Improve strategy, influence, and decision-making by understanding your brain | Evan LaPointe

Evan LaPointe: The brain is like a college campus that has different departments in it.

Evan LaPointe：大脑就像一个大学校园，里面有不同的部门。

Most people rely on their history department way too much.

大多数人过于依赖历史部门。

If you instead send things to the more experimental, open-minded science department, the more creative art department, you get dramatically better answers.

如果你把东西送到更具实验性、思想开放的科学部门、更具创造性的艺术部门，你会得到更好的答案。

Lenny Rachitsky: I know you have a bunch of awesome advice on becoming more influential.

Lenny Rachitsky：我知道你有很多关于变得更有影响力的很棒的建议。

Evan LaPointe: It's almost like you're playing Elden Ring or some video game.

Evan LaPointe：这几乎就像你在玩《Elden Ring》或某些电子游戏。

The starting point is to choose your character.

起点是选择你的角色。

Hey, I'm the devil's advocate approach, or I'm the break it and see if it still stands after I hit it really hard with a sledgehammer kind of guy, your personality kind of has a natural fit.

嘿，我是魔鬼拥护者的方法，或者我是打破它，看看在我用大锤式的家伙狠狠地击打它之后它是否仍然存在，你的个性有点自然契合。

Lenny Rachitsky: How do we create better relationships within our teams?

Lenny Rachitsky：我们如何在团队内建立更好的关系？

Evan LaPointe: It's critical to ask what kind of experience am I?

Evan LaPointe：重要的是要问我自己是什么样的经历？

Not how good am I at my job, how much do I know, how critical am I to this process, but am I a miserable experience?

不是我的工作有多出色，我知道多少，我对这个过程有多重要，而是我的经历是否很痛苦？

If the answer is yes, don't worry too much about the other pieces yet.

如果答案是肯定的，那么就不用太担心其他部分了。

You got to fix that first.

你必须先解决这个问题。

Lenny Rachitsky: I'm really excited for this episode.

Lenny Rachitsky：我对这一集感到非常兴奋。

I think it's going to be unlike any other conversation I've had on this podcast.

我认为这将不同于我在这个播客上进行的任何其他对话。

Evan LaPointe: Then here's the surprise ending.

Evan LaPointe：那么这就是令人惊讶的结局。

Lenny Rachitsky: Today, my guest is Evan LaPointe.

Lenny Rachitsky：今天，我的客人是 Evan LaPointe。

Evan is the founder of CORE Sciences, which teaches companies and individuals how our brains actually work, and through that lens, how to more effectively work with other people on teams, how to build better products, how to grow your business, and how to make smarter and faster decisions.

埃文是 CORE Sciences 的创始人，该公司教授公司和个人我们的大脑实际上是如何工作的，并通过这个镜头，如何更有效地与团队中的其他人合作，如何打造更好的产品，如何发展业务，以及如何做出更明智、更快速的决策。

Evan is a four-time founder, including founding a company called Satellite, which is the fourth largest analytics product on the internet today, which was acquired by Adobe where he later ran product strategy and innovation for Adobe's digital business.

Evan 曾四次创始人，包括创立了一家名为 Satellite 的公司，该公司是当今互联网上第四大分析产品，该公司被 Adob​​e 收购，后来他负责 Adob​​e 数字业务的产品战略和创新。

Lenny Rachitsky: In our conversation, Evan shares a simple way to understand how our brains work, and through that framework, how we can get better at vision work, influence, running meetings, having more focus and building better and more productive relationships with our colleagues.

Lenny Rachitsky：在我们的谈话中，埃文分享了一种简单的方法来理解我们的大脑如何工作，以及通过这个框架，我们如何能够更好地进行视觉工作、影响力、召开会议、更加专注以及与同事建立更好、更富有成效的关系。

This conversation is a beautiful mix of science, theory, and also, a ton of very actionable and concrete things you can do to be more effective in your work.

这次对话是科学、理论的完美结合，而且还有大量非常可行和具体的事情，你可以做这些事情来提高你的工作效率。

If you enjoy this podcast, don't forget to subscribe and follow it in your favorite podcasting app or YouTube.

如果您喜欢这个播客，请不要忘记订阅并在您最喜欢的播客应用程序或 YouTube 中关注它。

It's the best way to avoid missing future episodes and helps the podcast tremendously.

这是避免错过未来剧集的最佳方式，并且对播客有很大帮助。

With that, I bring you Evan LaPointe.

接下来，我为您带来埃文·拉普安特 (Evan LaPointe)。

Evan, thank you so much for being here.

埃文，非常感谢你来到这里。

Welcome to the podcast.

欢迎来到播客。

Evan LaPointe: Thanks very much for having me.

Evan LaPointe：非常感谢您邀请我。

I'm excited to share some stuff with people.

我很高兴与人们分享一些东西。

Lenny Rachitsky: I am really excited for this episode because one, I think it's going to be unlike any other conversation I've had on this podcast.

Lenny Rachitsky：我对这一集感到非常兴奋，因为我认为这将不同于我在这个播客上进行的任何其他对话。

Two, I think it's going to really stretch our brains as we learn about how the brain works.

第二，我认为当我们了解大脑如何工作时，这将真正拓展我们的大脑。

Three, I think it's really going to make an impact on how people work and how they relate to other people and work with other people.

第三，我认为这确实会对人们的工作方式、与他人的关系以及与他人的合作方式产生影响。

I thought it'd be great to start by laying a little bit of foundation for people to get a sense of just what they need to understand about how the brain works before we get into how we can actually apply some of the stuff.

我认为最好先为人们奠定一些基础，让他们了解他们需要了解的大脑如何工作，然后再讨论如何实际应用其中的一些内容。

Could you just share some of the stuff that is really important for us to know about how the brain works?

您能否分享一些对于我们了解大脑如何运作非常重要的内容？

Evan LaPointe: The brain is like a big galaxy.

Evan LaPointe：大脑就像一个大星系。

There's a National Geographic quote that we throw up in all of our programs that when we train teams, for example, that says the brain is more complex than any known structure in the universe.

例如，当我们训练团队时，我们在所有项目中都会引用《国家地理》的一句话，这句话说大脑比宇宙中任何已知的结构都要复杂。

It's easy to read a sentence like that and just run straight away from the problem.

读完这样的句子很容易就直接逃避问题。

I think that's important for people to not run away from this problem but more run toward it.

我认为重要的是人们不要逃避这个问题，而应该更多地解决这个问题。

It's our job to translate the complexity of the brain into really simple, straightforward systems that you can remember.

我们的工作是将大脑的复杂性转化为您可以记住的非常简单、直接的系统。

The three or four main systems to stack on top of each other like layers, start with the fact that the brain has systems.

三个或四个主要系统像层一样堆叠在一起，首先是因为大脑有系统。

I think of it like the brain is like a college campus that has different departments in it, and your brain has a science department responsible for open-minded experimentation.

我认为大脑就像一个大学校园，里面有不同的部门，而你的大脑有一个科学部门，负责开放思想的实验。

Evan LaPointe: It has an art department in it responsible for creative boundless thinking.

Evan LaPointe：它有一个艺术部门，负责创意无限的思考。

It has a history department designed for looking stuff up that you already know.

它有一个历史部门，旨在查找您已经知道的东西。

If you think about sending your thoughts to the right department on the campus or just different departments, you're going to get super different responses back from your brain.

如果你考虑将你的想法发送到校园中正确的部门或只是不同的部门，你将从你的大脑中得到非常不同的反应。

Where we're stuck largely is most people rely on their history department way too much.

我们陷入困境的主要原因是大多数人过于依赖历史部门。

That's because the brain is actually built to conserve energy, and that's the lowest energy form of generating an answer to a question that the brain can pull off.

这是因为大脑实际上是为了节省能量而构建的，而这是大脑能够解决问题的最低能量形式。

If you instead send things to the more experimental, open-minded science department, the more creative art department, the humanities department of your compassion, et cetera, you get totally different answers.

如果你把东西送到更具实验性、思想开放的科学部门、更具创造性的艺术部门、富有同情心的人文部门等等，你会得到完全不同的答案。

Certainly, if you ever build products as a company or offer services, those departments are going to give you dramatically better answers than the reference material just in your history department.

当然，如果您曾经作为一家公司开发产品或提供服务，这些部门将为您提供比历史部门的参考资料更好的答案。

Lenny Rachitsky: This episode is brought to you by Webflow.

Lenny Rachitsky：本集由 Webflow 为您带来。

We're all friends here, so let's be real for a second.

我们都是这里的朋友，所以让我们现实一点吧。

We all know that your website shouldn't be a static asset, it should be a dynamic part of your strategy that drives conversions, that's business 101.

我们都知道，您的网站不应该是静态资产，而应该是推动转化的策略的动态部分，这就是业务 101。

Here's a number for you, 54% of leaders say web updates take too long.

这里有一个数字，54% 的领导者表示网络更新花费的时间太长。

That's over half of you listening right now.

现在有超过一半的人在听。

That's where Webflow comes in.

这就是 Webflow 的用武之地。

Their visual-first platform allows you to build, launch, and optimize webpages fast.

他们的视觉优先平台允许您快速构建、启动和优化网页。

That means you can set ambitious business goals and your site can rise to the challenge.

这意味着您可以设定雄心勃勃的业务目标，并且您的网站可以应对挑战。

Learn how teams like Dropbox, IDEO and Orange Theory.

了解 Dropbox、IDEO 和 Orange Theory 等团队的工作方式。

Trust Webflow to achieve their most ambitious goals today at webflow.com.

相信 Webflow 能够在 webflow.com 上实现他们最雄心勃勃的目标。

Lenny Rachitsky: This episode is brought to you by Explo, a game-changer for customer-facing analytics and data reporting.

Lenny Rachitsky：本集由 Explo 为您带来，Explo 是面向客户的分析和数据报告的游戏规则改变者。

Are your users craving more dashboards, reports and analytics within your product?

您的用户是否渴望在您的产品中添加更多仪表板、报告和分析？

Are you tired of trying to build it yourself?

您是否厌倦了尝试自己构建它？

As a product leader, you probably have these requests in your roadmap, but the struggle to prioritize them is real.

作为产品领导者，您的路线图中可能有这些请求，但确定它们的优先级的困难是真实存在的。

Building analytics from scratch can be time-consuming, expensive and a really challenging process, enter Explo.

从头开始构建分析可能非常耗时、昂贵，而且是一个非常具有挑战性的过程，请输入 Explo。

Explo is a fully white-labeled embedded analytics solution designed entirely with your user in mind.

Explo 是一款完全白标的嵌入式分析解决方案，其设计完全考虑到您的用户。

Getting started is easy.

入门很容易。

Explo to any relational database or warehouse, and with its low- code functionality, you can build and style dashboards in minutes.

探索任何关系数据库或仓库，凭借其低代码功能​​，您可以在几分钟内构建仪表板并设计仪表板样式。

Once you're ready, simply embed the dashboard or report into your application with a tiny code snippet.

准备就绪后，只需使用一小段代码将仪表板或报告嵌入到您的应用程序中即可。

The best part, your end users can use Explo's AI features for their own report and dashboard generation, eliminating customer data requests for your support team.

最好的部分是，您的最终用户可以使用 Explo 的 AI 功能来生成自己的报告和仪表板，从而消除对支持团队的客户数据请求。

Build and embed a fully white-labeled analytics experience in days.

在几天内构建并嵌入完全白标的分析体验。

Try it for free at explo.co/lenny.

请访问 explo.co/lenny 免费试用。

That's E-X-P-L-O, dot, C-O, slash, Lenny.

这是 E-X-P-L-O、点、C-O、斜线、Lenny。

Evan LaPointe: That's the first thing is that the brain has these departments and systems in it and it also has pathways.

Evan LaPointe：首先，大脑中有这些部门和系统，它也有通路。

The pathways thing is really important to understand because there's a likelihood that thought will go down certain pathways in each of our brains.

理解路径问题非常重要，因为思想很可能会沿着我们每个大脑中的某些路径前进。

Some of that has to do with personality, which predisposes us to have a higher-anxiety or a lower-anxiety response or a higher-creativity or lower-creativity response.

其中一些与性格有关，性格使我们容易产生较高的焦虑或较低的焦虑反应，或者较高的创造力或较低的创造力反应。

You can also be more intentional with these pathways, and that's a big component of self-awareness is to know what are my preferences and then am I actually letting those preferences take over in the situation or might be more intentional steering down the pathways to activate these best regions and systems of the brain.

你也可以更有意识地利用这些路径，自我意识的一个重要组成部分是知道我的偏好是什么，然后我实际上是让这些偏好在这种情况下占据主导地位，还是可能更有意识地沿着路径来激活大脑的这些最佳区域和系统。

The simplest way to keep track of the systems is there's three, there's three really big ones.

跟踪系统的最简单方法是三个，三个非常大的系统。

Evan LaPointe: There probably are more than three that you can learn about, but the ones we want to have everybody learn about are your safety system, your reward system, and your purpose system.

Evan LaPointe：您可以了解的内容可能不止三个，但我们希望每个人都了解的是您的安全系统、您的奖励系统和您的目标系统。

Out of those three, two of them sound really real and one of them sounds like fantasy, to most people.

对于大多数人来说，这三者中，其中两个听起来很真实，而其中一个听起来像是幻想。

The safety system is pretty obvious to most people.

对于大多数人来说，安全系统是非常明显的。

When we're scared, afraid, uncertain, we have doubt, we're resentful, angry, apathetic, etc. This system of our brain is trying to restore our standing in the universe, like I need to get out of this stress, out of this danger, out of this anger, etc. you have an objective that, that part of your brain, that system sets, and you go chase that objective, like I want to get safe.

当我们害怕、害怕、不确定时，我们会怀疑、怨恨、愤怒、冷漠等。我们大脑的这个系统正在试图恢复我们在宇宙中的地位，就像我需要摆脱这种压力，摆脱这种危险，摆脱这种愤怒等等。你有一个目标，你大脑的那部分，那个系统设定，你去追逐这个目标，就像我想要安全一样。

If you're in a meeting, a practical everyday situation, and you're exposed to a statement that makes you feel unsafe, your objective now actually isn't to contribute to the meeting productively anymore.

如果您正在开会，在实际的日常情况下，并且您接触到让您感到不安全的声明，那么您现在的目标实际上不再是为会议做出富有成效的贡献。

Evan LaPointe: Your brain's objective is to get back to safety.

Evan LaPointe：你的大脑的目标是回到安全的地方。

The same thing of rewards that if somebody says you'll get something, if you do this, which is the opposite of safety, that if you don't do this, something bad will happen, then yeah, your brain gets into this pursuit, desire state, which seems great and can be great in a lot of cases, but also, can be pretty narrow.

奖励也是一样的，如果有人说你会得到一些东西，如果你这样做，这与安全相反，如果你不这样做，就会发生一些不好的事情，那么是的，你的大脑进入这种追求、欲望状态，这看起来很棒，在很多情况下可能很棒，但也可能非常狭窄。

When you hear people say, "That's not my job." That's actually the reward system speaking, saying, "I get rewarded for the things in this list and this thing that you're talking about is not on my reward list and I therefore am not interested in it." I have an easier time pushing away from it because the reward system of the brain is more transactional in a conceptual way.

当你听到人们说：“那不是我的工作。”这实际上是奖励系统的说法，“我因为这个列表中的东西而获得奖励，而你正在谈论的这个东西不在我的奖励列表中，因此我对此不感兴趣。”我更容易摆脱它，因为大脑的奖励系统在概念上更具交易性。

Then you get to this vague and ridiculous sounding purpose system.

然后你就会看到这个听起来模糊且荒谬的目的系统。

Evan LaPointe: Until you realize what purpose is, and we've all felt it, if you understand the impact of the thing that you're doing and you understand and care about the people that are impacted by your actions, those are the conditions for purpose, and that can be really big.

埃文·拉普安特：直到你意识到目标是什么，我们都感受到了它，如果你了解你正在做的事情的影响，并且你理解并关心受你的行为影响的人，这些就是目标的条件，而且这可能非常大。

Like curing cancer, I understand the impact on the people, that's huge.

就像治愈癌症一样，我了解这对人们的影响是巨大的。

It can also be like I'm writing an email, I understand the impact of this email and the people affected by it.

也可以像我正在写一封电子邮件，我了解这封电子邮件的影响以及受其影响的人。

You can feel purpose at this tiny little grain of sand level of your life, not just at the whole beach and shoreline level, and we teach people that, that's super important.

你可以在生活中的这一小粒沙粒上感受到目标，而不仅仅是在整个海滩和海岸线层面上，我们教导人们，这是非常重要的。

That's the foundational layer.

这是基础层。

Then on top of that, there are a few layers that have to do with your focus because the brain can dramatically shift focus from open mindedness to deep, deep focus.

除此之外，还有几个层面与你的注意力有关，因为大脑可以将注意力从开放的心态戏剧性地转移到深度专注。

Evan LaPointe: Then there's the final layer of ability, which is less science- y, less neuroscience, and more just practical that your ability is regulated by how much reality you know, like do you have the context for the decision or you just know you're supposed to make the decision?

Evan LaPointe：然后是最后一层能力，它不太科学，不太神经科学，更实用，你的能力是由你了解多少现实来调节的，比如你是否有决策的背景，或者你只是知道你应该做出决定？

People with context have higher ability than people without.

有背景的人比没有背景的人有更高的能力。

The same thing with imagination and logic that if you push those boundaries in your mind further, your ability increases almost disproportionately to how much you've pushed, so these layers just stack on.

想象力和逻辑也是如此，如果你进一步推动你头脑中的这些界限，你的能力几乎与你推动的程度不成比例地增加，所以这些层就会叠加。

I think it's approachable, it's simple.

我认为它很平易近人，很简单。

It's like, we can all understand, is my safety reward or purpose system active right now?

就像，我们都可以理解，我的安全奖励或目的系统现在处于活动状态吗？

What is my level of focus?

我的注意力集中程度如何？

What level of connection with reality, reason and imagination do I have right now?

我现在与现实、理性和想象力的联系程度如何？

Then there's your output as a human or as a team, and all these things are like levers we can pull, which is super fun.

然后是你作为一个人或作为一个团队的输出，所有这些东西就像我们可以拉动的杠杆，这非常有趣。

Lenny Rachitsky: Amazing.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：太棒了。

Just to summarize here, so we have these three systems, safety, reward, purpose, then our level of focus, and then there's the ability, are we able to actually do the job?

在这里总结一下，我们有这三个系统，安全、奖励、目的，然后是我们的专注程度，然后是能力，我们能够真正完成这项工作吗？

Those are the puzzle pieces.

这些就是拼图。

Lenny Rachitsky: Where I want to take this is when we work with other people, working with other people is very hard, and some of the struggles people have at work in building product, in running a company and building teams, hiring, all these things, is they often get really frustrated by the way other people operate.

Lenny Rachitsky：我想说的是，当我们与其他人一起工作时，与其他人一起工作是非常困难的，人们在开发产品、经营公司、建立团队、招聘等所有这些事情中遇到的一些困难，是他们经常因其他人的运作方式而感到沮丧。

Some people want to just start building a thing, some people want to really think about it.

有些人想开始构建一个东西，有些人想真正考虑它。

Some people are very customer qualitative, anecdote focused, some people are very metrics focused.

有些人非常注重客户定性、轶事，有些人非常注重指标。

Some people are very collaborative, want to work in groups, some people are very, I want to work alone.

有些人非常协作，想要团队合作，有些人则非常，想要单独工作。

Just first of all, we just talked about here's how the brain works and then there's this idea of people work very differently.

首先，我们刚刚讨论了大脑的工作方式，然后人们的工作方式非常不同。

Can you just talk a bit about just this idea of why people behave so differently in an effort to help us learn to work better with people that are just like, "Oh, that's so strange.

你能否简单谈谈为什么人们的行为如此不同，以帮助我们学会更好地与那些“哦，这太奇怪了。

This person wants to just their billing.

此人只想查看他们的账单。

Evan LaPointe: Maybe one of the worst pieces of propaganda that people walk around with in their minds is the phrase we're more similar than we are different.

埃文·拉普安特（Evan LaPointe）：也许人们脑海中萦绕的最糟糕的宣传之一就是“我们的相似之处多于我们的不同之处”。

My theory on why we walk around with that phrase or why we're told that phrase, if we zoom in on the situations where we hear that is that we have this theory, it's easier to get along with people that are like us.

我关于为什么我们带着这句话走来走去或者为什么我们被告知这句话的理论，如果我们放大我们听到的情况，那就是我们有这个理论，与像我们一样的人相处会更容易。

If we fantasize that this person is like me, then I might get along with them better.

如果我们幻想这个人像我一样，那么我可能会和他们相处得更好。

When in fact, we should probably be building the muscle that we have the capacity to get along with people that are extremely different than we are.

事实上，我们或许应该锻炼自己的能力，以便能够与与我们截然不同的人相处。

That fourth piece that we talk about in our coursework when we train managers, for example, is personality.

例如，当我们培训经理时，我们在课程作业中讨论的第四部分是人格。

We talk about your brain systems, your brain focus, your brain's ability, which sort of paints the picture that humans might be similar to each other and we can activate these things kind of unilaterally.

我们谈论你的大脑系统、你的大脑焦点、你大脑的能力，这在某种程度上描绘了人类可能彼此相似的画面，我们可以单方面激活这些东西。

Evan LaPointe: Then we have to drop this bomb at the end, which is, and here's why that doesn't work consistently across different types of people.

Evan LaPointe：那么我们必须在最后投下这颗炸弹，这就是为什么这对于不同类型的人来说效果不一致的原因。

I know you took our profile, our big five-based profile, and that's just one tool out of many that can help a person understand where on these various spectrum of personality traits and motivations they sit.

我知道您获取了我们的个人资料，我们的基于五个的大资料，这只是众多工具中的一个，可以帮助人们了解他们在这些不同的人格特征和动机中所处的位置。

We often use the metaphor in our training of culinary school that we're more culinary school for human performance instead of cooking class.

我们在烹饪学校的培训中经常使用这样的比喻：我们更多的是针对人类表现的烹饪学校，而不是烹饪课。

That helps people conceptualize that I'm used to going to cooking classes in my training, here's how to do a one-on-one, here's how to offer feedback, here's a framework for generating product ideas through to prioritization and backlog.

这可以帮助人们概念化我习惯在培训中参加烹饪课程，这里是如何进行一对一的，这里是如何提供反馈，这是一个通过优先级和待办事项生成产品创意的框架。

We're like, "Well, what's going on beneath the surface?

我们会想，“那么，表面之下到底发生了什么？

What are the underlying principles and forces at work that all the stuff that comes to life on the surface really originates from?"

所有表面上出现的东西真正源自的根本原理和作用力是什么？”

Evan LaPointe: In this culinary school metaphor, one of the things that's really important for a chef is to actually understand what are my preferences?

Evan LaPointe：在这个烹饪学校的比喻中，对于厨师来说真正重要的事情之一就是真正了解我的偏好是什么？

What do I like to eat?

我喜欢吃什么？

Because if I don't know what I like, then I assume everybody else likes what I like, then I'm not going to be a very dynamic chef.

因为如果我不知道自己喜欢什么，那么我就假设其他人也喜欢我喜欢的东西，那么我就不会成为一个非常有活力的厨师。

I'm going to be like, "Everybody likes lots of salt and acidity in their dishes." Then you're going to go to Germany and open a restaurant and be like, "That is absolutely not what we're looking for in this cuisine." Self-awareness is a really important step, not just of culinary school, but for everybody.

我会说，“每个人都喜欢在他们的菜肴中加入大量的盐和酸。”然后你要去德国开一家餐馆，然后你会说，“这绝对不是我们在这种美食中寻找的东西。”自我意识是非常重要的一步，不仅对烹饪学校如此，对每个人来说也是如此。

You sit somewhere on a spectrum, your brain has these pathways and these traffic cops directing traffic in your mind.

你坐在某个频谱上，你的大脑有这些路径，这些交通警察在你的脑海中指挥交通。

You have to start with square one with yourself and understand, am I prone to try to say things politely, and so that they're received well?

你必须从一开始就了解自己，并了解，我是否倾向于尝试礼貌地说话，以便得到良好的接受？

Or am I prone to be super blunt and direct and maybe even mean and harsh?

或者我是否容易变得非常直率和直接，甚至可能是刻薄和严厉？

Am I prone to sit back in conversations and let things happen, or am I prone to take over?

我是否倾向于在谈话中袖手旁观，让事情发生，或者我是否倾向于接管？

Evan LaPointe: Am I prone to go to intellectual abstract thinking and try to deconstruct ideas or am I prone to stay very pragmatic?

Evan LaPointe：我是否倾向于进行智力抽象思维并尝试解构想法，或者我是否倾向于保持非常务实？

If you don't know who you are and you think that the universe resembles you, then you're going to get super lost in that broader spectrum.

如果你不知道自己是谁，并且认为宇宙与你相似，那么你就会在更广阔的范围内迷失方向。

I think the big five, I mean there's a bunch of models.

我认为五巨头，我的意思是有很多型号。

You have Myers-Briggs, disk, etc. They're just all imperfect ways of measuring personality, but also, useful despite the fact that they're imperfect and especially useful if you take a growth mentality instead of a justification mentality to reading them.

你有迈尔斯-布里格斯、磁盘等。它们只是衡量人格的不完美的方法，但尽管它们不完美，但也很有用，如果你以成长心态而不是理由心态来阅读它们，那么它们尤其有用。

If you say, "okay, I'm low in politeness, I'm super direct." Your justification mentality of that would be like, "Yeah, damn right.

如果你说：“好吧，我不太礼貌，我很直接。”你的辩护心态会是这样的，“是的，该死的正确。

I'm awesome that everybody knows what I really mean and how I really feel.' Versus the growth thing, which is like, well, maybe there are situations where I can try a little harder than 0% to phrase things in a way that if we work backwards from the outcome, we want to choose our actions right now, would these actions so direct actually increase or reduce the probability of that outcome?

我很高兴每个人都知道我的真正意思和我的真实感受。与增长的事情相比，好吧，也许在某些情况下，我可以比 0% 更努力地表达事情，如果我们从结果倒退，我们想立即选择我们的行动，这些行动如此直接实际上会增加还是减少该结果的可能性？

Evan LaPointe: That's when we become more dynamic chefs, more dynamic people.

Evan LaPointe：那时我们就会成为更有活力的厨师、更有活力的人。

Personality is a broad spectrum and self-awareness is the starting point for the whole thing.

人格是一个广泛的范围，自我意识是整个事物的起点。

The big five model gives you a really good list of attributes to scan yourself through, and then you should be making a game plan for how to do that.

