# 39 unconventional ideas that will rewire your brain
**作者**: Giuliano
**日期**: 2026-05-23T14:02:13.000Z
**来源**: [https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2058186743543656783](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2058186743543656783)
---
Each of these should alter the way you see things - upgrade your mental software. From climate change to aging and common patterns among business, biology, and physics.
I collect ideas from books, thoughts, anecdotes, and through observation.
This will be a long read. At the end, the full list will be included. Feel free to skip to the tl;dr and share, or bookmark for the full read later.
## 1. If you find a genius, give them all power
There come times in life when you encounter extraordinary individuals - people whose abilities are well in excess of your own. A handful of those times, you’ll also recognize a deeply moral drive. It doesn’t happen very often. It might only happen 1-5 times in a lifetime. But you need to be on the lookout. When you come across one of these people, partner with them.
Studying the life of Lee Kuan Yew flabbergasted me. Singapore was a malarial swamp. No common culture, no people, and no country wanted to help them at the beginning. Citizens didn’t even speak the same language. Then this man came along and he single-handedly fixed all societal issues, turning Singapore into one of the richest countries in the world by per capita GDP. LKY couldn’t have done it alone; he had a great team of ministers and advisors. That’s another feature of these astounding individuals: they know how to build an exceptional team.
Warren Buffett became Berkshire’s CEO in the late '60s. He turned a mediocre $15M textile operation into a $1 trillion conglomerate, while earning essentially no salary and partnering with Charlie Munger.
Imagine you knew a young Buffett. The single decision of handing him your money would make you end up billions of dollars richer. And you wouldn't have to lift a finger.
A Buffett or Lee Kuan Yew kind of talent might come once every century. And in all likelihood, we won’t meet people like them. But the idea holds true at all levels. Think of that marketing agency whose performance is 2-3x that of the other agency you hire. Think of the person who manages 1-2 people, but whose results are astounding and could manage 10-50. Think of your incredibly smart friend who could and would do a lot but has no resources. Life becomes easier as you stack tailwinds.
## 2. You are neither right nor wrong because a poll agrees with you
You are right because your facts and reasoning are right; because the outcome was similar to what you predicted. Other people’s opinions has nothing to do with the truth. Truth lives by itself. It’s independent.
Until Darwin, all naturalists believed in the independent creation of species. After Darwin, almost no one did. Everyone thought the world had been created 5,000 years ago; after Lyell published his work, no one thinks that. Before Copernicus, people thought the Earth was at the center of the solar system. Before Galileo, that a heavy stone fell faster than a light one.
What society holds true at any point in time is fragile. It only takes one observation to shatter it completely and for a new paradigm to emerge.
When Henry Singleton took over Teledyne, dividends were the only conceivable way in which companies could return capital to their shareholders. He figured that, done well, buybacks could create more value and proceeded to repurchase shares when multiples contracted in the 70s. Thereafter, everyone on Wall Street caught up with their tax efficiency and started doing share buybacks periodically. In the 90s, Singleton had his last interview and was asked what he thinks of this development:
> “If everyone is doing them, then there must be something wrong with them.”
## 3. The key to success is mediocre competition
You are always competing with someone. For attention, a position, a candidate, a customer, an audience. Every activity, meal, or plan competes with every other, time being the only true asset.
Winning can be a win-win, but that doesn’t mean there isn't a loser somewhere. Imagine you pitch your product or service to a potential customer. After your meeting, the customer meets another vendor. What determines whether you win is not only your performance, the quality of your service, and soft skills, but also how they compare to your competitor’s. How much easier it’d be if their product weren't functional or they didn't show up?
It’s not about taking advantage of other people. It’s about being smart at game selection. You’ll end up competing anyway, so you might as well pick something where you have an edge over other people. You must be capable of telling where your edge comes from. At a poker table, ‘if you don’t know who the patsy is 30 minutes into the game, then you are the patsy’.
Niches are large enough to support a family and fund growth. If there is demand, and you control a tier of the supply, you’ll do well. Doesn’t matter if you’re Alaska’s best fisherman. If you’re the best at something for which there’s stable demand, you’ll do well. Buffett oftentimes said that the best shield against inflation is being the best lawyer or doctor in town; your earnings are protected because you supply the market with a high quality product that’s continuously in demand.
## 4. There are answers worth billions of dollars in a $30 history book - Munger
Near the end of his life, Charlie Munger often told an anecdote later in life:
he read an investment magazine every year for 30-40 years and had never found an actionable idea in it... until the 2010s. Charlie subsequently invested a couple million in the business portrayed and took out $80M in profit. He gave that $80M to Li Lu and Li Lu turned it into ~$400M. All of this in the span of under 15 years, I believe.
That’s how powerful reading can be, especially in investing. It only takes one idea to change your life. Imagine if you knew everything you now know when you were 10-20 years old. Would you exercise? Would you invest? Would you read? Would you spend more time with relatives?
You are not smarter than your former self. You’re just more knowledgeable, hopefully wiser. Knowledge is power; it brings profit in all shapes and forms. And the best thing is that it is, to a large extent, ‘speed-runnable.’ Read 1,000 carefully selected books and I suspect decisions become simpler. It’s immaterial if you read those 1,000 books in one decade or six decades. I strongly suspect you’ll take away most insights anyway. The difference is that you have that mental database to compound and work for you for five decades thereafter.
You don’t need to make all mistakes there are to be made. Learn from people who came before you; avoid the mistakes they made and take their advice. Life is very much the same in many ways. And you don’t have to figure out Newton’s laws by yourself; you won’t be able to, or you’ll spend your whole life trying. Just read about them. It’s a fair shortcut.
## 5. It’s always a skill issue
If you don’t get what you want in the long run, it’s likely on you. This is especially true nowadays, when opportunities are widespread; the internet and now AI have leveled the playing field.
This reframe is extremely impactful and pragmatic. From: It’s another person’s fault. To: It’s my fault. If it didn’t turn out the way I wanted, I could’ve done something better.
It’s a reframe about responsibility and accountability. If you take it, you'll learn something from it. And your behavior will thereafter be more profitable. You can always do something better. You can always be better. Failed at an interview? Maybe my English or knowledge are off. Failed at an exam? I didn't study hard enough. Don't know how to close a customer? I'm not a good enough salesperson yet.
There's always someone who could do what we're supposed to do better than us. And not because they were born with it. They acquired the skill.
> "The easiest way to get what you want is to deserve what you want"
No one is a natural at anything. The rate of learning plays a big role in how quickly you arrive at a proficiency level and acquire new techniques. But not even the most remarkable human beings could've gone far without intense practice and focus.
When I read da Vinci’s biography, I was astounded by his obsessive personality and the attention he gave to getting every little detail right. Talent can only take you so far. There is no substitute for hard work.
Whatever another person has, you can have (naturally limited to changeable things, which I’d estimate to be in excess of 97% of cravings). Some achievements and results take more effort and time, but there’s no rule why you can’t reach a certain summit.
‘Aim for the sky. For, even if you don’t get there, you could reach the clouds.’ Improvement is deeply satisfactory, irrespective of whether you reach your original target. And time will pass anyway, so you might as well do something.
## 6. Cargo Cult Science
Feynman gave this speech in the '70s. He warned the audience about the upcoming new ‘science’. They’ll say their conclusions have a scientific basis, that they followed the scientific method, and that their opinions are just as valid as those forged through sweat and tears in the fields of mathematics and physics.
But they are non-knowers. They lack intellectual integrity and rigor, and ignore how difficult it is to produce any piece of knowledge. When trying to explain a phenomenon, the way to establish causality is by isolating variables in an experimental/observational manner and running tests.
Some of these people don’t realize their disciplines fall into the complex adaptive systems realm. Many variables impact any given outcome, and all of them are interconnected. Isolation is virtually impossible. And true causality can’t be determined because the environment continuously changes; new set of rules, the experiment is no longer the same.
Furthermore, if they do know this and insist on their newfound truth, it’s likely that they are not disclosing the whole picture. Failed experiments are left out of their papers and noisy data goes unreported. Only elements that validate the conclusion are presented.
Beware of people who claim they know something that’s really hard to know. The best shield is to deeply research a topic. See for yourself how hard it is to stay on the tracks of truth to not misinform others. Or you can lie to yourself, and others will play along.
> “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
## 7. The men who can manage men manage the men who can manage only things, and the men who can manage money manage all - Durant
The output from your employed capacity is a function of how much leverage you have and how well you use each unit of time. If it’s only you getting paid per hour, earnings scale linearly with your input. If you have the eye or skill of a master, you might get paid per project or earn a share of the generated proceeds; output becomes nonlinear. If you manage people and get to decide how they employ their time at work, the foregoing multiplies. If you can manage money and understand returns on time, everything will be at your disposition.
## 8. Incentives
We repeat behavior that rewards us and avoid that which punishes us. No one wakes up wanting to bang their head into the wall. Pain is terror, in all forms. If a conversation with your friend was unpleasant, you won’t want to go through it again. And thus you might see that friend less often, even if the unpleasantness wasn’t out of a personal issue. We are wired this way.
Man’s genome took billions of years to evolve. On an Earth were catastrophe abounds, mechanisms were built into our DNA to preserve ourselves. Everything in your circuitry is optimized for self-preservation and reproduction. What is pain if not the body telling you you’re being constrained in one way or another from the thing for which you live?
If you want something to happen, align everyone’s interests toward it and it will. We only do things that are in our interest; the self-serving bias is too powerful. Generosity does exist but there’s truth to the idea that there’s no action that’s purely altruistic.
> “Reason, justice and equity never had weight enough on the face of the earth, to govern the councils of men” – John Adams.
It is interest alone which does it. When there are enough incentives, anything can happen. In the 1930s-40s in Russia, there were quotas to fill for arrests. It didn’t matter if people had done a wrongdoing. Quotas needed to be filled and any pretext was good enough.
There was an organization with two products. One was higher quality and it didn’t sell for a much higher price, yet nobody bought it. After some inquiring, management realized salesmen received a higher commission if they sold the lower-quality product. Managers inverted the commission and sales of the higher-quality product eclipsed the other.
Pavlov ran thousands of experiments with dogs to investigate reflexes. Most tests had the secretion of saliva as the objective, which in a natural setting happens when food or poison enters the dog’s mouth. Pavlov found dozens of stimuli that could be conditioned to trigger this reflex. You can use the sound of a bell to trigger saliva. Organisms’ cabling can be reconfigured to suit your needs. Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.
In finance, investment bankers connect companies that want to acquire others with potential targets. They are the deal makers and receive a cut of the transaction for their services. Because it’s in their absolute interest for a deal to be struck, their unconscious will push for it to happen, even if it’s not in the company’s best interest. Don’t ask your barber if you need a haircut.
I’ll finish this section with a story my father told me once. He was working at a consulting firm and had a group meeting. The manager who was leading it arrived 5 minutes late. So the guy comes in, everyone already sitting, and starts playing with the document he had at hand. Then he pounds the table and says, 'Gentlemen, are we gonna do what’s right or what’s in our interest?'
## 9. Intelligent is different from smart, and both can be stupid
I think being smart is being quick of mind; smart people are witty; they compute/permutate quickly and are good at pattern-recognition at the micro level. Intelligence is broader, but holds less specific power. Intelligent people can see the depth to things; they know what questions are worth entertaining and can hold one in their heads for days until they get an answer; they see the whole board and seem to understand nature at levels others don’t. It’s pattern-recognition at a higher scale.
Intelligence lets you build your mental schemas, and brightness let’s you sort through your mental library to analyze the problem at hand, arriving more quickly at the answer. Both are extremely helpful attributes, but neither can save you from stupidity.
> “It takes something more than intelligence to act intelligently.” – the Master
I suspect there’s a spectrum in intelligence that’s something like intellectual self-awareness. Up to a point, the more intelligent you are, the easier it is to act irrationally - you can argue in favor of anything, but are not intelligent enough to recognize blindspots that arise from the nature of things. You can even be a Nobel laureate and make terrible decisions, Long-Term Capital Management being the prime example.
