卢露·程·梅瑟维：如何打造个人崇拜

我们所能抓住的机会表面正变得越来越细微，这意味着我们需要使用的钩子必须越来越锋利。

Surface area of the opportunity we have to latch on is getting more and more fine, which means that the hook that we need to use has to get more and more sharp.

Lulu Cheng Masurvi是当今传播领域最敏锐的头脑之一，曾担任动视暴雪首席传播官和企业事务执行副总裁，以及Substack传播副总裁，如今她是唯一专注于创始人主导传播的咨询公司Rostra的创始人。Lulu被誉为CEO、创始人和政策制定者在应对高风险时刻的首选策略师。在本期节目中，她将阐释如何在充满AI噪音的世界中吸引注意力、迎合人类心理，以及建立信任而非仅仅追求互动。

Lulu Cheng Masurvi is one of the sharpest minds in communications today, Having been CCO and EVP of Corporate Affairs at Activision Blizzard and VP of Comms at Substack, she is now the creator of Rostra, the only advisory firm focused on founder led comms. Lulu is known as the go to strategist for CEOs, founders, and policymakers navigating high stakes moments. In this episode, she explains how to grab attention in a noisy world filled with AI slop, appeal to human psychology, and build trust instead of farming engagement.

如果有人用故事攻击你，你必须用故事还击。数据之下是更有力的故事。如果你想缓解压力，无法改变施加于你的力量大小，但可以改变受力面积。你不仅仅是在攻击我，而是在攻击我们所有人。

If someone is fighting you with stories, you have to fight with stories. Under the statistics are more powerful stories. If you're trying to relieve pressure, you don't get to change how much force is coming at you, but you can change the service area. You're not just attacking me. You're attacking all of us.

信任的丧失、未来前景的丧失、流失的客户员工、拒绝录用通知的求职者，这些损失可能累计高达数十亿。真正用故事产生影响的三要素是：第一，第二，什么是正确的...最后

The loss in trust, the loss in future prospects, customers, employees who defect that recruit that doesn't accept the job offer, it could add up to billions. The three things for actually making a difference with your story are, one, two, what are the right And then lastly

Lulu，欢迎来到播客节目。

Lulu, welcome to the podcast.

谢谢，感谢邀请。

Thank you. Thanks for having me.

在这个充斥着AI生成内容、人人争夺注意力的喧嚣世界里，我们该如何让人们关注我们？

In a world that is so noisy, it's full of AI generated content, there's people trying to get your attention, how do we get people to pay attention to us?

我经常思考这个问题，因为海量内容的洪流永无止境，人们现在也时刻在行动。比如，人们正用新工具创造出真正有趣的事物，过去在企业发布领域，每隔几个月才会有重大公告或新品发布。如今每天都有多个发布，包括周末、夜晚和节假日。要在其中脱颖而出，我认为有几个关键点。首先是关于人本身。

I think about this a lot because the flood of just sheer content is completely unrelenting, and the people are doing things all the time now too. Like, people are creating genuinely interesting things with new tools where it used to be so if you look at the world of company launches, it used to be every few months, there was some big announcement or some new launch. Now it's multiple a day, every single day, including weekends and evenings and holidays. And so the way to stand out from that, I think is a few things. One is it's about human beings.

我们始终被人类和人类故事所吸引。我认为现在这种吸引力更强了，因为它让你关心的不只是泛泛的内容。内容无限多，但独特的人物形象能从中脱颖而出。它给你一个支持的对象，让你产生情感依附。

We've always gravitated to human beings and human stories. And I think we gravitate to that even more now because it gives you something to care about that's not just generic content. Like content is infinite, but individual human characters stand out from that. It gives you a person to root for. It gives you something to get attached to.

它让你有值得关心的事物。因此无论是产品发布、公司成立还是信息传播，拥有人类形象代言非常重要。其次是人的信念。我们内心会对他人坚定的信念产生共鸣。就像看到邪教头目或恐怖组织头目招募成员时，他们实际的条件非常糟糕。

It gives you a thing to care about. And so having it to be attached to a human, whether it's a product launch or a company launch or some some piece of information, having a human mascot represent it is really important. Another is human conviction. Like there's something within us that responds to another person's conviction. Like when you see cult leaders being able to recruit or terrorist group leaders being able to recruit, their actual pitch on the merits is horrible.

就像那个梗图说的：你得到这个，我得到那个。实际上你几乎一无所得——微薄的报酬、极低的成功几率、离开家人，而我获得支配你生命的权利，甚至可能让你送命。从条件看简直糟透了，但我们内心就是难以抗拒当有人直视着我们，以绝对确信的语气宣称某事为真时。这就是病态撒谎者和反社会者如此强大的原因——我们无法抵抗这种引力。如果这些言论恰好是谎言，我们就极易受其影响。

It's like that meme of, like, you get this and I get that. And it's like, you get basically nothing, poor pay, extremely poor prospects of success, leave your family behind, and I get rights to your life, and then also maybe you die. On the merits, the pitch is horrible, but there's something within us that finds it really hard to resist when someone is just looking us in the eye and telling us with absolute conviction that something is true. This is why pathological liars are so powerful and sociopaths are so powerful because we can't resist the gravity of someone telling us these things. And if they happen to be false, then we're actually very vulnerable to it.

但我们对人类信念存在这种脆弱性，这是其他方式无法传递的。人们有种独特的传达信念的方式能让我们信服。再者是要融入某种叙事弧线。如果你只是孤立地陈述事实，就像在面前丢下一堆信息碎片。但如今视线所及处处都是信息碎片。

But we have this vulnerability to human conviction and you can't convey that through any other means. There's like a unique way that people can convey conviction that makes us buy in. And then another is having it play into some kind of narrative arc. So whatever you're saying, if you just say it in a vacuum, here's just like a little pile of facts that I drop in front of you. Well, there's pile of facts, piles of facts around as far as the eye can see in every direction.

但如果我告诉你这是更大图景的一部分，需要持续关注，就能给你一个情感支点。就像《一千零一夜》的舍赫拉查德。她面临斩首，于是每晚讲一段故事，日复一日延续了一千零一夜后，最终获得了自由。

But if I tell you that this is part of something bigger and you need to stay tuned, then it gives you something to hang on to. So this is like the one thousand and one nights Scheherazade. You know the story. She was gonna be beheaded, and then she told a little bit of a story and had to wait till the next day and then told a little bit. And then after a thousand and one nights, was like, you know, you know what?

就连记者追踪报道时，也尽量避免写孤立新闻。他们会试图呈现事件发展的叙事弧线。

Great. You can go. He made it this far. Even journalists, when they're following a beat, they try not to write one news story as a stand alone. They try to cover the narrative arc of something that's happening.

所以当你现在看到人们报道Meta为实现超级智能的新招聘时，他们报道的是这项长期目标是什么，以及它如何随时间推进？这就像他们在将其视为12个相互关联的故事。因此，所有这些意味着当你试图穿透噪音时，你要通过一个极具信念感的人来讲述，并将事实串联成一条链，形成一个更大的叙事，让人们不由自主地跟随。

So when you see people right now covering hires at Meta for their new superintelligence, They're they're covering what is the long term goal of this and how is it progressing over time? And what does it tell like, they're thinking of it as a 12 stories that link together. And so all of this put together means when you're trying to cut through the noise, you tell it through a human with extreme conviction, and you tie facts together in a chain such that it forms this bigger narrative that people feel compelled to follow.

我们该如何确定这个叙事是什么？

How do we go about determining what that narrative is?

错误的方式是：这是我想说的，就这样。因为你关心的事情可能不是别人在意的。我认为正确的方法是考虑两点：一是我关心什么。

The wrong way is, here's what I wanna say. Here it is. Because the thing that you you care about might not be what anybody else is caring about. I think the right way is to take two things. One is, here's what I care about.

可以把它想象成一个信息圈。这是我关心的和我想说的。然后还有另一个圈，是我交谈对象关心和思考的内容。它可能和我所想的有一些不同。如果完全相同，那还有什么可说的呢？

So like think of it as a circle of information. Here's what I care about and what I wanna say. Then there's another circle of here's what the person I'm speaking to cares about and what they're thinking about. And it's probably a little bit different from what's on my mind. If it were identical, then what's the point of saying anything?

但可能会有一些重叠。所以人们往往会说出他们脑海中的那个圈，然后直接抛出去，希望有人能接住。真正要讲的故事是维恩图中心的部分。所以不要讲你那个圈里的故事，因为很难让别人关心；也不要讲对方圈里的故事，因为你得不到任何收获。

But there's probably gonna be some overlap. And so what people tend to say is the circle of things that are on their mind and then just put it out there and hope that somebody latches onto it. The real story to tell is what's in the center of that Venn diagram. So don't tell the story that's in your circle because it it's hard to get other people to care. Don't tell the story that's in the other person's circle because you don't get anything out of it.

这不策略。要讲维恩图里的故事。一旦你们在维恩图中相遇，你就可以慢慢引导他们进入你圈子的其余部分。你给他们一个入门诱饵。

It's not strategic. Tell the story that's in the Venn diagram. And then once you meet them in the Venn diagram, you can kinda walk them into the rest of your circle. You give them a gateway drug.

在一对一的情况下，这对我来说很直观。但在一对多的情况下呢？比如当你与一群人沟通时，无论他们是公司员工还是整个社会？

That intuitively makes sense to me on a one to one basis. What about a one to many where you're communicating with a group of people, whether they work at a company, whether they're society or at large?

我其实是从一对多的角度来思考这个问题的。我认为在一对多的情境下效果非常好。关键在于这个'多'不能是无限的。'多'不能是85亿人，那样根本行不通。

I was actually thinking of it in terms of one to many. I think it works really well with one to many. The key is many can't be infinite. The many can't be eight and a half billion people. That just doesn't work.

因为如果你要和那么多人对话，如果你要和全世界对话，就必须极度稀释你的信息，结果就会像大海里的一滴水，毫无意义。这个'多'应该是我公司的员工，或者真正热爱机器人技术的人，或者特别担心中美冲突的人。'多'必须是一个明确界定的人群。当你确定了这个群体后，再去思考这些人的共同点是什么，而圈子外的人未必具备这些共同点。

Because if you're talking to that many people, if you're talking to the whole wide world, you have to water down your message so much that it becomes, you know, a drop in the ocean. It is just a nothing. The many should be the people who work at my company or the people who are really passionate about robotics or the people who are really worried about conflict with China. The many has to be like an actual circumscribed set of people. And then once you have that circumscribed set of people, then you think about what do all those people have in common that people outside of that circle don't necessarily have in common.

假设你正在创办一家与美国国防科技相关的新公司，带有Palantir和Anduril那种风格。你想和那些真正关心中美地缘政治竞争的人对话。那么就要思考他们现在具体在关心什么——他们根本不会想到你的公司。

So let's say that you are starting a new company and the company is something to do with American defense tech. It's something between Palantir and Anderol type of vibe. And you wanna talk to people who are really concerned about geopolitical competition and rivalry with China. So think about what are things that they specifically are thinking about right now. They're not thinking about your company.

你想谈论的范畴可能是关于你公司的营销套话，而他们思考的范畴则是：如果台湾遭到入侵会怎样？我们该如何应对？但在维恩图中存在交集——部分应对方案可能就需要整合我们正在开发的软件，加入我们共同构建解决方案。所以要识别他们的关注点，在交集区域用他们关心的方式沟通。等他们接受这个切入点后，你再说：'这就是我们在开发的，这是我们的软件理念'。

So the circle of stuff that you really wanna talk about is like marketing drivel for your company. And then the circle of things that they're thinking about is if there's an invasion of Taiwan, what might that look like, and how do we plan for it? But there's a overlap in the Venn diagram where part of planning for it means integrating the software that we are making and and to join us and help us build this so that we can be ready. And so identifying that this is what they care about, speaking about the overlap part in terms of what they care about. And once they're with you there, then you can tell them, well, here's what we're building and here's how we approach software.

这时他们其实已经认同你了。我觉得这是个很好的沟通方式——想象这些圆圈，然后找到重叠部分。

And then they actually already are with you. I think that's a good way to approach it. Just like picture the circles and then find the overlap.

你觉得这像是通往人心的API接口吗？还是说通过定位让人们对信息产生接受度？等获得这个切入点后，你就能引导他们接受你真正想传达的信息？

Do you think of that as sort of like an API into people? Or is it positioning something so that people can be receptive to it? And then at that point, once you've got a hook, you can pull them along to sort of the message you actually wanted to say.

没错。这就是通往他们思维的API，或者说'入门毒品'。不管怎么形容，重点在于这不是你最终要说的内容，而是引子——你要从引子开始。

Yeah. It's the API into their mind or it's the gateway drug. Whatever it is, it's it's not just the thing you wanna say. It's the hook. You start with the hook.

一旦鱼钩入水，你就可以开始收线。但有些人就像这样，还没想好鱼钩上放什么饵，就开始盘算晚餐要做的鱼肉三明治。会有鱼咬钩吗？所以鱼钩可能是最被忽视的部分。按重要性排序，我认为首先是鱼钩，其次是你讲述故事的方式，最后才是讲述的场合。

And then once the hook is in, then you can do the reeling. But some people are like, here's the fish sandwich I'm gonna make for dinner before they think about what goes on the hook. And is any fish gonna bite the hook? So the hook is probably the most overlooked part. I would say in order of how much it matters, it's the hook, then how you tell your story, and then where you tell it.

多数人本末倒置，他们花费大量时间思考：我能去哪里演讲？能上哪个播客节目？怎么联系Shane Parrish？如何登上电视？要不要自己开个播客？

Most people get this reversed where they spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about where can I go talk? What podcast can I go on? How do I pitch Shane Parrish? How do I get on TV? Do I start a pod?

要不要写博客？他们纠结于表现形式和媒介载体，却很少思考：如何让自己变得足够有趣，以至于传播方式变成人们口口相传——因为内容让他们念念不忘，不吐不快？那种在脑海里挥之不去、必须与家人分享、必须找人讨论的内容，才是最具影响力、最高效的传播方式，却鲜有人考虑这一点。

Do I do a blog? And they think about the form factor in the medium, and they don't think enough about how can I become so interesting that my distribution method is people telling other people because they can't get it out of their heads and they have to? It's it's it's in there and it's tickling their brain and they have to share it with their families and they have to go have a conversation about it. That is the most powerful, most high leverage thing, and nobody thinks about it.

我想深入探讨这个观点。先回到鱼钩的概念——很多研究表明，你大概只有十二秒左右的时间来抓住别人注意力。这就是你说的'鱼钩'的意思吗？

I wanna double click on that one second. I just wanna come back to the hook. Is that there's a lot of research that seems to indicate that you have sort of twelve seconds ish to get somebody's attention. Is that what you mean by a hook?

我不确定具体秒数，因为现在人们与陌生人的互动大多通过互联网上的准社交关系。比如很多观看你播客的观众，他们觉得自己了解你——就像在脑海里塑造了一个奇怪的Shane小人偶，虽与你相似却不全面。这种认知不一定要通过实际相处时间建立，而是通过你的文章、通讯或视频片段。如果是面对面交流，或许十二秒成立。

I don't know about seconds because now a lot of the way that people interact with people that they don't know personally is through these parasocial relationships on the Internet. Like, there's a lot of people who watch your podcast who feel like they have a sense of who you are, like they've created they've created this model of you in their minds that's just kinda like weird Shane homunculus that's sort of resembling of you, but not not the full picture. They don't necessarily do that through time spent with you. They see it through your writing, your newsletter, your clips. So if it's time in person, okay, maybe twelve seconds.

