以下这篇由应届毕业生演讲稿网站整理提供的是《阿凡达》、《泰坦尼克号》的导演詹姆斯·卡梅隆(james cameron)的一篇ted演讲。在这个演讲里,卡梅隆回顾了自己从电影学院毕业后走上导演道路的故事。卡梅隆告诉你,不要畏惧失败,永远不要给自己设限。更多演讲稿范文,欢迎访问应届毕业生演讲稿网站!

  i grew up on a steady diet of science fiction. in high school, i took a bus to school an hour each way every day. and i was always absorbed in a book, science fiction book, which took my mind to other worlds, and satisfied, in a narrative form, this insatiable sense of curiosity that i had.

  and you know, that curiosity also manifested itself in the fact that whenever i wasn't in school i was out in the woods, hiking and taking "samples" -- frogs and snakes and bugs and pond water -- and bringing it back, looking at it under the microscope. you know, i was a real science geek. but it was all about trying to understand the world, understand the limits of possibility.

  and my love of science fiction actually seemed mirrored in the world around me, because what was happening, this was in the late '60s, we were going to the moon, we were exploring the deep oceans.jacques cousteau was coming into our living rooms with his amazing specials that showed us animals and places and a wondrous world that we could never really have previously imagined. so, that seemed to resonate with the whole science fiction part of it.

  and i was an artist. i could draw. i could paint. and i found that because there weren't video gamesand this saturation of cg movies and all of this imagery in the media landscape, i had to create these images in my head. you know, we all did, as kids having to read a book, and through the author's description, put something on the movie screen in our heads. and so, my response to this was to paint, to draw alien creatures, alien worlds, robots, spaceships, all that stuff. i was endlessly getting busted in math class doodling behind the textbook. that was -- the creativity had to find its outlet somehow.

  and an interesting thing happened: the jacques cousteau shows actually got me very excited about the fact that there was an alien world right here on earth. i might not really go to an alien world on a spaceship someday -- that seemed pretty darn unlikely. but that was a world i could really go to, right here on earth, that was as rich and exotic as anything that i had imagined from reading these books.

  so, i decided i was going to become a scuba diver at the age of 15. and the only problem with that was that i lived in a little village in canada, 600 miles from the nearest ocean. but i didn't let that daunt me. i pestered my father until he finally found a scuba class in buffalo, new york, right across the border from where we live. and i actually got certified in a pool at a ymca in the dead of winter in buffalo, new york. and i didn't see the ocean, a real ocean, for another two years, until we moved to california.

  since then, in the intervening 40 years, i've spent about 3,000 hours underwater, and 500 hours of that was in submersibles. and i've learned that that deep-ocean environment, and even the shallow oceans,are so rich with amazing life that really is beyond our imagination. nature's imagination is so boundlesscompared to our own meager human imagination. i still, to this day, stand in absolute awe of what i see when i make these dives. and my love affair with the ocean is ongoing, and just as strong as it ever was.

  but when i chose a career as an adult, it was filmmaking. and that seemed to be the best way to reconcile this urge i had to tell stories with my urges to create images. and i was, as a kid, constantly drawing comic books, and so on. so, filmmaking was the way to put pictures and stories together, and that made sense. and of course the stories that i chose to tell were science fiction stories: "terminator," "aliens" and "the abyss." and with "the abyss," i was putting together my love of underwater and diving with filmmaking. so, you know, merging the two passions.

  something interesting came out of "the abyss," which was that to solve a specific narrative problem on that film, which was to create this kind of liquid water creature, we actually embraced computer generated animation, cg. and this resulted in the first soft-surface character, cg animation that was ever in a movie. and even though the film didn't make any money -- barely broke even, i should say -- i witnessed something amazing, which is that the audience, the global audience, was mesmerized by this apparent magic.

