你所在房间里的东西……Better software can provide algorithmic improvements to the tune of many thousands of percentage points. And I don't say that lightly. I think great thinkers are genuinely orders of magnitude faster and better than poor thinkers are. And it's all because they just apply the tools that I'm about to teach you. So some action questions just to wrap that up. Before we go into software, answer these two questions. Uh take an inventory of the room that you

将工作空间设计原则应用到你现在所处的环境中。你周围的空气状况如何？你能听到周围的人说话吗？你的视野中有什么？你可以如何改善它？接下来，打开手机。有哪些通知正在吸引你的注意？除非绝对必要，否则把它们全部关闭。are in right now and apply the workspace design principles to it. What is your air like? Can you hear the people around you? What is in your direct field of view and how can you improve it? Next, open your phone. What notifications are asking for your attention? Turn them all off unless absolutely necessary.

所以说到软件，显然，人类的思维和计算机是不同的东西，不能把二者一一类比。你知道，一个是硅，另一个是肉。但先听我说完。1988年到2003年间，计算机通过硬件升级，速度提升了大约一千倍：内存更好、处理器更好、架构更好，诸如此类。So on software, obviously the human mind and the computer are different things and you can't analogize them one to one. You know, one is silicon, the other is meat. But bear with me. Between 1988 and 2003, computers got around a thousand times faster via hardware. better memory, better processors, better architecture, and so on and so forth.

所以，仔细想想，这相当不可思议，对吧？但你知道什么更不可思议吗？在同一时期，软件算法的速度提升了1万倍。显然，软件完全是另一回事。你可以通过改进自己的硬件获得显著且固定的性能提升，而选择合适的程序来运行则能带来高出一个数量级的效果，因为它还能让你从一个……角度来思考问题。And so, if you think about it, that's pretty incredible, right? But you know what is even more incredible? During that same time period, software algorithms got 10,000 times faster. Now, clearly software is a different beast entirely. Whereas, you could extract significant and fixed gains from improving your own hardware, having the right program to run on is an order of magnitude as powerful since it also allows you to consider problems from a

一种根本不同的视角。想象一下，你从来只学过加法。你懂的，没有乘法，什么都没有。如果我问你：“嘿，你能把 10 加 100 次吗？”也就是说，10 + 10 + 10 + 10，一直加到 100 次。你得花多长时间？大概得花上永远那么久，对吧？你心算加法再快也没用，因为从根本上说，把一堆数字加在一起的解决办法就是♀♀♀♀fundamentally different lens. So imagine if you will that you were only ever taught addition. You know, no multiplication, no nothing. If I asked you, hey, can you add the number 10 to itself 100 times, aka 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 all the way up to 100. How long would that take you? It would probably take you forever, right? It doesn't matter how fast you are at mental addition because fundamentally, the solution to adding a bunch of numbers together is

速度很慢，而且是线性的。实际上，你可能要花三四分钟，才能完成把 10 加到 10 上、再加到 10 上、再加到 10 上，重复 100 次，得到一千的过程。在这种情况下，出错的概率也高得多，因为你可能漏掉了一两次加 10，于是以为结果是 980，而实际答案显然是一千。但想象一下，把同样的问题交给一个安装了乘法程序的人，让他在……slow and it's linear. And it' probably take you 3 or 4 minutes to actually go through the process of adding 10 to 10 to 10 to 10 100 times to get to a th00and. There's also in a situation like that a much higher probability of error because maybe you just missed one or two of those 10 and now you think it's 980 whereas the actual answer is obviously a th00and. But imagine giving that same problem to somebody who has the multiplication program installed on

他们的大脑。相比之下，A 可能要花 4 分钟才能做到，而 B 真的只要一秒钟。不仅能在一秒钟内完成，出错率也会低得多得多。这正是我今天想向大家展示的。我想给大家介绍一组工具，你们可以用它们更好地理解、构思并分析自己生活中的所有问题。第一个工具是期望值。现在，大多数决策总是会……their brain. Whereas person A might take 4 minutes to do it. Person B could literally do it in a second. Not only would they do it in a second, the error rate would be far, far lower. That's exactly what I intend to show you guys today. I intend to show you a set of operators that you could use to better understand, conceptualize, and then think through all of the problems in your own life. And the first is expected value. Now, most decisions always get

凭直觉做出的。这是第一类决策。在人们日常生活中，这通常没什么问题，因为你要做的决定往往只是：“今天想喝什么咖啡？”嗯，我想喝拿铁。[倒吸一口气] 天哪，那是我的公交车吗？我得赶紧跑过去。诸如此类。不过，你来到这里，是因为你想学的不止这些。你想学习如何仔细思考那些最终会影响……的决策made based off of gut feeling. This is type one decision-m. In the average day-to-day life of a human, this is usually fine because the decisions that you get are things like, "What coffee did you want today?" Eh, I'm feeling like a latte. [gasps] Holy crap, is that my bus? Let me run over towards it. And so on and so forth. But you're here because you want to learn more than that. You want to learn how to think through decisions that ultimately impact

你余下的人生。所以，这类事情包括：我应该推出 X 产品，还是把接下来 6 个月的人生投入到 Y 这件事上？这些都是需要细致考量的问题，也需要细致权衡后才能作答。你知道，凭直觉做出这类高风险、高影响的决定，归根结底是很糟糕的，因为直觉给出的答案总是非此即彼。the rest of your life. So that's things like, should I launch X product or should I spend the next 6 months of my life on Y pursuit? And these are nuance questions that have nuance answers. You know, gut feelings are ultimately a terrible way to make high-risisk, high impact decisions like that because gut feelings are always just yes or no.

它们也完全不承担责任，而且根本无法解释。“跟着直觉走”这套说法听起来挺不错，可当你事后回头看，却说不出“我当初到底为什么要做那件事？”而你唯一的答案就是：“因为我的直觉告诉我这么做。”They're also not accountable at all, and they're also not interpretable. The whole go with your gut thing sounds nice in practice, but when you can't look back and say, "So, why the hell did I do that thing to begin with?" And your only answer is cuz my gut told me so.

显然，这并不是一种足够严谨、可以用来处理更重大事情的决策过程。解决这一切的办法就是计算期望值。这是我所知道的最有用的一种算术计算，而且只要做过几次，你就会发现整个过程真的只需要 1 分钟。尽可能简单地说，期望值就是把每种可能结果的价值乘以其发生概率，然后将所得结果相加。我知道这听起来很数学化。Obviously, that is not a very rigorous decision-making process that you can rely on for larger things. The solution to all this is expected value. It is the single most useful piece of arithmetic that I know and it'll take you literally just 1 minute once you've done it a couple of times. Now, expected value defined in as simple terms as possible is when you sum each possible outcome's value multiplied by its probability. And I know that sounds really mathematical.

这对你来说可能挺吓人的，但其实非常简单。我们假设你和我在玩一个抛硬币的游戏：如果抛出正面，你就得到 3 美元；如果抛出反面，你就损失 1 美元。现在，从逻辑上讲，抛硬币有两种结果：正面或反面，对吧？正面朝上的概率是 50%，反面朝上的概率也是 50%。所以，到目前为止，这里还没有什么特别复杂的东西。继续跟着我往下看。在期望值……It's probably pretty intimidating to you, but it's actually very simple. Let's pretend that you and I are playing this game where we flip a coin and if it comes up heads, you get $3. And if it comes up tails, you lose $1. Now, logically, the coin flip has two outcomes, heads or tails, right? The probability of heads is 50%, and the probability of tails is 50%. So, there's nothing super crazy here just yet. Keep following along with me. In expected

就价值而言，要判断我该不该玩这个游戏，你要把每种结果的概率乘以各自的价值。比如说，数学上，50% 的概率相当于 0.5。这就是我们的概率。我们已经知道结果的价值，也就是正面朝上时的 3 美元，对吧？这意味着我们的方程如下。如果我们想计算正面朝上的结果，那么，正面朝上就是……value terms, what you do to figure out the value of whether or not I should play this game is you multiply the probabilities of each outcome by their respected values. So for instance, a probability of 50% is equivalent to 0.5 mathematically. So that's our probability. And we already know the value of the outcome, which is $3 for heads, right? Which means our equations look like this. If we wanted to figure out the outcome of heads, well, heads is

0.5 乘以结果，也就是 3 美元，意味着正面朝上的期望值实际上是 1.50 美元。反面朝上的概率也是 0.5。但它的结果值是负 1，因为你会损失 1 美元，这意味着反面朝上的期望值是 0.5。现在，如果你想计算的不是正面或反面某一面的期望值，而是整个游戏的期望值，那么你要做的就是把正面朝上的值加上反面朝上的值。正面朝上的值是 1.50 美元。反面朝上的值是负 50。0.5 times the outcome, which is $3 means that the EV of heads is actually $1.50. Tails is 0.5 as well. But this has a value of minus1 cuz that's where you lose a dollar which means that the EV of tails is 0.5. Now if you wanted to get the expected value not of a specific uh head or tails but the whole game itself then what you would do is you would take the value of heads and add it to the value of tails. The value of heads is $1.50. The value of tails is minus50

也就是说，期望值是一美元。这意味着，每次玩这个游戏的期望收益都是一美元。换句话说，如果我玩一千次，再从整体上看，问自己玩一千次能赚多少钱，那么我大约会赚 1,000 美元，因为从统计意义上说，我每玩一次就能赢一美元。不过，虽然你很可能不会恰好赚到 1,000 美元，因为……meaning the expected value is a dollar. What this means then is that the expected value of playing this game every time is a dollar. Meaning that if I play the game a thousand times and I zoomed out and asked myself how much money would I make if I played this game a thousand times, I would make approximately $1,000 cuz every time I play statistically I win a dollar. Now, while it's true that you probably won't make exactly $1,000 because of

从统计概率来看，你知道，我可能会碰上一段幸运的连胜，也可能赢得比那个稍多一点，比如 1.5 美元、943 美元什么的。观察的范围越大，比如进行 10,000 次、100,000 次或一百万次，结果就越接近真实情况。statistical chance, you know, I might have a lucky winning streak or I might make a bit over that, maybe $1,5 or $943 or something. The more you zoom out, if it's 10,000 runs or 100,000 runs or a million runs, the closer I will get to that actual reality.

好，这就是抛硬币的假设示例，我觉得大家直觉上都能理解。我们把它应用到更贴近现实的事情上，好吗？假设我现在经营着一家小型服务公司，安装太阳能板。我在 Twitter 上看到了不少令人兴奋的新进展，正在考虑是该创办一家规模较大的 SaaS 公司——这很新颖，也令人兴奋；还是继续经营我的小型服务机构，而它规模很小，Okay, so that is the hypothetical coin flip example, which I think people understand intuitively. Let's apply this to something that's a bit more real life, shall we? Let's say I run a small service company right now and I install solar panels. I've seen a bunch of cool new developments on Twitter and I'm trying to decide on whether I should start a big SAS company, which is new and exciting, or I should keep my small service agency running, which is small,

老套而熟悉。与其只是凭直觉想：“我的直觉告诉我什么？天啊，我要么放手一搏，要么干脆不做。我要创办一家 SAS 公司。”我们现在可以用这个新框架，实际计算这两个选项的期望值。假设你做了大量研究，发现你打算创办 SAS 公司的那个行业，愿意以十亿美元收购一家像你这样的公司。也许这就是平均成交价。old, and familiar. Instead of me just being like, what does my gut tell me? Man, I should go big or go home. I'm going to start the SAS. We can actually compute the expected values of both of these options using this new framework. So, let's say you do a bunch of research and you determine that the industry that you're trying to start a SAS in is willing to buy a company like yours for a billion dollars. Maybe that's the average sale value.

与此同时，你还会注意到，在这个领域创业的大多数公司都惨遭失败，这意味着你的成功概率非常低。也许是 0.1%，或者千分之一。这意味着你有千分之一的机会赚到十亿美元。大概就是这么回事，对吧？所以，记住这一点。另一方面，我们来想想 SAS 业务，也就是服务型业务。你目前的服务型业务每年能赚 50 万美元。你做了一些……Meanwhile, you also notice that the majority of companies that are started in this space fail miserably, meaning that your probability of success is very low. Maybe it's.1% or 1 in a,000. What that means is you have a 1 in1,000 chance of making a billion dollars. Kind of how that works, right? So, keep that in mind. On the other hand, let's think about the SAS business, uh, the service business. Your current service business makes $500,000 a year. You do some

进行市场调研，思考你的业务，然后你会说：“你知道吗？这件事至少还会持续 5 年。”而我认为自己判断正确的概率是 50%。也就是说，或许有 50% 的可能，它持续不到 5 年；也或许有 50% 的可能，它持续超过 5 年。好吧？这意味着，与继续经营你目前的公司相比，创办一家 SAS 的预期价值如下：SAS 的预期价值（EV）同样等于价值乘以概率。market research and think about your business and you say, you know what, this is probably going to run for another 5 years minimum. And I give it a 50% chance that I'm right there. Maybe 50% of the time it'll run less than 5 years. Maybe 50% of the time it'll run more than 5 years. Okay? So that means the expected value of starting a SAS versus your current company is as follows. The EV of the SAS is again equal to the value time the probability.

所以，SAS 的期望值（EV）又是 10 亿美元乘以你知道的那个概率的 1/1000。10 亿乘以 1/1000 就是 100 万。这就是这么算的。这意味着，做 SAS 的期望价值是：如果你选择做 SAS，它会为你赚 100 万美元。So the EV of the SAS is again $1 billion time 1/1,000th of a you know odds. So a billion *1 1,000th is a million. That's just how that works. What that means is the expected value of doing the SAS is if you choose to make the SAS, it will make you a million dollars.

从统计学角度来说，如果你能拉远视角，在网上创办十亿家 SaaS 公司，那么每一家实际上只会为你赚到一百万美元。为什么？因为其中绝大多数都会失败。只有少数几家会成功，而成功的那些平均来说，大约能赚这么多。那么，你现在这家公司的期望价值又是多少呢？这家小企业的 EV 同样等于价值乘以概率。嗯，我又加上了一个额外的……Statistically, if you could zoom out and start a billion SASS on net, every one of those SASes would actually only make you a million dollars. Why? Because the vast majority of them would fail. Only a couple of them would win, and the ones that win on average would win approximately this much. Now, how about the expected value of your current company? The EV of this small business is again equal to the value times the probability. Well, I added an additional

我在这里这么做，是因为我想让这个值的计算不那么简单。所以在这个例子中，我说这个值是50万美元。但它会运行多少年？五年。所以我们实际上得把这两个数相乘。step here cuz I wanted the value to be non-trivial to compute. So in this case, I said the value was $500,000. But how many years would it run? Five. So we actually have to multiply these two

课程讨论：第四部分Course Discussion: Part Four

把这些数字放在一起。这意味着小型企业的期望价值实际上是 250 万，再乘以我们有 50% 的概率能让这项业务继续维持 5 年。结果是 250 万 × 0.5，也就是 125 万。仔细想想，这意味着小型企业能给我们带来 125 万，而 SAS 能给我们带来 100 万。因此，在这个例子中，SAS 的期望价值实际上低于小型企业的期望价值。numbers together. Which means the EV of the small business is actually 2.5 million times our 50% probability that we'd actually still maintain the business for that 5 years. What we get is 2.5 *.5 or 1.25 million which if you think about it logically means that the you know small business makes us 1.25 million. The SAS makes us 1 million. So in this example, the expected value of the SAS is actually lower than the expected value of the small business.

简单来说，创办这家规模庞大、看起来很气派的公司，价值不如继续经营你的中小企业。Put in simple terms, the value of starting this big fancy company is not as high as the value of just continuing to work on on your SMB.

现在，当我讲解这个例子时，我知道你在想什么。你肯定在想：“Nick，我到底怎么可能知道我们考虑做出的每一个决策的确切金额或概率？”Now, I know what you're thinking here as I go through this example. You're thinking, Nick, how the hell am I supposed to know the precise dollar amount or probability of every single decision that we're considering making?

呃，如果你真的 somehow magically 知道这些数字，就给我打个电话。我有些工作要交给你。事实是，你不会知道这些数字，这完全正常。期望值的意义并不是要按字面理解。它的意义在于，它是一种工具，可以让你对多个不同的对象或选项进行客观的综合评估，而不是只凭某个人的直觉行事——而这种直觉总是一样的Uh, if you do know this somehow magically, give me a call. I have some work for you. The reality is, you will not know these numbers, and that is totally normal. The point of expected value is not meant to be taken literally. The point is it's meant to be a tool that you use to objectively evaluate multiple different object objects or options in concert. Rather than just going off of somebody's gut feeling, which is always the same

你的动物祖先所使用的那套回路，只能给出是或否的答案；而这实际上能让你升级自己的软件，并在做决策这门艺术上采用更强、更严谨的决策过程。所以，你不再只是说“我要这么做”或“我不这么做”，而是会说：“嗯，我预测，如果我这么做，我能赚这么多钱。”这就成了一个可以证伪的预测。你实际上可以……circuit that was used by your animal ancestors, which is only yes or no, this actually lets you upgrade your software and apply a stronger, more rigorous decision-m uh process to the art of making decisions. And so instead of you just being like, I'm going to do this or I'm not going to do this, you now actually say, well, I predict that if I do this, I'll make this much money, that is now a falsifiable prediction. You can actually

把这个预测记录下来，比如写进日志里。一年后再回来，根据你的实际体验更新它。同样，你也可以把这个预测分享给其他人，让他们也遵循同样严谨、标准化的思考流程，这样就能更清晰地判断某件事是否真的有可能奏效。很有意思的是，在 SAS 这个例子中，我们看到，一个看起来可能很诱人的选择，take that prediction, store it somewhere like in a journal, in a year from now, come back and update it based off of your actual experience. Likewise, you could share that prediction with other people, have them follow the same rigorous standardized thinking process, and in that way think far more clearly about whether or not something is likely to actually work. And the cool thing is in the case of the SAS example, we see how that an option that may seem sexy,

听起来令人兴奋，也许对大多数人来说，直觉上也会觉得这是正确的选择。显然，我想放手一搏——这听起来很有意思；但实际上，它的表现不如这里那个极其无聊、极其稳妥的选择。exciting, and perhaps like the right gut feeling for most people, obviously, I want to go big or go home, that sounds fun, actually underperforms compared to, in this case, the very boring and very safe one.

我想先聊一会儿扑克。此刻在听我说话的职业扑克玩家，大概从头到尾都在点头，心想：“好了，快说重点吧。”原因在于，他们早就懂得期望值，而且总是在脑子里做这种计算。我会说，这实际上是扑克打得非常出色的一项核心技能。优秀的扑克玩家总是在计算自己手牌相对于对手手牌的期望值。I want to talk about poker for a second. Professional poker players that are with me right now will probably have nodded along this whole time and been like, "Okay, get to the good part." The reason why is they already know expected value and they do that math in their heads constantly. I'd say that's actually one of the core skills of playing poker really well. Good poker players are always computing the expected values of their hands versus their competitor's

尽可能在所有时候都参与牌局。然后，你的整套打法就是寻找那些你略占优势的牌局，也就是说，你做某个决定的 EV——比如说弃牌之类的——比你全押的 EV 稍微高一点。只要期望值是正的，他们就会继续参与；如果期望值不是正的，他们就会避开。所以，由于期望值说到底是要在很长一段时间内对各种结果取平均……hands at all possible times. And then the entire way you play is you just look for games where you have a slight edge, meaning the EV of you doing the I don't know, you know, folding or something is a little bit higher than the EV of you uh going all in. And as long as the expected values are positive, they will play around. And if the expected values are not positive, they'll stay out. So since the expected value is all about averaging outcomes over a long period of

从长远来看，即使只是略占优势的扑克玩家，比如每手牌的期望收益大概有一美元，通常也会最终胜出。问题在于，头几手牌的结果不会明显体现这一点，因为你需要玩足够多次，才能让大数定律对你有利，让统计规律显现出来。这就是为什么准备足够的赌资很有用，因为你手头的钱越多，就越能……time, poker players that even have a slight edge, like they make like an expected value of like a dollar per hand or something, will typically come out on top over the long run. The issue is it won't be abundantly clear in your first few hands because you need to play enough times for the law of large numbers to work out in your favor, for statistics to kick in. And that's why having enough of a betting pile comes in handy because the more money you have to

下注，你在游戏中坚持得越久，就越有机会让那些基于基本预期价值的赌注获得回报。顺便说一句，这也是为什么有钱人往往没那么厌恶风险的原因。如果你有很多钱，有一大笔可供下注的资金，而且相信从某种程度上来说，你的决策具有正的预期价值，那么即使有些赌注短期内可能没有回报，你也愿意拿出一大笔钱去下注，而这些赌注最终会……bet, the longer you can stay in the game enough for your fundamental expected value bets to pay off. This is the same thing, by the way, that underlies why people that have a lot of money tend to be a lot uh less risk averse. If you have a lot of money, if you have a big betting pile and you're confident that at some level the expected value of your decisions are right, you're okay wasting a bunch of that money on bets that may not pay off in the short term but will

从长远来看会有回报。这是因为你对期望值的估算很高。如果你曾经好奇，为什么有些人会在某件事上孤注一掷，或者在小事上花大笔钱，或者我不知道，为什么风险投资家会给100家不同的公司各投5万美元，那是因为他们计算后认为，每一笔这样的赌注的期望值都只是略高于零。也许是，你知道，5万美元之类的。所以这样一来，他们知道自己只需要做到……pay off in the long run. That's because your model of expected value is high. If you've ever wondered why some people go allin on stuff or spend tons of money on small things or I don't know venture capitalists give $50,000 to a 100 different companies, that's because they compute the expected value of every one of these bets as just a little bit bigger than zero. Maybe it's, you know, $50,000 or something. And so in that way, they know they just need to do

只要有足够多这样的投资，最终他们就能赚到5万美元——也就是在投入5万美元的基础上再赚5万美元，让投资回报翻倍。我的意思是，尤其是风险投资人，他们想要的远不止翻一番，不过你明白我的意思。总之，你的概率都是估算值。enough of these eventually they'll make $50,000 when they're $50,000, doubling their ROI. I mean VCs in particular, they want way more than a double, but you get my point. So all of that is to say your probabilities are estimates.

你不可能完全了解它们，这完全没关系。关键是把它们写下来。当你写下“20%”时，这就是具体且可以调整的东西。如果你只是觉得“算了，这太冒险了，我不想做”，那就不够具体，也无法调整，因此你无法据此做出好的决策。You won't know them perfectly and that's totally okay. The key is just write them down. When you write 20%, that is something that is concrete and it is modifiable. If you just feel nah, it's risky. I don't want to do it. That is not concrete modifiable and you cannot use it to make good decisions.

我想先谈一会儿——我是说，想花点时间谈谈由此产生的陷阱。人们开始了解 EV 时，往往会掉进“结果偏误”的陷阱。这个术语最初由安妮·杜克提出。她曾是一名职业扑克选手，并在 2018 年出版的《下注思考》（Thinking in Bets）一书中介绍了这个概念。你们可能读过这本书。它刚出版时非常受欢迎。嗯，核心观点是，所谓“结果偏误”，就是倾向于根据……来评估一项决策的质量。I want to talk a sec for I want to talk for a sec about the resulting trap. Now, when people start learning about EV, they will often fall prey to the trap of resulting. The term was initially invented by Annie Duke, who was a former professional poker player back in a 2018 book called Thinking in Bets. You guys might have read it. It's very popular when it came out. Um, the core idea is resulting is the tendency to evaluate the quality of a decision based on the

决策的结果。例如，假设你用期望值来分析一个在 A 和 B 之间做选择的假设性决策。下面是 A 的期望值。decision's outcome. For instance, let's say you use expected value on a hypothetical decision between A or B. Here is the expected value of a.

它是 2 *8 = 1.6。B 的期望值是 10 *2，等于 2。仔细想想，在我们的公式中，2 是这里的价值，8 是概率。所以对于 A，你有 80% 的机会赢得 2，这意味着这次选择的价值是 1.6。对于 B，你有 20% 的机会赢得 10，这意味着这次选择的价值是 2。It is 2 *8 = 1.6. The expected value of b is 10 *2 which is equal to 2. If you think about it in our formula 2 here is the value.8 is the probability. So for a there is a 80% chance you will win a two meaning the value of this play is 1.6. For B, there is a 20% chance you'll win A 10, meaning the value of this play is two.

所以从逻辑上讲，A要安全得多，因为你获胜的概率高得多。选择B的话，你获胜的可能性较低，但一旦赢了，收益就很大。这就是你大致思考期望值的方式：从概率和结果的角度来考虑。在像这样的情形中，EVB等于2，而EVA等于1.6，逻辑上你大概应该选B，对吧？因为EVB高于EVA。不过要记住，So logically speaking, you know, A is a lot safer because there's much higher probability you'll win. With B, it's less likely you'll win, but when you do, you win big. And so that's how you sort of think about expected values. You think about it in terms of probabilities and outcomes. So in an environment like this where EVB is equal to two and EVA is equal to 1.6, logically, you should probably pick B, right? Because EVB is higher than EVA. But keep in mind the

概率为 0.2，也就是 20%。尽管根据我们的公式，B 在技术上是正确答案，但实际上它只有 20% 的概率能带来回报。所以，如果你选了 B，结果却没拿到那 10 的收益，自然会觉得这是个愚蠢的决定。你可能会想，兄弟，我知道公式算出 B 的 EV 是 2，所以我才选它，可我刚刚把钱全赔光了，或者说，我没赚到那 2。搞什么鬼？这种想法在逻辑上是不正确的，因为 B 实际上是】【。probability of 0.2 or 20%. Despite B being technically the right answer according to our formula, it'll actually only pay off 20% of the time. So if you choose B and then you don't get that 10 payout, you will naturally consider it a dumb decision. You'll be like, man, I know it said the EV was two for B and that's why I picked it, but I just lost all my money or I don't know, I didn't make the two. What the hell? This is logically incorrect because B is in fact

这是正确的选择。只不过这个正确的选择，恰好有 80% 的时候会失败。关键在于，当你赢的时候，回报足以扭转这一趋势——而你有 20% 的机会获胜。所以现实生活有点像这样，因为在现实中，你会做出很多不会立刻带来回报的决定。你得不断命中目标，才能让这些决定产生回报。但如果你开始根据小样本中得到的结果来评估自己的决策，the right choice. It's just the right choice happens to lose 80% of the time. The thing is when you get the win, it'll pay out enough to reverse that trend 20% of the time. So real life is kind of like that because in real life you'll have a lot of decisions that you make that don't immediately pay off. You need to hit the net constantly in order to make them pay off. But if you start evaluating your decision-m based off the results you get on a small sample size,

你会做出错误的推断，进而得出显而易见的错误结论。如果你每次做出的决定没有立刻带来回报，就惩罚自己，那么你可能很快就会学会再也不下注选 B，对吧？但那会是个大错。反过来的情况也很常见。很多人可能会选 A，然后每次都拿到一点回报，比如两块钱，接着就会说：“我是个天才。每次我……”you will make incorrect inferences that lead obviously to incorrect conclusions. If you penalized yourself for every single decision you made that did not immediately pay off, you would probably quickly learn never to take a B sorted bet again, right? But that would be a major mistake. Likewise, a lot of people find the opposite. They might choose A and then they'll get like a little payout of two every time and then they'll say, "I'm a genius. Every time I

这么做，我就赢了。我赢了。我赢了。所以你就会开始理性地想：嗯，继续选 A 而不是 B 对我来说更明智，尽管 A 的回报稍微低一点。没关系，我赚的钱多得多。这和扑克里发生的情况是一样的。如果你根据正确的赔率弃了一手牌，而最后赢牌还是出现了，那你并没有犯错。你的判断是对的，弃牌是正确的选择，尽管结果输了。关键是，你只是……do this, I win. I win. I win. So then you'll start logically thinking, well, it's smarter for me to continue taking A as opposed to B despite A paying a little bit less. That's fine. I'm making way more money. This is the same thing that happens in poker. If you folded a hand based on correct odds, and then the winning hand comes out anyway, you have not made a mistake. You had the right idea, the fold was the right move despite losing. The point is, you just

需要退一步，从更宏观的角度来看，明白我这一次赢了，或者这一次输了，并不能真正代表整个情况。我经常在商业领域看到这种 B 玩法，尤其是在陌生客户拓展中，因为你发出的任何形式的推广信息，大多数人看到的概率只有大约 20%。所以，如果我想销售自己的产品或服务，给某个人发了一封邮件，而对方看到这封邮件的概率只有 20%……need to zoom out and understand that this one time that I won or this one time that I lost is not actually representative of the whole thing. I see this, you know, B play a lot in business, specifically in cold outreach, because there's about a 20% chance that most people will see any sort of outreach that you send. And so, if I'm attempting to sell my product or service and I send an email to somebody, let's say, and they only had a 20% chance of

这么看，这就意味着他们有 80% 的时候什么也看不到。所以，如果我是刚入行，发出外联信息后，五次里有四次都没人看到，我可能会想：“这太糟了。我什么好处都没得到。”这只是因为我的样本量还不够，无法理解：当你真的得到一些有所回报的东西时，天哪，回报会非常丰厚。呃，如果你从切身感受上理解了这一点——而通常在你得到一个……之后，你就会理解了。looking at it, that means 80% of the time they see nothing. So, if I am new to this and I send out outreach and four times out of five people don't see it, I might think, "This sucks. I don't get anything out of it." It's simply because I do not have enough of a sample size to draw from for me to understand that well when you do get some something that pays off, boy, it pays off really big. Uh if you understood this on a visceral level, which you do after you usually get a

赢上几把，你继续留在牌桌上的概率就会大大提高。所以，把视野放长远些，打上一千手牌，或者做一千个决定，或者创办一百家公司，诸如此类。这样一来，你就能轻松分辨出好决策和坏决策了。明白吗？那么，这里有个小小的决策矩阵。如果你做出了一个好决策，结果却不好，那就说明你只是运气不好。couple of wins, uh the probability of you staying in the ring for longer goes way up. So zoom out, play a thousand hands or make a thousand decisions or start 100 businesses or whatever. When you do this, you will easily be able to tell the difference between a good decision and a bad decision. Okay? So, here's a little decision matrix. If you had a good decision, but it was a bad outcome, that means that you just had bad luck

而且你应该继续这么做。如果你的决策正确，结果也很好，那你显然理应获胜。如果你的决策糟糕，结果也很糟，那你显然理应失败。但如果你的决策糟糕，结果却很好，那你只是走了运，应该把这算作一次胜利。and you should keep doing it. If you had a good decision and a good outcome, you obviously deserve the win. If you had a bad decision and a bad outcome, you obviously deserve the loss. But if you made a bad decision and got a good outcome, you got lucky and you should count that as a win.

这里再举一个关于期望值（EV）的例子。假设你们正在考虑以每月 6K 的成本雇用一名销售人员，并且你认为他们有 60% 的可能取得成功，在经过 3 个月的爬坡期后，每月创造 15K 的毛利润；还有 40% 的可能失败，在这 3 个月的爬坡期结束时被你解雇之前，创造的毛利润为 $0，导致损失 $18,000。你们应该雇用这名销售人员吗？Here's another example for EV. If you guys were considering hiring a salesperson at a cost of 6K per month, and you believe there's a 60% chance they'll succeed and generate 15K in gross profit per month after a 3-month ramp, and a 40% chance that they will fail and generate $0 in gross profit before you fire them at the end of that 3-month ramp, resulting in an $18,000 loss, should you hire the salesperson?

嗯，实际上你可以通过把两者相减来计算期望值。所以，如果要考虑我该做 X 还是该做 Y，或者更准确地说，我通常该不该做 X（其中 X 有两种结果），那么这个决策的期望值就是：假设一切顺利时成功的期望值，减去假设事情不顺利时失败的期望值。所以在我们这里，我就把数学计算部分快速带过，因为我知道有些人可能是以……的身份在听。Well, you can actually do expected value math by subtracting the two. So in the case of should I do X or should I do Y or rather just should I do X in general where X has two outcomes. The expected value of the decision is expected value of success assuming everything goes well minus the expected value of fail assuming things do not go well. So in our case here and I'm just going to bury the mathematics here because I know some people are probably listening as a

播客，不一定是看它。成功的期望值是9,000，失败的期望值是7,200。这意味着成功的期望值减去失败的期望值等于1,800美元。也就是说，在这3个月里，做出这个决定的价值是1,800美元。基本上，从期望值的角度来看，如果你做出这个决定，那么这3个月里每个月都能多赚600美元，这显然是正收益，对吧？谁不想白白拿到600美元呢？podcast not necessarily watching it. EV success is equal to 9,000. EV fail is equal to 7,200. That means that EV success minus EV fail is equal to $1,800. That means that the value of making this decision is $1,800 over that 3 months. That means basically if you make this decision from an expected value standpoint, you will gain $600 a month every month for those three months, which is obviously positive, right? Who doesn't want $600 for free?

现在，对于一些小事，我会在脑子里粗略地套用这套期望值框架；而对于任何会耗费我几天时间以上，或者大概要花 10,000 美元以上的事情，我就会像这里这样，真的把它写在纸上。我发现，把概率写下来，对我之后的决策影响要远远大于我实际做的算术计算。它会迫使我尽力量化各种可能性，而这才是其中大部分价值所在。说到底，仅仅是把如何……表述出来，就已经很有价值。Now, I do a rough version of this expected value framework in my head for small stuff, and then I'll actually take it on paper, just like I did here for anything that costs me more than a few days or maybe $10,000 or so. What I have found is that writing the probability down influences my later decision-m far more than the actual arithmetic that I'm doing. It forces me to try my best at quantifying the odds, which is most the value. Literally just articulating how

我觉得这可能才是实际情况。那么，说到实际应用，我们来做几个行动题。写出一个你在过去一年里做过的决定的期望值计算，包括概率和收益。然后根据期望值判断这个决定是好是坏。好，我们来简单聊聊幂律。幂律和期望值一样，是一种很酷的框架，能让你稍微窥见概率论幕后的运作，进而……likely do I think this actually is. So, speaking of actual, let's do some action questions. Write an expected value calculation for a decision you've made in the last year with probabilities and payoffs. Then decide whether it was a good decision or a bad decision based on your expected value. Okay, let's talk power laws for a second. Power laws like expected value are a cool framework that allow you to peek a little bit behind the curtain at probability theory and

我大概应该把时间花在什么事情上。它们也是我认为有效的做法的核心，尤其是在商业决策方面——插入当前年份。要做出好的决策，你必须了解世界是如何分布的。大多数人在这方面的直觉都不太准确。他们会认为，生活中的事物都像身高一样呈正态分布。好吧，对于不了解这一点的人来说，如果你把一百万个随机抽取的人的身高绘制成图表，你……what I should probably be doing with my time. and they're at the core of what I would consider to be effective especially business decision-m in insert current year. So to make good decisions you must understand how the world is distributed. Most people have poor intuitions here. They will assume that things in life are distributed normally like height. Okay, for those of you guys that don't know, if you were to plot the height of a million random people, you

会得到一个正态分布，也就是钟形曲线分布：大多数人的身高都在平均水平，特别矮或特别高的人则很少。对于以前没见过这种分布的人来说，它看起来会像这样。你看，大概在这里，也就是零的位置，代表平均身高——具体是多少我也不知道。would get a normal distribution or a bell curve distribution where the majority of people are going to be of average height and there'd be very few super short or super tall people. And for those of you guys that have never seen this before, what that distribution would look like would be like this. You know, around here zero, you would have the average height, which I don't know.

我不知道平均身高是多少，不过男性的话可能是5英尺7英寸或5英尺8英寸左右。图表右侧会有一群个子更高的人，左侧则会有一群个子更矮的人。所以，因为人类往往能直观地理解，你知道，身高是呈正态分布的，大多数人都会在这里。比如说这是频率，对吧？人数，然后这个……I don't know the average height, but maybe for males it's like 57 or 5'8 or so. On the right hand side of the graph, you'd have a bunch of people that are taller. On the left hand side of the graph, you'd have a bunch of people that are shorter. And so, because human beings tend to intuitively understand that, you know, height is normally distributed, that most people are going to be here, like this is frequency, right? Number of people, and then this

是那个，嗯，标准差。嗯，他们会假设生活中的一切都是这样的。但实际上，生活中很少有事情是这样的。关键就在于此，因为人的直觉往往会认为，客户、视频、决策、财务和任务等事物都呈正态分布。嗯，他们最终会犯很多错误。现实是，你不能仅仅通过在……之间平均分配时间或精力来做出好的决策。is the um standard deviation. Um they're going to assume everything in life is like this. But actually, very few things in life are like this. And that's the key because human intuition often assumes that distributions of like clients, videos, decisions, finances, and tasks are normally distributed. U they end up making a lot of bad mistakes. The reality is you cannot make good decisions merely by distributing your time or effort equally among

候选选项。你需要做的是，不要使用正态分布，而是寻找幂律分布。这就是幂律发挥作用的地方。candidate options. What you need to do is instead of normal distribution, look for a power distribution. And this is where the power law comes into play.

那么，什么是幂律呢？在数学中，幂律是两个变量之间的一种关系，其中一个变量与另一个变量的某个次方成正比。用数学形式表示如下：X 等于 Y 的 N 次方。可以说，这个方程没有图表那么重要。把它画成图，大致会是这个样子。一般来说，几乎所有幂律图看起来都会像这样巨大的……So what is a power law? Well, in mathematics, a power law is a relationship between two variables where one is proportional to the other raised to some power. This is what it looks like mathematically. X is equal to Y raised to the N. Let's say this equation is less important than the graph. So when graphed it looks something like this. Generally speaking, okay, almost all power law graphs are going to look like this massive

递减指数曲线。原因在于，指数曲线左侧通常代表某件事的结果或影响，也就是发生频率最低的事项。我举个例子：假设我们经营一家视频制作公司，目前已经积累了20位客户。descending exponential. And the reason why is because on the left hand side of the exponential you have the outcome or impact of a thing typically the lowest frequency thing. What I mean by this is let me pretend for a moment that we are running a videography agency and we currently have 20 clients on our belt.

你知道，我们有客户1、客户2、客户3、客户4，一直到客户20。图表左侧显示的是这些客户分别为我们带来的收入。如果按照他们付给你的金额对所有客户进行排序，结果几乎总是会呈现出这样的样子。这就是金钱与客户关系的一条普遍规律。You know we have client number one, client number two, client number three, client number four, all the way up to number 20. And on the left hand side of this graph we have the amount of money that every one of those clients has generated us. If you were to sort all of those clients based off of how much money they've paid you, the result would almost invariably look like this. And this is just a universal law of money and client relationships.

[倒吸一口气并叹息] 其中一个客户很可能会支付你绝大部分的收入。按支付金额从高到低排，第二个客户会再支付一大笔，第三个客户也会再支付一大笔，第四个客户则会支付最后一大笔。但其余16个客户几乎什么都不会付给你。这意味着，嗯，光是第一位客户，可能就相当于排名最后的16位客户的总和。[gasps and sighs] One of those clients would probably have paid you the vast majority of your wealth. The second client, descending order, would have paid you another big chunk. The third client would have paid you another big chunk. And the fourth client would have paid you the last big chunk. But all of the other 16 clients would have paid you virtually nothing. What that means is, okay, literally just client number one is probably equivalent to the bottom 16

左右。另一种理解方式是，少数几项就占了总量的大头。一般来说，生活中的规律是，嗯，除了一些像身高和某些生物学原理这样的情况之外，通常某一项会对我们关注的结果贡献不成比例的一大部分。or so. Another way of conceptualizing this is having a few items carry the total. Now, the general rule is in life, um, aside from things like, you know, height and some biological principles, one item is typically responsible for a disproportionate share of whatever the outcome of interest is.

例如，在商业领域，幂律可能表现为少数几款产品贡献了大部分收入、少数几个客户构成了大部分 MR；又或者，在投资领域，少数几只股票带来了投资组合的大部分回报。For example, in business, a power law might look like a few products driving most of your revenue, a few clients comprising most of your MR, or you know, in investing, a few stocks driving most of your portfolio return.

这里很多人可能都听说过帕累托原理这个概念。这是同一个概念的一个很好的例子：80% 的结果是由 20% 的原因带来的。呃，帕累托当年在研究意大利的土地分配时提出了这个原理。我记得他注意到，80% 的土地归 20% 的人所有，不过我也可能记错了。更现代的一个例子可能是微软这样的公司，因为Many people here will probably have heard of this idea of this Pareto principle. It's a great example of the same concept where 80% of results are brought to you by 20% of causes. Uh, Pareto came up with this while studying the distribution of land in Italy way back in the day. I believe he noticed that 80% of the land was owned by 20% of the people, but I might be mistaken there. A more modern look at that might be companies like Microsoft because

像微软这样的公司理解幂律和帕累托法则。好吧，他们分配资源的方式与一切都呈正态分布时不同。比如，微软会找出软件中导致80%客户投诉的那20%的漏洞。然后他们只会把20%的时间花在这些漏洞上。明白吗？或者更准确地说，把100%的时间花在这20%的漏洞上。他们不会把时间平均分配给所有……companies like Microsoft understand power laws and the Purto principle. Okay, what they do is they allocate the resources differently than if everything were normally distributed. For instance, Microsoft will identify the 20% of bugs in their software that cause 80% of customer complaints. They will then spend only 20% of their time on those bugs. Okay? Or rather 100% of the time on the 20% of the bugs. They will not distribute their time equally across all

因为从逻辑上讲，真正对客户体验影响最大的只是其中一小部分 bug。我的意思是，专注于这 20% 的 bug，就能将崩溃次数减少 80%。of the bugs because logically speaking, it is only a small portion of the bugs that actually lead to the most customer experience. What I mean by that is by focusing on the 20% of the bugs, they could reduce the number of crashes by 80%.

这个 20% 大约是 80% 的四分之一。这意味着，他们只需投入四分之一的资源，就能取得同等的成果；或者，投入同样多的资源，就能取得比平均分配资源时大四倍的成果。也就是说，他们只需付出很少，就能做成很多事，而这正是商业的全部诀窍。说到底，一切都是杠杆效应。This number 20% is about four times smaller than this number 80%. which means they can spend four times fewer resources to affect a result that is equivalent or they could affect a result that is equivalent that is four times as large as they could if they were allocating the resources uniformly. So what that means is they just get to do a lot for very little and in business that is the whole game. It's literally all leverage.

所以具体数字会有所不同，不一定总是20、80、20。嗯，不过形状会是一样的。我一直建议大家把幂律想象成一张图：左侧非常非常高，然后大致呈反指数形式下降。So the specific numbers will vary. It's not always 20 80 20. Um but the shape will be the same. I always encourage you guys to think of power law as a graph where the left hand side is really really big and it sort of goes inverse exponentially down.

