Introduction: The Challenge of a Noisy World

Host: Lulu, welcome to the podcast.

雷: 露露，欢迎来到这个播客。

Lulu: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

露露: 谢谢你，谢谢你的邀请。

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

雷: 在一个如此嘈杂、充满了人工智能生成内容的世界里，人们都在试图吸引你的注意力。我们如何才能让人们关注我们呢？

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

露露: 我经常思考这个问题，因为海量内容的洪流完全是无情的，而且现在人们也总是在做各种事情。比如，人们正在用新工具创造出真正有趣的东西。过去，如果你关注公司发布会，可能每隔几个月才会有一个重大的公告或新产品发布。而现在，每天都有好几个，包括周末、晚上和节假日。所以，我认为要从中脱颖而出，有几点很重要。

Cutting Through the Noise with Humanity

The Power of Human Stories and Conviction

Lulu: One is it's about human beings. We've always gravitated to human beings and human stories. And I think we gravitate to that even more now because it gives you something to care about that's not just generic content. Like content is infinite, but individual human characters stand out from that. It gives you a person to root for, gives you something to get attached to. It gives you a thing to care about. And so having it be attached to a human um whether it's a product launch or a company launch or some some piece of information having a human mascot represent it is really important.

露露: 第一点是关于人。我们总是被人和人的故事所吸引。我认为现在我们更是如此，因为它给了你一个值得关心的对象，而不仅仅是泛泛的内容。内容是无限的，但个体的人物角色能从中脱颖而出。它给你一个可以支持的人，一个可以产生情感联系的对象，一个值得你关心的事情。因此，无论是产品发布、公司成立，还是一些信息，让一个具体的人来代表它，都非常重要。

Lulu: Another is human conviction. Like there's something within us that responds to another person's conviction. Like when you see cult leaders being able to recruit or terrorist group leaders being able to recruit, their actual pitch on the merits is horrible. It's like that meme of like you get this and I get that and it's like you get basically nothing, poor pay, extremely poor prospects of success, leave your family behind and I get rights to your life and then also maybe you die on the marriage. The pitch is horrible. But there's something within us that finds it really hard to resist when someone is just looking us in the eye and telling us with absolute conviction that something is true.

露露: 另一点是人的信念。我们内心深处会对另一个人的信念产生共鸣。比如，当你看到邪教领袖或恐怖组织头目招募成员时，他们基于实际利益的“宣传”其实非常糟糕。就像那个表情包说的，“你得到这个，我得到那个”，结果是你几乎一无所获：薪水微薄、成功前景渺茫、还要抛弃家庭，而我则掌控你的生命，甚至你可能为此丧命。这个“推销”糟透了。但当有人直视我们的眼睛，以绝对的信念告诉我们某件事是真的时，我们内心会觉得难以抗拒。

Lulu: This is why pathological liars are so powerful and sociopaths are so powerful because we can't resist the gravity of someone telling us these things and if they happen to be false then we're actually very vulnerable to it. But we have this vulnerability to human conviction and you can't convey that through any other means. There's like a unique way that people can convey conviction that makes us buy in.

露露: 这就是为什么病态的说谎者和反社会者如此有影响力，因为我们无法抗拒有人这样告诉我们事情时的那种引力，如果这些事情恰好是假的，我们就会变得非常脆弱。但我们确实对人的信念有这种弱点，而这种信念是无法通过任何其他方式传达的。人们有一种独特的方式来传递信念，让我们信服。

The Importance of a Narrative Arc

Lulu: And then another is having it play into some kind of narrative arc. So, whatever you're saying, if you just say it in a vacuum, here's like a little pile of facts that I drop in front of you. Well, there's pile of facts, piles of facts around as far as the eye can see in every direction. But if I tell you that this is part of something bigger and you need to stay tuned, then it gives you something to hang on to. So, this is like the 1001 nights, Scheherazade. You know the story. Um, she was going to be beheaded and then she told a little bit of a story and had to wait till the next day and then told a little bit and then after a 1001 nights he was like you know what great you can go made it this far.

露露: 还有一点是将其融入某种叙事弧光（Narrative Arc：故事从开始、发展到结局的结构框架）。所以，无论你要说什么，如果只是孤立地陈述，就像在你面前放一小堆事实。然而，事实到处都是，放眼望去皆是。但如果我告诉你，这只是一个更大故事的一部分，你需要继续关注，这就给了你一个坚持下去的理由。这就像《一千零一夜》里的山鲁佐德。你知道那个故事，她即将被处死，于是她讲了一点点故事，然后要等到第二天继续，就这样讲了一千零一夜，最后国王说：“好吧，你很棒，你可以走了，你成功了。”

Lulu: Even journalists when they're following a beat they try not to write one news story as a standalone they try to cover the narrative arc of something that's happening. So when you see people right now covering hires at Meta for their new super intelligence, they're they're covering what is the long-term goal of this and how is it progressing over time and what does it tell like they're thinking of it as a 12 stories that link together.

露露: 即使是记者，当他们跟进一个领域时，他们也尽量不把一篇新闻报道写成孤立的事件，而是试图覆盖正在发生的事情的整个叙事弧光。所以，当你看到现在有人报道Meta为其新的人工智能部门招聘人才时，他们实际上是在报道这个项目的长期目标是什么，它如何随着时间发展，以及这背后意味着什么。他们把它看作是一系列相互关联的报道。

Lulu: And so all of this put together means when you're trying to cut through the noise, you tell it through a human with extreme conviction and you tie facts together in a chain such that it forms this bigger narrative that people feel compelled to follow.

露露: 所以，总而言之，当你试图在噪音中脱颖而出时，你要通过一个充满极度信念的人来讲述，并将事实串联起来，形成一个更大的叙事，让人们情不自禁地想要追随。

Finding Your Narrative: The Venn Diagram Method

Host: How do we go about determining what that narrative is?

雷: 我们该如何确定那个叙事是什么呢？

Lulu: The wrong way is here's what I want to say. Here it is. Because the thing that you you care about might not be what anybody else is caring about. I think the right way is to take two things. One is here's what I care about. So like think of it as a circle of information. Here's what I care about and what I want to say. Then there's another circle of here's what the person I'm speaking to cares about and what they're thinking about and it's probably a little bit different from what's on my mind. If it were identical, then what's the point of saying anything? But there's probably going to be some overlap.

露露: 错误的方式是：“这是我想说的，就这样。”因为你关心的事情可能根本不是别人关心的。我认为正确的方式是考虑两件事。第一是“这是我关心的”。可以把它想象成一个信息圈。这是我关心的和我想说的。然后有另一个圈，是“我交谈的对象关心什么，他们在想什么”，这可能和我想的有点不一样。如果完全相同，那还有什么好说的呢？但很可能会有一些重叠的部分。

Lulu: And so what people tend to say is the circle of things that are on their mind and then just put it out there and hope that somebody latches on to it. The real story to tell is what's in the center of that Venn diagram. So, don't tell the story that's in your circle because it it's hard to get other people to care. Don't tell the story that's in the other person's circle because you don't get anything out of it. It's not strategic. Tell the story that's in the Venn diagram. And then once you meet them in the Venn diagram, you can kind of walk them into the rest of your circle. You give them a gateway drug.

露露: 人们倾向于说出自己脑海里的那个圈子里的事，然后就把它抛出去，希望有人能抓住。但真正该讲的故事，是那个维恩图（Venn diagram：一种用圆圈表示集合及其关系的图示）中间重叠的部分。所以，不要讲只在你圈子里的故事，因为很难让别人关心。也不要讲只在对方圈子里的故事，因为你从中得不到任何好处，这不具备策略性。要讲维恩图重叠部分的故事。一旦你在重叠区与他们相遇，你就可以引导他们走进你圈子的其余部分。你给了他们一个“入门药”。

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

雷: 这在“一对一”的基础上对我来说很有道理。那么“一对多”呢？当你与一群人沟通时，无论他们是在一家公司工作，还是整个社会大众。

Lulu: I was actually thinking of it in terms of one to many. I think it works really well with one to many. The key is many can't be infinite. The many can't be 8 1/2 billion people. That just doesn't work because if you're talking to that many people, if you're talking to the whole wide world, you have to water down your message so much that it becomes, you know, a drop in the ocean. It is just a nothing.