We fall in love with our creations and are bound to overestimate our capacity. It seems like the more intelligent you are, the more difficult it is to accept some things are outside your control. Up to a certain point.
Nobel laureates in the field of physics seem to have long known how biased our judgment is. They don’t hold their ideas as True; they learned to hold them as the truth as of now. Studying history and how their field got to its current state forces that mental switch.
To this effect, 'people who are in the top percentile of probabilistic games have more in common with one another than with people in their own fields' - @mjmauboussin.
It’s unclear to me whether this is a genetic element. But there’s something coded within some brains that makes them more resilient.
## 10. Worldly wisdom
The modern educational system was created to meet modern reality. We live in a world that’s full of long-tailed branches. It takes years of intense diligence to place yourself at the frontier of any knowledge vertical. And it takes even longer to reach a point where you can break through boundaries.
These 10-20 years of education leave us in a place where we don’t want to revisit academia. We think of it as this horrible memory where we were assigned terrible reads about things we didn't care about. As a consequence, we leave proficient in one area while neglecting everything else.
This is a disaster. 'You're like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest'.
Real life problems cannot be isolated into neat boxes. Answering any question to any truthful extent requires knowing history, psychology, economics, physics. Problems are multifaceted and all disciplines are interconnected. The best decision-makers have a good understanding of the whole. They are generalists who also know their field extremely well.
Beyond that, how can you go through life without knowing? Learning brings profit, joy, and happiness. ‘You can’t expect to dream it up all by yourself – no one is that smart’.
## 11. Education is software for the brain
Without Windows or iOS, your computer would be an alien product. Impossible to use. Just by adding an operating system, it becomes this incredibly malleable, resourceful machine. Add software layers on top of it, install applications and learn how to use the internet, and there’s no problem you can’t solve. You’ll also save infinite time through efficiency gains.
That’s what education does to you. Reading a book adds ideas to your brain, words to your vocabulary, and you experience a wide range of emotions. Your mind acquires new lenses through which to analyze the world. And lenses compound; each hour spent reading builds layers of understanding. Decisions are filtered through them all, becoming sounder and more optimal.
## 12. Economies of scale
Manufacturing businesses typically have large headcount and maintenance expenses associated with their facilities. Both are fixed costs. As the company scales and sells more units, while keeping this fixed base flat, operating margins expand. The business becomes more efficient on a per-unit basis.
The same thing happens with organisms. The metabolic rate signals the energy we need to ingest to keep our machinery active. And it so happens that, the larger the organism, the less energy it needs per gram of tissue. Likewise, the larger the organism, the fewer heartbeats per minute it has. These represent huge efficiencies gained from scale.
In geometry, the area of a 2D objects increases with the square of their dimensions’ lengths. And in 3D objects, volume scales with the cube. So every time you double dimensions, in the former you get 4x the area; in the latter, you get 8x.
There are also inefficiencies that come from scale, such as the amount of weight a physical structure can support. The larger it is, the less proportional mass it can hold up. That’s why ants seem incredibly strong.
Sol Price figured out how to win in retail by understanding this and complementing it with his business savviness. As your business gets larger, you experience gains from efficiency. But your margin is others’ opportunity. Therefore, if you pass on your savings to customers by lowering your prices (Amazon, Walmart, HD, and Costco’s playbook), you almost can’t be taken out by a competitor.
## 13. Quality
A teacher stands in front of his classroom and reads two short essays aloud, both about the same topic and structurally similar. At the end, he asks students to raise their hands if they think the first one is better. *No one raises their hand*. Then he asks them to raise their hands if they think the second one is better. *Every hand goes up*.
You can try to quantify it. You can point to how sentences are framed, how commas are used, ratio of verbs to total words, pauses, and so on. But in the final analysis, you don’t know why it’s better. You just know it is.
We have an inner sense of Quality. It’s not taste or intuition, and it’s not analytical. It’s something you observe that can’t be seen. Something you hear that emits no noise. It’s a switch that gets triggered at the point where all our senses connect.
## 14. Extraordinary results are just 1,000 boring days strung together
Rocks can be worn down by drops of water. It takes a decade to create an overnight success. Think about any skill you’d like to be better at; then think how much better you’d be if you had practiced it every day for the past 3 years. It reminds me of the story of a great, old musician to whom, after the concert, a fan said to him, “My God, you play so beautifully. I’d give my life to play like that.” To which the musician melancholically replied, “That’s exactly what I did."
Innate talent is not enough. Newton locked himself in a room for months to dedicate himself to any subject that was of interest to him; all day spent thinking. Da Vinci spent ~16 years painting the Mona Lisa; and decades of intense practice and learning about painting & drawing to perfect his craft. Francis Crick and James Watson worked on a single topic for 2-3 years filled with frustration before they could discover the double helix.
No one double-clicks on the long periods of darkness and nothingness. All the greatest have gone through that, but everyone remembers the fame and achievements.
> To be acclaimed in front of everybody, you need to outwork everybody in front of nobody.
## 15. Stack the bricks
On one occasion, Steve Jobs was discussing a media strategy with an advisor. Both men ran into a disagreement, and the other guy did an experiment. He crumpled up a piece of paper and threw it at Steve; Steve caught it. Then this man crumpled up five paper balls and threw them all at once; Steve caught none. Everything works that way. We only have so many mental resources.
One of the reasons why Google and Apple won was their intense focus on what they wanted to show the customer. Internet pages had every pixel crammed up with images and information. Smartphones were anything but smart. Google got rid of everything except for the Search bar, and that’s perfect for users. iPhones had only one button; now they have none. If something is not required, delete it. You risk diverting users’ attention to things that don’t matter.
We look more at buildings than we do at floors. If you have 100 bricks and lay them horizontally on the floor, they amount to nothing. No contrast, no excitement, no novelty. Everyone will pass by; uniformity catches no eyes. Instead, if you stack the bricks and build a tower, there’ll be no person who walks by without noticing it.
Businesses think about marketing in the same way. They have recurring investment in S&M, but when something important happens, all resources get concentrated on that announcement. A new product, fundraising rounds, new partnerships. Companies might leverage all channels and networks to publicize the same event. Incrementally invested capital in directing attention to the same event yields increasing returns (up to a certain point).
This is analogue to how @pmarca views venture capital: returns aren't evenly distributed. It's only a few that drive all results. If you develop an eye for what those few look like, concentrating resources is not only more profitable, but less risky.
## 16. There are multiple ways of thinking
Whenever da Vinci faced a problem and needed to think, he took out a pencil and paper and began drawing. If Leonardo set out to understand the motion of water, the flow of a river or the mechanics of sight, he just drew.
When I saw his drawings of rivers, I sensed how they acted as a mental model for da Vinci, or as an algorithm like those used to 'forecast' weather patterns. It became clear when I read he was working for Cesare Borgia. Leonardo came up with innovative military ideas. And the way he determined feasibility was by putting them on paper.
He was able to see whether something could work in reality by sketching it. And tweaking sketches was just like changing inputs in a computer simulator.
Learn how you think and leverage that. You’ll often hear people say that they are “visual thinkers;” some just want to sound fancy, but there’s deep truth in that statement. If you know how you think, you’ll be much more effective at everything you do in life. You’ll feed yourself the knowledge you need, in the right way, and optimize your environment according to your nature.
## 17. Real understanding comes through continued mental exposure
It’s not the same to read a book, which takes 15-35 hours, as it is to listen to a 1-2-hour podcast. And it’s not the same to read a summary of the book. You don’t get 80% of the job done; it doesn’t work that way. Understanding comes from continuously thinking about something, adding layers of information and theorizing about how new knowledge fits the picture.
Jung analyzed dreams by ‘turning them around and around, analyzing every single angle they had’. A thesis can just be a sentence: natural selection is the process by which superior organisms are selected based on their fitness and are thus able to yield offspring. But you don’t understand everything underneath; the pillars that back the theory up. Use and disuse, specialization of organs, tiny variations, shared commonalities. Those are what help you understand natural selection.
For what is understanding if not the capacity to profit from the knowledge?
## 18. Deep simplicity
Complex systems are the result of a few nodes interacting with one another, left alone for a long time. This stands true across disciplines:
- 95%+ of all biological matter is made up of only 4 elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen).
- With 3 laws and gravity, you can explain and predict the motion of all (large) bodies.
- All DNA is made of sugar, phosphate, and a chemical base, which in turn are built from pairs of 4 nucleobases.
- Electricity and magnetism were separate fields until Maxwell. With 4 equations, he explained the most varied phenomena. At the bottom of things, only a handful of elements serve as the Lego blocks.
When performing any sort of analysis, look for the 2-5 variables that move the needle. It doesn’t matter how immense an issue looks.
In the early 1900s, Milanković wanted to understand why the Earth has this pattern of an alternating cycle of ice ages and warm interglacial periods.
After 30 years of thinking and manual calculations, he reduced this enormously complex phenomenon to 3 variables:
- The eccentricity of the orbit - goes from more to less elliptical in loop. 100,000-year cycles.
- The tilt of the Earth's axis - obliquity. 41,000-year cycles.
- The wobble - slow, top-like wobble on its axis. 26,000-year cycles.
By tracking how these three variables overlap, he answered this impossible question.
@JeffBezos did a similar thing when he said that a leader's job is to identify the 2-3 big ideas and enforce execution against those. Amazon was built around: (1) Lower prices; (2) Faster delivery; (3) Broader selection. "It's inconceivable to me to imagine a world where people don't want that 10 years from now." These are the things that don't change and thus make a business resilient, while virtually guaranteeing positive returns on capital if you win.
## 19. Tweak a problem only slightly and you’ll turn it from impossible to easy
This approach is about finding pieces of information that seem to matter but are ultimately irrelevant to the final result. Then work around or avoid them.
What if asked you to pass a needle through a block of ice? It’s a physical impossibility. But if you heat the ice, it’ll melt and you’ll be able to pass the needle. Likewise, if you heat the needle, it’ll slide through. Learning different disciplines helps you spot shortcuts where others only see a wall.
The original insight came from Thorp. He was once given a geometry puzzle: find the volume of the solid part left after drilling a hole through a sphere given only its height. Because the sphere's radius wasn't provided, most students thought the problem was impossible to solve. Thorp tweaked the scenario by imagining the smallest possible sphere; one exactly as tall as the hole. In this extreme case, the hole becomes a single point and the ring becomes a solid sphere, turning a complex calculus problem into a 5-second mental calculation.
## 20. Systems naturally trend towards decentralization and specialization
Adam Smith pointed out the difference between a pin factory where labor is divided and one where everyone does everything. The former was orders of magnitude more productive than the latter. Focusing on one task increases your dexterity and reduces context switching. You become proficient at the task, while a jack of all trades is a master of none. Groups of proficient workers outproduce their counterparts.
Natural selection has caused a similar phenomenon in organisms. Darwin thought that the higher on the scale of Nature, the more specialized an organism's organs. Organisms less fit for survival were those whose organs were too general-purpose. They suffer from the same disadvantage as the pin factory that's full of non-specialists. Thus, a visible trend in nature has been the specialization of organs.
In economics, it has been at times believed that a central authority can set prices for objects and services fairly well. Reality proves that the foregoing belief is wrong. Hayek remarked on the flaws of such a system - a single entity can’t faithfully integrate all ever-changing inputs to make decisions. Thus, the trend within economics has been for prices to be set by free markets, to a greater or lesser extent. Arbitrage and incentives seem to make this the best alternative.
For centuries, Societies were been ruled by emperors, or hereditary monarchs. Senates have been introduced and tested in Rome and Greece, though subsequently again replaced by monarchies and empires. Aristocracy emerged as a precursor to democracy. Finally, society arrived at democracy as the optimum selecting machine to govern the affairs of man.
