TED演讲稿The Beauty of What Well Never Know原文

第一篇：TED演讲稿The Beauty of What Well Never Know原文

The Beauty of What We’ll Never Know

One hot October morning, I got off the all-night train in Mandalay, the old royal capital of Burma, now Myanmar.And out on the street, I ran into a group of rough men standing beside their bicycle rickshaws.And one of them came up and offered to show me around.The price he quoted was outrageous.It was less than I would pay for a bar of chocolate at home.So I clambered into his trishaw, and he began pedaling us slowly between palaces and pagodas.And as he did, he told me how he had come to the city from his village.He'd earned a degree in mathematics.His dream was to be a teacher.But of course, life is hard under a military dictatorship, and so for now, this was the only way he could make a living.Many nights, he told me, he actually slept in his trishaw so he could catch the first visitors off the all-night train.And very soon, we found that in certain ways, we had so much in common--we were both in our 20s, we were both fascinated by foreign cultures--that he invited me home.So we turned off the wide, crowded streets, and we began bumping down rough, wild alleyways.There were broken shacks all around.I really lost the sense of where I was, and I realized that anything could happen to me now.I could get mugged or drugged or something worse.Nobody would know.Finally, he stopped and led me into a hut, which consisted of just one tiny room.And then he leaned down, and reached under his bed.And something in me froze.I waited to see what he would pull out.And finally he extracted a box.Inside it was every single letter he had ever received from visitors from abroad, and on some of them he had pasted little black-and-white worn snapshots of his new foreign friends.So when we said goodbye that night, I realized he had also shown me the secret point of travel, which is to take a plunge, to go inwardly as well as outwardly to places you would never go otherwise, to venture into uncertainty, ambiguity, even fear.At home, it's dangerously easy to assume we're on top of things.Out in the world, you are reminded every moment that you're not, and you can't get to the bottom of things, either.Everywhere, “People wish to be settled,”Ralph Waldo Emerson reminded us, “but only insofar as we are unsettled is there any hope for us.”

At this conference, we've been lucky enough to hear some exhilarating new ideas and discoveries and, really, about all the ways in which knowledge is being pushed excitingly forwards.But at some point, knowledge gives out.And that is the moment when your life is truly decided: you fall in love;you lose a friend;the lights go out.And it's then, when you're lost or uneasy or carried out of yourself, that you find out who you are.I don't believe that ignorance is bliss.Science has unquestionably made our lives brighter and longer and healthier.And I am forever grateful to the teachers who showed me the laws of physics and pointed out that three times three makes nine.I can count that out on my fingers any time of night or day.But when a mathematician tells me that minus three times minus three makes nine, that's a kind of logic that almost feels like trust.The opposite of knowledge, in other words, isn't always ignorance.It can be wonder.Or mystery.Possibility.And in my life, I’ve found it's the things I don’t know that have lifted me up and pushed me forwards much more than the things I do know.It's also the things I don't know that have often brought me closer to everybody around me.For eight straight Novembers, recently, I traveled every year across Japan with the Dalai Lama.And the one thing he said every day that most seemed to give people reassurance and confidence was, “I don't know.”

“What's going to happen to Tibet?”“When are we ever going to get world peace?”“What’s the best way to raise children?”

“Frankly,”says this very wise man, “I don’t know.”

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman has spent more than 60 years now researching human behavior, and his conclusion is that we are always much more confident of what we think we know than we should be.We have, as he memorably puts it, an “unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.”We know--quote, unquote--our team is going to win this weekend, and we only remember that knowledge on the rare occasions when we're right.Most of the time, we’re in the dark.And that’s where real intimacy lies.Do you know what your lover is going to do tomorrow? Do you want to know? The parents of us all, as some people call them, Adam and Eve, could never die, so long as they were eating from the tree of life.But the minute they began nibbling from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they fell from their innocence.They grew embarrassed and fretful, self-conscious.And they learned, a little too late, perhaps, that there are certainly some things that we need to know, but there are many, many more that are better left unexplored.Now, when I was a kid, I knew it all, of course.I had been spending 20 years in classrooms collecting facts, and I was actually in the information business, writing articles for Time Magazine.And I took my first real trip to Japan for two-and-a-half weeks, and I came back with a 40-page essay explaining every last detail about Japan's temples, its fashions, its baseball games, its soul.But underneath all that, something that I couldn't understand so moved me for reasons I couldn't explain to you yet, that I decided to go and live in Japan.And now that I've been there for 28 years, I really couldn't tell you very much at all about my adopted home.Which is wonderful, because it means every day I'm making some new discovery, and in the process, looking around the corner and seeing the hundred thousand things I'll never know.Knowledge is a priceless gift.But the illusion of knowledge can be more dangerous than ignorance.Thinking that you know your lover or your enemy can be more treacherous than acknowledging you'll never know them.Every morning in Japan, as the sun is flooding into our little apartment, I take great pains not to consult the weather forecast, because if I do, my mind will be overclouded, distracted, even when the day is bright.I've been a full-time writer now for 34 years.And the one thing that I have learned is that transformation comes when I'm not in charge, when I don’t know what’s coming next, when I can’t assume I am bigger than everything around me.And the same is true in love or in moments of crisis.Suddenly, we’re back in that trishaw again and we’re bumping off the broad, well-lit streets;and we’re reminded, really, of the first law of travel and, therefore, of life: you’re only as strong as your readiness to surrender.In the end, perhaps, being human is much more important than being fully in the know.Thank you.

第二篇：TED演讲原文和翻译~

< your body language shapes who you are >

So I want to start by offering you a free no-tech life hack, and all it requires of you is this: that you change your posture for two minutes.But before I give it away, I want to ask you to right now do a little audit of your body and what you're doing with your body.So how many of you are sort of making yourselves smaller? Maybe you're hunching, crossing your legs, maybe wrapping your ankles.Sometimes we hold onto our arms like this.Sometimes we spread out.(Laughter)I see you.(Laughter)So I want you to pay attention to what you're doing right now.We're going to come back to that in a few minutes, and I'm hoping that if you learn to tweak this a little bit, it could significantly change the way your life unfolds.0:58 So, we're really fascinated with body language, and we're particularly interested in other people's body language.You know, we're interested in, like, you know —(Laughter)— an awkward interaction, or a smile, or a contemptuous glance, or maybe a very awkward wink, or maybe even something like a handshake.1:22 Narrator: Here they are arriving at Number 10, and look at this lucky policeman gets to shake hands with the President of the United States.Oh, and here comes the Prime Minister of the — ? No.(Laughter)(Applause)(Laughter)(Applause)1:37 Amy Cuddy: So a handshake, or the lack of a handshake, can have us talking for weeks and weeks and weeks.Even the BBC and The New York Times.So obviously when we think about nonverbal behavior, or body language--but we call it nonverbals as social scientists--it's language, so we think about communication.When we think about communication, we think about interactions.So what is your body language communicating to me? What's mine communicating to you? 2:04 And there's a lot of reason to believe that this is a valid way to look at this.So social scientists have spent a lot of time looking at the effects of our body language, or other people's body language, on judgments.And we make sweeping judgments and inferences from body language.And those judgments can predict really meaningful life outcomes like who we hire or promote, who we ask out on a date.For example, Nalini Ambady, a researcher at Tufts University, shows that when people watch 30-second soundless clips of real physician-patient interactions, their judgments of the physician's niceness predict whether or not that physician will be sued.So it doesn't have to do so much with whether or not that physician was incompetent, but do we like that person and how they interacted? Even more dramatic, Alex Todorov at Princeton has shown us that judgments of political candidates' faces in just one second predict 70 percent of U.S.Senate and gubernatorial race outcomes, and even, let's go digital, emoticons used well in online negotiations can lead to you claim more value from that negotiation.If you use them poorly, bad idea.Right? So when we think of nonverbals, we think of how we judge others, how they judge us and what the outcomes are.We tend to forget, though, the other audience that's influenced by our nonverbals, and that's ourselves.3:31 We are also influenced by our nonverbals, our thoughts and our feelings and our physiology.So what nonverbals am I talking about? I'm a social psychologist.I study prejudice, and I teach at a competitive business school, so it was inevitable that I would become interested in power dynamics.I became especially interested in nonverbal expressions of power and dominance.3:56 And what are nonverbal expressions of power and dominance? Well, this is what they are.So in the animal kingdom, they are about expanding.So you make yourself big, you stretch out, you take up space, you're basically opening up.It's about opening up.And this is true across the animal kingdom.It's not just limited to primates.And humans do the same thing.(Laughter)So they do this both when they have power sort of chronically, and also when they're feeling powerful in the moment.And this one is especially interesting because it really shows us how universal and old these expressions of power are.This expression, which is known as pride, Jessica Tracy has studied.She shows that people who are born with sight and people who are congenitally blind do this when they win at a physical competition.So when they cross the finish line and they've won, it doesn't matter if they've never seen anyone do it.They do this.So the arms up in the V, the chin is slightly lifted.What do we do when we feel powerless? We do exactly the opposite.We close up.We wrap ourselves up.We make ourselves small.We don't want to bump into the person next to us.So again, both animals and humans do the same thing.And this is what happens when you put together high and low power.So what we tend to do when it comes to power is that we complement the other's nonverbals.So if someone is being really powerful with us, we tend to make ourselves smaller.We don't mirror them.We do the opposite of them.5:24 So I'm watching this behavior in the classroom, and what do I notice? I notice that MBA students really exhibit the full range of power nonverbals.So you have people who are like caricatures of alphas, really coming into the room, they get right into the middle of the room before class even starts, like they really want to occupy space.When they sit down, they're sort of spread out.They raise their hands like this.You have other people who are virtually collapsing when they come in.As soon they come in, you see it.You see it on their faces and their bodies, and they sit in their chair and they make themselves tiny, and they go like this when they raise their hand.I notice a couple of things about this.One, you're not going to be surprised.It seems to be related to gender.So women are much more likely to do this kind of thing than men.Women feel chronically less powerful than men, so this is not surprising.But the other thing I noticed is that it also seemed to be related to the extent to which the students were participating, and how well they were participating.And this is really important in the MBA classroom, because participation counts for half the grade.6:33 So business schools have been struggling with this gender grade gap.You get these equally qualified women and men coming in and then you get these differences in grades, and it seems to be partly attributable to participation.So I started to wonder, you know, okay, so you have these people coming in like this, and they're participating.Is it possible that we could get people to fake it and would it lead them to participate more? 6:57 So my main collaborator Dana Carney, who's at Berkeley, and I really wanted to know, can you fake it till you make it? Like, can you do this just for a little while and actually experience a behavioral outcome that makes you seem more powerful? So we know that our nonverbals govern how other people think and feel about us.There's a lot of evidence.But our question really was, do our nonverbals govern how we think and feel about ourselves? 7:24 There's some evidence that they do.So, for example, we smile when we feel happy, but also, when we're forced to smile by holding a pen in our teeth like this, it makes us feel happy.So it goes both ways.When it comes to power, it also goes both ways.So when you feel powerful, you're more likely to do this, but it's also possible that when you pretend to be powerful, you are more likely to actually feel powerful.7:57 So the second question really was, you know, so we know that our minds change our bodies, but is it also true that our bodies change our minds? And when I say minds, in the case of the powerful, what am I talking about? So I'm talking about thoughts and feelings and the sort of physiological things that make up our thoughts and feelings, and in my case, that's hormones.I look at hormones.So what do the minds of the powerful versus the powerless look like? So powerful people tend to be, not surprisingly, more assertive and more confident, more optimistic.They actually feel that they're going to win even at games of chance.They also tend to be able to think more abstractly.So there are a lot of differences.They take more risks.There are a lot of differences between powerful and powerless people.Physiologically, there also are differences on two key hormones: testosterone, which is the dominance hormone, and cortisol, which is the stress hormone.So what we find is that high-power alpha males in primate hierarchies have high testosterone and low cortisol, and powerful and effective leaders also have high testosterone and low cortisol.So what does that mean? When you think about power, people tended to think only about testosterone, because that was about dominance.But really, power is also about how you react to stress.So do you want the high-power leader that's dominant, high on testosterone, but really stress reactive? Probably not, right? You want the person who's powerful and assertive and dominant, but not very stress reactive, the person who's laid back.9:37 So we know that in primate hierarchies, if an alpha needs to take over, if an individual needs to take over an alpha role sort of suddenly, within a few days, that individual's testosterone has gone up significantly and his cortisol has dropped significantly.So we have this evidence, both that the body can shape the mind, at least at the facial level, and also that role changes can shape the mind.So what happens, okay, you take a role change, what happens if you do that at a really minimal level, like this tiny manipulation, this tiny intervention? “For two minutes,” you say, “I want you to stand like this, and it's going to make you feel more powerful.” 10:19 So this is what we did.We decided to bring people into the lab and run a little experiment, and these people adopted, for two minutes, either high-power poses or low-power poses, and I'm just going to show you five of the poses, although they took on only two.So here's one.A couple more.This one has been dubbed the “Wonder Woman” by the media.Here are a couple more.So you can be standing or you can be sitting.And here are the low-power poses.So you're folding up, you're making yourself small.This one is very low-power.When you're touching your neck, you're really protecting yourself.So this is what happens.They come in, they spit into a vial, we for two minutes say, “You need to do this or this.” They don't look at pictures of the poses.We don't want to prime them with a concept of power.We want them to be feeling power, right? So two minutes they do this.We then ask them, “How powerful do you feel?” on a series of items, and then we give them an opportunity to gamble, and then we take another saliva sample.That's it.That's the whole experiment.11:28 So this is what we find.Risk tolerance, which is the gambling, what we find is that when you're in the high-power pose condition, 86 percent of you will gamble.When you're in the low-power pose condition, only 60 percent, and that's a pretty whopping significant difference.Here's what we find on testosterone.From their baseline when they come in, high-power people experience about a 20-percent increase, and low-power people experience about a 10-percent decrease.So again, two minutes, and you get these changes.Here's what you get on cortisol.High-power people experience about a 25-percent decrease, and the low-power people experience about a 15-percent increase.So two minutes lead to these hormonal changes that configure your brain to basically be either assertive, confident and comfortable, or really stress-reactive, and, you know, feeling sort of shut down.And we've all had the feeling, right? So it seems that our nonverbals do govern how we think and feel about ourselves, so it's not just others, but it's also ourselves.Also, our bodies change our minds.12:36 But the next question, of course, is can power posing for a few minutes really change your life in meaningful ways? So this is in the lab.It's this little task, you know, it's just a couple of minutes.Where can you actually apply this? Which we cared about, of course.And so we think it's really, what matters, I mean, where you want to use this is evaluative situations like social threat situations.Where are you being evaluated, either by your friends? Like for teenagers it's at the lunchroom table.It could be, you know, for some people it's speaking at a school board meeting.It might be giving a pitch or giving a talk like this or doing a job interview.We decided that the one that most people could relate to because most people had been through was the job interview.13:20 So we published these findings, and the media are all over it, and they say, Okay, so this is what you do when you go in for the job interview, right?(Laughter)You know, so we were of course horrified, and said, Oh my God, no, no, no, that's not what we meant at all.For numerous reasons, no, no, no, don't do that.Again, this is not about you talking to other people.It's you talking to yourself.What do you do before you go into a job interview? You do this.Right? You're sitting down.You're looking at your iPhone--or your Android, not trying to leave anyone out.You are, you know, you're looking at your notes, you're hunching up, making yourself small, when really what you should be doing maybe is this, like, in the bathroom, right? Do that.Find two minutes.So that's what we want to test.Okay? So we bring people into a lab, and they do either high-or low-power poses again, they go through a very stressful job interview.It's five minutes long.They are being recorded.They're being judged also, and the judges are trained to give no nonverbal feedback, so they look like this.Like, imagine this is the person interviewing you.So for five minutes, nothing, and this is worse than being heckled.People hate this.It's what Marianne LaFrance calls “standing in social quicksand.” So this really spikes your cortisol.So this is the job interview we put them through, because we really wanted to see what happened.We then have these coders look at these tapes, four of them.They're blind to the hypothesis.They're blind to the conditions.They have no idea who's been posing in what pose, and they end up looking at these sets of tapes, and they say, “Oh, we want to hire these people,”--all the high-power posers--“we don't want to hire these people.We also evaluate these people much more positively overall.” But what's driving it? It's not about the content of the speech.It's about the presence that they're bringing to the speech.We also, because we rate them on all these variables related to competence, like, how well-structured is the speech? How good is it? What are their qualifications? No effect on those things.This is what's affected.These kinds of things.People are bringing their true selves, basically.They're bringing themselves.They bring their ideas, but as themselves, with no, you know, residue over them.So this is what's driving the effect, or mediating the effect.15:35 So when I tell people about this, that our bodies change our minds and our minds can change our behavior, and our behavior can change our outcomes, they say to me, “I don't--It feels fake.” Right? So I said, fake it till you make it.I don't--It's not me.I don't want to get there and then still feel like a fraud.I don't want to feel like an impostor.I don't want to get there only to feel like I'm not supposed to be here.And that really resonated with me, because I want to tell you a little story about being an impostor and feeling like I'm not supposed to be here.16:06 When I was 19, I was in a really bad car accident.I was thrown out of a car, rolled several times.I was thrown from the car.And I woke up in a head injury rehab ward, and I had been withdrawn from college, and I learned that my I.Q.had dropped by two standard deviations, which was very traumatic.I knew my I.Q.because I had identified with being smart, and I had been called gifted as a child.So I'm taken out of college, I keep trying to go back.They say, “You're not going to finish college.Just, you know, there are other things for you to do, but that's not going to work out for you.” So I really struggled with this, and I have to say, having your identity taken from you, your core identity, and for me it was being smart, having that taken from you, there's nothing that leaves you feeling more powerless than that.So I felt entirely powerless.I worked and worked and worked, and I got lucky, and worked, and got lucky, and worked.17:01 Eventually I graduated from college.It took me four years longer than my peers, and I convinced someone, my angel advisor, Susan Fiske, to take me on, and so I ended up at Princeton, and I was like, I am not supposed to be here.I am an impostor.And the night before my first-year talk, and the first-year talk at Princeton is a 20-minute talk to 20 people.That's it.I was so afraid of being found out the next day that I called her and said, “I'm quitting.” She was like, “You are not quitting, because I took a gamble on you, and you're staying.You're going to stay, and this is what you're going to do.You are going to fake it.You're going to do every talk that you ever get asked to do.You're just going to do it and do it and do it, even if you're terrified and just paralyzed and having an out-of-body experience, until you have this moment where you say, 'Oh my gosh, I'm doing it.Like, I have become this.I am actually doing this.'” So that's what I did.Five years in grad school, a few years, you know, I'm at Northwestern, I moved to Harvard, I'm at Harvard, I'm not really thinking about it anymore, but for a long time I had been thinking, “Not supposed to be here.Not supposed to be here.” 18:07 So at the end of my first year at Harvard, a student who had not talked in class the entire semester, who I had said, “Look, you've gotta participate or else you're going to fail,” came into my office.I really didn't know her at all.And she said, she came in totally defeated, and she said, “I'm not supposed to be here.” And that was the moment for me.Because two things happened.One was that I realized, oh my gosh, I don't feel like that anymore.You know.I don't feel that anymore, but she does, and I get that feeling.And the second was, she is supposed to be here!Like, she can fake it, she can become it.So I was like, “Yes, you are!You are supposed to be here!And tomorrow you're going to fake it, you're going to make yourself powerful, and, you know, you're gonna — ”(Applause)(Applause)“And you're going to go into the classroom, and you are going to give the best comment ever.” You know? And she gave the best comment ever, and people turned around and they were like, oh my God, I didn't even notice her sitting there, you know?(Laughter)19:13 She comes back to me months later, and I realized that she had not just faked it till she made it, she had actually faked it till she became it.So she had changed.And so I want to say to you, don't fake it till you make it.Fake it till you become it.You know? It's not — Do it enough until you actually become it and internalize.19:33 The last thing I'm going to leave you with is this.Tiny tweaks can lead to big changes.So this is two minutes.Two minutes, two minutes, two minutes.Before you go into the next stressful evaluative situation, for two minutes, try doing this, in the elevator, in a bathroom stall, at your desk behind closed doors.That's what you want to do.Configure your brain to cope the best in that situation.Get your testosterone up.Get your cortisol down.Don't leave that situation feeling like, oh, I didn't show them who I am.Leave that situation feeling like, oh, I really feel like I got to say who I am and show who I am.20:09 So I want to ask you first, you know, both to try power posing, and also I want to ask you to share the science, because this is simple.I don't have ego involved in this.(Laughter)Give it away.Share it with people, because the people who can use it the most are the ones with no resources and no technology and no status and no power.Give it to them because they can do it in private.They need their bodies, privacy and two minutes, and it can significantly change the outcomes of their life.Thank you.(Applause)(Applause)