  you know, it's arthur clarke's law that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. they were seeing something magical. and so that got me very excited. and i thought, "wow, this is something that needs to be embraced into the cinematic art." so, with "terminator 2," which was my next film, we took that much farther. working with ilm, we created the liquid metal dude in that film. the success hung in the balance on whether that effect would work. and it did, and we created magic again, and we had the same result with an audience -- although we did make a little more money on that one.

  so, drawing a line through those two dots of experience came to, "this is going to be a whole new world," this was a whole new world of creativity for film artists. so, i started a company with stan winston, my good friend stan winston, who is the premier make-up and creature designer at that time, and it was called digital domain. and the concept of the company was that we would leapfrog past the analog processes of optical printers and so on, and we would go right to digital production. and we actually did that and it gave us a competitive advantage for a while.

  but we found ourselves lagging in the mid '90s in the creature and character design stuff that we had actually founded the company to do. so, i wrote this piece called "avatar," which was meant to absolutely push the envelope of visual effects, of cg effects, beyond, with realistic human emotive characters generated in cg, and the main characters would all be in cg, and the world would be in cg. and the envelope pushed back, and i was told by the folks at my company that we weren't going to be able to do this for a while.

  so, i shelved it, and i made this other movie about a big ship that sinks. (laughter) you know, i went and pitched it to the studio as "'romeo and juliet' on a ship: "it's going to be this epic romance,passionate film." secretly, what i wanted to do was i wanted to dive to the real wreck of "titanic." and that's why i made the movie. (applause) and that's the truth. now, the studio didn't know that. but i convinced them. i said, "we're going to dive to the wreck. we're going to film it for real. we'll be using it in the opening of the film. it will be really important. it will be a great marketing hook." and i talked them into funding an expedition. (laughter)

  sounds crazy. but this goes back to that theme about your imagination creating a reality. because we actually created a reality where six months later, i find myself in a russian submersible two and a half miles down in the north atlantic, looking at the real titanic through a view port. not a movie, not hd -- for real. (applause)

  now, that blew my mind. and it took a lot of preparation, we had to build cameras and lights and all kinds of things. but, it struck me how much this dive, these deep dives, was like a space mission. you know, where it was highly technical, and it required enormous planning. you get in this capsule, you go down to this dark hostile environment where there is no hope of rescue if you can't get back by yourself. and i thought like, "wow. i'm like, living in a science fiction movie. this is really cool."

  and so, i really got bitten by the bug of deep-ocean exploration. of course, the curiosity, the science component of it -- it was everything. it was adventure, it was curiosity, it was imagination. and it was an experience that hollywood couldn't give me. because, you know, i could imagine a creature and we could create a visual effect for it. but i couldn't imagine what i was seeing out that window. as we did some of our subsequent expeditions, i was seeing creatures at hydrothermal vents and sometimes things that i had never seen before, sometimes things that no one had seen before, that actually were not described by science at the time that we saw them and imaged them.

  so, i was completely smitten by this, and had to do more. and so, i actually made a kind of curious decision. after the success of "titanic," i said, "ok, i'm going to park my day job as a hollywood movie maker, and i'm going to go be a full-time explorer for a while." and so, we started planning theseexpeditions. and we wound up going to the bismark, and exploring it with robotic vehicles. we went back to the titanic wreck. we took little bots that we had created that spooled a fiber optic. and the idea was to go in and do an interior survey of that ship, which had never been done. nobody had ever looked inside the wreck. they didn't have the means to do it, so we created technology to do it.

  so, you know, here i am now, on the deck of titanic, sitting in a submersible, and looking out at planks that look much like this, where i knew that the band had played. and i'm flying a little robotic vehiclethrough the corridor of the ship. when i say, "i'm operating it," but my mind is in the vehicle. i felt like i was physically present inside the shipwreck of titanic. and it was the most surreal kind of deja vu experience i've ever had, because i would know before i turned a corner what was going to be there before the lights of the vehicle actually revealed it, because i had walked the set for months when we were making the movie. and the set was based as an exact replica on the blueprints of the ship.

