- 相關推薦
TED英文演講稿：Why you will fail to have a great career（精選7篇）
演講稿以發表意見，表達觀點為主，是為演講而事先準備好的文稿。隨著社會一步步向前發展，演講稿應用范圍愈來愈廣泛，怎么寫演講稿才能避免踩雷呢？下面是小編為大家整理的TED英文演講稿：Why you will fail to have a great career，供大家參考借鑒，希望可以幫助到有需要的朋友。
TED英文演講稿：Why you will fail to have a great career 篇1
Why you will fail to have a great career
為什么你干不成一番大事業
I want to discuss with you this afternoon why you're going to fail to have a great career. (Laughter)
今天下午我想和你們討論一下 你為什么不會成就偉業。(笑聲)
I'm an economist. I do dismal. End of the day, it's ready for dismal remarks. I only want to talk to those of you who want a great career. I know some of you have already decided you want a good career. You're going to fail, too — (Laughter) — because — Goodness, you're all cheery about failing. (Laughter) Canadian group, undoubtedly. (Laughter) Those trying to have good careers are going to fail, because, really, good jobs are now disappearing. There are great jobs and great careers, and then there are the high-workload, high-stress, bloodsucking, soul-destroying kinds of jobs, and practically nothing in between.
我是個經濟學家。我讓人心情低落。 一天過完了，準備好聽聽讓人心情低落的評論。 我只想和你們想要成就偉業的那些人談。 我知道你們有些人已經決定了 你們想要一個成功的事業。 你們也會失敗的-(笑聲)- 因為-天吶，你們聽到失敗都這么高興。(笑聲) 無疑是加拿大人。(笑聲) 想事業有成的人會失敗， 因為，真的，現在好工作都在消失。 有好工作，和好事業， 也有工作量大，壓力大， 吸食血液，侵蝕靈魂的那種工作， 而且幾乎沒有工作能好點的。
So the people looking for good jobs are going to fail. I'm going to talk about those looking for great jobs, great careers, and why you're going to, why you're going to fail. First reason is that no matter how many times people tell you, "If you want a great career, you have to pursue your passion, you have to pursue your dreams, you have to pursue, the greatest fascination in your life," you hear it again and again and then you decide not to do it. It doesn't matter how many times you download Steven J.'s Stanford commencement address, you still look at it and decide not to do it.
所以想找好工作的人會失敗。 我談談那些尋找偉業的人， 你們為什么要尋找，為什么會失敗。 第一個原因是不管多少次別人告訴你， “如果你想成就偉業，你就必須追隨你的熱忱， 你必須追隨你的夢想，你必須追隨 你人生中最大的吸引，“ 你聽過這句話一遍又一遍，然后你決定 不去這樣做。不管你下載多少次 Steven J在斯坦福大學的開學演講， 你還是看看然后決定不去做。
I'm not quite sure why you decide not to do it. You're too lazy to do it. It's too hard. You're afraid if you look for your passion and don't find it, you'll feel like you're an idiot, so then you make excuses about why you're not going to look for your passion. And they are excuses, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to go through a whole long list, your creativity, and thinking of excuses not to do what you really need to do if you want to have a great career.
我不太確定你為什么決定不去做。 你太懶了。這事太難。 你害怕如果你去尋找夢想然后找不到， 你會覺得你像個白癡，所以你給自己找借口， 為什么你不去追尋你的夢想。 這些都是借口，女士們先生們。 我們要列一個長單子，你的創造力， 想想你不去做成就偉業該做的事情 的借口。
So, for example, one of your great excuses is, "Well, great careers are really and truly, for most people, just a matter of luck, so I'm going to stand around, I'm going to try to be lucky, and if I'm lucky, I'll have a great career. If not, I'll have a good career." But a good career is an impossibility, so that's not going to work.
所以，舉例來說，你眾多借口之一是， “嗯，偉業實際上對于大多數人來說 只是運氣問題，所以我就在這待著， 我就試試做那個幸運的人，然后如果我真幸運的話， 我就能成就偉業。如果不能，我就找個還不錯的事業。” 但是沒有還不錯的事業，所以這個行不通。
Then, your other excuse is, "Yes, there are special people who pursue their passions, but they are geniuses. They are Steven J. I'm not a genius. When I was five, I thought I was a genius, but my professors have beaten that idea out of my head long since." (Laughter) Mm? "And now I know I am completely competent." Now, you see, if this was , being completely competent, that would have given you a great career. But guess what? This is almost , and saying to the world, "I am totally, completely competent," is damning yourself with the faintest of praise.
然后，你還有其他借口：“是的，有那些與眾不同的人 追尋自己的夢想，但是他們是天才。 他們是Steven J. 我不是天才。 我五歲的時候以為自己是天才， 但是我的教授們早就把這個念頭 打消了�！�(笑聲)嗯? ”然后現在我知道自己完全有能力�！� 現在你看，如果這是在年， 完全有能力， 就能讓你成就偉業。 但是你知道么?現在幾乎是年了， 對世界說”我完全，絕對，有能力，“ 就是用最無力的稱贊譴責你自己。
And then, of course, another excuse: "Well, I would do this, I would do this, but, but, well, after all, I'm not weird. Everybody knows that people who pursue their passions are somewhat obsessive. A little strange? Mm? Mm? Okay? You know, a fine line between madness and genius. I'm not weird. I've read Steven J.'s biography. Oh my goodness. I am not that person. I am nice. I am normal. I'm a nice, normal person, and nice, normal people don't have passion. Ah. But I still want a great career. I'm not prepared to pursue my passion, so I know what I'm going to do, because I have, I have a solution, I have a strategy. It's the one Mommy and Daddy told me about. Mommy and Daddy told me that if I worked hard, I'd have a good career. So, if you work hard and have a good career, if you work really, really, really hard, you'll have a great career. Doesn't that, like, mathematically make sense?" Hmm. Not. (Laughter) But you've managed to talk yourself into that.
然后，當然，另外一個借口： ”嗯，我會做這個，我會做這個，但是，但是， 嗯，畢竟，我不是個怪人。 每個人都知道那些追尋自己夢想的人 都多少有點強迫癥。有點奇怪?嗯?嗯?好吧? 你知道的，瘋子和天才一線之隔。 我不是個怪人。我讀過Steven J的傳記。 我的天吶。我不是那種人。我是好人。 我是正常人。我是正常的好人， 而且正常的好人 沒有夢想。 啊。但是我還是想要成就偉業。 我還沒準備好去追尋夢想，所以我知道 我要做什么，因為我有辦法， 我有策略。 就是爸爸媽媽告訴過我的那個。 爸爸媽媽告訴我說如果我努力工作， 我會有個不錯的事業。所以，如果你努力工作， 而且有個不錯的事業，如果你工作特別特別特別努力， 你就能成就偉業。 這在數學上不是也成立么?“ 嗯...不是的。(笑聲) 但是你還是讓自己信了這話。
You know what? Here's a little secret. You want to work? You want to work really, really, really hard? You know what? You'll succeed. The world will give you the opportunity to work really, really, really, really hard, but are you so sure that that's going to give you a great career when all the evidence is to the contrary?
你知道么?這有一個小秘密。 你想工作?你想工作特別特別特別努力? 你知道么?你會成功的。 這個世界會給你機會去工作得特別特別特別努力， 但是你就那么確信這能讓你成就偉業 即使所有的證據都指向另一邊?
So let's assume, let's deal with those of you who are trying to find your passion. You actually understand that you really had better do it, never mind the excuses. You're trying to find your passion, and you're so happy. You found something you're interested in.
所以咱們假設，咱們來處理一下你們當中 想追尋夢想的人。 你實際上明白你最好這么做， 拋開借口。你試圖找到你的夢想， 而且你這么快樂。 你找到了你感興趣的事。
I have an interest! I have an interest! You tell me. You say, "I have an interest!" I say, "That's wonderful! And what, what are you trying to tell me? That you — " "Well, I have an interest." I say, "Do you have passion?" "I have an interest," you say. Your interest is compared to what? "Well, I'm interested in this." And what about the rest of humanity's activities? "I'm not interested in them." You've looked at them all, have you? "No. Not exactly."
