特定知识具有高度创造性或技术性

特定知识的传授程度主要体现在工作中，通过学徒制进行，这就是为什么最好的企业、最好的职业都是学徒制职业，因为这些技能是社会至今尚未找到如何培训和自动化的方法。

The extent that specific knowledge is taught, it's on the job, it's through apprenticeships, and that's why the best businesses, the best careers are the apprenticeship careers because those are things that society still has not figured out how to train and automate yet.

经典的例子是，沃伦·巴菲特毕业后去找本杰明·格雷厄姆，而本杰明·格雷厄姆正是《聪明的投资者》一书的作者，他将价值投资发展并确立为一门学科。

The classic line here is that Warren Buffett went to Benjamin Graham when he got out of school and Benjamin Graham was the author of the intelligent investor and sort of modernized or created value investing as a discipline.

沃伦·巴菲特去找本杰明·格雷厄姆，提出免费为他工作，而格雷厄姆却说：‘实际上，你太贵了。’

And Warren Buffett went to Benjamin Graham and offered to work for him for free, And Graham said, actually you're overpriced.

免费反而太贵了。

Free is overpriced.

格雷厄姆说得完全正确：对于像格雷厄姆将要给予巴菲特的那种极其宝贵的学徒机会，巴菲特本该付给他一大笔钱。

And Graham was absolutely right that when it comes to a very valuable apprenticeship like the type that Graham was going to give Buffett, Buffett should have been paying him a lot of money.

这一点恰恰说明，这些技能是值得掌握的。

And that right there tells you that those are skills worth knowing.

特定知识通常也具有技术性和创造性。

Specific knowledge also tends to be technical and creative.

因此，在技术的前沿、艺术的前沿、沟通的前沿。

So on the bleeding edge of technology, the bleeding edge of art, on the bleeding edge of communication.

例如，即使在今天，互联网上可能仍有一些网络迷因大师，能够创作出令人惊叹的迷因，将某种理念传播给数百万人群，或者像斯科特·亚当斯这样极具说服力的人就是一个很好的例子。

Even today for example, there are probably meme lords out there on the internet who can create incredible memes that will spread the idea to millions of people or are very persuasive like for example, Scott Adams is a good example of this.

他通过富有说服力的论点和视频做出准确预测，逐渐成为世界上最可信的人物之一，而这种能力是他多年来积累的特定知识——因为他年轻时痴迷于催眠，学会了通过漫画进行沟通，早早拥抱了Periscope平台，持续练习对话，阅读了所有相关书籍，并将其融入日常生活。

He's essentially becoming one of the most credible people in the world by making accurate predictions through persuasive arguments and videos, and that is specific knowledge that he has built up over the years because he got obsessed with hypnosis when he was young, he learned how to communicate through cartooning, he embraced Periscope early so he's been practicing lots of conversation, he's read all the books on the topic, he's employed it in his everyday life.

如果你看看他的女友，她是一位美丽的年轻Instagram模特，这正是一个人在其职业生涯中积累特定知识的例证。

If you look at his girlfriend, she's like this beautiful young Instagram model, that is an example of someone who has built up a specific knowledge over the course of his career.

这种知识极具创造性，也包含技术性成分，而且永远不会被自动化取代。

It's highly creative, it has elements of being technical in it, and it's something that is never going be automated.

没人能从他手中夺走这些，因为他始终以‘斯科特·亚当斯’这一品牌行事，借助Periscope、绘制《纽约客》漫画和撰写书籍等媒体杠杆，他在这品牌之上拥有巨大的影响力，如果他想在已有财富之外再积累更多财富，完全有可能实现。

No one's going take that away from him because he's also accountable under one brand as Scott Adams and he's operating with a leverage of media Periscope and drawing Billboard cartoons and writing books, he has massive leverage on top of that brand and he can build wealth out of it if he wanted to build additional wealth beyond what he already has.

我们该称它为独特知识吗？还是‘特定知识’这个说法更贴切？

Should we be calling it unique knowledge or does specific knowledge somehow make more sense for it?

你知道，我年轻时就提出了这个框架，那已经是几十年前的事了，恐怕已经超过三十年了。

You know, I came up with this framework when I was really young and we're talking decades and decades, it's not probably over 30 years old.

当时，‘特定知识’这个词就一直留在了我的脑海里，所以我至今仍这样理解它。

And so at the time just specific knowledge stuck with me so that is how I think about it.

我之所以没有尝试更改这个术语，是因为我找到的其他每个词都有不同的过度使用问题。

The reason I didn't try and change it is because every other term that I found for it was overloaded in a different way.

至少‘特定知识’这个词用得不多，我可以重新定义它。

At least specific knowledge isn't that used, I can kind of rebrand it.

‘独特知识’的问题在于，也许它确实是独特的，但如果我是从别人那里学来的，那它就不再独特了，因为我们俩都知道。

The problem with unique knowledge is yeah, maybe it's unique but if I learn it from somebody else it's no longer unique then we both know it.

