ted演讲稿中文

ted演讲稿中文篇一

TED演讲稿中英文3分钟

yang lan: the generation thats remaking china the night before i was heading for scotland, i was invited to host the final of

chinas got talent show in shanghai with the 80,000 live audience in the stadium. guess

who was the performing guest?susan boyle. and i told her, im going to scotland the

next day. she sang beautifully, and she even managed to say a few words in chinese.

[chinese]so its not like hello or thank you, that ordinary stuff. it means green onion

for free. why did she say that? because it was a line from our chinese parallel susan

boyle -- a 50-some year-old woman, a vegetable vendor in shanghai, who loves singing

western opera, but she didnt understand any english or french or italian, so she

managed to fill in the lyrics with vegetable names in chinese. (laughter) and the

last sentence of nessun dorma that she was singing in the stadium was green onion

for free. so

[as] susan boyle was saying that, 80,000 live audience sang together. that was

hilarious.

so i guess both susan boyle and this vegetable vendor in shanghai belonged to

otherness. they were the least expected to be successful in the business called

entertainment, yet their courage and talent brought them through. and a show and a

platform gave them the stage to realize their dreams. well, being different is not

that difficult. we are all different from different perspectives. but i think being

different is good, because you present a different point of view. you may have the

chance to make a difference. my generation has been very fortunate to witness and participate in the historic

transformation of china that has made so many changes in the past 20, 30 years. i

remember that in the year of 1990,when i was graduating from college, i was applying

for a job in the sales department of the first five-star hotel in beijing, great wall

sheraton -- its still there. so after being interrogated by this japanese manager

for a half an hour, he finally said, so, miss yang, do you have any questions to ask

me?i summoned my courage and poise and said,yes, but could you let me know, what

actually do you sell? i didnt have a clue what a sales department was about in a

five-star hotel. that was the first day i set my foot in a five-star hotel. my life, and i feel proud of that. but then we are also so fortunate to witness

the transformation of the whole country. i was in beijings bidding for the olympic

games. i was representing the shanghai expo. i saw china embracing the world and vice

versa. but then sometimes im thinking, what are todays young generation up to? how

are they different, and what are the differences they are going to make to shape the

future of china, or at large, the world? so making a living is not that easy for young people. college graduates are not

in short supply.in urban areas, college graduates find the starting salary is about 400 u.s. dollars

a month, while the average rent is above $500. so what do they do? they have to share

space -- squeezed in very limited space to save money -- and they call themselves

tribe of ants. and for those who are ready to get married and buy their apartment,

they figured out they have to work for 30 to 40 years to afford their first apartment.

that ratio in americawould only cost a couple five years to earn, but in china its

30 to 40 years with the skyrocketing real estate price. so through some of the hottest topics on microblogging, we can see what young

people care most about. social justice and government accountability runs the first

in what they demand.for the past decade or so, a massive urbanization and development

have let us witness a lot of reports on the forced demolition of private property.and

it has aroused huge anger and frustrationamong our young generation. sometimes people

get killed, and sometimes people set themselves on fire to protest. so when these

incidents are reported more and more frequently on the internet,people cry for the

government to take actions to stop this. so the good news is that earlier this year, the state council passed a new

regulation on house requisition and demolition and passed the right to order forced

demolition from local governments to the court. similarly, many other issues concerning public safety is a hot topic

on the internet. we heard about polluted air, polluted water, poisoned food. and guess

what, we have faked beef. they have sorts of ingredients that you brush on a piece

of chicken or fish, and it turns it to look like beef.and then lately, people are

very concerned about cooking oil, because thousands of people have been found

[refining] cooking oil from restaurant slop. so all these things have aroused a huge

outcry from the internet. and fortunately, we have seen the government responding

more timely and also more frequently to the public concerns. while young people seem to be very sure about their participation in public

policy-making, but sometimes theyre a little bit lost in terms of what they want for

their personal life. china is soon to pass the u.s. as the number one market for luxury

brands -- thats not including the chinese expenditures in europe and elsewhere. but

you know what, half of those consumers are earning a salary below 2,000 u.s. dollars.

theyre not rich at all. theyre taking those bags and clothes as a sense of identity

and social status. and this is a girl explicitly saying on a tv dating show that she

would rather cry in a bmw than smile on a bicycle.but of course, we do have young

people who would still prefer to smile, whether in a bmw or [on] a bicycle. so happiness is the most popular word we have heard through the past two years.