我有個興趣!我有個興趣!你告訴我。 你說，“我有個興趣!“我說，”太好了!“ 你想告訴我什么呢? ”嗯，我有個興趣�！� 我說，“你有熱忱么?” “我有興趣，”你說。 你的興趣和什么比較? “嗯，我對這個感興趣。” 那其他一切的人類活動呢? “我對那些沒興趣。” 你把那些都看過一遍了? “沒有。不完全是�！�
Passion is your greatest love. Passion is the thing that will help you create the highest expression of your talent. Passion, interest -- it's not the same thing. Are you really going to go to your sweetie and say, "Marry me! You're interesting." (Laughter) Won't happen. Won't happen, and you will die alone. (Laughter)
熱忱是你最高程度的熱愛。 熱忱是能幫助你最好地成就自己才華 的事情。 熱忱，興趣-不是一回事。 你真的會去找你的甜心然后說， “嫁給我吧!你很有意思。“(笑聲) 不會發生的。不會發生，然后你會孤獨終老。(笑聲)
What you want, what you want, what you want, is passion. It is beyond interest. You need interests, and then one of them, one of them might grab you, one of them might engage you more than anything else, and then you may have found your greatest love in comparison to all the other things that interest you, and that's what passion is.
你想要的，你想要的，你想要的， 是熱忱。它超越興趣。 你需要個興趣，然后它們其中一個， 其中一個會抓住你，讓你燃起激情。 然后你就找到了與其他事情相比之下 你最大的熱愛， 那就是你的熱忱。
I have a friend, proposed to his sweetie. He was an economically rational person. He said to his sweetie, "Let us marry. Let us merge our interests."
我有個朋友，向他女友求婚。 他是個會過日子的人。 他對他女友說，“咱們結婚吧。 讓咱們融合利益。”
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Yes he did. "I love you truly," he said. "I love you deeply. I love you more than any other woman I've ever encountered. I love you more than Mary, Jane, Susie, Penelope, Ingrid, Gertrude, Gretel -- I was on a German exchange program then." (Laughter) "I love you more than — " All right! She left the room halfway through his enumeration of his love for her. After he got over his surprise at being, you know, turned down, he concluded he'd had a narrow escape from marrying an irrational person, although he did make a note to himself that the next time he proposed, it was perhaps not necessary to enumerate all of the women he had auditioned for the part. (Laughter)
是的，他這么說的。 “我真心愛你，”他說，“我深深愛著你。我愛你 勝過其他任何女人。 我愛你勝過Mary, Jane, Susie, Penelope, Ingrid, Gertrude, Gretel- 我那時候在一個德國的交換項目里�！�(笑聲) “我愛你勝過-” 好的!她在他列舉到一半的時候 離開了房間。 在他從被拒絕的驚訝中緩過來之后， 他總結了他剛剛成功逃離 和一個不理性的人結婚的厄運。 雖然他也對自己說， 下次求婚的時候，不必要列舉 所有過往的女朋友。
But the point stands. You must look for alternatives so that you find your destiny, or are you afraid of the word "destiny"? Does the word "destiny" scare you? That's what we're talking about, and if you don't find the highest expression of your talent, if you settle for "interesting," what the hell ever that means, do you know what will happen at the end of your long life? Your friends and family will be gathered in the cemetery, and there, beside your gravesite will be a tombstone, and inscribed on that tombstone, it will say, "Here lies a distinguished engineer who invented Velcro." But what that tombstone should have said, in an alternative lifetime, what it should have said if it was your highest expression of talent, was, "Here lies the last Nobel Laureate in Physics, who formulated the Grand Unified Field Theory and demonstrated the practicality of warp drive."
但是這個論點是成立的。你必須尋找各種選擇 才能找到命中注定的那個， 或者你害怕”命中注定“這個詞么? ”命中注定“這個詞嚇著你么? 這就是我們要談的，而且如果你找不到 你才能的最高表達，如果你在 ”有意思“這里止步不前，不管這他是什么意思， 你知道在你漫長的一生即將結束的時候會發生什么嗎? 你的親友們聚集在墓地里， 在這，你的墳邊上有個墓碑， 這個墓碑上刻著字，說， ”此地長眠著一位發明了Velcro的杰出工程師�！� 但是這個墓碑上也應該刻著， 在一個平行時空里， 如果這是你才能的最高表達它就應該刻著， ”此地長眠著一位諾貝爾物理學獎得主， 他規范了”大統一場論“ 并且示范了曲速引擎的實用性�！�
(Laughter) Velcro, indeed. (Laughter)
(笑聲) Velcro, 確實。(笑聲)
One was a great career. One was a missed opportunity. But then, there are some of you, in spite of all these excuses, you will find, you will find your passion, and you'll still fail.
一個是偉業。 一個是失掉的機會。 但是，你們當中有些人， 拋開這些借口，你們會找到， 你們會找到自己的熱忱， 然后你們還是失敗了。
You're going to fail, because, because you're not going to do it, because you will have invented a new excuse, any excuse to fail to take action, and this excuse I've heard so many times. "Yes, I would pursue a great career, but I value human relationships more than accomplishment. I want to be a great friend. I want to be a great spouse. I want to be a great parent, and I will not sacrifice them on the altar of great accomplishment."
你會失敗，因為， 因為你不會著手去做， 因為你會想出新的借口， 任何讓你只說不做的借口，而且這個借口 我已經聽過很多次了。 “是的，我會追求一番偉業，但是相比成就， 我更看重人與人之間的關系。 我想做一個好朋友。我想做一個好伴侶。 我想做一個好父母，而且我不會為了 偉大的成就而犧牲這些。”
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
What do you want me to say? Now, do you really want me to say now, tell you, "Really, I swear I don't kick children." (Laughter) Hmm? Look at the worldview you've given yourself. You're a hero no matter what, and I, by suggesting, ever so delicately, that you might want a great career, must hate children. I don't hate children. I don't kick them. Yes, there was a little kid wandering through this building when I came here, and no, I didn't kick him. (Laughter)
你們想讓我說什么? 現在，你們真的想讓我說，告訴你們， “真的，我發誓我不踢小孩�！�(笑聲) 嗯?看看你給自己定的世界觀。 無論如何你都是個英雄，然而我，通過暗示， 這么小心翼翼地，說你可能想要成就偉業， 一定痛恨小孩。我不恨小孩。我不踢他們。 是的，剛才我來的時候有個小孩走過來， 我沒踢他。(笑聲)
Course, I had to tell him that the building was for adults only and to get out. He mumbled something about his mother, and I told him she'd probably find him outside anyway. Last time I saw him, he was on the stairs crying. (Laughter) What a wimp. (Laughter)
當然，我不得不告訴他這個樓是給大人的， 他得出去。 他含糊地說他媽媽什么的， 然后我跟他說他媽估計在外面找他呢。 我上次看到他的時候他正在臺階上哭呢。(笑聲) 真是個懦夫。(笑聲)
But what do you mean? That's what you expect me to say. You really think, you really think it's appropriate that you should actually take children and use them as a shield? You know what will happen someday, you, you ideal parent, you? The kid will come to you someday and say, "I know what I want to be. I know what I'm going to do with my life." You are so happy. It's the conversation a parent wants to hear, because your kid's good in math, and you know you're going to like what comes next. Says your kid, "I have decided I want to be a magician. I want to perform magic tricks on the stage." (Laughter)
但是你是什么意思?這就是你們期待我說的。 你真的認為，你真的認為 拿小孩當擋箭牌 合適嗎? 你知道有一天會發生什么， 你，完美的'父母，對嗎? 你的孩子有一天會跟你說， “我知道我想做什么。 我知道我想怎么度過一生。” 你特別高興。這種對話父母最愛聽了， 因為你的孩子數學好， 而且你知道你會愛聽你孩子接下來的話。 你孩子說，“我決定了 我想做個魔術師。 我想在舞臺上表演魔術�！�
And what do you say? You say, you say, "Umm ... that's risky, kid. Might fail, kid. Don't make a lot of money at that, kid. You know, I don't know, kid, you should think about that again, kid, you're so good at math, why don't you — "
然后你說什么? 你說，你說， “嗯...那樣比較不保險，孩子。 有可能會失敗，孩子。掙不了大錢，孩子。 你知道的，我不知道，孩子， 你應該再想想，孩子， 你數學這么好，為什么不-“
And the kid interrupts you, and says, "But it is my dream. It is my dream to do this." And what are you going to say? You know what you're going to say? "Look kid. I had a dream once, too, but -- but." So how are you going to finish the sentence with your "but"? "... But. I had a dream too, once, kid, but I was afraid to pursue it." Or, are you going to tell him this? "I had a dream once, kid. But then you were born." (Laughter)
然后你孩子打斷你，說， ”但是那是我的夢想。我夢想就是成為魔術師�！� 然后你要說什么? 你知道你要說什么嗎? ”你看，孩子，我過去也有過夢想。但是-但是�！� 所以你想怎么用”但是“結束你的句子? ”...但是，我過去也有過夢想，孩子，但是我沒敢去追隨�！� 還是，你想告訴他這個? ”我過去有夢想，孩子。 但是之后你出生了�！�(笑聲)
(Laughter) (Applause)
(笑聲)(掌聲)
Do you, do you really want to use your family, do you really ever want to look at your spouse and your kid and see your jailers? There was something you could have said to your kid when he or she said, "I have a dream." You could have said, looked the kid in the face, and said, "Go for it, kid, just like I did." But you won't be able to say that because you didn't. So you can't. (Laughter)
你真的，真的想利用你的家庭， 你真的想把你的伴侶， 和你的孩子當成獄卒嗎? 你其實可以這么跟你孩子講。 當他/她說”我有個夢想“的時候， 你可以說，面對你的孩子，說， ”去追隨它吧，孩子， 就像我那樣。“ 但是你沒法那么說， 因為你沒去追隨夢想。所以你不能那么說。(笑聲)
And so the sins of the parents are visited on the poor children. Why will you seek refuge in human relationships as your excuse not to find and pursue your passion? You know why. In your heart of hearts, you know why, and I'm being deadly serious. You know why you would get all warm and fuzzy and wrap yourself up in human relationships. It is because you are — You know what you are.