中文翻译：

首先我想要提供给你们一个免费的 非科技的人生窍门 你只需这样做 改变你的姿势二分钟时间 但在我要把它告诉你们之前，我想要请你们 就你们的身体和你们身体的行为做一下自我审查 那么你们之中有多少人正蜷缩着自己? 或许你现在弓着背，还翘着二郎腿? 或者双臂交叉 有时候我们像这样抱住自己 有时候展开双臂(笑声)我看到你了(笑声)现在请大家专心在自己的身上 我们等一下就会回溯刚刚的事 希望你们可以稍微改变一下 这会让你的生活变得很不一样 0:58 所以，我们很真的很执着于肢体语言 特别是对别人的肢体语言 感兴趣 你看，我们对(笑声)尴尬的互动，或一个微笑 或轻蔑的一瞥，或奇怪的眨眼 甚至是握手之类的事情感兴趣 1:22 解说员:他们来到了唐宁街10号，看看这个 这位幸运的警员可以和美国总统握手 噢，还有 来自....的总理?不(笑声)(掌声)(笑声)(掌声)1:37 Amy Cuddy:所以一个握手，或没有握手 我们都可以大聊特聊一番 即使BBC和纽约时报也不例外 我们说到肢体行为或肢体语言时 我们将之归纳为社会科学 它就是一种语言，所以我们会想到沟通 当我们想到沟通，我们就想到互动 所以你现在的身体语言正在告诉我什么? 我的身体又是在向你传达什么? 2:04 有很多理由让我们相信这些是有效的 社会科学家花了很多时间 求证肢体语言的效果 或其它人的身体语言在判断方面的效应 而我们环视身体语言中的讯息做决定和推论 这些结论可以预测生活中很有意义的结果 像是我们雇用谁或给谁升职，邀请谁出去约会 举例而言，Tufts大学的研究员，Nalini Ambady表示 人们观赏一部医生和患者互动的 30秒无声影片 他们对该医生的和善观感 可用来预测该复健师是否会被告上法庭 跟这个医生能否胜任工作没有太大关系 重点是我们喜不喜欢他 和他们是如何与人互动的? 进一步来说，普林斯顿的Alex Todorov 表示 我们对政治人物脸部的喜好判断 大概可用来对美国参议院和美国州长的 竞选结果做70%的预测 甚至就网络上 在线聊天时使用的表情符号 可以帮助你从交谈中得到更多信息 所以你千万别弄巧成拙，对吧? 当我们提起肢体语言，我们就想到我们如何论断别人 别人如何论断我们以及后果会是什么 我们往往忘记这点，受到肢体动作所影响的那群观众 就是我们自己 3:31 我们也往往受自己的肢体动作，想法 感觉和心理所影响 所以究竟我说的是怎样的非语言? 我是一位社会心理学家，我研究偏见 我在一所极具竞争力的商业学院上课 因此无可避免地对权力动力学感到着迷 特别是在非语言表达 对权力和支配的领域 3:56 权力和支配的非语言表达究竟是什么? 嗯，让我细细道来 在动物王国里，它们和扩张有关 所以你尽可能的让自己变大，你向外伸展 占满空间，基本上就是展开 关于展开，我说真的 透视动物世界，这不仅局限于灵长类 人类也干同样的事(笑声)不论是他们长期掌权或是在某个时间点感到权力高涨 他们都这么做 特别有趣的原因是 它让我们明白权力的展现从来是如此地一致，不管古今世界 这种展现，被认为是一种荣耀 Jessica Tracy研究表示 视力良好无碍 和先天视障的人 在赢得比赛时都做了同样的事 当他们跨过终点线赢得比赛之际 无论能否看的见 他们都做这样的动作 双臂呈V字型朝上，下巴微微抬起 那我们感到无助的时候呢?我们的行为正相反 我们封闭起来。我们把自己蜷起来 让自己变得小一点，最好别碰到别人 这再一次证明，人类和动物都做同样的事 这就是当你有力量和没力量时的行为 所以当力量来临时 我们会迎合别人的非语言 若有人之于我们相对权重时 我们倾向把自己变得较小，不会模仿他们 我们做和他们正相反的事情 5:24 当我在课堂上观察这么现象时 你猜我发现什么?我发现MBA的学生 真的很会就充分利用肢体语言 你会看到有些人像是统治者 走进房间，课程开始之前一屁股坐在正中间 好像他们真的很想占据整个教室似的 当他们坐下的时候，身体会展开 像这样举手 有些人则不然 他们一走进来你就会发现 从他们的脸和身体你会发现 他们坐在椅子上的时候把自己变得很萎靡 然后举手的时候是这种姿势 我观察到很多事情 其中一件，不令人惊讶 就是跟性别差异有关 女人比男人更容易出现这种状况 女人一般比较容易比男人感到无力 这并不太令人意外。然而我发现的另一件事是 这似乎也跟 学生参与的程度高低有关 就MBA的课来说这真的非常重要 因为课堂参与程度要占成绩的一半 6:33 所以商学院一直以来都为此伤脑筋 入学的时候男生女生是不分轩轾的 可是成绩出来却有这些性别差异 而看起来却有一部分原因和参与度有关 所以我开始思索，好吧 这群人一开始进来是这样，他们参与其中 那有没有可能让大家来假装 让他们更加参与进来? 6:57 我在Berkeley的主要合作研究伙伴，Dana Carney 我很想知道，你能假装直到你成功吗？ 譬如说，只做一下下然后就体验到一个 让你感到更加充满力量的结果 所以得知非语言如何掌控他人 对我们的想法和感受。有很多证据可以证明 但我们的问题是，我们非语言的部分 是否真的掌控我们对自己的想法和感受? 7:24 这里确实有些证据可以表明 举例来说，当我们高兴的时候我们会笑 但同样地，当我们含着一只笔练习笑容的时候 我们也会感到开心 这说明这是相互的。说到力量的时候 亦是如此。所以当我们感到充满力量的时候 你更加可能会这样做，但你也可能 假装自己很有力量 然后真的感到力量强大 7:57 那第二个问题就是，你看 我们知道心理状态会影响我们的身体 那身体是否能影响心理呢? 这里所说的心理充满力量 究竟指的是什么? 我指的是想法和感觉 和可以组成我们想法和感受的实际事物 我这里是指荷尔蒙。我指的是这个 充满力量和没有力量的心智 是什么样的呢? 毫不令人意外，心理坚强的人往往 比较果断，自信，且乐观 就连在赌注里也觉得他们会赢 他们也倾向于能够抽象地思考 所以这其中有很大区别。他们更敢于冒险 充满力量与否的心智二者存有许多不同 生理上两个关键的贺尔蒙 睾丸酮，是一种支配荷尔蒙 可的松，是一种压力荷尔蒙 我们发现 灵长类的雄性首领 有高浓度的睪丸酮和低浓度的可的松 相同情形也在 强而有力的领导人身上可见 这表示什么? 当你想到力量 人们往往只想到睪丸酮 因为它代表支配统治 但力量其实是在于你如何应对压力 所以你会想要一个 有着很高浓度的睪丸酮但同时又高度紧张的领导吗? 大概不会是吧?你会希望那个人 是充满力量，肯定果断且知道如何支配 但不是非常紧张，或是懒洋洋的 9:37 灵长类动物的金字塔里 如果一个首领想要掌控这个种群 或取代原先的首领 几天之内，那一方体内的睪丸酮会大大地上升 而其可的松会剧烈地下降 身体影响心理之例，由此可见一斑 至少就表面而言是如此 同时角色的转换也会影响心智 所以，如果你改变角色 就一个小改变 像这样一个小小的操作，这样一个小小的干预? “持续两分钟”你说，“我要你们这样站着，它会让你感到更加充满力量” 10:19 我们是这样做的 我们决定将人们带进实验室，做一个小实验 这些人将维持有力或无力的姿势两分钟 然后我就会告诉你 这五种姿势，虽然他们只做了两种 这是其一 看看这些 这个被媒体取名为 “神力女超人” 还有这些 或站或坐 这些是无力的姿势 你双手交叉，试着让自己变小一点 这是非常无力的一张 当你在摸你的脖子 你其实在保护自己 实际的状况是，他们进来 取出唾液 维持一个姿势达两分钟 他们不会看到姿势的照片，因为我们不想要影响他们 我们希望他们自己感觉到力量 不是吗?所以他们做了整整两分钟 我们关于一些事物问:“现在你觉得自己多有力量?” 受试者接着会有一个博奕的机会 接着再取得唾液范本 这就是整个实验 11:28 我们发现到风险承担能力，也就是在赌博时，当处于强有力的姿势的时 86%的人会选择赌博 相对处于一个较无力的姿势时 只有60%的人，这真是很令人惊讶的差异 就睪丸酮而言我们发现 这些人进来的那一刻起，有力量的那些人 会有20%的提高 无力的人则下降10% 所以，再次地，当你有这些改变 有力的人 可的松下降25%，而无力的人可的松则上升15% 二分钟可以让这些荷尔蒙改变 使你的脑袋变得 果断，自信和自在 或高度紧张以及感到与世隔绝 我们都曾有过这些体验对吗? 看来非语言确实掌控 我们对自己的想法和感受 不只是别人，更是我们自己 同时，我们的身体可以改变我们的心理 12:36 但下一个问题，当然，就是 维持数分钟的姿势 是否真能引导一个更有意义的人生呢? 刚刚都只是在实验室哩，一个小实验，你知道的 只有几分钟。你要怎么实现这一切呢? 落实在我们关心的地方呢? 我们关心的其实是，我是说 你在那里可以用这些技巧去评估时势 像是社交威胁的情形。譬如说你被人打量时? 或者是青少年吃午餐的时候 你知道，对有些人来说就好像在开 学校的董事会。有时候是一个小演讲 有时是像这种讲演 或是工作面试时 我们后来决定用一个最多人能做比较的 因为大部分人都曾经 面试工作过 13:20 我们将这些发现发表出来，接着媒体就大量曝光 说，好，所以你去面试时，你得这样做，对吧?(笑声)我们当然大吃一惊，表示 我的天啊，不不不，我们不是这个意思 不管什么原因，不不，千万别这么做 这和你跟别人交谈无关 这是你在和你自己交谈 你在面试工作之前会怎么做?你会这样 对吧?你会做下来，你盯着自己的爱疯 或者安卓，转移自己的视线 你看着自己的笔记 你把自己蜷缩起来，试着让自己变得小一点 你真正需要做的应该是 找个浴室，然后这样，花个两分钟 所以我们想做是这个 把人带进实验室 他们再次保持有力或无力姿势 接着进行一个高度压力的面试 为时五分钟。所有都会被记录下来 同时也会被评论，而这些考官都接受过训练 不会给予任何非语言的反馈 所以他们看起来就像这样，像图上所示 想象一下，这个人正在面试你 整整五分钟，什么都没有，这比刁难诘问更难受 大家都不喜欢这种方式。这就是 Marianne LaFrance 所谓的 “陷入社交流沙中” 这可以大大激发你的可的松 我们给予受试者这样的面试 因为我们真的想看看会有什么样的结果 接着我们得出下列四种结果 受试者不知假设前提和状况下 没有人知道谁摆什么样的姿势 接着他们观看这些带子 然后他们说，“噢，我们想要录用这些人”--那些摆强有力姿势的人--“这些人我们不想录用” 我们也评量这群人整体而言更正面 但背后的原因是什么?这跟演讲的内容无关 而是他们在演讲中带出来的存在感 同时，我们也就这些关于能力之变动因素评价他们 像是演讲的整体架构怎样? 它有多棒?讲员的证照学历? 这些全都无关。有影响的是 这些事。基本上人们表达真实的自己 就他们自己 他们的想法，当他们心里 没有芥蒂 这就是被后真实的力量，或者可以说是计划的结果 15:35 所以当我告诉人们 我们的身体会改变心理，心理会改变行为 而行为会改变结果，他们跟我说 “我不这么觉得--听起来好像是假的” 对吗? 我就说，你就假装一直到你达成目的为止。不是我啦 我不想要到达到那个目标后仍然感觉像是一个骗局 我不想要成为一个骗子 我一点也不想达到那个目标才发觉我不应该如此 我真是有感而发的 这里跟大家分享一个小故事 关于成为一个骗子然后感到不应该在这里的故事 16:06 在我19岁的时候，发生了一场很严重的车祸 我整个人飞出车外，滚了好几翻 我是弹出车外的，之后在休息室醒来以后发现头部重伤 我从大学里休学 别人告知我智商下降了2个标准差 情况非常非常糟糕 我知道我的智商应该是多少，因为我以前被人家认为是很聪明的那种 小时候大家都觉得我很有才华 当我离开大学时，我试着回去 他们说都告诉我说，“你没有办法毕业的。你知道，你还可以做很多其它的事阿，别往死胡同里钻了。” 我死命挣扎，我必须承认 当你的认同感被剥夺的时候，那个主要的身分认同 就我而言是我的智力被夺走了 再没有比这个更加无助的时候了 我感到完全的无助，我拼命地疯狂地努力 幸运眷顾，努力，幸运眷顾，再努力。17:01 最终我从学校毕业了。我比同侪多花了四年的时间 然后说服我的恩师，Susan Fiske 让我进去，所以我最后进入了普林斯顿 我当时觉得，我不应该在这里 我是个骗子 在我第一年演讲的那个晚上，普林斯顿第一年的演讲 大约是对20个人做20分钟的演讲。就这样 我当时如此害怕隔天被拆穿 所以我打给她说，“我不干了。” 她说:“你不可以不干，因为我赌在你身上了，你得留下。你会留下，你将会留下来了。你要骗过所有人。你被要求的每个演讲你都得照办 你得一直讲一直讲 即使你怕死了，脚瘫了 灵魂出窍了，直到你发现你在说 ”噢，我的天啊，我正在做这件事 我已经成为它的一部分了，我正在做它。“ 这就是说所做的，硕士的五年 这些年，我在Northwestern 我后来去了哈佛，我在哈佛，我没有在想到它 但之前有很长一段时间我都在想这件事 ”不应该在这。不应该在这。“ 18:07 所以哈佛第一年结束 我对整个学期在课堂上都没有说话的一个学生说: 你得参与融入否则你不会过这一科的 来我的办公室吧。其实我压根就不认识她。她说:她很挫败地进来了，她说 ”我不应该在这里的。“ 就在此刻，两件事发生了 我突然明白 天啊，我再也没有这种感觉了。你知道吗。我再也不会有那种感觉，但她有，我能体会到她的感受。第二个想法是，她应该在这里!她可以假装，一直到她成功为止。所以我跟她说，”你当然应该!你应该在这里!“ 明天起你就假装 你要让自己充满力量，你要知道 你将会---”(掌声)(掌声)“你要走进教室 你会发表最棒的评论。” 你知道吗?她就真的发表了最成功的评论 大家都回过神来，他们就好像 喔我的天啊，我竟没有注意到她坐在那里，你知道吗?(笑声)19:13 几个月后她来找我，我才明白 她不仅只是假装到她成功为止 她已经融会贯通了 整个人脱胎换骨 我想对大家说，不要仅为了成功而假装 要把它溶到你骨子里去。知道吗? 持续地做直到它内化到你的骨髓里 19:33 最后与大家分享的是 小小的调整可以有大大的改变 就二分钟 二分钟，二分钟，二分钟 在你进行下一场紧张的评估之前 拿出二分钟，尝试做这个，电梯里 浴室间，房门关起在你的桌子前面 你就这么做，设置你的脑袋 以发挥最大效益 提升你的睪丸铜，降低你的可的松 千万别留下，噢，我没把最好的表现出来那种遗憾 而是留下，噢，我真想 让他们知道，让他们看见，我是个怎样的人 20:09 在这里我想要求大家，你知道的 尝试这有力的姿势 同时也想请求各位 把这项科学分享出去，因为它很简单 我可不是自尊心的问题喔(笑声)放开它。和人分享 因为最经常可以使用它的人会是那些 没有资源和技术的一群人 没有社会地位和权势。把这个传达给他们 好让他们可以私下这样做 他们会需要他们的身体，隐私和那二分钟 然后这会大大地改变他们生活的结果 谢谢(掌声)(掌声)

