ted演講稿最新精選2020

時間：2020-11-29 13:40:58 銘陸0由分享

“TED演講是美國的一家私有非營利機構(gòu),該機構(gòu)以它組織的TED大會著稱,這個會議的宗旨是“值得傳播的創(chuàng)意”。一起看看ted演講稿最新精選2020，歡迎查閱!

ted演講稿1

when i was seven years old and my sister was just five years old, we were playing on top of a bunk bed. i was two years older than my sister at the time -- i mean, i'm two years older than her now -- but at the time it meant she had to do everything that i wanted to do, and i wanted to play war. so we were up on top of our bunk beds. and on one side of the bunk bed, i had put out all of my g.i. joe soldiers and weaponry. and on the other side were all my sister's my little ponies ready for a cavalry charge.

there are differing accounts of what actually happened that afternoon, but since my sister is not here with us today, let me tell you the true story -- (laughter) -- which is my sister's a little bit on the clumsy side. somehow, without any help or push from her older brother at all, suddenly amy disappeared off of the top of the bunk bed and landed with this crash on the floor. now i nervously peered over the side of the bed to see what had befallen my fallen sister and saw that she had landed painfully on her hands and knees on all fours on the ground.

i was nervous because my parents had charged me with making sure that my sister and i played as safely and as quietly as possible. and seeing as how i had accidentally broken amy's arm just one week before ... (laughter) ... heroically pushing her out of the way of an oncoming imaginary sniper bullet, (laughter) for which i have yet to be thanked, i was trying as hard as i could -- she didn't even see it coming -- i was trying as hard as i could to be on my best behavior.

and i saw my sister's face, this wail of pain and suffering and surprise threatening to erupt from her mouth and threatening to wake my parents from the long winter's nap for which they had settled. so i did the only thing my little frantic seven year-old brain could think to do to avert this tragedy. and if you have children, you've seen this hundreds of times before. i said, "amy, amy, wait. don't cry. don't cry. did you see how you landed? no human lands on all fours like that. amy, i think this means you're a unicorn."

(laughter)

now that was cheating, because there was nothing in the world my sister would want more than not to be amy the hurt five year-old little sister, but amy the special unicorn. of course, this was an option that was open to her brain at no point in the past. and you could see how my poor, manipulated sister faced conflict, as her little brain attempted to devote resources to feeling the pain and suffering and surprise she just e_perienced, or contemplating her new-found identity as a unicorn. and the latter won out. instead of crying, instead of ceasing our play, instead of waking my parents, with all the negative consequences that would have ensued for me, instead a smile spread across her face and she scrambled right back up onto the bunk bed with all the grace of a baby unicorn ... (laughter) ... with one broken leg.

what we stumbled across at this tender age of just five and seven -- we had no idea at the time -- was something that was going be at the vanguard of a scientific revolution occurring two decades later in the way that we look at the human brain. what we had stumbled across is something called positive psychology, which is the reason that i'm here today and the reason that i wake up every morning.

when i first started talking about this research outside of academia, out with companies and schools, the very first thing they said to never do is to start your talk with a graph. the very first thing i want to do is start my talk with a graph. this graph looks boring, but this graph is the reason i get e_cited and wake up every morning. and this graph doesn't even mean anything; it's fake data. what we found is --

(laughter)

if i got this data back studying you here in the room, i would be thrilled, because there's very clearly a trend that's going on there, and that means that i can get published, which is all that really matters. the fact that there's one weird red dot that's up above the curve, there's one weirdo in the room -- i know who you are, i saw you earlier -- that's no problem. that's no problem, as most of you know, because i can just delete that dot. i can delete that dot because that's clearly a measurement error. and we know that's a measurement error because it's messing up my data.

so one of the very first things we teach people in economics and statistics and business and psychology courses is how, in a statistically valid way, do we eliminate the weirdos. how do we eliminate the outliers so we can find the line of best fit? which is fantastic if i'm trying to find out how many advil the average person should be taking -- two. but if i'm interested in potential, if i'm interested in your potential, or for happiness or productivity or energy or creativity, what we're doing is we're creating the cult of the average with science.

if i asked a question like, "how fast can a child learn how to read in a classroom?" scientists change the answer to "how fast does the average child learn how to read in that classroom?" and then we tailor the class right towards the average. now if you fall below the average on this curve, then psychologists get thrilled, because that means you're either depressed or you have a disorder, or hopefully both. we're hoping for both because our business model is, if you come into a therapy session with one problem, we want to make sure you leave knowing you have 10, so you keep coming back over and over again. we'll go back into your childhood if necessary, but eventually what we want to do is make you normal again. but normal is merely average.

and what i posit and what positive psychology posits is that if we study what is merely average, we will remain merely average. then instead of deleting those positive outliers, what i intentionally do is come into a population like this one and say, why? why is it that some of you are so high above the curve in terms of your intellectual ability, athletic ability, musical ability, creativity, energy levels, your resiliency in the face of challenge, your sense of humor? whatever it is, instead of deleting you, what i want to do is study you. because maybe we can glean information -- not just how to move people up to the average, but how we can move the entire average up in our companies and schools worldwide.

the reason this graph is important to me is, when i turn on the news, it seems like the majority of the information is not positive, in fact it's negative. most of it's about murder, corruption, diseases, natural disasters. and very quickly, my brain starts to think that's the accurate ratio of negative to positive in the world. what that's doing is creating something called the medical school syndrome -- which, if you know people who've been to medical school, during the first year of medical training, as you read through a list of all the symptoms and diseases that could happen, suddenly you realize you have all of them.

i have a brother in-law named bobo -- which is a whole other story. bobo married amy the unicorn. bobo called me on the phone from yale medical school, and bobo said, "shawn, i have leprosy." (laughter) which, even at yale, is e_traordinarily rare. but i had no idea how to console poor bobo because he had just gotten over an entire week of menopause.

(laughter)

see what we're finding is it's not necessarily the reality that shapes us, but the lens through which your brain views the world that shapes your reality. and if we can change the lens, not only can we change your happiness, we can change every single educational and business outcome at the same time.

when i applied to harvard, i applied on a dare. i didn't e_pect to get in, and my family had no money for college. when i got a military scholarship two weeks later, they allowed me to go. suddenly, something that wasn't even a possibility became a reality. when i went there, i assumed everyone else would see it as a privilege as well, that they'd be e_cited to be there. even if you're in a classroom full of people smarter than you, you'd be happy just to be in that classroom, which is what i felt. but what i found there is, while some people e_perience that, when i graduated after my four years and then spent the ne_t eight years living in the dorms with the students -- harvard asked me to; i wasn't that guy. (laughter) i was an officer of harvard to counsel students through the difficult four years. and what i found in my research and my teaching is that these students, no matter how happy they were with their original success of getting into the school, two weeks later their brains were focused, not on the privilege of being there, nor on their philosophy or their physics. their brain was focused on the competition, the workload, the hassles, the stresses, the complaints.

when i first went in there, i walked into the freshmen dining hall, which is where my friends from waco, te_as, which is where i grew up -- i know some of you have heard of it. when they'd come to visit me, they'd look around, they'd say, "this freshman dining hall looks like something out of hogwart's from the movie "harry potter," which it does. this is hogwart's from the movie "harry potter" and that's harvard. and when they see this, they say, "shawn, why do you waste your time studying happiness at harvard? seriously, what does a harvard student possibly have to be unhappy about?"

embedded within that question is the key to understanding the science of happiness. because what that question assumes is that our e_ternal world is predictive of our happiness levels, when in reality, if i know everything about your e_ternal world, i can only predict 10 percent of your long-term happiness. 90 percent of your long-term happiness is predicted not by the e_ternal world, but by the way your brain processes the world. and if we change it, if we change our formula for happiness and success, what we can do is change the way that we can then affect reality. what we found is that only 25 percent of job successes are predicted by i.q. 75 percent of job successes are predicted by your optimism levels, your social support and your ability to see stress as a challenge instead of as a threat.

i talked to a boarding school up in new england, probably the most prestigious boarding school, and they said, "we already know that. so every year, instead of just teaching our students, we also have a wellness week. and we're so e_cited. monday night we have the world's leading e_pert coming in to speak about adolescent depression. tuesday night it's school violence and bullying. wednesday night is eating disorders. thursday night is elicit drug use. and friday night we're trying to decide between risky se_ or happiness." (laughter) i said, "that's most people's friday nights." (laughter) (applause) which i'm glad you liked, but they did not like that at all. silence on the phone. and into the silence, i said, "i'd be happy to speak at your school, but just so you know, that's not a wellness week, that's a sickness week. what you've done is you've outlined all the negative things that can happen, but not talked about the positive."

the absence of disease is not health. here's how we get to health: we need to reverse the formula for happiness and success. in the last three years, i've traveled to 45 different countries, working with schools and companies in the midst of an economic downturn. and what i found is that most companies and schools follow a formula for success, which is this: if i work harder, i'll be more successful. and if i'm more successful, then i'll be happier. that undergirds most of our parenting styles, our managing styles, the way that we motivate our behavior.

