一点就通：为何优秀创始人总是一点就透
Paul Graham 发现，YC 加速器中最成功的初创公司创始人都有一个共同点：你只需给他们一句引言，他们就能自行搞定额度、用户或新想法。这种‘一点就通’的能力本质上是思维上的足智多谋。相反，失败的创始人并非不聪明，而是会下意识地抗拒那些可能推翻自己已有决定的推论，表现为沟通中的‘油盐不进’。文章通过案例和 YC 合伙人的观察，揭示了这种隐性特质的重要性。适合对创业和高效沟通感兴趣的读者。
A year ago I noticed a pattern in the least successful startups we'd funded: they all seemed hard to talk to. It felt as if there was some kind of wall between us. I could never quite tell if they understood what I was saying.
一年前，我在我们资助的最不成功的初创公司中注意到一个模式：它们似乎都很难沟通。感觉我们之间隔着一堵墙。我永远无法确定他们是否理解我说的话。
This caught my attention because earlier we'd noticed a pattern among the most successful startups, and it seemed to hinge on a different quality. We found the startups that did best were the ones with the sort of founders about whom we'd say "they can take care of themselves." The startups that do best are fire-and-forget in the sense that all you have to do is give them a lead, and they'll close it, whatever type of lead it is. When they're raising money, for example, you can do the initial intros knowing that if you wanted to you could stop thinking about it at that point. You won't have to babysit the round to make sure it happens. That type of founder is going to come back with the money; the only question is how much on what terms.
这引起了我的注意，因为早先我们在最成功的初创公司中注意到一个模式，它似乎取决于另一种品质。我们发现做得最好的初创公司，其创始人是我们会评价为“他们能照顾好自己”的那种。最成功的初创公司是“发射后不管”的：你只需给他们一个线索，他们就能搞定它，无论是什么线索。比如，在融资时，你可以进行初步介绍，然后如果你愿意，就可以不再操心。你不需要全程盯着融资轮以确保它完成。那种创始人会带着钱回来；唯一的问题是多少钱、什么条款。
It seemed odd that the outliers at the two ends of the spectrum could be detected by what appeared to be unrelated tests. You'd expect that if the founders at one end were distinguished by the presence of quality x, at the other end they'd be distinguished by lack of x. Was there some kind of inverse relation between resourcefulness and being hard to talk to?
奇怪的是，频谱两端的极端案例似乎可以通过看似不相关的测试来检测。你可能会预期，如果一端的创始人因拥有品质x而突出，那么另一端则会因缺少x而突出。资源fulness与难以沟通之间是否存在某种反比关系？
It turns out there is, and the key to the mystery is the old adage "a word to the wise is sufficient." Because this phrase is not only overused, but overused in an indirect way (by prepending the subject to some advice), most people who've heard it don't know what it means. What it means is that if someone is wise, all you have to do is say one word to them, and they'll understand immediately. You don't have to explain in detail; they'll chase down all the implications.
In much the same way that all you have to do is give the right sort of founder a one line intro to a VC, and he'll chase down the money. That's the connection. Understanding all the implications — even the inconvenient implications — of what someone tells you is a subset of resourcefulness. It's conversational resourcefulness.
事实证明是有的，而谜底在于那句老话：“智者一言足矣。”（a word to the wise is sufficient）这句话不仅被滥用，而且是以一种间接的方式被滥用（在建议前加上主语），所以大多数听说过它的人并不知道它是什么意思。它的意思是：如果一个人是明智的，你只需对他说一句话，他就能立刻明白。你不需要详细解释；他们会自行追索所有含义。
就像你只需给合适的创始人一句向VC的简短介绍，他就会去搞定资金一样。这就是联系所在。理解别人告诉你的一切含义——甚至是不便的含义——是资源fulness的一部分。这是对话式的资源fulness。
Like real world resourcefulness, conversational resourcefulness often means doing things you don't want to. Chasing down all the implications of what's said to you can sometimes lead to uncomfortable conclusions. The best word to describe the failure to do so is probably "denial," though that seems a bit too narrow. A better way to describe the situation would be to say that the unsuccessful founders had the sort of conservatism that comes from weakness. They traversed idea space as gingerly as a very old person traverses the physical world.
与现实世界中的资源fulness一样，对话式资源fulness通常意味着做你不想做的事。追索别人话语的所有含义有时会引出令人不安的结论。描述这种失败的最佳词可能是“否认”，尽管这似乎有点狭窄。更好的描述方式是：不成功的创始人拥有一种源于弱点的保守主义。他们在思想空间中小心翼翼地穿行，就像一位老人穿越物理世界一样。
The unsuccessful founders weren't stupid. Intellectually they were as capable as the successful founders of following all the implications of what one said to them. They just weren't eager to.
So being hard to talk to was not what was killing the unsuccessful startups. It was a sign of an underlying lack of resourcefulness. That's what was killing them. As well as failing to chase down the implications of what was said to them, the unsuccessful founders would also fail to chase down funding, and users, and sources of new ideas. But the most immediate evidence I had that something was amiss was that I couldn't talk to them.
不成功的创始人并不愚蠢。在智力上，他们和成功的创始人一样有能力理解别人对他们说的一切含义。他们只是不积极罢了。
因此，难以沟通并不是扼杀不成功初创公司的原因。它是潜在缺乏资源fulness的标志。那才是扼杀它们的原因。除了未能追索别人话语的含义外，不成功的创始人还会在融资、用户和新想法来源上失败。但让我发现不对劲的最直接证据就是，我无法和他们沟通。
Notes
[1] A YC partner wrote:
My feeling with the bad groups is that coming into office hours, they've already decided what they're going to do and everything I say is being put through an internal process in their heads, which either desperately tries to munge what I've said into something that conforms with their decision or just outright dismisses it and creates a rationalization for doing so. They may not even be conscious of this process but that's what I think is happening when you say something to bad groups and they have that glazed over look. I don't think it's confusion or lack of understanding per se, it's this internal process at work.
With the good groups, you can tell that everything you say is being looked at with fresh eyes and even if it's dismissed, it's because of some logical reason e.g. "we already tried that" or "from speaking to our users that isn't what they'd like," etc. Those groups never have that glazed over look.
Thanks to Sam Altman, Patrick Collison, Aaron Iba, Jessica Livingston, Robert Morris, Harj Taggar, and Garry Tan for reading drafts of this.
注释
[1] YC的一位合伙人写道：
我对坏组的感觉是，他们来办公室时间之前就已经决定了要做什么，我所说的一切都在他们大脑中被一个内部流程处理，这个流程要么拼命把我说的扭曲成符合他们决定的东西，要么直接驳回并为此编造理由。他们可能甚至没有意识到这个流程，但当你对坏组说话时他们那呆滞的眼神，我认为就是这种情况。我不认为那是困惑或理解问题本身，而是这个内部流程在起作用。
对于好组，你可以看出你所说的一切都被用全新的眼光审视，即使被驳回，也是因为某种合乎逻辑的理由，比如“我们已经试过了”或“从与用户交流来看，那不是他们想要的”等等。那些组从来不会有那种呆滞的眼神。
感谢Sam Altman、Patrick Collison、Aaron Iba、Jessica Livingston、Robert Morris、Harj Taggar和Garry Tan审阅本文草稿。