《how great leader inspire action》

How do you explain when things don't go as we assume? Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions? For example: Why is Apple so innovative? Year after year, after year, after year, they're more innovative than all their competition.And yet, they're just a computer company.They're just like everyone else.They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media.Then why is it that they seem to have something different? Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement? He wasn't the only man who suffered in a pre-civil rights America, and he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day.Why him? And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out controlled, powered man flight when there were certainly other teams who were better qualified, better funded...and they didn't achieve powered man flight, and the Wright brothers beat them to it.There's something else at play here.1:17 About three and a half years ago I made a discovery.And this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked, and it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it.As it turns out, there's a pattern.As it turns out, all the great and inspiring leaders and organizations in the world--whether it's Apple or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers--they all think, act and communicate the exact same way.And it's the complete opposite to everyone else.All I did was codify it, and it's probably the world's simplest idea.I call it the golden circle.2:07 Why? How? What? This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't.Let me define the terms really quickly.Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 percent.Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP.But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do.And by “why” I don't mean “to make a profit.” That's a result.It's always a result.By “why,” I mean: What's your purpose? What's your cause? What's your belief? Why does your organization exist? Why do you get out of bed in the morning? And why should anyone care? Well, as a result, the way we think, the way we act, the way we communicate is from the outside in.It's obvious.We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing.But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations--regardless of their size, regardless of their industry--all think, act and communicate from the inside out.3:13 Let me give you an example.I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it.If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this: “We make great computers.They're beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly.Want to buy one?” “Meh.” And that's how most of us communicate.That's how most marketing is done, that's how most sales is done and that's how most of us communicate interpersonally.We say what we do, we say how we're different or how we're better and we expect some sort of a behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like that.Here's our new law firm: We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients, we always perform for our clients who do business with us.Here's our new car: It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats, buy our car.But it's uninspiring.4:00 Here's how Apple actually communicates.“Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo.We believe in thinking differently.The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly.We just happen to make great computers.Want to buy one?” Totally different right? You're ready to buy a computer from me.All I did was reverse the order of the information.What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do;people buy why you do it.People don't buy what you do;they buy why you do it.4:36 This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple.But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple.But, as I said before, Apple's just a computer company.There's nothing that distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors.Their competitors are all equally qualified to make all of these products.In fact, they tried.A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat screen TVs.They're eminently qualified to make flat screen TVs.They've been making flat screen monitors for years.Nobody bought one.Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs, and they make great quality products, and they can make perfectly well-designed products--and nobody bought one.In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell.Why would you buy an MP3 player from a computer company? But we do it every day.People don't buy what you do;they buy why you do it.The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have.The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe.Here's the best part: 5:49 None of what I'm telling you is my opinion.It's all grounded in the tenets of biology.Not psychology, biology.If you look at a cross-section of the human brain, looking from the top down, what you see is the human brain is actually broken into three major components that correlate perfectly with the golden circle.Our newest brain, our Homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the “what” level.The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language.The middle two sections make up our limbic brains, and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty.It's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language.6:35 In other words, when we communicate from the outside in, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information like features and benefits and facts and figures.It just doesn't drive behavior.When we can communicate from the inside out, we're talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior, and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do.This is where gut decisions come from.You know, sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures, and they say, “I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right.” Why would we use that verb, it doesn't “feel” right? Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn't control language.And the best we can muster up is, “I don't know.It just doesn't feel right.” Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart, or you're leading with your soul.Well, I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts controlling your behavior.It's all happening here in your limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.7:29 But if you don't know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how will you ever get people to vote for you, or buy something from you, or, more importantly, be loyal and want to be a part of what it is that you do.Again, the goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have;the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe.The goal is not just to hire people who need a job;it's to hire people who believe what you believe.I always say that, you know, if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money, but if you hire people who believe what you believe, they'll work for you with blood and sweat and tears.And nowhere else is there a better example of this than with the Wright brothers.8:14 Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley.And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day.Everybody was trying it.And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for success.I mean, even now, you ask people, “Why did your product or why did your company fail?” and people always give you the same permutation of the same three things: under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions.It's always the same three things, so let's explore that.Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department to figure out this flying machine.Money was no problem.He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected;he knew all the big minds of the day.He hired the best minds money could find and the market conditions were fantastic.The New York Times followed him around everywhere, and everyone was rooting for Langley.Then how come we've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley? 9:15 A few hundred miles away in Dayton Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success.They had no money;they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop;not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur;and The New York Times followed them around nowhere.The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief.They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it'll change the course of the world.Samuel Pierpont Langley was different.He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous.He was in pursuit of the result.He was in pursuit of the riches.And lo and behold, look what happened.The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream worked with them with blood and sweat and tears.The others just worked for the paycheck.And they tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out, they would have to take five sets of parts, because that's how many times they would crash before they came in for supper.10:20 And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it.We found out about it a few days later.And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing: The day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit.He could have said, “That's an amazing discovery, guys, and I will improve upon your technology,” but he didn't.He wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous so he quit.10:50 People don't buy what you do;they buy why you do it.And if you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe.But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Something called the law of diffusion of innovation, and if you don't know the law, you definitely know the terminology.The first two and a half percent of our population are our innovators.The next 13 and a half percent of our population are our early adopters.The next 34 percent are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards.The only reason these people buy touch tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.11:28(Laughter)11:30 We all sit at various places at various times on this scale, but what the law of diffusion of innovation tells us is that if you want mass-market success or mass-market acceptance of an idea, you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point between 15 and 18 percent market penetration, and then the system tips.And I love asking businesses, “What's your conversion on new business?” And they love to tell you, “Oh, it's about 10 percent,” proudly.Well, you can trip over 10 percent of the customers.We all have about 10 percent who just “get it.” That's how we describe them, right? That's like that gut feeling, “Oh, they just get it.” The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before you're doing business with them versus the ones who don't get it? So it's this here, this little gap that you have to close, as Jeffrey Moore calls it, “Crossing the Chasm”--because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first.And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they're comfortable making those gut decisions.They're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions that are driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available.12:38 These are the people who stood in line for six hours to buy an iPhone when they first came out, when you could have just walked into the store the next week and bought one off the shelf.These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars on flat screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard.And, by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great;they did it for themselves.It's because they wanted to be first.People don't buy what you do;they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe.In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe.The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours, stood in line for six hours, was because of what they believed about the world, and how they wanted everybody to see them: They were first.People don't buy what you do;they buy why you do it.13:27 So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation.First, the famous failure.It's a commercial example.As we said before, a second ago, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions, right? You should have success then.Look at TiVo.From the time TiVo came out about eight or nine years ago to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no dispute.They were extremely well-funded.Market conditions were fantastic.I mean, we use TiVo as verb.I TiVo stuff on my piece of junk Time Warner DVR all the time.14:08 But TiVo's a commercial failure.They've never made money.And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10.In fact, I don't think it's even traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes.Because you see, when TiVo launched their product they told us all what they had.They said, “We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits without you even asking.” And the cynical majority said, “We don't believe you.We don't need it.We don't like it.You're scaring us.” What if they had said, “If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for you.It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc.” People don't buy what you do;they buy why you do it, and what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe.15:11 Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation.In the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear Dr.King speak.They sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the date.How do you do that? Well, Dr.King wasn't the only man in America who was a great orator.He wasn't the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights America.In fact, some of his ideas were bad.But he had a gift.He didn't go around telling people what needed to change in America.He went around and told people what he believed.“I believe, I believe, I believe,” he told people.And people who believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people.And some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more people.And lo and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day at the right time to hear him speak.16:16 How many of them showed up for him? Zero.They showed up for themselves.It's what they believed about America that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August.It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white: 25 percent of the audience was white.Dr.King believed that there are two types of laws in this world: those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by man.And not until all the laws that are made by man are consistent with the laws that are made by the higher authority will we live in a just world.It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life.We followed, not for him, but for ourselves.And, by the way, he gave the “I have a dream” speech, not the “I have a plan” speech.17:07(Laughter)17:11 Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans.They're not inspiring anybody.Because there are leaders and there are those who lead.Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us.Whether they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to.We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves.And it's those who start with “why” that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them.17:51 Thank you very much.17:53(Applause)

当事情的发展出乎意料之外的时候，你怎么解释？ 换句话说，当别人似乎出乎意料地 取得成功的时候，你怎么解释？ 比如说，为什么苹果公司创新能力这么强？ 这么多年来，年复一年，他们比所有竞争对手都更加具有创新性。而其实他们只是一家电脑公司。他们跟其他公司没有任何分别，有同样的途径，接触到同样的人才，同样的代理商，顾问，和媒体。那为什么他们 就似乎有那么一点不同寻常呢？ 同样的，为什么是由马丁•路德•金 来领导民权运动？ 那个时候在美国，民权运动之前，不仅仅只有他一个人饱受歧视。他也决不是那个时代唯一的伟大演说家。为什么会是他？ 又为什么怀特兄弟 能够造出动力控制的载人飞机，跟他们相比，当时的其他团队似乎 更有能力，更有资金，他们却没能制造出载人飞机，怀特兄弟打败了他们。一定还有一些什么别的因素在起作用。1:17 大概三年半之前，我有了个新发现，这个发现完全改变了 我对这个世界如何运作的看法。甚至从根本上改变了 我的工作生活方式。那就是我发现了一种模式，我发现世界上所有伟大的令人振奋的领袖 和组织，无论是苹果公司、马丁•路德•金还是怀特兄弟，他们思考、行动、交流沟通的方式 都完全一样，但是跟所有其他人的方式 完全相反。我所做的仅仅是把它整理出来。这可能是世上 最简单的概念。我称它为黄金圆环。2:07 为什么？怎么做？是什么？ 这小小的模型就解释了 为什么一些组织和领导者 能够在别人不能的地方激发出灵感和潜力。我来尽快地解释一下这些术语。地球上的每个人，每个组织 都明白自己做的是什么，百分之百。其中一些知道该怎么做，你可以称之为是你的差异价值，或是你的独特工艺，或是你的独特卖点也好，怎么说都行。但是非常，非常少的人和组织 明白为什么做。这里的“为什么”和“为利润” 没有关系，利润只是一个结果，永远只能是一个结果。我说的“为什么” 指的是：你的目的是什么？ 你这样做的原因是什么？你怀着什么样的信念？ 你的机构为什么而存在？ 你每天早上是为什么而起床？ 为什么别人要在乎你？ 结果是，我们思考的方式，行动的方式，交流的方式都是由外向内的。很显然的，我们所采用的方式是从清晰开始，然后到模糊的东西。但是激励型领袖以及 组织机构，无论他们的规模大小，所在领域，他们思考，行动和交流的方式 都是从里向外的。3:13 举个例子吧。我举苹果公司是因为这个例子简单易懂，每个人都能理解。如果苹果公司跟其他公司一样，他们的市场营销信息就会是这个样子： “我们做最棒的电脑，设计精美，使用简单，界面友好。你想买一台吗？” 不怎么样吧。这就是我们大多数人的交流方式，也是大多数市场推广的方式，大部分销售所采用的方式，也是我们大部分人互相交流的方式。我们说我们的职业是干什么的，我们说我们是如何的与众不同，或者我们怎么比其他人更好，然后我们就期待着一些别人的反应，比如购买，比如投票，诸如此类。这是我们新开的的律师事务所，我们拥有最棒的律师和最大的客户，我们总是能满足客户的要求。这是我们的新车型，非常省油，真皮座椅。买一辆吧。但是这些推销词一点劲都没有。4:00 这是苹果公司实际上的沟通方式： “我们做的每一件事情，都是为了突破和创新。我们坚信应该以不同的方式思考。我们挑战现状的方式 是通过把我们的产品设计得十分精美，使用简单，和界面友好。我们只是在这个过程中做出了最棒的电脑。想买一台吗？” 感觉完全不一样，对吧？你已经准备从我这里买一台了。我所做的只是将传递信息的顺序颠倒一下而已。事实已经向我们证明，人们买的不是你做的产品，人们买的是你的信念和宗旨。人们买的不是你做的产品，人们买的是你的信念。4:36 这就解释了为什么 这里的每个人 从苹果公司买电脑时都觉得理所当然。但是我们从苹果公司 买MP3播放器，手机，或者数码摄像机时，也感觉很舒服。而其实，我刚才已经说过，苹果公司只是个电脑公司。没有什么能从结构上将苹果公司 同竞争对手区分开来。竞争对手和苹果公司有同样的能力制造所有这些产品。实际上，他们也尝试过。几年前，捷威（Gateway）公司推出了平板电视。他们制造平板电视的能力很强，因为他们做平板显示器已经很多年了。但是没有人买他们的平板电视。戴尔公司推出了MP3播放器和掌上电脑，他们产品的质量非常好，产品的设计也非常不错。但是也没有人买他们的这些产品。其实，说到这里，我们无法想象 会从戴尔公司买MP3播放器。你为什么会从一家电脑公司买MP3播放器呢？ 但是每天我们都这么做。人们买的不是你做的产品，人们买的是你的信念。做公司的目标不是要跟 所有需要你的产品的人做生意，而是跟 与你有着相同理念的人做生意。这是最精彩的部分。5:49 我说的这些没有一个是我自己的观点。这些观点都能从生物学里面找到根源。不是心理学，是生物学。当你俯视看大脑的横截面，你会发现人类大脑实际上分成 三个主要部分，而这三个主要部分和黄金圆环匹配得非常好。我们最新的脑部，管辖智力的脑部，或者说我们的大脑皮层，对应着“是什么” 这个圆环。大脑皮层负责我们所有的 理性和逻辑的思考 和语言功能。中间的两个部分是我们的两个边脑。边脑负责我们所有的情感，比如信任和忠诚，也负责所有的行为 和决策，但这部分没有语言功能。6:35 换句话说，当我们由外向内交流时，没错，人们可以理解大量的复杂信息，比如特征，优点，事实和图表。但不足以激发行动。当我们由内向外交流时，我们是在直接同控制行为的 那一部分大脑对话，然后我们由人们理性地思考 我们所说和做的事情。这就是那些发自内心的决定的来源。你知道，有时候你展示给一些人 所有的数据图表，他们会说“我知道这些数据和图表是什么意思，但就是感觉不对。” 为什么我们会用这个动词，“感觉” 不对？ 因为控制决策的那一部分大脑 并不支配语言，我们只好说 “我不知道为什么，就是感觉不对。” 或者有些时候，你说听从心的召唤，或者说听从灵魂。我不想把这些观念分解得太彻底，但心和灵魂都不是 控制行为的部分。所有这一切都发生在你的边脑，控制决策行为而非语言的边脑。7:29 如果你自己都不知道你为什么干你所做的事情，而别人要对你的动机作出反应，那么你怎么可能赢得大家 对你的支持，从你这里购买东西，或者，更重要的，对你忠诚 并且想成为你正在做的事情的一分子呢？ 再说一次，目标不仅仅是将你有的东西卖给需要它们的人； 而是将东西卖给跟你有共同信念的人。目标不仅仅是雇佣那些 需要一份工作的人； 目标是雇佣那些同你有共同信念的人。你知道吗，我总是说，如果你雇佣某人只是因为他能做这份工作，他们就只是为你开的工资而工作，但是如果你雇佣跟你有共同信念的人，他们会为你付出热血，汗水和泪水。这一点，没有比怀特兄弟的故事 更恰当的例子了。8:14 大多数人都没听说过塞缪尔·兰利这个人。20世纪初期，投入机动飞行器的热情就像当今的网站热，每个人都在做尝试。塞缪尔·兰利拥有所有大家认为是 成功的要素。我的意思是，即便是现在，你问别人 “为什么你的产品或者公司失败了呢？” 人们总是用同样的 三个东西以同样的排列顺序来回答你，缺乏资金，用人不善，形势不好。总是那三种理由，所以让我们来逐个分析一下。国防部给了塞缪尔·兰利 5万美金 作为研制飞行器的资金。所以说，资金不是问题。他在哈佛大学工作过，也在史密森尼学会工作过，人脉极其广泛。他认识当时最优秀的人才。因此，他雇佣了 用资金能吸引到的最优秀的人才。当时的市场形势相当有利。纽约时报对他做跟踪报道，每个人都支持他。但是为什么你们连听都没听说过他呢？ 9:15 与此同时，几百公里之外的俄亥俄州代顿市 有一对兄弟，奥维尔•莱特和维尔伯•莱特，他们俩没有任何我们认为的 成功的要素。他们没有钱。他们用自行车店的收入来追求他们的梦想。莱特兄弟的团队中没有一个人 上过大学，就连奥维尔和维尔伯也没有。纽约时报更是不沾边的。不同的是，奥维尔和维尔伯追求的是一个事业，一个目标，一种信念。他们相信如果他们 能研制出飞行器，将会改变全世界的发展进程。塞缪尔·兰利就不同了，他想要发财，他想要成名。他追求的是最终结果，是变得富有。看吧，看接下来怎么样了。那些怀有和怀特兄弟一样梦想的人 跟他们一起热血朝天地奋斗着。另一边的人则是为了工资而工作。后来流传的故事说，每次怀特兄弟出去实验时，都必须带着五组零件，因为那是在他们回来吃晚饭之前 将要坠毁的次数。10:20 最后，在1903年12月17日，怀特兄弟成功起飞，但是当时没有任何其他人在场目睹。我们是在几天后才知道的。后来的事情进一步证实了 兰利动机不纯，他在怀特兄弟成功的当天就辞职了。他本来应该可以说： “伙计们，这真是一项伟大的发明，我可以改进你们的技术。” 但是他没有，因为他不是第一个制造出飞机的人，他就不会变得富有，他也不会变得有名，所以他辞职了。10:50 人们买的不是你的产品；而是你的信念。如果你讲述你的信念，你将吸引那些跟你拥有同样信念的人。但是为什么吸引那些跟你拥有同样信念的人非常重要呢？ 创新的传播有一个规律，如果你不知道这个规律，你一定了解这个概念。我们的社会中，有2.5%的人 是革新者。13.5%的人 是早期的少部分采纳者。接下来的34%是早期接受的大多数，然后是比较晚接受的大多数和最后行动的。这部分最后行动的人买按键电话的唯一原因是 因为他们再也买不到转盘电话了。11:28（笑声）11:30 虽然我们在不同的时候会处在这个曲线上不同的位置，但是创新的传播规律告诉我们 如果你想在大众市场上 获得成功，或者要大众接纳一个点子，你得等到 获得15%-18%的市场接受度 这个转折点之后才行。那时之后市场才真正打开。我喜欢问公司：“你的新生意怎么样呀？” 他们会很自豪地告诉你 “哦，大概有10%吧。” 是呀，你有可能就在10%的顾客群这里过不去了。我们都能让10%的人“意会”，对，我们一般这样形容他们。就好比描述那种感觉： “哦，他们有点心领神会了”。问题是：你怎么在他们还没有成为你的顾客之前 就发现那些能意会的人，和那些不能意会的人？ 这就是问题的所在，就是这点间隙，你得把这个间隙给填上，正如杰弗里穆尔所说的，“跨越鸿沟”。因为早期的大多数 不会尝试新事物，除非有些人 已经先尝试过了。而这些人，创新者和早期的少数人，他们喜欢大胆的尝试。他们更自然地凭直觉做事情，发自于他们的世界观的直觉，而不仅仅是因为市场上有什么样的产品。12:38 这是一批在 iPhone上市的头几天 去排队等六个小时来购买的人，而其实只要等一个星期你就可以随便走进店里 从货架上买到。这是一批在平板电视刚推出时 会花4万美金买一台的人，尽管当时的技术还不成熟。补充说一下，他们并不是因为技术的先进 而买那些产品，而是为了他们自己。因为他们想成为第一个体验新产品的人。人们买的不是你的产品；人们买的是你的信念。你的行动只是证明了 你的信念。实际上，人们会去做能够体现 他们的信念的事情。那些为了抢先 在头六个小时内买到iPhone 而 排六个小时的队的人，是出于他们的世界观，出于他们想别人怎么看自己。他们是第一批体验者。人们买的不是你的产品；他们买的是你的信念。13:27 我再举些著名的例子吧，证实创新传播规律的一个失败的例子 和一个成功的例子。首先我们讲这个失败的例子。还是商业上的。就如我们一秒钟前刚刚说过的，成功的要素是充足的资金，优秀的人才和良好的市场形势。那么，是不是如果有这些你就应该获得成功。看看蒂沃（TiVo）数字视频公司吧。自从推出蒂沃机顶盒以来，大概是八、九年前，直到今天，它们一直是市场上唯一的最高品质的产品，这没有任何异议。它们绝对是资金充足，市场形势也大好。其实，“蒂沃” 都变成了一个日常用的动词。比如：我经常把东西蒂沃到我那台华纳数码视频录像机里面。14:08 但是蒂沃是个商业上的失败案例，他们没有赚到一分钱。他们上市时，股票价格大约在30到40美元，然后就直线下跌，而成交价格从没超过10美元。实际上，我印象中它的交易价格从来没有超过 6美元，除了几次小的震荡之外。因为你会发现，蒂沃公司新推出他们的产品时，他们只是告诉我们他们产品是什么，他们说 “我们的产品可以把电视节目暂停，跳过广告，回放电视节目，还能记住你的观看习惯，你甚至都不用刻意设置它。” 挑剔的人们说： “我们不相信你，我们不需要这样的东西，我们也不喜欢这样的东西。你在唬人。” 假如他们这么说： “如果你 想掌控 生活的方方面面，朋友，那么就试试我们的产品吧。它可以暂停直播节目，跳过广告，回放直播节目，还能记下你的观看习惯，等等。人们买的不是你的产品；人们买的是你的信念。你所做的仅仅只是 你的信念的证明而已。15:11 下面我给大家介绍一个 成功的例子。1963年的夏天，25万人 聚集在华盛顿特区 聆听马丁•路德•金博士的演讲。那时，既没有发请帖，也没有可能在网上查看日期。怎么会有 25万人参加呢？ 而且，金博士不是美国唯一 的伟大演说家，也不是美国唯一一位在民权法案实施前 遭受歧视的人。实际上，他的一些想法甚至不正确。但是他有个天赋。他没有到处宣扬美国需要改变什么方面，他只是到处告诉别人他所相信的。“我相信。我相信。我相信。” 他总是这么跟别人说。而那些和他怀有同样信念的人 受了他的启发，他们也开始 将自己的信念告诉别人。有些人建立起一些组织机构 将这些话传给更多的人。你看，就这样，25万人 在那天，那个时候，聚集在一起听他演讲。16:16 有多少人是为了听 “他” 演说而去的呢？ 没有人。他们是为了他们自己而去的。那是他们对于美国的信念 支持着他们坐 8个小时的公车，站在华盛顿八月中旬的烈日下。是他们所相信的信念，而不是黑人跟白人之间的斗争。25%的听众是白人。金博士相信 世界上有两种律法，一种是上天制定的，一种是世人制定的。直到世人制定的法律 和上天制定的律法相符合，我们才真正生活在公正的世界里。民权运动只是碰巧 帮他将信念 付诸于现实的一件事情。我们跟随他，不是为了他，而是为了我们自己。顺便说一下，他的演讲是 “我有一个梦想”，而不是 “我有一个方案”。17:07（笑声）17:11 听听现在的政治家们提出的 12点的大杂烩计划，没一点劲。一些人是当官的，而另一些人是领袖。当官的只是占据在有权力 和威严的位置上，但是只有具有领袖素质的人才能激励我们。无论他们是个人还是组织，我们都追隨领袖，不是因为我们必须这样做，而是因为我们愿意。我们跟随具有领袖能力的人，不是为他们，而是为我们自己。也只有那些从 “为什么”这个圆圈出发的人 才有能力 激励周围的人，或者找到能够激励他们的人。17:51（非常谢谢大家）17:53（鼓掌）