and the problem is it's scientifically broken and backwards for two reasons. first, every time your brain has a success, you just changed the goalpost of what success looked like. you got good grades, now you have to get better grades, you got into a good school and after you get into a better school, you got a good job, now you have to get a better job, you hit your sales target, we're going to change your sales target. and if happiness is on the opposite side of success, your brain never gets there. what we've done is we've pushed happiness over the cognitive horizon as a society. and that's because we think we have to be successful, then we'll be happier.

but the real problem is our brains work in the opposite order. if you can raise somebody's level of positivity in the present, then their brain e_periences what we now call a happiness advantage, which is your brain at positive performs significantly better than it does at negative, neutral or stressed. your intelligence rises, your creativity rises, your energy levels rise. in fact, what we've found is that every single business outcome improves. your brain at positive is 31 percent more productive than your brain at negative, neutral or stressed. you're 37 percent better at sales. doctors are 19 percent faster, more accurate at coming up with the correct diagnosis when positive instead of negative, neutral or stressed. which means we can reverse the formula. if we can find a way of becoming positive in the present, then our brains work even more successfully as we're able to work harder, faster and more intelligently.

what we need to be able to do is to reverse this formula so we can start to see what our brains are actually capable of. because dopamine, which floods into your system when you're positive, has two functions. not only does it make you happier, it turns on all of the learning centers in your brain allowing you to adapt to the world in a different way.

we've found that there are ways that you can train your brain to be able to become more positive. in just a two-minute span of time done for 21 days in a row, we can actually rewire your brain, allowing your brain to actually work more optimistically and more successfully. we've done these things in research now in every single company that i've worked with, getting them to write down three new things that they're grateful for for 21 days in a row, three new things each day. and at the end of that, their brain starts to retain a pattern of scanning the world, not for the negative, but for the positive first.

journaling about one positive e_perience you've had over the past 24 hours allows your brain to relive it. e_ercise teaches your brain that your behavior matters. we find that meditation allows your brain to get over the cultural adhd that we've been creating by trying to do multiple tasks at once and allows our brains to focus on the task at hand. and finally, random acts of kindness are conscious acts of kindness. we get people, when they open up their inbo_, to write one positive email praising or thanking somebody in their social support network.

and by doing these activities and by training your brain just like we train our bodies, what we've found is we can reverse the formula for happiness and success, and in doing so, not only create ripples of positivity, but create a real revolution.

thank you very much.

(applause)

ted演講稿2

when i was nine years old i went off to summer camp for the first time. and my mother packed me a suitcase full of books, which to me seemed like a perfectly natural thing to do. because in my family, reading was the primary group activity. and this might sound antisocial to you, but for us it was really just a different way of being social. you have the animal warmth of your family sitting right ne_t to you, but you are also free to go roaming around the adventureland inside your own mind. and i had this idea that camp was going to be just like this, but better. (laughter) i had a vision of 10 girls sitting in a cabin cozily reading books in their matching nightgowns.

(laughter)

camp was more like a keg party without any alcohol. and on the very first day our counselor gathered us all together and she taught us a cheer that she said we would be doing every day for the rest of the summer to instill camp spirit. and it went like this: "r-o-w-d-i-e, that's the way we spell rowdie. rowdie, rowdie, let's get rowdie." yeah. so i couldn't figure out for the life of me why we were supposed to be so rowdy, or why we had to spell this word incorrectly. (laughter) but i recited a cheer. i recited a cheer along with everybody else. i did my best. and i just waited for the time that i could go off and read my books.

but the first time that i took my book out of my suitcase, the coolest girl in the bunk came up to me and she asked me, "why are you being so mellow?" -- mellow, of course, being the e_act opposite of r-o-w-d-i-e. and then the second time i tried it, the counselor came up to me with a concerned e_pression on her face and she repeated the point about camp spirit and said we should all work very hard to be outgoing.

and so i put my books away, back in their suitcase, and i put them under my bed, and there they stayed for the rest of the summer. and i felt kind of guilty about this. i felt as if the books needed me somehow, and they were calling out to me and i was forsaking them. but i did forsake them and i didn't open that suitcase again until i was back home with my family at the end of the summer.

now, i tell you this story about summer camp. i could have told you 50 others just like it -- all the times that i got the message that somehow my quiet and introverted style of being was not necessarily the right way to go, that i should be trying to pass as more of an e_trovert. and i always sensed deep down that this was wrong and that introverts were pretty e_cellent just as they were. but for years i denied this intuition, and so i became a wall street lawyer, of all things, instead of the writer that i had always longed to be -- partly because i needed to prove to myself that i could be bold and assertive too. and i was always going off to crowded bars when i really would have preferred to just have a nice dinner with friends. and i made these self-negating choices so refle_ively, that i wasn't even aware that i was making them.

now this is what many introverts do, and it's our loss for sure, but it is also our colleagues' loss and our communities' loss. and at the risk of sounding grandiose, it is the world's loss. because when it comes to creativity and to leadership, we need introverts doing what they do best. a third to a half of the population are introverts -- a third to a half. so that's one out of every two or three people you know. so even if you're an e_trovert yourself, i'm talking about your coworkers and your spouses and your children and the person sitting ne_t to you right now -- all of them subject to this bias that is pretty deep and real in our society. we all internalize it from a very early age without even having a language for what we're doing.

now to see the bias clearly you need to understand what introversion is. it's different from being shy. shyness is about fear of social judgment. introversion is more about, how do you respond to stimulation, including social stimulation. so e_troverts really crave large amounts of stimulation, whereas introverts feel at their most alive and their most switched-on and their most capable when they're in quieter, more low-key environments. not all the time -- these things aren't absolute -- but a lot of the time. so the key then to ma_imizing our talents is for us all to put ourselves in the zone of stimulation that is right for us.

but now here's where the bias comes in. our most important institutions, our schools and our workplaces, they are designed mostly for e_troverts and for e_troverts' need for lots of stimulation. and also we have this belief system right now that i call the new groupthink, which holds that all creativity and all productivity comes from a very oddly gregarious place.

so if you picture the typical classroom nowadays: when i was going to school, we sat in rows. we sat in rows of desks like this, and we did most of our work pretty autonomously. but nowadays, your typical classroom has pods of desks -- four or five or si_ or seven kids all facing each other. and kids are working in countless group assignments. even in subjects like math and creative writing, which you think would depend on solo flights of thought, kids are now e_pected to act as committee members. and for the kids who prefer to go off by themselves or just to work alone, those kids are seen as outliers often or, worse, as problem cases. and the vast majority of teachers reports believing that the ideal student is an e_trovert as opposed to an introvert, even though introverts actually get better grades and are more knowledgeable, according to research. (laughter)

okay, same thing is true in our workplaces. now, most of us work in open plan offices, without walls, where we are subject to the constant noise and gaze of our coworkers. and when it comes to leadership, introverts are routinely passed over for leadership positions, even though introverts tend to be very careful, much less likely to take outsize risks -- which is something we might all favor nowadays. and interesting research by adam grant at the wharton school has found that introverted leaders often deliver better outcomes than e_troverts do, because when they are managing proactive employees, they're much more likely to let those employees run with their ideas, whereas an e_trovert can, quite unwittingly, get so e_cited about things that they're putting their own stamp on things, and other people's ideas might not as easily then bubble up to the surface.

now in fact, some of our transformative leaders in history have been introverts. i'll give you some e_amples. eleanor roosevelt, rosa parks, gandhi -- all these peopled described themselves as quiet and soft-spoken and even shy. and they all took the spotlight, even though every bone in their bodies was telling them not to. and this turns out to have a special power all its own, because people could feel that these leaders were at the helm, not because they enjoyed directing others and not out of the pleasure of being looked at; they were there because they had no choice, because they were driven to do what they thought was right.

now i think at this point it's important for me to say that i actually love e_troverts. i always like to say some of my best friends are e_troverts, including my beloved husband. and we all fall at different points, of course, along the introvert/e_trovert spectrum. even carl jung, the psychologist who first popularized these terms, said that there's no such thing as a pure introvert or a pure e_trovert. he said that such a man would be in a lunatic asylum, if he e_isted at all. and some people fall smack in the middle of the introvert/e_trovert spectrum, and we call these people ambiverts. and i often think that they have the best of all worlds. but many of us do recognize ourselves as one type or the other.

and what i'm saying is that culturally we need a much better balance. we need more of a yin and yang between these two types. this is especially important when it comes to creativity and to productivity, because when psychologists look at the lives of the most creative people, what they find are people who are very good at e_changing ideas and advancing ideas, but who also have a serious streak of introversion in them.

and this is because solitude is a crucial ingredient often to creativity. so darwin, he took long walks alone in the woods and emphatically turned down dinner party invitations. theodor geisel, better known as dr. seuss, he dreamed up many of his amazing creations in a lonely bell tower office that he had in the back of his house in la jolla, california. and he was actually afraid to meet the young children who read his books for fear that they were e_pecting him this kind of jolly santa claus-like figure and would be disappointed with his more reserved persona. steve wozniak invented the first apple computer sitting alone in his cubical in hewlett-packard where he was working at the time. and he says that he never would have become such an e_pert in the first place had he not been too introverted to leave the house when he was growing up.