然后父母的罪惡 就在可憐的孩子們身上應驗了。 你為什么把人際關系當成 你不去追隨你的熱忱的借口? 你自己知道為什么。 在你內心的內心，你知道為什么， 而且我現在非常嚴肅。 你知道你為什么會在人際關系中 層層包裹自己。 這是因為你是- 你知道你是什么。
You're afraid to pursue your passion. You're afraid to look ridiculous. You're afraid to try. You're afraid you may fail. Great friend, great spouse, great parent, great career. Is that not a package? Is that not who you are? How can you be one without the other? But you're afraid.
你不敢去追求夢想。 你害怕自己看起來像個瘋子。 你不敢去嘗試。你害怕失敗。 好朋友，好伴侶，好父母，偉業。 不是打包在一起的嗎?這難道不是你? 你怎么能符合其中一個卻不符合另一個? 但是你害怕。
And that's why you're not going to have a great career, unless -- unless, that most evocative of all English words -- unless. But the unless word is also attached to that other, most terrifying phrase, "If only I had ... " "If only I had ... " If you ever have that thought ricocheting in your brain, it will hurt a lot.
這就是為什么你不會成就偉業，除非- 除非，最引人回憶的詞- 除非。 但是除非這個詞和另外一個 最可怕的短語是連著的， ”如果我當初...“ ”如果我當初...“ 如果你曾經有過這個想法在你腦海里回旋， 它會特別傷人。
So, those are the many reasons why you are going to fail to have a great career, unless ...
所以，這些就是 你為什么不能成就偉業 的眾多原因。 除非...
Unless.
除非。
Thank you. (Applause)
謝謝。(掌聲)
TED英文演講稿：Why you will fail to have a great career 篇2
What fear can teach us
恐懼可以教會我們什么
One day in 1819, 3,000 miles off the coast of Chile, in one of the most remote regions of the Pacific Ocean, 20 American sailors watched their ship flood with seawater.
1820xx年的某一天， 在距離智利海岸3000英里的地方， 有一個太平洋上的最偏遠的水域， 20名美國船員目睹了他們的船只進水的場面。
They'd been struck by a sperm whale, which had ripped a catastrophic hole in the ship's hull. As their ship began to sink beneath the swells, the men huddled together in three small whaleboats.
他們和一頭抹香鯨相撞，給船體撞了 一個毀滅性的大洞。 當船在巨浪中開始沉沒時， 人們在三條救生小艇中抱作一團。
These men were 10,000 miles from home, more than 1,000 miles from the nearest scrap of land. In their small boats, they carried only rudimentary navigational equipment and limited supplies of food and water.
這些人在離家10000萬英里的地方， 離最近的陸地也超過1000英里。 在他們的小艇中，他們只帶了 落后的導航設備 和有限的食物和飲水。
These were the men of the whaleship Essex, whose story would later inspire parts of "Moby Dick."
他們就是捕鯨船ESSEX上的人們， 后來的他們的故事成為《白鯨記》的一部分。
Even in today's world, their situation would be really dire, but think about how much worse it would have been then.
即使在當今的世界，碰上這種情況也夠杯具的，更不用說在當時的情況有多糟糕。
No one on land had any idea that anything had gone wrong. No search party was coming to look for these men. So most of us have never experienced a situation as frightening as the one in which these sailors found themselves, but we all know what it's like to be afraid.
岸上的人根本就還沒意識到出了什么問題。 沒有任何人來搜尋他們。 我們當中大部分人沒有經歷過 這些船員所處的可怕情景， 但我們都知道害怕是什么感覺。
We know how fear feels, but I'm not sure we spend enough time thinking about what our fears mean.
我們知道恐懼的感覺， 但是我不能肯定我們會花很多時間想過 我們的恐懼到底意味著什么。
As we grow up, we're often encouraged to think of fear as a weakness, just another childish thing to discard like baby teeth or roller skates.
我們長大以后，我們總是會被鼓勵把恐懼 視為軟弱，需要像乳牙或輪滑鞋一樣 扔掉的幼稚的東西。
And I think it's no accident that we think this way. Neuroscientists have actually shown that human beings are hard-wired to be optimists.
我想意外事故并非我們所想的那樣。 神經系統科學家已經知道人類 生來就是樂觀主義者。
So maybe that's why we think of fear, sometimes, as a danger in and of itself. "Don't worry," we like to say to one another. "Don't panic." In English, fear is something we conquer. It's something we fight.
這也許就是為什么我們認為有時候恐懼， 本身就是一種危險或帶來危險。 “不要愁。”我們總是對別人說。“不要慌”。 英語中，恐懼是我們需要征服的東西。 是我們必須對抗的東西，是我們必須克服的東西。
It's something we overcome. But what if we looked at fear in a fresh way? What if we thought of fear as an amazing act of the imagination, something that can be as profound and insightful as storytelling itself?
但是我們如果換個視角看恐懼會如何呢? 如果我們把恐懼當做是想象力的一個驚人成果， 是和我們講故事一樣 精妙而有見地的東西，又會如何呢?
It's easiest to see this link between fear and the imagination in young children, whose fears are often extraordinarily vivid.
在小孩子當中，我們最容易看到恐懼與想象之間的聯系， 他們的恐懼經常是超級生動的。
When I was a child, I lived in California, which is, you know, mostly a very nice place to live, but for me as a child, California could also be a little scary.
我小時候住在加利福尼亞， 你們都知道，是非常適合居住的位置， 但是對一個小孩來說，加利福尼亞也會有點嚇人。
I remember how frightening it was to see the chandelier that hung above our dining table swing back and forth during every minor earthquake, and I sometimes couldn't sleep at night, terrified that the Big One might strike while we were sleeping.
