Sell the Truth

频道: Naval
视频: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1DQgwomzxU
原文语言: en
统计: 共 19 轮 · Nivi 5 · Naval 14

[0:00] Nivi

Hi, you're listening to the Naval podcast. This is his regular co-host, Nivei. There's only two things you need to know in life. How to build and how to sell. Today, we're going to talk about the sales side. Naval is a particularly gifted seller, and some people have accused him of having his own reality distortion field. Yes. I've never taken a class on sales. I never tried to be good at sales. I don't even know what sales is. I don't sell. I just try to figure things out and then if there's something I believe in, I try to convey that as accurately and honestly as possible to the other person and there's no sales skills involved. I think the full extent of my sales training is I watched Glengary Glenn Ross. I think that was good. I recommend it. I read Robert Calaldini's influence, his original book on persuasion. You can skip the second one. Like most sequels, it's just not needed. It has one good idea in there which is anchoring but that's it. Robert Kiy popularized class R which is consistency, liking, authority, scarcity, social proof and reciprocity. Those are like the six ways in which you influence people. And then his subsequent book he added the seventh which was basically anchoring. But yeah, I actually don't believe in sales. If you feel like someone is selling to you and if you feel like you're being sold, it's a turnoff. Humans are hardwired to resist being sold to. So, I think what matters much more is credibility.

你好，欢迎收听 Naval 播客。我是他的固定搭档 Nivi。人这一生只需要懂两件事：怎么去创造，以及怎么去销售。今天我们要聊的是销售这一面。Naval 在销售上特别有天赋，有些人甚至说他自带一个「现实扭曲力场」。 （Naval） 是的。但我从来没上过任何销售课，我从没刻意想把销售练好，我甚至都不知道销售到底是什么。我不做销售。我只是努力把事情想明白，然后如果有什么是我真心相信的，我就尽可能准确、诚实地把它传达给对方，这里面根本没有什么销售技巧。我接受过的销售训练，全部加起来大概就是看了一部《大亨游戏》（Glengarry Glen Ross），我觉得那部不错，推荐看。我还读过 Robert Cialdini 的《影响力》，就是他那本讲说服力的原作。第二本可以跳过，跟大多数续集一样，根本没必要。那本里只有一个好想法，就是「锚定效应」，仅此而已。Cialdini 让六类原则变得广为人知——一致性、好感、权威、稀缺、社会认同和互惠，这就是影响他人的六种方式。然后在后续那本书里他又加了第七个，基本上就是锚定。但说真的，我其实并不信「销售」这回事。如果你感觉有人在向你推销，如果你感觉自己正在「被卖」，那是一种倒胃口的体验。人类天生就会抗拒被推销。所以我觉得更重要得多的是「可信度」。

[1:21] Naval

Credibility is way more important than sales. If you want to be good at sales, quote unquote, then really what you want is you want to be credible. You want people to trust you. You want to be the real estate agent that steers people away from bad deals and bad neighborhoods and bad houses so that when the right one comes along for them, they trust you. You really have to take your ego out of it, put yourself in the other person's shoes, and figure out what they want. And then once you've figured out what they want, then you can quote unquote make the sale. But I'm not the guy you would talk to for making the sales quota where you have to sell like 50 pieces of software this week or this month. But what I can tell you is that the people you most want to impress in life are the ones who can see right through you. And they will see right through your sales tactics. They will see right through your pitching them. And these people are the top of the top. So if you want to work with the people who are at the top of the top, if you want to successfully sell the biggest things that are out there, then you have to be very credible. And to be credible, you have to be authentic. You have to tell the truth. You have to be knowledgeable. They have to be able to trust you. And that you're not just doing what's expedient for you. You're thinking about the long term. You're being honest. You understand what you're talking about. And you can explain it simply because nobody's an expert in everything. They're not going to come up to speed quickly enough. So, you do have to figure out how to analogize it and to convey it to them. And it doesn't always work. You can't be attached to the outcome. You can't sell everyone on everything. I know there is a model out there that does work where some people are incredibly aggressive. They're like, "Never give up. Just keep hammering.

可信度比销售重要得多。如果你想在销售上做得好——所谓的「好」——那你真正想要的其实是变得可信。你想让别人信任你。你想成为那种会把客户从烂交易、烂地段、烂房子那里劝开的房产中介，这样等到真正适合他们的房子出现时，他们会信任你。你必须把自己的自我（ego）拿掉，站在对方的角度，搞清楚他们想要什么。一旦你弄明白了他们想要什么，你才能去——所谓的——「促成这单」。但我不是你该去找的那种人——那种这周或这个月必须卖出 50 套软件、要冲业绩的人。我能告诉你的是：人生中你最想打动的那些人，恰恰是能一眼看穿你的人。他们能看穿你的销售套路，能看穿你在向他们「推销」。而这些人是顶尖中的顶尖。所以如果你想和顶尖中的顶尖共事，如果你想成功卖出世界上最大的那些东西，那你就必须非常可信。而要可信，你就必须真诚。你必须说真话。你必须有真才实学。他们必须能信任你，相信你不是只做对自己有利、走捷径的事。你考虑的是长期。你是诚实的。你真懂自己在说什么。而且你能把它讲得简单，因为没有人是万事通，对方不可能那么快就把背景知识补齐。所以你确实得想办法打比方，把它传达给他们。而且这并不总能奏效。你不能执着于结果。你没法把每个人都说服去接受每件事。我知道外面确实有一种行得通的模式——有些人极其有侵略性，他们就是「永不放弃，一直猛敲」。

[3:00] Naval

Just keep going on it. Just keep beating on it and eventually you'll break through." I'm not one of those people. I'm just lazy. I like to go where it's easy. So if my sale quote unquote or if my pitch does not resonate with somebody, I move on. I move on instantly and I just keep looking for the person whom it will resonate with. One of the quote unquote techniques I've noticed Naval use is that he uses yes and like crazy. Whatever you say to him, he's going to yes and it. Even if he disagrees with it, he'll say yes, maybe expand on your point, and then pivot to what he wants to talk about. He's not going to immediately disagree with you or give you a very direct no. That's a technique and there are times when I do contradict people outright. But I will say that most smart people if they're telling you something then it's genuine. They have a reason to believe that and usually you can see that reason and so that's where the yes comes from where you truly understand oh okay that's your issue. I get it. So you have to understand it. But if I completely disagreed with them I would just disagree. I would just say no I don't think that's true and here's why. And by the way I do disagree a lot. And usually when I disagree, that's when I get humiliated. That's when I learn to be humble because that's when I'm often wrong. So yes and is a good strategy. Although I don't use it as a strategy.

