Reid Hoffman on Systems, Levers, and Quixotic Quests (Ep. 85)
We’re here today with Reid Hoffman, and I’d like to start, more or less, at the beginning.
今天我们和里德·霍夫曼一起来到这里，我想或多或少地从头开始。
On your Wikipedia page, it says that you “drove oxen in high school.” What does this mean?
在你的维基百科页面上，它说你“在高中时赶过牛”。这意味着什么？
Well, what it means is, I went to this great high school in Vermont called the Putney School.
嗯，这意味着，我去了佛蒙特州一所很棒的高中，名叫普特尼学校。
Part of the reason I selected it is because of its belief in the diversity of a human being.
我选择它的部分原因是因为它相信人类的多样性。
Not only are we intellectuals and thinkers, and you have to learn how to think and how to study and how to write and how to speak and how to do math and all the rest of it, but you also learn other aspects.
我们不仅是知识分子和思想家，你必须学习如何思考、如何学习、如何写作、如何说话、如何做数学等等，而且你还要学习其他方面。
You do art and blacksmithing and work, and part of the work is it’s on a farm, and so some maple syrup farming, some shoveling of cow manure, and some driving of oxen.
你从事艺术、铁匠和工作，其中一部分工作是在农场进行的，所以有些枫糖浆种植，一些铲牛粪，还有一些赶牛。
And are you good at driving oxen?
你擅长赶牛吗？
I’m terrible.
我非常糟糕。
What’s the skill required for driving oxen?
赶牛需要什么技巧？
Partner with someone else who knows what they’re doing.
与知道自己在做什么的其他人合作。
And that’s a school after the John Dewey model, correct?
那是一所效仿约翰·杜威模式的学校，对吗？
Yes.
是的。
So if I think of your subsequent work and ideas of civil society, plurality, democracy — does it all come from your time in high school?
所以，如果我想到你后来的作品以及关于公民社会、多元化、民主的想法——这一切都来自你高中时期吗？
Probably it is well informed by that, but not foundational.
也许它对此有充分的了解，但不是基础性的。
I would say that probably the way that I tend to have grown thinking in networks and thinking of evolution, of incentives and cultures, probably didn’t come from Putney.
我想说，我对网络的思考以及对进化、激励和文化的思考可能不是来自普特尼。
But the diversity of human experience, of thinking of human beings as complicated entities that have lots of different kinds of expression and lots of different motives, probably did come from childhood and most especially boarding school at Putney.
但人类经验的多样性，以及将人类视为复杂的实体，有许多不同种类的表达和许多不同动机的想法，可能确实来自童年，尤其是普特尼的寄宿学校。
And where did it come from in childhood, then, if not from Putney?
那么，如果不是普特尼的话，它又是从童年时哪里来的呢？
The nature-nurture question, which is always some blend of both because we always have these false dichotomies — nature or nurture — and it’s always, actually, how do they combine?
先天与后天的问题，总是两者的混合，因为我们总是有这些错误的二分法——先天还是后天——而且实际上，它们总是如何结合起来？
I would say that it’s probably the fact that both of my parents are lawyers, and when I would want to articulate a desire for something, I’d have to make a case.
我想说，这可能是因为我的父母都是律师，当我想要表达对某件事的渴望时，我必须提出理由。
And as I was thinking about the society as I found it, I would think about how people are different and what kinds of ways you would need to argue to get what you want.
当我思考我所发现的社会时，我会思考人们有何不同，以及你需要通过哪些方式进行争论才能得到你想要的东西。
Then my dad, when I was, I guess, in ninth grade — no, no, earlier than that — when I was nine years old, hired a babysitter who would entertain me by playing Dungeons & Dragons.
然后，我猜，当我九年级的时候——不，不，更早——当我九岁的时候，我爸爸雇了一个保姆，他会通过玩龙与地下城来娱乐我。
Dungeons & Dragons made me start thinking about life as a heroic quest in which you had a number of different players, all of whom are coming together in order to accomplish something.
《龙与地下城》让我开始将生活视为一场英雄任务，其中有许多不同的玩家，他们所有人都聚集在一起以完成某件事。
What is the early influence on your thought that you feel you have and other major figures in Silicon Valley maybe don’t?
您认为自己有而硅谷其他主要人物可能没有的早期对您思想的影响是什么？
Because a lot of people have played board games growing up, right?
因为很多人从小就玩桌游，对吧？
A lot have read early science fiction.
很多人都读过早期的科幻小说。
But you’re different.
但你不一样。
Is there more New England in you?
你身上有更多的新英格兰气息吗？
Or what’s the missing variable?
或者说缺少什么变量？
Well, it might be that the missing variable is that I deeply value intellectual work and public intellectual work, that I found —
好吧，可能缺少的变量是我深深重视智力工作和公共智力工作，我发现——
But that’s not fundamental, right?
但这不是根本，对吧？
What’s the temperamental variable, the personality variable, the thing that happened to you when you were nine that, say, makes you so different from Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and others?
是什么气质变量、性格变量、或者你九岁时发生的事情让你与彼得·蒂尔、埃隆·马斯克和其他人如此不同？
Huh, that’s interesting.
呵呵，这很有趣。
I guess it may be the question of how you respond to different circumstances.
我想这可能是你如何应对不同情况的问题。
Peter grew up in his high school at Foster City.
彼得在福斯特城的高中长大。
I, pre–high school, was in Berkeley.
我，高中前学生，在伯克利。
They’re not that far apart from each other.
他们彼此相距并不远。
But I guess what I would say is that, when I encountered and saw suffering of people around me, and that would range anything from — my mom was one of the first women through law school at Cal and joined Wilson Sonsini.
但我想我想说的是，当我遇到并看到周围人的痛苦时，这可能是——我的妈妈是第一批在加州法学院毕业的女性之一，并加入了威尔逊·桑西尼。
Partners then were making jokes about “Now they’re letting the secretaries become lawyers,” and so forth.
合伙人当时开玩笑说“现在他们让秘书变成律师”等等。
Seeing what impact it would have, my reaction was, how do we reformulate society to be on trend to less suffering and to more evolution of who we would be?
看到它会产生什么影响，我的反应是，我们如何重新构建社会，以减少痛苦并进一步进化我们的身份？
I don’t know if it was a particular experience of it that was like this one catalytic moment, this moment of epiphany, other than that was the way that I was reacting to a set of things that I was seeing.
我不知道这是否是一种特殊的经历，就像这个催化时刻、顿悟时刻，除此之外，这就是我对所看到的一系列事物的反应方式。
If we think of Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, they could arguably, by the standards of many people, be called weird.
如果我们想到彼得·蒂尔和埃隆·马斯克，按照很多人的标准，他们可以说是怪异的。
I’ve reviewed all the books you’ve written and a lot of your public talks.
我审阅了您写的所有书籍以及您的很多公开演讲。
I can’t recall you saying a single thing that’s outrageous in any way whatsoever.
我不记得你说过任何令人愤慨的话。
Why aren’t you weirder?
你为什么不更奇怪？
Maybe I mask it better.
也许我掩盖得更好。
That’s my Straussian element, that I hide my weirdness.
这就是我的施特劳斯元素，我隐藏了自己的怪异。
I would say that a little bit of it comes down to a theory about what is the right way of evolving discourse.
我想说，其中一点可以归结为关于什么是发展话语的正确方式的理论。
I think I probably do have a variety of views that people would think is weird.
我想我可能确实有很多人们认为很奇怪的观点。
I, for example, think of myself as a mystical atheist, which is neither the full atheist category nor any religious category, but some blend in the middle.
例如，我认为自己是一个神秘的无神论者，这既不是完整的无神论类别，也不是任何宗教类别，而是介于两者之间。
Or the fact that I actually think that the notion of capitalism is one of the world’s leading interesting technologies, but it’s not a particularly good philosophy, and you’d think that’s odd for an entrepreneur or an investor, and so forth.
或者事实上，我实际上认为资本主义的概念是世界上领先的有趣技术之一，但这并不是一个特别好的哲学，你会认为这对于企业家或投资者来说很奇怪，等等。
So I have areas where I would say groups of people would think I’m weird.
所以我会说有些地方人们会认为我很奇怪。
I may not highlight it because I tend to always speak in a way to, how do I think I help us make the most progress?
我可能不会强调这一点，因为我总是倾向于这样说：我认为我如何帮助我们取得最大进展？
And I would only say the weird things if I thought that was the thing that would result from that.
如果我认为这就是由此产生的结果，我只会说奇怪的事情。
So there are weird things that are in your mind?
那么你脑子里有一些奇怪的事情吗？
Yes, yeah.
是的，是的。
If I view your work as a complete outsider, I think of you as a living embodiment of John Dewey, and you went to a John Dewey–inspired school.
如果我以一个完全的局外人的身份来看待你的作品，我就会认为你是约翰·杜威的活生生的化身，而你就读于一所受约翰·杜威启发的学校。
So social communication is a critical idea, a big emphasis on a certain kind of communitarian experience of democracy, pragmatism, thinking in terms of large-scale systems.
因此，社会传播是一种批判性的思想，非常强调某种民主、实用主义、大规模系统思维的社群主义经验。
Yet you don’t cite Dewey much.
然而你并没有太多引用杜威。
There’s Wittgenstein.
有维特根斯坦。
Aristotle you talk about in your philosophical background.
你在哲学背景中谈论亚里士多德。
My take on you — what is it getting wrong?
我对你的看法——哪里出了问题？
What am I missing?
我缺少什么？
It’s funny, I tend to be outward bound in my changes in the system, so these are great questions to get me to try to reflect on my interface point to it.
有趣的是，我倾向于在系统中进行更改，因此这些都是很好的问题，可以让我尝试反思我的界面指向它。
I guess what I would say is that I tend to think in terms of systems — Dewey was a system thinker — but then I tend to think in terms of Archimedean levers, by which you change the systems.
我想我想说的是，我倾向于从系统的角度思考——杜威是一个系统思考者——但我倾向于从阿基米德杠杆的角度思考，通过它你可以改变系统。
And I tend to think that there’s a number of different types of Archimedean levers.
我倾向于认为阿基米德杠杆有多种不同类型。
It can range from ideas or memes.
它的范围可以是想法或模因。
It can range from incentives or culture, and it can range from leaders building organizations or institutions or reforming or renovating those institutions.
它可以包括激励措施或文化，也可以包括领导者建立组织或机构或改革或革新这些机构。
And I tend to think that you should play a toolset across the whole thing.
我倾向于认为你应该在整个事情上使用一个工具集。
Now, to some degree, Dewey is a classic pragmatist, and there’s that pragmatism that is definitely one of the things that I, as part of the institution and institution-building, think is super important.
现在，在某种程度上，杜威是一位典型的实用主义者，而这种实用主义绝对是我作为制度和制度建设的一部分认为非常重要的事情之一。
But I also value that intellectual work, in terms of just the ideas, and including far-out philosophy.
但我也重视智力工作，就思想而言，包括遥远的哲学。
The audio class that I’m listening to right now is science fiction as philosophy, as a re-lens onto everything.
我现在正在听的音频课是科幻小说作为哲学，作为对一切事物的重新审视。
And just those pure ideas, the bold ideas which may be always incorrect, are still important to be part of the mix.
那些纯粹的想法、大胆的想法可能总是不正确的，但作为混合的一部分仍然很重要。
Early in your life, what was the science fiction that resonated with you most, and why?
