听众最爱：阿尔伯特-拉斯洛·巴拉巴西 | 成功的普遍规律

第一个奇怪的现象是，从未有在第一天演奏的选手赢得过比赛，这有点奇怪，因为演奏顺序是随机安排的。

The first is that no one has ever won the competition who played on the first day, which is kind of odd because the the order is randomly chosen.

所以，最优秀的钢琴家完全有可能被随机选为第一个开场的选手。

So it could very well be that the the best pianist is kind of randomly picked to be the first one to open the competition.

而且我认为，只有一位获胜者是在第二天演奏的。

And and I think there's only one winner that won who played in day two.

所有的获奖者实际上都来自第四、五、六天，也就是比赛的后半段。

All the winners really come from the day kind of four, five, six, towards the end of the competition.

不仅如此。

Not only that.

如果你在同一天是第二个出场，平均而言，你的排名会比第一个出场的选手高出两个名次。

If you are actually the second on the same day, you have about two you get you get ranked about two spots higher on average than if you are the first the same day.

所以，无论是在同一天内还是在整个比赛周期中，你出场越晚，赢得比赛的机会就越大。

So so the later you play, even in terms of the day as well as during the week, the more chances you will have that you win the competition.

那么，这怎么可能呢？

Now how is that possible?

答案其实很简单。

Well, the answer is very simple.

首先，由全球顶尖音乐专家组成的评审团，面临着一个几乎不可能完成的任务：在12位同龄人中选出最优秀的钢琴家。

First of all, the jury who is made of the top music experts in the world has this almost impossible task to decide who is the best pianist among the 12 best pianists in the world in their age generation.

这些选手个个都非常出色。

These guys are all fabulous.

老实说，他们根本无法区分彼此。

And, honestly, they cannot distinguish them.

对吧？

Right?

当他们无法以客观标准衡量演奏水平，无法明确说谁比谁更优秀时，就会转而依赖其他机制来决定胜者——比如，你最后听到的那位选手，你记得更清楚，而不是早先听到的那位。

So we and when they are unable to measure their performance in an objective way to say, okay.

你最后听到的那位，因为你已经通过前面几位选手的演奏训练了耳朵，所以你对理想音色有了更好的参照标准。

This is a better player than the other one, they start using other mechanisms to arrive to a winner, that the one that you actually listened last, you remember better than the one that you actually listened earlier.

你最后听到的那位，因为你已经通过前面几位选手的演奏训练了耳朵，所以你对理想音色有了更好的参照标准。

The one that you listened last, you have a better reference frame of how should he or she sound for because your ears got trained on the first few ones.

因此，近因效应占了上风，而近因效应不仅存在于古典音乐中。

And therefore, the recency effect takes over, And the recency effect is not only in classical music.

如果你看花样滑冰比赛，就会发现滑冰选手出场顺序越靠后，获胜的概率就越高。

If you look at the skating competition, you will always find that the figure skating competitions, that the later someone plays, the higher chances they have winning.

而且，如果你想成为西班牙的法官，你可以从周一到周五参加考试。

And, you know, if you wanna become a judge in Spain, you can take an exam from Monday to Friday.

如果你被安排在周一参加考试，成为法官的概率是40%。

If you're chosen to be take to take the exam on Monday, you have 40% chance of becoming a judge.

如果你被安排在周五参加考试，成为法官的概率是60%。

On Friday, you have 60% chance of becoming a judge.

所以最终，在表现顶尖且难以区分的情况下，我们作为人类必须做出决定。

So at the end, what happens in this case is that on the top performance is indistinguishable, and we are humans.

我们必须做出选择，因此最终会用其他特征来替代对表现的评估。

We must come to a decision, and therefore, we end up replacing the performance with other characteristics.

让我分享一个在这个情境下我特别喜欢的轶事。

And let me just share a final anecdote that I really loved in this case.

所以当这个公式刚进入市场时，大约有七家出版社想出版它，于是我们在这几家之间展开了一场竞争。

So when I when the formula was kind of on the market, about seven publishers wanted to publish it, so we had a competition between them.

竞争的一部分是我们对每家出版社进行访谈，询问编辑们为什么想要出版这本书。

Part of the competition is that we interviewed each publisher and asking the editors why they want this book.

其中一位编辑说，我之所以特别想出版这本书，是因为它帮助我理解了一个困扰我多年的谜题。

And one of the editors said, you know, the reason I really wanna publish this book is because it helped me understand the puzzle that I've been wondering about for several years.

他说，每年我实际上都会为我工作的出版社面试五到六名实习生候选人。

He said, Every year, I actually interview about five to six candidates for an internship in the publishing house where I work.

我不明白为什么，但每次最优秀的候选人总是最后一个来面试。

And I do not understand why, but always the best candidate is the last to come for an interview.

我们进行了长时间的讨论，当然，候选人的面试顺序完全是随机的。

And we had a long discussion, and of course, the candidates are completely random in the way they come.

但当他进行到最后一次面试时，已经能够提出正确的问题了。

But by the time he arrives to the last interview, became the best to ask the right questions.

他知道他想要的是什么样的人。

He knows what he wants from that person.

当他提出正确的问题时，他就能得到正确的答案。

And when he asks the right questions, he gets the right answer.

因此，我总是告诉我的学生们：哦，你得到了某个职位的面试机会。

And for that reason, I always tell my students, oh, you got an interview for so and so job.

这意味着你有能力获得这份工作。

That means that you have the performance to get the job.

但为了确保成功，你要弄清楚决策是什么时候做出的，并找尽一切理由把面试推迟到最后一刻。

But in order to nail it, find out when the decision is made, and find every excuse possible to postpone your interview till the last moment.

是的。

Yeah.

对。

Yeah.

我记得读过这个。

I remember reading that.

我当时想，天啊，这太棒了。

I thought, holy shit, that's amazing.

我是真的在想，这太奇怪了。

Like, I keep even wonder.

我有点惊讶，哇。

I'm kind of like, wow.

你可以把这一点用在你的恋爱生活中。

You could apply that to your dating life.

如果某个女孩刚和别人分手，确保你不是她分手后第一个约出去的男生。

If some girl has just broken up with somebody, make sure you're not the first guy she goes out on a date with after a breakup.

是的。

Yeah.

我们没有这方面的数据，但我们可以试试。

We don't have data for that, but we could try.

你知道吗，如果你真的这么做了，我会很好奇结果如何。

You know, I'd be curious if you if you did.

你之前提到的另一件事是，第三条定律是：过去的成功乘以适应力等于未来的成功。

So another thing you mentioned is that the, you know, the third law was that previous success times fitness equals future success.

这让我很感兴趣，因为作为一名写过好几本书的作者，我在写第二本书时立刻发现，它在四分之一的时间内就卖出了比第一本书更多的数量。

And this is interesting to me because, as an author who's written multiple books, one of the the things that I saw immediately with my second book was that it outsold the first book in like a quarter of the time.