「就一直推下去，一直死磕，最后总能突破。」我不是那种人。我就是懒。我喜欢往容易的地方走。所以如果我的「销售」——或者说我的说法——没能和某个人产生共鸣，我就走人。我会立刻放手，继续去找那个会和它产生共鸣的人。 （Nivi） 我注意到 Naval 用的一个所谓「技巧」，是他疯狂地用「yes, and（是的，而且）」。不管你对他说什么，他都会先「yes, and」一下。哪怕他不同意，他也会说「是的」，可能还会把你的观点延伸一下，然后再转向他想聊的方向。他不会立刻反驳你，也不会给你一个非常直接的「不」。 （Naval） 这算是个技巧，而且确实有些时候我会当面反驳别人。但我得说，大多数聪明人，如果他们在告诉你某件事，那它就是真心的。他们有理由相信那件事，而通常你能看到那个理由——这就是「yes」的来源，你真正理解了「哦，好，原来这是你纠结的点」。我懂了。所以你得去理解它。但如果我完全不同意他们，我就会直接不同意。我会直接说「不，我不认为那是对的，原因是这样」。顺便说，我确实经常不同意别人。而通常我不同意的时候，恰恰是我被打脸的时候。那也是我学会谦逊的时候，因为那时候我往往是错的。所以「yes, and」是个好策略——尽管我并不是把它当策略来用。

[4:16] Naval

It's more about rational empathy which is you reason your way to their position and you see if their position is valid and if it is then you say yes, but then you reinforce why your position is valid because hopefully your position is thought through and also valid. The next thing I've noticed in Naval is that he's just incredibly open-minded to the point of what I consider to be ridiculous.

它更多是一种「理性共情」——你用推理一步步走到他们的立场上，看看他们的立场是否站得住脚，如果站得住，你就说「是的」，但接着你再去强化为什么你自己的立场也成立，因为但愿你的立场是经过深思熟虑的、同样成立的。 （Nivi） 我在 Naval 身上注意到的下一点，是他极其开放，开放到我认为有点荒唐的地步。

[4:39] Naval

I think I want to be objective. Objective means getting the ego out of it. It means that you can't always think of it from your perspective because the other person has a completely different perspective. I've had a couple of people who come to me for advice through the years and they'll literally use me as a counselor and I'm always kind of scratching my head why. And then one of them just told me outright. He said, "Well, you have this thing you do where you give me advice, but it never comes from you. It feels like it's me talking to myself, but in a slightly different way. You're not just telling me what you think or what you want me to hear or what you want me to do." I try for that. That's objectivity. That's honesty. And it's selfish honesty because I want to make the right decisions for myself, which means that I have to try to be as objective as possible. And by the way, I make huge numbers of mistakes. I'm probably wrong 80% of the time. So given that, I shudder to think what would happen if I wasn't objective. If I wasn't honest, I'd just be walking around with blinders on and probably be wrong 95% of the time. The next technique I've noticed in Naval is that he is truthful and positive at the same time. If you ask me for advice, I can be truthful or I can be positive, but it's incredibly difficult and it's a really rare skill to be able to do both at the same time.

我觉得我是想做到「客观」。客观意味着把自我（ego）从中拿掉。它意味着你不能总是从自己的视角去看，因为对方有一个完全不同的视角。这些年有那么几个人会来找我寻求建议，他们简直是把我当心理咨询师用，我一直挺纳闷为什么。后来其中一个人直接告诉我了。他说：「你做的这件事是这样的——你给我建议，但它从来不像是出自你。感觉像是我在跟我自己对话，只是换了个稍微不同的方式。你不是在单纯告诉我你怎么想、你想让我听到什么、你想让我做什么。」我努力追求的就是这个。这就是客观。这就是诚实。而且这是一种自私的诚实，因为我想为我自己做出正确的决定，这就意味着我必须尽可能地客观。顺便说，我犯的错多得不得了。我大概有 80% 的时候是错的。既然如此，我都不敢想，要是我不客观会怎样。要是我不诚实，我就只是戴着眼罩到处走，大概会有 95% 的时候是错的。 （Nivi） 我在 Naval 身上注意到的下一个技巧，是他能同时做到既真实又正面。如果你向我寻求建议，我要么真实，要么正面，但要同时做到这两点极其困难，是一种非常稀有的能力。

[5:52] Naval

Yeah, it's my definition of charisma. Charisma is the ability to project confidence and love simultaneously or just power and good intentions. I think if you genuinely are empathic, if you do care about the other person's feelings and well-being, then you're going to figure out how to deliver the message nicely. Now, my close friends will tell you that I am not positive and I'm not nice and that I can really rip into people. I like making fun of people. I like winning little verbal combats. I like being witty and I can be brutal with people. But those are the people closest to me. Those are the people where I don't have to even worry too much about what they think because they know how I think and I know how they think and I know they can take it and they just want to cut the chase. But I think honesty is the bedrock. If you have to pick one of the two, honesty is more important. It is more important to annoy somebody or to anger them, be honest than it is to be kind. But I think you can do both. In almost all situations, you can do both. And the reality is if you're honest but not kind, they're not going to listen to you. So then it's a question of do you want to be right or do you want to be effective? And if you actually want to be effective, then you have to figure out how to layer it in with some kindness. Now, there are weaknesses in there, too. Like I'm very bad at firing people. I have fired people. It's rare.