《10 things you didn’t know about orgasm》

Alright.I'm going to show you a couple of images from a very diverting paper in The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine.I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that it is the most diverting paper ever published in The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine.The title is “Observations of In-Utero Masturbation.”(Laughter)Okay.Now on the left you can see the hand--that's the big arrow--and the penis on the right.The hand hovering.And over here we have, in the words of radiologist Israel Meisner, “The hand grasping the penis in a fashion resembling masturbation movements.” Bear in mind this was an ultrasound, so it would have been moving images.1:01 Orgasm is a reflex of the autonomic nervous system.Now this is the part of the nervous system that deals with the things that we don't consciously control, like digestion, heart rate and sexual arousal.And the orgasm reflex can be triggered by a surprisingly broad range of input.Genital stimulation.Duh.But also Kinsey interviewed a woman who could be brought to orgasm by having someone stroke her eyebrow.People with spinal cord injuries, like paraplegias, quadriplegias, will often develop a very, very sensitive area right above the level of their injury, wherever that is.There is such a thing as a knee orgasm in the literature.1:44 I think the most curious one that I came across was a case report of a woman who had an orgasm every time she brushed her teeth.(Laughter)This was something in the complex sensory-motor action of brushing her teeth was triggering orgasm.And she went to a neurologist who was fascinated.He checked to see if it was something in the toothpaste, but no--it happened with any brand.They stimulated her gums with a toothpick, to see if that was doing it.No.It was the whole, you know, motion.And the amazing thing to me is that now you would think this woman would like have excellent oral hygiene.(Laughter)Sadly she--this is what it said in the journal paper--“She believed that she was possessed by demons and switched to mouthwash for her oral care.” It's so sad.2:44(Laughter)2:45 I interviewed, when I was working on the book, I interviewed a woman who can think herself to orgasm.She was part of a study at Rutgers University.You gotta love that.Rutgers.So I interviewed her in Oakland, in a sushi restaurant.And I said, “So, could you do it right here?” And she said, “Yeah, but you know I'd rather finish my meal if you don't mind.”(Laughter)But afterwards she was kind enough to demonstrate on a bench outside.It was remarkable.It took about one minute.And I said to her, “Are you just doing this all the time?”(Laughter)She said, “No.Honestly when I get home I'm usually too tired.”(Laughter)She said that the last time she had done it was on the Disneyland tram.3:36(Laughter)3:38 The headquarters for orgasm, along the spinal nerve, is something called the sacral nerve root, which is back here.And if you trigger, if you stimulate with an electrode, the precise spot, you will trigger an orgasm.And it is a fact that you can trigger spinal reflexes in dead people--a certain kind of dead person, a beating-heart cadaver.Now this is somebody who is brain-dead, legally dead, definitely checked out, but is being kept alive on a respirator, so that their organs will be oxygenated for transplantation.Now in one of these brain-dead people, if you trigger the right spot, you will see something every now and then.There is a reflex called the Lazarus reflex.And this is--I'll demonstrate as best I can, not being dead.It's like this.You trigger the spot.The dead guy, or gal, goes...like that.Very unsettling for people working in pathology labs.4:39(Laughter)4:40 Now if you can trigger the Lazarus reflex in a dead person, why not the orgasm reflex? I asked this question to a brain death expert, Stephanie Mann, who was foolish enough to return my emails.(Laughter)I said, “So, could you conceivably trigger an orgasm in a dead person?” She said, “Yes, if the sacral nerve is being oxygenated, you conceivably could.” Obviously it wouldn't be as much fun for the person.But it would be an orgasm--(Laughter)nonetheless.I actually suggested to--there is a researcher at the University of Alabama who does orgasm research.I said to her, “You should do an experiment.You know? You can get cadavers if you work at a university.” I said, “You should actually do this.” She said, “You get the human subjects review board approval for this one.” 5:31(Laughter)5:33 According to 1930s marriage manual author, Theodoor van de Velde, a slight seminal odor can be detected on the breath of a woman within about an hour after sexual intercourse.Theodoor van de Velde was something of a semen connoisseur.(Laughter)This is a guy writing a book, “Ideal Marriage,” you know.Very heavy hetero guy.But he wrote in this book, “Ideal Marriage”--he said that he could differentiate between the semen of a young man, which he said had a fresh, exhilarating smell, and the semen of mature men, whose semen smelled quote, “Remarkably like that of the flowers of the Spanish chestnut.Sometimes quite freshly floral, and then again sometimes extremely pungent.” 6:18(Laughter)6:23 Okay.In 1999, in the state of Israel, a man began hiccupping.And this was one of those cases that went on and on.He tried everything his friends suggested.Nothing seemed to help.Days went by.At a certain point, the man, still hiccupping, had sex with his wife.And lo and behold, the hiccups went away.He told his doctor, who published a case report in a Canadian medical journal under the title, “Sexual Intercourse as a Potential Treatment for Intractable Hiccups.” I love this article because at a certain point they suggested that unattached hiccuppers could try masturbation.(Laughter)I love that because there is like a whole demographic: unattached hiccuppers.(Laughter)Married, single, unattached hiccupper.7:15 In the 1900s, early 1900s gynecologists, a lot of gynecologists believed that when a woman has an orgasm the contractions serve to suck the semen up through the cervix and sort of deliver it really quickly to the egg, thereby upping the odds of conception.It was called the “upsuck” theory.(Laughter)If you go all the way back to Hippocrates, physicians believed that orgasm in women was not just helpful for conception, but necessary.Doctors back then were routinely telling men the importance of pleasuring their wives.Marriage-manual author and semen-sniffer Theodoor van de Velde--(Laughter)has a line in his book.I loved this guy.I got a lot of mileage out of Theodoor van de Velde.He had this line in his book that supposedly comes from the Habsburg Monarchy, where there was an empress Maria Theresa, who was having trouble conceiving.And apparently the royal court physician said to her, “I am of the opinion that the vulva of your most sacred majesty be titillated for some time prior to intercourse.”(Laughter)It's apparently, I don't know, on the record somewhere.8:33 Masters and Johnson: now we're moving forward to the 1950s.Masters and Johnson were upsuck skeptics, which is also really fun to say.They didn't buy it.And they decided, being Masters and Johnson, that they would get to the bottom of it.They brought women into the lab--I think it was five women--and outfitted them with cervical caps containing artificial semen.And in the artificial semen was a radio-opaque substance, such that it would show up on an X-ray.This is the 1950s.Anyway these women sat in front of an X-ray device.And they masturbated.And Masters and Johnson looked to see if the semen was being sucked up.Did not find any evidence of upsuck.You may be wondering, “How do you make artificial semen?”(Laughter)I have an answer for you.I have two answers.You can use flour and water, or cornstarch and water.I actually found three separate recipes in the literature.(Laughter)My favorite being the one that says--you know, they have the ingredients listed, and then in a recipe it will say, for example, “Yield: two dozen cupcakes.” This one said, “Yield: one ejaculate.” 9:49(Laughter)9:52 There's another way that orgasm might boost fertility.This one involves men.Sperm that sit around in the body for a week or more start to develop abnormalities that make them less effective at head-banging their way into the egg.British sexologist Roy Levin has speculated that this is perhaps why men evolved to be such enthusiastic and frequent masturbators.He said, “If I keep tossing myself off I get fresh sperm being made.” Which I thought was an interesting idea, theory.So now you have an evolutionary excuse.10:23(Laughter)10:27 Okay.10:30(Laughter)10:32 Alrighty.There is considerable evidence for upsuck in the animal kingdom--pigs, for instance.In Denmark, the Danish National Committee for Pig Production found out that if you sexually stimulate a sow while you artificially inseminate her, you will see a six-percent increase in the farrowing rate, which is the number of piglets produced.So they came up with this plan, this five-point stimulation plan for the sows.And they had the farmers--there is posters they put in the barn, and they have a DVD.And I got a copy of this DVD.(Laughter)This is my unveiling, because I am going to show you a clip.11:12(Laughter)11:14 So uh, okay.Now here we go in to the--la la la, off to work.It all looks very innocent.He's going to be doing things with his hands that the boar would use his snout, lacking hands.Okay.(Laughter)This is it.The boar has a very odd courtship repertoire.(Laughter)This is to mimic the weight of the boar.(Laughter)You should know, the clitoris of the pig, inside the vagina.So this may be sort of titillating for her.Here we go.(Laughter)And the happy result.(Applause)I love this video.There is a point in this video, towards the beginning where they zoom in for a close up of his hand with his wedding ring, as if to say, “It's okay, it's just his job.He really does like women.” 12:28(Laughter)12:32 Okay.Now I said--when I was in Denmark, my host was named Anne Marie.And I said, “So why don't you just stimulate the clitoris of the pig? Why don't you have the farmers do that? That's not one of your five steps.” She said--I have to read you what she said, because I love it.She said, “It was a big hurdle just to get farmers to touch underneath the vulva.So we thought, let's not mention the clitoris right now.”(Laughter)Shy but ambitious pig farmers, however, can purchase a--this is true--a sow vibrator, that hangs on the sperm feeder tube to vibrate.Because, as I mentioned, the clitoris is inside the vagina.So possibly, you know, a little more arousing than it looks.And I also said to her, “Now these sows.I mean, you may have noticed there, The sow doesn't look to be in the throes of ecstasy.” And she said, you can't make that conclusion, because animals don't register pain or pleasure on their faces in the same way that we do.They tend to--pigs, for example, are more like dogs.They use the upper half of the face;the ears are very expressive.So you're not really sure what's going on with the pig.13:39 Primates, on the other hand, we use our mouths more.This is the ejaculation face of the stump-tailed macaque.(Laughter)And, interestingly, this has been observed in female macaques, but only when mounting another female.13:57(Laughter)14:00 Masters and Johnson, in the 1950s, they decided, okay, we're going to figure out the entire human sexual response cycle, from arousal, all the way through orgasm, in men and women--everything that happens in the human body.Okay, with women, a lot of this is happening inside.This did not stop Masters and Johnson.They developed an artificial coition machine.This is basically a penis camera on a motor.There is a phallus, clear acrylic phallus, with a camera and a light source, attached to a motor that is kind of going like this.And the woman would have sex with it.That is what they would do.Pretty amazing.Sadly, this device has been dismantled.This just kills me, not because I wanted to use it--I wanted to see it.14:45(Laughter)14:48 One fine day Alfred Kinsey decided to calculate the average distance traveled by ejaculated semen.This was not idle curiosity.Doctor Kinsey had heard--and there was a theory kind of going around at the time, this being the 1940s--that the force with which semen is thrown against the cervix was a factor in fertility.Kinsey thought it was bunk, so he got to work.He got together in his lab 300 men, a measuring tape, and a movie camera.(Laughter)And in fact he found that in three quarters of the men the stuff just kind of slopped out.It wasn't spurted or thrown or ejected under great force.However, the record holder landed just shy of the eight-foot mark, which is impressive.(Laughter)(Applause)Yes.Exactly.(Laughter)Sadly, he's anonymous.His name is not mentioned.15:54 In his write-up, in his write-up of this experiment in his book, Kinsey wrote, “Two sheets were laid down to protect the oriental carpets.”(Laughter)Which is my second favorite line in the entire oeuvre of Alfred Kinsey.My favorite being, “Cheese crumbs spread before a pair of copulating rats will distract the female, but not the male.” 16:20(Laughter)16:22 Thank you very much.16:24(Applause)16:28 Thanks!