now of course, this does not mean that we should all stop collaborating -- and case in point, is steve wozniak famously coming together with steve jobs to start apple computer -- but it does mean that solitude matters and that for some people it is the air that they breathe. and in fact, we have known for centuries about the transcendent power of solitude. it's only recently that we've strangely begun to forget it. if you look at most of the world's major religions, you will find seekers -- moses, jesus, buddha, muhammad -- seekers who are going off by themselves alone to the wilderness where they then have profound epiphanies and revelations that they then bring back to the rest of the community. so no wilderness, no revelations.

this is no surprise though if you look at the insights of contemporary psychology. it turns out that we can't even be in a group of people without instinctively mirroring, mimicking their opinions. even about seemingly personal and visceral things like who you're attracted to, you will start aping the beliefs of the people around you without even realizing that that's what you're doing.

and groups famously follow the opinions of the most dominant or charismatic person in the room, even though there's zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas -- i mean zero. so ... (laughter) you might be following the person with the best ideas, but you might not. and do you really want to leave it up to chance? much better for everybody to go off by themselves, generate their own ideas freed from the distortions of group dynamics, and then come together as a team to talk them through in a well-managed environment and take it from there.

now if all this is true, then why are we getting it so wrong? why are we setting up our schools this way and our workplaces? and why are we making these introverts feel so guilty about wanting to just go off by themselves some of the time? one answer lies deep in our cultural history. western societies, and in particular the u.s., have always favored the man of action over the man of contemplation and "man" of contemplation. but in america's early days, we lived in what historians call a culture of character, where we still, at that point, valued people for their inner selves and their moral rectitude. and if you look at the self-help books from this era, they all had titles with things like "character, the grandest thing in the world." and they featured role models like abraham lincoln who was praised for being modest and unassuming. ralph waldo emerson called him "a man who does not offend by superiority."

but then we hit the 20th century and we entered a new culture that historians call the culture of personality. what happened is we had evolved an agricultural economy to a world of big business. and so suddenly people are moving from small towns to the cities. and instead of working alongside people they've known all their lives, now they are having to prove themselves in a crowd of strangers. so, quite understandably, qualities like magnetism and charisma suddenly come to seem really important. and sure enough, the self-help books change to meet these new needs and they start to have names like "how to win friends and influence people." and they feature as their role models really great salesmen. so that's the world we're living in today. that's our cultural inheritance.

now none of this is to say that social skills are unimportant, and i'm also not calling for the abolishing of teamwork at all. the same religions who send their sages off to lonely mountain tops also teach us love and trust. and the problems that we are facing today in fields like science and in economics are so vast and so comple_ that we are going to need armies of people coming together to solve them working together. but i am saying that the more freedom that we give introverts to be themselves, the more likely that they are to come up with their own unique solutions to these problems.

so now i'd like to share with you what's in my suitcase today. guess what? books. i have a suitcase full of books. here's margaret atwood, "cat's eye." here's a novel by milan kundera. and here's "the guide for the perple_ed" by maimonides. but these are not e_actly my books. i brought these books with me because they were written by my grandfather's favorite authors.

my grandfather was a rabbi and he was a widower who lived alone in a small apartment in brooklyn that was my favorite place in the world when i was growing up, partly because it was filled with his very gentle, very courtly presence and partly because it was filled with books. i mean literally every table, every chair in this apartment had yielded its original function to now serve as a surface for swaying stacks of books. just like the rest of my family, my grandfather's favorite thing to do in the whole world was to read.

but he also loved his congregation, and you could feel this love in the sermons that he gave every week for the 62 years that he was a rabbi. he would takes the fruits of each week's reading and he would weave these intricate tapestries of ancient and humanist thought. and people would come from all over to hear him speak.

but here's the thing about my grandfather. underneath this ceremonial role, he was really modest and really introverted -- so much so that when he delivered these sermons, he had trouble making eye contact with the very same congregation that he had been speaking to for 62 years. and even away from the podium, when you called him to say hello, he would often end the conversation prematurely for fear that he was taking up too much of your time. but when he died at the age of 94, the police had to close down the streets of his neighborhood to accommodate the crowd of people who came out to mourn him. and so these days i try to learn from my grandfather's e_ample in my own way.

so i just published a book about introversion, and it took me about seven years to write. and for me, that seven years was like total bliss, because i was reading, i was writing, i was thinking, i was researching. it was my version of my grandfather's hours of the day alone in his library. but now all of a sudden my job is very different, and my job is to be out here talking about it, talking about introversion. (laughter) and that's a lot harder for me, because as honored as i am to be here with all of you right now, this is not my natural milieu.

so i prepared for moments like these as best i could. i spent the last year practicing public speaking every chance i could get. and i call this my "year of speaking dangerously." (laughter) and that actually helped a lot. but i'll tell you, what helps even more is my sense, my belief, my hope that when it comes to our attitudes to introversion and to quiet and to solitude, we truly are poised on the brink on dramatic change. i mean, we are. and so i am going to leave you now with three calls for action for those who share this vision.

number one: stop the madness for constant group work. just stop it. (laughter) thank you. (applause) and i want to be clear about what i'm saying, because i deeply believe our offices should be encouraging casual, chatty cafe-style types of interactions -- you know, the kind where people come together and serendipitously have an e_change of ideas. that is great. it's great for introverts and it's great for e_troverts. but we need much more privacy and much more freedom and much more autonomy at work. school, same thing. we need to be teaching kids to work together, for sure, but we also need to be teaching them how to work on their own. this is especially important for e_troverted children too. they need to work on their own because that is where deep thought comes from in part.

okay, number two: go to the wilderness. be like buddha, have your own revelations. i'm not saying that we all have to now go off and build our own cabins in the woods and never talk to each other again, but i am saying that we could all stand to unplug and get inside our own heads a little more often.

number three: take a good look at what's inside your own suitcase and why you put it there. so e_troverts, maybe your suitcases are also full of books. or maybe they're full of champagne glasses or skydiving equipment. whatever it is, i hope you take these things out every chance you get and grace us with your energy and your joy. but introverts, you being you, you probably have the impulse to guard very carefully what's inside your own suitcase. and that's okay. but occasionally, just occasionally, i hope you will open up your suitcases for other people to see, because the world needs you and it needs the things you carry.

so i wish you the best of all possible journeys and the courage to speak softly.

thank you very much.

(applause)

thank you. thank you.

ted演講稿3

當(dāng)我九歲的時候我第一次去參加夏令營我媽媽幫我整理好了我的行李箱里面塞滿了書這對于我來說是一件極為自然的事情因為在我的家庭里閱讀是主要的家庭活動聽上去你們可能覺得我們是不愛交際的但是對于我的家庭來說這真的只是接觸社會的另一種途徑你們有自己家庭接觸時的溫暖親情家人靜坐在你身邊但是你也可以自由地漫游在你思維深處的冒險樂園里我有一個想法野營會變得像這樣子，當(dāng)然要更好些 (笑聲) 我想象到十個女孩坐在一個小屋里都穿著合身的女式睡衣愜意地享受著讀書的過程

(laughter)

(笑聲)

野營這時更像是一個不提供酒水的派對聚會在第一天的時候呢我們的顧問把我們都集合在一起并且她教會了我們一種今后要用到的慶祝方式在余下夏令營的每一天中讓“露營精神”浸潤我們之后它就像這樣繼續(xù)著 r-o-w-d-i-e 這是我們拼寫“吵鬧"的口號我們唱著“噪音，喧鬧，我們要變得吵一點” 對，就是這樣可我就是弄不明白我的生活會是什么樣的為什么我們變得這么吵鬧粗暴或者為什么我們非要把這個單詞錯誤地拼寫 (笑聲) 但是我可沒有忘記慶祝。我與每個人都互相歡呼慶祝了我盡了我最大的努力我只是想等待那一刻我可以離開吵鬧的聚會去捧起我摯愛的書

但是當(dāng)我第一次把書從行李箱中拿出來的時候床鋪中最酷的那個女孩向我走了過來并且她問我：“為什么你要這么安靜?” 安靜，當(dāng)然，是r-o-w-d-i-e的反義詞 “喧鬧”的反義詞而當(dāng)我第二次拿書的時候我們的顧問滿臉憂慮的向我走了過來接著她重復(fù)了關(guān)于“露營精神”的要點并且說我們都應(yīng)當(dāng)努力去變得外向些

and so i put my books away, back in their suitcase, and i put them under my bed, and there they stayed for the rest of the summer. and i felt kind of guilty about this. i felt as if the books needed me somehow, and they were calling out to me and i was forsaking them.but i did forsake them and i didn't open that suitcase again until i was back home with my family at the end of the summer.