是啊，这正是我对「魅力（charisma）」的定义。魅力就是同时投射出自信与爱的能力，或者说同时投射出力量与善意。我觉得如果你是真心有共情力的，如果你确实在乎对方的感受和福祉，那你自然会想办法把话说得好听。当然，我那些亲近的朋友会告诉你，我并不正面、也不和善，我能把人损得很惨。我喜欢拿人开玩笑，我喜欢在小小的言语交锋里取胜，我喜欢俏皮机智，我对人可以很狠。但那些都是和我最亲近的人。那些人，我甚至都不太需要担心他们怎么想，因为他们了解我怎么想，我也了解他们怎么想，我知道他们扛得住，而且他们就想直奔主题。但我觉得诚实是根基。如果两者只能选一个，诚实更重要。哪怕惹恼某人、激怒某人，也要诚实，这比和善更重要。但我觉得你两者都能做到。在几乎所有情况下，你都能两者兼顾。而现实是，如果你诚实却不和善，他们根本不会听你的。所以这就变成一个问题：你是想「正确」，还是想「有效」？如果你真的想有效，那你就得想办法把它和一些善意层层揉合进去。当然，这里面也有我的弱点。比如我非常不擅长开除人。我开除过人，但很少。

[7:10] Naval

It takes a lot for me to fire someone, and I've gotten better at it over time, but I've historically been very bad at it. In most companies, I'll lean on my co-founders to be the ones doing that. That basically comes from exactly this point. I just don't like to be unkind. So, when it's time to fire someone, even though they might be a drag on the team or it's not the right place for them, I'm empathic. So, I think through all the ways they could be hurt and how their feelings are and all of that. So, it gets very difficult for me. And really the only way I found to fire people that works for me is I have to be convinced that they're going to be more effective somewhere else in some other role and then I have to help them find that role or at least be available as a reference for them on that role. It's very rare that I'm going to fire somebody and I haven't thought through like where they would be more effective. By the way, when I say truthful and positive, what I mean by positive is that you leave the conversation with Naval energized to actually work on the discussion you just had. Yeah. So, this goes to a good definition of leadership versus management. Management is telling people what to do and leadership is making them want to do it. And I think leadership is one of the core core things that you have to drive in an organization. You just have to inspire people to want to do the work. But it can't be fake. It has to be a true motivator rolled into their capabilities and their own objectives, what they want out of life. So you do have to take the time to listen to what those people want and then figure out where there's an overlap in what you want done and then inspire them to go do it. There's a famous entwin super line I recommend.

要让我开除一个人，得费很大的劲，而且我随着时间确实做得好一些了，但我历来都非常不擅长这事。在大多数公司里，我会靠我的联合创始人去做这件事。这恰恰就来自刚才说的这一点：我就是不喜欢做不和善的事。所以当到了该开除某人的时候——哪怕他可能拖累团队，或者这里不适合他——我会去共情。我会把他可能受到的所有伤害、他的感受种种全都在脑子里过一遍。所以这对我来说变得非常艰难。而我找到的、对我真正管用的唯一一种开除人的方式，是我必须先说服自己：他们在别处、在某个别的岗位上会更有作为，然后我得帮他们找到那个岗位，或者至少愿意为那个岗位给他们当推荐人。我极少会在没想清楚「他们在哪里会更有作为」的情况下就开除一个人。 （Nivi） 顺便说一下，我说「真实又正面」时，我所谓的「正面」是指：你和 Naval 谈完之后，离开时是被充了电的，真的有动力去落实你们刚刚讨论的事。 （Naval） 对。这就引出了一个关于「领导」与「管理」的好定义。管理是告诉别人该做什么，而领导是让他们「想要」去做。我认为领导力是你在一个组织里必须推动的核心中的核心。你必须激励人们「想要」去做这份工作。但它不能是假的。它必须是一个真实的激励，并且要嵌入到他们的能力、他们自己的目标、他们想从人生中得到什么里面。所以你确实得花时间去听这些人想要什么，然后找出你想完成的事和他们想要的之间的重叠点，再去激励他们去做。有一句很有名的 Antoine de Saint-Exupéry 的话，我很推荐。

[8:45] Naval

It's great author. He wrote wind of stars in Odyssey. So, he has a great line which goes something like, "If you want to build a ship, don't just gather the men and issue orders and cut the wood and start the fires. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea." So, if I'm recruiting someone, I'm always pitching them on what I think is correct. It's honest. It's authentic, which is that startups are just a much better way to build businesses, to live your life, and much more fun to work in than large companies. You're not a cog in a machine. You have a lot more autonomy. You have a lot more fun. You can make a lot more money. And yes, in the short term it's grueling. But in the long term, once you've done startups, it's very difficult to go work for a big company. Once you have work with a lot of autonomy or work for yourself, it's very hard to be employable in a traditional sense. I think one of my most popular tweets was a taste of freedom can make you unemployable. And that's kind of what I mean. Especially for talented and skilled people who are self-motivated. And not everyone is that way, but if you are one of those self-motivated high agency people, when you've been free, you become unemployable. It's like a kid who's been whole school becomes unschoolable. They've just tasted freedom. And you're not going to do your best work when you're not free. This episode is presented by USVC, a public venture fund that every American can invest in.

他是位很棒的作家，写过《风沙星辰》（Wind, Sand and Stars）和《夜航》。他有一句很棒的话，大意是：「如果你想造一艘船，不要只是把人召集起来、发号施令、叫他们去砍木头、生火。相反，要教他们去渴望那片辽阔无垠的大海。」所以如果我在招募一个人，我一直在向他们推销我认为正确的东西。它是诚实的，它是真诚的，那就是：相比大公司，创业就是一种好得多的方式——去打造业务、去过你的人生，而且工作起来有趣得多。你不是机器里的一颗螺丝钉。你有多得多的自主权。你能获得多得多的乐趣。你能赚多得多的钱。是的，短期来看它很折磨人。但长期来看，一旦你创过业，就很难再回去给大公司打工了。一旦你在拥有大量自主权的环境里工作过、或者为自己工作过，你就很难再以传统意义上的方式「被雇用」了。我觉得我最受欢迎的推文之一就是「尝过自由的滋味会让你变得不可雇用」。我大概就是这个意思。尤其对那些有才华、有技能、自驱的人而言。不是每个人都是这样，但如果你是那种自驱、高能动性的人，当你自由过之后，你就变得不可雇用了。这就像一个在家上学的孩子会变得「不可上学」一样。他们已经尝过自由的味道了。而当你不自由时，你也拿不出你最好的作品。 （Nivi） 本期节目由 USVC 呈现，这是一只每个美国人都能投资的公开风险投资基金。

[10:05] Nivi

Venture capital has been unreachable for most investors. You've got your nose up to the glass watching companies compound to trillion dollar valuations in the private markets while you wait for them to go public. USVC was built to change that. It's a single basket of high growth venture capital across stages SEC registered, professionally managed with no accreditation requirement and a low $500 minimum. It's for US investors only for now. The fund includes OpenAI, Anthropic, XAI, and Versel. As USVC adds companies, investors will own a piece of those too. and Naval is chairman of the investment committee. Venture is not for the money you need tomorrow. It's risky and illquid. Don't invest anything you can't afford to lose. But if you have the appetite, there may be no harder working way to deploy a dollar than true venture capital. The smartest young people in the world working insane hours to build the future. Investing is easy. Go to usvc.com/mpodcast. Before investing, carefully read the objectives, risks, fees, and expenses in the funds perspectus at usvc.com. Investing in USVC is speculative, high-risisk, and shares are liquid with no public trading market. The fund is new with limited operating history and financial information. It may not achieve its investment objectives or provide distributions and investors may lose all or a substantial portion of their investment. Past performance does not guarantee returns. Distributed by Alps Distributors, Inc. So, you want to be in the minimum size group to do the scope of the job that you set out to do.