也就是说，它卖出的册数已经达到了我上一本书在两年内才达到的水平。

Like, it's already reached as many copies sold as it you know, as my previous book did in two years.

嗯。

Mhmm.

那么这一切是怎么发生的呢？

So how does this all happen?

步骤是怎样的？当然。

What are the steps Absolutely.

背后

Behind

这个法则的关键在于，成功会带来更多的成功。

So of the key element of this law is that success breeds success.

你拥有的越多，下一次就会得到越多。

That is the more you have, the more you will get next time around that.

而且部分原因是你有了更多的能见度，但这一点其实早在二十年前我们研究全球互联网时就发现了。

And and and partly because you have the visibility, but this is something that we actually discovered twenty years ago when we looked at the worldwide web.

我们试图用定量的方式解释，为什么会出现像谷歌和Facebook这样高度连接的网页，它们被数亿个其他网页链接，背后的机制是什么？

And we tried to explain in a quantitative terms, why do we have such a highly connected web pages like Google and Facebook that, you know, hundreds of millions of other web pages linked to it, and what's the mechanism behind that?

我们意识到，这背后存在一种我们称之为‘富者愈富’的机制。

And what we realized is that there is what we call preferential attachment.

也就是说，一个网站拥有的链接越多，它将来就会获得更多的链接。

That is the more links you have on the web as a website, the more you will get.

结果发现，这个说法非常贴切。

And it turned out this to be a very generous statement.

你的论文被引用得越多，它将来就会被引用得越多。

The more citations your paper have, the more they will get.

你的听众越多，未来你就会获得更多的听众。

The more listeners you have, the more you will get in the future.

你现在可能会说，好吧，这没问题。

Now you would say, okay, that's fine.

但这可能仅仅用才华或质量来解释。

But this could be simply explained by talent or quality.

对吧？

Right?

因为也许谷歌和Facebook获得如此多链接的原因，是因为它们在自己擅长的领域真的非常出色。

Because maybe those the Google the reason why it gets Facebook so many links is because they're really very, very good at what they do.

对吧？

Right?

因此，获得很多链接的人比获得较少链接的人更优秀。

And therefore, the one who collect many links are better than those who collect fewer.

并不是拥有更多的人变得更有优势，而是更有才华的人变得更有优势。

And it's not the reach gets richer, but the talented gets richer.

因此，真正有说服力的数据来自一些做了非常出色的对照实验的人，他们证明了事情没那么简单。

So that's where actually the data comes in that people who did very nice control experiments to show that it's not that simple.

我最喜欢的一个实验是由社会学家阿诺德·范尼施做的，他现在住在荷兰。

And my favorite experiment was done by Arnold Van Nisch, who's a sociologist who now lives in Holland.

他实际上访问了维基百科，通过每天的编辑次数及其对网站的贡献，识别出最活跃的200位编辑。

And he actually went to Wikipedia and identified the 200 most active editors on Wikipedia by simply how many edits they did per day and what was their contributions to the site.

然后他将这些编辑随机分为两组，分别归入第一组或第二组。

And then he grouped them into two groups where the people were randomly placed on group one or group two.

因此，他拥有两组完全相同的编辑群体。

And so he had two identical pool of editors.

他们的共同点是，都是出色的编辑，非常活跃地参与维基百科，除此之外，两组之间没有任何区别，因为谁进入第一组或第二组完全是随机决定的。

What was common between them, they were all fabulous editors, very, very active in Wikipedia, and otherwise there was no distinction between them because it was randomly chosen who goes into group one or group two on this top 200 list.

接下来，他将第一组中的一部分人给予奖励。

What he did next is that he took one group one and gave them a reward.

所谓奖励，就是在维基百科上，你可以授予其他编辑一种我们称之为‘巴拉巴西奖’的荣誉，以表彰他们的贡献。

Reward means that you on Wikipedia, you can award each editor what with what we call a Barabasi for their contributions to Wikipedia.

于是，第一组中有一半的成员每人获得了一个巴拉巴西奖。

And so half of group one, every member got a Barabasi.

第二组则没有任何成员获得巴拉巴西奖，尽管他们的水平与第一组完全相当。

Group two, no member got a Barabasi even though they were just as good as the group one.

然后他观察了接下来几个月发生的情况。

And then he watched what happened in the coming months.

三个月后，他发现没有得到奖励的那组100位编辑，在这三个月内获得了三个巴腊西奖，这意味着人们因为他们的卓越表现而奖励了他们，因为他们确实非常优秀。

And what he saw three months later is that the group who did not get an award, the 100 editors, in that three month period got three bar stars, which means that people have rewarded them for their exceptional performance because they were really good.

但那组被奖励过的编辑，却额外获得了12个奖项。

But the group that he rewarded got 12 more awards.

所以，现在来看看这个。

So so now look at this.

这两组之间没有任何区别，唯一不同的是其中一组得到了奖励，另一组没有，而得到奖励的那一组在未来获得了多得多的奖励。

There's no difference between the two groups, except one of them got an award, the other one didn't, and the one who got are way getting way more awards in the future than one he didn't.

这正是‘富者愈富’现象的典型体现。

This is purely kind of rich gets richer phenomena in action.

你更有可能把奖励给予你认为值得的人。

You're much more likely to give an award to someone that you trust that it deserves that.

那你怎么知道这个人值得呢？

And how do you trust that the person deserves that?

当你无法客观评估表现时，你会去看谁给了他们奖项，以及你是否信任那个决定。

Well, when you cannot objectively see the performance, well, you look at who else give an award to them and whether you trust that decision or not.

所以，要想获得奖项，你首先得变得配得上奖项。

So in order to get an award, you have to become awardable.

也就是说，要想成功，你首先得已经成功了。

That is that in order to become successful, you have to become successful in the first place.

这就是我们所说的‘成功带来成功’。

So that's what we call success beats success.

甚至还有一个具体的公式：通常，成功与你之前获得的成功呈线性关系。

And there's even a particular formula to say, typically success goes linearly with the previous success that you acquired.

所以，当你谈论书籍时，你的销量与你过去卖出了多少本书成正比。

So your sales are proportionate to how many books you sold in past when it comes to books.

但当然，我们之间仍然存在差异，这意味着在这个故事里，质量和才华并不重要。

But of course, there's still differences between us so that quality and talent doesn't matter in this story.

因此，这条法则最终表述为：过去的成功乘以能力，等于你未来的成功。

And that's why the law actually at the end says, is previous time success times fitness is your future success.

让我给你举个书的例子。

And let me give you an example of a book.

对吧？

Right?

所以你卖出了第一本书，而且卖得非常好，接着你的第二本书出版了。

So you have sold you know, one book that has sold very well, and then your second book comes out.