如果是网络视频片段，我敢说前五秒内人们就决定是否继续观看——甚至不到五秒。查看数据指标时（虽然讨论视频指标显得过于功利），社交媒体上发布的内容在三十秒后，99%的观众已经流失。你比我更关注这些数据...

If it's time through a clip on the internet, I would say like first five seconds, they decide whether they're gonna keep scrolling or not, like less than five. When you see the metrics, this is so almost crass and pragmatic to start talking about video metrics. But when you see the video metrics of things posted on social media, after thirty seconds, like 99% of people are gone. Right? And and you pay closer attention to this than I do.

所以你的数据会更精确。但基本上，最初几秒的观众流失可能非常剧烈。人们只是在不断滑动屏幕——当你想象人们看视频的样子时，脑海中浮现的是这种状态，还是这种？

So your your metrics will be like more precise. But basically, in the first few seconds, it can drop off precipitously. People are just like scrolling. Like, when you see people looking at videos, what do you picture? This or this?

是的，实际上更偏向后者。你大概只有几秒钟时间。我敢打赌我们的注意力持续时间正在缩短——当初提出12秒研究结果的人，我真希望他们能重新做一次研究，看看现在是不是已经降到10秒或8秒了，因为我们的耐心正在消磨殆尽。

Yeah. It's actually more the latter. Yeah. So you get like a couple seconds. I bet our attention span is going down to whoever did the study that came up with the twelve seconds, I would love to see them redo it and see if that's gone down to 10 or eight or something as our patients has worn.

至于文字内容，因为人们了解你的方式之一就是通过你的写作。我不知道具体几秒，但关键在第一段。邮件看主题行，推特看首句，那个抓人的钩子。所以我们能抓住机会的接触面正变得越来越小，这意味着我们需要的钩子必须越来越锋利。

And then in terms of text, because some of the ways that people get to know you is through your writing. I don't know about seconds, but it's like the first paragraph. For an email, it's a subject line. For a tweet, it's the first line, first sentence, the hook. So, like, the opportunity, like, the surface area of the opportunity we have to latch on is getting more and more fine, which means that the hook that we need to use has to get more and more sharp.

那么这个钩子应该是情感吗？是制造悬念？还是突出利害关系？让人产生阅读兴趣。或者直接说'这对我有什么好处'？

So should that hook be like emotion? Should it be tension? Should it be stakes? Like, you get invested in reading this. Should it be like, what's in it for me?

嗯，你对此怎么看？

Mhmm. How do you think about that?

以上都有可能。我在网上最常见的是幽默、好奇心或强烈情感。可以是惊叹，也可以是震惊，或者是针对我正在思考的话题提供新视角。

It could be any of the above. The most common ones that I've just observed online are humor, curiosity, or some strong emotion. It can be a wow emotion. It can be a WTF emotion. Or it could be, here's a topic that I'm already thinking about, and this is gonna give me some new angle on the topic.

取决于对话对象。比如对脑洞大开的青少年，和对AI研究人员或学者说话，策略会稍有不同。但核心不外乎幽默、好奇心、强烈情感、愤怒、震撼、惊喜，或是让他们学到正在关注领域的新知识。

Depends on who you're talking to. Like, if you're talking to brainwrought teens, it might be a little bit different from if you're talking to AI researchers or if you're talking to academics. You can use slightly different things. But but it's humor, curiosity, strong emotion, outrage, shock, surprise, or they're about to learn something about a topic that they're already following.

我想回到'变得有趣'这个话题。这具体指什么？听起来很简单，但你不能直接对人说'嘿，你要更有趣一点'。

I wanna go back to be interesting. What does that mean? Like, it it sounds very simple, but you can't go to somebody and say, hey. Be more interesting.

这取决于对谁来说有趣。我常常在真空中听到这些观点。就像我们讨论过的，关键在于谁在传递信息，以及传递给谁？根据传递者和接收者的不同，信息的本质会彻底改变。'有趣'也是如此。

It's be interesting to whom. So all of these things I I hear sometimes in a vacuum. So it's like, say the message and and we've talked about this, like, who's saying the message and to whom? And depending on who's the messenger and who's the receiver, the nature of the message completely changes. It's the same with be interesting.

所以对一个人有趣的事可能对另一个人无趣。如果你明确知道对话对象，就能最大化他们的兴趣，这意味着需要牺牲其他你不关心人群的兴趣。若试图让所有人都觉得有点意思，就又回到了80亿人的难题——为了覆盖所有人，内容变得极其微弱，最终消散在空气中。一旦确定目标人群，有趣的方式就是谈论他们的兴趣点。

So what's interesting to one person might not be interesting to another. And if you're very clear on who you're speaking to, then you can make it maximally interesting for them, which will mean trade offs in making it less interesting for someone that you don't care about. If you're trying to be somewhat interesting to everybody, now you're back to the 8,000,000,000 people problem where it's so, so, so minutely interesting in order to capture everybody that it's actually marginal. It just like evanesces into the air. So once you identify who the people you're talking about, the way you're interesting is to speak to their interests.

如果你了解他们的文化敏感点和智力兴奋区，知道他们关心什么、思考什么？就从那里建立连接。归根结底，有趣的方法在于找到维恩图的重叠部分——你想表达的内容与他们已在意的领域，在那里相遇。如果错位了，就说明你没能做好故事讲述者的工作。

If you know what are their cultural and intellectual erogenous zones, what do they care interested in? What are they thinking about? Then link it from there. So at the bottom of all of this, the way to be interesting is to find that sliver of the Venn diagram overlap of what you're trying to say and what they already care about and meet them there. And if you misfire and you end up somewhere else, then you're not doing your job as a good storyteller.

或是错误判断了受众。我认为首要错误就是误判受众，试图面向大众发声。而那些对你至关重要的少数人——无论是你想招聘的人、想结交的人，任何目标群体——都会因此错过，因为你把信息稀释在了空气中。

Or if you misidentify the audience. I would say the number one mistake is misidentifying the audience and trying to speak to the general public. And then the the narrow sliver of people that super duper matter to you in that moment, whether it's people you're trying to hire, people you're trying to even befriend, whatever your goal is, that you miss them because you've just spread it out into the air.

为什么你觉得许多企业和政府的沟通如此糟糕？

Why do you think a lot of corporations and governments communicate so poorly?

因为负责沟通的人在扮演公司高管的角色扮演游戏。他们模仿着自己心目中商业人士的说话方式。就像现在，AI在很多领域确实令人惊叹，但一旦涉及公关传播领域，就变成了胡言乱语的傻瓜——即便是那些能写出优美诗歌的顶尖模型，给出的公关方案也会糟糕透顶。

The people who have done the communicating are LARPing as company executives. They are LARPing as what they think a business should speak like. So right now, you know, AI is really sublime and wonderful at many things, like really truly astounding. When you ask AI for anything related to comms or PR, it turns into kind of a blabbering idiot. Like, even the most advanced models that are creating these wonderful insights in writing poetry, you ask it to do anything related to comms or PR, and it'll give you the worst thing you've seen.

隆重推出革命性产品Paper Pro。这款纸质平板既是数字笔记本，融合了纸张的真实触感与平板的数字功能。先用内置数十种模板记笔记，再将手写体转为印刷文本通过邮件或Slack分享。你甚至可以在桌面端或移动端继续工作。科技本应连接世界，而非隔绝现实。

Introducing the remarkable Paper Pro move. It's a paper tablet, a digital notebook that combines the familiar feel of paper with the digital powers of a tablet. Start by taking notes with any of the dozens of built in templates, then turn your handwriting into typed text and share it by email or Slack. You can even continue your work on the desktop or mobile apps. Too much technology draws us in and shuts out the world.

这款纸质平板不会。它永远不会发出哔哔声或嗡嗡声来吸引你的注意力。因此你可以全神贯注于眼前的事物或人。它能容纳你所有的笔记和文件，单次充电可持续使用长达两周，却能轻松滑入你的夹克口袋。最重要的是，Remarkable的使命是帮助你更好地思考。

This paper tablet doesn't. It will never beep or buzz or to grab your attention. So you can devote your focus to what or who is right in front of you. It can fit all your notes and documents and last up to two weeks on a single charge, but slips easily inside your jacket pocket. And most importantly, Remarkable's mission is about helping you think better.

这意味着没有应用、社交媒体或其他干扰。你可以免费试用Remarkable Paper Pro Move一百天。如果不符合你的期望，我们将全额退款。访问remarkable.com了解更多信息，立即获取你的纸质平板。这是为科技创业者准备的。

That means no apps, social media, or any other distractions. You can try Remarkable Paper Pro Move for a hundred days for free. If it's not what you were looking for, you get your money back. Visit remarkable.com to learn more and get your paper tablet today. This one's for the tech founders.

你知道那个时刻——当你终于为初创公司想出一个完美的名字，但随后查询.com域名时发现它已被注册、闲置或标价如同纽约顶层公寓。于是你妥协了。你添加随机字母，强行使用怪异拼写或附加多余词汇。这感觉像是妥协，因为它确实是。但关键在于。

You know the moment you finally land on the perfect name for your startup, but then you check the.com and it's taken or parked or priced like a penthouse in New York. So you settle. You add random letters, you force a weird spelling or tack on an extra word. It feels like a compromise because it is. But here's the thing.

你不再需要妥协，因为现在有了专为你这样的创业者打造的域名。.tech不是权宜之计。它是向客户、投资者和团队发出的信号——你正在构建最高水平的技术。我见过快速成长的初创公司自豪地使用.tech域名，不是作为备选，而是深思熟虑的选择。所以如果你心中已有名字，别再等待。

You don't have to compromise anymore because now there's a domain built for founders like you. Dottech isn't an afterthought. It's a signal to your customers, investors, and team that you're building technology at the highest level. I've seen fast growing startups proudly use .tech domains, not as a fallback, but as a deliberate choice. So if you have a name in mind, don't wait.

立即通过GoDaddy、Namecheap或Cloudflare等可信注册商搜索.tech域名。

Search for it today with dot tech on a trusted registrar like GoDaddy, Namecheap, or Cloudflare.

正是因为它所见即所学。我认为人类也是如此。比如某人开启职业生涯后进入公司从事公关工作，环顾四周观察公关的运作方式，然后心想：好吧，我就照这个模式来。

And it's because that's what it's seeing and that's what it's learning from. And I think that's the same effect with people. Like, somebody starts their career and then goes into the company doing PR, and then they look around at what does PR look like. And they're like, okay. Let me just do some version of that.

这就像我读过的一个实验：笼中老鼠被训练按特定路线奔跑。随后研究人员用新老鼠替换旧老鼠，如同忒修斯之船般完全更新了鼠群。此时所有新老鼠仍在毫无理由地重复旧老鼠的行为模式——尽管最初的老鼠是为了获取奶酪等奖励。它们只是盲目地一只接一只效仿。

And it's it's like this experiment that I read about where they had mice in a cage and they were trained to run a certain route. And then they would put in a new mouse and take out the old mouse, and they had fully replaced all of the mice like a ship of Theseus with mice. And all of the new mice were doing all of the behaviors of the old mice for literally no reason at this point. The old mice were getting cheese or whatever. They just they were just following one by one.

所以实际上我认为我们正处在这种空洞、无意义的企业心理状态中，大家都在互相抄袭，毫无实质内容。我认为打破这种循环的方式是，偶尔有人做出完全不同的尝试并取得成功。这样至少抄袭者可以模仿更好的东西。领导者会做更有趣的事，模仿者则试图效仿。领导者会得到A+的结果，模仿者只能得到C+的结果。

So I actually think we're in this, like, very hollow, meaningless corporate psychist of everybody copying everybody else, and there's just no there there. And I think the way to break the cycle is every once in a while, somebody just does something totally different and it works. And then the copying can at least glom on to copying something better. So the leaders will do something more interesting and then the copiers will try to do something similar to that. And the leader will get the A plus result and the copiers will get the C plus result.

然后其他人会取得A+的成绩，模仿者或许能拿到B+。我认为这才是进步之道。比如Shopify的托比·卢克普，他做了许多原创且勇敢的尝试——首先我们都是托比的支持者。然后你会看到其他公司纷纷效仿。就像最勇敢的第一名先行动，第二名和第三名随后跟上。

Then someone else will get an A plus result and the copiers might get a B plus result. And I think that's the way you go. So Toby Lookup of Shopify, he has done a number of things that are original, courageous for the first we're we're both Toby Vans. And then you see other companies kind of falling in line. So it's like the number one most courageous does it first, and then the number two and three do it.

最终五年后，第五十名也开始这么做。只要这种情况反复发生，多年后事情就有望变得更好。

And then eventually five years later, the number 50 is doing it too. And so you do this enough times that over the years, hopefully, things get better.

我不知道他是否意识到，但他可能凭一己之力改变了加拿大选举中公开发声的人数。因为他开始表达观点、发出声音，这让其他人也敢于持有不同意见、敢于发声，即便与主流相悖。特别是政府通讯，我认为这简直是对公民征税。

I don't know if he realizes it, but he probably single handedly changed the number of people speaking out in Canada on the election because he started having an opinion, having a voice, and that that sort of made it safe for other people to have an opinion, have a voice, and that might go counter to the norm. Yeah. But government communications in particular, I mean, I I think of this as a tax on citizens.

没错。就是。一种税

Yeah. Is. A tax

对受过教育的公民征税。因为他们用一页纸的篇幅（嗯）来传达本应两三句话就能说清的内容（嗯），而你不得不花时间解读。这就像一场比赛，看谁能说得最多却言之无物。

on educated citizens because you have to spend you know, they communicate in one page Mhmm. What should be maybe two, max three sentences. Mhmm. And you have to spend your time deciphering it. It's almost like a race to see how much we can say without saying anything.

是啊，太不可思议了。像你这样的人，计费时间恐怕要以千小时计算吧。

Yeah. It's incredible. I mean, someone like you, your billable hours would be, like, in the thousands.

是啊。

Yeah.

当你花一周时间阅读这些政府或私营部门的通讯资料，试图理解发生了什么，如果累计多花几个小时，这一生积累下来，就是所有这么做的人额外增加的生产力总和。一个人在经济中越高效，他们可能花在阅读这些东西上的时间就越多，比如新闻和政府公告。所以这真的会累积起来。我很想看到有人研究一下政府行话和企业行话的财务成本。

And over the course of a week of reading these communications where you're just trying to understand what's happening with government or with the private sector, if you spend an extra couple hours cumulatively, and then that adds up over the course of a lifetime, That is that much productivity added together from everyone who's doing it. And the more productive someone is in the economy, the more time they're probably spending reading this stuff, like from the news and from government announcements. And so it really adds up. I would love to see someone do a study of the financial cost of jargony gov speak and corpo speak.

我在想这是否源于我们需要更多沟通的想法。但这并不能带来更好的沟通。长期以来，我不知道现在公司内部是什么情况，但很长一段时间里，在我合作的政府和大型企业中，答案总是更多的沟通。但没有人问过，什么是更好的沟通？我们需要的不是更多的沟通。

I think I wonder if this comes from the idea that we need more communications. That doesn't make better communications. Like the answer, for a long time, I don't know what it's like inside companies now, but for a long time, in the government and in large corporations that I was working with, the answer was always like, more comms. But nobody was asking like, what's better comms? You know, it's not like we need to communicate more.

我们需要的是更有效的沟通。你怎么看这个问题？

You know, we need to be more effective at our communication. How do you think about that?