风险投资对大多数投资者来说一直遥不可及。你只能把鼻子贴在玻璃上，眼看着那些公司在私募市场里一路复利涨到万亿美元估值，而你只能干等着它们上市。USVC 就是为改变这一点而生的。它是一个单一的篮子，囊括跨各个阶段的高增长风险投资，经 SEC 注册，由专业团队管理，不要求合格投资者资质，最低门槛只要 500 美元。目前仅面向美国投资者。这只基金里包括 OpenAI、Anthropic、xAI 和 Vercel。随着 USVC 不断纳入新公司，投资者也会随之持有那些公司的一份。而且 Naval 是投资委员会主席。风险投资不适合用你明天就要用的钱。它有风险、缺乏流动性。不要投入任何你输不起的钱。但如果你有这个胃口，可能没有比真正的风险投资更「拼命干活」的方式来配置一美元了——世界上最聪明的年轻人，以疯狂的工时去打造未来。投资很简单，去 usvc.com/npodcast。投资之前，请仔细阅读 usvc.com 上基金招股说明书里的目标、风险、费用和支出。投资 USVC 属于投机性、高风险行为，份额缺乏流动性，没有公开交易市场。该基金是新基金，运营历史和财务信息有限。它可能无法实现其投资目标或进行分配，投资者可能损失全部或大部分本金。过往业绩不保证未来回报。由 ALPS Distributors, Inc. 分销。所以，你想处在「能完成你所设定任务范围的最小规模团队」里。

[11:23] Naval

And I think deep down every man, some women, but definitely men are evolved this way. We evolved in hunter gatherer tribes. And so, men would go on the hunt, right? They would gather together, there'd be 10 or 20 of them, and they'd grab their spears, and they'd go on a long hunt and they'd chase something down. And then they'd come back from the hunt, maybe a day, a week, a month later, and they'd have food and pelts and other things for the tribe. That's baked into us. We're designed to go on missions with small groups. Everything from people jumping on a boat and sailing to the West Indies or to the New World or people going to war or people going to build a business. So when you read these stories like Liftoff which is a story of Musk and his team building the first SpaceX rocket or the Macintosh way which is about Jobs and his team building the first Macintosh and there are other various books like there's soul of a new machine etc. These are incredibly inspiring because I think deep deep deep down this is what every person really craves which is if you're building something you're in that kind of world where you want to be with a small team of highly competent people each pulling their weight and doing their job to the best such that you can completely rely on them and then you get to do your creativity at the max and then at the other side you get this incredible outcome and our whole society is built on that if you look in game theory, for example, the popular game that comes up is Prisoner's Dilemma.

我觉得在内心深处，每个男人——也有一些女人，但肯定每个男人——都是这样进化来的。我们是在狩猎采集部落里进化的。所以男人会去打猎，对吧？他们会聚到一起，可能有 10 个或 20 个人，抄起长矛，去进行一场漫长的狩猎，把猎物追下来。然后他们从狩猎中归来，可能是一天后、一周后、一个月后，带回食物、毛皮和别的东西给部落。这一切都刻在我们身体里。我们天生就是要和小团体一起去执行任务的。从人们跳上一条船航向西印度群岛、航向新大陆，到人们去打仗，再到人们去创办一家企业，都是如此。所以当你读到这样的故事——比如《Liftoff》，讲 Musk 和他的团队造出第一枚 SpaceX 火箭的故事，或者《The Macintosh Way》，讲 Jobs 和他的团队造出第一台 Macintosh 的故事，还有别的各种书，比如《The Soul of a New Machine》等等——这些都极其鼓舞人心，因为我觉得在内心深深深处，这正是每个人真正渴望的：如果你在打造某样东西，你就身处那种世界里——你想和一支由高能力的人组成的小团队在一起，每个人都各尽其责、把自己的工作做到极致，好让你能完全依赖他们，然后你就能把你的创造力发挥到极致，而在另一头，你会得到一个极其惊人的结果。我们整个社会都是建立在这个之上的。比如你看博弈论，最常被提到的那个经典博弈就是「囚徒困境」。

[12:52] Naval

Prisoner's Dilemma is all about we've been arrested by the police and there's two of us and who's going to rat the other one out and the incentive is to cheat on the other person. But real life is a different game. Real life societies tend to be what's called a stag hunt. A stag hunt is if each of us are hunting by ourselves, we can kill a bunny. But if the two of us hunt together, then we can take down a stag and then we can have a lot more meat to go around. And that's more of the model in normal society. So you see low trust societies where people don't trust each other or where the structure makes it impossible to work together, the taxes are too high, the regulations are too high, there's too much bureaucracy, things are illegal, you can't engage in stag hunts and you end up with lots of small tiny tiny little businesses but also lots of poverty. And in a well structured society, you can engage in stag hunts. You trust people. There's rule of law. You know that if you build something together, you won't be ripped off. You'll get your fair share. You can ally with highquality people. The government won't take everything. There aren't rules against it. You're around like-minded people. You're in a high trust situation. People know each other. The social network. They can check each other out. They have reputations. And then you can get together these teams of 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 people who can do what was considered impossible. And so that is very invigorating. And I think that's the way you want to function. You want to function with high trust people in small groups to solve really hard problems. And deep down, you're built for it. You crave it. And so when I'm quote unquote pitching people and joining a company, that's what I'm pitching. I'm pitching them like, "Hey, this is where you're meant to be. This is where you will self-actualize. This is where you will have the most fun. One of the recruiting tricks that I use is you got to keep the bar super high. So, you just tell people, "Hey, you can walk in here and interview anybody. You can pick anybody who's sitting on this office floor. You can interview them right now. And if you don't think they're brilliant, don't join. They're all that good." The next technique I've noticed is that you don't sell anything that you're not inspired about. I asked Jeff Fagden from Accomplice, a friend of ours, what he thinks about your sales skills, and he described it as an evangelical sale. H Oh man, I reject that. I don't know. Evangelical.

