内容来源：https://nav.al/agency

内容总结：

【个人成长新视角：主动担责方能掌握人生主动权】
近日，一场关于"自我责任与主观能动性"的讨论引发关注。观点指出，将问题归因于自身而非外部环境，反而是保持人生掌控力的关键——当我们主动承担所有责任时，实际上是在创造解决问题的可能性。

讨论中援引爱默生"天才作品让我们重遇被自己否定的思想"的观点，强调真诚且有共鸣的表达具有强大力量。针对社会上存在的"财富原罪论""出身决定论"等消极观点，该讨论指出：尽管世界确实存在不平等，但长期来看，持续的行动、思考与选择会削弱运气的影响。以硅谷成功者为例，其中多数人并非天生占据优势，而是通过主动选择环境、坚持长期奋斗取得成就。

专家强调，保持"主观能动性"如同儿童天生具备的探索本能，需要长期维护。悲观主义往往成为自我实现的预言，就像骑摩托车时紧盯墙壁反而会撞向墙壁。真正推动个人突破的，正是那种"相信能改变事物"的信念，以及像马斯克殖民火星、乔布斯研发iPad这样的长期愿景。最终结论是：拒绝 cynicism（犬儒主义），保持主观能动性，才是实现个人突破的核心动力。

中文翻译：

凡事都应归咎于自己，并保持主观能动性

尼维：我们再来聊聊另一条推文吧，我第一次看到时就特别喜欢，可能还转推过。我觉得人们转发推文，往往是因为看到了自己心有所感却未能明确表达的内容——那些深藏于心却未曾明言的思绪。

这种时候人们就会想："我必须转发这条。"比如今年1月17日这条："凡事都应归咎于自己，并保持主观能动性"。我的理解是：对一切负责，在承担责任的过程中，你就能创造并保持解决问题的能动性。

若你认为问题与己无关，自然无法解决问题。

纳瓦尔：关于你提到"心有戚戚却表达不及"这点，爱默生就精于此道。他总能以优美方式表述，让人不禁感叹"这正是我所思所感，却不知如何表达"。

他曾说："在每一部天才之作中，我们都能认出那些曾被自己摒弃的思绪——它们带着某种疏离的威严重返心灵。"我深爱这句话。这也是我在推特尝试做的事：用有趣的方式诉说真理。

不仅要求真实有趣，还必须蕴含真挚的情感力量。必须是近期真正触动我、对我重要的感悟。否则就是在无病呻吟。我从不会刻意构思推文，而是当某事触动心弦时，以特定方式将其凝练成文。

我会反复验证："这是真理吗？"若觉得属实，或在我关注的语境下基本成立，并能以易于记忆的方式呈现，就会发布。对于心有灵犀者，这从来都不是新观点。

若表述无趣，就会沦为陈词滥调。但若方式巧妙，就能唤醒重要记忆，或将他们的特定知识转化为更普世的认知。

我觉得这个过程对自己很有益，希望他人也能获益。说到这条推文，我注意到一种倾向：人们变得愤世嫉俗，总说"所有财富都是抢来的"，比如被银行家、权贵资本家、窃贼或寡头掠夺。

"如果你是X阶层就永无出头之日""穷孩子注定无法翻身""出生在这个国家、这个种族，或有残疾盲障就注定失败"——问题在于，虽然世间确实存在阻碍，竞技场从来就不公平，公平不过是童稚的幻想。

但世界并非全凭运气。事实上我们都心知肚明：人生中某些积极成果确实源于自身行动。若当时没有采取行动，就不会有相应收获。

所以我们绝对能改变现状，这绝非全靠运气。尤其当我们把时间线拉长，行动越积极，尝试次数越多，思考与选择越深入，运气的影响就越小。举个简单例子（虽然多数人可能无感）：二十年前我在硅谷见过的每一位年轻才俊，如今个个都成功了。

无一例外。我简直能根据他们当年的才华程度来预测成功概率。顺便说，YC创业孵化器不就是大规模做这件事吗？多么神奇的机制。事实证明：坚持二十年，必见成效。你或许会说"站着说话不腰疼，这是硅谷特权"。

但谁都不是硅谷原住民。他们都是迁徙而来的——为了与聪明人为伍，为了掌握人生主动权。主观能动性确实有效，但若急功近利，注定会失望。

你会过早放弃。所以需要更高远的动力。这就是为什么马斯克要奔赴火星，山姆要创造通用人工智能，乔布斯在五十年前的八十年代就梦想制造能装进书本的电脑——他当时描述的正是iPad。