在您生命的早期，哪部科幻小说最能引起您的共鸣，为什么？
Early in my life?
在我生命的早期？
That answer may be not that interesting.
这个答案可能没那么有趣。
I mean, it may —
我的意思是，它可能——
Oh, it’s definitely going to be interesting.
哦，这肯定会很有趣。
I would say Dune with Frank Herbert because of thinking of the broad scale of the interplay of politics and religion in the evolution of society, because science fiction is, by making these artificial future societies, a lens onto our own.
我会和弗兰克·赫伯特一起说《沙丘》，因为我思考了社会进化中政治和宗教相互作用的广泛范围，因为科幻小说通过创造这些人造的未来社会，成为我们自己的镜头。
I would say Isaac Asimov’s question around psychohistory in the Foundation series.
我会说艾萨克·阿西莫夫在《基础》系列中关于心理史学的问题。
And then things where you start thinking about Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and also Stranger in a Strange Land.
然后你开始思考海因莱因、《严厉的月亮》和《异乡的陌生人》。
Those were probably the early ones.
这些可能是早期的。
And then Ender’s Game was probably towards the end of the arc of my childhood science fiction.
然后《安德的游戏》可能就快到我童年科幻小说的结尾了。
And that reflects the empathy emphasis?
这反映了同理心的强调吗？
Yes.
是的。
And what is it that really bugged you in science fiction, or you disliked or you rejected?
科幻小说中真正让你烦恼、不喜欢或拒绝的是什么？
It’s always a good window into what people really think.
它始终是了解人们真实想法的一个很好的窗口。
Yes.
是的。
I would say that usually science fiction is too simplistic in its theories of human nature, that the characters are, to some degree, too uni-dimensional.
我想说的是，科幻小说的人性理论通常过于简单化，人物在某种程度上过于单一维度。
And this bugged you as a 12-year-old?
作为一个 12 岁的孩子，这让你烦恼吗？
Oh, absolutely.
哦，绝对是。
Yes.
是的。
The question is that the motives are a complication.
问题是动机很复杂。
For example, people say we’ll be egoful or egoless, and it’s actually a spectrum.
例如，人们说我们会变得自私或无私，这实际上是一个范围。
The way that our egos are shaped and they get expressed is a set of triggers and desires and narratives that we’re telling ourselves about the story that we’re living and what we’re doing in the world.
我们的自我形成和表达的方式是一系列的触发因素、欲望和叙述，我们告诉自己我们正在生活的故事和我们在世界上所做的事情。
And that’s not one simple bit.
这不是一件简单的事情。
A lot of the — especially Isaac Asimov, who has a bunch of interesting theories — the characters all tend to be these enormously cardboard cutouts.
很多——尤其是艾萨克·阿西莫夫（Isaac Asimov），他有很多有趣的理论——角色都往往是这些巨大的纸板剪纸。
On Avalon Hill board games
阿瓦隆山棋盘游戏
Avalon Hill board games.
阿瓦隆山棋盘游戏。
How good were you at them?
你在这些方面表现如何？
I think you know the answer to this question, which is, I don’t recall losing one.
我想你知道这个问题的答案，那就是，我不记得丢失过一个。
And which of your qualities are responsible for your being so good at Avalon Hill board games?
您的哪些品质让您如此擅长 Avalon Hill 棋盘游戏？
I think what I did is, I learned at an early age what counts as a strategy, how tactics relate to a strategy, and what counts as a differential strategy when you are in a conflict with another person.
我认为我所做的是，我在很小的时候就知道了什么是战略，战术如何与战略相关，以及当你与另一个人发生冲突时什么是差异化战略。
I was never as good as a number of people at chess and so forth.
在国际象棋等方面，我从来没有像很多人那么好。
Those games always struck me as inaccurate to real world because they didn’t have a gap between epistemology and metaphysics.
这些游戏总是让我觉得与现实世界不准确，因为它们在认识论和形而上学之间没有差距。
They didn’t have the uncertainty, the fog of war.
他们没有不确定性，没有战争迷雾。
They didn’t have randomness elements to them, a bunch of things that are actually in fact very present in life.
他们没有随机性元素，这些东西实际上在生活中非常存在。
Whereas Avalon Hill games — you had to have plans B.
而阿瓦隆山比赛——你必须有 B 计划。
You had to have — if the die roll went against you, what else would you do?
你必须——如果骰子对你不利，你还能做什么？
What was your fallback plan for what you’re doing?
对于你正在做的事情，你的后备计划是什么？
You had to have a model of how the other person was thinking about it, and you had to be thinking about what are the ways that you might see things coming together in ways that the other person wouldn’t, within this fog of war and fog of uncertainty.
你必须有一个关于对方如何思考的模型，并且你必须思考在战争迷雾和不确定性迷雾中，你可能会以哪些方式看到事情以对方不会的方式结合在一起。
My favorite Avalon Hill game was Blitzkrieg.
我最喜欢的阿瓦隆山游戏是闪电战。
Have you ever played it?
你玩过吗？
I don’t think I’ve played Blitzkrieg.
我想我没玩过闪电战。
I played Tactics II a lot, but also a bunch of the other theater war ones, like North Africa and the other ones.
我玩了很多《战术二》，但也玩了很多其他战区战争游戏，比如北非和其他战争游戏。
Is speed of conquest important in Tactics II?
在《战术 II》中，征服速度重要吗？
Yes.
是的。
So it’s like blitzscaling, but early on, the early-on version?
所以这就像闪电式扩张，但是是早期的，早期的版本？
What kind of board game would you invent?
你会发明什么样的棋盘游戏？
Although, by the way, to go back to that, the choices — and I’m sure we’ll get to this blitzscaling — is when to move fast and when not to move fast.
顺便说一句，回到这个话题，选择——我相信我们会进行闪电式扩张——是何时快速行动，何时不快速行动。
It’s not always move fast, but be capable of moving super fast when you need to.
它并不总是移动得很快，但能够在需要时移动得超快。
But unlike in tech, it doesn’t depend on whether or not you have a network good.
但与科技领域不同的是，它并不取决于你是否拥有良好的网络。
It depends on something else.
这取决于其他事情。
Yes, there’s a competition, a bunch of other things.
是的，有竞争，还有很多其他事情。
Now, if I were to invent a board game .
现在，如果我要发明一种棋盘游戏。
.
。
.
。
Actually, I’m going to give you three board games because I think all three will be interesting.
事实上，我会给你们三个棋盘游戏，因为我认为这三个游戏都会很有趣。
One would be a political economy game of creation of companies, partially because I actually think teaching the skills of entrepreneurship is important for how do we make progress in society, how do we solve the future of middle-class jobs, et cetera.
其中一个是创建公司的政治经济游戏，部分原因是我实际上认为教授创业技能对于我们如何在社会中取得进步、如何解决中产阶级就业的未来等非常重要。
The second is what would Life 2.0 be as a game?
第二个问题是《Life 2.0》作为一款游戏会是什么样？
You go back to the old Milton Bradley Game of Life 1.0.
你回到了旧的 Milton Bradley 生命游戏 1.0。
Of course, I know it well.
当然，我很了解。
Yes, and then, how do we choose a life now, and what would be a board game about choosing that life, and how would that be essentially refactored?
是的，那么，我们现在如何选择一种生活，关于选择这种生活的棋盘游戏是什么，以及如何从本质上重构它？
And then the third would be probably a game of .
然后第三个可能是一场游戏。
.
。
.
。
think of it as the future of humanity.
将其视为人类的未来。
As human beings are evolving, who would we choose to be?
当人类不断进化时，我们会选择成为谁？
You’d almost think of it like a World of Warcraft game, but as opposed to pure fantasy, it’s that evolution of the human condition.
你几乎会把它想象成魔兽世界游戏，但与纯粹的幻想相反，它是人类状况的进化。
Are you actually going to create these games?
您真的要制作这些游戏吗？
I’ve thought about all three of them, which is the reason why —
我考虑过这三个问题，这就是为什么——
Is that a yes or a no?
这是是还是否？
Probably.
大概。
Probably?
大概？
Yes.
是的。
And how actively will you be involved in that creation?
您将如何积极地参与这项创作？
If so, it’s a question of time and prioritization.
如果是这样，那就是时间和优先顺序的问题。
On philosophy
论哲学
Now, you have a master’s degree in philosophy from Oxford, and there you won the Matthew Arnold Prize.
现在，您获得了牛津大学的哲学硕士学位，并获得了马修·阿诺德奖。
What did you win it for?
你凭什么赢得了它？
Actually, I now know this wonderful Oxford expression called proxime accessit, which is, I would have won it except there was one better essay than mine.
事实上，我现在知道了牛津这个美妙的表达方式，叫做“proxime accessit”，也就是说，如果没有一篇比我更好的论文，我就会赢得它。
So it was an award, but it was a proxime accessit award.
所以这是一个奖项，但它是一个近似的奖项。
It was writing an essay on Matthew Arnold’s relevance to modern society.
当时正在写一篇关于马修·阿诺德与现代社会的相关性的文章。
Why was the other essay better than yours?
为什么另一篇文章比你的好？
I don’t know.
我不知道。
I never saw it.
我从来没有见过它。
They didn’t send it to me.
他们没有寄给我。
What do you think of Matthew Arnold today?
您今天对马修·阿诺德有何看法？
Wow, that’s a question that I have not encountered since 1991.
哇，这是我自 1991 年以来从未遇到过的问题。
Is he too elitist?
他是不是太精英主义了？
No.
不。
Pretended to be a radical but was a fusty old white guy?
假装是一个激进分子，但实际上是一个陈旧的白人老家伙？
How do we process him now?
现在我们该如何处理他？
No, no, no. There’s a problem with elites, where essentially incompetent people try to lock in their own position, prestige, and power, and that critique of elitism is a critique that I’m sympathetic to.
不，不，不。精英存在一个问题，本质上无能的人试图锁定自己的地位、威望和权力，而对精英主义的批评是我同情的批评。
But the maximum expression of human potential, from wherever it comes from within human society, is something I think is super important.
但我认为，无论来自人类社会的哪个角落，人类潜力的最大限度表达都是非常重要的。
And the valuing of being extraordinary in a number of different ways, including intellectual and a bunch of others, is, I think, super important.
我认为，以多种不同方式（包括智力和其他方式）来评价卓越是非常重要的。
And I think Matthew Arnold’s values of those sorts were very good.
我认为马修·阿诺德的这类价值观非常好。
I think the primary thing that I was writing about in that essay was that one can articulate very good conservative values that are not trying to lock in the past against the future, but trying to articulate principles that help guide you in your own evolution of thinking about concepts like liberty and others.
我认为我在那篇文章中写的主要内容是，人们可以阐明非常好的保守派价值观，这些价值观不是试图锁定过去以对抗未来，而是试图阐明一些原则，帮助指导你自己思考自由和其他概念的演变。
To whom do you give greater credit, Socrates or Plato?
你更相信苏格拉底和柏拉图谁？
Aristotle.
亚里士多德。
Why Aristotle?
为什么是亚里士多德？
Well, Socrates, as you know, we basically only know through the writings of a number of his students.
好吧，苏格拉底，如你所知，我们基本上只能通过他的一些学生的著作来了解。
I found that Aristotle’s intersection of studying the world and thinking was a much better form of philosophy.
我发现亚里士多德研究世界和思考的交叉点是一种更好的哲学形式。
This may get back to your Dewey observation earlier, that says actually, in fact, philosophy is not the thing that you sit in the cave doing, but something you do as you participate in society.
