没有所谓的"商业"这门技能

Naval Ravikant 2019-04-08

没有所谓的”商业”这门技能


避开商学院和商业杂志

Naval:
从这个意义上说,商业对我来说是垫底的。没有所谓的商业这门技能,它太笼统了。就像一门叫做”人际关系”的技能。就像”与人相处”。那不是一门技能,它太宽泛了。

商学院里教的很多东西——虽然商学院也教一些非常聪明的东西,我并非要完全贬低它们——商学院教的一些东西只是轶事。他们称之为”案例研究”。

但它们只是轶事,他们试图通过向你抛出大量数据点来帮助你进行模式匹配,但现实是,除非你真正身处那个位置,否则你永远不会完全理解它们。

即便如此,你会发现来自博弈论、心理学、伦理学、数学、计算机和逻辑的基本概念对你帮助要大得多。

我会专注于基础,我会以科学为导向。我会培养对阅读的热爱,包括阅读所谓的”垃圾食品”读物,那些你不该读的东西。你不必读经典著作。那[阅读]是你自我教育的基础。


做比看更快

Nivi:
你说”做比看更快”是什么意思?

Naval:
当涉及到你的学习曲线时,如果你想优化你的学习曲线……我不太喜欢播客的原因之一,尽管我是播客的制作者,是因为我喜欢非常快速地消费信息。

我是一个好的读者,或者说一个快速的读者,我可以读得非常快,但我只能以某种速度听。我知道人们以2倍、3倍的速度听,但每个人都听起来像花栗鼠,很难回放,很难高亮,很难精确定位片段并将它们保存在笔记本中,等等。

同样,很多人认为他们可以通过观看别人做某事,甚至通过阅读别人做某事来变得非常熟练。回到商学院的案例研究,那是一个典型的例子。

他们研究别人的企业,但实际上,通过经营自己的柠檬水摊或类似的东西,你会学到更多关于经营企业的知识。甚至是在街上开一家小零售店。

这就是你将在工作中学习的方式,因为很多细微之处只有当你真正在企业中时才会显现出来。

例如,现在每个人都在谈论心智模型。你去Farnam Street,你去《穷查理宝典》,你可以学习所有不同的心智模型。但哪些更重要?哪些你更经常应用?哪些在什么情况下重要?这实际上是困难的部分。

例如,我个人的学习是,委托-代理问题在这个世界上驱动了太多事情。这是一个激励问题。我了解到,以牙还牙的迭代囚徒困境是博弈论中最值得了解的部分。在那之后你几乎可以放下博弈论的书了。

顺便说一句,学习博弈论的最好方法是玩很多游戏。我甚至从未读过博弈论的书。我认为自己非常擅长博弈论。我从未打开一本博弈论书并在其中发现一个结果时,我不认为”哦,是的,那对我来说是常识”。

原因是我在成长过程中玩了各种各样的游戏,我遇到了各种各样与各种朋友的极端情况,所以这对我来说是第二天性。你总是可以通过在工作中做来学得更好。


“做”的迭代次数驱动学习曲线

但做是一件微妙的事情。做包含了很多东西。例如,假设我想学习如何经营企业。嗯,如果我创办一家企业,每天进去做同样的事情,假设我在街上经营一家零售店,每天用食品和酒类填充货架,我不会学到太多,因为我重复了很多事情。

所以,我投入了数千小时,但它们是做同样事情的数千小时。而如果我投入数千次迭代,那将不同。所以,学习曲线是跨越迭代[而不是重复]的。

所以,如果我在店里一直尝试新的营销实验,我不断改变库存,我不断改变品牌和信息传递,我不断改变招牌,我不断改变用于吸引客流的在线渠道,我尝试在不同的时间营业,我有能力四处走动,与其他店主交谈,获取他们的账簿,了解他们如何经营业务。

是迭代次数驱动了学习曲线。所以,你能拥有的迭代次数越多,你能有的射门机会越多,你学习得就越快。这不仅仅是关于投入的时间。


如果你愿意每天流一点血,以后可能会大获全胜

实际上是两者的结合,但我认为就我们的构造方式以及世界呈现自身的方式而言,世界很容易给我们提供一次又一次做同样事情的机会。但实际上,如果我们去寻找从头开始做新事情的方法,我们会更好。

第一次做新事情是痛苦的,因为你正在进入不确定的领域,失败的可能性很高。所以你只需要非常、非常适应频繁的小失败。

Nassim Taleb也谈到了这一点。他通过成为一名基本上依赖黑天鹅的交易员来积累财富。Nassim Taleb通过每天损失一点点钱来赚钱,然后在千载难逢的情况下,当对其他人来说不可想象的事情发生时,他会赚很多钱。

而大多数人希望每天赚一点点钱,作为交换,他们会容忍大量的爆仓风险,他们会容忍完全破产。

我们并没有进化到每天流一点点血。如果你在自然环境中,你被割伤,每天真的在流一点点血,你最终会死。你必须止住那个伤口。

我们进化是为了不断取得小胜利,但这变得非常昂贵。那是人群所在的地方。那是羊群所在的地方。所以,如果你愿意每天流一点点血,但作为交换,你以后会大获全胜,你会做得更好。

顺便说一句,那就是创业。企业家每天都在流血。

他们不是在赚钱,他们在亏钱,他们不断承受压力,所有责任都在他们身上,但当他们赢时,他们会大获全胜。平均而言,他们会赚得更多。


There’s No Actual Skill Called “Business”


Avoid business schools and magazines

Naval:
In that sense, business to me is bottom of the barrel. There’s no actual skill called business, it’s too generic. It’s like a skill called “relating.” Like “relating to humans.” That’s not a skill, it’s too broad.

