為什么英語(yǔ)演講稿(11篇)

第1篇 ted英語(yǔ)演講稿：我們?yōu)槭裁匆X(jué)

簡(jiǎn)介：一生中，我們有三分之一的時(shí)間都在睡眠中度過(guò)。關(guān)于睡眠，你又了解多少?睡眠專(zhuān)家russell foster為我們解答為什么要睡覺(jué)，以及睡眠對(duì)健康的影響。

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英語(yǔ)演講稿：為什么_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英語(yǔ)演講稿：我們?yōu)槭裁纯鞓?lè)？

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英語(yǔ)演講稿：為什么節(jié)食減肥沒(méi)效果？

簡(jiǎn)介：在美國(guó)，80%的女孩在她們10歲的時(shí)候便開(kāi)始節(jié)食。神經(jīng)學(xué)家sandra aamodt結(jié)合自己的親身經(jīng)歷，講述大腦是如何控制我們的身體的。節(jié)食減肥為何沒(méi)效果?來(lái)聽(tīng)聽(tīng)她的說(shuō)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英語(yǔ)演講：為什么說(shuō)烏鴉的智商高到可怕

a thought e_periment on the intelligence of crows

演講者：joshua klein

/ 中英對(duì)照演講稿 /

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.

這里有多少人看過(guò)希區(qū)柯克的電影《鳥(niǎo)》?是不是認(rèn)為那片子太過(guò)離奇了?要是那樣的話，你現(xiàn)在可以走了。(笑聲) 大家看到的是一臺(tái)專(zhuān)門(mén)為烏鴉設(shè)計(jì)的自動(dòng)售貨機(jī)。 過(guò)去幾天，人們都在問(wèn)我同樣的問(wèn)題： “你怎么開(kāi)始搞這玩意的?有什么吸引你的地方嗎?” 說(shuō)實(shí)話，這玩意就像很多偉大的想法， 或者一些你無(wú)法在腦中驅(qū)散的想法一樣， 是從一次雞尾酒派對(duì)產(chǎn)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，我與一個(gè)朋友在一個(gè)雞尾酒派對(duì)上， 我們坐在那，他一直在抱怨烏鴉 烏鴉們把他的院子搞得一團(tuán)糟。 他那時(shí)很認(rèn)真的跟我說(shuō)，我們得想辦法消滅這些鬼東西， 否則我們就不會(huì)有好日子過(guò)。 我跟他說(shuō)，那才是壞主意呢， 咱們?yōu)楹尾挥?xùn)練它們，讓烏鴉幫我們?nèi)祟?lèi)做一點(diǎn)有意義的事情? 他丟給我一句“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.

我相信絕對(duì)不只我一人覺(jué)得這極度惱人——當(dāng)有人告訴你“那不可能”時(shí)。于是決定用20__年的時(shí)間在我的業(yè)余時(shí)間專(zhuān)門(mén)研究烏鴉。

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.

現(xiàn)在20__年過(guò)去了，我妻子說(shuō)， “好吧，你也該把它做出來(lái)了， 你不是一直說(shuō)要給烏鴉們做一個(gè)自動(dòng)售貨機(jī)么?” 于是我就把它做出來(lái)了。 但我對(duì)這個(gè)項(xiàng)目感興趣還有部分原因是因?yàn)?我開(kāi)始注意到我們?nèi)祟?lèi)已經(jīng)意識(shí)到 有很多物種因?yàn)槿祟?lèi)無(wú)止盡的擴(kuò)張 將會(huì)在地球上滅絕。 但貌似沒(méi)人對(duì)那些 還生存在世上的物種有所關(guān)心——它們都還真正地活著。 這里我指的是那些長(zhǎng)期與人共處， 并適應(yīng)了人類(lèi)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的動(dòng)物。 這樣的動(dòng)物包括老鼠、蟑螂、烏鴉。

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.

而假如你仔細(xì)觀察的話，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)所有的這類(lèi)動(dòng)物都已經(jīng)對(duì)人類(lèi)社會(huì)產(chǎn)生了高度的適應(yīng)性，并且隨著繼續(xù)與人生活在一起，它們的適應(yīng)性還加變得更強(qiáng)。但反觀人類(lèi)呢，我們只是一直在不斷屠殺它們而已。為了做到這點(diǎn)，人類(lèi)用喂養(yǎng)的方式來(lái)讓它們寄生于我們我們給了動(dòng)物們適應(yīng)新環(huán)境的各種理由。比如：老鼠的生育能力變得超強(qiáng)。而蟑螂，逮過(guò)蟑螂的人都知道，它們已經(jīng)不在乎我們的“誘餌”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，為何不制造出一些能讓我們?nèi)祟?lèi)和這些“寄生蟲(chóng)”共同受益的東西呢?以此和這些動(dòng)物建立一種新型的關(guān)系，一種互利的關(guān)系。從而讓人類(lèi)找到一條與其共處的新路子。這就是我制作動(dòng)物專(zhuān)用自動(dòng)售貨機(jī)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.

不過(guò)如果你多了解一下烏鴉，這個(gè)自動(dòng)售貨機(jī)的故事會(huì)更有趣。烏鴉們不僅僅是在人類(lèi)環(huán)境中‘生存’得不錯(cuò)——事實(shí)上，他們活得還很精彩。你在地球上任何一處角落——除了兩極和南美至南端——都可以見(jiàn)得到烏鴉。通常它們的棲息地離人類(lèi)居所不出5公里。雖然你也許不會(huì)想到這一點(diǎn)，可是它們確確實(shí)實(shí)一直都這么活在我們身邊。

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.

這也不奇怪，我們的地球上人口暴漲，其中有半數(shù)以上居住在城市。除此之外，90%的人口增長(zhǎng)就都發(fā)生在城市里——烏鴉這個(gè)種群也在經(jīng)歷同樣的發(fā)展。所以鳥(niǎo)類(lèi)的數(shù)量在我們看來(lái)將會(huì)有一個(gè)爆炸型的增長(zhǎng)，這并沒(méi)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.

但令我感到吃驚的是這些鳥(niǎo)兒竟然學(xué)會(huì)了通過(guò)一些奇特的方式在我們的社會(huì)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)的烏鴉。在森林里，它們會(huì)用樹(shù)枝從林木里挑出蟲(chóng)子和其他食物。此時(shí)它正嘗試用鐵線取出瓶子里的那塊肉。但是研究者們遇到了一個(gè)問(wèn)題。他們把試驗(yàn)搞砸了，因?yàn)橹涣粝铝艘桓€在那里。而betty以前可沒(méi)嘗試過(guò)這樣的挑戰(zhàn)。你可以看到，它進(jìn)行得并不順利。于是它想出了一個(gè)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，它沒(méi)有看到過(guò)別的烏鴉這么做。之前也沒(méi)有任何人或者別的烏鴉教它如何把線彎成鉤子;或者告訴過(guò)它可以通過(guò)這種方式撈肉。這完全是它自己想出來(lái)的辦法。請(qǐng)一定記得它以前從沒(méi)有學(xué)過(guò)的哦。就這樣。

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

對(duì)，就這樣。這才是研究人員覺(jué)得不可思議的地方。

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.

我們發(fā)現(xiàn)越來(lái)越多的證據(jù)表明烏鴉的確是聰明的，它們的大腦占軀體的比例和大猩猩相當(dāng)。 大家也可能聽(tīng)過(guò)各種各樣的關(guān)于烏鴉的趣聞吧。 比如，在瑞典， 那里的烏鴉會(huì)趁漁人往冰隙里放釣鉤的時(shí)候守在一邊， 當(dāng)漁人走了， 它們就飛過(guò)去拉起釣鉤，吃掉鉤上的魚(yú)或釣餌。 這可是搞得那里的漁人很煩惱。

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.

而在華盛頓大學(xué)，那里的研究員幾年前做了一個(gè)截然不同的實(shí)驗(yàn)。他們?cè)谛@里捉來(lái)一些烏鴉，在實(shí)驗(yàn)室里加以標(biāo)記、稱(chēng)量，然后把它們放走。而隨后的那個(gè)星期，他們驚喜地發(fā)現(xiàn)，那些被放走的烏鴉在校園里一見(jiàn)到那些捉過(guò)它們的學(xué)生，就會(huì)沖著他們鳴叫，并在他們周?chē)w來(lái)飛去，給他們的生活增添一些小煩惱。

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.

但之后幾個(gè)星期還是如此，他們就不再那么驚喜了。甚至到了下個(gè)月，到了夏季學(xué)期結(jié)束，到了他們畢業(yè)離校了——我相信他們是很高興地離去的——可當(dāng)他們偶爾回校來(lái)看看時(shí)，那些烏鴉還是記得他們。

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，千萬(wàn)別惹烏鴉。正是這樣的緣故，現(xiàn)在華盛頓大學(xué)做烏鴉研究的學(xué)生都帶上巨大的假發(fā)，還套上面具。

it's fairly interesting.

這真是令人啞然的一件事。

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.

以上說(shuō)的無(wú)非是要證明烏鴉是非常聰明的，但我研究得越是深入，越是覺(jué)得它們的智慧要比我們想象的高出一個(gè)層次。

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.

視頻：在新的城市環(huán)境中，烏鴉們的謀生技能正在變得越來(lái)越嫻熟。這是一座日本城市，這里的烏鴉發(fā)明了一種吃果仁的辦法——把堅(jiān)果丟到車(chē)道上。然后飛走， 等待汽車(chē)開(kāi)過(guò)。 之后它們?cè)隈R路邊等待綠燈， 然后飛到馬路中央安全地銜走那顆果仁

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，這是不是挺有趣的?不過(guò)，有趣的倒不是借助過(guò)往車(chē)輛壓開(kāi)果核的做法，事實(shí)上，烏鴉老早就學(xué)會(huì)了這門(mén)手藝了。剛才大家看到的景象發(fā)生在20__年前東京市郊的一家駕駛學(xué)校附近。從那時(shí)開(kāi)始， 附近的烏鴉也學(xué)會(huì)了這樣的吃堅(jiān)果的方式。 如今，方圓五公里內(nèi)的烏鴉都在人行道旁守候著， 等待過(guò)往車(chē)輛為他們帶來(lái)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.

烏鴉通過(guò)互相學(xué)習(xí)，都掌握了這種技巧。烏鴉父母還教會(huì)自己的孩子這樣的技巧呢。它們向同伴學(xué)習(xí)，也向它們的敵人學(xué)習(xí)。如果我還有更多演講時(shí)間，我會(huì)告訴你們一個(gè)有關(guān)烏鴉背信的案例來(lái)更好地證明我的觀點(diǎn)。最關(guān)鍵的是它們學(xué)會(huì)了適應(yīng)不同的生態(tài)文化。就如昨天我們聽(tīng)到的那樣，是潘多拉之盒將人類(lèi)引入混亂，現(xiàn)在是開(kāi)始著手解決它的時(shí)候了。他們能快速且融洽地適應(yīng)新的挑戰(zhàn)及環(huán)境中的新資源，對(duì)于城市生活來(lái)說(shuō)，這可真有用。

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，現(xiàn)在我們都知道城市里有大量的烏鴉，它們很聰明，還懂得相互間分享生存的秘訣。當(dāng)我知道這一切以后，我決定要專(zhuān)門(mén)為它們做一臺(tái)自動(dòng)售貨機(jī)。并且還做成功了。這就是烏鴉專(zhuān)用自動(dòng)售貨機(jī)：我們用斯金納(操作性條件反射)理論，分四階段訓(xùn)練法來(lái)訓(xùn)練烏鴉。其實(shí)也很簡(jiǎn)單。

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，我們把這樣的機(jī)器放到田野 或者烏鴉經(jīng)常出沒(méi)的地方。 在機(jī)器的底部放上一大堆的硬幣和花生。 烏鴉來(lái)了，吃掉機(jī)器上的花生， 并且也習(xí)慣了機(jī)器的存在。 吃光了地面的花生以后， 它們發(fā)現(xiàn)在售貨機(jī)的出貨口那里也有很多花生， 于是就跳到上面，也同樣盡享美味。 每一天，那機(jī)器上都會(huì)放滿(mǎn)了硬幣和花生。

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，要是當(dāng)那樣的一只烏鴉也不錯(cuò)喲， 每天都不愁吃的。當(dāng)它們都習(xí)慣這樣的生活或，我們繼續(xù)下一步我們等到烏鴉都習(xí)慣于機(jī)器的聲音，就把花生蓋在硬幣底下，它們飛過(guò)來(lái)，掀開(kāi)硬幣，就能吃得到花生，它們也挺開(kāi)心的。這時(shí)，我們決定給它們制造一些困難。

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.

我們開(kāi)始了第三階段的訓(xùn)練。只把一枚硬幣留在機(jī)器上，此時(shí)烏鴉飛過(guò)來(lái)，看到?jīng)]有食物，自然覺(jué)得很泄氣——我們?nèi)艘惨粯勇?。所以它們出于尋找食物的本能——用它的喙在機(jī)器上掃來(lái)掃去，不經(jīng)意的把硬幣碰到硬幣口里去了，于是它獲得了一顆花生。于是它們也學(xué)會(huì)了，每次都來(lái)這里， 只要把機(jī)器上的硬幣丟到硬幣口，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.

當(dāng)他們對(duì)此過(guò)程非常熟練及滿(mǎn)足以后，我們進(jìn)入訓(xùn)練的最后一個(gè)階段，它們來(lái)到機(jī)器旁邊，卻發(fā)現(xiàn)什么也沒(méi)有。注意，就是這個(gè)關(guān)鍵的地方可以看出烏鴉是多么聰明。要是一只松鼠，它來(lái)到機(jī)器旁，尋找花生，找不到，就走了隔天再來(lái)，又是沒(méi)有，又跑回去。如此反復(fù)五六次，它們也就覺(jué)得沒(méi)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.

而烏鴉則不一樣，它們要尋找出一個(gè)究竟。通過(guò)前面三個(gè)階段，并且這樣的玩笑越開(kāi)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.

它們覺(jué)得肯定還有更多方式獲得花生。它們又是用頭撞，又是用嘴咬。偶爾間有一些烏鴉想到了一個(gè)絕妙的主意：“嘿，大家還記得地面上放的那一大堆硬幣么?；蛟S有用呢?”——于是它們飛過(guò)來(lái)，銜起硬幣，扔進(jìn)投幣孔。它們發(fā)現(xiàn)了怎么吃得上花生了!這樣的技巧先是為第一批到來(lái)的烏鴉所壟斷，可慢慢的別的烏鴉也學(xué)會(huì)了……故事到此為止。

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.