囚徒困境讲的是：我们俩被警察抓了，关键就在于谁会把对方供出去，激励机制是让你去出卖对方。但现实生活是另一种博弈。现实中的社会更接近所谓的「猎鹿博弈」。猎鹿博弈是说：如果我们各自单独打猎，每人只能打到一只兔子；但如果我们俩一起打猎，就能放倒一头鹿，能分到的肉就多得多。这才更接近正常社会的模型。所以你会看到一些低信任社会，人们彼此不信任，或者制度结构让人没法合作——税太高、监管太重、官僚太多、很多事都是非法的——你就没法搞「猎鹿」式的合作，最后到处都是小到不能再小的小生意，同时也伴随着大量贫困。而在一个结构良好的社会里，你就能进行「猎鹿」式合作。你信任别人，有法治，你知道如果大家一起建起点什么，你不会被坑，能拿到你应得的那份。你能和高质量的人结盟，政府不会把一切都拿走，也没有针对这种合作的禁令。你身边都是志同道合的人，处在一个高信任的环境里，大家彼此认识，有社交网络，能互相摸底，每个人都有声誉。然后你就能组建起这种 10 人、20 人、50 人、100 人、200 人的团队，去做那些原本被认为不可能的事。这非常令人振奋。我觉得这才是你该有的运作方式：和高信任的人在小团队里，一起解决真正的难题。而且在内心深处，你天生就是为此而生的，你渴望它。所以当我所谓地去「推销」、去拉人加入一家公司时，我推销的就是这个。我对他们说：「嘿，这才是你该待的地方，这才是你能自我实现的地方，这才是你能玩得最尽兴的地方。」我用的一个招募技巧是：你得把门槛保持得超级高。所以你就直接告诉别人：「嘿，你可以走进来面试任何人，你可以挑这个办公室里坐着的任何一个人，你现在就可以面试他。如果你不觉得他很出色，那就别加入。他们个个都是这个水平。」我注意到的下一个技巧是：你不会去推销任何你自己都没被点燃的东西。我问过我们共同的朋友、Accomplice 的 Jeff Fagden，他怎么看你的销售能力，他形容那是一种「布道式的销售」。哦天哪，我不接受这个说法。我不知道，「布道式」……

[15:09] Naval

I think it's just honest. You have to genuinely be excited about the thing. If you're not excited about the thing, what are you doing selling it? It's a miserable life if you're selling things that you don't care about. I know in Wolf of Wall Street and all those kinds of movies, it's lion eyes like, "Hey, sell me this pen, you know, sell me this fork." I don't care about selling you this pen or selling you this fork unless I believe it's the best pen ever made. If I believe it's the best pen ever made, I'll sell it for free. You know, I love the pen. So, I think for me, sales is a byproduct of credibility and obviously it helps to be articulate and it helps to be empathic. In terms of the actual sales skills, I know the whole Calaldini checklist. I might use it once in a blue moon if I'm writing an email. I might just run down it, but I'm not going to artificially fill an email or a pitch with random comments just trying to close in on people. All frameworks in life, whether it's like your working out framework or your sales framework or even your building an app framework, they're all secondary and distant secondary to your motivation. If you are truly motivated to build an app, you will figure it out. If you're truly motivated to create a business, you will figure it out. The business school, the business books, the app development stuff, all of that is secondary. You can use that later expost facto analyze the thing in hindsight and say, "Oh, that's how I did it, or that's what that technique was." But the reality is you will do it because you're motivated. One of the reasons why I think my cryptic tweets work better than formulas is because they're really about inspiration and motivation. If you are sufficiently motivated, you will figure it out.

我觉得那只是「诚实」而已。你必须是发自内心地对那个东西感到兴奋。如果你对它都不兴奋，那你卖它干嘛？如果你一直在卖你根本不在乎的东西，那是一种很悲惨的人生。我知道在《华尔街之狼》这类电影里，那种狼一样的眼神，「嘿，把这支笔卖给我，把这把叉子卖给我」。我才不在乎把这支笔或这把叉子卖给你，除非我真的相信它是有史以来最好的笔。如果我相信它是最好的笔，我会免费帮它卖，因为我爱这支笔。所以对我来说，销售是「可信度」的副产品；当然，能言善辩有帮助，有同理心也有帮助。至于真正的销售技巧，我知道整套 Cialdini 的清单。我可能偶尔——非常罕见地——在写邮件时会用一下，可能会顺着那张清单过一遍，但我不会人为地往一封邮件或一个推介里硬塞一些随机的话术，就为了把人「逼单」成交。人生中所有的框架——不管是你的健身框架、销售框架，甚至是你做 App 的框架——它们全都是次要的，而且是远远次要于你的「动机」的。如果你真的有动机去做一个 App，你会想出办法的。如果你真的有动机去创立一门生意，你会想出办法的。商学院、商业书籍、App 开发那一套东西，全都是次要的。你可以在事后用它们来回顾分析整件事，说「哦，原来我是这么做的」或者「原来那个技巧叫这个名字」。但现实是，你能做成，是因为你有动机。我觉得我那些隐晦的推文之所以比公式管用，原因之一就是它们真正讲的是激励和动机。如果你有足够的动机，你会想出办法的。

[16:47] Naval

There's also a tricky line there. If you're the kind of person who needs to read motivational tweets and listen to motivational podcasts all the time, then you're probably not going to make it either because you have to be self motivated at some level. It's like Schopenhau used to say, the point of reading is a kindling to light a fire in your own brain. And I would say the same way, the point of being motivated is kindling to light a fire in your own heart. And if that fire can't be lit, then you're just going to be listening to motivational podcasts until the end of time. There's no value in reading business books. Even business podcasts to me are a form of entertainment while I'm brushing my teeth or I'm on the treadmill. They're not a way to actually learn anything useful. If you want to learn something useful, the only way to learn it is to go and do it and to do it with fervor and obsession and authenticity. So, closing the loop on vibe coding. Vibe coding is just my latest obsession. I have an obsessive personality. Every six months, I get obsessed with something new. And I've learned over time, you know, there are bad obsessions. Like if you are overeing or if you're doing drugs or you're playing too many video games or anything like that, that's a bad obsession. But there are good obsessions. The intellectual obsessions are good obsessions. So, I've learned to feed my intellectual obsessions. If I'm into some piece of technology, if I'm loving some podcast where I might be learning something, if I'm getting into some specific kind of workout, I feed that obsession. I go out of my way to indulge in it. I don't look for balance. I look to feed my obsessions. And then once the obsession phase passes, like it inevitably does. You get a little tired of the thing. Some large piece of it stays with you for the rest of your life, and you just learn how to work it into your everyday psyche and personality and being. And so I would say indulge your obsessions. Don't worry about business books. Like if you want to be good at sales, then find something that you really care about that you want to sell and go sell that thing. And it won't be hard. It won't feel like sales.