这有点像古德温定律，一旦衡量标准成为目标，它就不再是一个好的衡量标准。我们所做的是告诉一群人，你们的工作是沟通，而你们的衡量标准大概是大量沟通。想象一个场景，人们的工作就是沟通，而另一个场景的目标是帮助人们理解重要的事情，这两种情况会完全不同。在第一种情况下，负责沟通的人只是在制造活动，试图证明他们应该保住工作，将来也能找到工作。

This is the this is sort of Goodwin's Law where once the measure becomes the goal, it ceases to be a good measure. And what we've done is we've taken a group of people and said, your job is communications, and your metric is communicating a lot, presumably. If you picture a scenario where people have a job and their job is just to communicate versus a scenario where the goal is to help people understand something important, this plays out completely differently. In the first scenario, the people whose job is communicating are just generating activity Yeah. To try to show that they should hold on to their jobs and be able to get jobs in the future.

而在第二种情况下，如果目标是帮助人们理解重要的事情，以便我们能共同改变世界，我认为这才是当今的现实范式。只是分布不均，但像托比·卢克、布莱恩·阿姆斯特朗这样的顶级领导者已经明白了这一点。最有效的沟通者是企业的领导者。如果你在建立一个邪教——我会说大多数成功的初创公司在很多方面都像邪教——你绝不会不让邪教领袖发言。

Whereas in the second scenario, if the goal is to help people understand something important so that we can effect a change in the world together, that's more the paradigm that I think is the reality today. It's just not evenly distributed, but the the top leaders like the Toby LeCare, Brian Armstrong types, they already get it. And that is the most effective person to speak is the person who's leading the enterprise. If you were building a cult, and I would say that most successful startups are like cults in many ways. If you were building a cult, you would never be like, let's not let have the cult leader speak.

他可能会偏离常规，有点古怪和另类，有点奇怪。我们不如让一个非常圆滑、专业、正常的人代表他发言，这样永远不会冒犯任何人。你绝不会这样建立一个邪教。最善于沟通的公司是让邪教领袖、企业的领导者直接讲述他们的愿景。因为如果你想做一些前所未有的事情，在我看来，这才是唯一值得做的事情，否则就去当个员工好了。

He he might go off the reservation, and he's kinda quirky and eccentric, a little bit weird. Let's just have somebody who's, like, really polished and professional and normal speak on his behalf in a way that'll never offend anybody. Like, you would never build a cult that way. What the best communicating companies are doing is having the cult leader, having the leader of the enterprise speak directly about their what their vision is. Because if you're trying to do something different that hasn't been done before, in my mind, that's the only thing kind of worth doing because otherwise just go be an employee.

如果你想尝试做一些前所未有的原创性、与众不同的事情，在早期阶段很难向人们证明这会成功。我之前说过，人类的信念具有感染力，企业的领导者需要以第一人称宣告：我们要做这件事。它一定会成功。看着我的眼睛。跟我来。

If you're trying to be some do something original and different that has not been done and doesn't exist, it's very hard to prove to people that it's gonna work, especially in the early days. And what I said before about human conviction and that being contagious, you need the person who leads the enterprise to say in the first person, we are going to do this. It is going to work. Look me in the eyes. Follow me.

加入我吧，因为我们将共同成就伟业。我以生命起誓，这将是我毕生的事业，也可以成为你毕生的事业。没有人能以第一人称替代这种承诺。

Join me on this because we're gonna do something great. I swear to you on my life. This will be my life's work. It could be your life's work too. There's nobody else who could do that in the first person.

想象一下，如果用'我老板让我转告你'这样的形式来做招募宣讲会是什么效果。回到你关于'为何变得如此糟糕'的问题——因为我们指定了一群利益关联较少的人担任传声筒，并仅以'完成传达'作为考核指标。

Like, imagine that recruiting speech given in the form of my boss has told me to tell you, you know, whatever it looks like. So I I I'm going back to your question of why has it gotten so sucky. It's because the we have designated a group of people who have less skin in the game to be the communicators and given them a metric of just saying stuff.

如果传达者不是创始人，他们有什么切身利害关系？就像大型政府机构或企业发布新闻稿时，传达者实际上承担什么风险？

What is the skin in the game from the person doing the communicating if it's not the founder? Sort of like if it's a big court government, for example, or a big corporation puts out a press release. Like, what is the skin in the game for

我认为根本没有。成功了没人获得真正荣耀，失败了也没人承受屈辱与绝望。这些信息发布只是为了走个流程。对某些上市公司而言，他们甚至需要根据SEC规定打勾完成任务。

I don't think there is any. Nobody has real glory if it goes right. Nobody has humiliation and despair if it goes wrong. It just sort of is out there for the purpose of checking a box. And for some public companies, they need to literally check a box according to, like, SEC rules.

是的。但新闻稿作为一种传播方式，我认为至少落后时代十年。

Yeah. But the press release as a means of communication, I think is obsolete by like a decade.

我想回到你之前说的：充满信念的创始人直接传递信息，与通过中介传达截然不同。这种直接性对我们的心理吸引力有多大程度源于对不确定性的规避？这个人如此确信——因为没有任何让人怀疑的余地，所以我选择相信。

I wanna come back to something you said where the founder with conviction is like giving this message. It's very different than having an intermediary between people. How much of that appeals to us from a psychological level because it's uncertainty avoidance? This person's certain. Like, I believe it because there's no surface area for any non belief.

你是什么意思？

What do you mean?

嗯，如果他们声称这是真的，我们要去月球，这即将实现，这是我毕生的事业，而我可能会实际地认为，你知道，这很可能不会发生，或者去火星，未来五年内都不会实现。但因为这个人如此有说服力，对此充满激情，我的不确定感就会减弱。然后，你一遍又一遍地听到这个消息，重复再重复，最终你就会开始相信它。

Well, if they're saying this is true, and we're gonna go to the moon, and it's going to happen, and this is my life's work, and I might be thinking, you know, practically speaking, that's probably not, you know, going to happen, or go to Mars, or it's not gonna happen in the next five years. But because this person's so convincing and they're so passionate about it, there's like, my uncertainty, I would feel, diminishes. And, like, eventually, you hear that message over and over again, repetition, repetition, and then you start to believe it.

嗯。是的。人们就是这样相信事物的。重复是让人们相信的一种方式，另一种是被他们信任的人告知某事。就像之前我以为你的工作室里有鬼，如果我当时说，肖恩，这里有鬼。

Mhmm. Yeah. That is how people believe things. Repetition is one of the ways that people believe things, and another is being told something by someone that they trust. So earlier when I thought there there was a ghost in your studio, if if I had meant like, Shane, there's a ghost here.

我告诉你，我亲眼所见。这里有鬼。一开始，你可能会觉得，她有点疯了。也许我们该剪掉这集。但如果我一直跟进，反复告诉你，我发誓，我真的看到了。

I'm telling you, I know what I saw. There's a ghost here. At first, you would be like, this you know, she's a little cuckoo. Maybe we scrapped this episode. But if I just kept following up with you and telling you and like, I swear to you, I saw this.

我没有撒谎。你会感到有点毛骨悚然。有没有小孩对你说过，我觉得我看到了什么，或者床底下有怪物？他们那么确信。而你却说，不，没有。

I'm not lying. You would be a little bit creeped out. Have you ever had like a kid say to you, I think I saw something or there's a monster under my bed? And they're just so sure. And you're like, no, there's not.

但这里暗示着

But there's the hint that

是的。是的。你知道，实际上很难抗拒。所以，将某件事从被视为完全不可能和疯狂转变为可信的主要方法之一，就是让一个你信任的人以绝对的信心告诉你，这是真的，而且会发生。这里有两个关键点：必须是你信任的人，而且他们必须以绝对的信心说出来。

was Yeah. Yeah. You know, it actually is very hard to resist. And so one of the main ways to turn something from being perceived as totally impossible and insane is to have a person that you trust tell you with total confidence that it's real and it's gonna happen. Now the two things in there are it has to be a person you trust, and they have to say it with total confidence.

如果是一个你不信任的人，比如街上有人冲你大喊你的工作室闹鬼，你根本不会当回事。如果我说得不够笃定，你也不会认真对待。假设我们彼此信任，我说：'肖恩，我好像看到了什么'，而你回答：'不，那只是...那只是个影子'，我就会附和：'哦，对'。

If it's not a person you trust, if it's someone screaming on the street that your studio has a ghost, you're not gonna take that seriously. And if I don't say it with confidence, you're not gonna take that seriously. So let's say you and I trust each other and I say, Shane, I think I saw and you're like, no. That was just the thing. That was just a shadow that's and I'm like, oh, yeah.

很可能。好吧，这种程度也影响不了你。必须是某个你信任的人，用斩钉截铁的语气反复强调——这三个要素都是可以人为设计的。

Probably. Oh, okay. That doesn't do anything to you either. It's someone that you trust speaking with complete conviction and doing it over and over. And those three ingredients can be engineered.

信任是可以设计的。这里有一套方法论，我们来聊聊。我们能人为构建信任。这种确信感必须是真实的，否则你在做什么？

You can engineer trust. There's there's a formula. Let's talk about it. We can engineer trust. The conviction should be real because otherwise, what are you doing?

不如去找份普通工作。理想情况下创始人本身就有信念，但传达这种信念、让它深入人心、并年复一年地坚持重复——这些都是有方法的。所以没错，登陆火星听起来很荒谬。但那些常伴埃隆左右的人，听他反复提及此事的人，那些了解并信任他的人，都相信我们这代人终将登陆火星。

Just go get a normal job. So hopefully, the founder already has conviction, but but there's ways to convey that and impress that upon people and to do it repeatedly with insistence over the years. So, yeah, going to Mars sounds super wacky. But people who have been around Elon and have heard him say it over and over and people who know him and trust him believe that we will go to Mars Yeah. In our lifetime.

我相信他。

I believe him.

对。对。但如果你找到那些人——

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But if you if you find people

他第一次说的时候，我觉得他疯了。

who The first time he said it, I thought he was crazy.

我确信。也许是第十次。也许是第一百次。但到了第一万次，你就会想，也许他看到了我们没看到的东西。如果你观察那些不喜欢或不信任埃隆的人，他们就不会那么相信。

I'm sure. Maybe the tenth time. Maybe the hundredth time. But by the ten thousandth time, you're sort of like, maybe he sees something that we don't see. And if you look at people who do not like or trust Elon, they don't believe it as much.

因为他们认为他是个骗子。他们认为他是个说谎者。他们认为他是个坏人。所以无论他说什么，他们都不会当真。但如果你认真对待他、信任他并相信他，那么他的话就很有分量，尤其是当他一遍又一遍地重复时。

Because they think he's a charlatan. They think he's a liar. They think he's a bad guy. And so anything he says, they don't take seriously. But if you take him seriously and you trust him and you believe him, then that carries a lot of weight, especially when he says it over and over and over.

所以你用了‘信任’这个词，我在想，这是否与‘好感度’有细微差别？因为我之前听过——不记得从哪里看到的——记得读到过类似‘我们更容易被喜欢的人说服’的内容。你用了‘信任’这个词，我想知道这是否是有意为之。

So you used the word trust, and I'm wondering, is there a nuance with likability? Because I had heard before, and I don't know where I got this from, but I remember reading something about, like, we're more convinced by people we like. And you used the word trust, and I'm wondering if that was conscious.

我们更容易被喜欢的人说服，而我们喜欢那些信任的人。所以它们是相关的。确实有可能相信一个你不喜欢的人，对吧？

We're more convinced by people we like, and we like people that we trust. Okay. So they are related. It is it is possible to believe someone you don't like. Right?

想象一个你非常讨厌的人，他们说要做某事，但你立刻相信他们会去做。比如某个外国对手发出威胁，你相信他们会兑现威胁，因为他们通常如此，即使你不喜欢他们，这也是可能的。但如果你喜欢某人，就更可能相信他们；如果你相信某人，也更容易喜欢他们。我认为‘好感’实际上被严重低估了。

It is like picture someone that you really dislike and they say they're gonna do something, but you immediately believe that they're going to do it. So let's say that there's some foreign adversary who makes a threat and you believe that they'll follow through on their threat because they usually do, even if you don't like them, that is possible. But there definitely is a link between if you like someone, you're more likely to believe them. And if you if you believe someone, you're more likely to like them. And I think that liking is actually really underrated.

你听说过‘情感启发式’吗？没有？这是我们不同的决策启发式之一。我们有心理捷径，因为没有无限时间。这是进化带来的，每个人都具备的。

So have you heard of the affect heuristic? No. It's you know, we have different decision making heuristics. We have mental shortcuts because we don't have all the time in the world. This is like an evolutionary thing that everybody has this.

我们不需要训练它。它与生俱来。我们无法永远花时间吸收所有信息再做决定。有时候就像看到烟，你必须立刻逃跑，对吧？

We don't train it. It just it just comes with us, you know, out of the box. We don't have all the time in the world to take in every single piece of information and make a decision all the time. Sometimes it's like, if you see smoke, you just gotta go. Right?

因此我们时常会采取心理捷径。其中一大心理捷径就是：如果我们喜欢某事物并对其感到舒适，它就更可能是真实的。我们喜欢的人更可能是有能力的。我们喜欢的人更可能是聪明的。这些特质往往会自然地联系在一起。

And so we make we take mental shortcuts all the time. And one of the big mental shortcuts is if we like something and feel comfortable with something, it's more likely to be real. Someone we like is more likely to be competent. Someone we like is more likely to be smart. All these things just kind of go together.

所以喜爱是这一切的核心。

And so liking is at the center of that.

你提到我们可以设计信任。具体该怎么做？

You mentioned that we can engineer trust. How do we do that?

其一是反复接触。要信任某人，首先你需要对他们有基本认知。就像你不会信任陌生人，不会信任神秘人物。所以第一点是必须知道对方是谁？

One is repeated exposure. So in order to trust somebody, first, you have to have a sense of who they are. Like you wouldn't trust a stranger. You wouldn't trust a mystery man. So one is you have to know who are they?

他们需要足够频繁地出现，让你感觉确实了解他们，对你而言不再是完全的陌生人。信任陌生人很难，但信任那些与你存在准社会关系的人却很容易——因为他们对你而言已非陌生人。有些人你从未谋面却会信任你，因为在他们眼中你并非陌生人。所以首要就是摆脱陌生感。其次是建立共同价值观体系。

They have to show up enough for you to get a sense of you actually know them and they're not a total stranger to you. It's hard to trust a stranger, but it's easy to trust even a stranger that you have a parasocial relationship with because they're not a stranger. There are people that you've never met in your life who would trust you because to them, you're not a stranger. So first is just become not a stranger. Second is establish a set of shared values.

除非我知道你和我的饮食喜好相同，否则我不会轻易采信你对餐厅的推荐。比如如果你是讨厌辛辣食物的素食者，即便我喜欢你这个人，大概也不会接受你的餐厅建议。

I wouldn't necessarily trust your opinion on a restaurant unless I knew that you and I like the same type of food. So if you are like a vegan that hates spicy food and whatever, I I probably wouldn't take your restaurant recommendation, even if I like you as a person.

确实。

Right.

所以你必须建立一些共同的价值基准。以下是我对这个世界的一些核心信念。如果你认同这些，那就听听我接下来要说的。如果不认同，也没关系。对吧？

So you you have to establish some shared baseline of values. Here are some core things that I believe about the world. And if you share them, then listen to what I have to say next. If you don't share them, that's okay. Right?

并非所有人都必须认同。他们需要了解你是谁，你不是陌生人。他们需要理解你的思维方式和你如何看待事物，这样当你说其他事情时，他们已经潜移默化地认为他们和你想的一样。因此，如果你相信这件事，他们更可能也相信那件事。顺便说一句，这就是如何解决辩论或争论的方法。

Not everybody has to share them. So they have to get a sense of who you are and you're not a stranger. And they have to get a sense of how you think and how you view things such that when you say other things, they already have ingrained in their mind that they think like you think. And therefore, if you believe this thing, they're more likely to believe that thing too. This is how to resolve a debate or an argument, by the way.

