为什么英语演讲稿(11篇)

第1篇 ted英语演讲稿：我们为什么要睡觉

简介：一生中，我们有三分之一的时间都在睡眠中度过。关于睡眠，你又了解多少?睡眠专家russell foster为我们解答为什么要睡觉，以及睡眠对健康的影响。

what i'd like to do today is talk about one of my favorite subjects, and that is the neuroscience of sleep.

now, there is a sound -- (alarm clock) -- aah, it worked -- a sound that is desperately, desperately familiar to most of us, and of course it's the sound of the alarm clock. and what that truly ghastly, awful sound does is stop the single most important behavioral e_perience that we have, and that's sleep. if you're an average sort of person, 36 percent of your life will be spent asleep, which means that if you live to 90, then 32 years will have been spent entirely asleep.

now what that 32 years is telling us is that sleep at some level is important. and yet, for most of us, we don't give sleep a second thought. we throw it away. we really just don't think about sleep. and so what i'd like to do today is change your views, change your ideas and your thoughts about sleep. and the journey that i want to take you on, we need to start by going back in time.

'enjoy the honey-heavy dew of slumber.' any ideas who said that? shakespeare's julius caesar. yes, let me give you a few more quotes. 'o sleep, o gentle sleep, nature's soft nurse, how have i frighted thee?' shakespeare again, from -- i won't say it -- the scottish play. [correction: henry iv, part 2] (laughter) from the same time: 'sleep is the golden chain that ties health and our bodies together.' e_tremely prophetic, by thomas dekker, another elizabethan dramatist.

but if we jump forward 400 years, the tone about sleep changes somewhat. this is from thomas edison, from the beginning of the 20th century. 'sleep is a criminal waste of time and a heritage from our cave days.' bang. (laughter) and if we also jump into the 1980s, some of you may remember that margaret thatcher was reported to have said, 'sleep is for wimps.' and of course the infamous -- what was his name? -- the infamous gordon gekko from 'wall street' said, 'money never sleeps.'

what do we do in the 20th century about sleep? well, of course, we use thomas edison's light bulb to invade the night, and we occupied the dark, and in the process of this occupation, we've treated sleep as an illness, almost. we've treated it as an enemy. at most now, i suppose, we tolerate the need for sleep, and at worst perhaps many of us think of sleep as an illness that needs some sort of a cure. and our ignorance about sleep is really quite profound.

why is it? why do we abandon sleep in our thoughts? well, it's because you don't do anything much while you're asleep, it seems. you don't eat. you don't drink. and you don't have se_. well, most of us anyway. and so therefore it's -- sorry. it's a complete waste of time, right? wrong. actually, sleep is an incredibly important part of our biology, and neuroscientists are beginning to e_plain why it's so very important. so let's move to the brain.

now, here we have a brain. this is donated by a social scientist, and they said they didn't know what it was, or indeed how to use it, so -- (laughter) sorry. so i borrowed it. i don't think they noticed. okay. (laughter)

the point i'm trying to make is that when you're asleep, this thing doesn't shut down. in fact, some areas of the brain are actually more active during the sleep state than during the wake state. the other thing that's really important about sleep is that it doesn't arise from a single structure within the brain, but is to some e_tent a network property, and if we flip the brain on its back -- i love this little bit of spinal cord here -- this bit here is the hypothalamus, and right under there is a whole raft of interesting structures, not least the biological clock. the biological clock tells us when it's good to be up, when it's good to be asleep, and what that structure does is interact with a whole raft of other areas within the hypothalamus, the lateral hypothalamus, the ventrolateral preoptic nuclei. all of those combine, and they send projections down to the brain stem here. the brain stem then projects forward and bathes the corte_, this wonderfully wrinkly bit over here, with neurotransmitters that keep us awake and essentially provide us with our consciousness. so sleep arises from a whole raft of different interactions within the brain, and essentially, sleep is turned on and off as a result of a range of

okay. so where have we got to? we've said that sleep is complicated and it takes 32 years of our life. but what i haven't e_plained is what sleep is about. so why do we sleep? and it won't surprise any of you that, of course, the scientists, we don't have a consensus. there are dozens of different ideas about why we sleep, and i'm going to outline three of those.

the first is sort of the restoration idea, and it's somewhat intuitive. essentially, all the stuff we've burned up during the day, we restore, we replace, we rebuild during the night. and indeed, as an e_planation, it goes back to aristotle, so that's, what, 2,300 years ago. it's gone in and out of fashion. it's fashionable at the moment because what's been shown is that within the brain, a whole raft of genes have been shown to be turned on only during sleep, and those genes are associated with restoration and metabolic pathways. so there's good evidence for the whole restoration hypothesis.

what about energy conservation? again, perhaps intuitive. you essentially sleep to save calories. now, when you do the sums, though, it doesn't really pan out. if you compare an individual who has slept at night, or stayed awake and hasn't moved very much, the energy saving of sleeping is about 110 calories a night. now, that's the equivalent of a hot dog bun. now, i would say that a hot dog bun is kind of a meager return for such a complicated and demanding behavior as sleep. so i'm less convinced by the energy conservation idea.

but the third idea i'm quite attracted to, which is brain processing and memory consolidation. what we know is that, if after you've tried to learn a task, and you sleep-deprive individuals, the ability to learn that task is smashed. it's really hugely attenuated. so sleep and memory consolidation is also very important. however, it's not just the laying down of memory and recalling it. what's turned out to be really e_citing is that our ability to come up with novel solutions to comple_ problems is hugely enhanced by a night of sleep. in fact, it's been estimated to give us a threefold advantage. sleeping at night enhances our creativity. and what seems to be going on is that, in the brain, those neural connections that are important, those synaptic connections that are important, are linked and strengthened, while those that are less important tend to fade away and be less important.

okay. so we've had three e_planations for why we might sleep, and i think the important thing to realize is that the details will vary, and it's probable we sleep for multiple different reasons. but sleep is not an indulgence. it's not some sort of thing that we can take on board rather casually. i think that sleep was once likened to an upgrade from economy to business class, you know, the equiavlent of. it's not even an upgrade from economy to first class. the critical thing to realize is that if you don't sleep, you don't fly. essentially, you never get there, and what's e_traordinary about much of our society these days is that we are desperately sleep-deprived.

so let's now look at sleep deprivation. huge sectors of society are sleep-deprived, and let's look at our sleep-o-meter. so in the 1950s, good data suggests that most of us were getting around about eight hours of sleep a night. nowadays, we sleep one and a half to two hours less every night, so we're in the si_-and-a-half-hours-every-night league. for teenagers, it's worse, much worse. they need nine hours for full brain performance, and many of them, on a school night, are only getting five hours of sleep. it's simply not enough. if we think about other sectors of society, the aged, if you are aged, then your ability to sleep in a single block is somewhat disrupted, and many sleep, again, less than five hours a night. shift work. shift work is e_traordinary, perhaps 20 percent of the working population, and the body clock does not shift to the demands of working at night. it's locked onto the same light-dark cycle as the rest of us. so when the poor old shift worker is going home to try and sleep during the day, desperately tired, the body clock is saying, 'wake up. this is the time to be awake.' so the quality of sleep that you get as a night shift worker is usually very poor, again in that sort of five-hour region. and then, of course, tens of millions of people suffer from jet lag. so who here has jet lag? well, my goodness gracious. well, thank you very much indeed for not falling asleep, because that's what your brain is craving.

one of the things that the brain does is indulge in micro-sleeps, this involuntary falling asleep, and you have essentially no control over it. now, micro-sleeps can be sort of somewhat embarrassing, but they can also be deadly. it's been estimated that 31 percent of drivers will fall asleep at the wheel at least once in their life, and in the u.s., the statistics are pretty good: 100,000 accidents on the freeway have been associated with tiredness, loss of vigilance, and falling asleep. a hundred thousand a year. it's e_traordinary. at another level of terror, we dip into the tragic accidents at chernobyl and indeed the space shuttle challenger, which was so tragically lost. and in the investigations that followed those disasters, poor judgment as a result of e_tended shift work and loss of vigilance and tiredness was attributed to a big chunk of those disasters.

so when you're tired, and you lack sleep, you have poor memory, you have poor creativity, you have increased impulsiveness, and you have overall poor judgment. but my friends, it's so much worse than that.

(laughter)

if you are a tired brain, the brain is craving things to wake it up. so drugs, stimulants. caffeine represents the stimulant of choice across much of the western world. much of the day is fueled by caffeine, and if you're a really naughty tired brain, nicotine. and of course, you're fueling the waking state with these stimulants, and then of course it gets to 11 o'clock at night, and the brain says to itself, 'ah, well actually, i need to be asleep fairly shortly. what do we do about that when i'm feeling completely wired?' well, of course, you then resort to alcohol. now alcohol, short-term, you know, once or twice, to use to mildly sedate you, can be very useful. it can actually ease the sleep transition. but what you must be so aware of is that alcohol doesn't provide sleep, a biological mimic for sleep. it sedates you. so it actually harms some of the neural proccessing that's going on during memory consolidation and memory recall. so it's a short-term acute measure, but for goodness sake, don't become addicted to alcohol as a way of getting to sleep every night.

another connection between loss of sleep is weight gain. if you sleep around about five hours or less every night, then you have a 50 percent likelihood of being obese. what's the connection here? well, sleep loss seems to give rise to the release of the hormone ghrelin, the hunger hormone. ghrelin is released. it gets to the brain. the brain says, 'i need carbohydrates,' and what it does is seek out carbohydrates and particularly sugars. so there's a link between tiredness and the metabolic predisposition for weight gain.

stress. tired people are massively stressed. and one of the things of stress, of course, is loss of memory, which is what i sort of just then had a little lapse of. but stress is so much more. so if you're acutely stressed, not a great problem, but it's sustained stress associated with sleep loss that's the problem. so sustained stress leads to suppressed immunity, and so tired people tend to have higher rates of overall infection, and there's some very good studies showing that shift workers, for e_ample, have higher rates of cancer. increased levels of stress throw glucose into the circulation. glucose becomes a dominant part of the vasculature and essentially you become glucose intolerant. therefore, diabetes 2. stress increases cardiovascular disease as a result of raising blood pressure. so there's a whole raft of things associated with sleep loss that are more than just a mildly impaired brain, which is where i think most people think that sleep loss resides.

so at this point in the talk, this is a nice time to think, well, do you think on the whole i'm getting enough sleep? so a quick show of hands. who feels that they're getting enough sleep here? oh. well, that's pretty impressive. good. we'll talk more about that later, about what are your tips.

so most of us, of course, ask the question, 'well, how do i know whether i'm getting enough sleep?' well, it's not rocket science. if you need an alarm clock to get you out of bed in the morning, if you are taking a long time to get up, if you need lots of stimulants, if you're grumpy, if you're irritable, if you're told by your work colleagues that you're looking tired and irritable, chances are you are sleep-deprived. listen to them. listen to yourself.

what do you do? well -- and this is slightly offensive -- sleep for dummies: make your bedroom a haven for sleep. the first critical thing is make it as dark as you possibly can, and also make it slightly cool. very important. actually, reduce your amount of light e_posure at least half an hour before you go to bed. light increases levels of alertness and will delay sleep. what's the last thing that most of us do before we go to bed? we stand in a massively lit bathroom looking into the mirror cleaning our teeth. it's the worst thing we can possibly do before we went to sleep. turn off those mobile phones. turn off those computers. turn off all of those things that are also going to e_cite the brain. try not to drink caffeine too late in the day, ideally not after lunch. now, we've set about reducing light e_posure before you go to bed, but light e_posure in the morning is very good at setting the biological clock to the light-dark cycle. so seek out morning light. basically, listen to yourself. wind down. do those sorts of things that you know are going to ease you off into the honey-heavy dew of slumber.

okay. that's some facts. what about some myths?

teenagers are lazy. no. poor things. they have a biological predisposition to go to bed late and get up late, so give them a break.

we need eight hours of sleep a night. that's an average. some people need more. some people need less. and what you need to do is listen to your body. do you need that much or do you need more? simple as that.

old people need less sleep. not true. the sleep demands of the aged do not go down. essentially, sleep fragments and becomes less robust, but sleep requirements do not go down.

and the fourth myth is, early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise. well that's wrong at so many different levels. (laughter) there is no, no evidence that getting up early and going to bed early gives you more wealth at all. there's no difference in socioeconomic status. in my e_perience, the only difference between morning people and evening people is that those people that get up in the morning early are just horribly smug.

(laughter) (applause)

okay. so for the last part, the last few minutes, what i want to do is change gears and talk about some really new, breaking areas of neuroscience, which is the association between mental health, mental illness and sleep disruption. we've known for 130 years that in severe mental illness, there is always, always sleep disruption, but it's been largely ignored. in the 1970s, when people started to think about this again, they said, 'yes, well, of course you have sleep disruption in schizophrenia because they're on anti-psychotics. it's the anti-psychotics causing the sleep problems,' ignoring the fact that for a hundred years previously, sleep disruption had been reported before anti-psychotics.

so what's going on? lots of groups, several groups are studying conditions like depression, schizophrenia and bipolar, and what's going on in terms of sleep disruption. we have a big study which we published last year on schizophrenia, and the data were quite e_traordinary. in those individuals with schizophrenia, much of the time, they were awake during the night phase and then they were asleep during the day. other groups showed no 24-hour patterns whatsoever. their sleep was absolutely smashed. and some had no ability to regulate their sleep by the light-dark cycle. they were getting up later and later and later and later each night. it was smashed.

so what's going on? and the really e_citing news is that mental illness and sleep are not simply associated but they are physically linked within the brain. the neural networks that predispose you to normal sleep, give you normal sleep, and those that give you normal mental health are overlapping. and what's the evidence for that? well, genes that have been shown to be very important in the generation of normal sleep, when mutated, when changed, also predispose individuals to mental health problems. and last year, we published a study which showed that a gene that's been linked to schizophrenia, which, when mutated, also smashes the sleep. so we have evidence of a genuine mechanistic overlap between these two important systems.

other work flowed from these studies. the first was that sleep disruption actually precedes certain types of mental illness, and we've shown that in those young individuals who are at high risk of developing bipolar disorder, they already have a sleep abnormality prior to any clinical diagnosis of bipolar. the other bit of data was that sleep disruption may actually e_acerbate, make worse the mental illness state. my colleague dan freeman has used a range of agents which have stabilized sleep and reduced levels of paranoia in those individuals by 50 percent.

so what have we got? we've got, in these connections, some really e_citing things. in terms of the neuroscience, by understanding the neuroscience of these two systems, we're really beginning to understand how both sleep and mental illness are generated and regulated within the brain. the second area is that if we can use sleep and sleep disruption as an early warning signal, then we have the chance of going in. if we know that these individuals are vulnerable, early intervention then becomes possible. and the third, which i think is the most e_citing, is that we can think of the sleep centers within the brain as a new therapeutic target. stabilize sleep in those individuals who are vulnerable, we can certainly make them healthier, but also alleviate some of the appalling symptoms of mental illness.

so let me just finish. what i started by saying is take sleep seriously. our attitudes toward sleep are so very different from a pre-industrial age, when we were almost wrapped in a duvet. we used to understand intuitively the importance of sleep. and this isn't some sort of crystal-waving nonsense. this is a pragmatic response to good health. if you have good sleep, it increases your concentration, attention, decision-making, creativity, social skills, health. if you get sleep, it reduces your mood changes, your stress, your levels of anger, your impulsivity, and your tendency to drink and take drugs. and we finished by saying that an understanding of the neuroscience of sleep is really informing the way we think about some of the causes of mental illness, and indeed is providing us new ways to treat these incredibly debilitating conditions.

jim butcher, the fantasy writer, said, 'sleep is god. go worship.' and i can only recommend that you do the same.

thank you for your attention.

(applause)

第2篇 ted英语演讲稿：为什么_代表未知？

i have the answer to a question that we've all asked. the question is, why is it that the letter _ represents the unknown? now i know we learned that in math class, but now it's everywhere in the culture -- the _ prize, the _-files, project _, ted_. where'd that come from?

about si_ years ago i decided that i would learn arabic, which turns out to be a supremely logical language. to write a word or a phrase or a sentence in arabic is like crafting an equation, because every part is e_tremely precise and carries a lot of information. that's one of the reasons so much of what we've come to think of as western science and mathematics and engineering was really worked out in the first few centuries of the common era by the persians and the arabs and the turks.

this includes the little system in arabic called al-jebra. and al-jebr roughly translates to 'the system for reconciling disparate parts.' al-jebr finally came into english as algebra. one e_ample among many.

the arabic te_ts containing this mathematical wisdom finally made their way to europe -- which is to say spain -- in the 11th and 12th centuries. and when they arrived there was tremendous interest in translating this wisdom into a european language.

but there were problems. one problem is there are some sounds in arabic that just don't make it through a european voice bo_ without lots of practice. trust me on that one. also, those very sounds tend not to be represented by the characters that are available in european languages.

here's one of the culprits. this is the letter sheen, and it makes the sound we think of as sh -- 'sh.' it's also the very first letter of the word shalan, which means 'something' just like the the english word 'something' -- some undefined, unknown thing.

now in arabic, we can make this definite by adding the definite article 'al.' so this is al-shalan -- the unknown thing. and this is a word that appears throughout early mathematics, such as this 10th century derivation of proofs.

the problem for the medieval spanish scholars who were tasked with translating this material is that the letter sheen and the word shalan can't be rendered into spanish because spanish doesn't have that sh, that 'sh' sound. so by convention, they created a rule in which they borrowed the ck sound, 'ck' sound, from the classical greek in the form of the letter kai.

later when this material was translated into a common european language, which is to say latin, they simply replaced the greek kai with the latin _. and once that happened, once this material was in latin, it formed the basis for mathematics te_tbooks for almost 600 years.

but now we have the answer to our question. why is it that _ is the unknown? _ is the unknown because you can't say 'sh' in spanish. (laughter) and i thought that was worth sharing.

(applause)

第3篇 ted英语演讲稿：我们为什么快乐？

when you have 21 minutes to speak, two million years seems like a really long time. but evolutionarily, two million years is nothing. and yet in two million years the human brain has nearly tripled in mass, going from the one-and-a-quarter pound brain of our ancestor here, habilis, to the almost three-pound meatloaf that everybody here has between their ears. what is it about a big brain that nature was so eager for every one of us to have one?

well, it turns out when brains triple in size, they don't just get three times bigger; they gain new structures. and one of the main reasons our brain got so big is because it got a new part, called the 'frontal lobe.' and particularly, a part called the 'pre-frontal corte_.' now what does a pre-frontal corte_ do for you that should justify the entire architectural overhaul of the human skull in the blink of evolutionary time?

well, it turns out the pre-frontal corte_ does lots of things, but one of the most important things it does is it is an e_perience simulator. flight pilots practice in flight simulators so that they don't make real mistakes in planes. human beings have this marvelous adaptation that they can actually have e_periences in their heads before they try them out in real life. this is a trick that none of our ancestors could do, and that no other animal can do quite like we can. it's a marvelous adaptation. it's up there with opposable thumbs and standing upright and language as one of the things that got our species out of the trees and into the shopping mall.

now -- (laughter) -- all of you have done this. i mean, you know, ben and jerry's doesn't have liver-and-onion ice cream, and it's not because they whipped some up, tried it and went, 'yuck.' it's because, without leaving your armchair, you can simulate that flavor and say 'yuck' before you make it.

let's see how your e_perience simulators are working. let's just run a quick diagnostic before i proceed with the rest of the talk. here's two different futures that i invite you to contemplate, and you can try to simulate them and tell me which one you think you might prefer. one of them is winning the lottery. this is about 314 million dollars. and the other is becoming paraplegic. so, just give it a moment of thought. you probably don't feel like you need a moment of thought.

interestingly, there are data on these two groups of people, data on how happy they are. and this is e_actly what you e_pected, isn't it? but these aren't the data. i made these up!

these are the data. you failed the pop quiz, and you're hardly five minutes into the lecture. because the fact is that a year after losing the use of their legs, and a year after winning the lotto, lottery winners and paraplegics are equally happy with their lives.

now, don't feel too bad about failing the first pop quiz, because everybody fails all of the pop quizzes all of the time. the research that my laboratory has been doing, that economists and psychologists around the country have been doing, have revealed something really quite startling to us, something we call the 'impact bias,' which is the tendency for the simulator to work badly. for the simulator to make you believe that different outcomes are more different than in fact they really are.

from field studies to laboratory studies, we see that winning or losing an election, gaining or losing a romantic partner, getting or not getting a promotion, passing or not passing a college test, on and on, have far less impact, less intensity and much less duration than people e_pect them to have. in fact, a recent study -- this almost floors me -- a recent study showing how major life traumas affect people suggests that if it happened over three months ago, with only a few e_ceptions, it has no impact whatsoever on your happiness.

why? because happiness can be synthesized. sir thomas brown wrote in 1642, 'i am the happiest man alive. i have that in me that can convert poverty to riches, adversity to prosperity. i am more invulnerable than achilles; fortune hath not one place to hit me.' what kind of remarkable machinery does this guy have in his head?

well, it turns out it's precisely the same remarkable machinery that all off us have. human beings have something that we might think of as a 'psychological immune system.' a system of cognitive processes, largely non-conscious cognitive processes, that help them change their views of the world, so that they can feel better about the worlds in which they find themselves. like sir thomas, you have this machine. unlike sir thomas, you seem not to know it. (laughter)

we synthesize happiness, but we think happiness is a thing to be found. now, you don't need me to give you too many e_amples of people synthesizing happiness, i suspect. though i'm going to show you some e_perimental evidence, you don't have to look very far for evidence.

as a challenge to myself, since i say this once in a while in lectures, i took a copy of the new york times and tried to find some instances of people synthesizing happiness. and here are three guys synthesizing happiness. 'i am so much better off physically, financially, emotionally, mentally and almost every other way.' 'i don't have one minute's regret. it was a glorious e_perience.' 'i believe it turned out for the best.'

who are these characters who are so damn happy? well, the first one is jim wright. some of you are old enough to remember: he was the chairman of the house of representatives and he resigned in disgrace when this young republican named newt gingrich found out about a shady book deal he had done. he lost everything. the most powerful democrat in the country, he lost everything. he lost his money; he lost his power. what does he have to say all these years later about it? 'i am so much better off physically, financially, mentally and in almost every other way.' what other way would there be to be better off? vegetably? minerally? animally? he's pretty much covered them there.

moreese bickham is somebody you've never heard of. moreese bickham uttered these words upon being released. he was 78 years old. he spent 37 years in a louisiana state penitentiary for a crime he didn't commit. he was ultimately e_onerated, at the age of 78, through dna evidence. and what did he have to say about his e_perience? 'i don't have one minute's regret. it was a glorious e_perience.' glorious! this guy is not saying, 'well, you know, there were some nice guys. they had a gym.' it's 'glorious,' a word we usually reserve for something like a religious e_perience.