那些之前读过你作品、喜欢你写作风格的读者，可能会读到第二本书，然后说：其实我不太喜欢这个。

And all your readers who read you before, who like what you wrote, may get to the second book and say, you know, I really don't like that.

第一本可能是关于冰淇淋的，而这本讲的是足球。

The first one maybe was about ice cream, and this one is about football.

我真的不是个足球迷，对吧？

I'm And really not a football guy, right?

顺便说一句，我读了这本书，发现它并不符合我的兴趣。

And by the way, I read the book and it's not really fitting with my interest.

这意味着，你出版的每一本书或每一个产品都有一个‘适配度’参数，你可以把适配度理解为该产品或对象的内在价值，但这其实不是关于产品本身，而是关于社群对其价值的评价。

So that means that each of your book or each of the products that you put out have a fitness parameter, you could think of fitness as being the intrinsic value of that object or that product, but it's really not something about the object itself, but about the community's perception of how good that is.

我们可以在许多系统中衡量这一点。

And we can measure that in many systems.

实际上，适应性越高，增长就越快，成功的发展速度也就越快。

And effectively, the higher the fitness, the faster the growth, the faster the growth of the success.

最终，成功带来更多的成功，但这条曲线的增长率实际上由这本书的内在价值决定。

At the end, success leads to success, but the growth rate of that curve is really determined by the intrinsic value of that particular book.

两者都是必要的，我认为我提供了一些例子来说明两者都是不可或缺的。

They're both necessarily, and I think I offer a couple of examples to show how both of them are necessary.

其中一个例子是哈利·罗林斯写的书，她用笔名出版了一本侦探小说，但并未公开这是她的作品，结果这本书几乎无人注意，总共只卖出了大约500本。

One of them, of course, is the Harry Rollins book when she wrote actually a book under a pseudonym, not releasing that actually was her book, a detective story, and actually really didn't release, no one noticed, about 500 copies were sold altogether of the book.

这是一种情况：这本书本身可能具备良好的内在适应性，评论也非常正面，但作者缺乏先前的成功经验。

And that was a situation where the book may have had actually good intrinsic fitness and the reviews were very, very positive, but the author lacked previous success.

当有人发现这位真正的作者其实是罗兰时，这本书突然一夜之间成了畅销书。

And in the moment somebody figured out that actually the real author is Roland, then suddenly became overnight a bestseller.

因此，先前的成功至关重要，因为它能为产品带来关注。

So really, previous success matters because that brings attention to the product.

但能力很重要，因为一旦我接触到这个产品，我会通过阅读这本书、听音乐、看节目来评估它，而这种评估决定了我是否会推荐别人去听或购买，对吧？

But fitness matters because once I encounter the product, I evaluate it by reading the book, listening to music, listening to the show, and then that evaluation determines whether I'm gonna tell others to listen to it or buy it, right?

这两者共同决定了未来的成功。

And they together are the factors that determine the future success.

这就是公式的第三条法则。

That's the third law of the formula.

哇。

Wow.

好的。

Alright.

所以你说的第四条法则是：团队成功依赖于多样性和平衡，但个人却会独占团队成就的功劳；然而你也说，当我们为了才华而刻意挑选成员，将个人成就置于团队成果之上时，我们很少能得到期望的结果。

So the fourth law you say is while team success reverse diversity and balance, a single individual will receive credit for the group's achievement, yet you also say when we handpick for talent prioritizing individual accomplishment over achievement, we rarely get the results that we hope for.

那么，你如何调和这两个悖论呢？

So how do you resolve those two paradoxes?

所以第四条法则实际上确实是关于团队的。

So the fourth law really is indeed about teams.

对吧？

Right?

我们为什么关心团队？

And why do we care about teams?

我们关心团队，是因为过去几十年世界变得极其复杂，没有任何一个人能独自完成所有事情。

We care about teams because the world got really complex in the last decades, and there's the role of nothing that we can achieve alone.

我们需要依靠他人来实现我们的梦想。

We need to rely on others to kind of achieve our dreams.

这一点在科学领域尤为明显，因为在1990年代之前，最具影响力的研究都来自单作者。

And this is particularly true in science where until the 1990s, the highest impact research came out from single authors.

但自1990年代以来，最具影响力的研究成果总是来自团队，即两名或更多合作者共同合作取得的发现。

But since the 1990s, the highest impact work is always associated with teams, two or more collaborators working together to make that discovery.

因此，当涉及到团队时，既然我们必须参与团队，就会出现两个问题。

So so when it comes to teams, and it's unavoidable that we have to participate in teams, two questions come up.

如何组建正确的团队？

How do you form the right team?

第一点。

Number one.

第二点是，一旦你成为团队的一员，假设团队取得了成功，当这么多人都为这个想法或产品做出了贡献时，你如何获得应有的认可？

And the second one is that once you're part of a team, and let's say the team is successful, how do you get credit for the team's work when so many of you have contributed to that idea or the product?

我们先谈第一个问题。

So let's talk about the first one.

如何组建正确的团队？

How do you form the right team?

这实际上是被称为团队科学的一系列长期研究的一部分，许多经济学家、商业研究者以及科学家都在从事这一领域的工作。

And this is actually part of a long line of research that is called team science that quite a number of economists and business researcher as well as scientists are working on.

在这个领域中，有一些明确的结论。

And there are a couple of clean results in that space.

其中之一是关于一支表现良好的团队究竟是什么样子的。

One of them is actually has to do with how the how does a team with good performance look like?

那么，什么是表现良好的团队？

And what does it mean to have a team with good performance?

当团队的目标是实现我们明知可以达成但颇具挑战性的任务时，就是如此，对吧？

It's when the team's goal is to achieve something that we know it's achievable, but is difficult, right?

就是要建立一条供应链。

Is to kind of generate a supply chain.

我们知道这是可能的，但会很困难。

We know it's possible, but it's gonna be difficult.

进入一个艰难的地形，让汽车通过，是的，诸如此类。

Get to a difficult terrain, a car through, yeah, and so on.

研究实际上表明，对于那些真正追求绩效的团队来说，关键并不在于团队中必须有很多天才。

And what the research actually shows is that when it comes to teams that are really aimed for performance, then the the the what is key is that that not necessary to have lots of geniuses on the the team.

实际上，这对团队反而不利。

Actually, that's not good for the team.

因此，团队成员的个人智商和个体表现并不是影响因素，个人的教育水平也是如此。

So the individual IQ and the individual performance of the team members is not a factor, nor is the education level of the individual team members.

真正重要的是多样性，让各种不同类型的人聚在一起。

What really matters is diversity to have many different type of people together.

其次，关键在于团队成员能够彼此关注。

Second, what is key is the ability to pay attention to each other.

也就是说，团队要横向协作，没有人主导讨论。

That is that the team to work horizontally and no one to kind of dominate the discussion.