于是我放好我的書放回了屬于它們的行李箱中并且我把它們放到了床底下在那里它們度過了暑假余下的每一天我對這樣做感到很愧疚不知為什么我感覺這些書是需要我的它們在呼喚我，但是我卻放棄了它們我確實放下了它們，并且我再也沒有打開那個箱子直到我和我的家人一起回到家中在夏末的時候

now, i tell you this story about summer camp. i could have told you 50 others just like it --all the times that i got the message that somehow my quiet and introverted style of beingwas not necessarily the right way to go, that i should be trying to pass as more of an e_trovert. and i always sensed deep down that this was wrong and that introverts were pretty e_cellent just as they were. but for years i denied this intuition, and so i became a wall street lawyer, of all things, instead of the writer that i had always longed to be -- partly because i needed to prove to myself that i could be bold and assertive too. and i was always going off to crowded bars when i really would have preferred to just have a nice dinner with friends. and i made these self-negating choices so refle_ively, that i wasn't even aware that i was making them.

現(xiàn)在，我向你們講述這個夏令營的故事我完全可以給你們講出其他50種版本就像這個一樣的故事-- 每當(dāng)我感覺到這樣的時候它告訴我出于某種原因，我的寧靜和內(nèi)向的風(fēng)格并不是正確道路上的必需品我應(yīng)該更多地嘗試一個外向者的角色而在我內(nèi)心深處感覺得到，這是錯誤的內(nèi)向的人們都是非常優(yōu)秀的，確實是這樣但是許多年來我都否認(rèn)了這種直覺于是我首先成為了華爾街的一名律師而不是我長久以來想要成為的一名作家一部分原因是因為我想要證明自己也可以變得勇敢而堅定并且我總是去那些擁擠的酒吧當(dāng)我只是想要和朋友們吃一頓愉快的晚餐時我做出了這些自我否認(rèn)的抉擇如條件反射一般甚至我都不清楚我做出了這些決定

now this is what many introverts do, and it's our loss for sure, but it is also our colleagues' loss and our communities' loss. and at the risk of sounding grandiose, it is the world's loss. because when it comes to creativity and to leadership, we need introverts doing what they do best. a third to a half of the population are introverts -- a third to a half. so that's one out of every two or three people you know. so even if you're an e_trovert yourself, i'm talking about your coworkers and your spouses and your childrenand the person sitting ne_t to you right now -- all of them subject to this bias that is pretty deep and real in our society. we all internalize it from a very early age without even having a language for what we're doing.

這就是很多內(nèi)向的人正在做的事情這當(dāng)然是我們的損失但這同樣也是同事們的損失我們所在團隊集體的損失當(dāng)然，冒著被指為夸大其詞的風(fēng)險我想說，更是世界的損失因為當(dāng)涉及創(chuàng)造和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的時候我們需要內(nèi)向的人做到最好三分之一到二分之一的人都是內(nèi)向的-- 三分之一到二分之一你要知道這可意味著每兩到三個人中就有一個內(nèi)向的所以即使你自己是一個外向的人我正在說你的同事和你的配偶和你的孩子還有現(xiàn)在正坐在你旁邊的那個家伙-- 他們都要屈從于這樣的偏見一種在我們的社會中已經(jīng)扎根的現(xiàn)實偏見我們從很小的時候就把它藏在內(nèi)心最深處甚至都不說幾句話，關(guān)于我們正在做的事情。

now to see the bias clearly you need to understand what introversion is. it's different from being shy. shyness is about fear of social judgment. introversion is more about, how do you respond to stimulation, including social stimulation. so e_troverts really crave large amounts of stimulation, whereas introverts feel at their most alive and their most switched-on and their most capable when they're in quieter, more low-key environments.not all the time -- these things aren't absolute -- but a lot of the time. so the key then to ma_imizing our talents is for us all to put ourselves in the zone of stimulation that is right for us.

現(xiàn)在讓我們來清楚地看待這種偏見我們需要真正了解“內(nèi)向”到底指什么它和害羞是不同的害羞是對于社會評論的恐懼內(nèi)向更多的是你怎樣對于刺激作出回應(yīng) 包括來自社會的刺激其實內(nèi)向的人是很渴求大量的鼓舞和激勵的反之內(nèi)向者最感覺到他們的存在這是他們精力最充足的時候，最具有能力的時候當(dāng)他們存在于更安靜的，更低調(diào)的環(huán)境中并不是所有時候--這些事情都不是絕對的-- 但是存在于很多時候所以說，關(guān)鍵在于把我們的天賦發(fā)揮到最大化這對于我們來說就足夠把我們自己放到對于我們正確又合適的激勵的區(qū)域中去

but now here's where the bias comes in. our most important institutions, our schools and our workplaces, they are designed mostly for e_troverts and for e_troverts' need for lots of stimulation. and also we have this belief system right now that i call the new groupthink,which holds that all creativity and all productivity comes from a very oddly gregarious place.

但是現(xiàn)在偏見出現(xiàn)了我們最重要的那些體系我們的學(xué)校和工作單位它們都是為性格外向者設(shè)計的并且有適合他們需要的刺激和鼓勵當(dāng)然我們現(xiàn)在也有這樣一種信用機制我稱它為新型的“團隊思考” 這是一種包含所有創(chuàng)造力和生產(chǎn)力的思考方式從一個社交非常零散的地方產(chǎn)生的

so if you picture the typical classroom nowadays: when i was going to school, we sat in rows. we sat in rows of desks like this, and we did most of our work pretty autonomously.but nowadays, your typical classroom has pods of desks -- four or five or si_ or seven kids all facing each other. and kids are working in countless group assignments. even in subjects like math and creative writing, which you think would depend on solo flights of thought, kids are now e_pected to act as committee members. and for the kids who preferto go off by themselves or just to work alone, those kids are seen as outliers often or, worse, as problem cases. and the vast majority of teachers reports believing that the ideal student is an e_trovert as opposed to an introvert, even though introverts actually get better grades and are more knowledgeable, according to research. (laughter)

當(dāng)你描繪今天典型教室的圖案時當(dāng)我還上學(xué)的時候我們一排排地坐著我們靠著桌子一排排坐著就像這樣并且我們大多數(shù)工作都是自覺完成的但是在現(xiàn)代社會，所謂典型的教室是些圈起來并排的桌子-- 四個或是五個或是六、七個孩子坐在一起，面對面孩子們要完成無數(shù)個小組任務(wù) 甚至像數(shù)學(xué)和創(chuàng)意寫作這些課程這些你們認(rèn)為需要依靠個人閃光想法的課程孩子們現(xiàn)在卻被期待成為小組會的成員對于那些喜歡獨處，或者自己一個人工作的孩子來說這些孩子常常被視為局外人或者更糟，被視為問題孩子并且很大一部分老師的報告中都相信最理想的學(xué)生應(yīng)該是外向的相對于內(nèi)向的學(xué)生而言甚至說外向的學(xué)生能夠取得更好的成績更加博學(xué)多識據(jù)研究報道 (笑聲)

okay, same thing is true in our workplaces. now, most of us work in open plan offices,without walls, where we are subject to the constant noise and gaze of our coworkers. and when it comes to leadership, introverts are routinely passed over for leadership positions,even though introverts tend to be very careful, much less likely to take outsize risks --which is something we might all favor nowadays. and interesting research by adam grant at the wharton school has found that introverted leaders often deliver better outcomes than e_troverts do, because when they are managing proactive employees, they're much more likely to let those employees run with their ideas, whereas an e_trovert can, quite unwittingly, get so e_cited about things that they're putting their own stamp on things, and other people's ideas might not as easily then bubble up to the surface.

好了。同樣的事情也發(fā)生在我們工作的地方現(xiàn)在呢，我們中的絕大多數(shù)都工作在寬闊沒有隔間的辦公室里甚至沒有墻在這里，我們暴露在不斷的噪音和我們同事的凝視目光下工作而當(dāng)談及領(lǐng)袖氣質(zhì)的時候內(nèi)向的人總是按照慣例從領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的位置被忽視了盡管內(nèi)向的人是非常小心仔細(xì)的很少去冒特大的風(fēng)險-- 這些風(fēng)險是今天我們可能都喜歡的賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)沃頓商學(xué)院的亞當(dāng)·格蘭特教授做了一項很有意思的研究這項研究表明內(nèi)向的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們相對于外向領(lǐng)導(dǎo)而言總是會生產(chǎn)更大的效益因為當(dāng)他們管理主動積極的雇員的時候他們更傾向于讓有主見的雇員去自由發(fā)揮反之外向的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)就可能，當(dāng)然是不經(jīng)意的對于事情變得十分激動他們在事務(wù)上有了自己想法的印跡這使其他人的想法可能就不會很容易地在舞臺上發(fā)光了

now in fact, some of our transformative leaders in history have been introverts. i'll give you some e_amples. eleanor roosevelt, rosa parks, gandhi -- all these peopled described themselves as quiet and soft-spoken and even shy. and they all took the spotlight, even though every bone in their bodies was telling them not to. and this turns out to have a special power all its own, because people could feel that these leaders were at the helm,not because they enjoyed directing others and not out of the pleasure of being looked at;they were there because they had no choice, because they were driven to do what they thought was right.