不过这里也有一条很微妙的界线。如果你是那种需要天天读励志推文、听励志播客的人，那你大概率也成不了，因为你必须在某种程度上是「自我驱动」的。就像叔本华说过的，阅读的意义是一种「引火物」，用来在你自己的大脑里点起一把火。我会用同样的方式说：被激励的意义，也是一种引火物，用来在你自己的心里点起一把火。如果那把火点不着，那你就只能听励志播客听到天荒地老。读商业书是没有价值的。对我来说，连商业播客都只是一种娱乐——是我在刷牙或者在跑步机上时听的东西，它们并不是真正学到有用东西的途径。如果你想学到有用的东西，唯一的办法就是去做，带着热忱、痴迷和真诚去做。所以，回到「氛围编程」（vibe coding）这个话题，把它收个尾。氛围编程只是我最近的一个痴迷。我有一种痴迷型人格，每隔六个月，我就会迷上某样新东西。我也慢慢学会了——你知道，有些痴迷是坏的。比如你暴饮暴食、嗑药、打太多电子游戏之类的，那都是坏的痴迷。但也有好的痴迷，智识上的痴迷就是好的痴迷。所以我学会了去「喂养」我智识上的痴迷。如果我迷上了某项技术，如果我爱上了某个能让我学到东西的播客，如果我迷上了某种特定的健身方式，我就会去喂养那个痴迷。我会特意去纵容它。我不去寻找平衡，我寻找的是喂养我的痴迷。然后等痴迷的阶段过去——它总是不可避免地会过去，你会对那个东西有点腻了——它的一大部分会伴随你余生，而你只需学会怎么把它融入你日常的心智、性格和存在之中。所以我会说：纵容你的痴迷。别去操心商业书。比如你想擅长销售，那就去找一样你真正在乎、真正想卖的东西，然后去卖它。这不会很难，它也不会感觉像在做销售。

[18:40] Naval

If it feels to you like you're selling, then you're probably selling the wrong thing. But if you're just being enthusiastic about it, if you're just conveying your enthusiasm, you can't control yourself, then you found the right thing to sell. So, if you're in the sales business right now, you're selling something you don't care about. You need to go find something else to sell. Let me give you the full text of what Jeff sent me about your evangelical sales. Here it is. Evangelical Cell takes you through the big picture, then makes you want to do the small things. Good at storytelling. He's so passionate. Whether it's a toothbrush, restaurant, or a shitty startup, it works well together.

如果你感觉自己是在「做销售」，那你大概率是在卖错了东西。但如果你只是对它充满热情，只是在传递你的热情，你都控制不住自己，那你就找到了对的东西去卖。所以，如果你现在就在做销售这一行，而你卖的是一样你不在乎的东西，那你需要去找点别的东西来卖。我把 Jeff 发给我的、关于你那种「布道式销售」的原话完整念给你听。是这样的：「布道式销售会先带你看大局，然后让你产生想去做那些小事的欲望。很擅长讲故事。他充满激情。不管对象是一把牙刷、一家餐厅，还是一个烂兮兮的创业公司，这套都很奏效。」

[19:15] Naval

Well, that's the external view. It's strictly not how I think about it. I don't even think about it to be honest. I'm just talking. If you want to be genuine, if you want to be taken seriously by the people again who can see right through you, it's important not to overthink these things. Because for example, if I'm raising money for a company, like so for my new company, Impossible, we've raised a round already and we're probably going to raise another one at some point. The way I approach that fundraising is I'm not driven by an external clock. I don't say, "Oh, it's September. lay put the deck together now and go pitch it. I actually wait. I work on the company. I work on the team and I measure my own excitement level. And when my own excitement level gets above a certain threshold, then I know I'm ready to go raise the money because now I'm genuinely excited about where the business is and I feel like the business really deserves another round of financing. At that point, it's not hard for me to go and sell it. And at that point, I just have to go find a bunch of people, explain it to them, and if they don't get it, that's their loss. I just move on to the next one. I don't fixate on the person who didn't get it, because most people won't get it. But it's much more about measuring my own internal excitement level based on the fundamentals of where the business is at. And if I go out to raise money, that means the business is at the point where I'm excited enough about it that I now just have to genuinely convey what I already see and know to be true. I don't have to pitch something that isn't true.

嗯，那是个外部视角。严格来说那不是我自己思考这件事的方式。说实话我根本不会去想它，我只是在说话而已。如果你想要真诚，如果你想被那些一眼就能看穿你的人认真对待，关键就是别把这些事想得太多。打个比方，如果我在为一家公司融资——比如我的新公司 Impossible，我们已经融完了一轮，将来某个时候大概还会再融一轮——我处理融资的方式是：我不被一个外部的时钟驱动。我不会说「哦，现在是九月了，赶紧把 BP 拼起来，去推介吧」。我其实会等。我会埋头做公司，做团队，然后衡量我自己的兴奋程度。当我自己的兴奋程度超过某个阈值时，我就知道我准备好去融钱了——因为这时候我是真心对这门生意所处的位置感到兴奋，我觉得这门生意确实配得上再来一轮融资。到那个时候，对我来说去把它卖出去就不难了。到那时，我只需要去找一批人，把它讲给他们听，如果他们 get 不到，那是他们的损失。我不会盯着那个没 get 到的人不放，因为大多数人都不会 get 到。但这件事更多是关于：基于这门生意所处的基本面，去衡量我自己内在的兴奋程度。如果我出去融钱了，那意味着这门生意已经到了一个让我足够兴奋的程度，我现在只需要真诚地把我已经看到、已经知道为真的东西传递出去。我不需要去推销任何不真实的东西。