harry s. langerman uttered these words, and he's somebody you might have known but didn't, because in 1949 he read a little article in the paper about a hamburger stand owned by these two brothers named mcdonalds. and he thought, 'that's a really neat idea!' so he went to find them. they said, 'we can give you a franchise on this for 3,000 bucks.' harry went back to new york, asked his brother who's an investment banker to loan him the 3,000 dollars, and his brother's immortal words were, 'you idiot, nobody eats hamburgers.' he wouldn't lend him the money, and of course si_ months later ray croc had e_actly the same idea. it turns out people do eat hamburgers, and ray croc, for a while, became the richest man in america.

and then finally -- you know, the best of all possible worlds -- some of you recognize this young photo of pete best, who was the original drummer for the beatles, until they, you know, sent him out on an errand and snuck away and picked up ringo on a tour. well, in 1994, when pete best was interviewed -- yes, he's still a drummer; yes, he's a studio musician -- he had this to say: 'i'm happier than i would have been with the beatles.'

okay. there's something important to be learned from these people, and it is the secret of happiness. here it is, finally to be revealed. first: accrue wealth, power, and prestige, then lose it. (laughter) second: spend as much of your life in prison as you possibly can. (laughter) third: make somebody else really, really rich. (laughter) and finally: never ever join the beatles. (laughter)

ok. now i, like ze frank, can predict your ne_t thought, which is, 'yeah, right.' because when people synthesize happiness, as these gentlemen seem to have done, we all smile at them, but we kind of roll our eyes and say, 'yeah right, you never really wanted the job.' 'oh yeah, right. you really didn't have that much in common with her, and you figured that out just about the time she threw the engagement ring in your face.'

we smirk because we believe that synthetic happiness is not of the same quality as what we might call 'natural happiness.' what are these terms? natural happiness is what we get when we get what we wanted, and synthetic happiness is what we make when we don't get what we wanted. and in our society, we have a strong belief that synthetic happiness is of an inferior kind. why do we have that belief? well, it's very simple. what kind of economic engine would keep churning if we believed that not getting what we want could make us just as happy as getting it?

with all apologies to my friend matthieu ricard, a shopping mall full of zen monks is not going to be particularly profitable because they don't want stuff enough. i want to suggest to you that synthetic happiness is every bit as real and enduring as the kind of happiness you stumble upon when you get e_actly what you were aiming for. now, i'm a scientist, so i'm going to do this not with rhetoric, but by marinating you in a little bit of data.

let me first show you an e_perimental paradigm that is used to demonstrate the synthesis of happiness among regular old folks. and this isn't mine. this is a 50-year-old paradigm called the 'free choice paradigm.' it's very simple. you bring in, say, si_ objects, and you ask a subject to rank them from the most to the least liked. in this case, because the e_periment i'm going to tell you about uses them, these are monet prints. so, everybody can rank these monet prints from the one they like the most, to the one they like the least. now we give you a choice: 'we happen to have some e_tra prints in the closet. we're going to give you one as your prize to take home. we happen to have number three and number four,' we tell the subject. this is a bit of a difficult choice, because neither one is preferred strongly to the other, but naturally, people tend to pick number three because they liked it a little better than number four.

sometime later -- it could be 15 minutes; it could be 15 days -- the same stimuli are put before the subject, and the subject is asked to re-rank the stimuli. 'tell us how much you like them now.' what happens? watch as happiness is synthesized. this is the result that has been replicated over and over again. you're watching happiness be synthesized. would you like to see it again? happiness! 'the one i got is really better than i thought! that other one i didn't get sucks!' (laughter) that's the synthesis of happiness.

now what's the right response to that? 'yeah, right!' now, here's the e_periment we did, and i would hope this is going to convince you that 'yeah, right!' was not the right response.

we did this e_periment with a group of patients who had anterograde amnesia. these are hospitalized patients. most of them have korsakoff's syndrome, a polyneuritic psychosis that -- they drank way too much, and they can't make new memories. ok? they remember their childhood, but if you walk in and introduce yourself, and then leave the room, when you come back, they don't know who you are.

we took our monet prints to the hospital. and we asked these patients to rank them from the one they liked the most to the one they liked the least. we then gave them the choice between number three and number four. like everybody else, they said, 'gee, thanks doc! that's great! i could use a new print. i'll take number three.' we e_plained we would have number three mailed to them. we gathered up our materials and we went out of the room, and counted to a half hour. back into the room, we say, 'hi, we're back.' the patients, bless them, say, 'ah, doc, i'm sorry, i've got a memory problem; that's why i'm here. if i've met you before, i don't remember.' 'really, jim, you don't remember? i was just here with the monet prints?' 'sorry, doc, i just don't have a clue.' 'no problem, jim. all i want you to do is rank these for me from the one you like the most to the one you like the least.'

what do they do? well, let's first check and make sure they're really amnesiac. we ask these amnesiac patients to tell us which one they own, which one they chose last time, which one is theirs. and what we find is amnesiac patients just guess. these are normal controls, where if i did this with you, all of you would know which print you chose. but if i do this with amnesiac patients, they don't have a clue. they can't pick their print out of a lineup.

here's what normal controls do: they synthesize happiness. right? this is the change in liking score, the change from the first time they ranked to the second time they ranked. normal controls show -- that was the magic i showed you; now i'm showing it to you in graphical form -- 'the one i own is better than i thought. the one i didn't own, the one i left behind, is not as good as i thought.' amnesiacs do e_actly the same thing. think about this result.

these people like better the one they own, but they don't know they own it. 'yeah, right' is not the right response! what these people did when they synthesized happiness is they really, truly changed their affective, hedonic, aesthetic reactions to that poster. they're not just saying it because they own it, because they don't know they own it.

now, when psychologists show you bars, you know that they are showing you averages of lots of people. and yet, all of us have this psychological immune system, this capacity to synthesize happiness, but some of us do this trick better than others. and some situations allow anybody to do it more effectively than other situations do. it turns out that freedom -- the ability to make up your mind and change your mind -- is the friend of natural happiness, because it allows you to choose among all those delicious futures and find the one that you would most enjoy. but freedom to choose -- to change and make up your mind -- is the enemy of synthetic happiness. and i'm going to show you why.

dilbert already knows, of course. you're reading the cartoon as i'm talking. 'dogbert's tech support. how may i abuse you?' 'my printer prints a blank page after every document.' 'why would you complain about getting free paper?' 'free? aren't you just giving me my own paper?' 'egad, man! look at the quality of the free paper compared to your lousy regular paper! only a fool or a liar would say that they look the same!' 'ah! now that you mention it, it does seem a little silkier!' 'what are you doing?' 'i'm helping people accept the things they cannot change.' indeed.

the psychological immune system works best when we are totally stuck, when we are trapped. this is the difference between dating and marriage, right? i mean, you go out on a date with a guy, and he picks his nose; you don't go out on another date. you're married to a guy and he picks his nose? yeah, he has a heart of gold; don't touch the fruitcake. right? (laughter) you find a way to be happy with what's happened. now what i want to show you is that people don't know this about themselves, and not knowing this can work to our supreme disadvantage.

here's an e_periment we did at harvard. we created a photography course, a black-and-white photography course, and we allowed students to come in and learn how to use a darkroom. so we gave them cameras; they went around campus; they took 12 pictures of their favorite professors and their dorm room and their dog, and all the other things they wanted to have harvard memories of. they bring us the camera; we make up a contact sheet; they figure out which are the two best pictures; and we now spend si_ hours teaching them about darkrooms. and they blow two of them up, and they have two gorgeous eight-by-10 glossies of meaningful things to them, and we say, 'which one would you like to give up?' they say, 'i have to give one up?' 'oh, yes. we need one as evidence of the class project. so you have to give me one. you have to make a choice. you get to keep one, and i get to keep one.'

now, there are two conditions in this e_periment. in one case, the students are told, 'but you know, if you want to change your mind, i'll always have the other one here, and in the ne_t four days, before i actually mail it to headquarters, i'll be glad to' -- (laughter) -- yeah, 'headquarters' -- 'i'll be glad to swap it out with you. in fact, i'll come to your dorm room and give -- just give me an email. better yet, i'll check with you. you ever want to change your mind, it's totally returnable.' the other half of the students are told e_actly the opposite: 'make your choice. and by the way, the mail is going out, gosh, in two minutes, to england. your picture will be winging its way over the atlantic. you will never see it again.' now, half of the students in each of these conditions are asked to make predictions about how much they're going to come to like the picture that they keep and the picture they leave behind. other students are just sent back to their little dorm rooms and they are measured over the ne_t three to si_ days on their liking, satisfaction with the pictures. and look at what we find.

first of all, here's what students think is going to happen. they think they're going to maybe come to like the picture they chose a little more than the one they left behind, but these are not statistically significant differences. it's a very small increase, and it doesn't much matter whether they were in the reversible or irreversible condition.

wrong-o. bad simulators. because here's what's really happening. both right before the swap and five days later, people who are stuck with that picture, who have no choice, who can never change their mind, like it a lot! and people who are deliberating -- 'should i return it? have i gotten the right one? maybe this isn't the good one? maybe i left the good one?' -- have killed themselves. they don't like their picture, and in fact even after the opportunity to swap has e_pired, they still don't like their picture. why? because the reversible condition is not conducive to the synthesis of happiness.

so here's the final piece of this e_periment. we bring in a whole new group of naive harvard students and we say, 'you know, we're doing a photography course, and we can do it one of two ways. we could do it so that when you take the two pictures, you'd have four days to change your mind, or we're doing another course where you take the two pictures and you make up your mind right away and you can never change it. which course would you like to be in?' duh! 66 percent of the students, two-thirds, prefer to be in the course where they have the opportunity to change their mind. hello? 66 percent of the students choose to be in the course in which they will ultimately be deeply dissatisfied with the picture. because they do not know the conditions under which synthetic happiness grows.

the bard said everything best, of course, and he's making my point here but he's making it hyperbolically: ''tis nothing good or bad / but thinking makes it so.' it's nice poetry, but that can't e_actly be right. is there really nothing good or bad? is it really the case that gall bladder surgery and a trip to paris are just the same thing? that seems like a one-question iq test. they can't be e_actly the same.

in more turgid prose, but closer to the truth, was the father of modern capitalism, adam smith, and he said this. this is worth contemplating: 'the great source of both the misery and disorders of human life seems to arise from overrating the difference between one permanent situation and another ... some of these situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others, but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardor which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice, or to corrupt the future tranquility of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse for the horror of our own injustice.' in other words: yes, some things are better than others.

we should have preferences that lead us into one future over another. but when those preferences drive us too hard and too fast because we have overrated the difference between these futures, we are at risk. when our ambition is bounded, it leads us to work joyfully. when our ambition is unbounded, it leads us to lie, to cheat, to steal, to hurt others, to sacrifice things of real value. when our fears are bounded, we're prudent; we're cautious; we're thoughtful. when our fears are unbounded and overblown, we're reckless, and we're cowardly.

the lesson i want to leave you with from these data is that our longings and our worries are both to some degree overblown, because we have within us the capacity to manufacture the very commodity we are constantly chasing when we choose e_perience.

thank you.

第4篇 ted英语演讲稿：为什么节食减肥没效果？

简介：在美国，80%的女孩在她们10岁的时候便开始节食。神经学家sandra aamodt结合自己的亲身经历，讲述大脑是如何控制我们的身体的。节食减肥为何没效果?来听听她的说法吧!

three and a half years ago, i made one of the best decisions of my life. as my new year's resolution, i gave up dieting, stopped worrying about my weight, and learned to eat mindfully. now i eat whenever i'm hungry, and i've lost 10 pounds.

this was me at age 13, when i started my first diet. i look at that picture now, and i think, you did not need a diet, you needed a fashion consult. (laughter) but i thought i needed to lose weight, and when i gained it back, of course i blamed myself. and for the ne_t three decades, i was on and off various diets. no matter what i tried, the weight i'd lost always came back. i'm sure many of you know the feeling.

as a neuroscientist, i wondered, why is this so hard? obviously, how much you weigh depends on how much you eat and how much energy you burn. what most people don't realize is that hunger and energy use are controlled by the brain, mostly without your awareness. your brain does a lot of its work behind the scenes, and that is a good thing, because your conscious mind -- how do we put this politely? -- it's easily distracted. it's good that you don't have to remember to breathe when you get caught up in a movie. you don't forget how to walk because you're thinking about what to have for dinner.

your brain also has its own sense of what you should weigh, no matter what you consciously believe. this is called your set point, but that's a misleading term, because it's actually a range of about 10 or 15 pounds. you can use lifestyle choices to move your weight up and down within that range, but it's much, much harder to stay outside of it. the hypothalamus, the part of the brain that regulates body weight, there are more than a dozen chemical signals in the brain that tell your body to gain weight, more than another dozen that tell your body to lose it, and the system works like a thermostat, responding to signals from the body by adjusting hunger, activity and metabolism, to keep your weight stable as conditions change. that's what a thermostat does, right? it keeps the temperature in your house the same as the weather changes outside. now you can try to change the temperature in your house by opening a window in the winter, but that's not going to change the setting on the thermostat, which will respond by kicking on the furnace to warm the place back up.

your brain works e_actly the same way, responding to weight loss by using powerful tools to push your body back to what it considers normal. if you lose a lot of weight, your brain reacts as if you were starving, and whether you started out fat or thin, your brain's response is e_actly the same. we would love to think that your brain could tell whether you need to lose weight or not, but it can't. if you do lose a lot of weight, you become hungry, and your muscles burn less energy. dr. rudy leibel of columbia university has found that people who have lost 10 percent of their body weight burn 250 to 400 calories less because their metabolism is suppressed. that's a lot of food. this means that a successful dieter must eat this much less forever than someone of the same weight who has always been thin.

from an evolutionary perspective, your body's resistance to weight loss makes sense. when food was scarce, our ancestors' survival depended on conserving energy, and regaining the weight when food was available would have protected them against the ne_t shortage. over the course of human history, starvation has been a much bigger problem than overeating. this may e_plain a very sad fact: set points can go up, but they rarely go down. now, if your mother ever mentioned that life is not fair, this is the kind of thing she was talking about. (laughter) successful dieting doesn't lower your set point. even after you've kept the weight off for as long as seven years, your brain keeps trying to make you gain it back. if that weight loss had been due to a long famine, that would be a sensible response. in our modern world of drive-thru burgers, it's not working out so well for many of us. that difference between our ancestral past and our abundant present is the reason that dr. yoni freedhoff of the university of ottawa would like to take some of his patients back to a time when food was less available, and it's also the reason that changing the food environment is really going to be the most effective solution to obesity.

sadly, a temporary weight gain can become permanent. if you stay at a high weight for too long, probably a matter of years for most of us, your brain may decide that that's the new normal.

psychologists classify eaters into two groups, those who rely on their hunger and those who try to control their eating through willpower, like most dieters. let's call them intuitive eaters and controlled eaters. the interesting thing is that intuitive eaters are less likely to be overweight, and they spend less time thinking about food. controlled eaters are more vulnerable to overeating in response to advertising, super-sizing, and the all-you-can-eat buffet. and a small indulgence, like eating one scoop of ice cream, is more likely to lead to a food binge in controlled eaters. children are especially vulnerable to this cycle of dieting and then binging.

several long-term studies have shown that girls who diet in their early teenage years are three times more likely to become overweight five years later, even if they started at a normal weight, and all of these studies found that the same factors that predicted weight gain also predicted the development of eating disorders. the other factor, by the way, those of you who are parents, was being teased by family members about their weight. so don't do that. (laughter)

i left almost all my graphs at home, but i couldn't resist throwing in just this one, because i'm a geek, and that's how i roll. (laughter) this is a study that looked at the risk of death over a 14-year period based on four healthy habits: eating enough fruits and vegetables, e_ercise three times a week, not smoking, and drinking in moderation. let's start by looking at the normal weight people in the study. the height of the bars is the risk of death, and those zero, one, two, three, four numbers on the horizontal a_is are the number of those healthy habits that a given person had. and as you'd e_pect, the healthier the lifestyle, the less likely people were to die during the study. now let's look at what happens in overweight people.

the ones that had no healthy habits had a higher risk of death. adding just one healthy habit pulls overweight people back into the normal range. for obese people with no healthy habits, the risk is very high, seven times higher than the healthiest groups in the study. but a healthy lifestyle helps obese people too. in fact, if you look only at the group with all four healthy habits, you can see that weight makes very little difference. you can take control of your health by taking control of your lifestyle, even if you can't lose weight and keep it off.

diets don't have very much reliability. five years after a diet, most people have regained the weight. forty percent of them have gained even more. if you think about this, the typical outcome of dieting is that you're more likely to gain weight in the long run than to lose it.

if i've convinced you that dieting might be a problem, the ne_t question is, what do you do about it? and my answer, in a word, is mindfulness. i'm not saying you need to learn to meditate or take up yoga. i'm talking about mindful eating: learning to understand your body's signals so that you eat when you're hungry and stop when you're full, because a lot of weight gain boils down to eating when you're not hungry. how do you do it? give yourself permission to eat as much as you want, and then work on figuring out what makes your body feel good. sit down to regular meals without distractions. think about how your body feels when you start to eat and when you stop, and let your hunger decide when you should be done. it took about a year for me to learn this, but it's really been worth it. i am so much more rela_ed around food than i have ever been in my life. i often don't think about it. i forget we have chocolate in the house. it's like aliens have taken over my brain. it's just completely different. i should say that this approach to eating probably won't make you lose weight unless you often eat when you're not hungry, but doctors don't know of any approach that makes significant weight loss in a lot of people, and that is why a lot of people are now focusing on preventing weight gain instead of promoting weight loss. let's face it: if diets worked, we'd all be thin already. (laughter)

why do we keep doing the same thing and e_pecting different results? diets may seem harmless, but they actually do a lot of collateral damage. at worst, they ruin lives: weight obsession leads to eating disorders, especially in young kids. in the u.s., we have 80 percent of 10-year-old girls say they've been on a diet. our daughters have learned to measure their worth by the wrong scale. even at its best, dieting is a waste of time and energy. it takes willpower which you could be using to help your kids with their homework or to finish that important work project, and because willpower is limited, any strategy that relies on its consistent application is pretty much guaranteed to eventually fail you when your attention moves on to something else.

let me leave you with one last thought. what if we told all those dieting girls that it's okay to eat when they're hungry? what if we taught them to work with their appetite instead of fearing it? i think most of them would be happier and healthier, and as adults, many of them would probably be thinner. i wish someone had told me that back when i was 13.

thanks.

(applause)

第5篇 ted英语演讲：为什么说乌鸦的智商高到可怕

a thought e_periment on the intelligence of crows

演讲者：joshua klein

/ 中英对照演讲稿 /

how many of you have seen the alfred hitchcock film 'the birds'? any of you get really freaked out by that? you might want to leave now.so this is a vending machine for crows.over the past few days, many of you have been asking, 'how did you come tothis? how did you get started doing this?' it started, as with many great ideas, or many ideas you can't get rid of, anyway, at a cocktail party.

这里有多少人看过希区柯克的电影《鸟》?是不是认为那片子太过离奇了?要是那样的话，你现在可以走了。(笑声) 大家看到的是一台专门为乌鸦设计的自动售货机。 过去几天，人们都在问我同样的问题： “你怎么开始搞这玩意的?有什么吸引你的地方吗?” 说实话，这玩意就像很多伟大的想法， 或者一些你无法在脑中驱散的想法一样， 是从一次鸡尾酒派对产生的。

about 10 years ago, i was at a cocktail party with a friend of mine. we were sitting there, and he was complaining about the crows that were all over his yard and making a big mess. and he was telling me we ought to eradicate these things,kill them, because they're making a mess. i said that was stupid, maybe we should just train them to do something useful. and he said that was impossible.

大概十年前，我与一个朋友在一个鸡尾酒派对上， 我们坐在那，他一直在抱怨乌鸦 乌鸦们把他的院子搞得一团糟。 他那时很认真的跟我说，我们得想办法消灭这些鬼东西， 否则我们就不会有好日子过。 我跟他说，那才是坏主意呢， 咱们为何不训练它们，让乌鸦帮我们人类做一点有意义的事情? 他丢给我一句“那不可能”。

and i'm sure i'm in good company in finding that tremendously annoying, when someone tells you it's impossible. so i spent the ne_t 10 years reading about crows in my spare time.

我相信绝对不只我一人觉得这极度恼人——当有人告诉你“那不可能”时。于是决定用20__年的时间在我的业余时间专门研究乌鸦。

and after 10 years of this, my wife said,'you've got to do this thing you've been talking about, and build the vending machine.' so i did. but part of the reason i found this interesting is, i started noticing that we're very aware of all the species that are going e_tinct on the planet as a result of human habitation e_pansion,and no one seems to be paying attention to all the species that are actually living;they're surviving. and i'm talking specifically about synanthropic species,which have adapted specifically for human ecologies, species like rats and cockroaches and crows.

现在20__年过去了，我妻子说， “好吧，你也该把它做出来了， 你不是一直说要给乌鸦们做一个自动售货机么?” 于是我就把它做出来了。 但我对这个项目感兴趣还有部分原因是因为 我开始注意到我们人类已经意识到 有很多物种因为人类无止尽的扩张 将会在地球上灭绝。 但貌似没人对那些 还生存在世上的物种有所关心——它们都还真正地活着。 这里我指的是那些长期与人共处， 并适应了人类生态系统的动物。 这样的动物包括老鼠、蟑螂、乌鸦。

and as i started looking at them, i was finding that they had hyper-adapted. they'd become e_tremely adept at living with us. and in return, we just tried to kill them all the time.and in doing so, we were breeding them for parasitism. we were giving them all sorts of reasons to adapt new ways. so, for e_ample, rats are incredibly responsive breeders. and cockroaches, as anyone who's tried to get rid of them knows, have become really immune to the poisons that we're using.

而假如你仔细观察的话，你会发现所有的这类动物都已经对人类社会产生了高度的适应性，并且随着继续与人生活在一起，它们的适应性还加变得更强。但反观人类呢，我们只是一直在不断屠杀它们而已。为了做到这点，人类用喂养的方式来让它们寄生于我们我们给了动物们适应新环境的各种理由。比如：老鼠的生育能力变得超强。而蟑螂，逮过蟑螂的人都知道，它们已经不在乎我们的“诱饵”了。

so i thought, let's build something that's mutually beneficial; something that we can both benefit from, and find some way to make a new relationship with these species. so i built the vending machine.

于是我想，为何不制造出一些能让我们人类和这些“寄生虫”共同受益的东西呢?以此和这些动物建立一种新型的关系，一种互利的关系。从而让人类找到一条与其共处的新路子。这就是我制作动物专用自动售货机的理由。

but the story of the vending machine is a little more interesting if you know more about crows. it turns out, crows aren't just surviving with human beings; they're actually thriving. they're found everywhere on the planet e_cept for the arctic and the southern tip of south america. and in all that area, they're only rarely found breeding more than five kilometers away from human beings. so we may not think about them,but they're always around.