第三个因素是，有效地在团队中拥有女性非常重要。

And the third factor is effectively it's important to have women in the team.

那么，以上是针对以绩效为导向的团队。

Now so that's for performance oriented teams.

然而，当你试图组建一个目标不明确、旨在发现新事物的团队时，会发生什么？

However, what happens when you try to have a team that it doesn't have a very clear goal, but it's about to discover something?

它的目标是创造一种前所未有的新产品，比如一部没人见过的新手机。

It's about to produce a new product, like a new phone that no one has seen before.

对吧？

Right?

或者为一个尚未被认知的问题开发软件。

Or produce a software for a problem that it's not known that exists.

对吧？

Right?

那么，真正具有创新性的团队是如何运作的呢？

So really innovative teams, how do they work?

在这种情况下，我们看到的是相反的模式。

And in that case, we see the opposite pattern.

在那里，横向协作并不重要。

There, the horizontal, it doesn't matter.

我们发现，在真正擅长创新的团队中，大部分工作是由一个人完成的。

What we see is that in teams that are really excelling in innovation, much of the work is done by one individual.

其余的人只是在支持那个人的工作。

And the rest of the people are really just contributing to that person's work.

也就是说，在创新团队中，你需要一个领导者，那个真正推动故事发展的人，这个人需要其他人帮助他实现他的愿景或她的愿景，但这并不是关于团队内部的平等和一致性。

That is in innovative teams, you need a leader, the one that actually drives the story, and that person needs others to kind of help him kind of, achieve his vision or her vision, but it's really not about having equality and uniformity within the team setting.

所以，对我来说，这真的非常有趣，因为我们都一直在寻找一种放之四海而皆准的答案。

So really, this is for me, this was really fascinating because, you know, we always look for one size fits all answers.

对吧？

Right?

而这其实是在告诉我们：不是这样的。

And, and this was kind of telling us, no.

这不是一刀切的。

It's it's not one size fits all.

你必须清楚自己究竟想实现什么。

You have to be really clear about what you're trying to achieve.

在这种情况下，你是想创新，还是想解决一个你已知有解决方案的、或者很困难的问题？

In this case, are you trying to innovate or are you trying to solve a well known problem that you know there's a solution or it's difficult?

而你组建的团队很大程度上取决于你所设定的目标。

And the team you put together very much depends on the goal that you have there.

哇。

Wow.

所以，我的理解是，你所描述的第二种模式，就像史蒂夫·乔布斯那样。

So, I mean, it sounds like the second version that you're describing is very much like, in my mind, as you're describing that, oh, that's Steve Jobs.

是的

Yeah.

当然

Absolutely.

当然

Absolutely.

当然，说到史蒂夫·乔布斯，我们现在进入第二部分，那就是说，好吧。

And and and, of course, when it comes to Steve Jobs, now we're in the second part of the lob is to say, alright.

你认为有多少人参与了iPhone的研发？

How how many people do you think that contributed to developing the iPhone?

也许一千人？

Maybe a thousand?

嗯

Mhmm.

几百人？

Hundreds?

一千人？

A thousand?

那你真正了解其中有多少人呢？

And how many of them do you actually know about?

他和乔尼·艾维。

Him and Johnny Ive.

就这两个人。

That's it.

想想乔尼·艾维在多少时刻里替史蒂夫

Think Johnny Ive had more moments where Steve

人人都知道史蒂夫·乔布斯。

Everyone knows Steve Jobs.

对吧？

Right?

而他却完全独占了所有的功劳。

And he totally walked away with the credit.

是的。

Yep.

对吧？

Right?

这就引出了一个深刻的问题，实际上第四条法则讨论的就是：团队的成果该由谁来获得认可？

And so then kind of raises this deep question that actually the the the fourth law discusses about is who gets the credit for the team's work?

嗯。

Mhmm.

之所以这个问题很难回答，是因为一旦团队的目标达成，外人就很难判断是谁提出了这个想法、谁承担了主要工作、谁找到了实现目标的资金，以及谁的角色仅仅是确保咖啡总是温热、桌上总有甜甜圈。

And the reason why this is difficult is because once the team's job is achieved, it's very difficult for an outsider to kind of decide who was the one who came up with the idea, who did the lion's share of the work, who who found the financing to make that possible, and whose role was just simply make sure that the coffee is always warm and there are donuts on the table.

对吧？

Right?

是的。

Yeah.

最终，这些人的其中一个会因为团队的成功而获得晋升，甚至如果这是一篇科学论文，他或她还可能获得诺贝尔奖。

And and and at the end, one of those people will actually get promoted for the team's success, and, he or she may even get the Nobel Prize for if it's a scientific paper or whatever.

那么委员会是如何决定那个人选的呢？毕竟他们并不了解团队内部究竟发生了什么。

And and and how did the committee decide who's that, not knowing what really happened within the team.

这在科学界也同样重要，因为正如我所说，如今顶尖的论文都是团队合作的成果，但诺贝尔奖最多只能授予三人。

And this is something that is very important in science as well, because, you know, as I said, the leading papers now, the highest in the papers are team papers, yet only maximum three people can get the Nobel Prize.

而且通常情况下，一篇论文只会授予其中一人。

And typically from one paper, only one person gets it.

那么这个人是谁？我们该如何做出决定？

So who's that person and how do we decide?

于是我们对此展开了研究，最终开发出了一种算法，可以分析一篇有175位作者的科学论文，并说：显然，第130位作者会获得诺贝尔奖。

So we went after that, and we ended up building an algorithm that can look, for example, at a scientific paper with, say, 175 authors and say, obviously, the 130 author will get the Nobel Prize.

这其实是一个真实的案例。

And this is actually a real example.

这是一篇有170多位作者的诺贝尔奖论文，而获得该奖的是第137位作者。

So this is a Nobel Prize which had the 170 something authors, and the hundred thirty seventh was the one who got the Nobel Prize for it.

真正发人深省的，并不是我们能用算法来做出这样的判断，而是这个算法究竟是如何做出决定的？

And and what is really insightful, not the fact that we could do an algorithm to decide that, but how did the algorithm decide?

而算法是通过简单地询问：这一部分属于谁的知识探索历程来做出判断的。

And the algorithm decided by simply asking whose line of intellectual journey was this part of?

那篇论文的前后作者都发表了什么？社区在引用这篇论文时，还同时引用了他们的哪些其他作品？

That what did the authors of that paper published before and after, and what did the community cited from their other work together with this one?

让我举一个具体的例子来说明这是如何运作的。

Let me give a very specific example how this works.

如果你和我正在做一件事——就像我们现在做的这个播客——假设这会成为有史以来最成功的播客，顺便说一句，我相信它一定会，那么问题来了：这份功劳该归谁？

If you and I do, which we're doing right now, or a kind of a podcast, and let's say that this will be the most successful podcast out there, and I'm sure it will be, by the way, then the question is, whose credit is that?