大五模型为您提供了一个非常好的属性列表，供您浏览自己，然后您应该制定一个如何做到这一点的游戏计划。

Then you can turn your attention to the network of humans you're a part of and say, "Okay, well in what ways, because I'm me, am I so different than these other minds?" How can we create a mesh mentality where thought shifts among the group to fit most naturally?

然后你可以将注意力转向你所在的人类网络，并说：“好吧，在哪些方面，因为我就是我，所以我与其他人有如此不同？”我们如何才能创造一种网格心态，让思想在团队之间转变以最自然地适应？

In product work, especially, whether you're a founder, entrepreneur, thinking about product at that level and your team at that level, or you're in the thick of product work pushing your mind and other people's minds to get this right, then you're going to benefit a lot from understanding these traits and these differences.

尤其是在产品工作中，无论你是创始人、企业家，在那个层面上思考产品，在那个层面上思考你的团队，或者你在产品工作中推动你的思想和其他人的思想正确地做到这一点，那么你将从理解这些特征和这些差异中受益匪浅。

Lenny Rachitsky: I think the big unlock here for a lot of people is that the reason you are struggling, getting something done, working with someone, being successful at your company, with your manager, with a partner in your team, is they have a very different way of their brain operating, and so they think in a very different way, they react in different ways.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：我认为对很多人来说，最大的解锁是，你在努力奋斗、完成某件事、与某人合作、在你的公司、与你的经理、与你团队中的合作伙伴一起取得成功，是因为他们的大脑运作方式非常不同，所以他们以非常不同的方式思考，他们以不同的方式做出反应。

You may think the entire world thinks the way you do, but they don't, and these tests help you see that.

您可能认为整个世界都以您的方式思考，但事实并非如此，这些测试可以帮助您了解这一点。

To make this super concrete for people, are there a couple of examples or wins you often find that you can share of just ways to use this to become better in your job, say this week?

为了使这一点对人们来说非常具体，是否有一些你经常发现的例子或胜利可以分享一些正确的方法来利用它来让你的工作变得更好，比如本周？

Whether with meetings or convincing someone of something, anything along these lines?

无论是通过会议还是说服某人做某事，或者类似的事情？

Evan LaPointe: I think one more layer would be helpful to this, especially if you're a leader or a manager, which is the business world isn't just hand-to-hand combat between a bunch of individuals on the blank matrix loading screen.

Evan LaPointe：我认为多一层会对此有所帮助，特别是如果您是领导者或经理，商业世界不仅仅是空白矩阵加载屏幕上一群人之间的肉搏战。

You're actually in a habitat as a company and your team is like a habitat.

作为一家公司，你实际上处于一个栖息地，而你的团队就像一个栖息地。

I think of companies and teams, almost like little terrariums that we're inside of, and is this terrarium set up with sand and a heat lamp and we're a bunch of frogs, like we're going to turn into frog bacon, simply because we're in this habitat?

我想到公司和团队，几乎就像我们所在的小玻璃容器，这个玻璃容器是用沙子和加热灯设置的，我们是一群青蛙，就像我们要变成青蛙培根一样，仅仅因为我们在这个栖息地吗？

A lot of it is you want to actually create a habitat or an environment that's predisposed to high-functioning thinking and high-functioning interaction between people.

其中很大一部分是你想要真正创造一个适合高功能思维和人与人之间高功能互动的栖息地或环境。

Evan LaPointe: Because if the habitat is working against all of you to begin with, then all the hand-to-hand combat that's going to show up is actually largely a function of you just being in this heat lamp, dry, devoid of life, devoid of productive ways to grapple.

埃文·拉普安特：因为如果栖息地从一开始就对你们所有人不利，那么所有即将出现的肉搏战实际上很大程度上都是你们在这盏热灯中的结果，干燥，缺乏生命，缺乏有效的格斗方式。

That's where a lot of teams and companies sit today, especially more established teams.

这就是今天许多团队和公司的所在地，尤其是更成熟的团队。

They've either lost their way in the habitat and haven't really set the scene for good, kind of thinking and interaction, or they just never had that to begin with.

它们要么在栖息地中迷失了方向，没有真正为良好的思考和互动做好准备，要么就是从一开始就没有这样的环境。

Some of this stuff, like when you've talked to a couple of other people in the past, your conversation, the Canva conversation, the Figma conversation both come to mind as like it is super obvious the energy that has gone into the habitat to predispose people to high function.

其中一些东西，比如当你过去和其他几个人交谈时，你的谈话、Canva 谈话、Figma 谈话都会浮现在脑海中，就像非常明显的是，能量已经进入栖息地，使人们倾向于高功能。

Lenny Rachitsky: You're referring to in my interviews with the folks from Figma and Canva.

Lenny Rachitsky：你指的是我对 Figma 和 Canva 人员的采访。

Lenny Rachitsky: I see.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：我明白了。

Oh, say more about that mean.

哦，多说一点这个意思。

Evan LaPointe: You think about the, even in the Canva context of coaches instead of managers.

Evan LaPointe：即使在 Canva 的背景下，你也可以考虑一下教练而不是经理。

I love this, let me back up for just a second.

我喜欢这个，让我备份一下。

There's a great quote, I think Dan Pink has summarized the problem better than anybody when he said, "There's a mismatch between what science knows and what business does." In that gap, it says, "Well, what is it that business is doing that science knows better?" You can almost look at this as an equation of science knows minus what your business does equals dysfunction.

有一句很好的话，我认为丹·平克（Dan Pink）比任何人都更好地总结了这个问题，他说：“科学知识与商业行为之间存在不匹配。”在这个空白处，它说：“那么，商业界正在做的哪些事情是科学更了解的呢？”您几乎可以将其视为科学方程式减去您的业务等于功能障碍。

That is a pretty crystal-clear thing.

这是一件非常清楚的事情。

If you take this managers versus coaches, they're taking intuitively, I think.

如果你拿经理和教练来比较，我认为他们是凭直觉行事。

I don't know if they're neuroscientists, but intuitively, I think a lot of great founders understand humans don't work a certain way, and this whole paradigm of managers seems to be failing a lot.

我不知道他们是否是神经科学家，但直觉上，我认为很多伟大的创始人都明白人类不会以某种方式工作，而整个管理者范式似乎失败了很多。

This whole paradigm, like mantra, fail faster.

整个范式就像口头禅一样，失败得更快。

Seems to be failing a lot, and mission statements seem to fail a lot.

似乎失败了很多，使命宣言似乎也失败了很多。

Evan LaPointe: You look at this, science knows business does as a lens to examine yourself through and stuff that fails very often is worth a look.

Evan LaPointe：你看看这个，科学知道商业是审视自己的一个镜头，经常失败的东西值得一看。

When you look at, okay, do we really want managers, because that seems to fail a lot?

当你看到，好吧，我们真的需要经理吗，因为这似乎失败了很多？

Or is there a paradigm that works better for human beings that activates more human potential and hit the nail on the head?

或者是否存在一种更适合人类的范式，能够激发更多的人类潜能，并且一针见血？

If you do the math of Canva, what science knows versus what Canva does, whether they know they're doing it scientifically right or not, the math equals zero.

如果你对 Canva 进行数学计算，科学知道什么与 Canva 做什么，无论他们知道自己的做法是否科学正确，数学都等于零。

There's no difference between what science knows and what business does in that case.

在这种情况下，科学知识和商业行为之间没有区别。

Also, the Figma conversation, I loved the phrase from that conversation, imagination is a hypothesis generation engine, I think is what the word was.

另外，在 Figma 对话中，我很喜欢那次对话中的一句话，想象力是一个假设生成引擎，我想这个词就是这个意思。

Lenny Rachitsky: Oh, the Dylan.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：哦，迪伦。

Yeah, the chat with Dylan.

是的，和迪伦的聊天。

Evan LaPointe: I loved that idea.

Evan LaPointe：我喜欢这个主意。

Because when we talk about imagination as a part of ability, we talk about imagination's capacity to generate alternatives for you, that's its purpose.

因为当我们谈论想象力作为能力的一部分时，我们谈论的是想象力为你产生替代方案的能力，这就是它的目的。

It's not just to doodle in the margins in the middle of boring meetings.

这不仅仅是在无聊的会议中在空白处涂鸦。

That's part of it, it's a side benefit.

这是它的一部分，这是一个附带的好处。

When you look at imagination's purpose, if you have a great imagination, you always have a lot of choices in life.

当你审视想象力的目的时，如果你有伟大的想象力，你在生活中总是有很多选择。

Mickey Mouse was a choice.

米老鼠是一个选择。

It was like a new alternative way to send messages through a talking mouse.

这就像一种通过会说话的鼠标发送消息的新替代方式。

Like, that's okay, that's interesting.

就像，没关系，这很有趣。

The other part of the hypothesis generation engine that we focus a lot on is it's not just the ability to generate choices and hypotheses, but it's also the ability to load them into your Oculus headset and walk around a world in which that choice already has been executed.

我们非常关注的假设生成引擎的另一部分是，它不仅能够生成选择和假设，而且还能够将它们加载到 Oculus 耳机中，并在已经执行该选择的世界中行走。

That's akin to vision in a sense that do you have a really good ability to load that one branch of this imaginative tree, this one hypothesis into a simulation and then explore what the world looks like with this in place?

从某种意义上说，这类似于视觉，你是否有很好的能力将这棵富有想象力的树的一个分支，这个假设加载到模拟中，然后探索这个世界是什么样子？

Evan LaPointe: If you look at this coaching thing, it's going on at Canva instead of managing, you load that in the simulator and you're like, "Boy, this looks pretty nice.

Evan LaPointe：如果你看一下教练的事情，你会发现它是在 Canva 进行的，而不是管理，你将其加载到模拟器中，然后你会想，“男孩，这看起来相当不错。

This is higher-performance thing." With advocacy instead of regulation, we have growth.

这是更高性能的东西。”通过倡导而不是监管，我们实现了增长。

There's a whole bunch of aspects that are inherent in that approach where science, and if you ask a neuroscientist, would that work better?

这种方法有很多固有的方面，科学，如果你问神经科学家，这种方法会更好吗？

They'd be like, "Oh, hell, yeah.

他们会说，“哦，见鬼，是的。

That would work way better." Because it activates this in the brain, it reduces cortisol, it does all these things that science knows work much better.

那样效果会更好。”因为它激活了大脑中的这一点，所以它减少了皮质醇，它可以更好地完成所有科学已知的事情。

There's a whole list of stuff from very deep to very tactical of things we can do differently that reduce the gap between what you're doing and what science knows and the dysfunction just shrinks and shrinks and shrinks as you do those things.

有一个完整的清单，从非常深入的事情到非常战术性的事情，我们可以做不同的事情，以缩小你正在做的事情和科学知道的事情之间的差距，并且当你做这些事情时，功能障碍就会不断缩小。

Lenny Rachitsky: Are there things that you've found people can change in the way they work based on the way the brain operates, whether it's run better meetings, be better influence?

Lenny Rachitsky：您是否发现人们可以根据大脑的运作方式来改变他们的工作方式，无论是召开更好的会议，还是产生更好的影响力？

What are some things people can try to do this week that will make them more successful at their work or working with colleagues?

人们本周可以尝试做哪些事情，以使他们在工作中或与同事合作时更加成功？

Evan LaPointe: In the list of what science knows and what business does, everything is in there.

Evan LaPointe：在科学知识和商业活动的列表中，一切都在那里。

Culture is in there, meetings are in there, goals are in there, deadlines are in there, team dynamics, all this stuff is in there.

文化在那里，会议在那里，目标在那里，最后期限在那里，团队动力，所有这些东西都在那里。

We'll probably just pick a few things out of that very long list.

我们可能只会从这个很长的清单中挑选一些东西。

Meetings are a good one.

会议是一个很好的会议。

Meetings, I forget what the statistic is, but it's some insane 12-figure amount of, no, not 12, nine-figure, no, 12-figure, hundreds of billions' amount of waste is caught in meetings.

会议，我忘记了统计数据是什么，但会议中产生了 12 位数的疯狂数量，不，不是 12，九位数，不，12 位数，数千亿的浪费。

We spend gazillions of dollars on waste of time and meetings.

我们在浪费时间和会议上花费了数以百万计的美元。

For us, like in our programs, the average delta is between 10 and 20%.

对于我们来说，就像在我们的项目中一样，平均增量在 10% 到 20% 之间。

People save anywhere from a full half of a day to a full day per week of work as a result of just cleaning up the way they're using meetings.

通过清理会议使用方式，人们每周可以节省半天到一整天的工作时间。

Some of that is just the design of meetings, like treat meetings like a product and treat them workflows that should be organized and used intentionally, but a lot of it is inside the meeting, like what's the tactic?

其中一些只是会议的设计，比如将会议视为一种产品，并将其视为应有意组织和使用的工作流程，但很多内容都在会议内部，比如策略是什么？

Evan LaPointe: Here's something super tactical, which is, meetings, generally speaking, are a combination of priming and decision making, if you look at meetings through the lens of the phases that they are.

Evan LaPointe：这里有一些超级战术，也就是说，如果你从会议的阶段角度来看待会议，一般来说，会议是启动和决策的结合。

A lot of meetings skip the priming step altogether.

许多会议完全跳过启动步骤。

They launched directly into decision making.

他们直接参与决策。

It would be safe to skip the priming step if we began the meeting under the assumption that everybody here is on the same page, has the same information, and generally speaking, intends for the same outcome.

如果我们在开始会议时假设每个人都在同一页面上，拥有相同的信息，并且一般来说，打算获得相同的结果，那么跳过启动步骤是安全的。

I think that's a ludicrous assumption for most meetings, and yet most people are actually shocked to find out that we're not on the same page even though we literally never have been, and as long as you're on day two plus of working together.

我认为这对大多数会议来说都是一个可笑的假设，但大多数人实际上都会震惊地发现我们不在同一页面上，尽管我们实际上从未达成过一致，只要你们在一起工作的第二天多。

It's a crazy thing that we don't do priming, and priming can be simple.

我们不进行启动是一件疯狂的事情，而且启动可以很简单。

It can even be done in the invite.

甚至可以在邀请中完成。

One of the things that's crazy about Outlook and Google is you can put a very terrible useless meeting into Outlook and it will never look at it and be like, this is probably useless.

Outlook 和 Google 令人疯狂的事情之一是，您可以将一个非常糟糕、无用的会议放入 Outlook，它永远不会查看它并说，这可能是无用的。

Evan LaPointe: Just like you can go into Trello and put the dumbest project in the company's history into Trello, it will ingest anything you put into it without any discernment as to its value.

Evan LaPointe：就像您可以进入 Trello 并将公司历史上最愚蠢的项目放入 Trello 中一样，它会吸收您放入其中的任何内容，而不会对其价值进行任何识别。

Now, imagine we're going to have to do this ourselves for now until a better calendar comes out, but imagine if Outlook or Google Calendar or Cron, which now is part of Notion, would just be like, "Uh, uh, uh.

现在，想象一下，在更好的日历出现之前，我们现在必须自己做这件事，但想象一下，如果 Outlook、Google Calendar 或 Cron（现在是 Notion 的一部分）会像“呃，呃，呃。

What is the point of this meeting?" You could say, "Okay, this is here.

这次会议的意义何在？”你可以说：“好吧，就到这里了。

This meeting is about the generation of options or creative problem solving or very tactical problem solving or efficiency seeking, or what is the category of conversation we are about to have?

这次会议是关于选项的产生、创造性的问题解决、非常战术性的问题解决、效率的寻求，或者我们即将进行的对话类别是什么？

What are some of the basic principles that should apply?

应该适用哪些基本原则？

Are we honoring sacred cows or are we eating sacred cows in this meeting?

在这次会议上，我们是在尊崇神圣的牛，还是在吃神圣的牛？

What is the mode mentality, the priming?

什么是模式心态、启动？

How can we all say this is the mindset and the ultimate purpose that applies to the meeting?"

我们怎么能说这就是会议的心态和最终目的呢？”

Evan LaPointe: You can write that and you can read that in under three minutes.

Evan LaPointe：您可以在三分钟内写出并阅读它。

It's not some arduous process.

这不是什么艰难的过程。

Amazon does it in an arduous process, they're known for that.

亚马逊是通过一个艰难的过程做到这一点的，他们以此而闻名。

That's wisdom to know, like we need priming.

这是明智之举，就像我们需要启动一样。

They're wise enough to realize the need for it.

他们足够聪明，意识到了这一点的必要性。

They make that a very robust execution.

他们使这成为一个非常强大的执行力。

It doesn't have to be that robust.

它不必那么坚固。

Skipping priming is pretty bad.

跳过启动是非常糟糕的。

Other meetings get the priming and the decision-making backwards.

其他会议则导致启动和决策倒退。

We start to open the meeting.

我们开始会议开幕。

You've heard of diamond-shaped thinking, let's open the meeting with expansionary thought and let's end the second half of the meeting with convergence.

你听说过菱形思维，让我们以扩张性思维开始会议，以收敛性思维结束会议的后半部分。

Well, we start the meeting instead with convergence, realize that we can't reconcile the various party in the room, their needs for convergence.

好吧，我们以趋同的方式开始会议，意识到我们无法协调房间里的各方以及他们对趋同的需求。

Evan LaPointe: Then you might hear in the middle of a meeting like, "Well, let's start over again and remember why we're all here." We do the priming in the second half of the meeting just in time for the meeting to end.

Evan LaPointe：那么您可能会在会议进行到一半时听到这样的话：“好吧，让我们重新开始，记住我们为什么聚集在这里。”我们在会议的后半场进行启动，正好赶上会议结束。

That's a super obvious thing that people can do, but that people very rarely do in priming.

这是人们可以做的非常明显的事情，但人们很少在启动时这样做。

I'm happy to generate a list so we don't have to talk through everything, but maybe make some little PDFs or something that people can download that say, "Here's what great priming looks like." Then when you move to the decision making, here's what great decision making looks like, and that way, you can have a little bit of a guide, and again, do your own math, what science knows what we're doing in this meeting.

我很高兴生成一个列表，这样我们就不必讨论所有内容，但也许可以制作一些小 PDF 或人们可以下载的东西，上面写着“这就是伟大的启动的样子。”然后，当您进行决策时，这就是伟大决策的样子，这样，您就可以得到一点指导，然后再做一次自己的数学计算，科学知道我们在这次会议上所做的事情。

We're skipping a bunch of steps, that's growing the probability of dysfunction or things will going wrong, and let's shrink that probability instead of growing it.

我们跳过了一系列步骤，这增加了功能障碍或出现问题的可能性，让我们缩小而不是增加这种可能性。

Lenny Rachitsky: Amazing.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：太棒了。

That'd be sweet if you have that.

如果你有的话那就太好了。

We'll definitely link to that on the show notes.

我们肯定会在演出笔记上链接到该内容。

The advice here is make sure when you're starting a meeting, running a meeting, prime everyone around the problem we're trying to solve or we're trying to get out of this meeting, the context, versus just diving into decision making.

这里的建议是，确保当你开始会议、主持会议时，让每个人都了解我们正在试图解决的问题，或者我们正在试图摆脱这次会议的背景，而不是一头扎进决策中。

Evan LaPointe: Very notably, the principles that apply.

Evan LaPointe：非常值得注意的是，适用的原则。

I think that's really, really important, not just what we're here to do, but how we can think about this best.

我认为这真的非常非常重要，不仅仅是我们来这里要做的事情，而是我们如何最好地思考这个问题。

You can even have a debate about the principles, and it's way better to have a debate about the principles than it is to have a debate about the tactics that are rooted in the fact that you have super misaligned principles.

你甚至可以就原则进行辩论，而且就原则进行辩论比就策略进行辩论要好得多，而策略的基础是你的原则极度不一致。

If somebody is trying to make the decision with speed in mind and another person is trying to make the decision with accuracy in mind, it is completely inevitable that they're about to have a cat fight in the meeting.

如果有人试图快速做出决定，而另一个人则试图准确地做出决定，那么他们在会议上发生争吵是完全不可避免的。

It's not resolvable until they come back and revisit the fact that deeper down, we are approaching this in a completely different mentality with completely different objectives.

在他们回来并重新审视这样一个事实之前，这是无法解决的：在更深层次上，我们正在以完全不同的心态和完全不同的目标来解决这个问题。

Lenny Rachitsky: Awesome.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：太棒了。

If you end up having these PDFs of waste to prime successfully, that'd be great.

如果您最终能成功地完成这些废物 PDF，那就太好了。

Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, great.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：好的，太好了。

Other things that people can do to work with better.

人们可以做的其他事情可以更好地合作。

I know you have some advice on how to influence more effectively.

我知道您对如何更有效地施加影响有一些建议。

I know you have some advice around strategy and vision, so maybe we go into those two directions.

我知道您对战略和愿景有一些建议，所以也许我们会朝这两个方向发展。

Evan LaPointe: Let's start with strategy and vision, because I think it's nice to be better at strategy and vision before you start influencing people.

Evan LaPointe：让我们从战略和愿景开始，因为我认为在开始影响人们之前，在战略和愿景方面做得更好是件好事。

What you'll encounter in life, in your mind, is ideas are swirling.

你在生活中、在你的脑海中会遇到的是想法在旋转。

Whether you're generating those ideas or other people are, is your brain is going to sort those ideas into believed, believable, kind of conceivable and inconceivable.

无论是你产生这些想法还是其他人产生这些想法，你的大脑都会将这些想法分类为可信的、可信的、可想象的和不可想象的。

You can come up with your own words for that, but that's like a starting point, which is if somebody says something you've already experienced, it's something that is believed to your brain.

你可以想出你自己的话，但这就像一个起点，如果有人说了你已经经历过的事情，你的大脑就会相信它。

If we said we should implement an OKR framework and you've experienced it in a prior workplace or you've read all about Google doing it, then you're going to be like, "Yeah, we should.

如果我们说我们应该实施 OKR 框架，并且您在以前的工作场所经历过它，或者您已经阅读过有关 Google 这样做的所有内容，那么您会说：“是的，我们应该这样做。

It would clean up a lot of junk around here.

它会清理这里的很多垃圾。

Okay, great." Your brain is already in a yes.

好吧，太好了。”你的大脑已经做出了肯定的回答。

Evan LaPointe: If it's believable, maybe you're reading Harvard Business Review and you're reading about things that your business has never done, that you've never done, but there's all this evidence that it works and it makes sense to you mechanically, so you're like, "Okay, yeah, I find that believable." Now we're leaning toward yes, or we're still in the yes bucket.

埃文·拉普安特：如果它可信，也许你正在阅读《哈佛商业评论》，你正在阅读你的企业从未做过的事情，你从未做过的事情，但所有这些证据都表明它有效，并且对你来说机械地有意义，所以你会说，“好吧，是的，我发现这是可信的。”现在我们倾向于“是”，或者说我们仍然处于“是”的范围内。

Now we get into these unbelievable, yet maybe conceivable.

现在我们来看看这些令人难以置信，但也许是可以想象的。

These are the things that seem to be far-fetched.

这些都是看似牵强的事情。

Going back to the Canva conversation, the conversation with Uri that you had.

回到 Canva 的对话，即你与 Uri 的对话。

Most of the things that are totally believed by these leaders are unbelievable to most other leaders.

这些领导人完全相信的大多数事情对大多数其他领导人来说是难以置信的。

We don't need managers?

我们不需要经理吗？

I don't believe it.

我不相信。

Now we've shifted the mind from inbuilt kind of tailwind to inbuilt headwind.

现在我们已经将思维从内在的顺风转向了内在的逆风。

This is why minds struggle with strategy and with vision, is that every mind based on personality we talked about earlier, that line of demarcation between believed, we all have different lived experience, so the more experience you have, the more believed you have.

这就是为什么头脑与策略和愿景斗争的原因，因为每个头脑都基于我们之前谈到的个性，相信之间的分界线，我们都有不同的生活经历，所以你拥有的经验越多，你就越相信。

Evan LaPointe: Then the believable and then the unbelievable, but yet conceivable, these lines shift a lot from person to person.

Evan LaPointe：然后是可信的，然后是难以置信的，但仍然可以想象，这些台词因人而异。

An idea that totally makes sense to Uri, he's probably been in a thousand meetings where other people are like, "That'll never work." Even though obviously, science knows, for example, it totally will.

这个想法对 Uri 来说完全有意义，他可能参加过上千次会议，但其他人的反应却是“这永远行不通”。尽管很明显，科学知道，例如，它完全会发生。

One of the great benefits of science in culinary school is let's not reinvent ideas that are already proven.

科学在烹饪学校中的一大好处是让我们不要重新发明已经被证明的想法。

We already know that certain things activate people's purposeful state and the full brain that seeks comprehension seats deeper problem solving, seeks human connection.

我们已经知道，某些事情会激活人们的目标状态，而寻求理解的全脑会更深入地解决问题，寻求人际关系。

Those are known things, and the same thing as the debate about the value of design sits in the strategy and vision.

这些都是众所周知的事情，与关于设计价值的争论一样，都存在于战略和愿景中。

How do we know there's an ROI to a better design here?

我们如何知道更好的设计可以带来投资回报率？

Well, if you could disprove that instead of proving it, because the last million people who asked this question proved it.

好吧，如果你能反驳这一点而不是证明它，因为最后一百万问这个问题的人证明了这一点。

Evan LaPointe: If you could disprove it, you'd probably win a Nobel prize for being the first human to disprove something that is like ironclad.

埃文·拉普安特：如果你能反驳它，你可能会因为成为第一个反驳铁证如山的事物而获得诺贝尔奖。

Like, we're done.

就像，我们完成了。

We're done with this debate.

我们结束了这场辩论。

That, I think is what we have to recognize in ourselves.

我认为这是我们必须认识到的。

Big part of self-awareness is where our unbelievable threshold begins, where our believable threshold ends.

自我意识的很大一部分是我们令人难以置信的阈值开始的地方，也是我们可信阈值结束的地方。

Then the inconceivable is like, get out of my office level stuff.

然后不可思议的事情就是，滚出我的办公室级别的东西。

A lot of the vision thinking and dialogue that happens inside of businesses directly activates people's inconceivable response without any self-awareness that, that's a personal problem, not a objective problem.

企业内部发生的很多愿景思考和对话直接激发了人们不可思议的反应，而没有任何自我意识，这是个人问题，而​​不是客观问题。

I think it's a really, really important thing for companies and individuals to invest in themselves to kind of say, "Do I have the capacity to recognize the situation that I find inconceivable, but that could be totally wrong?" Then we can avoid the months potentially of arguing that sit between us and experimentation.

我认为对于公司和个人来说，对自己进行投资是一件非常非常重要的事情，可以说“我是否有能力认识到我认为不可思议的情况，但这可能是完全错误的？”这样我们就可以避免在我们和实验之间可能存在的几个月的争论。

Evan LaPointe: ...