露露: 我其实正是在“一对多”的背景下思考这个问题的。我认为它在“一对多”的情况下效果很好。关键是，“多”不能是无限的。这个“多”不能是85亿人。那行不通，因为如果你想对那么多人说话，对全世界说话，你就必须把你的信息稀释到如此程度，以至于它变成了沧海一粟，什么都不是。

Lulu: The many should be the people who work at my company or the people who are really passionate about robotics or the people who are really worried about conflict with China. The many has to be like an actual circumscribed set of people. And then once you have that circumscribed set of people, then you think about what do all those people have in common that people outside of that circle don't necessarily have in common.

露露: “多”应该是“在我公司工作的人”，或者“对机器人技术充满热情的人”，或者“非常担心与中国发生冲突的人”。这个“多”必须是一个有明确界限的群体。一旦你确定了这个群体，你就要思考，这个圈子里的所有人有什么共同点，是圈外人不一定具备的。

Lulu: So let's say that you are starting a new company and the company is something to do with American defense tech. It's something between Palantir and Anduril type of vibe and you want to talk to people who are really concerned about geopolitical competition and rivalry with China. So think about what are things that they specifically are thinking about right now. They're not thinking about your company. So the circle of stuff that you really want to talk about is like marketing drill for your company. And then the circle of things that they're thinking about is if there is an invasion of Taiwan, what might that look like and how do we plan for it? But there's an overlap in the Venn diagram where part of planning for it means integrating the software that we are making and and to join us and help us build this so that we can be ready.

露露: 比如说，你正在创办一家新公司，这家公司与美国国防科技有关，风格介于Palantir和Anduril之间，你想与那些非常关注地缘政治竞争和与中国对抗的人交谈。那么，想一想他们现在具体在思考什么。他们想的不是你的公司。你想谈的那个圈子里的东西是关于你公司的营销宣传。而他们正在思考的那个圈子里的话题是，如果台湾发生入侵，会是什么样子，我们该如何应对？但维恩图里有一个重叠区，那就是应对计划的一部分，意味着需要整合我们正在开发的软件，需要加入我们、帮助我们构建这个软件，以便我们做好准备。

Lulu: And so identifying that this is what they care about, speaking about the overlap part in terms of what they care about. And once they're with you there, then you can tell them, well, here's what we're building and here's how we approach software. And then they actually already are with you. I think that's a good way to approach it. Just like picture the circles and then find the overlap.

露露: 所以，首先要识别出他们关心的是什么，然后从他们关心的角度去谈论那个重叠的部分。一旦他们在这点上与你站在一起，你就可以告诉他们，“看，这是我们正在构建的东西，这是我们开发软件的方式。”到那时，他们实际上已经和你站在一边了。我认为这是一个很好的方法。就像画出那两个圆圈，然后找到重叠区。

The Hook: Your API into People's Minds

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

雷: 你认为这有点像进入人们思想的API（应用程序编程接口：比喻一种标准化的接入点）吗？还是说这是一种定位，让人们能够接受它，然后在那个节点上，一旦你有了“钩子”，你就可以把他们引向你真正想传达的信息？

Lulu: Yeah. it's the API into their mind. Um, or it's the gateway drug, whatever it is, it's it's not just the thing you want to say, it's the hook. You start with the hook and then once the hook is in, then you can do the reeling. But some people are like, "Here's the fish sandwich I'm going to make for dinner" before they think about what goes on the hook and is any fish going to bite the hook.

露露: 是的，这就是进入他们思想的API。或者说是“入门药”，不管它是什么，它不仅仅是你想说的话，它是一个“钩子”。你从钩子开始，一旦钩子挂住了，你就可以开始收线了。但有些人却在想鱼钩上放什么、有没有鱼会咬钩之前，就先说：“这是我晚餐要做的鱼肉三明治。”

Lulu: So, the hook is probably the most overlooked part, I would say, in order of how much it matters. It's the hook, then how you tell your story, and then where you tell it. Most people get this reversed where they spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about where can I go talk? What podcast can I go on? How do I pitch Shane Parish? How do I get on TV? Do I start a pod? Do I do a blog? and they think about the form factor in the medium and they don't think enough about how can I become so interesting that my distribution method is people telling other people because they can't get it out of their heads and they have to it's it's in there and it's tickling their brain and they have to share it with their families and they have to go have a conversation about it. That is the most powerful most high lever thing and nobody thinks about it.

露露: 所以，我认为“钩子”可能是最被忽视的部分，就其重要性而言。顺序应该是：钩子，然后是如何讲述你的故事，最后才是你在哪里讲述。大多数人把这个顺序搞反了，他们花了大量时间思考“我能去哪里演讲？我能上哪个播客？我怎么才能说服Shane Parish？我怎么才能上电视？我要不要开个播客？我要不要写个博客？”他们只考虑形式和媒介，却没怎么想过，我如何能变得如此有趣，以至于我的传播方式就是人们告诉其他人，因为他们无法将它从脑海中抹去，它就在那里，挠着他们的大脑，他们必须和家人分享，必须去讨论它。这才是最强大、杠杆效应最高的事情，但却没人去想它。

How Long Do You Have to Hook Someone?

Host: I just want to come back to the hook. Is that there's a lot of research that seems to indicate that you have sort of 12 secondsish to get somebody's attention. Is that what you mean by a hook?

雷: 我想回到“钩子”这个话题。有很多研究似乎表明，你大概有12秒左右的时间来吸引别人的注意力。你说的“钩子”是这个意思吗？

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

露露: 我不确定是不是秒数，因为现在人们与不认识的人互动，很多是通过互联网上的拟社会关系（Parasocial Relationships：观众对媒体人物单方面产生的情感联系）。比如，很多看你播客的人会觉得他们了解你是什么样的人。他们在大脑中为你建立了一个模型，像一个奇怪的“沙恩侏儒”，有点像你，但不是全貌。他们建立这种印象不一定是通过与你共度时光，而是通过你的文字、你的新闻通讯、你的短视频片段。

Lulu: So if it's um time in person, okay, maybe 12 seconds. If it's time through a clip on the internet, I would say like first 5 seconds they decide whether they're going to keep scrolling or not. Like less than five. When you see the metrics, this is so almost crass and pragmatic to start talking about video metrics, but when you see the video metrics of things posted on social media, after 30 seconds, like 99% of people are gone, right? And and you pay closer attention to this than I do, so your your metrics will be like more precise, but basically in the first few seconds, it can drop off precipitously. People are just like scrolling.

露露: 所以如果是面对面的时间，好的，也许是12秒。如果是通过网上的短视频，我会说大概前5秒他们就决定了是否要继续划走。甚至不到5秒。当你看到数据时——开始谈论视频数据几乎有点粗俗和功利了——但当你看到社交媒体上发布的视频数据时，30秒后，大概99%的人都离开了，对吧？你比我更关注这个，所以你的数据会更精确，但基本上在最初的几秒钟内，观看人数会急剧下降。人们就是不停地在划动。

Lulu: So, you get like a couple seconds. I bet our attention span is going down to who whoever did the study that came up with the 12 seconds. I would love to see them redo it and see if that's gone down to 10 or eight or something as our patience has worn. And then in terms of text, because some of the ways that people get to know you is through your writing. I don't know about seconds, but it's like the first paragraph. For an email, it's a subject line. For a tweet, it's the first line, first sentence, the hook. So like the opportunity like the surface area of the opportunity we have to latch on is getting more and more fine which means that the hook that we need to use has to get more and more sharp.

露露: 所以，你大概只有几秒钟的时间。我敢打赌，我们的注意力持续时间正在缩短，不管是谁做的那个得出12秒结论的研究，我很想看他们重新做一次，看看随着我们耐心的消磨，这个数字是否已经降到了10秒或8秒。然后就文本而言，因为人们了解你的方式之一是通过你的写作。我不知道具体是多少秒，但它就像是第一段。对于电子邮件，是主题行。对于推文，是第一行、第一句话，也就是那个钩子。所以我们抓住机会的“表面积”正变得越来越小，这意味着我们需要的钩子必须变得越来越锋利。

What Makes a Good Hook?