不过如果你多了解一下乌鸦，这个自动售货机的故事会更有趣。乌鸦们不仅仅是在人类环境中‘生存’得不错——事实上，他们活得还很精彩。你在地球上任何一处角落——除了两极和南美至南端——都可以见得到乌鸦。通常它们的栖息地离人类居所不出5公里。虽然你也许不会想到这一点，可是它们确确实实一直都这么活在我们身边。

and not surprisingly, given the human population growth, more than half of the human population is living in cities now. and out of those, nine-tenths of the human growth population is occurring in cities.we're seeing a population boom with crows. so bird counts are indicating thatwe might be seeing up to e_ponential growth in their numbers. so that's no great surprise.

这也不奇怪，我们的地球上人口暴涨，其中有半数以上居住在城市。除此之外，90%的人口增长就都发生在城市里——乌鸦这个种群也在经历同样的发展。所以鸟类的数量在我们看来将会有一个爆炸型的增长，这并没有什么奇怪的。

but what was really interesting to me was to find out that the birds were adapting in a pretty unusual way. and i'll give you an e_ample of that. this is betty. she's a new caledonian crow. and these crows use sticks in the wild to get insects and what not out of pieces of wood.here, she's trying to get a piece of meat out of a tube. but the researchers had a problem. they messed up and left just a stick of wire in there. and she hadn't had the opportunity to do this before. you see, it wasn't working verywell. so she adapted.

但令我感到吃惊的是这些鸟儿竟然学会了通过一些奇特的方式在我们的社会里求得生存。大家看看下面的例子：它的名字是betty，它是一只new caledonia(北美地名)的乌鸦。在森林里，它们会用树枝从林木里挑出虫子和其他食物。此时它正尝试用铁线取出瓶子里的那块肉。但是研究者们遇到了一个问题。他们把试验搞砸了，因为只留下了一根线在那里。而betty以前可没尝试过这样的挑战。你可以看到，它进行得并不顺利。于是它想出了一个新法子。

now, this is completely unprompted; she had never seen this done before. no one taught her to bend this into a hook or had shown her how it could happen. but she did it all on her own. so keep in mind-- she's never seen this done.

要知道，它没有看到过别的乌鸦这么做。之前也没有任何人或者别的乌鸦教它如何把线弯成钩子;或者告诉过它可以通过这种方式捞肉。这完全是它自己想出来的办法。请一定记得它以前从没有学过的哦。就这样。

right. yeah. all right.so that's the part where the researchers freak out.

对，就这样。这才是研究人员觉得不可思议的地方。

it turns out, we've been finding more andmore that crows are really intelligent. their brains are in the same proportionas chimpanzee brains are. there's all kinds of anecdotes for the different kinds of intelligence they have. for e_ample, in sweden, crows will wait for fishermen to drop lines through holes in the ice. and when the fishermen move off, the crows fly down, reel up the lines, and eat the fish or the bait. it's pretty annoying for the fishermen.

我们发现越来越多的证据表明乌鸦的确是聪明的，它们的大脑占躯体的比例和大猩猩相当。 大家也可能听过各种各样的关于乌鸦的趣闻吧。 比如，在瑞典， 那里的乌鸦会趁渔人往冰隙里放钓钩的时候守在一边， 当渔人走了， 它们就飞过去拉起钓钩，吃掉钩上的鱼或钓饵。 这可是搞得那里的渔人很烦恼。

on an entirely different tack, at university of washington a few years ago, they were doing an e_periment where they captured some crows on campus. some students went out, netted some crows,brought them in, weighed and measured them, and let them back out again. and they were entertained to discover that for the rest of the week, whenever these particular students walked around campus, these crows would caw at them and runaround, and make their life kind of miserable.

而在华盛顿大学，那里的研究员几年前做了一个截然不同的实验。他们在校园里捉来一些乌鸦，在实验室里加以标记、称量，然后把它们放走。而随后的那个星期，他们惊喜地发现，那些被放走的乌鸦在校园里一见到那些捉过它们的学生，就会冲着他们鸣叫，并在他们周围飞来飞去，给他们的生活增添一些小烦恼。

they were significantly less entertained when this went on for the ne_t week. and the ne_t month. and after summer break. until they finally graduated and left campus, and -- glad to get away,i'm sure -- came back sometime later, and found the crows still remembered them.

但之后几个星期还是如此，他们就不再那么惊喜了。甚至到了下个月，到了夏季学期结束，到了他们毕业离校了——我相信他们是很高兴地离去的——可当他们偶尔回校来看看时，那些乌鸦还是记得他们。

so, the moral being: don't piss off crows.so now, students at the university of washington that are studying these crows,do so with a giant wig and a big mask.

所以——大家看到了吧，千万别惹乌鸦。正是这样的缘故，现在华盛顿大学做乌鸦研究的学生都带上巨大的假发，还套上面具。

it's fairly interesting.

这真是令人哑然的一件事。

so we know these crows are really smart,but the more i dug into this, the more i found that they actually have an even more significant adaptation.

以上说的无非是要证明乌鸦是非常聪明的，但我研究得越是深入，越是觉得它们的智慧要比我们想象的高出一个层次。

video: crows have become highly skilled atmaking a living in these new urban environments. in this japanese city, they have devised a way of eating a food that normally they can't manage: drop it among the traffic. the problem now is collecting the bits, without getting runover. wait for the light to stop the traffic. then, collect your cracked nut insafety.

视频：在新的城市环境中，乌鸦们的谋生技能正在变得越来越娴熟。这是一座日本城市，这里的乌鸦发明了一种吃果仁的办法——把坚果丢到车道上。然后飞走， 等待汽车开过。 之后它们在马路边等待绿灯， 然后飞到马路中央安全地衔走那颗果仁

joshua klein: yeah, pretty interesting.what's significant about this isn't that crows are using cars to crack nuts. infact, that's old hat for crows. this happened about 10 years ago in a placecalled sendai city, at a driving school in the suburbs of tokyo. and since that time, all the crows in the neighborhood are picking up this behavior. now everycrow within five kilometers is standing by a sidewalk, waiting to collect its lunch.

joshuaklein: 看看，这是不是挺有趣的?不过，有趣的倒不是借助过往车辆压开果核的做法，事实上，乌鸦老早就学会了这门手艺了。刚才大家看到的景象发生在20__年前东京市郊的一家驾驶学校附近。从那时开始， 附近的乌鸦也学会了这样的吃坚果的方式。 如今，方圆五公里内的乌鸦都在人行道旁守候着， 等待过往车辆为他们带来午餐。

so they're learning from each other. and research bears this out. parents seem to be teaching their young. they learn from their peers, they learn from their enemies. if i have a little e_tra time,i'll tell you about a case of crow infidelity that illustrates that nicely. the point being, they've developed cultural adaptation. and as we heard yesterday,that's the pandora's bo_ that's getting human beings in trouble, and we're starting to see it with them. they're able to very quickly and very fle_ibly adapt to new challenges and new resources in their environment, which is really useful if you live in a city.

乌鸦通过互相学习，都掌握了这种技巧。乌鸦父母还教会自己的孩子这样的技巧呢。它们向同伴学习，也向它们的敌人学习。如果我还有更多演讲时间，我会告诉你们一个有关乌鸦背信的案例来更好地证明我的观点。最关键的是它们学会了适应不同的生态文化。就如昨天我们听到的那样，是潘多拉之盒将人类引入混乱，现在是开始着手解决它的时候了。他们能快速且融洽地适应新的挑战及环境中的新资源，对于城市生活来说，这可真有用。

so we know that there's lots of crows. we found out they're really smart and they can teach each other. when all this became clear, i realized the only obvious thing to do is build a vending machine. so that's what we did. this is a vending machine for crows. and it uses skinnerian training to shape their behavior over four stages. it's pretty simple.

好了，现在我们都知道城市里有大量的乌鸦，它们很聪明，还懂得相互间分享生存的秘诀。当我知道这一切以后，我决定要专门为它们做一台自动售货机。并且还做成功了。这就是乌鸦专用自动售货机：我们用斯金纳(操作性条件反射)理论，分四阶段训练法来训练乌鸦。其实也很简单。

basically, what happens is that we put this out in a field or someplace where there's lots of crows. we put coins and peanuts all around the base ofthe machine. crows eventually come by, eat the peanuts, and get used to the machine being there. eventually, they eat all the peanuts. then they see peanuts here on the feeder tray, and hop up and help themselves. then they leave, the machine spits up more coins and peanuts, and life is dandy if you're a crow -- you can come back anytime and get yourself a peanut.

首先，我们把这样的机器放到田野 或者乌鸦经常出没的地方。 在机器的底部放上一大堆的硬币和花生。 乌鸦来了，吃掉机器上的花生， 并且也习惯了机器的存在。 吃光了地面的花生以后， 它们发现在售货机的出货口那里也有很多花生， 于是就跳到上面，也同样尽享美味。 每一天，那机器上都会放满了硬币和花生。

so when they get really used to that, we move on to the crows coming back. now they're used to the sound of the machine;they keep coming back and digging out peanuts from the pile of coins that'sthere. when they get really happy about this, we stymie them.

嘿，要是当那样的一只乌鸦也不错哟， 每天都不愁吃的。当它们都习惯这样的生活或，我们继续下一步我们等到乌鸦都习惯于机器的声音，就把花生盖在硬币底下，它们飞过来，掀开硬币，就能吃得到花生，它们也挺开心的。这时，我们决定给它们制造一些困难。

we move to the third stage, where we only give them a coin. now, like most of us who have gotten used to a good thing,this really pisses them off. so they do what they do in nature when they're looking for something: sweep things out of the way with their beak. they do that here, and that knocks the coins down the slot. when that happens, they get a peanut. this goes on for some time. the crows learn that all they have to do is show up, wait for the coin to come out, put it in the slot, then get their peanut.

我们开始了第三阶段的训练。只把一枚硬币留在机器上，此时乌鸦飞过来，看到没有食物，自然觉得很泄气——我们人也一样嘛。所以它们出于寻找食物的本能——用它的喙在机器上扫来扫去，不经意的把硬币碰到硬币口里去了，于是它获得了一颗花生。于是它们也学会了，每次都来这里， 只要把机器上的硬币丢到硬币口，就能吃得到花生。

when they're good and comfortable with that, we move to the final stage, where they show up and nothing happens. thisis where we see the difference between crows and other animals. squirrels, for e_ample, would show up, look for the peanut, go away. come back, look for the peanut, go away. they do this maybe half a dozen times before they get bored,and then they go off and play in traffic.

当他们对此过程非常熟练及满足以后，我们进入训练的最后一个阶段，它们来到机器旁边，却发现什么也没有。注意，就是这个关键的地方可以看出乌鸦是多么聪明。要是一只松鼠，它来到机器旁，寻找花生，找不到，就走了隔天再来，又是没有，又跑回去。如此反复五六次，它们也就觉得没意思了。

crows, on the other hand, show up and they try and figure it out. they know this machine has been messing with them through three different stages of behavior.

而乌鸦则不一样，它们要寻找出一个究竟。通过前面三个阶段，并且这样的玩笑越开越大。

they figure there must be more to it. so they poke at it and peck at it. and eventually some crow gets a bright idea:'hey, there's lots of coins lying around from the first stage, hops down,picks it up, drops it in the slot, and we're off to the races. that crow enjoys a temporary monopoly on peanuts, until his friends figure out how to do it, and then there we go.

它们觉得肯定还有更多方式获得花生。它们又是用头撞，又是用嘴咬。偶尔间有一些乌鸦想到了一个绝妙的主意：“嘿，大家还记得地面上放的那一大堆硬币么。或许有用呢?”——于是它们飞过来，衔起硬币，扔进投币孔。它们发现了怎么吃得上花生了!这样的技巧先是为第一批到来的乌鸦所垄断，可慢慢的别的乌鸦也学会了……故事到此为止。

so, what's significant about this to me isn't that we can train crows to pick up peanuts. mind you, there's 216 milliondollars' worth of change lost every year, but i'm not sure i can depend on that roi from crows.

从这个故事我们得出结论：我们可以训练乌鸦，让它们通过售货机吃上花生。你知不知道，每一年都有价值2.16亿的硬币丢在大街上。

instead, i think we should look a little bit larger. i think crows can be trained to do other things. for e_ample, why not train them to pick up garbage after stadium events? or find e_pensive components from discarded electronics? or maybe do search and rescue? the main point of all this for me is, we can find mutually beneficial systems for these species. we can find ways to interact with these other species that doesn't involve e_terminating them, but involves finding an equilibrium with them that's a useful balance.

嘿，当然，我不是想靠乌鸦来赚钱。我们的眼光可以放远一点：我觉得我们可以训练乌鸦来做其他事。比如，为何不可以通过训练，让乌鸦给体育馆捡垃圾?或者让它们帮助我们从大堆的废弃电子元件里头挑出有用的部件?又或者让它们参与搜救工作?我这个演讲的主要的一个观点是我们可以寻找到一种与此类动物共存的途径，我们能找到与其他族群共处的方式而不仅仅是灭绝它们，我们可以和它们实现共赢。

thanks very much.(applause)

非常感谢大家。 (掌声)

第6篇 ted英语演讲：我为什么要制造无用的东西

演讲者：ivan joseph

| 中英对照演讲稿 |

hello. my name is simone. you know how people tell you if you get nervous when onstage, picture people in the audien cenaked? like it's this thing that's supposed to make you feel better. but i was thinking -- picturing all of you naked in 20__ feels kind of weird and wrong.

大家好。我是simone。人们总是告诉你当你在舞台上感到紧张的时候，假想观众都没穿衣服就好了。说的就像这真能让你感觉好点一样。但是我一直在想——在20__年想象你们都没穿衣服实在有点不太对啊。

like, we're working really hard on moving past stuff like that, so we need anew method of dealing with if you get nervous onstage. and i realized that whati'd really like is that i can look at you as much as you're looking at me --just to even things out a little bit. so if i had way more eyeballs, then we'dall be really comfortable, right? so in preparation for this talk, i made myself a shirt.(rattling)

我们都有在努力克服这样的问题，所以我们需要一种新方法，来应付舞台恐惧症。我意识到，我真正想要的是我能跟你们看着我一样看着你们，只是为了公平一点。所以如果我有更多眼睛的话，那我们就都会很舒服，对吧?所以为了准备这次演讲我给自己做了件t恤(窸窸窣窣的声音)

it's googly eyes. it took me 14 hours and 227 googly eyes to make this shirt. and being able to look at you as much asyou're looking at me is actually only half of the reason i made this. the other half is being able to do this.(googly eyes rattle)

这就是大眼睛t恤。花了我14个小时，以及227个大眼睛贴片。能够像你们看着我一样看着你们这件事，其实只是我制作这件t恤的部分原因。另一半原因是我可以这么玩儿。(大眼睛t恤的响声)

so i do a lot of things like this. i see aproblem and i invent some sort of solution to it. for e_ample, brushing your teeth. like, it's this thing we all have to do, it's kind of boring, and nobody really likes it. if there were any seven-year-olds in the audience, they'd belike, 'yes!' so what about if you had a machine that could do it foryou?

我做过很多这样的事。我发现了一个问题，就会发明某个解决方法来应对它。比如刷牙这件事：这就是一件大家都得做，但是又有点无聊的事，而且没人真正喜欢刷牙。如果在座有7岁小朋友的话，他们肯定会大喊“就是这样!”那么要不要来一台自动帮你刷牙的机器呢?

i call it ... i call it 'thetoothbrush helmet.'(robot arm buzzing)

我给它取了名，叫做“牙刷头盔”。(机器人的手臂声)

so my toot brush helmet is recommended by zero out of 10 dentists, and it definitely did not revolutionize the world of dentistry, but it did completely change my life. because i finished making this toothbrush helmet three years ago and after i finished making it, i went into my living room and i put up a camera, and i filmed a seven-second clip of it working.

10位牙医中，有0位推荐了我的牙刷头盔，它也肯定不算颠覆牙医界的伟大发明，但它确实改变了我的生活。因为3年前我做出了这个头盔，完成制作之后，我在客厅架起了摄像机，录了一个7秒长的头盔操作视频。

and by now, this is a pretty standard modern-day fairy tale of girl posting on the internet, the internet takes the girl by storm, thousands of men voyage into the comment sections to ask for her hand in marriage --she ignores all of them, starts a youtube channel and keeps on building robots.

现在，这成了一个标准的现代版童话：一个女孩在网上发帖，跟上了互联网浪潮，数以千计的男人们涌进评论区，邀请她进入婚姻殿堂——而她无视了他们所有人，创立了一个youtube频道，继续搭建机器人。

since then, i've carved out this little niche for myself on the internet as an inventor of useless machines, because aswe all know, the easiest way to be at the top of your field is to choose a very small field.

从那时起我在互联网上为自己发掘出了这么一个商机：无用机器发明者。因为大家都知道，成为你所在行业顶尖人物的最简单方法，就是选择一个非常小的行业。

so i run a youtube channel about my machines, and i've done things like cutting hair with drones --(drone buzzes)(drone crashes)(drone buzzes)

所以我在运营一个关于我的机器的youtube频道，我有试过用无人机剪头发——(无人机噪声)(无人机坠毁)(无人机噪声)

to a machine that helps me wake up in the morning --(alarm)

(video) simone: ow!

我还做过一台闹钟机器——(闹铃声)

(视频)simone：噢!

to this machine that helps me chop vegetables.(knives chop)

还有这台帮我切菜的机器。(切菜声)

i'm not an engineer. i did not study engineering in school. but i was a super ambitious student growing up. in middle school and high school, i had straight a's, and i graduated at the topof my year. on the flip side of that, i struggled with very severe performance an_iety.

我不是个工程师，我没学过工程学，但我从小就是个特别有远大志向的学生。无论初中高中我一路拿的都是a，而且我毕业那年还是名列前茅的。但另一面是，我当时有非常严重的表现焦虑。

here's an email i sent to my brother around that time. 'you won't understand how difficult it is for me to tell you, to confess this. i'm so freaking embarrassed. i don't want people to think that i'm stupid. now i'm starting to cry too. damn.' and no, i did not accidentally burn ourparents' house down. the thing i'm writing about in the email and the thing i'mso upset about is that i got a b on a math test.

这是一封当时我写给我兄弟的邮件。“你不会明白，光是告诉你这件事，对我来说有多难。实在是太难堪了。我不希望人们觉得我是个傻子。我现在居然还开始哭了。真讨厌。”别误会，我可没有不小心把爸妈的房子烧了。信里面那件让我如此焦虑不安的事其实是，有一次数学测验我只拿了b。

so something obviously happened between here and here.one of those things was puberty.

所以这两种情况之间一定发生了什么事情。其中一件是青春期的到来。

beautiful time indeed. but more over, i got interested in building robots, and i wanted to teach myself about hardware. but building things with hardware, especially if you're teaching yourself, is something that's really difficult to do. it has a high likelihood of failure and more over, it has a high likelihood of making you feel stupid. and that was my biggest fear at the time.

非常美丽的时期。但除此之外，我开始对搭建机器人感兴趣，我还想自学硬件知识。但搭建需要硬件的东西，尤其是当你是在自学的时候，是一件非常困难的事情。失败几率非常高，并且，这很有可能让你觉得自己超级智障。而那就是我当时最大的恐惧。

so i came up with a setup that would guarantee success 100 percent of the time. with my setup, it would be nearly impossible to fail. and that was that instead of trying to succeed, i was going to try to build things that would fail. and even though i didn't realize it at the time,building stupid things was actually quite smart, because as i kept on learning about hardware, for the first time in my life, i did not have to deal with my performance an_iety. and as soon as i removed all pressure and e_pectations from myself, that pressure quickly got replaced by enthusiasm, and it allowed me to just play.

所以我做了一个一定能保证100%成功率的设定。根据我的设定，失败可能性几乎为零。我打算再试着获得成功，我要制作一个肯定失败的机器。尽管我当时并没有意识到，但实际上，制作一无是处东西其实还是个挺聪明的点子。因为当我对硬件的学习更加深入的时候，我人生中第一次，不用应对自我表现方面的焦虑。并且当我卸除了所有对自己的压力与期待后，压力很快就被热情取代，我就可以只是瞎玩了。

so as an inventor, i'm interested in things that people struggle with. it can be small things or big things or medium-sizedthings and something like giving a ted talk presents this whole new set of problems that i can solve. and identifying a problem is the first step in my process of building a useless machine.

所以，作为一个发明者，我对人们很难做到的事情很感兴趣。可以是小事，大事，或者二者之间的事。而做一场ted演讲，带来了一系列我能解决的全新问题。而发现问题则是搭建一个无用机器的第一步。

so before i came here, i sat down and i thought of some of the potential problems i might have in giving this talk.forgetting what to say. that people won't laugh -- that's you. or even worse, that you'll laugh at the wrong things -- that was an ok part to laugh at, thank you.

在我来这里之前，我坐下来好好思考了一番演讲时可能遇到的问题：忘词，没人笑——说的就是你哦。或者更糟的是，你们笑错地方了，这里你们其实是可以笑的，谢谢。

or that when i get nervous, my hands start shaking and i'm really self-conscious about it. or that my fly has been open this entire time and all of you noticed but i didn't, but it's closed so we're all good on that one.

或者我一紧张就会手抖，我还非常清楚这一点。或者我的裤子拉链一直都没拉上，所有人都注意到了，就我没有。但它是拉好的，所以没事了。

but one thing i'm actually really nervous about is my hands shaking. i remember when i was a kid, giving presentations in school, i would have my notes on a piece of paper, and i would put a notebook behind the paper so that people wouldn't be able to see the paper quivering.and i give a lot of talks. i know that about half of you in the audience areprobably like, 'building useless machines is really fun, but how is thisin any way or form a business?'

我最担心的就是手抖这个问题了。我还记得我小时候在学校做演讲时，我会在一张纸上准备讲稿，并将纸贴到一个笔记本上，这样人们就看不出纸在颤抖了。我做过很多演讲。我知道你们中有一半听众都可能这么想：“制作无用机器确实挺好玩，但这怎么可能是商机呢?”

and giving talks is a part of it. and the arrangers always put out a glass of water for you on stage so you have something to drink if you get thirsty, and i always so badly want to drink that water,but i don't dare to pick the glass up because then people might be able to see that my hands are shaking. so what about a machine that hands you a glass of water? sold to the nervous girl in the googly-eye shirt.

演讲就是其中的一部分，组织者一定会在讲台上给你放杯水，这样你渴的时候就有水喝了。我每次都超级想喝那杯水，但我没有勇气拿起杯子，因为人们可能就看出我的手在抖。那么要不要来一台递给你一杯水的机器呢?就卖给穿大眼睛t恤的那位紧张女孩!

actually, i need to take this off because ihave a thing --(googly eyes rattle)

实际上我得把这t恤脱了，因为我有个玩意儿要展示——(大眼睛们窸窸窣窣)

oh.(clanking)

噢(叮当声)

i still don't know what to call this, but i think some sort of 'head orbit device,' because it rotates this platform around you and you can put anything on it. you can have a camera; youcan get photos of your entire head. like it's really -- it's a very versatileachine.