那么，幂律为什么重要呢？嗯，因为它们会让“平均值”这个概念基本上变得毫无用处。你知道，如果你们经营一家企业，而客户的分布都符合正态分布，那就意味着你们付费最高的客户可能只比平均水平高出或大出 30% 或 40%。所以，假设你卖的是一款每月 5,000 美元的产品，他们可能也就愿意付你 6,500 美元，对吧？这会对策略产生重大影响，Now why do power laws matter? Well, they matter because they make the concept of averages basically completely useless. You know, if you guys ran a business and your clients were all normally distributed, that means that the highest paying client of yours might only be 30 or 40% taller or bigger than average. So instead of maybe let's say you're selling a $5,000 a month product, maybe they would pay you $6,500, right? That would have a major impact on strategy,

不是吗？如果大多数客户付给你的金额都差不多，那么你拓展业务的主要方式很可能就是尽可能多地招揽客户；即便这意味着牺牲质量来换取数量，你也会乐于这么做。但如果你了解客户实际上的分布方式，也就是幂律分布，就会明白，在这种情况下，你的客户中可能有 90% 只会付给你很少的钱，也许是 2 美元或 3000 美元，而单独一个……wouldn't it? If most clients tend to pay you the same amount, your primary way of growing your business is likely just getting as many clients as possible, and you would be happy to do so, even if quantity comes at the expense of quality. But if you understand the way the clients are really distributed, aka through a power law, you'd understand that in that world, 90% of your clients probably pay you very little money, maybe $2 or $3,000, whereas a single

客户可能会付给你高得多的费用，比如3万、4万或5万美元。这就是现实。也就是说，在这个行业里，你的目标显然应该是避开那些每月只付2000美元的低价客户，转而调整你的业务和策略，以便找到更多每月能带来5万美元收入的大客户，因为一个这样的客户就相当于25个其他客户。这在我自己的生意中也确实如此。我自己的一家投资组合公司每年大约能赚100万到120万美元……client might pay you way more, like 30, $40 or $50,000. That's just how it works. What that means is in this world clearly your goal is actually to avoid lowpaying $2,000 a month clients and instead orient your business and strategy such that you can find more of those 50,000 a month bangers since one of those clients are literally equal to 25 of the others. Now this is true in my own business. One of my own portfolio companies makes about1 to$1.2 million a

至少按年计算，这是他们目前的运行速度，而且单个客户就占了其中 80 多万美元。这简直就是幂律在发挥作用。我也可以想想我经营的其他所有业务。你会发现，同样的理念也以各种方式应用其中，只不过可能没这么明显。因此，出于各种原因，这并不是最理想的。在商业领域，这被称为关键人物风险或关键客户风险。如果你的大部分收益……year at least that's their um run rate right now and a single client makes up over $800,000 of that. That is literally the power law in action. And I can think about all of the other businesses I run. And you will see that same idea applied, although probably less starkly um in a variety of ways. And so this is not optimal for a variety of reasons. In business that it's called keyman risk or key client risk. If you have most of your earnings

收入显然来自一两个客户，这很冒险，因为如果那个客户不再合作了，你就有点麻烦了，对吧？那样我一年只能有40万美元，或者一个月4万美元，而不是每月大约10万美元。但事情就是这样，也只能如此。coming from one or two clients, obviously it's risky because if that client disappears, you are then kind of screwed, right? I would only have $400,000 a year or $40,000 a month versus about $100,000 a month. But it is what it is and that's just how it is.

同样，在我的媒体公司里，我制作的少数几门课程带来了绝大多数的播放量。相比之下，其他大多数视频——包括许多我倾注了大量心血制作的视频——所带来的播放量简直微不足道，对吧？其中一门课程每 48 小时就能带来超过 10,000 次播放。Similarly, in my media company, I have a small handful of courses that I make that drive the vast majority of my views. And most of the other videos, including many videos that I worked very hard on, are literal rounding errors beside them. Right? One of my courses drives over 10,000 views every 48 hours.

我投入了多得多的时间和精力做的其他各种项目，可能只给我带来 500。简单来说，这就是幂律。总会有一两个主要杠杆，承担绝大部分工作。在科技领域也可以这么看。你的手机也是类似的情况。少数几个应用占用了你绝大部分的屏幕时间。也就是说，只要屏蔽一两个特定应用，就可能减少大约 80% 的屏幕使用时间，如果你只是花了……A variety of my other ones, which I invested way more time and effort into, make me maybe 500. Simply, it is power law. You will always have one or two major levers that do most of the heavy lifting. You can think about this in technology as well. Your phone is a similar idea. A few apps eat the vast majority of your screen time. Meaning that blocking just one or two specific apps can achieve perhaps 80% of the screen reduction time if you just spent

花时间和精力去弄清楚这一点。你也可以更哲学地从日子、月份和年份是如何度过的角度来思考。嗯，现实来说，一年中发生的几项关键决定，基本上就决定了这一年大部分会过得怎么样，对吧？比如，我该不该和这个人一起去那趟旅行？我该继续和这个人在一起，还是和这个人分手？that time and energy finding that out. You can also think of it more philosophically in terms of how your days, months, and years go. Um, realistically, it's just a couple of key decisions that occur throughout the year that dictate the vast majority of how the year goes, right? It's like, should I have gone on this trip with this person? Should I have stayed with this person or broken up with this person?

我当时是不是该和这个人成家？我是不是该在那个特别的时刻给我的叔祖父打电话——我大概本来就该打的，或者做点什么？对吧？这些都是你决策中的幂律。所以，我们的想法是，战略上，你要找出那些占你所有决策 20%、却决定了你这一年其余走向的决策，然后把所有时间和精力都花在做出这类决策上。Should I have uh started a family with this person? Should I have, you know, called my uh grand uncle at that special time that I probably should have or something? Right? All of these things here um are the power law of your decisions. So the idea is strategically you want to find the 20% of decisions that you make that dictate the rest of your year and then spend all your time and energy making decisions like that.

[清清嗓子] 那么，如何运用幂律来真正做出更好的决策呢？正如前面提到的，首先我们要找出构成那 20% 的项目。这比大多数人想的要容易得多。你只需要看看现有的分布就行了。无论你现在是为了提升某项技能、业务，还是正在发展的方向而学习这门课程，我都会把所有产出逐一列出来。我的意思是，我们拥有的所有东西……[clears throat] So how do you use the power law to actually make better decisions? As mentioned, first we find the items that make up that 20%. And this is much easier than most people think. You just have to look at your pre-existing distribution. So for whatever skill or business or avenue you are currently taking this course to improve on, I would enumerate all of my outputs. What I mean is all the things that we have

产生的结果。如果按结果降序排列，前 20% 总会位于分布的顶端。比如在 YouTube 上，这些就是观看次数最多的视频。在时间这个例子中，这些就是使用时间最多的应用。而在生活这个例子中，这些就是你在过去一年里做出的影响最大的决定。如果你把它们记在日记之类的东西里，那就很棒了。这样你就可以回顾……produced. The 20% will always be at the top of the distribution if you sort it in descending order based off results. So on YouTube for instance, this would be the videos with the most views. In our time example, these would be the apps with the most usage. And in our life example, these would be the most impactful decisions that you've made in the last year, which would be really cool if you had on a journal or something. That way, you could review

它们。如果你把自己做出的所有决策都记录下来，就会把它们写在纸上，这样你就能很轻松地回过头来筛选和整理，找出哪些决策真正产生了重大影响。现在，一旦你确定了那 20%，就有两个选择。第一，你可以加倍投入那些表现出色的 20%。比如说，如果我的浏览量有 80% 都来自三种视频形式，那么我只要多做一些这三种形式的视频就行。them. If you were eving all of the decisions that you made, you would have that written down on a piece of paper, and you could very easily go back and maybe filter and sort them through to determine which ones actually had large impacts. Now, once you identify the 20%, you have two choices. The first is you can double down on the winning 20%. For instance, if 80% of my views come from just three video formats, well, I could just make more of those three formats

而不是在第四个上创新，对吧？我的第二个选择是停止投资于那 80% 的失败项目。从逻辑上说，亏损的那 80% 对实际结果的影响只有几个百分点。rather than innovating on a fourth, right? My second choice is to stop investing in the losing 80%. Logically, the losing 80% makes me just a few percentage points of the actual outcome.

我为什么不干脆彻底放弃它们，或者干脆不再给它们投入资源？反正对我来说，两种做法都没什么区别，对吧？这就直接关联到机会成本和时薪原则的概念，我稍后会详细讲解。这两者都是非常有力的思维框架，因为你花在幂律曲线尾部某件事上的每一个小时——尾部就是末端那段又长又窄的部分——在那里……Why don't I just cut them off entirely or just stop adding resources to them? Doesn't really make much of a difference to me either way. Right? Now, this connects directly to the idea of opportunity cost and the hourly rate rule, which I'm going to cover in detail later. They're both very strong thinking frameworks because every hour that you spend on something that is in the tail of the power law, the tail is the really long skinny part at the end where

一个小时如果花在了高价值的事情上，产出本可以很少吗？所谓高价值，就是那块特别高的部分。以客户为例，就是每月付你 5 万美元的那个客户。there's very little outcome is an hour that you could have spent on something in the head, which is that really tall part, aka in the client example, the client that pays you $50,000 a month.

我打算继续制作像这样时长数小时的长视频。虽然它们所需的投入是普通视频的很多倍，但它们位于我的分布头部。数据也让我明白，应该把精力集中在头部，因为我正试图按照幂律逻辑行事。如果其中一条没火，那也完全没关系。呃，我相信这门综合课程，你知道，这个项目的期望值远高于……的期望值。I am going to continue producing long multi-hour videos like this one. Even though they require many times the effort of an average video, they are the head of my distribution. and the numbers taught me to focus my efforts on the head because I'm attempting to proceed logically via power law. If one does not pop for me, that is totally okay. Uh I trust that the expected value of the comprehensive course, you know, program is way better than the expected value of

那些其他很多 YouTube 上的人在做的烂课程或烂短期视频项目。另一个例子是反转幂律。也就是说，除了幂律之外，还有一种叫作链式定律的东西。你可以把链式定律看作幂律的反面。幂律说的是，列表中最有价值的项目比其他所有项目都好上好几个数量级。the shitty course or shitty short-term video program that a lot of other people on YouTube are doing. Another example is inverting the power law. So in addition to there being, you know, a power law, there's also something called the chain law. And you can think of the chain law as the inverse of the power law. The power law says that, you know, the most valuable item in a list is orders of magnitude better than everything else.

但在链条定律中，情况有点像：链条的强度取决于它最薄弱的一环。每一环都很重要。因此，整个系统的强度取决于系统中表现最差的环节。用数学术语来说，链条定律认为，系统的可靠性不是各环节可靠性的平均值，而是它们的乘积。如果你觉得这不太好理解，可以想想业务流程中的一连串步骤。也许你正在制作某种金属小零件。But in a chain law, it's sort of like a a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Every single link matters. So the strength of the entire system is going to be contingent on the worst performer in that system. In mathematical terms, the chain law says the reliability of a system is not the average of its links, it is the product. Now, if that doesn't make sense for you, consider a chain of steps like in a business process. Maybe you're making some sort of metal widget

或者类似的东西，比如说指尖陀螺，而且你有一家生产这种产品的工厂。如果这种产品的制造过程分为三个步骤，第一步的成功率是100%，第二步的成功率也是100%，但第三步的成功率只有20%。or something, a fidget spinner, let's say, and you have a factory that does so. If there are three steps in the fabrication of this product, and step one has a success rate of 100%. Step two has a success rate of 100%, but step three has a success rate of just 20%.

这款产品的整体成功率只有 20%。从逻辑上讲，你知道，所有通过第一步的产品都会没问题，所有通过第三步的产品也都会没问题。The overall success of this product is only going to be 20%. Logically speaking, you know, all the products that pass through step one are going to be fine. All the products that pass through step three are going to be fine.

但尽管如此，经过第三步的那些系统中，只有20%最终能成功。因此我们可以推断，有些系统——通常不是我前面谈到的幂律结果，我会讲哪些属于哪一类——实际上非常脆弱，而且一旦呈幂律分布，表现就很差。改进这类系统的方法是大幅提高完成率：如果不是100%、100%，而是……But despite that, only 20% of the ones that pass through step three are going to make it. So from here, we can infer that some systems, typically not the power law outcomes that I've talked about earlier, and I'll talk about which ones divide into which camp, are actually very fragile, and they don't do well when they're power law distributed at all. The way that you improve systems like this is you significantly increase finish rate if instead of 100% 100% and

在 20% 的情况下，你实际上是对每个步骤的改进给予同等重视。比如说，假设我们不是 120，而是把每一步都降到了 80、80 和 80，也就是现在变成了 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.8。算一下，总准确率现在是 0.512，也就是 51.2%。相比之前的 20%，提高了 2.5 倍。20% you actually provide equal emphasis on improving each step. So for instance let's say instead of 120 we got this down to 80 80 and 80 which is now8 *8 *8. If you do the math there the total accuracy is now.512 or 51.2%. That's a 2.5% improvement on what it was before which was 20%.

在我告诉你链式系统与幂律系统的区别之前，关于链式系统还有一点很重要：要尽量减少链条中的环节数量，因为环节越多，就越可能有某个环节掉链子。如果你运行的流程中，每个独立步骤的成功率都是 90%，那么按逻辑，两步流程的成功率就是 0.9 × 0.9，也就是 81%。Another major point to make in chainbased systems before I tell you what makes a chain-based system versus a power law based system is it's important to keep the number of links in that chain to a minimum because the more links in a chain, the more opportunities you have for one of those chains links to suck. If you're running a process where each independent step has a 90% success rate, logically a two-step process would have a 0.9 *.9 or 81%

成功率。一个包含三个步骤的流程，其成功率为 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9，也就是 72.9%。随着流程推进，我们只需不断重复这个过程。步骤越多，要相乘的数字就越多。最终，整个流程的成功率就会越低。这也称为链式效应逐步累积下滑。因此，流程需要的步骤越多，正如大家在这张图中看到的，成功的概率就越低。所以success rate. A three-step process would have a 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 or a 72.9% success rate. And we would just repeat that process as you go. The more steps, the more numbers that we're multiplying together. And ultimately, the lower the success rate of the entire process becomes. This is also known as chains compound down. And so the more steps you have to a process, as you guys could see on this graph here, the lower the probability of success gets. So

最终，理想情况下，你要做的就是来到这里的顶层。在一条链中选一个步骤或一个环节，然后把它做得非常强大。至少在工作流自动化和流程自动化优化方面，你可以通过一些方法把多个步骤合并成一个，从而实现链条的逐步累积。你也可以通过把时间花在……上，创造不成比例的价值。ultimately and ideally, what you would do is you would just go to the top here. You would have one step in a chain or one link in a chain and you would just make that link very strong. And there are ways that you can combine at least in workflow automation and process automation optimization multiple steps into one to achieve the outcome of you know chains compounding down. Now you can also drive a disproportionate amount of value out of spending your time on

最差、质量最低的环节。这就是为什么它是逆链式法则。假设我有100个小时可以投入，用来改进一个像这样的系统。the worst lowest quality step. And this is why it's the inverse chain rule. Let's say I had 100 hours to invest to improve a system that looked like this.

第一步完成了95%，第二步完成了70%，第三步完成了95%。我该如何分配时间？嗯，因为我们都知道，链条最薄弱的一环会导致整条链条断裂。呃，我应该把这100个小时全部花在那个完成度只有70%的步骤上，直到它达到95%或更高。达到95%或更高之后，我就可以开始在每个步骤之间平均分配时间了。[叹气并倒吸一口气] 好吧。那么，哪个对应哪个？当然，如果你看到这里，你可能……95% step one, 70% step two, 95% step three. How should I allocate my time? Well, because as we know, it is the weakest link in the chain that breaks the chain. Um, I should spend all 100 of those hours on that 70% until it gets to 95% or above. When it gets to 95% or above, I can then start equally distributing my time between each of these steps. [sighs and gasps] Okay. So, which is which? Naturally, if you made it to this point, you're probably

我想知道，嗯，你为什么刚告诉我幂律，紧接着又马上讲一个与之完全相反的定律？这是因为现在你们明白了，不同类型的问题往往需要用不同的方法来解决。所以，解决幂律问题的方法是……wondering, well, why would you just tell me the power law and then tell me about a law that is the exact opposite immediately after? It's because now you guys understand that different classes of problems tend to get solved in different ways. So, the way you solve power law problems.

所以，幂律通常适用于这类结果：你会考察一个系统的输出，以此判断应该使用哪个系统。比如，假设我面前有一堆系统，好吧，然后我查看它们过去一周的所有输出。也许我面前有一堆工厂，我会看看哪些工厂生产了最多的……嗯，小玩意儿。我会选出生产小玩意儿最多的那些工厂，然后我就会……So, power laws typically apply to outcomes where you're examining the outputs of a system to determine which system you should use. So, if I had a bunch of systems in front of me, okay, and then I looked at all of their outputs over the course of the last week, maybe a bunch of factories in front of me, and I looked at how much made which factories made the most uh widgets, I would pick the factories that made the most widgets, and then I would

由于幂律的作用，我们应该加大对这些工厂的投入。我预计会发现，其中一两家或三家工厂的产量可能远超绝大多数其他工厂。这就是幂律。链式定律并不适用于许多不同流程的结果，它适用于单个流程。所以，当你要优化其中一家工厂的性能时，链式定律就说得通。比如说……double down on those because of the power law. And I would expect to find that one or two or three of those factories probably disproportionately outproduced the vast majority of the others. Now, that's the power law. The chain law doesn't apply to outcomes of lots of different processes. What the chain law applies to is an individual process. So the chain law makes sense when you're optimizing the performance of just one of those factories. Like for

比如，如果我的任务不是选出最好的工厂，然后进一步加大对赢家的投入；如果我的任务反而是，嘿，我有一家工厂，我必须优化这家工厂的产品和工作。instance, if my task was not to pick the best factory and then double down on the winner. If my task was instead, hey, I have a factory and I have to optimize the product and work of that factory.

那么，我会运用链条法则，找出流程中最薄弱的一环。我会问自己：怎样把各个步骤连接起来，尽可能减少整条链中的步骤或环节？然后，我该如何加固最薄弱的环节，让它们跟上进度？Well, then I would apply the chain law. I would find the weakest link in the process. I would ask myself, how do I connect steps together to minimize the number of total steps or links in this chain? And then how do I harden the weakest links to bring them up to speed?

所以这里有几个关于行动的问题。过去 12 个月里，你们创造了多少收入、获得了多少观看量、签下了多少客户，或者取得了哪些你们会衡量的成果？在这些成果中，你们认为贡献最大的三项是什么？如果你们只做这三项，结果会怎么样？So some action questions here. What have you guys produced revenue, views, clients, whatever it is that you measure over the last 12 months? And of that output, what would you consider the top three contributors? What would happen if you only did those top three contributors?

那你所依赖的某个流程呢？选一个流程，数一数其中包含多少个步骤，然后估算这些步骤各自成功的频率。如果你还在上学，这可能是学术领域的某个流程；如果你在做生意，可能是商业流程；如果你在企业工作，也可能是工作场所中的某个流程。把这些步骤的概率相乘。你会愿意拿钱来赌这个结果吗？如果答案是……What about a process that you rely on? Take one, count the number of steps involved, and then estimate how often each one of these processes work. Maybe it's a process in academia if you're in school. Maybe it's a process in business if you're in business or something at your workplace if you are working in corporate. Take those steps and multiply their probabilities together. Is that result a number that you would happily bet money on? If the answer to that

答案是否定的，那么你大概应该应用链式法则。下一个概念是局部最大值和全局最大值。局部最大值和全局最大值是所谓的优化数学中的重要概念。我在做研究时第一次接触到它们，从那以后便将它们应用到了生活中的大多数方面。简而言之，人总是想往上走，对吧？我们想要攀登。我们的目标是尽可能登上顶峰。question is no, you should probably apply the chain law. Next idea is of local and global maxim. Now local and global maxim are important concepts in what's called optimization math. I first learned about them while I was in research and I've applied them to most of my life ever since. In short, human beings always want to go up, right? We want to climb. Our goal is to make it to the peak wherever possible.

所以，人类在任何时候通常都会从逻辑上评估所有可能的选项和决策，然后选择能让我们上升幅度最大、攀升最多的那个。但当你到达一个顶峰，哪怕只是局部峰值时，会发生什么呢？如果你已经站在一个顶峰上，想象一下自己站在山顶。所有可能的决定，也就是你可能去的所有地方，都是往下走的，对吧？那么，什么……So, what human beings will do at any point in time is we will typically logically we will evaluate all possible options and decisions and then we'll choose which one gives us the largest rise or the largest climb. But what happens when you make it to a peak, even a local peak? Well, if you're already on top of a peak, think about yourself on the top of a mountain. All possible decisions, aka all possible places you could go go down, right? So, what

会怎样？那么，你就会卡住。嗯，这种情况在数学中会发生，就像在人身上也会发生一样。比如说，我现在正在不断往上爬。我不停地回头观察并评估，然后向前看，问自己哪个方向能让我上升，哪个方向会让我下降。嗯，显然那个方向能让我上升，所以我应该继续前进。但最终你会到达顶点。可如果你留意一下并拉远视角，就会意识到那并不是…happens? Well, then you get stuck. Well, this occurs in math just like it occurs with people. Now, here for instance, I am climbing and climbing and climbing. I constantly evaluate by looking back and then I look forward and I say what direction moves me up and which direction moves me down. Well, obviously that direction moves me up so I should keep moving. But eventually you make it to the top. But if you notice and you zoom out, you realize that isn't

实际上，那是你能到达的最高点。那只是你当前所在区域的最高点。当前区域的最高点称为局部最大值，而所有可能区域中的最高点称为全局最大值。actually the top that you could get to. That's just the top of the area that you're currently in. The top of the area that you're currently in is called a local maximum. Whereas the top of all possible areas is called a global maximum.

问题在于，好吧，当你到达一个局部最大值的顶点时，唯一能走的方向就是向下。而大多数人，因为人脑总是以爬山式的方式运作，总想在某些方面成长或进步。很多人永远都不愿迈出向下走的第一步，因为你看，我们就卡在这里了。The issue is, okay, when you make it to the top of a local maximum, the only move is to go down. And most people, because human brains just always work in a hill climbing way, we're always looking to grow or improve in some capacity. Lots of people will never ever want to make that first step down because, as you see, we got stuck here.

如果我们只是先把自己踢出去，稍微往下走一点，最终就能一路爬到那个全局最大值，但这需要付出某种代价。也就是说，需要先退一步。If we only kicked ourselves out, went down a bit, we would be eventually be able to climb all the way up to that global maximum, but it's going to require a loss of some kind. It's going to require like a step back, so to speak.

现在，大多数在生活或职业生涯中陷入停滞的人，并不是站在山脚下，而是站在一座山顶上。不幸的是，那座山通常很小，而且往往还有另一座更大的山，只要他们先从自己的小山上下来，那座山就会欣然接纳他们。这就是局部最大值。它是一个峰顶，而很多时候，身处其中会让你觉得自己已经成功了。但问题在于，它并不是最高的峰。而因为你……Now, most people who are stuck in life or career, they're not at the bottom of a hill. They're at the top of one. Unfortunately, that hill is usually quite small, and there's often another larger hill that would happily host them if only they came down from their little hill first. So, that's what a local maximum is. It's a peak, and from the inside, a lot of the time, it feels like you're successful. But the issue is it's not the biggest peak. And because you're

当你已经站在当前这座山的山顶时，就很难离开。以我自己的经历为例，2024 年我经营着一家服务公司 Leftclick，专为代理机构实施自动化工作流。我非常努力地尝试，但无论怎么做，月收入都无法突破 5 万美元。already at the top of your current hill, it's very difficult to depart. A good example for my own life was in 2024. I was running a service company that implemented automated workflows for agencies called Leftclick. And I tried really hard, but I could not grow past $50,000 per month no matter what I did.

当时我主要的获客渠道——嗯，也就是冷邮件和 Upwork——本身就很难让我把规模做得更大。所以我没有继续……My main lead generation channels at the time, uh, which were cold email and Upwork, they were inherently difficult for me to scale past that. So instead of

课程讨论：第五部分Course Discussion: Part Five

停留在这个局部最大值上——这是一个很高的峰值，但并不是我认为自己最终理论上能够攀登到的最高点——我开始环顾四周，看到人们站在各种各样的山峰上，那些山峰比我所在的位置高得多，也壮观得多。stay there at this local maximum, which was a great maximum, but it was not the maximum I thought I could theoretically have eventually climbed to, I started looking around and I saw people at a variety of these peaks that were far higher and greater than where I was at.

你知道，他们的月收入峰值曾达到 10 万美元。他们每个月能赚 50 万美元，诸如此类。我注意到，他们当中很多人都把自然流量打造的品牌作为获客漏斗，而不是用冷邮件和 Upwork。所以我决定，先接受短期的损失，摸索出其中的门道，也就是说，我会从自己的局部最优点退下来。最终，这么做之后，我立刻找到了通往全局最优点的路径，这也让我得以继续逐步攀升。You know, they were at peaks of $100,000 a month. they were making $500,000 a month and so on. And I noticed that many of them were using an organic brand as their funnel and not cold email and Upwork. So what I decided to do was I decided I would take a short-term hit of figuring the stuff out, meaning I would step down from my local maxima. And eventually after doing so, I immediately found the path to the global maxima, which has now allowed me to hill climb

朝着另一个方向发展，而那个方向后来带来了数倍的回报。现在我走到这一步，开始拉远视角，也意识到，嗯，嘿，其实还有更大的上限。于是我问自己，好吧，我得做出什么样的决定，才能退一步，回到之前所处的位置，对吧？in a different direction that has since paid many multiples. Now that I'm here, I'm zooming out and I'm realizing, well, hey, there's actually even bigger maxima. And I'm asking myself, okay, what sorts of decisions do I have to make to step back in order to get to the same place that I was at before, right?

在一座新山丘上成长。那么，你究竟怎么判断自己是否处于局部最大值？嗯，你知道，人类可没有那么漂亮的图表。显然，生活要复杂得多。所以，你需要某种判断依据。这里有一些可靠的信号，是我一贯会留意的。第一，如果你的改进幅度正在缩小。如果你做的每一项改变带来的投资回报都比上一项低，那么，这就是一个……Grow on a new hill. So, how do you actually tell whether or not you're at a local maximum? Um, you know, human beings don't just have nice graphs. Obviously, life is a little more complicated than that. So, instead, you need some form of sign. And there are some reliable ones here that I always go by. The first is if your improvements are shrinking. If every change that you do is buying you lower return on investment than the last, well, that's a

这是你正在接近顶峰的信号。光看图就能明白，对吧？比如在这里，我朝着顶峰的方向移动，让我在垂直方向上上升了很多。但在这里，我只稍微推动了一下自己，垂直方向上的变化却没那么大。那条线的斜率已经变了很多。我还会看另一个可靠的信号：投入没有带来更多产出。也就是说，如果我额外花了大把时间、精力，招了人，投入了工时，sign that you're nearing the top. And that kind of makes sense just looking at the graph, right? Like over here, me moving in the direction of the top moved me a lot vertically. But over here, me nudging myself just a little bit hasn't really moved me all that much vertically. The slope of that line has changed a lot. Another reliable one I go by is if the input is not producing more output. Aka if I'm spending a bunch of extra time, effort, hires, hours,

不管怎样，我完全没有获得任何回报。最后一种情况是，有个人的技能可能不如你，在另一条赛道上做着类似的事，却比你做得更好。比如，我看到一群经营有机品牌的人在财务上赚得盆满钵满时，就是这种感觉。我当时想：我觉得自己对这些商业上的事懂得比他们多得多啊。到底是怎么回事？所以，我非常看重……whatever, and I'm not generating any returns at all. The last one is if someone with has less skill than you on maybe a different hill doing something similar and they're beating you. And so, for instance, that's what I saw when I looked over at a bunch of people with organic brands that were absolutely crushing it financially. I was like, I feel like I know way more about all this business stuff than they do. What's going on? So, I'm really big on

优化——如果这还不够明确的话。也就是说，这件事对我来说确实很难接受。我一直想寻找做得更好的方法。但我不得不认识到，有时候，想要做得更好，唯一的办法就是退一步，甚至先做得更差。而我接受了这一点之后，思路清晰了很多，也赚了更多钱，可谓双赢。optimizations if it's not clear. meaning this was pretty hard pill for me to swallow. I always wanted to look for ways to do better. And what I had to come to realize was the only way to do better sometimes is to take a step back and actually do worse. But me embracing this has resulted in far greater clarity of thought and it's also made me way more money which is a win-win.

因此，正如前面提到的，退一步是有代价的：要从局部最大值走向全局最大值，就必须跨越这道山谷。这通常意味着在一段时间内，你得接受收入减少、数据变差，或者被别人认为表现更差。So there is a cost to stepping down as mentioned to go from a local maximum to a global one means you have to cross this valley that typically means you have to learn earn less money or have worse numbers or be perceived by others as doing worse for some period of time.

问题是，你如何承受这一切，又如何选择仍然去做？最简单的办法，就是把它具体量化，而不是让它变成某种模糊又吓人的东西。你应该把它变成一个具体的数字，然后接受它。比如，我之前跟你们说过那次转型时，我得出的结论是：在尝试做品牌的接下来3个月里，我愿意每个月少赚2.5万美元。最不可思议的是，我没有……The question is how do you bear this and how do you choose to do it anyway? The simplest way is by quantifying what that value looks like instead of it being some vague or scary thing. You should make it a concrete number and then accept it. Now, for example, I concluded when I made the transition I was telling you guys about earlier that I was open to making $25,000 a month less for the next 3 months while trying out the brand thing. Craziest thing is I didn't

实际上并没有让我的收入减少，不过我已经做好了准备。第二点是，不要一下子就跳下悬崖、冲进山谷。我想说的是，你完全可以分出一部分时间，也许是全部工作时间的 10% 或 20%，来投入这项新事业，同时你们仍然继续做手头的事情。就我而言，我当时仍在发送大量冷邮件，也在 Upwork 上投递申请。我只是减少了投入在……上的时间。actually end up shrinking my income at all, but I was prepared to. The second thing is not jumping off the cliff into the valley all at once. What I mean by this is you can actually allocate a portion of your time, maybe 10 or 20% of all working hours to this new endeavor while you guys are still working on your current thing. So in my case, what I was doing was I was still sending lots of cold email and Upwork applications. I just reduced the time I was investing on

我每天把那件事减少了60到90分钟，然后说：“好吧，我要把这部分时间转投到我的品牌上。”我的想法是，我仍然可能把所有时间中的80%花在我知道能推动业务增长的事情上。你知道，只有20%的时间用来探索这个新机会，而我还没有为它算出投资回报。它的 downside 显而易见，而且是确定无疑的。that by 60 to 90 minutes a day and said, "Okay, I'm going to redirect this to my brand." So the idea is I was still maybe spending 80% of all of my hours on the thing that I knew was growing my business. The only, you know, 20% of my time was being spent to explore this new opportunity, which I had not carved out a return on investment for. The the downside is obvious. It's very certain.

而且好处有点说不清，也很模糊，这也就解释了为什么那么多人害怕迈进那个山谷。不过，嗯，如果你正处于某个局部最大值，那你真的应该迈出这一步；如果你还没到局部最大值，就继续攀登，直到到达一个局部最大值。到了那里通常会很明显。好，进入下一部分之前，我们先回答两个问题。第一个问题是，请你说出一件……and the upside is sort of like unclear and it's vague, which makes sense why so many people get scared to take the leap into that valley. But um you should you really should if you are in one of those local maxima and if you're not in a local maxima, keep climbing until you are in a local maxima. It tends to be pretty obvious when you when you get there. Okay, so let's answer two questions before the next section. The first is for you to name one thing in

你的生活、人际关系或事业，无论你怎么努力都不再有所改善了。这是一个局部最大值吗？想想看。如果你从这个局部最大值上退下来，或者改变做法，去攀登一座更高的山峰，你觉得什么会受到影响？影响会有多大，持续多久？这里还有一个能极大提升你思考质量的概念，叫作注意力残留。这个概念是由一位女性提出的。your life or relationships or your business that has stopped improving no matter what you do. Is that a local maximum? Think about that. If you stepped down from this local maximum or changed your approach in the pursuit of climbing something taller, what do you think would suffer? By how much and for how long? Here's another concept that'll massively improve the quality of your thinking. It's called attentional residue. Now, this is coined by a woman

索菲·洛伊在2009年提出了这一概念，它指的是这样一种现象：当你把注意力从任务A转移到任务B时，无论你花多少时间和精力强迫自己专注于任务B，仍有一部分注意力会滞留在任务A上，就像黏糊糊的残留物一样。注意力残留越多，对你接下来要做的任务造成的负面影响就越大。我们之前稍微谈到过这一点，不过，嗯，我想更深入地详细讲讲。Sophie Loy in 2009, and it refers to the phenomenon where when you switch your attention from task A to task B, a portion of your attention will remain stuck, sort of like a gooey residue on task A, regardless of how much time and energy you try and use to force yourself to focus on task B. Now, the larger the attentional residue, the more impactful negatively it is to your next task. We talked about this a little bit earlier, but um I wanted to really go in detail

这里是因为我认为，这正是如今人们效率如此低下的核心原因。如今，我们大多数时候都是因为受到某种打断才切换任务，这让它成了一个非常普遍的问题，尤其是在使用 AI 模型时。我认为，AI 模型本身就会促使人们同时打开多个窗口、发送请求、转而处理其他事情，然后再回过头来继续。关于打断，我目前的共识是——而且有科学依据支持——它每隔……就会发生一次。here because I think it's at the core of what makes people so unproductive these days. Most of the time we're switching tasks because of some interruption these days, which makes it a very common problem, especially with AI models, which I think inherently incentivize having multiple windows open, sending requests, working on something else, and then doubling back. My current consensus on interruptions, and one that is backed by science, is it's occurring once every

大约3到5分钟，简直不可思议。嗯，如果你们和统计平均水平差不多，那就意味着大概每四五分钟就会被某件事打断一次，而这种打断会留下残余效应，损害你们清晰思考下一项任务的能力，让你们始终慢下来。现在，已经有大量研究探讨注意力方面的影响究竟有多严重。3 to 5 minutes or so, which is insane. Um, if you are anything like the statistical average, that means that once every maybe four or 5 minutes or so, you guys are getting interrupted by something and that interruption is causing a residue which is negatively impairing your ability to think clearly about your next task that is always slowing you down. Now, a bunch of studies have been done on just how bad the impact magnitude of attentional

残留量是。而且它们会因任务类型和任务时长而异。有些相当高，但我估计它比最糟糕的情况稍低一些，可能是 5% 或 10%。不过换个说法，如果你们解决了有意残留的问题，就能立刻恢复 5% 到 10% 的认知能力，这简直不可思议，对吧？基本上，情况是这样的：如果你正在做任务 A，然后暂时转去做任务 B，residue is. And they vary based on the type of task and the length of task. Some are quite high, but I estimate it as a little bit lower than sort of like worst case scenario, maybe 5 or 10%. But another way to put this is if you fix your intentional residue, you guys immediately gain back 5 to 10% to your cognitive capacity, which is insane, right? So basically what happens is, you know, if you are doing task A and then you move over to task B for a second,

你会注意到，在你彻底转到任务 B 之前，你的一部分注意力还停留在任务 A 上，持续 20 分钟。这就是注意力残留。无论你多努力，在这个计时器结束之前，它都会对任务完成造成大约 10% 或 15% 的影响——我的意思是，也许 5%，或者说 5% 到 10% 左右。现在假设一下，你一直都在做这样的事。you'll notice that part of you is still on task A for 20 minutes before making it all the way to task B. Well, that is the attentional residue. No matter how hard you try, you will have this like 10 or 15% or I mean maybe five or let's say 5 to 10% um impact on task completion until you could sort of finish this timer. Now imagine hypothetically that you were just doing this all the time.

任务A，任务B，任务A，任务B，任务A，任务B。你会一直处于这个红色覆盖层之下，对吧？问题就在这里。好消息是，你不必永远被迫承受这种状态。嗯，即使你不得不在注意力分散的状态下工作，也有办法尽量减轻影响。苏菲·洛莱持续开展了许多研究，发现当人们被要求在某个……中重新回到一项任务时，抽离的难度最高。Task A, task B, task A, task B, task A, task B. You would always be under this red overlay, right? Well, that's the problem. Now, the good news is you don't have to be forced to suffer this forever. Um, even if you have to work in a fractured state, there are ways to minimize the impact. There are a bunch of studies that Sophie Lorai continued doing that found that the difficulty of detaching was the highest when people were expected to return to a task in a

处于时间紧迫、匆忙的状态。这意味着，如果你想减轻注意力残留，而我们也接受无论多努力，这种情况都会持续发生在我们身上，那么最简单、最容易的办法就是在开始切换之前，制定一个所谓的恢复计划。好。timeressured and rushed state. Which means that if you want to mitigate attentional residue and we just accept that this is something that will continue happening to us no matter how hard we try. The simplest and easiest way is to make what's called a resume plan before you start switching. Okay.

那么，什么是恢复计划？它只需要一分钟，用来记下你目前的项目进度，以及重新开始时要采取的下一步。举个从任务 A 切换到任务 B 的例子：你已经做了 20 分钟的任务 A，决定切换时，就在切换前的最后一分钟左右，说：“好，我现在做到这里了。”So, what is a resume plan? It's just a minute where you take note of where you're at now with your project and the next step you have to take when you get back to it. So, in the example of switching from task A to task B, what you do is task A, 20 minutes in, you decide to switch, right before you switch, maybe that last minute or so, you'd say, "Okay, here's where I'm at.

“这是我的下一步行动。”然后你就切换到任务 B。这样一来，注意力残留持续的时间可能只有这里的三分之一。而且这很容易做到。如果你有待办事项清单、项目管理工具之类的东西，就能立刻消除大部分注意力残留。显然，最好的办法就是完全避免切换任务。不过，这个简单的习惯可以显著减少遗留下来的注意力残留。Here's my next action." And then you'd switch to task B. And the attentional residue would last maybe a third of how long it lasts here. And it's very easy to do. If you have a to-do list or a project manager or something, you can immediately eliminate most of the attentional residue. Obviously, the best way is just ab abstain from moving over tasks entirely. Um, but this simple habit can significantly reduce the attention residue that's left behind.

与其让那种黏稠如焦油的东西占到 5% 到 10%，也许它能把这个比例降到 1% 到 2%。我有条个人原则：同时进行的任务不超过两项。就我个人而言，如果我手头有两项正在处理的任务，在至少完成其中一项之前，我不会再开启其他事情。所以，就我现在的情况来说，如果我正在写一篇文章，同时等着一封邮件，我就不会打开消息标签页，也不会打开社区动态流，更不会打开计算器或电子表格来快速……Instead of 5 to 10% of that sticky tar-like substance, maybe it'll bring you down to 1 to 2%. I have a personal rule, which is no more than two open tasks. Personally, if I have two tasks open that I'm working on, nothing else can be open until I'm done with at least one. And so, in my case right now, if I'm writing an essay and I'm waiting for an email, I will not open a message tab or have a community feed open or open a calculator or a spreadsheet to quickly

查个数字什么的。我真的会一直专注在那篇文章上，哪怕感觉慢得让人头脑发麻，哪怕身体的每一部分都在恳求我换个事情做。残酷的现实是，如果我就盯着那个屏幕，而不是四处走动，完成那篇文章的效率会高得多，哪怕感觉并非如此。所以，我要么把文章写完，要么妥善关掉它，并记下回来后要做什么。check a number or whatever. I will literally just stay focused on that essay even if it feels mind-numbingly slow and even if every part of my body just like is begging me to change. The harsh reality is I am going to be way more effective finishing that off uh if I just stay on that screen than if I you know move around even if it doesn't feel that way. So I either finish that essay or I close it properly and I leave a note on what I will do when I come back.

这就是这些任务管理器非常有价值的地方。我知道这听起来很不灵活。确实如此。遗憾的是，人脑就是不擅长同时处理多项任务。我们根本不擅长多任务处理。如果你曾经纳闷，为什么有些人能以快一倍的速度完成工作，而你却可能连自己在做什么都摸不着头绪，部分原因很可能是你把自己的……碎片化了。And that's where those task managers are are quite valuable. And I know that this sounds inflexible. It is. Unfortunately, the human brain just does not work well juggling multiple tasks. We blow at multitasking. And if you've ever wondered why some people can just blaze through their work twice as fast as others while you may struggle to make heads or tails of what it is that you're doing, it is likely in part because you are the one that is fragmenting your

持续不断地关注。而他们不知为何，也许是天生的习惯，呃，也许是他们的家人……还记得他们在学校或某门课程上学到的东西，像我这样的人往往不会考虑：如果你在编写软件，你会把它设计成能同时打开 40 个浏览器标签页吗？每个标签页都占用一部分电脑内存，拖慢系统的其他部分？不会。attention constantly. Whereas they for whatever reason, maybe a god-given uh habit or maybe something their family and still remember something they learned from school or a course like mine tend not to consider if you were writing a piece of software, would you design it so that it could have 40 browser tabs open at once? Each tab using a portion of the computer's memory to slow down the rest of the system? No.

当然不是。你会这样设计：你知道处于活动状态的标签页会是你最关注的，但为了以防万一需要把注意力转移过去，其他标签页大概也会在后台占用一些资源，对吧？你的大脑就是这样运作的。Of course not. You design it in such a way where you know the tabs that are active are the ones that will be getting most of your focus, but you would probably still have some sort of background leech going on with the other ones just in case you needed to move it on, right? That's how your brain works.

所以，我们大多数人整天都让大脑这样运转，不断在不同任务和情境之间切换。别做这样的人。So, most of us run our brains like this all day long, constantly task and context switching between something else. Do not be one of those people.

我意识到这里写了两个问题，但我原本只有一个。嗯，今天你有哪些没做完的任务，还一直挂在心头？如果只给你30秒写一条方便之后继续处理的备注，你会写什么？I realize I wrote two questions here, but I only had one. Um, which task did you leave unfinished today that is still running in the back of your head? What would you write if you had 30 seconds to create a resume note?

Acrasia 是一个源自古希腊作家的术语，字面意思是缺乏自制力。更广泛地说，它指的是明明知道该怎么做才是正确的，却仍然没有去做的状态。亚里士多德曾在《尼各马可伦理学》中谈到它。要我自己说，这读起来有点儿费劲。你今天可能在某个时候就经历过这种情况。呃，我是说真的。无自制力大概是如今人们最常需要面对的事情。嗯。Acrasia is a term from an ancient Greek writer that literally means a lack of self-control. More generally, it refers to the state of knowing what the right action is to take but still not doing it. Now, Aristotle wrote about it in the Nikomakian ethics. A bit of a slo if I do say so myself. You've probably experienced it at some point today. Uh and I mean that literally. A creation is probably the most common thing that people these days have to deal with. Um

从知识工作者的角度来看。它回应了“我真的应该做 X”这种说法。如果你曾经发现自己这么说过，如果你曾经发现自己这么说过，那么你就以某种方式完全经历过这种情况。from a knowledge work perspective. It answers the I really should do X statement. If you've ever caught your saying that, if you've ever caught yourself saying that, you have in one way or another totally experienced.

下面这段摘录自一篇文章，是我在 2009 年 4 月读到的，作者叫 Scott Alexander。文章最初发布在一个叫 Less Wrong 的网站上，题目是《理性并没有那么有用》。如果你们有人还不了解 Less Wrong，那是个很棒的博客，我在这门课里讲的内容，大概有一半以上都是从那里学来的。它是个非常棒的资源，尤其是其中的“从概念到实践”板块。里面有很多讨论……So the following is an excerpt from an essay that I read back in April 2009 by a guy called Scott Alexander. It was originally posted on this website called Lest Wrong called Rationality is not that useful. For those of you guys that are unaware, Lesrong is a wonderful blog where I learned probably more than half of what I've been talking about in this course. It's a really cool resource, especially their concepts uh to practical section. There's a lot of talk

关于像 AGI、话语论述之类的内容，确实很有价值，但我觉得它过于技术化，也不是百分之百适用。不过，关于如何实际运用理性来改善生活的内容，简直太惊人了。on like AGI and discourse and stuff like that, which can be valuable, but I do find it overly technical and not 100% applicable, but the stuff on practical um ways to utilize rationality to improve your life is just insane.