埃文·拉普安特：...

that sit between us and experimentation.

这是我们和实验之间的障碍。

So I think that's the starting point for that.

所以我认为这是起点。

And if we were to do paint by numbers on that, what dominoes do you want to knock down?

如果我们要按数字进行绘制，您想推倒哪些多米诺骨牌？

Know your personality, what you're looking for in the Big-5 model which we lean into is openness.

了解您的个性，您在 Big-5 模型中寻找的就是开放性。

If you are low in openness, your brain essentially has abstract, creative, intellectual, complex thinking wired to the pain systems of the brain.

如果你的开放性较低，你的大脑本质上就会将抽象的、创造性的、智力的、复杂的思维与大脑的疼痛系统相连。

That's how your wiring is.

你的接线就是这样的。

As soon as things get abstract, not only are you like, I don't like this, you have a much more visceral negative response to these types of ideas, and you are now going into your pain cave while somebody else in the room may have all that abstract, creative, exploratory thinking wired to their reward systems.

一旦事情变得抽象，你不仅会喜欢，我不喜欢这样，你会对这些类型的想法产生更本能的负面反应，你现在会进入你的痛苦洞穴，而房间里的其他人可能将所有抽象的、创造性的、探索性的思维与他们的奖励系统联系起来。

Evan LaPointe: So that's something to really know, and vulnerability is the best approach to this because if you think about the domino two, once you know this stuff, then the question is how do we socialize this knowledge in a team?

Evan LaPointe：所以这是需要真正了解的事情，而脆弱性是解决这个问题的最佳方法，因为如果你想想多米诺骨牌二，一旦你知道了这些东西，那么问题是我们如何在团队中社交化这些知识？

Let's say it's a C suite, a leadership team, a founder and co-founder and the rest of the leadership team.

假设这是一个最高管理层、一个领导团队、一个创始人和联合创始人以及领导团队的其他成员。

And we work a lot with YC companies on this here, because it's super important.

我们与 YC 公司在这方面进行了很多合作，因为它非常重要。

As they hire people, every incremental hire is an increment of psychological diversity, and it changes everything about how these conversations go.

当他们雇用员工时，每一次增加的雇用都是心理多样性的增加，并且它改变了这些对话的方式的一切。

Evan LaPointe: So knowing this, okay, what are our options to socialize this knowledge?

Evan LaPointe：那么知道了这一点，好吧，我们有什么选择来社交化这些知识呢？

Vulnerability is the best option.

漏洞是最好的选择。

But Brené Brown will sell vulnerability for its own sake, not everybody buys selling vulnerability for its own sake, because it's a scary thing.

但布蕾妮·布朗会为了自己的利益而出售脆弱性，并不是每个人都会为了自己的利益而购买出售脆弱性，因为这是一件可怕的事情。

But it gets a little less scary when we consider how much scarier our alternatives are.

但当我们考虑到我们的替代方案有多可怕时，它就变得不那么可怕了。

I can pretend to hide this, that's my other option, or I can not hide it, be a Tasmanian devil, and then be unapologetic.

我可以假装隐藏这一点，那是我的另一个选择，或者我无法隐藏它，成为塔斯马尼亚恶魔，然后毫无歉意。

So those are your three options, and when you realize I can be vulnerable, I can attempt to hide it, or I can be unapologetic, those other two options are ruinous compared to vulnerability.

所以这就是你的三个选择，当你意识到我可能很脆弱时，我可以尝试隐藏它，或者我可以不道歉，与脆弱相比，其他两个选择是毁灭性的。

Lenny Rachitsky: The thing you said about openness and not being good at big vision, brainstorming, super resonates with me, because that's exactly me.

Lenny Rachitsky：你所说的关于开放性和不擅长大视野、集思广益的说法引起了我的强烈共鸣，因为这正是我。

So I took your test, what is it called?

所以我参加了你的测试，它叫什么？

What do you call this test, by the way?

顺便问一下，你怎么称呼这个测试？

Evan LaPointe: CORE identity is what we call it.

Evan LaPointe：我们称之为核心身份。

Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, cool, and we'll link to it in the show notes.

Lenny Rachitsky：好的，很酷，我们将在演出笔记中链接到它。

Lenny Rachitsky: So I took, it's basically the Big-5, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, openness, and formerly known as neuroticism, now called need for stability.

Lenny Rachitsky：所以我认为，这基本上是“五大因素”：宜人性、尽责性、外向性、开放性，以前称为神经质，现在称为稳定需求。

I'm looking at it right here.

我就在这里看着它。

And I'm actually, and I knew this about myself, I'm pretty low on openness, which I don't like to see, but it very much aligns with exactly what you said, I'm not great at big vision thinking.

事实上，我自己也知道这一点，我的开放性很低，这是我不喜欢看到的，但这与你所说的非常一致，我不擅长大愿景思考。

Like when people propose, say a designer on my team proposes this whole redesign big vision rethink of the way we, I'm like, no. It's my pain cave, like you said, and that's exactly what this test reflects.

就像当人们提出建议时，比如说我团队中的一位设计师提出了整个重新设计的大愿景，重新思考我们的方式，我的回答是，不。正如你所说，这是我的痛苦洞穴，而这正是这次测试所反映的。

Lenny Rachitsky: So I think it's a really powerful example of just understanding this is the way your brain is going to respond to things that are totally out there, inconceivable, or how would you call it?

Lenny Rachitsky：所以我认为这是一个非常有力的例子，说明你的大脑会对完全存在的、不可想象的事物做出反应，或者你会如何称呼它？

Somewhat conceivable but not necessarily believable, and that being aware that that's how your brain works is really powerful, being aware other people have a very different experience with that is very powerful.

有点可以想象，但不一定可信，意识到这就是你的大脑的工作方式真的很强大，意识到其他人对此有非常不同的经历也非常强大。

And your advice here is one, this combination of this habitat, create this habitat where you have all these versions of people's ways of thinking, where some people are in their happy cave when they're thinking big, and then along those lines, your point about vulnerably sharing, hey, this is me, I am low in openness, people need to understand this on my team, and let's work together to not let that hinder us.

你在这里的建议是，这个栖息地的结合，创建一个栖息地，在这里你拥有人们所有这些版本的思维方式，有些人在他们的快乐洞穴里思考远大的目标，然后沿着这些思路，你关于脆弱共享的观点，嘿，这就是我，我的开放性很低，人们需要在我的团队中理解这一点，让我们共同努力，不要让这阻碍我们。

Is that right?

是这样吗？

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, absolutely.

埃文·拉普安特：是的，绝对如此。

I mean, because if you think about these ideas as pegs in holes, we're going to take a creativity shaped peg and try to put it through a more pragmatic shaped hole, there's a translation problem there, and it's a huge burden.

我的意思是，因为如果你将这些想法视为孔中的钉子，我们将采用创意形状的钉子并尝试将其穿过更实用的形状的孔，那里存在翻译问题，这是一个巨大的负担。

If the team actually needs to be innovative, it's a huge burden just in terms of time spent on that translation, to translate the visionary strategic ideas that are accurate but are inconceivable into ideas that feel believable for those who need that more grounded thing.

如果团队确实需要创新，那么将准确但难以想象的远见战略思想转化为那些需要更扎实的东西的人感觉可信的想法，就花费在翻译上的时间而言，这是一个巨大的负担。

Evan LaPointe: And of course the most common scenario here is ROI, which is the classic question to ask about any idea, what's the ROI?

Evan LaPointe：当然，这里最常见的情况是投资回报率，这是任何想法都会问的经典问题，投资回报率是多少？

Well, if the idea is inherently generating nth order effects instead of first order effects, like what is the ROI of having fresh flowers in the lobby of a Four Seasons hotel?

好吧，如果这个想法本质上是产生 n 阶效应而不是一阶效应，就像在四季酒店大堂放鲜花的投资回报率是多少？

There's two possibilities for the Four Seasons, they either have an answer to that question which satisfies the pragmatic shaped hole, or they have said in their habitat, we don't ask those types of questions because they're a huge waste of time.

四个季节有两种可能性，他们要么有一个满足实用形状洞的问题的答案，要么他们在他们的栖息地里说过，我们不会问这些类型的问题，因为它们是巨大的浪费时间。

Evan LaPointe: And if you're thinking about a competitive market, most of the people that you interview are in highly competitive markets, the team that spends less time translating satisfactory language before they move, which inevitably they'll move, and sometimes they'll move because the market forces them to.

Evan LaPointe：如果你考虑的是一个竞争激烈的市场，你采访的大多数人都处于竞争激烈的市场中，团队在搬家之前花更少的时间翻译令人满意的语言，他们不可避免地会搬家，有时他们会搬家，因为市场迫使他们这样做。

They spend so much time locked up in the ROI conversation or the justification, the translation conversation, that eventually customers start leaving, employees start leaving, and they're like, oh, okay, it's becoming more believable now.

他们花了太多时间专注于投资回报率对话或理由、翻译对话，最终客户开始离开，员工开始离开，他们就像，哦，好吧，现在变得更加可信了。

Well, because moved out of the realm of ideas into the physical world that we can see right in front of us.

嗯，因为我们已经脱离了思想领域，进入了我们眼前可以看到的物质世界。

Evan LaPointe: And that team, because they got stuck in the translation phase instead of the experimentation phase, has a huge disadvantage in the market, and if you're competing head-to-head with one team, this is what I loved about the Figma conversation, that habitat inherently is built for speed because the habitat itself, words are tattooed to your brain that are like, we will not spend time in the translation phase, we will not spend much time.

Evan LaPointe：那个团队，因为他们陷入了翻译阶段而不是实验阶段，在市场上处于巨大的劣势，如果你要与一个团队正面竞争，这就是我喜欢 Figma 对话的地方，这个栖息地本质上是为了速度而建立的，因为栖息地本身，单词会被印在你的大脑上，就像，我们不会在翻译阶段花时间，我们不会花太多时间。

And we see this a lot in the interplay between finance departments, product departments, and things like that, where an overpowered CFO can start asking questions for which there are no answers, that just we're dragging the team into a different language that is much more literal than the more experiential language of the business, so you can see this play out all the time.

我们在财务部门、产品部门和类似部门之间的相互作用中经常看到这种情况，一个权力过大的首席财务官可能会开始提出一些没有答案的问题，我们只是将团队拖入一种不同的语言，这种语言比业务中更具体验性的语言更加字面化，所以你可以看到这种情况一直在上演。

Evan LaPointe: But I think vulnerability is great because if you are sitting in a meeting, you Lenny, and you say, this is not my thing, basically everything you're saying is inconceivable, now I'm being honest with you, nobody's going to hate you for being honest, they're actually going to be glad that you are honest about the gap instead of glad that you are super certain that you are the right human to index off of in the decision-making process.

埃文·拉普安特：但我认为脆弱性是很大的，因为如果你坐在一个会议上，你莱尼，你说，这不是我的事，基本上你所说的一切都是不可思议的，现在我对你诚实，没有人会因为你的诚实而讨厌你，他们实际上会很高兴你对差距诚实，而不是很高兴你非常确定自己是决策过程中可以参考的合适人选。

Lenny Rachitsky: And the thing you recommend being open about is this is my personality, this is my CORE identity, I don't know the language you'd use, but it's not I think all this is inconceivable, it's I think all this is inconceivable because this is the way I think.

Lenny Rachitsky：你建议公开的事情是，这是我的个性，这是我的核心身份，我不知道你会使用什么语言，但这并不是我认为这一切都是不可思议的，而是我认为这一切都是不可思议的，因为这就是我的想法。

Evan LaPointe: Absolutely, yeah, unpack the detail, for sure.

Evan LaPointe：当然，是的，打开细节，当然。

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, I mean tell people, this takes my brain, all this abstract and creative future-centric thinking that's not rooted in the concrete is where my brain goes, alarms go off and I'm like, I need something concrete.

埃文·拉普安特（Evan LaPointe）：是的，我的意思是告诉人们，这需要我的大脑，所有这些抽象的、创造性的、以未来为中心的思维并非植根于具体的，而是我的大脑去的地方，警报响起，我想，我需要一些具体的东西。

So if you can give me something concrete, I'm more comfortable, but at this point I have to maybe move into a lot of trust, and trust may be my alternative to agreement, right?

因此，如果你能给我一些具体的东西，我会更舒服，但在这一点上，我可能必须建立很多信任，而信任可能是我对协议的替代方案，对吧？

Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：是的。

And there's also, I imagine, what I always do is I recognize, hey, I'm not amazing at this, let me push myself to be more open to these things and find partners that are really good at this and let them drive the ship more.

我想，我总是做的就是我认识到，嘿，我在这方面并不令人惊奇，让我推动自己对这些事情更加开放，找到真正擅长这方面的合作伙伴，让他们更多地推动这艘船。

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, and it's great, one of the things that's so cool about the YC teams that we work with is they're so sophisticated and so smart.

Evan LaPointe：是的，这很棒，与我们合作的 YC 团队最酷的地方之一就是他们是如此成熟和聪明。

So even though they might run into this roadblock, A, they're going to do exactly what you just said and they're going to push themselves.

因此，即使他们可能会遇到这个障碍，A，他们也会完全按照你刚才所说的去做，并且他们会鞭策自己。

You may notice in your profile the dot that you scored is surrounded by rings that represent how hard it is for you to push yourself to think in different ways, to think beyond the home base way of your brain working.

您可能会注意到，在您的个人资料中，您所得分的点周围有圆环，这些圆环代表您推动自己以不同的方式思考，超越大脑工作的基本方式进行思考是多么困难。

Evan LaPointe: Now at a certain point your brain breaks and you move into foreign territory, and there's a level of, I mean, if you are a very conservative person and somebody's like, "Let's go to Burning Man," that will break your brain.

埃文·拉普安特（Evan LaPointe）：现在，在某个时刻，你的大脑会崩溃，你会进入外国领土，我的意思是，如果你是一个非常保守的人，有人会说“让我们去火人节”，这会打破你的大脑。

You don't go all the way to the other side of the spectrum necessarily.

你不一定会走到光谱的另一边。

Lenny Rachitsky: For the record, I've been four times, even though I'm apparently low in openness.

Lenny Rachitsky：根据记录，我已经去过四次了，尽管我的开放性显然很低。

Evan LaPointe: Perfect, and there's lots of reasons to go.

Evan LaPointe：完美，有很多理由去。

Lenny Rachitsky: Got married at Burning Man.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：在火人节结婚。

Makes me feel better about my low percentile.

让我对自己的低百分位感觉更好。

Evan LaPointe: But you're pushing your brain.

Evan LaPointe：但是你正在推动你的大脑。

I mean, Burning Man's actually a great example because there are a bunch of different reasons you might go.

我的意思是，火人节实际上是一个很好的例子，因为你可能会因为很多不同的原因而去。

And if you go for one reason, then you're exposed to the other reasons.

如果你因为一个原因而去，那么你就会面临其他原因。

And that may be interesting, and you may kind of venture closer to those other reasons.

这可能很有趣，你可能会冒险更接近那些其他原因。

You may be like, I'm going to stay in my reason bubble within the greater context of this place.

你可能会想，我会在这个地方的更大背景下留在我的理性泡沫中。

Evan LaPointe: So there's a whole bunch of...

Evan LaPointe：所以有一大堆......

And business is no different, you can say, okay, I'm going to push myself, and I may get into these places that go beyond my brain's flexibility, where the elastic band reaches its limits, and then from there I'll trust people and I'll have people, what I was going to mention about the YC founders is so many of them are so smart that they're really able to efficiently translate what they see beyond where your band stretches into the language you feel comfortable with, quickly.

商业也不例外，你可以说，好吧，我要推动自己，我可能会进入这些超出我大脑灵活性的地方，弹性带达到其极限，然后从那里我会信任人们，我会拥有人们，我要提到的 YC 创始人是他们中的很多人都非常聪明，他们真的能够有效地将他们所看到的超出你的乐队延伸范围的东西快速翻译成你感觉舒服的语言。

Other teams do that really badly and they just accuse you of, "Why can't you see this?" And then you get even more stuck.

其他团队做得非常糟糕，他们只是指责你，“为什么你看不到这个？”然后你就会陷入更加困境。

Lenny Rachitsky: How much shift have you seen in people, say they take this test and they're like, as I am, 23rd percentile in openness, do you see people move meaningfully across this if they work on these sorts of things, or is this just like, here's who you are, you're not going to change significantly?

Lenny Rachitsky：你在人们身上看到了多少转变，说他们参加了这个测试，他们像我一样，在开放性方面处于第 23 个百分点，你是否看到人们在从事此类事情时有意义地跨越这个转变，或者这就像，这就是你是谁，你不会发生重大改变？

Evan LaPointe: Personally I'm more concerned with the effect on teams than on people, because if you look at this through the...

Evan LaPointe：就我个人而言，我更关心对团队的影响而不是对人的影响，因为如果你通过……来看待这个问题

I've been a four time founder, and if I look at this through how is my company working?

我已经四次担任创始人，如果我通过我的公司运作情况来看待这个问题？

How are my teams working?

我的团队工作得怎么样？

I don't need all the individuals to get to perfect, I need, especially in cases where there's this translation issue where a team is working on something and some part of that team is saying, "Let's stop here and let's dwell here." If they can move enough that the team, the effect on the team is now freed up, that's what we really feel as a business.

我不需要所有的人都达到完美，我需要，特别是在存在翻译问题的情况下，一个团队正在做某件事，而该团队的某些人说，“让我们停在这里，让我们住在这里。”如果他们能够足够移动团队，那么对团队的影响现在就被释放出来，这就是我们作为一个企业的真实感受。

Evan LaPointe: So to answer your question directly, people can move a lot, especially through the first three rings of that range that we depict, really, really well.

Evan LaPointe：所以直接回答你的问题，人们可以移动很多，特别是通过我们描绘的那个范围的前三个环，真的非常好。

Self-awareness is actually kind of the key, and self-awareness and self-consciousness, the difference here is that self-awareness is simply being intentional with your brain, whereas self-consciousness is being worried about your brain.

自我意识实际上是关键，自我意识和自我意识，这里的区别在于，自我意识只是对你的大脑有意图，而自我意识是对你的大脑的担忧。

We don't want people to be worried about their brains and insecure, we just want you to say, this is a situation in which my brain can work this way, and this is a situation where I want to push myself.

我们不希望人们担心他们的大脑和没有安全感，我们只是想让你说，这是我的大脑可以这样工作的情况，这是我想要推动自己的情况。

Evan LaPointe: So it's being intentional, and we talked a little bit before this episode about this instinct versus intellect duality in the mind, and essentially you're just using your intellect to either verify or improve your instinct.

埃文·拉普安特：所以这是故意的，我们在本集之前讨论了头脑中本能与智力的二元性，本质上你只是用你的智力来验证或改进你的本能。

You're always going to have instinctive responses about risk and fear and uncertainty and doubt and need for data, and all these types of things, but then your intellect can come in and watch that part of your brain thinking and say, you're super worried about the risk of this, but it's actually pretty low stakes for us to jump in and try.

你总是会对风险、恐惧、不确定性、怀疑和对数据的需求，以及所有这些类型的事情产生本能的反应，但随后你的智力可以介入并观察你大脑的那部分思考，并说，你非常担心这种风险，但实际上我们介入并尝试的风险相当低。

So your need to stabilize that is a little misplaced, and your intellect, that's really what you're doing is saying, how much do people change?

因此，你对稳定这一点的需求有点错位，而你的智力，这实际上就是你在做的事情，就是说，人们会改变多少？

I don't really worry too much about how much they change, it's more about how much they can spot with their intellect something that's misfit to the situation, and then take what they're motivated to do, and what they choose to do, and separate them.

我其实不太担心他们会改变多少，更重要的是他们能用自己的智慧发现多少不适合情况的东西，然后采取他们有动力去做的事情，以及他们选择做的事情，并将它们分开。

It doesn't matter if we change your motivations, if your choice of behavior and your underlying motivation can be different from each other, that's awesome, those people are super.

如果我们改变你的动机并不重要，如果你的行为选择和你的潜在动机可以彼此不同，那就太棒了，那些人都是超级的。

And we all know people like that, where you're like, I know this person is uncomfortable right now, but they're totally making it work, and I really appreciate that.

我们都认识这样的人，我知道这个人现在很不舒服，但他们完全让它发挥作用，我真的很感激。

Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, part of the reason I ask is, I was talking to you about this before we started recording, I want 99th percentile at all these, I just want to nail this.

Lenny Rachitsky：是的，我问这个问题的部分原因是，在我们开始录音之前我就和你讨论过这个问题，我想要所有这些都达到 99%，我只是想解决这个问题。

And I know that's not how it works, I know you have strengths, you have weaknesses, you can't be amazing at everything.

我知道事情不是这样的，我知道你有优点，你有缺点，你不可能在所有事情上都令人惊叹。

But that's funny my mind goes there.

但这很有趣，我的心思就在那里。

Lenny Rachitsky: Just to close the loop on this advice around getting better at vision and strategy, if I were to reflect back what I'm hearing its be very self-aware about what you are not strong at, say openness.

Lenny Rachitsky：为了结束这个关于在愿景和战略方面做得更好的建议，如果我要反思我所听到的，那就是要非常清楚自己不擅长什么，比如说开放性。

Is that specifically the one to focus on if you're trying to figure out how to get better vision and strategy?

如果您想弄清楚如何获得更好的愿景和战略，这是否是您特别需要关注的问题？

Evan LaPointe: So there's a whole bunch of stuff...

Evan LaPointe：所以有一大堆东西......

Well, let me try to make the list simple.

好吧，让我试着让这个清单变得简单一些。

Openness is the biggest one because it is essentially your tolerance of vision and strategy, and the lower that is, the lower you will tolerate the abstract pieces of the puzzle, for sure.

开放性是最大的一个，因为它本质上是你对愿景和策略的容忍度，开放度越低，你对拼图的抽象部分的容忍度就越低，这是肯定的。

The outlandish and purely creative and rules-breaking components of strategy and vision, lack of precedence, those types of things.

战略和愿景中的古怪、纯粹的创造性和违反规则的组成部分，缺乏优先权，诸如此类的事情。

Now the other thing to look out for is as your conscientiousness rises, which is essentially your desire to be efficient, effective, busy, not waste time.

现在要注意的另一件事是你的责任心的提高，这本质上是你渴望高效、有效、忙碌而不是浪费时间。

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, structured and organized, that is another contributor in the negative, which is it's objectively great to be a conscientious person, there are so many benefits, until we have to waste time productively, or we have to break order in organization.

埃文·拉普安特：是的，结构化和有组织性，这是负面影响的另一个因素，客观上，做一个有责任心的人是很棒的，有很多好处，直到我们不得不有效地浪费时间，或者我们不得不破坏组织秩序。

And then that strength that four days a week, or 28 days a month is great for you, on those days where we go and have the offsite and say, what if we blew it all up, to your example of new design, new website, blow it all up, start over again, different direction, that's where the conscientiousness is going to be like, why are we doing this?

然后每周四天，或者每月 28 天的力量对你来说是很棒的，在那些日子里，我们去异地，说，如果我们把一切都搞砸了，以你的新设计、新网站为例，把它全部搞砸，重新开始，不同的方向，这就是责任心，我们为什么要这样做？

Why are we having this conversation?

我们为什么要进行这次谈话？

What's the need?

需要什么？

This is inefficient, I could be spending my time doing something else.

这效率很低，我可能会把时间花在做其他事情上。

Evan LaPointe: And sometimes that'll express itself even in meetings of, I was in a meeting one time after we were acquired, this was eight or nine years ago now, and when you're a founder and you get acquired, there's a new flavor of habitat that you find yourself in with very new rituals.

Evan LaPointe：有时甚至在会议中也会表达出来，我在我们被收购后参加过一次会议，那是八九年前的事了，当你是创始人并且被收购时，你会发现自己处于一种新的栖息地风格和非常新的仪式中。

And one of the rituals that I find myself around a lot was the ritual of saying, we can't talk about this for the rest of our lives.

我发现自己经常遵循的仪式之一就是说，我们不能在余生中谈论这件事。

And we would be about six minutes into a meeting when somebody would drop the, "We can't talk about this for the rest of our lives" line, and I would look at my watch and be like, "I didn't realize that you were terminal, I mean, why are you even in this meeting if you're about to die?"

当我们开会大约六分钟时，有人会挂断“我们余生都不能谈论这个”台词，我会看着手表说，“我没有意识到你已经是晚期了，我的意思是，如果你快要死了，为什么还要参加这个会议呢？”

Evan LaPointe: Because my take on this is we are super far away from the rest of our lives right now, why are you saying that we can't talk about something for six minutes when the diminishing return of added information in the priming of this meeting, to use that again, you knowing X quadruples your decision quality, and you are resisting knowing X.

Evan LaPointe：因为我对此的看法是，我们现在离我们的其他生活非常遥远，为什么你说我们不能在六分钟内谈论某件事，因为在这次会议的启动中，增加的信息的回报递减，再次使用这一点，你知道 X 使你的决策质量翻了四倍，而你拒绝知道 X。

Now we're going to hit a point where you knowing Y, Z, etc, we've hit a diminishing return and now I'm improving your decision quality by 1% instead of by 4x.

现在我们将达到一个点，您知道 Y、Z 等，我们已经达到了收益递减，现在我将您的决策质量提高 1%，而不是 4 倍。

But we haven't established any sensitivity in this room to the diminishing return curve of incremental thought and incremental information.

但我们在这个房间里还没有对增量思维和增量信息的收益递减曲线建立任何敏感性。

And this is like a new habitat, I'm like, in this habitat do people really hate thought?

这就像一个新的栖息地，我想，在这个栖息地里人们真的讨厌思想吗？

Do people really consider themselves to be the police that watch the mean streets of intellectualism for any activity?

人们真的认为自己是警察，监视着知性主义卑鄙的街道上的任何活动吗？

It's just kind of crazy.

这有点疯狂。

But yeah, that's kind of the practical side of this, is you got to watch out and you got to be careful, and that's why I habitat is such a big deal because that's a perfect example of a well-intentioned room with mostly people that are there for the right reasons and the right outcomes, but where this normalness of saying a phrase like that, or saying, "I disagree." Same meeting person goes, "I completely disagree," and I was like, "With everything?" "Absolutely everything." And I go, so let's look at the meta, the overhead camera of this meeting.

但是，是的，这就是实际的一面，你必须要小心，你必须要小心，这就是为什么我的栖息地如此重要，因为这是一个善意的房间的完美例子，大多数人都是出于正确的理由和正确的结果而在那里，但是说这样的话或说“我不同意”是很正常的。同一个会面的人说，“我完全不同意”，我想，“什么都同意？” “绝对是一切。”我走了，让我们看一下元数据，即本次会议的头顶摄像机。

Evan LaPointe: This was the initiation of combat, that's what the brain is seeing.