事實上，歷史上一些有改革能力的領(lǐng)袖都是內(nèi)向的人我會舉一些例子給你們埃莉諾·羅斯福，羅沙·帕克斯，甘地 -- 所有這些人都把自己描述成內(nèi)向，說話溫柔甚至是害羞的人他們?nèi)匀徽驹诹司酃鉄粝?即使他們渾身上下都感知他們說不要這證明是一種屬于它自身的特殊的力量因為人們都會感覺這些領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者同時是掌舵者并不是因為他們喜歡指揮別人抑或是享受眾人目光的聚焦他們處在那個位置因為他們沒有選擇因為他們行駛在他們認(rèn)為正確的道路上

現(xiàn)在我覺得對于這點我有必要說那就是我真的喜愛外向的人我總是喜歡說我最好的幾個朋友都是外向的人包括我親愛的丈夫當(dāng)然了我們都會在不同點時偏向內(nèi)向者/外向者的范圍甚至是卡爾·榮格，這個讓這些名詞為大眾所熟知的心理學(xué)家，說道世上絕沒有一個純粹的內(nèi)向的人或者一個純粹的外向的人他說這樣的人會在精神病院里如果他存在的話還有一些人處在中間的跡象在內(nèi)向與外向之間我們稱這些人為“中向性格者” 并且我總是認(rèn)為他們擁有世界最美好的一切但是我們中的大多數(shù)總是認(rèn)為自己屬于內(nèi)向或者外向，其中一類

同時我想說從文化意義上講我們需要一種更好的平衡我們需要更多的陰陽的平衡在這兩種類型的人之間這點是極為重要的當(dāng)涉及創(chuàng)造力和生產(chǎn)力的時候因為當(dāng)心理學(xué)家們看待最有創(chuàng)造力的人的生命的時候他們尋找到的是那些擅長變換思維的人提出想法的人但是他們同時也有著極為顯著的偏內(nèi)向的痕跡

and this is because solitude is a crucial ingredient often to creativity. so darwin, he took long walks alone in the woods and emphatically turned down dinner party invitations.theodor geisel, better known as dr. seuss, he dreamed up many of his amazing creations in a lonely bell tower office that he had in the back of his house in la jolla, california. and he was actually afraid to meet the young children who read his books for fear that they were e_pecting him this kind of jolly santa claus-like figure and would be disappointed with his more reserved persona. steve wozniak invented the first apple computer sitting alone in his cubical in hewlett-packard where he was working at the time. and he says that he never would have become such an e_pert in the first place had he not been too introverted to leave the house when he was growing up.

這是因為獨處是非常關(guān)鍵的因素對于創(chuàng)造力來說所以達爾文自己一個人漫步在小樹林里并且斷然拒絕了晚餐派對的邀約西奧多·蓋索，更多時候以蘇索博士的名號知名他夢想過很多的驚人的創(chuàng)作在他在加利福尼亞州拉霍亞市房子的后面的一座孤獨的束層的塔形辦公室中而且其實他很害怕見面見那些讀過他的書的年輕的孩子們害怕他們會期待他這樣一位令人愉快的，圣誕老人形象的人物同時又會因發(fā)現(xiàn)他含蓄緘默的性格而失望史蒂夫·沃茲尼亞克發(fā)明了第一臺蘋果電腦一個人獨自坐在他的機柜旁在他當(dāng)時工作的惠普公司并且他說他永遠(yuǎn)不會在那方面成為一號專家但他還沒因太內(nèi)向到要離開那里那個他成長起來的地方

now of course, this does not mean that we should all stop collaborating -- and case in point, is steve wozniak famously coming together with steve jobs to start apple computer -- but it does mean that solitude matters and that for some people it is the air that they breathe. and in fact, we have known for centuries about the transcendent power of solitude. it's only recently that we've strangely begun to forget it. if you look at most of the world's major religions, you will find seekers -- moses, jesus, buddha, muhammad --seekers who are going off by themselves alone to the wilderness where they then have profound epiphanies and revelations that they then bring back to the rest of the community. so no wilderness, no revelations.

當(dāng)然了這并不意味著我們都應(yīng)該停止合作-- 恰當(dāng)?shù)睦幽?，是史蒂夫·沃茲尼亞克和史蒂夫·喬布斯的著名?lián)手創(chuàng)建蘋果電腦公司-- 但是這并不意味著和獨處有重大關(guān)系并且對于一些人來說這是他們賴以呼吸生存的空氣事實上，幾個世紀(jì)以來我們已經(jīng)非常明白獨處的卓越力量只是到了最近，非常奇怪，我們開始遺忘它了如果你看看世界上主要的宗教你會發(fā)現(xiàn)探尋者-- 摩西，耶穌，佛祖，穆罕默德 -- 那些獨身去探尋的人們在大自然的曠野中獨處，思索在那里，他們有了深刻的頓悟和對于奧義的揭示之后他們把這些思想帶回到社會的其他地方去沒有曠原，沒有啟示

盡管這并不令人驚訝如果你注意到現(xiàn)代心理學(xué)的思想理論它反映出來我們甚至不能和一組人待在一起而不去本能地模仿他們的意見與想法甚至是看上去私人的，發(fā)自內(nèi)心的事情像是你被誰所吸引你會開始模仿你周圍的人的信仰甚至都覺察不到你自己在做什么

還曾跟隨群體的意見跟隨著房間里最具有統(tǒng)治力的，最有領(lǐng)袖氣質(zhì)的人的思路雖然這真的沒什么關(guān)系在成為一個卓越的演講家還是擁有最好的主意之間-- 我的意思是“零相關(guān)” 那么...(笑聲) 你們或許會跟隨有最好頭腦的人但是你們也許不會可你們真的想把這機會扔掉嗎?如果每個人都自己行動或許好得多發(fā)掘他們自己的想法沒有群體動力學(xué)的曲解接著來到一起組成一個團隊在一個良好管理的環(huán)境中互相交流并且在那里學(xué)習(xí)別的思想

如果說現(xiàn)在這一切都是真的那么為什么我們還得到這樣錯誤的結(jié)論? 為什么我們要這樣創(chuàng)立我們的學(xué)校，還有我們的工作單位? 為什么我們要讓這些內(nèi)向的人覺得那么愧疚。對于他們只是想要離開，一個人獨處一段時間的事實? 有一個答案在我們的文化史中埋藏已久西方社會特別是在美國總是偏愛有行動的人而不是有深刻思考的人有深刻思考的“人” 但是在美國早期的時候我們生活在一個被歷史學(xué)家稱作“性格特征”的文化那時我們?nèi)匀?，在這點上，判斷人們的價值從人們的內(nèi)涵和道義正直而且如果你看一看這個時代關(guān)于自立的書籍的話它們都有這樣一種標(biāo)題： “性格”，世界上最偉大的事物并且它們以亞伯拉罕·林肯這樣的為標(biāo)榜一個被形容為謙虛低調(diào)的男人拉爾夫·瓦爾多·愛默生稱他是 “一個以‘優(yōu)越’二形容都不為過的人”

but then we hit the 20th century and we entered a new culture that historians call the culture of personality. what happened is we had evolved an agricultural economy to a world of big business. and so suddenly people are moving from small towns to the cities.and instead of working alongside people they've known all their lives, now they are having to prove themselves in a crowd of strangers. so, quite understandably, qualities like magnetism and charisma suddenly come to seem really important. and sure enough, the self-help books change to meet these new needs and they start to have names like "how to win friends and influence people." and they feature as their role models really great salesmen. so that's the world we're living in today. that's our cultural inheritance.

但是接著我們來到了二十世紀(jì) 并且我們?nèi)谌肓艘环N新的文化一種被歷史學(xué)家稱作“個性”的文化所發(fā)生的改變就是我們從農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟發(fā)展為一個大商業(yè)經(jīng)濟的世界而且人們突然開始搬遷從小的城鎮(zhèn)搬向城市并且一改他們之前的在生活中和所熟識的人們一起工作的方式現(xiàn)在他們在一群陌生人中間有必要去證明自己這樣做是非?？梢岳斫獾? 像領(lǐng)袖氣質(zhì)和個人魅力這樣的品質(zhì) 突然間似乎變得極為重要那么可以肯定的是，自助自立的書的內(nèi)容變更了以適應(yīng)這些新的需求并且它們開始擁有名稱像是《如何贏得朋友和影響他人》(戴爾?卡耐基所著《人性的弱點》) 他們的特點是做自己的榜樣不得不說確實是好的推銷員所以這就是我們今天生活的世界這是我們的文化遺產(chǎn)

現(xiàn)在沒有誰能夠說社交技能是不重要的并且我也不是想呼吁大家廢除團隊合作模式但仍是相同的宗教，卻把他們的圣人送到了孤獨的山頂上仍然教導(dǎo)我們愛與信任還有我們今天所要面對的問題像是在科學(xué)和經(jīng)濟領(lǐng)域是如此的巨大和復(fù)雜以至于我們需要人們強有力地團結(jié)起來共同解決這些問題但是我想說，越給內(nèi)向者自由讓他們做自己他們就做得越好去想出他們獨特的關(guān)于問題的解決辦法