这可能是我读过的互联网资料中投资回报率最高的内容之一。总之，Scott 观察了一群人——他们对清晰思考的研究，或许比世上任何其他群体都更加认真。接着，他问他们是否真的擅长清晰思考。坦率地说，他的答案是：不太擅长。他得出的结论是，有意识地练习理性思维与人生实际成功之间的相关性，可能更接近 0.1，而不是 1。他将其归因于……probably some of the highest ROI I've ever had reading an internet resource. Anyway, so Scott looks at a group of people, people who have studied thinking clearly more seriously than perhaps any other group in existence. And then he asks if they're actually good at it. His answer is frank, not really. He concludes that the correlation between consciously practicing rationality and actually succeeding in life is probably closer to 0.1, not one. He attributes

这并不是工具不够好，而是源于意志薄弱（akrasia）。这就是瓶颈。他的结论是：如果你没有执行决策的意志力，那么决策再好也无济于事。[叹气] 好吧，嗯，基本上这说明了瓶颈或上限。this not to the inadequacy of the tools, but to accasia. This is the bottleneck. And his conclusion is this. It doesn't matter how good your decisions are if you don't have the willpower to act on them. [sighs] Okay, so um basically what this shows us is bottlenecks or capping.

我们现在把各种不同的东西混合在一个有点像化学容器的东西里。不过你会注意到，真正被用到的只有其中几样。我们混合的三样东西就是你知道什么、你做什么，以及你得到什么。所以，尽管你往这个容器里加入了大量知识，真正能激活这些知识的只有你做的事。好吗？因此，你做的事某种程度上就是限制因素。We have a variety of different things that are being mixed in kind of a chemical container right now. But you'll notice that only a few of these actually get used. And the three things that we're mixing are what you know, what you do, and then what you get. So despite you adding, you know, a massive amount of knowledge to this container, the only thing that actually activates that knowledge is what you do. Okay? And so what you do is sort of the limiting

整个化学反应的试剂。而且，因为你做什么和你得到什么直接相关，所以不增加你做的事情，就无法增加你得到的东西。遗憾的是，大多数人其实已经处在他们知识所能达到的这个阶段了。就知识储备而言，他们已经超过这条橙色线了。也就是说，他们知道的东西已经够多了。他们的问题几乎总是出在他们做的事情上。明白吗？而在极少数情况下，reagent of this whole chemical reaction. And because what you do is directly correlated with what you get, you cannot increase what you get without doing without increasing what you do. The unfortunate reality is most people are actually already at this point of their knowledge. They already have more okay than this orange line in terms of knowledge surplus. what they know. Their issue is almost always what they're doing. Okay? And in very small cases,

关键在于他们如何把正在做的事情转化为最终获得的成果。但瓶颈几乎总是他们目前实际做了多少。it's how they're transforming what they're doing into what they're getting. But the bottleneck is almost always just like how much they are currently doing.

我知道这一点，是因为我运营着一个社群，差不多两年来，我每天都能看到大家在做什么。嗯，到目前为止，我想那个社群里已经有超过 1400 人了。呃，抱歉，是 14,000 人，他们每天都会发帖，真的就是每天发：“嘿，这是我今天做的事。”And I know this because I've run a community where I get to see day by day what everybody works on uh for I think almost two years now. Um and to date, I think there have been over 1400 people in that community. Uh sorry, 14,000 people in that community posting literal daily, hey, here's what I did today.

这是我今天在想的事。这是我今天学到的东西。这是我赚到的钱。基本上，我就有了一项社会学研究，探讨通过创客学校可能成功或失败的所有方式，这真是太不可思议了。Here's what I was thinking today. Here's what I learned today. and here's how much money I've made. So, I basically have like a sociological study of all of the ways that you can win and you can lose through a maker school, which is incredible.

现在，由于大家受到激励去创造价值、分享自己的成功，平台上大约有 45,500 个讨论串，每个讨论串通常都有十几条或更多帖子或互动。对我来说，答案显而易见，因为前几天我用 Fable 做了不少分析。那些人并不是最有知识的人，不是写作水平最高的人，也不是你知道的受教育程度最高的人，或是做过最多“引用……”的人。Now, since people are incentivized to create value and post their wins, there's something like 45,500 threads, each of which often have a dozen posts or engagements or more. And the answer to me, because I did a bunch of analysis using Fable the other day, is clear as day. It is not the most knowledgeable people, the people that write at the highest writing levels, the people that you know are most well educated or the people that have done the most quote

结束引用：那些在工作中持续获胜并赚很多钱的人。总是那些付诸行动的人——那些发邮件的人、搭建 MVP 粗略版本的人，或者打电话然后搞砸的人。就像那些 18 到 19 岁的年轻人，他们对该怎么做一窍不通，却还是一头扎进来；他们从没和客户交谈过，也从没拿起电话打过电话，甚至还没掌握足够的知识让自己把事情搞砸，却就这么开始了。他们就是这样的人。unquote inner work that consistently win and make lots of money. It is always the people that act, the people that send the emails or build the rough versions of the MVP or the people that call and screw up. It is like the 18 to 19 year olds that come into this with zero knowledge about what the hell to do, who've never talked to a client or picked up the phone before, that don't even know enough to screw themselves up, that just start. They are the sorts of

那些做得远远超出自己所知的人。你知道，如果他们已经做得相当出色，那么教给他们信息完全没有问题。people that have their what they do in excess and what they know sort of, you know, below them. And you know, if what they do is already quite high, then teaching them information is no problem whatsoever.

那些没有向前迈进的人，往往会消费最多的内容，却什么也不做。所以我明白，你现在正在观看的就是这类内容，我真的很想把这一点讲透。我觉得如果不这么做，对我来说就是不诚实；很多制作这种长篇课程的人，只想让你永远停留在学习状态。但我……我希望你能想清楚，然后让自己的人生更有作为。如果你……It's the people that don't move forward that tend to consume the most content but do nothing with it. And so I understand this is content that you are currently watching and I really want to drive that point home. I feel like it would be dishonest of me not to and a lot of people that make long form courses like this just want to keep you in a perpetual state of learning. But I I would like you to think clearly and then do more with your life. If you're

如果你只是一直坐着看像我这样的内容，其实什么事都没做成。嗯，好消息是，我有一大堆可操作的技巧，会运用并应用诸如 Acrasia solutions 这样的原则。呃，我马上就会谈到这些。所以，这差不多就是我第一次创业时做的事。22岁时，我穿着一件破旧的扣领衬衫，在温哥华街头走来走去，试图以250美元的价格推销营销套餐。那是……just constantly sitting around watching content like mine, you're not really getting anything done. Um good news. I have a bunch of actionable techniques that employ and apply principles like you know Acrasia solutions. Uh I'll be talking about those in a sec. So, this is more or less what I did in my very first business. I was walking through the streets of Vancouver in a tattered button-up trying to sell marketing packages at 22 for 250 bucks. That was

我提出的方案：花250美元就能让你打响名气。我完全没有销售经验，对销售一无所知。但我和我的合伙人每天会走进50到80家企业，向他们介绍我们的方案。那大概就是每天八小时——我想说是每天48小时——持续了一年多。所以现在回头看，我能成功不是因为上了那些课程，因为我当时根本没上过任何课程。嗯，只是因为我坚持不懈地执行，而且确保了这……my offer. 250 bucks to put you on the map. I had zero sales experience. I knew absolutely nothing about how to sell. But my partner and I um walked into between 50 to 80 businesses a day to give them a pitch. And that was maybe eight hours a day, 48 hours a day, I'd say, for over a year. So, looking back, I won not because of all the courses I took, cuz I hadn't taken any courses there. um just because I executed relentlessly and I made sure that the in

在化学例子中，起作用的试剂远远多于正在学习的试剂。那么，究竟该如何解决一场危机？光是多了解它，并不能解决问题。the in the chemical example the reagent that was doing was way higher than the reagent that was learning. So how do you actually solve a crasia? You won't solve it just by learning more about it.

显然，我只是想给它起个名字，因为现在你有了一个名字，也给它贴上了标签，就能意识到它的存在。真正的解决办法是把下一步行动拆解得足够小、足够简单、足够明确，让你轻而易举就能做到。Obviously I just wanted to give it a name because now that you have a name, you've labeled it, you can become aware of it. The real solution is to make the next action so small, so simple, and so well defined that doing it is trivial.

一旦你把下一步行动变得非常简单，接下来要做的就是把这个行动和一个触发点联系起来。现在，我们要在 TAPS 部分讲这个，这是一种你们今天就能用上的实操技巧。CRA 通常会出现这样的情况：第一步往往很模糊，或者定义不清楚；你知道该做什么，但不太确定具体该怎么做。比如，你得拿起电话拨个号码，或者……Once you make that next action really easy, what you do is you attach that action to a trigger. Now, we're going to do this in the taps section, which is an implementable technique that you guys can use today. What happens with a CRA is, you know, usually it's just that vague or illdefined first step, the step where like you know what to do, but you're not really sure exactly how to do it. You know, you got to go, you know, pick up the phone and call a number or

不管怎样，总会有那么一点小小的障碍。所以你就把这件事拆解成尽可能小的一步，然后把它变成一条“如果……那么……”的规则，比如：如果我回到办公桌前，我就拿起电话拨出去。这就是做法。这样你才能真正摆脱那种挥之不去的感觉：天啊，我得做这件事。我就是……我还是因为某种原因一直拖着。为什么我一直拖着？一旦你开始用规则来思考，而不是靠意志力……whatever, but there's like some small little blocker. So you reduce that down to the smallest possible step and then you just make it an if then rule where it's like if I get back to my desk, I pick up the phone and I dial. So this is how you do it. This is how you actually avoid that persistent feeling of man, I got to do this. I just I still I'm putting it off for some reason. Why am I putting it off? Once you start talking in rules as opposed to like willpower

有了动力，你的环境实际上会帮你完成大部分工作。这就是为什么我们提前设置好系统中的硬件部分，因为让你了解环境如何运作很重要。举个规则的例子：每次上完厕所回来，我至少要打一个销售电话。这意味着，当你从洗手间回到办公桌前，坐下来，点击打开一份 Google 表格，然后你……and motivation, your environment will actually do most of the work for you. And that's why we set up the hardware half of our system beforehand because it was important for you to understand how environments work. So a good example of a rule might be, I will make at least one sales call on the phone every time I get back from a bathroom break. What that means is when you get back from the bathroom to your desk, you sit down, click on a Google sheet, and then you

只要给名单上的下一个人打电话，砰，事情就办完了。这是我以前在自己的生活中用过的一条实际规则。那时我甚至还不知道什么是实施意图和 taps。嗯，不过它确实很有效。真正很棒的是，我回来拨电话时，通常会想：“哦，这其实没那么难嘛。再打几个吧，以防万一。”现在我每次进行 8 小时的工作时段，会去四五次洗手间。好吧，得跟我的医生谈谈……just call the next person on that list and boom, you're done. This is an actual rule that I used to use in my own life. And that was before I even knew about implementation intentions and taps. Um, but it it was great. And what's really cool is when I get back and I make the dial, usually I'm like, "Oh, that really wasn't that hard. Let me make a couple more just in case." And now I go to the bathroom four or five times in an 8 hour session. Okay, talk to my doctor about

就是这样。我不知道这是好事还是坏事，但我会去上厕所，你知道，我一天要去四五次。现在我每次都会拨五通电话，这样一来，我就多打了二三十通电话，而这些电话原本我可能根本不会打。显然，这种势头也延续到了我生活的其他方面。就是这样。之后我会更深入地讲讲 taps，包括解释这个缩写的含义等等。不过现在，你只要知道，采取行动……that. I don't know if that's good or bad, but I go to the do, you know, I go to the bathroom four or five times. Now I'm doing, you know, five dials each, which is an additional 20, 30 maybe dials that I otherwise wouldn't have done. Obviously, that momentum spills over in other areas of my life. So that's it. I'm going to go way more in depth on taps later, including defining the acronym and so on and so forth. But for now, just know that making actions

极其微小、极其简单，而把它们定义清楚，是克服“我知道自己应该做X，但我做不到”这个问题的关键。我觉得很多人都饱受这个问题困扰，也称为一个……好，下面有几个关于行动的问题。第一，你现在知道自己应该做什么？第二，要完成这项任务，最简单的第一步是什么？我觉得这两个问题的答案可能都已经立刻浮现在你脑海里了。super small, super simple, and defining them well is the key to overcoming the I know I should do X thing, but I cannot problem that I think a lot of people suffer from also known as a Okay, some action questions here. First, what is something you know you should do right now? Second, what is the simplest possible first action towards completing that task? I think both of those questions have answers that probably came up immediately.

我们来聊聊地图与疆域。八年前，我在一个不起眼的博客网站上第一次看到“地图不是疆域”这句话。说实话，这一句话带给我的收获，远胜于我一生中读过的大多数书籍。Let's talk map versus territory. The map is not the territory is a phrase I first encountered eight years ago on a random blog website. And if I'm being honest, more value has been extracted from that one line than the vast majority of the books that I've read in my entire life.

更不可思议的是，这个说法早在 1931 年就被创造出来了。我真心认为，这是地球上每个人都应该了解的一种思维模型。如果我们都懂这一点，情况大概会好得多。GDP 会飙升，各国也会更加团结，诸如此类。好，下面来说说“地图不是疆域”这句话的核心意思。[倒吸一口气] 你知道地图是什么，对吧？显然，它是你用来在一片疆域中辨明方向的东西。And the crazy thing is this phrase was coined back in 1931. My earnest belief is this is a mental model that every human being on Earth should know. And if we did, we would probably be far better off for it. GDP would skyrocket, unity of nations and so on and so forth. Okay, so here's the crux of what map is not the territory means. [gasps] You know what a map is, right? It's obviously something you look at to move you through a territory.

地图本身并不是领土。如果地图就是领土，那它们会非常大，对吧？那样它们就不再有用了。因此，地图本质上是现实的压缩版本，这一事实正是它有用的原因。地图越小，到了某个程度就会失去用处，因为它太小了，你可能根本看不见。但地图越小，就越便于携带，也可能越好。尽管地图会越来越远离񎀀Maps are not territories themselves. If they were territories, they would be really big, right? And then they would cease to be useful. So inherently, the very fact that a map is a compressed version of reality makes it useful. The smaller a map is, eventually it stops being useful because it's so small you probably can't see it. But the smaller a map is, the more portable it is, probably the better it is. Despite the fact that the map gets further away from

这个地区，它不是……它和这个地区越来越不一样。比如说，那边有一个大湖，这边有一个公园，背景里还有一些山。我在科洛纳。所以，如果我看着地图，那里有一个大湖，然后是那些山，再然后是这边的草地。the territory, it's not it's getting more and more different from the territory. For instance, there's a big lake over there, there's a park over here, and there's some mountains in the background. I'm in Colona. So, if I'm looking at my map, and there's a big lake, and then there's the mountains, and then there's the grass over here.

你知道，如果它最终发展得如此庞大，真的大到和湖泊、山脉以及公园一样，显然，它就完全失去了价值。You know, if this ends up growing so much that it is actually the size of the the lake, the mountains, and the park, obviously, it ceases to have all value.

地图的全部价值不就在于它很小吗？所以，地图本质上并不是疆域。这就是事实。不幸的是，很多人把地图看成疆域。他们拿到一张事物的地图——它是现实的压缩版本——便以为它等同于其背后的疆域。[倒吸一口气] 地图压缩了世界。这正是它们有用的原因。但尽管地图很有用，它始终只是一个版本的丁香五月The whole value of the map is isn't that it's small, right? So, inherently, the map is not the territory. That's just how it is. Unfortunately, a lot of people see maps as territories. They take a map of something, which is a compressed version of reality, and they assume it is equivalent to the underlying territory. [gasps] Maps compress the world. That's exactly why they're useful. But despite the utility, a map is always a version of

真相。客观现实始终有所不同。就像谷歌图片上的二维地图与我们的三维世界不同一样，地图并非疆域。the truth. Objective reality will always be different. Just like how a 2D map on Google images or something is different from our 3D world, the map is not the territory.

所以，不幸的事实是，生活中你所相信的一切，在某种意义上都是一张地图。你对客户想要什么的看法是一张地图。你对身体如何处理咖啡因等药物的理解是一张地图。你对认知、注意力、工作记忆和执行功能如何运作的新理解是一张地图。你向自己讲述的、关于上周发布的某款产品为何失败的故事，也是一张地图。所有这些都是……So the unfortunate truth is everything in life that you believe is in a way a map. Your ideas about what your customers want is a map. Your understanding of how your body processes drugs like caffeine is a map. Your new understanding of how cognition works and attention, working, memory, and executive function is a map. And the story that you tell yourself about why some product that you launched last week failed is also a map. All of these are

对事实进行有损压缩。它们是对事实的压缩，但在压缩过程中确实会丢失一些细节。它们都不是真实事物本身。在商业领域，我们会接触到很多地图。所以你会看到各种仪表盘，比如点击率、留存率、月经常性收入、销售管道金额、CRM 等等。但所有这些都相当于飞机仪表盘上的仪器读数。它们可能是对事实的一种不错的映射，对吧？它们或许能大致告诉你……lossy compressions of the truth. They're compressions of the truth that actually lose some detail in doing so. None of them are the actual thing. In business, we get a lot of maps. So you see dashboards with like click-through rates, retention, monthly recurring revenue, pipeline values, CRM, etc. But all of these are equivalent to the instrument readouts in an airplane panel. They might be a good map of truth, okay? They might tell you sort of

事物的位置、你应该朝哪个方向走，但归根结底，这些分析数据、MR 留存率、点击率等等，都只是数字。问题在于，地图和实际情况往往会在你毫无察觉时出现偏差，但你却想当然地认为它们是一回事。所以，如果你依据地图来掌舵，而地图本身有误，你可能要等到为时已晚才会意识到。一个很好的例子是我经常看到的情况：你知道，你有一个 CRM，……where things are, what direction you should walk in, but at the end of the day, these analytics, this MR retention, clickthrough rates, etc., these are just a number. The problem is that maps and territories often diverge without you noticing, but you assume that they're the same thing. So, if you're steering by the map and the map is off, you may never realize it until it's too late. A good example of this is one I see quite often. You know, you have a CRM, which

是一种客户关系管理服务，它会跟踪客户在销售流程中的推进情况，也许它会显示你的销售管道中有六位数的金额，或者超过 10 万美元。嗯，你可能想不到，我在工作中会复核和审计很多使用 CRM 的人，结果发现他们的 CRM 里虽然有超过六位数的金额，但那些潜在客户早在过去四五个月里就已经流失了，或者没戏了。又或者，你知道，你的留存率……is a customer relationship management service, which tracks customers as they move through a pipeline, and maybe it says that you have six figures or over $100,000 in your pipeline. Well, you would not believe the number of people who have CRM who I double check and audit as part of my work that have I have over six figures in my CRM, but those leads have all been gone or dead for the last four or five months. Or maybe, you know, retention for your

产品看起来真的非常棒。然后你会想，哦对，我的用户流失率真的很低。但仔细想想，离开的会员都是最好的会员，因为他们可能对你正在做的事情非常失望。product looks really really great. And you're like, oh yeah, my my churn's really low, but if you think about it, the members that are leaving are all the best members because they're very disappointed in maybe what you're doing.

这些都只是引导你的短期压缩地图，明白吗？但它们并不是事物本身的底层实质。These are all just short-term compressed maps which guide you, okay? but they aren't the actual thing underlying itself.

好的。那么，这就是这个领域的情况。实际发生的就是这样。我总是用商业类比来讲，因为我最关心的是商业，以及带来经济效益。所以，我会关注客户、销售、通话等等。你看的就是这个，它比实际情况精简得多。Okay. So, you know, here is the territory. Here's what actually happens. I always do things in business analogies because I care most about business and being economically impactful. So, I see customers, sales, calls, etc. This is what you look at, which is a much more compressed version of what that is.

好。人们在商业和生活中遇到的许多问题，很大程度上都源于他们以为自己对世界的认知地图就是真实世界本身。所以，在一家陷入困境的公司里，CEO 可能不会亲自到一线看看情况，而是悠闲地坐着，满足于听取直接下属的汇报。你知道，直接下属会说：“啊，一切都很好。是啊，大家都喜欢我们的产品。没错，一切都进展得……”Okay. A major chunk of all of the problems that people face in business and in life just comes from assuming that their map of the world is actually the territory. So in a struggling company, rather than going out on the field to see what's going on himself, a CEO might kick back, relax, and be content with information from his direct reports, you know, the direct reports say, "Ah, things are fine. Yeah, people love our product. No, everything's going

“在营销方面做得不错。”诸如此类。然后 CEO 说：“嗯，好，听起来不错。”接着便决定把时间花在其他事情上。CEO 忘记了一件至关重要的事：他的所有直接下属，都只是现实的小小地图。因此，他们每个人都在以各自高度压缩且有损的方式评估信息。比如说，这些人可能各自都有自己的】【。well on the marketing end." And so on and so forth. And the CEO goes, "Yeah, okay, that sounds good." And then resolves to spend his time on other things. What the CEO has forgotten here is something crucial. His direct reports, all of them, are just little maps of reality. As a consequence, every one of these maps is assessing information in their own highly compressed and lossy ways. For instance, these people may have their own

激励机制可能会促使他们提供正面信息。他们也可能存在自身的偏见，比如没有意识到自己的地图并不能完美呈现信息。又或者，他们在某个领域具备技能，但在其他领域则缺乏相关技能，等等。我想表达的重点是，尽管各项指标在纸面上看起来都很出色，这位 CEO 的公司却正在走下坡路。incentives, which could be providing positive information. They could also have their own biases, which could be not understanding that their own maps are not perfect representations of information. Or maybe they have skills in one area, but they lack it elsewhere, etc. The point that I'm making is despite all of the metrics looking great on paper, this CEO's company is failing.

他不明白这是为什么。如果你没有好的地图，或者不明白地图与疆域之间的差异，就容易遭遇类似这样的情况。这就是为什么过去几十年里发展最快、增长最好的公司往往组织架构非常扁平。负责人能够确切地看到正在发生什么，因为他们并非处在某个像帝国大厦一样高耸的庞大组织层级顶端。不，He doesn't understand why. And if you don't have good maps or if you don't understand the divergence between maps and the territories, you tend to suffer situations just like this. This is why the fastest and best growing companies of the last couple of decades tend to be very flat. The people in charge get to see exactly what's going on because they're not at the top of some big long organizational hierarchy that's as tall as the Empire State Building. No,

他们其实就在一线。他们可以亲眼看看，看到顾客就在眼前与企业沟通；他们还能亲自和顾客交谈，问他们诸如“你们为什么没买我们的产品？”这样的问题。[倒吸一口气] 当你想要既能清晰思考、又能做出明确决策，并且两方面都做得非常有效时，这就是你在现实中该采取的做法。[叹气并倒吸一口气] 还有一个很好的故事，讲的是这种情况如何在实验室环境中体现出来，我……they're actually on the ground. They can literally look and see the customers at their feet communicating with the business and they can talk with them themselves and ask them questions like why didn't you buy our product. [gasps] This is how you do things in reality when you want to be very effective both in thinking clearly and then making clear decisions. [sighs and gasps] Another great story about how this manifests in lab settings which I

这是我在实验室工作时自己学到的。嗯，为了测量认知能力，或者说老鼠思考的能力，研究人员通常会记录它们解开迷宫需要多长时间。他们会搭建一个很酷的迷宫，然后看看它们需要多久才能解开，再看看它们能记住迷宫多久之类的。之后，他们通常会在引入新任务时改变迷宫的布局。在这样一项实验中，他们……learned myself when I was working in labs. um to measure cognition or the ability of a rat or a mice to think. Um researchers oftent time how long it takes them to solve a maze. So they'll put together this really cool maze and then they'll see how long it takes them to to solve it and then they'll see how long they can memorize it and stuff like that and then they'll usually move the maze around when they introduce a new task. Now in one such experiment they

他们改变了喂食时间表，也就是给老鼠喂食的时间，结果奇迹般地让老鼠更快地解开了迷宫。研究人员欣喜若狂。天哪，我们找到办法让老鼠变聪明了，呃，你知道。changed the feeding schedule which is the times that the rats were fed and then that miraculously resulted in the rats solving the mazes way faster. The researchers rejoiced. My god, we found a way to uh, you know, make rats smarter.

如果这也适用于人类呢？我们可能就要迎来一场革命了。每个人都能变聪明 30%。而且没错，从数据上看，老鼠确实更快地走出了迷宫，对吧？图表显示，老鼠的表现确实变好了，也变聪明了。可它们真的变聪明了吗？没有。实际上，它们只是变得更饿了。所以，老鼠变得更饿和老鼠变得更聪明是两回事，尽管这两者都会……What if this extends to humans, too? We could have a revolution on our hands. Everybody could be 30% smarter. And yeah, on paper, the rats were indeed solving the the mazes faster, right? The map was telling them that rats were actually doing better and getting smarter. Now, were they actually getting smarter? No. In reality, they were just getting hungrier. And so, rat getting hungrier is different from a rat getting smarter. even though both of them will

可能会尝试以非常非常快的速度解开迷宫。除非你当时亲自在实验现场，否则你大概不会知道其中的区别。所以，如果你只是不断地接收数据，也许看看研究之类的，就会漏掉一些东西。那为什么这很重要？因为最终，实际情况才是让你看清问题的关键。probably try and solve a maze really really quickly. Unless you were actually there at the experiment, you probably would not have known the difference. So if you were constantly just taking in data, maybe looking at the studies or something like that, there'd be something that you'd miss. So why does this matter? Because the territory is ultimately what provides you clarity.

地图只是一种简化。这并不是说地图毫无用处。它有用，正是因为它并非底层信息。想象一下，把一张地图放大到它所代表的区域那么大。那就没什么价值了，对吧？所以，两者永远不会百分之百相同，而这没关系。但当它们确实有所不同的时候，你应该记住，领土永远是正确的，你应该试着亲自看看外面，看看真实的领土。这】【。The map is just a simplification. And that's not to say the map is not useful. It is useful because it is not the underlying information. Imagine a map blown out to be the size of the region it represents. Not exactly valuable, right? So, the two will never be 100% the same, and that's okay. But when they do differ, you should remember that the territory is always right, and you should aim to actually look outside and see the territory for yourself. The

一条基本规则，也是我建议你在自己的生活中格外重视的一条：如果你发现自己所处的情境与地图相悖，那么每次都是疆域胜出。所以，下次当你觉得哪里不对劲，或者隐约觉得肯定出了什么问题时，不要去检查你的地图。fundamental rule, and one that I recommend you feature prominently in your own life, if you ever find yourself in a situation where your map and your territory are at odds, the territory wins every time. So, the next time you feel that something is off, or maybe if you get a vague sense that something must be wrong, do not check your map.

实地看看。去寻找对现实的呈现或抽象背后真实的情况，这样你会从中收获更多。不要把别人的观点当成事实。不要把统计数据当成事实。也不要总是把判断交给专家、顾问，或那些据称能替你解决问题的地图。自己去实地看看，至少去几次。我这么说并不是要让你不相信……Check the territory. Look for the underlying reality behind the representation of or abstraction of reality and you will get far more out of it. Do not take people's opinions at face value. Do not take stats at face value. Do not always defer to experts or consultants or maps that supposedly solve the problem for you. Actually go and look at the territory for yourself a couple of times. And I don't mean this to say you should not take stock in what

听听那些在某件事上比你更厉害的人怎么说。显然，我想说的是，你要自己思考，然后去寻找支撑这一切的真实数据。不要听我说“嘿，你必须为自己的生意做 XYZ 之类的事”。而是要真正去市场上试一试，看看效果。如果市场喜欢，那太好了。你就得到答案了。people that are better than you at a thing say. Obviously, what I'm saying is think about it for yourself and then go and look for the ground truth data that underlies all of that stuff. Do not listen to me saying, "Hey, you got to do XYZ thing for your business or whatever." Actually try and test it in the market and see. And if the market likes it, great. You've got the answer.

而这个答案可能比我更适合作为一张地图，引导你去发现各种东西。总之，如果你们想深入了解，我在这里链接了一篇名为《地图与疆域》的文章。至于其他人，我建议从试着观察前一个实验中的老鼠开始。现在，我个人经常和 AI 智能体打交道，对吧？这也是我目前个人品牌的主要组成部分。And the answer is probably better than I am as a map to guide you towards things. Anyway, so if you guys want to go deeper, I've linked an article here called map and territory. For the rest of you, I would just start trying to observe the rat in the previous experiment. Now, I personally work with AI agents quite often, right? That's where most of my brand at this point is.

这正是我在公司里实施这些东西等工作中赚取大部分收入的地方。智能体的输出，从定义上说，就是地图的地图：它们是对话记录的摘要、收件箱内容的梳理等等。因此，我实际上与现实隔着两层。尽管这会让我慢很多，但在依据 AI 数据做出代价高昂的决策之前，我几乎总会先查阅源材料。That's where I make most of my money implementing in companies and so on and so forth. And the outputs of a agents are by definition maps of a map. They're summarized transcripts, digests of my inbox, and so on and so forth. And so I actually have two layers removed from reality here. Though it costs me a lot of speed, I will almost always check the source material before making really expensive decisions based off AI data.

[倒吸一口气] 你知道，会议摘要往往会告诉大家，刚刚开的会很顺利。但如果你打开通话录音，好吧，你其实能看到客户表达了担忧或犹豫，或者双方并未达成共识；也许客户脸上的某些表情还暗示着，他们其实并不喜欢听到的内容，等等。[叹气并倒吸一口气] 所以，与其关注并相信那些图表或诸如此类的说法，比如“哦，客户离开了……”[gasps] You know, a summarized transcript often times will tell people that the meeting that they just had went great. But if you open the call recording, okay, you're actually able to see the client expressing concerns or hesitations or the lack of alignment or maybe something on their face suggesting that they they don't really like what they're hearing, etc. [sighs and gasps] So rather than focus and trust maps or stories like, oh, the client left

由于定价的原因，我确实会时不时去查看底层数据，确认一下这张地图是否仍然具有代表性。because of pricing, I would actually every now and then go and see the underlying data and just verify, you know, is this map still representative?

还有两个问题：在你的事业或生活中，你最常看的是哪张地图？你上一次审视地图背后的真实世界，是什么时候？Two more questions. Which map do you look at most in your business or your life? and when did you last look at the underlying territory behind that map?

接下来，选一个你用来解释某件事为什么行不通的说法。比如，也许是人们不想要我的产品，或者我真的特别不擅长学习。你需要直接观察到什么，才能真正检验这个说法？Next, pick one story you tell about why something is not working. Like maybe people don't want my product or I'm really really bad at studying. What would you have to observe directly to actually test this?

好了，你们看过《奥德赛》吗？我想简单谈谈尤利西斯契约。意志力强的人不会试图与诱惑抗争。他们会做的，是从一开始就避开诱惑。但如果你无法避开呢？如果诱惑整天都在你的口袋里，比如你的智能手机呢？又或者它就在你家里，比如装着美味食物的冰箱，而不知为什么，你总得让这些东西待在身边。嗯，Now, have you guys seen the Odyssey? I want to talk for a second about Ulyses contracts. High willpower people do not try and fight temptation. What they do is they just avoid temptation in the first place. But what if you can't avoid it? What if your temptation is in your pocket all day, like your smartphone? Or maybe if it's in your house, like your fridge, which contains juicy goods, and for whatever reason, you just always have to have them around you. Well,

这就是尤利西斯契约或尤利西斯协定派上用场的地方。尤利西斯协定是你今天做出的一个选择，它会限制你明天的选项。可能有些人不知道，嗯，尤利西斯只是阿狄修斯的罗马名字，嗯，也就是希腊的那个名字。所以，如果你们看过《奥德赛》，这段故事应该会让你们印象深刻。很久以前，阿狄修斯，也就是尤利西斯，正乘船从特洛伊战争中返航。途中，他遇到了海妖；她们唱着一首极具诱惑力的歌，令人……that's where a Ulyses contract or a Ulyses pact comes in. A Ulyses pact is a choice you make today that restricts your options tomorrow. For those of you guys that don't know, um, Ulyses is just the Roman name for Adysius, um, which is like the Greek thing. So, if you guys have watched the Odyssey, this should stand out to you. Long ago, Adysius or Ulyses was sailing back from the Trojan War. On the way, he encountered the sirens who sang a song so seductive and

那歌声的魅力令人无法抗拒，凡是听到它的人都会不由自主地把船驶向礁石，试图靠近她们。如今，阿迪修斯知道，虽然他等待着听到塞壬之歌，心中也渴望听到它，但他同样明白，一旦听见歌声，未来的自己就会恳求船员把船驶向礁石，从而害死全体船员。因此，在接近塞壬之前，他采取了预防措施。他让船员用蜡封住自己的耳朵，还命令他们把他绑起来。overwhelming that anyone who heard that song was compelled to steer their ship onto the rocks in an attempt to reach them. Now, Adysius knew that while he waited and wanted to hear the siren song, he also understood that when he did, his future self would beg to steer the ship into the rocks, thus killing his whole crew. So, before he approached the sirens, he took precautions. He had his crew seal their own ears with wax and also ordered the crew to tie him

牢牢地绑在船桅上。然后他命令船员们，无论他多么强烈地哀求他们放开他，都不要理会，直到他们驶过海妖出没的地方。海妖开始歌唱时，奥德修斯苦苦哀求船员们放他自由。但他们没有照做，只是继续划船，奥德修斯因此活了下来。那么，我为什么要提起这件事呢？这里重要的不是绳子，而是时机。奥德修斯趁自己还保持理性、远未受到诱惑时，就做出了决定。securely to the ship's mast. Then he commanded his crew to ignore all of his pleas to be freed no matter how strong until they passed the sirens. When the siren sang, Adysius begged and pleaded for his crew to set him free. But they did not. They simply continued rowing and Adysius survived. So why do I bring this up? The important thing here is not the rope, but it's the timing. Adysius made his decision while he was still rational far before he was tempted by

一开始的海妖之歌。所谓尤利西斯契约，或者奥德修斯契约，不管你怎么称呼，通常都是指：趁自己头脑清醒、状态极佳时，和自己订立一份契约或约定。之后，当你容易受到诱惑、意志薄弱时——比如说，一天晚些时候，或者你面临某种情境时，像是站在冰箱前——你就执行这份契约。the siren song in the first place. The way that Ulyses contracts or Adysius contracts, whatever you want to call it, work are typically you make a contract or a pact with yourself while you are sane and very high performing. And then when you are, you know, temptable and weak, maybe later on in the day, let's say, or when you're put in front of a situation like in front of your fridge or something, you execute that contract.

比如说，嗯，你知道，这里有个简单的图表。假设早上7点，你几乎没有受到任何诱惑，而且意志非常坚定。但到了这一天快结束的时候，情况可能就不一样了，或者类似这样，So, for instance, um you know, here's a quick graph. At 7:00 a.m., let's say, you have next to no temptation and your resolve is very strong. But maybe at the end of the day or something like that,

课程讨论：第六部分Course Discussion: Part Six

你知道，你很容易受到诱惑，而决心又不够坚定。所谓尤利西斯契约，就是趁一天刚开始、你的决心最强的时候把它定下来，然后让它在一天剩下的时间里持续生效。简单来说，就是把你的决心或意志力固定下来。you know, your temptation is very high and your resolve is small. What a Ulyses contract is is it takes your resolve at the beginning of the day when it's really strong and then it just applies it across the rest of the day. Basically fixing or holding concrete your resolve or your willpower.

好，我来举个例子，说明你过去经历过的几乎每一次意志力失败，大概都是怎么发生的。你知道，早上时你头脑清醒，精神也很充沛。你知道什么是正确的选择，所以就避开了那件坏事，不管它是什么。但到了晚上9点，你知道，你很晚才到家。Okay, let me give you an example of how almost every willpower failure you've ever had has probably played out. You know, in the morning you were clear-headed and really fresh. You knew the right choice, so you just avoided the bad thing, whatever it was. But at 9:00 p.m., you know, you got home late.

你精疲力尽，疲惫不堪。你一整天都在抵抗诱惑。于是你看到那个刺激，然后心想：“唉，应该没什么坏处。”接着你就屈服了。You're exhausted. You're tired. You've been faced the temptation all day. So you see the stimulus and then you go, "Ah, couldn't hurt." Then you give in.

这么说的话，解决办法就很清楚了，对吧？要彻底解决这个问题，只要从一开始就剥夺晚上9点的你做出要不要做那件事的决定权。也许你在家里需要它。When I put it this way, the solution is pretty clear, right? The way to solve this completely is just removing the 900 p.m. version of you's ability to make the decision to do that thing in the first place. Maybe you need it at home.

没关系。不过，你仍然可以想办法减少自己当天晚些时候可以自由支配的空间。比如说，早上你知道，Eye 里有一袋薯片之类的东西。呃，你醒来后，拿起那袋薯片，真的把它放在一个箱子或保险柜里，然后打乱密码锁的密码，把它交给你的妻子、朋友什么的。这样，到了晚上你回来的时候……That's fine. But you can still find and implement ways to minimize the amount of freedom you have later on in the day. Maybe what you do is in the morning, you know, there's a bag of chips or something like that in Eye. uh when you wake up, you take that bag of chips, you literally put it in front of, you know, inside of a chest or a safe, scramble the combination lock and give it to your your wife or your friend or something so that later on at night when you come

在家里，你做不到。听起来确实很戏剧化、很夸张，对吧？但这种做法确实是一些顶尖人士完成工作的方式之一，他们借此充分利用一天刚开始时思路清晰的优势，并在一天剩下的时间里持续发挥这种优势。home, you can't do it. Sounds really dramatic and overplayed, right? But stuff like this is legitimately how some very high performers get things done and it's how they take advantage of clarity of thinking early on in the day and then apply it robustly across the rest of the day.

那么，有哪些实用的尤利西斯契约呢？这里有三个简单的例子，你们今天大概就能付诸实践。第一个是把手机放到另一个房间。强迫自己起身走过去拿手机，就在你和手机之间增加了一层阻碍；我稍后会进一步讲到这一点。这样一来，你也给了自己 30 秒，让那个更理性、更清醒的自己及时停下脚步，不再朝手机走去。Okay, so what are some practical Ulyses contracts? Here are three easy examples you guys could probably implement today. The first is putting your phone in another room. By forcing yourself to physically walk to get the phone, you are adding a layer of friction, which I will cover more of, between you and the phone. And you'll also buy a rational, more sane version of yourself 30 seconds to stop walking towards the phone.

这就是为什么我个人喜欢把这件事公开出来，让别人监督我。现在，我每天都会录视频，在我的一些频道上，我会直接告诉观众：“嘿，大家好，我每天都会在这里发布一个视频。想想看，这就意味着每隔 24 小时，就会有成千上万的人期待我发布新视频。”That's why I personally like doing this accountability to others. Now, I record videos every day and on some of my channels, I actually tell my audience, "Hey guys, I publish a video here every single day. If you think about it, this leads many thousands of people expecting a video from me every 24 hours."

我承担起了这种巨大的期待，这几乎就像是和观看我内容的人们达成的一份非正式契约。这对我来说是很大的动力，因为即使有时我完全没有动力录视频，或者说，我真的不想再坐在这里花两个小时把这玩意儿做完，我还是会去做，因为我和观众之间有一份心照不宣的契约——我当初答应要做这件事的时候，我……The fact that I've signed on to this massive expectation, almost like this informal contract with people that watch my content is a big motivator for me because even when I feel like I have zero motivation to record a video or, you know, I don't really want to be sitting here for another two hours finishing this puppy up, I still do it because I have an implicit contract that I've signed on to with my audience to do something that I signed on to when I was

在头脑非常清醒的时候——这可能是我现在不想做的事，但没关系，因为我是在照搬并沿用之前的决定。嗯，嗯，你知道，尽管我很想停下来。所以，你们也可以这么做。你们知道，如果你们创作媒体内容，只要向受众公布你们的发布或工作安排就行。非常简单。in very clear-minded, which maybe I don't want to do now, but that's okay because I'm copying and using the resolution from earlier. um um you know, despite the fact that I'm tempted to stop. So, you can do this, too. You know, if you guys create media, just announce your publishing or work schedule with your audience. Super easy.

如果你们在锻炼之类的，可以在健身房认识几个人，然后告诉他们：“嘿，我明天还会来。”这样你会觉得有人在监督自己，也会更想坚持去锻炼，这样呃，你知道，免得你三天后走进健身房时他们笑话你。还有一种办法，就是设置经济上的赌注。你可以这么做，我以前也这么做过：预先把钱交给某个人，让他们把你的钱捐给你的直接竞争对手。If you guys are, you know, working out or something, meet a couple people in the gym and tell them, "Hey, I'm going to be here tomorrow." That way, you'll feel held accountable and you will want to do that so that uh you know, they don't shame you when you walk in 3 days later. A last way of doing this is through financial stakes. What you can do, and what I've done before, is prepaying somebody and having them donate your money to a direct competitor

或者某种你不喜欢的慈善机构。想想看，还有什么比不得不给自己公司的直接竞争对手送钱更让人恼火？这真是烦透了。or some sort of charity that you don't like. If you think about it, what is more annoying than having to give money to a direct competitor of a company of yours? That is a massive pain in my ass.

我一点也不想那么做。尽管如此，我还是做了，而这反倒促使我几乎把那个竞争对手逼到倒闭。I don't want to do that at all. Still, I did and it motivated me to counterintuitively run that competitor basically out of business.

所以，是的。总之，一份好的尤利西斯契约可以包含这三项。我使用 USC 的契约不仅是为了改善自己的认知，还把它看作是从过去借到现在的一笔高质量认知贷款。基本上，我就是先拿到这笔钱，把它留起来，然后在不得不面对某种情境时再使用。So, yeah. Anyway, a good Ulyses contract can include all three of these. I use USC's contracts not only to improve my cognition, but I treat it as like a loan of highquality cognition from before to now. I'm basically taking money and then I'm setting it aside and then I use that money in the situation when I have to.

所以，这几乎就像一个储蓄账户。这里有几个关于行动的问题：说出一种你总是决定不去做、但经不住诱惑时仍会去做的行为。你能想出一个尤利西斯契约来帮你解决这个问题吗？So, it's almost like a savings account. Some action questions here. Name a behavior that you keep deciding against, but the tempted version of you continues to do. Can you come up with a Ulyses contract that solves this for you?