所以关键不在于它是否独特，而在于它高度针对特定情境、特定个人和特定问题，只能通过在该领域长期沉迷、投入兴趣和时间逐步建立起来。

So it's not so much that it is unique, it's that it is highly specific to the situation, it's specific to the individual, it's specific to the problem and it can only be built as part of a larger obsession interest and time spent in that domain.

它无法仅仅通过阅读一本书就直接掌握，也无法通过一门课程教授，更无法被编程进一个单一的算法。

It can't just be read straight out of a single book nor can be taught in a single course nor can it be programmed into a single algorithm.

说到这个，斯科特·亚当斯写过一篇博客文章，讲如何通过在三件或更多事情上达到前25%的水平来打造你的事业。

Speaking of, Scott Adams, he's got a blog post on how to build your career by getting in, say, the top 25 percentile at three or more things.

通过这样做，你就成了世界上唯一一个能在三件事上都达到前25%水平的人。

And by doing that, you become the only person in the world who can do those three things in the twenty fifth percentile.

所以，与其试图在一件事上做到最好，不如努力在三件或更多事情上做到非常非常优秀。

So instead of trying to be the best at one thing, you just try to be very, very good at three or more things.

这是一种构建特定知识的方式吗？

Is that a way of building specific knowledge?

我实际上认为最好的方法就是追随你自己的痴迷，你内心深处会意识到，嘿，这个痴迷其实可以留意一下它的商业价值，但如果你太刻意地去构建它，太过于以金钱为目标，你就不会选对方向。

I actually think the best way is just to follow your own obsession, and somewhere in the back of your mind you can realize that, hey, actually this obsession, like I'll keep an eye out for the commercial aspects of it, But I think if you go around trying to build it a little too deliberately, if you become too goal oriented on the money, then you won't pick the right thing.

你不会真正选择你热爱的事情，因此也不会深入钻研它。

You won't actually pick the thing that you love to do, so you won't go deep enough into it.

斯科特·亚当斯的观察很有道理。

Scott Adams' observation is a good one.

它是建立在统计学基础上的。

It's predicated on statistics.

假设今天在人类知识领域中有10,000个有价值的方向。

Let's say there's 10,000 areas that are valuable to the human race today in terms of knowledge to have.

而这10,000个方向中的第一名已经被占用了。

And the number one in those 10,000 slots is taken.

对吧？

Right?

除非你恰好是世界上对某件事最痴迷的10,000个人之一，否则其他人很可能会占据这10,000个领域的每一个第一名。

Someone else is likely to be the number one each of those 10,000 unless you happen to be one of the 10,000 most obsessed people in the world at a given thing.

但当你开始将组合效应考虑进去时——比如将第3,728位的专业知识，加上顶尖的销售技巧、出色的写作能力，以及对会计和金融非常精通的人结合在一起——当这种交叉需求出现时，你就从原本的10,000种可能，通过组合扩展到了数百万甚至数千万种可能性。

But when you start going to combinatorics of combining well, number 3,728 with top notch sales skills and really good writing skills and someone who understands accounting and finance really well, when the need for that intersection arrives, you've expanded now from 10,000 through combinatorics to millions or tens of millions.

因此，竞争就变得小得多。

So it just becomes much less competitive.

此外，还存在边际效益递减的问题，所以成为三项或四项技能的前75%比成为某一项技能的绝对第一名要容易得多。

Also there's diminishing returns, so it's much easier to be top 75 percentile at three or four things that is to be literally the number one at something.

我认为这是一种非常务实的方法，但重要的是，不要过于刻意地去拼凑这些技能，因为你确实需要选择那些你天生擅长的领域。

I think it's a very pragmatic approach but I think it's important that one not start assembling things too deliberately because you do want to pick things where you are a natural.

每个人都有自己天生擅长的事情。

Everyone is a natural at something.

我们都熟悉‘不自然’这个说法。

We're all familiar with that phrase unnatural.

哦，这个人天生就擅长结识男性或女性。

Oh this person's a natural at meeting men or women.

这个人天生是个社交达人。

This person's a natural socialite.

这个人天生是个程序员。

This person's a natural programmer.

这个人天生是个爱读书的人。

This person's a natural reader.

所以，无论你擅长什么，都要加倍投入。

So whatever you are a natural at you want to double down on that.

而且你很可能在多个方面都有天赋，因为人类的性格非常复杂。

And then there are probably multiple things you are natural at because personalities in humans are very complex.

因此，我们要把你的天赋结合起来，让你仅仅因为浓厚的兴趣和享受，就能自然而然地在多个领域跻身前25%、前10%甚至前5%。

So we want to be able to take the things that you are natural at and combine them so that you automatically just through sheer interest and enjoyment end up top 25 or top 10 or top 5% at a number of things.