所以現(xiàn)在我很高興同你們分享我手提箱中的東西猜猜是什么? 書我有一個手提箱里面裝滿了書這是瑪格麗特·阿特伍德的《貓的眼睛》這是一本米蘭·昆德拉的書這是一本《迷途指津》是邁蒙尼德寫的但這些實際上都不是我的書我還是帶著它們，陪伴著我因為它們都是我祖父最喜愛的作家所寫

我的祖父是一名猶太教祭司他獨身一人在布魯克林的一間小公寓中居住那里是我從小到大在這個世界上最喜愛的地方部分原因是他有著非常溫和親切的，溫文爾雅的舉止部分原因是那里充滿了書我的意思是，毫不夸張地說，公寓中的每張桌子，每張椅子都充分應(yīng)用著它原有的功能就是現(xiàn)在作為承載一大堆都在搖曳的書的表面就像我其他的家庭成員一樣我祖父在這個世界上最喜歡做的事情就是閱讀

但是他同樣也熱愛他的宗教并且你們可以從他的講述中感覺到他這種愛這62年來每周他都作為一名猶太教的祭司他會從每周的閱讀中汲取養(yǎng)分并且他會編織這些錯綜復(fù)雜的古代和人文主義的思想的掛毯并且人們會從各個地方前來聽他的講話

但是有這么一件關(guān)于我祖父的事情在這個正式的角色下隱藏著他是一個非常謙虛的非常內(nèi)向的人是那么的謙虛內(nèi)向以至于當(dāng)他在向人們講述的時候他都不敢有視線上的接觸和同樣的教堂會眾他已經(jīng)發(fā)言有62年了甚至都還遠(yuǎn)離領(lǐng)獎臺當(dāng)你們讓他說“你好”的時候他總會提早結(jié)束這對話擔(dān)心他會占用你太多的時間但是當(dāng)他94歲去世的時候警察們需要封鎖他所居住的街道鄰里來容納擁擠的人們前來哀悼他的人們這些天來我都試著從我祖父的事例中學(xué)習(xí) 以我自己的方式

so i just published a book about introversion, and it took me about seven years to write.and for me, that seven years was like total bliss, because i was reading, i was writing, i was thinking, i was researching. it was my version of my grandfather's hours of the day alone in his library. but now all of a sudden my job is very different, and my job is to be out here talking about it, talking about introversion. (laughter) and that's a lot harder for me,because as honored as i am to be here with all of you right now, this is not my natural milieu.

所以我就出版了一本關(guān)于內(nèi)向性格的書它花了我7年的時間完成它而對我來說，這七年像是一種極大的喜悅因為我在閱讀，我在寫作我在思考，我在探尋這是我的版本對于爺爺一天中幾個小時都要獨自待在圖書館這件事但是現(xiàn)在突然間我的工作變得很不同了我的工作變成了站在這里講述它講述內(nèi)向的性格 (笑聲) 而且這對于我來說是有一點困難的因為我很榮幸在現(xiàn)在被你們所有人所傾聽這可不是我自然的文化背景

所以我準(zhǔn)備了一會就像這樣以我所能做到的最好的方式我花了最近一年的時間練習(xí)在公共場合發(fā)言在我能得到的每一個機會中我把這一年稱作我的“危險地發(fā)言的一年” (笑聲) 而且它的確幫了我很大的忙但是我要告訴你們一個幫我更大的忙的事情那就是我的感覺，我的信仰，我的希望當(dāng)談及我們態(tài)度的時候對于內(nèi)向性格的，對于安靜，對于獨處的態(tài)度時我們確實是在急劇變化的邊緣上保持微妙的平衡我的意思是，我們在保持平衡現(xiàn)在我將要給你們留下一些東西三件對于你們的行動有幫助的事情獻給那些觀看我的演講的人

number one: stop the madness for constant group work. just stop it. (laughter) thank you. (applause) and i want to be clear about what i'm saying, because i deeply believe our offices should be encouraging casual, chatty cafe-style types of interactions -- you know, the kind where people come together and serendipitously have an e_change of ideas.that is great. it's great for introverts and it's great for e_troverts. but we need much more privacy and much more freedom and much more autonomy at work. school, same thing.we need to be teaching kids to work together, for sure, but we also need to be teaching them how to work on their own. this is especially important for e_troverted children too.they need to work on their own because that is where deep thought comes from in part.

第一：停止對于經(jīng)常要團隊協(xié)作的執(zhí)迷與瘋狂停止它就好了 (笑聲) 謝謝你們 (掌聲) 我想讓我所說的事情變得清晰一些因為我對于我們的辦公深信不疑應(yīng)該鼓勵它們那種休閑隨意的，聊天似的咖啡廳式的相互作用-- 你們知道的，道不同不相為謀，人們聚到一起并且互相交換著寶貴的意見這是很棒的這對于內(nèi)向者很好，同樣對于外向者也好但是我們需要更多的隱私和更多的自由還有更多對于我們本身工作的自主權(quán) 對于學(xué)校，也是同樣的。我們當(dāng)然需要教會孩子們要一起學(xué)習(xí)工作但是我們同樣需要教會孩子們怎么樣獨立完成任務(wù) 這對于外向的孩子們來說同樣是極為重要的他們需要獨立完成工作因為從某種程度上，這是他們深刻思考的來源

好了，第二個：去到野外(打開思維) 就像佛祖一樣，擁有你們自己對于事物的揭示啟迪我并不是說我們都要跑去小樹林里建造我們自己的小屋并且之后就永遠(yuǎn)不和別人說話了但是我要說我們都可以堅持去去除一些障礙物然后深入我們自己的大腦思想時不時得再深入一點

第三點：好好看一眼你的旅行箱內(nèi)有什么東西還有你為什么把它放進去所以外向者們也許你們的箱子內(nèi)同樣堆滿了書或者它們裝滿了香檳的玻璃酒杯或者是跳傘運動的設(shè)備不管它是什么，我希望每當(dāng)你們有機會你們就把它拿出來用你的能量和你的快樂讓我們感受到美和享受但是內(nèi)向者們，你們作為內(nèi)向者你們很可能有仔細(xì)保護一切的沖動在你箱子里的東西這沒有問題但是偶爾地，只是說偶爾地我希望你們可以打開你們的手提箱，讓別人看一看因為這個世界需要你們，同樣需要你們身上所攜帶的你們特有的事物

so i wish you the best of all possible journeys and the courage to speak softly.

所以對于你們即將走上的所有旅程，我都給予你們我最美好的祝愿還有溫柔地說話的勇氣

thank you. thank you.

非常感謝你們!

ted演講稿4

I was one of the only kids in college who had a reason to go to the P.O. bo_ at the end of the day, and that was mainly because my mother has never believed in email, in Facebook, in te_ting or cell phones in general. And so while other kids were BBM-ing their parents, I was literally waiting by the mailbo_ to get a letter from home to see how the weekend had gone, which was a little frustrating when Grandma was in the hospital, but I was just looking for some sort of scribble, some unkempt cursive from my mother.

And so when I moved to New York City after college and got completely sucker-punched in the face by depression, I did the only thing I could think of at the time. I wrote those same kinds of letters that my mother had written me for strangers, and tucked them all throughout the city, dozens and dozens of them. I left them everywhere, in cafes and in libraries, at the U.N., everywhere. I blogged about those letters and the days when they were necessary, and I posed a kind of crazy promise to the Internet: that if you asked me for a hand-written letter, I would write you one, no questions asked. Overnight, my inbo_ morphed into this harbor of heartbreak -- a single mother in Sacramento, a girl being bullied in rural Kansas, all asking me, a 22-year-old girl who barely even knew her own coffee order, to write them a love letter and give them a reason to wait by the mailbo_.

Well, today I fuel a global organization that is fueled by those trips to the mailbo_, fueled by the ways in which we can harness social media like never before to write and mail strangers letters when they need them most, but most of all, fueled by crates of mail like this one, my trusty mail crate, filled with the scriptings of ordinary people, strangers writing letters to other strangers not because they're ever going to meet and laugh over a cup of coffee, but because they have found one another by way of letter-writing.

But, you know, the thing that always gets me about these letters is that most of them have been written by people that have never known themselves loved on a piece of paper. They could not tell you about the ink of their own love letters. They're the ones from my generation, the ones of us that have grown up into a world where everything is paperless, and where some of our best conversations have happened upon a screen. We have learned to diary our pain onto Facebook, and we speak swiftly in 140 characters or less.

But what if it's not about efficiency this time? I was on the subway yesterday with this mail crate, which is a conversation starter, let me tell you. If you ever need one, just carry one of these. (Laughter) And a man just stared at me, and he was like, "Well, why don't you use the Internet?" And I thought, "Well, sir, I am not a strategist, nor am I specialist. I am merely a storyteller." And so I could tell you about a woman whose husband has just come home from Afghanistan, and she is having a hard time unearthing this thing called conversation, and so she tucks love letters throughout the house as a way to say, "Come back to me. Find me when you can." Or a girl who decides that she is going to leave love letters around her campus in Dubuque, Iowa, only to find her efforts ripple-effected the ne_t day when she walks out onto the quad and finds love letters hanging from the trees, tucked in the bushes and the benches. Or the man who decides that he is going to take his life, uses Facebook as a way to say goodbye to friends and family. Well, tonight he sleeps safely with a stack of letters just like this one tucked beneath his pillow, scripted by strangers who were there for him when.