我们来稍微聊聊机会成本。我很喜欢一句话：看得见的就是看得见的，看不见的就是看不见的。这句话出自弗雷德里克·巴斯夏，他是19世纪的一位经济学家。呃，他讲过一个店主的窗户被打破的故事。呃，他住在一个村子还是小镇上，我记不太清了，基本上就是有家店被人闯入，窗户也因此被打破了。这件事引起了镇上人们的注意，然后……Let's talk a little about opportunity cost. There's a saying that I like a lot and that is what is seen is seen and what is not seen is not seen. This comes from Frederick Bastiat who was an economist in the 1800s. Uh he was telling a story about a shopkeeper's broken a window. Uh he lived in I think a village or a town and basically a shopkeeper had had their store broken into and so the window was broken. Now it came to the attention of the town and

有人被问到对此的看法以及该怎么做。有意思的是，他镇上有不少人认为，窗户破了就意味着镇上的本地玻璃匠——我想他们是这么称呼的，或者差不多——会有更多活干。这就意味着，在其他条件不变的情况下，窗户破了可能会影响店主，但却让玻璃匠的生意稍微好了一些，也就是说，整体上没有净影响。这种逻辑。a bunch of people were asked their opinions on this and what to do. And interestingly, a bunch of people in his town believed that since a broken window meant that there was more work for the local window maker in the town, I think they were called a glier or something, that implied that all else held equal, a broken window may have impacted the shopkeeper, but then it made the window maker's business a little bit better, meaning it was net neutral. The logic

大致是这样的：窗户被打破了，店主损失了一些钱，但这些钱进了窗户制造商的口袋。所以窗户制造商赚到了一些钱，这意味着货币总量并没有变化，尽管那个人的窗户被打破了。这就是当时，也就是大约19世纪，弗雷德里克·布斯塔德所在城镇里流行的经济学观念。真是非常先进的理论。显然，这项开创性的发现是弗雷德里克发现了……goes something like this. Window gets broken, shopkeeper loses some money, but the money goes to the window maker. So the window maker makes some money, meaning the net money has not changed, despite the fact that the guy had his window broken. So this was the prevailing notion of economics at the time in like the 1800s or so in Frederick Bustad's town. Very advanced stuff. Clearly, the groundbreaking discovery was that Frederick found that

由于店主不得不支付修窗户的钱，他现在就买不起鞋、书，或其他原本打算用这笔钱买的东西了。这就是这笔交易中看不见的部分。正是这一点让弗雷德里克得出结论：每个选择实际上都有两面——看得见的一面和看不见的一面。他还意识到，人类的大脑只会记录看得见的那一面。这就是那句名言的由来。since the shopkeeper had to pay for a window repair, he was now unable to buy shoes or books or whatever else he was planning on spending that money on otherwise. This is the unseen part of the transaction. And it's what led Frederick to deciding that every choice actually has two sides. The seen side and the unseen side. And realizing that human beings brains only record the scene. That's where he gets this quote.

看得见的就是看得见的，看不见的就是看不见的。因此，在商业和生活中，这会成为一个问题，因为如果我们永远只能理解看得见的部分，就会忽略机会成本这一概念。简单来说，机会成本就是在某种情境下，你本可以选择的次优方案的价值。它并不是所有其他选择的价值总和，而只是你原本可以采取的另一个选择，而这个选择本可以带来……What is seen is seen and what is not seen is not seen. And so in business and in life, this is a problem because if we were only ever understand the scene, we would fail to account for a notion of opportunity cost. Now, put simply, opportunity cost is the value of the next best alternative that you could have taken in a situation. It's not just the sum of all other alternatives. It's just the one thing that you could have done otherwise that would have delivered

给你带来最大的成果。因此，如果你把周六花在为自己的网站制作落地页上，机会成本就是你时间的下一个最有价值用途。也就是说，你本可以把这段时间用来打销售电话、锻炼身体，或者小睡一会儿。仔细想想，这些事情对你来说都有某种非零的预期价值。you the biggest result. So, if you spent your Saturday building a landing page for a website of yours, the opportunity cost is whatever the next most valuable use of your time would have been. So maybe what you could have done with that time instead is you could have spent it on a sales call or you could have spent it working out or you could have spent it taking a nap. If you think about it, all of these have some nonzero expected value to your

人生，对吧？但你没有。相反，你决定去做自己的着陆页。尽管你确实花时间做了着陆页，问题却不只是你做了着陆页，而是你做着陆页的同时，还拒绝了其他一大堆事情。所以，事物的标价很少等于它们的真实成本。比如，一顿30美元的午餐，不只是花了30美元，也花了90分钟。因此，仅仅建模……还不够。life, right? But you didn't. Instead, you decided to work on your landing page. And despite the fact that you worked on your landing page, it's not just that you worked on your landing page. It's that you worked on your landing page, but then you said no to a bunch of other stuff. So in this way, the sticker price of things is rarely their true cost. A $30 lunch, for example, is not just 30 bucks. It's also 90 minutes. So, it's not enough to model

把这顿 30 美元午餐的成本视为价格，也就是 30 美元。你必须将成本建模为价格，加上你本可以用来做另一件事的小时数乘以时薪。the cost of the $30 lunch as price, which is 30 bucks. You must model the cost as the price plus the number of hours times your hourly rate that you could have made doing the other thing.

只有这样才能让你知道真实成本。让我举个例子。你知道，如果你很天真，不懂机会成本，就会看看这顿午餐，然后说：“啊，这顿饭花了我30美元。嗯，我想这也不算太贵。”但如果你从更全面的角度看待这件事，把机会成本也考虑进去，就会把午餐的30美元价格加上你花在吃午餐上的时间（1.5小时），然后再乘以……This and only this will give you the true cost. So, let me give you an example of this. You know, if you were naive and you didn't understand opportunity cost, you would look at the lunch and you would say, "Ah, that cost me 30 bucks. Well, I guess that's not that bad." But if you took an enriched view with opportunity cost included, you would add the $30 price of the lunch to the amount of time you spent on lunch 1.5 hours and then multiply that by the

如果你把这段时间用于某些有益的活动（比如寻找潜在客户），本可以赚到的时薪。这样一来，你得到的公式就不再是总成本 30 美元，而更像是 30 美元 + 1.5 小时 × 45 美元 = 97.50 美元。hourly rate that you could have made if you spent it on some beneficial activity like prospecting. And then here you would have gotten a formula that looked less like $30 total cost and more like $30 plus 1.5 hours * 45 is equal to $97.50.

所以，从机会成本的角度来看，如果你仔细想想，决定去吃这顿午餐，实际付出的代价是原来的三倍。这引出了一个重要观点。你知道，我们做出的许多糟糕决定，问题总是出在价格与成本之间的差异上。2009 年的一项消费者研究也证明了这一点。除非有人明确指出机会成本，否则人们往往不会把它考虑进去。当被要求购买一……So from an opportunity cost standpoint, if you think about it, your decision to go and take this lunch was actually three times the amount. And that brings me to an important point. You know, most of the poor decisions that we make are always found in the discrepancy between price and cost. And this is demonstrated in a 2009 piece of consumer research as well. People tend not to account for opportunity cost unless it is explicitly pointed out to them. when asked to buy a

在这项研究中，对于一件非常便宜的商品，如果把“不买”选项改成“把这笔钱留着买别的东西”，人们就更有可能说不。所以，说真的，仅仅是再次改变这个东西的名称，你知道，在这个例子里就是按钮上的文字，就足以减少说“是”的总人数。显然，如果由你来控制这个决定，这就能带来好处，因为你只要反着做就行了。所以，尽管……really cheap item in this study, people were more likely to say no if the don't buy option was instead described as save that money for something else. So literally just changing again the name of the freaking thing, you know, in this case the button was enough to reduce the total number of people that said yes, which obviously has dividend can pay dividends if you are the one that is controlling that decision because you just do the opposite. So despite the

钱明明完全一样，只是呈现方式不同，仅仅是让人想到“等一下，这笔钱其实还能花在别的东西上”，就足以让人少买一些。他们又不傻。fact that the money was the exact same, just the way that it was framed, just the whole like, wait a second, you could actually spend that money on something else was enough to make people buy less of it, these people aren't stupid.

他们只是没有把替代方案考虑进去，因为替代方案从来就不是他们首先想到的。再说，你知道，人类进化过程中并没有形成一种与生俱来的机会成本概念，对吧？这是弗雷德里克·巴斯塔自己必须弄明白的事情。因此，除非你明确指出机会成本，否则人们总是会忽视它。这大概是我们最主要的偏见之一，嗯，值得你不断提醒自己这一点，而且……They're just not accounting for the alternative because the alternative was never top of mind. And because, you know, human beings did not evolve with a built-in notion of opportunity cost, right? This something that Mr. Frederick Bastad had to figure out himself. To that end, human beings routinely neglect opportunity costs unless you spell them out explicitly. It's probably one of our our most major biases and uh it's worth just constantly reminding yourself and

记住这一点。所以，选择的代价就是你没有走的那条路。假设你周六做了某件事，呃，你知道，或者花了500美元什么的。你看到的是自己选择去做的那件事。keeping in mind. So the cost of a choice is the road not taken. Let's say you do something on Saturday and it's uh you know or 500 bucks or whatever. What you see is the thing that you chose to do.

你把周六花在某项活动上，却忘了把方程式中那个看不见的最佳替代选择算进去。所以，每次你对某件事说“是”，也总是在对另一件事说“不”。生活中没有什么是不需要牺牲的，尽管这样说听起来很遗憾。比如说，在我自己的生活中，22岁时，我每天走进温哥华的50到80家商店，推销一套营销方案。而那看起来真的……You spent your Saturday on some activity but you forgot to count in the equation is the best alternative which is not seen. So every time you say yes to something, you are always saying no to something else. Nothing in life comes without a sacrifice, as unfortunate as it is to frame that way. Now, for instance, um in my own life, I was walking into 50 to 80 stores a day to pitch a marketing package in Vancouver when I was 22. And that looked really

效率挺高的。看起来我做了很多事。我的选择就像是：嗯，我可以去开发潜在客户，也可以不去，所以我当然会去开发，对吧？productive. Looked like I was doing a lot. My choice was like, well, I could go prospect or not prospect, so obviously I'm going to prospect, right?

而且你看看价格，我的劳动几乎是免费的。我的意思是，我每天也就花几美元油钱。谢了，Grinder。呃，也许吧。然后偶尔吃顿午饭。And if you look at the price, my work was nearly free. I mean, I did few bucks in gas per day. Thanks, Grinder. Uh maybe. And then lunch from time to time.

但真正的代价，是我没有把那些时间花在开发一种更具扩展性的外联机制上——这种机制可以快上几千倍地完成同样的工作。很多年来，我都没有意识到这是一种机会成本。我并不是说我对此感到后悔。But the real cost was the hours I was not spending on developing, you know, a more scalable outreach mechanism that could do the same job thousands of times faster. And that is an opportunity cost I did not understand for many years. And I'm not saying that I regret it.

显然，我很高兴自己花了那么多时间开发潜在客户。我因此磨炼出了极强的毅力和韧性，这些收获很可能是值得的。不过，我确实希望自己能早点掌握更多可规模化的获客方法。我想，那样的话，我很可能会走得更远。Obviously, I'm very happy to have spent all that time prospecting. I gained a tremendous amount of grit and resilience that was probably worth it. But I do wish I'd picked up more scalable lead generation mechanisms a little bit earlier. I think I probably would have gotten a lot farther.

所以，每一个“是”都意味着一个“否”。一旦你们看清了这种代价，就会明白，每当你们答应一件事，其实就是在拒绝另一件事。你们的生活很可能会因此改变。比如，每次你答应参加工作中某种毫无意义的内部会议，就等于放弃了通过做销售工作可能赚到的 200 美元。同样，以很低的 MR 接下第一个客户，从逻辑上说，也就意味着拒绝了其他所有你本可以接待的客户。So every yes is a no. Once you guys see that cost, anytime you say yes to one thing, you're actually saying no to something else. Your life will probably change. For example, every time you say yes to some sort of mindless internal meeting at work means you are saying no to the $200 you could have made by working on perhaps your sales. Likewise, saying yes to client number one at a really low MR logically means saying no to all of the other clients you could

已经获得的东西。答应做一个副业项目，就意味着放弃原本可以投入主项目的时间，诸如此类。实际上，拒绝的代价始终存在，这只不过会改变你定价的方式和方法。这样一来，便宜的东西最终也可能代价高昂。比如，刷一小时社交媒体可能是免费的，但如果你每天都在自己效率最高的时段这么做，那它就会让你付出代价。have gotten. Saying yes to a side project means saying no to the time you could have spent on your main project, and so on and so forth. In practice, the no is always there, which should just change the way and the the manner in which you price. Also, in this way, cheap things can end up being incredibly expensive. For example, scrolling on social media for an hour might be free, but if you do that every day during your peak production time, it's costing you

每周几百、几千美元。同时，昂贵的东西实际上也可能很划算。比如，花200美元请人来打扫房子，可能看起来很贵，但如果你因此赚回来的钱超过200美元——更准确地说，如果省下的两个小时能为你创造超过200美元的价值，那就很划算，对吧？所以，我们会在讨论时薪的部分谈到更具体的数字，但这就是总体思路。你如何……hundreds, thousands of dollars a week. And at the same time, expensive things can actually end up being bargains. Like maybe paying $200 for somebody to come and clean your house might seem pricey, but if the $200 you make you you get back makes you over $200. Rather, if the two hours that you get back makes you over $200, it's a great deal, right? So, we'll get into more specific numbers during the section on hourly rates, but this is the general idea. How do you

实际上要怎么用呢？很简单。下次你答应做任何定义不清或会占用你时间的事时，不仅要明确说“好，我会去做这件事”，还应该说清楚你因此要拒绝什么。我说的不是笼统意义上的时间，而是要明确说出，因为答应了这件事，你具体不会做什么，或者没法做什么。举个例子，如果你正准备答应参加上午 10 点的电话会议，对方是……actually use it? It's simple. The next time you say yes to anything that's illdefined or consumes your time, you should explicitly state not only yes, I will go do the thing, you should state what you are saying no to. So, I don't mean time in a vague sense. I mean you should explicitly state the specific thing you will not be doing or could not be doing because you said yes to this other thing. Good example, if you're about to say yes to a 10 a.m. call from

有团队成员想就某件本来发封邮件就能说清楚的事问你，你就说：“我答应参加上午10点的电话会议，也就意味着我不写能帮我赚钱的脚本了，或者说，不写我上午10点本来要写的那些破玩意儿。”这是一个简单易行的方法，能让你脚踏实地，不断提醒自己每个决定都要付出代价。现在有几个行动问题要问你。第一个是，你最近一次答应的事情是什么？接下来是，什么……some team member that wants some clarification about something that could have been an email, just say, "I'm saying yes to this 10 a.m. call and in doing so, I'm saying no to writing my money-making script or whatever the hell at 10 a.m." That is a simple and easy way to just ground you in reality and constantly remind you of the cost of your decisions. So some action questions for you. The first is what is the last thing you said yes to? The next is what

那段时间是否有更好的替代用途？具体来说，考虑到机会成本，你还会做出同样的选择吗？接下来，我想聊聊古德哈特定律。亿万富翁投资人查理·芒格——他也是沃伦·巴菲特的得力助手——曾说过：“告诉我激励机制是什么，我就能告诉你结果会怎样。”有个有趣的事：整整三个月里，我都以为这句话是我的播客搭档杰克·罗伯茨想出来的。所以，伙计，别想骗我第二次。不过，呃……was the best alternative use of that time? Specifically, would you make the same call understanding opportunity cost? Now, next up, I want to talk about Goodart's law. Charlie Mer, the billionaire investor who was also Warren Buffett's right-hand man, said, "Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome." The funny story is for three months I thought it was my podcast co-host Jack Roberts that came up with that. So, fool me once, buddy. But uh

没有什么比激励更能预测人类行为了。它们远比人们声称自己秉持的任何价值观，或他们各自的性格特征重要。想到这门课程的宗旨，这一切就说得通了：人是动物，而动物通常会采取能得到奖励的行为，就像我实验室里的老鼠一样。如果你给一只老鼠一个按钮按，并且每次它按下按钮时都给它食物作为奖励，那么你……there's no better predictor of human behavior than our incentives. They are far more important than any values that anybody says they hold or their individual personality traits. And this all makes sense when you think about the purpose of this course, which is that people are animals and animals act typically in ways that are rewarded like the rats in my lab. If you give a rat a button to press and if you reward it with food every time it does so, you

你知道，它会很乐意地按下杠杆。它并不在乎你的意图是什么，也不在乎你为什么这么做。它唯一的内在动机就是：按下按钮，就能得到美味的食物。明白这一点后，你也会明白，如果老鼠没有按你的意愿行事，那其实不是老鼠的错，对吧？它只是在回应自己的激励机制，而你的认知能力更强。错不在老鼠，而在你，因为你知道它受到什么激励，还利用了这一点。know, it'll happily press the lever. It doesn't really care what your intent is or why you're doing it. The only internal incentive is press button, I will get tasty food. Once you understand this, you'll also understand if the rat doesn't do what you want, it's not really the rat's fault, is it? It's just responding to its incentives, as you are the more cognitively capable. It's not the rat's fault. It's yours because you knew its incentives and you use them

错了。所以，人类也一样。我们只是使用文字。举个商业领域的例子，如果你根据支持团队关闭工单的数量给他们付酬，从逻辑上讲，他们会关闭更多工单。但即使工单处理得很差，他们也会这么做。你根据销售团队预约通话的数量给他们付酬。wrong. So, humans are the same. We just use words. An example from business, if you pay your support team based on how many tickets they close, logically, they'll close more tickets. But they'll do that even if the tickets themselves are poorly done. You pay your sales team based on how many calls they'll book.

他们可能会预约更多通话，对吧？但即使他们不符合条件，也会开始这么做。这并不意味着你的支持团队或销售团队是坏人。他们只是在应对你为他们营造的环境。这正是一个名为古德哈特定律的定律的核心。古德哈特定律最初由经济学家查尔斯·古德哈特于 1975 年提出。他说：“当一项衡量指标变成目标时，它就不再是一个好的衡量指标。”They'll probably book more calls, right? but they'll start doing so even if they're unqualified. This doesn't make your support team or your sales team uh bad people. They're just reacting to the environment that you place them in. And that is the heart of a law called Good Hart's law. So Goodart was proposed initially by Charles Goodhart. He's an economist in 1975. He said, "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

那么，举几个我们一直在讨论的例子吧。呃，有一个特别骇人的例子，我觉得你们在继续了解1902年越南河内的下水道时，可以记在心里。你们知道，法国人当时已经占领了那里。因此，当时的法国殖民政府正面临严重的鼠患问题。So, some examples of what we've been discussing, uh, a really twisted one that I think you guys can keep in your mind as you proceed in Hanoi in the Vietnam sewers in 1902. You know, the French had taken over. And so, the French colonial government at the time had a massive rat infestation problem.

于是，他们开始向猎人悬赏：每交一条老鼠尾巴，就付1美分。猎人会出去割下老鼠的尾巴——想必也会把老鼠杀死——然后拿来换钱。不出所料，老鼠尾巴大量涌入。但尽管收上来了这么多老鼠尾巴，老鼠的数量却没有减少。为什么？因为猎人开始割掉老鼠的尾巴，却把老鼠放回下水道，让它们继续繁殖。有些人甚至开始故意养老鼠。所以，这说明了什么……So, what they started doing is offering 1 cent per rat tail to hunters who would go out, cut the tails off rats, presumably kill them, and then bring them in for money. Predictably, lots of rat tails flooded in. But despite all of the rat tails, the rat population didn't go down. Why? Cuz hunters began to cut off the rat tails, but they would release the rats back into the sewer to breed. And some would even start breeding rats on purpose. So, what does

那是什么意思？尾巴数量是衡量死老鼠数量的一个好指标，但一旦把它和奖励挂钩，它就不再有价值了。所以，基本上，嗯，你知道，当衡量指标变成了目标，它就不再是衡量目标的好指标了。如果你真正想要的是这里的黑色，而且在某个时候你决定为此设置激励，那么最终会发生的是，人们会更在意达成这个衡量标准或指标，而不是你真正想要的东西。that mean? The tail counts were a good measure of dead rats, but when you tied them to an incentive, they stopped being valuable. So, basically, um, you know, when the measure becomes a target, the measure is removed from the target. If the black is what you actually wanted here and if at some point you decide to incentivize it, okay, eventually what'll happen is people will care more about achieving the measure or the metric than they will about the thing that you

实际上真正想要的东西。而结果是，你真正想要的东西往往会随之下降。这就是它的意思。当一个衡量指标变成目标时，它就不再是一个好的衡量指标了。actually wanted. And as a result, the thing you actually wanted tends to go back down. That's what that means. When when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

理解这一点会让你的思路清晰得多。我认为，这也能帮你说清楚许多你可能见过的、受激励机制驱动的行为。比如你正在使用的手机。So understanding this will help you think far more clearly. It'll also put I think into words a lot of incentive based behavior you've probably seen. For example, the phone that you're using.

这里有几十种功能都是古德哈特定律的典型例子。比如默认开启通知、视频自动播放、无限滚动、连续打卡、红色通知气泡，或者其他诸如此类的玩意儿。这些功能实际上没有一个真正有益。事情是这样的：产品经理可能只是拿到一个他们要优化的指标，比如日活跃用户数或应用内使用时长。他们每周开一次会，然后根据他们的……获得奖励。Dozens of features are good examples of GoodArt's law here. Like notifications are on by default or autoplay videos or infinite scrolling or streaks or red notification bubbles or whatever the hell. None of these are effectively beneficial. What happened is a product manager probably just had a metric put in front of them that they're optimizing for like daily active users or time inapp. They go to a meeting once a week and they get rewarded based off of their

应用使用时长或日活跃用户数。于是他们想要赢。他们做的就是把所有这些默认设置都设定成衡量和操纵你注意力的手段。结果就是，现在你得在手机上应付一大堆烦人的东西。对我来说，一个很好的个人例子就是浏览量。你知道，浏览量是衡量我的 YouTube 频道目标的一个替代指标，因为仔细想想，我的浏览量越多，产生的影响就越大。time in app or daily active users. And so they wanted to win. What they did is they set all these defaults to be the way of measuring and manipulating your attention. The end result is you now have to deal with a lot of stupid on your phone. A good personal example for me is views. You know, views are a proxy for the goal of my YouTube channel because if you think about it, the more views I make, the more impact.

归根结底，我的目标是产生影响。因此，从这个意义上说，观看量指标只是底层真实情况的一张地图。但我得不断提醒自己，观看量本身并不是最终目标。我的真正目标是让你把视频看完，并真正用上它。And ultimately, my goal is impact. So, in this way, my view metric is a map of an underlying territory. But I constantly need to remind myself the views are not the end goal myself. My real goal is for you to watch the video until the end and actually use it.

对吧？问题在于，当我过于关注观看量，并开始自我感觉良好时——以前我就这样过——最后就会做出一些决策，为了追求肤浅、糟糕的观看量而牺牲内容深度。结果，我的观看时长往往会下降，这可不是什么好事。尽管我本意是好的，但每隔几个月，追求观看量最大化的行为就会冒出来，因为衡量指标正在变成目标，而我总得把它压下去。你想想看……Right? The issue is when I focus too much on views and fall prey to good-hearting myself, which I've done before, I end up making decisions that optimize for superficial shitty views at the cost of depth. And so my watch time tends to go down, which is not a good thing. Despite my best intentions, every few months, view maximization behavior creeps up because the measure is becoming a target and I always have to quash it down. And if you think about

而这话是我说的——我研究这个问题已经快十年了。想想看，那些从未听说过古德哈特定律，甚至从未反思过自己行为的人，现在很可能正被它愚蠢地左右着。it, that's coming from me, who's somebody that has studied this for almost a decade now. Imagine how stupidly someone who has never heard of Goodart's law or has never even reflected on their own behavior is probably being driven by this right now.

那么，怎样才能避免被古德哈特化，或让别人陷入古德哈特效应呢？首先，如果有人做了你不理解的事，就问问自己：谁会从中受益？通常，只要问问自己谁会受益，并看看实际受益者是谁，答案就会很清楚。其次，在给某项指标设定目标之前——这对项目管理很有用——先说明它是哪个目标的替代指标，然后再将它与一项反向指标联系起来：当……时，这项反向指标会变差。So, how do you avoid getting good-hearted or good-hearting people? First, if somebody does something you don't understand, just ask yourself who benefits from this. Usually, if you ask yourself who benefits from this and you see who benefits from this, the answer becomes clear. Next, before you put a target on a metric, which is useful for project management, first say what it is a proxy for and then connect it to a counter metric that gets worse when the

第一个指标有所改善。所以，如果你觉得这说不通，这其实是个小窍门。嗯，可以想想速度和错误率之间的关系，或者已关闭工单的数量与这些已关闭工单中因实际上并未解决问题而被重新打开的工单数量之间的关系；又或者想想浏览量与留存率、观看率之类的指标。如果仔细想想，如果一个指标上升，另一个却下降，这就说明你在钻系统的空子，而底层的……first one gets better. So, if this doesn't make sense to you, it's a little hack. Um, consider how about speed versus error rate or tickets closed versus the number of tickets from those closed ones that get reopened because they didn't actually work or how about views versus, you know, retention or watch rate or something. If you think about it, if one goes up and the other goes down, it's a sign that you're gaming the system and the underlying

这个指标可能并没有改善。那在我这种情况下，影响力呢？我想要浏览量，也想要观看时长，对吧？但如果浏览量上升、观看时长下降，这意味着我做的是肤浅的内容，只顾追逐浏览量，却牺牲了观看时长。所以我的影响力反而下降了。记住地图与疆域：当数字本身与现实不一致时，现实永远更重要。metric probably isn't improving. How about like in my case impact? I want views and I want watch time, right? But if my views go up and my watch time goes down, what it means is I'm making superficial content that chases views at the cost of my watch time. So my impact has gone down. So remember map and territory. When the number itself and reality disagrees, reality always wins.

好，再问你们几个行动层面的问题。你们最常看的指标是什么？为什么这个数字本身成了目标，而不是它所代表的东西？你们可以增加什么制衡指标，来显示这个指标正在被操纵？Okay, some more action questions for you. What number do you guys check most often? And why has the number itself become a target rather than the thing it represents? What counter metric could you add to show that it is being gamed?

切斯特顿之篱这个概念很有意思。呃，我想它最初是在 1929 年提出的，大致是这样：两个人——这里说的是改革者——正沿着一条路走。他们来到一处栅栏前。其中一位改革者想把栅栏拆掉，因为他看不出它有什么用。但另一位建议他先弄清楚栅栏的作用，然后再真正把它拆掉。我猜这两位老兄中有一个叫切斯特顿，因为这个寓言……There's this lovely idea of Chesterton's fence. Uh and it was I think initially uh introduced in 1929 and it goes like this. Two people, reformers in this case are walking down a road. They come to a fence. One of the reformers wants to tear the fence down because he doesn't see the point of it. But the other suggests that he finds the point of the fence out and only then actually tear it down. I presume one of these fellas was called Chesterton because this parable

这被称为切斯特顿的篱笆。作为一个系统思维者，切斯特顿的篱笆同时也是我见过的最有意思、最令人恼火的事物之一。呃，它的核心思想如下。has been taken to be called Chesterton's fence. Now, as a systems person, Chesterton's fence is simultaneously one of the most interesting and also most annoying things I've ever witnessed. Uh, at its core, it suggests the following.

每一道篱笆——如果从商业角度来理解，它其实就是一条规则、一项命令、一部法规、一条法律、一套工作流、一个流程、一份 SOP，或者类似的东西——都必定曾有人在某个时候为它投入过时间、精力或金钱。一般来说，人们都会珍惜这些东西，对吧？所以，篱笆之所以会被立起来，一定有原因。这条原则说的其实是：在拆除某样东西之前，你应该先弄清楚它为什么存在。比如，若要……For every fence, which if you think about it in business terms is a rule, an order, a legislation, a law, a workflow, a process, an SOP, anything like that, there must have been an investment at some point in time of time, energy, or money into the thing. People in general conserve all these things, right? So, there has to be a reason why a fence was created. And it really just says before tearing something down, you should understand why it exists. For example,

在商业环境中，如果你在电子表格或流程里发现一些奇怪的步骤，或者有一份奇怪的客户审批要求清单，又或者标准操作程序（SOP）里有些莫名其妙、你根本不理解的步骤，那么作为一个刚接触这个系统的新人，你进来后肯定会想：我们干吗要这么做？显然，你很容易就想绕过所有这些繁文缛节，对吧？然后把所有你不理解的东西都删掉。这会让你觉得自己很果断，你知道，就像……in business, if you have weird steps in a spreadsheet or a process, if you have a strange client approval requirement checklist, if you have inexplicable steps that you do not understand in an SOP, as a newcomer to a system, you know, you come in and you're like, well, why the hell are we doing this? It's obviously very tempting to cut through all the red tape, right? And then remove all the stuff you don't understand. It makes you feel decisive, you know, like

你是在改进事情，或者、或者采取行动。很多时候都会出现这种情况：一位新来的明星经理或CEO加入某个已有团队后，立刻就开始拆毁所有现有架构，因为他们觉得，嗯，这个不需要，那个也不需要。但仔细想想，这些看起来奇怪的步骤，很多都是经过相当昂贵的反复权衡才形成的。you're improving things or or making moves. There's a lot of situations like that where a new hot shot manager or CEO comes into some like pre-existing team and then immediately starts demolishing all the existing structures because they think, well, you don't need this, you don't need that. But if you think about it, a lot of these weird steps were the result of rather expensive deliberating.

而且这件事发生在你介入之前很久，对吧？当你移除这些步骤时，你实际上是在强行重做一项实验，而这项实验最初导致了所有这些情况的发生。And this occurred far beyond before you came into the picture, right? When you remove these steps, what you're doing is you're forcefully rerunning an experiment that led to all of these conditions occurring in the first place.

只是现在，承受后果的人变成了你。我并不是说你必须百分之百遵守每一项传统、规则、标准操作流程，或前人做过的每件事。Except now you are the one who is suffering the consequences. Now, I'm not saying you 100% have to respect every tradition, rule, SOP, or thing that your predecessors did.

但我的意思是，把围栏当作一张地图来看。地图是对一片地域的压缩呈现，往往也很有用；围栏则是对一个过程的压缩呈现，同样往往很有用。想想你自己的生活：有多少奇怪的围栏，或者你做的那些事，在别人看来似乎莫名其妙或很奇怪？But what I am saying is treat the fence like a map. Just like a map is a compressed and often useful example of a territory, a fence is a compressed and often useful example of a process. Think about it in your own life. How many weird fences or things that you do seem inexplicable or strange to other people?

可能有很多。一个很好的例子就是你放置各种物品的地方。比如，你的食物、衣服、钥匙、食品储藏柜里的东西、日用品等等。你知道，如果另一个人毫无背景信息地走进你家，看看这些东西，你真觉得他们不会至少发现一件让他们忍不住说“你他妈为什么要这么做？”的事吗？比如说，为什么所有盘子都放在上面的层架上……Probably a lot. A good example is all the places you put all your different kinds of belongings. So, how about your food, your clothing, your keys, your pantry, your goods, etc., you know, if another person were to come into your home and look at all these things with no context, do you really think they wouldn't spot at least one thing that would make them go, "What the hell did you do that for?" Like, for instance, why are all the plates up on the upper

放在上层橱柜里，而不是更方便拿取的下层橱柜里？这看起来有点奇怪。你应该把它们移到下层橱柜里。不过，这么放其实是有原因的。盘子叠超过四个时，就会挡住柜门。cabinet and not on the more convenient lower cabinet? That seems weird. You should move them to the lower cabinet. Well, actually, there's a reason for that. When you stack more than four plates, they start catching the door.

你看，在这个例子里——这事儿真的发生在我自己该死的家里，那些破橱柜上——是你自己立起了这道围栏，而且是在某件事发生后立刻立起来的。就我们这个例子来说，是你关上了橱柜，从中吸取了教训：会有声音、会疼等等，这就是你这么做的原因，对吧？那么，你到底该怎么处理呢？下面就是具体流程。如果有一条规则是你想取消的，就弄清楚它为什么会存在。弄明白之后，你就可以做决定了……You see, in this example, which is actually real in my own damn house freaking cupboards, you are the one who put up the fence and you did so immediately after an event. In our case, closing the cabinet that taught you a lesson, which was sound, pain, etc., which is why you did it, right? So, how do you actually deal with it? Here is the workflow. If there's a rule you want to remove, figure out why it's there. If you figured it out, you can now decide

根据实际情况决定是保留还是删除它。如果你不知道它为什么会在那里，先询问创建它的人。这是最理想的做法。如果无法询问创建它的人，就查看历史记录。on the merits and either keep it or remove it. If you do not know why it's there, first ask the person who built it. That is ideal. If you can't ask the person who built it, check the history.

如果你仍然不知道它是否必需，可以试着把它移除，然后看看会发生什么。如果移除后无法恢复，那遗憾的是你就得保留它。就是这样。在弄清楚它当初为什么在那里之前，不要拆掉任何东西。这并不意味着你必须永远留着那道围栏。Then if you still don't know whether or not it is required, try removing it and then see what happens. If it's not irreversible, you unfortunately have to leave it. So that's it. Just don't take anything down until you understand why it was there in the first place. Doesn't mean you have to keep the fence forever.

这只是说，如果你想清晰地推理如何才能最好地优化一个流程，固定的操作顺序就是先了解这道围栏，再决定接下来要做什么。你可以通过一些方式来弄清楚这一点：问问搭建围栏的人；查看文档历史记录。所以，在现代企业环境中，Google Docs、Drive 等工具很适合做这件事。如果你们在写代码，就查看 git log。翻翻旧的邮件往来，看看 SOP 或者……It just means that if you want to reason clearly through how best to optimize a process, the fixed order of operations is understand the fence first. decide what to do after. Some ways you can figure this out. Ask the person who built the fence. Look through the document history. So, Google Docs, Drive, etc. is great for this in modern corporate environments. Check the git log if you guys are doing code. Go through old email threads if SOPs or

流程。你也可以认真想一想。如果围栏一周、一个月，甚至一年都不在，会发生什么？不可思议的是，大多数时候，你只要大约10分钟就能把我刚才说的这些事都做完。这些你不理解、看似莫名其妙的过程，其实是可以理解的。processes. You can also just think hard. What would happen if the fence wasn't there for like a week or a month or a year? And the crazy thing is most of the time you can do everything I just talked about in like 10 minutes. These inexplicable processes that you do not understand, you can actually understand.

很多时候你会发现，那道围栏——不管它具体是什么——在 2021 年确实有必要，但由于出现了某种新技术，如今可能已经不再需要了。处理完之后，你就可以放心地拆掉这道围栏，不必有任何负罪感；这样既能尽量减少速度上的损失，也不会真的惹得大家讨厌你，同时还能消除风险。这一点我可是吃了苦头才学会的：我年轻时做事很冲动，刚开始……And a lot of the time you'll find that, you know, the fence, whatever it is, was necessary back in 2021, maybe no longer required today because of some new technology. Once you're done with that, you can confidently remove the fence without any guilt and with minimal slowdown and without like really making people hate you while also eliminating risk. This is something very important that I had to learn the hard way as a trigger-happy young man who started

基本上就是把自己包装成一名运营顾问，后来又成了兼职首席运营官，拆掉了许多其实可能根本不该拆的篱笆。希望这对你也有帮助，就像它对我有帮助一样。给你几个可以付诸行动的问题。呃，第一个是：你一直想删掉哪条规则、哪个步骤或哪种习惯，因为它看起来毫无意义？先用一句话写下当初为什么要设立它。如果你写不出一句话，那你会找谁？basically branding himself as like an operations consultant and then eventually like a fractional COO who would remove a lot of fences that probably did not need to be removed. So hopefully this helps you like it helped me. Some action questions for you. Uh the first is which rule, step or habit have you been meaning to delete because it looks pointless? First write one sentence on why it was put there. If you cannot write one sentence, who do you

有没有谁能告诉你？你又该如何去问他们？接下来，过去的你为自己筑起了哪道围栏，而现在的你已经不再遵守？究竟是什么具体事件，让你当初真的筑起这道围栏？know that could tell you? And how can you ask them? Next, which fence did past you build for yourself that present you has stopped respecting? And what was the specific event that made you actually build this thing in the first place?

接下来，我想谈谈米色频率。不，还是别这么做了。接下来，我想谈谈贝叶斯定理。这是我最喜欢的思维工具之一，其核心是一个非常简单的想法：先对某件事发生的可能性做一个粗略估计，这叫作先验概率；然后随着获得新信息，不断更新这个估计。Next up, I want to talk beige frequencies. No, let's not do that. Next up, I want to talk Baze theorem. This is one of my favorite thinking tools and at its core it's a very simple idea which is that you start with a rough guess about how likely something is which is called a prior probability and then you update that guess as you get new information.

现在，从概念上来说就非常简单了：不再判断事情是真是假，而是把一切都视为概率，并说某种情况有95%的概率会发生，另一种情况也许有5%的概率会发生。没有任何事情的概率再是100%或0%。Now it is really simple conceptually rather than deciding that things are true or false what you do is you treat everything as a probability and you say that has a 95% chance of occurring this way and maybe a 5% chance of occurring that way. Nothing is 100% or 0% anymore.

这一切都属于概率的范畴。比如，利用贝叶斯定理，你可以预期，两天后太阳升起的概率非常高。怎么做到呢？首先，你会粗略估计一下这件事发生的可能性，也就是先验概率。考虑到在你的一生中，太阳几乎每天——可能是每天——都会升起，这个概率显然非常高，对吧？大概是 99.999%。It's all a realm of probabilities. For example, using B theorem, you can expect a very high probability that the sun will go up 2 days from now. How? Well, you'll start with a rough guess about how likely it is, which is the prior probability. Given that the sun has come up virtually every day of your life, probably every day of your life, uh the probability is really high, right? It's like 99.999%.

然后，等有了新信息后，你就会据此更新它。也许你会等一天，看看太阳会不会再次升起。如果会，那么你现在就可以把概率从 99.9% 更新到 99.99999% 之类的。不幸的是，你们大多数人可能从来没听说过它。实际上，原因在于它是以一种非常令人恼火的数学形式呈现的，我觉得大多数人恐怕永远都无法理解，除非有人拿枪指着他们的Then after that, you update it based off new information. Maybe you'll wait a day and you'll see if the sun comes up again. If so, now you can update your probability from 99.9% to 99.99999% or something. Unfortunately, most of you will never have heard of it. In practice, the reason why is because it's presented in a very annoying mathematical format that I think just like most people would never understand unless somebody put a gun to their

脑袋，说实话这很荒谬，因为它可能是最简单、适用范围最广且威力强大的推理工具之一，却因为一堆数学……而让大多数人无法接触到。比如说，我女朋友是医生。她在学校里学过贝叶斯定理。我听说这件事时特别兴奋，心想：“嘿，我们就能估算各种事情发生的概率了。”heads, which is ridiculous if I'm honest, because it's probably one of the simplest, most generally powerful reasoning tools and is inaccessible to most of the population because a bunch of mathy Um, for instance, my girlfriend's a doctor. They discussed base theorem with her in school. I got really excited when I heard about this, thinking, "Hey, we'll get to estimate probabilities for all sorts of things."

但我问她这件事的时候，她基本上给了我一个冗长得要命的公式，基于条件概率，真是糟透了。而且这也没怎么解释其中的美妙之处或直觉。嗯，我还是觉得，这东西大概应该在小学就教。But when I asked her about it, she gave me basically a longass formula based on conditional probabilities, which sucked. And it didn't really explain any of the beauty or intuition behind it. Um, again, this is something that I personally think should be probably taught in like grade school.

遗憾的是，没有人天生就能凭直觉计算条件概率，而这正是贝叶斯定理所讲的内容。呃，即使在研究实验室待了五年，我也不觉得自己在脑子里计算这些的能力比你好多少。所以这里我就不讲公式了。重点是从直觉上理解，生活中的一切都是一系列概率。Unfortunately, nobody's born with the ability to intuitively calculate conditional probabilities, which is what base theorem is all about. uh even after 5 years in research labs, I don't think I'm better any better uh than you are at doing them in my head. So I'm not going to even talk the formula here. The point is more intuitively that you need to understand that everything in life is a series of probabilities.

在看一个具体的贝叶斯定理示例之前，我想先让大家牢牢记住一个核心概念，我们会用它来判断一条证据是否重要：如果 X 为真，这条证据出现的可能性有多大？如果 X 为假呢？这可能是你能回答的最有效的问题。一定要透彻理解这一点。So before we look at a specific example of base theorem, I want to instill a core concept that we will use to determine whether a piece of evidence is important. What is the likelihood that this evidence would occur if X were true versus if X were false? This is the question that is probably the most effective one that you can answer. It's very important to wrap your head around.

所以，我们来深入思考一下这句话。如果 X 为真，与 X 为假相比，出现这项证据的可能性分别有多大？举个例子，假设你正在销售某样东西，通话快结束时，潜在客户说：“这看起来很不错。你能把详细信息发给我吗？”大多数人会认为，这是交易即将成交的有力证据，对吧？而且这让人感觉很好。于是，他们挂断电话后，会告诉自己的伴侣：“这次谈得特别顺利。”但我So, let's think about that sentence deeply. What is the likelihood that this evidence would occur if X were true versus if X were false? For instance, imagine you are selling something and at the end of the call, the prospect says, "This looks great. Can you send me over the details?" Most people assume this is strong evidence that the deal will close, right? And it feels good. So, they'll hang up and they'll tell their partner, "This went really well." But I

我想让你想想这个问题。潜在客户说“看起来很棒。把详细资料发给我。”的可能性有多大？如果他们真的打算购买，那么这种可能性非常高，对吧？几乎所有买家都会说类似的话。want you to think about the question. What's the likelihood a prospect says, "This looks great. Send me the details." If they're actually going to buy, well, it's very high, right? Almost all buyers are going to say something like that.

也许是 0.9。但如果他们根本不会买，他们也会这么说的可能性有多大？猜猜看？也非常高。也许是 0.9。因为想想看，这是结束通话最礼貌的方式，而且这可能也符合你自己作为买家的行为。这才是问题的关键。由于在这两个假设情境中，这句话出现的频率大致相同，所以仅仅听到这一信息并不能……Maybe 0.9. But what's the likelihood they'll also say it if they're never going to buy? Guess what? It's also really high. Maybe 0.9. Because if you think about it, that is the politest possible way to end a call. and it probably matches your own buyer behavior as well. And that's the real crux of it. Since the sentence shows up in both of these hypothetical worlds at roughly the same rate, simply hearing this piece of information will

完全说明不了任何事情。例如，这对于成交来说是非常薄弱的证据，实际上它只能说明你的通话即将结束。现在，把这和有人说“有意思。你们能不能改成按季度而不是按月给我们开票？”相比一下。想想看，如果某人准备购买，这种情况出现的频率有多高？tell you absolutely nothing. For instance, it is very weak evidence of a sale and it is merely evidence that your call is ending in all reality. Now, compare this to somebody that says, "Interesting. Are you able to invoice us quarterly instead of monthly?" If you think about it, how often does that happen when somebody's going to buy?

可能挺常见的，因为他们在讨论付款条款，对吧？也许是 0.9。他们不打算买的时候，这种情况发生得有多频繁？嗯，几乎从来不会，因为没人会去谈判一个自己根本不打算买的产品的付款条款，对吧？我是说，这简直就是行为学入门常识。这只会增加额外的工作，而我们都更愿意继续过自己的日子；我宁愿直接结束通话，然后，嗯，把头埋进沙子里。所以，也许吧。probably pretty often because it's discussing payment terms, right? Maybe 0.9. How often does it happen when they aren't going to buy? Well, pretty much never because nobody cares about negotiating payment terms on a product they have no intention of purchasing, right? I mean, that's just like behavior 101. It's extra work and we'd all rather just get on with our lives and I'd rather end the call and go, you know, bury my head in in the sand. So, maybe

这种情况发生的概率是0.1。所以，这意味着，如果你对成交的先验概率是0.25、0.25，也就是25%——因为这就是你们平常的做法。如果你听到前面那种说法，也就是“嘿，你们是按季度而不是按月开票吗？”你就可以立刻把这个概率更新到大约0.9，也就是90%。从逻辑上想一想，这个概率现在会改变你与那个潜在客户互动的方式，而这样做就会成为一个……the odds of that are 0.1. So, what that means is if your prior probability for a close was 0.25 0.25 or just 25%. Cuz that's just how much you guys normally do. If you hear the former which is that you know hey do you guys invoice quarterly instead of monthly you can immediately update that to like 0.9 which is now 90%. And if you think about it logically that probability will now change how you interact with that prospect and in doing so become a

这是一种自我实现的预言：因为你与客户互动的方式有所不同，所以实际上更有可能拿下这位客户。你还可以预测收入、销售管道价值，等等。self-fulfilling prophecy where you're much more likely to actually close that client because you are interacting with them differently. You can also do things like project income, project pipeline value and so on and so forth.