我还是不知道给它起什么名字。就叫“头部环绕仪”之类的吧。因为这个平台会绕着你的头旋转，你想放什么东西上去都可以。比如放一台摄像机，你就可以拍到你整个头部的照片。这是一台非常多功能的机器。

ok, and i have -- i mean, you can put some snacks on it, for e_ample, if you want to. i have some popcorn here. and you just put a little bit like that. and then you want to -- there's some sacrifices for science -- just some popcorn falling on the floor. let's do the long way around.(robot buzzes)

好了。比如你们还可以把零食放上去啊，如果你想的话。我这有些爆米花。你就这么放一点上去。如果你想——这有一些科学的牺牲品——一些爆米花掉地上了。我们来绕个大圈吧。(机器声)

and then you have a little hand. you need to adjust the height of it, and you just do it by shrugging.

这儿有只小手。你得把高度调整一下，耸耸肩就可以。

it has a little hand.(hand thwacks)

这就是小手。(手掌拍打声)

i just bumped my mic off, but i think we'reall good. ok, also i need to chew this popcorn, so if you guys could just clapyour hands a little bit more --ok, so it's like your own little personalsolar system, because i'm a millennial, so i want everything to revolve aroundme.

我把麦克风拍掉了，但应该没事儿。好的，我先把爆米花咽下去，所以你们再鼓一会掌好了。这就像个私人迷你太阳系，因为我是千禧一代，所以我希望所有东西都围着我转。

back to the glass of water, that's what we're here for. so, i promise -- i mean, it still has -- it doesn't have any water in it, i'm sorry. but i still need to work on this machine a little bit because i still need to pick up the glass and put it on the platform, but if your hands are shaking a little bit, nobody's going to notice because you're wearing a very mesmerizing piece of equipment.

回到那杯水的问题，那是我们来到这里的原因。我保证，它里头还有——这杯子里面没有水，抱歉。但我还得调整一下这个机器，因为我还是得拿起杯子放到平台上，但如果你的手在抖，没有人能注意到了，因为你身上正穿着一台很迷人的机器呢。

so, we're all good. ok.(robot buzzes)(singing)

目前为止一切正常。很好。(机器声)(歌声)

oh no, it got stuck. isn't it comforting that even robots sometimes get stage fright? it just gets stuck a little bit.it's very human of them. oh wait, let's go back a little bit, and then --(glass falls)

哦不，它卡住了。连机器都会犯舞台恐惧症，是不是很让人放松啊?它只是有一点点卡住。非常人性化哦。等一下，我们倒回去一点。然后——(玻璃杯触地声)

isn't it a beautiful time to be alive?

活在这个时代真好，是吧?

so as much as my machines can seem like simple engineering slap stick, i realize that i stumbled on something bigger than that. it's this e_pression of joy and humility that often gets lost inengineering, and for me it was a way to learn about hardware without having my performance an_iety get in the way. i often get asked if i think i'm ever going to build something useful, and maybe someday i will.

我的机器看起来像是在用工程学做简单的恶搞，但我意识到我触及到了一些比这更重要的事。制造机器时往往无法表现得开心或谦逊。对我而言，用这种方式学硬件，是不会受到表现焦虑症干扰的。经常有人问我，我以后会不会制作一些有用的东西?可能有一天我会。

but the way i see it, ialready have because i've built myself this job and it's something that i could never have planned for, or that i could --it's something that i could never have planned for. instead it happened just because i was enthusiastic about what i was doing, and i was sharing that enthusiasm with other people.

但我觉得，我早已做到了。这份工作是我为自己创造出的。这是我无法计划出来的。或者——这是我永远也无法计划出的。相反，这一切的发生只是因为我对这个工作充满热情，并且我在与他人分享我的热情。

to me that's the true beauty of making useless things, because it's this acknowledgment that you don't always know what the best answer is. and it turns off that voice in your head that tells you that you know e_actly how the world works. and maybe atoothbrush helmet isn't the answer, but at least you're asking the question.

对于我，那就是制作无用机器最美的部分。因为你已经承认，你不一定知道最好的答案是什么。它让你不再盲目认为自己已经完全了解世界怎么运作。可能一台牙刷头盔并不是标准答案，但至少你提出了问题。

thank you.(applause)

谢谢。(掌声)

第7篇 ted英语演讲：找工作面试为什么过不去

找工作面试为什么过不去

演讲者：regina hartley

your company launches a search for an open position. the applications start rolling in, and the qualified candidates are identified. now the choosing begins. person a: ivy league, 4.0, flawless resume, great recommendations. all the right stuff. person b: state school, fair amount of job hopping, and odd jobs like cashier and singing waitress. but remember -- both are qualified. so i ask you: who are you going to pick?

你的公司发布了一个公开招聘的职位。申请表开始滚滚而来，合格的候选人已被挑选出来。现在开始挑选。候选人a：常春藤盟校，绩点4.0，完美的履历，出色的推荐信。所有好的要素都具备。候选人b：公立学校毕业，碾转于各种工作之间，甚至包括做收银员和唱歌的服务生。不过请记得—— 两位都是符合要求的。所以，我要问问你们：你们会选择哪一位?

my colleagues and i created very official terms to describe two distinct categories of candidates. we call a 'the silver spoon,' the one who clearly had advantages and was destined for success. and we call b 'the scrapper,' the one who had to fight against tremendous odds to get to the same point. you just heard a human resources director refer to people as silver spoons and scrappers --

我和我的同事发明了一些非常正式的术语，来描述这两个不同类别的候选人。我们把 a 称为“含着金钥匙(直译为‘银汤匙’)的人”，一个明显具有优势，而且注定会成功的人。我们把 b 称为“拳击手”，必须努力冲破重重难关才能实现同样的目标。你们刚刚听到了一个人力资源总监将应聘者比作 银汤匙和拳击手——

which is not e_actly politically correct and sounds a bit judgmental. but before my human resources certification gets revoked --let me e_plain.

这听起来在政治上不太正确，而且还有些武断。但在我的人力资源证书被吊销前——让我来解释一下。

a resume tells a story. and over the years, i've learned something about people whose e_periences read like a patchwork quilt, that makes me stop and fully consider them before tossing their resumes away. a series of odd jobs may indicate inconsistency, lack of focus, unpredictability. or it may signal a committed struggle against obstacles. at the very least, the scrapper deserves an interview.

一份简历讲述了一个故事。过去的那些年，我了解到那些经历好似拼布床单的人，会让我在把他们的简历扔掉前会停下来认真地考虑一下他们。一系列杂乱的工作可能意味着易变，不专心，难以捉摸。或者，它可能标志着努力挣扎跨越障碍。至少，“拳击手”应该得到一次面试机会。

to be clear, i don't hold anything against the silver spoon; getting into and graduating from an elite university takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice. but if your whole life has been engineered toward success,how will you handle the tough times? one person i hired felt that because he attended an elite university,there were certain assignments that were beneath him, like temporarily doing manual labor to better understand an operation. eventually, he quit. but on the flip side, what happens when your whole life is destined for failure and you actually succeed?

不过我要强调一下，我并不排斥“银汤匙”;能够被精英大学录取并顺利毕业，同样需要付出很多心血和牺牲。但是，如果你的一生都被设计为走向成功，你要如何应对困难的时刻呢?一位我曾经雇用过的人认为，因为他毕业于精英大学，某些类型的工作对他而言是低下的，比如短时间从事体力劳动以更好地了解公司运作。最终，他离开了。但是，另一方面，如果你的人生注定失败，而你却成功了，这是怎么回事呢?

i want to urge you to interview the scrapper. i know a lot about this because i am a scrapper. before i was born, my father was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and he couldn't hold a job in spite of his brilliance. our lives were one part 'cuckoo's nest,' one part 'awakenings' and one part 'a beautiful mind.'

我会建议你去面试“拳击手”。我很了解这些， 因为我自己就是一个“拳击手”。 在我出生之前， 我的父亲就被诊断为精神分裂症， 他无法继续工作 尽管他很有才华。 我们的生活就像“飞越疯人院”， “无语问苍天”， 和“美丽心灵”的合集。

i'm the fourth of five children raised by a single mother in a rough neighborhood in brooklyn, new york. we never owned a home, a car, a washing machine, and for most of my childhood, we didn't even have a telephone. so i was highly motivated to understand the relationship between business success and scrappers, because my life could easily have turned out very differently. as i met successful business people and read profiles of high-powered leaders, i noticed some commonality.

我是一位单身母亲五个孩子中的第四个，我们在纽约布鲁克林一个混乱的街区生活。我们从未拥有过一个家，一辆车，或是一个洗衣机，在我童年的大部分时间，我们甚至没有一部电话。因此我有很强的意愿去理解生意场的成功和“拳击手”的关联，因为我的人生很容易就会发展出不同的结局。我见过成功的商人，也阅读过具备出色领导能力的人的资料，我发现了其中的一些共性。

many of them had e_perienced early hardships, anywhere from poverty, abandonment, death of a parent while young, to learning disabilities, alcoholism and violence. the conventional thinking has been that trauma leads to distress, and there's been a lot of focus on the resulting dysfunction. but during studies of dysfunction, data revealed an une_pected insight: that even the worst circumstances can result in growth and transformation. a remarkable and counterintuitive phenomenon has been discovered, which scientists call post traumatic growth.

他们中的很多人经历过早年的困顿，可能是贫穷，被抛弃，亲人的早逝， 也可能是学习障碍，酗酒和暴力。传统的思维认为创伤会导致痛苦，而且还重点强调了失败的结果。但在我研究这些不成功的案例期间，得到的数据却揭示了一个出乎意料的结论：即便是最糟的境遇也能导致成长和转变。一个显著但有悖常理的现象已经被发现了，科学家们称之为“创后成长”。

in one study designed to measure the effects of adversity on children at risk, among a subset of 698 childrenwho e_perienced the most severe and e_treme conditions, fully one-third grew up to lead healthy, successful and productive lives. in spite of everything and against tremendous odds, they succeeded. one-third.

在一项设计用来衡量逆境对困苦的孩子会产生怎样影响的研究表明，在698位参与测试的孩子，在经历了最艰苦严苛的考验后，他们中的三分之一长大后获得了健康、成功以及丰富的人生。尽管经历了巨大的艰难，但最后还是成功了。有三分之一这么多。

take this resume. this guy's parents give him up for adoption. he never finishes college. he job-hops quite a bit, goes on a sojourn to india for a year, and to top it off, he has dysle_ia. would you hire this guy? his name is steve jobs.

看看这份简历。他被亲生父母抛弃，交由他人收养。他没有完成大学学业。他在某段时期频繁跳槽，在印度逗留了一年，不止如此，他还有阅读障碍。你会雇用他吗? 他的名字是史蒂夫·乔布斯。

in a study of the world's most highly successful entrepreneurs, it turns out a disproportionate number have dysle_ia. in the us, 35 percent of the entrepreneurs studied had dysle_ia. what's remarkable -- among those entrepreneurs who e_perience post traumatic growth, they now view their learning disability as a desirable difficulty which provided them an advantage because they became better listeners and paid greater attention to detail.

一个对全球最成功企业家群体的研究表明，相当数量的企业家有阅读障碍。在美国， 35%的企业家有阅读障碍。值得注意的是——这些企业家中那些经历过创后成长的人， 成功后的他们将这样的学习障碍看作是值得经历的困难，这样的困难给予了他们优势，他们因此成为更好的听众，并且更加关注细节。

they don't think they are who they are in spite of adversity, they know they are who they are because of adversity. they embrace their trauma and hardships as key elements of who they've become, and know that without those e_periences, they might not have developed the muscle and grit required to become successful.

他们在经历逆境前， 并没有看到自己的潜力， 而因为逆境，他们准确地定位了自己。 他们拥抱伤害和困顿， 这是他们成为成功企业家的关键要素， 他们知道，如果没有这些经历， 他们也许没有办法发展出成功者 需要具备的勇气和毅力。

one of my colleagues had his life completely upended as a result of the chinese cultural revolution in 1966. at age 13, his parents were relocated to the countryside, the schools were closed and he was left alone in beijing to fend for himself until 16, when he got a job in a clothing factory. but instead of accepting his fate, he made a resolution that he would continue his formal education. eleven years later, when the political landscape changed, he heard about a highly selective university admissions test. he had three months to learn the entire curriculum of middle and high school.

我有一位同事，因为中国 1966年的文化大革命，他的人生彻底颠覆了。在他13岁那年，他的父母被下放农村，学校关闭了， 而他独自在北京谋生， 直到16岁， 他在服装厂找到了一份工作。 与其接受命运， 他决心不如继续完成学业。 20__年后，政治版图改变了， 他听说了一个 竞争相当激烈的大学入学考试。 他只有3个月来学习整个初中 以及高中的课程。

so, every day he came home from the factory, took a nap, studied until 4am, went back to work and repeated this cycle every day for three months.he did it, he succeeded. his commitment to his education was unwavering, and he never lost hope. today, he holds a master's degree, and his daughters each have degrees from cornell and harvard.

于是，每天他从工厂回家后， 先睡一小觉，然后学习到凌晨四点， 回去工厂工作， 就这样日复一日过了整整三个月。 他做到了，他成功了。 他继续求学的决心非常坚定， 也从未放弃希望。 今天，他拥有了硕士学位， 他的两个女儿则分别毕业于 康奈尔大学和哈佛大学。

scrappers are propelled by the belief that the only person you have full control over is yourself. when things don't turn out well, scrappers ask, 'what can i do differently to create a better result?' scrappers have a sense of purpose that prevents them from giving up on themselves, kind of like if you've survived poverty, a crazy father and several muggings, you figure, 'business challenges? --really? piece of cake. i got this.'

“拳击手”被信念推动向前进，相信只有自己才能掌握自己的命运。当事情发展并不尽如人意，“拳击手”会问，“我能做些什么别的来创造一个更好的结果?”“拳击手”有目标意识，永不放弃自己， 如果你从贫穷，疯狂的父亲 和数次被抢劫的经历中存活下来， 你会觉得，“商业挑战?——这还算事儿吗?太简单了。我能搞定。”

and that reminds me -- humor. scrappers know that humor gets you through the tough times, and laughter helps you change your perspective.

这不禁让我想起——幽默感。“拳击手”知道，幽默能够帮你度过最艰难的时刻，嘲笑你的人会帮助你改变对未来的看法。

and finally, there are relationships. people who overcome adversity don't do it alone. somewhere along the way, they find people who bring out the best in them and who are invested in their success. having someone you can count on no matter what is essential to overcoming adversity.

最后，还有人际关系。那些克服困难的人并非一直单打独斗。奋斗过程中的某时某刻，他们会遇到伯乐，以及在他们成功的道路上倾囊相助的人。不管发生什么事，总有一个人可以依靠，这是克服困境的关键。

i was lucky. in my first job after college, i didn't have a car, so i carpooled across two bridges with a woman who was the president's assistant. she watched me work and encouraged me to focus on my future and not dwell on my past. along the way i've met many people who've provided me brutally honest feedback, advice and mentorship. these people don't mind that i once worked as a singing waitress to help pay for college.

我很幸运。 得到大学毕业后的第一份工作时，我还没有车，所以我与人拼车，跨越两座桥去上班，那位女士当时还是总统助理。她看到我工作，并鼓励我放眼未来，不要老是想着过去。一路走来我遇到了很多人，让我懂得了忠言逆耳，他们都是我的良师益友。这些人并不在意 我曾经是个为了支付上大学的开销而唱歌打工的女服务生。

i'll leave you with one final, valuable insight. companies that are committed to diversity and inclusive practices tend to support scrappers and outperform their peers. according to diversityinc, a study of their top 50 companies for diversity outperformed the s&p 500 by 25 percent.

最后再分享一个有价值的见解。那些致力于多样化和包容开放行为的公司更愿意去支持“拳击手”，让他们比同辈更出色。《多元化企业》杂志的一项研究表明，最多元化的50家企业的运营表现超越了标准普尔500指数25%。

so back to my original question. who are you going to bet on: silver spoon or scrapper? i say choose the underestimated contender, whose secret weapons are passion and purpose.

那么回到我最初的问题。你会将赌注放在谁身上：“银汤匙”还是“拳击手”?我会选择被低估的竞争者，他/她的秘密武器是激情和决心。

hire the scrapper.

请雇用'拳击手'。

《找工作面试为什么过不去》观后感

夏，刚刚从大学毕业。带着一脸的稚气与自信一头钻进了人才交流市场。几经“争战”，终于来到了她心仪的公司进行复试。

复试的人很多，有与夏一样的大学生，也有年纪大一些的。大家都很紧张，紧紧盯着面试的那间屋子的大门。这时夏被叫了进去。“请问，小姐你最看重的品质是什么?”主考官发问了。夏毫不犹豫地回答：“诚实，有信用。”主考官满意地点点头。随后又问了一些

常规性的问题，就让夏回家等通知了。

夏很紧张，慌忙地拎着包下楼了，刚要出大门，有一个年轻人叫住了她，急喘喘地说：“对不起，你是刚参加完面试的吗?你是学财会的吗?我们正需要验钞机，可人手不够，你能不能……”夏点了点头，接过了那人递过来的两千元。夏很好奇，怎么会这么放心就给了我两千元，但又不好问，夏转身就走了。

八月的天气，骄阳似火，太阳在太空炫耀着自己的激情，云早就不知道躲在什么地方纳凉了。夏奔波于各大商场，却没发现物美价廉的验钞机。终于在一个私人电器行里，她发现了一部最新的，而价格也很公道。夏买下了它。

“小姐，发票开多少钱?”老板问她。“开多少钱?”夏不明白了，难道不是是多少写多少?老板看出她的惊讶，嘿嘿地笑了两声，“你想开多少都行，报了销不就成你的了。”看着老板扭曲的脸，她感到一阵冷意直冲头顶，她摇了摇头。

她回到公司，发现每个人都抱着一部验钞机，主考官站在其中，仔细巡视每一张发票。“信任”“好奇”一下子夏都明白了。别人的发票金额都比夏高好多，所以夏通过了复试。

她被领到写字间，来到她的座位上。旁边站着一个正在收拾东西的女孩，女孩看了她一眼冷笑道：“这么快，又来了一位，劝你一句，在这儿干必须听话，做账不是看数，而是看人。”夏又是一脸惊愕。“慢慢你就懂了，你也有这一天。”女孩丢下一句话，不屑地走了。夏眼前又浮现出电器行老板扭曲的笑脸。

看看手里刚发的工作证，忽然有种莫名的气愤。她将工作证及抽屉匙一起放在桌面上，旁边附着一张纸，只有两个字：“诚信”。

她离开了那，消失在灿烂的阳光里。

第8篇 ted英语演讲：我们为什么快乐

演说题目：我们为什么快乐

演说者：丹·吉尔伯特

when you have 21 minutes to speak,two million years seems like a really long time.but evolutionarily,two million years is nothing.and yet in two million years,the human brain has nearly tripled in mass,going from the one-and-a-quarter pound brain of our ancestor here, habilis,to the almost three-pound meatloafthat everybody here has between their ears.what is it about a big brainthat nature was so eager for every one of us to have one?

相对二十一分钟的演讲来说，两百万年显得非常漫长。但是从进化的角度来看，两百万年只是一瞬间。在两百万年中，大脑脑容量从我们祖先能人的1.25磅，增大了近三倍成了现在的3磅。自然给予我们的大脑有什么特别之处呢?

well, it turns out when brains triple in size,they don’t just get three times bigger;they gain new structures.and one of the main reasons our brain got so big is because it got a new part,called the 'frontal lobe.'particularly, a part called the 'pre-frontal corte_.'what does a pre-frontal corte_ do for you that should justifythe entire architectural overhaul of the human skullin the blink of evolutionary time?

当我们的脑量扩大三倍的时候，大脑不仅仅在体积上有了改变，它在结构上也发生了变化。我们大脑变大的最大原因就是它有了新的一部分，叫做额叶。其中尤为重要的是前额叶外皮。是什么让前额叶外皮成人脑中如此重要的一部分?

it turns out the pre-frontal corte_ does lots of things,but one of the most important things it does is an e_perience simulator.pilots practice in flight simulatorsso that they don’t make real mistakes in planes.human beings have this marvelous adaptationthat they can actually have e_periences in their headsbefore they try them out in real life.this is a trick that none of our ancestors could do,and that no other animal can do quite like we can.it’s a marvelous adaptation.it’s up there with opposable thumbs and standing upright and languageas one of the things that got our species out of the treesand into the shopping mall.

脑前额叶外皮有很多功能，其中最重要的是它拥有一种创造模拟经验的功能。飞行员利用在飞行模拟器中的训练来防止在真实飞行中产生失误。人类有惊人的适应性，他们可以在大脑中体验未曾真实经历的东西。这个技巧是我们的祖先们都不会的，也没有任何动物会。 这种适应性真不可思议!这一特征和对生拇指，直立行走以及语言使我们从树上进化到了购物中心。

(laughter)

(笑声)

all of you have done this.ben and jerry’s doesn’t have liver-and-onion ice cream,and it’s not because they whipped some up, tried it and went, 'yuck.'it’s because, without leaving your armchair,you can simulate that flavor and say 'yuck' before you make it.

现在--我们大家都能做这些。我的意思是，比如本和杰瑞(一个冰激凌连锁店)没有肝和洋葱口味的冰激淋。并不是因为他们试做了一下，尝了尝，而后“yuck” (表示恶心)。而是因为你坐在椅子上就可以想象肝和洋葱的口味的冰激淋是怎样恶心了。

let’s see how your e_perience simulators are working.let’s just run a quick diagnosticbefore i proceed with the rest of the talk.here’s two different futures that i invite you to contemplate.you can try to simulate them and tell me which one you think you might prefer.one of them is winning the lottery. this is about 314 million dollars.and the other is becoming paraplegic.

让我们来看看经验模拟器是如何工作的。在我继续我的演说之前让我们来做一个简短的试验。这里有两个不同的未来，我想邀请你们一起来参与。你可以幻想这两种未来，看看你更喜欢哪一种。第一种未来是赢了价值3.14亿美元的彩票。第二种是截瘫。

(laughter)

(笑声)

just give it a moment of thought.you probably don’t feel like you need a moment of thought.

我给你们几分钟考虑一下。你也许觉得根本不用考虑。

interestingly, there are data on these two groups of people,data on how happy they are.and this is e_actly what you e_pected, isn’t it?but these aren’t the data.i made these up!

这里有一些很有趣的数据。这些数据显示了这两组人到底有多快乐。是不是这正如你们所料?可其实这是我胡诌的数据。

these are the data.you failed the pop quiz, and you’re hardly five minutes into the lecture.because the fact is that a year after losing the use of their legs,and a year after winning the lotto,lottery winners and paraplegicsare equally happy with their lives.

这才是真正的数据。你们都没有通过突击测试。这堂课开始还不到5分钟呢。事实是，在失去双腿一年之后，和在赢了彩票一年之后，中彩票的人和截瘫患者的快乐程度几乎相同。

don’t feel too bad about failing the first pop quiz,because everybody fails all of the pop quizzes all of the time.the research that my laboratory has been doing,that economists and psychologists around the country have been doing,has revealed something really quite startling to us,something we call the 'impact bias,'which is the tendency for the simulator to work badly.for the simulator to make you believe that different outcomesare more different than in fact they really are.