Host: So should that hook be like emotion? Should it be tension? Should it be stakes like you get invested in reading this? Should it be like what's in it for me? How do you think about that?

雷: 那么这个钩子应该是情感吗？应该是张力吗？应该是利害关系，让你投入去阅读吗？还是应该像是“这对我有什么好处”？你是怎么考虑的？

Lulu: It could be any of the above. The most common ones that I've just observed online are humor, curiosity, or some strong emotion. It can be a wow emotion. It can be a WTF emotion, or it could be here's a topic that I'm already thinking about, and this is going to give me some new angle on the topic. Depends on who you're talking to. Like if you're talking to brain rots, it might be a little bit different from if you're talking to AI researchers or if you're talking to academics. You can use slightly different things, but but it's humor, curiosity, uh strong emotion, outrage, shock, surprise, or they're about to learn something about a topic that they're already following.

露露: 以上任何一种都可以。我在线上观察到的最常见的钩子是幽默、好奇心或某种强烈的情感。可以是一种“哇”的情感，也可以是一种“我靠”的情感，或者可以是“这是一个我已经在思考的话题，而这篇文章将给我一个新角度”。这取决于你的谈话对象。比如，如果你和沉迷网络的人交谈，可能和与AI研究员或学者交谈的方式有所不同。你可以使用稍微不同的东西，但核心就是幽默、好奇心、强烈的情感、愤怒、震惊、惊喜，或者让他们知道即将学到一些他们已在关注的话题的新知识。

The Art of Being Interesting

Host: I want to go back to be interesting. What does that mean? Like it it sounds very simple, but you can't go to somebody and say, "Hey, be more interesting."

雷: 我想回到“变得有趣”这一点上。这是什么意思？听起来很简单，但你不能走到某人面前说：“嘿，变得有趣一点。”

Lulu: It's be interesting to whom? So, all of these things I I hear sometimes in a vacuum. So it's like uh say the message and and we've talked about this like who's saying the message and to whom and depending on who's the messenger and who's the receiver, the nature of the message completely changes. It's the same with be interesting. So what's interesting to one person might not be interesting to another. And if you're very clear on who you're speaking to, then you can make it maximally interesting for them, which will mean tradeoffs and making it less interesting for someone that you don't care about. Um, if you're trying to be somewhat interesting to everybody, now you're back to the eight billion people problem where it's so so so minutely interesting in order to capture everybody that it's actually marginal. It just like eances into the air.

露露: 是“对谁有趣”？所有这些概念，我有时听起来都像是真空中的口号。比如“传达信息”，我们已经讨论过，谁在说、对谁说，取决于信息发出者和接收者，信息的性质会完全改变。“变得有趣”也是同理。对一个人来说有趣的东西，对另一个人可能并非如此。如果你非常清楚你在对谁说话，你就可以为他们创造最大的趣味性，这意味着你需要做出取舍，让它对那些你不在乎的人来说变得不那么有趣。如果你试图对所有人都变得“有点”有趣，那你就又回到了那个80亿人的问题上，为了吸引所有人，你的内容只能变得极其微不足道，实际上是无关紧要的，就像蒸发在空气里一样。

Lulu: So once you identify who are the people you're talking about, the way you're interesting is to speak to their interests. If you know what are their cultural and intellectual erogenous zones, what do they care about? What are they interested in? What are they thinking about? then link it from there. So, at the bottom of all of this, the way to be interesting is to find that sliver of the Venn diagram overlap of what you're trying to say and what they already care about and meet them there. And if you misfire and you end up somewhere else, then you're not doing your job as a good storyteller. or if you misidentify the audience. I would say the number one mistake is misidentifying the audience and trying to speak to the general public and then the the narrow sliver of people that super duper matter to you in that moment, whether it's people you're trying to hire, people you're trying to even befriend, whatever your goal is, that you miss them because you've just sprayed it out into the air.

露露: 所以，一旦你确定了你的谈话对象，变得有趣的方法就是谈论他们感兴趣的事情。如果你知道他们的文化和知识上的“兴奋点”是什么，他们关心什么？他们对什么感兴趣？他们在想什么？然后从那里建立联系。所以，归根结底，变得有趣的方法就是找到维恩图里那个微小的重叠部分——你想说的内容和他们已经关心的事情——然后在那里与他们相遇。如果你搞砸了，跑到了别处，那你作为一个好的讲故事者就没有尽到责任。或者，如果你误判了听众。我会说，头号错误就是误判听众，试图对普罗大众说话，结果却错过了那个在当下对你至关重要的一小撮人——无论你是想招聘的人，还是想交朋友的人，不管你的目标是什么——你错过了他们，因为你只是把信息漫无目的地撒向了空中。

Why Corporate and Government Communication Fails

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

雷: 你认为为什么很多公司和政府的沟通如此糟糕？

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

露露: 那些负责沟通的人是在角色扮演（LARPing：Live Action Role-Playing，此处指模仿某种刻板印象）公司高管。他们在扮演他们认为一个企业应该有的说话方式。你看，现在人工智能在很多方面都非常卓越和出色，真的令人惊叹。但当你让AI处理任何与公关或传播相关的事情时，它就变成了一个喋喋不休的傻瓜。即使是那些能创造出精彩见解和写诗的最先进模型，你让它做任何公关传播相关的事，它给你的都是你看过的最糟糕的东西。

Lulu: and it's because that's what it's seeing and that's what it's learning from and I think that's the same effect with people. like somebody starts their career and then goes into the company doing PR and then they look around at what does PR look like and they're like okay let me just do some version of that and it's it's like this experiment that I read about where they had mice in a cage and they were trained to run a certain route and then they would put in a new mouse and take out the old mouse and they had fully replaced all of the mice like a ship of Theseus with mice and all of the new mice were doing all of the behaviors of the old mice for literally no reason at this point. The old mice were getting cheese or whatever. They just they just following one by one.

露露: 这是因为它看到并学习的就是这些。我认为人和AI有同样的效果。比如，某人开始职业生涯，进入公司做公关，然后他环顾四周，看看公关是什么样的，然后就想：“好吧，我就做个类似的版本。”这就像我读过的一个实验，笼子里有老鼠，它们被训练走一条特定的路线。然后，实验者会放进一只新老鼠，拿走一只老老鼠，直到把所有老鼠都换掉，就像一艘“忒修斯之船”版的老鼠实验。结果，所有新老鼠都在做着和老老鼠完全一样的行为，而此时已经完全没有任何理由了。老老鼠可能是为了得到奶酪之类的。新老鼠只是一个接一个地模仿。

Lulu: So, I actually think we're in this like very hollow, meaningless corporate zeitgeist of everybody copying everybody else and there's just no there there. And I think the way to break the cycle is every once in a while somebody just does something totally different and it works and then the copying can at least glom on to copying something better. So, so the leaders will do something more interesting and then the copiers will try to do something similar to that and the leader will get the A+ result and the copiers will get the C+ result. Then someone else will get an A+ result and the copiers might get a B+ result and I think that's the way you so um Toby Lütke Shopify he has done a number of things that are original courageous for the first we're were both Toby fans and then you see other companies kind of falling in line.

露露: 所以，我真的认为我们正处于一个非常空洞、无意义的企业时代精神中，每个人都在模仿别人，毫无实质内容。我认为打破这个循环的方式是，偶尔有人做一些完全不同的事情，并且成功了，然后模仿者至少可以开始模仿一些更好的东西。所以，领导者会做一些更有趣的事情，然后模仿者会尝试做类似的事情，领导者得到A+的结果，模仿者得到C+。然后，另一个人做出A+的结果，模仿者可能会得到B+。我认为这就是进步的方式。比如Shopify的Tobi Lütke，他做了很多原创且勇敢的事情，我们都是Tobi的粉丝，然后你看到其他公司也开始跟进。

Lulu: And so it's like the number one most courageous does it first and then the number two and three do it and then eventually 5 years later the number 50 is doing it too. And so you do this enough times that over the years hopefully things get better. I don't know if he realizes it, but he probably single-handedly changed the number of people speaking out in Canada on the election because he started having an opinion, having a voice, and that that sort of made it safe for other people to have an opinion, have a voice, and that might go counter to the norm.