Evan LaPointe：这是战斗的开始，这就是大脑所看到的。

All the brains in the room are like, oh, fight, right?

房间里所有的大脑都在想，哦，打架，对吧？

And now what are our objectives?

现在我们的目标是什么？

My objective now becomes win, their objective, because they've taken a huge risk of saying, I disagree with everything, becomes win, and because they are disagreeing with a lot of stuff that they don't understand, the inevitability is they're about to be annihilated in this room where they have both said, we can't talk about this forever, and now put all of their chips onto the table to say, "I completely disagree," instead of, "I have a question," or, "Can we pull that thread?" Or, "I don't see how these dots connect."

我的目标现在变成了胜利，他们的目标，因为他们冒着巨大的风险说，我不同意一切，成为胜利，而且因为他们不同意很多他们不理解的事情，不可避免的是他们即将在这个房间里被消灭，他们都说，我们不能永远谈论这个，现在把他们所有的筹码都放在桌子上说，“我完全不同意”，而不是“我有一个问题”，或者“我们能解决这个问题吗？”线？”或者，“我不明白这些点是如何联系起来的。”

Evan LaPointe: So that on a super tactical level, there's things we say that activate the amygdala, the combat mode of the brain, versus a different choice of phrase which is going to activate the prefrontal cortex which is like, "Hey Lenny, you're connecting these two dots, I'm not seeing how they're connected," logic, now let's activate the prefrontal cortex with this sentence instead of, "Lenny, that's dumb, I completely disagree," let's activate the amygdala instead.

Evan LaPointe：因此，在超级战术层面上，我们所说的一些话会激活杏仁核，即大脑的战斗模式，而不是选择不同的短语来激活前额叶皮层，就像，“嘿莱尼，你正在连接这两个点，我不知道它们是如何连接的，”逻辑，现在让我们用这句话来激活前额叶皮层，而不是，“莱尼，那是愚蠢的，我完全不同意，”让我们激活杏仁核。

Lenny Rachitsky: I want to talk about this habitat point you're making which I think is really important, but just to close the loop on the strategy vision piece, so just to give people some very tactical advice is, basically understand your personality, maybe take this CORE identity test, or something like that, understand if you're low in openness and high-end conscientiousness, maybe you're not amazing at vision and it's going to be hard for you to think big and think of it-

Lenny Rachitsky：我想谈谈你正在提出的这个栖息地点，我认为这非常重要，但只是为了关闭战略愿景部分的循环，所以只是给人们一些非常战术性的建议，基本上了解你的个性，也许参加这个核心身份测试，或类似的东西，了解你是否开放性和高端责任心较低，也许你的愿景并不令人惊叹，你很难有远大的想法和思考-

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, your brain is just going to feel agitated when you're around vision.

Evan LaPointe：是的，当你在视觉周围时，你的大脑会感到不安。

But, I mean, you can still do it, right?

但是，我的意思是，你仍然可以做到，对吧？

You can still ask people to translate.

你仍然可以请人翻译。

The key tactic is, okay, it's not this you're predestined to suck, it's more if you're low and openness, especially if you're also high in conscientiousness, then recognize your native language for ideas is a mismatch for the native language of vision and really, really good strategy.

关键的策略是，好吧，这并不是你注定要糟糕的，如果你的态度低下和开放，尤其是如果你的责任心也很高，那么你就会认识到你的母语的想法与母语的愿景和非常非常好的策略不匹配。

Evan LaPointe: And then you can be open about that and you can ask for some translations, and you can ask for...

Evan LaPointe：然后你可以对此持开放态度，你可以要求一些翻译，你可以要求......

I mean, trust doesn't have to be non-participation, you can actually say, it would help me trust if you could explain this gap.

我的意思是，信任不一定是不参与，你实际上可以说，如果你能解释这个差距，这将有助于我的信任。

A great example would be a second order effect, why should we have awesome documentation?

一个很好的例子是二阶效应，为什么我们应该有很棒的文档？

How are we going to make more money if we have awesome documentation?

如果我们拥有出色的文档，我们将如何赚更多的钱？

Great question, don't be hostile in the way you asked it, but just help me understand, what thread are we pulling?

很好的问题，不要以你提出的方式充满敌意，而是帮助我理解，我们在拉什么线索？

Well, we're pulling this thread of customer satisfaction, retention, recommendation, et cetera, Stripe is really good at this, especially from the early days, that great documentation justifies all sorts of second order effects that then will lead us to this first order effect you're asking about.

好吧，我们正在拉动客户满意度、保留率、推荐等这条线索，Stripe 确实很擅长这方面，尤其是从早期开始，出色的文档证明了各种二阶效应的合理性，然后这些二阶效应将引导我们实现您所询问的一阶效应。

Lenny Rachitsky: Awesome, okay, that's really great.

Lenny Rachitsky：太棒了，好吧，那真的很棒。

And I was going to go one direction, but I want to talk about this real quick.

我原本打算朝一个方向发展，但我想快速讨论一下这个问题。

Something that comes up a lot on this podcast is the power of leaning into strengths and not feeling like you have to be amazing at everything, and that in this example, I have a low openness, high conscientiousness, I can still be very successful in the role by, in my opinion, leaning into things I'm actually really strong at, say conscientiousness, and I'm also high in agreeableness.

这个播客中经常出现的东西是依靠优势的力量，而不是感觉你必须在所有事情上都令人惊叹，在这个例子中，我的开放性较低，责任心较高，在我看来，通过依靠我实际上真正擅长的事情，比如责任心，我仍然可以在这个角色中取得很大的成功，比如责任心，而且我的宜人性也很高。

I don't like the sound of that.

我不喜欢那样的声音。

Thoughts on just, it's okay if you're not amazing at vision because your openness is low, but you can be better at other stuff and together you can be really successful no matter how your personality.

想想看，如果你的视野不够开阔，那也没关系，因为你的开放性较低，但你可以在其他方面做得更好，无论你的个性如何，只要在一起，你就可以真正成功。

Evan LaPointe: Absolutely right, yeah.

Evan LaPointe：绝对正确，是的。

I mean, the truth is we look at, taking that Canva example of coaches and managers, not only does that change the way an employee feels about the way this connection they have is invested in them, but it also changes inherently a lot of the meeting dynamics and teaming dynamics from hierarchical feeling things manager to more mesh based intellect.

我的意思是，事实是，我们以 Canva 的教练和经理为例，这不仅改变了员工对他们所拥有的这种联系的投资方式的感受，而且还从本质上改变了很多会议动态和团队动态，从层次感经理的感觉转变为基于网格的智力。

And within the mesh, you don't have to worry too much about the hierarchy anymore.

在网格内，您不必再过多担心层次结构。

You can say, this is the nature of my contribution.

你可以说，这就是我贡献的本质。

Evan LaPointe: So even in the vision and strategy piece, maybe your contributions to idea generation, there are going to be some, and they're probably going to be good.

Evan LaPointe：因此，即使在愿景和战略方面，也许你对创意产生的贡献也会有一些，而且可能会很好。

But those are not ideas to protect in the state that you brought them to the table, they're ideas to set on the table so that people can surround them and improve them.

但这些想法并不是在你把它们带到谈判桌上时就需要保护的，而是应该摆在桌面上的想法，以便人们可以围绕它们并改进它们。

And then as other people contribute ideas that aren't as natural to you, kind of just realize we're not in the phase yet of judging and ranking and prioritizing these ideas, that's not where we are in the overall storyline.

然后，当其他人提出对你来说不那么自然的想法时，你就会意识到我们还没有处于对这些想法进行判断、排名和优先排序的阶段，这不是我们在整个故事情节中所处的位置。

So let it happen, and then if you can improve those ideas, improve them.

所以就让它发生吧，如果你能改进这些想法，那就改进它们。

Evan LaPointe: And once ideas have that early stage, that kind of like what Jony Ive described as the infancy of an idea, when it's really weak and delicate and susceptible, if you can nurture that idea to adolescence where it has a little bit of ability to defend itself, then now you're in a situation where your conscientiousness can start to think about things like how would we resource this?

埃文·拉普安特：一旦想法进入了早期阶段，就像乔尼·伊夫所描述的一个想法的婴儿期，当它非常脆弱、脆弱和易受影响时，如果你能将这个想法培养到青春期，在那里它有一点自我保护的能力，那么现在你就处于这样一种情况，你的责任心可以开始思考诸如我们如何为这个提供资源之类的事情？

What sequencing makes the most sense?

什么顺序最有意义？

What is the ROI of these things relative to each other?

这些事情相对于彼此的投资回报率是多少？

And consider the second and third order effects, and so on.

并考虑二阶和三阶效应等等。

And what would the project plans, and to your point of being both conscientious and agreeable, you are this master of coordination and alignment naturally.

项目计划是什么，而且你既认真又随和，你自然就是协调和一致的大师。

Evan LaPointe: So when that phase of the project begins and we have to get people bought in, high functioning together, getting on the same page, staying focused, getting the project done, all of the people that were good at the beginning with all the vision and strategy, they are just a complete disaster in that phase.

Evan LaPointe：因此，当项目的该阶段开始时，我们必须让人们参与进来，一起高效运作，达成共识，保持专注，完成项目，所有一开始就拥有良好愿景和战略的人，在那个阶段他们只是一场彻底的灾难。

That's just how things really work in the real world, and I think we're so, again, focused, like we talked about at the beginning, we alluded to the fact you have to unpack enough complexity.

这就是现实世界中事情的真实运作方式，我认为我们再次如此专注，就像我们在开始时谈到的那样，我们提到了一个事实，即你必须解开足够的复杂性。

I love the Einstein quote, " Make things as simple as possible but no simpler," and we've made things way simpler than possible in business by saying this is the right way of doing the whole thing.

我喜欢爱因斯坦的名言，“让事情尽可能简单，但不要更简单”，我们通过说这是做整件事的正确方式，让事情变得比商业中可能的更简单。

Evan LaPointe: It's like, no, no, no, if you've ever lived a day in real life, building a real product, the dynamics shift a lot throughout the course of product life cycle, as an example, or really any life cycle as an example.

Evan LaPointe：这就像，不，不，不，如果你在现实生活中度过了一天，构建了一个真正的产品，作为一个例子，整个产品生命周期的动态变化很大，或者作为一个例子，实际上任何生命周期。

And the peak humans as the dynamics shift are very different, peak humans.

随着动态变化，人类的巅峰是非常不同的，人类的巅峰。

Lenny is awesome here, contributes here 10%, contributes here 98%.

Lenny在这里很棒，这里贡献10%，这里贡献98%。

Evan contributes 98% here, please get Evan out of the room when it comes to these meetings, that's great.

Evan在这里贡献了98%，当谈到这些会议时请让Evan离开房间，那太好了。

And yes, we should lean into our strengths, but not so much that we don't know our weaknesses, because another human strength on your team is the patch for the bug of your weakness.

是的，我们应该发挥自己的优势，但不要太过分，以至于我们不知道自己的弱点，因为团队中的另一个人的优势就是弥补你的弱点。

And we run buggy software in companies and we say, "Oh, I am leaning into my strengths, I don't need to worry about my weaknesses," well, then you become the person who needs everything translated into your language because when your weakness flares its head up, it slows everybody else down.

我们在公司里运行有缺陷的软件，我们说，“哦，我正在发挥自己的优势，我不需要担心我的弱点”，那么你就成为了需要将所有内容翻译成你的语言的人，因为当你的弱点凸显出来时，它会减慢其他人的速度。

Evan LaPointe: So it's really, just from an operations business fluidity perspective, a team that is highly unaware of its weaknesses is going to have a lot of slowness and a lot of problems as a result of that.

Evan LaPointe：所以，实际上，仅从运营业务流动性的角度来看，一个高度不了解其弱点的团队将会因此而出现很多缓慢的情况和很多问题。

They don't have to fix all their weaknesses, but be aware of them and know who is a patch to your weakness.

他们不必修复自己所有的弱点，但要意识到这些弱点并知道谁可以弥补你的弱点。

Lenny Rachitsky: Evan, this is so interesting.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：埃文，这太有趣了。

I love that we're digging deep on this.

我喜欢我们对此进行深入挖掘。

Is there one tactical thing you could recommend for someone to become better at openness in, say, a brainstorming experience when they're doing vision, or when they're low at this, say me.

你是否可以向某人推荐一项战术，让他们在进行愿景时或在这方面表现不佳时（比如我说），在头脑风暴体验中变得更开放。

Evan LaPointe: I think the best exercise for a conscientious person especially to feel more open is to become obsessed with reverse engineering.

Evan LaPointe：我认为对于一个有责任心的人来说，特别是要感到更加开放，最好的锻炼就是沉迷于逆向工程。

And it's to say, there's two forms of reverse engineering that I think are really helpful here.

也就是说，我认为有两种形式的逆向工程在这里非常有用。

Number one would be reverse engineering against a desired outcome, to truly understand the inputs that generate that outcome.

第一个是针对期望的结果进行逆向工程，以真正理解生成该结果的输入。

And if we think about that at a big level, like, okay, we want to win a market, what are the real inputs to deconstruct that outcome and understand what our strategy should look like to attack all of the most relevant inputs that generate that outcome?

如果我们从大的层面思考这个问题，比如，好吧，我们想赢得一个市场，那么解构该结果的真正投入是什么，并了解我们的策略应该是什么样子，以攻击产生该结果的所有最相关的投入？

I think that's the specific form.

我想这就是具体的形式。

Evan LaPointe: And then at a super tactical level, if you want to give feedback to somebody, and let's say, for me, I'm low in politeness, you're probably much higher in politeness than I am, and I struggled for years with feedback to generate the intended outcome.

Evan LaPointe：然后在超级战术层面上，如果你想向某人提供反馈，比如说，对我来说，我的礼貌程度很低，你的礼貌程度可能比我高得多，多年来我一直在努力提供反馈以产生预期的结果。

I delivered the feedback, but the delivery wasn't the intended outcome, and the way that I delivered it actually reduced the probability of the intended outcome because I was being too impolite, too direct in many cases, too harsh.

我提供了反馈，但传达的结果并不是预期的结果，而且我提供反馈的方式实际上降低了预期结果的可能性，因为我太不礼貌，在很多情况下太直接，太严厉。

And what does harshness do to the brain?

严酷对大脑有什么影响？

Well, that's crystal clear.

嗯，这很清楚。

So what I was doing and what science knows were very different things, and that's why I failed in those cases.

所以我所做的和科学所知道的是非常不同的事情，这就是我在这些情况下失败的原因。

Evan LaPointe: But as soon as I started closing the gap and realized I need to try harder to think about the story arc of this feedback, that becomes clearest to me how to do it when I have the intended outcome in mind for the feedback, I really would like this person to start turning the corner on this particular way of thinking.

Evan LaPointe：但是，一旦我开始缩小差距，并意识到我需要更加努力地思考这个反馈的故事情节，当我心中有了反馈的预期结果时，我就最清楚如何去做，我真的希望这个人开始扭转这种特定思维方式。

If you and I worked together and it was about openness, we'd be like, what are some things that I could do right now to increment and set the stage for a big shift in openness as time goes on that you are bought into?

如果你和我一起工作并且是关于开放性的，我们会想，随着时间的推移，我现在可以做哪些事情来增加并为开放性的巨大转变奠定基础？

And that's a very, if I'm impolite and be like, "Lenny, what's your problem?

如果我不礼貌地说：“莱尼，你有什么问题吗？

Why can't you do this?

为什么你不能这样做？

Everybody else can do this."

其他人都可以做到这一点。”

Evan LaPointe: Your willingness to start turning that corner, I mean, it may be there, the safety system is activated, like, oh, bad things could happen if I don't do this, but I don't want your safety system to motivate this change.I mean, in most cases, that's an optics based change instead of a material change that will occur.

Evan LaPointe：你愿意开始扭转这个局面，我的意思是，它可能在那里，安全系统被激活，就像，哦，如果我不这样做，糟糕的事情可能会发生，但我不希望你的安全系统激发这种变化。我的意思是，在大多数情况下，这是基于光学的变化，而不是将会发生的物质变化。

And that's why a lot of people, accountability is a great example, asking for accountability is the best way to not get it, because asking for accountability activates people's safety systems, or especially saying, "I'm going to hold people accountable." Then everybody's like, oh, great, we should set up a whole movie set of facade houses that pretend everything's great with no substance behind them, and that's why so many companies end up that way.

这就是为什么很多人，问责制是一个很好的例子，要求问责制是不得到问责制的最好方法，因为要求问责制会激活人们的安全系统，或者特别说，“我要让人们承担责任。”然后每个人都会说，哦，太棒了，我们应该建立一整套电影布景，假装一切都很好，但背后没有任何实质内容，这就是为什么这么多公司最终都是这样的。

But yeah, I would say that's the tactical.

但是，是的，我想说这就是战术。

Evan LaPointe: The second thing to understand about openness and reverse engineering is just situational awareness.

Evan LaPointe：关于开放性和逆向工程，第二个需要了解的就是态势感知。

Very few conscientious people spend, in my opinion, as a very open person, enough time immersing themselves in the reality that is every day situational awareness necessary to do their job.

在我看来，作为一个非常开放的人，很少有认真负责的人花足够的时间沉浸在现实中，即每天的态势感知是完成工作所必需的。

Simplest example of this is how many executives have ever talked to N greater than five customers?

最简单的例子是，有多少高管曾与 N 个以上的客户进行过交谈？

That is a...

那是一个...

Because, well, I'm busy.

因为，嗯，我很忙。

I got a lot of stuff to do, I don't have time to go take a world tour, which is like we don't have the rest of our lives to talk about this.

我有很多事情要做，我没有时间去世界巡演，就好像我们没有余生来谈论这个一样。

I'm not asking you to take a world tour, I'm asking you to stuff into your brain enough situational awareness that the decisions you make every day that affect all those people you're not talking to are considering those people that you're not talking to.

我不是要求你去环游世界，而是要求你在大脑中注入足够的情境意识，以便你每天做出的决定会影响所有那些你没有交谈过的人，并考虑到那些你没有交谈过的人。

Evan LaPointe: So less about an intended specific outcome in this case, and more about, do I really know the...

埃文·拉普安特（Evan LaPointe）：所以，在这种情况下，更少的是关于预期的具体结果，更多的是，我真的知道......

I would think about this as if we think about aeronautical engineering, do I actually have an understanding of the conditions, the flight conditions, that I'm in every day in order to fly really well?

我会像思考航空工程一样思考这个问题，我是否真的了解我每天所处的条件、飞行条件，以便真正飞得很好？

And the answer to that for a lot of people is no. So reverse engineering is probably the whole category.

对于很多人来说，答案是否定的。所以逆向工程可能是整个类别。

I don't know if that makes enough tactical sense, I'm happy to be more descriptive, but that's the category I think is have you reversed engineered how to get outcomes and have you reversed engineered to predispose your mind to come up with really good ideas and good decisions, as opposed to come up with decisions that are super disconnected from reality.

我不知道这是否具有足够的战术意义，我很高兴能更具描述性，但我认为这就是你是否对如何获得结果进行了逆向工程，以及是否对你的思维进行了逆向工程，以提出真正好的想法和好的决策，而不是做出与现实完全脱节的决策。

Evan LaPointe: Great example being PLG, I mean, if you haven't done enough situational awareness work, you have no idea if PLG is a remotely viable strategy for growing your business.

Evan LaPointe：PLG 就是一个很好的例子，我的意思是，如果您没有做足够的态势感知工作，您就不知道 PLG 是否是一种远程可行的业务增长策略。

If it's remotely relevant strategy for growing your business.

如果它是与您的业务发展相关的战略。

And company after company after company has leadership team obsessed with this concept that in principle we should be able to let people just sign up and swipe a credit card and onboard and great.

一家又一家公司的领导团队都痴迷于这样一个概念，即原则上我们应该能够让人们只需注册并刷信用卡即可登机，这很棒。

No, we have a hyper technical solution, that is never going to happen, or that's not the way they do budget, or there could be any number of ways that that's not going to work out, and those are just some concrete examples.

不，我们有一个超级技术解决方案，但这永远不会发生，或者这不是他们制定预算的方式，或者可能有很多方法都行不通，这些只是一些具体的例子。

Lenny Rachitsky: This episode is brought to you by Eppo.

Lenny Rachitsky：本集由 Eppo 为您带来。

Eppo is a next generation AB testing and feature management platform built by alums of Airbnb and Snowflake for modern growth teams.

Eppo 是由 Airbnb 和 Snowflake 的校友为现代增长团队构建的下一代 AB 测试和功能管理平台。

Companies like Twitch, Miro, ClickUp, and DraftKings rely on Eppo to power their experiments.

Twitch、Miro、ClickUp 和 DraftKings 等公司依靠 Eppo 来支持他们的实验。

Experimentation is increasingly essential for driving growth and for understanding the performance of new features, and Eppo helps you increase experimentation velocity while unlocking rigorous deep analysis in a way that no other commercial tool does.

实验对于推动增长和了解新功能的性能越来越重要，Eppo 可以帮助您提高实验速度，同时以其他商业工具无法做到的方式解锁严格的深度分析。

Lenny Rachitsky: When I was at Airbnb, one of the things that I loved most was our experimentation platform, where I could set up experiments easily, troubleshoot issues, and analyze performance all on my own.

Lenny Rachitsky：当我在 Airbnb 时，我最喜欢的事情之一就是我们的实验平台，在这里我可以轻松地设置实验、解决问题并自行分析性能。

Eppo does all that and more, with advanced statistical methods that can help you shave weeks off experiment time, and accessible UI for diving deeper into performance and out of the box reporting that helps you avoid annoying prolonged analytic cycles.

Eppo 做到了这一切，甚至更多，先进的统计方法可以帮助您缩短数周的实验时间，可访问的 UI 可以更深入地了解性能，开箱即用的报告可以帮助您避免烦人的长时间分析周期。

Eppo also makes it easy for you to share experiment insights with your team, sparking new ideas for the AB testing flywheel.

Eppo 还使您可以轻松地与您的团队分享实验见解，激发 AB 测试飞轮的新想法。

Eppo powers experimentation across every use case, including product, growth, machine learning, monetization, and email marketing.

Eppo 为每个用例提供实验支持，包括产品、增长、机器学习、货币化和电子邮件营销。

Check out Eppo at geteppo.com/Lenny, and 10x your experiment velocity.

请访问 geteppo.com/Lenny 查看 Eppo，将您的实验速度提高 10 倍。

That's geteppo.com/Lenny.

那是 geteppo.com/Lenny。

Lenny Rachitsky: It feels like there's a fractal of stuff we could talk about and endless threads of things that I want to dig into.

Lenny Rachitsky：感觉就像我们可以谈论的东西是分形的，而我想深入挖掘的东西是无穷无尽的。

Let me shift a little bit to influence, we mentioned this a little bit earlier.

让我稍微谈谈影响力，我们之前提到过这一点。

I know you have a bunch of awesome advice on how to build your skill at becoming more influential, that's something a lot of listeners of the podcast, or product managers, also founders, need the skill.

我知道你对如何培养自己的技能以变得更有影响力有很多很棒的建议，这是很多播客听众、产品经理以及创始人都需要的技能。

Who doesn't need to become better influencers?

谁不需要成为更好的影响者？

What can we learn about how to become better influencers?

关于如何成为更好的影响者，我们可以学到什么？

Evan LaPointe: We'll probably unpack a second topic and open up an off ramp here right at the beginning, but there's two things, there's influence itself and then there's relationships, and we should probably talk a little bit about relationships.

Evan LaPointe：我们可能会展开第二个主题，并在一开始就在这里打开一个出口，但有两件事，有影响力本身，然后是关系，我们可能应该谈谈关系。

Trying to exert influence through a dysfunctional relationship is not going to go great.

试图通过不正常的关系施加影响不会有很好的效果。

And most human beings, especially when they go to work, are pretty out of sorts when it comes to relationships.

大多数人，尤其是当他们去工作时，在人际关系方面都表现得很糟糕。

Evan LaPointe: And you even hear crazy mantra like we have to each other to work together, which are like, good luck with that.

Evan LaPointe：你甚至会听到一些疯狂的咒语，比如我们必须互相合作，祝你好运。

I mean, just watch a text message pop up on a phone of a person who doesn't like you and watch their response time to the text message, or their Slack message, or whatever.

我的意思是，只需观察不喜欢你的人的手机上弹出的短信，然后观察他们对短信、Slack 消息或其他内容的响应时间。

I mean, you're talking about you've built in a multi-day, at least multi-hour delay into responsiveness purely because the relationship isn't good, and then you compound that effect over whatever size your company is.

我的意思是，你说的是，你纯粹因为关系不好而在响应中建立了多天，至少几个小时的延迟，然后无论你的公司规模如何，你都会加剧这种影响。

That's massive operational inefficiency just because I don't want to respond to Evan right now.

仅仅因为我现在不想回复埃文，这就是严重的运营效率低下。

So that's the one piece.

这就是一件。

Evan LaPointe: Now assuming the relationship is in place, and we'll come back to that and talk about that because a whole very actionable framework to unpack, assuming the relationship is good, I think the starting point for influence is to choose your character and choose your mode.

Evan LaPointe：现在假设关系已经到位，我们将回到这个话题并讨论这一点，因为要解开一个非常可操作的框架，假设关系良好，我认为影响力的起点是选择你的角色并选择你的模式。

It's almost like you're playing Elden Ring or some video game, and you're going to be like, am I going to influence him this way as the hero or the exemplar of these things, or am I going to influence through back channels, what is my character?

这几乎就像你在玩《Elden Ring》或其他电子游戏，你会想，我会以英雄或这些事物的典范的方式影响他，还是会通过幕后渠道影响他，我的性格是什么？

And everybody for your personality has a natural fit for the character you're going to select as this mode of influence, and then you're going to pick a speed of influence, which is slow, moderate, or fast.

每个人的性格都与你要选择的影响模式自然契合，然后你要选择影响的速度，慢、中或快。

Evan LaPointe: Then you're going to pick a speed of influence, which is slow, moderate, or fast.

Evan LaPointe：然后你要选择影响的速度，慢、中或快。

The habitat can help a lot with this.

栖息地对此有很大帮助。

If a founder is listening to this and you haven't created a habitat where fast influence is easy and the permission isn't there, then you're slowing the company down inadvertently by just not clarifying this with the team.

如果创始人正在倾听这一点，而你还没有创造一个容易产生快速影响的栖息地，而且没有获得许可，那么你只是没有向团队澄清这一点，从而无意中减慢了公司的发展速度。

So slow influence is the we'll let them find out the hard way influence.