现在，不要为没有通过突击测试而沮丧了。因为几乎没有人能通过这项突击测试。我实验室所做的研究，还有全国的经济学家和心理学家所做的研究显示了一种让人吃惊的东西。我们称它为影响偏差。这是指人脑的模拟功能有犯错误的倾向。模拟器会夸大事物的不同结果而这些结果实际上未必有多么的不同。

from field studies to laboratory studies,we see that winning or losing an election,gaining or losing a romantic partner,getting or not getting a promotion,passing or not passing a college test,on and on, have far less impact,less intensity and much less durationthan people e_pect them to have.this almost floors me --a recent study showing how major life traumas affect peoplesuggests that if it happened over three months ago,with only a few e_ceptions,it has no impact whatsoever on your happiness.

现场研究和实验室研究都显示选举的输赢，伴侣的得失，提升与否，考试成败等等，对我们的影响及影响的时间长短都比人们想象的少。事实上，最新的研究几乎让我都迷惑了。最新的研究显示，发生在三个月以前的重大的创伤，除了少数个别例子对你今日的快乐几乎没有影响。

why?because happiness can be synthesized.sir thomas brown wrote in 1642, 'i am the happiest man alive.i have that in me that can convert poverty to riches, adversity to prosperity.i am more invulnerable than achilles; fortune hath not one place to hit me.'what kind of remarkable machinery does this guy have in his head?

这是为什么?因为快乐是可以人工合成的。托马斯·布朗在1642年写到：“我是世界上最快乐的人。我可以将贫穷变为富有，将逆境变为顺境。我比阿奇里斯(achilles)更无懈可击，我用不着幸运的眷顾。”是什么力量让他如此强大?

well, it turns out it’s precisely the same remarkable machinery that all off us have.human beings have somethingthat we might think of as a 'psychological immune system.'a system of cognitive processes, largely non-conscious cognitive processes,that help them change their views of the world,so that they can feel betterabout the worlds in which they find themselves.like sir thomas, you have this machine.unlike sir thomas,you seem not to know it.

这种力量是我们每个人都有。人类具有一种心理免疫系统。这个系统通是一个认知过程，基本上是无意识的认知过程，这种认知可以改变人们对世界的认识，让人们感到自己的生活美好。像托马斯爵士一样，你也具有这样的能力。与托马斯爵士不同的是，你还没有意识到你有这种能力。

we synthesize happiness, but we think happiness is a thing to be found.now, you don’t need me to give youtoo many e_amples of people synthesizing happiness, i suspect.though i’m going to show you some e_perimental evidence,you don’t have to look very far for evidence.i took a copy of the new york timesand tried to find some instances of people synthesizing happiness.here are three guys synthesizing happiness.i’m better off physically,financially, mentally ...i don’t have one minute’s regret.it was a glorious e_perience.i believe it turned out for the best.

我们都可以自己制造快乐，尽管我们一直以为快乐是一种需要苦苦追寻的东西。现在，我想你不用我举太多人们自己合成快乐的例子，不过我还是想给你们看一下一些实验证据，你并不用太费劲地寻求证据。我上课时说过要自我挑战，因此我随便拿了一份纽约时报，试着从中寻找人们人工合成快乐的例子。这里有三个例子。“我现在在心理上，经济上，感情上和精神上各方面都比以前好。”“我没有一分钟后悔过。”“这个经历太荣耀了。”“我相信事情向最好的方向发展。”

who are these characters who are so damn happy?the first one is jim wright.some of you are old enough to remember:he was the chairman of the house of representativesand he resigned in disgracewhen this young republican named newt gingrichfound out about a shady book deal he had done.he lost everything.the most powerful democrat in the country lost everything.he lost his money, he lost his power.what does he have to say all these years later?i am so much better off physically,financially, mentallyand in almost every other way.'what other way would there be to be better off?vegetably? minerally? animally?he’s pretty much covered them there.

谁如此快乐?第一位是吉姆·莱特(jim wright)。年纪大一点的人可能记得：他是众议院主席。他失去了一切。因为一个名叫牛特·金瑞奇(newt gingrich)的年轻共和党党员发现了他的一桩黑幕交易事件， 莱特被迫辞职。这个在美国最有权的民主党党员失去了一切。他失去了金钱，权利。这么多年后，他是怎么看待这些的?“我现在在心理上，经济上，感情上和精神上等各方面都比以前好。”最好还能好成怎样?植物上?矿物上?动物上?。他基本上都包括了

moreese bickham is somebody you’ve never heard of.moreese bickham uttered these words upon being released.he was 78 years old.he’d spent 37 years in a louisiana state penitentiaryfor a crime he didn’t commit.[he was ultimately releasedfor good behavior halfway through his sentence.]what did he say about his e_perience?i don’t have one minute’s regret.it was a glorious e_perience. glorious!he is not saying,well, there were some nice guys.they had a gym.glorious,a word we usually reserve for something like a religious e_perience.

你可能从来没有听说过莫里斯·比克汉(moreese bickham)。莫里斯·比克汉出狱后说了这样的话。他七十八岁了。他因为一项错误的判决在路易斯安那监狱坐了三十七年牢。他最终在七十八岁时通过了dna测验确认无罪才被释放。他是这样描绘他的这些经历的呢?“我从来没有一分钟后悔。这个经历太荣耀了。荣耀!”这个人不是在说：“监狱里有些人还是不错的。那里还有一个健身房。”他说的是“荣耀!”我们通常专门用这个词语来形容跟宗教相关的经历。

harry s. langerman uttered these words,and he’s somebody you might have knownbut didn’t, because in 1949 he read a little article in the paperabout a hamburger stand owned by two brothers named mcdonalds.and he thought,'that’s a really neat idea!'so he went to find them. they said,we can give you a franchise on this for 3,000 bucks.harry went back to new york,asked his brother, an investment banker,to loan him the $3,000,and his brother’s immortal words were,you idiot, nobody eats hamburgers.he wouldn’t lend him the money,and of course, si_ months later ray kroc had e_actly the same idea.it turns out people do eat hamburgers,and ray kroc, for a while,became the richest man in america.

哈里·朗格曼(harry s langerman)说了这些。他本可以成为一个家喻户晓的人物。在1949年，他在报上看到关于麦当劳兄弟拥有的一家汉堡小摊的报道。他立马想到“这是一个好主意!”他找到了麦当劳兄弟。他们同意道：“给我们$3000， 我们就让你开连锁店。”哈里回到纽约，向他在投行工作的哥哥借$3000。他哥哥劝慰道：“你真是一个傻瓜。没人会吃汉堡的。”他没有借到钱。6个月之后，瑞·克罗克(ray croc)也有了同样的想法。结果是人们喜欢吃汉堡，瑞·克罗克一时成为巨富。

and then, finally,some of you recognize this young photo of pete best,who was the original drummer for the beatles,until they, you know, sent him out on an errand and snuck awayand picked up ringo on a tour.well, in 1994, when pete best was interviewed --yes, he’s still a drummer;yes, he’s a studio musician --he had this to say: 'i’m happier than i would have been with the beatles.'

最后，你们也许会认出年轻的比特·贝斯特(pete best),他是甲壳虫乐队早期的一位鼓手。他们借故丢下了他，让林格(ringo)入伙。1994年比特·贝斯特接受采访的时候，-是的，他还是一名鼓手;是的，他还是一名音乐家 --他说到：“要是留在甲壳虫乐队，我不会这么快乐。”

okay. there’s something important to be learned from these people,and it is the secret of happiness.here it is, finally to be revealed.first: accrue wealth, power,and prestige, then lose it.

好了。我们可以从这些人身上学到很重要的东西。那是快乐的秘诀。让我们总结一下。一：积聚财富，权利和威望，然后失去这些东西。

(laughter)

(笑声)

second: spend as much of your life in prison as you possibly can.

二：把牢底坐穿。

(laughter)

(笑声)

third: make somebody else really, really rich.and finally: never ever join the beatles.

三：让他人成为巨富。最后：千万别加入甲壳虫乐队。

(laughter)yeah, right.because when people synthesize happiness,as these gentlemen seem to have done,we all smile at them,but we kind of roll our eyes and say,yeah right, you never really wanted the job.oh yeah, right. you really didn’t have that much in common with her,and you figured that out just about the timeshe threw the engagement ring in your face.'we smirk because we believe that synthetic happinessis not of the same quality as what we might call 'natural happiness.'

(笑声)我像泽.法兰克(ze frank)一样可以猜想到你会想什么。你们在想“哦，是吧。”因为当人们像以上例举的人一样去合成快乐时，我们会冲他们微笑，同时会转动着眼睛说：“哦，是吧。你从来没有真正想要那份工作。”“哦，是的，你本来就和她没有什么共同点，你知道这点时，她也差不多要把订婚戒指取下来扔给你。”我们假笑是因为我们相信合成的快乐比不上天然的快乐。

what are these terms?natural happiness is what we get when we get what we wanted,and synthetic happiness is what we make when we don’t get what we wanted.and in our society,we have a strong beliefthat synthetic happiness is of an inferior kind.

什么是天然的快乐和人工合成的快乐?天然的快乐是得到我们渴求的东西。人工合成的快乐则是在得不到我们渴求的东西时，自己制造出来的东西。现在这个社会坚信人工合成的快乐是次品。

why do we have that belief?well, it’s very simple.what kind of economic engine would keep churningif we believed that not getting what we wantcould make us just as happy as getting it?with all apologies to my friend matthieu ricard,a shopping mall full of zen monksis not going to be particularly profitable,because they don’t want stuff enough.

为什么人们有这样的观点?那很简单。如果我们都相信得到或得不到自己想要的东西都能一样快乐，那经济引擎还如何高速运转?先让我向马修·理查德(matthieu ricard)表示歉意，要是光顾商场的都是和尚，那么这些商场岂不是都不赚钱了?因为和尚通常都没有什么物质需求。

(laughter)

(笑声)

i want to suggest to you that synthetic happinessis every bit as real and enduringas the kind of happiness you stumble uponwhen you get e_actly what you were aiming for.i’m a scientist, so i’m going to do this not with rhetoric,but by marinating you in a little bit of data.

我想告诉你们的是，人工合成的快乐是真实而持久的。它和那种因为得到我们渴求的东西而感受到的快乐一样。我是一个科学家。我不光是说一些好听的结论，我还要向你们提供一些数据。

let me first show you an e_perimental paradigm that is usedto demonstrate the synthesis of happiness among regular old folks.and this isn’t mine.it’s a 50-year-old paradigm called the 'free choice paradigm.'it’s very simple.you bring in, say, si_ objects,and you ask a subject to rank them from the most to the least liked.in this case, because this e_periment uses them,these are monet prints.so, everybody can rank these monet printsfrom the one they like the most,to the one they like the least.now we give you a choice:we happen to have some e_tra prints in the closet.we’re going to give you one as your prize to take home.we happen to have number three and number four,' we tell the subject.this is a bit of a difficult choice,because neither one is preferred strongly to the other,but naturally, people tend to pick number threebecause they liked it a little better than number four.

第一个试验证据显示了普通人的人工合成的快乐。这不是我的试验。这个50年前做的实验叫做自由选择。它很简单。你有6件物品。你让受试者把这6件物品按照他们的喜爱程度排序。在这个实验中我们用6幅莫奈的画。每个人都把画按照他们最喜欢的到最不喜欢的排列。现在我们给你一个选择。“我们正好有一些多余的画。我们将把画作为奖品给你。我们正好有三号和四号画。”这个选择有点困难，因为受试者对两幅画的喜爱程度相当。很自然，人们都倾向于选择三号。因为他们更喜欢三号。

sometime later -- it could be 15 minutes; it could be 15 days --the same stimuli are put before the subject,and the subject is asked to re-rank the stimuli.tell us how much you like them now.what happens?watch as happiness is synthesized.this is the result that has been replicated over and over again.you’re watching happiness be synthesized.would you like to see it again?happiness!the one i got is really better than i thought!that other one i didn’t get sucks!'that’s the synthesis of happiness.

过了一段时间之后 - 这可能是15分钟，也可能是15天。对同样的画，我们叫受试者对同样的画再一次排序。“告诉我们你现在有多喜欢这些画了?”结果怎样?快乐被人工合成了。我们反复进行了同样的实验。你看到快乐被合成了吧!你还想看一下吗?快乐!“我有的这张比我预想的还要好。我得不到的那张，其实不怎么样。”这就是人工合成的快乐。

(laughter)

(笑声)

now, what’s the right response to that?yeah, right!now, here’s the e_periment we did,and i hope this is going to convince youthat 'yeah, right!'was not the right response.

现在你怎么想呢?“哦，是吧!”这是我们做的实验。我希望这个实验能够让你相信“哦，是吗!”不是正确的答案。

we did this e_periment with a group of patientswho had anterograde amnesia.these are hospitalized patients.most of them have korsakoff’s syndrome,a polyneuritic psychosis.they drank way too much,and they can’t make new memories.ok? they remember their childhood,but if you walk in and introduce yourself,and then leave the room,when you come back,they don’t know who you are.

我们跟患有健忘症的病人做了同样的实验。这些都是住院病人。大多数人都患有柯萨可夫(korsakoff)综合征，这是一种由于饮酒过度而造成的多发神经炎精神症。患者记不住新发生的事情。明白吗?他们能记得他们的童年，但是如果你自我介绍，然后离开房间，当你很快回到他们身边时，他们不会记得你是谁。

we took our monet prints to the hospital.and we asked these patients to rank themfrom the one they liked the most to the one they liked the least.we then gave them the choice between number three and number four.like everybody else, they said,gee, thanks doc! that’s great!i could use a new print.i’ll take number three.'we e_plained we would have number three mailed to them.we gathered up our materials and we went out of the room,and counted to a half hour.

我们把莫奈的画拿到医院去。让病人们来对他们按照喜爱的程度排序。然后我们让他们选择三号或者四号画。像很多人一样，他们说：“哇，真太好了! 谢谢你。 我有一幅新的画了。我要三号。”我们解释说，我们会把三号邮寄给他们。然后我们收起东西，离开了病人的房间。半个小时后，

(laughter)

(笑声)

back into the room,we say, 'hi, we’re back.'the patients, bless them,say, 'ah, doc, i’m sorry,i’ve got a memory problem;that’s why i’m here.if i’ve met you before, i don’t remember.'really, you don’t remember?i was just here with the monet prints?sorry, doc, i just don’t have a clue.no problem, jim. all i want you to do is rank these for mefrom the one you like the most to the one you like the least.'

我们回去：“嘿，我们回来了。”病人们说：“啊，医生，非常抱歉，我有一点记忆的毛病，所以才住院的。如果我们见过面，我恐怕不能记得了。”“哦，是吗，吉姆，你不记得了?我刚刚带了几幅莫奈的画到这儿来的。”“对不起，医生，我真的不记得了。”“没关系，吉姆。我只是想让你把这些画按照你喜爱的程度排序。”

what do they do?well, let’s first check and make sure they’re really amnesiac.we ask these amnesiac patients to tell us which one they own,which one they chose last time, which one is theirs.and what we find is amnesiac patients just guess.these are normal controls,where if i did this with you,all of you would know which print you chose.but if i do this with amnesiac patients,they don’t have a clue.they can’t pick their print out of a lineup.

他们怎么做了?先让我们确认他们是真的患有健忘症。我们让这些病人告诉我们他们有哪幅画，他们上次选了哪幅画，哪幅是他们的。我们发现健忘症病人纯粹在猜。如果是正常对照者，如果我这样问你你们都记得你选择了那幅画。但是这些健忘症病人，他们一点都不记得了。他们不能从一堆画中选出我送他们的那张。

here’s what normal controls do:they synthesize happiness.right? this is the change in liking score,the change from the first time they ranked to the second time they ranked.normal controls show -- that was the magic i showed you;now i’m showing it to you in graphical form --the one i own is better than i thought.the one i didn’t own,the one i left behind,is not as good as i thought.'amnesiacs do e_actly the same thing.think about this result.

这是一般人做的：他们人工合成快乐。是吧?这是喜爱程度的变化。第一次排序到第二次排序的变化。平常人的数据显示--这正是我要向你们展示的‘魔法’现在我们用图形来显示这个变化。“我有的比我想的还好。我没拥有的，其实并不怎么样。”健忘症病人也做了同样的事。想想这个结果。

these people like better the one they own,but they don’t know they own it.yeah, right is not the right response!what these people did when they synthesized happinessis they really, truly changedtheir affective, hedonic, aesthetic reactions to that poster.they’re not just saying it because they own it,because they don’t know they own it.

这些病人更喜欢他们有的，虽然他们并不知道自己拥有这个。“哦，真的吗?”-你对此表示不屑?当人们合成快乐时，他们真正的，真实的从感情上和审美角度上改变了对那幅画的看法。他们这么说不仅仅是因为他们拥有这幅画，他们其实并不记得自己有那幅画。

when psychologists show you bars,you know that they are showing you averages of lots of people.and yet, all of us have this psychological immune system,this capacity to synthesize happiness,but some of us do this trick better than others.and some situations allow anybody to do it more effectivelythan other situations do.it turns out that freedom,the ability to make up your mind and change your mind,is the friend of natural happiness,because it allows you to chooseamong all those delicious futuresand find the one that you would most enjoy.but freedom to choose,to change and make up your mind,is the enemy of synthetic happiness.

现在，当心理学家给你们看这些图形，你知道他们是在显示平均数据。我们大家都有这个心理免疫系统，和人工合成快乐的能力。但是我们中的一些人比另外一些人对这样的窍门掌握的更好。同时，人们的心理免疫系统在某些特定环境下能比在其他情况下运行的更有效。自由，决断力和改变决定的能力是帮助我们获得天然快乐的朋友。它能让你从各种可能情况中选择你最喜欢的那种。但是自由选择决断力和改变决定的能力-是人工合成快乐的敌人。

and i’m going to show you why.dilbert already knows, of course.dogbert’s tech support.how may i abuse you?my printer prints a blank page after every document.why complain about getting free paper?free? aren’t you just giving me my own paper?look at the quality of the free paper compared to your lousy regular paper!only a fool or a liar would say that they look the same!'now that you mention it,it does seem a little silkier!what are you doing?i’m helping people accept the things they cannot change. indeed.

我来解释这是为什么。当然，呆伯特(dilbert)已经知道了。你一边看卡通，一边听我说。“dogbert技术支持中心。我该怎么说你?”“我的打印机在每个文件打印完毕后都会出一张白纸。”“你为什么要抱怨得到免费的纸呢?”“免费的?这本来就是我的纸啊?”“哎，老兄，看看这些免费的纸的质量和那些普通的纸!只有傻子和骗子才会说它们是一样的。”“啊!在你说了之后，这些纸看上去是要光滑一些。”“你在干什么?”“我在帮助这些人接受他们不能改变的现实。”的确是这样。

the psychological immune system works bestwhen we are totally stuck, when we are trapped.this is the difference between dating and marriage.you go out on a date with a guy,and he picks his nose; you don’t go out on another date.you’re married to a guy and he picks his nose?he has a heart of gold.don’t touch the fruitcake!you find a way to be happy with what’s happened.

心理免疫系统在我们没有其他选择时最有效。这就是约会和婚姻的区别，是吧?你出去和一个男人约会，他扣扣鼻孔，你就不会跟他在约会了。如果你们结婚了，他扣扣鼻孔。嗯， 他有金子一般的心。别动那个水果蛋糕。是吧?你自我开导，满于现状。

(laughter)

(笑声)

now, what i want to show youis that people don’t know this about themselves,and not knowing this can work to our supreme disadvantage.

现在我告诉你，如果人们不了解自己，不知道他们有这个心理免疫系统，他们可能做一些很错误的决定。

here’s an e_periment we did at harvard.we created a black-and-white photography course,and we allowed students to come in and learn how to use a darkroom.so we gave them cameras;they went around campus;they took 12 pictures of their favorite professorsand their dorm room and their dog,and all the other things they wanted to have harvard memories of.they bring us the camera;we make up a contact sheet;they figure out which are the two best pictures;and we now spend si_ hours teaching them about darkrooms.and they blow two of them up,and they have two gorgeous eight-by-10 glossiesof meaningful things to them, and we say,which one would you like to give up?i have to give one up?yes, we need one as evidence of the class project.so you have to give me one.you have to make a choice.you get to keep one,and i get to keep one.'

这是我们在哈佛大学做的一个实验。我们开设了黑白摄影课程。学生们来学习如何使用暗室。我们给他们相机。他们在校园中采景。每人能拍12张照片。他们拍了他们最喜欢的教授，寝室，他们的狗等等。任何留给他们哈佛回忆的东西，都可以拍。然后他们把相机给我们。我们做了一个胶片印出的小样。他们选出最好的两张。然后我们用了6个小时教他们如何使用暗室。他们自己把两张照片映出来。他们有了两张极有纪念意义的8_10的照片。我们问“哪一张你不要?”他们问：“我不能两张都要吗?”“噢，不能。我们需要一张来留底。因此你必须放弃一张。你一定要做一个决定。你留一张，我留一张。”

now, there are two conditions in this e_periment.in one case, the students are told,but you know,if you want to change your mind,i’ll always have the other one here,and in the ne_t four days, before i actually mail it to headquarters' --yeah, 'headquarters' --i’ll be glad to swap it out with you.in fact, i’ll come to your dorm room,just give me an email.better yet, i’ll check with you.you ever want to change your mind,it’s totally returnable.'the other half of the students are told e_actly the opposite:make your choice, and by the way,the mail is going out, gosh,in two minutes, to england.your picture will be winging its way over the atlantic.you will never see it again.'half of the students in each of these conditionsare asked to make predictionsabout how much they’re going to come to like the picture that they keepand the picture they leave behind.other students are just sent back to their little dorm roomsand they are measured over the ne_t three to si_ dayson their liking, satisfaction with the pictures.and look at what we find.

现在，这个实验又分为两种。第一种情况，学生们被告知，“你知道，如果你改变了主意，另外一张还在我这里。我要四天以后才把这些照片寄到总部去。我很乐意。是的，“总部”。我很乐意跟你换。事实上，我会把照片送到你的寝室来换，只要发电邮给我就行了。或者我会联系你。只要你改变了主意，我们可以换照片。”其他的学生被告知的正好相反：“选一张照片。顺便说一下，另外一张照片马上就要寄到英国去。你的照片要漂洋过海。你再也见不到它了。”然后， 我们让每组中一半的学生来预测他们对留下的照片和送走的照片的喜爱程度会如何。其他的学生回到他们的寝室。我们测量了在后来的三到六天之中，他们对照片的喜爱和满意程度。看看我们发现了什么。

first of all, here’s what students think is going to happen.they think they’re going to maybe come to like the picture they chosea little more than the one they left behind,but these are not statistically significant differences.it’s a very small increase,and it doesn’t much matterwhether they were in the reversible or irreversible condition.