從這個(gè)故事我們得出結(jié)論：我們可以訓(xùn)練烏鴉，讓它們通過(guò)售貨機(jī)吃上花生。你知不知道，每一年都有價(jià)值2.16億的硬幣丟在大街上。

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，當(dāng)然，我不是想靠烏鴉來(lái)賺錢(qián)。我們的眼光可以放遠(yuǎn)一點(diǎn)：我覺(jué)得我們可以訓(xùn)練烏鴉來(lái)做其他事。比如，為何不可以通過(guò)訓(xùn)練，讓烏鴉給體育館撿垃圾?或者讓它們幫助我們從大堆的廢棄電子元件里頭挑出有用的部件?又或者讓它們參與搜救工作?我這個(gè)演講的主要的一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)是我們可以尋找到一種與此類(lèi)動(dòng)物共存的途徑，我們能找到與其他族群共處的方式而不僅僅是滅絕它們，我們可以和它們實(shí)現(xiàn)共贏。

thanks very much.(applause)

非常感謝大家。 (掌聲)

第6篇 ted英語(yǔ)演講：我為什么要制造無(wú)用的東西

演講者：ivan joseph

| 中英對(duì)照演講稿 |

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。人們總是告訴你當(dāng)你在舞臺(tái)上感到緊張的時(shí)候，假想觀眾都沒(méi)穿衣服就好了。說(shuō)的就像這真能讓你感覺(jué)好點(diǎn)一樣。但是我一直在想——在20__年想象你們都沒(méi)穿衣服實(shí)在有點(diǎn)不太對(duì)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)

我們都有在努力克服這樣的問(wèn)題，所以我們需要一種新方法，來(lái)應(yīng)付舞臺(tái)恐懼癥。我意識(shí)到，我真正想要的是我能跟你們看著我一樣看著你們，只是為了公平一點(diǎn)。所以如果我有更多眼睛的話，那我們就都會(huì)很舒服，對(duì)吧?所以為了準(zhǔn)備這次演講我給自己做了件t恤(窸窸窣窣的聲音)

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)

這就是大眼睛t恤?；宋?4個(gè)小時(shí)，以及227個(gè)大眼睛貼片。能夠像你們看著我一樣看著你們這件事，其實(shí)只是我制作這件t恤的部分原因。另一半原因是我可以這么玩兒。(大眼睛t恤的響聲)

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?

我做過(guò)很多這樣的事。我發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個(gè)問(wèn)題，就會(huì)發(fā)明某個(gè)解決方法來(lái)應(yīng)對(duì)它。比如刷牙這件事：這就是一件大家都得做，但是又有點(diǎn)無(wú)聊的事，而且沒(méi)人真正喜歡刷牙。如果在座有7歲小朋友的話，他們肯定會(huì)大喊“就是這樣!”那么要不要來(lái)一臺(tái)自動(dòng)幫你刷牙的機(jī)器呢?

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

我給它取了名，叫做“牙刷頭盔”。(機(jī)器人的手臂聲)

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位牙醫(yī)中，有0位推薦了我的牙刷頭盔，它也肯定不算顛覆牙醫(yī)界的偉大發(fā)明，但它確實(shí)改變了我的生活。因?yàn)?年前我做出了這個(gè)頭盔，完成制作之后，我在客廳架起了攝像機(jī)，錄了一個(gè)7秒長(zhǎng)的頭盔操作視頻。

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.

現(xiàn)在，這成了一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的現(xiàn)代版童話：一個(gè)女孩在網(wǎng)上發(fā)帖，跟上了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)浪潮，數(shù)以千計(jì)的男人們涌進(jìn)評(píng)論區(qū)，邀請(qǐng)她進(jìn)入婚姻殿堂——而她無(wú)視了他們所有人，創(chuàng)立了一個(gè)youtube頻道，繼續(xù)搭建機(jī)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.

從那時(shí)起我在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上為自己發(fā)掘出了這么一個(gè)商機(jī)：無(wú)用機(jī)器發(fā)明者。因?yàn)榇蠹叶贾?，成為你所在行業(yè)頂尖人物的最簡(jiǎn)單方法，就是選擇一個(gè)非常小的行業(yè)。

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)

所以我在運(yùn)營(yíng)一個(gè)關(guān)于我的機(jī)器的youtube頻道，我有試過(guò)用無(wú)人機(jī)剪頭發(fā)——(無(wú)人機(jī)噪聲)(無(wú)人機(jī)墜毀)(無(wú)人機(jī)噪聲)

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

(video) simone: ow!

我還做過(guò)一臺(tái)鬧鐘機(jī)器——(鬧鈴聲)

(視頻)simone：噢!

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

還有這臺(tái)幫我切菜的機(jī)器。(切菜聲)

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.

我不是個(gè)工程師，我沒(méi)學(xué)過(guò)工程學(xué)，但我從小就是個(gè)特別有遠(yuǎn)大志向的學(xué)生。無(wú)論初中高中我一路拿的都是a，而且我畢業(yè)那年還是名列前茅的。但另一面是，我當(dāng)時(shí)有非常嚴(yán)重的表現(xiàn)焦慮。

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.

這是一封當(dāng)時(shí)我寫(xiě)給我兄弟的郵件?！澳悴粫?huì)明白，光是告訴你這件事，對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)有多難。實(shí)在是太難堪了。我不希望人們覺(jué)得我是個(gè)傻子。我現(xiàn)在居然還開(kāi)始哭了。真討厭?！眲e誤會(huì)，我可沒(méi)有不小心把爸媽的房子燒了。信里面那件讓我如此焦慮不安的事其實(shí)是，有一次數(shù)學(xué)測(cè)驗(yàn)我只拿了b。

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

所以這兩種情況之間一定發(fā)生了什么事情。其中一件是青春期的到來(lái)。

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.

非常美麗的時(shí)期。但除此之外，我開(kāi)始對(duì)搭建機(jī)器人感興趣，我還想自學(xué)硬件知識(shí)。但搭建需要硬件的東西，尤其是當(dāng)你是在自學(xué)的時(shí)候，是一件非常困難的事情。失敗幾率非常高，并且，這很有可能讓你覺(jué)得自己超級(jí)智障。而那就是我當(dāng)時(shí)最大的恐懼。

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.

所以我做了一個(gè)一定能保證100%成功率的設(shè)定。根據(jù)我的設(shè)定，失敗可能性幾乎為零。我打算再試著獲得成功，我要制作一個(gè)肯定失敗的機(jī)器。盡管我當(dāng)時(shí)并沒(méi)有意識(shí)到，但實(shí)際上，制作一無(wú)是處東西其實(shí)還是個(gè)挺聰明的點(diǎn)子。因?yàn)楫?dāng)我對(duì)硬件的學(xué)習(xí)更加深入的時(shí)候，我人生中第一次，不用應(yīng)對(duì)自我表現(xiàn)方面的焦慮。并且當(dāng)我卸除了所有對(duì)自己的壓力與期待后，壓力很快就被熱情取代，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，作為一個(gè)發(fā)明者，我對(duì)人們很難做到的事情很感興趣。可以是小事，大事，或者二者之間的事。而做一場(chǎng)ted演講，帶來(lái)了一系列我能解決的全新問(wèn)題。而發(fā)現(xiàn)問(wèn)題則是搭建一個(gè)無(wú)用機(jī)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.

在我來(lái)這里之前，我坐下來(lái)好好思考了一番演講時(shí)可能遇到的問(wèn)題：忘詞，沒(méi)人笑——說(shuō)的就是你哦?；蛘吒愕氖牵銈冃﹀e(cuò)地方了，這里你們其實(shí)是可以笑的，謝謝。

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.

或者我一緊張就會(huì)手抖，我還非常清楚這一點(diǎn)?；蛘呶业难澴永溡恢倍紱](méi)拉上，所有人都注意到了，就我沒(méi)有。但它是拉好的，所以沒(méi)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?'

我最擔(dān)心的就是手抖這個(gè)問(wèn)題了。我還記得我小時(shí)候在學(xué)校做演講時(shí)，我會(huì)在一張紙上準(zhǔn)備講稿，并將紙貼到一個(gè)筆記本上，這樣人們就看不出紙?jiān)陬澏读?。我做過(guò)很多演講。我知道你們中有一半聽(tīng)眾都可能這么想：“制作無(wú)用機(jī)器確實(shí)挺好玩，但這怎么可能是商機(jī)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.

演講就是其中的一部分，組織者一定會(huì)在講臺(tái)上給你放杯水，這樣你渴的時(shí)候就有水喝了。我每次都超級(jí)想喝那杯水，但我沒(méi)有勇氣拿起杯子，因?yàn)槿藗兛赡芫涂闯鑫业氖衷诙?。那么要不要?lái)一臺(tái)遞給你一杯水的機(jī)器呢?就賣(mài)給穿大眼睛t恤的那位緊張女孩!

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

實(shí)際上我得把這t恤脫了，因?yàn)槲矣袀€(gè)玩意兒要展示——(大眼睛們窸窸窣窣)

oh.(clanking)

噢(叮當(dāng)聲)

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.

我還是不知道給它起什么名字。就叫“頭部環(huán)繞儀”之類(lèi)的吧。因?yàn)檫@個(gè)平臺(tái)會(huì)繞著你的頭旋轉(zhuǎn)，你想放什么東西上去都可以。比如放一臺(tái)攝像機(jī)，你就可以拍到你整個(gè)頭部的照片。這是一臺(tái)非常多功能的機(jī)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。比如你們還可以把零食放上去啊，如果你想的話。我這有些爆米花。你就這么放一點(diǎn)上去。如果你想——這有一些科學(xué)的犧牲品——一些爆米花掉地上了。我們來(lái)繞個(gè)大圈吧。(機(jī)器聲)

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

這兒有只小手。你得把高度調(diào)整一下，聳聳肩就可以。

it has a little hand.(hand thwacks)

這就是小手。(手掌拍打聲)

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.

我把麥克風(fēng)拍掉了，但應(yīng)該沒(méi)事兒。好的，我先把爆米花咽下去，所以你們?cè)俟囊粫?huì)掌好了。這就像個(gè)私人迷你太陽(yáng)系，因?yàn)槲沂乔ъ淮?，所以我希望所有東西都圍著我轉(zhuǎn)。

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.

回到那杯水的問(wèn)題，那是我們來(lái)到這里的原因。我保證，它里頭還有——這杯子里面沒(méi)有水，抱歉。但我還得調(diào)整一下這個(gè)機(jī)器，因?yàn)槲疫€是得拿起杯子放到平臺(tái)上，但如果你的手在抖，沒(méi)有人能注意到了，因?yàn)槟闵砩险┲慌_(tái)很迷人的機(jī)器呢。

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

目前為止一切正常。很好。(機(jī)器聲)(歌聲)

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。連機(jī)器都會(huì)犯舞臺(tái)恐懼癥，是不是很讓人放松啊?它只是有一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)卡住。非常人性化哦。等一下，我們倒回去一點(diǎn)。然后——(玻璃杯觸地聲)

isn't it a beautiful time to be alive?

活在這個(gè)時(shí)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.

我的機(jī)器看起來(lái)像是在用工程學(xué)做簡(jiǎn)單的惡搞，但我意識(shí)到我觸及到了一些比這更重要的事。制造機(jī)器時(shí)往往無(wú)法表現(xiàn)得開(kāi)心或謙遜。對(duì)我而言，用這種方式學(xué)硬件，是不會(huì)受到表現(xiàn)焦慮癥干擾的。經(jīng)常有人問(wèn)我，我以后會(huì)不會(huì)制作一些有用的東西?可能有一天我會(huì)。

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.

但我覺(jué)得，我早已做到了。這份工作是我為自己創(chuàng)造出的。這是我無(wú)法計(jì)劃出來(lái)的?；蛘摺@是我永遠(yuǎn)也無(wú)法計(jì)劃出的。相反，這一切的發(fā)生只是因?yàn)槲覍?duì)這個(gè)工作充滿(mǎn)熱情，并且我在與他人分享我的熱情。

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.

對(duì)于我，那就是制作無(wú)用機(jī)器最美的部分。因?yàn)槟阋呀?jīng)承認(rèn)，你不一定知道最好的答案是什么。它讓你不再盲目認(rèn)為自己已經(jīng)完全了解世界怎么運(yùn)作?？赡芤慌_(tái)牙刷頭盔并不是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)答案，但至少你提出了問(wèn)題。

thank you.(applause)

謝謝。(掌聲)

第7篇 ted英語(yǔ)演講：找工作面試為什么過(guò)不去

找工作面試為什么過(guò)不去

演講者：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?

你的公司發(fā)布了一個(gè)公開(kāi)招聘的職位。申請(qǐng)表開(kāi)始滾滾而來(lái)，合格的候選人已被挑選出來(lái)?，F(xiàn)在開(kāi)始挑選。候選人a：常春藤盟校，績(jī)點(diǎn)4.0，完美的履歷，出色的推薦信。所有好的要素都具備。候選人b：公立學(xué)校畢業(yè)，碾轉(zhuǎn)于各種工作之間，甚至包括做收銀員和唱歌的服務(wù)生。不過(guò)請(qǐng)記得—— 兩位都是符合要求的。所以，我要問(wèn)問(wèn)你們：你們會(huì)選擇哪一位?

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 --

我和我的同事發(fā)明了一些非常正式的術(shù)語(yǔ)，來(lái)描述這兩個(gè)不同類(lèi)別的候選人。我們把 a 稱(chēng)為“含著金鑰匙(直譯為‘銀湯匙’)的人”，一個(gè)明顯具有優(yōu)勢(shì)，而且注定會(huì)成功的人。我們把 b 稱(chēng)為“拳擊手”，必須努力沖破重重難關(guān)才能實(shí)現(xiàn)同樣的目標(biāo)。你們剛剛聽(tīng)到了一個(gè)人力資源總監(jiān)將應(yīng)聘者比作 銀湯匙和拳擊手——

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

這聽(tīng)起來(lái)在政治上不太正確，而且還有些武斷。但在我的人力資源證書(shū)被吊銷(xiāo)前——讓我來(lái)解釋一下。

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.

一份簡(jiǎn)歷講述了一個(gè)故事。過(guò)去的那些年，我了解到那些經(jīng)歷好似拼布床單的人，會(huì)讓我在把他們的簡(jiǎn)歷扔掉前會(huì)停下來(lái)認(rèn)真地考慮一下他們。一系列雜亂的工作可能意味著易變，不專(zhuān)心，難以捉摸?；蛘?，它可能標(biāo)志著努力掙扎跨越障礙。至少，“拳擊手”應(yīng)該得到一次面試機(jī)會(huì)。

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?