露露: 所以，就像最勇敢的那个人先做，然后第二、第三个人跟着做，最终5年后，第50个人也在做同样的事。你这样多做几次，多年之后，希望情况能有所改善。我不知道他是否意识到，但他可能凭一己之力改变了在加拿大就选举问题发声的人数，因为他开始表达观点、发出声音，这在某种程度上为其他人表达观点、发出可能与主流相悖的声音创造了安全空间。

Host: Yeah. But government communications in particular, I mean I I think of this as attacks on citizens, attacks on educated citizens because you have to spend, you know, they communicate in one page uh what should be maybe two max three sentences and you have to spend your time deciphering it. It's almost like a race to see how much we can say without saying anything.

雷: 是的。但特别是政府的沟通，我把这看作是对公民的攻击，对受过教育的公民的攻击。因为你必须花时间去解读，他们用一整页的篇幅来传达可能最多只需要两三句话就能说清的内容，你还得花时间去破译。这几乎像是一场比赛，看谁能在什么都不说的前提下说得最多。

Lulu: Yeah. It's incredible. I mean, someone like you, your billable hours would be like in the thousands. If you spend an extra couple hours and then that adds up over the course of a lifetime, that is that much productivity added together from everyone who's doing it. And the more um productive someone is in the economy, the more time they're probably spending reading this stuff like from the news and from government announcements. And so it really adds up. I would love to see someone do a study of the financial cost of jargony gov speak and corp speak.

露露: 是的，太不可思议了。像你这样的人，你的计费工时可能高达数千。如果你额外花几个小时，然后在一生中累积起来，所有这样做的人加在一起，就构成了巨大的生产力损失。而且，一个人在经济中越有生产力，他们可能花在阅读新闻和政府公告这类东西上的时间就越多。所以这真的会累积起来。我很想看到有人研究一下充满行话的政府腔和企业腔所造成的经济成本。

Host: I think I wonder if this comes from the idea that we need more communications that doesn't make better communications. Like the answer for a long time, I don't know what it's like inside companies now, but for a long time uh in the government and and in large corporations that I was working with, the answer was always like more comms, but nobody was asking like what's better comms? You know, it's not like we need to communicate more. It, you know, we need to be more effective at our communication. How do you think about that?

雷: 我在想这是否源于一种观念，即我们需要更多的沟通，但这并不等于更好的沟通。很长一段时间以来，我不知道现在公司内部是怎样，但在我曾合作过的政府和大型企业里，答案总是“加强沟通”，但从没有人问“什么是更好的沟通？”你知道，问题不在于我们需要沟通得更多，而在于我们需要更有效地沟通。你怎么看？

The Problem with Measuring Communication by Volume

Lulu: This is the um this is sort of Goodhart's Law (古德哈特定律：当一个衡量标准成为一个目标时，它就不再是一个好的衡量标准) where once the measure becomes the goal, it ceases to be a good measure. And what we've done is we've taken a group of people and said your job is communications and your metric is communicating a lot presumably. If you picture a scenario where people have a job and their job is just to communicate versus a scenario where the goal is to help people understand something important. This plays out completely differently. In the first scenario, the people whose job is communicating are just generating activity to try to show that they should hold on to their jobs and be able to get jobs in the future.

露露: 这有点像古德哈特定律，即一个衡量标准一旦成为目标，它就不再是一个好的衡量标准了。我们所做的就是，找来一群人，告诉他们你们的工作是沟通，而你们的衡量标准大概就是大量地沟通。想象一个场景，一群人的工作就是为了沟通而沟通；再想象另一个场景，目标是帮助人们理解重要的事情。这两者会产生完全不同的结果。在第一个场景中，那些工作是沟通的人只是在制造活动，试图证明他们应该保住工作，并且未来还能找到工作。

Lulu: Whereas in the second scenario, if the goal is to help people understand something important so that we can effect a change in the world together, that's more the paradigm that I think is the reality today. It's just not evenly distributed. But the the top leaders like the Toby Lütke, Brian Armstrong types. They already get it. And that is the most effective person to speak is the person who's leading the enterprise.

露露: 而在第二种场景中，如果目标是帮助人们理解重要的事情，以便我们能一起在世界上带来改变，我认为这更像是当今的现实范式，只是它分布不均。但顶尖的领导者，像Tobi Lütke、Brian Armstrong这类人，他们已经明白了。那就是，最有效的发言人就是企业的领导者本人。

Build a Cult, Don't Hire a Spokesperson

Lulu: If you were building a cult, and I would say that most successful startups are like cults in many ways. If you were building a cult, you would never be like, "Let's not let have the cult leader speak. He he might go off the reservation and he's kind of quirky and eccentric, a little bit weird. Let's just have somebody who's like really polished and professional and normal speak on his behalf in a way that will never offend anybody. You would never build a cult that way. What the best communicating companies are doing is having the cult leader having the leader of the enterprise speak directly about their what their vision is.

露露: 如果你在建立一个**“邪教”**（cult，此处比喻具有强大凝聚力和共同信念的组织），我会说大多数成功的创业公司在很多方面都像邪教。如果你要建立一个邪教，你绝不会说：“我们别让教主说话。他可能会跑偏，他有点古怪、特立独行，有点怪异。我们找个非常圆滑、专业、正常的人，用一种绝不会冒犯任何人的方式替他发言。”你绝不会用这种方式建立一个邪教。沟通做得最好的公司，都是让他们的“教主”，也就是企业的领导者，亲自直接地讲述他们的愿景。

Lulu: Because if you're trying to do something different that hasn't been done before, in my mind that's the only thing kind of worth doing cuz otherwise just go be an employee. If you're trying to be some do something original and different that has not been done, it doesn't exist, it's very hard to prove to people that it's going to work, especially in the early days. And what I said before about human conviction and that being contagious, you need the person who leads the enterprise to say in the first person, we are going to do this. It is going to work. Look me in the eyes. Follow me. Join me on this because we're going to do something great. I swear to you on my life this will be my life's work. It could be your life's work too. There's nobody else who can do that in the first person.

露露: 因为如果你想做一些前所未有的、不同的事情，在我看来，这是唯一值得做的事情，否则就去当个雇员好了。如果你想做一些原创的、不同的、从未有过的事情，它还不存在，就很难向人们证明它会成功，尤其是在早期。而我之前提到的关于人的信念以及它的传染性，你需要企业的领导者以第一人称说：“我们要做这件事。它会成功的。看着我的眼睛。跟随我。加入我，因为我们将成就一番伟业。我以我的生命向你发誓，这将是我毕生的事业。它也可以成为你毕生的事业。”没有其他人能以第一人称做到这一点。

Lulu: It's because the we have designated a group of people who had less skin in the game to be the communicators and given them a metric of just saying stuff.

露露: 这是因为我们指定了一群没有切身利害关系的人来做沟通者，并给了他们一个“只管说”的衡量标准。

Host: I don't think there is any nobody has real glory if it goes right nobody has humiliation and despair if it goes wrong it just sort of is out there for the purpose of checking a box and for some public companies they need to literally check box according to like SEC rules, but the press release as a means of communication I think is obsolete by like a decade.

雷: 我认为根本没有任何利害关系。如果事情进展顺利，没有人能获得真正的荣耀；如果出了问题，也没有人会感到羞辱和绝望。它只是为了完成任务而存在，对于一些上市公司来说，他们确实需要根据SEC（美国证券交易委员会）的规定来完成这个流程。但我认为，新闻稿作为一种沟通方式，已经过时了大概十年。

Uncertainty Avoidance and the Power of Conviction

Host: How much of that appeals to us from a psychological level because it's uncertainty avoidance? this person's certain like I believe it because there's no surface area for any non-belief.

雷: 从心理学层面来看，这在多大程度上吸引我们是因为它满足了不确定性规避（Uncertainty Avoidance：指人们在面对不确定性时感到的威胁程度，并试图通过信念或规则来避免）的需求？这个人如此确定，以至于我相信他，因为他没有给任何不信留下空间。

Lulu: That is how people believe things. Repetition is one of the ways that people believe things. And another is being told something by someone that they trust. So earlier when I thought there there was a ghost in your studio, if if I had been like, Shane, there's a ghost here. I'm telling you, I know what I saw. There's a ghost here. At first, you would be like, this, you know, she's a little cuckoo. Maybe we scrap this episode. But if I just kept following up with you and telling you and like I swear to you, I saw this. I'm not lying. You would be a little bit creeped out.