坦白说，这应该归你，因为这是你的节目，我只是个嘉宾，而你已经做过许多同类节目了。

And frankly, it's yours because this is your show, and I'm just a guest on the show, and you have done many other shows in the same genre.

人们会去看，说：哦，这正是我需要听的节目，而主持人真正的作用是把这一切整合起来，营造出一个让我感到有趣、收获颇丰的氛围。

And people will look and say, oh, this is actually the show I need to listen, and it's the host role was actually to bring it together and create that environment that is really fun for me, and I learned a lot.

然而，我之所以得不到太多认可，是因为尽管我是这个节目的嘉宾，但我在这个领域没有任何其他活动。

However, and the reason why I don't get much credit, that even though I was the guest on the show, I don't have any other activity in that space.

然而，如果你和我合写一篇网络科学论文，嗯。

However, if you and I write the network science paper Mhmm.

假设你提出了这个想法，甚至承担了大部分工作，很抱歉，但这篇论文还是会归到我名下。

And let's say you are the one who brings the idea and you even do the lion's share of the work, I'm sorry to say it's gonna be my paper.

这篇论文会归我，因为你在这个领域没有任何过往记录。

And it's gonna be my paper because you have no track record in this area.

因此，学术界不会将这项工作与任何其他相关成果一起引用。

And therefore, there's nothing that the community co cite together with that particular work.

所以当团队产出成果时，学术界通常会看这项工作属于谁的研究脉络，并将荣誉归于那个人——这又回到了我们开头讨论的观点。

So when a product of a team comes out, what the community typically does is that it looks whose line of work this was part of and gives the credit to that person, which comes back to the very idea that we talked at the beginning.

成功本质上取决于学术界。

Success is really about the community.

你的成功取决于学术界，而不是你自己。

Your success is about the community and not about you.

在这方面，真正的成功其实是根据学术界的认知来分配的，而不是基于团队内部的实际表现。

And when it comes to this, actually, really, the the success is really assigned based on the perception of the community rather than what the real performance was within the team.

这带来了重要的后果，我们需要在进入团队合作之前就意识到这一点。

And that has important consequences that one actually needs to use before we enter actually a team setting.

所以，如果你被邀请加入一个团队来实现某个目标，你可能会问自己：我参与这个团队的目的是什么？

So if you are invited to be part of a group to achieve something, you may ask yourself, what is my goal by participating in this team?

如果我觉得这个团队的目标非常崇高，我真的想参与其中，我不在乎功劳，只希望帮助推动这件事成功，那你就应该去参加。

If I feel this team has some really noble goals and I really wanna be part of it, I don't care about the credit, but I think I wanna make this help help to make this happen, then you should go for it.

当然。

Absolutely.

你这么做是因为你有充分的理由。

You're doing it because you have a good reason for that.

然而，如果你加入团队只是为了获取你在此过程中所做工作的功劳，那你就要问自己：我会得到应有的认可吗？

However, if you're entering the team because you wanna get credit for what you did there, then you have to say, will I get credit?

我甚至可以在你加入团队之前就给你答案，因为你需要回顾自己过去做过什么，你的研究领域和学术成就是什么，以及这个团队的工作如果成功，是否与你一直以来的研究方向相符？

And I can give you that answer even before you engage with the team because you would need to look at what did you do before, what's your line of work and intellectual achievement, And does that team's work, if it's successful, fit into the line of work that you've been doing?

如果相符，那就去参与吧，因为社区实际上会因为团队的成果而认可你。

And if it is, go for it because the community will actually reward you for the team's credit.

但如果这完全无关，比如你加入我们关于网络科学的论文，这对你作为播客主持人的职业生涯将毫无影响。

If, however, it's something totally tangential, like you join a paper of ours on network science, it will have no impact whatsoever on your career as a podcast host.

太棒了。

Amazing.

好吧，让我们用第五个缺陷来结束这次讨论。

Well, let's let's finish this up with, the fifth flaw.

你基本上是说，只要坚持不懈，成功随时都会到来。

Like, what you basically say with persistence, success comes at any time.

你说过，在创造力的模式上，天才和我们其他人并没有不同。

And you said that when it comes to patterns of creativity, geniuses are no different than the rest of us.

我们同样在职业生涯早期就达到顶峰。

We too peak out early in our careers.

我们放松了警惕，渴望那股创造力的浪潮，韦恩。

We let our guard down, want that wave of creativity, Wayne.

无论是不是天才，我们大多都遵循相同的基本模式。

Geniuses or not, we mostly conform to the same fundamental patterns.

当我思考这个观点——灵感可能在任何年龄出现时，我想到的一个问题是：为什么那些童年时期就是音乐神童的人，最终却没有成为职业音乐家？

And, you know, when I was thinking about that idea that it can come at any age, the question that came to my mind is, why do you have situations where, you know, child prodigies who are are musicians don't end up becoming professional musicians?

而另一方面，摩根·弗里曼直到五十岁才成为人们熟知的摩根·弗里曼。

And then on the flip side of that, you have Morgan Freeman who doesn't become Morgan Freeman until he's 50 years old.

因为我想起曾和安德斯·艾利克森讨论过这个话题，他说，是的。

Because I remember talking to Anders Ericsson about this, he said, yeah.

他说，通常早期的惊人成功或神童，并不能很好地预测他们成年后是否能成功。

He said often early, you know, crazy success and and child genius is not a good predictor of whether they'll be successful as adults.

绝对如此。

Absolutely.

这些都是非常棒的问题。

And these are all fabulous questions.

而且过了五十岁之后，我需要问问自己：考虑到我的创造力可能已经衰退，我是否还应该继续从事科学工作？

And just beyond 50 and I need to kind of ask myself, should I be still doing science at all given the fact that maybe my creative time is over?

我们为什么这么说呢？

Why do we say that?

实际上，我们认为年轻等于创造力，是因为这个领域有大量的数据支持。

Well, the reason we actually think that youth equals creativity is because there's lots of data in this space.

数据显示，天才研究者——即那些研究天才职业生涯的社会学家和心理学家——观察并很好地记录了，许多重大突破确实与相对年轻的人有关。

And the data means that genius researchers, people who actually sociologists and psychologists who study the career of geniuses, observed and have documented very well that many major breakthrough are really associated with relatively young individuals.

例如，让我以我的专业物理学为例。

And for example, let me take my profession of physics.

我曾学习物理学，爱因斯坦曾声称，如果你作为一名物理学家在30岁之前还没有取得突破，那你永远也不会做到了。

I studied as a physicist, and Einstein once claimed that if you as a physicist haven't made your breakthrough by the age of 30, you will never do so.

他为什么这么说？

Why did he say that?