不過(guò)我要強(qiáng)調(diào)一下，我并不排斥“銀湯匙”;能夠被精英大學(xué)錄取并順利畢業(yè)，同樣需要付出很多心血和犧牲。但是，如果你的一生都被設(shè)計(jì)為走向成功，你要如何應(yīng)對(duì)困難的時(shí)刻呢?一位我曾經(jīng)雇用過(guò)的人認(rèn)為，因?yàn)樗厴I(yè)于精英大學(xué)，某些類(lèi)型的工作對(duì)他而言是低下的，比如短時(shí)間從事體力勞動(dòng)以更好地了解公司運(yùn)作。最終，他離開(kāi)了。但是，另一方面，如果你的人生注定失敗，而你卻成功了，這是怎么回事呢?

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.'

我會(huì)建議你去面試“拳擊手”。我很了解這些， 因?yàn)槲易约壕褪且粋€(gè)“拳擊手”。 在我出生之前， 我的父親就被診斷為精神分裂癥， 他無(wú)法繼續(xù)工作 盡管他很有才華。 我們的生活就像“飛越瘋?cè)嗽骸保?“無(wú)語(yǔ)問(wèn)蒼天”， 和“美麗心靈”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.

我是一位單身母親五個(gè)孩子中的第四個(gè)，我們?cè)诩~約布魯克林一個(gè)混亂的街區(qū)生活。我們從未擁有過(guò)一個(gè)家，一輛車(chē)，或是一個(gè)洗衣機(jī)，在我童年的大部分時(shí)間，我們甚至沒(méi)有一部電話。因此我有很強(qiáng)的意愿去理解生意場(chǎng)的成功和“拳擊手”的關(guān)聯(lián)，因?yàn)槲业娜松苋菀拙蜁?huì)發(fā)展出不同的結(jié)局。我見(jiàn)過(guò)成功的商人，也閱讀過(guò)具備出色領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力的人的資料，我發(fā)現(xiàn)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.

他們中的很多人經(jīng)歷過(guò)早年的困頓，可能是貧窮，被拋棄，親人的早逝， 也可能是學(xué)習(xí)障礙，酗酒和暴力。傳統(tǒng)的思維認(rèn)為創(chuàng)傷會(huì)導(dǎo)致痛苦，而且還重點(diǎn)強(qiáng)調(diào)了失敗的結(jié)果。但在我研究這些不成功的案例期間，得到的數(shù)據(jù)卻揭示了一個(gè)出乎意料的結(jié)論：即便是最糟的境遇也能導(dǎo)致成長(zhǎng)和轉(zhuǎn)變。一個(gè)顯著但有悖常理的現(xiàn)象已經(jīng)被發(fā)現(xiàn)了，科學(xué)家們稱(chēng)之為“創(chuàng)后成長(zhǎng)”。

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.

在一項(xiàng)設(shè)計(jì)用來(lái)衡量逆境對(duì)困苦的孩子會(huì)產(chǎn)生怎樣影響的研究表明，在698位參與測(cè)試的孩子，在經(jīng)歷了最艱苦嚴(yán)苛的考驗(yàn)后，他們中的三分之一長(zhǎng)大后獲得了健康、成功以及豐富的人生。盡管經(jīng)歷了巨大的艱難，但最后還是成功了。有三分之一這么多。

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.

看看這份簡(jiǎn)歷。他被親生父母拋棄，交由他人收養(yǎng)。他沒(méi)有完成大學(xué)學(xué)業(yè)。他在某段時(shí)期頻繁跳槽，在印度逗留了一年，不止如此，他還有閱讀障礙。你會(huì)雇用他嗎? 他的名字是史蒂夫·喬布斯。

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.

一個(gè)對(duì)全球最成功企業(yè)家群體的研究表明，相當(dāng)數(shù)量的企業(yè)家有閱讀障礙。在美國(guó)， 35%的企業(yè)家有閱讀障礙。值得注意的是——這些企業(yè)家中那些經(jīng)歷過(guò)創(chuàng)后成長(zhǎng)的人， 成功后的他們將這樣的學(xué)習(xí)障礙看作是值得經(jīng)歷的困難，這樣的困難給予了他們優(yōu)勢(shì)，他們因此成為更好的聽(tīng)眾，并且更加關(guān)注細(xì)節(jié)。

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.

他們?cè)诮?jīng)歷逆境前， 并沒(méi)有看到自己的潛力， 而因?yàn)槟婢?，他們?zhǔn)確地定位了自己。 他們擁抱傷害和困頓， 這是他們成為成功企業(yè)家的關(guān)鍵要素， 他們知道，如果沒(méi)有這些經(jīng)歷， 他們也許沒(méi)有辦法發(fā)展出成功者 需要具備的勇氣和毅力。

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?yàn)橹袊?guó) 1966年的文化大革命，他的人生徹底顛覆了。在他13歲那年，他的父母被下放農(nóng)村，學(xué)校關(guān)閉了， 而他獨(dú)自在北京謀生， 直到16歲， 他在服裝廠找到了一份工作。 與其接受命運(yùn)， 他決心不如繼續(xù)完成學(xué)業(yè)。 20__年后，政治版圖改變了， 他聽(tīng)說(shuō)了一個(gè) 競(jìng)爭(zhēng)相當(dāng)激烈的大學(xué)入學(xué)考試。 他只有3個(gè)月來(lái)學(xué)習(xí)整個(gè)初中 以及高中的課程。

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，每天他從工廠回家后， 先睡一小覺(jué)，然后學(xué)習(xí)到凌晨四點(diǎn)， 回去工廠工作， 就這樣日復(fù)一日過(guò)了整整三個(gè)月。 他做到了，他成功了。 他繼續(xù)求學(xué)的決心非常堅(jiān)定， 也從未放棄希望。 今天，他擁有了碩士學(xué)位， 他的兩個(gè)女兒則分別畢業(yè)于 康奈爾大學(xué)和哈佛大學(xué)。

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.'

“拳擊手”被信念推動(dòng)向前進(jìn)，相信只有自己才能掌握自己的命運(yùn)。當(dāng)事情發(fā)展并不盡如人意，“拳擊手”會(huì)問(wèn)，“我能做些什么別的來(lái)創(chuàng)造一個(gè)更好的結(jié)果?”“拳擊手”有目標(biāo)意識(shí)，永不放棄自己， 如果你從貧窮，瘋狂的父親 和數(shù)次被搶劫的經(jīng)歷中存活下來(lái)， 你會(huì)覺(jué)得，“商業(yè)挑戰(zhàn)?——這還算事兒?jiǎn)?太簡(jiǎn)單了。我能搞定?！?/p>

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

這不禁讓我想起——幽默感?！叭瓝羰帧敝溃哪軌驇湍愣冗^(guò)最艱難的時(shí)刻，嘲笑你的人會(huì)幫助你改變對(duì)未來(lái)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，還有人際關(guān)系。那些克服困難的人并非一直單打獨(dú)斗。奮斗過(guò)程中的某時(shí)某刻，他們會(huì)遇到伯樂(lè)，以及在他們成功的道路上傾囊相助的人。不管發(fā)生什么事，總有一個(gè)人可以依靠，這是克服困境的關(guān)鍵。

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.

我很幸運(yùn)。 得到大學(xué)畢業(yè)后的第一份工作時(shí)，我還沒(méi)有車(chē)，所以我與人拼車(chē)，跨越兩座橋去上班，那位女士當(dāng)時(shí)還是總統(tǒng)助理。她看到我工作，并鼓勵(lì)我放眼未來(lái)，不要老是想著過(guò)去。一路走來(lái)我遇到了很多人，讓我懂得了忠言逆耳，他們都是我的良師益友。這些人并不在意 我曾經(jīng)是個(gè)為了支付上大學(xué)的開(kāi)銷(xiāo)而唱歌打工的女服務(wù)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.

最后再分享一個(gè)有價(jià)值的見(jiàn)解。那些致力于多樣化和包容開(kāi)放行為的公司更愿意去支持“拳擊手”，讓他們比同輩更出色?！抖嘣髽I(yè)》雜志的一項(xiàng)研究表明，最多元化的50家企業(yè)的運(yùn)營(yíng)表現(xiàn)超越了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)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.

那么回到我最初的問(wèn)題。你會(huì)將賭注放在誰(shuí)身上：“銀湯匙”還是“拳擊手”?我會(huì)選擇被低估的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者，他/她的秘密武器是激情和決心。

hire the scrapper.

請(qǐng)雇用'拳擊手'。

《找工作面試為什么過(guò)不去》觀后感

夏，剛剛從大學(xué)畢業(yè)。帶著一臉的稚氣與自信一頭鉆進(jìn)了人才交流市場(chǎng)。幾經(jīng)“爭(zhēng)戰(zhàn)”，終于來(lái)到了她心儀的公司進(jìn)行復(fù)試。

復(fù)試的人很多，有與夏一樣的大學(xué)生，也有年紀(jì)大一些的。大家都很緊張，緊緊盯著面試的那間屋子的大門(mén)。這時(shí)夏被叫了進(jìn)去?！罢?qǐng)問(wèn)，小姐你最看重的品質(zhì)是什么?”主考官發(fā)問(wèn)了。夏毫不猶豫地回答：“誠(chéng)實(shí)，有信用。”主考官滿(mǎn)意地點(diǎn)點(diǎn)頭。隨后又問(wèn)了一些

常規(guī)性的問(wèn)題，就讓夏回家等通知了。

夏很緊張，慌忙地拎著包下樓了，剛要出大門(mén)，有一個(gè)年輕人叫住了她，急喘喘地說(shuō)：“對(duì)不起，你是剛參加完面試的嗎?你是學(xué)財(cái)會(huì)的嗎?我們正需要驗(yàn)鈔機(jī)，可人手不夠，你能不能……”夏點(diǎn)了點(diǎn)頭，接過(guò)了那人遞過(guò)來(lái)的兩千元。夏很好奇，怎么會(huì)這么放心就給了我兩千元，但又不好問(wèn)，夏轉(zhuǎn)身就走了。

八月的天氣，驕陽(yáng)似火，太陽(yáng)在太空炫耀著自己的激情，云早就不知道躲在什么地方納涼了。夏奔波于各大商場(chǎng)，卻沒(méi)發(fā)現(xiàn)物美價(jià)廉的驗(yàn)鈔機(jī)。終于在一個(gè)私人電器行里，她發(fā)現(xiàn)了一部最新的，而價(jià)格也很公道。夏買(mǎi)下了它。

“小姐，發(fā)票開(kāi)多少錢(qián)?”老板問(wèn)她?！伴_(kāi)多少錢(qián)?”夏不明白了，難道不是是多少寫(xiě)多少?老板看出她的驚訝，嘿嘿地笑了兩聲，“你想開(kāi)多少都行，報(bào)了銷(xiāo)不就成你的了。”看著老板扭曲的臉，她感到一陣?yán)湟庵睕_頭頂，她搖了搖頭。

她回到公司，發(fā)現(xiàn)每個(gè)人都抱著一部驗(yàn)鈔機(jī)，主考官站在其中，仔細(xì)巡視每一張發(fā)票?！靶湃巍薄昂闷妗币幌伦酉亩济靼琢?。別人的發(fā)票金額都比夏高好多，所以夏通過(guò)了復(fù)試。

她被領(lǐng)到寫(xiě)字間，來(lái)到她的座位上。旁邊站著一個(gè)正在收拾東西的女孩，女孩看了她一眼冷笑道：“這么快，又來(lái)了一位，勸你一句，在這兒干必須聽(tīng)話，做賬不是看數(shù)，而是看人?！毕挠质且荒橌@愕。“慢慢你就懂了，你也有這一天。”女孩丟下一句話，不屑地走了。夏眼前又浮現(xiàn)出電器行老板扭曲的笑臉。

看看手里剛發(fā)的工作證，忽然有種莫名的氣憤。她將工作證及抽屜匙一起放在桌面上，旁邊附著一張紙，只有兩個(gè)字：“誠(chéng)信”。

她離開(kāi)了那，消失在燦爛的陽(yáng)光里。

第8篇 ted英語(yǔ)演講：我們?yōu)槭裁纯鞓?lè)

演說(shuō)題目：我們?yōu)槭裁纯鞓?lè)

演說(shuō)者：丹·吉爾伯特

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?

相對(duì)二十一分鐘的演講來(lái)說(shuō)，兩百萬(wàn)年顯得非常漫長(zhǎng)。但是從進(jìn)化的角度來(lái)看，兩百萬(wàn)年只是一瞬間。在兩百萬(wàn)年中，大腦腦容量從我們祖先能人的1.25磅，增大了近三倍成了現(xiàn)在的3磅。自然給予我們的大腦有什么特別之處呢?

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?

當(dāng)我們的腦量擴(kuò)大三倍的時(shí)候，大腦不僅僅在體積上有了改變，它在結(jié)構(gòu)上也發(fā)生了變化。我們大腦變大的最大原因就是它有了新的一部分，叫做額葉。其中尤為重要的是前額葉外皮。是什么讓前額葉外皮成人腦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.

腦前額葉外皮有很多功能，其中最重要的是它擁有一種創(chuàng)造模擬經(jīng)驗(yàn)的功能。飛行員利用在飛行模擬器中的訓(xùn)練來(lái)防止在真實(shí)飛行中產(chǎn)生失誤。人類(lèi)有驚人的適應(yīng)性，他們可以在大腦中體驗(yàn)未曾真實(shí)經(jīng)歷的東西。這個(gè)技巧是我們的祖先們都不會(huì)的，也沒(méi)有任何動(dòng)物會(huì)。 這種適應(yīng)性真不可思議!這一特征和對(duì)生拇指，直立行走以及語(yǔ)言使我們從樹(shù)上進(jìn)化到了購(gòu)物中心。

(laughter)

(笑聲)

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.

現(xiàn)在--我們大家都能做這些。我的意思是，比如本和杰瑞(一個(gè)冰激凌連鎖店)沒(méi)有肝和洋蔥口味的冰激淋。并不是因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)囎隽艘幌?，嘗了嘗，而后“yuck” (表示惡心)。而是因?yàn)槟阕谝巫由暇涂梢韵胂蟾魏脱笫[的口味的冰激淋是怎樣惡心了。

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.

讓我們來(lái)看看經(jīng)驗(yàn)?zāi)M器是如何工作的。在我繼續(xù)我的演說(shuō)之前讓我們來(lái)做一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)短的試驗(yàn)。這里有兩個(gè)不同的未來(lái)，我想邀請(qǐng)你們一起來(lái)參與。你可以幻想這兩種未來(lái)，看看你更喜歡哪一種。第一種未來(lái)是贏了價(jià)值3.14億美元的彩票。第二種是截癱。

(laughter)

(笑聲)

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

我給你們幾分鐘考慮一下。你也許覺(jué)得根本不用考慮。

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!