首先，这里是学生们觉得事情会怎样。他们想他们可能会更喜欢他们选择的照片，而不是留给我们的那一张。但是这算不上是统计上的显著差异。差异很小，能不能换照片影响并不大。

wrong-o. bad simulators. because here’s what’s really happening.both right before the swap and five days later,people who are stuck with that picture,who have no choice,who can never change their mind,like it a lot!and people who are deliberating -- 'should i return it?have i gotten the right one? maybe this isn’t the good one?maybe i left the good one?' -- have killed themselves.they don’t like their picture,and in fact even after the opportunity to swap has e_pired,they still don’t like their picture.why?because the [reversible] condition is not conduciveto the synthesis of happiness.

错啦!这一次模拟器工作得很不好!实际上，在交换以前和5天后，那些没有交换权，不能选择,不能更改决定的学生，非常喜欢他们的照片。另外的学生则在深思熟虑。“我应该换照片吗?我选了好的那张吗?也许这张并不好?交给老师的那张或许更好?”这些问题简直折磨人。他们不喜欢他们的照片。事实上，甚至在交换期结束后，他们还是不喜欢自己的照片。为什么?因为可逆转的选择不利于人工合成的快乐。

so here’s the final piece of this e_periment.we bring in a whole new group of naive harvard studentsand we say, 'you know,we’re doing a photography course,and we can do it one of two ways.we could do it so that when you take the two pictures,you’d have four days to change your mind,or we’re doing another course where you take the two picturesand you make up your mind right away and you can never change it.which course would you like to be in?' duh!66 percent of the students, two-thirds,prefer to be in the course where they have the opportunity to change their mind.hello? 66 percent of the students choose to be in the coursein which they will ultimately be deeply dissatisfied with the picture.because they do not know the conditions under which synthetic happiness grows.

这里是这个实验的最后一部分。我们找了新的一批天真的哈佛学生。我们告诉他们：“我们将开设摄影课程，我们有两种方案。一是你拍两张照片，然后有四天来选择保留哪张照片。另外一种是你拍摄两张照片，然后当机立断做选择。一但做了选择，你就不能更改。你愿意选择那种方式?”啊! 66%的学生，差不多三分之二更愿意加入那个可以改变选择的。喂!66%的学生选择了那个让他们最终将非常不满意照片的方案。因为他们不知道在什么条件下，人工合成快乐有效。

the bard said everything best,of course, and he’s making my point herebut he’s making it hyperbolically:tis nothing good or bad / but thinking makes it so.it’s nice poetry,but that can’t e_actly be right.is there really nothing good or bad?is it really the case that gall bladder surgery and a trip to parisare just the same thing?(laughter)that seems like a one-question iq test.they can’t be e_actly the same.

莎士比亚说的正好反映了我的看法。他说的有点夸张。“事无善恶.思想使然。”这是美丽的诗句，但是并不一定全对。事真的无善恶之分吗?胆囊手术真的和到巴黎旅行一样吗?(笑声)这听上去想一个iq测试题。他们并不完全一样。

in more turgid prose,but closer to the truth,was the father of modern capitalism,adam smith, and he said this.this is worth contemplating:the great source of both the misery and disorders of human lifeseems to arise from overrating the differencebetween one permanent situation and another --some of these situations may, no doubt,deserve to be preferred to others,but none of them can deserve to be pursuedwith that passionate ardor which drives us to violate the ruleseither of prudence or of justice,or to corrupt the future tranquility of our minds,either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly,or by remorse for the horror of our own injustice.'in other words: yes, some things are better than others.

现代资本主义之父，亚当·斯密(adam smith)， 用浮华却更贴近事实的语言阐述如下。这是值得思考的。“人生中的悲剧与无序之源，似乎皆来源于人们过高地评估某种时局，诚然，某些时局确实值得人们追求，但是，不管这种追求有多大的合理性，我们都不可因这种痴情的追求而打破谨慎、公正的法则，亦不可破坏我们未来的心境。因为假如我们真的那么做，我们必有一天会忆及当日的愚昧，或者是因为自己曾经的偏私而感到后悔。”用另一句话说：没错，生活中确实存在某些事物比别的事物更有价值，

we should have preferences that lead us into one future over another.but when those preferences drive us too hard and too fastbecause we have overrated the difference between these futures,we are at risk.when our ambition is bounded, it leads us to work joyfully.when our ambition is unbounded,it leads us to lie, to cheat, to steal, to hurt others,to sacrifice things of real value.when our fears are bounded,we’re prudent, we’re cautious,we’re thoughtful.when our fears are unbounded and overblown,we’re reckless, and we’re cowardly.

我们确实应该追求价值更高的东西。但是，假如我们过分看重不同选择之间的差异，因而拼命的追求我们想要的东西时，我们就可能面临危险。当我们的追求不是无节制的时候，我们可以生活的快乐。当我们的追求不受节制的时候，我们会生活得很痛苦，甚至会去欺诈，偷窃，伤害他人，更甚至是牺牲真正有价值的东西。当我们畏惧受控制时，我们会行事谨慎、三思而后行。当我们的畏惧失去节制并无限膨胀的时候，我们会变得鲁莽大意，或者胆小如鼠。

the lesson i want to leave you with, from these data,is that our longings and our worries are both to some degree overblown,because we have within us the capacity to manufacture the very commoditywe are constantly chasing when we choose e_perience.

最后用一句话来概括我们从这些数据中学到的东西：我们每个人的期望与担忧在一定程度上都被夸大了，通过选择感受，我们自己可以生产出我们所不懈追求的那样东西。

thank you.(applause)

谢谢。(掌声)

第9篇 ted英语演讲：你为什么穷

你为什么穷

演讲者：rutger bregman

i'd like to start with a simple question: why do the poor make so many poor decisions? i know it's a harsh question, but take a look at the data. the poor borrow more, save less, smoke more, e_ercise less, drink more and eat less healthfully. why?

我想用一个简单的问题开始今天的话题，为什么穷人会做出这么差劲的决定，我知道这是个尖锐的问题，让我们来看一下数据，穷人借钱更多，储蓄更少，抽烟更多，饮酒更多，锻炼更少，而且饮食更为不健康，这是为什么呢?

well, the standard e_planation was once summed up by the british prime minister, margaret thatcher. and she called poverty 'a personality defect.' a lack of character, basically.

标准的解释是英国首相撒切尔夫人曾经总结过的，她把贫穷称之为“个性缺陷”，基本上就是缺乏某种个性。

now, i'm sure not many of you would be so blunt. but the idea that there's something wrong with the poor themselves is not restricted to mrs. thatcher. some of you may believe that the poor should be held responsible for their own mistakes. and others may argue that we should help them to make better decisions. but the underlying assumption is the same: there's something wrong with them. if we could just change them, if we could just teach them how to live their lives, if they would only listen.

我相信在座各位可能不会有很多人这么大胆的说，但是‘穷人自身有问题’这个概念，不单是撒切尔夫人提出的，有人可能会认为穷人应该对自己犯的错负责，另一些人可能会说我们应该帮他们做出更好的决定，但是这两种观点背后的假设都是一样的，就是他们是有问题的，如果我们可以改造他们，如果我们可以教导他们如何生活，如果他们能听从教导的话。

and to be honest,this was what i thought for a long time. it was only a few years ago that i discovered that everything i thought i knew about poverty was wrong.it all started when i accidentally stumbled upon a paper by a few american psychologists. they had traveled 8,000 miles, all the way to india, for a fascinating study. and it was an e_periment with sugarcane farmers.you should know that these farmers collect about 60 percent of their annual income all at once, right after the harvest. this means that they're relatively poor one part of the year and rich the other.

老实说，有很长一段时间，我也是这么想的，几年前，我才发现，我之前自以为对贫穷的所有了解都是错的。一次我无意中看到几个美国心理学家的论文，才恍然大悟。为了一个异想天开的研究，他们不远万里去到印度，他们用蔗糖农民做了一个实验。请大家了解这些农民年收入的百分之六十是一次性获得的，就在收割季之后，也就是说在一年中的一段时间，他们会比较贫困。

the researchers asked them to do an iq test before and after the harvest. what they subsequently discovered completely blew my mind. the farmers scored much worse on the test before the harvest. the effects of living in poverty, it turns out, correspond to losing 14 points of iq. now, to give you an idea, that's comparable to losing a night's sleep or the effects of alcoholism.

研究人员请他们在收割前后分别做一次智商测试，他们的发现完全颠覆了我的三观，在收割前农民们的智商测试得分要低得多，结果显示，生活贫困的影响会反映为智商测试得分平均低了14分，为了让大家对这个分数有个概念，这就相当于失眠一整夜或酒精的影响。

a few months later, i heard that eldar shafir, a professor at princeton university and one of the authors of this study, was coming over to holland, where i live. so we met up in amsterdam to talk about his revolutionary new theory of poverty. and i can sum it up in just two words: scarcity mentality. it turns out that people behave differently when they perceive a thing to be scarce. and what that thing is doesn't much matter --whether it's not enough time, money or food.

几个月后，我听说，普林斯顿大学教授以及本研究的作者之一，艾尔达·夏菲尔要来我住的荷兰了，于是我们在阿姆斯特丹见了面，讨论了他关于贫穷的革命性的新理论，我可以用两个字总结，稀缺性心态，结果显示，当人们认为某个东西稀缺的话，行为方式就会改变，这个东西是什么并不重要，有可能是时间金钱或食物。

you all know this feeling, when you've got too much to do, or when you've put off breaking for lunch and your blood sugar takes a dive. this narrows your focus to your immediate lack -- to the sandwich you've got to have now, the meeting that's starting in five minutes or the bills that have to be paid tomorrow. so the long-term perspective goes out the window.

大家都知道这种感觉，如果你手上有太多事情要做，或是你吃午餐时间推迟了血糖水平急剧下降，这会让你的注意力集中在最直接的缺乏上，一定要立刻吃到三明治，五分钟后就要开的会或是明天必须付清的账单，‘看的长远’此刻早已在九霄云外了。

you could compare it to a new computer that's running 10 heavy programs at once. it gets slower and slower, making errors. eventually, it freezes -- not because it's a bad computer, but because it has too much to do at once. the poor have the same problem. they're not making dumb decisions because they are dumb, but because they're living in a conte_t in which anyone would make dumb decisions.

可以把这种情况比作一台新电脑，同时运行十个繁重的程序，电脑就会变的越来越慢，会出错，最终会死机，不是因为这台电脑不好，而是因为他一次性要处理太多内容了。穷人的问题是一样的，他们不是因为愚蠢 做出了愚蠢的决定，而是因为在他们生活的那种环境下，任何人都有可能做出愚蠢的决定。

so suddenly i understood why so many of our anti-poverty programs don't work. investments in education, for e_ample, are often completely ineffective. poverty is not a lack of knowledge. a recent analysis of 201 studies on the effectiveness of money-management training came to the conclusion that it has almost no effect at all.

因此我突然能够理解，为什么现在很多扶贫项目都没用，例如很多教育投入都是完全无效的，贫穷并不是缺少知识。最近一个关于财富管理训练有效性的201项研究的分析，得到了一个结论，即训练几乎完全无效。

now, don't get me wrong -- this is not to say the poor don't learn anything -- they can come out wiser for sure. but it's not enough. or as professor shafir told me, 'it's like teaching someone to swim and then throwing them in a stormy sea.'

请不要误会，不是说穷人什么也学不到，当然，经过训练后，他们会更明智，但这样还不够，或者就像夏菲尔教授跟我说的，“这就像教会人游泳，然后就把他们仍进惊涛骇浪的大海里”。

i still remember sitting there, perple_ed. and it struck me that we could have figured this all out decades ago.i mean, these psychologists didn't need any complicated brain scans; they only had to measure the farmer's iq, and iq tests were invented more than 100 years ago. actually, i realized i had read about the psychology of poverty before.

我还记得当时自己坐在那里，十分困惑，让我备受打击的是，我们原本在几十年前就应该想明白这件事，心理学家不需要做那些复杂的脑部扫描，只需要测评农夫的智商，而智商测评早在一百多年前就有了，实际上，我发现自己以前就已经看过关于贫穷的心理学。

george orwell, one of the greatest writers who ever lived, e_perienced poverty firsthand in the 1920s. 'the essence of poverty,' he wrote back then, is that it 'annihilates the future.' and he marveled at, quote, 'how people take it for granted they have the right to preach at you and pray over you as soon as your income falls below a certain level.'

乔治﹒奥威尔是在世最伟大的作家之一，他在上世纪二十年代曾亲身经历过贫穷，当时他这样写道‘贫穷的本质’在于他‘消灭了未来’，用他的话来说，他对下面这种事很惊讶，“一旦你的收入降到某个水平以下，人们就非常理所当然地认为，他们有权向你说教，为你祈祷”，直到今天，这段话仍能引起共鸣。当然了，主要问题在于，怎么办呢?

now, those words are every bit as resonant today. the big question is, of course: what can be done? modern economists have a few solutions up their sleeves. we could help the poor with their paperwork or send them a te_t message to remind them to pay their bills. this type of solution is hugely popular with modern politicians, mostly because, well, they cost ne_t to nothing. these solutions are, i think, a symbol of this erain which we so often treat the symptoms, but ignore the underlying cause.

现代经济学家跃跃欲试几个方案，我们可以帮穷人做文件工作，或者给他们发短信提醒他们付账单，现在政治家很喜欢用这类方案，主要是因为成本几乎没有。我认为这些方案就是我们这个时代的一个标志，也就是我们常常只管治标，却忽略了治本。

so i wonder: why don't we just change the conte_t in which the poor live? or, going back to our computer analogy: why keep tinkering around with the software when we can easily solve the problem by installing some e_tra memory instead? at that point, professor shafir responded with a blank look. and after a few seconds, he said, 'oh, i get it. you mean you want to just hand out more money to the poor to eradicate poverty. uh, sure, that'd be great. but i'm afraid that brand of left-wing politics you've got in amsterdam -- it doesn't e_ist in the states.'

所以我不禁想，为什么我们不去改变穷人的生活环境呢?或者，再说回刚才讲的电脑类比理论，既然增加内存就能简单解决的问题，何必非要不停地修改软件呢?在那当下，夏菲尔教授的回答是茫然的眼神，过了几秒钟，他说，“我懂了，你是说你想直接给穷人钱来根除贫穷，当然了，这样倒是挺好。但我恐怕你在阿姆斯特丹得到的这种左翼政治思想在美国不存在呢”。

but is this really an old-fashioned, leftist idea? i remembered reading about an old plan -- something that has been proposed by some of history's leading thinkers. the philosopher thomas more first hinted at it in his book, 'utopia,' more than 500 years ago. and its proponents have spanned the spectrum from the left to the right, from the civil rights campaigner, martin luther king, to the economist milton friedman. and it's an incredibly simple idea: basic income guarantee.

可这真的是过时的左翼想法吗?我记得曾经看过一个老计划，是历史上顶尖的思想家曾经提出来的，早在五百年前的哲学家托马斯﹒莫尔，就率先在其著作《乌托邦》中提出了，这个理论的支持者左翼和右翼人士都有，从民权运动家马丁﹒路德﹒金到经济学家米尔顿﹒弗里德曼，这是一个极其简单的理论：基本所得保障理论。

what it is? well, that's easy. it's a monthly grant, enough to pay for your basic needs: food, shelter, education. it's completely unconditional, so no one's going to tell you what you have to do for it, and no one's going to tell you what you have to do with it. the basic income is not a favor, but a right. there's absolutely no stigma attached.

很简单，就是每个月能保证你基本需求的收入，食物、住所、教育，完全是无条件的，因此没人会跟你说必须做到什么才能得到，没人会跟你说，你必须用这个来做什么，基本收入不是恩惠而是权力，绝对没有任何附加条件。

so as i learned about the true nature of poverty, i couldn't stop wondering: is this the idea we've all been waiting for? could it really be that simple? and in the three years that followed, i read everything i could find about basic income. i researched the dozens of e_periments that have been conducted all over the globe, and it didn't take long before i stumbled upon a story of a town that had done it -- had actually eradicated poverty. but then ... nearly everyone forgot about it.

在我了解了贫穷的真相以后，我不禁想知道，这是我们所有人一直在等待的理论吗?真的会这么简单吗?随后三年，我把所有能找到的关于基本所得的资料都看了，研究了全球范围内所做的数十个实验，没过多久，我就发现了一个小镇的故事，这个小镇做到了真的根除了贫穷，可是另一方面，几乎所有人都忘了这个故事。

this story starts in dauphin, canada. in 1974, everybody in this small town was guaranteed a basic income,ensuring that no one fell below the poverty line. at the start of the e_periment, an army of researchers descended on the town. for four years, all went well. but then a new government was voted into power, and the new canadian cabinet saw little point to the e_pensive e_periment.

故事发生在加拿大多芬，1974年这个小镇里的每一个人，都得到了基本所得保障，确保了所有人都不会落入贫困线以下，在这个实验的最初，一队研究人员来到小镇，四年里一切顺利，可是后来选出了一个新政府执政，新任加拿大内阁认为这个昂贵的实验毫无意义。

so when it became clear there was no money left to analyze the results, the researchers decided to pack their files away in some 2,000 bo_es.twenty-five years went by, and then evelyn forget, a canadian professor, found the records. for three years, she subjected the data to all manner of statistical analysis, and no matter what she tried, the results were the same every time: the e_periment had been a resounding success.

因此最后竟然没有资金来对实验结果进行分析，于是研究人员把档案用两千个箱子收起来。二十五年过去后，加拿大一位教授伊芙琳﹒法尔热，发现了这些记录，她花了三年时间，把这些数据进行了各种类型的统计分析，无论她怎么试，每一次的结果都是一样的，这个实验十分成功。

evelyn forget discovered that the people in dauphin had not only become richer but also smarter and healthier. the school performance of kids improved substantially. the hospitalization rate decreased by as much as 8.5 percent. domestic violence incidents were down, as were mental health complaints. and people didn't quit their jobs. the only ones who worked a little less were new mothers and students -- who stayed in school longer. similar results have since been found in countless other e_periments around the globe, from the us to india.

伊芙琳﹒法尔热发现，多芬的人民不仅变得更为富有，还更加聪明和健康，孩子在学校的成绩大幅提高，住院率则下降了百分之八点五，家庭暴力事件下降，心理健康投诉也下降了，而且人们并没有辞掉工作，唯一稍微减少了一点劳动的是初为人母的女性和学生，因为他们在学校里待的时间更多了。之后，全球范围内，无数的实验都得到了类似的结果，从美国到印度。

so ... here's what i've learned. when it comes to poverty, we, the rich, should stop pretending we know best.we should stop sending shoes and teddy bears to the poor, to people we have never met. and we should get rid of the vast industry of paternalistic bureaucrats when we could simply hand over their salaries to the poor they're supposed to help.

所以我了解到，当说到贫穷问题时，我们这些富人应该停止假装自己最懂，我们应该停止给那些我们从没见过的穷人送鞋子和玩具，我们应该消除惯有的家长式官僚主义作风，我们可以直接把他们的薪水转发给他们本该帮助的穷人。

because, i mean, the great thing about money is that people can use it to buy things they need instead of things that self-appointed e_perts think they need. just imagine how many brilliant scientists and entrepreneurs and writers, like george orwell, are now withering away in scarcity. imagine how much energy and talent we would unleash if we got rid of poverty once and for all.

因为金钱最大的好处就是让人们能买自己需要的东西，而不是那些自以为是的专家认为他们需要的东西。想想看，有多少杰出的科学家企业家以及像乔治﹒奥威尔那样的作家，现在正因稀缺而消失。想想看，如果我们能一次性永久根除贫穷，那么我们能释放出多少能量和才智。

i believe that a basic income would work like venture capital for the people. and we can't afford not to do it, because poverty is hugely e_pensive. just look at the cost of child poverty in the us, for e_ample. it's estimated at 500 billion dollars each year, in terms of higher health care spending, higher dropout rates, and more crime. now, this is an incredible waste of human potential.

我认为基本所得 对人们所起的作用就像风险投资，而我们承受不起不这样做的后果，因为贫穷非常昂贵，就比如说美国因为贫困儿童所产生的费用吧，由于不断增加的医疗费用、辍学率以及犯罪率，每年预计要在这上面花费五千亿美金，这是人类潜能惊人的浪费。

but let's talk about the elephant in the room. how could we ever afford a basic income guarantee? well, it's actually a lot cheaper than you may think. what they did in dauphin is finance it with a negative income ta_.this means that your income is topped up as soon as you fall below the poverty line. and in that scenario,according to our economists' best estimates, for a net cost of 175 billion -- a quarter of us military spending, one percent of gdp -- you could lift all impoverished americans above the poverty line. you could actually eradicate poverty. now, that should be our goal.

再来说说那个显而易见的问题吧，我们如何负担基本所得保障呢?其实费用可能比大家想象的要低得多，多芬采取的措施是实行负所得税，也就是说，一旦你落入贫困线以下，就补充你的收入，如果实行这样的措施，根据我们的经济学家“最好的预估”，净成本为一千七百五十亿美元，仅为美国军费支出的四分之一，gdp的百分之一，就能把所有贫困的美国人拉到贫困线以上，可以真正地根除贫穷。这应该是我们的目标。

the time for small thoughts and little nudges is past. i really believe that the time has come for radical new ideas, and basic income is so much more than just another policy. it is also a complete rethink of what work actually is. and in that sense, it will not only free the poor, but also the rest of us.

思想局限只做小小推动的时代已经过去了，我坚信这个时代要引来彻底的新思路，基本所得不仅仅是一项政策，更是对工作真正的意义的全新思考。从这个意义上来说，它不仅能解放穷人，还能解放其他人。

nowadays, millions of people feel that their jobs have little meaning or significance. a recent poll among 230,000 employees in 142 countries found that only 13 percent of workers actually like their job. and another poll found that as much as 37 percent of british workers have a job that they think doesn't even need to e_ist. it's like brad pitt says in 'fight club,' 'too often we're working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.'

如今数百万人觉得自己的工作毫无意义，最近有一项对142个国家二十三万名雇员的调研显示，仅有百分之十三的员工真心喜欢自己的工作，另一项调研发现有百分之三十七的英国工人认为他们所做的工作毫无存在的必要。就像布拉德﹒皮特在《搏击俱乐部》里说的“我们常做讨厌的工作，然后赚钱买不需要的东西”。

now, don't get me wrong -- i'm not talking about the teachers and the garbagemen and the care workers here. if they stopped working, we'd be in trouble. i'm talking about all those well-paid professionals with e_cellent résumés who earn their money doing ... strategic transactor peer-to-peer meetings while brainstorming the value add-on of disruptive co-creation in the network society.

请不要误会，我在这里说的不是教师、清洁工还有护工，如果他们不再工作，我们就麻烦了，我说是那些简历很好看从事着高收入职业的人，他们赚钱是靠在关系网社会中在集思广益讨论破坏性共创的附件价值时，举办策略性交易点对点会议或之类的事情。

or something like that. just imagine again how much talent we're wasting, simply because we tell our kids they'll have to 'earn a living.' or think of what a math whiz working at facebook lamented a few years ago:'the best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads.'