这可能回到你之前的杜威观察，事实上，哲学不是你坐在山洞里做的事情，而是你参与社会时做的事情。
You still want to have theories of human nature, theories of cognition, theories of how you formulate truthful or false theories of the world and theories of human nature.
你仍然想要人性理论、认知理论、如何构建真实或错误的世界理论以及人性理论。
One of the expressions I used when I was an undergraduate to describe the kind of philosophy I wanted to do is transcendental anthropology, which is, you’re looking at what humans are doing, but you’re applying Kantian analyses to it in order to derive good philosophy.
当我还是一名本科生时，我用来描述我想做的那种哲学的表达方式之一是先验人类学，也就是说，你正在研究人类在做什么，但你正在对其应用康德式分析，以便得出好的哲学。
How did your interest in the late Wittgenstein influence the construction and design of LinkedIn?
您对已故维特根斯坦的兴趣如何影响 LinkedIn 的构建和设计？
I’m sure they ask you this all the time in interviews.
我确信他们在采访中总是问你这个问题。
All the time.
一直以来。
The question I’ve always been expecting.
我一直期待的问题。
I would say that the notion of thinking about — a central part of later Wittgenstein is to think that we play language games, that the way that we form identity and community, both of ourselves and as individuals, is the way that we discourse and the way that we see each other and the way that we elaborate language.
我想说，思考的概念——后来维特根斯坦的一个核心部分是认为我们在玩语言游戏，我们形成身份和社区的方式，无论是我们自己还是作为个人，都是我们话语的方式、我们看待彼此的方式以及我们阐述语言的方式。
That pattern of which ways we communicate with each other, what’s the channel we do, and what’s the environment that we’re in comes from insights from — including later Wittgenstein, who I think was one of the best modern philosophers in thinking about how language is core to the people that we are and that we become.
我们相互交流的方式、我们使用的渠道是什么以及我们所处的环境是什么，这些模式都来自于包括后来的维特根斯坦在内的见解，我认为他是思考语言如何成为我们现在和我们成为的人的核心的最佳现代哲学家之一。
What else from philosophy influenced the construction and design of LinkedIn?
还有哪些哲学因素影响了 LinkedIn 的构建和设计？
Well, a few things.
嗯，有几件事。
One is, philosophy allows you to articulate theses with clarity.
一是，哲学可以让你清晰地阐明论点。
One of the things that philosophy tries to do is say, “Well, what’s your actual argument?
哲学试图做的事情之一就是说：“那么，你的实际论点是什么？
What’s your actual theory?
你的实际理论是什么？
What’s your actual position?”
你的实际立场是什么？”
That actually ties into one of the things that I give advice to entrepreneurs and to myself, which is to write out your clearest set of investment theses about what it is you believe the world is and is becoming, what your strategy is at making it happen, and why you can have a rare or unique position in so doing.
这实际上与我给企业家和我自己的建议之一有关，那就是写出一套最清晰的投资论文，说明你认为世界现在和正在变成什么，你实现这一目标的策略是什么，以及为什么你可以在这样做时拥有罕见或独特的地位。
And then articulating theories around, for example, having a theory of human nature, so that if you say, “The reason why I think this product will succeed is because this is where humanity will go when these kinds of technologies and these kinds of products and services are made available to them within their cultures and within their incentives.”
然后围绕人性理论阐明理论，例如，如果你说，“我认为这个产品会成功的原因是，当这些技术、这些产品和服务在他们的文化和激励范围内向他们提供时，这就是人类将走向的方向。”
Do you think of the LinkedIn page itself as strictly functional, or is there an aesthetic principle behind it that comes, actually, from philosophy or the arts in some manner?
您是否认为 LinkedIn 页面本身具有严格的功能性，或者其背后是否存在实际上以某种方式来自哲学或艺术的美学原则？
Well, one of the things that I am still working towards with LinkedIn is the hope of what is the transformation of society that I would love to see LinkedIn become.
嗯，我仍在 LinkedIn 上努力实现的目标之一是希望社会能够实现什么样的转变，我希望看到 LinkedIn 变成什么样子。
For example, most people who encounter LinkedIn say it’s your public professional identity, and it’s a nice way of finding new business transactions, which might be a new job, might be starting a business, might be a business consulting opportunity, all of which is true.
例如，大多数遇到LinkedIn的人都会说这是你的公共职业身份，这是寻找新业务交易的好方法，这可能是一份新工作，可能是创办一家企业，可能是一个商业咨询机会，所有这些都是事实。
But what I’m actually hoping to do is have all of the business world move in the number of single-transaction games to thinking about their entire business life and relationship and work as multi-transaction games.
但我实际上希望做的是让所有商业世界从单交易游戏的数量转向考虑他们的整个商业生活和关系，并将其作为多交易游戏来工作。
Can we actually move within the game theoretic framework to saying, “Now my incentive is to always act, when I’m transacting or I’m doing business with other people, to think about it as a multi-transaction basis.” Because not only will I think that evolves a lot of productivity, but I think that will also evolve the society and morality in the right way because we should prefer non–zero-sum games.
我们实际上可以在博弈论框架内说：“现在，当我进行交易或与其他人做生意时，我的动机是始终采取行动，将其视为多交易的基础。”因为我认为这不仅会提高生产力，而且还会以正确的方式发展社会和道德，因为我们应该更喜欢非零和游戏。
But what I’m actually hoping to do is have all of the business world move in the number of single-transaction games to thinking about their entire business life and relationship and work as multi-transaction games.
但我实际上希望做的是让所有商业世界从单交易游戏的数量转向考虑他们的整个商业生活和关系，并将其作为多交易游戏来工作。
Can we actually move within the game theoretic framework to saying, “Now my incentive is to always act, when I’m transacting or I’m doing business with other people, to think about it as a multi-transaction basis.” Because not only will I think that evolves a lot of productivity, but I think that will also evolve the society and morality in the right way because we should prefer non–zero-sum games.
我们实际上可以在博弈论框架内说：“现在，当我进行交易或与其他人做生意时，我的动机是始终采取行动，将其视为多交易的基础。”因为我认为这不仅会提高生产力，而且还会以正确的方式发展社会和道德，因为我们应该更喜欢非零和游戏。
The labor market recovery from the financial crisis seems to have been especially slow.
劳动力市场从金融危机中的复苏似乎尤其缓慢。
We had a president, President Obama, whom you think highly of.
我们有一位总统，奥巴马总统，你对他评价很高。
We have all these social media, including LinkedIn, that ought to bring people together with the right jobs more quickly.
我们拥有所有这些社交媒体，包括 LinkedIn，它们应该能够更快地将人们聚集在一起，找到合适的工作。
And yet the labor market recovery has been so slow.
然而劳动力市场的复苏却如此缓慢。
Why is this?
这是为什么呢？
There’s two or three reasons.
有两三个原因。
One is, I think, unfortunately, while entrepreneurship is doing quite well in Silicon Valley and a few other places, it’s actually been on the decrease across the US.
我认为，不幸的是，其中之一是，虽然硅谷和其他一些地方的创业精神表现得相当不错，但实际上整个美国的创业精神都在下降。
We need to get back to the formulation of new firms, entrepreneurship across the entire country because that gives you adaptive places where people can go.
我们需要重新制定新公司、全国范围内的创业精神，因为这为人们提供了可以去的适应性场所。
Another thing is, it’s trite but true that educational systems that encourage what Ben Casnocha and I referred to in The Start-Up of You as being in permanent beta, which is always learning.
另一件事是，教育系统鼓励本·卡斯诺查（Ben Casnocha）和我在《你的初创企业》中提到的永久测试版（永远在学习），这虽然是老生常谈，但却是事实。
You need to be learning for the current modern networked age, and to be constantly learning, and make sure as many kids as possible learn that and keep learning because then you can adjust to the new jobs.
你需要为当前的现代网络时代而学习，并且不断学习，并确保尽可能多的孩子学习并继续学习，因为这样你就可以适应新的工作。
And some of that’s also creating entrepreneurship and new firms.
其中一些还创造了创业精神和新公司。
Those are, I think, among the reasons, and we try to help that with LinkedIn.
我认为这些都是原因之一，我们尝试通过 LinkedIn 来帮助实现这一目标。
But it’s a big rock, so the Archimedean lever needs to be particularly strong.
但它是一块大石头，所以阿基米德杠杆需要特别坚固。
What was the philosophy class at Stanford you met Peter Thiel in?
您在斯坦福大学的哪一堂哲学课上认识了彼得·泰尔？
“Mind, Matter, and Meeting” taught by Professor Bratman.
布拉特曼教授讲授“心灵、物质和会议”。
And are you a philosophical dualist?
你是一个哲学二元论者吗？
I know you’re a mystical atheist, but are mind and matter the same substance or are they different?
我知道你是一个神秘的无神论者，但是精神和物质是同一种物质还是不同的？
Was Descartes correct?
笛卡尔正确吗？
No, I am what Buddhists refer to as a non-dualist, which is kind of entertaining because you’d think you’d just say you’re like a monist or something, versus a non-dualist.
不，我就是佛教徒所说的非二元论者，这有点有趣，因为你会认为你只是说你是一元论者或其他什么，而不是非二元论者。
But I think the point of being subtle about saying a non-dualist is, you say, “Well, there may actually be some kind of spread of substances, but they’re not actually, in fact, disconnected.” So, if you said, “Well, maybe there’s a spiritual nature that involves some things that are not what we would refer to as the material plane,” then you say, “Well, I’m not sure we wouldn’t, as we studied that just to resolve that to materialism.” That could be one outcome, but you’re open minded to the question.
但我认为微妙地说非二元论者的要点是，你会说，“嗯，实际上可能存在某种物质的传播，但实际上它们并没有脱节。”所以，如果你说，“好吧，也许有一种精神本质涉及到一些我们所说的物质层面以外的东西”，那么你会说，“好吧，我不确定我们不会，因为我们研究它只是为了将其解决为唯物主义。”这可能是一种结果，但你对这个问题持开放态度。
I’m a determinist.
我是一个决定论者。
Are you?
你是？
How are you a determinist with quantum mechanics?
您如何成为量子力学的决定论者？
Quantum mechanics — maybe it’s just the micro scale, but Einsteinian general relativity implies the universe is this frozen four-dimensional block of space-time, and there it is.
量子力学——也许这只是微观尺度，但爱因斯坦广义相对论暗示宇宙是这个冻结的四维时空块，而且它就在那里。
Voila.
瞧。
What I would say is that we certainly don’t know enough to be certain that determinism is true.
我想说的是，我们当然还没有足够的知识来确定决定论是正确的。
That was part of the reason, the quantum mechanics question.
这是部分原因，量子力学问题。
And maybe this is actually one of the ways that I tend to think is how we evolve our culture.
也许这实际上是我倾向于认为的我们发展文化的方式之一。
One of my favorite handles when I join a new computer system is “Quixotic” because if it’s all determinism, maybe we should act as if it’s not, right?
当我加入一个新的计算机系统时，我最喜欢的手柄之一是“堂吉诃德”，因为如果这都是决定论，也许我们应该表现得好像它不是，对吧？
Even if it is.
即使是这样。
COWEN: Of course, that’s the Straussian take.
考恩：当然，这是施特劳斯派的观点。
Yes, right.
是的，没错。
But the question is, if we’re acting as if it’s not, do we have any possibility of creating a system in which it’s not all deterministic?