所以缓慢的影响是我们会让他们找出艰难的影响。

They're going off a cliff, we know they're going off a cliff.

他们即将掉下悬崖，我们知道他们即将掉下悬崖。

And a lot of times we find ourselves in what's called the Abilene paradox.

很多时候我们发现自己陷入了所谓的阿比林悖论。

Evan LaPointe: The Abilene paradox is where everybody in the room knows it's a bad idea, but we're all like "We're in." And the classic Abilene paradox kind of if you look up memes on Google, it'll be like the dad thinks that the kids might want to go camping.

Evan LaPointe：阿比林悖论是房间里的每个人都知道这是一个坏主意，但我们都喜欢“我们参与其中”。如果你在谷歌上查找模因，就会发现经典的阿比林悖论，就像爸爸认为孩子们可能想去露营一样。

Mom doesn't want to go camping, the kids don't want to go camping.

妈妈不想去露营，孩子们也不想去露营。

Dad also doesn't really want to go camping, but everybody's like, "Dad probably wants us to go camping, so let's give it a go." And they all go and don't enjoy it.

爸爸也不太想去露营，但每个人都说，“爸爸可能希望我们去露营，所以我们试试吧。”他们都走了，但并不享受它。

And we see that play out all the time.

我们经常看到这种情况发生。

Evan LaPointe: And a lot of people will just say, "I can't do anything.

Evan LaPointe：很多人只会说：“我无能为力。

I don't have any influence in this case.

我在这件事上没有任何影响力。

We're just going to let him fail and they'll learn." Or this impolite person like me giving feedback the wrong way years in the past, I'm not going to sit Evan down and talk to him about this.

我们只是让他失败，他们就会吸取教训。”或者像我这样不礼貌的人在过去几年以错误的方式提供反馈，我不会让埃文坐下来和他谈论这件事。

He'll figure out on his own through failure that this doesn't work.

他会通过失败自己发现这是行不通的。

And that can take months, that can take years, that can take a lifetime for people to learn the slow way.

人们可能需要几个月、几年、甚至一生的时间来学习缓慢的方法。

And it is a form of influence.

这是影响力的一种形式。

You are being intentional to say, I think the world will create enough failure that adaptation will occur.

你是故意说的，我认为世界将会制造足够多的失败，以至于适应将会发生。

That is a form of influence, just the slowest one.

这是影响的一种形式，只是最慢的一种。

Evan LaPointe: And a lot of people listening probably realize, "Oh, that's what I'm doing.

Evan LaPointe：很多听的人可能会意识到，“哦，这就是我正在做的事情。

How can I go way faster than just letting things fail?" So that's where moderate influence comes in.

除了让事情失败之外，我怎样才能走得更快呢？”这就是适度影响力发挥作用的地方。

And a great book to read for a moderate influence is the Challenger Sale.

《挑战者特卖》是一本值得中等影响力阅读的好书。

And in the Challenger Sale, what we're looking at is the concept of teaching people something.

在挑战者特卖中，我们关注的是教人们一些东西的概念。

And then when they live with this new knowledge, they'll see things that they weren't seeing before.

然后，当他们接受这些新知识时，他们会看到以前没有看到的东西。

So for example, in the feedback example that we can keep using over and over again through this is, "Hey Evan, you might want to notice people's body language while you're saying these things and here's some signs to look out for that when you've done this and you get this, that's probably a sign that people are bought in and still with you.

例如，在我们可以一遍又一遍地使用的反馈示例中，“嘿，埃文，当你说这些话时，你可能想注意人们的肢体语言，这里有一些迹象需要注意，当你这样做时，你得到了这个，这可能是一个迹象，表明人们已经接受并仍然支持你。

And when you see this, that's probably a sign that people are pushing back."

当你看到这一点时，这可能是人们正在抵制的迹象。”

Evan LaPointe: And you can ask this question in that moment and you'll probably hear answers like this.

Evan LaPointe：你可以在那一刻问这个问题，你可能会听到这样的答案。

So you're like giving somebody a tool that their future is going to unpack.

所以你就像给某人一个他们的未来将要打开的工具。

And the Challenger Sale kind of assumes a long enough sales cycle where you're not going to land the sale in the meeting, you're not trying to close them right there.

挑战者销售假设有一个足够长的销售周期，你不会在会议上完成销售，你不会试图在那里结束销售。

You'll teach them some stuff and you'll, "Hey, if you see this stuff, that's a pretty clear sign that you need to take action.

你会教他们一些东西，然后你会说：“嘿，如果你看到这些东西，这是一个非常明显的信号，表明你需要采取行动。

So why don't we call you in 30 days, and 30 days later we get on phone, "Hey, have you been seeing this?" And they'll go, "Everywhere I look, I can't not see it now."

那么为什么我们不在 30 天后给您打电话，30 天后我们会接到电话，“嘿，您看到这个了吗？”他们会说，“无论我看向哪里，我现在都看不到它。”

Evan LaPointe: And that's how you influence a person in a few days, a few weeks, maybe a few months at worst, way faster than letting them fail.

Evan LaPointe：这就是你如何在几天、几周、最坏的情况下几个月内影响一个人，比让他们失败要快得多。

Lenny Rachitsky: We actually had, I don't know if you know this, we had the author of that book on the podcast, Matt Dixon, I think his name.

Lenny Rachitsky：实际上，我不知道你是否知道这一点，我们在播客上有那本书的作者马特·迪克森，我想他的名字。

And the Challenger Sale, the idea there is challenge their perspective and view on what is actually real about the market and what they need.

挑战者销售的想法是挑战他们对市场真实情况和需求的看法和观点。

Evan LaPointe: Exactly.

埃文·拉普安特：没错。

Yeah.

是的。

I think yes, there's the challenge component to it, but I think the underappreciated piece of that methodology is that you're still letting that person see the world, but you've given them new information that is breaking some calcification in their brain challenge.

我认为是的，其中存在挑战成分，但我认为该方法中未被充分重视的部分是，你仍然让那个人看到世界，但你给了他们新的信息，打破了他们大脑挑战中的一些钙化。

It's not the moment of the challenge where all the magic happens.

这并不是所有魔法发生的挑战时刻。

There's moments that occur later that continue kind of putting that calcium, lime and rust melting formula on this expectation or this kind of decision in their mind to the point where sometimes they'll turn around and be like, "Thank you for even telling me this."

后来发生的某些时刻，他们继续将钙、石灰和铁锈融化公式放在这种期望或这种决定上，有时他们会转过身来，说：“谢谢你告诉我这些。”

Lenny Rachitsky: So the advice here is if you're trying to influence someone, try to figure out what they don't know.

Lenny Rachitsky：所以这里的建议是，如果你想影响某人，试着弄清楚他们不知道什么。

Find information that you know they may not know because once they know that and they may be like, "Oh wow, I totally see what you're saying."

找到你知道他们可能不知道的信息，因为一旦他们知道了，他们可能会说，“哦，哇，我完全明白你在说什么。”

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, exactly right.

Evan LaPointe：是的，完全正确。

And let them know it and let them live with it.

让他们知道这一点并让他们接受它。

Don't cram it down their throat and make them accept it If they live with it just a little bit, even just a couple days, that might be enough to come back to a much softer conversation.

不要硬塞给他们，让他们接受。如果他们能忍受一点点，哪怕只是几天，也许就足以回到更温和的谈话中。

Lenny Rachitsky: Does this connect to what you said earlier, which I love this idea of pick a character, like pick your influence style based on your personality, whether it's back channeling and that makes me think of a very specific person.

Lenny Rachitsky：这是否与你之前所说的有关，我喜欢这个选择角色的想法，比如根据你的个性选择你的影响风格，无论是反向引导，这让我想到一个非常具体的人。

He's coming on the podcast actually, he's this Jedi that just gets people aligned but very behind the scenes, very the meetings before the meetings.

事实上，他正在播客上，他是这个绝地武士，只是让人们团结起来，但在幕后，在会议之前的会议上。

So that's one character or it's just telling a compelling story probably in a deck.

所以这只是一个角色，或者只是在一副牌中讲述一个引人入胜的故事。

Or there's other character I guess.

或者我猜还有其他角色。

Does this idea of sharing information, is that a type of character or is that just something that everyone should just do because a really effective strategy?

这种共享信息的想法是否是一种性格，或者只是每个人都应该做的事情，因为这是一种真正有效的策略？

Evan LaPointe: I like the idea of intentionality in just about everything.

Evan LaPointe：我喜欢几乎所有事情都具有意向性的想法。

Are we letting trade winds push us into certain things or are we actually making choices?

我们是让信风推动我们去做某些事情还是我们实际上在做出选择？

And I think that step of being intentional about your style and this kind of notion of a character is a wise step to take so that you can kind of have some guardrails as you go through this and some consistency.

我认为有意识地关注你的风格和这种角色概念是明智的一步，这样你在经历这个过程时就可以有一些护栏和一些一致性。

It helps other people understand the role you're playing in influence.

它可以帮助其他人了解您在影响力中所扮演的角色。

If you are consistently coming from the same place, you're about that style, like I want to try to influence this organization by doing this way and you're going to see that from me over and over and over again.

如果你始终来自同一个地方，那么你就是那种风格，就像我想尝试通过这样做来影响这个组织一样，你会一次又一次地从我身上看到这一点。

Evan LaPointe: You kind of have given yourself a little permission and also you can get some buy-in from people.

Evan LaPointe：你已经给了自己一点许可，你也可以得到人们的一些支持。

If you do want be more the barbarian kind of approach, you can say, "Hey, I'm the devil's advocate approach, or I'm the break it and see if it still stands after I hit it really hard with a sledgehammer kind of guy." Is it okay if I do that over and over and over again?

如果你确实想要更加野蛮的方法，你可以说，“嘿，我是魔鬼拥护者的方法，或者我是打破它，看看在我用大锤之类的人狠狠地击打它之后它是否仍然存在。”如果我一遍又一遍地这样做可以吗？

And now you've bought future you the permission to approach things in certain ways that would yield meaningfully different influence outcomes, like meaningfully different.

现在你已经为未来的你赢得了以某种方式处理事物的许可，这将产生有意义的不同影响结果，比如有意义的不同。

I was able to do this and it accelerated something.

我能够做到这一点，并且它加速了一些事情。

Lenny Rachitsky: So the way I am hearing this is there are many ways to get what you want, think about your personality style and find the path that is most aligned with the way you operate.

Lenny Rachitsky：所以我听到的方式是有很多方法可以得到你想要的东西，思考你的个性风格并找到最适合你的运作方式的道路。

Lenny Rachitsky: Whether it's behind the scenes, whether it's a compelling story.

Lenny Rachitsky：无论是幕后花絮，还是引人入胜的故事。

Awesome.

太棒了。

So this character is basically figure out what your...

所以这个角色基本上是弄清楚你的...

It kind of comes back to leverage your strengths, what are you good at?

这有点回归到发挥你的优势，你擅长什么？

And use that channel to convince people of the thing you want them to be convinced of.

并利用这个渠道让人们相信你想让他们相信的事情。

Lenny Rachitsky: My mind goes to what are the list of ways, what are the character options in this list when I'm opening up the game and choosing?

Lenny Rachitsky：当我打开游戏并进行选择时，我会想到方法列表是什么，列表中的角色选项是什么？

You went through a few, but just to give people like, oh, okay, I see I could try it this way.

你经历了一些，但只是为了让人们知道，哦，好吧，我知道我可以尝试这种方式。

Is there a small list you could share of just like here's ways you could try approaching influence.

您是否可以分享一个小清单，就像您可以尝试接近影响力的方法一样。

Evan LaPointe: Probably the dimensions are most valuable to people.

Evan LaPointe：尺寸对人们来说可能是最有价值的。

I would say one of the dimensions is compassion, which is do I want to influence by trying to help people, by trying to make sure that we get it right and that people get value.

我想说，其中一个维度是同情心，即我是否想通过努力帮助人们、努力确保我们做对了、让人们获得价值来产生影响。

And then the permission I'm seeking there is can I ask questions about why are we not thinking about the user right now?

然后我寻求的许可是我可以问为什么我们现在不考虑用户吗？

Why are we not concerned with the value they're getting and challenge us in that way?

为什么我们不关心他们获得的价值并以这种方式挑战我们？

Evan LaPointe: I think there are characters based on logic and even belief, which is I would like to be the one to insert more knowledge and insert more causality into conversations and challenge causality in conversations to make us think harder and challenge what we believe and break up the sacred cows of the stuff we walked in the meeting with so that we feel differently about things walking out of meetings.

埃文·拉普安特（Evan LaPointe）：我认为有些角色是基于逻辑甚至信仰的，我想成为那个在对话中插入更多知识、插入更多因果关系、挑战对话中的因果关系的人，让我们更加努力地思考，挑战我们所相信的东西，打破我们在会议中走过的东西的神圣地位，这样我们对离开会议的事情会有不同的感觉。

Evan LaPointe: So I think there's a bunch of different very useful dimensions.

Evan LaPointe：所以我认为有很多不同的非常有用的维度。

One could be very creativity based.

一个人可能非常有创造力。

If you follow this big five format, they're kind of spelled out for you.

如果您遵循这五大格式，它们就已经为您详细说明了。

Enthusiasm, interesting dimension.

热情，有趣的维度。

I want to challenge us through the lens of what do people get excited about?

我想通过人们对什么感到兴奋的镜头来挑战我们？

What makes people feel good?

是什么让人们感觉良好？

Does this make people feel good?

这会让人们感觉良好吗？

And are there tweaks we could make to the product or this marketing campaign or whatever.

我们可以对产品或这次营销活动或其他什么进行调整吗？

Evan LaPointe: Look at what Siki just did with Runway.

Evan LaPointe：看看 Siki 刚刚在 Runway 上做了什么。

I mean I love that guy so much and there's so many components of his character and obviously the characters he surrounded himself with that contribute to really next level stuff.

我的意思是，我非常爱那个家伙，他的角色有很多组成部分，显然他周围的角色对真正的下一个层次的东西做出了贡献。

And they're definitely challenging each other using these dimensions of compassion to be the character of caregiver or the character of protector.

他们肯定会利用这些同情心来互相挑战，成为照顾者或保护者的角色。

And so there's a bunch of different ways you could turn those dimensions into characters.

因此，您可以通过多种不同的方式将这些维度转化为角色。

Evan LaPointe: But I think when you see the value of each of those perspectives, especially in product, I'm a really big fan of product.

Evan LaPointe：但我认为，当你看到这些观点的价值时，尤其是在产品方面，我真的是产品的忠实粉丝。

If you have dysfunctionally high compassion, dysfunctionally high openness, you have internal rewards and motivations to explore regions of product that other minds aren't exploring as intuitively.

如果你有不正常的高度同情心、不正常的高度开放性，你就会有内在的奖励和动力去探索其他人没有直观地探索的产品领域。

And you don't have to have the whole deck to be amazing at product.

而且你不必拥有整套牌才能获得令人惊叹的产品。

But you have some unfair advantages if you are super prone to reverse engineering just by your nature.

但是，如果您天生就非常容易进行逆向工程，那么您就会获得一些不公平的优势。

You are going to be more situationally aware and probably make a series of vastly better decisions than the team that has a lot less situational awareness than you do.

你将更加具有情境意识，并且可能会比那些情境意识比你少得多的团队做出一系列更好的决策。

It's a huge advantage.

这是一个巨大的优势。

Evan LaPointe: But when it comes to the concept of influence.

Evan LaPointe：但是说到影响力的概念。

I mean figuring out these dimensions that define who you are and then using them to kind of say, "I want the permission to ask a series of questions and challenge our thinking through this very intuitive strength that I have." Can we all see the value in that or do I need to further sell myself?

我的意思是弄清楚这些定义你是谁的维度，然后用它们来表达：“我希望获得许可，通过我拥有的这种非常直观的力量提出一系列问题并挑战我们的思维。”我们都能看到其中的价值吗？还是我需要进一步推销自己？

And then you'll find you can take on that character and play that role really well.

然后你会发现你可以扮演这个角色并且演得非常好。

Lenny Rachitsky: I imagine the ultimate unlock is that combined with what is that person's personality style and what is the best way they receive information, which is a little harder.

Lenny Rachitsky：我想最终的解锁是结合那个人的个性风格以及他们接收信息的最佳方式是什么，这有点困难。

Because you can't force them to take some tests and you can't make them give you the results.

因为你不能强迫他们做一些测试，也不能让他们给你结果。

But I know a lot of teams do these tests together as a team and share the results.

但我知道很多团队作为一个团队一起进行这些测试并分享结果。

And so it's I guess a reminder of just that's really powerful if you and your team, especially the execs at company.

因此，我想这提醒您，如果您和您的团队，尤其是公司的高管，这确实非常强大。

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, exactly.

埃文·拉普安特：是的，完全正确。

And when you move into this vulnerability out of your three choices state, we don't need a bunch of data for that to work really well.

当您从三种选择状态进入此漏洞时，我们不需要大量数据即可使其正常工作。

If you said, "Hey, I'm not super strong at this," and the rest of the room was like, well "Wait, this other person's super awesome at this, why don't not the two of you work together," then it's like under 30 seconds we've unlocked potential that wasn't there.

如果你说，“嘿，我在这方面不是特别强”，而房间里的其他人会说，“等等，这个人在这方面非常出色，为什么你们两个不一起工作呢？”那么就好像不到 30 秒，我们就释放了原本不存在的潜力。

Evan LaPointe: So you want to get business....

Evan LaPointe：所以你想获得生意......

I kind of think of extending the video game metaphor.

我有点想扩展电子游戏的比喻。

Not only are we choosing our characters or we are a certain character, but the business has a difficulty setting that we chose based on the habitat.

我们不仅选择我们的角色或者我们是某个角色，而且我们根据栖息地选择了业务的难度设置。

And I've worked in and with way too many companies where we are playing the game in nightmare and every enemy takes a thousand shotgun shells to bring down instead of just switching the difficulty setting to easy, which is like the enemies somehow become our friends as we go through this journey.

我曾在太多的公司工作过，我们在噩梦中玩游戏，每个敌人都需要一千颗霰弹枪炮弹才能击倒，而不是简单地将难度设置切换到简单，这就像在我们经历这个旅程时敌人以某种方式成为我们的朋友。

Evan LaPointe: I mean, it really can be that transformative, especially with a case like yours that you talked about.

Evan LaPointe：我的意思是，它确实可以带来变革，尤其是对于您谈到的像您这样的案例。

Okay, I am not as high in openness.

好吧，我的开放程度没那么高。

I'm very high in conscientiousness.

我的责任心非常高。

If I can admit this and ask different types of questions, everybody else in the room will be like the difficulty setting of this just went to zero and the speed of it just went to way higher than it used to be.

如果我能承认这一点并提出不同类型的问题，房间里的其他人都会觉得难度设置变为零，而且速度比以前快得多。

Evan LaPointe: And we underestimate this kind of less concrete part of the business world.

Evan LaPointe：我们低估了商业世界中这种不太具体的部分。

And I mean that's the genesis of this whole business that I was crazy enough to start after starting other companies in the past, which is like we are underestimating how much of our operational reality is a function of our human reality.

我的意思是，这就是我在过去创办其他公司后疯狂地开始的整个业务的起源，这就像我们低估了我们的运营现实有多少是我们人类现实的函数。

And are we doing enough?

我们做得足够吗？

Are we doing the right things to close the gap between what science knows and what business does?

我们是否在做正确的事情来缩小科学知识与商业行为之间的差距？

And do we even know what the science is?

我们知道科学是什么吗？

Have we educated ourselves to close the gap?

我们是否通过自我教育来缩小差距？

And then it becomes super obvious, oh, this makes a lot of sense to be open and find the patch to my bug.

然后它就变得非常明显了，哦，开放并找到我的错误的补丁是很有意义的。

And here we go.

我们开始吧。

Lenny Rachitsky: This fractal of topics continues to grow.

Lenny Rachitsky：这个主题的分形还在继续增长。

I'm trying to contain it.

我正在努力控制它。

There's three things I want to try to talk about in the rest of our chat, that stuff we've touched on that I think will be really useful to people.

我想在接下来的聊天中尝试谈论三件事，我认为我们已经谈到的这些内容对人们非常有用。

One is relationships.

一是关系。

You mentioned there's more to talk about there just how to build great relationships.

您提到还有更多要讨论的就是如何建立良好的关系。

Two is I want to come back to the habitat and building a habitat that is very conducive to innovation and speed and success and those sorts of things.

二是我想回到栖息地并建立一个非常有利于创新、速度和成功等事物的栖息地。

And then I want to talk about focus.

然后我想谈谈焦点。

We talked a bit about just how important focus is and how differently our brains operate in different states of focus.

我们讨论了专注的重要性以及我们的大脑在不同的专注状态下运作有何不同。

So maybe we start with the relationship piece just because that connects to what we were just talking about of how do we strengthen relationships, create better relationships within our teams.

所以也许我们从关系部分开始只是因为这与我们刚才谈论的如何加强关系、在团队内建立更好的关系有关。

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, so we were talking about relationships kind of as this off ramp or this kind of sidecar to influence.

埃文·拉普安特：是的，所以我们谈论的是这种关系，比如这种出口匝道或这种影响力的边车。

And real quickly the fast mode of influence and relationships goes really well together.

很快，影响力和关系的快速模式就能很好地结合在一起。

So we talked about the slow and the moderate.

所以我们谈到了缓慢和温和。

The fast mode of influence is cognitive dissonance.

快速影响模式是认知失调。

It's essentially saying in the moment, I'm not going to wait for you to experience anything.

它本质上是在说，我不会等你经历任何事情。

It's saying in the moment, how does this formula compute?

现在就说，这个公式是怎么计算的？

Explain to me, Evan, how you being too blunt in feedback is going to end up in a human being changing.

向我解释一下，埃文，你在反馈中过于直率将如何最终导致一个人的改变。

Why do you believe that?

你为什么相信这一点？

Evan LaPointe: And especially it's that second phrase of why do you believe that drill below the behavior down into the belief.

Evan LaPointe：尤其是第二个短语，即“你为什么相信”，要深入到行为的下方，深入到信念中。

What do you believe that has you doing this?

你相信什么让你这么做？

And then we can explore how preposterous the belief itself is, which then bubbles up to the surface level of this.

然后我们可以探索这个信念本身有多么荒谬，然后它就会浮出水面。

Evan LaPointe: And if in the environment, the habitat's a huge component of this as our relationships, which is if you have great relationships where people trust each other enough to have this kind of cognitive dissonance conversation, and we have a habitat that is very clear that we are free to discuss cognitive dissonance and logical disconnects, that is really important to do.

埃文·拉普安特：如果在环境中，栖息地是我们关系的一个重要组成部分，也就是说，如果你有良好的关系，人们彼此足够信任，可以进行这种认知失调的对话，而且我们有一个非常明确的栖息地，我们可以自由地讨论认知失调和逻辑脱节，这是非常重要的。

Then you activate fast influence mode basically.

然后你基本上激活快速影响模式。

So that's a really important thing.

所以这是一件非常重要的事情。

And then as you transition to relationships, well what are...

然后当你过渡到人际关系时，什么是......

The question that everybody kind of glosses over in my opinion is what is a relationship?

在我看来，每个人都忽略的一个问题是，什么是关系？

I don't know how you feel about answering that question, but it's a really hard-

我不知道你回答这个问题有何感受，但这确实很难——

Lenny Rachitsky: I would just go to ChatGPT.

Lenny Rachitsky：我只会去 ChatGPT。

What is a relationship?

什么是关系？

Evan LaPointe: Exactly, right.

埃文·拉普安特：完全正确。

Yeah.

是的。

At this point we have some help that we didn't use to have.

此时，我们获得了一些以前没有的帮助。

But the other thing that goes along with what is a relationship is how good is my relationship with person X?

但与关系相关的另一件事是我与 X 的关系有多好？

Like, you and I both know Shreyas and how good is our relationship?

比如，你和我都认识 Shreyas，我们的关系有多好？

I would say it's awesome.

我想说这太棒了。

Why is it awesome?

为什么它很棒？

I don't know.

我不知道。

It just feels great.

感觉很棒。

So let's double click on a good definition and a good framework because once you actually know why a relationship feels great, that example or why a relationship feels super difficult, now we can start to build some strategies, some actual action plans for them.

因此，让我们双击一个好的定义和一个好的框架，因为一旦你真正知道为什么一段关系感觉很棒，那个例子或者为什么一段关系感觉超级困难，现在我们就可以开始为它们制定一些策略和一些实际的行动计划。

Evan LaPointe: So what we propose to people is if you take that third component of your brain ability, that is one piece of your relationships, especially your professional relationships.

埃文·拉普安特：所以我们向人们建议的是，如果你接受大脑能力的第三个组成部分，那就是你的人际关系的一部分，尤其是你的职业关系。

So if you know an engineer and you have an idea of something you want to build and they have the ability to build it, their ability and their utility to you is a function of your relationship and it will contribute to the positive or negative force that you feel in that relationship.

因此，如果您认识一位工程师，并且您对想要构建的东西有想法，并且他们有能力构建它，那么他们的能力和对您的效用是你们关系的函数，它将有助于您在这种关系中感受到积极或消极的力量。

Like, wow, this person has a lot of ability.

就像，哇，这个人有很多能力。

My appreciation is higher, my faith in them is higher, my cooperation with them is higher.

我的欣赏度更高，我对他们的信任更高，我与他们的合作更高。

Evan LaPointe: If you question a person's ability or they've proven that ability is kind of unreliable, those things start to kind of vector downwards and we will pick on Shreyas through this as a good example?

Evan LaPointe：如果你质疑一个人的能力，或者他们已经证明能力有点不可靠，那么这些事情就会开始向下发展，我们会通过这个选择 Shreyas 作为一个很好的例子？

Because I think most of the people watching also know him.

因为我想大多数观看的人也都认识他。

What is his ability?

他的能力是什么？

What is his utility?

他的效用是什么？

As high as I've ever seen.

是我见过的最高的。

I mean every conversation he's intellectually conceptually additive to.

我的意思是他在智力概念上对每一次谈话都有所补充。

You're better after you've talked to him every time.

每次和他谈过之后你就好多了。

At least that's been my experience with him.

至少这是我和他相处的经历。

Evan LaPointe: And we all know people like that, with various fields and various abilities.

Evan LaPointe：我们都认识这样的人，他们拥有不同的领域和不同的能力。

So that's one piece that's really important.

所以这是非常重要的一件事情。

And why as an individual, it's so important to invest in your ability because it is so integral to every relationship you have, particularly professional relationships and your ability, knowledge, your reasoning, your imagination, your skill set, these are all incrementable facets of you.