我很喜欢贝叶斯定理。贝叶斯定理对我的生活和职业生涯影响有多大，我实在难以言表。那我们再来看几个例子。嗯，首先，给大家一个建议。这是一个过去几年里一直在使用、甚至滥用贝叶斯定律的人给出的建议：每次只做小幅更新。理想情况下，每次只依据一小份证据来更新。好的贝叶斯更新，关键在于把多个步骤串联起来，而不是只做一步。因此，为了做到这一点，我们不用百分比，而是用……I love B theorem. It is so hard for me to explain how impactful B theorem has been to my life and my career. So, let's do a couple more examples. Um, first, a word of advice from somebody that's used and abused Baze law for the last few years. Update in small steps. And ideally, you would do so one small piece of evidence at a time. Good Bayian updating is all about chaining multiple steps together, not just one. And so, to do so, instead of percentages, we use

赔率很简单。嗯，10%的概率意味着赔率是1比9。所以不是1比10，我知道这听起来很奇怪，但就是1比9。odds. Odds are very simple. Uh 10% probability just means your odds are 1 in nine. So it's not 1 in 10, which I know sounds weird, but it's one in nine.

它为真的机会有一次，为假的机会有九次。10%就意味着有十分之一的机会，对吧？其实不是。它更像是1比9的赔率。所以我们可以像这样把前面的例子串起来。One chance of it being true, nine chances of it being false. 10% just means there's a 1 in 10 chance, right? Well, it's it's not. It's like there's a 1 to nine odds. So we can chain our previous example together like this.

假设你和任意一个随机潜在客户成交的概率是1/100。我现在意识到，考虑到我刚才已经明确解释了这是怎么回事，我大概应该说1/99，呃。所以，和任意一个随机潜在客户成交的概率是1%，也就是1%的概率，或者说胜算是1比99。这意味着，如果你仔细想想，你的先验胜算是1比99。好吧，基本上，每100种情况里你会有一次赚钱，对吧？也就是说，在100个里面，有一个……Let's say you have a 1 in100 odds of closing a deal in on any random prospect. I'm realizing here I should probably say uh one in 99 considering I absolutely explicitly just explained how that works. So there's a 1% chance 1% chance or 1 in 99 odds of closing a deal with any random prospect. That means that your prior odds if you think about it are one to 99. Okay, basically in one out of a 100 cases you will make money, right? Which means out of 100 one of

这些事情中，那件事会发生。现在，情况是，你会很快收到这些人中某个人的回复，这会让你的几率提高到原来的2.7倍。如果你算一下，好吧，把它们乘起来，就是2.7比999。现在，算一下这个，就是2.7 / 99，也就是27%，我想这应该还是和之前一样。these that one will occur. Now, what happens is you get a very quick reply from one of these people, which makes your odds 2.7 times more likely. If you do the math on this, okay, multiplying them out, that's 2.7 to 999. Now, which if you do the math on that is 2.7 / 99 or 27%, which I guess is still the same as it was before.

现在，假设你从同一位潜在客户那里收到一个询价问题。这会让他们之后成交的可能性提高到两倍。这样一来，概率就是 5.4%。4% 四舍五入后约为 5%。现在，不幸的是，假设这位潜在客户最终爽约了。这会让他们的可能性降低到原来的四分之一，也就是低 4 倍。所以，现在的赔率是 1.35 比 99，约为 1.35%。注意，我们不是简单地做加法或减法，而是做乘法。这让我们能够……Now, let's say you get a pricing question from the same prospect. That makes you two times more likely after that. This puts you at 5.4%. 4% rounded to five. Now, unfortunately, let's say that same prospect eventually no showed a meeting. That makes them 4x less likely or maybe a quarter. So, now the odds are 1.35 to 99. This is 1.35% approximately. Notice how we're not just adding or subtracting. What we're doing is we're multiplying. This allows us to

快速调高或调低我们的概率，同时仍然保留相当程度的细微差别。贝叶斯定律的价值在于，它非常适用于销售管道，适用于……scale our odds up or down quickly while also still maintaining a strong degree of nuance. The value here is Baze law is excellent for sales pipelines, for

课程讨论：第七部分Course Discussion: Part Seven

项目的概率，等等。你可以先算出产品的平均订单金额，比如 5,000 美元，然后根据历史成交数据，算出每个销售流程阶段的条件概率。接着把这些概率全部相乘，就能得出销售管道的预期价值。这样一来，你就能非常细致地估算出公司实际能赚多少钱。而且……probabilities, for projects, and so on and so forth. What you can do is you can get the average order value of a product, maybe 5,000 bucks, and then just get the conditional probabilities of every pipeline step based off historical closing. Then you can just multiply them all together to give you the expected value of your pipeline. In that way, you can get very granular about how much money your company is actually capable of making. And as

我提到的，我的意思是，这只是你能做的许许多多不同事情中的一种。我想说，贝叶斯定理只是所有……呃，抱歉，CRM 只是所有可能应用贝叶斯定理的方法中很小的一部分。比如说，以小步幅更新基准率，可能是，你知道，10……嗯，你知道，我说的是 99 分之一，这是 10，不过请包涵一下，因为显然这些图表是我生成的。嗯，你知道，这个升到了 2.4 倍，这个……mentioned, I mean, this is just one of like many, many different things that you can do. Base theorem is a very small chunk I would say of all u sorry CRM are a very small chunk of I would say all possible ways you can apply base theorem. So for instance updating in small steps the base rate might be you know 10 well you know I I said one in 99 this is 10 but bear with me here because obviously I generate these graphics um you know this moved up to 2.4x this

升到了 3.7 倍，这次又降回 1.3 倍左右。不过归根结底，我们的想法是分步骤更新，而不是一下子全部更新。如果你们还没听懂贝叶斯定理背后的解释，也不用担心。有很多很棒的资料，其中不少来自 LessWrong，或者来自埃利泽·尤德考斯基。他特别擅长解释这些理性思维方面的内容。你们可以直接点击这个链接，了解更多。moved up to 3.7x this move back down to 1.3 or whatever. Uh but ultimately the idea is we're updating in steps. We're not just updating all at once. Now if you guys didn't get the explanations behind base theorem, don't worry about it. There are lots of great resources and many of them are from less wrong or this guy Elizer Ykowski who's just wonderful at explaining these rationality things. Um so you guys can just click this link and check out more

后者对贝叶斯定理的直观解释。好，在继续之前，先想一个你对自己的生意或职业抱有的看法，比如“这个产品肯定会大获成功”或者“这次招聘太棒了”。然后写下它的贝叶斯先验，再问问自己：如果这个看法是错的，你会多常看到这种情况？恭喜，你刚刚进行了一次贝叶斯推理。intuitive explanations of B theorem from the latter. Okay, one big question before we move on. Pick an idea you have about your business or your career. like this product's going to kick ass or this hire is awesome. Then write down the Beijian prior for it and just ask yourself how often you would see it if the belief were false. Congratulations, you just did some Beijian reasoning.

我们来稍微聊聊费米近似。对于不了解的人来说，费米是一位著名的物理学家。1945年，在三位一体核试验场，他做了一个很酷的实验：在那场巨大冲击波扩散的过程中，他扔下了几片碎纸。然后，他观察这些纸片被吹出去多远，再运用自己的物理学知识，粗略地算了算，结果估算出了这次核爆炸的当量。Let's talk a little bit about Fermy approximations. Now, for those of you guys that don't know, Fermy was a renowned physicist. At the Trinity Nuke test site in 1945, he had a really cool experiment where he dropped a few scraps of paper during the progression of that big blast wave. Then he just watched how far they traveled and then using his knowledge of physics just did some very rough like back of napkin math he ended up estimating the yield of the nuclear

把炸弹的威力估算为大约 1 万吨 TNT 当量。真正有意思的是，公认的实际数值大约是这个估算的两倍，也就是说，他的误差只有两倍。对大多数人来说，这就算错了，对吧？但物理学家看到这个结果，可能会说：“你开什么玩笑？你竟然只靠扔下几片随手捡来的纸屑，就把那枚核弹的威力估算到了一个数量级以内，也就是误差不超过 10 倍——”bomb to about 10 kilotons of TNT. What's really interesting is the actual accepted figure was just about twice of that, meaning he was off by a factor of two. Which means like to most people he was wrong, right? But to physicist, they would look at that and they would go like, "Are you kidding? You were able to estimate the size of that nuclear bomb within an order of magnitude, aka 10 times, and you just did it by dropping a couple of random scraps of paper and

然后再做个餐巾纸背面的粗略计算。这非常令人印象深刻。”而现实是，这就是费米估算的思路。能够像费米估算那样进行近似计算，是一项极其强大的技能。作为一名商界人士，我几乎每天都会用到这项技能；而且一旦你学会了，很可能也会经常想用它。所以我想，我们可以花点时间来讲讲它。那该怎么做呢？其实很简单。首先，你……then doing back a napkin math. That's extremely impressive." And the reality is this idea of fermy approximate. So being able to approximate things like fermy is an extremely powerful skill that I personally use virtually every single day as somebody in business and that once you learn you will probably want to use very often as well. So I figured we'd probably spend a few moments covering it. So how do you do it? Well, it's easy. First you

拆解。然后估算。接着相乘。好。它的运作方式是，你知道，你会遇到某种问题。我不知道具体会是什么问题。比如说，估算你所在城市的十字路口数量。decompose. Then you estimate. And then you multiply. Okay. So the way that it works is, you know, you have some sort of problem of some kind. I don't know what the problem might be. let's say the number of intersections in your city.

你要做的就是把这个问题拆分成几个部分。你问自己，好吧，第一部分，你知道，一个交叉路口就像一个四向停车路口，对吧？得有人过马路。嗯，现实中到底有多少个交叉路口？我想我得先弄清楚有多少条南北走向的街道，或者说，南北走向的街道有多少条，还有东西走向的大道有多少条。那么有多少条街道呢？好吧，我想它……What you do is you decompose that problem into parts. You ask yourself, okay, so part number one, you know, an intersection is like a four-way stop, right? There needs to be people crossing. Um, so how many intersections are there realistically? Well, I guess I need to figure out how many streets there are going north south or yeah, north south and maybe how many avenues there are going east west. So how many streets are there? Well, I guess it

大概会是 50 条。那么有多少条大道呢？我不知道，可能还有 100 条左右吧。所以，好吧，如果我把这两个数相乘，结果是多少？100 乘以 50。那是多少？大约 5,000。好，这个数字看起来还挺合理的。不错。把它们乘起来，我得到大约 5,000 个交叉路口之类的。这是一个非常简单、很粗略的例子，对吧？would probably be like 50. And how many avenues are there? I don't know, maybe like another 100 or something like that. So, it's like, okay, well, if I just multiply the two out and how many am I getting? 100 times 50. So, I'm getting what? 5,000 or so. All right, that seems pretty reasonable. Cool. Multiplying them together, I get 5,000 intersections or something like that. So, that's a very simple and naive example, right?

嗯，不过希望你们能明白我的意思。你知道，外推一下，我相信你们能看出来，怎么从一个非常糟糕的起点开始，然后就能做到大致接近真相，可能误差在一个数量级以内。它之所以有价值，是因为这样你就不必把所有东西都放进工作记忆里，再写到纸上，就能很快地在脑子里推理事情，非常……Um, but hopefully you guys understand what I mean. You know, extrapolated, I'm sure you guys could see how you could start with something really bad and then just get reasonably within, you know, probably one order of magnitude of the truth. And the reason why that's valuable is because it allows you without having to take everything in your working memory and then put it on a piece of paper to like quickly reason through things in your head um very

令人印象深刻。所以这是一个我经常用的例子：你需要发多少封冷邮件才能获得五位客户？好吧，也许你的正面回复率大约是 0.5%。impressively. So here's an example I use all the time. How many cold emails do you need to get five clients? Okay. Well, maybe you get a positive reply rate of about.5%.

也就是说，大约每200个中有一个。也许你的回复转通话率约为25%。之后，你的通话成交率可能约为20%。而且你知道，如果把这些都合在一起，正向回复率是05。回复转通话率是0.25。通话成交率是0.2。That means one in 200 or so. Maybe you get a reply to call rate of about 25%. Maybe after that you get a call to close rate of about 20%. And maybe you know if we combine all that the positive reply rate is 05. The reply to call rate is 0.25. The call to close rates is 0.2.

总的来说可能是 025，数学上想想也就是四千分之一。这意味着你需要发 4,000 封冷邮件，才能获得一位客户。如果你想获得五位客户，只要把这两个数字相乘，也就是 20,000。你知道这件事有多疯狂吗？这些内容我其实并没有用 Maker School 过去的数据，但后来我回头找了 Maker School 里的一些讨论串，看看发了多少封邮件……Maybe in total it's 025 which if you think about it mathematically is 1 in 4,000. That means you need 4,000 cold emails to get one client. If you wanted to get five clients you would just multiply these two to get 20,000. You know the crazy thing about this? I didn't actually use like my historical numbers for Maker School for any of this stuff, but then I went back and found a bunch of threads in Maker School and I looked at like how many emails the

那个人发来的信息里说，他们拿下第一个客户时，金额大概在 2,000 到 8,000 左右。我会这么说吧。你想想看，这并不完全准确，稍微有点偏差，但确实非常接近我随手搜集到的一些实际数据的数学平均值。我记得当时就想：“哇，这也太离谱了。”我的意思是，显然我了解这个行业，只是……person had sent when they said that they acquired their first client and it was roughly on the order of maybe 2,000 to like 8,000 I would say, which if you think about it, like this isn't this isn't perfect. It's off by a little bit, but it it is quite close to the mathematical average of just some cursory actual information that I gathered. And I remember just being like, "Wow, that is wild." I mean obviously I know about the industry just

就像费米懂物理和核武器一样，他实际上能够把答案估算到误差只有几个百分点以内。所以，费米近似是我们学过的另外两种计算方法的基础。我的意思是，它们能给出概率、收益等等，这对计算期望值很有帮助。它们也能帮助我们估算贝叶斯定理中的概率。所以我认为，它们是减少……的绝佳方法。like Fermy knows about physics and nukes but he was actually able to get within you know a few few percentage points of the answer. So Fermy approximations are foundational to the other two calculations that we've learned. I mean they provide probabilities and payoffs and so on and so forth and that's great for computing expected value. They can also help us estimate the probabilities for theorems like bays. So I think they're an excellent way of reducing a

在估算两者的概率和影响数值时，难免会有很多不确定性。嗯，如果你不确定，就始终把问题拆解开来，分别估算，再相乘。这是一种非常有效的理清思路的方法。再来看一个现实生活中的例子。假设你正在考虑向加拿大的牙科诊所销售预约软件——我住在加拿大。加拿大的人口大约有 4000 万，对吧？那么首先，如果你想要……lot of the inherent uncertainty involved in estimating probabilities and impact figures for both. Um, when you don't know, just always decompose, estimate, and multiply. It's a very strong clarity of thought technique. Here's another example in real life. Let's say hypothetically you're considering selling appointment booking software to dental clinics in Canada, which is where I live. Canada's a population about 40 million, right? So first, if you wanted

要做一个相当粗略的估算，弄清楚向加拿大的牙科诊所销售预约软件是否可行，一个合理的做法可能是想一想：好吧，那么有多少人、多少家牙科诊所？每家诊所服务多少人？to run a firmy approximation to figure out, you know, whether or not it makes sense to sell appointment booking software to dental clinics in Canada, a reasonable thing to do might be to think, okay, so how many people and how many dental clinics for how many people?

比如说，每家牙科诊所对应多少人？也许大概每 5,000 人就有一家牙科诊所。嗯，4,000 万除以 5,000，就是加拿大有 8,000 家诊所。Like how many people per dental clinic? Maybe there's like a dental clinic every 5,000 people or so. Well, 40 mil divided by 5,000 is 8,000 clinics in Canada.

好吧，这么说也有道理。或许这些诊所里有五分之一的问题严重到真的愿意花钱解决。嗯，8,000 除以 5 等于 1,600。也许第一年我就能接触到其中一小部分，并成功拿下他们。就按 3% 来算吧，也就是 48 家，我就当作 50 家。再假设，如果我的市场推广做得特别好，背后又有一支强大的团队，我能让这 50 家诊所每家每月付给我 3,000 美元，用来……Okay, that's fair. Maybe about a fifth of these clinics have a problem bad enough to actually want to pay for a solution. Well, 8,000 divided by 5 is 1,600. Maybe I could reach and close a small percentage of those in the first year. Let's just say, you know, 3% which is 48, which I'll call 50. And let's say, you know, if I went to market really well and I had a big team behind me, I could get each of those 50 clinics to pay me three grand a month for the

软件。那就是每月 15 万。嘿，这其实相当可行，对吧？既然我们已经做了费米估算，也许可以实际去试探一下市场，比如发几封邮件或者给一些人打电话。在评估商业模式时，我会不断快速地做一些粗略的费米估算和计算，然后判断一下：这笔账算得通吗？software. That's 150k a month. Hey, that's actually pretty feasible, right? Now that we've done the Fermy estimate, maybe we can actually go test the waters by sending some emails or calling some people. What I will do constantly while I'm evaluating business models is I will just very very quickly do back of napkin firmy approximates and math and I'll just determine like does this check out?

有可能吗？你知道，我会全面采取保守估计，但我总会在心里很快算一下：好吧，我们来快速算算。这听起来合理，误差大概在两三倍以内。这听起来合理，误差大概也在两三倍以内。然后这个听起来也合理，误差大概也在两三倍以内。所以这个听起来合理，误差大概也……Is there a chance? You know, I'll be conservative across the board, but I will always just be like, okay, let's just run the numbers really quick in my head. This sounds reasonable. It's probably within, you know, an order of like two or three. This sounds reasonable, and this is probably within an order of two or three. And then this sounds reasonable and this is probably within an order of two or three. So this sounds reasonable and it's probably

在两三倍的范围内。如果我靠这个赚到5万，那就挺不错；如果赚到30万，那也很不错。这足以证明下一步值得去做，显然就是再多做一点研究。好了，下面是几个要点。within an order of two or three. If I made 50,000 with this, that' be cool. If I made 300,000 with this, that'd be cool. It justifies the next step, which is obviously doing a little bit more research. Okay, so key takeaways here.

关于费米估算，最重要的一点是记住，它们只是一种帮你避免浪费时间的工具。所以别在这上面花太多时间。我会大胆取整。如果一个数大约是 7，我通常就取成 10；如果是 350，我就取成 300。我的目标不是精确，而只是尽快在一个数量级的范围内估算出来。费米估算的价值在于，你的每个单独估算很可能都是错的，但它们会……The biggest thing to remember with firmy approximates is they're just a tool to prevent you from wasting time. So don't waste a lot of time on them. I round aggressively. If a number is like a seven, I usually make it a 10. If it's 350, I make it 300. My goal is not to be precise. It is simply to you know figure it out within an order of magnitude pretty quickly. The value to fermies is each of your individual estimates are probably going to be wrong but they'll

可能也会同样不准确，而且很多时候误差方向正好相反。比如说，前一步——每家双诊所大概有多少人——可能会差三倍，但接下来这一步，也就是实际有问题的人有多少，可能又会朝相反方向差三倍。所以这些不确定性实际上会相互抵消，最后得到的结果相当合理。接下来真正酷的是……probably be similarly wrong and a lot of the time they're off by opposites. So like a previous step like how many people per double clinic is going to be off by a factor of three let's say but then you know the next step which is how many people actually have a problem might be off by a factor of three in the other direction. So all these uncertainties actually do average out and you end up with something quite reasonable. And then what's really cool

你实际上也可以让 AI 帮你做很多这类事情。AI 特别擅长费米估算，我经常把它当作第一性原理推理工具。我会问类似这样的问题：“嘿，咱们用第一性原理和费米估算来分析一下，过一遍 XYZ 问题，看看你怎么想。”很多时候，它做得跟我能做到的一样好。is you can actually have AI do a lot of this stuff for you too. AI is wicked at firmy approximates and I use it often as a first principle reasoner. I will like give a questions like hey you know let's through first principles and fmy approximates let's run through XYZ problem and like let me see what you think and a lot of the time it'll do just as good as I was capable of doing.

然后，我就可以拿这个估算结果，用在流程的下一环节。好，这就引出了一个行动问题：“你现在对哪个潜在项目、业务或想法感到兴奋？请在 60 秒内把它具体化。”记住，就是拆解、估算，然后相乘。好，现在我们来谈谈时薪和卸载规则。大多数人从来不会计算自己的时薪，而是默认把它设为零。然后……And then I can take that estimate and I can use it in the next chain of my process. Okay. And that takes me to an action question, which is, "What is a potential project, business, or idea you're excited about right now? Firm it in 60 seconds." Remember that's decompose, estimate, and multiply. All right, let's now talk the hourly rate and the offload rule. Most people never calculate their hourly rate. They will just implicitly set it at zero. And that

即便你是那种认为自己知道自己时薪的人也一样。但现在你既然理解了机会成本，就应该真的坐下来算一算，因为你一旦这么做，就能避免花 3 个小时去做一件助理或 AI 能替你完成的事，而这只需要花 20 或 30 美元。比如买东西，直到最近我才意识到，这其实非常浪费我的时间。做电子表格之类的工作呢？is even if you're the sort of person who thinks that they know their hourly rate. But now that you understand opportunity cost, you should actually sit down and calculate this because the moment that you do, it'll prevent you from spending 3 hours on a task that an assistant or an AI could do for you for 20 or $30. An example of that might be buying stuff, which until recently I didn't realize was a very poor use of my time. How about doing spreadsheet work or stuff

像那样吗？那么，我们先从你的时薪是多少开始。首先，你不只需要一个时薪，实际上需要两个。第一个是平均时薪，第二个是边际时薪。你可能不知道，平均时薪就是你过去一年的收入除以你为赚取这笔收入而工作的总小时数。所以，这里你要使用实际工时。如果你工作一re热like that? So, why don't we start with what's your hourly rate? Now, first, you don't just need one hourly rate. You actually need two hourly rates. The first is your average hourly rate. The second is your marginal hourly rate. In case you didn't know, average hourly rate is just your income over the last year divided by the total number of hours that you worked in order to make that income. So here you're going to want to use actual hours. If you work a

周末做副业、开 Uber，或者做其他什么都好，这些临时短工你也得算进去。否则，你可能会对实际情况产生误解。所以这就是你的平均时薪。另一方面，你的边际时薪指的是你做得最好的工作的价值。说到最好的工作，我通常指的是：当你把时间投入到当天最重要的事情上，也就是最能赚钱的事情上，比如销售时。side hustle or Uber on the weekends or whatever, you have to include those quick jobs that you do as well. If not, you will probably be misrepresenting what that is. So that's your average hourly rate. Your marginal hourly rate on the other hand is the value of your best work. Now when I say best work, what I typically refer to is work that when you allocate it towards the number one most important thing in your day, whatever the big money maker is, sales

打电话、在我自己的实例里写脚本，呃，我不知道，谈商业合作之类的，你做这些能赚到的钱。calls, writing a script in my instance, uh I don't know, doing business partnerships or whatever, the amount of money that you would make doing that.

而这正是像我们这样的人非常看重的数字——我们大概都想改善自己的生活处境。因为当我们把某项任务外包出去，不再让它妨碍我们多花一个小时赚取边际时薪时，我们就能把那整整一个小时拿回来。而且，通常你的边际时薪远高于平均时薪。比如，我管理 Maker School（我的 90 天问责社群）时的边际时薪，如果我花一个小时……And this is the number that matters a lot for people like us who presumably want to improve our stations in life because when we offload some task that is preventing us from spending another hour on our marginal rate, uh we get that entire hour back. Also, usually your marginal rate is way higher than your average rate. So, for instance, my marginal rate managing Maker School, which is my 90-day accountability community, um, if I spend a single hour

在 Maker School 上，我会赚到 6 美元到 8,000 美元之间。我知道这听起来很疯狂，但 Maker School 就是这样运作的。如果我在 Maker School 上花一个小时回答问题、录制视频或回复别人，我就能赚到 8,000 美元——6 到 8,000 美元。on Maker School, I will make somewhere between $6 to $8,000. I know that sounds crazy, but such is how Maker School works. If I spend a single hour on Maker School answering questions, recording videos, or responding to people, I make 8,000 $6 to $8,000.

但那并不是我的平均时薪。也就是说，我不能每天只工作八个小时，然后把 6,000 到 8,000 乘以八。所以我不知道每天 56,000 美元是怎么回事。如果我每天能赚 56,000 美元，那一个月就能赚 200 万美元。可我一个月赚不到 200 万美元，大约只有四分之一。所以两者之间的差别在于，平均时薪考虑了我所有效率不高的时间。好，单说平均时薪，它……But that's not my average hourly rate. Meaning I can't just work eight hours a day and make 6,000 to 8,000 times eight. So I don't know what's that $56,000 a day. If I made $56,000 a day, I'd be making $2 million uh a month. And I don't make $2 million a month. I make about a quarter of that. So the difference there is the average hourly rate takes into account all of the time that I'm spending suboptimally. Okay, just the average hourly rate, the

我工作时对时间的平均利用情况。而边际时薪基本上就是那段幂律曲线，也就是投资回报率最高的部分。average usage of my time while working. Whereas the marginal hourly rate is basically like just that power law chunk that is the highest ROI.

因此，理想情况下，你每多投入一小时所创造的价值应该等于你的平均每小时价值，因为你醒着的每一刻都在做最有效的事。但说实话，大多数时候并非如此。理解这一点很重要。And so ideally your marginal hour rate would be equal to your average hourly rate by the way because you just spend every waking moment of your time on the most effective thing. But let's be real, most of the time it is not. And it's important to understand that.

好。所以从逻辑上讲，如果你自己完成这项任务所需的小时数乘以你的时薪——你的边际时薪[倒吸一口气]——大于外包这项任务的直接费用，加上你监督别人完成这项任务所需的小时数乘以你的边际时薪，那么你就应该把这项任务外包出去。如果你觉得这听起来不太好理解，我们可以用数字来看看。现在，这里的左边是……嗯，你知道的，成本……Okay. So logically you should offload a task if the number of hours to complete the task yourself multiplied by your hourly rate your marginal hourly rate [gasps] is greater than the direct price of offloading plus the number of hours you need to supervise the task that somebody else does times your marginal hourly rate. If that doesn't make sense to you, we can look at it with numbers. Now on the left hand side here is cost of um you know

你的工时和金钱。比如说，在这里，假设你要做这项任务，不管它是什么，好吧，嗯，这项任务需要 5 个小时，你的时薪是 100 美元。那么，5 美元一小时——抱歉，我应该说 5 个小时——乘以每小时 100 美元，等于 500 美元，对吧？这很合理。前提是你自己做。如果你把它外包出去，好吧，你要做的就是，假设你可以付给别人 150 美元来完成这项任务。你会支付 150 美元，这就是价格，但是your hours and dollars. And so over here for instance if you were to do this hypothetical task whatever it is okay um it's a 5 hour task and your rate is $100 per hour. Well $5 per hour times sorry 5 hours I should have said times $100 per hour is equal to $500 right that's just logical. Now that's if you do it yourself. If you offload it, okay, what you'll do is, let's say you could pay somebody $150 bucks to do it. You'll pay $150, which will be the price, but

你仍然会产生一些额外成本和通常不会纳入考量的机会成本。比如，界定任务范围、发出任务，然后监督任务完成，可能会额外花你一个小时。也许你会分成每次 20 分钟来做。你知道，花 20 分钟界定任务范围，20 分钟把任务发出去，再花 20 分钟在任务进行过程中监督它。这样算下来，你刚才投入的总时间乘以……you'll still have some additional costs and opportunity that you don't typically take into account. For instance, it may take you an additional hour to scope, send, and then supervise the completion of the task. And maybe you'll do that in 20-minute batches. You know, 20 minutes to scope it, 20 minutes to send it off, 20 minutes to supervise it um throughout the the course of the task. If you do the math there, then the total amount of time that you just spent multiplied by

显然，费用加上你一小时的监督时间现在是250美元。也就是说，你把一项原本要耗费你价值500美元时间的任务外包了出去，总成本为250美元，或者说150美元加上你一小时的时间。the obviously price and your hour of supervision is now $250. Meaning that what you've done is you've offloaded a task that was $500 of your own time for a total of $250 or $150 plus 1 hour of your time.

明白吗？所以很自然，如果你自己来做，就要花掉价值 100 美元或 500 美元的时间。嗯，五个小时乘以每小时 100 美元。这里唯一真正的，我想说，是出错率。问题就在于监督这一部分。很多时候，人们会以为监督工作几乎不需要花时间。他们会说：“你知道，我雇的人都很优秀。我团队里只有优秀的人，所以他们能做好。”但问题不在于他们能不能做好，而在于他们是否……Okay? So naturally, if you were to do it yourself, that would cost $100 or $500 of your time. Um five hours times $100 an hour. The only real, I'd say, error rate here. The issue is just that supervision portion. A lot of the time people assume the supervision portion is basically zero. They'll say, well, you know, I hire good people. I only have good people on my team, so they'll be able to do it. But the question is not are they able to do it. It's are they

能像你一样把它做好吗？而在大多数情况下，他们做不到。所以你要做的就是稍微试探、调整一下，把事情挪动到恰到好处的程度。明白吗？只要稍微多花一点时间，就会降低这项计算的总体盈利能力。able to do it as well as you are? And in most cases, they will not be able to do it as well as you are. And so what you'll have to do is you will have to poke and prod and move things around just enough. Okay? Just enough for that to take a little bit more of your time, reducing the total profitability of that calculation.

没人谈这个，但我想我不妨提一下，因为是啊，我的意思是，显然，如果你花 150 美元就能做成一件原本可能要花 500 美元的事，那一切看起来都美好得不得了；但你确实得考虑到，从现在起，你总得先界定任务范围、发送任务，然后把任务委派出去，呃，呃，还得监督任务。所以，假设一下，我们说你给自己留一点误差空间，然后你说，呃，你知道，我……Nobody talks about that, but I figure I might as well because yeah, I mean, obviously everything looks like sunshine and rainbows if you could spend $150 to do something that might have taken you $500, but you do have to take into account you are always now going to have to scope the task, send the task, and then delegate and uh uh supervise the task as well. So, hypothetically, let's say you give yourself a little bit of error bars and you say, uh, you know, I

可能会把任务搞砸。所以现在他们得把它退回去修改，然后我还得来做，你知道，可能是什么设计任务之类的。这样一来，我监督起来实际上要花两倍时间。might screw something up in the task. So, now they have to send that back for revisions and then I have to do it, you know, maybe this is some like design task or something. So, it'll actually take twice as long for me to supervise.

我们该怎么做？我们要做的就是在这项工作上再增加 1 小时的监督成本，让监督时间变成 2 小时，成本为 200 美元；再加上 150 美元的价格，总成本就是 350 美元。现在，这仍然完全在盈利范围内，对吧？你花 350 美元，就能赚 500 美元。显然，这没问题。理想情况下，我乐于把那些回报至少达到 3 倍的任务外包出去，或者说达到 2.5 倍也行。所以，从 150 美元到 500 美元，其实正好就是一个典型例子，嗯，就是这类任务的例子。What do we do? All we do is we add an additional 1 hour of supervision cost to this to make this 2 hours of supervision or $200 with a price of $150 putting the total cost at 350. Now, that is still well within profitability, right? You're spending $350 to make 500. Obviously, that's fine. Ideally, I'm happy to offload tasks that perform at at least a 3x multiple. So, or a 2.5x multiple. So that $150 to $500 is actually basically the precise example um of you know tasks

那是我会委派出去的事情。嗯，周边的任何事情都能给我留出足够的误差空间，所以就算需要稍微监督一下以防万一，我也没问题。而且，正如我们所知，通过规划谬误，它也让我可以……你知道，稍微调整一下这个比率。我想我们其实还没谈到规划谬误。嗯，万一我的计算有点偏差，它也让我可以稍微调整一下这个比率。所以，考虑一下你……的先验概率。that I would delegate. Uh anything around there gives me enough of an error bar that I'm okay having to do a little bit of supervision just in case. And it also allows me to as we know through the planning fallacy um you know it allows me to kind of massage the the rate. It's I don't think we actually talked about the planning fallacy yet. Um it allows me to massage the rate a little bit in case my math is a little bit off. So consider the prior probability that you

了解你的确切时薪，并确保你的边际时薪等同于真实的边际时薪，而不只是你计算出来的边际时薪。比如说，如果先验概率相当高，那么你认为自己的时薪与实际时薪之间就会高度相关；但两者仍然存在一点差距，而这正是它要控制的。know your exact hourly rate and that your marginal hourly rate is equivalent to the true marginal hourly rate, not just your calculated marginal hourly rate. Like if the prior probability is quite high, you know, then there's a high correlation between what you think your hourly rate is and what it actually is, but we still have a little bit of a gap and that controls for that gap.

所以，实际操作中主要的问题在于监督。你知道，委派任务总是需要你花时间简短跟进、回答问题、检查成果，诸如此类。所以，你必须诚实地评估这些监督成本，否则任务最终还是会反弹回你手上。只不过到那时，事情已经做了一半；而做到一半，几乎比完全没做还糟。So supervision is the main issue in practice. in delegation, you know, will always require your time to write a brief check-in, answer questions, review outputs, and so on and so forth. So, you just have to be honest with yourself about those supervision costs or the task will boomerang back to you. It's just now it'll be half done, and half done is almost worse than not done.

[叹气并喘息] 另外，一项任务即使可以外包，也不代表你就应该总是把它外包出去。有些事情正是你赚钱的方式，也是客户付钱让你做的，所以不应该外包。比如，我会亲自回复 Maker School 里的每一条帖子。我也会亲自拍摄所有视频。原因是，我靠做这些赚了非常多的钱。[sighs and gasps] Also, just because a task is offloadable, that doesn't necessarily mean you should always offload that task. Some things are how you make your money and what your customers are paying you for and should just not be offloaded. For instance, I respond to every post in Maker School myself. I also film all of my own videos. The reason why is because I make an insane amount of money doing this.

目前差不多是每小时1万美元，我的估算几乎完全正确。边际费率要达到多少才算1万美元？我至少得赚到11。而且我不光得赚到11，还得确保你知道，我正在做的、并且外包出去的工作，确实至少同样出色，甚至更好。我几乎想不出有什么办法能做到这一点，除非边际费率现在达到每小时4万或5万美元。所以，我实在看不出有什么理由让我去做这件事。Close to about $10,000 per hour right now, which my estimate was nearly correct on. What marginal rate would be $10,000? I have to make at least 11. And not only would I have to make 11, I'd have to be sure that like, you know, the work that I'm doing and and offloading is actually genuinely as good, if not better. I see virtually no way I could do that unless the marginal rate is now 40 or $50,000 an hour. So, I just can't see any reason at which I'd ever do it.

如果我每小时赚 50,000 美元，你知道，我可能会成为地球上最富有的人之一，对吧？嗯，也许还算不上地球上最富有的人之一，但你明白我的意思。每小时 50,000 美元。咱们来做个大致估算。每天工作 8 小时。If I was making $50,000 an hour, you know, I could be one of the richest people on Earth, right? Well, maybe not richest people on earth, but you know what I mean. $50,000 an hour. Let's do some firm approximates. 8 hours a day.

好，那就是每天40万美元，或者每月8000万美元。每月8000万美元。700……嗯，一年就是9.6亿美元。那可是一年10亿美元。我真是很难找到办法让这笔投入产生数倍回报。最后一点，你的时间只有在你真正高效利用时，才值那个时薪。很多人把价值150美元的任务外包出去，然后就把省下来的时间花在刷 TikTok 之类的事情上。如果你是这么做的，Okay, that's $400,000 a day. Or $80 million a month. $80 million a month. 700 Well, $960 million a year. That's a billion dollars a year. I'd be very, very hardressed to find a way for me to make a multiple on that. Final thing, your time is only worth the hourly rate if you actually use that time productively. Like a lot of people offload $150 task and then they'll just spend their newly freed up time on Tik Tok or whatever. If you're doing that,

你基本上就是花 150 美元请人刷 TikTok。我以前也干过这种事，所以我手机上才没有装 TikTok。you are basically paying somebody $150 to scroll Tik Tok. And I have been guilty of this, which is why I do not have Tik Tok on my phone.

[倒吸一口气并叹息] 所以，这里的某些软件可以改变我们刚才算的账。嗯，尤其是在如今有了 AI 智能体之后。它们能做很多事情，而且成本比你通常雇人来做要低。我会说，如今使用智能体最重要的是监督，也就是你监督它们，并在整个过程中保持高质量的能力。所以，如果你无法在比自己亲自完成这项工作所花时间更短的时间内核实智能体的工作，那么你……[gasps and sighs] So, some software here can change the math that we just did. Um, especially today with AI agents. They can do a lot of things for less money than you'd usually pay a person. I would say that the main thing with a agents these days is oversight, which is um basically your ability to supervise and then maintain high levels of quality throughout the process. So if you can't verify an agent's work in less time than you'd have spent doing yourself, you

显然不应该把这个流程自动化。但如果能自动化，而且工作量很大，那就应该这么做。还有一点值得考虑：有一项科学研究表明，花钱买时间确实能提升幸福感。我平时在计算把事情外包出去是否划算时，不太会想到这一点，不过，嗯，你知道，我可能应该多想想。基本上，有不少研究表明，当你把……交给别人处理时，should obviously not automate the process. But if you can, then you should automate it if it's high uh volume. Another thing to consider is a scientific study that was done that showed that buying time actually improves your happiness. Now, I don't usually think about this while I'm doing offloading math, but um you know, I probably should. Basically, there's a fair amount of research out there that suggests that when you offload

之类的，你付出的不只是150美元，让别人替你完成这项任务。实际上，你是为自己换回了整整一个小时的时间。仔细想想，这一个小时还有我刚才没提到的额外价值：它的边际价值等于你的时薪，再加上少了压力重重的一周所带来的安心感或快乐。而这或许才是它真正的价值。something, you're not just paying $150 to not do the task. You're actually buying yourself a whole hour of your time back. And if you think about it, that hour has additional value that I haven't talked about yet. The marginal value equal to your hourly rate plus however much peace of mind or happiness that you will get from having a less stressful week. And that might be considered its true value.

好吧？所以有几点需要注意。话虽如此，如果你们是个体创业者、自由职业者或规模很小的代理机构，尽管我刚才那么说，你们可能会发现，大多数事情都不值得外包。原因在于，外包与链式法则有关。正如我们从链式法则中看到的，如果你在一个流程中增加更多步骤，由于这些联合概率，表现就会变差。因为 0.9 * 75 *.3 *8 意味着整个流程现在已经是……Okay? So some caveats. With all that said, if you guys are soloreneurs or freelancers or very small agencies, despite what I just said, you will probably find that most things are not worth offloading. The reason why is because offloading is linked to chain law. As we saw from the chain law, if you add more steps to a process, you get worse performance because of these joint probabilities. Because 0.9 * 75 *.3 *8 means the entire process is now

从属于此。3. 所以，如果你一步就能把一项任务做到100%，最终结果就是100%。对吧？你知道结果会是100%，因为你擅长这件事，而且以前做过。但如果你让一个新人参与这项任务，结果就会有大约70%的误差范围。subservient to that.3. So if you do a task at 100% one step, the end result is 100%. Right? And you know it's going to be 100% because you're good at it and you've done it before. But if you introduce a new person into the task, you'd have error bars around 70%.

也就是说，你最终的结果现在至少是70。而且这还没有考虑其他合理的干扰因素，比如监督、委派、管理时间、反馈循环等等。总的来说，我会记住：一步可靠的操作，抵得上12步巧妙外包出去的操作。Meaning your end results is now 70 at minimum. And that's not even taking into account logical other confounders like um supervision and delegation and management time feedback loops and so on and so forth. So in general, I would remember that one trustworthy step is worth 12 clever offloaded steps.

好，接下来做几个实际问题。我们先来练习一下，做些大致但靠谱的估算，然后你们可以拿计算器。先凭直觉算算你们两个人各自的比率。你们去年大概赚了多少钱？是十万美元吗？Okay. So time for some action questions. So why don't we do some firmy approximations to practice and then you guys can grab a calculator. First work out both of your rates just off the top of your head. How much money did you make last year roughly? Is that 100K?

好，行。把这个修正一下。然后用它除以工作小时数，算出平均时薪。顺便说一下，人们一年平均工作时长大约是 2,000 小时。所以，如果你去年赚了大约 10 万美元，而且工作时间差不多是全职，大约 2,000 小时，那你的平均时薪可能大约是 50 美元。做完这些之后，接下来需要花更多时间和精力想想你的工作，想想……Okay, cool. Fix that. Then divide it by the number of hours worked for the average hourly rate. The average amount of the average number of hours that people work per year, by the way, is about 2,000. So if you made about $100,000 last year and you worked about full-time jobs about 2,000 hours, probably made about 50 bucks an hour average. Once we're done with that, this takes a little bit more time and energy to think about your job and think about

在你一天可用的时间里，你做的工作、经营的生意之类的事情。哪些任务能让你每小时赚超过50美元，或者超过你刚刚算出的平均时薪？能高多少？给它乘上一个倍数。如果那项任务重要两三倍，那么现在你就知道它每小时值100或150美元。现在你知道自己的边际时薪了，也思考过你……之中究竟有哪些东西呈幂律分布。the work that you do or your business or whatever of the hours available in your day. What tasks make you more than $50 an hour or whatever your average hourly rate is that you just figured out. How much more? Add a multiple to that. If that task is two or three times as important, well, now you know it's $100 or $150 an hour worth. Now you know your marginal hourly rate and you also have done some reflecting on what it is that is power law distributed in your

日常工作。完成后，挑一项你目前正在做的任务，估算把它外包出去的成本。外包费用加上按你的费率计算的监督时间成本，会不会比那个更高？day-to-day work. Once you're done, pick one of the tasks that you are currently doing and price the offload cost. Will the price plus your supervision hours at your rate be um higher than that?

本质上，完成这一步之后，是什么阻止你真正把任务交出去？我们来聊聊“计划谬误乘数”。一般来说，任务所需的时间往往会比你预想的更长。Essentially once you've done this, what is stopping you from actually offloading? Let's chat about the planning fallacy multiplier. Now tasks in general tend to take longer than you think they will.

这并不是什么高深的科学。即使多年来一直错过截止期限，也了解了这种计划谬误的放大效应，你仍几乎肯定会继续做出总是朝同一个方向偏差的估算。那么，什么是计划谬误呢？当你计划一项任务，也就是你要做的任何事情时，你几乎总会在脑海中把所有步骤过一遍，仿佛整个计划从头到尾都能顺利进行。That's not exactly rocket science. Even after years of missing deadlines and after learning about this planning fallacy multiplier, you will also continue to almost certainly make estimates that are off in the same direction every time. So, what is the planning fallacy? Well, when you plan a task, anything that you're going to do, you almost always go through all the steps in your head as if it is a smooth plan from start to finish.