但问题是，如果我们表现得好像并非如此，我们是否有可能创建一个不完全是确定性的系统？
And should you remain optimistic about that?
你应该对此保持乐观吗？
Or is that just a version of self-deception?
或者这只是自欺欺人的一种版本？
And is this an area where self-deception is intelligent, where usually self-deception is thought not to be?
这是一个自欺欺人是聪明的领域，而通常自欺欺人被认为是不明智的吗？
I guess what I would say is, I am acting like it is not all determinism, but I don’t know if that’s actually the fact.
我想我想说的是，我表现得好像这并不全是决定论，但我不知道这是否是事实。
What did you think of Peter in that class?
你觉得彼得在那堂课上怎么样？
How was it?
它怎么样？
Peter’s super smart.
彼得超级聪明。
Matter of fact, I learned some of the crispness of my thinking through arguing and debating with him.
事实上，通过与他的争论和辩论，我学到了一些清晰的想法。
I think we enjoyed the class as a way of being precise about thinking about things, like is dualism correct or not, for example.
我认为我们喜欢这门课，因为它是一种精确思考事物的方式，例如二元论是否正确。
How do you and Peter read Shakespeare’s The Tempest differently?
你和彼得对莎士比亚的《暴风雨》的解读有何不同？
Oh, boy.
哦，男孩。
I think, roughly, our different readings of The Tempest would come down to the following.
我认为，粗略地说，我们对《暴风雨》的不同解读可以归结为以下几点。
I think that Peter’s reading of The Tempest would view the importance of the primacy of the individual, the importance of Prospero and the magician being self-creating, and that the individual is the primary focus of what matters.
我认为彼得对《暴风雨》的阅读会看到个人至上的重要性，普洛斯彼罗和魔术师自我创造的重要性，以及个人是重要事物的首要焦点。
My reading of The Tempest would say the individual potential and capability are super important, but that the reading of The Tempest is the importance of starting in this magical place, in this other island, but then rejoining society with the things you’ve learned.
我对《暴风雨》的阅读会说个人的潜力和能力非常重要，但对《暴风雨》的阅读更重要的是从另一个岛屿的这个神奇的地方开始，然后用你所学到的东西重新融入社会。
And your contribution to the society as an individual is the macro reading of The Tempest.
而你作为个人对社会的贡献就是对《暴风雨》的宏观阅读。
What else from Shakespeare strikes you as especially significant?
莎士比亚还有哪些作品让您觉得特别重要？
I think that the reason that Shakespeare endures tends to be less the comedies and more the tragedies.
我认为莎士比亚经久不衰的原因往往不是喜剧，而是悲剧。
And I think it’s because one of the things that we encounter as human beings — we see suffering and we see tragedy around us.
我认为这是因为我们作为人类遇到的事情之一——我们看到苦难，我们看到我们周围的悲剧。
How we respond to that is the great question of how we derive meaning, what is our character.
我们如何回应这一点是一个重大问题，即我们如何获得意义，我们的性格是什么。
Shakespeare has an enormously good job of crystallizing that into the relationship of individuals’ psychological tragedy together with social tragedy.
莎士比亚出色地将这一点具体化为个人心理悲剧与社会悲剧的关系。
What was it like, in 1996, being on William F.
1996 年，在 William F.
Buckley’s Firing Line?
巴克利的火线？
That was my very first appearance on television.
那是我第一次出现在电视上。
Peter called me and said, “They’re looking for a technologist who’s willing to defend that governments can and should regulate speech on the internet, and I said you.
彼得打电话给我说：“他们正在寻找一位愿意捍卫政府可以而且应该监管互联网言论的技术专家，我说的是你。
Would you be willing to do that?” I said yes, so I found myself on William F.
你愿意这么做吗？”我答应了，所以我发现自己在 William F.
Buckley’s side, him sitting to my left, Arianna Huffington sitting to my right.
巴克利坐在我的左边，阿里安娜·赫芬顿坐在我的右边。
This is when Ariana Huffington gave an impassioned speech — she’s awesome; I think the world of her — that the internet was a poisoned well that our children were drinking from.
这是阿丽亚娜·赫芬顿发表慷慨激昂的演讲的时候——她太棒了；她太棒了。我认为她的世界——互联网是一口有毒的井，我们的孩子们正在从里面喝水。
I remember that speech.
我记得那次演讲。
And the people I was arguing against were people that I deeply respect, like —
我反对的人是我深深尊敬的人，比如——
John Perry Barlow.
约翰·佩里·巴洛。
John Perry Barlow, Esther Dyson.
约翰·佩里·巴洛，埃丝特·戴森。
There were a number.
有一个数字。
The folks on the other side — during the break, they came over and said, “Why are you on that side?
另一边的人——在休息的时候，他们走过来说，“你为什么在那边？
You should be on our side.” And I said, “Look, by the very specific reading of this thing, which is, can and should regulate speech on the internet — that gives you truth in advertising.
你应该站在我们这边。”我说，“看，通过对这个事情的非常具体的解读，它可以而且应该规范互联网上的言论——这给了你广告的真相。
That gives you liability laws.
这给了你责任法。
That gives you a number of other things.”
这会给你带来很多其他的东西。”
It actually, in fact, is illusion.
事实上，这只是幻觉。
Freedom of speech is something that we enable as a society to help us evolve towards truth, but it doesn’t mean that any lie will do.
言论自由是我们作为一个社会所赋予的东西，可以帮助我们走向真理，但这并不意味着任何谎言都可以。
You come across as so idealistic in that tape.
在那盘录像带中你给人的印象是非常理想主义的。
If you view it again today, does that still feel like you, the same Reid Hoffman?
如果你今天再看一遍，你感觉还是那个里德·霍夫曼吗？
I would say yes, with maybe only the following asterisk, which is, part of the reason to be 10-out-of-10 idealistic is not to be naïve, not to be simplistic, not to realize that tragedy isn’t really possible, but that is actually, in fact, the goal of our lives and what we should work towards.
我会说是的，也许只有下面的星号，也就是说，十分之十的理想主义的部分原因不是天真，不是简单化，不是意识到悲剧实际上是不可能的，但这实际上是我们生活的目标，也是我们应该努力的目标。
So, ever giving up on optimism and idealism is, I think, a tragedy in and of itself.
因此，我认为，放弃乐观主义和理想主义本身就是一场悲剧。
On PayPal’s success
论 PayPal 的成功
Of all the causes behind the success of PayPal, what’s the underestimated one?
在 PayPal 成功背后的所有原因中，被低估的因素是什么？
Let’s see, of all the causes .
让我们看看所有的原因。
.
。
.
。
I’d say that most people didn’t realize that when PayPal got started, it actually wasn’t paying any attention to eBay.
我想说，大多数人没有意识到，当 PayPal 刚成立时，它实际上并没有关注 eBay。
It was launching this new payment service, and then it took off on eBay.
它推出了这项新的支付服务，然后在 eBay 上起飞。
In the first week, everyone was like, “Oh, we should get these eBay people off our system.” And then they realized, “Oh, these actually, in fact, are our customers.”
第一周，每个人都说，“哦，我们应该让这些 eBay 人员离开我们的系统。”然后他们意识到，“哦，这些实际上是我们的客户。”
The point about it is, most people describe the success of PayPal as deterministic, based on the high quality of the talent there, the recognition of a market need, the willingness to be fast moving and learning machines in terms of how to adjust within this decrepit banking system of payments and doing all those things.
关键是，大多数人将 PayPal 的成功描述为确定性的，基于那里的高素质人才、对市场需求的认识、快速发展的意愿以及如何在这个破旧的银行支付系统中进行调整和做所有这些事情的学习机器。
And those all look like just straight down-the-road strategy and the natural quick evolution of product-market fit.
这些看起来都像是直接的战略和产品市场契合度的自然快速演变。
And if eBay hadn’t existed, PayPal would have never succeeded.
如果 eBay 不存在，PayPal 就永远不会成功。
And what was your comparative strength on the PayPal team?
您在 PayPal 团队中的相对优势是什么？
I think that would be an interesting question to ask other people, including Peter.
我认为问其他人，包括彼得，这将是一个有趣的问题。
I would say that my comparative strength was that I was willing to interface with these various massive platforms and institutions — eBay, Visa, Mastercard, government regulation, other companies — and to figure out how to win PayPal a place within those platforms, how to navigate their concerns, how to not make PayPal be organ rejection to those entities.
我想说，我的相对优势在于，我愿意与这些不同的大型平台和机构——eBay、Visa、万事达卡、政府监管机构、其他公司——打交道，并弄清楚如何在这些平台中为 PayPal 赢得一席之地，如何消除他们的担忧，如何不让 PayPal 成为这些实体的器官排斥。
That ability to both tolerate very different cultures, very different mind views, very different conceptions of what’s going on, but also get PayPal a seat at the table, was probably one of my unique skills within the PayPal crew.
这种能力既能容忍截然不同的文化、截然不同的思维观点、对正在发生的事情的截然不同的概念，又能让 PayPal 在谈判桌上占有一席之地，这可能是我在 PayPal 团队中的独特技能之一。
And how did you learn to argue to the regulators that PayPal is not a bank?
您是如何学会向监管机构证明 PayPal 不是银行的？
I have money in my PayPal account.
我的 PayPal 账户里有钱。
It sure feels to me like a deposit, correct?
对我来说，这确实感觉就像存款，对吗？
Yep.
是的。
Arguably, there’s a kind of lending that goes on.
可以说，存在着一种借贷行为。
So if you’re taking deposits and making loans, et cetera, how did you argue PayPal is not a bank?
因此，如果您接受存款和发放贷款等，您如何辩称 PayPal 不是银行？
Well, we weren’t making loans, so that’s actually an important part of it.
嗯，我们没有发放贷款，所以这实际上是其中的重要组成部分。
They may be doing it now, but at the time, we weren’t making loans.
他们现在可能正在这样做，但当时我们还没有发放贷款。
Well, not formal loans, but there’s a transfer of money, and there’s —
嗯，不是正式贷款，但有资金转移，而且——
Well, we’re transferring money.
好吧，我们正在转账。
But for example, you could give me $100 in cash, or I can give you $100 in cash, and I’m making a loan, but the fact that we’re sitting here at the LinkedIn office doesn’t mean that LinkedIn is being a bank while we’re doing that.
但举例来说，你可以给我 100 美元现金，或者我可以给你 100 美元现金，我正在发放贷款，但我们坐在 LinkedIn 办公室的事实并不意味着我们这样做时 LinkedIn 就是一家银行。
The fact that you’re facilitating a transaction of money doesn’t necessarily make you doing a loan.
您促进金钱交易的事实并不一定意味着您会进行贷款。
The realization was going twofold with the regulators.
监管机构的认识是双重的。
One was that there’s a lot of things that store value.
一是有很多东西可以储存价值。
Back in the day, you had phone cards.
以前，你有电话卡。
You have gift cards.
你有礼品卡。
You have a number of different things that store value.
你有很多不同的东西可以储存价值。
You say, “Look, PayPal is another store of value.” But it’s not a store of value in the way that a bank is a store of value, e.g., making loans.
你说：“看，PayPal 是另一种价值储存手段。”但它并不是像银行那样的价值储存手段，例如发放贷款。
That’s in the intellectual category.
那属于智力范畴。
But the more deep one was, look, the concern of banking regulators is how do we protect the consumers, and how do we protect the system?