为什么作为一个人，投资你的能力如此重要，因为它对于你拥有的每一种关系都是不可或缺的，特别是职业关系和你的能力、知识、你的推理、你的想象力、你的技能，这些都是你可增值的方面。

Evan LaPointe: And that's really, really key.

Evan LaPointe：这真的非常关键。

Now here's the plot twist.

现在这是情节的转折。

Your ability is actually not the most important part of a relationship, biologically speaking.

从生物学角度来说，你的能力实际上并不是一段关系中最重要的部分。

There's two more that matter quite a bit more.

还有两个更重要。

And the surprise ending is that the third one matters the most, which is scary in some cases.

令人惊讶的结局是第三个最重要，在某些情况下这很可怕。

Evan LaPointe: The second factor of relationships is trust.

Evan LaPointe：关系的第二个因素是信任。

So trust in the brain.

所以相信大脑。

If we go very primitive back to the amygdala that we talked about earlier, trust is simply risk.

如果我们回到我们之前讨论过的杏仁核，信任就是风险。

Human level risk and trust can span from strongly negative to strongly positive in a relationship.

在一段关系中，人类层面的风险和信任可以从强烈消极到强烈积极。

And we felt that full range with different people in our lives.

我们在生活中与不同的人相处时感受到了全方位的感受。

Strongly negative trust is the brain saying, this person is dangerous to me.

强烈的消极信任是大脑在说，这个人对我来说很危险。

They're very likely to try to undermine me.

他们很可能会试图破坏我的利益。

They're very likely to not deliver something.

他们很可能不会交付任何东西。

Personal harm will occur by essentially kind of interacting in this relationship.

这种关系中的互动本质上会造成人身伤害。

Evan LaPointe: And then on the other side of trust, we kind of try to create some levels to this to keep it clean.

Evan LaPointe：在信任的另一面，我们尝试创建一些级别以保持其清洁。

And the fractal continues to grow a little bit, but we'll try to keep this simple.

分形继续增长一点，但我们会尽量保持简单。

But I like to think of trust one, two and three.

但我喜欢考虑信任一、信任二和信任三。

Three distinct levels of trust.

三种不同的信任级别。

And trust one is, let's say we're having a cookout.

相信一个是，假设我们正在野餐。

Trust one is Lenny, could you please bring the chips, ideally sealed, but it's a delegation of a simple non-critical task knowing that it is likely to get done and get done decently well.

相信莱尼，你能带上芯片吗？最好是密封的，但这是一项简单的非关键任务的委托，知道它很可能完成并且做得很好。

But it's not like this huge level of trust.

但这并不像这种巨大的信任程度。

It's the people that we work with where this type of delegation, and especially if people delegate under the thesis of "I want to do the high value work, so let me put the low value work on other people." That's all the low value work that we put on other people, and it allows us to purify our focus on the high value work, and we don't need all the low value work to go beautifully well or be artistically brilliant.

这种类型的授权是与我们一起工作的人，特别是当人们在“我想做高价值的工作，所以让我把低价值的工作交给其他人”的主题下进行授权时。这就是我们给别人做的所有低价值的工作，它让我们能够把注意力集中在高价值的工作上，而且我们不需要所有的低价值工作就能顺利进行或在艺术上才华横溢。

Evan LaPointe: So trust two is when we step up to almost like "I need to do this myself.

Evan LaPointe：所以信任二是当我们站起来几乎就像“我需要自己做这件事。

Is there anybody who could do it as well as me?" That there's no risk to me having them do it instead of me doing it.

还有人能比我做得更好吗？”让他们代替我做对我来说没有风险。

And that's where you get true scalability of teams.

这就是您获得真正的团队可扩展性的地方。

So if you can trust people enough, your brain's assessment of risk of giving this task to someone else or giving this knowledge even to somebody else, that they'll treat it the way you would treat it, is a significantly higher positive trust that you can feel in a relationship.

因此，如果你能够足够信任别人，你的大脑会评估将这项任务交给别人或将这些知识甚至给别人的风险，他们会以你对待它的方式对待它，这是你在一段关系中可以感受到的明显更高的积极信任。

Evan LaPointe: And then finally, trust three is when we do hit these breakpoints in our brain where we say the way your mind works is beyond the way my mind works on this topic.

Evan LaPointe：最后，信任三是当我们确实达到大脑中的这些断点时，我们说你的思维方式超出了我的思维方式在这个主题上的工作方式。

So the classic example at the cookout would be if Wolfgang Puck was a neighbor, we're going to have Wolfgang Puck do all the most critical stuff and maybe even set up the music and the decor and whatever.

因此，野餐时的经典例子是，如果沃尔夫冈·帕克是邻居，我们将让沃尔夫冈·帕克做所有最关键的事情，甚至可能设置音乐和装饰等等。

Or another example would be like when Steven Spielberg has John Williams score a film, he's not hoping John will do it as well as Steven would do it.

或者另一个例子是，当史蒂文·斯皮尔伯格让约翰·威廉姆斯为一部电影配乐时，他并不希望约翰能做得像史蒂文那样好。

He's saying, "Just send me the bill.

他说：“把账单寄给我吧。

Try not to go too crazy." But he is not going to sit down with the invoice and be like, "Why did you need 13 horns instead of 11?" John just gets to do what John does because there's so much trust in this kind of beyond my event horizon kind of risk.

尽量不要太疯狂。”但他不会坐下来拿着发票问，“为什么你需要 13 个牛角而不是 11 个？”约翰只是去做约翰所做的事情，因为人们对这种超出我的事件视界的风险有如此多的信任。

It would be riskier for me to do it than for him to do it or her to do it, right?

我这样做比他或她这样做风险更大，对吗？

Evan LaPointe: So that's kind of the level, but that matters more to a human being because the safety system, if it activates, your utility is sunk.

Evan LaPointe：这就是一个水平，但这对人类来说更重要，因为安全系统如果激活，你的效用就会下降。

So if you're an awesome engineer but you damage people, it doesn't matter that you're an awesome engineer because in the social network, the mesh of your organization, you are a node that has a protective covering around it.

因此，如果你是一名出色的工程师，但你伤害了人们，那么你是一名出色的工程师并不重要，因为在社交网络中，你的组织的网格中，你是一个周围有保护层的节点。

Information is not flowing to you the way it would normally, and delegation is not flowing to you and access is not flowing to you the way it would normally.

信息没有像平常那样流向您，授权也没有像平常那样流向您，访问也没有像平常那样流向您。

So you are a kind of protected, deactivated, sequestered node of the mesh at this point in time.

因此，此时您是网格中受保护的、停用的、隔离的节点。

And a lot of people really don't get that.

很多人真的不明白这一点。

Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, that's a really good way of visualizing.

Lenny Rachitsky：是的，这是一种非常好的可视化方式。

Evan LaPointe: And then here's the surprise ending.

Evan LaPointe：然后这是令人惊讶的结局。

The last piece of every relationship that you have is appeal.

你所拥有的每段关系的最后一部分都是吸引力。

Appeal is how your brain interprets the shared experiences you have with other people.

吸引力是你的大脑如何解释你与他人分享的经历。

Whether or not you look forward to being around that person, whether or not you like their style, the feel of what shared experiences really are.

无论你是否期待与那个人在一起，无论你是否喜欢他们的风格，以及共同经历的真实感受。

And if you think about, let's pick on Shreyas one last time.

如果你想一想，让我们最后一次选择施瑞亚斯吧。

What is his ability and utility?

他的能力和效用是什么？

Off the charts.

超出图表。

To what extent can he be trusted?

他在多大程度上可以被信任？

Trust three, off the charts.

相信三个，超乎寻常。

Will he ever damage somebody?

他会伤害别人吗？

I mean, not to my knowledge.

我的意思是，据我所知并非如此。

He may have some really dark past that we don't know about, but as far as I've seen, not a lot of damage in his wake.

他可能有一些我们不知道的非常黑暗的过去，但据我所知，他的经历并没有造成太大的伤害。

And then thirdly, what kind of experience is he?

第三，他是什么样的经历？

He's an extraordinarily positive experience.

他是一次非常积极的经历。

So he naturally accumulates great relationship after great relationship after great relationship.

所以他自然而然地积累了一个又一个的大关系。

Evan LaPointe: And again, if you're that great engineer with a ton of ability, now let's flip the middle dimension.

Evan LaPointe：再说一次，如果您是一位拥有大量能力的伟大工程师，那么现在让我们翻转中间维度。

And we trust you a lot, but you're a horrible experience.

我们非常信任你，但你的经历很糟糕。

Are you coming to our offsite?

您要来我们的异地吗？

Are you in this meeting?

你参加这个会议吗？

No, you're gone.

不，你走了。

We don't want you there.

我们不希望你在那里。

You're like a hurricane.

你就像一场飓风。

So biologically speaking, the biggest bug in our programming as we transfer this to the business context is what makes the most sense in business is the most, if it's a meritocracy, the best people with the best knowledge that we can trust should be in the room and we will fight it with every fiber of our being if they're a terrible experience.

因此，从生物学角度来说，当我们将其转移到业务环境时，我们编程中最大的错误是，在业务中最有意义的东西是最有意义的，如果是精英管理，我们可以信任的拥有最优秀知识的最优秀的人应该在房间里，如果这是一次糟糕的经历，我们将竭尽全力与之抗争。

And that's a bummer.

这太糟糕了。

And what's funny is you can flip it.

有趣的是你可以翻转它。

We all either have friends or know people who have friends that you cannot trust, they have no ability to speak of, but they're a super awesome experience.

我们都有朋友，或者认识的人有你不能信任的朋友，他们没有能力谈论，但他们是一次超级棒的经历。

What a great friend.

多么好的朋友啊。

Evan LaPointe: So how is it that we get this thing completely flipped?

Evan LaPointe：那么我们是如何让这件事完全翻转的呢？

And I think that's the thing.

我认为这就是问题所在。

As you parse that list, as anybody listening parses that list, it's critical to ask what kind of experience am I?

当你解析该列表时，当任何听者解析该列表时，重要的是要问我是什么样的体验？

That is where to start?

那该从哪里开始呢？

Not how good am I at my job?

不是我的工作做得有多好？

How much do I know?

我知道多少？

How critical am I to this process?

我对这个过程有多重要？

But am I a miserable experience?

但我的经历是不是很悲惨？

And if the answer is yes, don't worry too much about the other pieces yet, you got to fix that first.

如果答案是肯定的，那么先不要太担心其他部分，你必须先解决这个问题。

Evan LaPointe: And to this point of the profile, as you parse the profile, you'll find things like obviously not a pleasant experience, like being really impolite, obviously not a pleasant experience, being super overbearing and assertive, obviously not a pleasant experience, being hyper low in openness and enacting out of that and telling everybody they're overcomplicating everything all the time.

Evan LaPointe：就个人资料的这一点而言，当你解析个人资料时，你会发现一些事情，比如显然不是一种愉快的经历，比如真的很不礼貌，显然不是一种愉快的经历，超级霸道和自信，显然不是一种愉快的经历，开放性极低，并以此为基础，告诉每个人他们总是把一切都过于复杂化。

Not a great experience for people who are actually well-intentioned trying to get it right.

对于那些真正出于善意并试图把事情做好的人来说，这并不是一次很好的经历。

So there's concrete things that you can do with this knowledge in mind.

因此，您可以利用这些知识做一些具体的事情。

Lenny Rachitsky: This last piece makes me think about why some of the most effective PMs are the PMs that bring a lot of energy and positivity to the team and just get people excited, which is such a soft skill, but such a powerful thing you can do for your team because people kind of look to you to lead them.

Lenny Rachitsky：最后一篇文章让我思考为什么一些最有效的 PM 是那些给团队带来大量能量和积极性并让人们兴奋的 PM，这是一项软技能，但你可以为你的团队做如此强大的事情，因为人们有点指望你来领导他们。

I had a PM I was working with in every meeting, he is like, "This is going to be awesome." He just comes right in every meeting, "Oh, who's ready to make some decisions," and it really changes everything.

我有一位产品经理，每次开会都会和我一起工作，他都会说，“这会太棒了。”他每次会议都会恰到好处，“哦，谁准备好做出一些决定了”，这确实改变了一切。

And so this is amazing advice.

所以这是一个很棒的建议。

Lenny Rachitsky: So basically if you want better relationships, which will make you a better influencer, start with what kind of experience am I, when people work with me, ask me for stuff, ask me questions, and you shared a bunch of specific things you can do.

Lenny Rachitsky：所以基本上，如果你想要更好的关系，这会让你成为一个更好的影响者，首先要从我是什么样的经历开始，当人们和我一起工作，向我询问东西，问我问题时，你分享了一堆你可以做的具体事情。

Lenny Rachitsky: Something I always tell people is just try to smile, just look happy.

Lenny Rachitsky：我总是告诉人们，试着微笑，看起来很高兴。

That makes a big difference.

这有很大的不同。

Lenny Rachitsky: Bring energy, look happy.

Lenny Rachitsky：带来能量，看起来很快乐。

Just try to be excited.

试着保持兴奋。

Yeah, so if you want to build better relationships which have all these amazing trickle down effects, your advice is think about the experience you are to other people when they work with you, work on trust and ideally get to the place that third level of you are doing it better than them.

是的，所以如果你想建立更好的关系，并具有所有这些惊人的涓滴效应，你的建议是想想当其他人与你一起工作时，你给他们带来的体验，建立信任，理想情况下你的第三层做得比他们更好。

But that's a high bar for all things.

但这对所有事情来说都是一个很高的标准。

And then the last thing is, are you actually amazing?

最后一件事是，你真的很棒吗？

Work in your abilities, that's kind of the last piece.

发挥你的能力，这是最后一部分。

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, exactly.

埃文·拉普安特：是的，完全正确。

And it's not that none of these become unimportant because the other are kind of the gateways.

这并不是说这些都变得不重要，因为其他都是门户。

I mean your relationships require all three, especially your professional relationships.

我的意思是你的人际关系需要这三者，尤其是你的职业关系。

So yeah, it's more just like if experience is the only thing undermining you when you're otherwise very trustworthy and very skilled and able, that's a shame.

所以，是的，这更像是，当你在其他方面非常值得信赖、非常熟练和有能力时，如果经验是唯一削弱你的东西，那就太可惜了。

Just fix it.

只要修复它即可。

Evan LaPointe: And there's a whole bunch of ways to go about that.

Evan LaPointe：有很多方法可以实现这一点。

But I like to leave that to people to explore that creatively.

但我喜欢把这个问题留给人们去创造性地探索。

Like well, "Oh gosh, okay, I can change this to this to this." On the trust thing, do you hurt people?

就像，“哦天哪，好吧，我可以把这个改成这个。”在信任问题上，你会伤害别人吗？

I mean, that's it.

我的意思是，就是这样。

Do people have a reason to believe that you are risky or dangerous?

人们有理由相信你有风险或危险吗？

And unfortunately in a lot of habitats, the habitat itself either allows or even rewards people that are super untrustworthy to play the system in advance of the system.

不幸的是，在很多栖息地中，栖息地本身要么允许甚至奖励那些超级不值得信任的人，在系统之前玩这个系统。

And as you talk to Jeffrey about the power conversation, the worse the habitat, the more his suggestions work.

当你与杰弗里谈论权力对话时，栖息地越糟糕，他的建议就越有效。

Evan LaPointe: And the reason that he's correct, he used the phrase, "This is how the world always has been, is how it is, and it's how it always will be." Well, it's how the normal dysfunctional world always has been, is and will be.

埃文·拉普安特：他之所以正确，是因为他用了这样一句话：“世界一直都是这样，现在也是这样，将来也永远都是这样。”嗯，这就是正常的、功能失调的世界过去、现在和将来的样子。

And if you want people in your organization to rise on merit and for influence to work to generate better decision-making, make better products, have a better company, move faster, et cetera, you need to create a habitat where what Jeffrey's observed about the normal dysfunctional world largely doesn't work within your habitat.

如果你希望你的组织中的员工能够靠业绩获得提升，并发挥影响力来做出更好的决策、制造更好的产品、拥有更好的公司、更快地行动等等，那么你需要创建一个栖息地，而杰弗里所观察到的正常功能失调的世界在很大程度上并不适用于你的栖息地。

So if it's effective for people to harm each other in your habitat, you are performing at a much lower level than if harming each other was extremely ineffective.

因此，如果人们在你的栖息地里互相伤害是有效的，那么你的表现就会比互相伤害极其无效时低得多。

And that's up to you as a leader, as a manager, et cetera.

这取决于你作为领导者、管理者等等。

And then of course, skill is what it is.

当然，技能就是它的本质。

It's your ability to convert your intents into outcomes.

这是你将意图转化为结果的能力。

Lenny Rachitsky: I'm glad you're talking about habitat, that's exactly where I wanted to go.

Lenny Rachitsky：我很高兴你谈论栖息地，那正是我想去的地方。

So just two more things I want to spend our time on, habitat and focus, how to create more space for focus and get better focus.

所以我想花时间在两件事上：栖息地和专注，如何创造更多的专注空间并获得更好的专注。

So you've touched on this many times at this point, this idea of a habitat.

所以你现在已经多次谈到这个栖息地的想法了。

I think another way to think about this is the culture of your company.

我认为思考这个问题的另一种方式是贵公司的文化。

Is that right?

是这样吗？

Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, cool.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：好的，酷。

So are there a few things you could recommend to people to create a habitat that is conducive of good stuff?

那么，您可以向人们推荐一些东西来创造一个有利于美好事物的栖息地吗？

Evan LaPointe: Let's start at the start here.

Evan LaPointe：让我们从这里开始。

So in the difference between what science knows and business does, let's kind of zero in on the fact that the way most companies approach culture has a very shaky track record.

因此，在科学知识与商业知识之间的差异中，让我们把事实归零，即大多数公司处理文化的方式都有一个非常不稳定的记录。

Like if mission, vision, values was an airline, you would not allow any family to fly on that airline.

就像如果使命、愿景、价值观是一家航空公司，你不会允许任何家庭乘坐该航空公司的航班。

It does not arrive at most of its intended destinations.

它没有到达大部分预定目的地。

That is just a super important starting point because I'm going to kill a sacred cow here while we talk about this.

这只是一个非常重要的起点，因为当我们谈论这个问题时，我将在这里杀死一头神圣的牛。

And I don't want anybody to feel like I'm trying to be mean or anything.

我不想让任何人觉得我在刻薄或什么。

It's just it's worth looking at stuff that doesn't work and wondering if there's something that could work a lot better.

只是值得看看那些不起作用的东西，并想知道是否有一些东西可以做得更好。

So if we look at habitat and culture, it's really about what people believe.

因此，如果我们审视栖息地和文化，就会发现这实际上与人们的信仰有关。

It's what people believe is acceptable, permissible, productive, and the biggest flaw in people's approach to culture.

这是人们认为是可以接受的、允许的、富有成效的，也是人们对待文化的最大缺陷。

And interestingly enough, even at YC, they talk about this mission, vision, values, culture, stuff that comes later, let some stuff happen with the business that comes later.

有趣的是，即使在 YC，他们也会谈论这个使命、愿景、价值观、文化，以及以后发生的事情，让一些事情随着以后的业务发生。

They're right to say that if that's the paradigm you're going to use because it's not going to work either way.

他们说的是对的，如果这就是你要使用的范式，因为无论哪种方式都行不通。

So you might as well do it later.

所以你不妨稍后再做。

Evan LaPointe: But if you're going to do it the right way and investigate human beliefs, and we talked about priming for example, culture is just the macro priming of the entire business of what your central belief systems are and then the permission that forms from those belief systems.

埃文·拉普安特：但如果你要以正确的方式去做并调查人类信仰，例如我们谈到了启动，那么文化只是整个业务的宏观启动，即你的中心信仰体系是什么，然后是从这些信仰体系形成的许可。

So if you've done that really well, you should do that right at the very beginning.

因此，如果您确实做得很好，那么您应该从一开始就这样做。

In what way should we approach this company, building this, working together, et cetera?

我们应该以什么方式接触这家公司、建立它、共同工作等等？

That would be really, really helpful to get right from day one.

从第一天开始，这将非常非常有帮助。

And the belief system that people have, there are two approaches to changing people's beliefs.

对于人们所拥有的信仰体系，有两种方法可以改变人们的信仰。

Evan LaPointe: Mission, vision, values is what we call a performative approach.

Evan LaPointe：使命、愿景、价值观就是我们所说的表演方法。

Meaning I'm going to come up with some expression of an inspiring mission, inspiring values and inspiring vision, and it's going to be performed well enough.

这意味着我将提出一些鼓舞人心的使命、鼓舞人心的价值观和鼓舞人心的愿景的表达方式，并且它会表现得足够好。

It's going to be like if we were busking in the park, this is going to be a cool enough mission, vision, values that people throw some change into my guitar case and they buy into it, they gather around.

就像我们在公园里街头表演一样，这将是一个足够酷的使命、愿景和价值观，人们会在我的吉他盒里扔一些零钱，然后他们就会购买它，他们会聚集在一起。

And I think that's just completely the wrong approach because we're hoping to inspire people.

我认为这完全是错误的做法，因为我们希望激励人们。

We're hoping to be artistically talented enough to pull that off.

我们希望有足够的艺术天赋来实现这一目标。

The other approach is to be deductive, logically deductive, which is centrally speaking.

另一种方法是演绎，逻辑演绎，这是中心化的。

There is hopefully a market out there that's glad our company exists, who is glad we exist, why are they glad we exist?

希望有一个市场很高兴我们公司的存在，谁很高兴我们的存在，为什么他们很高兴我们的存在？

And that's shifting our mission into something that we call your role, the role you play in the world around you.

这正在将我们的使命转变为我们所说的“你的角色”，即你在周围世界中扮演的角色。

Evan LaPointe: Who is glad you exist?

Evan LaPointe：谁会因为你的存在而感到高兴？

Why are they glad you exist?

为什么他们很高兴你的存在？

And that is a fact.

这是事实。

That is not an inspiring idea.

这不是一个鼓舞人心的想法。

That is like, okay, we work with this company that does AI-based optical character recognition, document ingestion, et cetera.

这就像，好吧，我们与这家公司合作，从事基于人工智能的光学字符识别、文档摄取等工作。

Why is the world glad that they exist?

为什么世界会因为它们的存在而感到高兴？

Well, because we get 95% of the documents scanned into structured data that normally people have to transfer by hand.

嗯，因为我们将 95% 的文档扫描成结构化数据，而这些数据通常人们必须手动传输。

That's pretty compelling.

这相当有说服力。

Why is the world glad Warby Parker exists?

为什么世界对 Warby Parker 的存在感到高兴？

Because before you used to choose between looking dumb and it being cheap and looking cool and it being expensive, and now you can look cool and it's cheap.

因为以前你常常在看起来很蠢但很便宜和看起来很酷但很昂贵之间做出选择，而现在你可以看起来很酷但很便宜。

The world's really glad we exist.

世界真的很高兴我们的存在。

Evan LaPointe: Now that's true.

Evan LaPointe：现在确实如此。

I don't need you to be inspired to believe that that is true.

我不需要你受到启发来相信这是真的。

And now everything that we're going to think about for the rest of our beliefs, we're going to deduce from that.

现在我们要考虑的关于我们其余信念的一切，我们都将从中推断出来。

So we're just going to use logic to build our culture, not inspiration.

所以我们只是用逻辑来建立我们的文化，而不是灵感。

So this next thing we need to figure out is how can we understand the specific value that's created when we play this role in the world?

因此，我们接下来需要弄清楚的是，我们如何理解当我们在世界上扮演这个角色时所创造的具体价值？

We save people money, we save people time, we open up markets, we help people explore possibilities and potential they couldn't tap into otherwise, etc.

我们为人们节省金钱，为人们节省时间，我们开拓市场，我们帮助人们探索他们无法利用的可能性和潜力，等等。

Evan LaPointe: So what's the role of Core?

Evan LaPointe：那么 Core 的作用是什么？

People are glad we exist because we tap into potential they had no access to before.

人们很高兴我们的存在，因为我们挖掘了他们以前无法获得的潜力。

And at the team level, at the company level, that could be a really big deal.

在团队层面、公司层面，这可能是一件大事。

So we know that and we say, "Okay, well gosh, that implies so much." There's so much we got to do now what value does that produce?

所以我们知道这一点，然后我们说：“好吧，天哪，这意味着很多。”我们现在要做的事情太多了，这会产生什么价值？

And then I could say, okay, once we understand the definition of value, which comes out of our role, now we can change the definition of done.

然后我可以说，好吧，一旦我们理解了来自我们角色的价值定义，现在我们就可以改变“完成”的定义。

So a lot of teams talk about bias to action.

所以很多团队都在谈论行动偏见。

And hamsters have bias to action.

仓鼠对行动有偏见。

They get up out of their straw and they turn that wheel as hard as they possibly can and they go absolutely nowhere.

他们从稻草中站起来，用尽全力转动轮子，却毫无进展。

But if you understand the role you play-

但如果你了解自己所扮演的角色——

Evan LaPointe: But if you understand the role you play in the world, and you understand the value you produce in terms of time savings, cost savings, upside, whatever it is that you do, then you can say, "We should have a bias to impact, not a bias to action.

埃文·拉普安特：但如果你了解你在世界上扮演的角色，并且你了解你在节省时间、节省成本、优势方面所产生的价值，无论你做什么，那么你可以说，“我们应该偏向影响力，而不是偏向行动。

We shouldn't just do stuff, we should have an effect that has the result of value creation.

我们不应该只是做事，我们应该产生能够创造价值的效果。

We should save people time." And now when you're a product team, looking at this, and you're saying, "Well, here's a cool new idea, Lenny, let's do this." You can now use that as a habitat level permission to be like, "Oh, how does that produce value for people?

我们应该节省人们的时间。”现在，当你是一个产品团队时，看到这个，你会说：“好吧，这是一个很酷的新想法，莱尼，让我们这样做吧。”您现在可以将其用作栖息地级别的许可，“哦，这如何为人们创造价值？

How does that make people go faster, save time, get smarter, do something they couldn't do otherwise?" And then you can still use that exact same vocabulary when you go sell it to them, "This is how it makes you faster, smarter, more efficient, save cost."

这如何让人们走得更快、节省时间、变得更聪明，做一些他们原本无法做的事情？”然后，当你把它卖给他们时，你仍然可以使用完全相同的词汇，“这就是它如何让你更快、更聪明、更高效、节省成本。”

Evan LaPointe: So it's like really logical deduction.

Evan LaPointe：所以这就像真正的逻辑推论。

And if people think that we should do something, build a product that doesn't create value.

如果人们认为我们应该做某事，那就开发一种不创造价值的产品。

Now instead of being inspiring, we can be logical.