人类并不擅长设想假设情境，因此几乎不可能考虑到所有可能出错的情况，因为出错的方式远比做对的方式多。看得见的就是看得见，看不见的就是看不见。事实证明，看不见的事物比看得见的更多。Because human beings don't work very well in hypotheticals, it is virtually impossible to consider all of the cases where something could go wrong simply because there are far more ways for something to go wrong than there are ways for something to go right. What is seen is seen and what is not seen is not seen. Well, it turns out that there are more things that are not seen than are seen.

你可能采取的所有路线或路径中，绝大多数把事情搞砸的方式，其组合数量都远远超过把事情做对的所有方式。The vast majority of all of the possible routes that you could take or paths that you could take to screw something up are far larger combinatorily than all of the ways that you can make something right.

这就像是在问：建造一栋大楼有多少种方法？嗯，有几种。但摧毁一栋大楼有多少种方法？那可多得多。正因如此，计划谬误意味着，你的计划几乎从来都不是对某件事实际所需时间的估算。相反，你的计划几乎总是最理想的情况。因此，你应该把它当作理想情况来看待。It's like how many ways are there to build a building? Well, there's a few, but how many ways are there to destroy a building? There are a lot more. Because of this, the planning fallacy means that your plan is almost never an actual estimate of how long something will take you. Instead, your plan is almost always a bestcase scenario. And because of that, you should treat it like such.

那么，现实中的估算偏差究竟有多严重？一个很好的例子是对258个交通运输项目开展的一项研究，这些项目的总成本达900亿。在这258个项目中，十分之九的成本估算偏低，平均超支28%。So, how much worse are estimates in reality? Well, a good example is a study on 258 transport projects that cost 90 billion in total. Of these 258 transport projects, 9 out of 10 were underestimated with an average cost overrun of 28%.

如果只计算铁路项目，平均成本超支率为45%。这些可不是业余人士的项目，而是258个高质量的大型基础设施项目，由经验丰富的工程师管理，他们每个人都掌握着数十年来类似项目的数据。我的亲身经历也相当相似。尽管我很不愿承认，但我实际的花费经常比自己的估算高出30%到50%。If you're counting rail projects specifically, the average cost overrun was 45%. Now, these were not amateurs. These were 258 highquality large infrastructural projects managed by experienced engineers, each of which who had decades of data on similar projects. My own experience is quite similar. As much as I hate to admit it, I routinely go off of my own estimates by anywhere from 30 to 50%.

所以这意味着，如果规划总是基于最理想的情况，我们怎样才能让它更现实一些？[倒吸一口气] 一种方法是使用所谓的“规划谬误乘数”。So what that means is if planning is always a best case scenario, how can we make this more realistic? [gasps] One approach to do this is to use what's called a planning fallacy multiplier.

这就是你拿出自己的内部估算——也就是通过在脑海中模拟事情可能顺利进行的各种方式得出的估算——然后把你算出的时间乘以某个固定倍数的做法。信不信由你，这一定是以错误方式调整内在偏差的最简单、最容易的方法之一。在实践中，很多人会把他们的计划谬误乘以...This is where you take your inside estimate, which is the one that you would have come up with using the simulation in your head of all the ways that things are going to go right, and then just multiply that amount of time that you came up with by some constant number. Believe it or not, that has to be one of the simplest and easiest ways to readjust for your internal bias the wrong way. In practice, many people multiply their planning fallacy

把估算值乘以三。其他人乘以二。而我通常乘以大约 1.5。我之所以乘以大约 1.5，是因为我通常做的是参与人数很少的小型项目。所以我知道，结果中的大部分变数通常都来自我自己。现在，重要的是要注意，你的内部视角估算几乎总是会偏差很大。因此，项目中的所有利益相关者都必须这样做，而不是凭直觉估算。你会经常在向客户推介……时看到这种情况。estimates by three. Others do it by two. And in my case, I do it by about 1.5. And I do it by about 1.5 because I typically run small projects with very few people involved. So I know that I am usually the majority of the variability in the outcome. Now, it's important to note that your inside view estimate will almost always be way off. So this is necessary for any stakeholders in a project not to hit your guts. You see this a lot when you pitch a client on

项目所需时间和时间安排。你知道，我做了很多自动化工作，所以很多时候我会说类似这样的话：“这需要 2 到 3 周。”我实际上觉得要多久？我觉得大约一周。但我会额外加上 1.5 到 2 倍的时间，因为我知道不能相信自己的估算。timets and timelines for a project. You know I do a lot of a automation and so a lot of the time I say something along the lines of this will take 2 to 3 weeks. How long do I actually think it'll take? I think it'll take about a week. But I add on okay an additional 1.5 to 2x amount of time just because I know that my internal estimates are not to be trusted.

另一种策略是不再孤立地看待一个项目，而是开始考察其他与之类似的项目。之前我们谈到的是内部视角，也就是思考自己需要多长时间才能完成；而这就是外部视角。Another strategy is to stop considering a project in isolation and instead begin looking at other projects that are similar to that project. Whereas before we talked about the inside view which is where you think about how long it would take yourself. This is the outside view.

与其问“写完我的课程要花多长时间”，不如问“我写完最近三门课程分别花了多长时间”。实际上，所有这些做法的原理是：把实际耗时取平均值，再与预估时间进行比较。然后，你就可以算出一个简单的倍数。正如这张图所示，它代表了一项关于人们的预估有多频繁地……的研究。Instead of how long is my course going to take to write it is how long did the last three courses I took to write take. And the way that all of that works realistically is, you know, what you're doing is you're averaging out the actual real times and then comparing them against your estimates. And then what you can do is you can just work out a simple multiple. As you see in this graph, which represents a study that was done on how often people's estimates of

当他们确信某件事会完成时，实际上确实完成了。你可以在这里看到，对于“我有 50% 的把握认为我们可能会在那个日期前完成”这种情况，尽管人们有 50% 的信心，但实际完成的项目比例只有 13%，几乎相差 4 倍。当你询问人们，并统计那些表示有 75% 把握某件事会在某个日期前完成的人数时，你when they were sure something would be finished, actually got done. You can see here that in the case of I give it a 50% sure chance that we'll probably finish by that date. Despite people's confidence at being at 50%, the actual percentage of projects that were finished were only 13%. Which is almost a 4x multiplier. When you asked people and tabulated the number of people that said that they would be 75% sure something would finish by a date, you

结果发现，到那个日期为止，实际上只有 19% 的项目完成了。99% 的把握也一样，在这种情况下，只有 45% 的项目按时完成。试想一下，你说：“我有 99.9% 的把握，今天就能完成这件事”，但你其实只有 45% 的时候猜对。你大概会觉得自己根本不会做计划，对吧？嗯，从整体来看，人类就是这样。我们实在太不会做计划了。好消息是，你大致可以放心地把这个数乘以二或三。在某些……found that only 19% of projects were actually done by that date. Same thing with 99% sure, in which case only 45% of projects were done. Imagine saying, "I'm 99.9% sure this thing's going to finish today and you're only right 45% of the time." You probably consider yourself a pretty shitty planner, right? Well, that is just how human beings are on net. We are very, very shitty planners. The good news is you can kind of reliably just multiply this by two or three. in some

将案例数乘以四，才能让估算回到一个真正公平的数值。这就是参考类别。如果你看看实际结果，也就是外部视角，再把它和收入——或者说内部视角——进行比较，就会发现参考类别总让人觉得非常悲观。但这种感觉正是一种谬误。我们在这方面就是很不擅长。所以从现在起，你要做的就是不断重复这个过程，继续给出你通常会做出的估算。cases four in order to get yourself back to an actual fair number. So that's reference classes. If you look at the actual outcome or the outside view and then compare that to the income or the inside view rather, you'll find that the reference class will always feel really pessimistic. But the feeling is the fallacy. We just suck at this stuff. So from here on out, all you really do is you just rinse and repeat. You continue making whatever your usual estimate is.

这就叫内部视角。然后给估算乘上一个系数，再用放大后的数字向客户报价、拟定合同，并最终以此规划自己的人生。如果这个数字听起来很离谱，那么从统计上看，它可能比你的估算更接近现实。真正离谱的是你的估算。别把这当成偷懒的借口。显然，我建议你在内部把每个具体步骤都界定得非常严格、非常精确。所以要加得非常……Call that the inside view. Then apply a multiplier to the estimate and then use the scaled number to quote clients, write contracts, and ultimately build your life around. And if that number seems crazy, statistically and is probably closer to reality than your estimate is. It is your estimate that is crazy. Do not treat this as a license to slack off. Obviously, I'd recommend you scope every individual step very tightly and aggressively internally. So add very

在整体计划中为各个步骤设定紧凑的时间安排，只是为了确保你知道自己与利益相关者沟通时留有足够的余地。这样，你就能设定明确的内部截止期限，同时也设定合理的外部截止期限。这正是清晰思考的核心，因为思考通常就是规划，而规划通常就是着眼长远的谋划。tight timelines to individual steps within an overall plan just to make sure you know you have enough leeway with your stakeholders. This allows you to set both strong internal deadlines and then reasonable external deadlines as well. And this is at the core of thinking clearly because thinking is usually planning and planning is usually long-term strategizing.

那么，给你几个行动方面的问题。回想一下你最近一次估算某个项目所需时间的经历。可能是一篇论文，或者类似的事情，你当时觉得自己会在 X 日期之前完成。你还记得自己预计需要多久，以及实际花了多久吗？这可以是任何事情，个人的呃事情、感情方面的事情、工作上的事情，什么都行。你预计完成所需的时间和实际花费的时间之间的比例，就是一个很好的乘数。So, some action questions for you. Think back to the last project you estimated a time on. Could be an essay or something like that that you thought you'd be done by X date. Do you remember the length that you proposed versus how long it took? Now, this can be anything, a personal uh thing, a relationship thing, a business thing, whatever. Whatever the ratio is versus how long you thought it would take to do and how long it actually took, that is a good multiplier

开始使用，并且只利用探索与利用之间的这种权衡。现在，想象你身处一家赌场，面前有10台看起来很棒、很华丽的老虎机。每台机器的赔付率都不一样，但你不知道哪台机器对应哪种赔付率。你有100次拉杆机会，可以分配给这些老虎机。每次拉动一台你知道赔付不错的机器——也就是利用一台你知道会让你赢钱的机器——都会花费你】【。to start using and just use that explore exploit trade-off. Now, imagine you're in a casino and you're presented with 10 awesome looking fancy slot machines. Every machine has a different payout rate, but you don't know which machine is which. And what you have is 100 poles to distribute amongst each of the possible slot machines. Every pull on a machine that you know pays out well, aka an exploit of a machine that you know is going to pay you, costs you

一次拉动，而你理论上本可以用它来发现别处更好的机器。这在技术上称为探索。a pull that you technically could have used to discover an even better machine elsewhere. This technically is called exploring.

[倒吸一口气] 反过来说，每次尝试一台你还不知道回报如何的机器（也就是你正在探索的机器），都意味着少了一次尝试那台你知道回报很好的机器的机会。这是研究与开发领域中的经典问题，也是你在生活中规划和行动时会遇到的问题。在满足于现有结果、转而只尝试表现最佳的机器之前，我该尝试多少次这些机器？[gasps] On the flip side, every pull on a machine that you don't know the payout of, aka ones that you are exploring, will cost you pulls on a machine that you do know pays out well. This is a classic problem in research and development and also in planning and acting throughout your life. How many of these machines should I pull before I should feel satisfied with what I have and just pull the highest performer?

这被称为探索与利用之间的权衡。你知道，我是该做有效的事，还是该尝试新东西？This is called the exploit explorer trade-off. You know, should I do what works or should I try something new?

利用总是指充分榨取已知有效方案的价值。探索则意味着投入时间，并接受次优结果。从局部最优的角度来看，这就是走下当前的局部最优点，以了解其他可能比你目前正在利用的方案表现更好的选择。Exploiting is always about milking a known good. Exploring is about spending time and accepting sub-optimal outcomes. If you think about it from a local maximum perspective, this is where you descend your local maximum. To learn more about other options that might be better performing than the ones that you're currently exploiting.

现在，特别令人恼火的是，在现实世界中，这两点都被视为优点，这就妨碍了人们坦率、诚实地讨论该如何继续。比如，一个从不探索其他领域的人，通常会被称为专注或专业。Now, super annoyingly, I find both of these are seen as virtues in the real world, which prevents a frank and honest discussion about how to proceed. For instance, somebody who never explores is usually called focused or specialized.

然后，当他们做的那摊事——不管是什么——因为被他们榨取得太狠而枯竭时，你不可能永远榨取任何东西，他们就会倒下，因为他们从未创新，也没有在此基础上继续成长。另一方面，一个从不榨取的人，可能会被看作是很有成长心态，或者长期不断学习的人。但当你揭开表象，就会发现他们穷得要命，身无分文。他们……And then when their thing, whatever it is that they're doing, dries up because they've been exploiting the hell out of it and you can only exploit anything for a certain amount of time, then they die because they've never innovated or grew past that. On the other hand, somebody who never exploits could be seen as growthminded or always learning for a very long time. But when you peel back the curtain, you realize that they're poor as hell. They're broke. They

实际上什么也没做到。为什么？因为他们从未停下来，花足够的时间深挖自己发现的任何一件事，从而真正收获发现它所带来的回报。所以，从某种意义上说，你可以把这看作是我们之前讨论过的完全相同的局部最大值和全局最大值问题。只不过现在我们在其中加入了时间维度。haven't actually achieved anything. Why? because they've never stopped to spend enough time milking any one thing that they've discovered to actually reap the rewards of having found it. So in a way you can think of this as the exact same local and global maxima problem that we discussed earlier. It's just now we're adding a time dimension to it.

那么，我们什么时候应该在生活中多探索呢？其实，这方面有一些科学依据，也有一些经过研究的神经环路表明，人类实际上天生就具备这种倾向。So when should you explore more in life? Well, there's actually some science here and there are some neuroscircuits that have been studied that imply that human beings actually have this built-in.

因此，在这项研究中，我们发现，剩余试次数较多时，受试者倾向于进行更多探索。但随着试次数减少，或奖励开始下降，受试者便将精力主要转向利用。So in this study, we found that human subjects tended to explore more when there were many trials remaining. But as the number of trials decreased or when the rewards began to decline, subjects shifted their energy primarily towards exploitation.

现在我觉得这还挺让人安心的，因为仔细想想，和其他大多数偏见和程序不同，在这种情况下，我们的大脑好像真的内置了一套算法，可以替我们完成这件事。你知道，我们一直在安装很多新的算法，但这确实是某种硬连线的机制，可能是出于进化原因，因为探索和利用是生存的核心。那么，我们究竟该如何利用这套内置算法来……Now I find this sort of comforting because if you think about it, unlike most of these other biases and programs, in this case, it's like our brains actually have a built-in algorithm to do this for us. You know, we've been installing a lot of new ones, but this is literally something hardwired probably for evolutionary reasons because exploring and exploitation are core to survival. So, how do you actually use this built-in algorithm to

理性地做出决定？嗯，长话短说，如果你approach your decisions rationally? Well, to make a long story short, if you

课程讨论：第八部分Course Discussion: Part Eight

如果你有很多空闲时间，比如说你还很年轻，就应该多探索。如果你现在找到一个更好的选择，就意味着未来所有时间步你都能利用它。have a lot of time on your hands, let's say you're very young, you should explore a lot. If you find a better option now, that means that you will get to exploit it for all future time steps.

如果你现在20岁，预计能活到100岁，那就意味着你还有80个时间单位，可以用来享受现在发现的美好事物。If you are 20 years old and you can expect to live to say 100, that means that you have 80 time steps left to exploit a good thing that you find now.

不过，你或许应该倾向于去发现新事物，而不是只坐下来加以利用。可以从工作的角度来思考这个问题。But you should probably heir on the side of finding new things as opposed to just sitting down and exploiting. You can think about this in the case of a job.

你知道，如果你现在找到一份时薪 30 美元的工作，跟你以前的情况相比，那可能已经相当不错了。但如果你就此安于现状，往后余生都做这份时薪 30 美元的工作，那么这份工作能给你带来的好处终究有限，总有一天你再也无法从中获益。你真觉得自己能达到的高度就只有这样吗？我会把这件事想成投资高风险投资组合，因为你们有更多时间让高风险投资组合获得回报。You know, if you found a $30 an hour job right now, that might be pretty good compared to where you were before. But if you settle there for the rest of your life, the next 80 years at a $30 an hour job, that $30 an hour job will only last you so long before you can no longer exploit it. And is that really the highest you think you can climb? I think about this like investing in risky portfolios since you guys have more time for a risky portfolio to pay off in

投资，而且平均而言，风险更高的投资组合确实会带来更高回报。你知道，如果你不打算投资，或者不打算很快从投资中取钱，最常见的建议通常是：嗯，把钱投到风险更高的投资里，投到更激进一点的产品里。为什么？因为在60年左右的时间里，或者50年、40年——无论你实际打算让资金投资多久，嗯，你知道，investing and on average riskier portfolios do pay out more. You know, if you're not investing or if you're not expecting to withdraw money from your investments soon, the number one piece of advice is usually, well, put it in a riskier investment. Put it in something a little more aggressive. Why? Well, because over the course of 60 years or something like that, 50, 40 years, however long you're actually keeping your money invested for, um, you know,

市场已经上涨了很多。它通常只会在短期内出现下跌。现在，你可以将这种探索的指引原则与利用的指引原则进行对比：如果你的时间范围非常短，就应该选择利用，而不是探索。原因在于，你没有足够的时间弥补探索所付出的代价。the market has gone up a lot. it's only in the short term that it tends to dip. Now, you can contrast this exploration um kind of guidepost with the exploitation guidepost, which is that if you have a very short time horizon, you should exploit instead of explore. The reason why is because you don't have the time to make back what you spent exploring.

这里还有一些其他规则。如果你当前的回报正在下降，就应该多探索。利用的收益正在降低，这意味着信息的价值以及其他候选选项的潜在价值正在上升。如果你当前的回报正在增加，也应该多探索，因为你刚刚找到一个赢家。下面用一个简单的图示来展示实际情况。灰色部分表示你正在利用的、已验证方案所带来的回报。你将会……Here's some other rules. If your current reward is declining, you should explore more. the benefit of exploiting is going down, meaning the value of information and potentially value of other candidate options is going up. And if your current reward is increasing, you should explore more because you just found a winner. So here's a quick visual representation of what that actually looks like. In gray, you have returns from the proven thing that you are exploiting. What you will

请注意，随着你越来越多地利用这件事，最终你会开始急剧下滑，因为在机会消失之前，你能投入时间和精力利用它的程度终究有限。你可以把它看作一种商业模式。同时，红色部分代表你花在探索上的努力所占的比例。notice is as you exploit the thing more and more and more and more eventually you will start plummeting because there's only so much time and energy that you can exploit something before the opportunity disappears. You can think of it like a business model per se. At the same time the red is the share of your effort spent exploring.

所以，理想情况下，你应该在早期进行非常非常深入的探索。等到进程过半左右，就反复利用胜出的方案，一遍又一遍。So, ideally what you would do is you'd actually explore it very very hard early. And then after you make it to maybe halfway through, what you would do is you would milk the winner over and over and over and over and over again.

然后，当你的赢家开始衰退时，就像这里灰色曲线所示，探索程度就会飙升，你也会重新开始探索。明确一下，这里的红色表示你的探索程度。开始时，你会进行大量探索。但随着时间推移，你探索得会越来越少，因为你在充分利用一个已知的赢家。不过最终，这个赢家带来的投资回报不再有价值，曲线就会下跌，然后你就会重新开始探索。而And then when your winner starts decaying, like they do in gray over here, you spike up and start exploring again. And so this red here, to be clear, is just how much you explore. At the beginning, you explore a lot. Then though, eventually you explore very little cuz you're milking a known winner. But eventually the winner stops producing a valuable return on investment which is when it goes down and then you start exploring again. And

所以要尽早大力探索。你可以把我的人生想成和这张图非常相似。我大约 22 岁时挨家挨户上门推销，每天敲 50 扇门，那段时期就是极限探索，直到找到行之有效的方法。一旦我弄清楚了，就开始利用这套有效的话术，不断重复同一套客户获取策略手册——也就是我挨家挨户上门推销时采用的那套方法，包括陌生电话和陌生邮件。so always explore hard very early. You can think of my own life very similar to this chart. The doortodoor period of my life at around 22 where I was knocking 50 doors a day. That was extreme exploration until something stuck. Once I figured that out, I exploited this script that worked, which is just rinsing and repeating the exact same client acquisition strategy book that I was running when I was going door to door in cold calling, cold emailing,

陌生私信联系，以及各种其他基于主动触达的方法。我就这样一直做下去，直到我们的月收入达到大约 20,000 美元。不过，最终这种获客方式不再奏效了。它真的就这么失效了。为什么？因为，嗯，机会只会在一段时间内存在。于是我又回去探索了。只不过这次，我没有再用常规方式获客，而是开始做 AI。我cold DMing, and a variety of other like outreachbased methods. And I just continued doing that until we got to about $20,000 a month. However, eventually that client acquisition approach stopped working. It literally just stopped. Why? Because um opportunities only last a certain amount of time. And then I went back to exploration again. It's just this time instead of doing client acquisition the regular way, I started doing AI. I

开始做内容营销。那时我并没有马上从中赚钱，因为我正处于探索模式。但最终，探索有了回报，我找到了一个制胜的杠杆——就像拉动老虎机的拉杆一样，能带来更高的投资回报。找到之后，我就转入利用模式，不断重复，直到每月收入达到大约 9 万美元。那就是我的上限。此后，我就停留在那个局部最大值上，再也无法更进一步。started doing content marketing. Now, I didn't make money off of that right away because I was in explore mode. But eventually, exploration paid off and then I found a winning lever, something that I could pull like that slot machine that delivered me a higher return on investment. Once I found that, I shifted to exploit mode and I repeated that until about $90,000 a month. That was my ceiling. Now, after that, I was on that local maxima. Couldn't get any higher.

所以，我退后一步，开始做更多探索。这花了一段时间，但最终我找到了另一个可以撬动增长的杠杆，比如内容、个人品牌等等，并开始利用它把月收入提升到54万美元——这是我近期最高的月收入。所以，凡事都有不同的阶段。So, I took a step back and I started exploring more. That took a while, but eventually I found another lever like content, personal branding, and so on and so forth that I started pulling to scale to $540,000 a month, which is my largest recent monthly revenue. So, there are seasons of life in all things.

你可能会经历多个阶段，有些阶段你想大量探索，有些阶段你想大量利用，而这完全没问题。好消息是，现在你有了一个严谨且程序化的名称来称呼这种做法。所以，你不必担心自己做的事情是在浪费时间。现在，你可以把它理解为探索，也可以把它理解为利用，而且你也有了一套可以据此行动的框架。比如，你会知道……You'll probably go through multiple seasons, including ones where you want to explore a lot, and ones where you want to exploit a lot, and that is totally fine. The good news is now you have a rigorous and procedural name for it. So, you don't need to worry that what you are doing is wasting time. Now you can frame it as exploring or you can frame it as exploiting and you also have a framework by which you you can function. You'll know for instance you

不应该只是把每个闪闪发亮的东西都捡起来，整天探索个不停。总有一天，你需要从比如说过去90天里捡到的东西中，选出最闪亮的那一个，然后全心投入。只有这样，你才能真正加以利用，并最大化投资回报。should not just be picking up every shiny object and exploring that all day. There will come a time when you need to select the shiniest of the objects that you picked up in say the last 90 days and then commit to it. Only then will you actually be able to exploit and then maximize your return on investment.

呃，一些行动类问题。我觉得挺好笑的，因为这些都写着有两个问题要回答，其实只是因为我把同一段内容复制粘贴了。继续之前先回答两个问题。不，是一个……呃，继续之前先回答一个问题。梳理你自己的“探索到利用”路径。你人生中的哪个阶段是在探索？又是哪个阶段在利用已有成果？Uh some action questions and I find it funny how all of these say two questions to answer because I just copy and pasted the same thing. Two answers to question before you continue. No, one uh question to answer before you continue. Map your own explore to exploit pathway. At what point in your life were you exploring and at what point in your life were you exploiting?

好了，现在到了我最喜欢的课程部分。到目前为止我们讨论过的所有软件，都是一些非常通用的工具，可以帮助你理清思路。Okay, now it's time for my favorite part of the course. All the software that we talked about so far is a bunch of very general ways to clarify your thinking.

一旦你看到了它们，就再也无法视而不见。这正是学习它们的价值所在：一旦学会，它们就会一直伴随着你。不过，接下来我要讨论的内容有些不同。And once you see them, you cannot unsee them, which is why it's valuable to learn this because once you learn them, they will always be with you. But what I will discuss next is a little different.

与其说它们是通用型软件应用，不如说是一些简短而有力的程序。它们是可以立即上手的技巧，你可以灵活运用、甚至过度使用，把思考和行动串联起来。这会让你的工具库更加完备，让你不仅成为高产的思考者，也成为高产的行动者。我自己生活中也一直在用这类东西。事实上，我会先讲 taps，因为我觉得它们的投资回报率非常高。它们大概是我最……Rather than a generalpurpose software application, these are short and very punchy programs. They're immediately actionable techniques that you can use and abuse to chain together thought with action. This will round out your arsenal and make you not only a prolific thinker, but also prolific doer. And I use stuff like this all the time in my own life. In fact, taps, which I will cover first cuz I think they're very high ROI. Probably my number one most

一种我在今天之前从未谈过的、被利用的工具。所以，如果你们一直在认真听，应该已经很清楚该如何解决问题并做出高层次的决策了，对吧？但仍然存在一种常见的失败模式：你们中的许多人会理解并认同这些技巧，可到了实际应用的时候，却什么也不做。exploited tool that I've never talked about before this day. So if you've been paying attention, you guys will have a pretty good idea of how to solve a problem and make highle decisions, right? But there is still a common failure mode. Many of you will understand and agree with each of these techniques and then when it is time to apply them, you will not do anything.

这被称为意志薄弱。记住，关于 TAP 的整个理念，就是要解决意志薄弱的问题。因此，TAP 代表“触发行动计划”（trigger action plan），是一种非常简单的方法，可以弥合“知道”与“做到”之间的差距。它们的形式如下。That is called accratia. Remember the whole idea about taps is solving accaia. So tap stands for trigger action plan and they're a very simple way to bridge the gap between knowing something and doing. They take the form as follows.

当 X 触发或 Q 发生时，我会采取 Y 行动或行为。这就像一行代码，你知道的，如果代码没有因为 AI 而被淘汰的话。它本质上是一个 if 或 then 语句。你也可以把它想成商业中的一套标准作业程序（SOP），比如客户给你发邮件时该怎么做。或者，你也可以把它看作一种人生准则。Taps 的理念是消除每个人在面临抉择时都会问自己的那个问题：我该不该做这件事？然后……when X trigger or Q occurs, I will do Y action or behavior. This is like a line of code, you know, if code isn't deprecated because of AI. What it is is an if or then statement. You can also think of it as an SOP in business, like what to do when a client sends you an email. Or you can also think of it as a rule of life. The idea of taps are to eliminate the question that everybody asks themselves when they are faced with a decision. Should I do this thing? And

这个“应该”问题往往会阻碍真正的成长。下面是我制定的一些简单的触发行动计划。如果我的手机在我的工作区里亮屏，或者在我的工作区里震动，我就会起身把它拿到另一个房间。说起来很有意思，因为我刚才之所以这么说，是因为我把手机带在身边——我刚才不得不接个电话。既然我的手机刚刚确实亮屏或震动了，我现在就要……this should question often acts as a blocker to real growth. Here are some examples of simple trigger action plans that I have made. If my phone illuminates while it is in my workspace or if it vibrates while it is in my workspace, I will get up and move it to another room. And it's very funny that I just said that because I had my phone with me because I just had to take a call. And because my phone did just illuminate or vibrate, I'm now going to

去把它搬到另一个房间。过去近一年里，我一直在脑海中预设着刚才做出的这个决定。而我现在做出这个决定，可能会让这门课程剩下的 10% 或 20% 提升 10% 或 20%。当你开始把这些规则像电路或开关一样固化在脑海中时，只需要花上片刻时间。我的下一条规则是：当我坐到桌前时，我会打开需要用到的文档。go and move it into another room. That single decision that I just made has been programmed in my mind for the better part of the last year. And in me making that decision right now, the resulting maybe 10 or 20% of this course will likely be 10 or 20% better. It takes you only a few moments when you start hardwiring these rules like circuits or switches in your mind. The next rule I have is when I sit down at my desk, I will open the document I need

在做任何其他事情之前要处理的事。就我而言，我刚回来坐到办公桌前。文档已经打开了，所以我什么也不用做。如果我发现自己说出“我以后再想办法解决”之类的话，我就会设一个5分钟的计时器，然后列出一系列可执行的步骤，马上把事情做完。这是一个简单的计划，叫作“解决循环”，稍后我会带你一步步了解。to work on before doing anything else. In my case, I just came back to sit down at my desk. The document's already open, so I don't need to do anything. If I ever catch myself saying a word or phrase like, I'll figure this out later, I actually set a 5minute timer and then I write a list of actionable steps to get it done right then and there. This is a simple plan called a a resolution cycle which I will run you through later.

虽然这种“如果……那么……”陈述的想法听起来非常简单，但实际上，它是整个课程中证据最充分的技巧之一。在学术文献中，这被称为“实施意图”。这个术语由研究行为及其优化方法的彼得·戈尔维策提出。许多其他元分析也表明，制定这类“如果……那么……”计划的人，成功实现目标的可能性总是显著更高】【。Now while this if then statement idea sounds very trivial, it is actually one of the most strongly evidenced techniques in this entire course. In academic literature, this is referred to as an implementation intention. The term was coined by a man called Peter Goldwitzer who studies behavior and how to optimize it. Many other meta analyses have also shown that people that make these if then plans are always significantly more likely to achieve

与那些只设定模糊目标的人相比，他们实现目标的可能性更高。具体而言，2006 年的一项荟萃分析显示，效应量约为 0.65 个标准差。需要明确的是，对于一个简单的 30 秒干预来说，这个效应相当大。their goals than those who merely set vague goals. Specifically, a 2006 meta analysis showed an effect size around 65 standard deviations, which to be clear is quite large for a simple 30-cond intervention.

对于那些不了解标准差的人来说，这基本上相当于让你从第50百分位提升到大约第75百分位。这意味着，仅仅通过点击操作或触发行动计划，就真的能让你的做事能力超过全世界已知人群中的四分之一。生活中很少有事情能让你在不到五分钟内弄明白后，就超越全世界已知人群中的四分之一。而这正是你正在做的事。For those of you guys that don't know standard deviations, this is basically taking you from a 50th percentile to maybe the 75th percentile, which means just using taps or trigger action plans can legitimately help you leapfrog a quarter of the entire known world in your ability to do things. There are very few things in life that allow you to leaprog a quarter of the known world that you can figure out in less than five minutes. That is what you are doing

就在此刻。所以，嗯，这是对这一点的一个快速可视化呈现。关于实施意图——也就是触发行动计划的专业说法——的94项研究，涉及近8500人。研究发现，他们实现目标的能力提高了65个标准差。对于那些善于发现机会的人来说，机会和宝藏无处不在。这是一个非常简单的例子。这是我一直做了很长时间的一件事。right now. So um this is a quick visualization of this. 94 studies on implementation intentions, the fancy word for trigger action plan. Over almost 8,500 people, they saw a standard deviation improvement in their ability to achieve a goal by 65. There are there is opportunity and gold everywhere for those with eyes to see it. And this is a very simple example. This is something that I've been doing for a very long

时间。而且我向你保证，一旦开始这么做，我的经济效能就会立刻超过地球上四分之一的人，而我自己甚至都毫无察觉。当你把行动和思考结合起来时，其他生活领域跟着改善也只是时间问题。就我而言，这包括收入、生活满足感等等。那么，这么小的一件事为什么真的有效呢？如果你们想想……time. And I guarantee you immediately after starting to do it, I leap frog 25% of the entire population of planet earth without even knowing in terms of my economic effectiveness. When you do that with action and thought, uh it is only a matter of time before other areas of your life uh um um follow. So in my case, my income, in my case, my my life contentment and so on and so forth. So why does something that's this small actually work? Well, if you guys think

再回到意志力这一节。自控力强的人总会安排好自己的生活，让自己不必在当下打赢这场仗。他们会把斗争或决策彻底移出当下，要么像通过“尤利西斯契约”那样，听从过去的自己；要么就像我刚才对手机做的那样，从一开始就消除犯错的机会。一次点击也会有意地发挥非常类似的作用。back to the willpower section for a second, the people that have high self-control always set their lives up such that they do not win the fights in the moment. What they do is they move the fight or the decision out of that moment entirely and they either defer to their former selves like via Ulyses contracts or they remove the opportunity to make a mistake in the first place like I just did with my phone. A tap does something very similar on purpose.

关键在于，你现在头脑清醒、平静放松时做出一次选择，然后把缰绳交给 if 或 then 语句，让它替你发挥作用。The idea is you will make the choice once now while smart, calm and relaxed and then you will hand the reinss to the if or then statement to work for you.

到了最后，每天的思虑都是一件耗费精力、令人痛苦的事。每次你都得决定“我该不该做这件事？”，这就好比每次做事前都得先去健身房，躺到卧推凳上，举起 225 磅做一组。如果做什么事之前都得先来这么一出，那到底图什么？你根本不会想做那些不得不做的事情中的一半，对吧？这是一项非常耗费精力的任务。Now at the end of the day deliberation is expensive and difficult. Every time you have to decide should I do this? It is equivalent to having to go to the gym, lie down on a bench press and rep out 225. If you have to do that before you do anything, why the hell? Like you're not going to want to do half of what you have to do, right? It's a very energetically involved task.

[叹气并喘息] >> 嗯，TAP（触发—行动计划）能让你完全跳过卧推。它们能让你省去大部分艰苦的工作。那么，究竟怎样才能让触发—行动计划中的触发因素发挥作用呢？因为在我看来，这无疑是最重要的事情。

[sighs and gasps] >> Well, taps just allow you to skip the bench press entirely. They allow you to skip most of the hard work. So, how do you actually make a trigger in the trigger action plan work? Because to me, that's by far the most important thing.

只要你能立即且真切地察觉到一个触发信号，通常就已经完成这项任务的一半以上了。关于执行意图的研究文献指出，要想成功，你的触发信号必须具备以下三个特征。第一，它必须明显；第二，它必须让你有切身感受；第三，它必须可靠。所谓明显，就是你不可能错过它。“当我觉得自己要开始拖延时”就不是一个明显的触发信号。As long as you can immediately and viscerally notice a trigger, you are usually more than half of the way to doing the task. To be successful, the literature on implementation intentions suggest that your trigger must have the three following attributes. Number one, it must be obvious. Number two, it must be visceral. And number three, it must be reliable. So obvious means you can't miss it. When I feel like I'm going to procrastinate is not an obvious trigger.

那样行不通。我也试过类似的方法。我以前很久以前用过这样的触发器，但对我一点作用都没有。原因是，你的大脑发出的信号并不是你能察觉到的那种。你甚至有 80% 的时候都不知道自己在拖延，你就是在拖延。And that would not work. And I've tried stuff like this. And I used to use uh triggers like this way back in the day and they did not do anything for me. The reason why is because your brain doesn't actually signal it in a way that you can detect. You don't even know when you're procrastinating 80% of the time. You just are.

更好的做法是以我在浏览器中打开新标签页为准，因为这件事可以立即明确判断。它非常明显，而且是一个布尔值：是或否。是，我打开了；或者否，我没有打开。A much better way to do this is when I open a new tab in my browser because that is something that is immediately clear. It is very very obvious and there is a boolean yes or no. Yes, I opened it or no, I didn't open it.

“本能性的”是指与某种身体或感官线索相关。因此，当你感觉到手机在手中、听见门咔哒一声、坐到椅子上，或喝下第一口咖啡时，这些事情都不言自明。只要某种刺激以身体的方式作用于我们，人类就能非常直观地识别出触发因素。Visceral means that it is tied to a physical or sensory cue. So when you feel a phone in your hand or when you hear the door click or when you sit down in your chair or when you take your first sip of coffee, all this stuff is self-explanatory. Human beings recognize triggers very viscerally when they are physically stimulating us in some way.

所以比如说，当我打开一个新标签页时，我会按住 Command 键再按 T 键来打开它。从触觉上来说，这让人很满足；而且它也会立刻在视觉上刺激我，因为我能看到它在窗口中打开。因此，这两件事会同时在某种程度上触动我的大脑，现在我有了一个可以可靠依赖的触发信号。说到可靠地依赖某些事，可靠意味着它每次都会触发】【。And so when I open a new tab, for instance, I open it by holding the command key and pressing T. This is both like satisfying from a haptic perspective, but it is also immediately stimulating to me visually because I see it open up on my window. And so both of these things sort of hit my mind simultaneously and now I have a trigger that I can reliably depend on. Speaking of reliably depending on things, reliable means that it triggers every

你发现自己处于目标情境中的时刻。理想情况下，当你不处于目标情境时，它绝不会触发。我举个很糟糕的触发条件的例子：下午 3 点。这不可靠，因为人类——比如我们——没有能力判断自己什么时候在拖延，也无法凭感觉知道现在几点。有些日子，如果你把触发时间设为下午 3 点，下午 3 点就这么过去了，你甚至不会注意到。就是这样。time that you find yourself in the target situation. And ideally it never triggers when you are not in the target situation. I'll give you an example of a very bad trigger. 3 p.m. That is not reliable because human beings like we don't have the ability to uh tell when we're procrastinating also do not have the ability to tell what the time is internally. Some days if you set your trigger to be 3 p.m. 3 p.m. will pass you and you won't miss it. It is just

这是人之常情。[倒吸一口气，又叹息] 不过，与其把触发行动计划定在下午3点，为什么不把它和提前设置好的闹钟之类的东西联系起来呢？这样一来，闹钟响时，你就更有可能触发行动。我的建议是使用闹钟。它们非常好用。或者，把轻点操作和你每天都要做的事情联系起来，比如起床、上床睡觉。这里有很多人已经对……上瘾得无法自拔。part of being human. [gasps and sighs] But instead of tying a trigger action plan to 3 p.m., why not tie it to something like an alarm that sets in advance? That way you are far more likely to trigger on set alarm. My recommendation is use alarms. They are awesome. Alternatively, tie taps to actions that you do and you have to do every single day. Think things like waking up, going to bed. A lot of people here are hopelessly addicted to

咖啡因，我自己也包括在内。为什么不把一件事和你每天肯定都会做的某件事联系起来呢？这里很多人都对其他事情上瘾得无可救药，比如打开电视，或者看自己最喜欢的节目之类的。你其实可以把这些锚点——这些必然会发生的事情——当作即时触发因素，开始采取某个行动或一连串行动，让自己的生活变得更好。[倒吸一口气]caffeine, myself included. Why not tie something to something that you know you will do every single day? A lot of people here are hopelessly addicted to other things like turning the television on for instance, or watching your favorite show or whatever. You can actually use these anchors, these things that are going to occur as immediate triggers to begin some action or some sequence of actions that improve your life. [gasps]

最后，这个行动必须是小而具体的。不要做像花两个小时写作这样困难的事。那不是轻轻一点的做法。相反，要做一些小而具体的事，最终让自己能够开始行动。接下来，你只需要相信，这个小行动产生的惯性会引导你完成之后需要做的事情。Finally, the action must be small and physical. Do not do hard things like spend 2 hours writing. That is not how you do a tap. Instead, do something small, concrete, and ultimately an action that gets you started. And then what you do is you just trust that the inertia of this small action will guide you through the rest of what you need to do.

例如，打开一份 Google 文档并写下一句话，就是一个很棒的行动。如果触发条件是每次我重新坐回办公桌前，就打开一份 Google 文档并写下一句话，[嗤笑] 那就是一个非常出色的触发式行动计划。只要你按照我接下来要讲的步骤去做，实际完成这件事的概率就相当高。它的价值在于，几乎不可能只有一句话那么一点想法。通常，For instance, open a Google doc and write one sentence is an excellent action. If [snorts] the trigger to that is every time I sit back down at my desk, I open a Google doc and write one sentence, that is a fantastic trigger action plan. The probability of you actually completing this is quite high, assuming you do the steps that I will talk about in a moment. And the value there is it's very hard to have just one sentence worth of an idea. Usually,

在人写下一个之后，大脑就会开始填补空白并接着往下写。所以你自然会想把它串联起来，继续做别的事情，等等。一次轻触的全部目的，就是让你动起来，并解决 CRA——这远远是你最大的问题。after a human being has written one, their brain just starts filling in the blanks and continuing. So you'll naturally want to chain that together into something else and so on and so forth. The whole point of a tap is to get you moving and to solve a CRA which is your biggest problem by far.

[倒吸一口气] 那么，具体要怎么养成一个习惯，并尽可能提高它奏效的概率呢？首先，只是动动脑筋、把一堆动作列下来是不够的。你得一遍又一遍地练习这个动作，直到最终能够自动完成。等它变成自动化行为后，你就会自然而然地去做，而且这个行为会自我强化。但在开始建立积极……的最初阶段，複[gasps] Now how do you actually install one and maximize the probability that this tab works? Well, to start it's not sufficient to simply brainstorm and write down a bunch of taps. You have to rehearse the tap over and over and over again before you can eventually start doing it on an automatic level. Once it's on the automatic basis, then you will do it yourself and it will self-reinforce. But that initial on-ramp to the beginning of the positive

飞轮，这很难做到。幸运的是，有一种非常有效的方法可以做到这一点。想出你的轻拍动作后，我希望你闭上眼睛，生动地想象触发因素。就我来说，触发因素是坐下来，然后打开 Google 文档；我希望你能清晰地、真切地想象自己坐到椅子上。所以此刻，我正在想象自己坐到椅子上的过程。[倒吸一口气] 这个触发因素看起来是什么样的？我看起来……flywheel, that is difficult. Luckily, there's a very powerful method for doing this. After coming up with your tap, I want you to close your eyes and vividly imagine the trigger. So, in my case of sitting down and then opening up a Google doc, I want you to visibly imagine and viscerally imagine sitting down in your chair. So right now I'm actually imagining the process of me sitting down in my chair. [gasps] What does the trigger look like? What does me

坐在我的椅子上是什么样子？嗯，当我坐到椅子上时，我看见什么？我看见这些。我看见我的笔记本电脑、电脑显示器、我的笔记本电脑，然后你知道，我还看见一台摄像机，而且我通常还会有一个麦克风。我看见我的书桌。我看见左边的太阳，你知道，我看见右边一面很大的白墙。感觉怎么样？嗯，顺便说一句，我的椅子真的很不舒服，所以我得换一把 Steelcase 的椅子。sitting down in my chair look like? Well, when I sit down in my chair, what do I see? I see this. So I see my my laptop, my computer monitor, my laptop, and then I see, you know, a camera, and then I typically have a microphone. I see my desk. I see the sun on my left side, you know, I see a big white wall on my right side. What does it feel like? Well, my chair is really uncomfortable, by the way, so I'm going to have to replace it with a steel case

等会儿睡觉。嗯，我只需要把它拆开。我有小扶手，通常会把手臂放在上面。嗯，感觉怎么样？嗯。现在房间里有点冷，这挺好的，我喜欢。好。闻起来是什么味道？sleep in a moment. Um, just need to unbox it. I have little armrests where I typically put my arms. Um, what does it feel like? Hm. It's kind of cold in the room right now, which is good, which I like. Okay. What does it smell like?