再次想想看我们浪费了多少才能，仅仅因为我们跟孩子们说他们将必须‘讨生活’，或是想想几年前一个在脸书工作的数学天才的哀叹，“我这一代最优秀的头脑都在考虑让人们如何点击广告”。

i'm a historian. and if history teaches us anything, it is that things could be different. there is nothing inevitable about the way we structured our society and economy right now. ideas can and do change the world. and i think that especially in the past few years, it has become abundantly clear that we cannot stick to the status quo -- that we need new ideas.

我是个历史学家，如果说历史教会了我们什么，那就是事情是可以改变的。如今我们构建社会和经济的方式，没有什么是必然的，思想可以而且依然改变了世界。我认为，特别是在过去几年，情况已经十分清楚了，我们不能在现状里固步自封，我们需要新思想。

i know that many of you may feel pessimistic about a future of rising inequality, _enophobia and climate change. but it's not enough to know what we're against. we also need to be for something. martin luther king didn't say, 'i have a nightmare.'he had a dream.(applause)

我们知道很多人可能会感到悲观，认为未来不平等会加剧，排外和气候变化会更为恶劣，但只是了解我们面临的困难是不够的，我们还需要做好准备，马丁﹒路德﹒金说的可不是“我有个噩梦”，他有个梦想。

so ... here's my dream: i believe in a future where the value of your work is not determined by the size of your paycheck, but by the amount of happiness you spread and the amount of meaning you give. i believe in a future where the point of education is not to prepare you for another useless job but for a life well-lived. i believe in a future where an e_istence without poverty is not a privilege but a right we all deserve. so here we are. here we are. we've got the research, we've got the evidence and we've got the means.

所以，这就是我的梦想，我相信未来你的工作价值不再由薪水所决定，而是由你传播出去的快乐和你所赋予的意义所决定，我相信未来教育的意义不再是培养你去做无用的工作而是培养你度过美好的人生，我相信未来没有贫困的生活不再是一种特权，而是所有人都享有的权利。

now, more than 500 years after thomas more first wrote about a basic income, and 100 years after george orwell discovered the true nature of poverty, we all need to change our worldview, because poverty is not a lack of character. poverty is a lack of cash.

在这里，我们有了研究有了证据，我们还有了方法，在托马斯﹒莫尔第一次写了基本所得的五百多年后，在乔治﹒奥威尔发现了贫穷的真相的一百多年后，我们都需要改变自己的世界观，因为贫穷不是缺少性格，贫穷是缺钱。

thank you.

谢谢!

《你为什么穷》观后感

“我救了19条生命，可有谁来救救我的命------”一个农民在死前躺在病床上不断喃喃的重复这句话。这个农民叫金有树，是重庆一个普通的人，几年前因跳水救了19名落水者而留下了病根。面对巨额的医疗费用，他不断地向亲朋好友借债------可还是没有足够的费用，只得向政府申请救助款，可是却毫无回应。最终，自己只得在无奈中结束了生命。这是一个救人英雄的悲哀，更是一贫困农民的悲哀。

我想，如果金有树不是一个贫穷的农民，而是一位官员、一名警察，那帮政府官员可能，不，是肯定会在第一时间给他救助款，还会大肆地宣传他的英雄事迹。

可惜他什么也不是，至少在那帮官员眼中，他只是一个卑微的、毫无价值的普通农民。金有树之死，一个英雄的死，这是一种社会良知的死。

有谁知道，有一种悲哀叫贫困?在这漫漫的社会道路上，我们还有许多事要做。我们要多为贫困人民想想，我们不仅要用钱物去援助他们，更应让整个社会来关注他们，让他们摆脱这种“贫穷的悲哀”。

第10篇 ted英语演讲：幸福的人为什么会出轨

幸福的人为什么会出轨

why do we cheat? and why do happy people cheat? and when we say 'infidelity,' what e_actly do we mean? is it a hookup, a love story, paid se_, a chat room, a massage with a happy ending? why do we think that men cheat out of boredom and fear of intimacy, but women cheat out of loneliness and hunger for intimacy? and is an affair always the end of a relationship?

我们为何出轨? 为何幸福之人也会出轨? 我们所谓的“不忠”到底指的是什么? 是一夜情?爱情故事? 有偿性服务?私聊? 还是特殊按摩服务? 为什么我们认为男人出轨 是因为寻求刺激或是害怕亲密关系， 而女人出轨是因为孤独 或是渴求亲密关系? 婚外情是不是意味着婚姻已走到尽头?

for the past 10 years, i have traveled the globe and worked e_tensively with hundreds of couples who have been shattered by infidelity. there is one simple act of transgression that can rob a couple of their relationship, their happiness and their very identity: an affair. and yet, this e_tremely common act is so poorly understood. so this talk is for anyone who has ever loved.

在过去十年间，我走遍世界 走访了数百对夫妻， 他们都因出轨而心力交瘁。 婚外情毫无疑问是一种越轨行为， 它离间夫妻关系， 破坏家庭幸福，衍生信任危机。 然而，我们对这一普遍现象的 理解却极其有限。 因此我将这次演讲 献给所有经历过爱情的人。

adultery has e_isted since marriage was invented, and so, too, the taboo against it. in fact, infidelity has a tenacity that marriage can only envy, so much so, that this is the only commandment that is repeated twice in the bible: once for doing it, and once just for thinking about it. (laughter) so how do we reconcile what is universally forbidden, yet universally practiced?

婚外情自婚姻诞生之日起就存在了， 我们对婚外情的反对亦是如此。 实际上，婚外情比婚姻顽强多了， 婚姻只有嫉妒的份儿， 以至于它成为了圣经的戒律， 并且重复出现两次： 一次是不准做， 另一次是连想都不准想。 (笑声) 那我们究竟如何处理出轨， 这一屡禁不止的现象呢?

now, throughout history, men practically had a license to cheat with little consequence, and supported by a host of biological and evolutionary theories that justified their need to roam, so the double standard is as old as adultery itself. but who knows what's really going on under the sheets there, right? because when it comes to se_, the pressure for men is to boast and to e_aggerate, but the pressure for women is to hide, minimize and deny, which isn't surprising when you consider that there are still nine countries where women can be killed for straying.

自古以来，男人出轨是被允许的， 几乎不用承担什么后果， 甚至还有生物理论和进化理论 来为他们撑腰， 这一双重标准自婚外情 诞生之日起就存在了。 但在床上到底发生了什么， 其实谁也不清楚，对吧? 因为一谈到性， 男人可以夸夸奇谈，自吹自擂， 而女人却要遮遮掩掩。 难以置信的是， 如今仍有9个国家的女性会因出轨而被处死。

now, monogamy used to be one person for life. today, monogamy is one person at a time. (laughter) (applause)i mean, many of you probably have said, 'i am monogamous in all my relationships.' (laughter)we used to marry, and had se_ for the first time. but now we marry, and we stop having se_ with others. the fact is that monogamy had nothing to do with love. men relied on women's fidelity in order to know whose children these are, and who gets the cows when i die.

一夫一妻制， 曾经指的是“一辈子一个”，而现在指的是“每次一个”。(笑声)(掌声)我想，在座有很多人可能说过，“我在每段关系里都遵守一夫一妻制”。(笑声)过去我们先结婚，再初尝禁果。 而现在，我们先结婚，然后停止与别人发生关系。实际上一夫一妻制已经与爱情无关。男人根据女人是否忠诚，来判断孩子是不是自己的，进而决定遗产归谁。

now, everyone wants to know what percentage of people cheat. i've been asked that question since i arrived at this conference. (laughter) it applies to you. but the definition of infidelity keeps on e_panding: se_ting, watching porn, staying secretly active on dating apps. so because there is no universally agreed-upon definition of what even constitutes an infidelity, estimates vary widely, from 26 percent to 75 percent. but on top of it, we are walking contradictions. so 95 percent of us will say that it is terribly wrong for our partner to lie about having an affair, but just about the same amount of us will say that that's e_actly what we would do if we were having one. (laughter)

大家都想知道， 出轨的人到底占多少百分比。 从我到达现场， 就不停有人问这个问题。 (笑声) 这跟你们也有关系。 因为出轨的含义在不断扩大： 发色情短信，看黄片， 在约会软件上玩暧昧。 正因为缺乏一个统一的定义， 到底什么才算出轨， 因此这个百分比范围很广， 从26%到75%。 但与此相矛盾的是， 有95%的人认为， 另一半试图掩盖 出轨的事实是不可饶恕的， 但差不多同样多的人也会说： 如果我出轨的话肯定也不会声张。 (笑声)

now, i like this definition of an affair -- it brings together the three key elements: a secretive relationship, which is the core structure of an affair; an emotional connection to one degree or another; and a se_ual alchemy. and alchemy is the key word here, because the erotic frisson is such that the kiss that you only imagine giving, can be as powerful and as enchanting as hours of actual lovemaking. as marcel proust said, it's our imagination that is responsible for love, not the other person.

我倾向于这样来定义婚外情， 它包含三个要素： 首先是遮遮掩掩的关系， 这是婚外情的核心; 二是拥有某种程度上的感情联系; 三是性幻想。 性吸引是这里的关键词， 对于性高潮而言，即便是想象出来的亲吻， 也和数小时的翻云覆雨， 拥有同样的魔力。 如马塞尔?普鲁斯特所言， “我们的爱源自想象，而非源自对方。”

so it's never been easier to cheat, and it's never been more difficult to keep a secret. and never has infidelity e_acted such a psychological toll. when marriage was an economic enterprise, infidelity threatened our economic security. but now that marriage is a romantic arrangement, infidelity threatens our emotional security. ironically, we used to turn to adultery -- that was the space where we sought pure love. but now that we seek love in marriage, adultery destroys it.

因此出轨是很容易的， 但保守出轨的秘密却难上加难。 因为(出轨者)要承受巨大的心理压力。 如果婚姻是一家企业， 那婚外情威胁它的经济安全。 如果婚姻是一种浪漫协议， 那婚外情威胁我们的情感安全。 讽刺的是，我们曾经对婚外情充满幻想， 认为它是孕育真爱之地。 而现在我们从婚姻中寻找爱情， 而婚外情则将其摧毁。

now, there are three ways that i think infidelity hurts differently today. we have a romantic ideal in which we turn to one person to fulfill an endless list of needs: to be my greatest lover, my best friend, the best parent, my trusted confidant, my emotional companion, my intellectual equal. and i am it: i'm chosen, i'm unique, i'm indispensable, i'm irreplaceable, i'm the one. and infidelity tells me i'm not. it is the ultimate betrayal. infidelity shatters the grand ambition of love. but if throughout history, infidelity has always been painful, today it is often traumatic, because it threatens our sense of self.

我认为，如今的婚外情有三大罪状。 我们浪漫地认为，会有那么一个人， 能满足我们所有的需求： 是我最棒的情人，最好的朋友， 最好的父母，最信任的知己， 是情感伴侣，又志趣相投。 而我自己则符合上述所有条件： 我万里挑一，我独一无二， 我不可或缺，我无法取代， 我就是真命天子(女)。 但婚外情告诉我，并不是那么回事。 这是一种终极背叛。 出轨粉碎了我们对爱情的憧憬。 如果回顾历史， 婚外情从来都是充满痛苦的， 而在今天更是有过之而不及， 因为它威胁了我们的自我意识。

so my patient fernando, he's plagued. he goes on: 'i thought i knew my life. i thought i knew who you were, who we were as a couple, who i was. now, i question everything.' infidelity -- a violation of trust, a crisis of identity. 'can i ever trust you again?' he asks. 'can i ever trust anyone again?'

我的一个病人费尔南多，就深受其害。 他说：“我曾以为我了解自己的生活， 我曾以为我了解你，了解我们的婚姻，了解我自己。 但现在，我对这一切都产生了怀疑。”婚外情是对信任的践踏，对自我认同的摧毁。 “我还能再相信你吗?”他问。“我还能相信任何人吗?”

and this is also what my patient heather is telling me, when she's talking to me about her story with nick. married, two kids. nick just left on a business trip, and heather is playing on his ipad with the boys, when she sees a message appear on the screen: 'can't wait to see you.' strange, she thinks, we just saw each other. and then another message: 'can't wait to hold you in my arms.' and heather realizes these are not for her. she also tells me that her father had affairs, but her mother, she found one little receipt in the pocket, and a little bit of lipstick on the collar. heather, she goes digging, and she finds hundreds of messages, and photos e_changed and desires e_pressed. the vivid details of nick's two-year affair unfold in front of her in real time, and it made me think: affairs in the digital age are death by a thousand cuts.

我的另一个病人希瑟也有这种想法， 她跟我讲了她和尼克的故事。 他们结婚了，有两个孩子。 尼克出差刚走， 希瑟和孩子一起在玩尼克的ipad， 然后屏幕上出现了一条信息： “我等不及想见你。” 真奇怪，希瑟想，我们不是刚见过吗? 然后又来了一条： “真想马上拥抱你。” 这时希瑟意识到， 这些信息不是发给自己的。 希瑟说他父亲也有婚外情， 但她母亲只是在口袋里 发现了一张收据， 在领子上发现了一点口红印。 希瑟继续翻看着， 发现了上百条信息， 里面有互换的照片， 以及各种互诉衷肠。 尼克出轨两年的确凿证据 在她面前赤裸裸地呈现出来。 我不禁在想： 数字时代的出轨真是能让人 感到被千刀万剐，生不如死。

but then we have another parado_ that we're dealing with these days. because of this romantic ideal, we are relying on our partner's fidelity with a unique fervor. but we also have never been more inclined to stray, and not because we have new desires today, but because we live in an era where we feel that we are entitled to pursue our desires, because this is the culture where i deserve to be happy. and if we used to divorce because we were unhappy, today we divorce because we could be happier. and if divorce carried all the shame, today, choosing to stay when you can leave is the new shame. so heather, she can't talk to her friends because she's afraid that they will judge her for still loving nick, and everywhere she turns, she gets the same advice: leave him. throw the dog on the curb. and if the situation were reversed, nick would be in the same situation. staying is the new shame.

但是我们又发现了另外一个矛盾。 因为前面说到的浪漫遐想， 我们极度依赖自己伴侣的忠诚。 但同时，我们比以前也更容易出轨， 并不是因为我们有了新的欲望， 而是我们现在所处的时代， 让我们觉得有权利去追求自己的欲望， 这就是我们的文化特点：我有权快乐。 如果过去离婚是因为我们不快乐， 那现在离婚是因为我们可以更快乐。 如果在过去，离婚是不光彩的， 那今天，能离婚而不离婚， 才是不光彩。 所以希瑟，不敢告诉自己的朋友， 她害怕朋友们责怪她还爱着尼克， 无论她找谁倾诉，大家都劝她： 离开他吧，大家各走各路。 如果出轨的是希瑟， 相信尼克的处境也会一样。 维持婚姻成了不光彩的事。

so if we can divorce, why do we still have affairs? now, the typical assumption is that if someone cheats, either there's something wrong in your relationship or wrong with you. but millions of people can't all be pathological. the logic goes like this: if you have everything you need at home, then there is no need to go looking elsewhere, assuming that there is such a thing as a perfect marriage that will inoculate us against wanderlust. but what if passion has a finite shelf life? what if there are things that even a good relationship can never provide? if even happy people cheat, what is it about?

那如果我们能离婚，那为什么还要出轨呢? 一种典型的观点是，如果你出轨，要么是婚姻出了毛病，要么是你自己出了毛病。但是不可能成千上万的人 全都有毛病吧。这一观点的逻辑是这样的：如果你的家庭完美无缺，那就没必要出轨了，假设完美婚姻确实存在，能治好我们爱出轨的毛病。但如果激情无法持久呢?如果有些东西，即使在完美的婚姻中，也无法找到呢?如果幸福的人也出轨呢?这又是怎么回事?

the vast majority of people that i actually work with are not at all chronic philanderers. they are often people who are deeply monogamous in their beliefs, and at least for their partner. but they find themselves in a conflict between their values and their behavior. they often are people who have actually been faithful for decades, but one day they cross a line that they never thought they would cross, and at the risk of losing everything. but for a glimmer of what? affairs are an act of betrayal, and they are also an e_pression of longing and loss. at the heart of an affair, you will often find a longing and a yearning for an emotional connection, for novelty, for freedom, for autonomy, for se_ual intensity, a wish to recapture lost parts of ourselves or an attempt to bring back vitality in the face of loss and tragedy.

我接触和研究过的绝大多数人， 并不全都是积习难改的好色之徒。 从观念上，他们通常赞同一夫一妻制， 至少对自己的另一半是如此。 但他们往往处于一种矛盾之中， 就是观念和做法不一样。 他们通常忠诚了几十年， 但突然有天就跨过了红线， 冒着失去一切的风险， 这在之前他们连想都不敢想。 但换来的是什么呢? 婚外情是一种背叛行为， 同时也是对于渴望和失去的一种表达。 透过出轨的表象，我们经常能看到 一种寻求情感联系的渴望， 追求新奇、自由、自立和性快感， 渴望找回失去的自我， 或者是试图走出失意和悲伤。

i'm thinking about another patient of mine, priya, who is blissfully married, loves her husband, and would never want to hurt the man. but she also tells me that she's always done what was e_pected of her: good girl, good wife, good mother, taking care of her immigrant parents. priya, she fell for the arborist who removed the tree from her yard after hurricane sandy. and with his truck and his tattoos, he's quite the opposite of her. but at 47, priya's affair is about the adolescence that she never had. and her story highlights for me that when we seek the gaze of another, it isn't always our partner that we are turning away from, but the person that we have ourselves become. and it isn't so much that we're looking for another person, as much as we are looking for another self.

我想起了我的另一个病人，普莉娅， 她婚姻美满， 深爱着自己的丈夫， 从未想过要伤害他。 但她跟我说， 她总是在扮演别人期望的那个角色： 好女孩，好妻子，好母亲， 照顾自己移民过来的父母。 但在桑迪飓风来袭之后， 普莉娅爱上了那个帮她清理院子中 残破树木的工人。 他开着卡车，纹着纹身， 跟她完全是两个世界的人。 尽管出轨时已经47岁， 但普莉娅找回了从未有过的青春。 她的故事告诉我， 当我们寻找情人的时候， 并不一定是想逃离现在的伴侣， 而是想逃离那个曾经的自己。 与其说我们在寻找那么一个人， 不如说我们在寻找另一个自己。

now, all over the world, there is one word that people who have affairs always tell me. they feel alive. and they often will tell me stories of recent losses -- of a parent who died, and a friend that went too soon, and bad news at the doctor. death and mortality often live in the shadow of an affair, because they raise these questions. is this it? is there more? am i going on for another 25 years like this? will i ever feel that thing again? and it has led me to think that perhaps these questions are the ones that propel people to cross the line, and that some affairs are an attempt to beat back deadness, in an antidote to death.

我走遍世界， 遇到很多有婚外情的人， 他们总是跟我说一个词， 他们觉得自己“活着”。 紧接着他们会告诉我， 自己最近失去了什么人。 比如父母去世， 朋友出了意外， 谁查出来得了绝症。 婚外情常常同死亡 和人生苦短联系在一起， 因为他们经常会问， 就这样了吗?会不会还有其他人出现? 我是不是还要这么过20__年? 我还能不能感受到爱? 这不禁让我思考， 也许正是这些问题， 推动他们跨过了红线， 有些人想通过婚外情来重拾信心， 对抗情感的死亡。

and contrary to what you may think, affairs are way less about se_, and a lot more about desire: desire for attention, desire to feel special, desire to feel important. and the very structure of an affair, the fact that you can never have your lover, keeps you wanting. that in itself is a desire machine, because the incompleteness, the ambiguity, keeps you wanting that which you can't have.

可能与你们想的恰恰相反， 婚外情跟性的关系更小， 却与渴望密切相关： 渴望被关注，渴望重拾信心， 渴望被人需要。 婚外情的显著特点， 就是你无法完全拥有你的情人， 这让你欲罢不能。 就像有一台欲望机器在不断驱动你， 种种不完整，种种暧昧不清， 让你对得不到的东西念念不忘。

now some of you probably think that affairs don't happen in open relationships, but they do. first of all, the conversation about monogamy is not the same as the conversation about infidelity. but the fact is that it seems that even when we have the freedom to have other se_ual partners, we still seem to be lured by the power of the forbidden, that if we do that which we are not supposed to do, then we feel like we are really doing what we want to. and i've also told quite a few of my patients that if they could bring into their relationships one tenth of the boldness, the imagination and the verve that they put into their affairs, they probably would never need to see me. (laughter)

你们中一些人可能会想， 是不是在开放的关系中 婚外情就不会发生了， 并不是这样。 首先，关于一夫一妻制的讨论， 与关于不忠的讨论并不一样。 但事实是，即使我们可以随心所欲地 拥有其他性伴侣， 我们还是无法抗拒偷尝禁果的诱惑， 如果我们做了被禁止的事， 反倒会觉得自己在做真正想做的事。 我告诉过我的许多病人， 如果他们能将自己投入婚外情的 勇气、想象力和热情，拿出十分之一 给自己的婚姻， 也许他们就不用来找我了。 (笑声)

so how do we heal from an affair? desire runs deep. betrayal runs deep. but it can be healed. and some affairs are death knells for relationships that were already dying on the vine. but others will jolt us into new possibilities. the fact is, the majority of couples who have e_perienced affairs stay together. but some of them will merely survive, and others will actually be able to turn a crisis into an opportunity. they'll be able to turn this into a generative e_perience. and i'm actually thinking even more so for the deceived partner, who will often say, 'you think i didn't want more? but i'm not the one who did it.' but now that the affair is e_posed, they, too, get to claim more, and they no longer have to uphold the status quo that may not have been working for them that well, either.

那么我们该如何治疗 因婚外情所受的创伤? 欲望根深蒂固， 背叛刻骨铭心。 但伤痛是可以治愈的。 有些婚外情只不过是压死婚姻的 最后一根稻草。 而另一些却让婚姻有了新的可能。 实际上，大部分经历了 婚外情的夫妻最后仍然在一起。 只不过有的人精疲力尽， 有的人则将危机转化为机遇。 他们善于将其转化为一场经历。 实际上我甚至认为 被欺骗的一方更是如此， 他们经常说， “你以为我就不想得到更多吗? 但我并没有踏出这一步。” 一旦婚外情暴露， 他们也会提出更多要求， 不再继续委曲求全， 因为委曲求全的结果并不理想。

i've noticed that a lot of couples, in the immediate aftermath of an affair, because of this new disorder that may actually lead to a new order, will have depths of conversations with honesty and openness that they haven't had in decades. and, partners who were se_ually indifferent find themselves suddenly so lustfully voracious, they don't know where it's coming from. something about the fear of loss will rekindle desire, and make way for an entirely new kind of truth.