這里有一些很有趣的數(shù)據(jù)。這些數(shù)據(jù)顯示了這兩組人到底有多快樂(lè)。是不是這正如你們所料?可其實(shí)這是我胡謅的數(shù)據(jù)。

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.

這才是真正的數(shù)據(jù)。你們都沒(méi)有通過(guò)突擊測(cè)試。這堂課開(kāi)始還不到5分鐘呢。事實(shí)是，在失去雙腿一年之后，和在贏了彩票一年之后，中彩票的人和截癱患者的快樂(lè)程度幾乎相同。

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.

現(xiàn)在，不要為沒(méi)有通過(guò)突擊測(cè)試而沮喪了。因?yàn)閹缀鯖](méi)有人能通過(guò)這項(xiàng)突擊測(cè)試。我實(shí)驗(yàn)室所做的研究，還有全國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家和心理學(xué)家所做的研究顯示了一種讓人吃驚的東西。我們稱(chēng)它為影響偏差。這是指人腦的模擬功能有犯錯(cuò)誤的傾向。模擬器會(huì)夸大事物的不同結(jié)果而這些結(jié)果實(shí)際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.

現(xiàn)場(chǎng)研究和實(shí)驗(yàn)室研究都顯示選舉的輸贏，伴侶的得失，提升與否，考試成敗等等，對(duì)我們的影響及影響的時(shí)間長(zhǎng)短都比人們想象的少。事實(shí)上，最新的研究幾乎讓我都迷惑了。最新的研究顯示，發(fā)生在三個(gè)月以前的重大的創(chuàng)傷，除了少數(shù)個(gè)別例子對(duì)你今日的快樂(lè)幾乎沒(méi)有影響。

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?

這是為什么?因?yàn)榭鞓?lè)是可以人工合成的。托馬斯·布朗在1642年寫(xiě)到：“我是世界上最快樂(lè)的人。我可以將貧窮變?yōu)楦挥?，將逆境變?yōu)轫樉场Ｎ冶劝⑵胬锼?achilles)更無(wú)懈可擊，我用不著幸運(yùn)的眷顧?！笔鞘裁戳α孔屗绱藦?qiáng)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.

這種力量是我們每個(gè)人都有。人類(lèi)具有一種心理免疫系統(tǒng)。這個(gè)系統(tǒng)通是一個(gè)認(rèn)知過(guò)程，基本上是無(wú)意識(shí)的認(rèn)知過(guò)程，這種認(rèn)知可以改變?nèi)藗儗?duì)世界的認(rèn)識(shí)，讓人們感到自己的生活美好。像托馬斯爵士一樣，你也具有這樣的能力。與托馬斯爵士不同的是，你還沒(méi)有意識(shí)到你有這種能力。

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.

我們都可以自己制造快樂(lè)，盡管我們一直以為快樂(lè)是一種需要苦苦追尋的東西?，F(xiàn)在，我想你不用我舉太多人們自己合成快樂(lè)的例子，不過(guò)我還是想給你們看一下一些實(shí)驗(yàn)證據(jù)，你并不用太費(fèi)勁地尋求證據(jù)。我上課時(shí)說(shuō)過(guò)要自我挑戰(zhàn)，因此我隨便拿了一份紐約時(shí)報(bào)，試著從中尋找人們?nèi)斯ず铣煽鞓?lè)的例子。這里有三個(gè)例子?！拔椰F(xiàn)在在心理上，經(jīng)濟(jì)上，感情上和精神上各方面都比以前好?！薄拔覜](méi)有一分鐘后悔過(guò)?！薄斑@個(gè)經(jīng)歷太榮耀了?！薄拔蚁嘈攀虑橄蜃詈玫姆较虬l(fā)展?！?/p>

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.

誰(shuí)如此快樂(lè)?第一位是吉姆·萊特(jim wright)。年紀(jì)大一點(diǎn)的人可能記得：他是眾議院主席。他失去了一切。因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)名叫牛特·金瑞奇(newt gingrich)的年輕共和黨黨員發(fā)現(xiàn)了他的一樁黑幕交易事件， 萊特被迫辭職。這個(gè)在美國(guó)最有權(quán)的民主黨黨員失去了一切。他失去了金錢(qián)，權(quán)利。這么多年后，他是怎么看待這些的?“我現(xiàn)在在心理上，經(jīng)濟(jì)上，感情上和精神上等各方面都比以前好?！弊詈眠€能好成怎樣?植物上?礦物上?動(dòng)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.

你可能從來(lái)沒(méi)有聽(tīng)說(shuō)過(guò)莫里斯·比克漢(moreese bickham)。莫里斯·比克漢出獄后說(shuō)了這樣的話。他七十八歲了。他因?yàn)橐豁?xiàng)錯(cuò)誤的判決在路易斯安那監(jiān)獄坐了三十七年牢。他最終在七十八歲時(shí)通過(guò)了dna測(cè)驗(yàn)確認(rèn)無(wú)罪才被釋放。他是這樣描繪他的這些經(jīng)歷的呢?“我從來(lái)沒(méi)有一分鐘后悔。這個(gè)經(jīng)歷太榮耀了。榮耀!”這個(gè)人不是在說(shuō)：“監(jiān)獄里有些人還是不錯(cuò)的。那里還有一個(gè)健身房?！彼f(shuō)的是“榮耀!”我們通常專(zhuān)門(mén)用這個(gè)詞語(yǔ)來(lái)形容跟宗教相關(guān)的經(jīng)歷。

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)說(shuō)了這些。他本可以成為一個(gè)家喻戶(hù)曉的人物。在1949年，他在報(bào)上看到關(guān)于麥當(dāng)勞兄弟擁有的一家漢堡小攤的報(bào)道。他立馬想到“這是一個(gè)好主意!”他找到了麥當(dāng)勞兄弟。他們同意道：“給我們$3000， 我們就讓你開(kāi)連鎖店?！惫锘氐郊~約，向他在投行工作的哥哥借$3000。他哥哥勸慰道：“你真是一個(gè)傻瓜。沒(méi)人會(huì)吃漢堡的?！彼麤](méi)有借到錢(qián)。6個(gè)月之后，瑞·克羅克(ray croc)也有了同樣的想法。結(jié)果是人們喜歡吃漢堡，瑞·克羅克一時(shí)成為巨富。

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，你們也許會(huì)認(rèn)出年輕的比特·貝斯特(pete best),他是甲殼蟲(chóng)樂(lè)隊(duì)早期的一位鼓手。他們借故丟下了他，讓林格(ringo)入伙。1994年比特·貝斯特接受采訪的時(shí)候，-是的，他還是一名鼓手;是的，他還是一名音樂(lè)家 --他說(shuō)到：“要是留在甲殼蟲(chóng)樂(lè)隊(duì)，我不會(huì)這么快樂(lè)。”

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。我們可以從這些人身上學(xué)到很重要的東西。那是快樂(lè)的秘訣。讓我們總結(jié)一下。一：積聚財(cái)富，權(quán)利和威望，然后失去這些東西。

(laughter)

(笑聲)

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

二：把牢底坐穿。

(laughter)

(笑聲)

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

三：讓他人成為巨富。最后：千萬(wàn)別加入甲殼蟲(chóng)樂(lè)隊(duì)。

(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.'

(笑聲)我像澤.法蘭克(ze frank)一樣可以猜想到你會(huì)想什么。你們?cè)谙搿芭叮前?。”因?yàn)楫?dāng)人們像以上例舉的人一樣去合成快樂(lè)時(shí)，我們會(huì)沖他們微笑，同時(shí)會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)動(dòng)著眼睛說(shuō)：“哦，是吧。你從來(lái)沒(méi)有真正想要那份工作?！薄芭?，是的，你本來(lái)就和她沒(méi)有什么共同點(diǎn)，你知道這點(diǎn)時(shí)，她也差不多要把訂婚戒指取下來(lái)扔給你。”我們假笑是因?yàn)槲覀兿嘈藕铣傻目鞓?lè)比不上天然的快樂(lè)。

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.

什么是天然的快樂(lè)和人工合成的快樂(lè)?天然的快樂(lè)是得到我們渴求的東西。人工合成的快樂(lè)則是在得不到我們渴求的東西時(shí)，自己制造出來(lái)的東西。現(xiàn)在這個(gè)社會(huì)堅(jiān)信人工合成的快樂(lè)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.

為什么人們有這樣的觀點(diǎn)?那很簡(jiǎn)單。如果我們都相信得到或得不到自己想要的東西都能一樣快樂(lè)，那經(jīng)濟(jì)引擎還如何高速運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)?先讓我向馬修·理查德(matthieu ricard)表示歉意，要是光顧商場(chǎng)的都是和尚，那么這些商場(chǎng)豈不是都不賺錢(qián)了?因?yàn)楹蜕型ǔ６紱](méi)有什么物質(zhì)需求。

(laughter)

(笑聲)

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.

我想告訴你們的是，人工合成的快樂(lè)是真實(shí)而持久的。它和那種因?yàn)榈玫轿覀兛是蟮臇|西而感受到的快樂(lè)一樣。我是一個(gè)科學(xué)家。我不光是說(shuō)一些好聽(tīng)的結(jié)論，我還要向你們提供一些數(shù)據(jù)。

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.

第一個(gè)試驗(yàn)證據(jù)顯示了普通人的人工合成的快樂(lè)。這不是我的試驗(yàn)。這個(gè)50年前做的實(shí)驗(yàn)叫做自由選擇。它很簡(jiǎn)單。你有6件物品。你讓受試者把這6件物品按照他們的喜愛(ài)程度排序。在這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)中我們用6幅莫奈的畫(huà)。每個(gè)人都把畫(huà)按照他們最喜歡的到最不喜歡的排列?，F(xiàn)在我們給你一個(gè)選擇。“我們正好有一些多余的畫(huà)。我們將把畫(huà)作為獎(jiǎng)品給你。我們正好有三號(hào)和四號(hào)畫(huà)?！边@個(gè)選擇有點(diǎn)困難，因?yàn)槭茉囌邔?duì)兩幅畫(huà)的喜愛(ài)程度相當(dāng)。很自然，人們都傾向于選擇三號(hào)。因?yàn)樗麄兏矚g三號(hào)。

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.

過(guò)了一段時(shí)間之后 - 這可能是15分鐘，也可能是15天。對(duì)同樣的畫(huà)，我們叫受試者對(duì)同樣的畫(huà)再一次排序?！案嬖V我們你現(xiàn)在有多喜歡這些畫(huà)了?”結(jié)果怎樣?快樂(lè)被人工合成了。我們反復(fù)進(jìn)行了同樣的實(shí)驗(yàn)。你看到快樂(lè)被合成了吧!你還想看一下嗎?快樂(lè)!“我有的這張比我預(yù)想的還要好。我得不到的那張，其實(shí)不怎么樣。”這就是人工合成的快樂(lè)。

(laughter)

(笑聲)

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.

現(xiàn)在你怎么想呢?“哦，是吧!”這是我們做的實(shí)驗(yàn)。我希望這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)?zāi)軌蜃屇阆嘈拧芭叮菃?”不是正確的答案。

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.

我們跟患有健忘癥的病人做了同樣的實(shí)驗(yàn)。這些都是住院病人。大多數(shù)人都患有柯薩可夫(korsakoff)綜合征，這是一種由于飲酒過(guò)度而造成的多發(fā)神經(jīng)炎精神癥?；颊哂洸蛔⌒掳l(fā)生的事情。明白嗎?他們能記得他們的童年，但是如果你自我介紹，然后離開(kāi)房間，當(dāng)你很快回到他們身邊時(shí)，他們不會(huì)記得你是誰(shuí)。

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.

我們把莫奈的畫(huà)拿到醫(yī)院去。讓病人們來(lái)對(duì)他們按照喜愛(ài)的程度排序。然后我們讓他們選擇三號(hào)或者四號(hào)畫(huà)。像很多人一樣，他們說(shuō)：“哇，真太好了! 謝謝你。 我有一幅新的畫(huà)了。我要三號(hào)?！蔽覀兘忉屨f(shuō)，我們會(huì)把三號(hào)郵寄給他們。然后我們收起東西，離開(kāi)了病人的房間。半個(gè)小時(shí)后，

(laughter)

(笑聲)

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.'

我們回去：“嘿，我們回來(lái)了。”病人們說(shuō)：“啊，醫(yī)生，非常抱歉，我有一點(diǎn)記憶的毛病，所以才住院的。如果我們見(jiàn)過(guò)面，我恐怕不能記得了?！薄芭?，是嗎，吉姆，你不記得了?我剛剛帶了幾幅莫奈的畫(huà)到這兒來(lái)的?！薄皩?duì)不起，醫(yī)生，我真的不記得了。”“沒(méi)關(guān)系，吉姆。我只是想讓你把這些畫(huà)按照你喜愛(ài)的程度排序?！?/p>

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.

他們?cè)趺醋隽?先讓我們確認(rèn)他們是真的患有健忘癥。我們讓這些病人告訴我們他們有哪幅畫(huà)，他們上次選了哪幅畫(huà)，哪幅是他們的。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)健忘癥病人純粹在猜。如果是正常對(duì)照者，如果我這樣問(wèn)你你們都記得你選擇了那幅畫(huà)。但是這些健忘癥病人，他們一點(diǎn)都不記得了。他們不能從一堆畫(huà)中選出我送他們的那張。

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.

這是一般人做的：他們?nèi)斯ず铣煽鞓?lè)。是吧?這是喜愛(ài)程度的變化。第一次排序到第二次排序的變化。平常人的數(shù)據(jù)顯示--這正是我要向你們展示的‘魔法’現(xiàn)在我們用圖形來(lái)顯示這個(gè)變化?！拔矣械谋任蚁氲倪€好。我沒(méi)擁有的，其實(shí)并不怎么樣。”健忘癥病人也做了同樣的事。想想這個(gè)結(jié)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.

這些病人更喜歡他們有的，雖然他們并不知道自己擁有這個(gè)?！芭?，真的嗎?”-你對(duì)此表示不屑?當(dāng)人們合成快樂(lè)時(shí)，他們真正的，真實(shí)的從感情上和審美角度上改變了對(duì)那幅畫(huà)的看法。他們這么說(shuō)不僅僅是因?yàn)樗麄儞碛羞@幅畫(huà)，他們其實(shí)并不記得自己有那幅畫(huà)。

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.