但更深层次的一点是，你看，银行监管机构关心的是我们如何保护消费者，我们如何保护系统？
We figured out how to actually, in fact, have pass-through FDIC insurance by putting our money in banks on behalf of the customers, which gave them FDIC insurance, which we’re protecting the system.
事实上，我们想出了如何通过代表客户将钱存入银行来真正获得 FDIC 保险，这为他们提供了 FDIC 保险，而我们正在保护系统。
We also presented our case to the FDIC, and then later to the regulators, about why we were value and accretive to the system versus destabilizing.
我们还向 FDIC 以及后来的监管机构介绍了我们的案例，说明为什么我们对系统有价值并具有增值作用，而不是破坏稳定。
Between those two things, we persuaded the regulators to wait and see, as opposed to intervening.
在这两件事之间，我们说服监管机构观望，而不是进行干预。
Regulators will never tell you, “Oh yeah, you’re totally fine.” But they will say, “Great.
监管机构永远不会告诉你，“哦，是的，你完全没问题。”但他们会说：“太好了。
We’ll study you.
我们会研究你。
Stay in contact with us, and as long as you don’t screw up, keep going.”
与我们保持联系，只要你不搞砸，就继续前进。”
Let me give you a version of the Peter Thiel question.
让我给你一个彼得泰尔问题的版本。
As your reference group, take the 10 people whose views you respect the most.
选择您最尊重观点的 10 个人作为您的参考群体。
Make it 20 if you need to, if you’re not sure who they are.
如果你不确定他们是谁，如果需要，可以将其设置为 20。
What is it you disagree with those people about?
你在哪些方面不同意这些人的观点？
Right.
正确的。
Oh, an easy one: A broad cultural meme within Silicon Valley is that the most important ways to change the world — which, this I don’t disagree with — is the creation of new technologies and new technological companies, as being the most effective Archimedean lever by which to improve the world, and everything else is decidedly secondary or tertiary because that’s the only lever that really matters.
哦，一个简单的：硅谷的一个广泛的文化模因是，改变世界的最重要的方式——我不同意这一点——是创造新技术和新技术公司，作为改善世界的最有效的阿基米德杠杆，而其他一切显然是第二或第三的，因为这是唯一真正重要的杠杆。
That’s a meme that tends to go to, “We create technology companies.
这是一个模因，往往是这样的：“我们创建科技公司。
We tell the rest of the world to go leave us alone, not to talk to us about what we’re doing.
我们告诉世界其他地方别打扰我们，而不是谈论我们正在做的事情。
We generally feel that we —”
我们普遍认为我们——”
And that you agree with, you’re saying?
你是说你同意吗？
Well, I agree that the technological companies are a very important Archimedean lever.
嗯，我同意科技公司是一个非常重要的阿基米德杠杆。
What I disagree with is that, as those levers become more important to society, I think that we can’t actually, in fact, say, “We should not be in discourse with society about what we’re doing.” Because actually, in fact, once you begin to have society-level impact, not just a, “Oh, look, here’s a new social game or something else, here is a new Zynga game that’s fun to play.”
我不同意的是，随着这些杠杆对社会变得越来越重要，我认为我们实际上不能说，“我们不应该与社会讨论我们正在做的事情。”因为事实上，一旦你开始产生社会层面的影响，而不仅仅是“哦，看，这是一款新的社交游戏或其他游戏，这是一款新的 Zynga 游戏，玩起来很有趣。”
Okay, who cares?
好吧，谁在乎呢？
I mean, it’s fun.
我的意思是，这很有趣。
Maybe hundreds of millions of people do it, but that doesn’t actually impact the way that society operates.
也许有数亿人这样做，但这实际上并没有影响社会的运作方式。
I agree that the technological companies are a very important Archimedean lever.
我同意科技公司是一个非常重要的阿基米德杠杆。
What I disagree with is that, as those levers become more important to society, I think that we can’t actually, in fact, say, “We should not be in discourse with society about what we’re doing.” Because actually, in fact, once you begin to have society-level impact, not just a, “Oh, look, here’s a new social game or something else, here is a new Zynga game that’s fun to play.”
我不同意的是，随着这些杠杆对社会变得越来越重要，我认为我们实际上不能说，“我们不应该与社会讨论我们正在做的事情。”因为事实上，一旦你开始产生社会层面的影响，而不仅仅是“哦，看，这是一款新的社交游戏或其他游戏，这是一款新的 Zynga 游戏，玩起来很有趣。”
The fact is, as we get to the way that society operates, we need to add in interaction with society, accountability on the design principles and the philosophy by which we are affecting society.
事实是，当我们了解社会运作方式时，我们需要增加与社会的互动、对设计原则的责任以及我们影响社会的哲学。
We have to integrate in ways by which society can give us feedback.
我们必须以社会能够向我们提供反馈的方式进行整合。
That doesn’t necessarily always mean direction.
这并不一定总是意味着方向。
Maybe sometimes there’s regulation or other things, but an ability to be in conversation with them.
也许有时有监管或其他事情，但有能力与他们对话。
If you look at it, my view would be that, as you have more successful tech companies that have an impact on society as a whole, part of what you should start doing is deliberately engaging in discourse with the various institutions of society in a public way, to say, “Here is the kinds of things that not only are we doing now, but what we’re trying to create in the future.”
如果你看一下它，我的观点是，随着你拥有更多对整个社会产生影响的成功科技公司，你应该开始做的一部分是有意识地以公开方式与社会各个机构进行对话，说：“这些事情不仅是我们现在正在做的，而且是我们未来试图创造的。”
If tech companies are such an important Archimedean point, why has productivity growth, and indeed GDP growth, been slower since the late 1990s?
如果科技公司是如此重要的阿基米德点，那么为什么自 20 世纪 90 年代末以来生产率增长乃至 GDP 增长都放缓了？
We’ve had a lot more tech, right?
我们拥有更多的技术，对吗？
Yes.
是的。
Where is it in the numbers?
它在数字的哪里？
My guess is my answers to you will strike you as the standard answers, but I’ll give them anyway, which is one of the problems of the GDP measure, as you know, is that it measures dollars flowing in the system, not in value flowing in the system.
我的猜测是，我给你的答案会让你觉得是标准答案，但无论如何我都会给出它们，正如你所知，这是 GDP 衡量标准的问题之一，它衡量的是系统中流动的美元，而不是系统中流动的价值。
But more and more tech is monetized.
但越来越多的技术被货币化。
There’s Amazon.
有亚马逊。
LinkedIn gets you a job.
LinkedIn 为您提供工作。
GPS — you deliver more pizzas, right?
GPS——你送的披萨更多了，对吧？
Well, there’s a bunch of those, but if you also say that part of the value of tech is taking a lot of flow of economics out of the system and providing you with goods that you otherwise would have had to pay for, but you now get for free — Wikipedia, entertainment, a bunch of other things that are flowing through the internet as examples of these, say.
嗯，有很多这样的东西，但如果你还说，科技的部分价值在于将大量的经济流量从系统中带走，并为你提供原本需要付费的商品，但你现在可以免费获得——例如维基百科、娱乐、以及通过互联网流动的许多其他东西，例如。
Those substantially increase education, substantially increase entertainment, substantially increase other kinds of things, but they take a bunch of dollars out of the system as they’re doing them.
这些大大增加了教育，大大增加了娱乐，大大增加了其他种类的事情，但他们在做这些事情时从系统中拿走了一大笔钱。
That would give you a net GDP that doesn’t look like it’s growing, even though there’s actually, in fact, more value happening for the same amount of dollars flowing in the system.
这会给你一个看起来并没有增长的净GDP，尽管事实上，系统中流动的相同数量的美元会产生更多的价值。
But if I can sit at home and read Wikipedia for free for fun, which indeed I do, that saves me money.
但如果我可以坐在家里免费阅读维基百科（我确实这么做了），那就可以省钱。
I don’t have to go out to the movies.
我不必出去看电影。
I should then be able to spend more money on apples, more on healthcare.
这样我就可以花更多的钱买苹果，花更多的钱在医疗保健上。
GDP growth should still be robust.
GDP 增长应该仍然强劲。
Well, actually, if you still have the same number of dollars that you’re spending, and the same number of dollars is flowing through the system, that would actually suggest to you that you’re still spending your money, and you’re spending it on different things.
好吧，实际上，如果你仍然有相同数量的美元，你正在花费，并且相同数量的美元流经系统，这实际上会告诉你，你仍然在花钱，而且你把钱花在了不同的事情上。
That wouldn’t necessarily give you GDP growth.
这不一定会带来 GDP 增长。
Why are businesses so bad at certifying talent?
为什么企业在人才认证方面如此糟糕？
You’ve written on this.
你已经写过这个了。
We have a highly wasteful system.
我们有一个非常浪费的系统。
They need to see you go through four years, six years, eight years of schooling before they know how good you are.
他们需要看到你经历四年、六年、八年的学校教育，然后才能知道你有多优秀。
How can that possibly make sense?
这怎么可能有道理呢？
What’s the market failure?
市场失灵是什么？
And why haven’t we fixed it?
为什么我们还没有修复它？
We have tech companies.
我们有科技公司。
They’re brilliant.
他们很聪明。
The smartest people run them, and they can’t fix this problem.
最聪明的人来管理它们，但他们无法解决这个问题。
What’s gone wrong?
出了什么问题？
The general problem is, we haven’t yet established — and I’m hopeful that LinkedIn can do this at some point, or others as well — is we haven’t established a dynamic set of certifications that we can use as signifiers that can then be deployed in a lot of circumstances.
普遍的问题是，我们还没有建立一套动态的认证，我希望 LinkedIn 在某个时候或其他时候也能做到这一点，我们可以将其用作可以在很多情况下部署的标志。
That’s one of the reasons why most jobs are described as “must have a BA or a BS,” a bachelor’s degree, whereas a lot of jobs don’t actually need that.
这就是为什么大多数工作被描述为“必须拥有 BA 或 BS”（学士学位）的原因之一，而很多工作实际上并不需要这个学位。
But it’s like, “Okay, what’s the simplest credential that everyone’s aware of that I could throw on the table that says you have some capability of learning, and you’ve been trained in some learning institution?”
但这就像，“好吧，我可以拿出大家都知道的最简单的证书来证明你有一定的学习能力，并且你已经在某个学习机构接受过培训？”
And one of the things that I actually wrote is an essay that’s, I think, on both LinkedIn and reidhoffman.org, is thinking about creating a diploma that’s not this old sheepskin, but actually is a modern set of attributes and set of characteristics.
我实际上写的其中一件事是一篇文章，我认为，在 LinkedIn 和 reidhoffman.org 上，正在考虑创建一个文凭，它不是这张旧的羊皮纸，而是实际上是一组现代的属性和特征。
And we could start looking at these certificates as something that has a much richer language that can apply to different things.
我们可以开始将这些证书视为具有更丰富语言的东西，可以应用于不同的事物。
I would hope that would then unlock a lot of paths and talents, as opposed to gating it on a very narrow and simple set of credentials, which are frankly coarse, not particularly good, and don’t particularly unlock talent in the right ways, that we can do a lot more new things.
我希望这能够解锁很多道路和人才，而不是用一套非常狭窄和简单的凭证来限制它，坦率地说，这些凭证很粗糙，不是特别好，并且没有特别以正确的方式解锁人才，我们可以做更多新的事情。
But why didn’t we get this 13 years ago?