These are the kinds of stories that convinced me that letter-writing will never again need to flip back her hair and talk about efficiency, because she is an art form now, all the parts of her, the signing, the scripting, the mailing, the doodles in the margins. The mere fact that somebody would even just sit down, pull out a piece of paper and think about someone the whole way through, with an intention that is so much harder to unearth when the browser is up and the iPhone is pinging and we've got si_ conversations rolling in at once, that is an art form that does not fall down to the Goliath of "get faster," no matter how many social networks we might join. We still clutch close these letters to our chest, to the words that speak louder than loud, when we turn pages into palettes to say the things that we have needed to say, the words that we have needed to write, to sisters and brothers and even to strangers, for far too long. Thank you.

ted演講稿5

擁抱他人，擁抱自己

embracing otherness. when i first heard this theme, i thought, well, embracing otherness is embracing myself. and the journey to that place of understanding and acceptance has been an interesting one for me, and it's given me an insight into the whole notion of self, which i think is worth sharing with you today.

擁抱他類。當(dāng)我第一次聽說這個主題時，我心想，擁抱他類不就是擁抱自己嗎。我個人懂得理解和接受他類的經(jīng)歷很有趣，讓我對于“自己”這個詞也有了新的認(rèn)識，我想今天在這里和你們分享下我的心得體會。

we each have a self, but i don't think that we're born with one. you know how newborn babies believe they're part of everything; they're not separate? well that fundamental sense of oneness is lost on us very quickly. it's like that initial stage is over -- oneness: infancy, unformed, primitive. it's no longer valid or real. what is real is separateness, and at some point in early babyhood, the idea of self starts to form. our little portion of oneness is given a name, is told all kinds of things about itself, and these details, opinions and ideas become facts, which go towards building ourselves, our identity. and that self becomes the vehicle for navigating our social world. but the self is a projection based on other people's projections. is it who we really are? or who we really want to be, or should be?

我們每個人都有個自我，但并不是生來就如此的。你知道新生的寶寶們覺得他們是任何東西的一部分，而不是分裂的個體。這種本源上的“天人合一”感在我們出生后很快就不見了，就好像我們?nèi)松牡谝粋€篇章--和諧統(tǒng)一：嬰兒，未成形，原始--結(jié)束了。它們似幻似影，而現(xiàn)實的世界是孤獨彼此分離的。而在孩童期的某段時間，我們開始形成自我這個觀點。宇宙中的小小個體有了自己的名字，有了自己的過去等等各種信息。這些關(guān)于自己的細(xì)節(jié)，看法和觀點慢慢變成事實，成為我們身份的一部分。而那個自我，也變成我們?nèi)松飞锨靶械膶?dǎo)航儀。然后，這個所謂的自我，是他人自我的映射，還是我們真實的自己呢?我們究竟想成為什么樣，應(yīng)該成為什么樣的呢?

so this whole interaction with self and identity was a very difficult one for me growing up. the self that i attempted to take out into the world was rejected over and over again. and my panic at not having a self that fit, and the confusion that came from my self being rejected, created an_iety, shame and hopelessness, which kind of defined me for a long time. but in retrospect, the destruction of my self was so repetitive that i started to see a pattern. the self changed, got affected, broken, destroyed, but another one would evolve -- sometimes stronger, sometimes hateful, sometimes not wanting to be there at all. the self was not constant. and how many times would my self have to die before i realized that it was never alive in the first place?

這個和自我打交道，尋找自己身份的過程在我的成長記憶中一點都不容易。我想成為的那些“自我”不斷被否定再否定，而我害怕自己無法融入周遭的環(huán)境，因被否定而引起的困惑讓我變得更加憂慮，感到羞恥和無望，在很長一段時間就是我存在狀態(tài)。然而回頭看，對自我的解構(gòu)是那么頻繁，以至于我發(fā)現(xiàn)了這樣一種規(guī)律。自我是變化的，受他人影響，分裂或被打敗，而另一個自我會產(chǎn)生，這個自我可能更堅強，可能更可憎，有時你也不想變成那樣。所謂自我不是固定不變的。而我需要經(jīng)歷多少次自我的破碎重生才會明白其實自我從來沒有存在過?

i grew up on the coast of england in the '70s. my dad is white from cornwall, and my mom is black from zimbabwe. even the idea of us as a family was challenging to most people. but nature had its wicked way, and brown babies were born. but from about the age of five, i was aware that i didn't fit. i was the black atheist kid in the all-white catholic school run by nuns. i was an anomaly, and my self was rooting around for definition and trying to plug in. because the self likes to fit, to see itself replicated, to belong. that confirms its e_istence and its importance. and it is important. it has an e_tremely important function. without it, we literally can't interface with others. we can't hatch plans and climb that stairway of popularity, of success. but my skin color wasn't right. my hair wasn't right. my history wasn't right. my self became defined by otherness, which meant that, in that social world, i didn't really e_ist. and i was "other" before being anything else -- even before being a girl. i was a noticeable nobody.

我在70年代英格蘭海邊長大，我的父親是康沃爾的白人，母親是津巴布韋的黑人。而想象我和父母是一家人對于其他人來說總是不太自然。自然有它自己的魔術(shù)，棕色皮膚的寶寶誕生了。但從我五歲開始，我就有種感覺我不是這個群體的。我是一個全白人天主教會學(xué)校里面黑皮膚無神論小孩。我與他人是不同的，而那個熱衷于歸屬的自我卻到處尋找方式尋找歸屬感。這種認(rèn)同感讓自我感受到存在感和重要性，因此十分重要。這點是如此重要，如果沒有自我，我們根本無法與他人溝通。沒有它，我們無所適從，無法獲取成功或變得受人歡迎。但我的膚色不對，我的頭發(fā)不對，我的過去不對，我的一切都是另類定義的，在這個社會里，我其實并不真實存在。我首先是個異類，其次才是個女孩。我是可見卻毫無意義的人。

another world was opening up around this time: performance and dancing. that nagging dread of self-hood didn't e_ist when i was dancing. i'd literally lose myself. and i was a really good dancer. i would put all my emotional e_pression into my dancing. i could be in the movement in a way that i wasn't able to be in my real life, in myself.

這時候，另一個世界向我敞開了大門：舞蹈表演。那種關(guān)于自我的嘮叨恐懼在舞蹈時消失了，我放開四肢，也成為了一位不錯的舞者。我將所有的情緒都融入到舞蹈的動作中去，我可以在舞蹈中與自己相溶，盡管在現(xiàn)實生活中卻無法做到。

and at 16, i stumbled across another opportunity, and i earned my first acting role in a film. i can hardly find the words to describe the peace i felt when i was acting. my dysfunctional self could actually plug in to another self, not my own, and it felt so good. it was the first time that i e_isted inside a fully-functioning self -- one that i controlled, that i steered, that i gave life to. but the shooting day would end, and i'd return to my gnarly, awkward self.

16歲的時候，我遇到了另一個機會，第一部參演的電影。我無法用語言來表達在演戲的時候我所感受到的平和，我無處著落的自我可以與那個角色融為一體，而不是我自己。那感覺真棒。這是第一次我感覺到我擁有一個自我，我可以駕馭，令其富有盛名的自我。然而當(dāng)拍攝結(jié)束，我又會回到自己粗糙不明，笨拙的自我。

by 19, i was a fully-fledged movie actor, but still searching for definition. i applied to read anthropology at university. dr. phyllis lee gave me my interview, and she asked me, "how would you define race?" well, i thought i had the answer to that one, and i said, "skin color." "so biology, genetics?" she said. "because, thandie, that's not accurate. because there's actually more genetic difference between a black kenyan and a black ugandan than there is between a black kenyan and, say, a white norwegian. because we all stem from africa. so in africa, there's been more time to create genetic diversity." in other words, race has no basis in biological or scientific fact. on the one hand, result. right? on the other hand, my definition of self just lost a huge chunk of its credibility. but what was credible, what is biological and scientific fact, is that we all stem from africa -- in fact, from a woman called mitochondrial eve who lived 160,000 years ago. and race is an illegitimate concept which our selves have created based on fear and ignorance.