happiness is not only related to personal experiences and personal values, but also,

its about the environment. people are thinking about the following questions: are

we going to sacrifice our environment further to produce higher gdp? how are we going

to perform our social and political reform to keep pace with economic growth, to keep

sustainability and stability? and also, how capable is the systemof self-correctness

to keep more people contentwith all sorts of friction going on at the same time?i

guess these are the questions people are going to answer. and our younger generation

are going to transform this country while at the same time being transformed

themselves.

thank you very much. 杨澜ted演讲：重塑中国的一代 中文演讲稿 在来爱尔兰的前一晚，我应邀主持了中国达人秀在上海的体育场和八万现场观众。 猜猜谁是表演嘉宾？——苏珊大妈。我告诉她，“我明天要去爱尔兰了。” 她歌声犹如天籁。

而且她还可以说点中文。

“送你葱。” 这不是“你好、谢谢”之类的日常用语。这组词翻译过来是免费给你青葱，

为什么她要说这个呢？因为这是我们中国版的苏珊大妈很有名的一句歌词。 这位五十几岁的大妈在上海以贩卖蔬菜为生。她喜欢西方的歌剧，但是她不懂任何外语，

所以她就把中文蔬菜名填做歌词。当她在体育场里 唱到今夜无人入眠的最后一句时，她唱的

是“送你葱”。苏珊大妈和全场八万观众一起唱“送你葱”，多有意思的场面。 我想苏珊大妈和这位在上海做蔬菜买卖的都属于不同寻常的人。在业界所谓的娱乐圈，

他们最不可能取得成功，但是他们的勇气和才华让他们成功了。一场秀，一个平台给了他们

实现梦想的舞台。

与众不同不难，从不同的角度看我们都是不一样的。我认为与众不同是好的，因为你有

不同的看法，这给你机会去产生不同的影响。 我们这代人有幸见证和参与了过去二三十年中国的历史性的转型。 我记得在九十年代，刚从大学毕业的我申请了一份在北京五星级酒店销售部的工作。在

日本经理一个半小时的面试后，他最后说：“杨小姐，你有什么问题要问我吗？”我鼓起勇气，

定定神然后问道：“您能告诉我销售部到底销售什么？”我对于五星级酒店的销售部的职责一

点都摸不着头脑。那是我在五星级酒店的第一天。 同时，我和上千名大学女生参加了一场由中国中央电视台举办的史无前例的公开选拔。

制作人告诉我们他们想找一位可爱，天真，美丽的新面孔。当轮到我时，我站起来说道，“为

什么女孩在电视上必须是漂亮，甜美，无邪的，像个花瓶？为什么她们不能有她们的想法，

她们自己的声音？”

我想我一定得罪了评委。但是事实上，我的发言给他们留下了深刻的印象。接下来我进

入了第二轮的选拔，然后是第三轮，第四轮。在经过七轮的选拔后，我胜出了。成为了一个

国家电视台黄金时段节目的主持人。 不管你们相不相信，那是中国电视上第一个节目可以允许主持人自由发挥而不是去读审

查后的稿子。这个节目的观众人数高达两到三千万。 几年后，我决定去美国哥伦比亚大学进修。之后我有了自己的传媒公司，这是在我刚毕

业的时候想都不敢想的。

我和我的团队做了很多事情。在过去的这些年，我采访了上千人。有时候有年轻人走过

来对我说：“杨澜，你改变了我的生活。”我也为此而自豪。 今天我想讲讲在社交媒体这个大舞台上的年轻人 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{ted演讲稿中文}.

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

ted演讲稿中文篇二

TED Simon 演讲稿 英文+中文

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

(Laughter)

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. (Laughter)

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.

ted演讲稿中文篇三

TED演讲中英对照1

At every stage of our lives we make decisions that will profoundly influence the lives of the people we're going to become, and then when we become those

people, we're not always thrilled with the decisions we made. So young people pay good money to get tattoos removed that teenagers paid good money to get.

Middle-aged people rushed to divorce people who young adults rushed to marry. Older adults work hard to lose what middle-aged adults worked hard to gain. On and on and on. The question is, as a psychologist, that fascinates me is, why do we make decisions that our future selves so often regret?