## 21. Complex adaptive systems
We’re used to extrapolating, to thinking linearly. When we see 1, 2, 3... we think the next number in the sequence is 4. Our brain plays great tricks on us by seeing patterns, real or not, and trying to solve for unknowns. This has great utility, but it’s not absolute. It works in mathematics and to a large extent in physics & chemistry; logic is power.
However, in most of life, it leads to terrible results.
Linear thinking breaks down when trying to explain most of reality.
Economics, psychology, sociology, weather forecasting, people management. Each of these has infinite subtleties. You can’t say that just because interest rates fell, asset prices will skyrocket; or that just because a person coughed, they have pneumonia. Most of reality is formed by complex adaptive systems, with an indefinite number of components and a compounded feedback loops. What one node does affects all others, which affects all others again in turn, and so on indefinitely.
Do a small change in input and the whole system gets shaken; the output is indeterminate. I once read that the world is its fastest computing machine.
## 22. Why thinking what no one else is thinking pays off enormously
History shows that we systematically improve our understanding of nature. Therefore, at any given point in time, Society has a set of ‘currently held truths’. These are placeholders. Bound to get displaced in the future. But they are the best we’ve got as of now.
In the 1800s, all naturalists believed in the independent creation of species. Darwin encountered no sympathetic agreement whenever he discussed his ideas with someone. Nevertheless, he published his work in 1859. After Darwin’s theory got out, everyone regarded evolution as the truth.
When that happens, there’s a huge switch in society. Everyone’s mental software gets upgraded. With new lenses, new ways of doing things come; new methods, analyses, and fields open up. They are all closer to the truth than before. And because that’s the case, more pursuits are profitable. Wealth is created and expands.
In investing, it’s not good enough to be a contrarian. You must be contrarian and right at the same time. There’s no point in a building being different for its own sake; it must be more beautiful, useful, resilient. The more people who disagree with you when you are right, the larger the payoff.
In general terms, if you manage to bring an idea to society, you are rewarded. And the farther it is from the currently held truths, the larger the payoff. In intellectual terms, there might be no single idea that brought as much profit as Darwin’s. There’s true value in stretching people’s understanding.
The two easiest ways to force this type of thinking come from one of Paul Graham’s essays: (i) Don’t be aware of conventions – if you don’t know what people think, you’ll think for yourself by default; (ii) surround yourself with independent-minded people – we are the average of the people that surround us.
People tend to think there are no more secrets out there, but a current example of this I came to appreciate is Graham Hancock. He posits that our record of history is flawed; Hancock believes there was an advanced civilization that got lost during the ice age and we haven’t yet put the pieces together. To argue, he pulls research from archeology, astronomy, sociology, and geology. It’s fascinating how he tries to connect the dots. And his view is forcing a whole re-thinking of everything.
## 23. The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones - Keynes
When we come up with or learn a new idea, theory, or process, it colors our view of everything. We fall in love with our creations and force new facts to accommodate to them. Any phenomenon we might encounter, we try to explain through our acquired idea.
That’s the man-with-a-hammer tendency; to the man with a hammer, every problem looks pretty much like a nail. He twists the problem at hand until he can crush it with the only hammer he holds. Hugely flawed way to operate.
Learning an idea costs so much that people don’t want to let it go to waste; they want to make as much use thereof as they can. Thus, science moves one funeral at a time.
## 24. You drift toward the average of your surroundings
We learn by imitation. Watching our parents conduct themselves teaches us how to conduct ourselves. While surrounded by peers, we copy behaviors from people we like or admire. You can’t fully resist this effect; it’s largely unconscious.
It has happened to me many times that I find myself expressing my views in a certain way and I wonder, ‘Why did I say that?’ Then I think deeper and realize, ‘Oh that came from Munger. That’s Feynman. That’s Buffett.’
When I was 7-17 years old, I spent a great deal of time with friends who played football; so I did that (loved it though). When I was older, I might meet with people who go to the gym more often, so I replicate that in some way.
Other people mold your behavior. And it’s a powerful force. If you meet with people who exercise a lot, you’ll be far more inclined to hitting the gym. If you gather around people who read a lot, you’ll start reading more and more. The obverse also holds true: if you surround yourself with smokers, you’ll smoke; if they don’t work hard, you won’t work hard.
It doesn’t matter how independent-minded you think you are. We tend towards the average of the 5 people who surround us.
## 25. Causes of human misjudgment
Our minds break in embarrassing ways all too frequently. You can’t avoid it. These failures are so deeply rooted that you can rarely tell when they occur; they feel natural. Worse than that, they feel right. And you experience great damage and suffering because of your wiring.
When anger comes, rationality leaves. Emotions cloud our judgment. And so do a lot of phenomena: if you are hungry, your decisions will be worse and your temperament more irascible; we fail to notice change that happens gradually; we twist reality when it hurts until it becomes bearable; we are more prone to agree with opinions of people whom we like; and so on. There are dozens of silent threats that lead to our misjudging events.
I think that, to a large extent, you can troubleshoot it. Learn new behaviors. What you can’t do is get rid of the intrinsic causes of malfunction. It works like addictions; you cure them one day at a time. The most practical way to do so is to become aware of all common errors and live in a state of alert.
A very useful piece of advice that’ll save you infinite trouble:
> “You can always tell someone to go to hell tomorrow if it’s such a good idea” Tom Murphy
## 26. Find out what works and do it
Lee Kuan Yew turned Singapore from a malarial swamp into a thriving modern nation, which now ranks ~top ten in GDP per capita.
He wasn’t an ideologue; the only test is reality. For every issue he encountered, LKY studied what other nations did and how it had played out. If something had worked and was analytically sensible, he would do that – like changing incentives to fix traffic or offering tax benefits to multinational corporations. If something was a common cause of trouble elsewhere, he’d avoid it – like at the beginning, when he chose not to have a traditional central bank that could issue currency lightly.
There’s always a place where you can find larger density of what you’re looking for. Looking for startups? Go to SF. Looking for truths? Read the classics. Looking for mispriced investments? Fish where the fish are. Look where nobody is looking.
If you don’t look, you won’t find. When Buffett was young, he’d flip through the whole Moody’s manual searching for investment opportunities. Naturally, he found plenty. Whenever you search more, diligently, you’ll find more. Working hard tilts odds in your favor.
## 27. After a business gets to scale, capital allocation matters more than any other thing
The skillset that takes a business from $0 to $1M is different from the skillset that takes it from $1M to $10M, different from $10M to $100M, and beyond. Complexity escalates, product lines increase, markets get saturated, the business model might change, individual sales no longer move the needle. Success might start with product, grow through sales, and stabilize via operations.
However, as the business grows and it starts printing 10s-100s of millions in cash annually, what you do with cash inflow matters increasingly more. Growth is not just bound to happen in most businesses; markets saturate. At a 5% growth rate in a capped market, deploying that capital to expand the core business might not be worth it. By reinvesting it elsewhere, CEOs can create value for shareholders that’s orders of magnitude higher.
Good capital allocation drives lollapalooza results and makes businesses more resilient. When Buffett took over Berkshire Hathaway, BRK was a mediocre $15M textile operation with $50M in sales but $175k in profit. Instead of accepting that Berkshire was a textile operation, Warren built a portfolio of securities and bought companies like See’s Candies and Blue Chip Stamps. Cash flow continued to be used for M&A and investment in public equities. Buffett turned Berkshire into a$1tn, diversified conglomerate. Further, in the 2010s, one investment created$100bn+
> “What Teledyne makes or sells is less important than the style of the man who runs it.”
## 28. History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes - Mark Twain
The world has gone through a large number of permutations, state of things. And it’s in continuous change. Both elements yield the fact that past conditions are in all likelihood to repeat themselves, in a more-or-less fashion.
Not knowing what has transpired leaves you handicapped. Chess is not only a game of analytical ability, but also of memory. Grandmasters typically hold hundreds of previous games in their heads, so they know what to play given almost any situation. Life, albeit less deterministic, works the same way.
Being familiar with past market crashes prepares you for future ones. Even though each is unique, they’ll share common elements. Analyzing the fall of Rome or any past great civilization might lead to insight about the forthcoming fall of current powerhouses. Studying what worked and failed in other nations will give you a good sense of what will work in your own land.
Nevertheless, we need a mental routine that forces us to remember. Most tragedies resemble one another. And all happy families are alike.
But this lesson is easy to forget.
In one of the last sections from Lessons of History, a rising young politician is arguing with an old general; he’s laying out the case for how history has played itself out. At the end of their discourse, the young man pushes for the two current great nations to make peace with each other; he explains why it’s the best for the whole world. The old general smiles and says, “Son, you’ve forgotten all the lessons of history, and all that nature of man which you describe”
> If you want to go deeper, read this:
> https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2033555672495796452
## 29. Uniformitarianism vs catastrophism
There are two sides to this idea:
1. How did a system get somewhere.
2. What happened after the system got somewhere.
Biology is the field that really helped me better grasp this concept.
The Bible acted as the source of truth up to the 19th century. And it posits that God created species independently.
Then Darwin came along, who spoke about little variations per generation of species, and ecosystems (Nature) selecting the fittest therefor. Given enough time, organic beings completely differ from one another, reaching the state of different genus, and species.
But it is the sense in which it happens that matters: It's a gradual, step-by-step process, in contrast to the Bible's "catastrophist"/abrupt explanation.
Fast forward to the 1960s and Stephen Jay Gould came along, who spoke about Darwin being wrong. In the fossil record, Gould found that species went through long periods of stasis, followed by a Punctuated Equilibrium (a concentrated period of time where evolution pronouncedly occurred), stasis again, punctuated equilibrium, etc.
The theme doesn't vary. Although fundamentally different from the Bible, the subject remains in the realm of catastrophism/abruptness.
Second, we have what happens after a system gets somewhere.
And for this I'm going to turn to Economics.
Adam Smith wrote in the 1770s that society largely works well for resource allocation because entrepreneurs get rewarded in the form of profit if they find an exploitable market.
However, he knew people are not dumb. When others see someone making a profit, they'll jump to that market and compete to get a share thereof.
Over time, he concluded, competitors will increase until the product's price equals the cost of providing it. No profits to be made thereafter.
Economists interpreted this as being a linear, gradual process, like Darwinism. But if you analyze companies, you'll see this is not that true.
@mjmauboussin published an article called "CAP, The Neglected Value Driver" in the 1990s.
Part of it is around this idea that the market was/is fundamentally wrong about forecasting cash flow. Corporate profits, seen from the capital investment point of view, represent the difference between the company's return on capital and its cost of capital.
And the market believes/d that excess returns are driven to zero in a linear, gradual fashion.
That's just not true. It kind of assumes the company's moat eroding slowly over time. But what I understand happens is that the moat disappears almost overnight. The company enjoys excess returns on its capital until, suddenly and abruptly, it doesn't anymore. It incidentally reminds me of Christensen's idea of disruption.
## 30. Lollapalooza effect
Extraordinary outcomes are typically the result of a confluence of factors working in the same direction at the same time. Multiple things going for something makes it much more likely to happen. Munger explained the Lollapalooza effect through how mental models and biases operated together, leading to Coca-Cola’s astounding success, as well as to explain the Moonies cult conversion. The Lollapalooza effect’s power comes from helping you think in terms of parallel tailwinds.
## 31. Paint the fence
If something is not worth doing well, it might not be worth doing at all. Why do something that doesn’t make your soul smile?
Steve Jobs’s father was once working on their house’s fence. What caught Steve’s eye was that his father went to extraordinary lengths to ensure everything was perfect. He’d paint entire boards, even the back facing the alley, which nobody would see.
Steve took that to Apple. Open up their early computers or any other product and they are just as beautiful in the inside as in the outside.
Self-esteem is the reputation we have with ourselves. Even when no one else will know, you will know. So do a good job. If you’re gonna do something, you might as well do something useful, beautiful, and well crafted.