好的。下面是几张图片 这些图片来源于 《超声医学杂志》上发表的的一篇有趣的文章。恕我直言，我觉得这篇文章是 《超声医学杂志》有史以来最受争议的文章。标题为《子宫内自慰观察报告》。（众笑）好吧。左边的是只手，在箭头所指的地方。这个是阴茎。小手在其周围徘徊。在这呢，我们看看 放射科医师以色列·麦斯内 是怎么说的吧，“手持阴茎的动作近似于自慰活动。” 大家别忘了，这是张超声波图像。所以我们可以看到动态影像。1:01 性高潮是自主神经系统的反射作用。自主神经系统 掌管我们无意识控制的活动。比如，食物消化，心率，性冲动等。这个神经系统激起相关器官的反射作用 靠的是花样繁多的输入 阴部刺激。咄。此外，金赛（20世纪美国著名的生物学家和人类性学科学研究者）采访过一位妇女，这名女子 仅靠抚摸眉毛就可以到到高潮。脊椎受伤的人，比如，下肢瘫痪，四肢瘫痪的人 身体部分区域会变得异常敏感 瘫痪部位以上，任何一个区域都有可能。文献中还有记载过“膝盖高潮”（knee orgasm）1:44 不过我所见过最为奇特的 是这样一位女子 她每次刷牙都会达到性高潮。（众笑）这还真是奇事一桩 光是刷牙的触觉 就足以引发高潮 她跑去看神经科医生，医生对此很感兴趣 他检查牙膏，看看是不是其中的特殊成分有作用 但是，不管什么牌子的牙膏都对该女子有效 医生们用 牙签刺激她的牙龈，看看是否同样有效 一点儿也不管用，要知道，是刷牙整个动作给她快感。让我吃惊的是，我本以为她会 又一口皓齿（众笑）可惜的是，听听一期医学刊上的引言，“该女子自认被魔鬼附身，” “转用漱口水来保持口腔卫生。” 真是令人惋惜 2:44（众笑）2:45 为了写一本书，我采访过一位女子 她仅凭意念就可以达到高潮 她是罗格斯大学（Rutgers University）研究计划的一部分 研究人员一定会喜欢我这个采访的。我在奥克兰（加州第八大城市）一家寿司店和她会面 我问道“你能在这儿做吗？” 她回答“当然可以，但你要不介意，我们吃完饭再说好吗？”（众笑）后来，她向我展示她的特异 不过是在餐厅外的长椅上 真的是难以置信。总共一分钟左右。事后我问她 “你是不是整天都这样？”（众笑）她答道“不，老实讲，我每次到家的时候就已经筋疲力竭了。”（众笑）她说距今天最近的一次 是在迪斯尼乐园的有轨电车上 3:36（众笑）3:38 除了脊神经，高潮的 “总部”位于骶神经。就是这儿 要是你用电极刺激这儿 就是这儿，你就能引发一场高潮 同理，死人也会有脊髓反射 只要你用电极刺激 有一种死人，尚有呼吸的死人 脑死亡的人 在法律规定义下就是正式死亡 但靠呼吸机维持基体运转 各个器官也供氧充足 以待器官采摘移植给他人 要是你刺激他们身体相应的区域 在这些尸体身上 你常常会看到 一种叫拉萨路反射（Lazarus reflex）的现象 我尽量向大家展示，尽量用我的活体展示 就这样，刺激这儿 尸体，或男或女，就会„„这样 不过，多病例实验室的人来说，有点惊悚 4:39（众笑）4:40 要是能在死人身上激起拉萨路反射（Lazarus reflex）那有没有可能在死人身上唤起高潮呢？ 我问了一个研究脑死亡的专家 斯蒂芬妮·曼，她也大出意料傻傻的的回了我的邮件（众笑）我问 “你能令人信服的 在死人身上激起高潮吗？” 她回到到“能，只要骶神经供氧充足，你可以令人信服的做到。” 但显然对于被试着没有任何乐趣可言。“ 但高潮终归是高潮--（众笑）然而，我推荐给一位研究者，一位阿拉巴马大学的 研究高潮的学者 我对她说，”你该做做这个实验，要知道，在大学工作，弄到尸体轻而易举 我说，“你该做这项实验” 她道“你该去弄人体试验复查委员会的批准。” 5:31（众笑）5:33 根据上世纪三十年代婚姻指南手册作者 西奥多·范·德·威尔德 交合后一小时内，女子口中会有一点 精液的味道 西奥多 范 德 威尔德倒是个精液鉴赏家（众笑）要知道该人写了一本名为《理想婚姻》的书 他可是异性恋的铁杆主张者 但在《理想婚姻中》他写道 他能辨别青年男子和壮年男子的精液 青年男子的精液有几种新鲜，令人愉悦的气息 而壮年男子呢，用他的话来说，“闻起来像极了西班牙栗子树的花香” 时有鲜花的芬芳，时而又有过于浓郁。“ 6:18（众笑）6:23 好吧，1999年，以色列国 一男子开始打嗝 不幸的是就像众多病例一样，嗝打个不停 他试遍了朋友们推荐的方法 但作用一点没起 日子一天一天过去。突然一天，这个男子 当然还是不停的打嗝，和他的妻子做爱 这是奇迹发生了，打嗝停止了 他告诉医生，医生把病例分析发表在 加拿大一个医学期刊上，题为 《性交作为 顽固打嗝的潜在治疗法》 我很喜欢这篇文章，因为某种程度上建议 单身打嗝病人去自慰来解决问题（众笑）我觉得这主意很妙，人口统计上的新一页，单身打嗝病人（众笑）已婚打嗝病人，未婚打嗝病人，单身打嗝病人 7:15 在二十世纪，二十世纪初 众多妇科病专家认为 但妇女经理高潮时 子宫收缩能将精液吸入宫颈 并快速的将精子传递给卵子 这样可以增加受孕机会 这个被称作”上吸理论“（众笑）我们要是追溯到希波克拉底（古希腊医师，西方医学之父）时代 医生们坚信，女性高潮 不仅对受孕有利，同时也是十分必要的 那时候，医生都会按惯例告诉男子 取悦他们妻子的重要性 婚姻手册作者兼精液探测器 西奥多·范·德·威尔德（众笑）曾在书中这样写道 我真是太喜欢这个人了，西奥多·范·德·威尔德可真是个里程碑式人物 他曾在书中这样写道 据说语出哈布斯堡君主国（包括了自1804年到1867年期间的奥地利帝国和1867年到1918年的奥匈帝国）女王玛丽亚·特蕾西亚 一直没能怀孕 很明显，皇家医生会对她说 ”鄙人以为，您神圣的阴部 在交合前需要稍适爱抚一下。“（众笑）很明显，我也不是很清楚在哪，史料上应该会有记载。8:33 马斯特和强生（二者皆为美国性研究家）：现在我们来看看二十世纪五十年代。马斯特和强生对”上吸理论“持怀疑态度 或者风趣点来说，他们要跟不买账 所以，他们决定要名流青史，弄个究竟。他们找到若干女性作为研究对象，好象是五位 让她们带上子宫套 套中有人造精液 精液中又有 放射线不透性物质 这样可以在X光下成像 这可是上世纪五十年代 不管怎样，这些女性受试者坐在X光仪器前 自慰 以供马斯特和强生观察精液是否会被吸起 迹象表明，没有任何吸起 也许你会想”人造精子是怎么做得？“（众笑）我知道，这儿有两种说法 面粉加水，或玉米淀粉加水 其实，我在文献中找到三个独立的配方（众笑）我最喜欢的一个是这样的，要知道，各个成分都是列出来的，然后会，比如说，”该配方可供制作：12个纸杯蛋糕“ 这个精液配方上可是”给配方可供制作：一射精量精液“ 9:49（众笑）9:52 这儿还有一个高潮有助生育的说法，男性在其中也有分量，在女性体内存活了一周甚至更久的精子 会产生异变 这样精子会比较难一头冲进 卵子 英国性学家罗伊列文 推测这可能是为何男子 会进化成喜欢高频率自慰 他说到”要是我一直自慰，新鲜精子就会源源产生。“ 这个主意，不，理论，其实挺有趣的 现在诸位，你们有了一个进化理论支撑的借口啦 10:23（众笑）10:27 好吧 10:30（众笑）10:32 好的。但是动物世界却有明显的上吸迹象 比如，猪 在丹麦，丹麦国家猪繁殖委员会 发现，要是 母猪在人工配种时性唤起 产仔量会上升6个百分点 也就是说更多的小猪崽会出生 然后一个方案应运而生，为的是把 猪的产仔量再提高5个百分点 宣传海报贴满了牲口棚 DVD分发给农民 我也有这DVD（众笑）这可是独家揭露。我会放一小段视频给大家 11:12（众笑）11:14 好的，开始了，啦啦啦，去工作，看起来还有天真烂漫 接下来他会用双手 不过公猪没手，只能用鼻子，好吧，（众笑）就这样，公猪的求偶节目有点奇怪（众笑）这是模仿公猪的重量（众笑）要知道，母猪的阴蒂在阴道内 所以，这对母猪来说还是有快感的，就这样（众笑）结果皆大欢喜（鼓掌）我很喜欢这视频 视频开头还颇具教育意义 就在农民手部特写那段，镜头给他手上的结婚戒指一个大大的特写 好像想告诉观众”好吧，这是他的工作。他喜欢的还是人类女性“ 12:28（众笑）12:32 好吧，我住在丹麦时，招待我的女主人名叫安·玛丽 我问她”为什么我直接刺激母猪的阴蒂？ 为什么我让农民这样做那？ 这不是5步中的一步吗 她答道，你一定要听听原话，我真是爱死这个了 她说 ”光是让农民触摸母猪的有阴部就够困难的了，就更别提阴蒂啦。“（众笑）但是有点害羞但有雄心壮志的农民呢，可以买这个，这可是真的 母猪振荡器 这东西连接着精子输送管振动 原因呢，正如我所说的 母猪的阴蒂在阴道内 所以，这东西带来的快感还是比表面上看起来的多得多的 并且，我问了女主人，”但是这些母猪，我的意思是，也许你也注意到了，这些母猪看起来不是很乐在其中啊。“ 她说”这么说就没道理啦，因为，你不能用人的标准去衡量猪 人会把痛苦或快感写在脸上，但猪不是这样的。猪呢，打个比方，更像狗，用脸的上半部分传达信息，动耳朵就是很好的表现 所以，你也不能准确的把握猪的感受 13:39 另一方面，作为灵长类动物，我们人类更趋向于用嘴 这是藏酋猴射精时的面部表情（众笑）并且，有趣的是，这个表情也会在雌性藏酋猴脸上看到 不过是在它和另一只雌性藏酋猴交尾时 13:57（众笑）14:00 马斯特和强生在20世纪50年代决定 要研究透彻整个人类性反应链 从性冲动到高潮，从男人到女人 人体在期间的一切反应 对女性来说，这些反应都发生在体内 但这并没有阻止马斯特和强生的步伐 他们研制出一种仿真交媾仪 这东西基本上是个有摄像机的仿真阴茎连着一个马达 这是一个阴茎 丙烯制作的，内嵌摄像机和照明部件 连接在一个这样运转的马达上 然后，被试着与其性交 他们就是用这种方法，听惊人的 可惜的是，这仪器被拆毁了 真是太令我难过了。我并不是想要一个 只是想亲眼看看 14:45（众笑）14:48 一个阳光明媚的一天 阿尔佛雷德·金赛（前面提及的美国性学家）决定 计算精子射出的平均距离 这可并非单为满足奇思怪想 金赛博士听说过 这样一个理论，那时是40年代 精子 射入宫颈的力度 是确保生育的一大因素 金赛觉得这理论是空谈，所以他要用实践检验 他在实验室聚集了 300名男子，测量卷尺和摄像机（众笑）事实上他发现 其中四分之三的男子的精液 只是溢出 而非很有力的喷出射出 但是，有一个“冠军”的 “射程”竟达8英尺（约2.43米），挺惊人的（众笑）（鼓掌）是啊，没错（众笑）可惜的是，这些被试着是匿名的，他的名字没有被提及 15:54 在他的文章中 在他的文章中，金赛没提他的名字 金赛，写道 “两张床单被铺在地上以防沾污地毯。”（众笑）这是金赛所有文献中 我第二最喜欢的一句话 我最喜欢的呢，是“把芝士摆在交媾的老鼠前，收吸引的是雌鼠而非雄鼠。“ 16:20（众笑）16:22 十分感谢

《beats that defy boxes》

[Non English]...and that's one of the things that I enjoy most about this convention.It's not so much, as so little as to do with what everything is.(Laughter)But it is within our self-interest to understand the topography of our lives unto ourselves.(Laughter)The future states that there is no time other than the collapsation of that sensation of the mirror of the memories in which we are living.(Laughter)Common knowledge, but important nonetheless.(Laughter)As we face fear in these times, and fear is all around us, we also have anti-fear.It's hard to imagine or measure.The background radiation is simply too static to be able to be seen under the normal spectral analysis.But we feel as though there are times when a lot of us--you know what I'm say'n? But--you know what I'm say'n? Cuz, like, as a hip hop thing, you know what I'm say'n, TED be rock'n--you know what I'm say'n.Like so I wrote a song, and I hope you guys dig it.It's a song about people and sasquatches--(Laughter)--and other French science stuff.That's French science.Okay, here we go.♫ I've been trying inside ♫ ♫ I know that I'm in trouble by myself ♫ ♫ But every time it gets me ♫ ♫ [unclear] ♫(Music)♫ And I've been trying to be the one that you believe in ♫ ♫ And you're the one that I want to be so saucy ♫ ♫ And you're the one I want to [unclear], baby ♫ ♫ And you can do anything ♫ ♫ as long as you don't get hurt along the way back ♫ ♫ If I survive, I'm gonna tell you what is wrong ♫ ♫ Because if you were [unclear] ♫ ♫ And I think that you're looking like a [unclear] ♫ ♫ I give you what I want to be ♫(Music)And it's like, you could use as many of those things that you want.(Applause)And the computer models, no matter how many that you have and how many people that you use, are never going to be able to arrive at the same conclusions.Four years ago I worked with a few people at the Brookings Institute, and I arrived at a conclusion.(Laughter)Tomorrow is another day.(Laughter)Not just any day, but it is a day.It will get here, there's no question.And the important thing to remember is that this simulation is a good one.It's believable, it's tactile.You can reach out--things are solid.You can move objects from one area to another.You can feel your body.You can say, “I'd like to go over to this location,” and you can move this mass of molecules through the air over to another location at will.(Laughter)That's something you live inside of every day.Now with the allocation and the understanding of the lack of understanding, we enter into a new era of science in which we feel nothing more than so much so as to say that those within themselves, comporary or non-comporary, will figuratively figure into the folding of our non-understanding and our partial understanding to the networks of which we all draw our source and conclusions from.(Laughter)So, as I say before the last piece, feel not as though it is a sphere we live on, rather an infinite plane which has the illusion of leading yourself back to the point of origin.(Laughter)Once we understand that all the spheres in the sky are just large infinite planes, it will be plain to see.Ha Ha Ha.This is my final piece.And just remember everything you are--it's more important to realize the negative space, as music is only the division of space;it is the space we are listening to divided as such, which gives us the information comparison to something other that gives us the idea of what the idea that wants to be transmitted wants to be.So please, without further ado.(Applause)Thank you.(Applause)This is a fun one.It goes like this.(Music)Okay, for the last piece I'd like to do, this one goes very similar to this.I hope you guys recognize it.Here we go.Okay, that still works.Okay, good.All right, here we go.(Laughter)(Music)Here we go.(Music)♫ Yeah, yo, yo, yo ♫(Music)Thank you.Enjoy the rest.Thank you.(Applause)

[非英语] 关于这大会 我最享受的事之一就是 都跟“万物为何”这个话题有着多多少少的关系（笑声）了解一下生命的崎岖 和我们自身的关系 是为了自身利益（笑声）未来表明 并不存在时间 只不过是我们在记忆影像中的生活 轰然崩塌而已（笑声）虽说是常识 但也还是很重要的（笑声）在这种情况下我们感到恐惧 恐惧无所不在 也有抗恐惧法子 很难设想或衡量 背景辐射过于静态 普通光谱分析根本无法检测出来 但有些时候我们也会觉得 当许多人--你们懂的 但是呢--你们懂的 就 嘻哈音乐那种范儿 你们都懂的 TED赞爆了--就这意思 我写了首歌 希望大家喜欢 这是一首有关人们 和长毛野人的歌曲--（笑声）--还有些法国科技的玩意 没错 法国科技 好 开唱 ♫我一直内心在争斗♫ ♫ 我知道我身陷囫囵 ♫ ♫但每次它困扰我 ♫ ♫ [听不清] ♫（音乐）♫ 我一直努力成为你信任的那个人 ♫ ♫为了你 我才愿意变得这么挑逗♫ ♫正是你，我才想[听不清]，宝贝 ♫ ♫ 你可以做任何的事♫ ♫只要事后你不会受到伤害 ♫ ♫若我能生存下来 会告诉你哪里出了问题 ♫ ♫因为假若你是 [不确定] ♫ ♫ 我认为你看起来像[不确定] ♫ ♫我给予你我所能做到的一切 ♫（音乐）这些东西 你想用多少用多少（掌声）那些计算机虚拟建模 不管你做了多少 用了多少人 结论永远不同 四年前我在布鲁金斯学院跟一些人合作 得出了一个结论（笑声）明天是新的一天!（笑声）不是随便哪一天 但反正就是一天 明天一定会到来 这是毫无疑问的 重要的是要记住 这次模拟是成功的 真实可信 触手可及 你可以伸手触碰--这些东西都是有形态的 你可以把东西从这儿移到那儿 你能感觉到自己的肢体 你可以说 “我想走到那个位置” 然后你就能很随意地把这么一大坨分子 穿过这段空间移到那儿去（笑声）这就是我们每天的经历 现在随着这种分配 和对缺少理解的认知 我们进入了一个全新的科学范畴 对此我们感到 只能说 那些在科技本身中，当代的或非当代的，会被象征性地包括进 我们不理解和半理解 的折叠当中 对于我们汲取源头 和得出结论的网络（笑声）所以 就像我在最后一首歌前说的 不要只觉得地球只是我们生存的地方 它其实是一个广袤无垠的平原 有着带领你溯本追源的幻觉（笑声）一旦我们了解天空中的那些空间 都仅是广袤无垠的平原 就会觉得“原”来如此了 哈哈哈 这是我最后一曲 记住 你的一切--最重要的是认识到 负空间 正如音乐仅是空间的一部分 我们所聆听的空间被分割成这样 传达给我们信息 相比于其它的 告诉我们想传递哪些想法 想产生哪些想法 好了 不罗嗦了（掌声）谢谢（掌声）这首很有趣 是这么唱的（音乐）我要唱的最后一曲 跟这首很相像 我希望你们等会能听出来 开始吧 好 还老当益壮 很好 好 来了啊（笑声）（音乐）走着（音乐）♫ Yeah, yo, yo, yo ♫（音乐）谢谢大家 请尽情享受接下来的活动 谢谢（掌声）