現(xiàn)在，當(dāng)心理學(xué)家給你們看這些圖形，你知道他們是在顯示平均數(shù)據(jù)。我們大家都有這個(gè)心理免疫系統(tǒng)，和人工合成快樂(lè)的能力。但是我們中的一些人比另外一些人對(duì)這樣的竅門(mén)掌握的更好。同時(shí)，人們的心理免疫系統(tǒng)在某些特定環(huán)境下能比在其他情況下運(yùn)行的更有效。自由，決斷力和改變決定的能力是幫助我們獲得天然快樂(lè)的朋友。它能讓你從各種可能情況中選擇你最喜歡的那種。但是自由選擇決斷力和改變決定的能力-是人工合成快樂(lè)的敵人。

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.

我來(lái)解釋這是為什么。當(dāng)然，呆伯特(dilbert)已經(jīng)知道了。你一邊看卡通，一邊聽(tīng)我說(shuō)?！癲ogbert技術(shù)支持中心。我該怎么說(shuō)你?”“我的打印機(jī)在每個(gè)文件打印完畢后都會(huì)出一張白紙?！薄澳銥槭裁匆г沟玫矫赓M(fèi)的紙呢?”“免費(fèi)的?這本來(lái)就是我的紙啊?”“哎，老兄，看看這些免費(fèi)的紙的質(zhì)量和那些普通的紙!只有傻子和騙子才會(huì)說(shuō)它們是一樣的?！薄鞍?在你說(shuō)了之后，這些紙看上去是要光滑一些?！薄澳阍诟墒裁?”“我在幫助這些人接受他們不能改變的現(xiàn)實(shí)?！钡拇_是這樣。

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.

心理免疫系統(tǒng)在我們沒(méi)有其他選擇時(shí)最有效。這就是約會(huì)和婚姻的區(qū)別，是吧?你出去和一個(gè)男人約會(huì)，他扣扣鼻孔，你就不會(huì)跟他在約會(huì)了。如果你們結(jié)婚了，他扣扣鼻孔。嗯， 他有金子一般的心。別動(dòng)那個(gè)水果蛋糕。是吧?你自我開(kāi)導(dǎo)，滿(mǎn)于現(xiàn)狀。

(laughter)

(笑聲)

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.

現(xiàn)在我告訴你，如果人們不了解自己，不知道他們有這個(gè)心理免疫系統(tǒng)，他們可能做一些很錯(cuò)誤的決定。

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.'

這是我們?cè)诠鸫髮W(xué)做的一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)。我們開(kāi)設(shè)了黑白攝影課程。學(xué)生們來(lái)學(xué)習(xí)如何使用暗室。我們給他們相機(jī)。他們?cè)谛@中采景。每人能拍12張照片。他們拍了他們最喜歡的教授，寢室，他們的狗等等。任何留給他們哈佛回憶的東西，都可以拍。然后他們把相機(jī)給我們。我們做了一個(gè)膠片印出的小樣。他們選出最好的兩張。然后我們用了6個(gè)小時(shí)教他們?nèi)绾问褂冒凳?。他們自己把兩張照片映出?lái)。他們有了兩張極有紀(jì)念意義的8_10的照片。我們問(wèn)“哪一張你不要?”他們問(wèn)：“我不能兩張都要嗎?”“噢，不能。我們需要一張來(lái)留底。因此你必須放棄一張。你一定要做一個(gè)決定。你留一張，我留一張?！?/p>

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.

現(xiàn)在，這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)又分為兩種。第一種情況，學(xué)生們被告知，“你知道，如果你改變了主意，另外一張還在我這里。我要四天以后才把這些照片寄到總部去。我很樂(lè)意。是的，“總部”。我很樂(lè)意跟你換。事實(shí)上，我會(huì)把照片送到你的寢室來(lái)?yè)Q，只要發(fā)電郵給我就行了?；蛘呶視?huì)聯(lián)系你。只要你改變了主意，我們可以換照片?！逼渌膶W(xué)生被告知的正好相反：“選一張照片。順便說(shuō)一下，另外一張照片馬上就要寄到英國(guó)去。你的照片要漂洋過(guò)海。你再也見(jiàn)不到它了?！比缓?， 我們讓每組中一半的學(xué)生來(lái)預(yù)測(cè)他們對(duì)留下的照片和送走的照片的喜愛(ài)程度會(huì)如何。其他的學(xué)生回到他們的寢室。我們測(cè)量了在后來(lái)的三到六天之中，他們對(duì)照片的喜愛(ài)和滿(mǎn)意程度?？纯次覀儼l(fā)現(xiàn)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，這里是學(xué)生們覺(jué)得事情會(huì)怎樣。他們想他們可能會(huì)更喜歡他們選擇的照片，而不是留給我們的那一張。但是這算不上是統(tǒng)計(jì)上的顯著差異。差異很小，能不能換照片影響并不大。

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.

錯(cuò)啦!這一次模擬器工作得很不好!實(shí)際上，在交換以前和5天后，那些沒(méi)有交換權(quán)，不能選擇,不能更改決定的學(xué)生，非常喜歡他們的照片。另外的學(xué)生則在深思熟慮?！拔覒?yīng)該換照片嗎?我選了好的那張嗎?也許這張并不好?交給老師的那張或許更好?”這些問(wèn)題簡(jiǎn)直折磨人。他們不喜歡他們的照片。事實(shí)上，甚至在交換期結(jié)束后，他們還是不喜歡自己的照片。為什么?因?yàn)榭赡孓D(zhuǎn)的選擇不利于人工合成的快樂(lè)。

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.

這里是這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)的最后一部分。我們找了新的一批天真的哈佛學(xué)生。我們告訴他們：“我們將開(kāi)設(shè)攝影課程，我們有兩種方案。一是你拍兩張照片，然后有四天來(lái)選擇保留哪張照片。另外一種是你拍攝兩張照片，然后當(dāng)機(jī)立斷做選擇。一但做了選擇，你就不能更改。你愿意選擇那種方式?”啊! 66%的學(xué)生，差不多三分之二更愿意加入那個(gè)可以改變選擇的。喂!66%的學(xué)生選擇了那個(gè)讓他們最終將非常不滿(mǎn)意照片的方案。因?yàn)樗麄儾恢涝谑裁礂l件下，人工合成快樂(lè)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.

莎士比亞說(shuō)的正好反映了我的看法。他說(shuō)的有點(diǎn)夸張。“事無(wú)善惡.思想使然?！边@是美麗的詩(shī)句，但是并不一定全對(duì)。事真的無(wú)善惡之分嗎?膽囊手術(shù)真的和到巴黎旅行一樣嗎?(笑聲)這聽(tīng)上去想一個(gè)iq測(cè)試題。他們并不完全一樣。

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.

現(xiàn)代資本主義之父，亞當(dāng)·斯密(adam smith)， 用浮華卻更貼近事實(shí)的語(yǔ)言闡述如下。這是值得思考的。“人生中的悲劇與無(wú)序之源，似乎皆來(lái)源于人們過(guò)高地評(píng)估某種時(shí)局，誠(chéng)然，某些時(shí)局確實(shí)值得人們追求，但是，不管這種追求有多大的合理性，我們都不可因這種癡情的追求而打破謹(jǐn)慎、公正的法則，亦不可破壞我們未來(lái)的心境。因?yàn)榧偃缥覀冋娴哪敲醋?，我們必有一天?huì)憶及當(dāng)日的愚昧，或者是因?yàn)樽约涸?jīng)的偏私而感到后悔?！庇昧硪痪湓捳f(shuō)：沒(méi)錯(cuò)，生活中確實(shí)存在某些事物比別的事物更有價(jià)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.

我們確實(shí)應(yīng)該追求價(jià)值更高的東西。但是，假如我們過(guò)分看重不同選擇之間的差異，因而拼命的追求我們想要的東西時(shí)，我們就可能面臨危險(xiǎn)。當(dāng)我們的追求不是無(wú)節(jié)制的時(shí)候，我們可以生活的快樂(lè)。當(dāng)我們的追求不受節(jié)制的時(shí)候，我們會(huì)生活得很痛苦，甚至?xí)テ墼p，偷竊，傷害他人，更甚至是犧牲真正有價(jià)值的東西。當(dāng)我們畏懼受控制時(shí)，我們會(huì)行事謹(jǐn)慎、三思而后行。當(dāng)我們的畏懼失去節(jié)制并無(wú)限膨脹的時(shí)候，我們會(huì)變得魯莽大意，或者膽小如鼠。

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.

最后用一句話來(lái)概括我們從這些數(shù)據(jù)中學(xué)到的東西：我們每個(gè)人的期望與擔(dān)憂(yōu)在一定程度上都被夸大了，通過(guò)選擇感受，我們自己可以生產(chǎn)出我們所不懈追求的那樣?xùn)|西。

thank you.(applause)

謝謝。(掌聲)

第9篇 ted英語(yǔ)演講：你為什么窮

你為什么窮

演講者：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?

我想用一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的問(wèn)題開(kāi)始今天的話題，為什么窮人會(huì)做出這么差勁的決定，我知道這是個(gè)尖銳的問(wèn)題，讓我們來(lái)看一下數(shù)據(jù)，窮人借錢(qián)更多，儲(chǔ)蓄更少，抽煙更多，飲酒更多，鍛煉更少，而且飲食更為不健康，這是為什么呢?

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.

標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的解釋是英國(guó)首相撒切爾夫人曾經(jīng)總結(jié)過(guò)的，她把貧窮稱(chēng)之為“個(gè)性缺陷”，基本上就是缺乏某種個(gè)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會(huì)有很多人這么大膽的說(shuō)，但是‘窮人自身有問(wèn)題’這個(gè)概念，不單是撒切爾夫人提出的，有人可能會(huì)認(rèn)為窮人應(yīng)該對(duì)自己犯的錯(cuò)負(fù)責(zé)，另一些人可能會(huì)說(shuō)我們應(yīng)該幫他們做出更好的決定，但是這兩種觀點(diǎn)背后的假設(shè)都是一樣的，就是他們是有問(wèn)題的，如果我們可以改造他們，如果我們可以教導(dǎo)他們?nèi)绾紊睿绻麄兡苈?tīng)從教導(dǎo)的話。

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.

老實(shí)說(shuō)，有很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間，我也是這么想的，幾年前，我才發(fā)現(xiàn)，我之前自以為對(duì)貧窮的所有了解都是錯(cuò)的。一次我無(wú)意中看到幾個(gè)美國(guó)心理學(xué)家的論文，才恍然大悟。為了一個(gè)異想天開(kāi)的研究，他們不遠(yuǎn)萬(wàn)里去到印度，他們用蔗糖農(nóng)民做了一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)。請(qǐng)大家了解這些農(nóng)民年收入的百分之六十是一次性獲得的，就在收割季之后，也就是說(shuō)在一年中的一段時(shí)間，他們會(huì)比較貧困。

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.

研究人員請(qǐng)他們?cè)谑崭钋昂蠓謩e做一次智商測(cè)試，他們的發(fā)現(xiàn)完全顛覆了我的三觀，在收割前農(nóng)民們的智商測(cè)試得分要低得多，結(jié)果顯示，生活貧困的影響會(huì)反映為智商測(cè)試得分平均低了14分，為了讓大家對(duì)這個(gè)分?jǐn)?shù)有個(gè)概念，這就相當(dāng)于失眠一整夜或酒精的影響。

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.

幾個(gè)月后，我聽(tīng)說(shuō)，普林斯頓大學(xué)教授以及本研究的作者之一，艾爾達(dá)·夏菲爾要來(lái)我住的荷蘭了，于是我們?cè)诎⒛匪固氐ひ?jiàn)了面，討論了他關(guān)于貧窮的革命性的新理論，我可以用兩個(gè)字總結(jié)，稀缺性心態(tài)，結(jié)果顯示，當(dāng)人們認(rèn)為某個(gè)東西稀缺的話，行為方式就會(huì)改變，這個(gè)東西是什么并不重要，有可能是時(shí)間金錢(qián)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.

大家都知道這種感覺(jué)，如果你手上有太多事情要做，或是你吃午餐時(shí)間推遲了血糖水平急劇下降，這會(huì)讓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，五分鐘后就要開(kāi)的會(huì)或是明天必須付清的賬單，‘看的長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)’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.

可以把這種情況比作一臺(tái)新電腦，同時(shí)運(yùn)行十個(gè)繁重的程序，電腦就會(huì)變的越來(lái)越慢，會(huì)出錯(cuò)，最終會(huì)死機(jī)，不是因?yàn)檫@臺(tái)電腦不好，而是因?yàn)樗淮涡砸幚硖鄡?nèi)容了。窮人的問(wèn)題是一樣的，他們不是因?yàn)橛薮?做出了愚蠢的決定，而是因?yàn)樵谒麄兩畹哪欠N環(huán)境下，任何人都有可能做出愚蠢的決定。

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.

因此我突然能夠理解，為什么現(xiàn)在很多扶貧項(xiàng)目都沒(méi)用，例如很多教育投入都是完全無(wú)效的，貧窮并不是缺少知識(shí)。最近一個(gè)關(guān)于財(cái)富管理訓(xùn)練有效性的201項(xiàng)研究的分析，得到了一個(gè)結(jié)論，即訓(xùn)練幾乎完全無(wú)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.'

請(qǐng)不要誤會(huì)，不是說(shuō)窮人什么也學(xué)不到，當(dāng)然，經(jīng)過(guò)訓(xùn)練后，他們會(huì)更明智，但這樣還不夠，或者就像夏菲爾教授跟我說(shuō)的，“這就像教會(huì)人游泳，然后就把他們?nèi)赃M(jìn)驚濤駭浪的大海里”。

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.

我還記得當(dāng)時(shí)自己坐在那里，十分困惑，讓我備受打擊的是，我們?cè)驹趲资昵熬蛻?yīng)該想明白這件事，心理學(xué)家不需要做那些復(fù)雜的腦部掃描，只需要測(cè)評(píng)農(nóng)夫的智商，而智商測(cè)評(píng)早在一百多年前就有了，實(shí)際上，我發(fā)現(xiàn)自己以前就已經(jīng)看過(guò)關(guān)于貧窮的心理學(xué)。

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.'

喬治﹒奧威爾是在世最偉大的作家之一，他在上世紀(jì)二十年代曾親身經(jīng)歷過(guò)貧窮，當(dāng)時(shí)他這樣寫(xiě)道‘貧窮的本質(zhì)’在于他‘消滅了未來(lái)’，用他的話來(lái)說(shuō)，他對(duì)下面這種事很驚訝，“一旦你的收入降到某個(gè)水平以下，人們就非常理所當(dāng)然地認(rèn)為，他們有權(quán)向你說(shuō)教，為你祈禱”，直到今天，這段話仍能引起共鳴。當(dāng)然了，主要問(wèn)題在于，怎么辦呢?

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.