## 32. The role of technology is to make complicated and expensive things cheaper and more accessible
Von Neumann invented the first computer in the mid 40s; only he and a few other people could use it. Two decades later, IBM built a business out of installing mainframe computers; only technicians could use them and they cost north of $1M. Apple brought computing to larger masses of people through personal computers in the 80s; they cost $500-$3,000 and almost anyone could now use them without needed much technical ability. Phones and iPads led the subsequent charge; they cost hundreds of dollars and even toddlers can use them given how UI friendly they are.
That’s the role of technology. It makes a highly sought-after resource (computing + memory) more abundant. Its price and the barrier to use it fall
## 33. Attractor states
Free-market systems are those where there is no intervention in private parties' transactions. People are free to buy or sell any given item. But, more importantly, they can choose the price at which they are willing to trade. This causes there to be two large groups of people:
a) Those who need the product and are willing to pay a certain price for it, ranging from A to Z.
b) Those who'd rather have money instead of the product, and are willing to exchange it at a price ranging from A to Z.
When you put these two groups in contact, a market for the product emerges. Its price will be bid higher or lower, driven by the transactions between individual buyers and sellers. Some people will want to buy the product to benefit from its usage, but they'll be willing to pay up to a certain price. Others will ignore it altogether.
Some sellers will regard the item as valuable and ask lots of money for it. Others might want to get rid of the item, so they try to sell it as cheaply as they can. Others will be producers, who'll sell it at a profit margin.
When you have a push-and-pull like this, the price will settle at an equilibrium. It is the price that represents people's preferences, on a weighted average basis. Such a price will act as an attractor state.
This mental model of systems converging to an equilibrium is something I've seen everywhere. Think about your field, discipline, job, and interests. It is highly likely that things are naturally tending towards somewhere. Spotting that place can help you make much better informed decisions and give you a great advantage over others.
## 34. Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein
Isaac Newton came up with a framework as fundamental as possible. He created a system for how the world works, based on 4 elements.
- Inertia: That all bodies will tend to remain in their state of rest or moving uniformly in a rectilinear direction unless a force is impressed upon them.
- Inverse reaction: That when a force is impressed upon something, the thing returns the same force to the object.
- When a force is impressed upon an object, it’ll affect its trajectory, modifying it depending on the trajectory of the force and the force itself.
- Force = mass * acceleration
- Universal gravitation, or the inverse square law: that all bodies attract one another with a force equal to constant * M1*M2 / squared distance between them.
These axioms and gravity explain the most complex set of phenomena:
- Planetary orbits.
- Tide motion.
- The precession of the equinoxes.
We can only go as simple as our understanding permits. There are patterns even in things that look bizarre. Always strive for increasingly simpler frameworks. If you can't explain it to a 5-year-old, you don't understand it that well. And you don't get rewarded for complexity; stepping over a one-foot bar might have the same result as stepping over a seven-foot bar.
> "For the simplicity on this side of complexity, I wouldn't give you a fig. But for the simplicity on the other side of complexity, for that I would give you anything I have." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
## 35. Ideas are much older than you think
Three years ago, I was reading Jeff Bezos’s shareholder letters and felt amazed by two ideas: customer obsession and passing efficiency gains to the consumer. Then I looked at CostCo and figured these guys had been pushing these ideas since earlier. Then I read Home Depot founders' autobiography; same ideas, highly similar framings even. Then I read Sam Walton’s autobiography; shared same values. And finally, Sam Walton points to the source of these ideas: Sol Price at FedMart and later at Price Club.
This has happened to me over and over again. I believe an idea to have originated at a certain point in time but, the more I read, the further back that idea can be traced. It feels like archaeology, which investigation always leads to stuff being older and older.
Don’t think you’re stealing an idea. In all likelihood, the person you thought invented it actually took it from someone else. Mankind has been around for a long time, and tens of thousands of years with a similar brain and environment. It’s natural for most ideas to have earlier roots.
## 36. Do what you love
Life is long enough to do anything, but not long enough to do everything. Choosing what to do means choosing what not to do. When facing relatively significant decisions, I find myself using the regret minimization framework: "When I am 80 years old, will I regret not doing this?" - Jeff Bezos
And do what you love; for the same reason. No one can beat you at being you. Work on things that feel like a fun hobby to you but heavy lifting to others.
You can very much fail doing something other people want, so you might as well take a shot at what you want. If you fail, it won’t be as terrible. But imagine failing at something you didn’t even want to do in the first place. That is a true waste.
## 37. True law is reason - Cicero
The affairs of man have been ruled by multiple forms of governments and structures. Good leaders and dictators have come and gone. Policies of the most varied nature implemented. Promises were responsible for despair and destruction. Much has been tried as to how to rule society.
Reason is what ties truth, God, and man. In any situation, what’s reasonable is what should be done. Malpractice should be penalized to the extent that reason permits.
People have an inner sense for morality and analysis. Oftentimes, human actions are strictly black or white. Whenever they fall into grey territory, good judgment is that which accords most with reason. It's easy for majorities to prevail, but "for something to be rightful, it must be reasonable." - Jefferson