  so, it was this absolutely remarkable experience. and it really made me realize that the telepresence experience -- that you actually can have these robotic avatars, then your consciousness is injected into the vehicle, into this other form of existence. it was really, really quite profound. and it may be a little bit of a glimpse as to what might be happening some decades out as we start to have cyborg bodies for exploration or for other means in many sort of post-human futures that i can imagine, as a science fiction fan.

  so, having done these expeditions, and really beginning to appreciate what was down there, such as at the deep ocean vents where we had these amazing, amazing animals -- they're basically aliens right here on earth. they live in an environment of chemosynthesis. they don't survive on sunlight-basedsystem the way we do. and so, you're seeing animals that are living next to a 500-degree-centigradewater plumes. you think they can't possibly exist.

  at the same time i was getting very interested in space science as well -- again, it's the science fiction influence, as a kid. and i wound up getting involved with the space community, really involved with nasa, sitting on the nasa advisory board, planning actual space missions, going to russia, going through the pre-cosmonaut biomedical protocols, and all these sorts of things, to actually go and fly to the international space station with our 3d camera systems. and this was fascinating. but what i wound up doing was bringing space scientists with us into the deep. and taking them down so that they had access -- astrobiologists, planetary scientists, people who were interested in these extreme environments -- taking them down to the vents, and letting them see, and take samples and test instruments, and so on.

  so, here we were making documentary films, but actually doing science, and actually doing space science. i'd completely closed the loop between being the science fiction fan, you know, as a kid, and doing this stuff for real. and you know, along the way in this journey of discovery, i learned a lot. i learned a lot about science. but i also learned a lot about leadership. now you think director has got to be a leader, leader of, captain of the ship, and all that sort of thing.

  i didn't really learn about leadership until i did these expeditions. because i had to, at a certain point, say, "what am i doing out here? why am i doing this? what do i get out of it?" we don't make money at these damn shows. we barely break even. there is no fame in it. people sort of think i went awaybetween "titanic" and "avatar" and was buffing my nails someplace, sitting at the beach. made all these films, made all these documentary films for a very limited audience.

  no fame, no glory, no money. what are you doing? you're doing it for the task itself, for the challenge --and the ocean is the most challenging environment there is -- for the thrill of discovery, and for that strange bond that happens when a small group of people form a tightly knit team. because we would do these things with 10, 12 people, working for years at a time, sometimes at sea for two, three months at a time.

  and in that bond, you realize that the most important thing is the respect that you have for them and that they have for you, that you've done a task that you can't explain to someone else. when you come back to the shore and you say, "we had to do this, and the fiber optic, and the attentuation, and the this and the that, all the technology of it, and the difficulty, the human-performance aspects of working at sea," you can't explain it to people. it's that thing that maybe cops have, or people in combat that have gone through something together and they know they can never explain it. creates a bond, creates a bond of respect.

  so, when i came back to make my next movie, which was "avatar," i tried to apply that same principle of leadership, which is that you respect your team, and you earn their respect in return. and it really changed the dynamic. so, here i was again with a small team, in uncharted territory, doing "avatar," coming up with new technology that didn't exist before. tremendously exciting. tremendously challenging. and we became a family, over a four-and-half year period. and it completely changed how i do movies. so, people have commented on how, "well, you know, you brought back the ocean organisms and put them on the planet of pandora." to me, it was more of a fundamental way of doing business, the process itself, that changed as a result of that.

  so, what can we synthesize out of all this? you know, what are the lessons learned? well, i think number one is curiosity. it's the most powerful thing you own. imagination is a force that can actually manifest a reality. and the respect of your team is more important than all the laurels in the world. i have young filmmakers come up to me and say, "give me some advice for doing this." and i say, "don't put limitations on yourself. other people will do that for you -- don't do it to yourself, don't bet against yourself, and take risks."

  nasa has this phrase that they like: "failure is not an option." but failure has to be an option in art and in exploration, because it's a leap of faith. and no important endeavor that required innovation was done without risk. you have to be willing to take those risks. so, that's the thought i would leave you with, is that in whatever you're doing, failure is an option, but fear is not. thank you. (applause)


