現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家躍躍欲試幾個(gè)方案，我們可以幫窮人做文件工作，或者給他們發(fā)短信提醒他們付賬單，現(xiàn)在政治家很喜歡用這類(lèi)方案，主要是因?yàn)槌杀編缀鯖](méi)有。我認(rèn)為這些方案就是我們這個(gè)時(shí)代的一個(gè)標(biāo)志，也就是我們常常只管治標(biāo)，卻忽略了治本。

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，為什么我們不去改變窮人的生活環(huán)境呢?或者，再說(shuō)回剛才講的電腦類(lèi)比理論，既然增加內(nèi)存就能簡(jiǎn)單解決的問(wèn)題，何必非要不停地修改軟件呢?在那當(dāng)下，夏菲爾教授的回答是茫然的眼神，過(guò)了幾秒鐘，他說(shuō)，“我懂了，你是說(shuō)你想直接給窮人錢(qián)來(lái)根除貧窮，當(dāng)然了，這樣倒是挺好。但我恐怕你在阿姆斯特丹得到的這種左翼政治思想在美國(guó)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.

可這真的是過(guò)時(shí)的左翼想法嗎?我記得曾經(jīng)看過(guò)一個(gè)老計(jì)劃，是歷史上頂尖的思想家曾經(jīng)提出來(lái)的，早在五百年前的哲學(xué)家托馬斯﹒莫爾，就率先在其著作《烏托邦》中提出了，這個(gè)理論的支持者左翼和右翼人士都有，從民權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)家馬丁﹒路德﹒金到經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家米爾頓﹒弗里德曼，這是一個(gè)極其簡(jiǎn)單的理論：基本所得保障理論。

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.

很簡(jiǎn)單，就是每個(gè)月能保證你基本需求的收入，食物、住所、教育，完全是無(wú)條件的，因此沒(méi)人會(huì)跟你說(shuō)必須做到什么才能得到，沒(méi)人會(huì)跟你說(shuō)，你必須用這個(gè)來(lái)做什么，基本收入不是恩惠而是權(quán)力，絕對(duì)沒(méi)有任何附加條件。

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.

在我了解了貧窮的真相以后，我不禁想知道，這是我們所有人一直在等待的理論嗎?真的會(huì)這么簡(jiǎn)單嗎?隨后三年，我把所有能找到的關(guān)于基本所得的資料都看了，研究了全球范圍內(nèi)所做的數(shù)十個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)，沒(méi)過(guò)多久，我就發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個(gè)小鎮(zhèn)的故事，這個(gè)小鎮(zhèn)做到了真的根除了貧窮，可是另一方面，幾乎所有人都忘了這個(gè)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.

故事發(fā)生在加拿大多芬，1974年這個(gè)小鎮(zhèn)里的每一個(gè)人，都得到了基本所得保障，確保了所有人都不會(huì)落入貧困線以下，在這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)的最初，一隊(duì)研究人員來(lái)到小鎮(zhèn)，四年里一切順利，可是后來(lái)選出了一個(gè)新政府執(zhí)政，新任加拿大內(nèi)閣認(rèn)為這個(gè)昂貴的實(shí)驗(yàn)毫無(wú)意義。

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.

因此最后竟然沒(méi)有資金來(lái)對(duì)實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果進(jìn)行分析，于是研究人員把檔案用兩千個(gè)箱子收起來(lái)。二十五年過(guò)去后，加拿大一位教授伊芙琳﹒法爾熱，發(fā)現(xiàn)了這些記錄，她花了三年時(shí)間，把這些數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行了各種類(lèi)型的統(tǒng)計(jì)分析，無(wú)論她怎么試，每一次的結(jié)果都是一樣的，這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)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﹒法爾熱發(fā)現(xiàn)，多芬的人民不僅變得更為富有，還更加聰明和健康，孩子在學(xué)校的成績(jī)大幅提高，住院率則下降了百分之八點(diǎn)五，家庭暴力事件下降，心理健康投訴也下降了，而且人們并沒(méi)有辭掉工作，唯一稍微減少了一點(diǎn)勞動(dòng)的是初為人母的女性和學(xué)生，因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)趯W(xué)校里待的時(shí)間更多了。之后，全球范圍內(nèi)，無(wú)數(shù)的實(shí)驗(yàn)都得到了類(lèi)似的結(jié)果，從美國(guó)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，當(dāng)說(shuō)到貧窮問(wèn)題時(shí)，我們這些富人應(yīng)該停止假裝自己最懂，我們應(yīng)該停止給那些我們從沒(méi)見(jiàn)過(guò)的窮人送鞋子和玩具，我們應(yīng)該消除慣有的家長(zhǎng)式官僚主義作風(fēng)，我們可以直接把他們的薪水轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)給他們本該幫助的窮人。

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?yàn)榻疱X(qián)最大的好處就是讓人們能買(mǎi)自己需要的東西，而不是那些自以為是的專(zhuān)家認(rèn)為他們需要的東西。想想看，有多少杰出的科學(xué)家企業(yè)家以及像喬治﹒奧威爾那樣的作家，現(xiàn)在正因稀缺而消失。想想看，如果我們能一次性永久根除貧窮，那么我們能釋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.

我認(rèn)為基本所得 對(duì)人們所起的作用就像風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資，而我們承受不起不這樣做的后果，因?yàn)樨毟F非常昂貴，就比如說(shuō)美國(guó)因?yàn)樨毨和a(chǎn)生的費(fèi)用吧，由于不斷增加的醫(yī)療費(fèi)用、輟學(xué)率以及犯罪率，每年預(yù)計(jì)要在這上面花費(fèi)五千億美金，這是人類(lèi)潛能驚人的浪費(fèi)。

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.

再來(lái)說(shuō)說(shuō)那個(gè)顯而易見(jiàn)的問(wèn)題吧，我們?nèi)绾呜?fù)擔(dān)基本所得保障呢?其實(shí)費(fèi)用可能比大家想象的要低得多，多芬采取的措施是實(shí)行負(fù)所得稅，也就是說(shuō)，一旦你落入貧困線以下，就補(bǔ)充你的收入，如果實(shí)行這樣的措施，根據(jù)我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家“最好的預(yù)估”，凈成本為一千七百五十億美元，僅為美國(guó)軍費(fèi)支出的四分之一，gdp的百分之一，就能把所有貧困的美國(guó)人拉到貧困線以上，可以真正地根除貧窮。這應(yīng)該是我們的目標(biāo)。

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動(dòng)的時(shí)代已經(jīng)過(guò)去了，我堅(jiān)信這個(gè)時(shí)代要引來(lái)徹底的新思路，基本所得不僅僅是一項(xiàng)政策，更是對(duì)工作真正的意義的全新思考。從這個(gè)意義上來(lái)說(shuō)，它不僅能解放窮人，還能解放其他人。

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.'

如今數(shù)百萬(wàn)人覺(jué)得自己的工作毫無(wú)意義，最近有一項(xiàng)對(duì)142個(gè)國(guó)家二十三萬(wàn)名雇員的調(diào)研顯示，僅有百分之十三的員工真心喜歡自己的工作，另一項(xiàng)調(diào)研發(fā)現(xiàn)有百分之三十七的英國(guó)工人認(rèn)為他們所做的工作毫無(wú)存在的必要。就像布拉德﹒皮特在《搏擊俱樂(lè)部》里說(shuō)的“我們常做討厭的工作，然后賺錢(qián)買(mǎi)不需要的東西”。

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.

請(qǐng)不要誤會(huì)，我在這里說(shuō)的不是教師、清潔工還有護(hù)工，如果他們不再工作，我們就麻煩了，我說(shuō)是那些簡(jiǎn)歷很好看從事著高收入職業(yè)的人，他們賺錢(qián)是靠在關(guān)系網(wǎng)社會(huì)中在集思廣益討論破壞性共創(chuàng)的附件價(jià)值時(shí)，舉辦策略性交易點(diǎn)對(duì)點(diǎn)會(huì)議或之類(lèi)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.'

再次想想看我們浪費(fèi)了多少才能，僅僅因?yàn)槲覀兏⒆觽冋f(shuō)他們將必須‘討生活’，或是想想幾年前一個(gè)在臉書(shū)工作的數(shù)學(xué)天才的哀嘆，“我這一代最優(yōu)秀的頭腦都在考慮讓人們?nèi)绾吸c(diǎn)擊廣告”。

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.

我是個(gè)歷史學(xué)家，如果說(shuō)歷史教會(huì)了我們什么，那就是事情是可以改變的。如今我們構(gòu)建社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)的方式，沒(méi)有什么是必然的，思想可以而且依然改變了世界。我認(rèn)為，特別是在過(guò)去幾年，情況已經(jīng)十分清楚了，我們不能在現(xiàn)狀里固步自封，我們需要新思想。

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)

我們知道很多人可能會(huì)感到悲觀，認(rèn)為未來(lái)不平等會(huì)加劇，排外和氣候變化會(huì)更為惡劣，但只是了解我們面臨的困難是不夠的，我們還需要做好準(zhǔn)備，馬丁﹒路德﹒金說(shuō)的可不是“我有個(gè)噩夢(mèng)”，他有個(gè)夢(mèng)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，這就是我的夢(mèng)想，我相信未來(lái)你的工作價(jià)值不再由薪水所決定，而是由你傳播出去的快樂(lè)和你所賦予的意義所決定，我相信未來(lái)教育的意義不再是培養(yǎng)你去做無(wú)用的工作而是培養(yǎng)你度過(guò)美好的人生，我相信未來(lái)沒(méi)有貧困的生活不再是一種特權(quán)，而是所有人都享有的權(quán)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.

在這里，我們有了研究有了證據(jù)，我們還有了方法，在托馬斯﹒莫爾第一次寫(xiě)了基本所得的五百多年后，在喬治﹒奧威爾發(fā)現(xiàn)了貧窮的真相的一百多年后，我們都需要改變自己的世界觀，因?yàn)樨毟F不是缺少性格，貧窮是缺錢(qián)。

thank you.

謝謝!

《你為什么窮》觀后感

“我救了19條生命，可有誰(shuí)來(lái)救救我的命------”一個(gè)農(nóng)民在死前躺在病床上不斷喃喃的重復(fù)這句話。這個(gè)農(nóng)民叫金有樹(shù)，是重慶一個(gè)普通的人，幾年前因跳水救了19名落水者而留下了病根。面對(duì)巨額的醫(yī)療費(fèi)用，他不斷地向親朋好友借債------可還是沒(méi)有足夠的費(fèi)用，只得向政府申請(qǐng)救助款，可是卻毫無(wú)回應(yīng)。最終，自己只得在無(wú)奈中結(jié)束了生命。這是一個(gè)救人英雄的悲哀，更是一貧困農(nóng)民的悲哀。

我想，如果金有樹(shù)不是一個(gè)貧窮的農(nóng)民，而是一位官員、一名警察，那幫政府官員可能，不，是肯定會(huì)在第一時(shí)間給他救助款，還會(huì)大肆地宣傳他的英雄事跡。

可惜他什么也不是，至少在那幫官員眼中，他只是一個(gè)卑微的、毫無(wú)價(jià)值的普通農(nóng)民。金有樹(shù)之死，一個(gè)英雄的死，這是一種社會(huì)良知的死。

有誰(shuí)知道，有一種悲哀叫貧困?在這漫漫的社會(huì)道路上，我們還有許多事要做。我們要多為貧困人民想想，我們不僅要用錢(qián)物去援助他們，更應(yīng)讓整個(gè)社會(huì)來(lái)關(guān)注他們，讓他們擺脫這種“貧窮的悲哀”。

第10篇 ted英語(yǔ)演講：幸福的人為什么會(huì)出軌

幸福的人為什么會(huì)出軌

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?

我們?yōu)楹纬鲕? 為何幸福之人也會(huì)出軌? 我們所謂的“不忠”到底指的是什么? 是一夜情?愛(ài)情故事? 有償性服務(wù)?私聊? 還是特殊按摩服務(wù)? 為什么我們認(rèn)為男人出軌 是因?yàn)閷で蟠碳せ蚴呛ε掠H密關(guān)系， 而女人出軌是因?yàn)楣陋?dú) 或是渴求親密關(guān)系? 婚外情是不是意味著婚姻已走到盡頭?

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.

在過(guò)去十年間，我走遍世界 走訪了數(shù)百對(duì)夫妻， 他們都因出軌而心力交瘁。 婚外情毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)是一種越軌行為， 它離間夫妻關(guān)系， 破壞家庭幸福，衍生信任危機(jī)。 然而，我們對(duì)這一普遍現(xiàn)象的 理解卻極其有限。 因此我將這次演講 獻(xiàn)給所有經(jīng)歷過(guò)愛(ài)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?

婚外情自婚姻誕生之日起就存在了， 我們對(duì)婚外情的反對(duì)亦是如此。 實(shí)際上，婚外情比婚姻頑強(qiáng)多了， 婚姻只有嫉妒的份兒， 以至于它成為了圣經(jīng)的戒律， 并且重復(fù)出現(xiàn)兩次： 一次是不準(zhǔn)做， 另一次是連想都不準(zhǔn)想。 (笑聲) 那我們究竟如何處理出軌， 這一屢禁不止的現(xiàn)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.

自古以來(lái)，男人出軌是被允許的， 幾乎不用承擔(dān)什么后果， 甚至還有生物理論和進(jìn)化理論 來(lái)為他們撐腰， 這一雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)自婚外情 誕生之日起就存在了。 但在床上到底發(fā)生了什么， 其實(shí)誰(shuí)也不清楚，對(duì)吧? 因?yàn)橐徽劦叫裕?男人可以夸夸奇談，自吹自擂， 而女人卻要遮遮掩掩。 難以置信的是， 如今仍有9個(gè)國(guó)家的女性會(huì)因出軌而被處死。

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， 曾經(jīng)指的是“一輩子一個(gè)”，而現(xiàn)在指的是“每次一個(gè)”。(笑聲)(掌聲)我想，在座有很多人可能說(shuō)過(guò)，“我在每段關(guān)系里都遵守一夫一妻制”。(笑聲)過(guò)去我們先結(jié)婚，再初嘗禁果。 而現(xiàn)在，我們先結(jié)婚，然后停止與別人發(fā)生關(guān)系。實(shí)際上一夫一妻制已經(jīng)與愛(ài)情無(wú)關(guān)。男人根據(jù)女人是否忠誠(chéng)，來(lái)判斷孩子是不是自己的，進(jìn)而決定遺產(chǎn)歸誰(shuí)。

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， 出軌的人到底占多少百分比。 從我到達(dá)現(xiàn)場(chǎng)， 就不停有人問(wèn)這個(gè)問(wèn)題。 (笑聲) 這跟你們也有關(guān)系。 因?yàn)槌鲕壍暮x在不斷擴(kuò)大： 發(fā)色情短信，看黃片， 在約會(huì)軟件上玩曖昧。 正因?yàn)槿狈σ粋€(gè)統(tǒng)一的定義， 到底什么才算出軌， 因此這個(gè)百分比范圍很廣， 從26%到75%。 但與此相矛盾的是， 有95%的人認(rèn)為， 另一半試圖掩蓋 出軌的事實(shí)是不可饒恕的， 但差不多同樣多的人也會(huì)說(shuō)： 如果我出軌的話肯定也不會(huì)聲張。 (笑聲)

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.