When asked about whether the whole population or only a select group of people should vote, Jefferson pointed out the question was missing the point. The question, rather, is how many people should vote so that the most capable and honest person gets elected to the Office.
That democracy has evolved into a combat of extremes, whereby two parties focus on opposing each other rather than thinking about what’s truly useful, is a shame. They hate each other; and when anger arrives, reason leaves. We lose by trying to win.
## 38. You can’t teach an old dog to live in chains and you can’t teach old tricks to a new dog
You can’t change someone’s nature. If they don’t want to work hard, you won’t convince them to work hard. If someone is accustomed to freedom, you can’t chain them and teach them how to live with that. They’ll revolt. The more we’ve done of something, the more ingrained it is within us. Changing that deeply settled wiring is a bet that’s likely unprofitable.
Second quote comes from Warren. In business management, there’s no true retirement threshold. You can invest alongside a 50-year-old manager; if they love what they do, they still have a few decades ahead. It’s much easier to get these people right than it is to bet on an unproven new manager. People’s experience will work in your favor; you’ll avoid several costly mistakes every manager has to learn.
## 39. Knowers vs non-knowers
Whenever I hear "Adam Smith," the person immediately parrots "the invisible hand." As if the two were inextricably linked and the concept contained Smith's whole philosophy.
It turns out the invisible hand is only one paragraph and it's not even about what people talk about. Adam Smith speaks of it as being the thing that causes people to do what's right for society when they do what's right for themselves, "as though moved by an invisible hand."
This has happened repeatedly to me. People will repeat what others say. Very few are willing to pay the dues and rightfully acquire the knowledge.
The world is full of non-knowers. They learned how to prattle the talk, but they don't really understand what they're saying. Ask them a few questions and there'll be no sensible answers. They have not critically thought about the subject nor have they invested the years required to know it.
You must learn to discriminate between knowers and non-knowers. Only by discerning between the two will you rightfully delegate responsibilities or assign trust.
And I found two ways to learn this: (1) Read the source; (2) Become a doer, a practitioner - the real intellectual struggle happens when trying to take something from the idea to execution.
# TL;DR - List of Ideas:
1. If you find a genius, give them all power
2. You are neither right or wrong because a poll agrees with you
3. The key to success is mediocre competition
4. There are answers worth billions of dollars in a $30 history book - Munger
5. Worldly wisdom
6. Incentives
7. It’s always a skill issue
8. Intelligent is different from smart, and both can be stupid
9. The men who can manage men manage the men who can manage only things, and the men who can manage money manage all.
10. Cargo Cult Science
11. Education is software for the brain
12. Economies of scale.
13. Quality
14. Extraordinary results are just 1,000 boring days strung together
15. Stack the bricks
16. There are multiple ways of thinking
17. Real understanding comes through continued mental exposure
18. Deep simplicity
19. Tweak a problem only slightly and you’ll turn it from impossible to easy
20. Systems naturally trend towards decentralization and specialization
21. Complex adaptive systems
22. Why thinking what no one else is thinking pays off enormously
23. The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones
24. You drift toward the average of your surroundings
25. Causes of human misjudgment
26. Find out what works and do it
27. After a business gets to scale, capital allocation matters more than any other thing
28. ‘History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes’
29. Uniformitarianism vs catastrophism
30. Lollapalooza effect
31. Paint the fence
32. The role of technology is to make complicated and expensive things cheaper and more accessible.
33. Attractor states
34. Make things as simple as possible, but no more simple.
35. Ideas are much older than you think
36. Do what you love
37. True law is reason - Cicero
38. You can’t teach an old dog to live in chain and you can’t teach old tricks to a new dog
39. Knowers vs non-knowers
## 相关链接
- [Giuliano](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana)
- [@Giuliano_Mana](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana)
- [77K](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2058186743543656783/analytics)
- [@mjmauboussin](https://x.com/@mjmauboussin)
- [@pmarca](https://x.com/@pmarca)
- [@JeffBezos](https://x.com/@JeffBezos)
- [$1tn](https://x.com/search?q=%241tn&src=cashtag_click)
- [$100bn+](https://x.com/search?q=%24100bn%2B&src=cashtag_click)
- [https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2033555672495796452](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2033555672495796452)
- [@mjmauboussin](https://x.com/@mjmauboussin)
- [$1M](https://x.com/search?q=%241mm&src=cashtag_click)
- [Upgrade to Premium](https://x.com/i/premium_sign_up)
- [10:02 PM · May 23, 2026](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2058186743543656783)
- [77.9K Views](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2058186743543656783/analytics)
- [View quotes](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2058186743543656783/quotes)
---
*导出时间: 2026/5/24 09:11:49*
---
## 中文翻译
# 39 个将重塑你大脑的非主流观念
**作者**： Giuliano
**日期**： 2026-05-23T14:02:13.000Z
**来源**： [https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2058186743543656783](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2058186743543656783)
---
这每一个观念都应该改变你看事物的方式——升级你的心智软件。内容涵盖气候变化、衰老，以及商业、生物学和物理学之间的共同模式。
我从书籍、思考、轶事和观察中收集这些观念。
这会是一篇长文。文末会附上完整清单。你可以直接跳到 tl;dr 部分分享或收藏，稍后再完整阅读。
## 1. 如果你发现一个天才，把所有权力都交给他们
人生中总有一些时刻，你会遇到非凡的人——他们的能力远超于你。而在少数几次这样的时刻，你还会发现他们有着深刻的道德驱动力。这种情况并不常见。一生中可能只会出现1-5次。但你需要保持警觉。当你遇到这样的人时，与他们合作。
研究李光耀的一生让我震惊。新加坡曾是一片疟疾肆虐的沼泽地。没有共同的文化，没有统一的人民，起初也没有国家愿意帮助他们。公民们甚至不说同一种语言。然后这个人出现了，他独自一人解决了所有社会问题，把新加坡变成了世界上人均GDP最高的国家之一。李光耀不可能独自完成这一切；他有一支出色的部长和顾问团队。这也是这些非凡人物的另一个特质：他们知道如何组建卓越的团队。
沃伦·巴菲特在60年代末成为伯克希尔的CEO。他把一家平庸的1500万美元纺织企业变成了1万亿美元的综合性集团，而他本人几乎不领薪水，并与查理·芒格合作。