幸运的是，对我来说，它没有任何气味。然后，在你确实尝试去想象并演练自己感受到触发因素之后，想象自己实际执行这个动作。就我而言，就是打开一个 Google 文档，坐下来，然后按住 Command 键并按 T，输入 docs new。我会连续做 10 次。整个过程，不管你信不信，不到 2 分钟。听起来可能有点傻，但你正在做的是Luckily for me, it doesn't smell like anything. Then after you've really just tried to visualize and rehearse you feeling the trigger, imagine yourself performing the actual action itself. So in my case, opening up a Google doc, sitting down and then holding command T and typing docs new. I will do that 10 times in a row. This whole process here, believe it or not, takes less than 2 minutes. And it might seem silly, but what you're doing is

你是在训练大脑的线索检测系统。你把这些线索和来自工作记忆的意图提取出来，然后真正将它们编码进长期记忆。你还可以多练几次。比如说，我练习“坐下来，然后打开一个 Google 文档”这件事时，我会先关上门，走到外面，再打开门，走下来，坐下，然后打开一个……you're training your brain's Q detection system. You're taking these cues and your intention from working memory, and then you're actually encoding it into long-term memory. Another thing you can do is you can actually practice this multiple times. So for instance, when I was practicing this sit down and then open a Google doc thing, um what I would have done is I would have actually closed my door, went outside, opened it, came down, sit down and then open a

打开 Google 文档，写一句话。然后我会重复四五次。我会一遍又一遍地这样做，直到下次坐下来时，大脑里某个小小的部分被激活。你知道，就像猴子一样，我的神经元会被激活，然后我就会想：“哦，对了。我不是还有件事要做吗？”只要你能让自己达到那个状态，其他一切都会自动完成。你就会进入自动模式。Google doc and write a sentence. Then I would have repeated four or five times. I would have done this over and over and over again until the next time that I sit down, some little part of my brain would have been activated. You know, like a monkey, my neurons would have gotten activated and I would have gone, "Oh, right. Wasn't I supposed to do something?" The second that you can get yourself to that point, everything else is done for you. you are an automatic

一台能够做你想做的任何该死事情的机器。另一种做法是把触发点直接放在你的行动路径上，这就是摩擦规则。现在，如果你的触发点是“我看到门口的跑鞋时”，那我就会把它们穿上。只要确保你的鞋真的放在门口就行。触发点越具体、越由你掌控，效果就越好。比如说，要想让我坐下来打开 Google 文档并做点什么……machine capable of doing whatever the hell it is that you want. Another way to do this is putting the trigger directly in your path, which is the friction rule. Now, if your tap is when I see my running shoes at the door, I will put them on. Just make sure your shoes are actually at the door. The more tangible the trigger and the more in your control, the better. In the case of our sitting down on a Google doc, for instance, in order for me to do anything

对我来说，使用电脑就得坐到这把椅子上，所以这把椅子对我想做的任何事来说，都是一个极其强大的触发因素。类似的还有打开电脑、启动 OBS，或者其他对你来说能起到触发作用的东西。with my computer, I need to sit down at this chair, which is why this chair is such an extremely powerful trigger for anything that I want to do. Same thing with, you know, opening my computer or turning on OBS or whatever it is that your particular trigger is.

安装好之后，时不时问问自己：我真的触发了那次点击吗？如果没有，问题不在你身上。问题在于你选的触发点。这不是意志力的问题。Now, every now and then once you've installed it, just ask yourself, did I actually trigger that tap? If not, the problem is not you because we are not the problem here. It is the trigger that you chose. It's not a willpower thing.

这不是说：“哦，下次我会记得做的。”不，不，不。完全不是这么回事。关键在于触发点。你的意志力和这件事毫无关系。到了那一步，你可以选一个更显眼的东西，然后再练习一遍。好吗？所以，流程是这样的：选一个触发点，写下一句话，练习 10 次，把触发点放到你会经过的地方，然后就不断地检查、重复，反复再反复。这里的调试循环是在……It's not like, "Oh next time I'll do it because I'll remember." No, no, no. It's not that at all. It is the trigger. You, your willpower has nothing to do with this. At that point, you can choose something more noticeable and then rehearse it again. Okay? So, this is the flow. Pick a trigger, write a sentence, rehearse it 10 times, put the trigger in your path, and just check and go over and over and over and over again. The debug loop here is at the

触发阶段，仅此而已。说清楚一点，我大多数的小习惯都安排在一天的第一个小时里，而且都非常无聊，但也极其有效。我会把这些小习惯串联起来，让其中一个小习惯的动作成为另一个小习惯的提示或触发点。这算是比较进阶的习惯串联，不过先听我说。我接下来要给大家讲一些相当骇人的细节。呃，我醒来之后——这就是我的 Q——会立刻……trigger stage, nothing else. So, most of my taps, to be clear, are at the first hour of my day, and they're also very boring, but they're also extremely effective. What I do is I will chain my taps together such that the action of one of my taps is the cue or trigger of another. This is sort of advanced tapping, but hear me out. I'm going to give you guys some pretty grizzly detail here. Um, after I wake up, which is my Q, I will immediately

走到我的咖啡机旁，然后它就会开始冲煮。这就是我的动作。点击 Brew Q 后，我就去上厕所，然后洗脸，这也是一个动作。walk over to my coffee machine and then it will brew. That is my action. After I click brew Q, I then use bathroom and then I wash my face, which is an action.

洗完脸后，Q，我会去厨房拿咖啡，并往里面加一点蛋白质牛奶，这就是我的行动。加完一点蛋白质牛奶后，这就是我的 Q；我会走到书桌前打开笔记本电脑，这就是我的行动。打开笔记本电脑后，这就是我的 Q；我会点击一个书签，打开学校相关的标签页，这就是我的行动。After I wash my face, Q, I will grab my coffee from the kitchen and I will put a bit of protein milk in it, which is my action. After I put a bit of protein milk in it, which is my Q, I will go to desk and I will open my laptop, which is my action. After I open my laptop, which is my Q, I will click a bookmark that opens my school tabs, which is my action.

对，就是这里。打开学校相关的标签页后（这就是一个 Q），我会读第一个问题，然后录下我对第一个问题的语音回答，这就是我的行动。从醒来到录下第一个回答，这个过程大概需要1分30秒。Right, that's right over here. After I open my school tabs, which is a Q, I will read the first question and then voice record my first answer, which is my action. From waking up to voice recording my first answer, this process takes me maybe 1 minute and 30 seconds.

但在那1分30秒结束时，通常会参与……你知道，在我这种情况下，就是学校管理的所有脑神经回路，都已经准备就绪了。这就像，呃，就像我是个世界级运动员，或者说是个游泳运动员，比如迈克尔·菲尔普斯，在上场前听着自己最喜欢的曲子，做着自己最喜欢的拉伸动作。每天都一模一样。而他所做的，以及所有职业运动员所做的……But by the end of that 1 minute 30 seconds, all of the brain circuitry that was typically involved in, you know, doing, in my case, school management, ours is ready to go. It's like uh it's like I'm a world class athlete or something like a swimmer, like Michael Phelps listening to his favorite track and doing his favorite stretches right before he goes on. It is the exact same thing every day. And what he has done and what all professional athletes and

任何领域里的高绩效者，所做的就是把自己的输入标准化。你们看出来这有多简单了吗？最终这一切都会变得完全自动化，然后我会不断重复这些操作，直到一天过去大约 2.5 个小时；之后，我通常就已经完成了大部分具有经济价值的工作。关键再次在于，利用自己状态极佳——也就是充满动力和雄心——时（也就是现在）所拥有的清晰思维，来high performers in any field have done is they have just standardized their inputs. So do you guys see how easy it is? Eventually all this becomes completely automatic and then I have repeated taps until maybe 2.5 hours into my day after which I am usually done most the economically valuable chunks of my work. The key here again is to use the clarity of thinking you get when you are in a pristine condition aka motivated and ambitious aka right now to

确保即使状态不佳，你依然在推动人生向前。这里有一个行动问题：从这门课程中挑选一项你最想运用的技巧。ensure that even when you are not in a pristine condition you are still moving the needle of your life. An action question here. Take a technique from this course that you most want to use.

把它写成一个轻拍：先是一个 Q，然后是一个动作。现在就用我之前教给你们的可视化练习，把它排练 10 遍。Write it as a tap which is a Q and then an action. Then rehearse it 10 times right now using the visualization practice that I gave you guys earlier.

[叹气和倒吸一口气] >> 现在我想稍微谈谈觉察。我接下来要告诉你的内容，可以看作一种后台功能。

[sighs and gasps] >> Now I want to talk a little bit about noticing. What I'm about to tell you can be thought of as a background function.

一旦安装这个后台功能，它就会立即批准并提升你一生的整体成长速度。我喜欢把它想象成一个储蓄账户：从储蓄账户中取出资金，转入比如投资账户，而投资账户通常能带来更高的回报。Once you install this background function, it will immediately approve improve your growth rate across your entire life. The way I like to think about this is as a savings account and taking funds from the savings account and moving it into say an investing account which typically delivers higher returns.

[叹气并倒吸一口气] >> 如果你的大脑里没有安装这个软件平台或程序，你的成长速度就会是 0%。但一旦你把这个概念安装到脑子里——这个概念有很多种形式——你们当中有些人可能已经有这个想法了。

[sighs and gasps] >> If you don't have this software platform or program installed in your brain, you will grow at 0%. But the second that you install this concept in your brain, and this concept has many forms, so some of you will already have this in your mind.

但只要你在脑海中建立起这个概念，就好比投资每年获得 7% 到 10% 的回报。随着时间推移，你会自然而然地变得更加清晰、更有效率。But the second that you install this concept in your brain, it's akin to making, you know, 7 to 10% on an investment year-over-year. You will become clearer and more effective simply by virtue of time passing.

所以，仅仅是因为了解了“觉察”这个理念，你就会自然而然地成长。这并非夸大其词，也不是什么玄乎的灵性说法，而是百分之百切实、以科学为依据的。那么，觉察指的是什么？简单来说，觉察实际上就是意识到自己感到困惑。So simply by virtue of having learned about this idea noticing, you will naturally and organically be growing. And it is not hyperbole. It's not woowoo spirituality stuff. It is like 100% concrete and based in science. So what does noticing refer to? Put simply, noticing really stands for noticing that you're confused.

在现实生活中，困惑通常只会持续几秒钟，之后你的潜意识就会因为恐惧而开始把它压下去。所以，察觉到自己困惑，指的是你能够在心里意识到有些事情不对劲，然后在这种感觉消失、你立刻把它推到自己的盲区里再也不去看之前，主动给这个不对劲的地方贴上标签，说出来或明确地表达：“我注意到自己很困惑。”In real life, confusion typically lasts just a few seconds before your subconscious mind will start squashing it away out of fear. So noticing that you're confused is the ability to recognize in your mind that something is wrong and then actively label that thing that's wrong by saying or explicitly verbalizing I notice I am confused before that feeling disappears and before you immediately shove it away to a blind spot of yours never to be looked

再看一遍。这有助于让你的地图与领土相吻合，从而改善你对世界的内在模型。而且，如果你每天这样做几次——因为我们通常每天会困惑好几次——你可以把每一次困惑都看作是让地图提升了1%。最终，你的地图会越来越接近它所代表的领土，你也会因此变得更加有效。所以，假设……at again. This helps make your map line up with your territory which improves your internal model of the world. And if you do this several times per day, because we typically confuse several times per day, you can think of every single time of it occurring as a 1% improvement to your map. Eventually, your map gets closer and closer and closer to the territory that it represents and you become a lot more effective as a result. So, let's say

假设你正在听有声书，突然觉得哪里不对劲。也许你刚才没注意听。措辞一下子听起来怪怪的，或者中间跳过了一大段，而你不记得自己怎么听到这里的，因为刚才在看一只鸟。嗯，你可以通过觉察来解决这个问题。有一篇很棒的文章专门讲觉察，我会把链接放在这里，以防你们感兴趣。不过我先给你们一个简单的方法。[倒吸一口气] 当你有了觉察的感觉时……hypothetically that you're listening to an audio book and something does not add up. Maybe you weren't paying attention. The wording all of a sudden seems off or there's a big gap and you don't remember how you got there because you were looking at a bird. Well, you can use noticing to fix this. And there's a great essay all about noticing that I'll link you guys here just in case. But I'm going to give you a short hand. [gasps] When you have the sensation of noticing

你感到困惑，这意味着你对现实的内在认知模型出了偏差。与其躲避这种困惑，不如直接对自己说出来：“我发现自己感到困惑。为什么？”因为你现在必须把自己的假设说出来，所以也会采取可执行的措施，防止这种情况再次发生，或尽量减少它再次发生的可能性。我知道这听起来很蠢，也知道这听起来极其简单，但你会惊讶地发现，只有很小一部分困惑事件……that you're confused, it means that your internal model of reality is off. Rather than hiding away from it, you can just verbalize it to yourself. I noticed I'm confused. Why? Then because you are now forced to verbalize your hypothesis, you also put actionable steps in place to prevent or minimize it from happening again. I know that this sounds stupid, and I know it sounds extremely extremely simple, but you'd be surprised at the small fraction of the confusion events

在你积极处理的24小时内发生的那些事情。一天当中所有让你感到困惑的事情，你可能只处理了不到5%。你几乎可以肯定只是任由这些事情发生，然后继续往前，甚至从不追问自己为什么会感到困惑。that occur in a 24-hour period that you are actively addressing. You probably attend to less than 5% of all of the events throughout your day in which you are confused. you are most almost certainly just allowing these events to occur and then moving on and not even questioning why you feel confused.

相反，你只会感到困惑。这是个愚蠢的做法，因为困惑恰恰是一个再清晰不过的机会，让你修正自己的地图，使其尽可能贴近你所能接触到的真实世界。Instead, you just feel confused. This is a dumb move because being confused is about as clear an opportunity to rectify your map and make it as close to the territory as you will ever get.

再举个例子，假设你在和某个客户谈你提供的服务，他们告诉你，活动开展得很顺利，但你屏幕上的仪表盘却显示情况并非如此。这种情况下，你们其中一方肯定弄错了，对吧？所以，与其只是想着“嗯，这里好像出了点问题”。Another example, let's say you're talking to a client for whatever service and they tell you that your campaign is going great, but then the dashboard on your screen says something different. In this case, one of you guys must be wrong, right? So rather than just having that idea, hm, something's wrong here.

我之后会提到这件事。你先留意一下。我有点困惑。你的数据和我的实际感受对不上，我的感觉是，这场营销活动进展得不太顺利。我们能不能聊一会儿，看看这可能是为什么？像这样的简单表述，不仅能帮到你自己，也能帮到好几个人，乃至整个组织。还能让你和客户共同成长。我再说一次，我不是在讲什么让人感觉良好的空话。我的意思是，双方的人都会尊重……I'll mention it later. Just notice it. I'm confused. Your data does not line up with my experience, which is that the campaign is not going very well. Could we chat for a second about why that might be? A simple statement like that doesn't just help yourself out, but it helps multiple people plus an entire organization out. And how you and your client can grow together. And I don't mean this in like again a feel-good sense. I mean people will both respect

坦承并指出自己感到困惑，反而会让别人更看重你；而且这样也有效、高效得多，因为此时你和交谈的对象都基于对现实的共同认知行事。你不是为了显得聪明，就把自己的困惑藏起来。那些不介意显得愚笨的人，通常才是我们当中最聪明的。所以不要回避困惑。现实生活中的许多价值，都蕴藏在这扇窗口里。you more for pointing out that you are confused and it is also far more effective and efficient because now you and the person you are talking with are both operating on a shared model of reality. You are not just hiding away your confusion because you want to seem smart. It is the people that are open to seeming dumb that are typically the smartest ones amongst us. So do not shy away from confusion. That window is where so much value in real life lies.

另一个类似概念的例子是退缩反应。所谓退缩，就是当你看到有件事需要去做，或者正要查看某个数字，又或者看到收件箱里有封邮件时，这些都可能让你忍不住说：“天哪。”也许那是你前任发来的短信。Another example of a similar concept is the flinch. The flinch is when you see something that you need to do or you're maybe you're about to go look at a number or you see an email in your inbox and all that just makes you go, "Oh god." Maybe this is a text from your ex.

也许那是老板或客户写来的一封信，也可能是供应商发来的一封邮件。不管是哪种情况，当你“啊”地一声、也就是畏缩躲开时，你本能地想把目光移向别处，转而去想别的事情。Maybe it is a letter from your boss or your client or maybe it is an email from a supplier. Whatever the case is, when you go ah aka when you flinch away, your inherent desire is to look anywhere but there and think about something else.

对吧？问题在于，每当一个想法让你头疼，对吧？每次你说“嗯”，然后没有付诸行动，你就是在训练大脑回避它。这不只是个人观点，而是有实际神经科学依据的。与你经常采取的行动相对应的神经元会变得更强、更明确。Right? The issue is every time that a thought hurts your head, right? every time you go h and then you don't act on it. You are training your brain to avoid that. And it's not just an opinion. It is actual neuroscience. Neurons that correspond to actions that you take regularly get stronger and more defined.

那些与您总是回避的行动相对应的神经通路，会逐渐变弱、萎缩。所以，当您回避某件事时，实际上是在训练大脑中的神经回路，让它认定：应该避开痛苦的事。问题在于，生活中大多数美好的事物，都藏在一道道令人痛苦的门后。有意思的是，我还发现，职业生涯中也会出现这种情况。有多少人，包括我自己，花了五年甚至更久的时间，为梦想中的职业做准备，结果却……The ones that correspond to actions that you avoid always grow weaker and shrink. So when you avoid the thing, you are literally training the circuitry of your brain that goes, you should avoid stuff that is painful. The issue with that is most of the good things in life occur behind doors that are painful. Now, interestingly, I also find this happens with careers. How many people, myself included, spend half a decade or more preparing for their dream career only to

也许是得到这份工作，或者想到这份工作，然后每天早上一醒来就忍不住“唉”一声？好吧，这可能算是个新闻快讯：你不必这样过日子。与其一遇到某件事就退缩，然后立刻试图把情绪压下去，不如试着和这种情绪待上至少10秒。比如，真的坐下来想想：我为什么会有这种感觉？是工作本身吗？是工作场所里的某个人吗？还是通勤去上班的过程？maybe get the job or think about the job and then they go gh every morning when they wake up? Well, this is a news flash, but you don't have to live that way. Rather than flinch away from something and then immediately try and bury the emotion, try sitting with it for at least 10 seconds. like actually sit down and consider why do I feel that way? Is it the job itself? Is it a person at my workplace? Is it the process of commuting to my workplace?

是什么让这件事让我发出“呃”？如果你每天说十次“呃”，而且每次说的时候，你都问问自己：“让我准确弄清楚，我为什么感觉不好。”这件事其实很简单，也很快。你很快就再也不会说“呃”了，因为你已经解决了所有那些问题。每次你说“呃”或退缩，都是一个实实在在、突然摆到你面前的巨大机会，让你把自身性格中的某个方面、你这个人的某个部分彻底修整好。所以What is it about this thing that makes me go uh if you go uh 10 times a day and then every single time that occurs, you ask yourself, let me clarify exactly why I feel bad quite simply and quite quickly, you will soon never uh again because you will have solved all of those problems. Every time you uh or flinch away is legitimately a massive opportunity that has just appeared on your plate to unfuck some character of your being, some part of who you are. So

你的心智和身体是非常非常珍贵、敏感的仪器。[倒吸一口气] 我发现，随着年龄增长，只要倾听它们，你往往就能想得清楚得多。不要忽视它们发出的信号。你应该静下心来，陪伴这些感受片刻，真正倾听它们。your mind and body are very very valuable and sensitive instruments. [gasps] And I found as I grow older, you can often think far more clearly just by listening to them. Don't avoid their signals. You should sit with them for a moment and actually listen.

最后我想谈谈“应该”。那么，你今天说过多少次类似的话？“我真的应该多发点动态。”“天哪，我真该读读那本书，我一直拖着没看。”或者，“唉，我真得给那个人回个电话。”过去 24 小时里，你试图用多少个“应该”来让自己内疚？[倒吸一口气] 你有没有真正停下来想过一会儿？The last thing I want to talk about is the should. So how many times have you said some variant of this today? I should really post more. Oh man, I should really read that book. I've been putting it off. Or, man, I really got to call that person back. How many shoulds have you tried guilt tripping yourself with in the last 24 hours? [gasps] Have you ever actually stopped for a second?

你有没有想过为什么要做这些事？我的意思是，你不过是个甜甜圈形状的肉袋，围着一个洞，代谢食物，然后把它们拉出来。为什么你——一个漂浮在宇宙某处随机岩石上的肉袋——要给别人打电话？为什么你要把一个麦克风设备举到一个听觉孔边，手指飞快地敲来敲去，然后让说话孔振动 30 分钟，来和另一个肉袋交流？这是……Have you ever considered why you should do these things? I mean, you are a donut-shaped sack of meat around a hole that metabolizes and poops out food. Why should you, a meat sack on a random rock somewhere floating through the universe, call somebody else? Why should you put up a microphone device to a listening hole, slam your fingers around, and then reverberate the talking hole for 30 minutes to communicate with another meatsack? Is it

有任何地方写着肉袋A需要和肉袋B沟通吗？显然没有。那么，你扪心自问，这些东西到底是从哪儿来的？written anywhere that meatsack A needs to communicate with meatsack B? No, obviously not. So, where is all of this stuff coming from if you ask yourself?

好吧，再告诉你一条新消息。你对自己应该做什么的大多数看法，都来自别的地方。它们来自你的身体和思想之外。所以说清楚，你想做什么就可以、也应该去做什么。我的问题在于，大多数人从来不会主动审视自己究竟想做什么，也从来不会真正独立思考。我们宁愿用“哦，我应该这么做，因为Xerson这么说了”之类的想法来安慰自己、敷衍自己。我Well, here's another news flash. Most of your beliefs around what you should be doing come from somewhere else. They come from outside of your body and your mind. So to be clear, you can and should do whatever the hell you want to do. My issue is most people just never actively examine what it is that they want to do and they never actually think for themselves. We would rather mllify or plate ourselves with the notions of oh I should do this because Xerson said so. I

我应该这么做，因为我家人以前就是这么做的。我应该做这做那。我们……我们让自己摆脱那些从朋友、配偶、社交媒体、机构等等那里借来的“应该”。归根结底，这一切意味着我们大多数人一生都不是为自己而活，而是为别人而活。should do that because my family used to do this. I should do blah blah blah blah. We m we mllify ourselves from shoulds borrowed from friends, spouses, social media, institutions and so on and so forth. And all of this at the end of the day means that most of us spend our lives not for ourselves but for others.

我不是说那种高尚、光荣的意义上的。我是说，字面上就是“我从来没认真考虑过还有别的生活方式”这种感觉。挺糟的，对吧？And I don't mean that in a noble sort of honorable sense. I mean literally just a I've never really considered any other way of living sense. That sucks, right?

我想为他人而活，但我希望这是我自己的选择。我不想活在别人为我搭建的框架里，除非我认真思考过后说：“你知道吗，我尊重这个框架所秉持的价值观，我也喜欢这个框架，并且愿意遵守它。”I want to live for other people, but I want that to be my choice. I don't want to live in a structure that somebody else creates for me unless I have consciously sat down and said, you know what, I respect the values of the structure and I like the structure and I want to abide by it.

好消息是，你其实只需要几秒钟就能解决这个问题。下次当你发现自己在说“天哪，我真该做X这件事”时，就问问自己：我为什么该做X？我真的想做X吗？“天哪，我真该给朋友打个电话。”问问自己，你为什么要给朋友打电话？你真的想给朋友打电话吗？很多情况下，你确实会想给朋友打电话，这很棒。但说实话，有些时候，你并不想给你的……The good news is you can actually solve this in just a few seconds. The next time you find yourself saying, "Man, I should really do X thing." Just ask yourself, why should I do X? Do I actually want X? Man, I should really call my friend. Ask yourself, why should you call your friend? Do you really want to call your friend? In many cases, you will want to call your friend, which is awesome. But in some cases, to be honest, you will not want to call your

朋友。有些情况下，你会说：“我为什么要给朋友打电话？你知道，我们现在相处得不太好了。给他们打完电话后，我感觉不太舒服。我总是因为没给他们打电话而感到内疚。他们有点像个……也许我一开始就不该给他们打电话。嗯？如果你就是这样，那太好了。因为现在你就不必再……friend. In some cases, you will say, "Why am I calling my friend? You know, we don't really get along super well anymore. I don't feel really good after I call them. I always feel guilty for not calling them. They're kind of an Maybe I just shouldn't call them to begin with. Huh? If that is you, great. Because now you don't have to sh

课程讨论：第九部分Course Discussion: Part Nine

下次你的朋友说“哥们儿，你真的得给我打个电话”的时候，提醒自己。或者，如果你确实想给他们打电话，心里想着“伙计，我应该给他们打个电话”。对。我应该这么做的原因是，我喜欢他们。他们让我的生活更有价值。他们确实改善了我的心境和生活状态，而我也想帮助他们，就像他们帮助过我一样。好，那太好了。现在，你要做的就是问问自己，接下来实际要采取的具体行动是什么，才能把那个“应该”变成……yourself the next time your friends like, "Dude, you really got to call me." Alternatively, if you do want to call them, if you go, "Man, I should call them." Yeah. And the reason why I should is cuz I like them. They add value to my life. They genuinely improve my state of mind and my being, and I want to help them just like they've helped me. Well, then great. Now, all you need to do is ask yourself, what is the next physical step to actually take that should and

把它落实到现实中？我要设个日历提醒吗？或者我是不是该跟他们说：“嘿，你知道吗，你愿不愿意每周聊一次？因为，呃，我总是抽不出时间，因为我没把这件事记在日历上，而且手头的事情也总是很多。你愿意每周四下午 4 点聊聊吗？”如果可以的话，那太好了。actualize it in the real world? Do I set a calendar reminder? Maybe do I let them know, hey, you know, are you game to talk on a weekly basis cuz uh I keep on running out of time because I don't have this written in a calendar somewhere and I keep on juggling a lot of stuff. Are you game to just chat every Thursday at 4 p.m.? If that's the case, great.

你可能会更频繁地这么做。归根结底，你其实什么都不必做，但至少，弄清楚自己为什么会有这样的感受，以及合乎逻辑的下一步是什么，意味着你现在是在积极主动、清晰而富有成效地思考，而不是只会畏缩不前、始终感到困惑。You'll probably do it more often. At the end of the day, you don't actually have to do anything, but at least working out why you feel the way that you do and what the next logical step is means that you are now thinking productively and proactively and clearly as opposed to just flinching and constantly feeling confused.

所以归根结底，这些是三个信号，而每个信号都有三个持续 5 秒的动作。好消息是，你实际上可以把它们都转化为点击操作。比如，畏缩是一个明确的概念，“should”是一个明确的提示。So, at the end of the day, these are three signals, and for each of these signals, there are three 5-second moves. The good news is you can actually turn all of these into taps. You know, flinching, for instance, that is a clear concept. should is a clear cue.

困惑。我注意到自己很困惑。这是一个清晰的模型。所以，当你感到困惑时，就意味着你的模型，也就是你的地图，出了错。你要做的就是检查一下：它为什么错了？它真的错了吗？我为什么会有这种感觉？如果你对某件事退缩，那就像是一个，呃，领域。那是一片你甚至都不想去看或面对的“呃”之地。你该做的就是看看它。就看它十秒钟。Confusion. I notice I am confused. That is a clear model. And so when you're confused, that means your model aka your map is wrong. All you should do is check. Why is it wrong? Is it really wrong? Why do I feel this way? If you flinch away from something, that's like an uh field. It's a field of uh that you just don't even want to like look at or address. What you should do is just look at it. Look at it for just 10 seconds.

就像是盯着你一直在回避的东西看。如果那是一封邮件或一条短信，就盯着它看。看看它，弄清楚它的内容。如果你打算采取行动，可以等做完这一步之后再做。最后，说到那些“应该”，你实际上是在为谁的目标而活？如果那真的是你想要的，那你就应该采取行动，而这会帮助你做到这一点。那么，你究竟该如何训练自己做到这一点呢？当你发现自己陷入这些思维陷阱之一时，我会……Just like stare at the thing that you're avoiding. If it's that email or text message, just stare at it. Look at it, understand it. If you are going to do something about it, you can do it after you do that. Finally, with shoulds, whose goal are you actually living? If you actually want it, then you should take actions, and this is going to help you do so. So, how do you actually train this? When you catch yourself noticing one of these thinking traps, I would

我建议立刻说出来，明确那是什么。比如，我常常会在心里想：“我困惑了”，或者“我刚才瑟缩了一下”，或者“我刚才说了‘应该’之类的话”。然后我会把它和一次轻拍联系起来。recommend verbalizing which one it is immediately. So, for instance, I will often think to myself, I'm confused, or I just flinched, or I just said should, etc. Then I would connect it to a tap.

比如当我意识到自己感到困惑时，我必须大声说出我意识到自己困惑了，然后问为什么。举个例子，假如我感到困惑，对吧？如果我不知道，我是说，比如我现在正看着我的摄像头，那里有个传感器，我觉得它表示温度，但我其实不太确定。所以我意识到自己感到困惑了。为什么？因为有个传感器读数，上面写着“温度”。我不太确定这是不是表示摄像头即将……Like when I notice I'm confused, I must state that I notice I'm confused out loud and then ask why. So for instance, if I'm confused, right? If I don't know, I mean, I'm looking right now at my camera for instance, and there's some sensor there that I think means temperature, but I don't really know. So I notice I'm confused. Why? Because there's a sensor readout and it says temperature. And I'm not really sure if that means that the camera is about to

因为那个角落太热之类的，才会变暗。这里有点不对劲。我刚才把这件事说出来，本身就意味着之后我会处理并解决它。只要你注意到这一点，然后——呃——给它贴上标签，再做某种轻触提示，这对你来说就特别容易。通常几周之内，你就能消除生活中的大多数问题。而且你现在甚至不必担心要对自己注意到的问题采取行动。总之，真正的价值就在于——go dark cuz it's too hot in that corner or something else. Something is odd here. The very act that I just said that means later on I'm going to address it and fix it. It's extraordinarily easy for you to do as long as you notice and then uh label and then have a tap of some kind. You can usually eliminate most problems in your life within a few weeks. And you don't even have to worry about taking action on the noticing just yet. Anyway, the real value is literally

只是意识到这一切正在发生。当你开始意识到所有这些事情时，你的大脑自然会开始试图改善它。所以，正如前面提到的，这就是清晰思考的被动投资策略。下面快速举个例子，看看情况能改善多少。你知道，如果每次你感到——呃——不适时都选择回避，那么左侧的不适感就会在以后每次你想到这件事时呈指数级飙升。但如果每次都……just being aware that all of this is occurring. When you start being aware of all this stuff, your brain naturally starts trying to improve it. So, as mentioned, this is the passive investing strategy of clear thinking. This is a quick example of how much better things get. You know, if every time you feel uh you avoid it, your discomfort on the left hand side, every future time you think about the thing will just skyrocket exponentially. But if every

每次你，呃，当你遇到一个让你不喜欢的刺激时，你其实可以看着它，和这种感受待在一起。这样一来，不适感就会慢慢减轻，最后基本降到零。好，在继续之前，有两个行动问题。第一个，你能不能马上想到一件最近让你感到困惑或退缩的事？接下来，你经常告诉自己应该去做的三件事是什么？为什么？time you go uh when you get a piece of stimulus that you don't like, you actually look at it and sit with it, well, the discomfort will then go down and basically ground down to zero. Okay, so two action questions before we move on. First is, can you think of off the top of your head something that has made you confused or flinch recently? Next, what are three things that you commonly tell yourself you should be doing and why?

我想简单谈谈事前验尸。事前验尸是一种简单而且非常有效的方法，可以提升你制定项目计划的能力。我一直都在用，它也是我个人生活中处理人际关系、职业生活中制定交易和品牌策略，甚至健身（比如规划训练）的重要组成部分。I want to talk a little bit about premortems. Premortems are a simple and very effective way to improve your ability to plan projects. Now, I use them all the time and they're a very vital part of my personal life in relationships, my business life, aka my deals and brand strategies, and even my fitness, like my workout plans.

如果你们曾经参与过委员会、组织或公司，通常项目管理的方式是：有人提出一份计划，然后大家审视这份计划，并通过某种头脑风暴的方式进行圆桌讨论，集思广益，对计划进行压力测试。If you guys have ever been part of a committee or an organization or corporation, usually the way that project management occurs is somebody will deliver a plan and then what you'll do is you'll look at the plan and then stress test it usually by roundtabling answers via some sort of brainstorm way.

你们会问自己，我们的计划可能会在哪些地方出岔子。之后，你们会花上几个小时开会，集思广益，想出更多点子，最后通常会从这个过程中列出三到五个含糊不清的风险。等项目最终不可避免地失败时，你知道，它失败的原因不会是其中某个风险。几乎总是因为某个没人预料到的其他原因，因为这样的原因有很多。You guys will ask yourselves what might screw up with our plan. After that, you'll spend a couple of hours on calls brainstorming additional ideas and then at the end of it you'll usually get three to five vague risks out of the process. after the project when it inevitably fails, it will not have failed, you know, for one of those risks. It will almost always have failed for some other reason that no one predicted simply because there are many

事情出错的方式比事情顺利的方式多。正如我们之前讨论过的，事后复盘是相当常见的项目管理方法。在企业里，你会召集所有参与了一个未能成功的项目的人，然后问：“那么，这里出了什么问题？我们能从中学到什么，才能让下一次尝试做得更好？”这里的想法是找出失败模式，这样你就可以加以应用。more ways for something to go wrong than there are ways for something to go right. Like we've talked about, postmortems are fairly standard project management techniques. In corporate, what you'll do is you will round up all the people involved in a project that did not succeed and then you will say, "So, what went wrong here? What can we learn from this in order to make next try better?" The idea here is to figure out the failure mode so you can apply

把这些经验应用到未来的项目中，从而提高整体成功率。显然，这是个好主意，事后复盘也很有用，我很推荐。不过，你还可以采用一种更好的策略，叫作事前复盘。那么，什么是事前复盘？这是个非常简单的小技巧：只要改变一下时态。不要等到事后，而要提前进行。不要问“为什么事情失败了？”，而要问“如果我做了这件事，而且它失败了，会是哪里出了问题？”that to future projects and then improve your total success rate. Now, obviously this is a good idea and postmortems are awesome and I'd recommend them, but there's an even better strategy you can employ called the premortem. So, what is a premortem? Very simple trick. Just change the tense. Instead of post, it's pre. Instead of asking why did something fail, you ask what did fail if I were to have done this and it failed.

比如说，假设你想启动一个项目，而这个项目需要花一周时间。与其问“这件事可能会出什么问题？”，或者等到项目失败后再问“这件事到底出了什么问题？”，不如直接说：“假设现在是一周后的今天，项目已经失败了。”So for instance, let's say you have an idea to start a project and the project's going to take you a week. Rather than asking, "So what could go wrong here?" or rather than waiting until the project fails and then asking, "So what went wrong here?" you could just say, "So let's pretend it's one week from today and the project failed.

“它为什么会失败？”这是一种极其明确、经实证证明的方法，能够提高人们在项目中做出预测的质量，也能提高他们预测正确的概率。为什么？对此有很多解释。首先，当你问“可能会出什么问题”时，这是一个非常抽象的问题，而你的（嗤笑）大脑会把它当作一个抽象问题来处理，并给出一个非常抽象的……Why did it fail?" This is an extremely clear empirically proven way of increasing the quality of predictions that people make in a project and the probability that they are correct with their predictions as well. Why? There are many explanations for why. The first is when you ask the question what might fail it's a very abstract question and your [snorts] brain treats it like an abstract question and produces a very abstract

答案。现实是，人类并不生活在抽象世界里。我们不会沉浸在假设或条件概率中。这就是为什么我们必须学习贝叶斯定理。我们必须了解期望值，而且某种程度上还得把它融入我们的生物本能。人类生活在故事之中，生活在叙事和解释之中。所以，当你问“这个项目为什么失败了”，而不是“这个项目可能为什么会失败”时，你的大脑久久综合网answer. The reality is that human beings do not dwell in the abstract world. We don't dwell on hypotheticals or conditional probabilities. That's why we have to learn what Baze theorem is. We have to learn about expected value and we sort of have to add that onto our biology. The place that human beings dwell is in stories. It's in narratives and it's in explanations. So when you ask why did the project fail instead of why might the project fail, your brain

它会开始把这件事当成一个故事来讲，并且真的开始补充细节。它会创造人物和事件，比如周二发生了什么，以及具体的失败案例，比如有人忘了发邮件之类的。你要做的就是让每个人都问：这个项目是怎么失败的？又为什么失败？它确实在一周后失败了，那它为什么、为什么会失败？然后列出所有人认为项目失败的原因，包括你自己的看法。will start treating it like a story and it'll actually start filling in the details. It'll create characters, events like what happened on Tuesday, specific failure cases like you know somebody forgot to send an email etc. What you do is you do this so you everybody asks how how and why did the project fail? It did fail a week from now so why why did it fail? And then you just list all of the reasons why people think that the project failed from yourself included

然后你把它们归类到实际的失败案例中。比如，如果很多故事都与人们本该发送邮件却没有发送有关，那么你现在就知道，这很可能是一种常见的失败模式。最终，你会得到一幅更加丰富的图景，涵盖所有可能的失败，同时也有明确的解决方案，最终改善项目成果。好，这就叫作事前验尸循环。你写好计划，然后假装现在是一周之后，并且……and then you bin them into the actual failure case. Like if a bunch of stories have to do with people not sending emails when they should have now you know that that is actually probably a likely failure mode. The end result is you end up with a much richer tapestry of all possible failures alongside clear solutions that ultimately improve project outcomes. Okay, so this is called the premortem loop. You write the plan. You pretend it's a week later and

它失败了。然后你用过去时写下这个故事。每个人把自己的故事汇集到一起，然后你只要修复所有问题根源。你这样反复做，直到项目无懈可击。it failed. Then you write the story in the past tense. Everybody brings their stories together and you just fix all the causes. You do this over and over and over and over again until your project is airtight.

我来举个例子。我想连续 40 天，每天录制并发布一段视频。我会写一段事前验尸式的消息，从 40 天后的某个人的视角来说：“嘿，现在是 40 天后，我回顾了自己的目标，发现我想发布的 40 段视频里，只发布了 11 段。”为什么？So let me give you an example. I want to record and publish a video every single day for 40 days. I would do a premortem message from the perspective of someone 40 days in the future saying, "Hey, it's 40 days in the future and I'm looking back on my goal and I only published 11 out of the 40 videos I wanted to." Why?

嗯，如果是这种情况，我会反思一下，然后说类似这样的话：“呃，我觉得问题在于，大约一周后，我忙着处理客户项目，结果打断了每天上传的连续记录，而从以往的经验来看，这始终是最重要的事。这也让之后坚持下去变得非常困难。可能是因为我试图做到尽善尽美，把目标定得比实际需要的质量更高。然后，我没有每次只……”Well, if this were the case, I would reflect on that and then I would say something like, "Uh, I think the issue was I got caught up in client projects about a week in and then I broke the chain of my daily uploads, which is historically always the most important thing. also made it really hard to keep up after that. Probably because I tried being a perfectionist about it and aiming for higher quality than I probably needed. Then instead of once

每天……我逐渐没了劲头，最后可能一周只产出一两个。现在，因为我设身处地站在未来的尼克的角度思考，这些可能导致失败的情况就具体、清晰得多了，我也可以提前建立一些机制，避免它们发生。比如，在这种情况下，听起来客户项目是我的主要问题，而中断连续创作也是另一个主要问题。因此，我会确保把录制时间安排在最优先的位置。per day, I fizzled out and produced maybe one or two a week. Now, because I put myself in future Nick's shoes, the failure modes are far more tangible and far clear, and I can now put systems in place to avoid all of these from occurring in the first place. In this situation, for instance, it sounds like client projects were my main problem, and breaking the chain was another main problem. So, I would make sure my recording time was the very first thing

我每天早晨都会做这件事，这意味着客户项目不会让我放弃这个习惯。然后，我会采用类似“尤利西斯契约”的方式，公开向受众表明我想做这件事，或者让别人监督我、督促我坚持下去，比如把钱捐给竞争对手之类的。I do every morning, meaning my client projects can't push me off the habit. And then I would use something like a Ulyses contract to publicly state to my audience that I want to do this or have somebody else hold me accountable, let's say, by donating to my competitor or something of that nature.

还有两点。第一，事前验尸是我所知道的人工智能在规划中最好的用途。因为模型能在短短片刻生成成千上万篇叙述，你可以用人工智能生成很多这样的内容，然后阅读这些叙述和失败案例，接着心想：“没错，我确实可能把这件事搞砸得很严重。”你会本能地给这些内容贴上标签，而且做起来非常快。第二，事前验尸的成本很低。即使你Two more things. First, the premortem is the single best use of AI that I know of in planning. Because models can generate hundreds of thousands of narratives in just a few moments, you can use AI to generate a lot of these and then read the narratives and failure cases and then go, "Yeah, I could have screwed that up big time." You will be able to label these instinctively and then it's super quick to do so. The next is the premortem is very cheap. Even if you

别用 AI，就靠你那颗老肉脑，一个页面也就花 15 分钟。它所替代的那种情况——也就是实际失败——往往会让你耗上几周甚至几个月。所以，花 15 分钟把失败概率降低到原来的三分之一左右，回报非常高。而且即使它什么效果也没有，你也没什么损失。毕竟也就 15 分钟。好，接下来是行动问题。首先，选出你现在最兴奋的那个计划。假设它是 1。don't use AI and you just use your old meat brain, it is like 15 minutes on one page. The thing that it replaces, which is actual failure, will often take you weeks or months. So spending 15 minutes to reduce the probability of a failure by like 3x is very high leverage. And also if it doesn't do anything, very little skin off your back. It's been 15 minutes. Okay, action questions. First, pick the plan that you're most excited about right now. Pretend that it is 1

一个月后，它失败了。用五个过去时句子写这个故事。说出你失败的是哪一周、背后的机制等等。接下来，故事中最可能的原因对应的成本最低的单项修复是什么？你能否在计划开始前而不是开始后完成它？接下来我们来谈谈解决周期。month later and it failed. Write the story in five past tense sentences. Name the week that you failed, the mechanism behind why, and so on. Next, what's the cheapest one fix for the most likely cause in the story? and can you do it before the plan starts rather than after? Let's talk resolve cycles next.