更好的争论方式，你可以看到像加文·纽森这样非常圆滑的人在他的播客中这样做，也许有点过于圆滑，但他显然非常擅长，他会和一个在一堆事情上完全不同意他的人交谈。他总是确保从同意他们的某件事开始。即使是微不足道的事。我同意你说的那件事完全疯了。现在我们可以进行有成效的对话，因为我们已确立了你和我有可能以相同的方式看待事物，而不是你天生认为这是不可能的。

The better way to argue, and you see really smooth people like Gavin Newsom does this on his podcast, maybe a little bit too slick, but he's clearly very good at it, is he'll have somebody who totally disagree with him on a bunch of things. And he'll always make sure to start with agreeing with them on something. Even if it's trivial. I agree with you that that thing was totally insane. And now we can have a productive conversation because we've established that it's even possible for you and me to see things the same way as opposed to your nature assumption that it wouldn't be possible.

我在想这是不是为什么品酒师几乎从不反驳你，当你说，哦，我在这酒里尝到了什么。他们会说，有可能。或者，你知道，他们心里可能在说，不可能。那完全是另一种味道。但是，是的。

I wonder if that's why sommeliers almost never disagree with you when you are like, oh, I taste whatever in this wine. They're like, possibly. Or, you know, like, in their head, they're like, no way. Like, that's a completely different taste. But Yeah.

他们实际上从不直接说不。他们总是稍微弥合一点差距。

They they never actually come out and say no. They always sort of like bridge a little bit of a gap.

这很有趣。

That's interesting.

然后他们会引导你或指引你注意到他们希望你注意的东西。

And then they'll like direct you or steer you towards what they want you to notice.

这很有趣。我是个滴酒不沾的人，所以如果让我闻一闻酒，我大概只能说‘我觉得这是酒’。但我注意到与此相关的一个现象——你有没有在网上看到过，当有人侮辱或嘲讽别人时，被攻击者突然出现并说‘谢谢你的反馈’，结果那个原本在辱骂的人几乎立刻就像廉价西装一样垮掉了？你见过这种情况吗？

That's interesting. I'm a teetotaler, so I'm the person that if I sniff a wine, I'm like, I think it's wine. But but what I have noticed, which is related to this, is do you ever see online when people are insulting someone or dunking on someone, but then that person shows up and says, thanks for your feedback. The original person who was insulting them or dunking on them almost immediately folds like a cheap suit. Have you seen this?

没错，他们几乎瞬间就怂了。‘嘿兄弟，谢了’‘不不不’这样。

Yeah. Almost immediately they fold. Hey, man. Thank you. No.

完全理解。换作是我也会这样。‘我懂你’——但到底发生了什么？这是因为当面对一个真实的人，而不是某个抽象概念或模糊印象，甚至是人物的某种象征时，即便是在网络上，只要对方开始与你直接对话，我们的行为模式就会彻底改变。

Totally understand. I would be doing the same thing. I got you. Like, what what just happened? And it's because once you're actually confronted by a person instead of just like a concept or some kind of nebulous idea of a person or or some representation of a person, like, once the person is there talking to you, even if it's online, we behave in a completely different way.

所以我常告诫创业者要主动站出来为自己辩护。保护你的团队，捍卫你的公司。山姆·奥特曼就深谙此道，他总是力挺员工。尽管公众人物难免遭遇嘲讽和攻击，但当他现身时...

And so one of the things I tell founders to do is just to show up and defend yourself. Defend your people, defend your companies. Sam Altman is really good at this. He defends his employees. And it's very hard, even as much as with any public figure, people like to dunk and hate and insult.

多数情况下你会看到攻击者立刻退缩，可能是因为受宠若惊，或者不愿直接与他冲突。最有效的方法之一就是让一个真实的人类挡在他们面前。

And when he shows up, a lot of the time you see the person immediately fold because they're just like flattered or they don't wanna fight with him directly or something. It's one of the most powerful things is just to put a human in their way.

这个观点很有意思。你认为创始人需要反驳所有批评吗？稍后我想探讨负面媒体报道的问题，但你觉得他们必须逐条反驳吗？还是说只要坚持回应就能形成某种威慑力？

That's really interesting. Do you think that founders have to rebut everything? I wanna get into sort of negative media later, but do you think they have to rebut everything? Or is it that if they do it enough, it sort of like deters attacks?

我认为某些创始人确实能形成强大的威慑效应。比如帕尔默·拉奇就有极强的威慑力。你读过《三体》吗？没有？你一定会喜欢这本书的。

I think there's a big deterrent effect with some founders. So like, Palmer Luckey has extremely strong deterrent. Have you ever read The Three Body Problem? No. You'd love it.

完全正确。你会爱上这个三部曲的。《三体》，它实际上包含三本书。书中有一个外星文明，他们可能想来地球掠夺我们所有的资源，而我们将会被毁灭。这演变成了一场威慑游戏。

Totally. You'd love this trilogy. The Three Body Problem, it's it's it's actually three books. And there's an alien civilization, and they probably want to come to Earth and take all of our resources and we would be destroyed. And it turns into a game of deterrence.

它变成了一个博弈论问题：当他们的科技水平远超我们时，我们如何阻止他们这样做。我不会剧透，但书中很大一部分内容围绕着如何威慑他们展开。他们确实在技术上压制我们，甚至已经派遣传感器和间谍来监视地球上发生的一切。因此，地球指定了一些人作为所谓的'面壁者'，比喻他们面壁而立，不与外界正常互动。

It turns into game theory of how do we prevent them from doing that when they're so much more technologically sophisticated than us. And I won't spoil it, but a large part of the book centers on how do we deter them. And again, they are technologically dominant over us. They've actually sent sensors and spies to come here and can see everything that's happening. And so Earth has designated certain people to be what they call wall facers, as in they are metaphorically facing a wall and not interacting with the outside world in a normal way.

他们在制定秘密计划，职责就是进行欺骗，这样任何观察者——无论是人类还是三体外星文明——都无法看穿他们的真实意图。在第二部中，某些人拥有相当于扣动扳机的权力，而外星人必须判断谁会真正执行。于是外星人将人类分为强威慑者和弱威慑者。其中有个人拥有他们所谓的'完美威慑'，即必要时他百分百会扣动扳机。

They're making secret plans, and their job is to be deceptive so that anyone watching, whether you're a human or you're a trisolar in alien civilization, you can't tell what they're really up to. And among some of the people in in the second book, they have the power to do the equivalent of of pulling a trigger. And the aliens have to determine who's really gonna do this. So the aliens decide which people have strong deterrence and weak deterrence. And there's one guy who has, I think they call it perfect deterrence, which is he will 100% pull the trigger if needed.

他不在乎生死，不在乎保护家人，什么都不在乎。他就像一个完美算法：如果条件满足，就触发。

He doesn't care about dying. He is he doesn't care. He's not worried about protecting his family. He's not worried about literally anything. He's just like a perfect algorithm where if this, then trigger.

他具备完美威慑力。只要他在，外星人就毫无动作，完全被震慑。当他离去后，这个权力转移给了一个威慑力实际上很弱的女性。

He has perfect deterrence. And during the time that he's around, the aliens do nothing. They're completely deterred. When he's gone, that power passes to this woman who has actually very weak deterrence. Okay.

她总是心软，还有各种顾虑。外星人识破了她的虚张声势，发现她威慑力薄弱后便不再忌惮，局势从此急转直下。

She just like feels bad. She's got other stuff going on. And the aliens call her bluff. They realize that she has weak deterrents and they are not deterred. And then things go very badly from there.

这一切说明，有些人具备强威慑力或弱威慑力。你可以通过行为传递这种信号。像帕尔默这样的人——我很欣赏他这点——基本上拥有完美威慑力，如果你实质性攻击他，他百分百会反击。他的公关团队拦不住他，联合创始人也拦不住他。

All of this is to say that some people have strong deterrents or weak deterrents. And you can signal that through your behavior. Someone like Palmer, whom I love, and I really like this about him, has basically perfect deterrence, which is that if you come after him in some material way, he will come after you basically guaranteed 100% of the time. His comms team isn't holding him back. His cofounders aren't holding him back.

投资者们，毫无顾忌。没有任何东西能阻止他来找你麻烦，甚至可能余生都会持续纠缠你。这就像一种极其强大的威慑力，虽然并不意味着没有网络暴徒偶尔还会尝试攻击，但我确实很久没见到这种情况了。我记不清上一次有人对帕默发起实质性攻击或得手是什么时候。

Investors, nothing. Nothing is holding him back from coming after you and probably continuing to come after you for maybe the rest of his life. Like extremely strong deterrence, which doesn't mean that there are not, like, Internet goons who sometimes still take a shot, but I actually haven't seen it for a very long time. I can't remember the last time that someone took a meaningful shot at Palmer or that someone landed a blow.

你是否正为工作中使用多种工具管理项目而困扰——既要沟通又要任务管理还要安排日程？其实不必如此复杂。Basecamp是一款清爽直观、值得信赖的项目管理平台，专为中小型及成长型企业设计，完全规避了企业级软件的繁琐复杂。

Are you struggling to manage your projects at work using lots of different tools for communication, task management, and scheduling? It doesn't have to be this hard. Basecamp is the refreshingly straightforward, reliable project management platform. It's designed for small and growing businesses. So there's none of the complexity you get with software designed for enterprises.

复杂会扼杀动力。Basecamp为您扫清障碍，让团队真正行动起来。告别零散的邮件、无休止的会议和延误的截止日期。Basecamp将所有内容整合一处：待办清单、留言板、聊天对话、日程安排和文档。信息分散时，注意力也随之分散。

Complexity kills momentum. Basecamp clears the path so your team can actually move. Do away with scattered emails, endless meetings, and missed deadlines. With Basecamp, everything lives in one place, to do lists, message boards, chat conversations, scheduling, and documents. When information is scattered, attention is too.

Basecamp让两者重归一体。其直观设计确保每个人都清楚当前进展、责任归属和后续计划。我们的运营主管对此平台赞不绝口，总是第一个向他人推荐。若需要更多背书推荐，不妨联系她。无论小型团队还是成长型企业，Basecamp都能随需扩展。

Basecamp brings both back together. Basecamp's intuitive design ensures that everyone knows what's happening, who is responsible, and what's coming next. My head of operations swears by this platform and is the first person to suggest it to anyone. If you need another decorated referral, you should call her. Whether you're a small team or growing business, Basecamp scales with you.

停止挣扎，开始进步，用Basecamp实现突破。立即前往basecamp.com免费注册。我记得在迈阿密'全情投入'峰会现场...

Stop struggling, start making progress, get somewhere with Basecamp. Sign up for free at basecamp.com. I remember being in the audience at the Miami Yeah. All In Yeah. Summit.

没错。当时他和杰森激烈交锋，我觉得精彩极了。我很欣赏他为自己挺身而出的姿态，那种有理有据的辩论方式，既保持了尊重又立场鲜明。

Yeah. And him and Jason just went off on each other, and I thought it was brilliant. Like, I liked the fact that he was like standing up for himself and, you know, sort of arguing. He was doing it respectfully.

嗯。

Mhmm.

但他当时只是在揭穿胡扯，你懂吗？

But he was sort of just calling bullshit, you know?

而且他是独自行动的。不是所有人都能做到，我就不会那样做。很多人要么不愿要么无法全身而退。但这确实是他本色出演。不是公关团队给他写剧本说'照着念然后装得很生气'那种。

And he was doing it on his own. And not everybody like, I wouldn't have done that. A lot of people either wouldn't or couldn't get away with it. But this is authentically him. This is not like his PR team wrote a script for him and they're like, hey, read this and get really mad.

这就是真实的他。我猜他是写在苹果备忘录里，然后自己决定'我要这么做'就直接干了。这种方式的翻车点在于有人试图伪装成自己根本不是的样子。一旦被识破，不仅达不到初衷，还会彻底丧失所有可信度。

Like, this is him. I think he had it on his Apple notes and just like did himself like, hey, I'm gonna do this. And then and then did. The the way this goes wrong is if people try to affect being someone that they're really not. And then once you see through that, not only do you not have the original intended effect, but then you also lose all your other credibility too.

还有谁...我觉得Sam Altman的威慑力相当强。但你对攻击的回应方式决定了这种威慑力的强弱。虽然前期很痛苦，但后期会轻松很多，因为人们不再找你麻烦。

Who else is like I I think Sam Altman has a fairly strong deterrent. But the way that you respond to attacks establishes how strong or weak of a deterrent that you have. And it's painful upfront, but then it gets a lot easier later because people stop coming after you.

那我们先聊聊应对攻击的事。Palmer，如果你在听的话，很想邀请你上播客。

Well, let's talk about responding to attacks first. Palmer, if you're listening, I'd love to have you on the podcast.

Palmer，Shane很棒的。

Palmer, Shane's great.

我们来讨论遭遇攻击时如何应对。大概有两种典型场景：比如针对公司的负面报道，或者对CEO的指控。应对这类事情的策略是什么？

Let's talk about how to respond during an attack. What are sort of there's a, let's say, two scenarios that come to mind are like a negative article about your company, or like maybe an accusation against the CEO. What what's the playbook for responding to these things?

首要问题是，这件事真的重要吗？因为，不要浪费你唯一狂野而珍贵的人生去回应每一件无关紧要的事。不是因为这会伤害你，而是你有更重要的事情要做。去散个步吧。所以第一步是判断它是否重要。

The first thing is does it actually matter? Because like, don't waste your one wild and precious life responding to every single thing if it doesn't matter. Not because it'll necessarily hurt you, but just you have better things to do with your time. Go for a walk. So the first is deciding whether it matters.

有几个标准可以判断其重要性。第一，它是否影响到重要人群？如果只是互联网某个阴暗角落里的怪人在发声，而你的实际受众并不在那里也不关心，那就完全没问题。或者假设你是一名共和党政客，你的受众是美国右翼，而AOC（亚历山德里娅·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯）攻击了你，那太棒了。恭喜你。

And there's a couple of things to decide whether it matters. Number one, is it reaching people that matter? Cause if it's some dark corner of the internet with some crank and your actual audience is not there and don't care, that's totally fine. Or let's say that you are a Republican politician and your audience is like right wing Americans and AOC attacks you, great. Congratulations.

这对你有利。你无需采取任何行动。这实际上是一份美妙的恭维。你甚至可以把它做成广告，顺势而为。没错。

That's good for you. You don't have to do anything there. That's actually like a wonderful compliment. You might turn it into an ad, like lean into it. Yeah.

所以首先要看：对方是谁？他们影响了谁？这会带来损害吗？其次要看：这是实质性的事情吗？比如我写博客说‘我去肖恩·帕里什的工作室，他的零食不怎么样’是一回事；但如果说‘我去他工作室，他却欺骗了我要讨论的内容’——

So the first is just like, who is it and who are they reaching? And is that gonna do damage? And then the second is, is it something material? So if it's I write a blog post and I'm like, I went to Shane Parrish's studio and his snacks weren't that good. But if it's like, I went to his studio and he lied to me about what we're gonna cover.

他用采访承诺诱骗我参加，结果完全偏离了原定方向。

He tricked me into coming on with promises of an interview then, and it went in a totally different direction.

嗯。

Yeah.

在他欺骗之后，还未经我许可就把我的脸用在广告上，为他新开的保健品公司做宣传之类。这对你邀请未来嘉宾以及在你尊重的人群中的形象将产生实质影响，这种情形就值得出面回应。是的。

And after he lied, he used that to, you know, he put my face on an ad without getting my permission. He used it to like shill his new supplements company or something. That would be pretty material to you in trying to get future guests and in in the image that you have with people that you respect. And so that would be worth addressing. Yeah.