我注意到，很多夫妻 在婚外情曝光之后， 由于局面混乱， 可能会产生新的家庭秩序， 他们往往会进行开诚布公的深入交流， 这种交流可能几十年都未曾有过。 之前毫无“性致”的夫妻， 可能突然变得“性致”勃勃， 而他们完全搞不懂这是为什么。 对于失去的恐惧可能会重燃激情， 引导你通往全新的真实之路。

so when an affair is e_posed, what are some of the specific things that couples can do? we know from trauma that healing begins when the perpetrator acknowledges their wrongdoing. so for the partner who had the affair, for nick, one thing is to end the affair, but the other is the essential, important act of e_pressing guilt and remorse for hurting his wife. but the truth is that i have noticed that quite a lot of people who have affairs may feel terribly guilty for hurting their partner, but they don't feel guilty for the e_perience of the affair itself. and that distinction is important. and nick, he needs to hold vigil for the relationship. he needs to become, for a while, the protector of the boundaries. it's his responsibility to bring it up, because if he thinks about it, he can relieve heather from the obsession, and from having to make sure that the affair isn't forgotten, and that in itself begins to restore trust.

那么当婚外情曝光之后，作为夫妻的当事人具体应该怎么办呢?我们知道要想治疗创伤，犯错者首先应该承认错误。对于出轨的那一方，比如说尼克， 首先应该停止婚外情，但更重要的是要向妻子 表达自己对伤害她的愧疚和歉意。然而事实上，我注意到，很多出轨的人，也许对于伤害他们的另一半怀有愧疚，但对于出轨行为本身毫无悔意。这一差别非常重要。对尼克来说，他需要维持这段婚姻。至少在一段时间内，他要成为婚姻的保卫者。这是尼克的责任，因为他明白只有这样，他才能帮希瑟走出阴影， 让希瑟不必再拿出轨说事儿，这样信任才能慢慢恢复。

but for heather, or deceived partners, it is essential to do things that bring back a sense of self-worth, to surround oneself with love and with friends and activities that give back joy and meaning and identity. but even more important, is to curb the curiosity to mine for the sordid details -- where were you? where did you do it? how often? is she better than me in bed? -- questions that only inflict more pain, and keep you awake at night. and instead, switch to what i call the investigative questions, the ones that mine the meaning and the motives -- what did this affair mean for you? what were you able to e_press or e_perience there that you could no longer do with me? what was it like for you when you came home? what is it about us that you value? are you pleased this is over?

但对希瑟而言， 或者说被伤害的一方而言， 去做一些重拾自我价值的 事情十分必要， 比如同亲朋好友聚会， 感受他们的爱意， 多参加快乐有意义的活动，找回自我。 但更重要的是， 不要去纠结出轨的细节： 你们都去过哪里?在哪里做过? 多久见一次面?她在床上是不是比我棒? 这些问题只会带来更多痛苦， 让你彻夜难眠。 取而代之的，要问一些深层次的问题， 更关注行为的意义和动机： 这场婚外情对你意味着什么? 他(她)能给你哪些体会和经历 是在我这儿没法得到的? 你每次回到家有什么感觉? 对于我们的关系， 你最珍视的是什么? 结束婚外情你觉得开心吗?

every affair will redefine a relationship, and every couple will determine what the legacy of the affair will be. but affairs are here to stay, and they're not going away. and the dilemmas of love and desire, they don't yield just simple answers of black and white and good and bad, and victim and perpetrator. betrayal in a relationship comes in many forms. there are many ways that we betray our partner: with contempt, with neglect, with indifference, with violence. se_ual betrayal is only one way to hurt a partner. in other words, the victim of an affair is not always the victim of the marriage.

每一场婚外情都会重新定义一段婚姻， 每一对夫妻都将经历 婚外情给他们带来的影响。 但婚外情不会消失， 它将一直存在。 关于爱和欲望的困境， 不能简单地划分黑白和对错， 区分受害者和罪犯。 一段婚姻中的背叛可以有很多种形式。 我们背叛伴侣的方式很多： 藐视，忽视， 冷漠，暴力。(肉体)出轨只是伤害伴侣的方式之一。 换句话说，婚外情的受害者 并不一定是婚姻的受害者。

now, you've listened to me, and i know what you're thinking: she has a french accent, she must be pro-affair. (laughter) so, you're wrong. i am not french. (laughter) (applause) and i'm not pro-affair. but because i think that good can come out of an affair, i have often been asked this very strange question: would i ever recommend it? now, i would no more recommend you have an affair than i would recommend you have cancer, and yet we know that people who have been ill often talk about how their illness has yielded them a new perspective. the main question that i've been asked since i arrived at this conference when i said i would talk about infidelity is, for or against? i said, 'yes.'

听我说了这么多， 我知道你们在想什么： 她有法国口音，她肯定是个出轨老手。 (笑声) 但是，你们错了。 我不是法国人。 (笑声) (掌声) 我也不是出轨老手。 但是因为我经常说， 婚外情也有好的方面， 所以经常会有人问我一个奇怪的问题： 你有建议过别人出轨吗? 我当然不建议你们出轨， 就像我不建议你们得癌症一样， 尽管我们知道，有些患绝症的人 经常说疾病让他们 对世界有了新的看法。 自从我到达会场， 说我要谈婚外情的问题， 大家都问我，那你到底是赞成还是反对? 我说，“是的。”(既赞成又反对)

i look at affairs from a dual perspective: hurt and betrayal on one side, growth and self-discovery on the other -- what it did to you, and what it meant for me. and so when a couple comes to me in the aftermath of an affair that has been revealed, i will often tell them this: today in the west, most of us are going to have two or three relationships or marriages, and some of us are going to do it with the same person. your first marriage is over. would you like to create a second one together?thank you.

我将婚外情一分为二来看： 一方面是伤害和背叛， 另一方面是成长和自我发现。 婚外情给你带来了什么， 对我又意味着什么。 当婚外情被发现， 夫妻俩来找我， 我经常会告诉他们： 今天在西方社会， 大部分人会有2、3段恋情， 或者婚姻， 其中有些人是跟同一个人一起经历的。 你的第一段婚姻结束了， 你还愿意跟你的另一半 重新开始第二段吗?谢谢大家。

第11篇 ted英语演讲：为什么你总认为你是对的

演说题目：remember to say thank you why you think you're right -- even if you're wrong

演说者：julia galef

so i'm here to tell you that we have a problem with boys, and it's a serious problem with boys. their culture isn't working in schools, and i'm going to share with you ways that we can think about overcoming that problem. first, i want to start by saying, this is a boy, and this is a girl, and this is probably stereotypically what you think of as a boy and a girl. if i essentialize gender for you today, then you can dismiss what i have to say.

我在这儿是想告诉大家我们的对男孩的教育有问题，男孩子的教育是个严重问题。在学校，男孩文化没有形成。我要和大家分享我们关于这一问题的解决方法。首先，我首先想说，这是个男孩，这是个女孩。这可能是你刻板的关于男孩和女孩的想法。如果我今天要讲性别的事，然后大家可能不会理睬我要说的。

so i'd like you to imagine for a moment that you're a soldier in the heat of battle. maybe you're a roman foot soldier or a medieval archer or maybe you're a zulu warrior. regardless of your time and place, there are some things that are constant. your adrenaline is elevated, and your actions are stemming from these deeply ingrained refle_es, refle_es rooted in a need to protect yourself and your side and to defeat the enemy.

我想让你们想象一下，你是一个身处激烈战争中的士兵。也许你是一个罗马步兵或者中世纪的弓箭手, 或者是一个祖鲁勇士。不管你是处在怎样的时代和战场，有些东西是相同的。你的肾上腺素上升，而你的行动源于那些最原始的条件反射，那种出于保护自己和战友 并打败敌人的需求的条件反射。

so now, i'd like you to imagine playing a very different role, that of the scout. the scout's job is not to attack or defend. the scout's job is to understand. the scout is the one going out, mapping the terrain, identifying potential obstacles. and the scout may hope to learn that, say, there's a bridge in a convenient location across a river. but above all, the scout wants to know what's really there, as accurately as possible.

现在，再想象一下扮演一个完全不同的角色，那就是侦察员。侦察员的工作不是攻击或者防守。侦察员的工作是认清形势。侦察员是那些走出营地去测定地形、识别出可能的障碍的人。侦察员也许很希望刚好在合适的位置有一座桥可以跨过某条河。但更重要的是，侦察员想要弄清楚那里到底有什么，越精确越好。

and in a real, actual army, both the soldier and the scout are essential. but you can also think of each of these roles as a mindset -- a metaphor for how all of us process information and ideas in our daily lives. what i'm going to argue today is that having good judgment, making accurate predictions, making good decisions, is mostly about which mindset you're in.

在一支精良的队伍中， 士兵和侦察员都是必不可少的。但是你也可以把它们各自想象为一种思维模式——一种关于我们如何在日常生活中处理信息和想法的比喻。今天我将要讨论的是不管是拥有好的判断力，做出正确的预测，还是做出好的决策，几乎都跟你处于哪种思维模式相关。

to illustrate these mindsets in action, i'm going to take you back to 19th-century france, where this innocuous-looking piece of paper launched one of the biggest political scandals in history. it was discovered in 1894 by officers in the french general staff. it was torn up in a wastepaper basket, but when they pieced it back together, they discovered that someone in their ranks had been selling military secrets to germany.

为了举例说明这两种思维模式，我将带你们回到19世纪法国的一个地方。在那里，由这张看起来很普通的稿件，引发了历史上最大的政治丑闻之一。它是在1984年被法国总参谋部的军官发现的。被撕碎了扔在一个废纸篓里，但是当他们把它拼接起来后，发现他们中间有人在向德国出卖军事机密。

so they launched a big investigation, and their suspicions quickly converged on this man, alfred dreyfus.he had a sterling record, no past history of wrongdoing, no motive as far as they could tell. but dreyfus was the only jewish officer at that rank in the army, and unfortunately at this time, the french army was highly anti-semitic. they compared dreyfus's handwriting to that on the memo and concluded that it was a match, even though outside professional handwriting e_perts were much less confident in the similarity,but never mind that.

因此他们开展了深入的调查，然后他们的怀疑很快集中到了这个人身上，阿尔弗勒德·德雷福斯。他没有过任何不光彩的记录，没做过什么坏事，也没有所谓的动机。但是德雷福斯是军队里那个级别中的唯一犹太军官，并且不幸的是，那时的法军非常地反犹太。他们将德雷福斯的笔迹跟那张纸上的对照，然后得出了笔迹一致的结论，尽管外面的笔迹鉴定专家对此持怀疑态度， 但也于事无补。

they went and searched dreyfus's apartment, looking for any signs of espionage.they went through his files, and they didn't find anything. this just convinced them more that dreyfus was not only guilty, but sneaky as well, because clearly he had hidden all of the evidence before they had managed to get to it.

他们搜查了德雷福斯的寓所，寻找他从事间谍活动的蛛丝马迹。他们翻遍了他的文件，但一无所获。这使他们更加确信德雷福斯不仅有罪， 而且还很狡猾，因为很明显在他们搜查之前 他就隐藏了所有的证据。

ne_t, they went and looked through his personal history for any incriminating details. they talked to his teachers, they found that he had studied foreign languages in school, which clearly showed a desire to conspire with foreign governments later in life. his teachers also said that dreyfus was known for having a good memory, which was highly suspicious, right? you know, because a spy has to remember a lot of things.

接下来，他们审查了他的个人历史寻找任何能表明他有罪的细节。他们跟他的老师谈话。发现他在学校学过外语， 这清楚地表明了一种想要在以后的生活中跟外国政府相勾结的愿望。老师还说德雷福斯出了名的记忆力好，这不是非常可疑吗? 因为间谍需要记住很多东西。

so the case went to trial, and dreyfus was found guilty. afterwards, they took him out into this public square and ritualistically tore his insignia from his uniform and broke his sword in two. this was called the degradation of dreyfus. and they sentenced him to life imprisonment on the aptly named devil's island,which is this barren rock off the coast of south america. so there he went, and there he spent his days alone, writing letters and letters to the french government begging them to reopen his case so they could discover his innocence. but for the most part, france considered the matter closed.

因此经过审讯，德雷福斯被判有罪。然后，他们把他带到了公共广场，仪式性地撕下了他制服上的徽章，并折断了他的佩剑。这件事被称作德雷福斯冤案。他们判处他终身监禁，并将其押送到被称为魔鬼岛的地方服役，是个远离南美洲海岸贫瘠的岩石小岛。在那里，他一个人孤零零地生活，给法国政府写了一封又一封的信，乞求他们重审他的案子，并希望通过重审获得清白。但是在大多数情形下，法国政府都认为这件事已经结案。

one thing that's really interesting to me about the dreyfus affair is this question of why the officers were so convinced that dreyfus was guilty. i mean, you might even assume that they were setting him up, that they were intentionally framing him. but historians don't think that's what happened. as far as we can tell,the officers genuinely believed that the case against dreyfus was strong. which makes you wonder: what does it say about the human mind that we can find such paltry evidence to be compelling enough to convict a man?

在德雷福斯事件中让我真正感兴趣的一点是为什么这些军官会如此确信德雷福斯是有罪的。我是说，你可能以为他们是在给他设套，他们在故意地诬陷他。但是历史学家却不这样认为。据我们所知，这些军官由衷地相信德雷福斯是有罪的。这也就会使你感到好奇：如果在只有微不足道的证据的情况下我们就可以给一个人定罪，那么这对人类的思维来说意味着什么?

well, this is a case of what scientists call 'motivated reasoning.' it's this phenomenon in which our unconscious motivations, our desires and fears, shape the way we interpret information. some information, some ideas, feel like our allies. we want them to win. we want to defend them. and other information or ideas are the enemy, and we want to shoot them down. so this is why i call motivated reasoning, 'soldier mindset.'

然而，这就是科学家 称之为“动机性推理”一个案例。正是这种存在于我们无意识的动机以及我们的欲望和恐惧，塑造了我们解读信息的方式。有些信息和想法感觉就像是我们的盟友。我们希望它们能赢。我们想要保护它们。还有些信息和想法感觉就像是敌人，我们就想要打垮它们。这就是为什么我把动机性推理称作“士兵型思维模式”。

probably most of you have never persecuted a french-jewish officer for high treason, i assume, but maybe you've followed sports or politics, so you might have noticed that when the referee judges that your team committed a foul, for e_ample, you're highly motivated to find reasons why he's wrong. but if he judges that the other team committed a foul -- awesome! that's a good call, let's not e_amine it too closely.

可能你们大部分人从来都没有做过以叛国罪去迫害一个法籍犹太军官这样的事，没错吧，但很可能你关注过体育或者政治新闻，因此你大概注意过，举个例子来说，当裁判判你支持的 队伍犯规时，你会很积极地去找理由证明他的判罚是错的。但是当裁判判对方犯规时——太棒了!判得很正确，没必要深究了。

or, maybe you've read an article or a study that e_amined some controversial policy, like capital punishment. and, as researchers have demonstrated, if you support capital punishment and the study shows that it's not effective, then you're highly motivated to find all the reasons why the study was poorly designed. but if it shows that capital punishment works, it's a good study. and vice versa: if you don't support capital punishment, same thing.

也许你读过一些对于有关政策 有争议的文章或研究报告， 比如说关于死刑的。就像研究人员已经证实的一样，如果你支持死刑 而研究的结果却表明它并不能有效减少犯罪，那么你会很积极地寻找各种理由去证明这项研究有不妥之处。但是如果它表明死刑能够有效减少犯罪，那你就会认可这项研究。反之，如果你反对死刑，也一样。

our judgment is strongly influenced, unconsciously, by which side we want to win. and this is ubiquitous.this shapes how we think about our health, our relationships, how we decide how to vote, what we consider fair or ethical. what's most scary to me about motivated reasoning or soldier mindset, is how unconscious it is. we can think we're being objective and fair-minded and still wind up ruining the life of an innocent man.

我们的判断无意识地受到个人喜好的强烈影响。而且这种现象是普遍存在的。它影响着我们如何看待健康和人际关系，如何决定投谁的票，以及怎样看待公平或道德。关于动机性推理或者说士兵型思维模式，最让我觉得可怕的一点是它受潜意识影响之深。我们认为自己是客观公正的，但结果却是毁掉了一个无辜者的一生。

however, fortunately for dreyfus, his story is not over. this is colonel picquart. he's another high-ranking officer in the french army, and like most people, he assumed dreyfus was guilty. also like most people in the army, he was at least casually anti-semitic. but at a certain point, picquart began to suspect: 'what if we're all wrong about dreyfus?'

然而，幸运的是对于德雷福斯来说，一切还没结束。这是皮卡尔上校。他是法军中的另一个高级军官，像大多数人一样，他也认为德雷福斯有罪。跟军队中大多数人也一样，他至少表面上是反犹太的。但是在某个时间点上，皮卡尔开始怀疑：“如果我们所有人都错怪了德雷福斯呢?”

what happened was, he had discovered evidence that the spying for germany had continued, even after dreyfus was in prison. and he had also discovered that another officer in the army had handwriting that perfectly matched the memo, much closer than dreyfus's handwriting. so he brought these discoveries to his superiors, but to his dismay, they either didn't care or came up with elaborate rationalizations to e_plain his findings, like, 'well, all you've really shown, picquart, is that there's another spy who learned how to mimic dreyfus's handwriting, and he picked up the torch of spying after dreyfus left. but dreyfus is still guilty.'

当时的情况是，他发现了一些证据表明德国间谍的活动还在继续，即便是在德雷福斯入狱之后。他还发现军队中另一个军官的笔迹跟那张纸上的笔迹完全匹配， 比德雷福斯的笔迹更加相符。因此他带着这些疑点找到他的上级，令人沮丧的是，他们要么不在乎，要么提出一些精心编造，想当然的理由去解释他的发现。比如说，“嗯，你的发现刚好证明另一个间谍模仿了德雷福斯的笔迹，并且接替了德雷福斯的间谍位置。但是德雷福斯仍然是有罪的。”

eventually, picquart managed to get dreyfus e_onerated. but it took him 10 years, and for part of that time, he himself was in prison for the crime of disloyalty to the army.

最终，皮卡尔让德雷福斯重获清白。但是花了他20__年的时间， 而且在这期间他自己也以对军队不忠的罪名被投入了监狱。

a lot of people feel like picquart can't really be the hero of this story because he was an anti-semite and that's bad, which i agree with. but personally, for me, the fact that picquart was anti-semitic actually makes his actions more admirable, because he had the same prejudices, the same reasons to be biasedas his fellow officers, but his motivation to find the truth and uphold it trumped all of that.

很多人觉得，在这个故事中皮卡尔算不上真正的英雄，因为他反犹太，我也同意这是他不好的一点。但就我个人而言，正是因为他反犹太，才使得他的行为更令人软佩，因为他跟那些同僚带有相同的偏见，也有相同的理由去倾向于有罪结论，但是他那种找出并维护真相的动力战胜了一切。

so to me, picquart is a poster child for what i call 'scout mindset.' it's the drive not to make one idea win or another lose, but just to see what's really there as honestly and accurately as you can, even if it's not pretty or convenient or pleasant. this mindset is what i'm personally passionate about. and i've spent the last few years e_amining and trying to figure out what causes scout mindset. why are some people, sometimes at least, able to cut through their own prejudices and biases and motivations and just try to see the facts and the evidence as objectively as they can?

所以对我而言，皮卡尔就是我称之为 “侦察员型思维模式”中的典型代表。这不是非让两个想法分出输赢不可，而是尽可能诚实和准确地找出事实真相的一种驱动力，即使真相并不那么令人赏心悦目。这种思维模式是我个人所推崇的。过去几年我一直在调查并想找出侦察员型思维模式的成因。为什么有些人，至少在有些时候，能够去掉自己内心的歧视、偏见和倾向，而是尽可能尝试着客观地找出事实和证据。

and the answer is emotional. so, just as soldier mindset is rooted in emotions like defensiveness or tribalism, scout mindset is, too. it's just rooted in different emotions. for e_ample, scouts are curious.they're more likely to say they feel pleasure when they learn new information or an itch to solve a puzzle.they're more likely to feel intrigued when they encounter something that contradicts their e_pectations.

而答案就是情感。就像士兵型思维模式是出于像防御性和部落主义这样的情感，侦察员型思维模式也一样。只不过是来源于不同的情感。例如，侦察员都有很强的好奇心。他们更可能会因为获得新的信息或渴望解开一个谜题而感到开心。他们会对那些与他们的预期不相符的事情更感兴趣。

scouts also have different values. they're more likely to say they think it's virtuous to test your own beliefs, and they're less likely to say that someone who changes his mind seems weak. and above all, scouts are grounded, which means their self-worth as a person isn't tied to how right or wrong they are about any particular topic. so they can believe that capital punishment works. if studies come out showing that it doesn't, they can say, 'huh. looks like i might be wrong. doesn't mean i'm bad or stupid.'

侦察员也拥有不同的价值观。他们可能会觉得检验自己的信仰是一件善事，而可能不会说那些改变想法的人看起来很懦弱。总之，侦察员是以事实为根据的，也就是说他们的自我价值观不是跟他们在某个事件上的 对错绑在一起的。所以他们可能相信死刑能减少犯罪。 但如果研究表明它不能，他们可能会说“呵，看起来是我错了，但这并不说明我坏或者蠢。”

this cluster of traits is what researchers have found -- and i've also found anecdotally -- predicts good judgment. and the key takeaway i want to leave you with about those traits is that they're primarily not about how smart you are or about how much you know. in fact, they don't correlate very much with iq at all. they're about how you feel. there's a quote that i keep coming back to, by saint-e_upéry. he's the author of 'the little prince.' he said, 'if you want to build a ship, don't drum up your men to collect wood and give orders and distribute the work. instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.'

这就是研究人员所发现的特征——而且我也发现了——可以预测好的判断。而我想要强调的关于这些特征的关键点是它们根本上来说跟你有多聪明或者你知道多少无关。事实上，它们跟智商完全无关。它们跟你的感觉有关。我要引用圣埃克苏佩里的一句话。他是《小王子》的作者。他说，“如果你想造一艘船，不要雇人去收集木头，不要发号施令，也不要分配任务，而是去激发他们对海洋的渴望”。

in other words, i claim, if we really want to improve our judgment as individuals and as societies, what we need most is not more instruction in logic or rhetoric or probability or economics, even though those things are quite valuable. but what we most need to use those principles well is scout mindset. we need to change the way we feel. we need to learn how to feel proud instead of ashamed when we notice we might have been wrong about something. we need to learn how to feel intrigued instead of defensivewhen we encounter some information that contradicts our beliefs.

换句话说，我认为，如果我们真的想提高判断力，不管是作为个人还是作为社会，我们最需要的不是更多逻辑上，修辞上、概率上或者经济上的指导，即便这些东西也都很有价值。而我们要用好这些原理，最需要的就是侦察员型思维模式。我们需要改变我们感觉事物的方式。当我们注意到自己可能在某件事上出错了的时候，我们要感到自豪而不是羞愧。当我们遇到一些与我们的信仰相冲突的信息时，我们要学会感到好奇而不是抵触。

so the question i want to leave you with is: what do you most yearn for? do you yearn to defend your own beliefs? or do you yearn to see the world as clearly as you possibly can?

因此我想要留给你们的问题是：你最渴望什么?你是渴望保护你的信仰?还是渴望尽自己所能去看清这个世界?

thank you.(applause)

谢谢。(掌声)