我傾向于這樣來(lái)定義婚外情， 它包含三個(gè)要素： 首先是遮遮掩掩的關(guān)系， 這是婚外情的核心; 二是擁有某種程度上的感情聯(lián)系; 三是性幻想。 性吸引是這里的關(guān)鍵詞， 對(duì)于性高潮而言，即便是想象出來(lái)的親吻， 也和數(shù)小時(shí)的翻云覆雨， 擁有同樣的魔力。 如馬塞爾?普魯斯特所言， “我們的愛(ài)源自想象，而非源自對(duì)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.

因此出軌是很容易的， 但保守出軌的秘密卻難上加難。 因?yàn)?出軌者)要承受巨大的心理壓力。 如果婚姻是一家企業(yè)， 那婚外情威脅它的經(jīng)濟(jì)安全。 如果婚姻是一種浪漫協(xié)議， 那婚外情威脅我們的情感安全。 諷刺的是，我們?cè)?jīng)對(duì)婚外情充滿(mǎn)幻想， 認(rèn)為它是孕育真愛(ài)之地。 而現(xiàn)在我們從婚姻中尋找愛(ài)情， 而婚外情則將其摧毀。

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.

我認(rèn)為，如今的婚外情有三大罪狀。 我們浪漫地認(rèn)為，會(huì)有那么一個(gè)人， 能滿(mǎn)足我們所有的需求： 是我最棒的情人，最好的朋友， 最好的父母，最信任的知己， 是情感伴侶，又志趣相投。 而我自己則符合上述所有條件： 我萬(wàn)里挑一，我獨(dú)一無(wú)二， 我不可或缺，我無(wú)法取代， 我就是真命天子(女)。 但婚外情告訴我，并不是那么回事。 這是一種終極背叛。 出軌粉碎了我們對(duì)愛(ài)情的憧憬。 如果回顧歷史， 婚外情從來(lái)都是充滿(mǎn)痛苦的， 而在今天更是有過(guò)之而不及， 因?yàn)樗{了我們的自我意識(shí)。

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?'

我的一個(gè)病人費(fèi)爾南多，就深受其害。 他說(shuō)：“我曾以為我了解自己的生活， 我曾以為我了解你，了解我們的婚姻，了解我自己。 但現(xiàn)在，我對(duì)這一切都產(chǎn)生了懷疑?！被橥馇槭菍?duì)信任的踐踏，對(duì)自我認(rèn)同的摧毀。 “我還能再相信你嗎?”他問(wèn)?！拔疫€能相信任何人嗎?”

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.

我的另一個(gè)病人希瑟也有這種想法， 她跟我講了她和尼克的故事。 他們結(jié)婚了，有兩個(gè)孩子。 尼克出差剛走， 希瑟和孩子一起在玩尼克的ipad， 然后屏幕上出現(xiàn)了一條信息： “我等不及想見(jiàn)你?！?真奇怪，希瑟想，我們不是剛見(jiàn)過(guò)嗎? 然后又來(lái)了一條： “真想馬上擁抱你。” 這時(shí)希瑟意識(shí)到， 這些信息不是發(fā)給自己的。 希瑟說(shuō)他父親也有婚外情， 但她母親只是在口袋里 發(fā)現(xiàn)了一張收據(jù)， 在領(lǐng)子上發(fā)現(xiàn)了一點(diǎn)口紅印。 希瑟繼續(xù)翻看著， 發(fā)現(xiàn)了上百條信息， 里面有互換的照片， 以及各種互訴衷腸。 尼克出軌兩年的確鑿證據(jù) 在她面前赤裸裸地呈現(xiàn)出來(lái)。 我不禁在想： 數(shù)字時(shí)代的出軌真是能讓人 感到被千刀萬(wàn)剮，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.

但是我們又發(fā)現(xiàn)了另外一個(gè)矛盾。 因?yàn)榍懊嬲f(shuō)到的浪漫遐想， 我們極度依賴(lài)自己伴侶的忠誠(chéng)。 但同時(shí)，我們比以前也更容易出軌， 并不是因?yàn)槲覀冇辛诵碌挠?而是我們現(xiàn)在所處的時(shí)代， 讓我們覺(jué)得有權(quán)利去追求自己的欲望， 這就是我們的文化特點(diǎn)：我有權(quán)快樂(lè)。 如果過(guò)去離婚是因?yàn)槲覀儾豢鞓?lè)， 那現(xiàn)在離婚是因?yàn)槲覀兛梢愿鞓?lè)。 如果在過(guò)去，離婚是不光彩的， 那今天，能離婚而不離婚， 才是不光彩。 所以希瑟，不敢告訴自己的朋友， 她害怕朋友們責(zé)怪她還愛(ài)著尼克， 無(wú)論她找誰(shuí)傾訴，大家都勸她： 離開(kāi)他吧，大家各走各路。 如果出軌的是希瑟， 相信尼克的處境也會(huì)一樣。 維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?

那如果我們能離婚，那為什么還要出軌呢? 一種典型的觀點(diǎn)是，如果你出軌，要么是婚姻出了毛病，要么是你自己出了毛病。但是不可能成千上萬(wàn)的人 全都有毛病吧。這一觀點(diǎn)的邏輯是這樣的：如果你的家庭完美無(wú)缺，那就沒(méi)必要出軌了，假設(shè)完美婚姻確實(shí)存在，能治好我們愛(ài)出軌的毛病。但如果激情無(wú)法持久呢?如果有些東西，即使在完美的婚姻中，也無(wú)法找到呢?如果幸福的人也出軌呢?這又是怎么回事?

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.

我接觸和研究過(guò)的絕大多數(shù)人， 并不全都是積習(xí)難改的好色之徒。 從觀念上，他們通常贊同一夫一妻制， 至少對(duì)自己的另一半是如此。 但他們往往處于一種矛盾之中， 就是觀念和做法不一樣。 他們通常忠誠(chéng)了幾十年， 但突然有天就跨過(guò)了紅線， 冒著失去一切的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)， 這在之前他們連想都不敢想。 但換來(lái)的是什么呢? 婚外情是一種背叛行為， 同時(shí)也是對(duì)于渴望和失去的一種表達(dá)。 透過(guò)出軌的表象，我們經(jīng)常能看到 一種尋求情感聯(lián)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， 或者是試圖走出失意和悲傷。

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.

我想起了我的另一個(gè)病人，普莉婭， 她婚姻美滿(mǎn)， 深?lèi)?ài)著自己的丈夫， 從未想過(guò)要傷害他。 但她跟我說(shuō)， 她總是在扮演別人期望的那個(gè)角色： 好女孩，好妻子，好母親， 照顧自己移民過(guò)來(lái)的父母。 但在桑迪颶風(fēng)來(lái)襲之后， 普莉婭愛(ài)上了那個(gè)幫她清理院子中 殘破樹(shù)木的工人。 他開(kāi)著卡車(chē)，紋著紋身， 跟她完全是兩個(gè)世界的人。 盡管出軌時(shí)已經(jīng)47歲， 但普莉婭找回了從未有過(guò)的青春。 她的故事告訴我， 當(dāng)我們尋找情人的時(shí)候， 并不一定是想逃離現(xiàn)在的伴侶， 而是想逃離那個(gè)曾經(jīng)的自己。 與其說(shuō)我們?cè)趯ふ夷敲匆粋€(gè)人， 不如說(shuō)我們?cè)趯ふ伊硪粋€(gè)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， 他們總是跟我說(shuō)一個(gè)詞， 他們覺(jué)得自己“活著”。 緊接著他們會(huì)告訴我， 自己最近失去了什么人。 比如父母去世， 朋友出了意外， 誰(shuí)查出來(lái)得了絕癥。 婚外情常常同死亡 和人生苦短聯(lián)系在一起， 因?yàn)樗麄兘?jīng)常會(huì)問(wèn)， 就這樣了嗎?會(huì)不會(huì)還有其他人出現(xiàn)? 我是不是還要這么過(guò)20__年? 我還能不能感受到愛(ài)? 這不禁讓我思考， 也許正是這些問(wèn)題， 推動(dòng)他們跨過(guò)了紅線， 有些人想通過(guò)婚外情來(lái)重拾信心， 對(duì)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.

可能與你們想的恰恰相反， 婚外情跟性的關(guān)系更小， 卻與渴望密切相關(guān)： 渴望被關(guān)注，渴望重拾信心， 渴望被人需要。 婚外情的顯著特點(diǎn)， 就是你無(wú)法完全擁有你的情人， 這讓你欲罷不能。 就像有一臺(tái)欲望機(jī)器在不斷驅(qū)動(dòng)你， 種種不完整，種種曖昧不清， 讓你對(duì)得不到的東西念念不忘。

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)

你們中一些人可能會(huì)想， 是不是在開(kāi)放的關(guān)系中 婚外情就不會(huì)發(fā)生了， 并不是這樣。 首先，關(guān)于一夫一妻制的討論， 與關(guān)于不忠的討論并不一樣。 但事實(shí)是，即使我們可以隨心所欲地 擁有其他性伴侶， 我們還是無(wú)法抗拒偷嘗禁果的誘惑， 如果我們做了被禁止的事， 反倒會(huì)覺(jué)得自己在做真正想做的事。 我告訴過(guò)我的許多病人， 如果他們能將自己投入婚外情的 勇氣、想象力和熱情，拿出十分之一 給自己的婚姻， 也許他們就不用來(lái)找我了。 (笑聲)

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.

那么我們?cè)撊绾沃委?因婚外情所受的創(chuàng)傷? 欲望根深蒂固， 背叛刻骨銘心。 但傷痛是可以治愈的。 有些婚外情只不過(guò)是壓死婚姻的 最后一根稻草。 而另一些卻讓婚姻有了新的可能。 實(shí)際上，大部分經(jīng)歷了 婚外情的夫妻最后仍然在一起。 只不過(guò)有的人精疲力盡， 有的人則將危機(jī)轉(zhuǎn)化為機(jī)遇。 他們善于將其轉(zhuǎn)化為一場(chǎng)經(jīng)歷。 實(shí)際上我甚至認(rèn)為 被欺騙的一方更是如此， 他們經(jīng)常說(shuō)， “你以為我就不想得到更多嗎? 但我并沒(méi)有踏出這一步。” 一旦婚外情暴露， 他們也會(huì)提出更多要求， 不再繼續(xù)委曲求全， 因?yàn)槲笕慕Y(jié)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， 由于局面混亂， 可能會(huì)產(chǎn)生新的家庭秩序， 他們往往會(huì)進(jìn)行開(kāi)誠(chéng)布公的深入交流， 這種交流可能幾十年都未曾有過(guò)。 之前毫無(wú)“性致”的夫妻， 可能突然變得“性致”勃勃， 而他們完全搞不懂這是為什么。 對(duì)于失去的恐懼可能會(huì)重燃激情， 引導(dǎo)你通往全新的真實(shí)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.

那么當(dāng)婚外情曝光之后，作為夫妻的當(dāng)事人具體應(yīng)該怎么辦呢?我們知道要想治療創(chuàng)傷，犯錯(cuò)者首先應(yīng)該承認(rèn)錯(cuò)誤。對(duì)于出軌的那一方，比如說(shuō)尼克， 首先應(yīng)該停止婚外情，但更重要的是要向妻子 表達(dá)自己對(duì)傷害她的愧疚和歉意。然而事實(shí)上，我注意到，很多出軌的人，也許對(duì)于傷害他們的另一半懷有愧疚，但對(duì)于出軌行為本身毫無(wú)悔意。這一差別非常重要。對(duì)尼克來(lái)說(shuō)，他需要維持這段婚姻。至少在一段時(shí)間內(nèi)，他要成為婚姻的保衛(wèi)者。這是尼克的責(zé)任，因?yàn)樗靼字挥羞@樣，他才能幫希瑟走出陰影， 讓希瑟不必再拿出軌說(shuō)事兒，這樣信任才能慢慢恢復(fù)。

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?

但對(duì)希瑟而言， 或者說(shuō)被傷害的一方而言， 去做一些重拾自我價(jià)值的 事情十分必要， 比如同親朋好友聚會(huì)， 感受他們的愛(ài)意， 多參加快樂(lè)有意義的活動(dòng)，找回自我。 但更重要的是， 不要去糾結(jié)出軌的細(xì)節(jié)： 你們都去過(guò)哪里?在哪里做過(guò)? 多久見(jiàn)一次面?她在床上是不是比我棒? 這些問(wèn)題只會(huì)帶來(lái)更多痛苦， 讓你徹夜難眠。 取而代之的，要問(wèn)一些深層次的問(wèn)題， 更關(guān)注行為的意義和動(dòng)機(jī)： 這場(chǎng)婚外情對(duì)你意味著什么? 他(她)能給你哪些體會(huì)和經(jīng)歷 是在我這兒沒(méi)法得到的? 你每次回到家有什么感覺(jué)? 對(duì)于我們的關(guān)系， 你最珍視的是什么? 結(jié)束婚外情你覺(jué)得開(kāi)心嗎?

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.

每一場(chǎng)婚外情都會(huì)重新定義一段婚姻， 每一對(duì)夫妻都將經(jīng)歷 婚外情給他們帶來(lái)的影響。 但婚外情不會(huì)消失， 它將一直存在。 關(guān)于愛(ài)和欲望的困境， 不能簡(jiǎn)單地劃分黑白和對(duì)錯(cuò)， 區(qū)分受害者和罪犯。 一段婚姻中的背叛可以有很多種形式。 我們背叛伴侶的方式很多： 藐視，忽視， 冷漠，暴力。(肉體)出軌只是傷害伴侶的方式之一。 換句話說(shuō)，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.'

聽(tīng)我說(shuō)了這么多， 我知道你們?cè)谙胧裁矗?她有法國(guó)口音，她肯定是個(gè)出軌老手。 (笑聲) 但是，你們錯(cuò)了。 我不是法國(guó)人。 (笑聲) (掌聲) 我也不是出軌老手。 但是因?yàn)槲医?jīng)常說(shuō)， 婚外情也有好的方面， 所以經(jīng)常會(huì)有人問(wèn)我一個(gè)奇怪的問(wèn)題： 你有建議過(guò)別人出軌嗎? 我當(dāng)然不建議你們出軌， 就像我不建議你們得癌癥一樣， 盡管我們知道，有些患絕癥的人 經(jīng)常說(shuō)疾病讓他們 對(duì)世界有了新的看法。 自從我到達(dá)會(huì)場(chǎng)， 說(shuō)我要談婚外情的問(wèn)題， 大家都問(wèn)我，那你到底是贊成還是反對(duì)? 我說(shuō)，“是的?！?既贊成又反對(duì))

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.