那么，涉及的是哪些人？他们对你有影响吗？然后实际的指控是什么？这对你重要吗？如果两者都是肯定的，你就必须立即且强硬地回应。

So so who are the people involved? Do they matter to you? And then what is the actual accusation? Does that matter to you? If both are a yes, then you got to respond immediately and aggressively right away.

你不能犹豫不决，比如‘哦，我不知道’。感觉太糟了，也许它会自己消失。本能反应是‘或许它会自行解决’，但事情不会自己消失。

You can't kind of, oh, I don't know. It feels so bad. Maybe it'll go away. The instinct is let me just maybe it'll just go away by itself. It doesn't go away by itself.

就像我在大学时多次鼻梁骨折，现在还能看出有点歪。关于骨折我学到的是：如果鼻子断了，必须立刻复位才能愈合。如果不这样做，要么永远顶着歪鼻子生活，要么五年后想矫正时还得重新打断。

So this is like so I broke my nose multiple times in college. You could sort of see it's like curve. And what I learned about broken noses is if you break your nose, you gotta break it back right away so that it can heal. If you don't do that, you either have a crooked nose forever and learn to live with it. Or if you wanna get it fixed five years later, you gotta break it back five years later.

所以你要么趁伤处未愈立即复位，希望一劳永逸；要么等它自行愈合后，发现不满意再处理。五年后你就得重新经历断骨之痛。我对声誉危机的看法也是如此——若已造成实质性损害，要么当场解决（就像立即复位），要么放任恶化，最终还是要面对。

So you can either break it back now while it's already broken and then let it heal, hopefully once and for all. Or you can kind of wait for it to go away and then decide that you're not happy with it and it bugs you and then you have to fix it. And then five years later, you're stuck breaking your nose from scratch. This is the way that I think about a reputational blow is if there has been material reputational damage, you can either handle it in that moment and break the nose back and just fix it then and there while things are already bad or kinda let it fester. And then eventually you'll realize like, you don't wanna live with this and you have to address it.

现在你只能选择：永远忍受歪鼻子，还是重新打断矫正？

And now you're stuck with, do I have a crooked nose forever? Or do I have to break it from scratch?

我读过关于指控和企业危机的观点，你说过‘如果用统计数据对抗舆论叙事，必败无疑’。

One of the things that I read that's related to accusations and sort of corporate crises, you said if you're fighting a story with a statistic, you're losing.

没错。

Yes.

帮我双击那个。

Double click on that for me.

你知道那个可能是杜撰的列宁名言吗？‘一个人的死亡是悲剧，一千人的死亡就是统计数据’。这太真实了。我认为一个很好的例子可能是北美自由贸易协定（NAFTA）辩论期间，讨论我们是否应该实行自由贸易。支持NAFTA、支持贸易的人会说，这将使我们的GDP增长这么多，将促进这么多贸易流动，实现这些目标。

You know the probably apocryphal Lenin quote about one death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is a statistic? This is so true. And I think a good example of this is probably during the NAFTA debates where it was about, should we have free trade or not free trade? And the people who are pro NAFTA, pro trade would say, it'll lift our GDP by this much. It'll it'll help facilitate this much flow of trade and do these things.

这非常模糊，因为2%对1%或8%意味着什么？对普通人来说毫无概念。而如果你是反对贸易的，你可以说，比如这是肖恩，他有12个孩子，刚刚失业了。

It was, like, very nebulous because what is 2% versus 1% versus 8%? Like, the average person doesn't that doesn't mean anything to them. Whereas if you're anti trade and you could say, like, this is Shane. He's got 12 children. He just lost his job.

人们会竭尽全力帮助有12个孩子且刚失业的肖恩，而潜在的2%经济增长对他们毫无意义。这就是为什么慈善机构募捐时总是展示具体的孩子。在海报或招募材料上，从来不会写‘五万名儿童’——至少做得好的不会。他们会展示一个小女孩直视镜头的照片，她患了这种病。

People will do anything to help Shane with 12 children who just lost his job versus the 2% of potential growth just doesn't mean anything. It's why when charities try to get you to give money, they're like this specific child. So on the poster, on the recruiting thing, it's never like 50,000 children, or at least if they're doing a good job, it's not. If they're doing a good job, it's like, this is one little girl, you know, staring into the camera. She has this sickness.

她需要10美元。对吧？你能帮帮她吗？即使是拯救熊猫，也会展示这只具体的熊猫

She needs $10. Right? Can you just do that? Or even if it's save the pandas, it's like this panda

非常

It's very

具体。这只熊猫有名字。所以我们总是想要影响一个故事，帮助一个人。对我们来说，为一个人实施白内障手术的回报，远比将百分比从2.1改为2.105更有力量。

specific. This panda has a name. And so we always want it. We we wanna influence a story and help a person. For us, the reward of getting cataract surgery for one person is much more powerful than changing a percentage from 2.1 to 2.105.

这如何影响政治以及大众的思维方式？是的，因为政治很大程度上关乎这种叙事。

How does that influence politics and, like, the way that people think en masse? Yeah. Because politics is so much about this story.

伟大的总统竞选团队非常擅长讲述特定故事：事情本该如此发展，这里是出错的转折点，而这是实现圆满结局需要做的事。我们几乎就要抵达终点，请助我一臂之力达成完美收官。每个故事不都是这样吗？对吧？

The great presidential campaigns are very good at telling specific stories about here's the way something should have been. Here's where it all went wrong, And here's what needs to do to bring about a happy ending. And we're almost there and help me take us to the happy ending. Like, that's every story. Right?

夏尔郡绿意盎然风景如画，随后索伦发动战争。要让世界重归正轨，必须将魔戒投入火山。每个伟大故事都在演绎某种版本——理想状态如何被打破，又该如何修复。杰出政客将自己塑造成救世主形象，而你可以帮助他们实现目标。

The Shire is green and beautiful. And then Sauron starts to wage war. And in order to make things right again, the ring needs to go into the volcano. Every great story is some version of here's how things should be, and here's something wrong, and here's what it takes to fix it. And the great politicians make themselves the thing that it takes to fix it, and you can help them get there.

在此过程中，他们会讲述这样的故事：一位单亲母亲坐在早餐桌前，面对丈夫乔的某种癌症治疗账单。正是这种具象叙事（而非"请帮我把支持率从2%提升到2.1%"）才能引发民众共鸣。

And along the way, they're telling stories about this one single mother sitting at the breakfast table over this bill for this specific type of cancer that her husband, whose name is Joe, like that is the message that gets people to care as opposed to help me take help me turn two percentage to two point one percent.

为了提升全球政治讨论质量，作为反对派该如何反驳？当对手在讲述毫无事实依据的故事，而你用枯燥事实应战注定失败时，究竟该如何反击？

In the interest of better political discourse around the world, how do you argue with that if you're the opposition When your opponent is telling a story, but factually, it has no basis in reality, and you're coming out arguing with facts, which isn't gonna win. How do you how do you counter that?

必须用故事对抗故事。最有力的统计数据可能还不如一个普通故事有感染力。如果对方用故事进攻，你也必须用故事还击。从统计数据中能提炼出更精彩的故事。

You have to fight story with story. There's no like, the most powerful statistic is probably not as powerful as the median story. Like, the most powerful statistic is not as powerful probably as the average story. If someone is fighting you with stories, you have to fight with stories. Out of the statistics will be better stories.

数据之下藏着更具冲击力的故事。既然事实站在你这边，就能找到更好的叙事角度。若对手确实在玩弄阴谋，或许可以就此大做文章。就像科技界正在上演的精彩故事——薪酬管理平台Rippling与Deal的博弈，Deal安插商业间谍，那名间谍冲进卫生间试图冲走手机。

Under the statistics are more powerful stories. So the facts are on your side, better stories can be found. And if your opponent is actually lying in their skullduggery, maybe there's a story about that. Like in the in the tech world, we're seeing a very interesting story play out between Rippling and Deal, which are these two payroll processors, and Deal planting a spy. And the spy, like, running into the bathroom and then try to flush a phone.

我是说，这非常生动。所有关于你们监视我们、我们监视你们，你们告诉人们这个，我们的收入是这样，但你们声称那样的来回争论，都淹没在噪音中，人们只是在想象，比如间谍躲在浴室里试图用手机拍照的画面。所以如果有人真的在撒谎并攻击你，也许可以讲述一个关于这方面的故事。

I mean, it's very vivid. And so all this back and forth about you spied on us, we spied on you, and you told people this, and our revenue is this, but you claim your like, all of that fades into the noise, and people are just picturing, like, the spy hiding into the bath in the bathroom trying to flash a phone. So if someone is actually lying and attacking you, maybe there's a story to be told about that.

在面对这类事情时，我们的思维有多少是被标题驱动的？谁先定调似乎就占了优势。

How much of our minds are driven by headline when it comes to this stuff? Whoever frames it seems to have an advantage.

谁先发声谁就占优势。温斯顿·丘吉尔说过，谎言已经环游世界一周，真相才刚穿上裤子。当你

Whoever comes out first has an advantage. This is Winston Churchill says that a lie makes its way around around the world before the truth can get its pants on. And when you

精辟的引用。

Green quote.

归功于丘吉尔的引语有一半是杜撰的，但无论他是否真的说过，这些话都很精彩。他在精神层面上说过。在网上，你经常看到有人发布某些内容，然后有时会有很棒的反驳，但反驳获得的互动可能只有原帖的十分之一。所以，抢先发声本身就很有价值。如果你认为有人会因为某事攻击你，你可以提前行动，进行预先反驳，也就是'预反驳'。

Half the quotes attributed to Churchill are apocryphal, but they're all of them are excellent whether they he actually said it or not. He spiritually said it. Online, you see this constantly where somebody will post something and then sometimes there's a great rebuttal and the rebuttal will get like one tenth as much engagement as the original thing. And so there's a lot of value in simply saying the thing first. And if you think someone is gonna attack you for something, then you can get ahead of it and do the pre rebuttal, the prebuttal.

我认为'预反驳'应该成为一种策略。如果你知道人们会因何攻击你，就提前进行预反驳。你看过埃米纳姆在《8英里》里的说唱对战吗？

I think the prebuttal should be a thing. If you know what people are gonna attack you for, do the prebuttal. So have you seen the Eminem rap battle in Eight Mile?

看过，最后那场。我知道你准备用来攻击我的所有说辞。

Yes. The final one. I know everything you're about to say against me.

是的。没错。每个人都应该这么做。我其实认为应该就放一段片段。我想找到那段最终说唱对决的片段，然后强制所有公众人物、那些有黑粉和被人攻击的人都必须观看。

Yes. Yeah. And everybody should do this. I actually think there should be just a clip. I wanna find a clip of the final rap battle and just make it mandatory viewing for anyone who's in the public eye and has haters and people attacking them.

因为他说的话——希望大家都已经看过这部电影杰作了——在说唱对决中，埃米纳姆的角色先发制人，把对方可能用来攻击自己的点全都自己先说出来，要么坦然接受，要么巧妙化解。到最后对方反而无话可说。所以先发制人意味着你有机会这样做。

Because what he says hopefully, everyone's already seen this cinematic masterpiece. But what he does is in this rap battle, Eminem's character, he goes first, and everything that the guy would have used against him, he uses against himself and addresses all of it. And he either owns it or diffuses it. And then by the end, the other guy actually has nothing left to say. So just being first means that you have the opportunity to do that.

如果顺序反过来，整个效果就不成立了。

If that if the order had been reversed, the whole thing wouldn't have worked.

那场最终对决太棒了。据说对这些细节特别痴迷的人会发现，有很多未剪辑的录音片段里他们确实是即兴发挥的，而且每个人都想挑战埃米纳姆。

That was a I love that final battle. And apparently, and for people who geek out on this stuff, there's a lot of unedited clips from when they were recording where they actually did freestyles, And everybody wanted to challenge Eminem.

哦，这我完全相信。

Oh, I'm sure.

你知道，我永远不可能和你同台竞技，但在录音棚里就可以。所以大家经常不按剧本走。

You know, I'm never gonna be on stage with you, but, like, in this studio right now. And so people were going off script all the time.

哇，真有意思。对了，我和一位UFC名人堂选手聊过，他说去酒吧时最怕别人知道他是职业格斗家，因为所有男的都想和他干架。这太正常了。

Oh, that's cool. Yeah. I talked to a UFC fighter who is actually a UFC Hall of Fame. And he says that whenever he goes to a bar, he doesn't want people to know that he's a professional fighter because all the guys try to fight him. Of course.

是的。传说肯·沙姆洛克以前把酒吧当作训练场。

Yeah. Legend has it, Ken Shamrock used to use bars as training.

哦。所以他曾经

Oh. So he used

去酒吧，把它当作训练场地。

to go to the bars and, like, use it as training ground.

说到这个，实战对抗中蕴含着巨大能量。就像你听那些CEO、创始人或政治人物时，经常参与辩论的人比那些从未经历过辩论的人更敏锐、更出色。比如查理·柯克，他是一名右翼活动家，穿梭于各个大学校园。

On that, a lot of power in just sparring. Like, when you listen to whether they're CEOs or founders, political figures, the people who spend a lot of time sparring are sharper than the people who haven't had to spar. They are just sharper and better. So like Charlie Kirk, he's a right wing activist. He goes around to campuses.

他就直接驻扎在校园里，然后那些讨厌他的大学生排着队和他进行言语交锋。他们与他争论，而他就像系统性地击倒他们，或是认真对待他们的观点进行辩论。这并非不尊重，他基本上把这当作全职工作，现在变得异常机敏。

He literally just parks himself at a campus, and then all these college students who hate him line up and fight with him verbally. They argue with him, and he just like chops them down systematically or he engages with them. Like, it's not disrespectful. He engages with their ideas, and then he has these debates. He just does this basically as a full time job, and he is now incredibly sharp.

本·夏皮罗也是如此。这些人不得不为每一件事辩护。如果你是本·夏皮罗，哪怕你出门说天空是蓝的，人们也会说‘当然了，你们这些犹太复国主义者就会这么想’，他必须为此辩护。他们反复为一切辩护，结果变得极其敏锐。

Ben Shapiro is the same. These are people who have had to defend every single thing. If you're Ben Shapiro, you walk outside and say the the sky is blue, people would say, well, of course, you would think that you Zionists, he would have to defend it. Like, everything, they've had to defend repeatedly. And as a result, they're very sharp.

你可以说你不同意，认为他们的观点糟糕错误。但很难说他们不敏锐、不聪明、不擅长即兴辩论，因为他们客观上确实如此。就连那些憎恶他们及其立场的人也无法说他们愚蠢。帕尔默或托比这样的CEO也是如此，他们不让自己被唯唯诺诺的人包围，而是置身于可能充满分歧、敌意和怀疑的处境中。

You can say that you disagree and you think their opinions are bad and wrong. It's very hard to say that they're not sharper and they're not smart and they're not great on the stump because they objectively are. Even the people who hate them and hate their positions can't say that they're dumb. And that's the same for CEOs like Palmer or like Toby where they don't surround themselves with yes men. They put themselves into situations that might be mixed, hostile, skeptical.

他们欢迎质疑。他们积极应对。因此，他们思维极其敏锐，面对质疑时不会僵住。而有些被过度呵护的CEO，他们在公司里如同神王，说的每句话都被视为正确、真实且绝妙，无论走到哪里都是最英俊聪明的人。当有人在网上反对他们或遭到嘲讽时，他们其实不知所措，于是将问题推给公关团队，事情就从那里开始失控。

They welcome the skepticism. They engage. And as a result, they are incredibly sharp and they don't freeze when they're confronted with skepticism. Whereas when you see sometimes CEOs that have been more coddled, where they've been like the god king of their company and everything they say is right and true and brilliant, they're the most handsome and smart person everywhere they go. If someone disagrees with them online or they're getting dunked on, they actually don't really know what to do, and so they outsource it to the comms team and it sort of unravels from there.