《my 12 pairs of legs》

I was speaking to a group of about 300 kids, ages six to eight, at a children's museum, and I brought with me a bag full of legs, similar to the kinds of things you see up here, and had them laid out on a table for the kids.And, from my experience, you know, kids are naturally curious about what they don't know, or don't understand, or is foreign to them.They only learn to be frightened of those differences when an adult influences them to behave that way, and maybe censors that natural curiosity, or you know, reins in the question-asking in the hopes of them being polite little kids.So I just pictured a first grade teacher out in the lobby with these unruly kids, saying, “Now, whatever you do, don't stare at her legs.” 0:54 But, of course, that's the point.That's why I was there, I wanted to invite them to look and explore.So I made a deal with the adults that the kids could come in without any adults for two minutes on their own.The doors open, the kids descend on this table of legs, and they are poking and prodding, and they're wiggling toes, and they're trying to put their full weight on the sprinting leg to see what happens with that.And I said, “Kids, really quickly--I woke up this morning, I decided I wanted to be able to jump over a house--nothing too big, two or three stories--but, if you could think of any animal, any superhero, any cartoon character, anything you can dream up right now, what kind of legs would you build me?” 1:36 And immediately a voice shouted, “Kangaroo!” “No, no, no!Should be a frog!” “No.It should be Go Go Gadget!” “No, no, no!It should be the Incredibles.” And other things that I don't--aren't familiar with.And then, one eight-year-old said, “Hey, why wouldn't you want to fly too?” And the whole room, including me, was like, “Yeah.”(Laughter)And just like that, I went from being a woman that these kids would have been trained to see as “disabled” to somebody that had potential that their bodies didn't have yet.Somebody that might even be super-abled.Interesting.2:16 So some of you actually saw me at TED, 11 years ago.And there's been a lot of talk about how life-changing this conference is for both speakers and attendees, and I am no exception.TED literally was the launch pad to the next decade of my life's exploration.At the time, the legs I presented were groundbreaking in prosthetics.I had woven carbon fiber sprinting legs modeled after the hind leg of a cheetah, which you may have seen on stage yesterday.And also these very life-like, intrinsically painted silicone legs.2:52 So at the time, it was my opportunity to put a call out to innovators outside the traditional medical prosthetic community to come bring their talent to the science and to the art of building legs.So that we can stop compartmentalizing form, function and aesthetic, and assigning them different values.Well, lucky for me, a lot of people answered that call.And the journey started, funny enough, with a TED conference attendee--Chee Pearlman, who hopefully is in the audience somewhere today.She was the editor then of a magazine called ID, and she gave me a cover story.3:31 This started an incredible journey.Curious encounters were happening to me at the time;I'd been accepting numerous invitations to speak on the design of the cheetah legs around the world.And people would come up to me after the conference, after my talk, men and women.And the conversation would go something like this, “You know Aimee, you're very attractive.You don't look disabled.”(Laughter)I thought, “Well, that's amazing, because I don't feel disabled.” And it really opened my eyes to this conversation that could be explored, about beauty.What does a beautiful woman have to look like? What is a sexy body? And interestingly, from an identity standpoint, what does it mean to have a disability? I mean, people--Pamela Anderson has more prosthetic in her body than I do.Nobody calls her disabled.(Laughter)4:28 So this magazine, through the hands of graphic designer Peter Saville, went to fashion designer Alexander McQueen, and photographer Nick Knight, who were also interested in exploring that conversation.So, three months after TED I found myself on a plane to London, doing my first fashion shoot, which resulted in this cover--“Fashion-able”? Three months after that, I did my first runway show for Alexander McQueen on a pair of hand-carved wooden legs made from solid ash.Nobody knew--everyone thought they were wooden boots.Actually, I have them on stage with me: grapevines, magnolias--truly stunning.Poetry matters.Poetry is what elevates the banal and neglected object to a realm of art.It can transform the thing that might have made people fearful into something that invites them to look, and look a little longer, and maybe even understand.5:34 I learned this firsthand with my next adventure.The artist Matthew Barney, in his film opus called the “The Cremaster Cycle.” This is where it really hit home for me--that my legs could be wearable sculpture.And even at this point, I started to move away from the need to replicate human-ness as the only aesthetic ideal.So we made what people lovingly referred to as glass legs even though they're actually optically clear polyurethane, a.k.a.bowling ball material.Heavy!Then we made these legs that are cast in soil with a potato root system growing in them, and beetroots out the top, and a very lovely brass toe.That's a good close-up of that one.Then another character was a half-woman, half-cheetah--a little homage to my life as an athlete.14 hours of prosthetic make-up to get into a creature that had articulated paws, claws and a tail that whipped around, like a gecko.(Laughter)And then another pair of legs we collaborated on were these--look like jellyfish legs, also polyurethane.And the only purpose that these legs can serve, outside the context of the film, is to provoke the senses and ignite the imagination.So whimsy matters.6:56 Today, I have over a dozen pair of prosthetic legs that various people have made for me, and with them I have different negotiations of the terrain under my feet, and I can change my height--I have a variable of five different heights.(Laughter)Today, I'm 6'1“.And I had these legs made a little over a year ago at Dorset Orthopedic in England and when I brought them home to Manhattan, my first night out on the town, I went to a very fancy party.And a girl was there who has known me for years at my normal 5'8”.Her mouth dropped open when she saw me, and she went, “But you're so tall!” And I said, “I know.Isn't it fun?” I mean, it's a little bit like wearing stilts on stilts, but I have an entirely new relationship to door jams that I never expected I would ever have.And I was having fun with it.And she looked at me, and she said, “But, Aimee, that's not fair.”(Laughter)(Applause)And the incredible thing was she really meant it.It's not fair that you can change your height, as you want it.8:04 And that's when I knew--that's when I knew that the conversation with society has changed profoundly in this last decade.It is no longer a conversation about overcoming deficiency.It's a conversation about augmentation.It's a conversation about potential.A prosthetic limb doesn't represent the need to replace loss anymore.It can stand as a symbol that the wearer has the power to create whatever it is that they want to create in that space.So people that society once considered to be disabled can now become the architects of their own identities and indeed continue to change those identities by designing their bodies from a place of empowerment.And what is exciting to me so much right now is that by combining cutting-edge technology--robotics, bionics--with the age-old poetry, we are moving closer to understanding our collective humanity.I think that if we want to discover the full potential in our humanity, we need to celebrate those heartbreaking strengths and those glorious disabilities that we all have.I think of Shakespeare's Shylock: “If you prick us, do we not bleed, and if you tickle us, do we not laugh?” It is our humanity, and all the potential within it, that makes us beautiful.Thank you.(Applause)

我曾经和一群大约300人的六到八岁的孩子们 在儿童博物馆交谈 我随身带着一个装满义肢的包 和你们在这里所看到的相像 然后我把它们摆在一个桌子上，给孩子们看 从我的经验来看，要知道，孩子们天生对 他们不知道、不明白 或者不熟悉的东西好奇。只有在成年人的影响下 他们才会学会去害怕 与生俱来的好奇心就这样被抹杀 或者是约束孩子们问问题 好让他们做有礼貌的好孩子 想象一下，大厅里一个一年级老师 带着一群不守规矩的孩子，老师会说：”好啦，不管你干什么，就是别盯着她的腿看。“ 0:54 但是，问题就在这儿 我之所以会在那儿，就是想让孩子们观察和探索 所以我就和成年人达成了协议 让孩子们在们有成人陪伴下 自己待两分钟 门打开后，孩子们俯身摆弄起义肢 他们这儿戳戳那儿碰碰，摇摇脚趾头 还试着把整个身体压在短跑义肢上 看看会有什么反应 我说道：”孩子们，抓紧啊--我早上起来，一心想要能够一下子跳过比房子 没什么大不了的，不过两三层的高度 但是，想想哪些动物、哪些超级英雄、那些卡通人物 你能想到的任何一个 你会给我造一副什么样的腿呢？“ 1:36 立即有孩子答道：“袋鼠！” “不对，不对！应该是青蛙！” “不对，应该是神探佳杰特（上世纪80年代动画人物）！” “不对，不对，都不对！应该是超人特工队（迪斯尼2004年出品动画电影）” 还有其他一些我不太熟悉的 然后，一个8岁的孩子说道，“嗨，为什么你不想飞呢？” 所有在场的人，包括我，惊叹道“对啊”（笑）就这样，我从女人 一个这些孩子被教育成看待的“残疾人” 到一个一个潜能尚待开发的人 一个很有可能有超人能力的人 很有趣吧 2:16 在座的有些人11年前在TED见过我 当时人们热烈讨论这个会议是如何如何改变人生 不管你是听众还是发言人，我也不例外 TED可以说是我接后10年探索的发射台 当时，我展示的义肢是修复术的前沿技术 我当时接上了碳纤维制成的 仿猎豹后肢的短跑义肢 可能你们昨天见过 这些栩栩如生的喷漆硅胶义肢 2:52 当时，我有机会 在传统医学修复领域创新 把他们的才智与科学、艺术相结合 制造义肢 这样我们就不必把外观、功能和美学划分开来 并赋予不同的价值 幸运的是，很多人做出了响应 旅程就这样开始了，很有趣的是，有一个TED参会者 琪 皮尔曼，希望她今天也在场 她当时是一本名为《ID》的杂志的编辑 她把我作为封面故事刊登在杂志上 3:31 接下来我开始了一场奇妙的旅程 当时我奇妙地碰到了很多人和事 我被邀请去做了很多演讲 在世界各地讨论仿猎豹义肢技术 人们在演讲后找到我 不论男女 谈话内容不外乎 “要知道艾美，你很迷人。一点不像有残疾的。”（笑）我想“这还挺神的，因为我一点也不感到残疾。” 我的有关演讲的视野也被打开了 美也可以被探索 一个美丽的女人应该长什么样？ 什么是性感的身体？ 很有趣的是，从一个身份角度 残疾意味着什么？ 我是说，有人--比如帕米拉·安德森（美国艳星，以其硕大的隆胸著称）的修复程度可大大高过我 可没人说她残疾（笑）4:28 后来这期《ID》杂志，经美术设计师皮特·萨维耶之手 传到了时装设计师亚历山大·麦昆和摄影师尼克·奈特手中 他们也对探索相关方面很感兴趣 参加完TED几个月后，我就搭上了前往 伦敦的航班，摄制我的第一组时尚杂志照片 结果可以从这本杂志封面看出--时尚吗？ 3个月后，我为亚历山大·麦昆做了第一场时装秀 腿着一副硬木手工义肢 没人知道--大家都以为是木制长靴 事实上，它们就在台上 葡萄藤、木兰花，惊人的美 诗意很重要 诗歌能把陈腐和受忽视的东西提升到高层次 进入艺术的境界 能把令人生畏的东西转化成 引人入胜的东西 让人驻足良久 也许会让人们理解 5:34 这些是我从我的下一个冒险中第一手学到的 艺术家马修·巴尼在他的影片《悬丝》 这部影片真是醍醐灌顶 我的双腿竟可以成为雕塑品 这时，我就游离开模仿人体 开始探索美学的理想 后来我们研制了人们昵称为玻璃腿的义肢 虽然它们实际上是剔透的聚亚安酯制作的 也就是制造保龄球的材料 相当重的！后来我们用根与土壤的东西塑造这种义肢 把土豆根系植于其中，把甜菜根植在上头 还装上了很可爱的铜质脚趾 就这样完成了一个杰作 另一个造型是半人半兽 是对我运动员生涯的小小致敬 14个小时的义肢彩绘 才看起来像有灵活爪子、摇来摇去的尾巴的生物 有点像壁虎（笑）另一付我们合作创作的义肢 看起来有那么一点像水母 同样也是聚亚安酯制成的 这副义肢唯一的用途就是 除了电影里的展示，就是给人们感官刺激并激发人们的想象 所以诡谲多变很重要 6:56 今天，我带了至少12副义肢 它们是由不同的人为我制作的 不同的义肢给了我与我脚下大地的不同体验 我还可以改变身高 我有5个不同的身高（笑）今天，我有6尺1（约186cm）我身上这副义肢大概是一年前做的 在英国的多西特整形外科做的 当我把它们带回曼哈顿的家里 我回来后第一次出来是去一个化妆舞会 舞会上有个姑娘我认识多年了 不过那时我只有5尺8（约177cm）她看到我惊讶不已 她说道“你怎么那么高！” 我说道“是啊，挺好玩的，不是吗？” 有点像站在高跷上踩高跷 但我从此对门框有了全新体验 始料未及的新天地 我乐在其中 她看着我 说道：“但是，艾美，这可不公平。”（笑）（鼓掌）最奇妙的是她是认真的 能随意改变身高 可不公平8:04 那时我才知道--那时我才知道社会交往的 巨大变革 在近10年来 这不再是克服先天障碍 是关于增量 是关于潜能 义肢的作用不再仅局限于代替身体缺失部分 它们可以作为佩戴者身份的象征 可以创造佩戴者天马行空的想象 在这个空间 所以那些社会一度认为是残障的人 可以成为自己塑造身份的建筑师 并且切实继续改变身份 仅凭设计自己的身体 从一个强大的源泉获取灵感 现在令我激动不已的是 通过尖端科技 机器人技术、仿生学--及由来已久的诗意 我们向自身的集体人性迈进了一步 我认为要发掘自身 人性的的潜质 我们要赞美那些令人心碎的力量 那些人人都有的光荣的残障 我认为莎士比亚笔下的夏洛克 “你们要是用刀剑刺我们，我们不是也会出血的吗？ 你们要是搔我们的痒，我们不是也会笑起来的吗？” 这就是我们的人性 及其所有的潜质 是这些让我们熠熠生辉 谢谢（鼓掌）

第三篇：ted演讲稿

Brian Cox: CERN's supercollider This is the Large Hadron Collider.It's 27 kilometers in circumference.It's the biggest scientific experiment ever attempted.Over 10,000 physicists and engineers from 85 countries around the world have come together over several decades to build this machine.What we do is we accelerate protons--so, hydrogen nuclei--around 99.999999 percent the speed of light.Right? At that speed, they go around that 27 kilometers 11,000 times a second.And we collide them with another beam of protons going in the opposite direction.We collide them inside giant detectors.They're essentially digital cameras.And this is the one that I work on, ATLAS.You get some sense of the size--you can just see these EU standard-size people underneath.(Laughter)You get some sense of the size: 44 meters wide, 22 meters in diameter, 7,000 tons.And we re-create the conditions that were present less than a billionth of a second after the universe began up to 600 million times a second inside that detector--immense numbers.And if you see those metal bits there--those are huge magnets that bend electrically charged particles, so it can measure how fast they're traveling.This is a picture about a year ago.Those magnets are in there.And, again, a EU standard-size, real person, so you get some sense of the scale.And it's in there that those mini-Big Bangs will be created, sometime in the summer this year.And actually, this morning, I got an email saying that we've just finished, today, building the last piece of ATLAS.So as of today, it's finished.I'd like to say that I planned that for TED, but I didn't.So it's been completed as of today.(Applause)Yeah, it's a wonderful achievement.So, you might be asking, “Why? Why create the conditions that were present less than a billionth of a second after the universe began?” Well, particle physicists are nothing if not ambitious.And the aim of particle physics is to understand what everything's made of, and how everything sticks together.And by everything I mean, of course, me and you, the Earth, the Sun, the 100 billion suns in our galaxy and the 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.Absolutely everything.Now you might say, “Well, OK, but why not just look at it? You know? If you want to know what I'm made of, let's look at me.” Well, we found that as you look back in time, the universe gets hotter and hotter, denser and denser, and simpler and simpler.Now, there's no real reason I'm aware of for that, but that seems to be the case.So, way back in the early times of the universe, we believe it was very simple and understandable.All this complexity, all the way to these wonderful things--human brains--are a property of an old and cold and complicated universe.Back at the start, in the first billionth of a second, we believe, or we've observed, it was very simple.It's almost like...imagine a snowflake in your hand, and you look at it, and it's an incredibly complicated, beautiful object.But as you heat it up, it'll melt into a pool of water, and you would be able to see that, actually, it was just made of H20, water.So it's in that same sense that we look back in time to understand what the universe is made of.And, as of today, it's made of these things.Just 12 particles of matter, stuck together by four forces of nature.The quarks, these pink things, are the things that make up protons and neutrons that make up the atomic nuclei in your body.The electron--the thing that goes around the atomic nucleus--held around in orbit, by the way, by the electromagnetic force that's carried by this thing, the photon.The quarks are stuck together by other things called gluons.And these guys, here, they're the weak nuclear force, probably the least familiar.But, without it, the sun wouldn't shine.And when the sun shines, you get copious quantities of these things, called neutrinos, pouring out.Actually, if you just look at your thumbnail--about a square centimeter--there are something like 60 billion neutrinos per second from the sun, passing through every square centimeter of your body.But you don't feel them, because the weak force is correctly named--very short range and very weak, so they just fly through you.And these particles have been discovered over the last century, pretty much.The first one, the electron, was discovered in 1897, and the last one, this thing called the tau neutrino, in the year 2000.Actually just--I was going to say, just up the road in Chicago.I know it's a big country, America, isn't it? Just up the road.Relative to the universe, it's just up the road.(Laughter)So, this thing was discovered in the year 2000, so it's a relatively recent picture.One of the wonderful things, actually, I find, is that we've discovered any of them, when you realize how tiny they are.You know, they're a step in size from the entire observable universe.So, 100 billion galaxies, 13.7 billion light years away--a step in size from that to Monterey, actually, is about the same as from Monterey to these things.Absolutely, exquisitely minute, and yet we've discovered pretty much the full set.So, one of my most illustrious forebears at Manchester University, Ernest Rutherford, discoverer of the atomic nucleus, once said, “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” Now, I don't think he meant to insult the rest of science, although he was from New Zealand, so it's possible.(Laughter)But what he meant was that what we've done, really, is stamp collect there.OK, we've discovered the particles, but unless you understand the underlying reason for that pattern--you know, why it's built the way it is--really you've done stamp collecting.You haven't done science.Fortunately, we have probably one of the greatest scientific achievements of the twentieth century that underpins that pattern.It's the Newton's laws, if you want, of particle physics.It's called the standard model--beautifully simple mathematical equation.You could stick it on the front of a T-shirt, which is always the sign of elegance.This is it.(Laughter)I've been a little disingenuous, because I've expanded it out in all its gory detail.This equation, though, allows you to calculate everything--other than gravity--that happens in the universe.So, you want to know why the sky is blue, why atomic nuclei stick together--in principle, you've got a big enough computer--why DNA is the shape it is.In principle, you should be able to calculate it from that equation.But there's a problem.Can anyone see what it is? A bottle of champagne for anyone that tells me.I'll make it easier, actually, by blowing one of the lines up.Basically, each of these terms refers to some of the particles.So those Ws there refer to the Ws, and how they stick together.These carriers of the weak force, the Zs, the same.But there's an extra symbol in this equation: H.Right, H.H stands for Higgs particle.Higgs particles have not been discovered.But they're necessary: they're necessary to make that mathematics work.So all the exquisitely detailed calculations we can do with that wonderful equation wouldn't be possible without an extra bit.So it's a prediction: a prediction of a new particle.What does it do? Well, we had a long time to come up with good analogies.And back in the 1980s, when we wanted the money for the LHC from the U.K.government, Margaret Thatcher, at the time, said, “If you guys can explain, in language a politician can understand, what the hell it is that you're doing, you can have the money.I want to know what this Higgs particle does.” And we came up with this analogy, and it seemed to work.Well, what the Higgs does is, it gives mass to the fundamental particles.And the picture is that the whole universe--and that doesn't mean just space, it means me as well, and inside you--the whole universe is full of something called a Higgs field.Higgs particles, if you will.The analogy is that these people in a room are the Higgs particles.Now when a particle moves through the universe, it can interact with these Higgs particles.But imagine someone who's not very popular moves through the room.Then everyone ignores them.They can just pass through the room very quickly, essentially at the speed of light.They're massless.And imagine someone incredibly important and popular and intelligent walks into the room.They're surrounded by people, and their passage through the room is impeded.It's almost like they get heavy.They get massive.And that's exactly the way the Higgs mechanism works.The picture is that the electrons and the quarks in your body and in the universe that we see around us are heavy, in a sense, and massive, because they're surrounded by Higgs particles.They're interacting with the Higgs field.If that picture's true, then we have to discover those Higgs particles at the LHC.If it's not true--because it's quite a convoluted mechanism, although it's the simplest we've been able to think of--then whatever does the job of the Higgs particles we know have to turn up at the LHC.So, that's one of the prime reasons we built this giant machine.I'm glad you recognize Margaret Thatcher.Actually, I thought about making it more culturally relevant, but--(Laughter)anyway.So that's one thing.That's essentially a guarantee of what the LHC will find.There are many other things.You've heard many of the big problems in particle physics.One of them you heard about: dark matter, dark energy.There's another issue, which is that the forces in nature--it's quite beautiful, actually--seem, as you go back in time, they seem to change in strength.Well, they do change in strength.So, the electromagnetic force, the force that holds us together, gets stronger as you go to higher temperatures.The strong force, the strong nuclear force, which sticks nuclei together, gets weaker.And what you see is the standard model--you can calculate how these change--is the forces, the three forces, other than gravity, almost seem to come together at one point.It's almost as if there was one beautiful kind of super-force, back at the beginning of time.But they just miss.Now there's a theory called super-symmetry, which doubles the number of particles in the standard model, which, at first sight, doesn't sound like a simplification.But actually, with this theory, we find that the forces of nature do seem to unify together, back at the Big Bang--absolutely beautiful prophecy.The model wasn't built to do that, but it seems to do it.Also, those super-symmetric particles are very strong candidates for the dark matter.So a very compelling theory that's really mainstream physics.And if I was to put money on it, I would put money on--in a very unscientific way--that that these things would also crop up at the LHC.Many other things that the LHC could discover.But in the last few minutes, I just want to give you a different perspective of what I think--what particle physics really means to me--particle physics and cosmology.And that's that I think it's given us a wonderful narrative--almost a creation story, if you'd like--about the universe, from modern science over the last few decades.And I'd say that it deserves, in the spirit of Wade Davis' talk, to be at least put up there with these wonderful creation stories of the peoples of the high Andes and the frozen north.This is a creation story, I think, equally as wonderful.The story goes like this: we know that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago, in an immensely hot, dense state, much smaller than a single atom.It began to expand about a million, billion, billion, billion billionth of a second--I think I got that right--after the Big Bang.Gravity separated away from the other forces.The universe then underwent an exponential expansion called inflation.In about the first billionth of a second or so, the Higgs field kicked in, and the quarks and the gluons and the electrons that make us up got mass.The universe continued to expand and cool.After about a few minutes, there was hydrogen and helium in the universe.That's all.The universe was about 75 percent hydrogen, 25 percent helium.It still is today.It continued to expand about 300 million years.Then light began to travel through the universe.It was big enough to be transparent to light, and that's what we see in the cosmic microwave background that George Smoot described as looking at the face of God.After about 400 million years, the first stars formed, and that hydrogen, that helium, then began to cook into the heavier elements.So the elements of life--carbon, and oxygen and iron, all the elements that we need to make us up--were cooked in those first generations of stars, which then ran out of fuel, exploded, threw those elements back into the universe.They then re-collapsed into another generation of stars and planets.And on some of those planets, the oxygen, which had been created in that first generation of stars, could fuse with hydrogen to form water, liquid water on the surface.On at least one, and maybe only one of those planets, primitive life evolved, which evolved over millions of years into things that walked upright and left footprints about three and a half million years ago in the mud flats of Tanzania, and eventually left a footprint on another world.And built this civilization, this wonderful picture, that turned the darkness into light, and you can see the civilization from space.As one of my great heroes, Carl Sagan, said, these are the things--and actually, not only these, but I was looking around--these are the things, like Saturn V rockets, and Sputnik, and DNA, and literature and science--these are the things that hydrogen atoms do when given 13.7 billion years.Absolutely remarkable.And, the laws of physics.Right? So, the right laws of physics--they're beautifully balanced.If the weak force had been a little bit different, then carbon and oxygen wouldn't be stable inside the hearts of stars, and there would be none of that in the universe.And I think that's a wonderful and significant story.50 years ago, I couldn't have told that story, because we didn't know it.It makes me really feel that that civilization--which, as I say, if you believe the scientific creation story, has emerged purely as a result of the laws of physics, and a few hydrogen atoms--then I think, to me anyway, it makes me feel incredibly valuable.So that's the LHC.The LHC is certainly, when it turns on in summer, going to write the next chapter of that book.And I'm certainly looking forward with immense excitement to it being turned on.Thanks.(Applause)