露露: 人们就是这样相信事物的。重复是人们相信事物的方式之一。另一个方式是被他们信任的人告知某事。比如早些时候我以为你的录音室里有鬼，如果当时我说：“Shane，这里有鬼。我告诉你，我知道我看到了什么。这里有鬼。”起初，你可能会觉得，“这个人有点疯了，也许我们该取消这期节目。”但如果我一直跟你说，并且告诉你，“我向你发誓，我看到了，我没说谎。”你就会有点毛骨悚然。

Lulu: And so one of the main ways to turn something from being perceived as totally impossible and insane is to have a person that you trust tell you with total confidence that it's real and it's going to happen. Now, the two things in there are it has to be a person you trust and they have to say it with total confidence. If it's not a person you trust, if it's someone screaming on the street that your studio has a ghost, you're not going to take that seriously. And if I don't say it with confidence, you're not going to take that seriously.

露露: 所以，将一件被认为是完全不可能和疯狂的事情转变为可信之事的主要方法之一，就是让你信任的一个人，以完全的自信告诉你，这是真的，它将会发生。这里有两个关键点：必须是你信任的人，而且他们必须带着完全的自信说出来。如果不是你信任的人，比如街上有人尖叫说你的录音室有鬼，你不会当回事。如果我说话没有自信，你也不会当回事。

Lulu: So, it's someone that you trust speaking with complete conviction and doing it over and over. And those three ingredients can be engineered. You can engineer trust. There's there's a formula. Let's talk about it. You can engineer trust. The conviction should be real cuz otherwise what are you doing? Just go get a normal job. So hopefully the founder already has conviction. But the but there's ways to convey that and impress that upon people and to do it repeatedly with insistence over the years.

露露: 所以，是一个你信任的人，带着完全的信念，一遍又一遍地讲述。这三个要素是可以被设计的。你可以设计信任，这有公式，我们来谈谈。你可以设计信任。信念应该是真实的，否则你在干什么？还不如去找份普通工作。所以希望创始人本身已经有了信念。但是，有方法可以传达这种信念，并将其印刻在人们心中，并且在数年里坚持不懈地重复。

Lulu: So yeah, going to Mars sounds super wacky, but people who have been around Elon and I've heard him say it over and over and people who know him and trust him believe that we will go to Mars in our lifetime.

露露: 是的，去火星听起来超级古怪，但是那些在埃隆身边、听他一遍又一遍地说，并且认识他、信任他的人，相信我们在有生之年能去火星。

Host: I believe him. The first time he said it I thought he was crazy.

雷: 我相信他。他第一次说的时候，我觉得他疯了。

Lulu: I'm sure maybe the tenth time, maybe the hundredth time, but by the 10,000th time you're sort of like maybe he sees something that we don't see. And if you look at people who do not like or trust Elon, they don't believe it as much cuz they think he's a charlatan. They think he's a liar. They think he's a bad guy. And so anything he says, they don't take seriously. But if you take him seriously and you trust him and you believe him, then that carries a lot of weight, especially when he says it over and over and over.

露露: 我相信，也许第十次、第一百次你还觉得他疯，但到第一万次的时候，你就会想，也许他看到了我们看不到的东西。如果你去看那些不喜欢或不信任埃隆的人，他们就不会那么相信，因为他们认为他是个骗子、说谎者、坏人。所以他说什么，他们都不会当真。但如果你认真对待他，信任他，相信他，那么他说的话就很有分量，尤其是当他一遍又一遍地重复时。

Trust vs. Likability: The Affect Heuristic

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

雷: 你用了“信任”这个词，我在想这和“讨人喜欢”之间有没有细微差别。因为我以前听过——不记得是哪里听来的了——但我记得读到过，我们更容易被我们喜欢的人说服。而你用了“信任”，我想知道这是不是有意的。

Lulu: We're more convinced by people we like and we like people that we trust. Okay. Um so they are related. It is it is possible to believe someone you don't like. Right. It is um like picture someone that you really dislike and they say they're going to do something but you immediately believe that they're going to do it. So let's say that there's some foreign adversary who makes a threat and you believe that they'll follow through on their threat because they usually do even if you don't like them. That is possible. But there definitely is a link between um if you like someone you're more likely to believe them and if you if you believe someone you're more likely to like them.

露露: 我们更容易被我们喜欢的人说服，而我们喜欢我们信任的人。好的，所以它们是相关的。相信一个你不喜欢的人是可能的。对。比如，想象一个你非常讨厌的人，他们说要做某件事，但你立刻就相信他们会做。比如说，某个外国对手发出威胁，你相信他们会兑现威胁，因为他们通常都这么做，即使你不喜欢他们。这是可能的。但这两者之间绝对有联系——如果你喜欢某人，你更可能相信他们；如果你相信某人，你更可能喜欢他们。

Lulu: Uh and I think that liking is actually really underrated. So have you heard of the affect heuristic? It's, you know, we have different decision-making heuristics. We have mental shortcuts because we don't have all the time in the world. This is like an evolutionary thing that everybody has this. We don't train it. It just, it just comes with us, you know, out of the box. We don't have all the time in the world to take in every single piece of information and make a decision all the time. Sometimes it's like if you see smoke, you just got to go, right? And so, we make um we take mental shortcuts all the time. And one of the big mental shortcuts is if we like something and feel comfortable with something, it's more likely to be real. Someone we like is more likely to be competent. Someone we like is more likely to be smart. All these things just kind of go together. And so liking is at the center of that.

露露: 而且我认为“喜欢”实际上被严重低估了。你听说过情感启发式（Affect Heuristic：一种心理捷径，人们根据对某事物的好恶感觉来做出判断和决定）吗？我们有不同的决策启发法。我们有心理捷径，因为我们没有全世界的时间。这就像是每个人都与生俱来的进化产物，我们不需要训练。我们没有时间去吸收每一条信息然后随时做出决定。有时就像看到烟就得跑，对吧？所以，我们一直在走心理捷径。其中一个主要的心理捷径就是，如果我们喜欢某样东西并感到舒服，它就更有可能是真实的。我们喜欢的人更有可能是能干的。我们喜欢的人更有可能是聪明的。所有这些都自然而然地联系在一起。所以，“喜欢”是这一切的核心。

How to Engineer Trust

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

雷: 你提到我们可以设计信任。我们该怎么做？

Lulu: One is repeated exposure. So in order to trust somebody, first you have to have a sense of who they are. Like you would you wouldn't trust a stranger. you wouldn't trust a mystery man. So, one is you have to know who who are they? They have to show up enough for you get a for you to get a sense of you actually know them and they're not a total stranger to you. It's hard to trust a stranger, but it's easy to trust even a stranger that you have a parasocial relationship with because they're not a stranger. There are people that you've never met in your life who would trust you because to them you're not a stranger.

露露: 第一是重复曝光。为了信任某人，你首先必须了解他们是谁。你不会信任一个陌生人，不会信任一个神秘人。所以，第一点是，你必须知道他们是谁。他们必须出现得足够多，让你感觉你真的了解他们，他们对你来说不是完全的陌生人。信任一个陌生人很难，但信任一个你与之有拟社会关系（即使是陌生人）却很容易，因为他们已经不是陌生人了。有些你一生从未见过的人会信任你，因为对他们来说，你不是陌生人。

Lulu: So, first is just become not a stranger. Second is establish a set of shared values. I wouldn't necessarily trust your opinion on a restaurant. Unless I knew that you and I like the same type of food. So if you are like a vegan that hates spicy food and whatever, I I probably wouldn't take your restaurant recommendation. Um even if I like you as a person, right?

露露: 所以，首先是变得不陌生。第二是建立一套共同的价值观。我不一定会相信你对一家餐厅的评价，除非我知道你和我都喜欢同一种食物。所以，如果你是一个讨厌辣食的素食主义者，我可能就不会采纳你的餐厅推荐，即使我个人很喜欢你，对吧？

Lulu: So you you have to establish some shared baseline of values. Here are some core things that I believe about the world and if you share them then listen to what I have to say next. If you don't share them that's okay, right? Not everybody has to share them. So they have to get a sense of who you are and you're not a stranger. And they have to get a sense of how you think and how you view things such that when you say other things, they already have ingrained in their mind that they think like you think and therefore if you believe this thing, they're more likely to believe that thing, too.