我記得每次小地震的時候 當我看到我們餐桌上的吊燈 晃來晃去的時候是多么的嚇人， 我經常會徹夜難眠，擔心大地震 會在我們睡覺的時候突然襲來。
And what we say about kids who have fears like that is that they have a vivid imagination. But at a certain point, most of us learn to leave these kinds of visions behind and grow up.
我們說小孩子感受到這種恐懼 是因為他們有生動的想象力。 但是在某個時候，我們大多數學會了 拋棄這種想法而變得成熟。
We learn that there are no monsters hiding under the bed, and not every earthquake brings buildings down. But maybe it's no coincidence that some of our most creative minds fail to leave these kinds of fears behind as adults.
我們都知道床下沒有魔鬼， 也不是每個地震都會震垮房子。但是我們當中最有想象力的人們 并沒有因為成年而拋棄這種恐懼，這也許并不是巧合。
The same incredible imaginations that produced "The Origin of Species," "Jane Eyre" and "The Remembrance of Things Past," also generated intense worries that haunted the adult lives of Charles Darwin, Charlotte Bront and Marcel Proust. So the question is, what can the rest of us learn about fear from visionaries and young children?
同樣不可思議的想象力創造了《物種起源》， 《簡·愛》和《追憶似水年華》， 也就是這種與生俱來的深深的擔憂一直纏繞著成年的 查爾斯·達爾文， 夏洛特·勃朗特和馬塞爾·普羅斯特。 問題就來了， 我們其他人如何能從這些 夢想家和小孩子身上學會恐懼?
Well let's return to the year 1819 for a moment, to the situation facing the crew of the whaleship Essex. Let's take a look at the fears that their imaginations were generating as they drifted in the middle of the Pacific.
讓我們暫時回到1820xx年， 回到ESSEX捕鯨船的水手們面對的情況。 讓我們看看他們漂流在太平洋中央時 他們的想象力給他們帶來的恐懼感覺。
Twenty-four hours had now passed since the capsizing of the ship. The time had come for the men to make a plan, but they had very few options.
船傾覆后已經過了24個小時。 這時人們制定了一個計劃， 但是其實他們沒什么太多的選擇。
In his fascinating account of the disaster, Nathaniel Philbrick wrote that these men were just about as far from land as it was possible to be anywhere on Earth.
在納撒尼爾·菲爾布里克(Nathaniel Philbrick)描述這場災難的 動人文章中，他寫到“這些人離陸地如此之遠， 似乎永遠都不可能到達地球上的任何一塊陸地�！�
The men knew that the nearest islands they could reach were the Marquesas Islands, 1,200 miles away. But they'd heard some frightening rumors.
這些人知道離他們最近的島 是1200英里以外的馬克薩斯群島(Marquesas Islands)。 但是他們聽到了讓人恐怖的謠言。
They'd been told that these islands, and several others nearby, were populated by cannibals. So the men https://p.9136.com/28ing ashore only to be murdered and eaten for dinner. Another possible destination was Hawaii, but given the season, the captain was afraid they'd be struck by severe storms.
他們聽說這些群島， 以及附近的一些島嶼上都住著食人族。 所以他們腦中都是上岸以后就會被殺掉 被人當做盤中餐的畫面。 另一個可行的目的地是夏威夷， 但是船長擔心 他們會被困在風暴當中。
Now the last option was the longest, and the most difficult: to sail 1,500 miles due south in hopes of reaching a certain band of winds that could eventually push them toward the coast of South America.
所以最后的選擇是到最遠，也是最艱險的地方： 往南走1500英里希望某股風 能最終把他們 吹到南美洲的海岸。
But they knew that the sheer length of this journey would stretch their supplies of food and water. To be eaten by cannibals, to be battered by storms, to starve to death before reaching land.
但是他們知道這個行程中一旦偏航 將會耗盡他們食物和飲水的供給。 被食人族吃掉，被風暴掀翻， 在登陸前餓死。
These were the fears that danced in the imaginations of these poor men, and as it turned out, the fear they chose to listen to would govern whether they lived or died.
這就是縈繞在這群可憐的人想象中的恐懼， 事實證明，他們選擇聽從的恐懼 將決定他們的生死。
Now we might just as easily call these fears by a different name. What if instead of calling them fears, we called them stories?
也許我們可以很容易的用別的名稱來稱呼這些恐懼。 我們不稱之為恐懼， 而是稱它們為故事如何?
Because that's really what fear is, if you think about it. It's a kind of unintentional storytelling that we are all born knowing how to do. And fears and storytelling have the same components.
如果你仔細想想，這是恐懼真正的意義。 這是一種與生俱來的， 無意識的講故事的能力。 恐懼和講故事有著同樣的構成。
They have the same architecture. Like all stories, fears have characters. In our fears, the characters are us. Fears also have plots. They have beginnings and middles and ends. You board the plane.
他們有同樣的結構。 如同所有的故事，恐懼中有角色。 在恐懼中，角色就是我們自己。 恐懼也有情節。他們有開頭，有中間，有結尾。 你登上飛機。
The plane takes off. The engine fails. Our fears also tend to contain imagery that can be every bit as vivid as what you might find in the pages of a novel. Picture a cannibal, human teeth sinking into human skin, human flesh roasting over a fire.
飛機起飛。結果引擎故障。 我們的恐懼會包括各種生動的`想象， 不比你看到的任何一個小說遜色。 想象食人族，人類牙齒 咬在人類皮膚上， 人肉在火上烤。
Fears also have suspense. If I've done my job as a storyteller today, you should be wondering what happened to the men of the whaleship Essex. Our fears provoke in us a very similar form of suspense.
恐懼中也有懸念。 如果我今天像講故事一樣，留個懸念不說了， 你們也許會很想知道 ESSEX捕鯨船上，人們到底怎么樣了。 我們的恐懼用懸念一樣的方式刺激我們。
Just like all great stories, our fears focus our attention on a question that is as important in life as it is in literature: What will happen next?
就像一個很好的故事，我們的恐懼也如同一部好的文學作品一樣， 將我們的注意力集中在對我們生命至關重要的問題上： 后來發生了什么?
In other words, our fears make us think about the future. And humans, by the way, are the only creatures capable of thinking about the future in this way, of projecting ourselves forward in time, and this mental time travel is just one more thing that fears have in common with storytelling.
換而言之，我們的恐懼讓我們想到未來。 另外，人來是唯一有能力 通過這種方式想到未來的生物， 就是預測時間推移后我們的狀況， 這種精神上的時間旅行是恐懼 與講故事的另一個共同點。
As a writer, I can tell you that a big part of writing fiction is learning to predict how one event in a story will affect all the other events, and fear works in that same way.
我是一個作家，我要告訴你們寫小說一個很重要的部分 就是學會預測故事中一件 事情如何影響另一件事情， 恐懼也是同樣這么做的。
In fear, just like in fiction, one thing always leads to another. When I was writing my first novel, "The Age Of Miracles," I spent months trying to figure out what would happen if the rotation of the Earth suddenly began to slow down. What would happen to our days?
恐懼中，如同小說一樣，一件事情總是導致另一件事情。 我寫我的第一部小說《奇跡時代》的時候， 我花了數月的時間想象如果地球旋轉突然變慢了之后 會發生什么。 我們的一天變得如何?
What would happen to our crops? What would happen to our minds? And then it was only later that I realized how very similar these questions were to the ones I used to ask myself as a child frightened in the night.
我們身體會怎樣? 我們的思想會有什么變化? 也就是在那之后，我意識到 我過去總是問自己的那些些問題 和孩子們在夜里害怕是多么的相像。
If an earthquake strikes tonight, I used to worry, what will happen to our house? What will happen to my family? And the answer to those questions always took the form of a story.