  在探险时,有时候我会问自己,我为什么会在这里?为什么要做这些纪录片? 我从中得到了什么? 我们并没有从这些纪录片中赚钱,还差点亏了本。我也没有赚到名声。很多人以为我在《泰坦尼克号》之后就一直躺在沙滩边享受。










Ted英文演讲稿:What fear can teach us
ted英文演讲稿(2) | 返回目录

  one day in 1819, 3,000 miles off the coast of chile, in one of the most remote regions of the pacific ocean, 20 american sailors watched their ship flood with seawater.

  1819年的某一天, 在距离智利海岸3000英里的地方, 有一个太平洋上的最偏远的水域, 20名美国船员目睹了他们的船只进水的场面。

  they'd been struck by a sperm whale, which had ripped a catastrophic hole in the ship's hull. as their ship began to sink beneath the swells, the men huddled together in three small whaleboats.

  他们和一头抹香鲸相撞,给船体撞了 一个毁灭性的大洞。 当船在巨浪中开始沉没时, 人们在三条救生小艇中抱作一团。

  these men were 10,000 miles from home, more than 1,000 miles from the nearest scrap of land. in their small boats, they carried only rudimentary navigational equipment and limited supplies of food and water.

  这些人在离家10000万英里的地方, 离最近的陆地也超过1000英里。 在他们的小艇中,他们只带了 落后的导航设备 和有限的食物和饮水。

  these were the men of the whaleship essex, whose story would later inspire parts of "moby dick."

  他们就是捕鲸船essex上的人们, 后来的他们的故事成为《白鲸记》的一部分。

  even in today's world, their situation would be really dire, but think about how much worse it would have been then.


  no one on land had any idea that anything had gone wrong. no search party was coming to look for these men. so most of us have never experienced a situation as frightening as the one in which these sailors found themselves, but we all know what it's like to be afraid.

  岸上的人根本就还没意识到出了什么问题。 没有任何人来搜寻他们。 我们当中大部分人没有经历过 这些船员所处的可怕情景, 但我们都知道害怕是什么感觉。

  we know how fear feels, but i'm not sure we spend enough time thinking about what our fears mean.

  我们知道恐惧的感觉, 但是我不能肯定我们会花很多时间想过 我们的恐惧到底意味着什么。

  as we grow up, we're often encouraged to think of fear as a weakness, just another childish thing to discard like baby teeth or roller skates.

  我们长大以后,我们总是会被鼓励把恐惧 视为软弱,需要像乳牙或轮滑鞋一样 扔掉的幼稚的东西。

  and i think it's no accident that we think this way. neuroscientists have actually shown that human beings are hard-wired to be optimists.

  我想意外事故并非我们所想的那样。 神经系统科学家已经知道人类 生来就是乐观主义者。

  so maybe that's why we think of fear, sometimes, as a danger in and of itself. "don't worry," we like to say to one another. "don't panic." in english, fear is something we conquer. it's something we fight.

  这也许就是为什么我们认为有时候恐惧, 本身就是一种危险或带来危险。 “不要愁。”我们总是对别人说。“不要慌”。 英语中,恐惧是我们需要征服的东西。 是我们必须对抗的东西,是我们必须克服的东西。

  it's something we overcome. but what if we looked at fear in a fresh way? what if we thought of fear as an amazing act of the imagination, something that can be as profound and insightful as storytelling itself?

  但是我们如果换个视角看恐惧会如何呢? 如果我们把恐惧当做是想象力的一个惊人成果, 是和我们讲故事一样 精妙而有见地的东西,又会如何呢?

  it's easiest to see this link between fear and the imagination in young children, whose fears are often extraordinarily vivid.

  在小孩子当中,我们最容易看到恐惧与想象之间的联系, 他们的恐惧经常是超级生动的。

  when i was a child, i lived in california, which is, you know, mostly a very nice place to live, but for me as a child, california could also be a little scary.