露露: 所以你必须建立一个共同的价值观基线。“这些是我对世界的一些核心信念，如果你也认同，那么就听听我接下来要说的。”如果你不认同，那也没关系，不是每个人都必须认同。所以，他们必须了解你是谁，你不再是陌生人。他们还必须了解你的思维方式和你看待事物的方式，这样一来，当你说其他事情时，他们的脑海里已经根植了“他和我想法一样”的观念，因此如果你相信某件事，他们也更可能相信那件事。

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

露露: 这就是解决辩论或争论的方法。顺便说一句，更好的争论方式——你可以看到像加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）这样非常圆滑的人在他的播客上就这样做，也许有点过于油滑，但他显然非常擅长——就是他会找一个在很多事情上完全不同意他的人，然后他总会确保从同意对方某件事开始，即使是微不足道的小事。“我同意你，那件事完全是疯了。”然后我们就可以进行富有成效的对话了，因为我们已经建立了一个基础，即我们之间是有可能达成共识的，而不是你下意识地假设我们不可能有共同点。

The Power of Showing Up and Deterrence

The Deterrent Effect of Responding

Host: Do you think that founders have to rebut everything? I want to get into sort of negative media later, but do you think they have to rebut everything or is it that if they do it enough, it sort of like deters attacks?

雷: 你认为创始人必须反驳每一件事吗？我稍后想谈谈负面媒体的话题，但你认为他们需要反驳所有事情，还是说如果他们做得足够多，就能起到威慑攻击的作用？

Lulu: I think there's a big um deterrent effect with some founders. So like Palmer Luckey has extremely strong deter. Have you ever read the three body problem? The three body problem. It's it's it's uh actually three books and there's an alien civilization and they probably want to come to Earth and take all of our resources and we would be destroyed. And it turn it turns into a game of deterrence. It turns into game theory of how do we prevent them from doing that when they're so much more technologically sophisticated than us.

露露: 我认为一些创始人具有很强的威慑作用。比如帕尔默·拉奇（Palmer Luckey）就有极强的威慑力。你读过《三体》吗？《三体》实际上是三本书，讲的是一个外星文明可能想来地球夺取我们所有资源，而我们将被毁灭。故事演变成了一场威慑博弈，变成了关于当对手技术远比我们先进时，我们如何阻止他们的博弈论（Game Theory）。

Lulu: All of this is to say that some people have strong deterrence or weak deterrence and you can signal that through your behavior. Someone like Palmer whom I love and I really like this about him has basically perfect deterrence which is that if you come after him in some material way he will come after you basically guaranteed 100% of the time. His comm's team isn't holding him back. His co-founders aren't holding him back. Investors nothing nothing is holding him back from coming after you and probably continuing to come after you for maybe the rest of his life. like extremely strong deterrence, which doesn't mean that there are not like internet goons who sometimes still take a shot, but I actually haven't seen it for a very long time. I can't remember the last time that someone took a meaningful shot at Palmer, that someone landed a blow.

露露: 这一切都说明，有些人有强大的威慑力，有些人则威慑力较弱，你可以通过你的行为来发出信号。像帕尔默这样的人——我爱他，并且非常欣赏他这一点——他基本上有完美的威慑力，那就是如果你以任何实质性的方式攻击他，他百分之百会反击你。他的公关团队拦不住他，他的联合创始人拦不住他，投资者也拦不住他，没有什么能阻止他反击你，而且可能会在他余生中持续反击。这种威慑力极强，这并不意味着没有网络小混混偶尔还会攻击他，但我已经很久没见过了。我不记得上一次有谁对帕尔默发起了有意义的攻击并得手了。

Responding to Attacks: A Playbook

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

雷: 我们来谈谈在受到攻击时该如何应对。比如说，有两个场景我能想到：一篇关于你公司的负面文章，或者可能是对CEO的指控。应对这些事情的策略是什么？

Lulu: The first thing is does it actually matter? Cuz like don't waste your one wild and precious life responding to every single thing if it doesn't matter. Not because it'll necessarily hurt you, but just you have better things to do with your time. Go for a walk. So, the first is deciding whether it matters. And there's a couple things to decide whether it matters. Number one, is it reaching people that matter? Cuz if it's some dark corner of the internet with some crank and your actual audience is not there and don't care, that's totally fine.

露露: 第一件事是，它真的重要吗？因为如果事情不重要，就别把你宝贵而狂野的一生浪费在回应每一件小事上。不是因为它一定会伤害你，而是因为你有更重要的事情要做。去散散步吧。所以，首先要判断它是否重要。有几点可以帮助判断。第一，它是否触及了重要的人群？如果它只是在互联网某个阴暗角落里，由某个怪人发布，而你的真正受众根本不在那里也不关心，那就完全没问题。

Lulu: So So the first is just like who is it and who are they reaching and is that going to do damage? And then the second is is it something material? So, if it's I write a blog post and I'm like I went to Shane Parish's studio and his snacks weren't that good. But if it's like I went to his studio and he lied to me about what we're going to cover. Um, he tricked me into coming on with promises of an interview and and it went in a totally different direction. And after he lied, he used that to, you know, he put my face on an ad without getting my permission. He used it to like shill his new supplements company or something. that would be pretty material to you in trying to get future guests and in in the image that you have with people that you respect and so that would be worth addressing.

露露: 所以，第一点是，这是谁，他们触及了谁，这会造成损害吗？第二点是，这是否是实质性的问题？比如，如果我写一篇博客说“我去了Shane Parish的录音室，他的零食不怎么样。”但这无伤大雅。但如果是，“我去了他的录音室，他骗了我关于我们要讨论的内容。他用采访的承诺骗我来，结果完全是另一回事。在他撒谎之后，他未经我允许就把我的脸用在广告上，用来推销他的新保健品公司之类。”这对你未来邀请嘉宾以及你在你尊重的人心中的形象来说，就是非常实质性的问题了，因此值得回应。

Lulu: If both are a yes, then you got to respond immediately and aggressively, right away. You can't kind of, oh, I don't know. It feels so bad. Maybe it'll go away. the the instinct is let me just maybe it'll just go away by itself. It doesn't go away by itself.

露露: 如果两个问题的答案都是“是”，那么你必须立即、积极地做出回应，马上。你不能犹豫，“哦，我不知道，感觉好糟糕，也许它会自己消失。”人的本能是希望它自己消失，但它不会自己消失。

Lulu: So this is like so I broke my nose um multiple times in college. You could sort of see it's like curved. And the what I learned about broken noses is if you break your nose, you got to break it back right away so that it can heal. If you don't do that, you either have a crooked nose forever and learn to live with it, or if you want to get it fixed five years later, you got to break it back five years later. So, you can either break it back now while it's already broken and then let it heal hopefully once and for all. Or you can kind of wait for it to go away and then decide that you're not happy with it and it bugs you and then you have to fix it and then 5 years later you're stuck breaking your nose from scratch.

露露: 这就像我的鼻子，我在大学时摔断了好几次，你可以看到它有点弯。我从中学到的是，如果你的鼻子断了，你必须马上把它掰回去，这样它才能愈合。如果你不这样做，你要么永远顶着一个歪鼻子，学着接受它；要么，如果你五年后想修复它，你就得在五年后重新把它打断再接。所以，你要么趁它已经断了的时候现在就把它掰回来，然后希望它能一劳永逸地愈合；要么你就等着，然后决定你不满意，它让你烦恼，于是你必须修复它，结果五年后你得从零开始重新打断你的鼻子。

Lulu: This is the way that I think about a reputational blow is if if there has been material reputational damage, you can either handle it in that moment and break the nose back and and just fix it then and there while things are already bad or kind of let it fester and then eventually you'll realize like you don't want to live with this and you have to address it and now you're stuck with do I have a crooked nose forever or do I have to break it from scratch?