我將婚外情一分為二來(lái)看： 一方面是傷害和背叛， 另一方面是成長(zhǎng)和自我發(fā)現(xiàn)。 婚外情給你帶來(lái)了什么， 對(duì)我又意味著什么。 當(dāng)婚外情被發(fā)現(xiàn)， 夫妻倆來(lái)找我， 我經(jīng)常會(huì)告訴他們： 今天在西方社會(huì)， 大部分人會(huì)有2、3段戀情， 或者婚姻， 其中有些人是跟同一個(gè)人一起經(jīng)歷的。 你的第一段婚姻結(jié)束了， 你還愿意跟你的另一半 重新開(kāi)始第二段嗎?謝謝大家。

第11篇 ted英語(yǔ)演講：為什么你總認(rèn)為你是對(duì)的

演說(shuō)題目：remember to say thank you why you think you're right -- even if you're wrong

演說(shuō)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.

我在這兒是想告訴大家我們的對(duì)男孩的教育有問(wèn)題，男孩子的教育是個(gè)嚴(yán)重問(wèn)題。在學(xué)校，男孩文化沒(méi)有形成。我要和大家分享我們關(guān)于這一問(wèn)題的解決方法。首先，我首先想說(shuō)，這是個(gè)男孩，這是個(gè)女孩。這可能是你刻板的關(guān)于男孩和女孩的想法。如果我今天要講性別的事，然后大家可能不會(huì)理睬我要說(shuō)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.

我想讓你們想象一下，你是一個(gè)身處激烈戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中的士兵。也許你是一個(gè)羅馬步兵或者中世紀(jì)的弓箭手, 或者是一個(gè)祖魯勇士。不管你是處在怎樣的時(shí)代和戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)，有些東西是相同的。你的腎上腺素上升，而你的行動(dòng)源于那些最原始的條件反射，那種出于保護(hù)自己和戰(zhàn)友 并打敗敵人的需求的條件反射。

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.

現(xiàn)在，再想象一下扮演一個(gè)完全不同的角色，那就是偵察員。偵察員的工作不是攻擊或者防守。偵察員的工作是認(rèn)清形勢(shì)。偵察員是那些走出營(yíng)地去測(cè)定地形、識(shí)別出可能的障礙的人。偵察員也許很希望剛好在合適的位置有一座橋可以跨過(guò)某條河。但更重要的是，偵察員想要弄清楚那里到底有什么，越精確越好。

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.

在一支精良的隊(duì)伍中， 士兵和偵察員都是必不可少的。但是你也可以把它們各自想象為一種思維模式——一種關(guān)于我們?nèi)绾卧谌粘Ｉ钪刑幚硇畔⒑拖敕ǖ谋扔?。今天我將要討論的是不管是擁有好的判斷力，做出正確的預(yù)測(cè)，還是做出好的決策，幾乎都跟你處于哪種思維模式相關(guān)。

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.

為了舉例說(shuō)明這兩種思維模式，我將帶你們回到19世紀(jì)法國(guó)的一個(gè)地方。在那里，由這張看起來(lái)很普通的稿件，引發(fā)了歷史上最大的政治丑聞之一。它是在1984年被法國(guó)總參謀部的軍官發(fā)現(xiàn)的。被撕碎了扔在一個(gè)廢紙簍里，但是當(dāng)他們把它拼接起來(lái)后，發(fā)現(xiàn)他們中間有人在向德國(guó)出賣(mài)軍事機(jī)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.

因此他們開(kāi)展了深入的調(diào)查，然后他們的懷疑很快集中到了這個(gè)人身上，阿爾弗勒德·德雷福斯。他沒(méi)有過(guò)任何不光彩的記錄，沒(méi)做過(guò)什么壞事，也沒(méi)有所謂的動(dòng)機(jī)。但是德雷福斯是軍隊(duì)里那個(gè)級(jí)別中的唯一猶太軍官，并且不幸的是，那時(shí)的法軍非常地反猶太。他們將德雷福斯的筆跡跟那張紙上的對(duì)照，然后得出了筆跡一致的結(jié)論，盡管外面的筆跡鑒定專(zhuān)家對(duì)此持懷疑態(tài)度， 但也于事無(wú)補(bǔ)。

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.

他們搜查了德雷福斯的寓所，尋找他從事間諜活動(dòng)的蛛絲馬跡。他們翻遍了他的文件，但一無(wú)所獲。這使他們更加確信德雷福斯不僅有罪， 而且還很狡猾，因?yàn)楹苊黠@在他們搜查之前 他就隱藏了所有的證據(jù)。

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.

接下來(lái)，他們審查了他的個(gè)人歷史尋找任何能表明他有罪的細(xì)節(jié)。他們跟他的老師談話。發(fā)現(xiàn)他在學(xué)校學(xué)過(guò)外語(yǔ)， 這清楚地表明了一種想要在以后的生活中跟外國(guó)政府相勾結(jié)的愿望。老師還說(shuō)德雷福斯出了名的記憶力好，這不是非?？梢蓡? 因?yàn)殚g諜需要記住很多東西。

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.

因此經(jīng)過(guò)審訊，德雷福斯被判有罪。然后，他們把他帶到了公共廣場(chǎng)，儀式性地撕下了他制服上的徽章，并折斷了他的佩劍。這件事被稱(chēng)作德雷福斯冤案。他們判處他終身監(jiān)禁，并將其押送到被稱(chēng)為魔鬼島的地方服役，是個(gè)遠(yuǎn)離南美洲海岸貧瘠的巖石小島。在那里，他一個(gè)人孤零零地生活，給法國(guó)政府寫(xiě)了一封又一封的信，乞求他們重審他的案子，并希望通過(guò)重審獲得清白。但是在大多數(shù)情形下，法國(guó)政府都認(rèn)為這件事已經(jīng)結(jié)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?

在德雷福斯事件中讓我真正感興趣的一點(diǎn)是為什么這些軍官會(huì)如此確信德雷福斯是有罪的。我是說(shuō)，你可能以為他們是在給他設(shè)套，他們?cè)诠室獾卣_陷他。但是歷史學(xué)家卻不這樣認(rèn)為。據(jù)我們所知，這些軍官由衷地相信德雷福斯是有罪的。這也就會(huì)使你感到好奇：如果在只有微不足道的證據(jù)的情況下我們就可以給一個(gè)人定罪，那么這對(duì)人類(lèi)的思維來(lái)說(shuō)意味著什么?

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，這就是科學(xué)家 稱(chēng)之為“動(dòng)機(jī)性推理”一個(gè)案例。正是這種存在于我們無(wú)意識(shí)的動(dòng)機(jī)以及我們的欲望和恐懼，塑造了我們解讀信息的方式。有些信息和想法感覺(jué)就像是我們的盟友。我們希望它們能贏。我們想要保護(hù)它們。還有些信息和想法感覺(jué)就像是敵人，我們就想要打垮它們。這就是為什么我把動(dòng)機(jī)性推理稱(chēng)作“士兵型思維模式”。

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.

可能你們大部分人從來(lái)都沒(méi)有做過(guò)以叛國(guó)罪去迫害一個(gè)法籍猶太軍官這樣的事，沒(méi)錯(cuò)吧，但很可能你關(guān)注過(guò)體育或者政治新聞，因此你大概注意過(guò)，舉個(gè)例子來(lái)說(shuō)，當(dāng)裁判判你支持的 隊(duì)伍犯規(guī)時(shí)，你會(huì)很積極地去找理由證明他的判罰是錯(cuò)的。但是當(dāng)裁判判對(duì)方犯規(guī)時(shí)——太棒了!判得很正確，沒(méi)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.

也許你讀過(guò)一些對(duì)于有關(guān)政策 有爭(zhēng)議的文章或研究報(bào)告， 比如說(shuō)關(guān)于死刑的。就像研究人員已經(jīng)證實(shí)的一樣，如果你支持死刑 而研究的結(jié)果卻表明它并不能有效減少犯罪，那么你會(huì)很積極地尋找各種理由去證明這項(xiàng)研究有不妥之處。但是如果它表明死刑能夠有效減少犯罪，那你就會(huì)認(rèn)可這項(xiàng)研究。反之，如果你反對(duì)死刑，也一樣。

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.

我們的判斷無(wú)意識(shí)地受到個(gè)人喜好的強(qiáng)烈影響。而且這種現(xiàn)象是普遍存在的。它影響著我們?nèi)绾慰创】岛腿穗H關(guān)系，如何決定投誰(shuí)的票，以及怎樣看待公平或道德。關(guān)于動(dòng)機(jī)性推理或者說(shuō)士兵型思維模式，最讓我覺(jué)得可怕的一點(diǎn)是它受潛意識(shí)影響之深。我們認(rèn)為自己是客觀公正的，但結(jié)果卻是毀掉了一個(gè)無(wú)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，幸運(yùn)的是對(duì)于德雷福斯來(lái)說(shuō)，一切還沒(méi)結(jié)束。這是皮卡爾上校。他是法軍中的另一個(gè)高級(jí)軍官，像大多數(shù)人一樣，他也認(rèn)為德雷福斯有罪。跟軍隊(duì)中大多數(shù)人也一樣，他至少表面上是反猶太的。但是在某個(gè)時(shí)間點(diǎn)上，皮卡爾開(kāi)始懷疑：“如果我們所有人都錯(cuò)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.'

當(dāng)時(shí)的情況是，他發(fā)現(xiàn)了一些證據(jù)表明德國(guó)間諜的活動(dòng)還在繼續(xù)，即便是在德雷福斯入獄之后。他還發(fā)現(xiàn)軍隊(duì)中另一個(gè)軍官的筆跡跟那張紙上的筆跡完全匹配， 比德雷福斯的筆跡更加相符。因此他帶著這些疑點(diǎn)找到他的上級(jí)，令人沮喪的是，他們要么不在乎，要么提出一些精心編造，想當(dāng)然的理由去解釋他的發(fā)現(xiàn)。比如說(shuō)，“嗯，你的發(fā)現(xiàn)剛好證明另一個(gè)間諜模仿了德雷福斯的筆跡，并且接替了德雷福斯的間諜位置。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.

最終，皮卡爾讓德雷福斯重獲清白。但是花了他20__年的時(shí)間， 而且在這期間他自己也以對(duì)軍隊(duì)不忠的罪名被投入了監(jiān)獄。

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.

很多人覺(jué)得，在這個(gè)故事中皮卡爾算不上真正的英雄，因?yàn)樗椽q太，我也同意這是他不好的一點(diǎn)。但就我個(gè)人而言，正是因?yàn)樗椽q太，才使得他的行為更令人軟佩，因?yàn)樗切┩艓в邢嗤钠?jiàn)，也有相同的理由去傾向于有罪結(jié)論，但是他那種找出并維護(hù)真相的動(dòng)力戰(zhàn)勝了一切。

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?

所以對(duì)我而言，皮卡爾就是我稱(chēng)之為 “偵察員型思維模式”中的典型代表。這不是非讓兩個(gè)想法分出輸贏不可，而是盡可能誠(chéng)實(shí)和準(zhǔn)確地找出事實(shí)真相的一種驅(qū)動(dòng)力，即使真相并不那么令人賞心悅目。這種思維模式是我個(gè)人所推崇的。過(guò)去幾年我一直在調(diào)查并想找出偵察員型思維模式的成因。為什么有些人，至少在有些時(shí)候，能夠去掉自己內(nèi)心的歧視、偏見(jiàn)和傾向，而是盡可能?chē)L試著客觀地找出事實(shí)和證據(jù)。

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。就像士兵型思維模式是出于像防御性和部落主義這樣的情感，偵察員型思維模式也一樣。只不過(guò)是來(lái)源于不同的情感。例如，偵察員都有很強(qiáng)的好奇心。他們更可能會(huì)因?yàn)楂@得新的信息或渴望解開(kāi)一個(gè)謎題而感到開(kāi)心。他們會(huì)對(duì)那些與他們的預(yù)期不相符的事情更感興趣。

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.'

偵察員也擁有不同的價(jià)值觀。他們可能會(huì)覺(jué)得檢驗(yàn)自己的信仰是一件善事，而可能不會(huì)說(shuō)那些改變想法的人看起來(lái)很懦弱?？傊?，偵察員是以事實(shí)為根據(jù)的，也就是說(shuō)他們的自我價(jià)值觀不是跟他們?cè)谀硞€(gè)事件上的 對(duì)錯(cuò)綁在一起的。所以他們可能相信死刑能減少犯罪。 但如果研究表明它不能，他們可能會(huì)說(shuō)“呵，看起來(lái)是我錯(cuò)了，但這并不說(shuō)明我壞或者蠢。”

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.'

這就是研究人員所發(fā)現(xiàn)的特征——而且我也發(fā)現(xiàn)了——可以預(yù)測(cè)好的判斷。而我想要強(qiáng)調(diào)的關(guān)于這些特征的關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)是它們根本上來(lái)說(shuō)跟你有多聰明或者你知道多少無(wú)關(guān)。事實(shí)上，它們跟智商完全無(wú)關(guān)。它們跟你的感覺(jué)有關(guān)。我要引用圣?？颂K佩里的一句話。他是《小王子》的作者。他說(shuō)，“如果你想造一艘船，不要雇人去收集木頭，不要發(fā)號(hào)施令，也不要分配任務(wù)，而是去激發(fā)他們對(duì)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.

換句話說(shuō)，我認(rèn)為，如果我們真的想提高判斷力，不管是作為個(gè)人還是作為社會(huì)，我們最需要的不是更多邏輯上，修辭上、概率上或者經(jīng)濟(jì)上的指導(dǎo)，即便這些東西也都很有價(jià)值。而我們要用好這些原理，最需要的就是偵察員型思維模式。我們需要改變我們感覺(jué)事物的方式。當(dāng)我們注意到自己可能在某件事上出錯(cuò)了的時(shí)候，我們要感到自豪而不是羞愧。當(dāng)我們遇到一些與我們的信仰相沖突的信息時(shí)，我們要學(xué)會(huì)感到好奇而不是抵觸。

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?

因此我想要留給你們的問(wèn)題是：你最渴望什么?你是渴望保護(hù)你的信仰?還是渴望盡自己所能去看清這個(gè)世界?

thank you.(applause)

謝謝。(掌聲)