第四篇：TED演讲稿

ted精彩演讲：坠机让我学到的三件事 imagine a big explosion as you climb through 3,000 ft.imagine a plane full of smoke.imagine an engine going clack, clack, clack, clack, clack, clack, clack.it sounds scary.想像一个大爆炸，当你在三千多英尺的高空；想像机舱内布满黑烟，想像引擎发出喀啦、喀啦、喀啦、喀啦、喀啦的声响，听起来很可怕。well i had a unique seat that day.i was sitting in 1d.i was the only one who can talk to the flight attendants.so i looked at them right away, and they said, no problem.we probably hit some birds.the pilot had already turned the plane around, and we werent that far.you could see manhattan.那天我的位置很特別，我坐在1d，我是唯一可以和空服员说话的人，于是我立刻看着他们，他们说，“没问题，我们可能撞上鸟了。” 机长已经把机头转向，我们离目的地很近，已经可以看到曼哈顿了。two minutes later, 3 things happened at the same time.the pilot lines up the plane with the hudson river.thats usually not the route.he turns off the engines.now imagine being in a plane with no sound.and then he says 3 words-the most unemotional 3 words ive ever heard.he says, brace for impact.两分钟以后，三件事情同时发生：机长把飞机对齐哈德逊河，一般的航道可不是这样。他关上引擎。想像坐在一架没有声音的飞机上。然后他说了几个字，我听过最不带情绪的几个字，他说，“即将迫降，小心冲击。” i didnt have to talk to the flight attendant anymore.i could see in her eyes, it was terror.life was over.我不用再问空服员什么了。我可以在她眼神里看到恐惧，人生结束了。now i want to share with you 3 things i learned about myself that day.现在我想和你们分享那天我所学到的三件事。i leant that it all changes in an instant.we have this bucket list, we have these things we want to do in life, and i thought about all the people i wanted to reach out to that i didnt, all the fences i wanted to mend, all the experiences i wanted to have and i never did.as i thought about that later on, i came up with a saying, which is, collect bad wines.because if the wine is ready and the person is there, im opening it.i no longer want to postpone anything in life.and that urgency, that purpose, has really changed my life.在那一瞬间内，一切都改变了。我们的人生目标清单，那些我们想做的事，所有那些我想联络却没有联络的人，那些我想修补的围墙，人际关系，所有我想经历却没有经历的事。之后我回想那些事，我想到一句话，那就是，“我收藏的酒都很差。” 因为如果酒已成熟，分享对象也有，我早就把把酒打开了。我不想再把生命中的任何事延后，这种紧迫感、目标性改变了我的生命。the second thing i learnt that dayi thought about, wow, i really feel one real regret, ive lived a good life.in my own humanity and mistaked, ive tired to get better at everything i tried.but in my humanity, i also allow my ego to get in.and i regretted the time i wasted on things that did not matter with people that matter.and i thought about my relationship with my wife, my friends, with people.and after, as i reflected on that, i decided to eliminate negative energy from my life.its not perfect, but its a lot better.ive not had a fight with my wife in 2 years.it feels great.i no longer try to be right;i choose to be happy.那天我学到的第二件事是，正当我们通过乔治华盛顿大桥，那也没过多久，我想，哇，我有一件真正后悔的事。虽然我有人性缺点，也犯了些错，但我生活得其实不错。我试着把每件事做得更好。但因为人性，我难免有些自我中心，我后悔竟然花了许多时间，和生命中重要的人讨论那些不重要的事。我想到我和妻子、朋友及人们的关系，之后，回想这件事时，我决定除掉我人生中的负面情绪。还没完全做到，但确实好多了。过去两年我从未和妻子吵架，感觉很好，我不再尝试争论对错，我选择快乐。that sadness really framed in one thought, which is, i only wish for one thing.i only wish i could see my kids grow up.我所学到的第三件事是，当你脑中的始终开始倒数“15，14，13”，看到水开始涌入，心想，“拜托爆炸吧！” 我不希望这东西碎成20片，就像纪录片中看到的那样。当我们逐渐下沉，我突然感觉到，哇，死亡并不可怕，就像是我们一生一直在为此做准备，但很令人悲伤。我不想就这样离开，我热爱我的生命。这个悲伤的主要来源是，我只期待一件事，我只希望能看到孩子长大。

about a month later, i was at a performance by my daugterand please dont-but imagine, and how would you change? what would you get done that youre waiting to get done because you think youll be here forever? how would you change your relationtships and the negative energy in them? and more than anything, are you being the best parent you can? 我鼓励今天要坐飞机的各位，想像如果你坐的飞机出了同样的事，最好不要－但想像一下，你会如何改变？有什么是你想做却没做的，因为你觉得你有其它机会做它？你会如何改变你的人际关系，不再如此负面？最重要的是，你是否尽力成为一个好父母？ thank you.篇二：你不必沉迷英语 ted演讲稿

我知道你们在想什么，你们觉得我迷路了，马上就会有人走上台温和地把我带回我的座位上。（掌声）。我在迪拜总会遇上这种事。“来这里度假的吗，亲爱的？”（笑声）“来探望孩子的吗？这次要待多久呢？

恩，事实上，我希望能再待久一点。我在波斯湾这边生活和教书已经超过30年了。（掌声）这段时间里，我看到了很多变化。现在这份数据是挺吓人的，而我今天要和你们说的是有关语言的消失和英语的全球化。我想和你们谈谈我的朋友，她在阿布达比教成人英语。在一个晴朗的日子里，她决定带她的学生到花园去教他们一些大自然的词汇。但最后却变成是她在学习所有当地植物在阿拉伯语中是怎么说的。还有这些植物是如何被用作药材，化妆品，烹饪，香草。这些学生是怎么得到这些知识的呢？当然是从他们的祖父母，甚至曾祖父母那里得来的。不需要我来告诉你们能够跨代沟通是多么重要。but sadly, today, languages are dying at an unprecedented rate.a language dies every 14 days.now, at the same time, english is the undisputed global language.could there be a connection? well i dont know.but i do know that ive seen a lot of changes.when i first came out to the gulf, i came to kuwait in the days when it was still a hardship post.actually, not that long ago.that is a little bit too early.but nevertheless, i was recruited by the british council along with about 25 other teachers.and we were the first non-muslims to teach in the state schools there in kuwait.we were brought to teach english because the government wanted to modernize the country and empower the citizens through education.and of course, the u.k.benefited from some of that lovely oil wealth.但遗憾的是，今天很多语言正在以前所未有的速度消失。每14天就有一种语言消失，而与此同时，英语却无庸置疑地成为全球性的语言。这其中有关联吗？我不知道。但我知道的是，我见证过许多改变。初次来到海湾地区时，我去了科威特。当时教英文仍然是个困难的工作。其实，没有那么久啦，这有点太久以前了。总之，我和其他25位老师一起被英国文化协会聘用。我们是第一批非穆斯林的老师，在科威特的国立学校任教。我们被派到那里教英语，是因为当地政府希望国家可以现代化并透过教育提升公民的水平。当然，英国也能得到些好处，产油国可是很有钱的。okay.now this is the major change that ive seen--how teaching english has morphed from being a mutually english-speaking nation on earth.and why not? after all, the best education--according to the latest world university rankings--is to be found in the universities of the u.k.and the u.s.so everybody wants to have an english education, naturally.but if youre not a native speaker, you have to pass a test.言归正传，我见过最大的改变，就是英语教学的蜕变如何从一个互惠互利的行为变成今天这种大规模的国际产业。英语不再是学校课程里的外语学科，也不再只是英国的专利。英语（教学）已经成为所有英语系国家追逐的潮流。何乐而不为呢？毕竟，最好的教育来自于最好的大学，而根据最新的世界大学排名，那些名列前茅的都是英国和美国的大学。所以自然每个人都想接受英语教育，但如果你不是以英文为母语，你就要通过考试。now can it be right to reject a student on linguistic ability well, i dont think so.we english teachers reject them all the time.we put a stop sign, and we stop them in their tracks.they cant pursue their dream any longer, till they get english.now let me put it this way, if i met a dutch speaker who had the cure for cancer, would i stop him from entering my british university? i dont think so.but indeed, that is exactly what we do.we english teachers are the gatekeepers.and you have to satisfy us first that your english is good enough.now it can be dangerous to give too much power to a narrow segment of society.maybe the barrier would be too universal.但仅凭语言能力就拒绝学生这样对吗？譬如如果你碰到一位天才计算机科学家，但他会需要有和律师一样的语言能力吗？我不这么认为。但身为英语老师的我们，却总是拒绝他们。我们处处设限，将学生挡在路上，使他们无法再追求自己的梦想，直到他们通过考试。现在容我换一个方式说，如果我遇到了一位只会说荷兰话的人，而这个人能治愈癌症，我会阻止他进入我的英国大学吗？我想不会。但事实上，我们的确在做这种事。我们这些英语老师就是把关的。你必须先让我们满意，使我们认定你的英文够好。但这可能是危险的。把太多的权力交由这么小的一群人把持，也许会令这种障碍太过普及。okay.but, i hear you say, what about the research? its all in english.so the books are in english, the journals are done in english, but that is a self-fulfilling.it feeds the english requirement.and so it goes on.i ask you, what happened to translation? if you think about the islamic golden age, there was lots of translation then.they translated from latin and greek into arabic, into persian, and then it was translated on into the germanic languages of europe and the romance languages.and so light shone upon the dark ages of europe.now dont get me wrong;i am not against teaching english, all you english teachers out there.i love it that we have a global language.we need one today more than ever.but i am against using it as a barrier.do we really want to end up with 600 languages and the main one being english, or chinese? we need more than that.where do we draw the line? this system equates intelligence with a knowledge of english which is quite.于是，我听到你们问但是研究呢?研究报告都要用英文。”的确，研究论著和期刊都要用英文发表，但这只是一种理所当然的现象。有英语要求，自然就有英语供给，然后就这么循环下去。我倒想问问大家，为什么不用翻译呢？想想伊斯兰的黄金时代，当时翻译盛行，人们把拉丁文和希腊文翻译成阿拉伯文或波斯文，然后再由拉伯文或波斯文翻译为欧洲的日耳曼语言以及罗曼语言。于是文明照亮了欧洲的黑暗时代。但不要误会我的意思，我不是反对英语教学或是在座所有的英语老师。我很高兴我们有一个全球性的语言，这在今日尤为重要。但我反对用英语设立障碍。难道我们真希望世界上只剩下600种语言，其中又以英文或中文为主流吗？我们需要的不只如此。那么我们该如何拿捏呢？这个体制把智能和英语能力画上等号这是相当武断的。

and i want to remind you that the giants upon whose shoulders todays stand did not have to have english, they didnt have to pass an english test.case in point, einstein.he, by the way, was considered remedial at school because he was, in fact, dyslexic.but fortunately for the world, he did not have to pass an english test.because they didnt start until 1964 with toefl, the american test of english.now its exploded.there are lots and lots of tests of english.and millions and millions of students take these tests every year.now you might think, you and me, those fees arent bad, theyre okay, but they are prohibitive to so many millions of poor people.so immediately, were rejecting them.我想要提醒你们，扶持当代知识分子的这些“巨人肩膀不必非得具有英文能力，他们不需要通过英语考试。爱因斯坦就是典型的例子。顺便说一下，他在学校还曾被认为需要课外补习，因为他其实有阅读障碍。但对整个世界来说,很幸运的当时他不需要通过英语考试，因为他们直到1964年才开始使用托福。现在英语测验太泛滥了，有太多太多的英语测验，以及成千上万的学生每年都在参加这些考试。现在你会认为，你和我都这么想，这些费用不贵，价钱满合理的。但是对数百万的穷人来说，这些费用高不可攀。所以，当下我们又拒绝了他们。it brings to mind a headline i saw recently: education: the great divide.now i get it, i understand why people would focus on english.they want to give their children the best chance in life.and to do that, they need a western education.because, of course, the best jobs go to people out of the western universities, that i put on earlier.its a circular thing.这使我想起最近看到的一个新闻标题：“教育：大鸿沟”现在我懂了。我了解为什么大家都重视英语，因为他们希望给孩子最好的人生机会。为了达成这目的，他们需要西方教育。毕竟，不可否认，最好的工作都留给那些西方大学毕业出来的人。就像我之前说的，这是一种循环。

okay.let me tell you a story about two scientists, two english scientists.they were doing an experiment to do with genetics and the forelimbs and the hind limbs of animals.but they couldnt get the results they wanted.they really didnt know what to do, until along came a german scientist who realized that they were using two words for forelimb and hind limb, whereas genetics does not differentiate and neither does german.so bingo, problem solved.if you cant think a thought, you are stuck.but if another language can think that thought, then, by cooperating, we can achieve and learn so much more.好，我跟你们说一个关于两位科学家的故事：有两位英国科学家在做一项实验，是关于遗传学的，以及动物的前、后肢。但他们无法得到他们想要的结果。他们真的不知道该怎么办，直到来了一位德国的科学家。他发现在英文里前肢和后肢是不同的二个字，但在遗传学上没有区别。在德语也是同一个字。所以，叮！问题解决了。如果你不能想到一个念头，你会卡在那里。但如果另一个语言能想到那念头，然后通过合作我们可以达成目的，也学到更多。

我的女儿从科威特来到英格兰，她在阿拉伯的学校学习科学和数学。那是所阿拉伯中学。在学校里，她得把这些知识翻译成英文，而她在班上却能在这些学科上拿到最好的成绩。这告诉我们，当外籍学生来找我们，我们可能无法针对他们所知道的给予赞赏，因为那是来自于他们母语的知识。当一个语言消失时，我们不知道还有什么也会一并失去。this is--i dont know if you saw it on cnn recently--they gave the heroes award to a young kenyan shepherd boy who couldnt study at night in his village like all the village children,篇三：世上最好的演讲：ted演讲吸引人的秘密 why ted talks are better than the last speech you sat through 世上最好的演讲：ted演讲吸引人的秘密 think about the last time you heard someone give a speech, or any formal presentation.maybe it was so long that you were either overwhelmed with data, or you just tuned the speaker out.if powerpoint was involved, each slide was probably loaded with at least 40 words or figures, and odds are that you dont remember more than a tiny bit of what they were supposed to show.回想一下你上次聆听某人发表演讲或任何正式陈述的情形。它也许太长了，以至于你被各种数据搞得头昏脑胀，甚或干脆不理会演讲者。如果演讲者使用了ppt文档，那么每张幻灯片很可能塞入了至少40个单词或数字，但你现在或许只记得一丁点内容。pretty uninspiring, huh? talk like ted: 9 public-speaking secrets of the worlds best mindsexamines why in prose thats as lively and appealing as, well, a ted talk.timed to coincide with the 30th anniversary in march of those now-legendary ted conferences, the book draws on current brain science to explain what wins over, and fires up, an audience--and what doesnt.author carmine gallo also studied more than 500 of the most popular ted speeches(there have been about 1,500 so far)and interviewed scores of the people who gave them.相当平淡，是吧？《像ted那样演讲：全球顶级人才九大演讲秘诀》(talk like ted: 9 public-speaking secrets of the worlds best minds)一书以流畅的文笔审视了为什么ted演讲如此生动，如此引人入胜。出版方有意安排在今年3月份发行此书，以庆贺如今已成为经典的ted大会成立30周年。这部著作借鉴