露露: 我就是这样看待声誉打击的。如果出现了实质性的声誉损害，你要么就在当下处理它，把“鼻子掰回来”，趁着情况已经很糟的时候当场解决；要么你就任其恶化，最终你会意识到你不想这样生活下去，你必须解决它，而那时你就陷入了“我是要永远顶着歪鼻子，还是必须从头开始把它打断重来”的困境。

Fight Stories with Stories

Host: One of the things that I read that's related to uh accusations and sort of corporate crisis, you said if you're fighting a story with a statistic, you're losing. Double click on that for me.

雷: 我读到过一篇与指控和企业危机相关的文章，你曾说过，“如果你用统计数据来对抗一个故事，你就输了。”请为我详细解释一下这一点。

Lulu: You know the probably apocryphal Lenin quote about one death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is a statistic. This is so true. And I think a good example of this is probably during the NAFTA debates where it was about should we have free trade or not free trade. And the people who are pro- NAFTA, pro-trade would say it'll lift our GDP by this much. It'll it'll help facilitate this much um flow of trade and do these it was like very nebulous because what is 2% versus 1% versus 8% like the average person doesn't it doesn't mean anything to them.

露露: 你知道那句可能是列宁说的名言，“一个人的死亡是悲剧，一百万人的死亡只是一个统计数字。” 这太真实了。我认为一个很好的例子可能是在NAFTA（北美自由贸易协定）辩论期间，当时争论的是我们是否应该实行自由贸易。支持NAFTA、支持贸易的人会说，这能将我们的GDP提升多少，能促进多少贸易流动，等等。这些都非常模糊，因为2%对1%再对8%——对普通人来说，这毫无意义。

Lulu: Whereas, if you're anti-trade and you could say like, "This is Shane. He's got 12 children. He just lost his job." People will do anything to help Shane with 12 children who just lost his job versus the 2% of potential growth just doesn't mean anything. It's why when um charities try to get you to give money, they're like this specific child. So, on the on the poster on the recruiting thing, it's never like 50,000 children or at least if they're doing a good job, it's not. If they're doing a good job, it's like this is one little girl, you know, staring into the camera. She has this sickness. She needs $10, right? Can you just do that? Or even if it's save the pandas, it's very specific. This panda has a name.

露露: 而如果你是反贸易的，你可以说：“这是Shane。他有12个孩子，他刚刚失业了。”人们会竭尽全力去帮助这个有12个孩子且刚失业的Shane，相比之下，那2%的潜在增长就毫无意义了。这就是为什么慈善机构劝你捐款时，他们会展示一个特定的孩子。海报上、募捐宣传上，从来不会是“五万个孩子”——至少如果他们做得好，就不会是这样。如果他们做得好，就会是：“这是一个小女孩，你知道，她正凝视着镜头。她得了这种病，她需要10美元，你能帮帮她吗？”或者即使是拯救熊猫，也会非常具体：“这只熊猫有个名字。”

Lulu: You have to fight story with story. There's no like the most powerful statistic is probably not as powerful as the median story. Like the most powerful statistic is not as powerful probably as the average story. If someone is fighting you with stories, you have to fight with stories. Out of the statistics will be better stories. Under the statistics are more powerful stories. So the facts are on your side. Better stories can be found. And if your opponent is actually lying in their skull duggery, maybe there's a story about that.

露露: 你必须用故事来对抗故事。没有什么比故事更有力。最强大的统计数据，可能还不如一个中等水平的故事有说服力。最强大的统计数据，可能还不如一个普通的故事有说服力。如果有人用故事来攻击你，你就必须用故事来反击。从统计数据中可以提炼出更好的故事。统计数据背后是更强大的故事。所以如果事实在你这边，更好的故事是可以找到的。如果你的对手在撒谎、搞阴谋，也许关于这一点本身就有一个故事可以讲。

The Advantage of Framing and Pre-buttal

Host: Whoever comes out first has an advantage.

雷: 谁先出手谁就有优势。

Lulu: Um this is Winston Churchill says the a lie makes its way around around the world before the truth can get its pants on. online you see this constantly where somebody will post something and then sometimes there's a great rebuttal and the rebuttal will get like one-tenth as much engagement as the original thing. And so there's a lot of value in simply saying the thing first. And if you think someone is going to attack you for something, then you can get ahead of it and do the pre- rebuttal. The pre-buttal. Uh I think the pre-buttal should be a thing. If you know what people are going to attack you for, do the pre-buttal.

露露: 温斯顿·丘吉尔说过，当真相还在穿裤子时，谎言已经传遍了半个世界。在网上你经常看到这种情况，有人发了个东西，然后有时会有一个很棒的反驳，但这个反驳的互动量可能只有原文的十分之一。所以，仅仅是第一个说出来就很有价值。如果你觉得有人会因为某件事攻击你，那你就可以抢先一步，进行**“预反驳”**（pre-buttal）。我认为“预反驳”应该成为一个常规操作。如果你知道人们会因为什么攻击你，就先做预反驳。

Lulu: So have you seen the Eminem rap battle in 8 Mile? I know everything you're about to say against me. And everybody should do this. I actually think um there should be just a clip. I want to find a clip of the final rap battle and just make it mandatory viewing for anyone who's in the public eye and has haters and people attacking them because what he says hopefully everyone's already seen this u cinematic masterpiece but what he does is in this rap battle Eminem's character he goes first and everything that the guy would have used against him he uses against himself and addresses all of it and he either owns it or diffuses it and then by the end the other guy actually has nothing left to say. So just being first means that you have the opportunity to do that. If that if the order had been reversed, the whole thing wouldn't have worked.

露露: 你看过电影《8英里》里阿姆的说唱对决吗？“我知道所有你想用来攻击我的话。”每个人都应该这样做。我真的觉得应该有一个片段。我想找到最后那场说唱对决的片段，把它作为所有公众人物、有黑粉和攻击者的人的必看内容。因为他在那场对决中——希望大家都看过这部电影杰作——阿姆的角色先上场，把他对手可能用来攻击他的一切，都先用来攻击自己，把所有问题都摆出来，要么承认，要么化解。到最后，对方实际上无话可说。所以，仅仅是第一个发言，就意味着你有机会这样做。如果顺序颠倒，这一切就不会奏效了。

The Physics of Communication

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

雷: 为了促进全世界更好的政治讨论，如果你是反对派，当你的对手在讲一个毫无事实根据的故事，而你用事实去反驳又赢不了时，你该如何应对？

Lulu: You're not just attacking me. You're attacking all of us. You're not just attacking, let's say, Substack or a Substacker for a specific post. You're attacking all independent writers who are trying to assert their freedom of expression. That's a way to diffuse the pressure on you and rally people to you uh in a very powerful way.

露露: “你不仅仅是在攻击我，你是在攻击我们所有人。”你不仅仅是在攻击，比如说，Substack或某个写手的特定文章，你是在攻击所有试图维护言论自由的独立作家。这是一种分散你身上压力，并以一种非常有力的方式将人们团结到你身边的方法。

Host: I like that a lot. Double click more on the offense if you're playing offense here.

雷: 我很喜欢这个观点。请再深入谈谈如果你在这里采取攻势会是怎样。

Lulu: Yeah. So, if you're trying to pick a fight to get attention, if you're uh trying to preempt something if sometimes a good way to succeed as an underdog is to pick a fight. Now, I don't suggest picking a fight just to be mean and you never want to be punching down or you be the bully. That's not good. But if you are starting from basically nothing and you need to gather steam and and gather people to join a movement, make yourself relevant, then it's good to have something to fight for. You need to have a cause. And often with a cause, you need to have a foil.

露露: 是的。所以，如果你想通过挑起争端来获得关注，或者你想抢先一步——有时候，作为弱者，一个成功的好方法就是挑起一场战斗。当然，我不建议仅仅为了刻薄而挑起争端，而且你绝不应该欺负弱者或成为恶霸，那不好。但如果你一无所有，需要积聚力量，召集人们加入一场运动，让自己变得重要，那么有一个为之奋斗的目标是很好的。你需要一个事业。而通常，一个事业需要一个对立面。

Velocity: Magnitude and Direction

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

雷: 回到物理学一下，在沟通中，“速度”（velocity）有多重要？

Lulu: Yeah. So, I talk about velocity a lot because velocity is a vector. It has a magnitude and a direction. People talk a lot about magnitude. They don't talk about direction. So they t this is what you were saying earlier with like people just say a lot of words but it doesn't mean anything and so sometimes it feels like the metric is just quantity of yapping and we're going to go on all these podcasts and we're going to deliver blog posts like I've seen inside a lot of comm's teams or agencies where their metrics and their KPIs for the quarter are two op-eds, three podcasts, four town halls and and it's all about quantity without talking about where are we trying to move the needle to.