  我小时候住在加利福尼亚, 你们都知道,是非常适合居住的位置, 但是对一个小孩来说,加利福尼亚也会有点吓人。

  i remember how frightening it was to see the chandelier that hung above our dining table swing back and forth during every minor earthquake, and i sometimes couldn't sleep at night, terrified that the big one might strike while we were sleeping.

  我记得每次小地震的时候 当我看到我们餐桌上的吊灯 晃来晃去的时候是多么的吓人, 我经常会彻夜难眠,担心大地震 会在我们睡觉的时候突然袭来。

  and what we say about kids who have fears like that is that they have a vivid imagination. but at a certain point, most of us learn to leave these kinds of visions behind and grow up.

  我们说小孩子感受到这种恐惧 是因为他们有生动的想象力。 但是在某个时候,我们大多数学会了 抛弃这种想法而变得成熟。

  we learn that there are no monsters hiding under the bed, and not every earthquake brings buildings down. but maybe it's no coincidence that some of our most creative minds fail to leave these kinds of fears behind as adults.

  我们都知道床下没有魔鬼, 也不是每个地震都会震垮房子。但是我们当中最有想象力的人们 并没有因为成年而抛弃这种恐惧,这也许并不是巧合。

  the same incredible imaginations that produced "the origin of species," "jane eyre" and "the remembrance of things past," also generated intense worries that haunted the adult lives of charles darwin, charlotte brontĂŤ and marcel proust. so the question is, what can the rest of us learn about fear from visionaries and young children?

  同样不可思议的想象力创造了《物种起源》, 《简·爱》和《追忆似水年华》, 也就是这种与生俱来的深深的担忧一直缠绕着成年的 查尔斯·达尔文, 夏洛特·勃朗特和马塞尔·普罗斯特。 问题就来了, 我们其他人如何能从这些 梦想家和小孩子身上学会恐惧?

  well let's return to the year 1819 for a moment, to the situation facing the crew of the whaleship essex. let's take a look at the fears that their imaginations were generating as they drifted in the middle of the pacific.

  让我们暂时回到1819年, 回到essex捕鲸船的水手们面对的情况。 让我们看看他们漂流在太平洋中央时 他们的想象力给他们带来的恐惧感觉。

  twenty-four hours had now passed since the capsizing of the ship. the time had come for the men to make a plan, but they had very few options.

  船倾覆后已经过了24个小时。 这时人们制定了一个计划, 但是其实他们没什么太多的选择。

  in his fascinating account of the disaster, nathaniel philbrick wrote that these men were just about as far from land as it was possible to be anywhere on earth.

  在纳撒尼尔·菲尔布里克(nathaniel philbrick)描述这场灾难的 动人文章中,他写到“这些人离陆地如此之远, 似乎永远都不可能到达地球上的任何一块陆地。”

  the men knew that the nearest islands they could reach were the marquesas islands, 1,200 miles away. but they'd heard some frightening rumors.

  这些人知道离他们最近的岛 是1200英里以外的马克萨斯群岛(marquesas islands)。 但是他们听到了让人恐怖的谣言。

  they'd been told that these islands, and several others nearby, were populated by cannibals. so the men pictured coming ashore only to be murdered and eaten for dinner. another possible destination was hawaii, but given the season, the captain was afraid they'd be struck by severe storms.

  他们听说这些群岛, 以及附近的一些岛屿上都住着食人族。 所以他们脑中都是上岸以后就会被杀掉 被人当做盘中餐的画面。 另一个可行的目的地是夏威夷, 但是船长担心 他们会被困在风暴当中。

  now the last option was the longest, and the most difficult: to sail 1,500 miles due south in hopes of reaching a certain band of winds that could eventually push them toward the coast of south america.

  所以最后的选择是到最远,也是最艰险的地方: 往南走1500英里希望某股风 能最终把他们 吹到南美洲的海岸。

  but they knew that the sheer length of this journey would stretch their supplies of food and water. to be eaten by cannibals, to be battered by storms, to starve to death before reaching land.