这真的很有趣。你会如何提升辩论能力？比如，如果你想学会更好地捍卫观点，或意识到自己是错的——甚至不是捍卫观点，而是抛出观点后从外界获得反馈并调整。你对这个怎么看？

That's really interesting. How would you go about getting better at sparring? Like, if you wanted to start learning how to defend your opinions better or to realize that you're wrong, so it's not even defending your opinions. It's like putting them out there and then sort of getting feedback from the world and adapting. How do you think about that?

我认为关键在于你周围是什么人，要找到那些能在安全的内圈里指出你错误的人，这样你可以在更可控的环境中开始辩论。比如，你不必直接去互联网的汪洋大海中练习，可以先从信任的人开始，这不会造成任何伤害。但如果你连身边人的异议和辩论都不允许，甚至惩罚那些反对你的人，那你就是在让自己变得极其思想脆弱。这样当你面对外界未知挑战时，会完全措手不及。这种准备不足会在现场采访中暴露无遗。

I think it's about who you surround yourself with and getting people who will tell you in the safety of your inner sanctum when you're wrong so that you can start sparring in a in a more sterile environment. Like you can start you don't have to go and start sparring with the blue water internet. You can start with just people that you trust and it's not gonna do any damage. But if you don't even allow people close to you to disagree and spar with you, and if you penalize people who speak up against you, then what you're doing is you're making yourself incredibly intellectually brittle so that when you go out into the world and get faced with who knows what, you're completely unprepared. And that unpreparedness shows either in live interviews.

有时你会看到人们在现场采访中突然卡壳僵住。因为团队里没人告诉他们那些话听起来很扯。所以当记者指出来时，他们不知所措。或者他们直接僵住、躲开、拒绝回应，就像躺在地上任人捶打。

Sometimes you see people in live interviews just like lock up and they freeze. No one on their team has told them that they sound bullshitty. And so suddenly the reporter's telling them they don't know what to do. Or they just freeze and hide and go away and they don't engage. And now it's just like you're lying on the ground while people punch you.

所以我觉得这取决于你选择与谁为伍。就像你希望亲友告诉你牙上沾了西兰花，免得你顶着一整天出门。但如果你因此吼他们导致他们不再提醒，那你就只能带着西兰花晃悠，直到被陌生人指出来。

So I think it's just who you surround yourself with. It's kinda like you want your friends and family to tell you if you have broccoli in your teeth so that you don't have to go out into the street. But if you yell at them for doing that and they stop telling you, now you just walk around all day with broccoli and then someone else will point it out.

我认识一个人（不透露姓名），他会拉黑推特（或现在叫X）上所有反对意见的人。我担心这种情况——长期来看会怎样？就像你再也接收不到与自己世界观相左的信息。

One person I know, and I I won't mention their name, but they block everybody who sort of disagrees with them on Twitter or X or whatever you call it now. And I worry about this in Because my like, how does this play out? Right? Like, the long term, you know? It's like you stop getting information that's different than your worldview.

这样可能会让人变得更脆弱。你同意吗？或者说——什么时候该拉黑？什么时候不该？你怎么想？

And if you become a bit more fragile, I think, that case. Do you agree with that? Or, like, what when do you block? When do you not? What do you think?

我是个厚脸皮的人。好吧。情况是这样的，好吧。如果我说了什么你觉得很烂的话，尽管嘲笑好了。我既然决定说出来。

I'm I'm a big muder. Okay. Where it's like, okay. If I've said something and you think it sucks, then feel free to dunk on it. I've decided to say it.

我不会只对赞同我的人说。我觉得如果有人是那种辱骂或威胁性质的，可能就该拉黑了。

I'm not gonna say it only to people who agree with me. I think if someone is, like, abusive or threatening, maybe that's a block situation.

好吧。

Okay.

但我脸皮很厚，就是不想让我的信息流被你的胡言乱语污染。对。这和意见不同是两回事。更像是如果你就是消极、粗鲁、在其他方面很毒舌。所以我处理的方式是，如果有人只是不同意，我其实想看到这些。

But I'm a big muder where it's like, I just don't wanna pollute my feed with your nonsense. Yeah. And it's different from disagreeing. It's more like if you are just negative and rude and toxic in other ways. So the way that I do it is if someone just disagrees, I actually wanna see that.

没错。不想隔绝。嗯。嗯。我不想把自己隔绝在那之外。

Right. Don't wanna insulate. Yeah. Yeah. I don't wanna insulate myself from that.

我想看到。也许我想参与其中。也许我想有些来回交流。尤其是我在游戏行业工作的时候。你知道，玩家们非常热情，对胡扯零容忍。

I wanna see it. Maybe I wanna engage with it. Maybe I wanna have some of that back and forth. Especially when I was working in video games. You know, gamers are so passionate and have no tolerance for nonsense.

我真的很尊重他们这一点。即使是那些讨厌我或讨厌我公司的人。我也很珍惜能和他们来回交流的机会。玩家们还特别有趣。他们的爱的语言就是梗图。

And I really respect them for that. Even the ones who hated me or hated my company. And I really valued the opportunity to go back and forth. People and gamers are really funny too. Like, they their love language is memes.

他们会制作关于我的表情包，有时友善，有时非常酷。想到这些我就觉得尴尬。是的，这也是互动的一部分，我会回击表情包，我们会互动。但如果只是粗鲁和恶意的，我就不必让自己承受这些。我要主导这个所谓的空间。

They would make memes of me, sometimes nice, sometimes really cool. Like, I cringe to to think of them. And and, yeah, that's part of the discourse where I would make memes back and and we would interact. But if it's like just rude and nasty, then I don't need to subject myself to that. I'm gonna lead the proverbial room.

所以这就是静音处理。

So that's a mute.

如果沟通中存在不对称性，比如像一家报纸可能针对小公司，或左倾媒体针对右倾政客之类的情况。这种不对称性该如何应对？如果你处于不对称的另一方，你会怎么处理？

What if there's asymmetry in the communication and think about this as like a newspaper maybe coming after a small company or left leaning media going after right leaning sort of politicians or something. There's like an asymmetry to this. How do you deal with that if you're on the other side of that asymmetry?

什么不对称性？

What's the asymmetry?

这种不对称性在于，背后有大量资金、权力和声誉支持。比如《纽约时报》写一篇关于小企业的报道，可能毁掉那家企业。无论报道真实与否，而那家企业可能只有五名员工。

Well, the asymmetry is like there's a whole bunch of money, power, reputation behind, you know, if the New York Times sort of write a story on a small business, it could kill that business. And it might or might not be true, but that business might only have five people working for it.

是啊。

Yeah.

你觉得他们该如何应对这种情况？

How do they how do you think about that?

我认为上帝眷顾弱者。如果你有幸处于劣势地位，就该善加利用。当下虽不会觉得是恩赐，反而倍感煎熬。但当你明显遭受打压时，反而能获得更多力量与自由——因为人们天然会同情弱者。

I think God smiles on underdogs. And I think that if you are blessed to be in an underdog position, you should try to take advantage of it. It's not gonna feel like a blessing in the moment. It'll feel really horrible. But there is something to being so clearly punched down on that gives you more power and liberty in that moment where people will naturally sympathize with the underdog.

如今人们对主流大企业媒体天然充满怀疑，对霸凌者也极为警惕。若你正遭受攻击，其实可以化用这种心理。不必想着说服全世界，只需争取那些与你立场一致的人——让他们明白你们是同路人，攻击你就是攻击他们，从而凝聚力量。所以负面报道未必是最坏情况。

People are naturally very skeptical of big mainstream corporate media right now. People are very skeptical of bullies. And so if you're in the receiving position of that, I think you can actually use that. Because if you if you realize that you're not trying to win over every single person in the world, but that there's a certain set of people you need to win over who are aligned with you, then actually all you need to do is help them understand that you and they are on the same page and an attack on you is an attack on them and use that to rally them to you. So I think that a hit piece is not the worst thing that can happen.

这就像马蹄铁理论：正面报道很好，负面报道也不错，都能为你所用。虽然感受不佳，但确有利用价值。

There's a kind of horseshoe where a great piece, fine. A hit piece, fine. Kind of fine. You can use it. It doesn't feel good, but you can use it.

真正要警惕的是恐怖谷效应——那些看似中立却暗含毁谤的报道。没有攻击性措辞，却用事实让你形象崩塌。比遭到明确攻击更糟的是：不是媒体因立场敌视我，而是他们客观报道的事实让我难堪。这种暧昧状态最危险。

What you don't want is the uncanny valley where it's not a hit piece, but it has information about you that while it doesn't sound aggressive or hostile, makes you look horrible. Like, that's the worst way of looking bad is not even being attacked and looking bad. It's not the mainstream media is coming after me and they have an agenda and they hate what I stand for. It's just, oh, they reported this fact and it makes me look horrible. That's like the uncanny valley where you don't want that, where it's like mixed.

但直白的攻击性报道，我认为反而无妨。

But a straight up hit piece, I think is okay.

你提到凝聚同类人群，这是否意味着扩大受攻击面？让对手意识到他们不只攻击我，而是在攻击所有与我相似的人？

And then when you talk about sort of like rallying your the people like you and making is that spreading your surface area out? So it's like not just attacking me, you're attacking everybody who's like me.

没错。我常引用物理公式P=F/A：压强等于压力除以受力面积。道理很直观——同样的压力，分散到更大面积时，压强自然减小。

Yeah. So I I sometimes refer to an equation in physics, which is p equals f over a. The pressure equals the force divided by the surface area. And it's very intuitive, right? The same amount of force, if you spread it over a wide surface area, doesn't exert a lot of pressure.

想象一大张纸向下压，如果表面积缩小，同样的力会产生更大的压强。就像针能刺穿东西——整张纸很难刺穿，但针可以，撕布料也是同理。直接撕扯布料很困难，但只要有个小缺口，整块布就能轻易撕开。

So think of a big sheet of paper that's pushing down versus if the surface area contracts, then the same amount of force creates a lot of pressure. So like a needle can puncture through. So like base sheet of paper, really hard to puncture through, needle can puncture through, or it's the same when you're trying to rip fabric. If you're just tearing fabric, it's really hard. But if there's a tiny nick already, the whole thing just comes open.

理解这个原理后，当你试图缓解压力时，虽然无法改变施加给你的力，但可以改变受力面积。你可以将压力分散到更大范围。比如你不是在攻击我个人，而是在攻击我们全体；你不是在针对某个Substack作者或某篇特定文章——

And so the way to think about this is if you're trying to relieve pressure, you don't get to change how much force is coming at you, but you can change the surface area. You can spread it out over more surface area. You're not just attacking me. You're attacking all of us. You're not just attacking, let's say, Substack or a a Substacker for a specific post.

你是在攻击所有试图捍卫言论自由的独立作家。这样既能分散你承受的压力，又能以极具号召力的方式团结众人。而当你需要采取攻势时（虽然不应主动树敌），有时自卫必须主动出击。此时你要做的是最大化压强——缩小攻击面。比如当媒体不公报道时，最糟的做法就是泛泛抱怨「媒体」这个整体。

You're attacking all independent writers who are trying to assert their freedom of expression. That's a way to diffuse the pressure on you and rally people to you in a very powerful way. And then if you're ever on offense, not that you wanna be the antagonist and go after someone and attack someone, but sometimes you need to go on offense just to defend yourself. If you're going on offense, then you actually wanna maximize the pressure and you decrease the surface area. So for example, if if the media is attacking you in a very unfair way, the worst thing you can do is just complain about the media.

如果抱怨对象的表面积过大，你会显得像个妄想狂——「媒体要害我、政府要害我、中情局要害我、连天气都跟我作对」——这太夸张了。但若精准指出「某记者因表亲经营竞品公司而长期抹黑我们」，则更具说服力，也能对特定对象施加最大压力。

If the surface area of what you're complaining about is too big, then you sound like a tinfoil hat. Like, the the media's after me and the government's after me and also the CIA's after me and also the weather is not good. It it's it's too much. Whereas if you narrow it to say, this specific reporter has had a vendetta against my company because their cousin runs a competitor or whatever, that is actually a lot more effective and more credible, and you're maximizing the pressure on that person.

这个比喻很精彩。能否再深入讲讲主动进攻的策略？具体该如何操作？

I like that a lot. Double click more on the offense if you're playing offense here. What does that look like?

你是指战术层面如何实施？还是

How do you tactically do it? Or

对，这是防御性反击的进攻策略。比如你反击记者时，无外界刺激的主动进攻是怎样的？主动挑衅又该把握什么尺度？

Well, so this is offense as a defensive response. So, you know, you're attacking a reporter. What's offense without a response look like? Like, what does instigation look like?

是的。所以如果你试图

Yeah. So If you're trying

通过挑起争端来吸引注意，如果你想先发制人，如果

to pick a fight to get attention, if you're trying to preempt something, if

没错。有时候作为弱势方，挑起争端是取得成功的好方法。但我并不是建议为了刻薄而挑起争端，你永远不应该欺凌弱小或成为恶霸，那样不好。但如果你从一无所有开始，需要积聚力量、召集人们加入某项运动，让自己变得重要，那么有为之奋斗的目标是件好事。你需要有一个事业。

Yeah. You're Sometimes a good way to succeed as an underdog is to pick a fight. Now I don't suggest picking a fight just to be mean and you never wanna be punching down or you be the bully, that's not good. But if you are starting from basically nothing and you need to gather steam and gather people to join a movement, make yourself relevant, then it's good to have something to fight for. You need to have a cause.

通常有了事业，你还需要一个对立面。是的，你希望世界上存在某些事物，但也有你想改变的东西。有些事物是你反对的。因此我认为选择一个对立面非常值得。也许这个对立面是现有金融体系的桎梏。

And often with a cause, you need to have a foil. So yes, there's something you wanna see in the world, but there's something that you wanna change. There's something that you are against. And so I think that it's very worth choosing a foil. And maybe the foil is the stranglehold of the existing financial system.

也许对立面是某条具体法规。比如超音速飞机公司Boom Supersonic，由Blake Scholl运营，这是首架民用私营超音速飞机。他们一直在游说、抗争，反对这条五十年前制定的过时糟糕法规。

Maybe the foil is this one specific regulation. So boom supersonic. Blake Scholl runs it. It's the first civilian privately created supersonic plane. They've been lobbying and fighting and struggling against this one specific bad piece of legislation that's, like, outdated from fifty years ago.

这本质上是天空中的限速令——因为当时飞机高速飞行会产生巨大音爆，人们讨厌这种破坏性噪音。所以他们规定不能高速飞行。其实应该规定的是不能制造噪音，但他们直接禁止了高速飞行。如今我们已经能做到高速无声飞行，却仍被禁止提速。最终他成功推动废除了这项立法，这是重大胜利。

That's basically a speed limit in the sky because at the time, planes made this big boom when when they went fast and people didn't like the big boom because it's disruptive. So they said, you're not allowed to go fast. The real thing should have been, you're not allowed to be noisy, but they just made it, you're not allowed to go fast. Now that we're able to go fast without being noisy, you're still not allowed to go fast. So he was able to actually help influence getting this legislation overturned, and that was a big win.

但他没有攻击任何人，也没有对谁刻薄。他只是精准指出：这项法规不仅阻碍我的发展，更在拖累整个美国航空业乃至更多领域的速度提升。我们说，

But he wasn't attacking anybody. He wasn't being mean to anybody. He just said, like, pinpointing, this is the thing that's holding back speed in America, not just for me, but for industry and for a lot of things broadly beyond just my company. We say,

你看，这反映了一个更广泛的问题。它这样影响着我，但其实影响着每个人

like, this is indicative of a broader problem. It's affecting me in this way, but it's affecting everybody

但有个具体情景可以想象。假如他说问题是官僚主义，那根本不算什么。明白吗？如果问题在于糟糕的法规，在于国家整体发展迟缓、效率低下。

else. But there's one specific thing to picture. If he had said the problem is red tape, that's nothing. You know? If the problem is bad regulations, the problem is being slow and not moving fast enough as a country in general.