想象一下你认识年轻的巴菲特。仅仅把你的钱交给他这一个决定，就能让你多出数十亿美元的财富。而且你不用动一根手指。
巴菲特或李光耀这种级别的人才可能一个世纪才出现一次。而且我们很可能不会遇到像他们这样的人。但这个道理在各个层面都适用。想想那家营销机构，它的业绩是你雇用的另一家机构的2-3倍。想想那个只管理1-2个人、但成果惊人、其实能管理10-50个人的人。想想你那位聪明绝顶、能做且想做很多事却没有资源的朋友。当你不断叠加顺风因素时，生活会变得更加轻松。
## 2. 你是对是错，不取决于民意调查是否赞同你
你是对的，是因为你的事实和推理是正确的；是因为结果与你的预测相近。其他人的意见与真理无关。真理独立存在。它是独立的。
在达尔文之前，所有博物学家都相信物种是独立创造的。达尔文之后，几乎没有人这样认为了。所有人都认为世界是在5000年前被创造的；在莱尔发表他的著作之后，没有人再这么想了。在哥白尼之前，人们认为地球是太阳系的中心。在伽利略之前，人们认为重的石头比轻的石头下落得快。
社会在任何时间点所持的“真理”都是脆弱的。只需要一个观察就能将其彻底粉碎，并让新的范式涌现。
当亨利·辛格尔顿接手泰力达时，股息是人们唯一能想到的公司向股东返还资本的方式。他认识到，如果操作得当，股票回购可以创造更多价值，于是在70年代估值倍数收缩时回购了股票。此后，华尔街所有人都认识到了其税务优势，开始定期进行股票回购。90年代，辛格尔顿接受了他最后一次采访，被问及对这一发展的看法：
> “如果所有人都在这么做，那这里面肯定有问题。”
## 3. 成功的关键是平庸的竞争对手
你总是在和某个人竞争。争夺注意力、职位、候选人、客户、受众。每一项活动、每一餐、每一个计划都在与其他一切竞争，时间才是唯一真正的资产。
赢可以是双赢，但这并不意味着某处没有输家。想象你向一个潜在客户推销你的产品或服务。会面之后，客户又见了另一个供应商。决定你能否胜出的，不仅是你的表现、服务的质量和软技能，还有你与竞争对手相比如何。如果对方的产品不好用或者他们根本没露面，那该多容易赢？
这不是要占别人的便宜。而是要聪明地选择游戏。反正你终归要竞争，不如选择一个你比他人有优势的领域。你必须能够说出你的优势来自哪里。在牌桌上，“如果开局30分钟后你还不知道谁是冤大头，那你自己就是那个冤大头”。
利基市场足以养活一个家庭并支撑增长。只要有需求，而你控制着供应链中的一环，你就会过得很好。你是不是阿拉斯加最好的渔夫并不重要。只要你是某个有稳定需求的领域里最出色的，你就会过得很好。巴菲特常说，抵御通胀最好的护盾就是成为镇上最好的律师或医生；你的收入会受到保护，因为你向市场提供的是持续有需求的高质量产品。
## 4. 一本30美元的历史书里藏着价值数十亿美元的答案——芒格
在生命的尾声，查理·芒格晚年经常讲起一则轶事：
他曾连续30-40年每年都读一本投资杂志，却从未在里面找到过一个可操作的想法……直到2010年代。查理随后向该杂志描绘的一家企业投入了几百万美元，并获利8000万美元。他把那8000万美元交给了李录，李录将其变成了约4亿美元。我相信这一切都发生在不到15年的时间里。
阅读的力量就是如此强大，尤其是在投资领域。有时只需要一个想法就能改变你的人生。想象一下，如果你在10到20岁时就拥有现在所知的一切。你会锻炼吗？你会投资吗？你会阅读吗？你会花更多时间陪伴亲人吗？
你并不比过去的自己更聪明。你只是更有学识，希望也更智慧。知识就是力量；它会以各种形式带来收益。最妙的是，知识在很大程度上是可以“速通”的。读1000本精心挑选的书，我怀疑决策就会变得简单。至于你是用十年还是六十年读完这1000本书，并不重要。我强烈怀疑，无论如何你都会获得大部分洞见。区别只在于，此后你拥有那个可以持续复利、为你效劳五十年的心智数据库。
你不必把所有可能犯的错误都犯一遍。向在你之前的人学习；避开他们犯过的错误，听取他们的建议。生活在许多方面都是相通的。你也不必自己推导出牛顿定律；你做不到，或者会耗尽一生去尝试。直接去读就行了。这是一个正当的捷径。
## 5. 永远是能力问题
如果从长远来看你没有得到想要的东西，那很可能责任在你自己。在如今这个机会遍地都是的时代尤其如此；互联网以及如今的AI已经让竞争环境变得平等。
这种思维转换极具冲击力和实用性。 从：这是别人的错。 到：这是我的错。如果事情没有如我所愿地发展，我本可以做得更好。
这是关于责任与担当的思维转换。如果你接受了它，你就能从中学到东西。此后你的行为也会更有成效。你总可以把某件事做得更好。你总可以变得更好。面试失败了？也许我的英语或知识还不够。考试没通过？我学习不够努力。不知道怎么促成客户成交？我还不是一个足够优秀的销售员。
总有人能把我们该做的事情做得比我们更好。而这并不是因为他们天生如此。他们是习得了这项技能。
> “得到你想要的东西最简单的方法，就是让自己配得上你想要的东西”
没有人天生就擅长任何事。学习速度在很大程度上决定了你多快达到熟练水平并掌握新技能。但即便是最杰出的人物，没有高强度的练习和专注，也不可能走得很远。
读达·芬奇的传记时，他那种近乎痴迷的个性以及对每个细节都力求精准的专注令我震惊。天赋只能带你走到一定程度。努力工作没有替代品。
别人拥有的东西，你也可以拥有（当然仅限于可改变的事物，我估计这占了人类渴望的97%以上）。有些成就和结果需要付出更多的努力和时间，但没有任何规则说你不能登上某座高峰。
‘志在苍穹。即便无法抵达，你也能触到云端。’进步本身就是深深的满足，无论你是否达成了最初的目标。反正时间都会流逝，不如做点有意义的事。
## 6. 草包族科学
费曼在70年代发表了这篇演讲。他警告听众即将出现的新“科学”。这些人会说他们的结论有科学依据，说他们遵循了科学方法，还说他们的观点与那些在数学和物理学领域通过汗水与泪水锤炼出来的观点同样有效。
但他们是“不知者”。他们缺乏智识上的诚实与严谨，忽视了产出任何一点真正的知识是多么困难。在解释某个现象时，确立因果关系的方式是通过实验/观察来隔离变量并进行检验。
这些人中有些没有意识到，他们的学科属于复杂适应系统的范畴。影响任何给定结果的变量很多，而且彼此相互关联。隔离几乎是不可能的。而且真正的因果关系无法确定，因为环境在持续变化；规则变了，实验就不再是同一个实验了。
此外，如果他们明知如此却仍坚持其“新发现的真理”，那很可能是因为他们没有披露全貌。失败的实验被排除在论文之外，有噪声的数据不予报告。只有能验证结论的部分才被呈现出来。
警惕那些声称自己知晓那些真正难以知晓之事的人。最好的盾牌是对某个主题进行深入研究。亲自体验一下，坚持追寻真相、不误导他人有多难。否则你就是在自欺，而其他人会跟着你一起演戏。
> “第一原则是，你决不能欺骗自己——而你自己恰恰是最容易被欺骗的人。”
## 7. 能管理人的管理者管理那些只能管理事物的人，而能管理金钱的人管理一切——杜兰特
你所投入的劳动力的产出，取决于你拥有多少杠杆，以及你对每个单位时间运用得如何。如果只有你按小时计酬，收入随你的投入线性增长。如果你拥有大师的眼光或技能，你或许可以按项目计酬，或分享产生的收益；产出就变成了非线性的。如果你管理他人并决定他们如何在工作时间中投入精力，上述一切会成倍放大。如果你能管理资金并理解时间回报，那么一切都将任你支配。
## 8. 激励
我们会重复那些奖励我们的行为，回避那些惩罚我们的行为。没有人一觉醒来会想用头撞墙。疼痛是恐怖的，无论以何种形式。如果你和朋友的谈话不愉快，你就不会再想经历一次。因此你可能会更少见到那位朋友，即使那份不快并非源于私人恩怨。我们生来如此。
人类的基因组经历了数十亿年的演化。在一个灾难频发的地球上，我们的 DNA 中内置了自我保存的机制。你身体回路中的一切都是为了自我保存和繁衍而优化的。疼痛是什么？不正是身体在告诉你，你在某种程度上被阻碍，无法去做你为之活着的事情吗？
如果你想让某件事发生，把所有人的利益都对齐到这件事上，它就会发生。我们只会做符合自身利益的事；自利偏差的力量太强大了。慷慨固然存在，但“没有任何行为是纯粹利他的”这一说法也有其道理。
> “理性、正义和公平，在这世上从来都没有足够的分量去主宰人们的决策”——约翰·亚当斯。
唯有利益才能做到这一点。当激励足够多时，任何事情都可能发生。上世纪三四十年代的俄国，抓捕是有配额的。人们是否做了坏事并不重要。配额必须完成，任何借口都足够好。
曾有一家组织有两种产品。其中一种质量更高，价格也没高出多少，却无人购买。经过一番调查后，管理层发现销售员卖出低质量产品能获得更高的佣金。经理们把佣金倒转过来后，高质量产品的销量便超越了另一款。
巴甫洛夫用狗做了数千个实验来研究反射。大多数测试的目标都是唾液分泌，在自然环境中，当食物或毒物进入狗的嘴里时就会发生这一反应。巴甫洛夫发现了数十种可以通过条件反射训练来触发这一反射的刺激物。你可以用铃声来引发唾液分泌。生物体的线路可以被重新配置以满足你的需要。吃谁的面包，就唱谁的歌。
在金融领域，投资银行家把想要收购其他公司的企业与潜在标的联系起来。他们是交易撮合者，并从交易中抽取佣金作为服务报酬。因为达成交易完全符合他们的利益，他们的潜意识会推动交易达成，即使这并不符合公司的最佳利益。不要问你的理发师你是否需要理发。
我想用父亲曾给我讲的一个故事来结束这一部分。他在一家咨询公司工作，当时有一个小组会议。主持会议的经理迟到了5分钟。他走进来时，大家都已就座，他开始摆弄手头的文件。然后他拍了拍桌子说：“先生们，我们是要做正确的事，还是做符合我们利益的事？”
## 9. 聪慧不同于聪明，而两者都可能愚蠢
我认为聪明（smart）是思维敏捷；聪明的人机智风趣；他们能快速计算和推演，善于微观层面的模式识别。聪慧（intelligent）则更宽泛，但具体力量较弱。聪慧的人能看到事物的深度；他们知道哪些问题值得思考，并且能把一个问题放在脑中数日直到找到答案；他们能纵观全局，似乎能在他人无法企及的层面理解自然。这是更高尺度的模式识别。
聪慧让你构建自己的心智图式，而机敏让你在心智库中进行检索，以分析眼前的问题，更快地得出答案。两者都是极其有用的特质，但都不能让你免于愚蠢。
> “要有智慧地行事，光有智力还不够。”——大师
我怀疑智力中存在一个类似“智识自我意识”的光谱。在某种程度上，你越聪明，就越容易做出非理性行为——你可以为任何事情辩护，却不够聪明，无法识别事物本质所带来的盲点。你甚至可以是诺贝尔奖得主，却做出糟糕的决定，长期资本管理公司就是最典型的例子。
我们爱上了自己的创造物，必然会高估自己的能力。似乎你越聪明，就越难接受有些事情是你无法控制的。当然，这只到某个程度为止。
物理学领域的诺贝尔奖得主们似乎早就知道我们的判断有多么偏颇。他们不会把自己的观点视为真理；他们学会将其视为“目前为止的真理”。研究历史、了解自己领域如何发展到今天的状态，会迫使人们完成这种心理转变。
就此而言，“在概率游戏中处于顶尖百分位的人，彼此之间的共同点比与自己领域内的人更多”——@mjmauboussin。
我不清楚这是否是一种遗传因素。但某些大脑中确实编码了某种东西，使它们更有韧性。
## 10. 世俗智慧
现代教育体系是为满足现代现实而创立的。我们生活的世界充满了长尾分支。要在任何知识领域站上前沿，都需要多年刻苦的努力。而要达到能够突破边界的程度，则需要更长的时间。
这10到20年的教育让我们处于一种不愿再重返学术界的状态。我们把它视为一段可怕的记忆——被布置阅读关于自己毫不关心之事的糟糕读物。结果，我们只精通一个领域，却忽视了其他一切。
这是一场灾难。“你就像踢屁股比赛中只有一条腿的人”。
现实生活中的问题无法被隔离进整洁的盒子里。要在任何真实程度上回答任何问题，都需要了解历史、心理学、经济学、物理学。问题是多方面的，所有学科都是相互关联的。最优秀的决策者对整体有着透彻的理解。他们是通才，同时又对自己的领域了如指掌。
除此之外，你怎么能在无知中度过一生呢？学习带来收益、乐趣和幸福。“你不能指望一切都靠自己凭空想出来——没有人那么聪明”。
## 11. 教育是大脑的软件
没有 Windows 或 iOS，你的电脑将是一件来自外星的产品，根本无法使用。只需加上一个操作系统，它就变成了一台极具可塑性、无比多能的机器。再在其上叠加软件层，安装应用程序并学会使用互联网，就没有你解决不了的问题。你还会因效率提升而节省无限的时间。
教育对你起的作用正是如此。读一本书会为你的大脑增添想法、为你的词汇增加词语，还会让你体验各种各样的情感。你的头脑会获得分析世界的新透镜。而透镜是会复利的；每花一小时阅读，都在构建层层理解。你的决策会经过所有这些透镜的过滤，变得更加稳健、更加优化。
## 12. 规模经济
制造业企业通常拥有庞大的员工数量以及与厂房设施相关的维护开支。两者都是固定成本。随着公司扩张并售出更多产品，同时保持这一固定基数不变，营业利润率就会扩大。企业在单位基础上变得更高效。
生物体也会发生同样的事情。代谢率标志着我们维持机体运转所需摄入的能量。而事实恰好是，生物体越大，其每克组织所需的能量就越少。同样，生物体越大，其每分钟的心跳次数就越少。这些都是从规模中获得的巨大效率。
在几何学中，二维物体的面积随其边长的平方增长；而在三维物体中，体积随边长的立方增长。所以每次将边长加倍，前者面积变为 4 倍；后者体积变为 8 倍。
规模也会带来不经济之处，比如一个物理结构所能承受的重量。结构越大，它能支撑的质量比例就越小。这就是为什么蚂蚁看起来力量惊人。
Sol Price 凭借对这一点的理解，再加上他的商业头脑，摸索出如何在零售业中取胜。随着你的企业规模扩大，你会获得效率上的收益。但你的利润率就是他人的机会。因此，如果你通过降低价格把节省下来的成本让利给顾客（这是亚马逊、沃尔玛、家得宝和好市多的制胜之道），竞争对手就几乎无法将你击败。
## 13. 质量
一位老师站在教室前，大声朗读两篇短文，两篇主题相同、结构相似。读完之后，他请认为第一篇更好的学生举手。*没有一个人举手*。然后他又请认为第二篇更好的学生举手。*所有人都举起了手*。
你可以试着去量化它。你可以指出句子是如何组织的、逗号是如何使用的、动词占总词数的比例、停顿等等。但归根结底，你说不清它为什么更好。你只是知道它更好。
我们对质量有一种内在的感知。它不是品味或直觉，也不是分析性的。它是某种你观察得到却看不见的东西，某种你听得到却不发出声响的东西。它是一个开关，在我们所有感官交汇之处被触发。
## 14. 非凡的成果不过是一千个平淡日子的串联
水滴可以穿石。一夜成名需要十年的积累。想想任何你想提高的技能；再想想，如果你在过去 3 年里每天练习，你会进步多少。这让我想起一位德高望重的老音乐家的故事：音乐会结束后，一位乐迷对他说：“天哪，您演奏得如此美妙。我愿意付出一生去像您那样演奏。”音乐家忧郁地回答：“我正是这么做的。”
与生俱来的天赋是不够的。牛顿曾把自己关在房间里数月，潜心研究任何他感兴趣的课题，整日思考。达·芬奇花了约 16 年创作《蒙娜丽莎》，并用数十年的刻苦练习和学习绘画与素描来精进技艺。弗朗西斯·克里克和詹姆斯·沃森在一个课题上工作了充满挫折的两三年，才发现了双螺旋结构。
没有人会去细看那些漫长的黑暗与虚无时期。所有最伟大的人都经历过那些，但人们记住的只有名气和成就。
> 要想在众人面前赢得喝彩，你必须在无人注视时比所有人都更努力。
