团体从不承认失败
团体从不承认失败
你得到的是分裂
Naval:
团体从不承认失败。一个团体宁愿活在”我们被压制了”的神话中,也不愿承认失败。只有个人才会承认失败。即使是个人也不喜欢承认失败,但最终,他们可能会被迫承认。
一个团体永远不会承认他们错了。一个团体永远不会承认”我们犯了个错误”,因为试图改变主意的团体会分崩离析。我很难在历史上找到大型团体说”我们曾经认为A,但答案实际上是B”的例子。
通常在这种情况下会发生分裂,比如从天主教会到新教会等等。会出现分歧,通常还会伴随着大量的内斗。这在加密领域也会发生,加密货币会分叉。比特币不会突然说”我们应该有智能合约”。ETH不会突然说”我们本应该是不可变的”。
我曾在一个负责为某项事业分发资金的基金会担任董事,我发现这很令人失望,因为我了解到的是,无论基金会做什么,他们都会宣布胜利。每个项目都是胜利的。每个项目都是成功的。有很多互相祝贺。有很多高调的使命声明和愿景声明,有很多祝贺,有很多美好的晚餐——但什么都没做成。
我意识到这是因为没有客观的反馈。因为没有损失——都是社会收益——他们不可能失败。因为他们不可能失败,所以他们整天都在错误地分配资源。当然,最终这样的团体会耗尽资金。
如果你想改变世界,让它变得更好,最好的方式是通过营利性组织,因为营利性组织必须接受现实的反馈。讽刺的是,营利性实体比非营利性实体更可持续。它们是自我维持的。你不需要一直拿着乞讨碗。
当然,你会失去美丽的非营利地位;你必须纳税;而且你也可能因为纯粹追求利润而腐败。但我认为最好的企业是那些营利、可持续且道德的企业,这样你才能吸引最优秀的人才。你可以维持它,因为它是一项使命,而不仅仅是关于金钱——因为赚钱有收益递减。
你生活中的金钱边际效用是递减的。
Groups Never Admit Failure
You get a schism instead
Naval:
Groups never admit failure. A group would rather keep living in the mythology of “we were repressed” than ever admit failure. Individuals are the only ones who admit failure. Even individuals don’t like to admit failure, but eventually, they can be forced to.
A group will never admit they were wrong. A group will never admit, “We made a mistake,” because a group that tries to change its mind falls apart. I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.”
Usually what happens in that case is a schism, where you go from the Catholic Church to Protestant and so on. There’s a divergence and usually a lot of infighting. This happens in crypto land, too, where the coins fork. Bitcoin doesn’t suddenly say, “We should have smart contracts.” ETH doesn’t suddenly say, “We should have been immutable.”
I was on the board of a foundation that was charged with giving out money for a cause, and I found it very disillusioning because what I learned was that no matter what the foundation did, they would declare victory. Every project was victorious. Every project was a success. There was a lot of back slapping. There were a lot of high-sounding mission statements and vision statements, a lot of congratulations, a lot of nice dinners—but nothing ever got done.
I realized this was because there was no objective feedback. Because there is no loss—it’s all social profit—they couldn’t fail. And because they couldn’t fail, they misdirected resources all day long. And eventually, of course, such groups run out of money.
If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit because for-profits have to take feedback from reality. Ironically, for-profit entities are more sustainable than non-profit entities. They’re self-sustainable. You’re not out there with a begging bowl all the time.
Of course, you lose the beautiful non-profit status; you have to pay your taxes; and also you can get corrupted by being purely for-profit. But I would argue that the best businesses are the ones that are for-profit, sustainable and ethical so you can attract the best people. You can sustain it because it’s a mission and it’s not just about the money—because there are diminishing returns to making money.
There’s a diminishing marginal utility to the money in your life.