就像，这里面根本没什么实质内容。

Like, there's just nothing there.

你必须具体化，让人们能某种程度上看到或感受到。是不是这样

You have to be specific so people can sort of, like, see it or feel it. Is that the

没错。必须有个具体载体来承载这些情绪。如果只是像这样，飘在空中的朦胧概念。人们甚至很难围绕某个事物聚集起来。

Yeah. There has to be something to attach these motions onto. And if it's just sort of this, like, diaphanous idea in the ether. It's very hard for people to even congregate around something.

暂时回到物理学角度，传播速度在沟通中有多重要？

Going back to physics for a second, how important is velocity when it comes to communication?

对。我经常提到速度，因为速度是矢量。既有大小又有方向。人们总讨论大小，却很少谈及方向。

Yeah. So I talk about velocity a lot because velocity is a vector. It has a magnitude and a direction. People talk a lot about magnitude. They don't talk about direction.

所以这就是你之前说的，人们只是说了一大堆话，但毫无意义。有时候感觉衡量标准就是喋喋不休的数量，我们要上所有这些播客，要发布博客文章。比如，我见过很多通讯团队或代理机构，他们当季的指标和KPI是两篇专栏、三个播客、四场全员大会。全都是关于数量，却不讨论我们试图推动什么改变。这有点像，你知道的，Claude那个标志，对吧。

So they this is what you were saying earlier with, people just say a lot of words, but it doesn't mean anything. And so sometimes it feels like the metric is just quantity of yapping, and we're gonna go on all these podcasts, and we're gonna deliver blog posts. Like, I've seen inside a lot of comms teams or agencies where their metrics and their KPIs for the quarter are two op eds, three podcasts, four town halls. And and it's all about quantity without talking about where are we trying to move the needle to. So it's kinda like, you know, the you know, the Claude logo that's Yeah.

就像星星树脂向四面八方延伸。你肯定不希望你的通讯策略看起来那样，在各个方向盲目行动。你真正需要的是像一条直线般指向目标的传播路径。如果没有明确方向，那就只是一堆忙乱无效的动作，有些还会相互抵消。所以重申一次，别太纠结于在哪里发声。

You know, like the star resin in all these different directions. You don't want your comms to look like that, where you're just like doing things in a bunch of different directions. You actually want your columns to look kind of like a line that builds towards a destination. And if you don't have the direction in mind, then it's just a bunch of frantic activity and wasted motion, some of which cancels each other out. So again, it goes back to don't worry so much about where you're going to say it.

重要的是你要说什么。在这些规划三场全员大会、四篇专栏之类的策略里，我几乎从没见过'这是我们要传播的核心观点'。我们需要明确要传播的理念，所有行动都必须朝这个方向推进。而让这个理念有价值的关键在于——让CEO露面。让CEO多曝光。

Worry about what are you gonna say. In none of these plans and strategies that lay out three town halls and four op eds and whatever, I almost never see here's the idea that we wanna spread. Here is the idea that we're gonna spread, and everything needs to go in this direction. And what makes this idea interesting and worthwhile is just get the CEO out there. Get the CEO out there.

给他安排采访，让他上Shane Parish的播客。他要说什么？没人知道。只要把他塞进采访椅就行。

Get him interviews. Get him onto the Shane Parish podcast. What's he gonna say? Nobody knows. Just put him in the chair.

我觉得这很有趣，因为我常想为什么会出现这种情况。对吧？我们是怎么陷入这种境地的？为什么默认行为不是正确行为？我经常得出的结论是：总有人来问你'上周做了什么？'

I think that's interesting because I often wonder why this stuff happens. Right? Like, how do we end up in this situation? Why isn't the default behavior the the correct behavior? And I often come back to the conclusion, at some point, somebody's coming to you and it's like, what did you do last week?

然后回答'哦，我组织了一场全员大会，联系了72个播客'。但没人问'这些有什么意义？'这就是种广撒网的策略。

And then, oh, I organized a town hall. I reached out to 72 different podcasts. And, you know, it's not about like, well, how do they matter? Well, I just, you know it's sort of like this spray and pray approach. Yeah.

但你总能编出个好故事，所以永远不会惹上麻烦。对吧？你永远在做事，他们顶多让你换个方式做。但这时候要求就具体了。

But you always have a good story, so you can never get in trouble. Right? Like, you're always doing and then they can tell you to do something different. But at that point, you're getting specific.

对，对，你在做事。真正让你的故事产生影响的三个要点是：第一，信息是什么？不要只是开始说些无关紧要的话，你要说服人们的核心真相是什么？

Yeah. Yeah. You're doing stuff. The three things for actually making a difference with your story are, one, what is the message? Don't just start saying stuff like, what is the core truth that you're gonna convince people of?

这就是我们讨论过的维恩图中的重叠部分。它是真实的，与你相关，但也是那些人真正关心的事情。你必须把这一点传达出去。所以明确信息这一点，人们往往会跳过，比如直接让CEO上播客，他一开口就会说出些什么来。

And that's the overlap in the Venn diagram that we talked about. It's true. It's relevant to you, but it's also something that those people actually care about. You have to get that out there. So identifying the message, people kind of just skip this part, like just get the CEO on podcasts and he'll open his mouth and stuff will come out.

第二，合适的媒介是什么？有些人可能应该上这个播客，也许应该上Sean Ryan的节目，也许应该上Theo Vaughan的节目，也许应该上《纽约时报》。这取决于他们的目标受众和想要达成的目的，但人们往往不会这样思考。他们只想着现在哪些播客最热门？他们会看苹果排行榜，然后说，好吧，苹果排行榜上的前几名是这个。

Two, what are the right mediums? So there are people who maybe should be on this podcast, maybe should be on Sean Ryan, maybe they should be on Theo Vaughan, maybe they should be on The New York Times. It depends on who they're talking to and what they're trying to get accomplished, but people don't often think that way. They think about just what are the hot podcasts right now? They'll look at the Apple leaderboard and then, okay, the top ones on the Apple leaderboard are this.

我们试着去那里。谁有最大的分发渠道？谁在乎最大的分发渠道是什么？向量。这不仅仅是关于大小。

Let's try to go there. Who has the biggest distribution? Who cares about what's the biggest distribution? Vector. It's not about just magnitude.

没有方向，大小毫无意义。那个分发渠道的方向是什么？他们分发给谁？以AI为例，我与许多AI创始人和公司合作，我听到公司和创始人尝试进行传播活动。然后我问他们，目标是什么？

Magnitude means nothing without direction. In what direction is that distribution? Who are they distributing to? So in AI, for example, I work with a lot of AI founders and companies and I've heard companies and founders try to they're like doing comms activities. And then I asked them, what's the goal?

嗯，目标其实是招募研究人员。好吧。如果你想招募研究人员，为什么你要花这么多时间在NPR上？你认为研究人员会听NPR吗？你认为研究人员会读这个——我不想太贬低任何人，但NPR确实是个好例子。

Well, the goal is actually recruiting researchers. Okay. Well, if you're trying to recruit researchers, why are you spending all this time on NPR? Do you think the researchers are listening to NPR? Do you think the researchers are reading this whatever I don't don't wanna dunk on anyone too bad, but, like, NPR actually is a good example.

对。他们可能正在读Simon Williamson的通讯，可能正在读这个V Substack。他们在读Less Wrong的评论。这是一个完全不同的生态系统，你实际上完全没有触及。

Yeah. They're probably reading, like, the Simon Williamson newsletter. They're probably reading this V Substack. They're reading the less wrong comments. This is a totally different ecosystem that you actually haven't penetrated whatsoever.

因此关键在于选择正确的传播媒介。最后，还需要合适的传播者。很多时候我们通过新闻稿、发言人或是雇佣的公关机构发声，而实际上创始人只需要出现在视频中，作为一个立体真实的人来讲话。如果你像《绿野仙踪》里躲在幕后的巫师，人们很难信任你，因为他们甚至不知道你是谁。但如果你直接露脸说出你的想法，这比雇佣一整个团队替你说要有效得多。

And so just putting it in the right medium. And then lastly, having the right messenger. So a lot of the time we speak through press releases or spokespeople or hired gun PR agencies when actually the founder just needs to go on video and talk as a three-dimensional human being, and nobody's gonna like, if you're the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, it's very hard to trust you because people don't even know who you are. But if you just come out with your face and say it, that's more effective than an army of hired guns trying to say it for you.

那我们用最近的例子来对比分析——CrowdStrike和Coinbase对两场重大危机的应对方式截然不同。这个案例符合这个逻辑，对吧？

Well, let's use a recent example and compare and contrast the CrowdStrike response to the Coinbase response to two big crises that were handled very differently. Like that fits this, does it?

我认为是的。

I think so.

好的。能详细展开说说吗？

Yeah. Can you walk us through that?

布莱恩的特别之处在于，他对是非对错和自己信念有着极深的认知，他坚信自己认为正确、真实且善良的事物。我本人认同他的观点，但并非所有人都如此。当别人不认同时，这不会像困扰普通人那样困扰他，因为他的信念如此坚定，以至于陌生人的看法对他影响甚微。他和帕尔默等人一样经历过烈火淬炼，承受过痛苦，因此明白日常诋毁者的唇枪舌剑根本无足轻重。

Brian is very special in the sense that he has such a deep sense of right and wrong and what he believes in, that he he has such high conviction that the thing he believes is right and true and good. I happen to agree with him, but not everybody does. And when people don't, it doesn't bother him as much as it would bother an average person because his conviction is so deep that the opinion of a random person actually doesn't matter that much. He's also been forged by fire the same way that Palmer and some others have where they've gone through this experience and felt the pain. And now they know that the normal slings and arrows of the quotidian haters don't amount to that much.

我之所以说这些铺垫，是因为一个人的精神脊梁至关重要。我不认识CrowdStrike的CEO，也不想苛责，毕竟那是个疯狂且令人窒息的时期。但对Coinbase来说同样如此。而布莱恩始终坚持的是：他愿意用自己的面孔为言论负责，用言论践行原则，并亲自发声。他本可以通过发言人传达，避开所有评论，躲在幕后；他本可以把员工当人肉盾牌——但他没有。

And so I I give you this preamble because the spinal fortitude of the person matters a lot. I don't know the CrowdStrike CEO, and I don't wanna criticize because that was an insane time, and it feels very overwhelming. But it was an insane time for for Coinbase. And the thing that held true was Brian is willing to put his face to his words and his words to his principles, and he was willing to say it from himself. He could have gone through spokespeople and then not had to take any of the comments and just kinda hid behind he could have used his people as a human shield and he didn't.

正是这一点造成了巨大差异——你能从人们的反应中看出，这如何巩固了大家对他和公司的信心。显然局面并不理想，但他将其转化为让公司以高昂代价证明自身价值观的契机。

So that makes that made a big difference that you you can see in the reactions of just what that did with people's confidence in him and of the company. And obviously, it's not a great situation, but he turned it into something that that gave the company a really costly way to prove what its values were.

我对CrowdStrike的回应感到非常惊讶，看起来就像是公关公司处理的那种措辞。

I was really surprised by the CrowdStrike response and just terms of like, it looked like a PR agency sort of handled that.

我觉得是律师写的

I think lawyers wrote

确实。

it. Yeah.

我认为可能是个委员会。集体名词或许该用'一帮律师'——是那帮律师替他写的。这听起来不像人话，因为它确实不是人写的。委员会不是人类个体。

I think probably a committee. I think the collective noun is maybe a bar, a bar of attorneys wrote it for him. And it and it doesn't sound human because it's not human. A committee is not a human being.

那么假设你在那个会议室里，所有律师都说'你不能出去自己发言。不能扩大风险敞口。不能承认过失。这些事一件都不能做'——

So so walk me through if you were in that room, hypothetically, and all the lawyers are saying you can't go out there and just talk yourself. You can't open your surface area. You can't, you know, give more. You can't admit guilt. You can't do any of these things.

你会怎么处理？那种情况下你会给出什么建议？

How would you What would be your advice in that situation?

这里有个CEO与其他人本质的区别。多数人只需对单一目标负责——比如律师的本职就是尽可能降低法律风险，将责任敞口压缩到趋近于零。而CEO的职责，用黑格尔政治哲学的观点来说，需要权衡考量不同派系和利益的诉求。

Here's a here's a big difference between the CEO and anybody else. Most other people, their job is to optimize for one specific thing. So lawyers, they're doing their job. Their job is to minimize legal risk and to minimize the surface area of legal liability approaching zero. The CEO's job, and this is like a Hegelian political philosophy point of view of weighing and considering different factions and different interests.

CEO的职责独特之处在于权衡各方利益，为公司寻求最佳净收益。当这一机制失灵时，往往表现为所有人对律师唯命是从。CEO完全遵循律师意见而忽视其他利益考量，这实质上是渎职——其本应权衡利弊得出最优解，却让律师凌驾于所有人之上。

The CEO's job uniquely is to consider different interests and weigh them against each other to reach the net optimal outcome for the company. When this goes wrong, what it looks like is everybody gets scared of the lawyers. And the CEO follows exactly what the lawyers say and dismisses every other interest. They are not doing their job as the CEO, which is to weigh the interest against each other and find the net best outcome. They're folding to the lawyers, and they're making the lawyers supreme over everybody else.

我认为现实往往如此。当企业只考虑法律风险时，就会忽略信任、声誉风险等本质重要的因素——这些价值根本无需解释其重要性。

And I think that is probably what happened. That it's what happens a lot. The problem in the real world when this happens is by entirely considering legal risk, you're not considering trust, reputational risk, and all these other things. Trust, reputational risk, these are things that matter inherently. Just don't even have to explain why they matter.

这些因素的重大性不言而喻，但一旦丧失代价巨大。若以金钱衡量，法律纠纷可能耗资1亿美元，确实不菲——要应对诉讼，过程漫长。

Like, of course, they matter. But they also come at a cost if they're lost. So if you were to translate everything into dollar terms, legal liability might cost you a $100,000,000. Yeah, it's not cheap. You know, you might have to go to court, you could drag on.

但信任崩塌导致的未来商机流失、客户流失、员工跳槽、候选人拒聘等隐性损失，累计可能高达数十亿。

But the loss in trust, the loss in future prospects, customers, employees who defect that hire, that recruit that doesn't accept the job offer, it could add up to billions.

但这些成本不可见。

But those costs aren't visible.

既不可见也不即时。确实如此。而且没有人为这些隐形成本全力发声——就像律师为法律风险据理力争那样。我见过某公司被诬告的案例...

They're not visible and they're not immediate. Yeah. And you don't have a person who's advocating for that with all they've got. Like, the lawyers are advocating for the legal risk. So I've seen a situation where a company gets accused of something.

虽然令人痛心，但这种情况屡见不鲜。当企业遭遇不实指控时，律师会说'我们在法庭必胜，只需保持沉默避免节外生枝'——这种处理方式很糟糕却普遍存在。

It's like so painful, but this happens and probably happens a lot. Like, this company gets accused of something, and it's false. It's really bad, but it's false. So the lawyers say, well, we're definitely gonna beat this in court. So all you have to do is keep quiet and don't say anything that could make the situation worse, and we'll beat it in court.