  但是他们知道这个行程中一旦偏航 将会耗尽他们食物和饮水的供给。 被食人族吃掉,被风暴掀翻, 在登陆前饿死。

  these were the fears that danced in the imaginations of these poor men, and as it turned out, the fear they chose to listen to would govern whether they lived or died.

  这就是萦绕在这群可怜的人想象中的恐惧, 事实证明,他们选择听从的恐惧 将决定他们的生死。

  now we might just as easily call these fears by a different name. what if instead of calling them fears, we called them stories?

  也许我们可以很容易的用别的名称来称呼这些恐惧。 我们不称之为恐惧, 而是称它们为故事如何?

  because that's really what fear is, if you think about it. it's a kind of unintentional storytelling that we are all born knowing how to do. and fears and storytelling have the same components.

  如果你仔细想想,这是恐惧真正的意义。 这是一种与生俱来的, 无意识的讲故事的能力。 恐惧和讲故事有着同样的构成。

  they have the same architecture. like all stories, fears have characters. in our fears, the characters are us. fears also have plots. they have beginnings and middles and ends. you board the plane.

  他们有同样的结构。 如同所有的故事,恐惧中有角色。 在恐惧中,角色就是我们自己。 恐惧也有情节。他们有开头,有中间,有结尾。 你登上飞机。

  the plane takes off. the engine fails. our fears also tend to contain imagery that can be every bit as vivid as what you might find in the pages of a novel. picture a cannibal, human teeth sinking into human skin, human flesh roasting over a fire.

  飞机起飞。结果引擎故障。 我们的恐惧会包括各种生动的想象, 不比你看到的任何一个小说逊色。 想象食人族,人类牙齿 咬在人类皮肤上, 人肉在火上烤。

  fears also have suspense. if i've done my job as a storyteller today, you should be wondering what happened to the men of the whaleship essex. our fears provoke in us a very similar form of suspense.

  恐惧中也有悬念。 如果我今天像讲故事一样,留个悬念不说了, 你们也许会很想知道 essex捕鲸船上,人们到底怎么样了。 我们的恐惧用悬念一样的方式刺激我们。

  just like all great stories, our fears focus our attention on a question that is as important in life as it is in literature: what will happen next?

  就像一个很好的故事,我们的恐惧也如同一部好的文学作品一样, 将我们的注意力集中在对我们生命至关重要的问题上: 后来发生了什么?

  in other words, our fears make us think about the future. and humans, by the way, are the only creatures capable of thinking about the future in this way, of projecting ourselves forward in time, and this mental time travel is just one more thing that fears have in common with storytelling.

  换而言之,我们的恐惧让我们想到未来。 另外,人来是唯一有能力 通过这种方式想到未来的生物, 就是预测时间推移后我们的状况, 这种精神上的时间旅行是恐惧 与讲故事的另一个共同点。

  as a writer, i can tell you that a big part of writing fiction is learning to predict how one event in a story will affect all the other events, and fear works in that same way.

  我是一个作家,我要告诉你们写小说一个很重要的部分 就是学会预测故事中一件 事情如何影响另一件事情, 恐惧也是同样这么做的。

  in fear, just like in fiction, one thing always leads to another. when i was writing my first novel, "the age of miracles," i spent months trying to figure out what would happen if the rotation of the earth suddenly began to slow down. what would happen to our days?

  恐惧中,如同小说一样,一件事情总是导致另一件事情。 我写我的第一部小说《奇迹时代》的时候, 我花了数月的时间想象如果地球旋转突然变慢了之后 会发生什么。 我们的一天变得如何?

  what would happen to our crops? what would happen to our minds? and then it was only later that i realized how very similar these questions were to the ones i used to ask myself as a child frightened in the night.