但为什么 13 年前我们没有得到这个呢？
Well, part of it is that you have to have people starting to recognize that these patterns of talent can be recognized in a relatively cheap way because, right now, if I go and say, “This is a great 16-year-old, this is a great 18-year-old, this is a great 21-year-old, this is a great 25-year-old,” as opposed to “There’s only a few certifications that I can use,” I have to do a lot of reference-checking.
嗯，部分原因是你必须让人们开始认识到，这些人才模式可以通过相对便宜的方式得到认可，因为现在，如果我说，“这是一个伟大的 16 岁年轻人，这是一个伟大的 18 岁年轻人，这是一个伟大的 21 岁年轻人，这是一个伟大的 25 岁年轻人”，而不是“我可以使用的认证很少”，我必须做很多事情参考资料检查。
I may have to do a lot of examination or interviewing.
我可能需要做很多检查或面试。
It becomes expensive to look through the thousand people for the one or two that I think might be that extraordinary talent for this.
从数千人中寻找一两个我认为可能具有这方面非凡才能的人是昂贵的。
You’ve once said that you feel you’re operating at 60 percent of your talent or capacity.
您曾经说过，您感觉自己发挥了 60% 的才能或能力。
At what percent are our top colleges and universities operating at?
我们的顶尖学院和大学的运营比例是多少？
This will be an unpopular answer because I have a bunch of friends who are great leaders in these institutions, but I would generally say probably about 30 percent.
这将是一个不受欢迎的答案，因为我有一群朋友是这些机构中的伟大领导者，但我通常会说大概是 30% 左右。
Thirty percent?
百分之三十？
So they’re at 30 percent, and Silicon Valley can’t beat them, as talent certifiers?
那么他们的比例是 30%，作为人才认证机构，硅谷无法击败他们？
Well, I think Silicon Valley is beginning to in some ways.
嗯，我认为硅谷在某些方面已经开始这样做了。
I think that there are various programs that go to how do we do network recognition of talent, whether that’s like YC, Village Global, other kinds of things that say, “How do we have a network certify that talent?” So I think it’s beginning there.
我认为有各种各样的项目涉及我们如何通过网络对人才进行认可，无论是 YC、Village Global 还是其他类型的项目，都在说“我们如何拥有一个网络来证明人才？”所以我认为一切都从这里开始。
Then we have interesting coding camps and other kinds of ways.
然后我们有有趣的编码营和其他类型的方式。
I think we’re just beginning to really experiment with the patterns that might be able to scale.
我认为我们才刚刚开始真正尝试可能能够扩展的模式。
You’ve had a very strong record with angel investing and also venture capital.
您在天使投资和风险投资方面拥有非常出色的记录。
What do you think you understand about talent search and identification that other people do not, who would nonetheless be seen as quite skilled at it?
对于人才搜寻和识别，您认为自己了解哪些其他人不了解但仍被认为非常擅长的方面？
What’s your unique insight?
您有什么独特的见解？
I would say, I guess, two things.
我想，我想说两件事。
One is the network validation and how do you get to those network patterns?
一是网络验证，如何获得这些网络模式？
For example, I would rather do reference checks than interviews.
例如，我宁愿进行背景调查而不是面试。
If you said I had to pick one, I’d pick reference checks.
如果你说我必须选择一个，我会选择背景调查。
And I try to figure out patterns by which the network bubbles up the talent, versus the “Oh, I’m a picker.” If I can pattern the network the right way, that would be a much, much better way of doing it, and that’s —
我试图找出网络培养人才的模式，而不是“哦，我是一个挑选者”。如果我能以正确的方式构建网络，那将是一种更好的方法，那就是——
When you say “pattern,” what does that mean, pattern the network the right way?
当你说“模式”时，这是什么意思，以正确的方式构建网络？
For example, take my role as an investor at Greylock.
以我作为 Greylock 投资者的角色为例。
I almost never meet with an entrepreneur that doesn’t come from an introduction from someone I trust.
我几乎遇到的企业家不是由我信任的人介绍的。
And part of that introduction from someone I trust is, I trust different people on different things.
我信任的人的介绍的一部分是，我在不同的事情上信任不同的人。
For example, there are some entrepreneurs that say, “Oh, this person is an absolutely great technologist,” and I go, “Well, that person doesn’t really understand technology that well, so that doesn’t matter.” Whereas this person might say, “This person has a lot of drive and a lot of grit,” and I should pay attention to them, and they are good at that kind of thing.
例如，有些企业家说，“哦，这个人绝对是一位伟大的技术专家”，我说，“好吧，那个人并没有真正了解技术，所以这并不重要。”而这个人可能会说，“这个人有很大的动力和勇气”，我应该关注他们，而他们很擅长这类事情。
Then, okay, how does that fit with the project that they’re working on?
那么，好吧，这与他们正在开展的项目有何契合？
I try to configure not so much .
我尝试配置不要那么多。
.
。
.
。
People would think, because I write these books and do these podcasts like Masters of Scale and other kinds of things, that I’m just trying to get the raw flow in.
人们会认为，因为我写了这些书并制作了诸如《Masters of Scale》之类的播客以及其他类型的东西，所以我只是想融入原始的流程。
I’m just trying to get that person to lob an email to me from some strange corner of the world.
我只是想让那个人从世界某个陌生的角落给我发一封电子邮件。
Actually, in fact, the way that I do investing is entirely through my network.
事实上，我投资的方式完全是通过我的网络。
Let’s say you call up a reference.
假设您调用了一位推荐人。
What question or questions do you ask that other skilled people do not?
您提出了哪些其他技术人员不会提出的问题？
One is, what’s this person’s greatest weakness and challenge?
一是，这个人最大的弱点和挑战是什么？
But doesn’t everyone ask that?
但大家不都这么问吗？
Well, maybe.
嗯，也许吧。
I hope that they do, but frequently what I will do is I will say, “And if you don’t give me one that’s believable, I’ll believe that the thing is so bad you can’t tell me about it.” I try to actually, in fact, get a good answer to that question.
我希望他们这样做，但我经常会说，“如果你不给我一个可信的，我就会相信事情太糟糕了，你无法告诉我。”事实上，我试图为这个问题找到一个好的答案。
I also will frequently say things like, “Is this person the top-five person that you would choose to do a new venture with?” Or some relevant question of sorts.
我还会经常说这样的话：“这个人是你最愿意与之合作的前五名吗？”或者一些相关的问题。
Then if they would say top five, then say, “Okay, who are the other four?” These kind of things, in order to really sort out how well this person thinks of this.
然后，如果他们说前五名，那么就说：“好吧，其他四名是谁？”诸如此类的事情，才能真正弄清楚这个人对于这件事的想法到底如何。
Now, sometimes they’ll say, “No, they’re not top five, but they’re still really good.” Well, that gives a lot more credibility to the discussion because that’s part of what you’re trying to assess.
现在，有时他们会说，“不，他们不是前五名，但他们仍然非常好。”嗯，这让讨论更加可信，因为这是你要评估的内容的一部分。
How much is this person actually giving me a good analytic point of view on this?
这个人实际上给了我多少很好的分析观点？
And that can be a perfectly viable answer.
这可能是一个完全可行的答案。
How useful is five-factor personality theory to you?
五因素人格理论对你有多大用处？
I don’t even know what five-factor personality theory is.
我什至不知道什么是五因素人格理论。
Not very useful, then.
那么不太有用。
Well, there’s conscientiousness, there’s openness, there’s agreeableness.
嗯，有责任心，有开放性，有宜人性。
You categorize people.
你对人进行分类。
I would say that those are attributes of the things that I tend to look at, but what I tend to be thinking about is which combinations of strengths and weaknesses are the right fit on this team.
我想说的是，这些是我倾向于关注的事物的属性，但我倾向于考虑的是哪些优势和劣势的组合最适合这个团队。
And I tend to be looking for that set.
我倾向于寻找那一套。
Those would be attributes that would be within it.
这些将是其中的属性。
For example, is a person stronger as a team player or stronger as an individual contributor?
例如，一个人的团队合作能力更强，还是个人贡献能力更强？
Are they driven to seek teamwork, or are they driven to seek a pure excellence vector?
他们是寻求团队合作，还是寻求纯粹的卓越向量？
Are they high IQ, or are they reliable in terms of the work ethic and what they are producing?
他们的智商高吗，或者他们的职业道德和他们的产品可靠吗？
How much strength in the face of adversity do they have?
面对逆境，他们有多少力量？
Those kinds of things are what I would look at on the characteristics.
这些就是我会关注的特征。
Let’s say you’re looking not for talent in the narrow sense, but you’re looking to spot a spotter of talent.
假设您不是在寻找狭义的人才，而是在寻找人才发现者。
How would you judge a spotter of talent and evaluate that person?
你会如何判断一个天才发现者并评价那个人？
There’s probably three categories of things that I would look at.
我可能会关注三类事情。
One is, do you have the basic competencies in how do you recognize does the person have skills, is a person reasonably quick and good thinker, do they have persistence, do they have good work ethics?
一是，你是否具备基本能力，如何识别这个人是否有技能，是否是一个相当敏捷和良好的思考者，他们是否有毅力，他们是否有良好的职业道德？
But everyone will look for that, right?
但每个人都会寻找这个，对吧？
What’s the unique element?
有什么独特元素？
No, no. But you want table stakes, so you have to have the table stakes.
不，不。但你想要赌注，所以你必须有赌注。
The next thing would be, what are the ways that you realize that the table stakes can mislead you and be wrong?
接下来的问题是，您通过哪些方式意识到赌注可能会误导您并导致您错误？
Where you can find really startlingly good talent, where the traditional mechanisms don’t work?
在传统机制不起作用的地方，哪里可以找到真正令人惊叹的优秀人才？
So it’s a little bit of the contrarian question, where you say, “Hey, actually, looking for the person who dropped out of school because school was boring, and they wanted to achieve something really interesting, but they were still driven by curiosity and interest and these sorts of things,” is a way of doing it.
所以这是一个有点逆向问题，你说，“嘿，实际上，寻找那些因为学校很无聊而辍学的人，他们想要实现一些真正有趣的事情，但他们仍然受到好奇心和兴趣以及诸如此类的事情的驱动，”是一种这样做的方式。
Where people would be not counting their work in a good way because they just hadn’t achieved success yet, because people tend to proxy to success versus the capability of the work.
人们不会以一种好的方式来衡量他们的工作，因为他们只是还没有取得成功，因为人们倾向于代表成功而不是工作的能力。
Those kinds of things in the second category.
这类事情属于第二类。
And then the third one is, how do you do it differentially well?
第三个问题是，如何才能做到差异化？
What is the way that you say — and that’s obviously part of the second category — but what is the way that you spot talent in a way that you have an active theory that you’re improving about why you’re differentially good?
你所说的方式是什么——这显然是第二类的一部分——但你发现人才的方式是什么，你有一个积极的理论，证明你正在改进为什么你与众不同？
So you look for people with a good active theory?
所以你在寻找拥有良好积极理论的人吗？
Yes.
是的。
Or just a different active theory?
或者只是一个不同的活跃理论？
Yes.
是的。
Well, a theory that is both different — they have a theory why it’s good, and they have a mechanism for improving it.
好吧，这是一个不同的理论——他们有一个为什么它好的理论，并且有一个改进它的机制。
And how has your background in philosophy affected how you view talent search and identification?
您的哲学背景如何影响您对人才搜寻和识别的看法？
I don’t know if I’ve ever put those two things together, but what I would say is that I tend to think that .