[20:44] Nivi

I don't have to exaggerate anything. I have to just generally convey what's down there that's getting me excited. If Nal is going to pitch you on something or communicate or persuade, there's always going to be a preamble. There's going to be a larger context that he sets. Whether it's the problem situation, a story, a historical setting. He's not going to jump right into the pitch. It's going to be part of a larger story. One thing I've seen is that you're willing to walk away from any deal that you don't think is a good deal or perhaps not the ideal deal, even if you're in a slightly tight situation. Yeah, I rarely let myself get to disaster cuz I am paranoid. So, I plan in advance. If I'm raising for a company, I'll start raising months and months before we need it. Preferably 6 to 12 months before we need it. Doesn't always happen, but that's the ideal. So, I don't want to be in a situation where my back's against a wall. You have to be able to walk away from deals. The problem with deals is they're long-term. You're stuck in them. Even in a marriage, you can get a divorce. Bad deal, bad contract, bad investor, really hard to walk away. So, it depends on the nature of the deal. If it's a kind of deal that's easy to unwind, if it doesn't work out, then sure, you can be a little more forgiving about it. But if it's a kind of deal, like say you're taking money from somebody and you can't get rid of them later, they're going to be on your board. They're going to have preferred stock. They're going to have veto rights. They're going to have a say in how you run your business. then you just don't take the bad deal. It is better not to be trapped in a bad deal.

我不需要夸大任何东西。我只需要大体上把底下那些让我兴奋的东西传递出去。如果 Naval 要向你推介某样东西，或者去沟通、去说服，前面总会有一段铺垫。他会先设定一个更大的背景，可能是问题的处境、一个故事，或者一个历史的设定。他不会一上来就直接进入推介，那会是一个更大故事的一部分。我观察到的一点是：你愿意从任何一个你认为不划算、或者说不够理想的交易中走开，哪怕你当时处境略微有点紧张。是的，我很少让自己走到「灾难」那一步，因为我是个偏执的人。所以我会提前规划。如果我在为一家公司融资，我会在我们真正需要钱之前好几个月、好几个月就开始融，最好是提前 6 到 12 个月。这并不总能做到，但那是理想状态。所以我不想让自己处于一种「背靠墙、退无可退」的境地。你必须有能力从交易中走开。交易的问题在于它们是长期的，你会被困在里面。哪怕是婚姻，你还能离婚；而坏的交易、坏的合同、坏的投资人，是真的很难走开的。所以这取决于交易的性质。如果是那种容易解开的交易，万一不成你也能脱身，那当然，你可以对它宽容一点。但如果是那种交易——比如说你拿了某个人的钱，之后又甩不掉他，他会进你的董事会，会持有优先股，会有否决权，会对你怎么经营生意有发言权——那你就干脆别接这个坏交易。被困在一个坏交易里，还不如一开始就不进去。

[22:11] Nivi

A contract is when two parties agree to constrain their future outcome in exchange for working together. So they say, "Okay, in the future I could have done XYZ, but now I'm going to limit myself to just Z. And you could have done ABC, but you're going to limit yourself to just A." Then in exchange, because we're now constrained to work together in a certain way, we create something of greater value. and we can share the spoils from whatever we create. It's a stag hunt. We're going to go on a stag hunt together and this is how we're going to split the stag. But you're going to stop chasing rabbits and I'm going to stop chasing rabbits and we're going to hunt the stag down. And so it's constraining. So you're putting shackles on yourself for the future. You're closing down your options. And the world is a big place. Optionality is very powerful. There's a lot of different paths you could have taken. So you have to be convinced that this is one of the better paths. It's one of the best paths available to you. And so why compromise? Companies die based on this. Founders end up getting fired or leaving based on this. You end up with suboptimal partnerships because of this. So I've just learned over the years that compromise is the enemy of building a great business. And you know it in your gut. You don't have to ask anyone. Deep down you'll have that slightly sinking feeling of being forced into something or obligation or whatever. And I'm not saying don't be pragmatic. I'm not saying never compromise. But I'm just saying I definitely lean on the side of walking away from sub-optimal deals rather than doing something just to get it done.

所谓合同，就是两方同意约束各自未来的结果，以换取彼此的合作。所以他们说：「好，未来我本可以做 X、Y、Z，但现在我把自己限制在只做 Z；而你本可以做 A、B、C，但你把自己限制在只做 A。」然后作为交换，因为我们现在被约束着以某种特定方式合作，我们就能创造出价值更大的东西，并且能分享我们所创造出来的成果。这就是猎鹿博弈。我们要一起去猎一头鹿，这就是我们分鹿的方式。但你要停止追兔子，我也要停止追兔子，我们要一起把这头鹿放倒。所以它是有约束性的。你是在给未来的自己套上枷锁，你在关掉你的选项。而世界是很大的，「选择权（optionality）」是非常强大的。你本可以走很多条不同的路。所以你必须确信这是更好的路之一，是你能选的最好的路之一。那为什么要妥协呢？公司会因此而死。创始人最终被炒掉或离开，就源于此。你会因此陷入次优的合作关系。所以这些年我学到的就是：妥协是建立一门伟大生意的敌人。而且你心里是知道的，你不用问任何人。在内心深处，你会有那种被迫做某事、或者出于义务之类的、隐隐下沉的感觉。我不是说别讲求实际，我不是说永远别妥协。我只是说，我绝对是偏向于：宁可从次优的交易里走开，也不要只为了「把事办成」而硬做点什么。