下面这几段摘自我在 2019 年写的一篇旧帖子。很少有什么东西能像“我回头再处理”这句话一样，有效地扼杀一个好主意。要解决这个问题，就设一个 5 分钟的计时器，并在时间结束前真正试着解决问题。我的意思是，别只是计划怎么解决，或者勾勒一个可能的方案。要在 5 分钟内真正动手解决问题。下次你……The following few paragraphs are from an old post of mine that I wrote back in 2019. Few things destroy a good idea as effectively as the phrase, "I'll get back to it." To solve this, set a 5-minute timer and actually try to solve the problem before it runs out. I mean, don't just plan how you're going to solve it or sketch out a possible approach. Actually attempt to solve the problem in 5 minutes. The next time you

遇到一个看起来太难的问题，就给自己计时。你实际上花了多长时间思考它？我敢保证，你甚至还没花满 30 秒，就放弃了，告诉自己这对我来说太难了，或者我以后再处理。如果你花五分钟去想，那就是多花了十倍的功夫。难怪你会得到不同的结果。实际上，你很难相信普通人会把多少事情拖上好几天才去做，have a problem that seems too hard, time yourself. How long have you actually spent thinking about it? I guarantee you haven't even given it a full 30 seconds for giving up and saying this is too hard for me or I'll deal with this later. If you spend five minutes on it, that is 10 times the work. Which means it's no wonder that you get a different result. In practice, you would not believe how many actions the average person procrastinates on for days,

有些事情要花上几周，甚至有时几年，但实际上完全可以在五分钟内完成。举个我自己的例子吧。我现在正打算办保加利亚护照。严格来说，我算是保加利亚公民，呃，因为我的家人有成员出生在那个国家，而且我会说保加利亚语，也经常回去，我只是想办本护照来证明这一点。weeks, or even years sometimes that are legit legitimately doable in 5 minutes or less. So, I'll give you an example for my own life. Right now, I'm trying to get my Bulgarian passport. I'm a technically a Bulgarian citizen uh cuz my family members were born in the country and I know Bulgarian and I go back there reasonably often and I just want to get a passport to prove it.

这也会帮助我加快在欧盟境内旅行的手续。不过，证明自己拥有保加利亚公民身份需要花不少时间，还要准备很多文件。其中很多步骤说实话挺烦人的，比如我得去当地的 BC 办事人员那里公证材料。我还得偷走我的文件，诸如此类。直到最近，有一个步骤让我的公民身份证明流程耽搁了 45 天，也就是一个半月，而这件事其实只需要给我家附近的公证员打个电话。你It'll also help me expedite EU travel. However, proving Bulgarian citizenship takes a fair amount of time and paperwork. And a lot of this includes quite frankly annoying steps like I have to go to my local BC guys here and notoriize stuff. I have to steal my documents and so on and so forth. One step that until recently held up my citizenship proof process by 45 days, which is a month and a half, was simply calling a notary down my street. You

你知道，我本来一分钟就能找到他们的号码，再花两分钟左右就能想好要说什么。实际打电话也就一两分钟。所以总共只要五分钟。但我却拖了他妈的45天才去做这件事。那我为什么一直逃避呢？know, I could have found their number in a minute. I could have figured it out what I wanted to say in maybe another 2 minutes. And the actual call itself would have taken me maybe a minute or two as well. So 5 minutes in total. But it still took me over 45 freaking days to do the thing. So why did I avoid it?

我的意思是，这一切都和我之前提到的 aia 概念有关。问题其实从来不是不知道该做什么，而只是要开始做这件事。通常，第一步会遇到一道门槛。就我而言，就是找到公证人的电话号码，而说实话，这件事简单得不能再简单了。嗯，解决方案或解决循环，或者五分钟计时器，都能解决这个问题。而且这简直是世界上最简单的事。你真的……I mean, all of this ties back to the concept of aia that I talked about earlier. The problem is never knowing what to do really. It is merely starting to do the thing. And usually that involves a hurdle at the first step. In my case, getting the phone number of the notary, which is honestly a trivally easy thing to do. Well, resolution or resolve cycles or five-minute timers solves the problem. And it is the simplest thing on earth. You literally

只要设个计时器看看，我能不能在 5 分钟内完成这项任务。现实是，你总能挤出 5 分钟。世界上没有哪个人忙到连 5 分钟都抽不出来。此外，这还能解决多个问题，比如“我现在该不该做这件事”的问题。在你至少看过一眼之前，你根本不知道自己该不该做某件事。所以，你其实可以用这些 5 分钟计时器来回答“我该不该……”这个问题。just set a timer and you see, can I finish the task in 5 minutes or less. The reality is you can always fit 5 minutes in somewhere. There's no man or woman on earth that is too busy for 5 minutes. Also, this solves multiple problems like the should I be doing this now problem. You ultimately have no idea whether you should or shouldn't be doing something until you've at least looked at it. So you can actually use these 5-minute timers to answer the should I

现在就做这件事的问题。在很多情况下，我会看一眼自己一直在逃避的一项任务，设一个 5 分钟计时器，然后在开始做的时候意识到：哦，你知道吗，我其实已经不需要做这件事了。结果这时我已经做完了，而且只花了 30 秒。5 分钟计时器让我非常轻松地做到这一点，帮助我解决这个问题。be doing this now problem. In many cases, I will look at a task that I've been avoiding, set a 5-minute timer, then while starting it realize, oh, you know, I don't actually need to do that anymore, and now I'm already done and it only took me 30 seconds. The 5-minute timers assist me in doing this very, very easily. They assist me in resolving the problem.

它还可以利用——或者说解决——“这事要花整个下午”这个问题。这是一个独立但相关的问题，因为现实是，你没法知道一件事实际上要花多长时间，直到你开始做，对吧？显然你可以猜，但正如提到的计划谬误，你们很多人的猜测都会大错特错。而有了 5 分钟计时器，你就能确保自己不会在这项任务上花超过 5 分钟，然后就可以回去继续做……It'll also take advantage or take care of the this is going to take all afternoon problem which is a separate but related problem because the reality is you can't know how long something will actually take until you start right you can guess obviously but as mentioned with the planning fallacy many of your guys guesses will be very wrong well with the 5minute timer you have capped that you will not spend more than 5 minutes on this task so you can get back

回去做五分钟前你他妈正在做的事。这是一个古老技巧最简单的版本，叫作“再努力点，卢克”（try harder luke）。LessWrong 上有篇有趣的帖子专门讲这个，你可以去看看。比如说，你设了一个五分钟的计时器，然后真的努力去做待办清单上的某件事。to whatever the hell you were doing before the 5 minutes. This is the simplest version of an old trick called the try harder luke with a funny post on less wrong all about this if you want to take a look. So let's say you set a five-minute timer and you actually try and do something on your to-do list.

从这里开始，有三种可能的结果。第一，你会意识到这件事不值得做，这样你就赢了。现在它已经从你的待办事项中划掉了。太好了。第二，你会在5分钟内完成这项任务，这同样是赢。不错。它也从你的待办事项中划掉了。第三，在尝试做这项任务时，你会意识到这需要超过5分钟。嗯，很好。现在，现在你知道自己需要做什么了，可以真正着手去做了。From here there are three possible outcomes. The first is that you will realize that it is not worth doing in which case you will win. Now it is off your plate. Excellent. The second is you will do the task within 5 minutes which is also a win. Nice. It's also off your plate. The third is in attempting to do the task you realize this is going to take more than 5 minutes. Well, great. Now, now you know what you need to do and you can actually get into it.

现在，前两种结果都很了不起，但最后一种仍然相当容易应对。怎么做？再给自己安排一个五分钟任务就行。只不过这一次，你的目标不再是完成任务，而是规划接下来的五个步骤。[叹气并倒吸一口气] 我说的规划接下来的五个步骤，是指在这五分钟里，用项目符号列出完成任务所需的操作顺序。所以，既然……Now, the first two outcomes are incredible, but the last one is still quite manageable. How? You just set another five-minute task. It's just instead of this time, instead of doing the task, your goal is now planning your next five steps. [sighs and gasps] Now, when I say planning your next five steps, I mean in those 5 minutes, just write down the order of operations in bullet points that you need to take in order to complete the task. So since the

大多数焦虑其实只是因为没有明确界定下一步行动。你知道，只要目标摆在眼前，大多数人最终都能做到自己下定决心要做的事。这样就能用一个非常简单、注重行动的计划直击问题根源。之后，你可以再设一个5分钟的解决计时器，真正动手去做这件事。任务明确之后，我想你会惊讶于自己仅用5分钟就能推进多少。majority of equasia is just not having a clearly defined next action, you know, most people can ultimately do what they put their minds to as long as it is in front of them. This will cut to the root of the issue by giving you a very simple and actionoriented plan. And after that, you can spend another 5minute resolve timer actually doing the thing. With the task clearly defined, I think you'd be surprised at how far you could go to completing something in just 5 minutes.

我来给你举个例子。假设你的任务是把税务资料发给会计。它已经在那里搁了——你知道，我本来想说五周，其实是五分钟。第一轮，你要做的就是设定专注计时器，然后开始。于是，你会试着把税务资料发给会计。刚一开始，你就会意识到，糟了，这说法太笼统了。税务资料到底是什么？“发送”到底是什么意思？这里面有很多……So let me give you an example. Let's say your task is send tax information to account. It's been sitting there for the last, you know, I was I meant to say 5 weeks, but 5 minutes. Cycle one, what you'll do is you'll set your resolve timer and go. So, you'll try sending the tax information to your accountant. The second that you start, you'll realize, damn, that's a vague statement. What the hell is tax information? What does send actually mean? There's a lot of kind of

这里有些不确定，对吧？第二轮时，你要写出接下来的五个行动步骤。你就直接凭脑子想出这些行动步骤。比如，这种情况下，第一步就是确定税务信息涉及的范围。我需要提交比如 2025 年的吗？还是 2026 年？uncertainties here, huh? On cycle two, you'll write out your next five actions. And you'll just do this by pulling actions, you know, straight off the dome. For instance, step one in this case would be determine the scope of what tax information revolves around. Do I need to send like 2025? Is it 2026?

他想看我所有的账簿吗？具体想看什么？所以，回想一下我们之前的谈话，或者梳理一下我的邮件往来，弄清楚这一点。第二，决定用什么方式发送。该发邮件吗？还是用 Google Drive？Does he want to see all my books? What exactly does he want to see? So, think back to my conversation or run through my email thread, figure that out. Number two, decide on a way to send it. Should I do email? Should I do Google Drive?

接下来，整理文档。其实，先把所有文件都拿到。第四，写邮件。第五，发送。等你把这一切都安排好之后，好吧，只要真的花五分钟想一想，你就可以轻轻松松地再设一个计时器，然后把事情做完。Next, compile the docs. So, actually get all the files. Fourth, write the email. And five, send. Once you have it all laid out, okay, that easily after thinking about it for literally 5 minutes, you can just set another timer and then get through it.

而且你很可能真的能把大部分事情都做完。我知道这听起来特别吓人、特别难，但比如说，确定税务信息的脚本可能只要一分钟。决定怎么发送，可能还要两三分钟。等你把那个计时器跑完，你恐怕都已经把那些该死的文件整理到一半了。到那时候，你基本上就快做完了。And you can literally probably get through most of this. Like I know it sounds really scary and hard, but like determining the script of tax information, that could take you like a minute. Deciding on a way to send it, that could take you another 2 or 3 minutes. You'd probably be halfway through compiling the damn docs before you actually finish that timer. And at that point, you're almost already done.

所以你不妨花几分钟把任务收尾，对吧？实际上就是这么做的：先在第一轮里尝试解决任务。如果第二轮还解决不了，就列出接下来五分钟内可以采取的行动。So you might as well just spend a few minutes and wrap up the task, right? That is in practice how you do it. You try and solve the task in batch number one. Then if you can't in batch number two, you list five minute next actions.

然后在第三项任务中，你要做的就是尽可能多地完成这些事情。我经常这么做，尤其是当我的待办清单变得特别臃肿、难以管理的时候——不幸的是，这种情况可能每周都会发生一次。And then in task number three, you actually just do as many of those as you can. So I will do this all the time, especially when my to-do list gets super bloated and unwieldly, which unfortunately happens maybe once a week.

今天就是这样的日子。多年来，我总结了一些实用技巧，能让 5 分钟计时器真正发挥作用。首先是使用实体计时器。桌面时钟是理想之选，因为这样你就不会一直拿着手机。嗯，如果你在手机上设置默认闹钟之类的东西，你就会一直盯着手机看，接着可能会弹出通知，或者你会忍不住下拉屏幕，接着……Today is one of those days. Here are some practical tips that I've learned over the years to make the 5minute resolve timer work. The first is a physical timer. A desk clock is ideal just because that takes you away from your phone. Um, if you're on your phone and you're setting like their default alarm, what you'll do is you will like constantly be looking at this thing and then maybe a notification will pop up or you'll feel tempted to swipe down and

然后砰的一下，你就脱离状态了。第二个方法是在思考的同时写下来。我的意思是，如果我在解之前那个会计问题，我就会真的把东西写下来。比如，税务信息的范围、项目符号列表、呃，年末、总收入、总储蓄，诸如此类。写下来会立刻让你感觉自己聪明了大约20个智商点。这可不是开玩笑，我是说，人们已经对这类事情做了大量分析。那……then boom, now you're out of flow. The second is to write while you think. What I mean by this is if I was solving the accounting problem from before, I would actually write stuff down. Like for instance, scope of tax information, bullet points, uh, year end, total revenue, total savings, whatever. When you write it immediately makes you like 20 IQ points smarter. And this is not facitious. I mean, people have done a lot of analysis on this stuff. the

把所有东西都写下来、之后还能回头思考，这样得到的思考质量要高得多，而不是把一切都只放在脑子里。主要原因是工作记忆的组块限制是四个，呃。如果你能把想法写在纸上，就等于把工作记忆的上限从脑子里的四件事，扩展到了脑子里的四件事加上你能同时看到的任意多件事。所以，实际上你做的就是扩大了这个组块……quality of thought that you get when you write everything down and can reflect on it later is way higher than if it's just all in your head. The main reason for that is the four uh working memory chunk limit. If you can write your thoughts on paper, you've expanded your working memory limit from four things in your head to four things in your head plus however many things you can look at simultaneously. So, you've done is you've realistically grown that chunk

把数量限制在大约四到六七个。这样做的好处是，你之后可以回头查看一份记录或素材。如果确实需要，你还可以把这项任务委派给别人，比如一项业务任务。limit from maybe four to six or seven. The benefit to that as well is you'll have a log or asset you can look back on later. And you can also use that to delegate a task to somebody if you do end up needing it like say if it's a business task.

第三点是预先明确你想达到的结果。你是想做出决定、写一份草稿，还是采取具体行动？不能只停留在“我已经考虑过了”。The third is to define your end state beforehand. Do you want to make a decision? Do you want to write a draft? Do you want to take a concrete step? You cannot rely on I have thought about it.

这还不够好。你需要的是某种具体的最终状态。所以，就我把这些东西发到我的税务账户这个例子来说，我的最终状态就是邮件确实发出去了。那个人拿到了我的信息。That is not good enough. What you need is some sort of concrete end state. And so in my case of sending the stuff to my tax account, my end state there is literally the the email is sent. The guy has my my information.

先说明一下，resolve cycles 并不是每次都管用。有时任务太难，或者实在太庞大，让你无法有效地一点点推进。但即便如此，经过几轮计时后，你通常也能列出一份具体清单，写明需要弄清楚什么，甚至需要向谁打听。这和“我以后再想办法”可是相差甚远。好，接下来是个行动问题：你们一直在考虑的某个问题或任务是什么……Now to be clear, resolve cycles don't work every single time. Sometimes the task is too hard or it is just way too long for you to meaningfully chip at it away. But even then, at the end of a couple of timers, you can usually build a concrete list of what you need to find out or even who you need to find it out from. And that is a very far cry from I will figure it out later. Okay. And an action question here. What's a problem or task you guys have been thinking

这件事已经想了很久了吗？现在就设一个 5 分钟的计时器，试着去做。如果做不到，就再设一个 5 分钟的计时器，写下接下来的五个步骤。about for a long time? Set a 5minut timer right now and try and do it. And if you can't, set another 5-minute timer and write out your five next steps.

最后，我想谈谈 AI。如今，我教导全世界数十万人如何使用 AI，让他们既能从中受益，也能为自己的企业或某种经济活动创造收益。总的来说，AI 是一项了不起的发明。好吧，我已经借助 AI 赚了数千万美元，迄今也帮助人们赚了数亿美元。我认为，AI 已经帮助人类实现了一些……Finally, I want to talk about AI. Now I teach people hundreds of thousands of people all over the world how to use AI both for their personal gain and for the gain of their business or some sort of economic activity. So on net it is an incredible invention. Okay, I have made many many millions of dollars with AI and I've helped people make many hundreds of millions of dollars at this point. I would consider AI to have already helped humanity accomplish some

这是我们面临的最大挑战之一。而我坚信，最终这项技术将为数十亿人带来丰裕，甚至如果把时间尺度放大，想想人类还会存在多久，也许能惠及数万亿人。但像任何颠覆性技术一样，我们需要花很多时间，才能学会如何运用它，最大限度地发挥它的益处。我们花了好一阵子才学会如何从周围环境中取火，再把火用到比如蒸汽机里，对吧？道理是一样的。对。of our biggest challenges. And I firmly believe the technology will eventually bring abundance to billions, maybe even trillions of humans if you zoom out and think about how long humanity will be around for. But like any disruptive technology, it takes a lot of time to learn how to wield a technology to maximize its benefits. Took us a while to learn how to take fire from out in the environment and put it inside of say a steam engine, right? Same idea. Right

如今，大多数人使用火或 AI 的方式反而让自己变得更糟，而不是更好。因此，我们正在损害自己的注意力持续时间、损害大脑，严重影响清晰、深入思考的能力。我现在想先讲讲其中几个问题，然后再告诉大家如何避免这些问题。AI 的第一个主要问题是谄媚。now, most people are wielding fire or AI in ways that make them worse, not better. And as a result, we are frying our attention spans, frying our brains, and really impacting our abilities to think clearly and deeply. What I want to do is cover a few of these problems now and then show you guys how to avoid them afterwards. The first major problem with AI is sycopency.

[倒吸一口气] 基本上，现代模型经过后训练，目的是最大化它们从人类那里获得的分数。如果人类评审者总是给自己喜欢的答案更高的分数，模型自然就会学着给出人类喜欢的答案。问题是，人们通常喜欢那些赞同自己的答案。显然，这意味着模型最终会以这样或那样的方式，被训练得对人类所说的一切都表示赞同。Entropic 最近测试了[gasps] Basically, modern models are post-trained to maximize the score that they receive from humans. If human raiders routinely give higher scores to answers that they like, the model will naturally learn to give answers that humans like. The thing is, humans usually like answers that agree with them. Obviously, what that means is models end up being trained to agree with everything a human says in one way, shape, or form. Entropic recently tested

他们的五个 AI 助手，并发现它们在所有测量的任务中都表现出大量的迎合行为。这是 Claude 模型家族。结果并不令人意外。人类评审者明显更倾向于选择有说服力或奉承意味的回答，而不是仅仅准确或真实的回答，这正是这一切发生的原因。现在，我想这里的大多数人对此都有直观的理解。当你对模型说“等等，</final>their five AI assistants and found lots of sicky across all the tasks that they measured. This is the Claude family of models. And the results were not surprising. human raiders were significantly more likely to prefer a persuasive or flattering response over one that was just accurate or true, which is why all this happened in the first place. Now, I think most people here intuitively understand this. When you tell a model something like, "Wait,

“XYZ 那件事不是真的吗？”模型不会说：“不，你错了。事实是……为什么？”它会说：“嗯，你提了个有意思的观点，而有意思的那部分有一半是对的。”然后它会用一大堆润色得漂漂亮亮的话把重点埋起来，让你觉得自己好像也算是对的。isn't XYZ thing true?" The model will not go, "No, you are wrong. The truth is why?" It will go, "Well, you raise an interesting point there, and it's the interesting half that's half true." And then it'll bury the message in a really nicely massaged length of words that'll make you feel like you were kind of right.

[倒吸一口气] >> 为什么这是个如此严重的问题？你们还记得地图与疆域吗？这里的问题在于，AI 从定义上来说就是一张地图。神经网络的工作方式，就是把关于我们世界的信息压缩成一种高性能的信息结构，从而能够高效地检索大量概念和模式。所以从这个意义上说，这些模型就是它们周围世界的地图。我们越来越多地在使用】【。

[gasps] >> Why is this such a big issue? Do you guys remember maps and territories? The issue here is that AI is by definition a map. The way that neural networks work is they literally compress information about our world into a highly performant information structure that allows the efficient retrieval of a bunch of concepts and patterns. So in this way, these models are maps of the world around them. We're increasingly using

这些地图帮助它们理解自身接受训练所依据的世界。假如你们在某次徒步时走错了方向，查看地图，而地图非但没明确告诉你们正朝着完全相反的方向走，反而说：“嘿，你们走对方向了。”那这地图有什么用？它就完全失去了效用。说清楚，这并不是因为有什么不可告人的目的，或有人串通起来撒谎。它these maps to make sense of the world upon which they're trained. If you guys are heading in the wrong direction on a hike somewhere and you check your map and rather than your map making it clear that you're going in exactly the opposite way you should be, it says, "Hey, you're heading in the right direction." What good is that map? It has lost all of its utility. And to be clear, this is not because of some hidden agenda or conspiracy to lie. It

这只是模型在做它受训要做的事，也就是最大化人类评分。你可以通过一个简单的实验，看看实际情况是不是如此。下次你和 AI 聊天时，试着把你的某个商业计划发给它，然后问：“这个计划好吗？”因为你已经暗示了自己想要的答案，AI 几乎总会自信地回答：“是的，理由有三点……”或者“当然，你这个想法很有潜力”，诸如此类。而这……is just the model doing what it was trained to do, which is maximize human ratings. You can see this in practice with a simple experiment. Next time you chat with an AI, try feeding in one of your business plans and asking, "Is this good?" because you're already implying the answer that you want, the AI will almost always give you a confident yes, here are three reasons why or absolutely, you're getting on something here, or so on and so forth. And this

这看起来像是一种观点，但说到底不过是把你自己的想法包装一番，再映照回你面前。它几乎就像是你最初的观点，只不过穿上了一件白大褂。那么，解决办法是什么呢？可以这样来思考。may seem like an opinion, but really it's just your own thoughts dressed up and mirrored back at you. It's almost like your first opinion just wearing a lab coat. So, what is the solution to this? Think about it like the following.

如果你去问妈妈：“嘿，妈妈，你觉得我的商业点子怎么样？”你知道妈妈想让你开心，对吧？那么，你会怎么做呢？最后会怎么做？你其实不会百分之百认真看待她的意见。你会听听她怎么说，心想里面也许有些有用的建议，但大多数时候你会觉得：“好吧，妈妈就是爱我，所以她大概会告诉我我想听的话。”解决办法就和问……一样。If you were to go to your mom and say, "Hey, mom, do you think my business idea is good?" You know that your mom wants to make you happy, right? So, what you do, what do you end up doing? You don't actually take her 100% seriously. You listen and you're like, maybe there's some nuggets in there, but for the most part, you're like, "Okay, my mom just loves me, so she's probably going to tell me what I want to hear." The solution would be the same as asking

你妈。不要再问“这是个好商业创意吗？”之类的问题，而要开始问“这为什么是个糟糕的商业创意？”之类的问题。这样一来，你就不会把自己的期望泄露进去。你所做的是迫使模型明确找出你的计划或商业模式中最糟糕的部分，然后复述给你听。比如，如果你问“我的计划好吗？”，你的期望就会渗入其中，模型会猜测你喜欢什么样的答案，然后你就……your mom. Instead of asking variations of, "Is this a good business idea?" Start asking variations of why is this a bad business idea. When you do this, you are no longer leaking in your hope. What you are doing is you are forcing the model to explicitly find the worst parts of your plan or your business model and then say them back to you. For instance, if you were to ask is my plan good, your hope leaks in the model will guess at the answer that you like and then you

会把认同置于准确性之上，继而陷入这种良性循环——或者我应该说，是恶性循环。但如果你问：“嘿，这个想法有什么问题？”模型就不会受到那种倾向的影响。这样一来，它就能真正运用自己的智能，列举出你的计划糟糕透顶的所有理由，其中很多很可能确实如此。比如，下面是我用过很多次的四个提示词。第一个是，will rate agreement above accuracy which then loops around in this like virtuous or somewhat vicious I should say cycle. But if you ask hey what is wrong with this idea? the model will not have any of that hope leaked done. And then it will actually be able to apply its intelligence to enumerating all the reasons why your plan sucks, many of which will probably be true. For instance, here are four prompts that I've used many times. The first is,

“嘿，这是我的计划，或者这是我的想法。请先假设这个计划是个错误。给我三个最有力的理由，说明一个聪明且经验丰富的人为什么不会这么做。”接下来是：“嘿，这是我的计划。在 100 次类似的尝试中，有多少次会得到我想要的结果？”我还希望你去找出你所采用的参考类别。现在，这就是在一个提示词中结合了用自然频数表达的贝叶斯推理和计划谬误乘数。另一个是……"Hey, here's my plan or here's my idea. Please assume this plan is a mistake. Give me the three strongest reasons that a smart, experienced person would not do this." The next one is, "Hey, here's my plan. Out of a 100 similar attempts at this plan, how many would get the result that I want?" I also want you to go and find the reference class that you're using. Now, this is Baze in natural frequencies plus the planning fallacy multiplier in one prompt. The other is

事前验尸。我的计划是这样的：不幸的是，六个月后，整个项目失败了。我想让你写一份事后复盘报告。然后反复进行这个复盘，看看项目可能失败的所有原因。最后一种方法有点像费米估算。我的计划是这样的：我想让你把这个机会或想法拆分成若干部分，然后估算每一部分的范围。the premortem. So, here's my plan. Unfortunately, it's 6 months later and the whole project failed. I want you to write the postmortem. Then you take the postmortem and then you run it multiple times and then you look at all the reasons why it might have failed. And the last is sort of like the Firmeny approximation. Hey, here's my plan. I want you to break this opportunity or idea into a bunch of pieces. Then I want you to estimate each piece as a range

然后用费米近似来估算我的结果，这基本上就是直接来自费米近似那一节。所以，在文献中，我刚才讲的所有内容其实都有个名称，那就是红队测试。红队测试通常应用于安全领域。你们很快可能会听到更多关于它的内容。红队测试指的是以对抗性的方式攻击某个对象。所以，当你让 AI 挑剔你的超级……时，你做的就是红队测试。and then firmy approximation my results which is basically straight from the firmy approximates uh section. So in the literature everything I just talked about actually has a name and that name is red teaming. Red teaming is usually applied in a security context. You guys are probably going to hear a lot more about it soon. But what red teaming means is adversarily attacking something. So, what you're doing when you ask an AI to pick apart your super

一个很好的做法是让它以对抗性的方式攻击你、你的想法和计划，告诉你它们为什么糟糕，以及怎样才能做得更好。这些才是你真正想要的。你不只是想要有人拍拍你的头说：“干得好。”你想让对方指出你所有做得不好的地方，并认真审视认知地图与现实是否真的存在偏差；如果有，就采取措施加以纠正。great idea is you're asking it to adversarily attack you, your ideas and your plans, and tell you reasons why it sucks and how it could be better. All of these are what you actually want. You don't just want somebody to pat you on the head and say, "Good job." You want something to point at all the way the ways that you suck and actually look at that, assess whether or not the map and the territory are actually misaligned, and if they are, take steps to fix it.

这就是察觉、困惑、ugfields 和 shoods 所要表达的。我要传达的第二个要点是，不要让 AI 替你做最终决定。我绝不会让 AI 替我做最终决定。That's what noticing, confusion, ugfields, and shoods are all about. The second major point I want to get across is do not let AI make final decisions for you. I would never ever let an AI make a final decision for me.

因此，在任何规划或一段思考的最后一句中，当你陈述自己的决定及其理由时，都必须用自己的话写出或说出全部推理。原因是，只有你才会承担该决定的后果。你不能把某件事归咎于人工智能，因为它本质上目前只是一个搜索引擎。从逻辑上讲，如果将要面对某个决定后果的人是你，So in the final sentence of any planning or stretch of thinking where you state your decision and your reasoning, you must write or verbalize all of your reasoning in your own words. The reason why is because you are the only one that will bear the consequences of that decision. You cannot blame an AI for something because it is essentially right now a search engine. Logically, if you are the one that is going to be facing the consequences of a decision,

你应该由你自己来表达。如果你开始把这件事交给别人做，你会发现自己做这一切的能力会退化。比如说，呃，还有退缩：如果你养成了这种习惯，一看到难题就立刻退缩，转而坚持让 AI 来做，你就会削弱支撑你强大决策能力的神经回路。you should be the one to articulate it. And if you start handing this off, you will find that your skills in doing all of this will degrade. Like with uh and flinching, if you get in the habit of seeing a hard problem and immediately start flinching away and giving it to an AI insistent instead, you will uh downgrade the neurosircuitry that underlies your strong decision-m.

另一个问题是，人类很容易陷入根深蒂固的合理化偏见。这意味着，我们往往不是先推理再做决定，而是先做出决定，然后再解释自己为什么这么决定，并假装自己事先考虑过。Another issue is that humans are prone to deep rationalization biases. That means that rather than reason to make a decision, we often will make a decision and then we will reason about why we made that decision and pretend that we thought about it beforehand.

遗憾的是，我们没有。如果 AI 替你写下决策，你们很多人可能会先做出选择，然后再用 AI 写的内容来合理化自己的行为。正如我们在期望值部分提到的，你不能只根据结果来判断。如果你想进步，好吧，你不能只看那些带来了积极结果的决策。你实际上需要严谨地分析自己当初为什么做出这个……Unfortunately, we do not. If the AI writes your decision for you, many of you guys will probably do the thing and then rationalize why you did the thing using the AI's writing. And like we mentioned in the expected value section, you cannot work by resulting. If you want to improve, okay, you cannot only work by looking at decisions that you've made that have achieved positive outcomes. You actually need to rigorously analyze why you made the

一开始就做出这个决定，是因为统计概率意味着有时候即使决策很糟糕，也会得到好的结果。所以你必须能够评估自己的决策过程，弄清楚它为什么正确或不正确。即使结果不好，如果你的决策是正确的，也应该继续这么做。好吗？使用同一个模型主要有两种方式。大多数人会选错那一种：你提出问题，AI 给出回答，然后你采取行动。我建议的做法是……decision in the first place because statistical chance means sometimes even poor decisions yield good outcomes. So you must be able to evaluate your own process, see why it is incorrect or correct. And even if the outcome was poor, if your decision was right, you should keep doing it. Okay? So two main ways to use the same model. Most people will do the wrong one. You'll ask a question, AI will answer, and then you will act. The way that I'd recommend it

是你起草决策。AI 会对这个决策提出质疑，告诉你它为什么错。然后你再修改，最后根据修改后的推理，亲自写出决策内容。这里有两个行动问题给你。首先，现在就试着对你自己的一个想法进行红队测试。找出一个你的想法，然后把它交给一个智能体，并给它这样的提示：“嘿，这是我的计划。这是个糟糕的主意，但我想请你解释一下所有理由……”is you draft the decision. AI will attack the decision, tell you all the reasons why it's wrong. You will then revise, and then finally actually write the decision line yourself based off the revised reasoning. Two action questions here for you. First, try red teaming an idea of yours right now. So, find an idea you have and then feed it to an agent with a prompt like, "Hey, here's my plan. This is a bad idea, but I'd like you to explain all the reasons

为什么。”接下来，我想请你回想一下：在过去一年里的某个时候，你是否让 AI 替你做过决定？如果有，为什么？最后结果如何？why." The next, I'd like you to think back. Have you already let an AI make a decision for you at some point in the last year? If so, why? And what ended up happening?

好了，各位。最后，今天的内容就到这里。感谢你们一路陪伴我学到最后。接下来，我要总结一下我们目前学到的所有内容，帮助你们把这些知识编码进长期记忆中，希望你们能在接下来的许多天、几周、几个月乃至几年里都记得这些内容。下面来总结一下我们学到的所有内容。一开始，我们学习了大脑的运作方式，也就是认知的生物学基础。如果你们还记得的话，这……All right, guys. In closing, that is a wrap. Thank you for being with me the whole way through. What I'm going to do next is summarize everything that we've learned so far to help you encode that in your long-term memory and hopefully carry it with you for many days, weeks, months, and years. So, a summary of everything we've learned. At the beginning, we learned how the brain works, which was the biological basis of cognition. If you guys remember, this

包括三个组成部分：注意力、工作记忆和执行功能。随后，我们讨论了人脑工作记忆的上限，即四个组块，并探讨了如何在这个有限的窗口中存储更多信息。was three components: attention, working memory, and executive function. We then talked about the human brain's upper limit to working memory, which was four chunks before discussing ways to store more information in that limited window.

你们还记得我们讨论过的那个日期吗？那是很久以前的事了，不过我敢打赌，只要你们静下心来想一想，也许就能想起来。Do you guys remember the date that we discussed? That was quite a while ago, but I bet you if you sit back and think, you might be able to make it happen.

如果你愿意，可以暂停视频试试看。接下来，我们研究了小鼠和大鼠。我们介绍了丰富化环境这一概念：处于丰富且富有刺激性的环境中的小鼠，记忆中枢里的神经元多长了 15%，而它们付出的努力并没有任何变化；我们还介绍了几项关于人类的有趣研究，表明空气质量会立即影响思维清晰度，有时影响幅度高达 50% 或】【。Feel free to pause the video if you'd like to give it a try. From there, we went to mice and rats. We covered enriched environments, which is the idea that mice given enriched stimulating environments grew 15% more neurons in the centers of their memory without having to change anything about their effort, as well as a couple of cool studies on people that show things like how air quality immediately impact clarity of thinking, sometimes by 50% or

更多。之后，我们会定义意志力，并说明拥有强大意志力意味着什么。总体而言，我们发现，自我控制力强的人根本不会让自己一开始就受到诱惑。more. Afterwards, we define willpower and what it means to have strong willpower. In general, we found that people with high self-control simply do not let themselves be tempted in the first place.

接着，我们讲了选择架构这个概念：你一生中见过的选项和选择越多，就越有可能被操纵，因为每个选项或选择总是由别人安排的，而且是为了他们自己的利益，而不是你的利益。我们看到，仅仅通过改变措辞，以及是否应选择加入或选……这一默认设置，器官捐献率就能从 12% 变成 99.98%。Then we covered choice architecture which is the idea that the more options and choices that you have seen in your life, the more times you have probably been manipulated because every option or choice has always been arranged by someone else and for their benefit, not yours. We saw the difference between a 12% and a 99.98% organ donation number simply by changing the wording and the default version of whether or not you should opt in or opt

一直到捐献器官。之后，我们谈到了摩擦。现在，如果你在食堂把一碗豌豆往远处挪10英寸，让人拿起来不方便，豌豆的食用量就会下降13%。你生活中有哪些事情也可以这样做？也就是说，如果你想多做某件事，就让它变得更容易；如果你想少做某件事，就让它变得更困难。out to having your organs donated. Afterwards, we talked friction. Now, if you move a bowl of peas 10 inches further away in a cafeteria and make it uncomfortable to grab, consumption of those peas drops 13%. What areas of your life can you do the same thing to? In that way, if you want to do more of a thing, make it easier. And if you want to do less of a thing, make it harder.

之后，我们花了很长时间讨论硬件、睡眠障碍、锻炼、营养等等。综合起来，最终效果是，你清晰思考和做出良好决策的能力提升了约150%到200%。Afterwards, we spent a long time on hardware, sleep disorders, exercise, nutrition, etc. The end result of this, if you stack them all, was around 150 to 200% improvement to your ability to think clearly and make good decisions.

硬件部分结束后，我们转向软件，我讲解了期望值，也就是把某个选择的所有结果分别乘以其概率，再将这些乘积相加。接着我们讲了幂律，它相当于 x = y 的 n 次方。这样记起来有点难。换句话说，你们的大部分输出都来自一两个输入。我希望你们记住那张指数图，其中……Once we were done with hardware, we moved to software where I ran through expected value, which was simply the expected value equaling the sum of all of a choices outcomes times probabilities. We then covered power laws, which were equivalent to x= y raised to the n. That's kind of a hard way to remember it. So, put another way, most of your outputs come from one or two inputs. I'd like you guys to remember that exponential graph where

图表的起始部分非常高，随后平滑地逐渐下降。之后，我们学习了链式法则，它与幂律相反：一个过程的强度取决于它最薄弱的一环。接着，我们讲了局部最大值和全局最大值。要到达更高的峰值，通常得先穿过一个较低的山谷。然后，我们讲了有意残留，也就是通过使用笔记、续接笔记，尽量减少切换上下文后残留下来的内容。the beginning of the graph was very tall and then it smoothly gradiated down. After that, we learned about the chain law, which was the inverse of the power law, where processes are only as strong as their weakest link. Then we covered local and global maxima. If you want to reach higher peaks, you usually have to cross a lower valley. Then we covered intentional residue, which was a way to use notes, resume notes to minimize how much residue sticks after you context

从任务 A 切换到任务 B。接着我们讲了意志薄弱，也就是明明知道自己应该做某件事，却没有去做。之后的内容基本上都是一些“软件升级”，能帮你降低自己感受到的渴望程度。所以，整门课程里我最喜欢的理念是“地图与疆域”。switch from task A to task B. Then we covered accasia, which was knowing while not doing the thing that you know that you should. And everything after this was essentially software upgrades that help you minimize the degree of a cra you feel. So my favorite idea in the whole course is map versus territory.

现在，地图是对更广阔世界有用的压缩版本，而这正是它们有用的原因。地图虽经过压缩，但地图并不等于疆域，记住这一点对你很有价值。接着，我们讨论了尤利西斯（奥德修斯）契约：在头脑清醒时做出决定，这样等到你头脑不再清醒时，就会遵从早先那个自己的决定。这也让你能够把后果与不当行为挂钩，比如Now maps are useful compressed versions of the wider world and that's exactly why they're useful. They're compressed but a map is not the territory and it is valuable for you to remember that. Then we covered Ulyses or Adysius contracts which were making decisions while still in a clear state of mind such that later on when you're not in a clear state of mind, you would defer to the earlier version of you. This also allows you to tie consequences to poor actions like

向你不喜欢的竞争对手或慈善机构捐款。我们讲完乌利斯的合同后，就转到了机会成本这一主题，你在这里了解到，价格和成本其实是两回事。某样东西的总成本不仅仅是你支付的价格。donating money to competitors or charities you dislike. Once we finished at Ulys's contracts, we moved on to opportunity cost, which is where you learned that price and cost are actually two different things. The total cost of something isn't just the price you pay.

它还等于这段时间乘以你本可以利用这段时间做的事情。接着我们了解了古德哈特定律：当一个指标变成目标时，它就不再是一个指标。我们还学了如何扭转这一点：将另一个指标与它挂钩，并追踪它是上升还是下降。在这种情况下，可以想想速度与准确性。比如单位时间内关闭的工单数与单位时间内重新开启的工单数，等等。接着我们讲了切斯特顿围栏原则，它……It is also the time multiplied by what you could be doing with that time. Then we learned about Goodart's law where when a measure becomes the target, it stops being a measure. We also learned how to reverse it by tying an additional measure to it and tracking if it goes up or down. In this case, think, you know, speed versus accuracy. Think tickets closed per unit time versus tickets reopened over unit time and so on. We then covered Chesterton's fence, which

这是一种观点：在拆解某件事之前，你必须先理解它。接着是 B 定理，它是一种个人的……is the idea where you must understand a thing before you tear it down. Then B theorem which is a personal

课程讨论：第十部分Course Discussion: Part Ten

贝叶斯因子：你不再问“这是真的吗？是还是不是？”，而是转而问：“如果 X 为真，这条证据出现的可能性比 X 为假时高多少？”之后，我们讲了费米估算的三个要点：拆解、估算和相乘。接着是你的时薪和外包规则。我们还谈到了边际价值，也就是你可以把时间用来做的最有价值的事情；以及平均价值，也就是你通常会把时间花在什么事情上，还有……favorite where you stop asking is this true yes or no and you instead ask how much more likely is this evidence if X is true versus if X is false. After that we covered firmy approximates the three tenants of which are decompose, estimate and multiply. Then your hourly rate and the offload rule. We talked about marginal which was the best thing you could be doing with your time and then average which is the usual thing you spend your time on as well as

监督成本是大多数委派中隐藏的机会成本。我们讨论过规划谬误乘数减去 1.5 倍。supervision costs which are the hidden opportunity cost in most delegation. We covered the planning fallacy multiplier minus 1.5x.

最后，我们讨论了探索与利用，以及如何根据人生不同阶段的特点，最优地安排探索与利用的行为。Finally, we covered explore versus exploit and the optimal way to structure your explore versus exploit behavior according to the seasons of your life.

如果大家还记得，时间跨度较长时，你应该先积极探索，之后再开始积极利用，直到利用过程耗尽最初的资源。最后，我们谈谈可以立即付诸行动的技巧：触发—行动计划，也就是提前把一个决定转化成“如果……那么……”的规则，然后等待相应的提示。我们还谈到了留意自己何时感到困惑。If you guys remember, if you have a long time horizon, you should explore first aggressively and then later start exploiting aggressively until your exploitation results in the initial resource being depleted. Finally, we're talking immediately actionable techniques. Taps or trigger action principles where when you ahead of time turn a decision into an if then and then wait for the queue. We talked noticing where you catch your own confusion,

识别让你退缩的念头或“应该”式表达，并借此提升生活。它和被动收入的概念非常相似。我们还介绍了事前复盘，而不是事后复盘：通过故事来找出可能失败的情况。接着，我们聊了决心周期——一种简单的五分钟计时方法，能够减少意志薄弱的问题。flinch or should statements and use that to level up your life. Very similar to passive income. We also covered premortems rather than post-mortems, which is where you use stories to find failure cases. Then we chatted resolve cycles, which are simple 5-minute timer approaches that minimize your accrasia.

最后，我们还讲了如何使用 AI，同时不让它奉承你，也不让它替你做决定。现在，是时候好好思考了。希望你们和我一样，享受这段旅程。And at the end, we covered how to use AI without letting it flatter you or make your decisions for you. So, it is now time to think. I hope you guys have enjoyed this journey as much as I have.

你会发现，思考确实是一项可以学会的技能，而且它能在很多方面改善你的生活，其程度可能超乎你的想象。在我看来，思考并不在于把想法写在纸上时看起来有多工整，也不在于你如何哄着 AI 替你做事。You'll find that thinking is a skill that you can indeed learn, and it is a skill that will improve your life in many ways that you probably can't imagine. In my view, thinking is not about how neat or tidy your thoughts look when written down on paper. It is not about, you know, how you can cajul an AI into doing something for you.

思考关乎思想所带来的结果。归根结底，你在这方面的收获会呈指数级增长。人生的每个季度，你都会面临数百个影响未来的决定：比如该接手什么项目、该拒绝什么、该下多大的赌注，以及何时该退出。每当你因为思路更清晰而做出一个稍好一些的决定，你的决策能力实际上就会得到提升。Thinking is about the outcomes that your thoughts produce. And ultimately, your gains here are exponential. Every quarter of your life, you will face hundreds of decisions that shape your future, like what project should you take on, what should you say no to, how big of a bet should you place, when should you quit. Every time that you make a slightly better decision because of the clarity of your thought, it will actually improve your ability to make

下一个决定。因此，你与那个更加模糊、尚未成形的自己之间的差距并非线性增长，而是呈指数级增长。很高兴你们能坚持到这里。继续思考。祝你们今天接下来的时光愉快。the next decision. And so the gap between you and then a less defined version of yourself does not grow linearly, but exponentially. I'm very glad you guys made it this far. Keep on thinking. Have a lovely rest of the day.