他说这话是因为他观察了自己周围环境中那些他钦佩的人，主要是那些帮助创立量子力学的人，比如海森堡、玻尔、狄拉克等等。

Well, he said so because he looked around in his environment at the people whom he admired, mostly the people who helped creating quantum mechanics from Heisenberg to Borg and Dirac and so on.

他看到这些人都是在二十多岁到三十岁出头的时候取得了他们的重大突破。

And he saw people who made their major breakthroughs, all of them in their kind of mid to late twenties, maybe early thirties.

因此，确实有数据支持这一观点：重大发现与年轻人密切相关。

So that's and indeed, so there's data to back up that major discoveries are associated with young people.

但我们实际上并不仅仅研究天才，而是考察了所有科学家来探讨这个问题。

But we we actually went after this question by looking not only at geniuses, but looking at all scientists.

因为你知道，我们虽然很好奇，但我自己也很想知道，我接下来会怎样？

Because, you know, we while we're curious, I was curious, what happens with me?

我的创造力已经结束了吗？

Is my creative time over?

根据爱因斯坦的说法，确实是这样。

According to Einstein, it is.

我们实际上分析了自1900年以来所有科学家的职业生涯，研究每个人在何时、在他们职业生涯的哪个阶段做出了最重要的发现。

And and we we analyze actually the career of all scientists since 1900, asking for each of them when was the time, at what moment of their career, when they made their biggest discovery.

其中一些重大发现确实是诺贝尔奖级别的，但绝大多数只是科学界内普通的发现，只不过对那位科学家而言，那是他最好的成果。

And some of those bigger discoveries, a few of them were actually Nobel prize winning, but the vast, vast, vast, vast majority were just ordinary discoveries within the scientific world, except that that was the best for that particular scientist.

令我们惊讶的是，我们发现爱因斯坦的天才理论在某种程度上是正确的：即使是普通科学家，也往往在职业生涯的早期——大约发表论文后的十年或十五年内——做出最重要的发现。

And to our surprise, we saw that to some degree, Einstein's genius literature is right, that even ordinary scientists tend to make their major discoveries in kind of relatively early within their career, kind of like ten, fifteen years after they start their publishing career.

所以这是对的。

So that's right.

所以我是不是该把白大褂挂起来了，转而去专心写书了，对吧？

So I should probably hang up my coat as a and start to continue writing books, right?

这就是为什么我们在讨论这个问题，但毕竟我们是数据驱动的人。

Which is why we're talking But then we're data people.

所以我们说，让我们更仔细地看一下，参考数据是什么？

So we said, let's look a little bit more carefully and say, what's the reference data?

长话短说，我们想知道，你的生产力如何随年龄变化？

To make a long story short, we said, what's your productivity in function of age?

结果发现，当我们研究科学家在不同年龄阶段发表论文的数量时，所得到的曲线与我们之前观察到的‘发表最高影响力论文的可能性’曲线完全一致。

And it turned out that when we looked at the productivity, how many papers you publish as a scientist in function of age, we saw exactly the same curve as we saw in the case of what's your likelihood of publishing your highest impact paper.

在其他项目中，当我们分析数据时，发现创造力与年龄完全无关。

In other programs, when we analyzed the data, it turned out that there is no age dependence whatsoever when it comes to creativity.

相反，人们在职业生涯的早期——前十年或十五年——通常更为高产。

Rather, people tend to be much more productive early in their career, first ten, fifteen years of our career.

我们在这个年龄段写下了大部分论文。

We write most of our papers in that age group.

而到了人生后期，我们的产出速度就会放缓。

And we slow down later in our life.

我们发表的论文越来越少，部分原因是健康、家庭和行政事务等因素。

We write fewer and fewer papers, partly because of health, family reasons, administrative reasons, and so on.

但分析表明，科学生涯中的每一项成果都有相同的概率成为该生涯中最具影响力的作品。

But the analysis showed that every single product of a scientific career has exactly the same probability of paying the highest impact work in that career.

这在其他领域也同样成立，年龄对创造力并没有影响。

And this is generally true, not only in science, in other areas, that there's really no age dependence.

相反，你做的每一项作品、每一幅画、每一档录制的节目，都有同等的机会成为你最具影响力的作品。

Rather, every product that you do, every painting you pay, every show you actually record has the same chance of becoming your highest impact the product.

但年轻人往往做得更多，而随着年龄增长，那种冲劲逐渐消退，我们在人生早期购买了更多的彩票，而后来就不再买了。

But because young people tend to do more of these and with age, kind of the ferocity leaves, we're buying many more locker lottery tickets early on in life, and we stop buying lottery tickets later in our life.

因此，看起来我们似乎不再有创造力，其实只是不再那么有生产力了。

And therefore, it appears as if we would not be creative, we're just simply not productive.

我们停止了尝试。

We stop trying.

这当然让我松了一口气，因为我年过五十后依然在管理实验室，和二十多岁时一样富有生产力。

So this was, of course, a huge relief for me because I still continue beyond 50 running a lab, and I'm just as productive as I was in my twenties.

数据表明，我仍然可能做出一项发现，超越我一生中任何其他成就。

And the data is indicating that I could still make a discovery that could overshadow anything that I ever did in my life.

哇。

Wow.

所以我的意思是，这是一次我得反复回味十几遍的对话，才能完全消化你所包含的全部内容。

So I mean, this has been, you know, one of those conversations I think I'm gonna have to go back to a dozen times just to to get everything you packed into it.

所以我还有最后两个问题想问你。

So I've I've two last questions for you.

第一，以你现在的年纪，我猜你已经获得终身教职了，而且你还出版了与你职业无关的书籍，你是如何定义自己的成功的呢？

One, you know, at this point in your life, I'm assuming that you're tenured given your age and and, you know, given the fact you're publishing books outside of your your career, how do you define your own success

现在？

at this point?

所以这个定义会随着年龄变化。当我二十多岁、三十多岁的时候，我衡量成功的唯一标准就是发表一些具有重大影响的论文。

So that changes with with age, So when I was in kind of in 20s and 30s, kind of my only measure of success was like, let's publish some papers that really have a major impact.

我在三十岁出头的时候做到了，达成了这个目标。

In my early 30s, I managed to do that, I achieved that.

我们发表的关于Rizkat开关现象的偏好附着论文，实际上是该十年所有科学领域中被引用次数最多的前十篇论文之一。

The paper that we had published about preferential attachment of the Rizkat switcher phenomena was actually the decade's top 10 most cited papers in all sciences.

所以这确实是一项重大发现，并催生了网络科学这一新领域。

So it was like it was really it was a major discovery and led to a new field of network science.

当然，我的数据显示，如果我继续下去，我仍然有可能超越这项工作。

Now, of course, my data indicates that if I carry on, I still have a probability to actually overshadow that work.