最终的结果是，保持沉默、不置一词，任由那种叙事扎根并恶化，最终在声誉损害、错失机会、消费者信任流失、民众抵制、员工离职等方面付出的代价，远超原本的十倍不止。如果CEO尽职尽责，这一切本可避免。但当时，律师们让所有人都吓得发抖。没错，他们是专业领域的专家，因为可能面临诉讼，而我正是律师。

What ended up happening was that keeping quiet and not saying anything, let that narrative take hold and fester, and it ended up costing more than 10 x more in reputational damage and lost opportunities and consumer trust and people boycotting and employees leaving the company and on and on and on. If the CEO does their job, that won't happen. But in the moment, the lawyers have everybody quaking in fear. Yeah. They are the subject matter experts because there's potential litigation and I'm the lawyer.

所以我其实并不责怪律师们，他们只是在履行职责。问题出在CEO没有做好权衡利弊的本职工作。

So I don't actually even fault the lawyers. They are doing their job. What happened is the CEO was not doing their job, which was to weigh the balance of interest.

这里还存在某种损失厌恶的不对称性，对吧？比如一亿美元对比那种模糊的、既不紧迫也不可见的……

And there's a bit of, like, asymmetry to loss aversion here too. Right? Like, 100,000,000 versus, like, this vague thing that's not really immediate nor visible or

确实。

Yeah.

但我内心可能清楚，那种无形损失其实远超一亿美元，只是难以精确量化，很难据理力争。

But I probably know inside that is like Yeah. Outweighs the 100,000,000, but I can't sort of like pinpoint it. It's hard to argue.

是啊。律师们还会说——你知道的，当企业搞砸时，他们常会告诫不要道歉。因为道歉等于承认过错，这会让法庭辩护更困难。但说实话（虽然我不是律师）……

Yeah. Also, lawyers will say, you know, sometimes when a company screws up, a lot of times lawyers will say, don't apologize. Because if you're apologizing, you're admitting fault, and that makes it harder for us in the courtroom. In practice, I'm sorry. I I know I'm not a lawyer.

实际上，我从未见过哪个案子因为CEO表达了人性的悔意与同理心，就导致他们在法庭上败诉。至少我从未目睹过这种情况。

In practice, I've never seen someone lose a case because the CEO expressed human remorse and empathy, and that was the thing that made them lose in the courtroom. I'm I just haven't seen it.

嗯，还有一种诱惑是为自己没做过的事道歉，因为你认为那是简单的解决方式。嗯。

Well, there is also a temptation to apologize for things you haven't done because you think that's the easy way out. Mhmm.

带我

Walk me

解释一下。

through that.

我认为这是对的。如果每个人只在做错事时道歉，而在没做错时拒绝道歉，许多问题就能解决。许多问题就能解决。但当人们搞砸了却拒绝承担责任，然后被冤枉时又为了息事宁人而道歉，一切就变得混乱了。顺便说，你会失去所有威慑力，变成一个容易攻击的目标，因为你的道歉变得随意了。

I think that's true. If everybody just apologized when they did something wrong and resisted apologizing when they did nothing wrong, so many problems would be solved. So many problems would be solved. It's when people mess up and refuse to take accountability and then get accused of something where they didn't do anything wrong and apologize for that just to make it go away that everything gets muddled. And by the way, you lose all deterrent effect and you become a really soft target because whether you apologize becomes arbitrary.

如果你的道歉、悔意和弥补努力与你是否做错事无关，那么当然，所有人都会不断找上你，因为这就像买彩票。对吧？只要找上你，也许就能得到回报。也许能从你身上得到什么。每个人都应该试试。

If your apology and your subsequent contrition and attempt to make amends is not correlated with whether you did anything wrong, then of course, everybody should come after you all the time because it's a lottery ticket. Right? Just come after you and then maybe they'll get a payout. Maybe they'll get something out of you. Everybody should try.

是啊。是啊。

Yeah. Yeah.

对吧？这就是你建立的激励机制。而如果你是那种做错事就承担责任、没错就绝不认错并坚持原则的人，一开始可能会有些痛苦，但坚持几次后就会形成强大的威慑力。你会像小说《黑暗森林》中的面壁者那样建立强大的威慑。抱歉。

Right? That's the that's the incentives that you're setting up. Whereas if you are the type of person to take accountability if you did something wrong and never accept responsibility if you didn't do something wrong and you stay true to your principles, there'll be some pain in the beginning, but you do that a few times and it sets up a very strong deterrent. You achieve strong deterrents like that wall facer in the dark forest in the novel. I'm sorry.

所以这非常重要。CEO们只需在需要时道歉，并在犯错时不推卸责任，就能解决很多公关问题。

So so it's super important to do that. And CEOs would solve a lot of their PR issues by simply apologizing only when they need to and not shirking accountability if they did something wrong.

我想短暂回到政治话题。不分左右派，我想问，你认为唐纳德·特朗普是个有效的沟通者吗？嗯。他沟通有效的关键是什么？

I wanna come back to politics just for one second. I don't wanna get into left or right. I I wanna ask, do you think that Donald Trump is an effective communicator? Mhmm. What makes him effective at communicating?

一是他用的是三年级词汇水平。他不会用别人听不懂的词。也许就一次。抛开咖啡飞事件，他用词人人都懂。强大、伟大、糟糕、好。

One is he speaks at like a third grade vocabulary level. Like, he doesn't use words that nobody can understand. Maybe was a one time. Kofei Fei aside, he uses words where everybody knows what the words mean. Strong, great, bad, good.

这些词谁都明白。我可以给我七岁孩子读特朗普的演讲，他们也能大概理解。或者给我移民父母读，他们也能懂。或者我自己。对吧？

Everybody knows what these mean. I could read my seven year old a Trump speech and they could kind of grasp what's going on. Or I could read to my immigrant parents and they would know what's going on. Or me. Right?

所以第一点是他用普通常见的词，意思非常明确。这很基础，但很多人就是做不到。另一点是他有很强的威慑力。他对某些人的行为非常可预测。人们会说他不稳定。

So so one is just he uses normal common words that have a very clear meaning. And it's so basic, but so many people just don't do it. The other is he has very strong deterrence. He behaves very predictably in someone. You know, people will say he's erratic.

他是，但他属于可预测的不稳定。他的行为模式其实相当可预测。所以如果是特朗普铁粉，他们清楚自己粉的是什么。并不模糊。他是那种随风摇摆的造作形象，就像约翰·克里风筝冲浪视频。

He does but he's kind of predictably erratic. Like, his behavior patterns are actually quite predictable. And so if someone is a super Trump or a Trump fan, they know what they're a fan of. It's not like it's unclear. He you know, he's this manufactured thing that sways in the wind, and he's like the John Kerry kite surfing video.

他今天这样，明天那样。我们不知道。其实非常清楚。恨他的人早就恨他了。沉没成本。

He's this way one day, that way another day. We don't know. Like, it's very clear. And everybody who hates him already hates him. Sunk cost.

这是根深蒂固的，但不会持续伤害他。比如，讨厌他的人明天对他的伤害不会比昨天更大。而爱他的人，早已接受这一点。你知道，摇摆选民中有些边缘情况，但支持或反对他的立场非常明确。他不必担心基本盘不断变动，因为他自己就在不断变化。

It's baked in, but it doesn't continue to hurt him. Like, few people who hate him aren't going to be more damaging to him tomorrow than they were yesterday. And the people who love him, like, already are on board with this. You know, there's some stuff on the margin with swing voters, but it's very clear whether to be for or against him. He doesn't have to worry about his base shifting all the time because he's shifting all the time.

第三点是他真的很有趣。他是最有趣的总统。抱歉，特朗普是最有趣的总统。里根紧随其后。

The third is that he is really funny. He is he is the funniest president. I'm sorry. Trump is the funniest president. Reagan, close second.

然后是林登·约翰逊。他确实很有趣。幽默感是一种惊人的沟通技巧。它能吸引人们的注意力，让他们持续关注和倾听。

He is and then Lyndon Johnson. He is legitimately funny. And being funny is an incredible communications hack. It gets people's attention. It makes them keep tuning in and keep listening.

要知道，保持注意力比获取注意力更难，而他两者都能做到。幽默还能让你莫名讨人喜欢。有些人永远讨厌他的一切。没错。也有些人不喜欢他的立场和主张，觉得他的言行令人反感。

You know, keeping attention is harder than getting attention, and he's able to do both. And also being funny makes you weirdly likable. There are people who hate everything about him forever. Yes. There are also people who really don't like his positions and what he stands for and finds a lot of the things he does and says distasteful.

但他们忍不住会对他产生某种奇怪的好感，因为他让他们发笑。

And they can't help but have some weird feeling of liking because he makes them laugh.

是啊。

Yeah.

他确实通过幽默化解紧张局面。有时他说的话可能非常惊人、冒犯或怎样，但他以滑稽的方式表达，很多人会跟着笑起来。所以我认为这点被严重低估了。

Like, he he really diffuses situations by being funny. There's times when he has said something that might be really shocking or offensive or whatever, but he's done it in a hilarious way, and and a lot of people sort of laugh along with him. So that I think is very underrated.

再思考一下，不谈政治，你认为白宫新闻秘书卡罗琳·洛维特在沟通方面有效吗？

Do you think again, not into politics, but do you think Carolyn Lovett, who's the White House press secretary, I think, do you think she's effective at communicating?

我认为她很有效。对她来说，很大程度上在于肢体语言。再次强调，我们要将这与政策实质区分开来，就像评价一个人，关键在于外在表现和气质，她在这方面做得非常出色。

I think she is. With her, a lot of it is body language. Again, you know, separate this from we're we're separating this from the substance of do you agree with the policy and to, like, there's it's just like Person. On the cure, like, the form factor and the aesthetics. Nails it.

她工作表现很棒。她非常年轻，但给人的感觉比实际年龄成熟。有趣的是，你能看到她在担任这个角色的几个月里逐渐成长起来。

She does a wonderful job. She's really young. You know, she comes off as older than she is. Yeah. And then part of that is you actually kinda see her grow into the role in the months that she's been behind the podium, which is kinda cool to see.

但沟通很大程度上取决于你的肢体语言和仪态。我们之前讨论过这个——我现在内心其实超级紧张，但为了你尽量保持镇定。而她展现出的自信、从容、舒适感，不显露焦虑、压力或怨恨，这些构成了她形象的重要部分，像个快乐的战士。

But so much communication is your body language and your bearing. You and I have talked about this. I'm like super nervous and sort of dying inside right now, but I'm trying to just like stay chill for you. For her, just showing confidence and ease and comfort and not showing anxiety or stress or anger or resentment is a big part of her persona. She comes off as a happy warrior.

人们都喜欢快乐的战士。她给人的感觉是对自己所说的充满信心，尽管有时细究文字内容时，你可能会想追问几个问题。

People love a happy warrior. She comes off as being confident in what she's saying. Even though sometimes if you actually parse the words in writing, sometimes you'd be like, I have some follow-up questions.

是啊。

Yeah.

但她表达的方式如此自然，仿佛事实就站在她这边。

But the way that she delivers it is so comfortable, and it's the bearing of somebody who has the facts on their side.

是啊，这很有趣。回到刚才说的政治话题，很多人一看到我在简报里引用他们可能不喜欢的人的话，就直接关闭了大脑。没人比埃隆更争议了，我有时会放一小段他的语录。

Yeah. It's interesting. Just coming back to the politics aside part, so many people just shut their brain off when, you know, when I post like a quote in the newsletter from somebody they might not like. Nobody's more controversial than Elon. I'll post like a little quote from Elon in there.

然后人们就说：我不敢相信你引用了埃隆的话，我曾经那么尊重你。我就说：那你看看他说的实质内容和我想要传达的观点呢？还是我们就是对人有这种直接拒绝的反应？

And then people are like, I can't believe you quoted Elon. I had so much respect for you. But now and I'm like Yeah. Are you like the substance of what he was saying and what I'm trying to convey? Or we just have this reaction to people where we shut down.

没错。反过来也一样，如果你喜欢某人，就会自动认为他说的都对。这叫做光环效应，我对它的理解更宽泛。我来解释下我的看法，虽然学术界有更严格的定义。

Yes. And it also goes the other way, where if you like somebody, you automatically think something is good and right. There's this thing called the halo effect, and I treat it more more broadly. I'll tell you how I think of the halo effect. There's a more like a rigorous disciplined definition.

但在我看来，光环效应就是：如果你在某领域被认为优秀，人们就会觉得你在其他领域也很优秀。

But the way that I think of the halo effect is if you're good at if you're considered good in some arena, people will think of you as good in some other arena.

就像这样。

Like Yeah.

我前几天还在想，为什么要在意戴夫·波特诺伊对披萨的评价？我...

I was asking myself the other day, why do I care what Dave Portnoy thinks about pizza? Like, I

这到底是怎么发生的？

How did this happen?

为什么，我为什么要重视这个男人对披萨的品味？我从未与他共进晚餐并觉得，哦，我们在披萨口味上志趣相投。但我得到了什么？仅仅因为他在媒体上表现出色——是的，他的公司在媒体上的表现令人钦佩，我发现他处理媒体和公司事务的方式既有趣又令人耳目一新。

Why, like, why am I giving any credence to this man's taste in pizza? I've never had dinner with him and be like, oh, we we have the same taste in pizza. But what do I get? And it's like because he's done a really admirable job in the media Yeah. With his company, I find it interesting and refreshing how he approaches media and his own company dealing with it.

我认为他在以色列问题上采取了非常勇敢且原则性的立场，虽然这与Barstool无关，但这些事形成了一种我倾向于认同他的阶梯。现在他说这披萨不错，我就想，好吧，可能确实不错。这就是我们之前讨论的。

He's taken, I think, a very brave and principled stand on issues on Israel, which also is disconnected from Barstool, but it it just has created this ladder of things that I tend to agree with him on. And now he says this pizza is good. I'm like, okay. It's probably good. It's what we were talking about earlier.

这就像如果你在某些事情上意见一致，人们会通过认知启发法和捷径假设你在其他事情上也会同意。所以有人说，我不认同埃隆在某个政治或文化立场上的竞选方式，因此我认为我们不会去火星，因此我对肖恩在通讯中引用他的话感到愤怒。这种现象蔓延是因为我们掌握的数据点相对较少，却用它们得出远超数据支撑的结论。光环效应的另一个体现是：你周围都是些什么人？

It's like if you agree on certain things, people will sort of assume just using cognitive heuristics and shortcuts that you'll agree on another thing too. And so there are people who say, don't believe I don't agree with Elon on how he campaigned for this or this or political or cultural position he has. And therefore, I don't think we'll go to Mars, and therefore, I'm mad at Shane for including a quote in his newsletter. And this stuff just spreads because the data points that we have are relatively few, and we use those to actually draw outsized conclusions relative to what the data points merit. Another aspect of the halo effect as I think of it is who are you surrounding yourself with?

这对AI公司和创始人超级重要。如果你开发的技术如此震撼、先进、深奥且机密，你无法让人们直接验证它是否有效——他们无法验证，不像卖鞋子试穿后觉得舒服就会买。

This is super relevant for, let's say, AI companies and founders. If you're building a technology that is so mind blowing and advanced and esoteric and confidential, you can't tell people, well, just go verify that it works. They can't verify it works. It's not like you're selling a shoe and they try it on it and yes, it's comfortable. They'll buy it.

他们实际上无法验证，无法核实你如何处理他们的数据，永远无法自行调查你是否尊重隐私，只能以其他事物作为信任的代理。于是他们会将你——这个公司的人类形象——作为评判标准。

Like, they actually can't verify. They can't verify what you're doing with their data. They'll never be able to investigate for themselves whether you're respecting their privacy. They just have to use as proxies other things whether they trust or not. So they'll look at you, the human, as the mascot of the company and use you as a proxy.