露露: 是的。我经常谈论速度（velocity），因为速度是一个矢量（vector），它既有大小（magnitude）也有方向（direction）。人们谈论大小很多，却不谈论方向。这就是你之前说的，人们说了很多话，但毫无意义。所以有时感觉衡量标准就是喋喋不休的数量。我们会去上所有这些播客，我们会发布博客文章。我见过很多公关团队或机构，他们季度的指标和KPI是两篇评论文章、三个播客、四场市政厅会议，全都是关于数量，却不谈我们想把指针推向哪个方向。

Lulu: You actually want your comms to look kind of like a line that builds towards a destination. And if you don't have the direction in mind, then it's just a bunch of frantic activity and wasted motion, some of which cancels each other out. So again, it goes back to don't worry so much about where are you going to say it. Worry about what are you going to say in none of these plans and strategies that lay out three town halls and four opeds and whatever. I almost never see here's the idea that we want to spread. here is the idea that we're going to spread and everything needs to go in this direction and what makes this idea interesting and worthwhile. It's just get the CEO out there, get this CEO out there, get him interviews, get him onto the Shane Parish podcast. What's he going to say? Nobody knows. Just put him in the chair.

露露: 实际上，你希望你的沟通看起来像一条通往目的地的线。如果你没有明确的方向，那它就只是一堆疯狂的活动和浪费的动作，其中一些还会相互抵消。所以，这又回到了那个观点：不要太担心你要在哪里说，而要担心你要说什么。在那些规划了三场市政厅会议、四篇评论文章等等的计划和策略中，我几乎从未见过“这是我们想要传播的理念，一切都需要朝着这个方向努力，以及是什么让这个理念变得有趣和有价值”这样的内容。他们只是想“让CEO出去，让这个CEO出去，给他安排采访，让他上Shane Parish的播客。”他要说什么？没人知道。把他放在椅子上就行了。

A Framework for Personal and Professional Success

The Macro: Be Intentional About Your Image

Lulu: The same way that um a founder needs to project an image of themselves and an image of their company and what they're doing, any person in any realm of their life needs to project an image of themselves. So I am you might project an image of yourself as a spouse or as a friend or as a business partner or as an employee but in every scenario the 40 billion data points about you as a fully rounded three-dimensional person is way overwhelming. Nobody actually brings their full selves to work. It's literally impossible. So you can either half-hazardly let people see whatever they can make out from the random data points you give them or you can be intentional and strategic about which ones you present.

露露: 就像一位创始人需要投射出自己、公司以及他们正在做的事情的形象一样，任何人在生活的任何领域都需要投射出自己的形象。所以，你可能会投射出自己作为配偶、朋友、商业伙伴或员工的形象。但在每一种情境下，关于你这个完整立体的人的400亿个数据点是极其庞杂的。没有人能真正把“完整的自我”带到工作中，这几乎是不可能的。所以，你要么 haphazardly（随意地）让人们从你给出的随机数据点中自行拼凑对你的印象，要么你可以有意识地、有策略地选择你呈现哪些数据点。

Lulu: So at any given time, there's a very small number of things that people actually retain about us. And we can either be haphazard or we can be intentional. So at a macro level, I would say just as an employee in any role, as an employee, as a friend, be intentional about what you want those things to be. And then present proof points and foster that. And obviously it should be uh tethered to reality. It should be authentic. It can't be like totally fabricated, but it can be a conscious decision of this is the best side of me in the workplace.

露露: 所以在任何时候，人们真正能记住关于我们的事情都非常少。我们可以是随意的，也可以是有意识的。因此，在宏观层面上，我会说，作为任何角色的员工，或者作为朋友，要有意识地去决定你希望那些被记住的事情是什么。然后，提供证据点并培养这种印象。当然，这必须与现实挂钩，必须是真实的。它不能是完全捏造的，但可以是一个有意识的决定：“这是我在工作场所最好的一面。”

The Micro: Know What You Want to Say

Host: What about the micro in terms of like how do I make my presentation better, my email better, my like what are the the tips and tricks that you've learned that you wish everybody knew?

雷: 那么在微观层面呢，比如我如何让我的演示文稿更好，我的邮件更好？你学到了哪些希望每个人都知道的技巧和窍门？

Lulu: It goes back to what are you trying to say? People worry way too much about the form factor and not enough about what they want to say. And so whether it's an email or a text or a phone call or a presentation, know the thing that you want to say, say that. Then say why they should care. And if you can do that, you've won. like the the vast the vast majority of presentations or emails that are sent are more like I need to check the box and just get this thing done so I can move on with my day to do I guess more of these but there isn't a clear view of this thing that has taken up 5 seconds of someone's time had a goal and did you achieve that goal or not?

露露: 这又回到了“你想说什么？”这个问题上。人们过于担心形式，而对他们想说的内容思考得不够。所以，无论是电子邮件、短信、电话还是演示文稿，首先要知道你想说的重点，然后说出来。接着，告诉他们为什么他们应该关心。如果你能做到这一点，你就赢了。绝大多数的演示文稿或邮件更像是“我需要完成这个任务，好让我能继续我的一天，去做更多类似的事情”，但他们并没有清晰地认识到，这个花了别人5秒钟时间的东西，是否有一个目标，以及你是否实现了那个目标。

Lulu: and just use normal words too. Like just use normal words, please. Normal words. Just use words where everybody knows what they mean. Sometimes there's like a very specific word that I'm not saying never use jargon. By the way, if you're talking to other people in the industry, jargon is a word that they all know what it means. So, you can use that because they all know what it means. If you're talking to six-year-olds, you obviously wouldn't use jargon. So, it's not about categorically always use this, never use that. It's about use words that the other person is going to know.

露露: 并且，请使用正常的词语。拜托，就用正常的词语。用那些每个人都知道意思的词。有时候会有一个非常特定的词，我不是说永远不要用行话。顺便说一句，如果你在和行业内的人交谈，行话是他们都懂的词，所以你可以用。如果你在和六岁的孩子说话，你显然不会用行话。所以，这不是一个绝对的“总是用这个，绝不用那个”的问题，而是关于使用对方能听懂的词语。

Final Thoughts: Bending Reality

Host: We always end with the same question, which is what is success for you?

雷: 我们总是以同一个问题结束，那就是：对你来说，什么是成功？

Lulu: Success for me is to open source a lot of what we're talking about here. Specifically, the idea that you can control your destiny. You can create alternate realities. You can bend reality. Reality is subjective anyway, right? You can bend it to your favor if you're able to communicate to people who matter in the ways that strike them in the heart and in the mind to get them to see the world the way that you do so that you can come together and do something that doesn't make sense in the moment but does make sense longer term.

露露: 对我而言，成功是将我们在这里讨论的很多东西开源。具体来说，就是这个理念：你可以控制自己的命运，你可以创造不同的现实，你可以扭转现实。现实本就是主观的，对吗？如果你能够以触动人心、触动思想的方式，与重要的人沟通，让他们以你的方式看待世界，那么你就可以扭转现实，使其对你有利。这样你们就能走到一起，做一些当下看起来不合理，但长远来看却非常有意义的事情。

Lulu: And if and open sourcing this means that people understand that they can just go and do this. They don't need to hire me. They don't need to hire consultants. They don't need to hire a team. They can like anything in the world is is better with friends. You can have people help you with it. But you don't need to wait for anybody else. You can just take control of your destiny by deciding here is where I'm going to go. Here's the direction I need to go in order to achieve this specific goal. and I'm going to bend reality until I can get there.

露露: 而开源这一切，意味着让人们明白他们可以自己去做到这些。他们不需要雇佣我，不需要雇佣顾问，不需要雇佣团队。当然，世界上的任何事有朋友一起会更好，你可以找人帮助你。但你不需要等待任何人。你可以通过决定“这是我要去的地方，这是我为实现这个特定目标需要走的方向”，来掌控自己的命运，然后我会扭转现实，直到我到达那里。