要是在過去，如果今晚發生地震，我會很擔心， 我的房子會怎么樣啊?家里人會怎樣啊? 這類問題的答案通常都會和故事一樣。
TED英文演講稿：Why you will fail to have a great career 篇3
Every kid needs a champion
每個孩子都需要一個冠軍演講稿中英對照：
I have spent my entire life either at the schoolhouse, on the way to the schoolhouse, or talking about what happens in the schoolhouse. Both my parents were educators, my maternal grandparents were educators, and for the past 40 years I've done the same thing. And so, needless to say, over those years I've had a chance to look at education reform from a lot of
perspectives. Some of those reforms have been good. Some of them have been not so good. And we know why kids drop out. We know why kids don't learn. It's either poverty, low attendance, negative peer influences. We know why. But one of the things that we never discuss or we rarely discuss is the value and importance of human connection, relationships.
我這輩子，要么是在學校，要么在去學校的路上，要么是在討論學校里發生了什么事。我的父母都是教育家，我的外祖父母也都是搞教育的，過去40年我也在從事同樣的事業。所以，很顯然，過去的這些年里，我有機會從各個角度審視教育改革。一些改革是有成效的。而另一些卻收效甚微。我們知道孩子們為什么掉隊輟學。我們知道孩子們為什么學不下去。原因無非是貧窮，低出席率，同齡人的壞影響。我們知道為什么。但是我們從未討論或者極少討論的是人和人之間的`那種聯系的價值和重要性，這就是“關系”。
James Comer says that no significant learning can occur without a significant relationship. George Washington Carver says all learning is understanding relationships. Everyone in this room has been affected by a teacher or an adult.
For years, I have watched people teach. I have looked at the best and I've look at some of the worst.
James Comer (美國著名兒童精神科醫師）說過，沒有強有力的聯系，學習就不會有顯著的進步。 George Washington Carver（美國著名教育學家）說過，學習就是理解各種關系。在座的各位都曾經被一位老師或者一個成年人影響過。這么多年，我都在看人們怎么教學。我看過最好的也看過最差的。
A colleague said to me one time, "They don't pay me to like the kids. They pay me to teach a lesson. The kids should learn it. I should teach it. They should learn it. Case closed."
一次有個同事跟我說， “我的職責不是喜歡那些孩子們。我的職責是教書。孩子們就該去學。我管教課，他們管學習。就是這么個理兒�！�
Well, I said to her, "You know, kids don't learn from people they don't like." 然后，我就跟她說， “你知道，孩子們可不跟他們討厭的人學習�！�
(Laughter) (Applause)
�。ㄐβ暎ㄕ坡暎�
She said, "That's just a bunch of hooey."
她接著說，“一派胡言。”
And I said to her, "Well, your year is going to be long and arduous, dear." 然后我對她說，“那么，親愛的，你這一年會變得十分漫長和痛苦�！�
Needless to say it was. Some people think that you can either have it in you to build a relationship or you don't. I think Stephen Covey had the right idea. He
said you ought to just throw in a few simple things, like seeking first to
understand as opposed to being understood, simple things like apologizing. You ever thought about thatTell a kid you're sorry, they're in shock.
事實也果真如此。有些人認為一個人或者天生可以建立一種關系或者不具有這種能力。我認為Stephen Covey（美國教育家）是對的。他說你只需要做一些簡單的事情，比如試著首先理解他人，而不是想要被理解，比如道歉。你想過嗎？跟一個孩子說你很對不起，他們都驚呆了。
I taught a lesson once on ratios. I'm not real good with math, but I was working on it. And I got back and looked at that teacher edition. I'd taught the whole lesson wrong. (Laughter)
我有一次講比例。我數學不是很好，但是我當時在教數學。然后我下了課，翻看了教師用書。我完全教錯了。（笑聲）
So I came back to class the next day, and I said, "Look, guys, I need to apologize. I taught the whole lesson wrong. I'm so sorry."
所以我第二天回到班上說， “同學們，我要道歉。我昨天的課都教錯了。我非常抱歉�！�
They said, "That's okay, Ms. Pierson. You were so excited, we just let you go." (Laughter) (Applause)
他們說，“沒關系，Pierson老師。你當時教得非常投入，我們就讓你繼續了。” （笑聲）（掌聲）
I have had classes that were so low, so academically deficient that I cried. I wondered, how am I going to take this group in nine months from where they
are to where they need to beAnd it was difficult. It was awfully hard. How do I raise the self-esteem of a child and his academic achievement at the same time
我曾經教過程度非常低的班級，學術素養差到我都哭了。我當時就想，我怎么能在9個月之內把這些孩子提升到他們必須具備的水平？這真的很難，太艱難了。我怎么能讓一個孩子重拾自信的同時他在學術上也有進步？
One year I came up with a bright idea. I told all my students, "You were chosen to be in my class because I am the best teacher and you are the best students, they put us all together so we could show everybody else how to do it."
有一年我有了一個非常好的主意。我告訴我的學生們， “你們進了我的班級，因為我是最好的老師，而你們是最好的學生，他們把我們放在一起來給其他人做個好榜樣。”
One of the students said, "Really" (Laughter)
一個學生說，“真的嗎？” （笑聲）
I said, "Really. We have to show the other classes how to do it, so when we walk down the hall, people will notice us, so you can't make noise. You just have to strut." And I gave them a saying to say: "I am somebody. I was
somebody when I came. I'll be a better somebody when I leave. I am powerful, and I am strong. I deserve the education that I get here. I have things to do, people to impress, and places to go."
我說，“當然是真的。我們要給其他班級做個榜樣，當我們走在樓道里，因為大家都會注意到我們，我們不能吵鬧。大家要昂首闊步�！� 我還給了他們一個口號：“我是個人物。我來的時候是個人物。我畢業的時候會變成一個更好的人物。我
很有力，很強大。我值得在這里受教育。我有很多事情要做，我要讓人們記住我，我要去很多地方�！�
And they said, "Yeah!"
然后他們說：“是��！”
You say it long enough, it starts to be a part of you.
如果你長時間的這么說，它就會開始變成事實。
And so — (Applause) I gave a quiz, 20 questions. A student missed 18. I put a "+2" on his paper and a big smiley face.
所以－（掌聲）我做了一個小測驗，20道題。一個孩子錯了18道。我在他了卷子上寫了個“＋2”和一個大的笑臉。
He said, "Ms. Pierson, is this an F"
他說，“Pierson老師，這是不及格嗎？”
I said, "Yes."
我說，“是的。”
He said, "Then why'd you put a smiley face"
他接著說，“那你為什么給我一個笑臉？”
I said, "Because you're on a roll. You got two right. You didn't miss them all." I said, "And when we review this, won't you do better"
我說，“因為你正漸入佳境。你沒有全錯，還對了兩個�！� 我說，“我們復習這些題的時候，難道你不會做得更好嗎？”
TED英文演講稿：Why you will fail to have a great career 篇4
每個人都會避免犯錯，但或許避免犯錯本身就是一種錯誤?請看以下這篇“犯錯家“凱瑟琳舒爾茨告訴我們，或許我們不只該承認錯誤，更應該大力擁抱人性中“我錯故我在“的本質。
So it's 1995, I'm in college, and a friend and I go on a road trip from Providence, Rhode Island to Portland, Oregon.
當時是95年 我在上大學 我和一個朋友開車去玩 從羅得島的普羅旺斯區出發 到奧勒岡州的波特蘭市
And you know, we're young and unemployed, so we do the whole thing on back roads through state parks and national forests -- basically the longest route we can possibly take.
我們年輕、無業 ，于是整個旅程都在鄉間小道 經過州立公園 和國家保護森林 我們盡可能繞著最長的路徑
And somewhere in the middle of South Dakota, I turn to my friend and I ask her a question that's been bothering me for 2,000 miles.
在南達科塔州之中某處 我轉向我的朋友 問她一個 兩千英里路途上 一直煩惱我的問題
"What's up with the Chinese character I keep seeing by the side of the road?"
"路邊那個一直出現的中文字到底是什么?"
My friend looks at me totally blankly.
我的朋友露出疑惑的神情
There's actually a gentleman in the front row who's doing a perfect imitation of her look.
正如現在坐在第一排的這三位男士 所露出的神情一樣
(Laughter) And I'm like, "You know, all the signs we keep seeing with the Chinese character on them."