[23:39] Nivi

The other thing I've noticed in your deal making is that you're always focused on the upside and increasing the size of the pie as opposed to splitting it up. So even if your emotional response to a situation might be, I've done a lot for you and you haven't given me anything. You owe me this, you owe me that, that's never going to be the conversation you're going to get. It's always more like, I can keep helping you if we can work this out. So you're focused on what you can give them in the future. Well, we live in the age of nonlinear returns. The upside is always bigger in the future. And the upside can be 100x,000x, 10,000x bigger. So there's no point in fighting over the small pie before it's fully baked. Especially in the tech business, anyone who's been for a while will tell you that it's power law distribution of returns. Their number one winner is worth more than numbers two through n put together. Number two is bigger than three through n put together and so on. In investing, that means that you're looking for that one grand slam outcome. You're not looking for the company that gets sold early. Even if it was a successful sale, it's still not going to be that number one or number two in the power law. The same way when you're doing deals, the most important thing is your time. You have to keep your time and your optionality available. So, if you're going to give that up, it only makes sense to do that for something that has that opportunity to be 100x or,000x on your time or on your capital. So, there's no point in fighting to divide up small spoils. Just doesn't make sense. Now, sometimes the big spoils come out and then the knives hit the table and then you see people get greedy. And in those cases, you do have to defend yourself. Unfortunately, business is war by other means. And so that does happen. I'm not going to say it's all hunky dory and everybody gets along. A lot of times you will get ripped off and you do have to stand up for yourself sometimes just on principle so that you don't get taken advantage of in the future. But generally speaking, I think you want to focus on the upside and you want to preserve your time and your reputation and your mental health, your peace. So if you are in a situation where you are being taken advantage of and you know that if you don't solve this, you won't sleep at night for the next year, you do have to fight. But if you feel like I can walk away from this and I can recover my time and I know not to work with these people again or I know that these stakes are too small to bother fighting over, then you just don't do it. Generally, I think people spend too much time splitting hairs on small stakes and not enough times focusing on the big upside. And the big upside is entirely where it's at. Now, look, a lot of the stuff that I do is sub-optimal for making money. I'm not all about making money. There's a lot of money I left on the table. I have a history of doing things once and then starting open cuz I get bored. So, my first little venture fund was hugely successful, but it was a tiny fund. I could have used that to go raise massive funds, but I didn't. And that pattern repeated multiple times across other funds that I ran of different types and different structures and different industries, but I never scaled up the one big fund into the multi-billion dollar fund. the same way even companies I started at some point they got to a certain point where I stepped aside I didn't keep running and keep growing it maybe that'll change with impossible I hope because I think it's very meaty but all of that said I don't believe in just blindly pursuing stopping or fighting over something or splitting something or doing some deal I think like you always have to put yourself in the situation where you are going to be most happy and most at peace because you'll get productivity out of that, but you also get happiness and peace, which are really the end goals at the end of the day. So, if you can sleep at night with the outcome and you don't have huge stress around it and you're relatively relaxed and you're open for the next thing, then that's the best outcome cuz life is short. What's the point of grinding on the same thing over and over to make an even bigger pile of money, but then your whole life ran you by?

我在你做交易时注意到的另一点是：你总是聚焦在「上行空间」、在把蛋糕做大，而不是去分蛋糕。所以即便你对某个处境的情绪反应可能是「我为你做了那么多，你什么都没给我，你欠我这个、欠我那个」，那也永远不会是你嘴里说出来的对话。它总是更像是「如果我们能把这件事理顺，我可以继续帮你」。所以你聚焦的是你未来能给他们什么。嗯，我们生活在一个「非线性回报」的时代。上行空间永远在未来更大，而且上行空间可以大到 100 倍、1000 倍、10000 倍。所以在蛋糕还没完全烤好之前，就为这小小的蛋糕争来争去是没有意义的。尤其在科技行业，任何在这行待过一阵子的人都会告诉你，回报是「幂律分布」的。他们的头号赢家，比第二名到第 n 名加起来还值钱；第二名比第三名到第 n 名加起来还大，以此类推。在投资里，这意味着你要找的是那一个「满贯」级的结果。你要找的不是那种早早被卖掉的公司——哪怕那是一次成功的出售，它在幂律里也仍然成不了第一或第二。同样地，当你做交易时，最重要的东西是你的时间。你必须让你的时间和你的选择权保持可用。所以如果你要放弃这些，那只有当对方有机会让你的时间或资本翻 100 倍、1000 倍时，才说得通。所以为了瓜分一点小小的战利品而争斗是没有意义的，纯粹说不通。当然，有时候巨大的战利品出现了，然后刀子就拍上了桌面，你会看到人变得贪婪。在那些情况下，你确实得保护自己。不幸的是，生意是「以另一种方式进行的战争」。所以那种事确实会发生。我不会说一切都和和美美、人人相处融洽。很多时候你会被坑，而你有时候确实得为自己挺身而出，哪怕只是出于原则，这样你将来才不会被人占便宜。但总的来说，我觉得你想聚焦的还是上行空间，你想保住的是你的时间、你的声誉、你的心理健康、你的内心安宁。所以如果你处在一个被人占便宜的处境里，而你知道如果不解决这件事，你接下来一年都会夜不能寐，那你确实得去争。但如果你觉得「我可以从这件事里走开，我能把我的时间收回来，我知道以后别再和这些人合作」，或者你知道「这点赌注太小了，不值得为它争」，那你就干脆别争。总的来说，我觉得人们花太多时间在小赌注上斤斤计较，而花在聚焦巨大上行空间上的时间又不够。而巨大的上行空间，才是一切真正所在之处。话说回来，我做的很多事，从赚钱的角度看其实是次优的。我并不是一切都围着赚钱转。我留在桌上没拿的钱有很多。我有一种习惯：把一件事做一遍，然后就开个新摊子，因为我会腻。所以我第一个小小的风险基金极其成功，但它是一只很小的基金。我本可以用它去募一些巨大的基金，但我没有。这个模式在我后来管理的其他基金里反复出现——不同类型、不同结构、不同行业——但我从没把那一只大基金扩张成几十亿美元的基金。同样地，连我创办的一些公司，到了某个节点、到了某个程度，我就抽身而退了，我没有继续经营、继续把它做大。也许 Impossible 会不一样，我希望如此，因为我觉得它非常有料。但话虽如此，我不相信盲目地去追逐、去停下、去为某样东西争斗、去瓜分某样东西、去做某笔交易。我觉得你总是得把自己放在一个你会最快乐、最安宁的处境里，因为你能从中获得生产力，但你也能获得幸福和安宁——而这两样，才是说到底真正的终极目标。所以如果你能对一个结果安然入睡，你不会因它而背负巨大压力，你相对放松，并且你为下一件事敞开着——那就是最好的结果。因为人生很短。一遍又一遍地在同一件事上死磕，去堆一座更大的钱山，可你整个人生却被你白白浪费过去了，那又有什么意义呢？

[27:28] Naval

It's better to live a couple of different lives crammed within this one life. Each one doing what you want, pursuing your own genuine interest. And I believe that even if it may not work out the absolute best, it'll work out fine.

更好的活法，是在这一辈子里塞进好几段不同的人生。每一段都做你想做的事，追求你自己真正的兴趣。我相信，哪怕它可能没有以绝对最好的方式收场，它最终也会过得不错。