我不知道我是否曾经把这两件事放在一起，但我想说的是我倾向于这样认为。
.
。
.
。
For example, one of the things I disagree with Aristotle on is his theory of the metals, where he did a hierarchy ranking of gold, silver, bronze within a society.
例如，我不同意亚里士多德的金属理论之一，他在一个社会中对金、银、青铜进行了等级排序。
I think those kinds of hierarchies tend to be simplistic and tend to underdeploy the possibilities of talent.
我认为这种等级制度往往过于简单化，而且往往无法充分发挥人才的潜力。
What I would say is the question of saying the fact that you have a lens where some people are really good at certain kinds of tasks, playing on certain kinds of teams, weathering certain kinds of challenges, and what’s the combination, and the fact that you have an active theory that fits between the task that you’re trying to do and the game that you’re playing in order to accomplish that task, I think the fact of pulling that together as a theory is probably one of the things that philosophy has shaped my thinking on.
我想说的是，你有一个镜头，其中有些人非常擅长某些类型的任务，在某些类型的团队中打球，经受住某些类型的挑战，以及它们的组合是什么，以及你有一个活跃的理论，该理论适合你正在尝试做的任务和你为完成该任务而玩的游戏，我认为将其作为一个理论整合在一起的事实可能是哲学塑造了我的思考的事情之一。
And how has your background in board games influenced how you view finding and identifying talent?
您的棋盘游戏背景如何影响您如何看待寻找和识别人才？
Well, one of the things that I like about board games is, you want to have a preference for non–zero-sum games, but there’s a lot of life that is competitive sailing, and so you have to think about how do you win the competitive game as you’re working towards a non–zero-sum game?
嗯，我喜欢棋盘游戏的一件事是，你想要偏爱非零和游戏，但生活中有很多都是竞争性的航行，所以你必须考虑在努力实现非零和游戏时如何赢得竞争性游戏？
Frequently, not all the time and not all talent, but a little bit like the answer to the earlier question, is the active theory about how you’re a good competitor when you need to compete.
通常，不是所有时候，也不是所有人才，但有点像前面问题的答案，是关于当你需要竞争时如何成为一个好的竞争对手的积极理论。
And by the way, I think it’s also important to choose when you compete, which is frequently an error.
顺便说一句，我认为比赛时的选择也很重要，这常常是一个错误。
I’d say that some of the patterns of how you do that is at least very well described within a board game context.
我想说的是，你如何做到这一点的一些模式至少在棋盘游戏环境中得到了很好的描述。
On many days, as you know, the most valuable tech company by market cap is Microsoft, and Microsoft is about, what, 50 years old.
如您所知，很多时候，按市值计算最有价值的科技公司是微软，而微软大约有 50 岁了。
What should we infer from this?
我们应该从中推断出什么？
Is this the world of The Start-Up of You?
这就是《你的创业》的世界吗？
Well, I do think, as you know, that the so-called topple rate of the S&P 500 is increasing, by which the number of companies that were previously in the S&P 500 in the last decade are now dropped out of it altogether.
嗯，我确实认为，正如你所知，所谓的标准普尔 500 指数的倒塌率正在增加，过去 10 年以前进入标准普尔 500 指数的公司数量现在已经完全退出。
Part of the acceleration of the modern age, of the networked age, is that there is much more revolution in what the top firms are, and I think that’s a good thing.
现代时代、网络时代的加速发展，部分原因在于顶级公司的本质发生了更多的革命，我认为这是一件好事。
I think it’s both good to have enduring institutions, and it’s good to have new blood and new innovation because that suggests that there’s a point of competing and building new things and having new technological platforms.
我认为拥有持久的机构是件好事，拥有新鲜血液和新创新也是件好事，因为这表明竞争和构建新事物以及拥有新的技术平台是有意义的。
I do think that one of the things that the untold goodness about the renovation of the Microsoft story, which Satya is doing such a great job of, is the fact that you can build to greatness, can be challenged, and can rebuild.
我确实认为，微软故事的革新（萨蒂亚在这方面做得非常出色）的不可言喻的好处之一是，你可以创造辉煌，可以接受挑战，也可以重建。
It’s as important as the entrepreneurial story because persistent institutions at scale that do the inventions, innovations that only scale can do, like building massive new platforms, like cloud computing, tends to come from the big companies, not tends to come from start-ups.
它与创业故事一样重要，因为持续进行大规模发明和创新的机构（例如构建云计算等大型新平台）往往来自大公司，而不是初创企业。
Those kinds of things are, I think, super important.
我认为这些事情非常重要。
If I talk to political scientists, most of them will tell me that money and campaign finance don’t matter that much for elections.
如果我与政治学家交谈，他们中的大多数人都会告诉我，金钱和竞选资金对于选举来说并不那么重要。
We see Donald Trump having been elected.
我们看到唐纳德·特朗普当选。
He didn’t raise a lot of money early on, or indeed at any point.
他早期并没有筹集到很多资金，事实上在任何时候都是如此。
So what’s your underlying theory of how money can influence or improve politics, given that you have a role in this process yourself?
那么，考虑到你自己在这个过程中发挥着作用，你关于金钱如何影响或改善政治的基本理论是什么？
Well, I would prefer democracies where money has a more muted influence.
嗯，我更喜欢金钱影响力较小的民主国家。
I actually disagree with the view that money doesn’t have an influence.
我实际上不同意金钱没有影响力的观点。
That view is like saying marketing doesn’t work, and it’s clear that marketing can work.
这种观点就像是在说营销不起作用，但很明显营销可以起作用。
Now, there’s the old adage —
现在，有句古老的格言——
But you can do marketing without a lot of money.
但你不需要很多钱就可以做营销。
Yes, certain kinds of marketing, not all marketing.
是的，是某些类型的营销，而不是所有营销。
And by the way, would we like to be a democracy where the only ways that you could succeed would be by being like a Kardashian?
顺便说一句，我们是否愿意成为一个民主国家，你成功的唯一途径就是像卡戴珊那样？
You have to be a celebrity of some sort in order to be a political leader?
你必须成为某种名人才能成为政治领袖吗？
I think we would actually prefer patterns that get to success not by being a reality television star, such as our current president, but actually, in fact, success and attributes in the things that lead to the good governance of a state.
我认为我们实际上更喜欢那些不是通过成为电视真人秀明星（例如我们现任总统）而获得成功的模式，而是实际上，事实上，那些导致国家良好治理的事物的成功和属性。
Are you worried about dynastic rule in American politics?
您担心美国政治中的王朝统治吗？
We have the Bushes, the Clintons, maybe something from the Trumps.
我们有布什家族、克林顿家族，也许还有特朗普家族的一些人。
Oh, yes, another thing to give people nightmares.
哦，是的，另一件事让人做噩梦。
I would say absolutely yes, and that’s the Kardashian problem that I was generating.
我想说绝对是的，这就是我产生的卡戴珊问题。
And it’s one of the reasons why I don’t think zero money in politics is the right answer.
这也是我认为政治上的零金钱不是正确答案的原因之一。
I do think the notion of saying, how do we shape our system so that competent governance leaders — we as a society are made more aware of them, is I think the way we need to solve that problem.
我确实认为，我们如何塑造我们的体系，以便让有能力的治理领导人——我们作为一个社会，更加了解他们，是我们解决这个问题所需的方式。
Why did you help make a video on Alexander Hamilton versus cryptocurrency?
您为什么帮助制作有关 Alexander Hamilton 与加密货币的视频？
Well, Alexander Hamilton versus Satoshi.
好吧，亚历山大·汉密尔顿与中本聪。
One macro reason — it’s fun.
一个宏观原因是——它很有趣。
Another —
另一个——
But what makes it fun, right?
但什么让它变得有趣，对吧？
That’s endogenous.
这是内生的。
Yeah, but it is also fun.
是的，但这也很有趣。
I argued in a Wired article that I wrote in 2015 that the world will need one or more cryptocurrencies.
我在 2015 年撰写的《连线》文章中指出，世界将需要一种或多种加密货币。
I tend to find that the bankers were all like, “Oh, all the crypto guys are just hustlers and not really trying to build a good new future vision of the world,” which they are.
我倾向于发现银行家们都说，“哦，所有加密货币的人都只是骗子，并没有真正试图建立一个美好的新未来世界愿景”，他们确实如此。
Yet, the crypto folks don’t realize that the banks and the sovereigns also need some interface point on how monetary systems work.
然而，加密货币人士并没有意识到，银行和主权国家也需要一些关于货币系统如何运作的接口点。
So what I wanted to do is present the debate between them in a way that both sides could listen and learn, and that people who weren’t aware of it could also listen and learn.
所以我想做的是以一种双方都可以倾听和学习的方式呈现他们之间的辩论，让不知道的人也可以倾听和学习。
So that’s the reason.
这就是原因。
When I was thinking about that, I thought about the magic of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton, and I thought that might be the way to do it.
当我想到这一点时，我想到了林曼努尔米兰达的汉密尔顿的魔力，我认为这可能是做到这一点的方法。
And the significant cryptocurrency we end up with — will it be Bitcoin?
我们最终得到的重要加密货币——会是比特币吗？
Will it be the Chinese e-currency, or something that doesn’t exist yet?
它会是中国的电子货币，还是尚不存在的东西？
I think there will be Bitcoin.
我认为会有比特币。
Don’t yet know on the e-currency, but I think it’s very possible, especially because there’s such a large market within China that if it builds there, that’s how networks start.
还不知道电子货币，但我认为这是很有可能的，特别是因为中国境内有一个很大的市场，如果它在那里建立，那么网络就是这样开始的。
And my guess is it’ll be at least one more additional.
我的猜测是至少还会有一个额外的。
Why does the East Coast establishment hate Facebook so much, but not Google?
为什么东海岸的当权者如此讨厌 Facebook，而不是 Google？
I think there are some good challenges and some bad challenges.
我认为有一些好的挑战和一些坏的挑战。
I would say the bad challenges are almost like an emotional response of “People should be listening to me, and yet they’re off doing this Facebook thing and not listening to me.”
我想说，糟糕的挑战几乎就像是一种情绪反应，“人们应该听我的，但他们却在 Facebook 上做这件事，不听我的。”
So the fact that attention flows in a different way — and that’s both economics and everything else — I think is what causes a bad response because part of Facebook is saying, “Hey, we’re enabling every individual to speak and connect and follow what they want.”
因此，事实上，注意力以不同的方式流动——这既是经济因素，也是其他因素——我认为这就是导致糟糕反应的原因，因为 Facebook 的部分内容是说，“嘿，我们正在让每个人都能够表达、联系和遵循他们想要的东西。”
I think the good response is that once you become social infrastructure, you should also be responsive to society.
我认为好的回应是，一旦你成为社会基础设施，你也应该对社会做出回应。
Let me put that point a little bit more bluntly, which is, if you have a system that’s designed for velocity as its measure, velocity is more likely to be things that you negatively react to.
让我更直白地说一点，那就是，如果你有一个专为速度作为衡量标准的系统，那么速度更有可能是你产生负面反应的事情。
It’s more likely to be anger.
更有可能是愤怒。
It’s more likely to be outrage.
更有可能是愤怒。
It’s more likely to be fear.
更有可能是恐惧。
So just as the dynamic is that most people tend to share links before they’ve even read the thing that’s in the link, as a way of doing it, which leads to a circling thing of title bait and everything else as a way of doing it, I’d say that increases an overall agitation in society.