## 15. 把砖块垒起来
有一次，史蒂夫·乔布斯正在与一位顾问讨论媒体战略。两人意见相左，对方便做了一个实验。他揉起一张纸，朝史蒂夫扔去；史蒂夫接住了。然后这个人揉起五个纸团，同时扔向史蒂夫；史蒂夫一个也没接住。万事皆是如此。我们的心理资源是有限的。
谷歌和苹果获胜的原因之一，就是他们对想要呈现给客户的东西有着极致的专注。当时的网页上每个像素都塞满了图片和信息。智能手机一点也不智能。谷歌把除搜索框之外的一切都去掉了，而这正完美地契合了用户。iPhone 只有一个按键；现在连一个也没有了。凡是并非必需的东西，就删掉它。否则你就有可能让用户的注意力分散到无关紧要的事情上。
我们注视建筑物的时候，远多于注视楼层的时候。如果你有 100 块砖，把它们平铺在地板上，它们什么也算不上。没有对比，没有惊喜，没有新奇感。所有人都会从旁边走过；千篇一律吸引不了任何目光。相反，如果你把砖块垒起来，建一座塔，那么没有人会走过而不注意到它。
企业对营销的思考也是如此。它们在销售与营销上有持续的投资，但当重要事件发生时，所有资源都会集中到那次发布上。新产品、融资轮次、新的合作伙伴关系。公司可能会利用所有渠道和网络来宣传同一个事件。将增量投入的资本用于引导对同一事件的关注，会产生递增的回报（在某个限度内）。
这与 @pmarca 对风险投资的看法类似：回报并不是均匀分布的。只有少数几个投资驱动了全部结果。如果你能培养出识别那少数几个的眼光，那么集中资源不仅更有利可图，而且风险更低。
## 16. 思考的方式有多种
每当达·芬奇面对问题需要思考时，他都会拿出铅笔和纸开始画画。如果列奥纳多想了解水的运动、河流的流动或视觉的机理，他就只是画。
当我看到他画的河流时，我能感受到它们是如何充当达·芬奇的心智模型，或者像用于“预测”天气模式的算法一样发挥作用。当我读到他曾为切萨雷·波吉亚工作时，这一点变得清晰起来。列奥纳多提出了创新性的军事想法。而他确定可行性的方式就是把它们画在纸上。
通过草图，他能够看出某件事在现实中是否可行。而调整草图就像在计算机模拟器中改变输入一样。
了解你自己是如何思考的，并加以利用。你会经常听到人们说自己是“视觉型思考者”；有些人只是想听起来高大上，但这句话背后有深刻的道理。如果你了解自己的思考方式，你在生活中做的每一件事都会更加高效。你会以正确的方式为自己输送所需的知识，并根据你的天性优化你所处的环境。
## 17. 真正的理解来自于持续的心智接触
读一本书需要15-35个小时，这与听一期1-2小时的播客是不一样的。而读一本书的摘要又更不一样。你无法完成80%的工作；事情不是那样运作的。理解来自于对某件事的持续思考，不断叠加信息层次，并思考新知识如何融入整体图景。
荣格分析梦的方式是“反复翻转它们，分析它们所呈现的每一个角度”。一个论点可以只是一句话：自然选择是基于适应性筛选出更优生物体并使其能够产生后代的过程。但你并不理解其背后的一切；不理解支撑这一理论的支柱。用进废退、器官特化、微小变异、共同特征。正是这些帮助你理解自然选择。
如果理解不是指从知识中获益的能力，那又是什么呢？
## 18. 深层的简单性
复杂系统是少数节点彼此相互作用、长期不受干扰的结果。这一规律跨越各个学科都成立：
- 所有生物物质中95%以上仅由4种元素构成（碳、氢、氧、氮）。
- 仅凭3条定律和引力，你就可以解释并预测所有（大型）天体的运动。
- 所有DNA都由糖、磷酸和一种化学碱基构成，而这些又由4种核碱基的配对构建而成。
- 电和磁在麦克斯韦之前是两个独立的领域。凭借4个方程，他解释了最纷繁多样的现象。归根结底，只有少数元素充当着乐高积木的角色。
在进行任何分析时，寻找那些能带来关键变化的2-5个变量。无论问题看起来多么庞大，都不要紧。
20世纪初，米兰科维奇想弄清楚为什么地球会呈现冰期与温暖间冰期交替循环的模式。经过30年的思考和手工计算，他将这个极其复杂的现象简化为3个变量：
- 轨道偏心率——在循环中从更椭圆变为更接近圆形，周期为10万年。
- 地轴倾角——倾角的变化，周期为4.1万年。
- 岁差——地轴缓慢的、如陀螺般的摆动，周期为2.6万年。
通过追踪这三个变量如何重叠，他回答了这个看似不可能的问题。@JeffBezos 做过类似的事情，他说领导者的职责就是识别出2-3个重要的想法，并推动围绕它们执行。亚马逊就是围绕以下三点构建的：（1）更低的价格；（2）更快的配送；（3）更丰富的选择。“对我来说，难以想象10年后人们会不想要这些。”这些是不变的东西，因而让企业具有韧性，而且只要你赢了，几乎能保证资本的正回报。
## 19. 稍微调整一个问题，就能把它从不可能变成容易
这种方法的核心是找出那些看似重要、但最终与结果无关的信息片段。然后绕过或避开它们。
如果让你让一根针穿过一块冰呢？这在物理上是不可能的。但如果你加热冰，它就会融化，你就能让针穿过去了。同样，如果你加热针，它也能滑过去。学习不同的学科能帮助你在别人只看到一堵墙的地方发现捷径。
这一洞见最初来自索普。他曾被给出一道几何谜题：在只知道高的情况下，求在一个球体上钻一个孔后剩余部分的体积。由于题目没有给出球的半径，大多数学生认为这个问题不可能解决。索普通过想象一个最小的球来调整了情境——一个刚好与孔等高的球。在这个极限情况下，孔变成了一个点，环变成了一个实心球，从而把一个复杂的微积分问题变成了5秒钟的心算。
## 20. 系统天然趋向于去中心化和专业化
亚当·斯密指出了分工制针厂与人人包办所有工序的制针厂之间的差别。前者的生产率比后者高出几个数量级。专注于一项任务能提高你的熟练程度，减少在不同任务之间的切换。你会变得精通这项任务，而样样通则样样松。一群精通本职的工人，其产出远超水平平庸的同行。
自然选择在生物体中造成了类似的现象。达尔文认为，在自然等级上越高级的生物，其器官就越专业化。那些器官过于通用化的生物体，往往不适应生存。它们与满是全能非专业工人的制针厂有着同样的劣势。因此，自然界中一个显而易见的趋势就是器官的专业化。
在经济学中，人们曾一度认为中央权威可以相当公平地为商品和服务定价。现实证明上述观点是错误的。哈耶克指出了这种体系的缺陷——单一实体无法忠实地整合所有不断变化的输入信息来做出决策。因此，经济学的趋势是在更大或更小的程度上，由自由市场来决定价格。套利和激励机制似乎使这成为最佳选择。
几个世纪以来，社会一直由皇帝或世袭君主统治。罗马和希腊曾引入并试行过元老院制度，但后来又被君主制和帝制取代。贵族制是民主制的前身。最终，社会选择了民主作为治理人类事务的最优选择机制。
## 21. 复杂适应系统
我们习惯于外推，习惯于线性思考。当我们看到 1、2、3……时，我们会认为数列的下一个数字是 4。我们的大脑善于发现模式——无论真实与否——并试图求解未知数，这和我们玩着绝妙的把戏。这有很大的用处，但并非绝对有效。它在数学中有效，在物理和化学中也很大程度上有效；逻辑就是力量。
然而，在生活的大多数方面，这会导致糟糕的结果。
当试图解释现实的大部分情况时，线性思维就失效了。
经济学、心理学、社会学、天气预报、人员管理。这些领域每一个都有无穷的微妙之处。你不能说仅仅因为利率下降，资产价格就会飙升；也不能说仅仅因为一个人咳嗽了，他就得了肺炎。现实的大部分是由复杂适应系统构成的，其组成部分数量不定，反馈回路层层叠加。一个节点的行为会影响所有其他节点，而这些节点又反过来影响所有其他节点，如此无限循环。
对输入做一个微小的改变，整个系统就会发生震荡；输出是不确定的。我曾读到过一句话：世界本身就是最快的计算机器。
## 22. 为什么想别人所未想能带来巨大回报
历史表明，我们对自然的理解在持续系统地提升。因此，在任何给定的时间点，社会都拥有一套“当前公认的真理”。这些只是占位符，注定会在未来被取代。但它们是我们目前所拥有的最好的认知。
在 19 世纪，所有博物学家都相信物种是各自独立创造的。达尔文在与他人讨论自己的想法时，从未得到过赞同的回应。尽管如此，他还是在 1859 年发表了他的著作。达尔文的理论问世后，所有人都将进化论视为真理。
当这种情况发生时，社会会发生巨大的转变。每个人的心智软件都得到了升级。有了新的视角，就带来了新的做事方式；新的方法、分析和领域随之开启。它们都比以前更接近真理。正因为如此，更多的事业变得有利可图。财富得以创造和扩张。
在投资中，仅仅做一个逆向投资者是不够的。你必须既逆向又正确。为与众不同而与众不同毫无意义；一栋建筑必须更美观、更有用、更坚固。当你正确时，反对你的人越多，回报就越大。
概括地说，如果你成功地将一个想法带给社会，你就会得到回报。而且这个想法与当前公认真理的距离越远，回报就越大。从思想层面来说，或许没有任何一个思想比达尔文的带来过更多的收益。拓展人们的理解具有真正的价值。
强迫自己进行这种思考的两个最简单的方法来自 Paul Graham 的一篇文章：(i) 不要了解常规成见——如果你不知道别人在想什么，你自然而然就会独立思考；(ii) 与思想独立的人为伍——我们的水平是周围人的平均值。
人们往往认为世上已没有秘密可言，但我最近很欣赏的一个现实中的例子是 Graham Hancock。他提出，我们的历史记录是有缺陷的；Hancock 认为曾有一个先进的文明在冰河时期失落了，而我们尚未把碎片拼凑起来。为了论证这一点，他汲取了考古学、天文学、社会学和地质学的研究成果。他试图把这些点连接起来的方式令人着迷。而且他的观点正在迫使人们对一切进行全面的重新思考。
## 23. 困难不在于接受新思想，而在于摆脱旧思想——凯恩斯
当我们提出或学习一个新想法、新理论或新流程时，它会为我们看待一切事物的方式染上色彩。我们会爱上自己的创造物，并强迫新的事实去适应它们。对于可能遇到的任何现象，我们都试图用已经掌握的想法去解释。
这就是“拿着锤子的人”的倾向；对拿着锤子的人来说，每个问题看起来都像钉子。他会扭曲手头的问题，直到能用他手中唯一的锤子把它砸碎。这是一种存在严重缺陷的行事方式。
学习一个想法的代价太高，以至于人们不愿让它白白浪费；他们想尽可能地充分利用它。因此，科学的发展是一次一场葬礼地推进的。
## 24. 你会向周围环境的平均水平靠拢
我们通过模仿来学习。观察父母的一举一动，教会了我们如何行事。身处同龄人之中时，我们会模仿自己喜欢或敬佩的人的行为。你无法完全抵御这种影响；它在很大程度上是无意识的。
我遇到过很多次这样的情况：我发现自己在用某种特定的方式表达观点，然后纳闷：“我为什么这么说？”接着深入思考后意识到：“哦，那是芒格的。那是费曼的。那是巴菲特的。”
我 7 到 17 岁的时候，和一群踢足球的朋友待在一起的时间很长，所以我也踢了（虽然我是真心喜欢）。年纪大一些之后，我可能会遇到更常去健身房的人，于是我在某种程度上也照做了。
他人会塑造你的行为。这是一种强大的力量。如果你常与经常锻炼的人相处，你会更倾向于去健身房。如果你身边都是爱读书的人，你会开始读越来越多的书。反过来也成立：如果你周围都是吸烟的人，你也会吸烟；如果他们不努力工作，你也不会努力工作。
无论你认为自己多么有独立思想都没用。我们总是趋向于身边 5 个人的平均水平。
## 25. 人类误判的成因
我们的头脑经常以令人尴尬的方式失灵。你无法避免。这些缺陷根深蒂固，以至于你几乎无法察觉它们何时发生；它们感觉很自然。更糟的是，它们感觉很正确。而你却因为自身的这种设定而遭受巨大的损害和痛苦。
愤怒来临时，理性便离场。情绪会蒙蔽我们的判断。还有很多现象也是如此：如果你饿了，你的决策会更差、脾气会更暴躁；我们察觉不到渐进发生的变化；当现实令人痛苦时，我们会扭曲它直到变得可以忍受；我们更容易赞同自己喜欢的人的观点；等等。有几十种无声的威胁会导致我们对事件的误判。
我认为，在很大程度上，你可以排查和解决这些问题。学习新的行为模式。你做不到的是彻底消除导致失灵的内在根源。它就像成瘾一样，只能一天一天地戒除。最实用的方法是了解所有常见的错误，并时刻保持警觉。
一条能帮你省去无数麻烦的宝贵建议：
> “如果明天再说‘见鬼去吧’仍然是个好主意，那你随时都可以那么说。” —— 汤姆·墨菲
## 26. 找出有效的做法，然后照做
李光耀把新加坡从一个疟疾肆虐的沼泽变成了一个繁荣的现代国家，如今人均 GDP 排名约在全球前十。
他不是意识形态至上的人；唯一的检验标准是现实。对于遇到的每一个问题，李光耀都会研究其他国家的做法及其成效。如果某种做法行之有效且在分析上合理，他就会采用——比如通过改变激励机制来治理交通，或者向跨国公司提供税收优惠。如果某种做法在其他地方屡屡引发麻烦，他就会避开——比如建国之初，他选择不设立可以随意发行货币的传统中央银行。
总有一个地方，你能找到更高密度的你所寻找的东西。找创业公司？去旧金山。找真理？读经典著作。找定价错误的投资？到鱼多的地方下竿。去别人没有看的地方寻找。
如果你不去寻找，就不会有发现。巴菲特年轻时，会翻遍整本穆迪手册，寻找投资机会。自然，他发现了大量的机会。只要你搜索得更多、更勤勉，你就会发现更多。努力工作能让概率向你倾斜。
## 27. 企业达到规模后，资本配置比任何其他事情都重要
让企业从 0 美元做到 100 万美元所需的技能，与从 100 万做到 1000 万美元所需的技能不同，与从 1000 万做到 1 亿美元及更高规模所需的技能也不同。复杂性不断升级，产品线增加，市场趋于饱和，商业模式可能改变，单笔销售不再能左右大局。成功可能始于产品，通过销售成长，再借助运营得以稳固。
然而，随着企业发展壮大，每年开始产生数千万乃至上亿美元现金时，你如何处置这些现金流入就变得越来越重要。对大多数企业来说，增长并非理所当然；市场会饱和。在一个规模封顶的市场中以 5% 的速度增长，把资本投入到核心业务的扩张可能并不值得。通过将其再投资于其他领域，CEO 们可以为股东创造出高出几个数量级的价值。
良好的资本配置能带来“罗拉帕鲁萨”（多因素叠加的超级）效应，并使企业更具韧性。当巴菲特接管伯克希尔·哈撒韦时，BRK 只是一家平庸的纺织企业，规模 1500 万美元，销售额 5000 万美元，但利润只有 17.5 万美元。沃伦没有接受伯克希尔只是一家纺织企业这一现实，而是构建了一个证券投资组合，并收购了喜诗糖果和蓝筹印花等公司。现金流持续被用于并购和公开市场股票投资。巴菲特把伯克希尔打造成了一家 1 万亿美元规模的多元化集团企业。此外，在 2010 年代，仅一笔投资就创造了超过 1000 亿美元的价值。
> “特利丹（Teledyne）制造或销售什么，远不如经营者这个人的风格重要。”
## 28. 历史不会重演，但往往会押韵 —— 马克·吐温
世界经历了大量的演变和各种状态。而且它处于持续变化之中。这两个事实共同表明，过去的状态很有可能会以或多或少的方式再次上演。
不了解已经发生过的事情，会让你处于劣势。国际象棋不仅比拼分析能力，也比拼记忆力。国际特级大师通常能把数百盘过往对局记在脑中，因此在几乎任何局面下都知道该怎么走。人生虽然不那么确定，但运作方式是一样的。
熟悉过去的市场崩盘能让你为未来的崩盘做好准备。尽管每一次崩盘都是独特的，但它们会有共同的要素。分析罗马的衰落或任何过去伟大文明的陨落，可能会为当前强国的未来命运带来启示。研究其他国家哪些做法成功、哪些失败，会让你很好地了解什么在自己的国度行得通。
然而，我们需要一种心理惯例来强迫自己记住。大多数悲剧彼此相似。所有幸福的家庭也都相似。但这个教训很容易被遗忘。