现在，我们不再需要鼓舞人心，而是需要理性思考。

We don't build things that produce no value, that is not a priority until we can turn it into something that does produce value.

我们不会建造不产生任何价值的东西，这不是一个优先事项，直到我们能够将其转变为确实产生价值的东西。

So you're turning culture into something highly usable, in getting away from performative culture into logical deductive culture.

因此，你正在将文化转变为高度可用的东西，从表演文化转变为逻辑演绎文化。

And I think that's really, really the key for most people is to say, "Let's understand why the world's glad we exist." That's why we have a team, that's why we have customers.

我认为对于大多数人来说，真正的关键是说：“让我们理解为什么世界很高兴我们的存在。”这就是为什么我们有团队，这就是我们有客户的原因。

And what does that imply about our standards for ourselves when we execute in value creation?

当我们执行价值创造时，这对我们自己的标准意味着什么？

Even down to the email.

甚至到电子邮件。

If I send some wonky email reply to somebody's question and it doesn't produce value for them, I'm not done.

如果我向某人的问题发送了一些奇怪的电子邮件回复，并且它没有为他们带来价值，那么我还没有完成。

I need to finish the job until it produces value for them.

我需要完成这项工作，直到它为他们创造价值。

Evan LaPointe: Quality standards are baked into this, that again is implied.

Evan LaPointe：质量标准已融入其中，这也是暗示的。

Would I be happy that Warby Parker exists, if they shipped me something that's a two out of 10 in quality?

如果 Warby Parker 给我提供的质量是满分 2 分的话，我会很高兴吗？

No. So we can't make things that are two out of 10.

不，所以我们不能制造出十分之二的东西。

And everybody has a belief.

并且每个人都有一个信念。

There are plenty of people that probably interview at Warby Parker that think, two out of 10 is perfectly fine, just get it to them.

很多在 Warby Parker 面试的人可能会认为，十分之二就完全没问题，直接交给他们就可以了。

And no, we need an antibody to that belief.

不，我们需要对这种信念有抗体。

We have decision-making intelligence, which everybody believes we should go fast, break stuff, or we should be super slow, and get everything right and wherever in between.

我们拥有决策智慧，每个人都认为我们应该快速前进，打破常规，或者我们应该超级缓慢，把一切都做对，或者介于两者之间。

That's a fun one to talk about.

这是一件很有趣的事情。

And then finally, you have a teaming dynamic belief, which is essentially every single human's belief of what is acceptable treatment of other human beings.

最后，你有一个团队动态信念，这本质上是每个人对如何对待其他人是可以接受的方式的信念。

What state does that put the other human in?

这会让另一个人处于什么状态？

Evan LaPointe: And a lot of people, particularly like I'll pick on myself with the low politeness, will spend years thinking, "I'm giving honest feedback quickly.

埃文·拉普安特：很多人，尤其是像我这样不礼貌地挑剔自己的人，会花很多年的时间思考，“我很快就给出了诚实的反馈。

This is efficient." And you're like, "How is it efficient when it takes people six months instead of six minutes to act on your feedback because they just don't like you so much, and you have this appeal problem that keeps you out of all the rooms?" Actually your utility, which, your politeness is a utility transferred mechanism, but we don't want you in the room.

这很有效。”你会想，“当人们需要六个月而不是六分钟的时间来对你的反馈采取行动时，因为他们不太喜欢你，而你的吸引力问题让你无法进入所有房间，那么效率如何？”实际上你的效用，即你的礼貌是一种效用转移机制，但我们不希望你在房间里。

So you're not a business benefit in this case.

所以在这种情况下你并没有获得商业利益。

So that's kind of the starting point.

这就是起点。

That's ground zero of habitat is do not build an habitat on the roots of inspiration.

栖息地的归零地是不要在灵感的根源上建立栖息地。

It doesn't work.

这不起作用。

It can work, right?

它可以工作，对吧？

If you do it super inspiring stuff and you're super inspiring people, then you probably have the artistic ability to pull that off.

如果你做了超级鼓舞人心的事情，并且你是超级鼓舞人心的人，那么你可能有艺术能力来实现这一目标。

But even then, you'd still be better off if you would do it through logical deduction instead of inspiration.

但即便如此，如果你通过逻辑演绎而不是灵感来做到这一点，你的情况仍然会更好。

Lenny Rachitsky: Say someone is like, "Okay, I'm going to improve my habitat, I'm going to improve my company culture.

Lenny Rachitsky：假设有人说，“好吧，我要改善我的居住环境，我要改善我的公司文化。

Or I'm just going to start setting up a good habitat." What's something they can do?

或者我只是要开始建立一个良好的栖息地。”他们能做什么？

What can they do today, this week, to just start to do that?

今天、本周他们可以做什么来开始这样做呢？

Is it, sit down and think about what is the value we provide?

是吗，坐下来想一想我们提供的价值是什么？

Why do we exist?

我们为何存在？

Is there something else you'd recommend?

您还有其他推荐吗？

Evan LaPointe: So the brain craves an answer to the question, why am I doing this?

Evan LaPointe：所以大脑渴望得到这个问题的答案：我为什么要这样做？

And not only are there things we should start doing, but I like to deepen the commitment in people's minds to what we should start doing, by thinking of it as, we should start doing things that we've been negligent in doing, right?

不仅有我们应该开始做的事情，而且我喜欢加深人们对我们应该开始做的事情的承诺，认为我们应该开始做我们一直疏忽做的事情，对吗？

Not just, oh, this would be even better, but we are actually causing some habitat problems by being negligent in certain things.

不仅是，哦，这会更好，而且我们实际上由于对某些事情的疏忽而造成了一些栖息地问题。

So the primary thing that people are negligent in is answering the question, why should I do this, to their team.

因此，人们忽视的首要事情是向他们的团队回答这个问题：我为什么要这样做。

And saying, you should do this because it's your job is a form of negligence, right?

并说，你应该这样做，因为这是你的工作，这是一种疏忽，对吗？

You're not actually answering that question in any useful way.

您实际上并没有以任何有用的方式回答这个问题。

Because I could also answer that in the safety way, which I sort of just did by saying, it's your job.

因为我也可以以安全的方式回答这个问题，我只是说，这是你的工作。

I'm implying that there's a consequence.

我的意思是，这是有后果的。

But I could be like, because if you don't, here's the specific bad things that will happen.

但我可能会说，因为如果你不这样做，就会发生以下具体的坏事。

Evan LaPointe: You could be giving them a why in terms of reward, because, oh, if you do this, you get this, or if we do this, we get this.

Evan LaPointe：你可以在奖励方面给他们一个原因，因为，哦，如果你这样做，你就会得到这个，或者如果我们这样做，我们就会得到这个。

But you could also be giving them a purposeful answer to why, which is not a form of negligence, which is to say, because our work actually matters.

但你也可以有目的地回答他们的原因，这不是一种疏忽，也就是说，因为我们的工作实际上很重要。

There are people out there waiting on us to ship this product to improve their situation, and they also want us to get it right at the same time.

有些人正在等待我们运送该产品以改善他们的处境，他们也希望我们同时把它做好。

So bias to impact through that lens.

所以偏向于通过这个镜头产生影响。

We do need to ship this.

我们确实需要运送这个。

It needs to happen, and it needs to be right, or at least right enough in its first version.

它需要发生，并且需要是正确的，或者至少在第一个版本中足够正确。

Evan LaPointe: So if you have been negligent, and we all have at times, right?

Evan LaPointe：所以，如果你疏忽了，我们有时都会疏忽，对吗？

I'm not trying to judge, but I'm trying to convict, right?

我不是想评判，而是想定罪，对吗？

To build some conviction, to build some commitment.

建立一些信念，建立一些承诺。

If you have been negligent in answering to all these minds that work with you, why we're even doing this.

如果你一直疏于回应所有与你一起工作的人，我们为什么要这样做。

That's the starting point, is make sure everybody knows why.

这是起点，确保每个人都知道原因。

And that why is a shared why across the team.

这是整个团队的共同原因。

And not just the Simon Sinek big picture why?

不仅仅是西蒙·斯内克（Simon Sinek）的大局，为什么？

I mean, very specific why.

我的意思是，非常具体的原因。

That for my team, when we build training materials, when we look at it through that lens of, if we get this right, this is what happens to teams, and companies, and products and their customers.

对于我的团队来说，当我们制作培训材料时，当我们通过这个镜头来看待它时，如果我们做对了，这就是团队、公司、产品及其客户所发生的事情。

Evan LaPointe: There's a through line at the big deal and that's why we can't do it this way, or that's why we should get more obsessed with quality, and why we should get more interdependent as a team and stop doing things that are just our own ideas.

Evan LaPointe：大事上有一条贯穿线，这就是为什么我们不能这样做，或者这就是为什么我们应该更加关注质量，以及为什么我们作为一个团队应该更加相互依赖，并停止做那些只是我们自己想法的事情。

But say, "Hey Lenny, I'm thinking about doing it this way.

但是你可以说：“嘿，莱尼，我正在考虑这样做。

Is there anything you'd add before I hit go?" And then you'd be like, "Oh, I think it would be 10% better if you did it this way." And then now our product is 10% better.

在我开始之前你还有什么要补充的吗？”然后你会说，“哦，我想如果你这样做的话效果会好 10%。”现在我们的产品好 10%。

So that's kind of the square one is ask yourself, when's the last time our team had a conversation about why we're even doing any of this?

因此，首先要问自己的是，我们的团队最后一次讨论我们为什么要这样做是什么时候？

What value it produces?

它产生什么价值？

Who is affected by our decisions?

谁会受到我们的决定的影响？

And if that hasn't happened in a while, that's not good.

如果这种情况有一段时间没有发生，那就不好了。

Lenny Rachitsky: Is another way to think about this, your mission, is that a term?

Lenny Rachitsky：有另一种方式来思考这个问题吗？你的使命是一个术语吗？

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, I think it's an alternative to mission, I try...

Evan LaPointe：是的，我认为这是任务的替代方案，我尝试......

And I don't want to stomp all over mission, vision, values because I think they can work.

我不想践踏使命、愿景和价值观，因为我认为它们可以发挥作用。

But I think it's easier for people to conceptualize the importance of their work, if they understand, we are playing a role, not fulfilling a mission.

但我认为，如果人们明白，我们是在发挥作用，而不是在履行使命，那么他们就更容易理解他们工作的重要性。

And role implies obligation.

角色意味着义务。

There's no obligation in mission, unless you feel the inspiration so powerfully.

使命中没有任何义务，除非你感受到如此强烈的灵感。

And these differences are subtle, but neurologically, it's different.

这些差异很微妙，但从神经学角度来说，是不同的。

If I tell your brain, "Here are the people counting on you to get this right, Lenny." Your brain activates a region called the anterior insular cortex, which starts to think about other people in the context of the solution you're creating.

如果我告诉你的大脑：“莱尼，这些人指望你把这件事做好。”你的大脑会激活一个叫做前岛叶皮层的区域，它开始在你正在创建的解决方案的背景下考虑其他人。

Evan LaPointe: And if I say, "We are here to change people's lives through this," in a more general sense, your prefrontal cortex will still activate to solve the problem, but your anterior insular cortex will not, to more deeply consider the humans affected by the problem.

Evan LaPointe：如果我说，“我们来这里是为了通过这个改变人们的生活”，从更一般的意义上来说，你的前额叶皮层仍然会激活来解决问题，但你的前岛叶皮层不会，更深入地考虑受该问题影响的人类。

So you're kind of adding to the toolkit of what the brain will bring to the table to generate solutions.

因此，您可以将大脑提供的工具添加到工具箱中以生成解决方案。

And if you activate more good regions of the brain, you get better solutions.

如果你激活大脑更多好的区域，你就会得到更好的解决方案。

So I lean into this.

所以我倾向于这个。

Personally, I'm like, "You really don't need a mission statement.

就我个人而言，我想，“你真的不需要使命宣言。

You need to understand the role you play, and people need to have some response, some physiological, like, 'I get it, to my actions impact people.'" And if they don't have a response, you should go find a human who does, for sure.

你需要了解你所扮演的角色，人们需要有一些反应，一些生理反应，比如，‘我明白了，我的行为会影响人们。’”如果他们没有反应，你当然应该去找一个有反应的人。

Lenny Rachitsky: One last thread I want to follow, focus.

Lenny Rachitsky：我想关注的最后一个话题是焦点。

You have some really cool advice on how to help.

关于如何提供帮助，您有一些非常酷的建议。

And this just comes from everybody wants to get better focus.

这只是因为每个人都想获得更好的专注力。

Everyone wants their team to have more time for focus.

每个人都希望自己的团队有更多时间专注。

Everyone wants their engineers to sit there and build things faster, their designers to get stuff done.

每个人都希望他们的工程师坐在那里更快地构建产品，而他们的设计师则能完成工作。

And it all comes from getting really good at focus and creating space for focus on your team.

这一切都来自于真正善于专注并为团队创造专注的空间。

What advice do you have for folks that want to personally learn to focus better, and to help their team have more time for focus, get stuff done essentially?

对于那些想要亲自学习更好地集中注意力并帮助他们的团队有更多时间集中注意力并从根本上完成工作的人，您有什么建议？

Evan LaPointe: I mean, isn't this the question?

Evan LaPointe：我的意思是，这不是问题吗？

Because this is where it all ends, right?

因为这就是一切结束的地方，对吗？

First things first, let's look at the neuroscience that we have available to us.

首先，让我们看看我们现有的神经科学。

Which is, the study of focus either is or is tightly associated with the study of what's called brain waves.

也就是说，对焦点的研究要么与对所谓脑电波的研究密切相关。

That's becoming a lot more popular.

这变得越来越流行。

We're seeing it even in athletes, like professional golfers, or studying how their brain waves are focused on the golf shot and which mode to put the brain into to play golf at the highest level.

我们甚至在职业高尔夫球手等运动员身上也看到了这一点，或者研究他们的脑电波如何集中在高尔夫击球上，以及将大脑置于哪种模式才能打出最高水平的高尔夫球。

Same thing applies to work.

同样的情况也适用于工作。

There's a bunch of different kind of bands of brain waves.

有许多不同类型的脑电波带。

Most of them actually are when you're asleep.

大多数实际上是在你睡着的时候发生的。

So your REM cycles, your deep sleep cycles, your kind of drowsy cycles, those are brain waves.

所以你的快速眼动周期、深度睡眠周期、昏昏欲睡的周期，这些都是脑电波。

You can feel your brain turning off, you can feel your brain turning on when you dream.

你可以感觉到你的大脑在关闭，当你做梦时你可以感觉到你的大脑在打开。

But when you're awake, there's really three primary modes that your brain is in.

但当你醒着的时候，你的大脑实际上处于三种主要模式。

Evan LaPointe: The nerdy side of this, kind of the nerdy language is alpha, beta and gamma.

Evan LaPointe：这种书呆子的一面，一种书呆子语言是 alpha、beta 和 gamma。

Those are the distinct ranges of brain activity, and they basically represent how focused your brain is.

这些是大脑活动的不同范围，它们基本上代表了你的大脑的集中程度。

So alpha is quite simply daydreaming.

所以阿尔法完全是在做白日梦。

So your brain is very quiet and empty.

所以你的大脑非常安静和空虚。

Easy metaphor is if you're in your house at night and everything's quiet, you hear things that you don't hear during the daytime, and that's what alpha is like in the brain.

简单的比喻是，如果你晚上在家里，一切都很安静，你会听到白天听不到的声音，这就是大脑中的阿尔法。

Your brain is actually working subconsciously a lot.

你的大脑实际上在潜意识中大量工作。

But when you're busy, which is beta, your brain is too noisy to hear any of those little creaks and pops in the house.

但当你很忙时，也就是测试版，你的大脑就会太吵闹，听不到房子里的任何轻微的吱吱声和爆裂声。

But when you're in alpha, you hear stuff.

但当你处于阿尔法状态时，你会听到一些东西。

Evan LaPointe: So the most common setting for alpha for most people is the shower.

Evan LaPointe：所以对于大多数人来说，最常见的 alpha 环境是淋浴。

So it unlocks this mystery of like, why do I have all these ideas in the shower?

所以它解开了这个谜团，为什么我在淋浴时会有这些想法？

Well, it's because your brain is in alpha.

嗯，这是因为你的大脑处于阿尔法状态。

It hears these little creaks and pops inside of the attic, and it unpacks them.

它听到阁楼内的轻微吱吱声和爆裂声，然后打开它们。

He goes, "Oh, that's an interesting idea," it comes out of nowhere.

他说，“哦，这是一个有趣的想法，”它不知从何而来。

It can be driving, gardening, car washing, cycling, whatever.

可以是开车、园艺、洗车、骑自行车等等。

As long as there's not too much cognitive load, then you can be daydreaming.

只要没有太多的认知负担，你就可以做白日梦。

And I'll come back to this in a second because there's a big permission problem at the habitat level for some of these focus levels.

我稍后会回到这个问题，因为其中一些焦点级别在栖息地级别存在很大的许可问题。

Evan LaPointe: Beta is productivity mode.

Evan LaPointe：Beta 是生产力模式。

So if you've ever seen somebody with a poster on their back wall that says, "Get shit done," that's basically just a poster that says beta on it.

因此，如果你见过有人在后墙上贴了一张海报，上面写着“把狗屎搞定”，那基本上就是一张写着测试版的海报。

I love beta.

我喜欢贝塔。

And answer emails, have meetings, write code.

回复电子邮件、开会、编写代码。

And there are some gamma code, deeper thinking scenarios where you're writing code, delivering presentations, making presentations.

还有一些伽马代码，更深入的思考场景，您可以在其中编写代码、提供演示文稿、制作演示文稿。

So much of our workday is beta, and it's just...

我们工作日的大部分时间都是测试版，只是......

I mean, some of us have an infinite amount of demand for beta work.

我的意思是，我们中的一些人对测试工作有着无限的需求。

There's just a never ending stream of stuff we could do and get done.

我们可以做并完成的事情源源不断。

Evan LaPointe: And then gamma is your brain's intense focus.

Evan LaPointe：伽玛是你大脑的集中焦点。

So if you're learning something really complicated, you're learning thermodynamics in college or something like that, and you're just like, "Wow, this is not easy." And you have to really push your brain to grapple with these concepts, connect the dots, even remember certain things, that's gamma.

因此，如果你正在学习一些非常复杂的东西，你在大学学习热力学或类似的东西，你就会说，“哇，这并不容易。”你必须真正推动你的大脑去理解这些概念，把这些点联系起来，甚至记住某些事情，这就是伽玛。

And we feel that sometimes at work, that here's a problem, a complex issue that we could tackle in beta by slapping duct tape on it, or we could tackle in gamma by reverse engineering, and going deep.

我们觉得有时在工作中，这是一个问题，一个复杂的问题，我们可以在测试版中通过在其上贴上胶带来解决，或者我们可以通过逆向工程并深入研究来解决伽玛版。

And that's where we start to connect the dots that we talked about earlier, that focus and reverse engineering are related.

这就是我们开始将之前讨论过的点联系起来的地方，即焦点和逆向工程是相关的。

That in beta, you have no intention to learn anything new to get something done, to think more deeply to get something done, to reconsider an existing process, or structure, or framework in your mind to get something done, you're going to utilize those things to get something done.

在测试版中，你无意学习任何新东西来完成某件事，更深入地思考以完成某件事，重新考虑你头脑中现有的流程、结构或框架来完成某件事，你将利用这些东西来完成某件事。

Evan LaPointe: Gamma is where we go, "I would normally do it this way.

Evan LaPointe：伽玛是我们要去的地方，“我通常会这样做。

I can see why that's not the right way.

我明白为什么这不是正确的方法。

I need to make something new.

我需要做一些新的事情。

I need to break my framework and build a brand new one right now to do something." So we generally spend too much time in beta in work, and that's both a judgment call, because I certainly have my own opinion about beta.

我现在需要打破我的框架并建立一个全新的框架来做一些事情。”因此，我们在工作中通常会在测试版上花费太多时间，这都是一种判断，因为我对测试版当然有自己的看法。

I call it the conscientiousness crisis, which is conscientiousness wants beta, openness wants gamma.

我称之为责任心危机，即责任心想要贝塔，开放性想要伽玛。

I'm kind of thinking of tying these pieces together.

我有点想把这些碎片绑在一起。

And it's not that conscientiousness is inherently a crisis, but when you meet teams that haven't done any innovation, haven't rethought the market, have become insensitive to changes in the environment around them, have become insensitive to their own employee problems and are still just kind of like this locomotive that keeps on going, irrespective of what's going on around it.

这并不是说责任心本身就是一场危机，而是当你遇到那些没有做过任何创新、没有重新思考市场、对周围环境的变化不敏感、对自己员工的问题不敏感、仍然像这辆火车头一样继续前进的团队，无论周围发生什么。

It's that heads-down form of conscientious beta, that feels like, "Now's not the time, let's stay focused, let's stay focused," et cetera.

这是一种低头的认真贝塔形式，感觉就像是，“现在不是时候，让我们保持专注，让我们保持专注，”等等。

Evan LaPointe: So we don't want to get rid of beta, we got a lot of work to do.

Evan LaPointe：所以我们不想摆脱测试版，我们还有很多工作要做。

But let's put a rule of thumb out there for people to explore, because it's going to be subjective to every team and every company.

但是，让我们提出一条经验法则供人们探索，因为它对于每个团队和每个公司来说都是主观的。

But as a rule of thumb, if 25% of your year is spent in gamma and alpha, you're probably a lot better off than the teams who spend less than 25% of their year thinking deep, and being in this more daydreaming mode.

但根据经验，如果一年中 25% 的时间花在 gamma 和 alpha 上，那么您可能比那些一年中花不到 25% 的时间进行深入思考并处于白日梦模式的团队要好得多。

So what I wanted to circle back on is, how could we possibly daydream productively?

所以我想回想的是，我们怎样才能有效地做白日梦呢？

Well, that's preposterous.

嗯，这太荒谬了。

And this is where you can build in your mind...

这就是你可以在脑海中构建的地方......

And I do have another PDF for this, if people want to see it.

如果人们想看的话，我还有另一个 PDF 文件。

Evan LaPointe: But you can build in your mind a 3 x 3 grid where we have the safety system, reward, and purpose system in columns.

Evan LaPointe：但是你可以在脑海中构建一个 3 x 3 的网格，其中安全系统、奖励和目的系统按列排列。

We have alpha, beta and gamma in rows, and we basically have a list of nine channels that the brain can activate to generate different types of thinking.

我们有成排的阿尔法、贝塔和伽马，我们基本上有九个通道的列表，大脑可以激活这些通道来产生不同类型的思维。

And most of the companies out there, most of the teams out there, are primarily, all their programming comes from safety beta and reward beta.

大多数公司、大多数团队主要是，他们的所有编程都来自安全测试版和奖励测试版。

How can I be busy to get rewards, ROI, customers, deals, whatever?

我怎样才能忙于获得奖励、投资回报率、客户、优惠等等？

Even promotions, more self-centered kind of rewards?

甚至是促销、更以自我为中心的奖励？

And beta safety, which would be, how can I be busy?

还有测试版安全性，那就是，我怎么能忙呢？

Optics, manage my reputation, avoid risk, that sort of stuff?

光学、管理声誉、规避风险之类的？

Evan LaPointe: The crisis is basically realizing, spending too much time in those two out of our nine available boxes, is probably not generating anywhere near the ideal outcomes.

Evan LaPointe：这场危机基本上是我们意识到，在我们九个可用盒子中的这两个盒子上花费太多时间，可能不会产生任何接近理想的结果。

And if we could instead shift to the purposeful column by answering that brain's craving for why, with an answer that explains, it's not about you, it's not about us, it's about other people are counting on us to get this stuff right, does that matter to you?

如果我们可以转向有目的的专栏，回答大脑对为什么的渴望，并给出一个解释性的答案，这与你无关，与我们无关，而是与其他人指望我们把事情做好，这对你来说重要吗？

Because for most people, they're like, "Yeah, that's actually really cool.

因为对于大多数人来说，他们会说：“是的，这真的很酷。

I can have an impact on real stuff happening in other people's lives and in the world outside of me?" So that that activates, now all of a sudden we can say, okay, let's look at alpha across the top row.

我可以对其他人的生活和我之外的世界中发生的真实事情产生影响吗？”这样就激活了，现在我们突然可以说，好吧，让我们看看顶行的阿尔法。

Evan LaPointe: Alpha safety is when you get in the shower, and all of your anxieties, worries, et cetera, come out of nowhere, out of the attic of your mind.

埃文·拉普安特（Evan LaPointe）：阿尔法安全是当你洗澡时，你所有的焦虑、忧虑等等，不知从哪里冒出来，从你头脑的阁楼里冒出来。

What happens in alpha reward?

阿尔法奖励会发生什么？

It's when you have these breakthroughs of how to get a deal, how to win something.

当你在如何达成交易、如何赢得某些东西方面取得突破时。

It's daydreaming, but your brain is primed to daydream in a certain way, whether it's about anxiety or anger, or whether it's about rewards you care about.

这是白日梦，但你的大脑已经准备好以某种方式做白日梦，无论是关于焦虑或愤怒，还是关于你关心的奖励。

If it's purpose, this is where from a vision perspective, a possibilities product perspective, you're going to have all sorts of crazy cool ideas pop into your mind if you've primed your brain to being purposeful and then you daydream.

如果是目的，那么从愿景的角度、可能性产品的角度来看，如果你已经让你的大脑做好了有目的的准备，然后你开始做白日梦，那么你的脑海中就会突然出现各种疯狂的酷想法。

Evan LaPointe: And you can do this in the middle of a day.

Evan LaPointe：您可以在一天中完成此操作。

Certain companies, it's easier than others.

某些公司比其他公司更容易。

But if you can push away from your desk, and just go sit in a park or something for 10 minutes, 20 minutes and calm your brain down, listen, something cool will probably happen in your brain.

但如果你能离开办公桌，去公园或其他地方坐 10 分钟、20 分钟，让你的大脑平静下来，听着，你的大脑中可能会发生一些很酷的事情。

I can't guarantee that, but you have to experiment with it to find out how it works for you.

我不能保证这一点，但你必须尝试一下才能发现它对你有用。

And then the same thing for gamma, when you hear phrases like, "We can't talk about this for the rest of our lives," that is the gamma prevention team kicking the door down and saying, "We're here to get you back into beta.

对于伽玛来说，同样的事情，当你听到诸如“我们不能在余生中谈论这个”之类的短语时，伽玛预防团队就会踢开大门并说：“我们来这里是为了让你回到测试状态。

Everybody, put your hands behind your backs," sort of a thing.

大家，把手放在背后，”之类的。

Evan LaPointe: And that's where the habitat and the focus kind of matters because you will not ever get a gamma idea from a beta mind.