(笑聲) 我說"你知道的 我們一直看到的那個路牌 寫著中文的那個啊"
She just stares at me for a few moments, and then she cracks up, because she figures out what I'm talking about.
她瞪著我的臉一陣子 突然笑開了 因為她總算知道我所指為何
And what I'm talking about is this.
我說的是這個
(Laughter) Right, the famous Chinese character for picnic area.
(笑聲) 沒錯，這就是代表野餐區的那個中文字
(Laughter) I've spent the last five years of my life thinking about situations exactly like this -- why we sometimes misunderstand the signs around us,
(笑聲) 過去的五年 我一直在思考 剛剛我所描述的狀況 為什么我們會對身邊的征兆 產生誤解
and how we behave when that happens, and what all of this can tell us about human nature.
當誤解發生時我們作何反應 以及這一切所告訴我們的人性
In other words, as you heard Chris say, I've spent the last five years thinking about being wrong.
換句話說，就像 Chris 剛才說的 過去五年的時間 我都在思考錯誤的.價值
This might strike you as a strange career move, but it actually has one great advantage: no job competition.
你可能覺得這是個奇異的專業 但有一項好處是不容置疑的： 沒有競爭者。
(Laughter) In fact, most of us do everything we can to avoid thinking about being wrong, or at least to avoid thinking about the possibility that we ourselves are wrong.
(笑聲) 事實上，我們大部分的人 都盡力不思考錯誤的價值 或至少避免想到我們有可能犯錯。
We get it in the abstract.
我們都知道這個模糊的概念。
We all know everybody in this room makes mistakes.
我們都知道這里的每個人都曾經犯錯
The human species, in general, is fallible -- okay fine.
人類本來就會犯錯 - 沒問題
But when it comes down to me right now, to all the beliefs I hold, here in the present tense, suddenly all of this abstract appreciation of fallibility goes out the window -- and I can't actually think of anything I'm wrong about.
一旦這個想法臨到我們自身 我們現在所有的 所有的信念 對人類可能犯錯的抽象概念隨即被我們拋棄 我無法想到我有哪里出錯
TED英文演講稿：Why you will fail to have a great career 篇5
Ihave spent the last years, trying to resolve two enigmas: why is productivity so disappointing in all the companies where I work? I have worked with more than 500 companies. Despite all the technological advance – computers, IT, communications, telecommunications, the internet.
Enigma number two: why is there so little engagement at work? Why do people feel so miserable, even actively disengaged? Disengaged their colleagues. Acting against the interest of their company. Despite all the affiliation events, the celebration, the people initiatives, the leadership development programs to train managers on how to better motivate their teams.
At the beginning, I thought there was a chicken and egg issue: because people are less engaged, they are less productive. Or vice versa, because they are less productive, we put more pressure and they are less engaged. But as we were doing our analysis we realized that there was a common root cause to these two issues that relates, in fact, to the basic pillars of management. The way we organize is based on two pillars.
The hard—structure, processes, systems.
The soft—feeling, sentiments, interpersonal relationship, traits, personality.
And whenever a company reorganizes, restructures, reengineers, goes through a cultural transformation program, it chooses these two pillars. Now we try to refine them, we try to combine them. The real issue is – and this is the answer to the two enigmas – these pillar are obsolete.
Everything you read in business books is based either two of the other or their combine. They are obsolete. How do they work when you try to use these approaches in front of the new complexity of business? The hard approach, basically is that you start from strategy, requirement, structure, processes, systems, KPIs, scorecards, committees, headquarters, hubs, clusters, you name it. I forgot all the metrics, incentives, committees, middle offices and interfaces. What happens basically on the left, you have more complexity, the new complexity of business. We need quality, cost, reliability, speed. And every time there is a new requirement, we use the same approach. We create dedicated structure processed systems, basically to deal with the new complexity of business. The hard approach creates just complicatedness in the organization.
Let’s take an example. An automotive company, the engineering division is a five-dimensional matrix. If you open any cell of the matrix, you find another 20-dimensional matrix. You have Mr. Noise, Mr. Petrol Consumption, Mr. Anti-Collision Propertise. For any new requirement,
you have a dedicated function in charge of aligning engineers against the new requirement. What happens when the new requirement emerges?
Some years ago, a new requirement appeared on the marketplace: the length of the warranty period. So therefore the requirement is repairability, making cars easy to repair. Otherwise when you bring the car to the garage to fix the light, if you have to remove the engine to access the lights, the car will have to stay one week in the garage instead of two hours, and the warranty budget will explode. So, what was the solution using the hard approach? If repairability is the rew requirement, the solution is to create a new function, Mr. Repairability. And Mr. Repairability creates the repairability process. With a repairability scorecard, with a repairability metric and eventually repairability incentive.That came on top of 25 other KPIs. What percentage of these people is variable compensation? Twenty percent at most, divided by 26 KPIs, repairability makes a difference of 0.8 percent. What difference did it make in their action, their choices to simplify? Zero. But what occurs for zero impact? Mr. Repairability, process, scorecard, evaluation, coordination with the 25 other coordinators to have zero impact. Now, in front of the new complexity of business, the only solution is not drawing box es with reporting lines. It is basically the interplay. How the parts work together. The connection, the interaction, the synapse. It is not skeleton of boxes, it is the nervous system of adaptiveness and
intelligence. You know, you could call it cooperation, basically. Whenever people cooperate, they use less resources. In everything. You know, the repairability issue is a cooperation problem.
When you design cars, please take into account the need of those who will repair the cars in the after sales garage. When we don’t cooperate we need more time, more equipment, more system, more teams. We need – when procurement, supply chain, manufacturing don’t cooperate we need more stock, more investories, more working capital.
Who will pay for that? Shareholder? Customers? No, they will refuse. So who is left? The employees, who have tocompensate through their super individual efforts for the lack of cooperation. Stress, burnout, they are overwhelmed, accidents. No wonder they disengage.
How do the hard and the soft try to foster cooperation?
The hard: in banks, when there is problem between the back office and the front office, they don’t cooperate. What is the solution? They create a middle office.
What happens one years later? Instead of one problem between the back and front, now have to problems. Between the back and the middle and between the middle and the front. Plus I have to pay for the middle office. The hard approach is unable to foster cooperation. It can only add new boxes, new bones in the skeleton.
The soft approach: to make people cooperate, we need to make then like each other. Improve interpersonal feelings, the more people laike each other, the more they will cooperate. It is totally worng. It even counterproductive.
Look, at home I have two TVs. Why? Precisely not to have to cooperate with my wife. Not to have to impose tradeoffs to my wife. And why I try not to impose tradeoffs to my wife is precisely because I love my wife. If I didn’t love my wife, one TV would be enough: you will watch my favorite football game, if you are not happy, how is the book or the door?
The more we like each other, the more we avoid the real cooperation that would strain our relationships by imposing tough tradeoffs. And we go for a second TV or we escalate the decision above for arbitration.
Definitely, these approaches are obsolete. To deal with complexity, to enhance nervous system, we have created what we call the smart simplicity approach based on simple rules. Simple rule number one: understand what others do. What is their real work? We need go beyond the boxes, the job description, beyond the surface of the container, to understand the real content. Me, designer, if I put a wire here, I know that it will mean that we will have to remove the engine to access the lights. Second, you need to reinforce integrators.
TED英文演講稿：Why you will fail to have a great career 篇6
When I was nine years old I went off to summer camp for the first time. And my mother packed me a suitcase full of books, which to me seemed like a perfectly natural thing to do. Because in my family, reading was the primary group activity. And this might sound antisocial to you, but for us it was really just a different way of being social. You have the animal warmth of your family sitting right next to you, but you are also free to go roaming around the adventureland inside your own mind. And I had this idea that camp was going to be just like this, but better. (Laughter) I had a vision of 10 girls sitting in a cabin cozily reading books in their matching nightgowns.