在《历史教训》的最后几节之一中，一位冉冉升起的年轻政治家正在与一位老将军争论；他阐述了历史如何演变的论点。在两人讨论结束时，年轻人力主当前两个大国彼此和解；他解释了为什么这对全世界都是最好的选择。老将军微笑着说：“孩子，你已经忘记了历史的所有教训，也忘记了你所描述的人性的全部本质。”
> 如果你想深入了解，请阅读：
> https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2033555672495796452
## 29. 均变论 vs 灾变论
这个概念有两面：
1. 一个系统是如何到达某个地方的。
2. 系统到达某个地方之后发生了什么。
生物学是真正帮助我更好地理解这个概念的领域。直到19世纪，《圣经》一直作为真理的来源。它提出上帝独立地创造了各个物种。
然后达尔文出现了，他谈到了物种每一代的微小变异，以及生态系统（大自然）从中选择最适应者。只要有足够的时间，有机体之间会变得完全不同，达到不同属、不同物种的状态。
但重要的是它发生的方式：这是一个渐进的、一步步的过程，与《圣经》的“灾变论”/突然的解释形成对比。
快进到20世纪60年代，斯蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德出现了，他说达尔文错了。古尔德在化石记录中发现，物种经历了长期的停滞，随后是“间断平衡”（一段集中发生显著进化的时期），然后又是停滞，再是间断平衡，如此循环。
主题并没有变化。尽管与《圣经》截然不同，这个主题仍然属于灾变论/突然性的范畴。
其次，我们来看看一个系统到达某个地方之后会发生什么。对此我要转向经济学。
亚当·斯密在18世纪70年代写道，社会在很大程度上能很好地进行资源配置，因为企业家如果发现一个可开拓的市场，就会以利润的形式获得回报。
然而，他知道人们并不愚蠢。当别人看到有人赚取利润时，他们就会涌向那个市场并展开竞争以分一杯羹。他得出结论，随着时间的推移，竞争者会不断增加，直到产品价格等于提供该产品的成本。此后便无利可图。
经济学家将此解读为一个线性的、渐进的过程，就像达尔文主义一样。但如果你分析公司，你会发现事实并非如此。@mjmauboussin 在20世纪90年代发表了一篇题为“CAP，被忽视的价值驱动因素”的文章。
其中一部分围绕着这样一个观点：市场对现金流的预测从根本上是错误的/曾经是错误的。从资本投资的角度来看，企业利润代表公司的资本回报率与其资本成本之间的差额。
而市场相信/曾相信，超额收益会以线性、渐进的方式被压至零。
事实并非如此。这有点假设公司的护城河会随着时间慢慢侵蚀。但据我理解，实际发生的情况是护城河几乎在一夜之间消失。公司享受着其资本的超额回报，直到突然之间，它不再享受。这恰好让我想起了克里斯坦森关于颠覆的观点。
## 30. 拉普拉普卢扎效应（Lollapalooza effect）
非凡的结果通常是多个因素在同一时间朝同一方向共同作用的结果。多件事情共同促成某事，会使其发生的可能性大大增加。芒格通过心智模型和偏差如何共同运作，解释了拉普拉普卢扎效应，既用以说明可口可乐的惊人成功，也用以解释统一教（Moonies）的皈依现象。拉普拉普卢扎效应的力量在于帮助你从多重顺风的角度进行思考。
## 31. 刷栅栏
如果一件事不值得做好，那它可能根本不值得去做。为什么要做一件不能让你内心微笑的事情？
史蒂夫·乔布斯的父亲有一次在修整他们房子的栅栏。让史蒂夫印象深刻的是，他父亲竭尽全力确保一切完美无缺。他连整块木板都会刷漆，甚至是背对小巷、没人会看到的那一面。
史蒂夫把这一点带到了苹果公司。打开他们早期的电脑或任何其他产品，你会发现其内部和外部一样精美。
自尊是我们对自己拥有的声誉。即使没有别人会知道，你自己会知道。所以要把事情做好。如果你要做一件事，不如做一件有用的、美丽的、工艺精良的事情。
## 32. 技术的作用是让复杂而昂贵的东西变得更便宜、更容易获得
冯·诺依曼在40年代中期发明了第一台计算机；只有他和少数几个人能使用它。二十年后，IBM靠安装大型计算机建立起一项业务；只有技术人员才能使用它们，而且成本超过100万美元。苹果在80年代通过个人电脑将计算带给更广大的人群；它们的价格在500至3000美元之间，而且几乎任何人无需太多技术能力就能使用。手机和iPad引领了随后的浪潮；它们只需几百美元，而且由于用户界面极其友好，连蹒跚学步的孩子都会使用。
这正是技术的作用。它使一种备受追捧的资源（算力 + 内存）变得更加充裕。其价格和使用门槛随之下降
## 33. 吸引子状态
自由市场体系是指不对私人主体之间的交易进行干预的体系。人们可以自由买卖任何给定的物品。但更重要的是，他们可以选择自己愿意交易的价格。这就形成了两大人群：
a) 那些需要该产品并愿意为之支付一定价格的人，价格范围从 A 到 Z。
b) 那些宁愿要钱也不要该产品，并愿意以从 A 到 Z 的价格进行交换的人。
当这两群人相互接触时，该产品的市场便应运而生。其价格会在个体买家和卖家之间的交易推动下被抬高或压低。有些人会想购买该产品以享受其使用价值，但他们只愿意支付到某个价格为止。另一些人则完全不关注它。
有些卖家会认为该物品很有价值，并要价很高。另一些卖家可能想处理掉该物品，于是尽量以低价出售。还有一些人是生产者，他们会以一定的利润率出售。
当出现这样的推拉博弈时，价格会稳定在一个均衡点上。它是加权平均地反映人们偏好的价格。这样的价格会起到吸引子状态的作用。
这种系统收敛于均衡的思维方式，我在各个领域都见过。想想你所在的领域、学科、工作和兴趣。很有可能，事物正自然地趋向于某个地方。识别出那个地方可以帮助你做出更明智的决策，并让你相对于他人拥有巨大优势。
## 34. 尽可能简单，但不要过于简单 —— 爱因斯坦
艾萨克·牛顿提出了一个尽可能基本的框架。他基于 4 个要素创建了一套关于世界如何运转的体系。
- 惯性：一切物体都倾向于保持其静止状态或沿直线方向匀速运动，除非有外力作用于其上。
- 反作用：当一种力作用于某物时，该物体会将同样大小的力回馈给施力物体。
- 当一种力作用于物体时，会影响其轨迹，并根据力的方向和力本身的大小改变其轨迹。
- 力 = 质量 × 加速度
- 万有引力，或平方反比定律：一切物体相互吸引，其力等于常数 × M1*M2 / 两者距离的平方。
这些公理和引力解释了一组极其复杂的现象：
- 行星轨道。
- 潮汐运动。
- 岁差。
我们只能把问题简化到我们的理解所允许的程度。即使在看似怪异的事物中也存在模式。要始终追求越来越简单的框架。如果你无法向一个 5 岁的孩子解释清楚，说明你还没有真正理解它。而且复杂性不会给你带来回报；跨过一英尺高的栏杆和跨过七英尺高的栏杆，结果可能是一样的。
> "对于复杂性这一侧的简单，我不会给你一个无花果。但对于复杂性另一侧的简单，为此我愿意给你我所拥有的一切。" —— 奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯
## 35. 思想的起源远比你想象的更早
三年前，我在阅读杰夫·贝索斯的股东信时，对两个理念深感惊叹：痴迷于客户，以及将效率提升传递给消费者。然后我看了看 Costco，发现这些人更早就在推行这些理念。接着我读了家得宝创始人的自传；同样的理念，甚至连表述都极为相似。然后我读了山姆·沃尔顿的自传；有着相同的价值观。最后，山姆·沃尔顿指出了这些思想的源头：FedMart 以及后来 Price Club 的索尔·普莱斯。
这样的事情在我身上一再发生。我以为某个思想起源于某个特定时间点，但读得越多，这个思想就能追溯到越早的年代。这感觉就像考古学，调查总是让事物的历史越来越古老。
不要以为你是在窃取一个想法。很可能，你以为是其发明者的人其实是从别人那里得来的。人类已经存在了很长时间，几万年来拥有相似的大脑和环境。大多数思想有更早的渊源是很自然的事。
## 36. 做你热爱的事
人生足够长，可以做任何事情，但不够长，无法做所有事情。选择做什么，就意味着选择不做什么。在面对比较重大的决策时，我发现自己会使用遗憾最小化框架：“当我 80 岁时，我会为没有做这件事而后悔吗？”—— 杰夫·贝索斯
也要做你热爱的事，理由相同。没有人能在“做你自己”这件事上打败你。去做那些对你来说像有趣爱好、而对别人来说却是苦差事的事情。
你完全可能在做别人想要的事情上失败，所以不如放手一搏，去追求你想要的。如果你失败了，也不会那么糟糕。但想象一下，在你一开始就不想做的事情上失败——那才是真正的浪费。
## 37. 真正的法律是理性 —— 西塞罗
人类的事务一直由多种形式的政府和管理结构所支配。好的领袖和独裁者来了又去。实施了性质最为迥异的各种政策。各种承诺带来了绝望和毁灭。关于如何治理社会，人们已经尝试了很多。
理性是连接真理、上帝与人的纽带。在任何情况下，合理的事情就是应该做的事情。不端行为应受到惩罚，但以理性所允许的程度为限。
人们内心具有道德感和分析能力。通常，人类的行为是严格非黑即白的。每当行为落入灰色地带时，好的判断就是最符合理性的判断。多数人很容易占上风，但“一件事要成为正当的，它必须是合理的。”—— 杰斐逊
当被问到是全体民众还是只有部分特定人群应当投票时，杰斐逊指出这个问题没有抓住要点。真正的问题应该是：多少人参与投票才能让最有能力和最诚实的人当选执政。
民主演变成一场极端之间的对抗——两个政党专注于彼此对立，而不是思考什么才是真正有益的——这是一种耻辱。他们互相仇视；而愤怒降临时，理性便会离开。我们试图取胜时，反而输了。
## 38. 你无法教会一条老狗生活在锁链中，也无法把老把式教给一条新狗
你无法改变一个人的天性。如果他们不想努力工作，你无法说服他们努力。如果一个人习惯了自由，你无法给他套上锁链并教他如何与之共处。他们会反抗。我们做某件事越多，它就越根深蒂固。改变这种深植的固有模式，是一场很可能亏本的赌注。
第二段引言来自沃伦。在企业管理中，并没有真正的退休门槛。你可以和一位 50 岁的经理一起投资；如果他们热爱自己的工作，他们还有几十年的光阴。把这些人判断正确，比押注一位未经证明的新经理要容易得多。人们的经验会为你所用；你将避免每位经理都不得不亲身学费的好几处代价高昂的错误。
## 39. 真知者与无知者
每当我听到“亚当·斯密”，对方立刻会鹦鹉学舌般地说出“看不见的手”。仿佛两者密不可分，仿佛这个概念涵盖了斯密的全部哲学。
事实上，看不见的手只是一段话，而且它甚至不是人们通常谈论的那个意思。亚当·斯密说，它是当人们做对自己有利的事情时，促成他们做出对社会有益之事的那个东西，“仿佛被一只看不见的手所引导。”
这种事在我身上反复发生。人们只会重复别人说的话。很少有人愿意付出代价，真正地获取知识。
这个世界上到处都是无知者。他们学会了空谈，却并不真正理解自己在说什么。问他们几个问题，就得不到什么像样的答案。他们从未批判性地思考过这个主题，也没有投入过理解它所需的那些年头。
你必须学会区分真知者和无知者。只有辨别出这两者，你才能恰当地委派职责或给予信任。
我发现了两种学习的方法：（1）阅读原始出处；（2）成为一个实干者、实践者——真正的智力考验发生在试图把想法付诸执行的时候。
# TL;DR - 观点清单：
1. 如果你找到一个天才，把所有权力都交给他
2. 你是对是错，并不取决于民意调查是否同意你
3. 成功的关键在于平庸的竞争对手
4. 一本 30 美元的历史书里，藏着价值数十亿美元的答案——芒格
5. 世俗智慧
6. 激励机制
7. 这永远是一个技能问题
8. 聪慧不同于聪明，而两者都可能很愚蠢
9. 能管理人的人管理只能管事的人，而能管钱的人管理一切。
10. 货拜物科学
11. 教育是大脑的软件
12. 规模经济
13. 质量
14. 卓越的成果只是 1,000 个平淡日子串联在一起
15. 一块一块地砌砖
16. 存在多种思维方式
17. 真正的理解来自持续的心智接触
18. 深层的简单
19. 只需稍微调整问题，就能把它从不可能变成容易
20. 系统天然趋向去中心化和专业化
21. 复杂适应性系统
22. 为什么思考别人想不到的东西回报巨大
23. 困难不在于新想法，而在于摆脱旧想法
24. 你会漂向你所处环境的平均水平
25. 人类误判的成因
26. 找出有效的方法，然后去做
27. 企业达到规模之后，资本配置比其他任何事都重要
28. “历史不会重演，但常常押韵”
29. 均变论 vs 灾变论
30. 拉普拉普卢萨效应
31. 给栅栏刷漆
32. 技术的作用是让复杂而昂贵的东西变得更便宜、更易获得
33. 吸引子状态
34. 让事情尽可能简单，但不能更简单。
35. 想法比你以为的要古老得多
36. 做你热爱的事
37. 真正的法律是理性——西塞罗
38. 你无法教会一条老狗生活在锁链中，也无法把老把式教给一条新狗
39. 真知者与无知者
## 相关链接
- [Giuliano](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana)
- [@Giuliano_Mana](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana)
- [77K](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2058186743543656783/analytics)
- [@mjmauboussin](https://x.com/@mjmauboussin)
- [@pmarca](https://x.com/@pmarca)
- [@JeffBezos](https://x.com/@JeffBezos)
- [$1tn](https://x.com/search?q=%241tn&src=cashtag_click)
- [$100bn+](https://x.com/search?q=%24100bn%2B&src=cashtag_click)
- [https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2033555672495796452](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2033555672495796452)
- [@mjmauboussin](https://x.com/@mjmauboussin)
- [$1M](https://x.com/search?q=%241mm&src=cashtag_click)
- [升级至 Premium](https://x.com/i/premium_sign_up)
- [2026年5月23日 下午10:02](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2058186743543656783)
- [7.79万次浏览](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2058186743543656783/analytics)
- [查看引用](https://x.com/Giuliano_Mana/status/2058186743543656783/quotes)
---
*导出时间: 2026/5/24 09:11:49*