A lot of what goes on in business schools, and there is some very intelligent stuff taught in business schools – I don’t mean to detract from them completely – some of the things taught in business school are just anecdotes. They call them “case studies.”

But they’re just anecdotes, and they’re trying to help you pattern match by throwing lots of data points at you, but the reality is, you will never understand them fully until you’re actually in that position yourself.

Even then you will find that basic concepts from game theory, psychology, ethics, mathematics, computers, and logic will serve you much, much better.

I would focus on the foundations, I would focus with a science bent. I would develop a love for reading, including by reading so-called junk food that you’re not supposed to read. You don’t have to read the classics. That [reading] is the foundation for your self-education.


Doing is faster than watching

Nivi:
What did you mean when you said that “doing is faster than watching?”

Naval:
When it comes to your learning curve, if you want to optimize your learning curve… One of the reasons why I don’t love podcasts, even though I’m a generator of podcasts, is that I like to consume my information very quickly.

And I’m a good reader, or a fast reader and I can read very fast but I can only listen at a certain speed. I know people listen at 2x, 3x, but everyone sounds like a chipmunk and it’s hard to go back, it’s hard to highlight, it’s hard to pinpoint snippets and save them in your notebook, and so on.

Similarly, a lot of people think they can become really skilled at something by watching others do it, or even by reading about others doing it. And going back to the business school case study, that’s a classic example.

They study other people’s businesses, but in reality, you’re going to learn a lot more about running a business by operating your own lemonade stand or equivalent. Or even opening a little retail store down the street.

That is how you’re going to learn on the job because a lot of the subtleties don’t express themselves until you’re actually in the business.

For example, everyone’s into mental models these days. You go to Farnam Street, you go to Poor Charlie’s Almanack, and you can learn all the different mental models. But which ones matter more? Which ones do you apply more often? Which ones matter in which circumstances? That’s actually the hard part.

For example, my personal learning has been that the principal-agent problem drives so much in this world. It’s an incentives problem. I’ve learned that tit-for-tat iterated prisoner’s dilemma is the piece of game theory that is worth knowing the most. You can almost put down the game theory book after that.

By the way, the best way to learn game theory is to play lots of games. I never even read game theory books. I consider myself extremely good at game theory. I’ve never opened up a game theory book and found a result in there where I didn’t think, “Oh, yeah, that’s common sense to me.”

The reason is that I grew up playing all kinds of games and I ran into all kinds of corner cases with all kinds of friends, and so it’s just second nature to me. You can always learn better by doing it on the job.


The number of “doing” iterations drives the learning curve

But doing is a subtle thing. Doing encapsulates a lot. For example, let’s say, I want to learn how to run a business. Well, if I start a business where I go in every day and I’m doing the same thing, let’s say I’m running a retail store down the street where I’m stocking the shelves with food and liquor every single day, I’m not going to learn that much because I’m repeating things a lot.

So, I’m putting in thousands of hours, but they are thousands of hours doing the same thing. Whereas if I was putting in thousands of iterations, that would be different. So, the learning curve is across iterations [not repetitions].

So if I was trying new marketing experiments in the store all the time, I was constantly changing up the inventory, I was constantly changing up the branding and the messaging, I was constantly changing the sign, I was constantly changing the online channels that are used to drive foot traffic in, I was experimenting with being open at different hours, I had the ability to walk around and talk to other store owners and getting their books and figure out how they run their businesses.

It’s the number of iterations that drives the learning curve. So, the more iterations you can have, the more shots on goal you can have, the faster you’re going to learn. It’s not just about the hours put in.


If you’re willing to bleed a little every day, you may win big later

It’s actually a combination of the two, but I think just the way we’re built and the way that the world presents itself, the world offers us very easily the opportunity to do the same thing over and over and over again. But really, we’d be better served if we went off and found ways to do new things from scratch.

And doing something new the first time is painful, because you’re wandering into uncertain territory and high odds are that you will fail. So you just have to get very, very comfortable with frequent small failures.

Nassim Taleb talks about this also. He made his fortune, his wealth by being a trader who basically relied upon black swans. Nassim Taleb made money by losing little bits of money every day and then once in a blue moon he would make a lot of money when the unthinkable happened for other people.

Whereas most people want to make little bits of money every day and in exchange they’ll tolerate lots of blow-up risk, they’ll tolerate going completely bankrupt.

We’re not evolved to bleed a little bit every day. If you’re out in the natural environment, and you get a cut and you’re literally bleeding a little bit every day, you will eventually die. You’ll have to stop that cut.

We’re evolved for small victories all the time but that becomes very expensive. That’s where the crowd is. That’s where the herd is. So, if you’re willing to bleed a little bit every day but in exchange you’ll win big later, you will do better.

That is, by the way, entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs bleed every day.

They’re not making money, they’re losing money, they’re constantly stressed out, all the responsibility is upon them, but when they win they win big. On average they’ll make more.