(Laughter)
Camp was more like a keg party without any alcohol. And on the very first day our counselor gathered us all together and she taught us a cheer that she said we would be doing every day for the rest of the summer to instill camp spirit. And it went like this: "R-O-W-D-I-E, that's the way we spell rowdie. Rowdie, rowdie, let's get rowdie." Yeah. So I couldn't figure out for the life of me why we were supposed to be so rowdy, or why we had to spell this word incorrectly. (Laughter) But I recited a cheer. I recited a cheer along with everybody else. I did my best. And I just waited for the time that I could go off and read my books.
But the first time that I took my book out of my suitcase, the coolest girl in the bunk came up to me and she asked me, "Why are you being so mellow?" -- mellow, of course, being the exact opposite of R-O-W-D-I-E. And then the second time I tried it, the counselor came up to me with a concerned expression on her face and she repeated the point about camp spirit and said we should all work very hard to be outgoing.
And so I put my books away, back in their suitcase, and I put them under my bed, and there they stayed for the rest of the summer. And I felt kind of guilty about this. I felt as if the books needed me somehow, and they were calling out to me and I was forsaking them. But I did forsake them and I didn't open that suitcase again until I was back home with my family at the end of the summer.
Now, I tell you this story about summer camp. I could have told you 50 others just like it -- all the times that I got the message that somehow my quiet and introverted style of being was not necessarily the right way to go, that I should be trying to pass as more of an extrovert. And I always sensed deep down that this was wrong and that introverts were pretty excellent just as they were. But for years I denied this intuition, and so I became a Wall Street lawyer, of all things, instead of the writer that I had always longed to be -- partly because I needed to prove to myself that I could be bold and assertive too. And I was always going off to crowded bars when I really would have preferred to just have a nice dinner with friends. And I made these self-negating choices so reflexively, that I wasn't even aware that I was making them.
Now this is what many introverts do, and it's our loss for sure, but it is also our colleagues' loss and our communities' loss. And at the risk of sounding grandiose, it is the world's loss. Because when it comes to creativity and to leadership, we need introverts doing what they do best. A third to a half of the population are introverts -- a third to a half. So that's one out of every two or three people you know. So even if you're an extrovert yourself, I'm talking about your coworkers and your spouses and your children and the person sitting next to you right now -- all of them subject to this bias that is pretty deep and real in our society. We all internalize it from a very early age without even having a language for what we're doing.
Now to see the bias clearly you need to understand what introversion is. It's different from being shy. Shyness is about fear of social judgment. Introversion is more about, how do you respond to stimulation, including social stimulation. So extroverts really crave large amounts of stimulation, whereas introverts feel at their most alive and their most switched-on and their most capable when they're in quieter, more low-key environments. Not all the time -- these things aren't absolute -- but a lot of the time. So the key then to maximizing our talents is for us all to put ourselves in the zone of stimulation that is right for us.
But now here's where the bias comes in. Our most important institutions, our schools and our workplaces, they are designed mostly for extroverts and for extroverts' need for lots of stimulation. And also we have this belief system right now that I call the new groupthink, which holds that all creativity and all productivity comes from a very oddly gregarious place.
So if you picture the typical classroom nowadays: When I was going to school, we sat in rows. We sat in rows of desks like this, and we did most of our work pretty autonomously. But nowadays, your typical classroom has pods of desks -- four or five or six or seven kids all facing each other. And kids are working in countless group assignments. Even in subjects like math and creative writing, which you think would depend on solo flights of thought, kids are now expected to act as committee members. And for the kids who prefer to go off by themselves or just to work alone, those kids are seen as outliers often or, worse, as problem cases. And the vast majority of teachers reports believing that the ideal student is an extrovert as opposed to an introvert, even though introverts actually get better grades and are more knowledgeable, according to research. (Laughter)
Okay, same thing is true in our workplaces. Now, most of us work in open plan offices, without walls, where we are subject to the constant noise and gaze of our coworkers. And when it comes to leadership, introverts are routinely passed over for leadership positions, even though introverts tend to be very careful, much less likely to take outsize risks -- which is something we might all favor nowadays. And interesting research by Adam Grant at the Wharton School has found that introverted leaders often deliver better outcomes than extroverts do, because when they are managing proactive employees, they're much more likely to let those employees run with their ideas, whereas an extrovert can, quite unwittingly, get so excited about things that they're putting their own stamp on things, and other people's ideas might not as easily then bubble up to the surface.
Now in fact, some of our transformative leaders in history have been introverts. I'll give you some examples. Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, Gandhi -- all these peopled described themselves as quiet and soft-spoken and even shy. And they all took the spotlight, even though every bone in their bodies was telling them not to. And this turns out to have a special power all its own, because people could feel that these leaders were at the helm, not because they enjoyed directing others and not out of the pleasure of being looked at; they were there because they had no choice, because they were driven to do what they thought was right.
Now I think at this point it's important for me to say that I actually love extroverts. I always like to say some of my best friends are extroverts, including my beloved husband. And we all fall at different points, of course, along the introvert/extrovert spectrum. Even Carl Jung, the psychologist who first popularized these terms, said that there's no such thing as a pure introvert or a pure extrovert. He said that such a man would be in a lunatic asylum, if he existed at all. And some people fall smack in the middle of the introvert/extrovert spectrum, and we call these people ambiverts. And I often think that they have the best of all worlds. But many of us do recognize ourselves as one type or the other.
And what I'm saying is that culturally we need a much better balance. We need more of a yin and yang between these two types. This is especially important when it comes to creativity and to productivity, because when psychologists look at the lives of the most creative people, what they find are people who are very good at exchanging ideas and advancing ideas, but who also have a serious streak of introversion in them.
And this is because solitude is a crucial ingredient often to creativity. So Darwin, he took long walks alone in the woods and emphatically turned down dinner party invitations. Theodor Geisel, better known as Dr. Seuss, he dreamed up many of his amazing creations in a lonely bell tower office that he had in the back of his house in La Jolla, California. And he was actually afraid to meet the young children who read his books for fear that they were expecting him this kind of jolly Santa Claus-like figure and would be disappointed with his more reserved persona. Steve Wozniak invented the first Apple computer sitting alone in his cubical in Hewlett-Packard where he was working at the time. And he says that he never would have become such an expert in the first place had he not been too introverted to leave the house when he was growing up.
Now of course, this does not mean that we should all stop collaborating -- and case in point, is Steve Wozniak famously coming together with Steve Jobs to start Apple Computer -- but it does mean that solitude matters and that for some people it is the air that they breathe. And in fact, we have known for centuries about the transcendent power of solitude. It's only recently that we've strangely begun to forget it. If you look at most of the world's major religions, you will find seekers -- Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad -- seekers who are going off by themselves alone to the wilderness where they then have profound epiphanies and revelations that they then bring back to the rest of the community. So no wilderness, no revelations.
This is no surprise though if you look at the insights of contemporary psychology. It turns out that we can't even be in a group of people without instinctively mirroring, mimicking their opinions. Even about seemingly personal and visceral things like who you're attracted to, you will start aping the beliefs of the people around you without even realizing that that's what you're doing.
And groups famously follow the opinions of the most dominant or charismatic person in the room, even though there's zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas -- I mean zero. So ... (Laughter) You might be following the person with the best ideas, but you might not. And do you really want to leave it up to chance? Much better for everybody to go off by themselves, generate their own ideas freed from the distortions of group dynamics, and then come together as a team to talk them through in a well-managed environment and take it from there.
Now if all this is true, then why are we getting it so wrong? Why are we setting up our schools this way and our workplaces? And why are we making these introverts feel so guilty about wanting to just go off by themselves some of the time? One answer lies deep in our cultural history. Western societies, and in particular the U.S., have always favored the man of action over the man of contemplation and "man" of contemplation. But in America's early days, we lived in what historians call a culture of character, where we still, at that point, valued people for their inner selves and their moral rectitude. And if you look at the self-help books from this era, they all had titles with things like "Character, the Grandest Thing in the World." And they featured role models like Abraham Lincoln who was praised for being modest and unassuming. Ralph Waldo Emerson called him "A man who does not offend by superiority."
