最终你会得到你应得的

Naval Ravikant 2019-05-19

最终你会得到你应得的

在足够长的时间尺度上,你会得到回报

Nivi: 我们正在讨论为长期工作。关于这个话题的下一条推文:“运用特定知识,加上杠杆,最终你会得到你应得的。”

我想补充:运用判断力,运用责任感,以及运用阅读技能。

Naval: 这是一种轻率的说法,意思是”这需要时间”。即使你把所有要素都准备好了,仍然需要投入不确定的时间。如果你在计算时间,你会在这到来之前就失去耐心。

你必须确保给这些事情足够的时间。人生很长。

查理·芒格对此有一句名言。有人问他关于赚钱的事。他说提问者实际上是在问:“我怎样才能变得像你一样,但要更快?”

每个人都想立即得到它。但这个世界是一个高效的地方。立即见效是行不通的。你必须投入时间。你必须投入时间。你必须用特定知识、责任感、杠杆和真实的技能组合把自己置于那个位置,才能成为你所做事情中世界上最好的。

然后你必须享受它,并不断做、做、做。不要记录。不要计数。因为如果你这样做,你会耗尽时间。

回顾我的职业生涯,我二十年前认为是聪明和勤奋的人现在都成功了,几乎没有例外。在足够长的时间尺度上,你会得到回报。

但这很容易是10年或20年。有时是5年。如果是5年,或者3年,而那是你的朋友达到了,这可能会让你发疯。但那些都是例外。对于每一个成功者,都有多个失败者。

创业中重要的一点是:你只需要对一次。你有许多、许多次射门机会。你可以每三到五年射一次门,最慢可能每十年一次。或者最快每年一次,取决于你如何与初创公司迭代。但你只需要对一次。

你真正擅长什么,是市场重视的?

Nivi: 你最终的结果将等于类似:你特定知识的独特性;乘以你能应用到该知识上的杠杆量;乘以你的判断正确的频率;乘以你对结果承担单一责任的程度;乘以社会对你所做事情的重视程度。然后你用你能坚持做多久以及你能通过阅读和学习持续改进多久来复利计算。

Naval: 这是一个很好的总结方式。值得尝试勾勒出这个等式。

话虽如此,人们试图将数学应用于实际上是哲学的东西。我见过这种情况,我说一件事,然后我说另一件事,如果你把它当作数学,看起来是矛盾的。但这显然是在不同的背景下。

人们会说:“你说’欲望是痛苦’。“你知道,佛教的说法。“然后你说’所有伟大都来自痛苦’。那是不是意味着所有伟大都来自欲望?“这不是数学。你不能只是携带变量并形成绝对的逻辑输出。你必须知道何时应用事物。

不能对此过于分析。

这就是物理学家所说的”虚假精度”。当你把两个虚构的估计相乘时,你会得到四个精度等级。那些小数点实际上不算数。你没有那些数据。你没有那些知识。你拥有的估计变量越多,模型中的误差就越大。

在你的决策过程中增加更多复杂性会让你得到更差的答案。你最好选择最重要的一两件事。问问自己:根据观察和我信任的人的说法,我真正擅长什么,是市场重视的?

仅这两个变量可能就足够了。如果你擅长它,你会坚持下去。你会培养判断力。如果你擅长它并且喜欢做它,最终人们会给你资源,你也不会害怕承担责任。所以其他部分会水到渠成。

如果你在做你喜欢的事情并且市场需要它,产品市场契合是不可避免的。


Eventually You Will Get What You Deserve

On a long enough timescale, you will get paid

Nivi: We’re talking about working for the long-term. The next tweet on that topic: “Apply specific knowledge, with leverage, and eventually you will get what you deserve.”

I would add: Apply judgment, apply accountability, and apply the skill of reading.

Naval: This one is a glib way of saying, “It takes time.” Once you have all of the pieces in place, there’s still an indeterminate amount of time you have to put in. And if you’re counting, you’ll run out of patience before it arrives.

You have to make sure you give these things time. Life is long.

Charlie Munger had a line on this. Somebody asked him about making money. He said what the questioner actually was asking was, “How can I become like you, except faster?”

Everybody wants it immediately. But the world is an efficient place. Immediate doesn’t work. You have to put in the time. You have to put in the hours. You have to put yourself in that position with specific knowledge, accountability, leverage and an authentic skill-set in order to be the best in the world at what you do.

And then you have to enjoy it and keep doing it and doing it and doing it. Don’t keep track. Don’t keep count. Because if you do, you will run out of time.

Looking back on my career, the people who I identified as brilliant and hardworking two decades ago are all successful now, almost without exception. On a long enough timescale, you will get paid.

But it can easily be 10 or 20 years. Sometimes it’s five. If it’s five, or three, and it’s a friend of yours who got there, it can drive you insane. But those are exceptions. And for every winner, there are multiple failures.

One thing that’s important in entrepreneurship: You just have to be right once. You get many, many shots on goal. You can take a shot on goal every three to five years, maybe every 10 at the slowest. Or once every year at the fastest, depending on how you’re iterating with startups. But you only have to be right once.

What are you really good at, that the market values?

Nivi: Your eventual outcome will be equal to something like the distinctiveness of your specific knowledge; times how much leverage you can apply to that knowledge; times how often your judgment is correct; times how singularly accountable you are for the outcome; times how much society values what you’re doing. Then you compound that with how long you can keep doing it and how long you can keep improving it through reading and learning.

Naval: That’s a really good way to summarize it. It’s worth trying to sketch that equation out.

That said, people try to apply mathematics to what is really philosophy. I’ve seen this happen, where I say one thing and then I say another thing that seems contradictory if you treat it as math. But it’s obviously in a different context.

People will say, “You say, ‘Desire is suffering.’” You know, the Buddhist saying. “And then you ‘All greatness comes from suffering.’ So does that mean all greatness comes from desire?” This isn’t math. You can’t just carry variables around and form absolute logical outputs. You have to know when to apply things.

One can’t get too analytical about it.

It’s what a physicist would call “false precision.” When you take two made-up estimates and multiply them together, you get four degrees of precision. Those decimal points don’t actually count. You don’t have that data. You don’t have that knowledge. The more estimated variables you have, the greater the error in the model.

Adding more complexity to your decision-making process gets you a worse answer. You’re better off picking the single biggest thing or two. Ask yourself: What am I really good at, according to observation and people I trust, that the market values?

Those two variables alone are probably good enough. If you’re good at it, you’ll keep it up. You’ll develop the judgment. If you’re good at it and you like to do it, eventually people will give you the resources and you won’t be afraid to take on accountability. So the other pieces will fall into place.

Product-market fit is inevitable if you’re doing something you love and the market wants it.