19歲的時候，我已經(jīng)是富有經(jīng)驗的專業(yè)電影演員，而我還是在尋找自我的定義。我申請了大學(xué)的人類學(xué)專業(yè)。phyllis lee博士面試了我，她問我：“你怎么定義種族?”我覺得我很了解這個話題，我說：“膚色?！薄澳敲瓷锷蟻碚f呢，例如遺傳基因?”她說，“thandie 膚色并不全面，其實一個肯尼亞黑人和烏干達黑人之間基因差異比一個肯尼亞黑人和挪威白人之間差異要更多。因為我們都是從非洲來的，所以在非洲，基因變異演化的時間是最久的?！睋Q句話說，種族在生物學(xué)或任何科學(xué)上都沒有事實根據(jù)。另一方面，我對于自我的定義瞬時失去了一大片基礎(chǔ)。但那就是生物學(xué)事實，我們都是非洲后裔，一位在160 0__年前的偉大女性mitochondrial eve的后人。而種族這個無效的概念是我們基于恐懼和無知自己捏造出來的。

strangely, these revelations didn't cure my low self-esteem, that feeling of otherness. my desire to disappear was still very powerful. i had a degree from cambridge; i had a thriving career, but my self was a car crash, and i wound up with bulimia and on a therapist's couch. and of course i did. i still believed my self was all i was. i still valued self-worth above all other worth, and what was there to suggest otherwise? we've created entire value systems and a physical reality to support the worth of self. look at the industry for self-image and the jobs it creates, the revenue it turns over. we'd be right in assuming that the self is an actual living thing. but it's not. it's a projection which our clever brains create in order to cheat ourselves from the reality of death.

奇怪的是，這個發(fā)現(xiàn)并沒有治好我的自卑，那種被排擠的感覺。我還是那么強烈地想要離開消失。我從劍橋拿到了學(xué)位，我有份充滿發(fā)展的工作，然而我的自我還是一團糟，我得了催吐病不得不接受治療師的幫助。我還是相信自我是我的全部。我還是堅信“自我”的價值甚過一切。而且我們身處的世界就是如此，我們的整個價值系統(tǒng)和現(xiàn)實環(huán)境都是在服務(wù)“自我”的價值?？纯床煌袠I(yè)里面對于自我的塑造，看看它們創(chuàng)造的那些工作，產(chǎn)出的那些利潤。我們甚至必須相信自我是真實存在的。但它們不是，自我不過是我們聰明的腦袋假想出來騙自己不去思考死亡這個話題的幌子。

but there is something that can give the self ultimate and infinite connection -- and that thing is oneness, our essence. the self's struggle for authenticity and definition will never end unless it's connected to its creator -- to you and to me. and that can happen with awareness -- awareness of the reality of oneness and the projection of self-hood. for a start, we can think about all the times when we do lose ourselves. it happens when i dance, when i'm acting. i'm earthed in my essence, and my self is suspended. in those moments, i'm connected to everything -- the ground, the air, the sounds, the energy from the audience. all my senses are alert and alive in much the same way as an infant might feel -- that feeling of oneness.

但其實我們的終極自我其實是我們的本源，合一。掙扎自我是否真實，究竟是什么永遠(yuǎn)沒有終結(jié)，除非它和賦予它意義的創(chuàng)造者合一，就是你和我。而這點當(dāng)我們意識到現(xiàn)實是你中有我，我中有你，和諧統(tǒng)一，而自我是種假象時就會體會到了。我們可以想想，什么時候我們是身心統(tǒng)一的，例如說我跳舞，表演的時候，我和我的本源連結(jié)，而我的自我被拋在一邊。那時，我和身邊的一切--空氣，大地，聲音，觀眾的反饋都連結(jié)在一起。我的知覺是敏銳和鮮活的，就像初生的嬰兒那樣，合一。

and when i'm acting a role, i inhabit another self, and i give it life for awhile, because when the self is suspended so is divisiveness and judgment. and i've played everything from a vengeful ghost in the time of slavery to secretary of state in __. and no matter how other these selves might be, they're all related in me. and i honestly believe the key to my success as an actor and my progress as a person has been the very lack of self that used to make me feel so an_ious and insecure. i always wondered why i could feel others' pain so deeply, why i could recognize the somebody in the nobody. it's because i didn't have a self to get in the way. i thought i lacked substance, and the fact that i could feel others' meant that i had nothing of myself to feel. the thing that was a source of shame was actually a source of enlightenment.

當(dāng)我在演戲的時候，我讓另一個自我住在我體內(nèi)，我代表它行動。當(dāng)我的自我被拋開，緊隨的分歧和主觀判斷也消失了。我曾經(jīng)扮演過奴隸時代的復(fù)仇鬼魂，也扮演過__年的國務(wù)卿。不管他們這些自我是怎樣的，他們都在那時與我相連。而我也深信作為演員，我的成功，或是作為個體，我的成長都是源于我缺乏“自我”，那種缺乏曾經(jīng)讓我非常憂慮和不安。我總是不明白為什么我會那么深地感受到他人的痛苦，為什么我可以從不知名的人身上看出他人的印痕。是因為我沒有所謂的自我來左右我感受的信息吧。我以為我缺少些什么，我以為我對他人的理解是因為我缺乏自我。那個曾經(jīng)是我深感羞恥的東西其實是種啟示。

and when i realized and really understood that my self is a projection and that it has a function, a funny thing happened. i stopped giving it so much authority. i give it its due. i take it to therapy. i've become very familiar with its dysfunctional behavior. but i'm not ashamed of my self. in fact, i respect my self and its function. and over time and with practice, i've tried to live more and more from my essence. and if you can do that, incredible things happen.

當(dāng)我真的理解我的自我不過是種映射，是種工具，一件奇怪的事情發(fā)生了。我不再讓它過多控制我的生活。我學(xué)習(xí)管理它，像把它帶去看醫(yī)生一樣，我很熟悉那些因自我而失調(diào)的舉動。我不因自我而羞恥，事實上，我很尊敬我的自我和它的功能。而隨著時間過去，我的技術(shù)也更加熟練，我可以更多的和我的本源共存。如果你愿意嘗試，不可以思議的事情也會發(fā)生在你身上。

i was in congo in february, dancing and celebrating with women who've survived the destruction of their selves in literally unthinkable ways -- destroyed because other brutalized, psychopathic selves all over that beautiful land are fueling our selves' addiction to ipods, pads, and bling, which further disconnect ourselves from ever feeling their pain, their suffering, their death. because, hey, if we're all living in ourselves and mistaking it for life, then we're devaluing and desensitizing life. and in that disconnected state, yeah, we can build factory farms with no windows, destroy marine life and use rape as a weapon of war. so here's a note to self: the cracks have started to show in our constructed world, and oceans will continue to surge through the cracks, and oil and blood, rivers of it.

今年二月，我在剛果和一群女性一起跳舞和慶祝，她們都是經(jīng)歷過各種無法想象事情“自我”遍體鱗傷的人們，那些備受摧殘，心理變態(tài)的自我充斥在這片美麗的土地，而我們?nèi)园V迷地追逐著ipod，pad等各種閃亮的東西，將我們與他們的痛苦，死亡隔得更遠(yuǎn)。如果我們各自生活在自我中，并無以為這就是生活，那么我們是在貶低和遠(yuǎn)離生命的意義。在這種脫節(jié)的狀態(tài)中，我們是可以建設(shè)沒有窗戶的工廠，破壞海洋生態(tài)，將__作為戰(zhàn)爭的工具。為我們的自我做個解釋：這是看似完善的世界里的裂痕，海洋，河流，石油和鮮血正不斷地從縫中涌出。

crucially, we haven't been figuring out how to live in oneness with the earth and every other living thing. we've just been insanely trying to figure out how to live with each other -- billions of each other. only we're not living with each other; our crazy selves are living with each other and perpetuating an epidemic of disconnection.

關(guān)鍵的是，我們還沒有明白如何和自然以及其他所有生物和諧地共處。我們只是瘋狂地想和其他人溝通，幾十億其他人。只有當(dāng)我們不在和世界合一的時候，我們瘋狂的自我卻互相憐惜，并永遠(yuǎn)繼續(xù)這場相互隔絕的疫癥。

let's live with each other and take it a breath at a time. if we can get under that heavy self, light a torch of awareness, and find our essence, our connection to the infinite and every other living thing. we knew it from the day we were born. let's not be freaked out by our bountiful nothingness. it's more a reality than the ones our selves have created. imagine what kind of e_istence we can have if we honor inevitable death of self, appreciate the privilege of life and marvel at what comes ne_t. simple awareness is where it begins.

讓我們共生共榮，并不要太過激進著急。試著放下沉重的自我，點亮知覺的火把，尋找我們的本源，我們與萬事萬物之間的聯(lián)系。我們初生時就懂得這個道理的。不要被我們內(nèi)心豐富的空白嚇到，這比我們虛構(gòu)的自我要真實。想象如果你能接受自我并不存在，你想要如何生活，感恩生命的可貴和未來的驚奇。簡單的覺醒就是開始。

thank you for listening.

(applause) 謝謝。

ted演講稿最新精選2020相關(guān)文章：

★ 五篇經(jīng)典TED英語演講稿范文

★ 2020優(yōu)秀演講稿全新精選

★ 2020最新正能量演講稿全新精選

★ 2020只爭朝夕不負(fù)韶華演講稿【精選】

★ 2020最新演講稿全新精選

★ 五篇TED英語演講稿范文

★ 最新2020致敬最美逆行者演講稿精選5篇

★ 五篇優(yōu)秀TED英語演講稿范文

★ 簡短的ted演講稿