TED英文演講稿：Why you will fail to have a great career 篇7
At every stage of our lives we make decisions that will profoundly influence the lives of the people we're going to become, and then when we become those
people, we're not always thrilled with the decisions we made. So young people pay good money to get tattoos removed that teenagers paid good money to get.
Middle-aged people rushed to divorce people who young adults rushed to marry. Older adults work hard to lose what middle-aged adults worked hard to gain. On and on and on. The question is, as a psychologist, that fascinates me is, why do we make decisions that our future selves so often regret?
在我們生命的每個階段，我們都會做出一些決定，這些決定會深刻影響未來我們自己的生活，當我們成為未來的自己時，我們并不總是對過去做過的決定感到高興。所以年輕人花很多錢洗去當還是青少年時花了很多錢做上的紋身。中年人急著跟年輕時迫不及待想結婚的人離婚。老年人很努力的揮霍著作為中年人時不停工作所賺的錢。如此沒完沒了。作為一個心理學家，讓我感興趣的問題是，為什么我們會做出讓自己將來常常后悔的決定？
Now, I think one of the reasons -- I'll try to convince you today — is that we have a fundamental misconception about the power of time. Every one of you knows that the rate of change slows over the human lifespan, that your children seem to
change by the minute but your parents seem to change by the year. But what is the name of this magical point in life where change suddenly goes from a gallop to a crawl? Is it teenage years? Is it middle age? Is it old age? The answer, it turns out, for most people, is now, wherever now happens to be. What I want to convince you today is that all of us are walking around with an illusion, an illusion that history,
our personal history, has just come to an end, that we have just recently become the people that we were always meant to be and will be for the rest of our lives. 我認為其中一個原因——而我今天想說服你們的——就是我們對時間的力量有個基本的錯誤概念。你們每個人都知道變化的速度隨著人的年齡增長不斷放慢，孩子們好像每分鐘都有變化，而父母們的變化則要慢得多。那么生命中這個讓變化突然間從飛速變得緩慢的神奇轉折點應該叫什么呢？是青少年時期嗎？是中年時期嗎？是老年階段嗎？其實對大多數人來說，答案是，現在，無論現在發生在什么。今天我想讓大家明白的是，我們所有人都在圍繞著一種錯覺生活，這種錯覺就是，我們每個人的過去，都已經結束了，我們已經成為了我們應該成為的那種人，在余下的生命中也都會如此。
Let me give you some data to back up that claim. So here's a study of change in people's personal values over time. Here's three values. Everybody here holds all of them, but you probably know that as you grow, as you age, the balance of these values shifts. So how does it do so? Well, we asked thousands of people. We asked half of them to predict for us how much their values would change in the next 10 years, and the others to tell us how much their values had changed in the last 10 years. And this enabled us to do a really interesting kind of analysis, because it allowed us to compare the predictions of people, say, 18 years old, to the reports of people who were 28, and to do that kind of analysis throughout the lifespan.
我想給你們展示一些數據來支持這個觀點。這是一項關于人們的個人價值觀隨時間變化的研究。這里有3種價值觀。每個人的生活都與這三個價值觀相關，但是你們可能知道，隨著你們慢慢長大，變老，這三個價值觀的平衡點會不斷變化。到底是怎么回事呢？我們詢問了
數千人。我們讓他們當中一半的人預測了一下在未來10年中，他們的價值觀會發生多大的改變，讓另一半人告訴我們在過去的10年中，他們的.價值觀發生了多大的變化。這項調查可以讓我們做一個很有趣的分析，因為它可以讓我們將大約18歲左右的人的預測同大約28歲左右的人的答案相比較，這項分析可以貫穿人的一生。
Here's what we found. First of all, you are right, change does slow down as we age, but second, you're wrong, because it doesn't slow nearly as much as we think. At every age, from 18 to 68 in our data set, people vastly underestimated how much change they would experience over the next 10 years. We call this the "end of history" illusion. To give you an idea of the magnitude of this effect, you can connect these two lines, and what you see here is that 18-year-olds anticipate changing only as much as 50-year-olds actually do.
這是我們的發現。首先，你們是對的，隨著我們年齡的增長，變化會減緩。第二，你們錯了，因為這種變化并不像我們想象的那么慢。在我們的數據庫從18歲到68歲的每一個年齡段中，人們大大的低估了在未來的10年他們會經歷多少變化。我們把這叫做“歷史終止”錯覺。為了讓你們了解這種影響有多大， 你們可以把這兩條線連接起來，你們現在看到的是18歲的人群預期的改變僅僅和50歲的人群實際經歷的一樣。
Now it's not just values. It's all sorts of other things. For example, personality. Many of you know that psychologists now claim that there are five fundamental
dimensions of personality: neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness. Again, we asked people how much they
expected to change over the next 10 years, and also how much they had changed
over the last 10 years, and what we found, well, you're going to get used to seeing this diagram over and over, because once again the rate of change does slow as we age, but at every age, people underestimate how much their personalities will change in the next decade.
現在不僅僅是價值觀了。其他的方面都也有變化。比如說，人格。你們當中的很多人知道現在心理學家們認為人格可以分為五個基本維度：神經質性，經驗汲取度，協調性，外向性和道德感。回到原來的話題，我們問人們他們期待未來的10年中自己會有多大的變化，以及他們在過去的10年中發生了多少變化，我們發現了，你們會習慣不斷地看到這個圖表，因為又一次，變化速率隨著我們的年齡增長減慢了。但是在每一個年齡階段，人們都低估了在未來的十年中他們的人格會發生多大的改變。
And it isn't just ephemeral things like values and personality. You can ask people about their likes and dislikes, their basic preferences. For example, name your best friend, your favorite kind of vacation, what's your favorite hobby, what's your
favorite kind of music. People can name these things. We ask half of them to tell us, "Do you think that that will change over the next 10 years?" and half of them to tell us, "Did that change over the last 10 years?" And what we find, well, you've seen it twice now, and here it is again: people predict that the friend they have now is the friend they'll have in 10 years, the vacation they most enjoy now is the one they'll enjoy in 10 years, and yet, people who are 10 years older all say, "Eh, you know, that's really changed."
而且不光是像價值觀和人格這樣的臨時性的特質。你們可以問問人們關于他們喜好和厭惡的事，他們基本的偏好。比如說，說出你最好朋友的名字，你最喜歡什么樣的假期，你最大的愛好是什么，你最喜歡什么樣的音樂。人們可以說出這些事情。我們讓他們當中的一半人告訴我們，“你認為這在未來10年內會改變嗎？”讓另一半告訴我們，“這個在過去十年內變化了嗎？”我們的發現是，嗯，這個圖你們已經看過2次了，再展示一次：人們推測他們現在的朋友在未來10年中還會是他們的朋友，他們喜歡的度假之地在未來10年內還會是他們喜歡的地方，然而，年長10歲的人都會說：“嗯，你知道，這確實不一樣了。” Does any of this matter? Is this just a form of mis-prediction that doesn't have consequences? No, it matters quite a bit, and I'll give you an example of why. It bedevils our decision-making in important ways. Bring to mind right now for
yourself your favorite musician today and your favorite musician 10 years ago. I put mine up on the screen to help you along. Now we asked people to predict for us, to tell us how much money they would pay right now to see their current favorite musician perform in concert 10 years from now, and on average, people said they would pay 129 dollars for that ticket. And yet, when we asked them how much they would pay to see the person who was their favorite 10 years ago perform today, they say only 80 dollars. Now, in a perfectly rational world, these should be the same number, but we overpay for the opportunity to indulge our current preferences because we overestimate their stability.
這有什么關系嗎？這只是一種并不會有什么后果的錯誤的預測嗎？不，這有很大的關系，我會舉例告訴你們為什么。它在很多重要的方面困擾著我們做決定�，F在想想你們此時此刻最
【TED英文演講稿：Why you will fail to have a】相關文章：
if you drink alcohol, you will not have worms06-09
Why You Should Never Complain About Former Bosses07-20
Do You Have Too Much Work Experience On Your Resume?07-23
What contributed to your divorce? What have you learned from08-08
It would hurt you06-30
Love You three06-30