Evan LaPointe：这就是栖息地和焦点很重要的地方，因为你永远不会从贝塔头脑中得到伽玛想法。

You will never get an alpha idea from a beta mind.

你永远不会从贝塔头脑中得到阿尔法想法。

So if your business needs some breakthrough, daydreaming, interesting ideas in order to create adjacencies to build new products, to seek new markets, to better fulfill the role you're playing within this market, then team has to have permission to enter that intellectual focused state, or that you're turning that channel off.

因此，如果您的企业需要一些突破、白日梦、有趣的想法，以便创造邻接来构建新产品、寻求新市场、更好地履行您在这个市场中扮演的角色，那么团队必须获得许可才能进入那种智力集中的状态，或者您要关闭该渠道。

You're taking that off of the programming available through your particular subscription.

您将从通过您的特定订阅提供的节目中删除该内容。

Evan LaPointe: And the same thing applies to gamma.

Evan LaPointe：同样的情况也适用于伽玛。

The habitat basically needs to establish that gamma is a viable channel for a lot of work, and there's permission to go into it.

栖息地基本上需要确定伽马是进行大量工作的可行渠道，并且获得了进入该领域的许可。

You can certainly overdo it.

你当然可以做得太过分。

That's why I say 25%, you don't need to spend half of your year, three-quarters of your year in gamma.

这就是为什么我说25%，你不需要花半年、四分之三的时间在gamma上。

It bonkers how smart you can be if you spend three or four hours in an afternoon in that deep-focused state, you'll just do stuff you'd never do.

如果你在一个下午花三四个小时处于那种高度专注的状态，你就会变得多么聪明，你只会做你从未做过的事情。

And if you can get the team to have off-sites that are gamma-focused, everybody's scatter and be alone, and do this stuff that are gamma and alpha-focused, that are productive and you bring ideas back.

如果你能让团队在异地进行以伽玛为中心的工作，每个人都分散并单独做这些以伽玛和阿尔法为中心的事情，这样会很有成效，并且你会带回想法。

You're just simply going to generate thinking and outcomes that you wouldn't otherwise.

你只会产生原本不会产生的想法和结果。

And it may be that 10 percent's right for you.

也许 10% 适合您。

It may be that 30 percent's right for you, depending on how dynamic your market and customer base are.

30% 可能适合您，具体取决于您的市场和客户群的动态程度。

But just to challenge yourself with the question.

但只是想用这个问题来挑战自己。

Lenny Rachitsky: This stuff is so fascinating, I wish we had another hour just to dig deep into this.

Lenny Rachitsky：这个东西太令人着迷了，我希望我们能再花一个小时来深入研究这个问题。

Because it feels like just this alone is going to really transform the way companies operate.

因为感觉仅仅这一点就能真正改变公司的运营方式。

So let's try to give people something tactical they can do to create more space for alpha and gamma waves.

因此，让我们尝试为人们提供一些战术，让他们能够为阿尔法波和伽马波创造更多的空间。

And essentially your advice is, a fourth of your time should be spent, if possible, in alpha and gamma time.

本质上，您的建议是，如果可能的话，您的四分之一的时间应该花在 alpha 和 gamma 时间上。

Is that right?

是这样吗？

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, I think that probably is overabundance, in all honesty.

Evan LaPointe：是的，老实说，我认为这可能过多了。

But if you think about it through the lens of a quarter, if you're going to be on a set of cadences, and this is probably the tactical advice.

但如果你从一个季度的角度来思考，如果你要遵循一套节奏，这可能就是战术建议。

It's like, look at your cadences and say, at the quarter level, that's probably the right level of fidelity for most people to look at their calendars in terms of what big stuff should we be doing?

就像，看看你的节奏，然后说，在季度级别，这可能是大多数人根据我们应该做哪些大事来查看日历的正确保真度水平？

Because six months is usually too long to do anything big.

因为六个月对于做任何大事来说通常太长了。

Too much has happened in the world.

世界上发生了太多事情。

Year is definitely too long to wait for a cadence to kind of kick in.

等待节奏开始的时间肯定太长了。

So quarterly is really good.

所以每季真的很好。

And what's nice is when we cluster our gamma time on this quarterly cadence, we can take a lot of the stuff that would be what we call calendar invaders, these random conversations that come up out of nowhere.

令人高兴的是，当我们将伽玛时间集中在这个季度的节奏上时，我们可以采取很多我们所说的日历入侵者的东西，这些不知从何而来的随机对话。

And we can be like, "Well, we're getting ready to have an offsite, this quarter's offsite in two weeks.

我们可以说，“好吧，我们正在准备异地，本季度将在两周内异地。

Can this idea wait until then to be processed?"

这个想法可以等到那时再处理吗？”

Evan LaPointe: So you kind of get this nice little black hole effect, where a lot of distractions have a new home, because you've actually said, "We're going to distinctly do stuff." You're saying, "Yes, but not now," to a lot of distractions.

埃文·拉普安特（Evan LaPointe）：所以你会得到这种漂亮的小黑洞效应，很多干扰物都有了新家，因为你实际上说过，“我们将明确地做一些事情。”你说“是的，但不是现在”，这让很多人分心。

But yeah, I think that's the ideal cadence.

但是，是的，我认为这是理想的节奏。

And that, for some teams, it needs to be maybe a half a day or a full day.

对于某些团队来说，可能需要半天或一整天。

You'll figure it out based on your own business.

你可以根据自己的业务来判断。

But what per quarter is a necessary amount of time for us to break beta and go into deep thinking analysis mode?

但我们每季度需要多少时间才能打破贝塔并进入深度思考分析模式呢？

How healthy is our operation?

我们的运营状况如何？

How smart are we being?

我们有多聪明？

Are we delivering value?

我们正在创造价值吗？

What needs to be reevaluated from the market's experience, the customer's experience, the team's experience?

市场的经验、客户的经验、团队的经验需要重新评估什么？

Let's look at these different views of the business, and make some prioritized decisions about, we're going to make specific improvements this quarter for these areas.

让我们看看这些不同的业务观点，并做出一些优先决策，我们将在本季度针对这些领域进行具体改进。

Evan LaPointe: And then even once a week, maybe just find half a day if you can, maybe, but maybe less than half a day, couple hours to be in gamma, once a week.

Evan LaPointe：甚至每周一次，如果可以的话，也许只找半天时间，但也许不到半天，几个小时处于伽玛状态，每周一次。

And you'll kind of feel it out from there.

从那里你会感觉到它。

But the reason the rule of thumb of 25 is out there is 25 is kind of the risk point.

但 25 的经验法则之所以存在，是因为 25 是一种风险点。

Because most people will be like, "We're not even spending 5%." Or the perfectionist team might be like, "We're 50." So if you're far away from that rule of thumb, that's a pretty good indicator it's a good time to audit yourself.

因为大多数人会说，“我们连 5% 都没有花。”或者完美主义团队可能会说，“我们已经 50 岁了。”因此，如果您远离该经验法则，那么这是一个很好的指标，现在是自我审核的好时机。

Lenny Rachitsky: When you hear the term, deep work, is that generally referring to gamma time?

Lenny Rachitsky：当你听到“深度工作”这个词时，它通常是指伽玛时间吗？

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, people can use that term in a couple of ways.

Evan LaPointe：是的，人们可以通过多种方式使用这个术语。

I think a lot of people call deep work, don't bother me beta, which could be one.

我想很多人把深度工作称为“测试版”，别打扰我，这可能就是其中之一。

And other teams might call gamma deep work, but that's probably more appropriate.

其他团队可能将伽玛深度工作称为伽玛深度工作，但这可能更合适。

I think, don't bother me beta is for some teams, they need to be told, "No, no, use this time not just to not be interrupted, but to think differently about problems.

我认为，别打扰我，测试版是针对某些团队的，他们需要被告知，“不，不，利用这段时间不仅仅是为了不被打扰，而是为了以不同的方式思考问题。

To think about is the architecture even right?

想一想这个架构对吗？

Is the way we are thinking about this even right?" Not just get a lot of stuff done.

我们思考这个问题的方式正确吗？”而不仅仅是完成很多事情。

Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：是的。

So it's not just sitting in your email and write documents, it's actually try to think about bigger problems, things that are challenging your brain, not just like, "I'm just productive getting stuff done, getting stuff done." Awesome.

因此，这不仅仅是坐在电子邮件中写文档，它实际上是在尝试思考更大的问题，那些挑战你大脑的事情，而不仅仅是“我只是高效地完成工作，完成工作”。太棒了。

Something that worked really well for me, similar to what you just recommended is having, I had two blocks of time during the week that were two hours or three hours long, where it's just, "Don't bother me, deep work time." So I had it I think Wednesday morning and Friday morning for two or three hours.

对我来说非常有效的东西，类似于你刚才推荐的，我一周中有两个时间段，两小时或三小时长，只是，“别打扰我，深度工作时间。”所以我认为周三早上和周五早上我都坚持了两三个小时。

And actually in the calendars, if you book something during this time, I'll slap you.

实际上在日历上，如果你在这段时间预订了一些东西，我会打你一巴掌。

And that worked really well.

这非常有效。

And nobody complained.

没有人抱怨。

Lenny Rachitsky: We covered a lot.

Lenny Rachitsky：我们涵盖了很多内容。

Here's the things we've covered.

这是我们已经介绍过的内容。

I was just taking notes and all the advice that you've shared, how to help people run better meetings, how to get better at developing vision for their team, and company, and product, how to be a better influencer.

我只是记下笔记和你分享的所有建议，如何帮助人们更好地召开会议，如何更好地为他们的团队、公司和产品制定愿景，如何成为更好的影响者。

How to build better relationships, how to create a better culture for your company, how to create more focus and more productive focus.

如何建立更好的关系，如何为您的公司创造更好的文化，如何创造更多的焦点和更有成效的焦点。

That's a lot.

就这么多了。

I'm very proud of our conversation.

我对我们的谈话感到非常自豪。

Before we get to a very short lightning round, because we've gone pretty long, I want to keep it short.

在我们进行非常短的闪电回合之前，因为我们已经进行了很长时间，所以我想保持简短。

Lenny Rachitsky: Is there anything else you want to share, leave listeners with that you think might be helpful before we close-

Lenny Rachitsky：在我们结束之前，您还有什么想分享的，请留给听众您认为可能有帮助的信息吗？

Evan LaPointe: No, I don't think we need...

Evan LaPointe：不，我认为我们不需要......

I mean, there's certainly a lot more that we could talk about, but I think we don't want to melt any minds.

我的意思是，我们当然还有很多可以讨论的内容，但我认为我们不想融化任何人的想法。

So we want people to kind of walk away and be like, "I can do that, I can do that, I can do that." So definitely pick two or three wins.

所以我们希望人们走开后会说：“我能做到，我能做到，我能做到。”所以一定要选择两场或三场胜利。

I kind of call them pots of ocean to boil instead of oceans to boil.

我称它们为“沸腾的海洋”，而不是“沸腾的海洋”。

So get a few pots of ocean to boil first, and focus on that for sure.

所以先把几锅海水煮沸，然后集中精力。

And definitely make one of those pots, if it's a problem area for you, what kind of experience you are.

如果这对你来说是一个问题领域，那么你一定要制作一个这样的锅，你是什么样的经历。

I mean, that's central to everything.

我的意思是，这是一切的核心。

Everything else works better in the whole system once you've boiled that pot of the ocean, and then things get easier.

一旦你煮沸了那锅海洋，整个系统中的其他一切都会更好地运作，然后事情就会变得更容易。

Evan LaPointe: And then I guess the only last thing I would add is, think of everything we've talked today.

Evan LaPointe：然后我想我要补充的唯一最后一件事是，想想我们今天谈论的一切。

It might help to put some language to it as floor risers and ceiling risers.

将一些语言称为地板立管和天花板立管可能会有所帮助。

Because your company has a horizon of performance that you're heading into, and there's a bottom end of that range and a top end of that range.

因为你的公司有一个你正在进入的绩效范围，并且有这个范围的下限和上限。

So as you get better at meetings, not only are you increasing...

因此，当您在会议中表现得更好时，您不仅会增加...

You're raising the floor to get rid of bad meetings and waste, and you might be saving a ton of time or converting useless time into useful time, but you also might be raising the ceiling.

你提高了底线以消除糟糕的会议和浪费，你可能会节省大量时间或将无用的时间转化为有用的时间，但你也可能提高了上限。

Evan LaPointe: And I would be really specific with yourself and your team about, which outcome are you chasing?

Evan LaPointe：我会非常具体地告诉你自己和你的团队，你正在追求哪个结果？

Is it both?

两者都是吗？

Is it one or the other?

是其中之一还是另一个？

And say, we're actually trying to raise the floor so that our performance never goes below a certain range.

比如说，我们实际上正在努力提高下限，以便我们的表现永远不会低于某个范围。

We get faster, smarter as a result, fewer mistakes.

结果，我们变得更快、更聪明、错误更少。

Or are we actually trying to uncap a ceiling that we're dealing with right now, especially around things like strategy and vision?

或者我们实际上是在试图打破我们现在正在处理的上限，特别是在战略和愿景等方面？

If we feel that those conversations always end up feeling like inconceivable arguments, we have a ceiling on our business's performance.

如果我们觉得这些对话最终总是让人感觉像是不可思议的争论，那么我们的业务绩效就存在上限。

As a result of that, can we raise that ceiling and explore a higher horizon of performance for the business?

因此，我们能否提高上限并探索更高的业务绩效水平？

Lenny Rachitsky: Amazing.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：太棒了。

Evan, with that, we've reached our very exciting and very quick lightning round.

埃文，至此，我们进入了非常令人兴奋且非常快速的闪电回合。

Are you ready?

你准备好了吗？

Lenny Rachitsky: All right, so let's start with what are two or three books that you've recommended most to other people?

Lenny Rachitsky：好吧，让我们从您向其他人推荐最多的两三本书开始吧？

Evan LaPointe: Well, the obvious first one is Never Split the Difference.

Evan LaPointe：嗯，显而易见的第一个是“永不分裂”。

I recommend that book to everybody in the universe.

我向宇宙中的每个人推荐这本书。

I think if you haven't read it yet, you shouldn't get your driver's license.

我认为如果你还没有读过它，你就不应该拿到驾照。

For those who don't know, it was written by Chris Voss, he was an FBI hostage negotiator.

也许有人不知道，这本书的作者是克里斯·沃斯 (Chris Voss)，他是联邦调查局 (FBI) 人质谈判代表。

And it explores how to negotiate with people, and not just hostages, but your colleagues, your parents, your wife, like everybody.

它探讨了如何与人谈判，不仅仅是人质，还有你的同事、你的父母、你的妻子，就像每个人一样。

And there's some very surprising technique in there that is unexpected, not trying to get people to agree with you, but getting them to say no, more often.

其中有一些非常令人惊讶的技巧，是意想不到的，不是试图让人们同意你的观点，而是让他们更频繁地拒绝。

Instead of saying, "Hey, Lenny, are you willing to do this?" Say, "Hey, Lenny, are you opposed to doing this?" And it's just this reversal.

而不是说：“嘿，莱尼，你愿意这样做吗？”说：“嘿，莱尼，你反对这样做吗？”而这只是一个逆转。

And "I'm giving you the out," is the way he explains it.

他解释道，“我要让你出局”。

There's a whole bunch of other technique, but the more of that technique is in a team, the better.

还有一大堆其他技术，但团队中的技术越多越好。

The better the team does.

团队做得越好。

That's a no-brainer.

这是理所当然的。

Evan LaPointe: The second one I would say, since we've kind of covered this topic a little bit about habitat today.

Evan LaPointe：我想说的是第二个，因为我们今天已经稍微讨论了这个关于栖息地的话题。

If you enjoy reading books that are sort of root canals, but you're better off because you read them, there's a book called Never...

如果你喜欢读一些关于根管治疗的书，但你读过它们之后会更好，那么有一本书叫《从不……》

not Never Split the Difference, there's a book called The Person and the Situation.

不是《永不分裂》，有一本书叫《人物与情境》。

It was written by some researchers, some psychological researchers.

它是由一些研究人员、一些心理学研究人员写的。

And what it explores is the difference between how personality influences your behavior, and how the situation you're in, or like we talked about, the habitat you're in, influences your behavior.

它探讨的是个性如何影响你的行为，以及你所处的情况，或者就像我们所说的，你所处的栖息地如何影响你的行为之间的差异。

And if you're not yet convinced that either of those matters, like, "Oh, it doesn't.

如果你还不确信其中任何一个都很重要，比如，“哦，不重要。

I'll do what I do regardless of the habitat, or I'll do what I do regardless of who I am," that book will melt the face off of that existing mental model conclusively.

无论栖息地如何，我都会做我所做的事情，或者无论我是谁，我都会做我所做的事情。”这本书将最终消除现有思维模式的面貌。

It's really valuable knowledge to understand the mechanics of how the situation influences a person, and how the personality influences the person.

了解情况如何影响一个人以及性格如何影响一个人的机制是非常有价值的知识。

Evan LaPointe: And then I guess the last, maybe we'll put a fork in the road of a choose your own adventure.

Evan LaPointe：然后我想最后一点，也许我们会在选择你自己的冒险之路上设置一个岔路口。

If you're a real student of the game, and you want go 10,000 leagues under the sea on this stuff, there's a series of books called the Cambridge Fundamentals of Neuroscience.

如果您是这项运动的真正学生，并且您想在海底 10,000 里的地方学习这些东西，可以阅读一系列名为《剑桥神经科学基础》的书籍。

You can find it on Amazon.

您可以在亚马逊上找到它。

A lot of them, you can just get on your Kindle for a lot cheaper than the library-decorating version of it, but that is bonkers.

其中很多，你可以用比图书馆装饰版便宜得多的价格在你的 Kindle 上购买，但这太疯狂了。

It talks about how your brain applies to intelligence, emotionality, relationships.

它讲述了你的大脑如何应用于智力、情感和人际关系。

It's incredible knowledge.

这是令人难以置信的知识。

If you instead want to keep it more in the part of the world you experience and can see and not the brain.

相反，如果你想把它更多地保留在你所经历的、能看到的世界的一部分，而不是大脑。

Thaler wrote a book called Misbehaving.

泰勒写了一本名为《行为不当》的书。

It was kind of the major book about behavioral economics.

这是一本关于行为经济学的主要书籍。

Evan LaPointe: And again, we spend a lot of time in companies talking about the way people should act, instead of the way people do act.

Evan LaPointe：再说一次，我们在公司里花了很多时间讨论人们应该如何行事，而不是人们如何行事。

And behavioral economics is essentially the version of economics that's about how people do act, not how people should act.

行为经济学本质上是经济学的一个版本，它研究的是人们如何行动，而不是人们应该如何行动。

So I think that's a great field of study.

所以我认为这是一个很棒的研究领域。

And then again, Robert Greene's whole library is super valuable, especially Human Nature, if you're into that.

话又说回来，罗伯特·格林的整个图书馆都非常有价值，尤其是《人性》，如果你感兴趣的话。

He's a little darker of an author, certainly kind of doesn't pull punches about human nature.

他是一个有点阴暗的作家，当然不会对人性进行严厉打击。

So those are all great books to explore.

所以这些都是值得探索的好书。

Lenny Rachitsky: Do you have a favorite product you recently discovered that you really love?

Lenny Rachitsky：您最近发现有一款您真正喜欢的最喜欢的产品吗？

Evan LaPointe: I look more at the category level of products.

Evan LaPointe：我更多地关注产品的品类层面。

I really like products that have great ergonomics.

我真的很喜欢具有出色人体工程学的产品。

A lot of people underestimate the value of what it feels like to use the product.

很多人低估了使用该产品的感觉的价值。

Are things in the right place at the right time?

事情是否在正确的时间出现在正确的地点？

I just started this newsletter that's kind of like, how do you break all of what we do in a bite-sized pieces for people who are super interested in this stuff to get something weekly?

我刚刚开始写这篇时事通讯，内容有点像，如何将我们所做的所有工作分解为一小部分，以便那些对这些东西超级感兴趣的人每周都能得到一些东西？

And it exposed me to Beehiiv, which is a very well-designed newsletter platform, high ergonomics.

它让我接触到了 Beehiiv，这是一个设计精良的时事通讯平台，符合人体工学。

I don't ever find anything hard to find.

我从来没有发现什么是很难找到的。

I can get things to work the way I want them to work.

我可以让事情按照我希望的方式进行。

Evan LaPointe: So just, I like that example.

Evan LaPointe：所以，我喜欢这个例子。

And I remember even back to when I was obsessed with finding the perfect backpack to travel with, and then you find these brands where you're going through security, and you didn't even know it, but there's a pocket designed for your phone in exactly the place you would want the pocket for your phone to be.

我记得甚至当我痴迷于寻找完美的旅行背包时，然后你在通过安检时发现这些品牌，你甚至不知道，但有一个专为你的手机设计的口袋，就在你想要放手机的口袋的地方。

And you're just like, "That's so great.

你就会说：“那太棒了。

I love that this team designed this pocket just in the right spot." So that's really my focus is ergonomics in product.

我喜欢这个团队将这个口袋设计在正确的位置。”因此，我真正关注的是产品的人体工程学。

Lenny Rachitsky: Final question.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：最后一个问题。

I saw you tweeted that people are telling you that you look like JD Vance, which is hilarious.

我看到你发推文说人们告诉你你看起来像 JD 万斯，这很搞笑。

Do you think this will be a net benefit or a net hurdle?

您认为这将是净收益还是净障碍？

Evan LaPointe: It'll be an incredible benefit to Halloween, because it's totally clear what I'm going to do for Halloween.

Evan LaPointe：这对万圣节来说是一个令人难以置信的好处，因为我完全清楚我要为万圣节做什么。

Yeah, I mean, I guess I'm going to have to see what people in the street...

是的，我的意思是，我想我得看看街上的人......

Fortunately I live in Park City, so I don't run across a lot of people in the street who want to yell at people.

幸运的是，我住在帕克城，所以我不会在街上遇到很多想对人大喊大叫的人。

But if I lived in Chicago or something like that, I would've no doubt somebody would come up and throw something at me.

但如果我住在芝加哥或类似的地方，我毫不怀疑有人会过来向我扔东西。

But yeah, I'm neutral on the topic so far, minus the Halloween bonus.

但是，是的，到目前为止，除了万圣节奖金之外，我对这个话题持中立态度。

Lenny Rachitsky: We'll see.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：我们拭目以待。

We'll see how your life changes.

我们会看看你的生活如何改变。

Evan, this has been amazing.

埃文，这太棒了。

There's so much richness to this conversation.

这次谈话内容非常丰富。

And like I said, we've covered basically everything people want to get better at as product manager, you could say.

就像我说的，你可以说，我们基本上涵盖了人们作为产品经理想要做得更好的所有内容。

Two final questions.

最后两个问题。

Where can folks find the stuff that you do to dig deeper, to learn more, to learn more deeply from you?

人们在哪里可以找到你所做的事情，以便更深入地挖掘、了解更多、更深入地向你学习？

And two, how can listeners be useful to you?

第二，听众如何对你有用？

Evan LaPointe: Yeah, I mean, they can certainly find a lot of the stuff we do on our website, core-sciences.com.

Evan LaPointe：是的，我的意思是，他们当然可以在我们的网站 core-sciences.com 上找到我们所做的很多东西。

Find a link to that profile you talked about on there, which can be super fun to take and insightful.

找到您在那里谈论的个人资料的链接，这可能非常有趣且富有洞察力。

The newsletter, all the stuff that we do, you can kind of find out there.

时事通讯，我们所做的所有事情，你都可以在那里找到。

And then certainly Twitter.

当然还有 Twitter。

I mean, I've always been really prickly about people that get on Twitter to post only and not to interact.

我的意思是，我一直对那些只在 Twitter 上发帖而不进行互动的人感到非常恼火。

I'm kind of the opposite.

我有点相反。

I really love people's questions and pushback.

我真的很喜欢人们的提问和反对。

And just yesterday, I probably spent way longer than I should have out of my portfolio management approach to time, just on a thread where I was talking to this really interesting woman about this debate almost, about the probability of people doing things based on their beliefs, which was...

就在昨天，我在投资组合管理方法上花费的时间可能比我应该花的时间要长得多，就在我与一位非常有趣的女士讨论这场辩论的主题上，几乎是关于人们根据自己的信念做事的可能性，这是......

And then we had some kind of bystanders watching the whole thing happen, and I had a meeting with a good friend Rod afterwards, where we talked about how that all went.

然后我们有一些旁观者看着整个事情发生，之后我和一个好朋友罗德会面，我们讨论了这一切是如何进行的。

Evan LaPointe: So I love to talk to people and answer questions, and I'm sure people will have plenty of questions that they'd love to dive deeper into.

Evan LaPointe：所以我喜欢与人们交谈并回答问题，我相信人们会有很多问题想要深入探讨。

So I'm on Twitter for sure.

所以我肯定在推特上。

And then how you can help me.

然后你可以如何帮助我。

I mean, fortunately for me, I'm in the business of helping other people, whether those are individuals, teams, companies.

我的意思是，对我来说幸运的是，我的职责是帮助其他人，无论是个人、团队还是公司。

So the most helpful thing to me is you helping yourself.

所以对我来说最有帮助的就是你帮助自己。

So if you find our content valuable, if you want to have awesome managers or anything like that in this sort of science-based, kind of more efficient approach to getting there would be interesting, then reach out.

因此，如果您发现我们的内容有价值，如果您想要拥有出色的经理或类似的人，以这种基于科学的、更有效的方法来实现这一目标，那么就会很有趣，那么请联系我们。

We don't bite.

我们不咬人。

We're pretty easy to work with.

我们很容易合作。

And that would be super fun to have a conversation about what your team needs.

谈论你的团队需要什么将会非常有趣。

Lenny Rachitsky: Evan, thank you so much for being here.

Lenny Rachitsky：Evan，非常感谢你来到这里。

Evan LaPointe: Thanks for having me.

埃文·拉普安特：谢谢你邀请我。

This has been really cool.

这真的很酷。

Yeah.

是的。

Lenny Rachitsky: Same for me.

莱尼·拉奇茨基：对我来说也是如此。

Bye everyone.

再见大家。

Thank you so much for listening.

非常感谢您的聆听。

If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app.

如果您发现这很有价值，您可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或您最喜欢的播客应用程序上订阅该节目。

Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review, as that really helps other listeners find the podcast.

另外，请考虑给我们评分或留下评论，因为这确实有助于其他听众找到播客。

You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com.

您可以在 lennyspodcast.com 上找到所有过去的剧集或了解有关该节目的更多信息。

See you in the next episode.

下一集见。