在我们生命的每个阶段，我们都会做出一些决定，这些决定会深刻影响未来我们自己的生活，当我们成为未来的自己时，我们并不总是对过去做过的决定感到高兴。所以年轻人花很多钱洗去当还是青少年时花了很多钱做上的纹身。中年人急着跟年轻时迫不及待想结婚的人离婚。老年人很努力的挥霍着作为中年人时不停工作所赚的钱。如此没完没了。作为一个心理学家，让我感兴趣的问题是，为什么我们会做出让自己将来常常后悔的决定？

Now, I think one of the reasons -- I'll try to convince you today — is that we have a fundamental misconception about the power of time. Every one of you knows that the rate of change slows over the human lifespan, that your children seem to

change by the minute but your parents seem to change by the year. But what is the name of this magical point in life where change suddenly goes from a gallop to a crawl? Is it teenage years? Is it middle age? Is it old age? The answer, it turns out, for most people, is now, wherever now happens to be. What I want to convince you today is that all of us are walking around with an illusion, an illusion that history,

our personal history, has just come to an end, that we have just recently become the people that we were always meant to be and will be for the rest of our lives. 我认为其中一个原因——而我今天想说服你们的——就是我们对时间的力量有个基本的错误概念。你们每个人都知道变化的速度随着人的年龄增长不断放慢，孩子们好像每分钟都有变化，而父母们的变化则要慢得多。那么生命中这个让变化突然间从飞速变得缓慢的神奇转折点应该叫什么呢？是青少年时期吗？是中年时期吗？是老年阶段吗？其实对大多数人来说，答案是，现在，无论现在发生在什么。今天我想让大家明白的是，我们所有人都在围绕着一种错觉生活，这种错觉就是，我们每个人的过去，都已经结束了，我们已经成为了我们应该成为的那种人，在余下的生命中也都会如此。

Let me give you some data to back up that claim. So here's a study of change in people's personal values over time. Here's three values. Everybody here holds all of them, but you probably know that as you grow, as you age, the balance of these values shifts. So how does it do so? Well, we asked thousands of people. We asked half of them to predict for us how much their values would change in the next 10 years, and the others to tell us how much their values had changed in the last 10 years. And this enabled us to do a really interesting kind of analysis, because it allowed us to compare the predictions of people, say, 18 years old, to the reports of people who were 28, and to do that kind of analysis throughout the lifespan.

我想给你们展示一些数据来支持这个观点。这是一项关于人们的个人价值观随时间变化的研究。这里有3种价值观。每个人的生活都与这三个价值观相关，但是你们可能知道，随着你们慢慢长大，变老，这三个价值观的平衡点会不断变化。到底是怎么回事呢？我们询问了

数千人。我们让他们当中一半的人预测了一下在未来10年中，他们的价值观会发生多大的改变，让另一半人告诉我们在过去的10年中，他们的价值观发生了多大的变化。这项调查可以让我们做一个很有趣的分析，因为它可以让我们将大约18岁左右的人的预测同大约28岁左右的人的答案相比较，这项分析可以贯穿人的一生。

Here's what we found. First of all, you are right, change does slow down as we age, but second, you're wrong, because it doesn't slow nearly as much as we think. At every age, from 18 to 68 in our data set, people vastly underestimated how much change they would experience over the next 10 years. We call this the "end of history" illusion. To give you an idea of the magnitude of this effect, you can connect these two lines, and what you see here is that 18-year-olds anticipate changing only as much as 50-year-olds actually do.

这是我们的发现。首先，你们是对的，随着我们年龄的增长，变化会减缓。第二，你们错了，因为这种变化并不像我们想象的那么慢。在我们的数据库从18岁到68岁的每一个年龄段中，人们大大的低估了在未来的10年他们会经历多少变化。我们把这叫做“历史终止”错觉。为了让你们了解这种影响有多大， 你们可以把这两条线连接起来，你们现在看到的是18岁的人群预期的改变仅仅和50岁的人群实际经历的一样。

Now it's not just values. It's all sorts of other things. For example, personality. Many of you know that psychologists now claim that there are five fundamental

dimensions of personality: neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness. Again, we asked people how much they

expected to change over the next 10 years, and also how much they had changed

over the last 10 years, and what we found, well, you're going to get used to seeing this diagram over and over, because once again the rate of change does slow as we age, but at every age, people underestimate how much their personalities will change in the next decade.{ted演讲稿中文}.