当代脑科学解释了什么样的演讲能够说服听众、鼓舞听众，什么样的演讲无法产生这种效果。

much of what he found out is surprising.consider, for instance, the fact that each ted talk is limited to 18 minutes.that might sound too short to convey much.yet ted curator chris anderson imposed the time limit, he told gallo, because its long enough to be serious and short enough to hold peoples attention...by forcing speakers who are used to going on for 45 minutes to bring it down to 18, you get them to think about what they really want to say.its also the perfect length if you want your message to go viral, anderson says.他挖出了不少令人吃惊的演讲策略。例如，每场ted演讲都被限制在18分钟以内。听起来太过短暂，似乎无法传达足够多讯息。然而，ted大会策办人克里斯?安德森决议推行这项时间限制规则，因为“这个时间长度足够庄重，同时又足够短，能够吸引人们的注意力。通过迫使那些习惯于滔滔不绝讲上45分钟的嘉宾把演讲时间压缩至18分钟，你就可以让他们认真思考他们真正想说的话，”他对加洛说。此外，安德森说，如果你希望你的讯息像病毒般扩散，这也是一个完美的时间长度。recent neuroscience shows why the time limit works so well: people listening to a presentation are storing data for retrieval in the future, and too much information leads to cognitive overload, which gives rise to elevated levels of anxiety--meaning that, if you go on and on, your audience will start to resist you.even worse, they wont recall a single point you were trying to make.最近的神经科学研究说明了为什么这项时间限制产生如此好的效果：聆听陈述的人们往往会存储相关数据，以备未来检索之用，而太多的信息会导致“认知超负荷”，进而推升听众的焦虑度。它意味着，如果你说个没完没了，听众就会开始抗拒你。更糟糕的是，他们不会记得你努力希望传递的信息点，甚至可能一个都记不住。

如何把一个复杂的陈述压缩至18分钟左右？加洛就这个问题提供了一些小建议，其中包括他所称的“三的法则”。具体说就是，把大量观点高度浓缩为三大要点。ted大会上的许多演讲高手就是这样做的。他还指出，即使一篇演讲无法提炼到这样的程度，单是这番努力也一定能改善演讲的效果：“仅仅通过这番提炼，你就可以大大增强陈述的创造性和影响力。” then theres powerpoint.ted represents the end of powerpoint as we know it, writes gallo.he hastens to add that theres nothing wrong with powerpoint as a tool, but that most speakers unwittingly make it work against them by cluttering up their slides with way too many words(40, on average)and numbers.另一个建议与ppt文档有关。“ted大会象征着我们所知的ppt文档正走向终结，”加洛写道。他随后又马上补充说，作为工具的powerpoint本身并没有什么错，但大多数演讲者为他们的幻灯片塞进了太多的单词（平均40个）和数字，让这种工具不经意间带来了消极影响。the remedy for that, based on the most riveting ted talks: if you must use slides, fill them with a lot more images.once again, research backs this up, with something academics call the picture superiority effect: three days after hearing or reading a set of facts, most people will remember about 10% of the information.add a photo or a drawing, and recall jumps to 65%.最吸引人的ted演讲为我们提供了一个补救策略：如果你必须使用幻灯片，务必记得要大量运用图像资源。这种做法同样有科学依据，它就是研究人员所称的“图优效应”(picture superiority effect)：听到或读到一组事实三天后，大多数人会记得大约10%的信息。而添加一张照片或图片后，记忆率将跃升至65%。one study, by molecular biologist john medina at the university of washington school of medicine, found that not only could people recall more than 2,500 pictures with at least 90% accuracy several days later, but accuracy a whole year afterward was still at about 63%.华盛顿大学医学院(university of washington school of medicine)分子生物学家约翰?梅迪纳主持的研究发现，几天后，人们能够回想起超过2,500张图片，准确率至少达到90%；一年后的准确率依然保持在63%左右。that result demolishes print and speech, both of which were tested on the same group of subjects, medinas study indicated, which is something worth bearing in mind for anybody hoping that his or her ideas will be remembered.梅迪纳的研究表明，这个结果“完胜”印刷品和演讲的记忆效果（由同一组受试者测试）。任何一位希望自己的思想被听众铭记在心的演讲者或许都应该记住这一点。篇四：ted演讲稿

我是个说书之人。在这里，我想和大家分享一些我本人的故事。一些关于所谓的“单一故事的危险性”的经历。我成长在尼日利亚东部的一所大学校园里。我母亲常说我从两岁起就开始读书。不过我认为“四岁起”比较接近事实。所以我从小就开始读书，读的是英国和美国的儿童书籍。

我也是从小就开始写作，当我在七岁那年，开始强迫我可怜的母亲阅读我用铅笔写好的故事，外加上蜡笔描绘的插图时，我所写的故事正如我所读的故事那般，我故事里的人物们都是白皮肤、蓝眼睛的。常在雪中嬉戏，吃着苹果。而且他们经常讨论天气，讨论太阳出来时，一切都多么美好。我一直写着这样故事，虽然说我当时住在尼日利亚，并且从来没有出过国。虽然说我们从来没见过雪，虽然说我们实际上只能吃到芒果；虽然说我们从不讨论天气，因为根本没这个必要。

我故事里的人物们也常喝姜汁啤酒，因为我所读的那些英国书中的人物们常喝姜汁啤酒。虽然说我当时完全不知道姜汁啤酒是什么东西。时隔多年，我一直都怀揣着一个深切的渴望，想尝尝姜汁啤酒的味道。不过这要另当别论了。这一切所表明的，正是在一个个的故事面前，我们是何等的脆弱，何等的易受影响，尤其当我们还是孩子的时候，因为我当时读的所有书中只有外国人物，我因而坚信：书要想被称为书，就必须有外国人在里面，就必须是关于我无法亲身体验的事情，而这一切都在我接触了非洲书籍之后发生了改变。当时非洲书并不多，而且他们也不像国外书籍那样好找。不过因为！和！之类的作家，我思维中对于文学的概念，产生了质的改变。我意识到像我这样的人---有着巧克力般的肤色和永远无法梳成马尾辫的卷曲头发的女孩们，也可以出现在文学作品中。

我开始撰写我所熟知的事物，但这并不是说我不喜爱那些美国和英国书籍，恰恰相反，那些书籍激发了我的想象力，为我开启了新的世界。但随之而来的后果就是，我不知道原来像我这样的人，也是可以存在于文学作品中的，而与非洲作家的结缘，则是将我从对于书籍的单一故事中拯救了出来。

我来自一个传统的尼日利亚中产家庭，我的父亲是一名教授，我的母亲是一名大学管理员。因此我们和很多其他家庭一样，都会从附近的村庄中雇佣一些帮手来打理家事。在我八岁那一年，我们家招来了一位新的男仆。他的名字叫做fide.我父亲只告诉我们说，他是来自一个非常穷苦的家庭，我母亲会时不时的将山芋、大米，还有我们穿旧的衣服送到他的家里。每当我剩下晚饭的时候，我的母亲就会说：吃净你的食物！难道你不知道吗？像fide家这样的人可是一无所有。因此我对他们家人充满了怜悯。

后来的一个星期六，我们去fide的村庄拜访，他的母亲向我们展示了一个精美别致的草篮----用fide的哥哥用染过色的酒椰叶编制的。我当时完全被震惊了。我从来没有想过fide的家人居然有亲手制造东西的才能。在那之前，我对fide家唯一的了解就是他们是何等的穷困，正因为如此，他们在我脑中的印象只是一个字------“穷”。他们的贫穷是我赐予他们的单一故事。

多年以后，在我离开尼日利亚前往美国读大学的时候，我又想到了这件事。我那时19岁，我的美国室友当时完全对我感到十分惊讶了。他问我是从哪里学的讲一口如此流利的英语，而当我告知她尼日利亚刚巧是以英语作为官方语言的时候，她的脸上则是写满了茫然。她问我是否可以给她听听她所谓的“部落音乐”，可想而知，当我拿出玛丽亚凯莉的磁带时，她是何等的失望，她断定我不知道如何使用电炉。

我猛然意识到“在他见到我之前，她就已经对我充满了怜悯之心。她对我这个非洲人的预设心态是一种充满施恩与好意的怜悯之情。我那位室友的脑中有一个关于非洲的单一故事。一个充满了灾难的单一故事。在这个单一的故事中，非洲人是完全没有可能在任何方面和她有所相似的；没有可能接收到比怜悯更复杂的感情；没有可能以一个平等的人类的身份与她

沟通。

我不得不强调，在我前往美国之前，我从来没有有意识的把自己当做个非洲人。但在美国的时候，每当人们提到”非洲“时，大家都会转向我，虽然我对纳米比亚之类的地方一无所知。但我渐渐的开始接受这个新的身份，现在很多时候我都是把自己当做一个非洲人来看待。不过当人们把非洲当做一个国家来讨论的时候，我还是觉得挺反感的。最近的一次例子就发生在两天前，我从拉各斯搭乘航班，旅程原本相当愉快，直到广播里开始介绍在”印度、非洲以及其他国家”所进行的慈善事业。

当我以一名非洲人的身份在美国读过几年之后，我开始理解我那位室友当时对我的反应。如果我不是在尼日利亚长大，如果我对非洲的一切认识都是来自于大众流行的影像，我相信我眼中的非洲也同样是充满了美丽的地貌、美丽的动物，以及一群难以理解的人们进行着毫无意义的战争、死于艾滋和贫穷、无法为自己辩护，并且等待着一位慈悲的、白种的外国人的救赎，我看待非洲的方式将会和我儿时看待fide一家的方式是一样的。

我认为关于非洲的这个单一故事从根本上来自于西方的文学。这是来自伦敦商人john locke的一段话。他在1561年的时候，曾游历非洲西部，并且为他的航行做了翻很有趣的记录。他先是把黑色的非洲人称为“没有房子的野兽”，随后又写道：“他们也是一群无头脑的人，他们的嘴和眼睛都长在了他们的胸口上。”

我每次读到这一段的时候，都不禁大笑起来。他的想象力真的是让人敬佩。但关于他的作品极其重要的一点是它昭示着西方社会讲述非洲故事的一个传统，在这个传统中，撒哈拉以南的非洲充满了消极、差异以及黑暗，是伟大的诗人rudyard kipling笔下所形容的“半恶魔、半孩童”的奇异人种。

正因为如此，我开始意识到我的那位美国室友一定在她的成长过程中，看到并且听过关于这个单一故事的不同版本，就如同之前一位曾经批判我的小说缺乏“真实的非洲感”的教授一样。话说我倒是甘愿承认我的小说有几处写的不好的地方，有几处败笔，但我很难想象我的小说既然会缺乏“真实的非洲感”。事实上，我甚至不知道真实的非洲感到底是个什么东西。那位教授跟我说我书中的人物都和他太相近了，都是受过教育的中产人物。我的人物会开车，他们没有受到饥饿的困扰。正因此，他们缺乏了真实的非洲感。

我在这里不得不指出，我本人也常常被单一的故事蒙蔽双眼。几年前，我从美国探访墨西哥，当时美国的政治气候比较紧张。关于移民的辩论一直在进行着。而在美国，“移民”和“墨西哥人”常常被当做同义词来使用。关于墨西哥人的故事是源源不绝，讲的都是欺诈医疗系统、偷渡边境、在边境被捕之类的事情。

我还记得当我到达瓜达拉哈拉的第一天，看着人们前往工作，在市集上吃着墨西哥卷、抽着烟、大笑着，我记得我刚看到这一切时是何等的惊讶，但随后我的心中便充满了羞耻感。我意识到我当时完全被沉浸在媒体上关于墨西哥人的报道，以致于他们在我的脑中幻化成一个单一的个体---卑贱的移民。我完全相信了关于墨西哥人的单一故事，对此我感到无比的羞愧。这就是创造单一故事的过程，将一群人一遍又一遍地呈现为一个事物，并且只是一个事物，时间久了，他们就变成了那个事物。

而说到单一的故事，就自然而然地要讲到权力这个问题。每当我想到这个世界的权力结构的时候，我都会想起一个伊傅语中的单词，叫做“nkali”,它是一个名词，可以在大意上被翻译成”比另一个人强大。”就如同我们的经济和政治界一样，我们所讲的故事也是建立在它的原则上的。这些故事是怎样被讲述的、由谁来讲述、何时被讲述、有多少故事被讲述，这一切都取决于权力。篇五：ted演讲的十条黄金法则

如何登上ted演讲舞台——ted演讲的十条黄金法则、导读：如果你喜欢ted，甚至梦想，有一天自己也站在ted的舞台上做一个演讲，本文将介绍著名的ted演讲十个黄金法则，请往下看吧~~ 如果你喜欢ted，观看了ted的演讲视频，感到激动不已，甚至梦想，有一天自己也站在ted的舞台上做一个演讲，分享你的精彩创意想法和精彩故事！这太好了，这种热情的向往，是通往ted讲台之路的最大动力。除此之外还需要了解一些演讲技巧。these 10 tips are the heart of a great ted talk.1.dream big.strive to create the best talk you have ever given.reveal something never seen before.do something the audience will remember forever.share an idea that could change the world.给自己一个高目标，要把这个演讲做成你最成功的一个演讲。你可以向观众展示某些未曾公开展示的东西或做出能够让观众留下深刻印象的事情。分享一个有可能改变世界的想法。2.show us the real you.share your passions, your dreams...and also your fears.be vulnerable.speak of failure as well as success.展示一个最真实的你。分享你的激情、梦想，乃至恐惧。不要把自己当成是完美无缺的，你可以讲成功的故事，也可以讲失败的故事。4.connect with peoples emotions.make us laugh!make us cry!要说得动人一点，使得观众听了会发出由衷的微笑或感动到禁不住要哭泣。5.dont flaunt your ego.dont boast.it’s the surest way to switch everyone off.不要自吹自擂。那样做的话，最容易吓跑观众。

台上不能推销！除非事先有通知，否则不可谈论你的公司或组织。更别指望在台上展示你的产品。

要给其他演讲嘉宾一定的回应，可以赞可以弹。意见之对立才会擦出思维之火火嘛。激情的参与本身的力量就是这么强大的。8.if possible, dont read your talk.notes are fine.but if the choice is between reading or rambling, then read!除非万不得已，否则不要照着讲稿阅读。当然可以看自己写的小纸片。但假如不看讲稿你会表述得含糊不清的话，那还是看着稿子讲吧。9.you must end your talk on time.doing otherwise is to steal time from the people that follow you.we won’t allow it.必须在规定的时间内说完。因为超时就意味着剥夺了其他人的时间。这是不允许的。10.rehearse your talk in front of a trusted friend...for timing, for clarity, for impact.为了保证演讲准时、清晰、高质量，我们希望你提前跟朋友一起做试讲。关于ted ted于1984年由理查德·温曼和哈里·马克思共同创办，从1990年开始每年在美国加州的蒙特利举办一次，而如今，在世界的其他城市也会每半年举办一次。

它邀请世界上的思想领袖与实干家来分享他们最热衷从事的事业。“ted”由“科技”、“娱乐”以及“设计”三个英文单词首字母组成，这三个广泛的领域共同塑造着我们的未来。事实上，这场盛会涉及的领域还在不断扩展，展现着涉及几乎各个领域的各种见解。参加者们称它为 “超级大脑spa”和“四日游未来”。

大会观众往往是企业的ceo、科学家、创造者、慈善家等等，他们几乎和演讲嘉宾一样优秀。比尔·克林顿、比尔·盖茨、维基百科创始人吉米·威尔斯、dna结构的发现者詹姆斯·华森、google创办人、英国动物学家珍妮·古道尔、美国建筑大师弗兰克·盖里、歌手保罗·西蒙、维珍品牌创始人理查德·布兰森爵士、国际设计大师菲利普·斯达克以及u2乐队主唱bono都曾经担任过演讲嘉宾。

大凡有机会来到ted大会现场作演讲的均有非同寻常的经历，他们要么是某一领域的佼佼者，要么是某一新兴领域的开创人，要么是做出了某些足以给社会带来改观的创举。比如人类基因组研究领域的领军人物craig venter，“给每位孩子一百美元笔记本电脑”项目的创建人 nicholas negroponte，只身滑到北极的第一人 ben saunders，当代杰出的语言学家

steven pinker„„至于像 al gore 那样的明星就更是ted大会之常客了。每一个ted 演讲的时间通常都是18分钟以内，但是，由于演讲者对于自己所从事的事业有一种深深的热爱，他们的演讲也往往最能打动听者的心，并引起人们的思考与进一步探索。

第五篇：TED演讲稿

embracing otherness.when i first heard this theme, i thought, well embracing otherness is embracing myself.and the journey to that 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 didnt 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 existence and its importance.and it is important.it has an extremely important function.without it, we literally cant interface with others.we cant hatch plans and climb that stairway of popularity, of success.but my skin color wasnt right.my hair wasnt right.my history wasnt right.my self became defined by otherness, which meant that, in that social world, i didnt really exist.and i was other before being anything else-first-grade, not much artistic talent...yet.and i m balling, im crying, like a little kid.and it made all the sense in the world to me.i realized at that point by connecting those two dots, that the only thing that matters in my life is being a great dad.above all, above all, the only goal i have in life is to be a good dad.一个月后，我参加女儿的表演，她一年级，没什么艺术天份，就算如此。我泪流满面，像个孩子，这让我的世界重新有了意义。当当时我意识到，将这两件事连接起来，其实我生命中唯一重要的事，就是成为一个好父亲，比任何事都重要，比任何事都重要，我人生中唯一的目标就是做个好父亲。那天我经历了一个奇迹，我活下來了。我还得到另一个启示，像是看见自己的未来再回來，改变自己的人生。