納瓦爾寶典閱讀心得2（無ＡＩ） The Almanack of Naval Ravikant – Reading Notes (2) (No AI)

：

上一篇文章我分享了納瓦爾強調的三項能力，注意力與判斷力，接著是一個很大的題目-槓桿。

然而在談到槓桿之前，我們不得不先聊到另外一個概念，因為在我看來這兩者是一套組合，將他們拆開來效益會降低很多。

那就是-複利。

我們看電影每次都看到很誇張的劇情，例如英雄忽然之間獲得了某種超能力，或是劇情總在絕處之際大逆轉，主角一舉翻盤。

我們會幻想改變人生靠的是那些戲劇性的事件，期待一夕之間一切都會變好；但現實的情況往往都是相反。

實際上讓我們人生翻轉的是那些一直持續的，不起眼的，日復一日的小的正確決定累積疊加而成的，這是複利的本質-「複利是某一結果作為基礎，在下一輪中持續疊加的效應，然後週而復始。」

複利是金融術語，但也可以用在我們人生中的方方面面，比如人際關系或知識。

以知識為例吧。

查理芒格在他的書中提到一個概念「知識模型」，他是一個典型的多核知識模型的人，這些都是經典的知識模型，比如博弈論，經濟學理論、物理學、東西方歷史或哲學等等在歷史中被驗證多年的的偉大學問。

在我第一次讀「窮查理寶典」的時候，我一直不懂他所謂的知識模型到底是什麼意思，後來我才搞懂，在他們這樣類型的人-實戰派、自學者、富有人生閱歷並且具有智慧的人看來，他們一直帶有一種「模組化」的概念，也就是將成為人的各種要素與思維看作可拆卸與組合的模塊，比如將器官看作零件，將思維邏輯也拆分開，不同的學說代表著不同的思維模塊，當你需要取用的時候，可以任意取用不同的思維模塊，即使這些模塊有某種程度的⋯不相容。

矛盾不代表不能並存，事實上人類的世界本來就充滿矛盾，這是神聖的二元性，當你在站在不同的立場就會對同一件事情有相反的看法，而人是可以有多重立場的。

回到知識的複利。

當你擁有多元的思維模型的時候，像查理芒格、納瓦爾這樣的人的時候，多重思維模塊會互相疊加，共同形塑你對於這個世界越發正確的理解，而隨著新的思維模塊的加入，它又會與過去的思維模塊再次疊加，它們共同作用的結果並不是1+1的線性關係，而是指數增長的關係。

指數增長，就是複利最大的魔力。

我們一直都被學校教育成線性思維的思維模式，1+1等於2，但在真實的世界中一個男人加一個女人可能大於2。

正因為線性的思維模式，所以我們傾向認為目前肉眼所見的一切在未來只會朝同一個方向前進，好的只會更好，壞的只會更壞，暴跌中的股票明天只會跌更低。

所以人們總是在黎明前的那一刻、在隧道盡頭的亮光出現之前放棄。

那你要跟我說：「展鵬，難道我一直堅持下去一定是對的嗎？」

不是這樣的，納瓦爾在書中說：「在槓桿時代，一個正確的決策勝過一萬個盲目努力的小時。」

這又再次顯示了判斷力的價值，很多人在經過多年驗證之後，其實早已經把事情搞砸了，或者是他們在已經失去養分的泥潭中奮力掙扎多年，依然遲遲不肯離開。這是經濟學中的沈沒成本原理，也是人性的考驗-亦即你捨不得放棄之前所投入的，所以被迫讓自己繼續困在不斷下沉的船中最終跟著船一起沉沒。

回到實際的例子，作為一位藝術家，在一個你已經看了十年的地方，很清楚的告訴你這是一個沒有複利的環境的時候，你就應該想盡辦法去找到能夠讓複利發揮作用的環境，而不是在這裡虛耗你的才華。

看來複利這個題目還無法結束。

下一篇，我會談談三種比金錢更重要的複利：技能、信任與品牌。

你的環境，是在放大你，還是在消耗你？

下篇見。

——

Artist’s Economics Notes 02 The Almanack of Naval Ravikant ) (No AI)

In the previous article, I shared the three abilities Naval emphasizes: attention and judgment. Next comes a much bigger topic—leverage.

However, before discussing leverage, we need to address another concept first. In my view, the two form a pair. Separated, their effectiveness diminishes significantly.

That concept is compounding.

In films, we constantly see exaggerated plots: a hero suddenly acquires a superpower, or the story reverses dramatically at the very last moment. We fantasize that life changes through dramatic events, expecting everything to improve overnight. Reality, however, is usually the opposite.

What truly transforms our lives are the consistent, unremarkable, day-after-day small correct decisions that accumulate over time. That is the essence of compounding: a result becomes the base for the next round of accumulation, and the process repeats.

Compounding is a financial term, but it applies to every aspect of life—relationships, knowledge, reputation.

Take knowledge as an example.

Charlie Munger introduces the idea of “mental models” in his writings. He represents a classic multi-disciplinary model thinker. These models include game theory, economic theory, physics, Eastern and Western history, philosophy—disciplines that have been validated over long stretches of time.

When I first read Poor Charlie’s Almanack, I did not understand what he meant by mental models. Later, I realized that people like him—practitioners, autodidacts, individuals with deep life experience and wisdom—approach the world with a modular mindset. They treat the elements that make up a person and their thinking as detachable and recombinable modules. Just as organs can be seen as components, thinking itself can be deconstructed. Different disciplines represent different cognitive modules. When needed, you can draw upon any of them—even if they are, to some degree, incompatible.

Contradiction does not mean mutual exclusion. The human world is inherently full of paradox. This is a kind of sacred duality. Standing in different positions leads to opposing views on the same issue—and a person is capable of holding multiple positions simultaneously.

Returning to the compounding of knowledge.

When you possess diverse mental models—like Charlie Munger or Naval—these modules interact and compound, shaping an increasingly accurate understanding of the world. As new models are added, they compound again with the existing ones. The outcome is not linear, not 1 + 1 = 2. It is exponential.

Exponential growth is the true magic of compounding.

We are educated in linear thinking: 1 + 1 = 2. But in the real world, one man plus one woman may result in more than two.

Because of this linear conditioning, we assume that what we see now will simply continue in the same direction. The good will only get better; the bad will only get worse. A plunging stock will fall even further tomorrow. As a result, people often give up right before dawn—just before the light appears at the end of the tunnel.

You might ask me, “Chan Peng, does that mean persisting is always correct?”

No.

Naval writes: “In the age of leverage, one correct decision is worth ten thousand hours of blind hard work.”

This once again highlights the value of judgment. Many people, after years of persistence, have already ruined the situation. Or they have struggled for years in a swamp that has long lost its nutrients, yet refuse to leave. This reflects the economic principle of sunk cost—and a fundamental test of human nature. Because you cannot bear to abandon what you have already invested, you force yourself to remain on a sinking ship, ultimately going down with it.

Let’s return to a concrete example.

As an artist, if you have spent ten years in a place that clearly shows no compounding effect, you should exhaust every effort to find an environment where compounding can operate—rather than allowing your talent to dissipate there.

It seems the topic of compounding is not yet finished.

In the next piece, I will discuss three forms of compounding more important than money: skills, trust, and brand.

Is your environment amplifying you—or draining you?

Until next time.