现在不仅仅是价值观了。其他的方面都也有变化。比如说，人格。你们当中的很多人知道现在心理学家们认为人格可以分为五个基本维度：神经质性，经验汲取度，协调性，外向性和道德感。回到原来的话题，我们问人们他们期待未来的10年中自己会有多大的变化，以及他们在过去的10年中发生了多少变化，我们发现了，你们会习惯不断地看到这个图表，因为又一次，变化速率随着我们的年龄增长减慢了。但是在每一个年龄阶段，人们都低估了在未来的十年中他们的人格会发生多大的改变。

And it isn't just ephemeral things like values and personality. You can ask people about their likes and dislikes, their basic preferences. For example, name your best friend, your favorite kind of vacation, what's your favorite hobby, what's your

favorite kind of music. People can name these things. We ask half of them to tell us, "Do you think that that will change over the next 10 years?" and half of them to tell us, "Did that change over the last 10 years?" And what we find, well, you've seen it twice now, and here it is again: people predict that the friend they have now is the friend they'll have in 10 years, the vacation they most enjoy now is the one they'll enjoy in 10 years, and yet, people who are 10 years older all say, "Eh, you know, that's really changed."

而且不光是像价值观和人格这样的临时性的特质。你们可以问问人们关于他们喜好和厌恶的事，他们基本的偏好。比如说，说出你最好朋友的名字，你最喜欢什么样的假期，你最大的爱好是什么，你最喜欢什么样的音乐。人们可以说出这些事情。我们让他们当中的一半人告诉我们，“你认为这在未来10年内会改变吗？”让另一半告诉我们，“这个在过去十年内变化了吗？”我们的发现是，嗯，这个图你们已经看过2次了，再展示一次：人们推测他们现在的朋友在未来10年中还会是他们的朋友，他们喜欢的度假之地在未来10年内还会是他们喜欢的地方，然而，年长10岁的人都会说：“嗯，你知道，这确实不一样了。” Does any of this matter? Is this just a form of mis-prediction that doesn't have consequences? No, it matters quite a bit, and I'll give you an example of why. It bedevils our decision-making in important ways. Bring to mind right now for

yourself your favorite musician today and your favorite musician 10 years ago. I put mine up on the screen to help you along. Now we asked people to predict for us, to tell us how much money they would pay right now to see their current favorite musician perform in concert 10 years from now, and on average, people said they would pay 129 dollars for that ticket. And yet, when we asked them how much they would pay to see the person who was their favorite 10 years ago perform today, they say only 80 dollars. Now, in a perfectly rational world, these should be the same number, but we overpay for the opportunity to indulge our current preferences because we overestimate their stability.

这有什么关系吗？这只是一种并不会有什么后果的错误的预测吗？不，这有很大的关系，我会举例告诉你们为什么。它在很多重要的方面困扰着我们做决定。现在想想你们此时此刻最

ted演讲稿中文篇四

Matt Cutts TED中英文双语演讲稿

Matt Cutts TED中英文对照双语演讲稿

Try Something New for 30 Days

小计划帮你实现大目标

——Google工程师Matt Cutts在TED的励志演讲稿

A few years ago, I felt like I was stuck in a rut, so I decided to follow in the footsteps of the great American philosopher, Morgan Spurlock, and try something new for 30 days. The idea is actually pretty simple. Think about something you’ve always wanted to add to your life and try it for the next 30 days. It turns out, 30 days is just about the right amount of time to add a new habit or subtract a habit — like watching the news — from your life.

几年前， 我感觉对老一套感到枯燥乏味， 所以我决定追随伟大的美国哲学家摩根·斯普尔洛克的脚步，尝试做新事情30天。这个想法的确是非常简单。考虑下，你常想在你生命中做的一些事情 接下来30天尝试做这些。 这就是，30天刚好是这么一段合适的时间 去养成一个新的习惯或者改掉一个习惯——例如看新闻——在你生活中。

There’s a few things I learned while doing these 30-day challenges. The first was, instead of the months flying by, forgotten, the time was much more memorable. This was part of a challenge I did to take a picture everyday for a month. And I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing that day. I also noticed that as I started to do more and harder 30-day challenges, my self-confidence grew. I went from desk-dwelling computer nerd to the kind of guy who bikes to work — for fun. Even last year, I ended up hiking up Mt. Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa. I would never have been that adventurous before I started my 30-day challenges.

当我在30天做这些挑战性事情时，我学到以下一些事。第一件事是，取代了飞逝而过易被遗忘的岁月的是 这段时间非常的更加令人难忘。挑战的一部分是要一个月内每天我要去拍摄一张照片。我清楚地记得那一天我所处的位置我都在干什么。我也注意到随着我开始做更多的，更难的30天里具有挑战性的事时，我自信心也增强了。我从一个台式计算机宅男极客变成了一个爱骑自行车去工作的人——为了玩乐。甚至去年，我完成了在非洲最高山峰乞力马扎罗山的远足。在我开始这30天做挑战性的事之前我从来没有这样热爱冒险过。

I also figured out that if you really want something badly enough, you can do anything