因此，我继续前行，但优先事项发生了变化。

And for that reason, I carry on, but priorities shift.

优先事项的变化在于，现在我同样热衷于帮助我的学生、博士后和实验室成员取得成功。

And priorities shift in the sense that now I'm just as excited about helping my students and postdocs and my lab members succeed.

所以，坦白说，二十年前我并没有太认真对待我的精神压力。

So for example, to be honest, I didn't take my mentally wrong too seriously kind of twenty years ago.

那只是我工作的一部分。

It just came with my job.

现在我更加关注如何让他人取得成功。

Now I pay much more attention to let other people succeed.

我这样做部分是因为我的想法发生了变化，同时也因为我知道，在我人生的这个阶段，我的遗产不仅由我做过的事情决定，也由与我共事的人将要做的事情决定。

I do so partly because my thinking has changed, and I also do so because I understand that at this point of my life, my legacy is determined not only by things that I did, but also what the people who worked with me will do.

对吧？

Right?

所以我有了更长远的视角。

So so I'm have a much longer perspective.

有了这种视角，影响的衡量标准也发生了变化。

And with that, the impact measures change.

对吧？

Right?

因此，我的影响标准不再是再发表十篇论文。

So it's not anymore my impact measure to publish yet 10 more papers.

对吧？

Right?

我告诉我的学生们，我不需要论文。

I tell my students, I don't need papers.

在这个年纪，我只需要发现。

I only need discoveries at this age of my life.

但当我以前的学生和博士后发表的论文登上《自然》或《科学》的封面时，我觉得非常兴奋，因为我觉得这也是我的成就。

But it's just exciting for me when my former students and postdocs go out and publish a paper that is featured on the cover of Nature or Science, because that, I feel, is also my achievement.

是的。

Yeah.

所以我突然意识到，我忘了问你一件事。

So I did realize I forgot to ask you about a thing.

我们还没

We didn't

谈到这个。

talk about it.

你怎么

How do

计算你之前提到的Q因子？

you calculate the Q factor that you mentioned earlier?

有没有办法实际计算它？

Is there a way to actually calculate it?

有的。

Yes.

那我们来谈谈Q因子是什么。

So let's talk about what the q factor is.

对吧？

Right?

其中一个关键点是，每个项目都有同等概率成为你一生中最成功的项目，这实际上催生了一个关于创造力如何运作的数学模型。

So one of the things that the fact that each project has exactly the same probability of being the most successful of your life, that actually led to a mathematical model of how creativity works.

其原理是，你启动的每一个项目都像一个随机数。

And the way this works really is that every project that you start is like a random number.

你从一个帽子中随机抽取一个数字，而你和我都能接触到同一个帽子。

You pick a random number from a hat, and you and I have access to the same hat.

所以我们都是从那个帽子中抽取一个随机数。

So we pick a random number from that.

这个数字可能是1或6，就像掷骰子一样。

And that could be one or six, throw a dice.

这完全是随机的。

It's totally random.

然后你把自己的知识和专长应用到这个想法上，这就是你的Q值，将这个想法转化为产品。

And then you bring your knowledge and expertise on that, and that's your Q factor, and turn that idea into a product.

如果你是科学家，它可能是一篇论文。

If you're a scientist, it could be a paper.

如果你是播客主持人，它可能是一档节目；如果你是作家，它可能是一本书，等等。

If you are a podcast host, it could be actually a show or could be a book if you're a writer, whatever that is.

然后你观察这个产品的成功或影响力，比如它获得了多少引用、有多少人购买了它，等等。

And then you look at the success or the impact of that product, like how many citations it got, how many people bought it, and so on.

我们发现，这种影响力不过是那个从帽子中抽出的随机数乘以你的Q值。

And what we find is that the impact of that is nothing but that random number that you pick from the hat times your q factor.

你的Q值是一个表征你将随机想法转化为有影响力产品的能力的数值。

That is your q factor is a number that characterizes your ability to take a random idea and to turn into an impactful product.

如果你的q因子很低，即使你掷出了六点，也不会产生高影响力的产品，因为你根本不知道该如何利用它。

Now if you have a low q factor, even if you throw a six with a dice, it's not gonna be a high impact product because you don't have you don't know what to do with that.

对吧？

Right?

所以实际上，你并没有把那个想法推进得很远。

So effectively, you're not accelerating that idea very far.

然而，如果你的q因子很高，即使你抽到一个很低的随机数，比如选了一个糟糕的想法，也不一定会成功。

However, if you have a high q factor, you could still pick a low number, random number, better pick a bad idea and not to be very successful with it.

但当你偶然遇到那个伟大的想法时，高随机数乘以你的高q因子，就会带来突破。

But in the moment you hit across by chance through that great idea that the high random number times your high q factor becomes a breakthrough.

这正是我们看到的成功人士的情况。

And that's exactly what we see in the case of successful individuals.

并不是他们做的每一个项目都成功，而是我们发现，他们在职业生涯中做了大量糟糕的项目，史蒂夫·乔布斯也是如此。

It's not that every project they do succeed, but rather what we see is that they have lots of crappy projects in their career, so does Steve Jobs.

但当他们遇到对的想法时，他们有能力将这一个想法转化为巨大的成功。

But when they hit across the right idea, they have an ability to turn that one into a major success.

我们能衡量q因子吗？

And can we measure a q factor?

是的。

Yes.

我们能够从科学家职业生涯的早期阶段就测量出他们的q因子。

We were able to measure the q factor for scientists from relatively early in their career.

而我们从中学到的实际上是，q因子——这也是这个故事中最令人震惊的方面——它在我们整个职业生涯中都不会改变，这完全出乎意料。

And what we learned actually from that is that the q factor, and that was really the most shocking aspect of the story, it doesn't change throughout our career, which was totally unexpected.

当我刚开始科研生涯时，最初的几篇论文就定义了我的q因子，而这个q因子将伴随我直到退休。

That when I start my career as a scientist, the first few papers define my Q factor, and that Q factor will stay with me till retirement.

这让我感到非常意外，因为我以为自己正变得越来越优秀的科学家，越来越出色的沟通者。

And that was so unexpected because I thought that I'm becoming a better and better scientist, a better and better communicator.

所以我比二三十年前好太多了，但数据却显示我的q因子并没有真正改变。

So I'm so much better than I was twenty or thirty years ago, yet the data was indicating that my Q factor has not really changed.

我仍然处于同一个随机过程中，随机挑选想法并将其转化为论文。

And I'm still part of the same random process that picking these random ideas and turning them into paper.

因此，通过乘以我的Q因子，产生了非常不同的影响。

So very different impact by multiplying it with my q factor.

我们也可以在其他领域测量Q因子。

And we can measure q factor in other areas as well.