因此，正如大多数人倾向于在阅读链接中的内容之前分享链接一样，这会导致标题诱饵和其他一切作为这样做的方式的循环，我想说这会增加社会的整体骚动。
And we say, well, that’s not necessarily good, even though each individual is following their own reflex.
我们说，好吧，这不一定是好事，尽管每个人都遵循自己的本能反应。
That overall increase in agitation is not a good thing, and we need to figure out how to do better there.
骚乱的总体增加并不是一件好事，我们需要找出如何做得更好的方法。
But if I think of a lot of people in other countries, often they will hate Facebook less.
但如果我想到其他国家的很多人，他们通常会减少对 Facebook 的讨厌。
If I think of radio people, they might be skeptical about Facebook, but they rarely hate Facebook.
如果我想到广播人士，他们可能会对 Facebook 持怀疑态度，但他们很少讨厌 Facebook。
But newspaper people seem to.
但报纸人士似乎是这样认为的。
How much of that is just flat-out competitive rivalry, and the newspapers have been losing?
其中有多少只是赤裸裸的竞争，而报纸一直在失败？
Well, that was my first area, where the newspapers go, “You should be listening to me, and you’re paying attention to this Facebook thing instead.
嗯，这是我的第一个领域，报纸上写着，“你应该听我的，而你应该关注 Facebook 的事情。
And I have less career prospects because Facebook is taking more of the economics than the newspaper work.”
而且我的职业前景也更渺茫，因为 Facebook 更多地从事经济学工作，而不是报纸工作。”
In fact, the thing that I’m always unsympathetic to people on this, is they say, “Well, I’d like to return to the past.
事实上，我在这方面总是不同情人们，他们说：“好吧，我想回到过去。
I’d like to go back to the golden age of newspapers.” And you’re like, “No, no. Actually, how do you design a better future?
我想回到报纸的黄金时代。”你会说，“不，不。实际上，你如何设计一个更美好的未来？
What’s the way you say, ‘Well, we want the functions, the civil function that newspapers are doing.
你是怎么说的，‘好吧，我们想要报纸正在发挥的功能，民事功能。
What’s the way we design it in the modern framework?’”
我们在现代框架中设计它的方式是什么？’”
What do other people most commonly misunderstand about friendship?
其他人对友谊最常误解的是什么？
I would say that people most commonly misunderstand about friendship that they think that it’s strict loyalty to the other person.
我想说的是，人们对友谊最常见的误解是，他们认为友谊是对对方的严格忠诚。
So if you ask most people about friendship, they would say, “Well, I’m loyal to Bob or to Sue.”
因此，如果你问大多数人关于友谊的问题，他们会说：“嗯，我忠于鲍勃或苏。”
And actually, in fact, I think what you are is loyal to the person’s aspirational better self.
事实上，我认为你是忠于这个人所渴望的更好的自我。
For example, you discover your friend is a serial murderer.
例如，您发现您的朋友是连环杀人犯。
Are they still your friend?
他们还是你的朋友吗？
“Oh, no, no, I’ll help hide the body.” It’s like, “No, no, of course not.” It’s who they are in the world and what they’re doing that’s actually, in fact, where the loyalty should lie.
“哦，不，不，我会帮忙把尸体藏起来。”就像，“不，不，当然不是。”实际上，忠诚应该在于他们在这个世界上的身份和所做的事情。
If God does not exist, where does the mystical indeed come from?
如果上帝不存在，那么神秘究竟从何而来？
Why not just bring God into the picture?
为什么不把上帝带入画面呢？
Well, the problem is, is God is this classic way that we put human narrative, of saying, “Oh, well, there’s this entity in the sky that’s just like an amplified human being.” Now, of course, sophisticated theologians always say, “Well, it’s all the mystery, and that’s a wrong understanding of God,” and blah, blah, blah.
好吧，问题是，上帝是我们描述人类叙事的经典方式，即说，“哦，好吧，天空中有一个实体，就像一个放大的人类。”当然，现在老练的神学家总是说，“好吧，这都是奥秘，这是对上帝的错误理解”，等等等等。
But I actually think the question about keeping mysticism in the picture is to say, “Don’t be overly certain about your current theory of the universe.” If we look back in history and know anything, what we know is there are certain things we believe today that 50 or 100 years from now will be thought to be stupid and crazy.
但我实际上认为关于保持神秘主义的问题是说，“不要对你当前的宇宙理论过于确定。”如果我们回顾历史并了解一些事情，我们所知道的是，我们今天相信的某些事情在 50 或 100 年后将被认为是愚蠢和疯狂的。
And by the way, you might say, “Well, okay, is there some kind of mystical force creating the universe?” The answer is, “Possibly.” Now you say, “Oh, it’s this particular entity, who left this particular book or had this particular prophet,” you’re like, “Well, that seems less likely.” But the fact that there might be things there, you should stay open minded to.
顺便说一句，你可能会说，“好吧，是否有某种神秘力量创造了宇宙？”答案是：“有可能。”现在你说，“哦，是这个特定的实体，留下了这本特定的书或有这个特定的先知，”你会说，“好吧，这似乎不太可能。”但事实上，那里可能有一些东西，你应该保持开放的态度。
Which books do you still hope to write?
您还希望写哪些书？
It’s enough to name one.
说出一个名字就足够了。
I definitely hope to write a book on friendship.
我绝对希望写一本关于友谊的书。
I think that’s one of the things that’s super important in our lives.
我认为这是我们生活中非常重要的事情之一。
And then —
然后——
Can friendship be learned or taught through books at all?
友谊真的可以通过书本来学习或传授吗？
I think so, in part because I think that one of the ways that you learn is by asking questions.
我这么认为，部分原因是我认为学习的方法之一就是提出问题。
If a book can put the question in a good way that you can start thinking about it, then that creates the basis on which you can, by interacting with other people as well, learn better friendship.
如果一本书能够以一种很好的方式提出这个问题，让你开始思考它，那么这就为你奠定了基础，通过与其他人的互动，你可以学到更好的友谊。
Friendship is a skill, among other things.
除其他外，友谊是一种技能。
Any other book you might plan on writing?
您还计划写其他书吗？
Well, I am thinking a lot about whether or not we should be creating some new forms of science fiction.
嗯，我在思考我们是否应该创造一些新形式的科幻小说。
The reason is, I think we have two failures of current science fiction.
原因是，我认为当前的科幻小说有两个失败之处。
Especially in video form, there’s too little utopic science fiction, and yet if we have a hope for the future, it’s through technology, it’s through change.
尤其是在视频形式中，乌托邦科幻小说太少了，但如果我们对未来有希望，那就是通过技术，通过改变。
So we need to make sure that we are keeping that kind of utopic possibility, the optimism for it, and how do we get there?
因此，我们需要确保我们保持这种乌托邦的可能性，对此保持乐观，我们如何实现这一目标？
The second is, if we look at current technological trends today, there are things that we know that are coming that science fiction isn’t addressing.
第二个是，如果我们看看当今当前的技术趋势，我们知道有些事情即将发生，而科幻小说并没有解决这些问题。
For example, we know that what’s coming is, even if we don’t get to artificial general intelligence, the ways that artificial intelligence will affect all systems in the world is going to radically evolve, and how does that change our notion?
例如，我们知道，即使我们没有达到通用人工智能，人工智能影响世界上所有系统的方式也将发生根本性的演变，这将如何改变我们的观念？
How do we have a progress of humanity in that system, which I believe is possible, but we need to be thinking about it and directing ourselves to it.
我们如何在这个体系中实现人类的进步，我认为这是可能的，但我们需要思考它并引导自己走向它。
Maybe the science fiction narrative form is the right way to cause that discussion and that reflection and that thinking.
也许科幻小说的叙事形式是引起讨论、反思和思考的正确方式。
I just saw the new Terminator movie.
我刚刚看了新的终结者电影。
Elon Musk is very worried about when Skynet goes live.
埃隆·马斯克非常担心天网何时上线。
Are you?
你是？
And what probability do you assign to that scenario?
您认为这种情况发生的概率是多少？
Well, this is kind of entertaining because within the SpaceX headquarters, there’s a little Skynet server room, so it’s kind of entertaining.
嗯，这很有趣，因为在 SpaceX 总部内，有一个小小的天网服务器机房，所以这很有趣。
I would say that I don’t have a zero percent worry there, but it is not my most macro worry.
我想说我的担忧并不是零，但这不是我最宏观的担忧。
Do I think there’s possibilities that AI could get to something bad?
我认为人工智能有可能做出坏事吗？
Yes.
是的。
But by the way, we all discount nuclear war now because we haven’t had it for 70 years, and yet there’s still a bunch of armed nations, some of whom are kind of crazy.
但顺便说一句，我们现在都对核战争不以为然，因为我们已经 70 年没有经历过核战争了，但仍然有一群武装国家，其中一些国家有点疯狂。
So the fact that a probability doesn’t go to zero doesn’t mean that I go, “Oh my God, I’m deeply worried about it.” So overall, I’d say attentive but not worried.
因此，概率不会为零的事实并不意味着我会说：“天哪，我对此深感担忧。”总的来说，我会说细心但不担心。
But say a 3 percent chance.
但假设有 3% 的机会。
Doesn’t that mean we still should be obsessed with it?
这难道不意味着我们仍然应该沉迷于它吗？
Because my goodness, a 3 percent chance of Skynet goes live.
天哪，天网上线的几率只有 3%。
Well, I’m not even sure it’s 3 percent.
好吧，我什至不确定是不是 3%。
For example, you say, “Okay, we take pseudo–artificial intelligence systems, we tie them to a nuclear defense grid, and something that’s an unintended consequence, that isn’t necessarily evolution of intelligence, but some set of triggers cause something to happen.” That would be the category of thing that I would have more worry than you have a malicious evolution of a superintelligence.
例如，你说：“好吧，我们采用伪人工智能系统，将它们与核防御网格联系起来，这是一个意想不到的结果，不一定是智能的进化，而是某些触发因素会导致某些事情发生。”与超级智能的恶意进化相比，我更担心这一类事情。
Last question.
最后一个问题。
What makes for a good aphoristic thinker?
是什么造就了一个优秀的警句思想家？
What makes for a good aphoristic thinker is, how do you string together a set of aphorisms such that a reader or a consumer of them comes to pulling together their own .
成为一名优秀的格言思考者的关键在于，如何将一组格言串在一起，以便读者或消费者能够将自己的格言组合在一起。
.
。
.
。
It catalyzes them about how to think about something.
它催化他们如何思考某事。
Prose is usually like, here’s an argument of a thesis and a set of arguments and a conclusion and evidence within that.
散文通常是这样的，这是一篇论文的论点、一组论点以及其中的结论和证据。
An aphorism is to say, we’re trying to change your mindset, the German Weltanschauung, the kind of worldview, the way you’re thinking about this.
一句格言是说，我们正在努力改变你的心态，德国的世界观，那种世界观，你思考这个问题的方式。
It’s not to a deterministic, move you from point A to point B, but to catalyze you from moving out of your local maxima or minima.
它不是确定性的，让你从 A 点移动到 B 点，而是催化你走出局部最大值或最小值。
When you write well in aphorisms or you present aphorisms well, that’s what you’re trying to do.
当你写好格言或者很好地表达格言时，这就是你想要做的。
Reid Hoffman, thank you very much.
里德霍夫曼，非常感谢你。
It’s a pleasure.
我的荣幸。