正是这些长远愿景支撑人们经年累月地努力，最终实现理想。愤世嫉俗的信念只会自我应验。悲观主义就像骑着摩托车却紧盯本该避开的砖墙——你会不知不觉撞上去。

所以必须保持主观能动性。这是与生俱来的能力，孩童最具能动性：想要什么就直接去争取。你必须保持这种改变事物的信念。

英文来源：

Blame Yourself for Everything, and Preserve Your Agency
Nivi: Let’s talk about one more tweet which I liked when I first saw it, or I might have retweeted it. I think people retweet things when they see something that they haven’t figured out how to say yet, but they knew in their head, but it’s just implicit—it hadn’t been made explicit.
I think that’s when people are like, “I need to retweet this.” So this one was January 17: “Blame yourself for everything and preserve your agency.”
From my end it’s like: Take responsibility for everything, and in the process of taking responsibility for something, you create and preserve the agency to go solve that problem.
If you’re not responsible for the problem, there’s no way for you to fix the problem.
Naval: Just to address your point of how it was something you already knew, but phrased in a way that you liked. Emerson did this all the time. He would phrase things in a beautiful way and you would say, “Oh, that’s exactly what I was thinking and feeling, but I didn’t know how to articulate it.”
And the way he put it was he said, “In every work of genius, we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty.” And I just love that line. It’s what I try to do with Twitter, which is I try to say something true, but in an interesting way.
And not only is this a true and interesting way to say it, but also it has to be something that really has emotional heft behind it. It has to have struck me recently and been important to me. Otherwise, I’m just faking it. I don’t sit around trying to think up tweets to write. It’s more that something happens to me, something affects me emotionally, and then I synthesize it in a certain way.
I test it. I’m like, “Is this true?” And if I feel like it’s true, or mostly true or true in the context that I care about, and if I can say it in some way that’ll help me stick in my mind, then I just send it out there. And it’s nothing new for the people who get it.
If it’s not said in an interesting way, then it’s a cliche, or if they’ve heard it too much, it’s a cliche. But if it’s said in an interesting way, then it may remind them of something that was important, or it might convert their specific knowledge, or might be a hook for converting their specific knowledge into more general knowledge in their own minds.
So I find that process useful for myself and hopefully others do too. Now, for the specific tweet, I just noticed this tendency where people are very cynical and they’ll say, “All the wealth is stolen,” for example, by banksters and the like, or crony capitalists or what have you, or just outright thieves or oligarchs.
“You can’t rise up in this world if you’re X.” “You can’t rise up in this world if you’re a poor kid.” “You can’t rise up in this world if you are from this race or ethnicity, if you were born in that country, or if you are lame or crippled or blind,” or what have you.
The problem with this is that yes, there are real hindrances in the world. It is not a level playing field, and fair is something that only exists in a child’s imagination and cannot be pinned down in any real way. But the world is not entirely luck. In fact, you know that because in your own life there are things that you have done that have led to good outcomes and you know that if you had not done that thing, it would not have led to that good outcome.
So you can absolutely move the needle, and it’s not all luck. And especially the longer the timeframe you’re talking about, the more intense the activity, the more iteration you take and the more thinking and choice you apply into it, the less luck matters. It recedes into the distance. To give you a simple example, which most people won’t love because they’re not in Silicon Valley, but every brilliant person I met in Silicon Valley 20 years ago, every single one, the young brilliant ones, every single one is successful.
Every single one. I cannot think of an exception. I should have gone back and just indexed them all based on their brilliance. By the way, that’s what Y Combinator does at scale, right? What a great mechanism. So it works. If people stick at it for 20 years, it works. Now you might say, “Easy for you to say, man, that’s for the people in Silicon Valley.”
No one was born here. They all moved here. They moved here because they wanted to be where the other smart kids were and because they wanted to be high agency. So agency does work, but if you’re keeping track of the time period, you’re going to be disappointed.
You’ll give up too soon. So you need a higher motivator. That’s why Elon goes to Mars, and that’s why Sam wants to invent AGI. And that’s why Steve Jobs wanted to build, 50 years ago, in the eighties he was talking about building a computer that would fit in a book.
He was talking about the iPad. So it’s these very long visions that sustain you over the long periods of time to actually build the thing you want to build and get to where you want to get. So a cynical belief is self-fulfilling. A pessimistic belief is like you’re driving the motorcycle, but you’re looking at the brick wall that you’re supposed to turn away from.
You will turn into the brick wall without even realizing it. So you have to preserve your agency. You’re born with agency. Children are high-agency. They go get what they want. If they want something, they see it, they go get it. You have to preserve your agency. You have to preserve your belief that you can change things.