我们最近刚刚测量了Q因子，甚至推出了一款应用，你可以访问qfactor.com来亲自体验，我们能够测量社交媒体上的Q因子。

We were we recently just measured the q factor, and we even have an app out there that you can play with qfactor.com that we're we're we're able to measure the q factor for social media.

这取决于你与受众的互动程度——你的推文是否被转发，这实际上取决于你的Q因子，即你将那些随机涌现的想法转化为社区真正欣赏、愿意转发或点赞的信息的能力。

That is how well you are engaging with your audience that are your tweets retweeted or not, that's really up to your Q factor, your ability to turn your ideas, which are kind of coming randomly to you into messages that the community is really appreciating and that they find it worthwhile to retweet it or like it.

哇哦。

Wow.

我还有一个最后的问题，这是我们所有访谈结束时都会问的，关于‘不可替代的创意者’的问题。

Well, I have one last question, which is how we finish all of our interviews with the unmistakable creative.

你认为是什么让人或事物变得不可替代？

What do you think it is that makes somebody or something unmistakable?

就是你最后说的那句话，对吧？

The The last message you say, right?

所以，我实际上认为，首先我想强调的是，尽管这本书名为《公式》，但里面并没有一个单一的公式。

So I actually think that first of all, what I would like to kind of emphasize is that even though the book is called The Formula, there's not a single formula in it.

实际上，每一部分——共有五部分——都有其背后的特定公式，这是第一点。

Actually, each part, there are five parts, have their own formulas behind them, number one.

这一点之所以重要，是因为职业生涯确实有不同的阶段，不同类型的职业，适用的规律也各不相同。

And the reason why that is important is because really there are different stages of a career and different type of careers and different laws apply to you.

就像你飞行时，空气动力学对你至关重要一样。

In the same way that when you are flying, the the aerodynamics matters for you.

当你走路时，牛顿力学才对你起作用，你不能把这两者混淆，同样地，职业生涯的不同阶段也适用不同的规律，这是第一点。

When you are walking, Newton's mechanics matters for you, and you shouldn't mix the two of them up the same way different laws apply in different parts of your career, number one.

但我认为，如果非要从这里提炼出一条最重要的信息，那也是我本人最看重、希望我表达清楚的：你的表现关乎你自己，但你的成功关乎我们所有人。

But I think that if one message should be taken away from that and the one that I really think is the most important for me, and I hope I articulated well, is that really your performance is about you, but your success is about us.

如果你真正内化了这一点，这将彻底改变你的格局。

And if you internalize that, that will be a game changer.

哇。

Wow.

我真的非常感谢您抽出时间加入我们，与所有听众分享您的故事和见解。

Well, I can't thank you enough to for taking the time to join us and share your story and your insights with all listeners.

这真是太棒了。

This has been phenomenal.

我的天，您让我的脑袋都快炸了，但这是种特别好的感觉。

Like, I you know, you're making my head hurt in the best way possible.

我读过这本书，真的被深深震撼了，简直不知道该怎么表达。

And I read the book, so I was kind of I I just I'm really blown away, and I can't think enough.

那么，人们在哪里可以了解更多关于您、您的工作、这本书以及您正在做的其他事情呢？

So where can people find out more about you, your work, the book, and everything else that you're up to?

我们确实有一个网站，但如果您直接在谷歌上搜索我的名字——Barabasi，拼写是 b-a-r-a-b-a-s-i，或者访问 barabasi.com，又或者直接搜索《The Formula》，您就能找到大量资源，包括关于我们这本书的网站。希望您能从中进一步探索，看看哪些规律适用于您，以及您该如何运用它们。

Well, we do have a web page, but if you just simple go Google my name, Barabasi, b a r a b a s I, or look at barabasi.com or just Google the formula, you will find lots of resources including our website on the book, and hopefully, you can build on that and, you know, see which of the laws apply to you and how you can apply it.

太精彩了。

Amazing.

对于所有正在收听的听众，我们就以这段话结束本期节目。

And for everybody listening, we'll wrap the show with that.

感谢您收听本期《不可忽视的创意》播客。

Thank you for listening to this episode of the unmistakable creative podcast.

在您收听的过程中，是否有任何时刻让您感到着迷、鼓舞人心、富有启发性，甚至温暖人心？

While you're listening, were there any moments you found fascinating, inspiring, instructive, maybe even heartwarming?

您能否想到某个人，比如朋友或家人，会欣赏这个时刻？

Can you think of anyone, a friend or a family member who would appreciate this moment?

如果是这样，请花一秒时间，把今天的节目分享给那个人，因为好的想法和信息本就应该被分享。

If so, take a second and share today's episode with that one person because good ideas and messages are meant to be shared.

您是否曾对人工智能接管您的工作或削弱您的创造力感到一丝担忧？

Have you ever felt a twinge of worry about AI taking over your job or diluting your creativity?

那么，如果您能将这种恐惧转化为创意的动力呢？

Well, what if you could turn that fear into creative fuel?

我们刚刚发布了一本名为《AI世界中的四大成功关键》的精彩电子书，这不仅仅是一本指南。

We've just published an amazing new ebook called The Four Keys to Success in an AI World, and this is more than just a guide.

它深入探讨了人工智能无法触及的人类技能，这些技能对于在技术不断演进的环境中脱颖而出、茁壮成长至关重要。

It's a deep exploration into the human skills that AI can't touch, the skills that are essential for standing out and thriving no matter how much technology evolves.

我们这里讨论的是真正的差异化能力，比如创造力、情商、批判性思维，还有更多。

We're talking about real differentiators here, like creativity, emotional intelligence, critical thinking, and much more.

书里包含了切实可行的见解和策略，帮助你培养这些能力，无论你是创意工作者、商业人士，还是单纯热爱个人成长的人。

Inside, you'll find actionable insights and strategies to develop these skills, whether you're a creative person, a business person, or just simply someone who loves personal development.

这不是一个关于科技接管的故事。

This isn't a story about tech taking over.

这是一个关于人类创造力与人工智能共同繁荣的故事。

It's a story of human creativity thriving alongside AI.

想象一下，把人工智能当作你的创意副驾驶，不仅仅是一个工具，而是一个能提升你独特人类能力的合作伙伴。

Picture this, AI as your creative copilot, not just as a tool, but a collaborator that enhances your unique human skills.

《四大关键》电子书将明确告诉你如何做到这一点，并以一种赋能你、而非掩盖你的新视角来看待人工智能。

The four keys ebook will show you exactly how to do that and view AI in a new way that empowers you instead of overshadows you.

今天就释放你的创造力潜能。

Transform your creative potential today.

立即访问 unmistakablecreative.com/4keys。

Head over to unmistakablecreative.com/4keys.

使用数字四，K-E-Y-S。

Use the number four, k EYS.

这是 unmistakablecreative.com/4keys，下载你的免费版本。

That's unmistakablecreative.com/4keys, and download your free copy.