  我们身体会怎样? 我们的思想会有什么变化? 也就是在那之后,我意识到 我过去总是问自己的那些些问题 和孩子们在夜里害怕是多么的相像。

  if an earthquake strikes tonight, i used to worry, what will happen to our house? what will happen to my family? and the answer to those questions always took the form of a story.

  要是在过去,如果今晚发生地震,我会很担心, 我的房子会怎么样啊?家里人会怎样啊? 这类问题的答案通常都会和故事一样。

  so if we think of our fears as more than just fears but as stories, we should think of ourselves as the authors of those stories. but just as importantly, we need to think of ourselves as the readers of our fears, and how we choose to read our fears can have a profound effect on our lives.

  所以我们认为我们的恐惧不仅仅是恐惧 还是故事,我们应该把自己当作 这些故事的作者。 但是同样重要的是,我们需要想象我们自己 是我们恐惧的解读者,我们选择如何 去解读这些恐惧会对我们的生活产生深远的影响。

  now, some of us naturally read our fears more closely than others. i read about a study recently of successful entrepreneurs, and the author found that these people shared a habit that he called "productive paranoia," which meant that these people, instead of dismissing their fears, these people read them closely, they studied them, and then they translated that fear into preparation and action.

  现在,我们中有些人比其他人更自然的解读自己的恐惧。 最近我看过一个关于成功的企业家的研究, 作者发现这些人都有个习惯 叫做“未雨绸缪“, 意思是,这些人,不回避自己的恐惧, 而是认真解读并研究恐惧, 然后把恐惧转换成准备和行动。

  so that way, if their worst fears came true, their businesses were ready.

  这样,如果最坏的事情发生了, 他们的企业也有所准备。

  and sometimes, of course, our worst fears do come true. that's one of the things that is so extraordinary about fear. once in a while, our fears can predict the future.

  当然,很多时候,最坏的事情确实发生了。 这是恐惧非凡的一面。 曾几何时,我们的恐惧预测将来。

  but we can't possibly prepare for all of the fears that our imaginations concoct. so how can we tell the difference between the fears worth listening to and all the others? i think the end of the story of the whaleship essex offers an illuminating, if tragic, example.

  但是我们不可能为我们想象力构建的所有 恐惧来做准备。 所以,如何区分值得听从的恐惧 和不值得的呢? 我想捕鲸船essex的故事结局 提供了一个有启发性,同时又悲惨的例子。

  after much deliberation, the men finally made a decision. terrified of cannibals, they decided to forgo the closest islands and instead embarked on the longer and much more difficult route to south america.

  经过数次权衡,他们最终做出了决定。 由于害怕食人族,他们决定放弃最近的群岛 而是开始更长 更艰难的南美洲之旅。

  after more than two months at sea, the men ran out of food as they knew they might, and they were still quite far from land. when the last of the survivors were finally picked up by two passing ships, less than half of the men were left alive, and some of them had resorted to their own form of cannibalism.

  在海上呆了两个多月后,他们 的食物如预料之中消耗殆尽, 而且他们仍然离陆地那么远。 当最后的幸存者最终被过往船只救起时, 只有一小半的人还活着, 实际上他们中的一些人自己变成了食人族。

  herman melville, who used this story as research for "moby dick," wrote years later, and from dry land, quote, "all the sufferings of these miserable men of the essex might in all human probability have been avoided had they, immediately after leaving the wreck, steered straight for tahiti.

  赫尔曼·梅尔维尔(herman melville)将这个故事作为 《白鲸记》的素材,在数年后写到: essex船上遇难者的悲惨结局 或许是可以通过人为的努力避免的, 如果他们当机立断地离开沉船, 直奔塔西提群岛。

  but," as melville put it, "they dreaded cannibals." so the question is, why did these men dread cannibals so much more than the extreme likelihood of starvation?

  “但是”,梅尔维尔说道:“他们害怕食人族” 问题是,为什么这些人对于食人族的恐惧 超过了更有可能的饥饿威胁呢?

  why were they swayed by one story so much more than the other? looked at from this angle, theirs becomes a story about reading. the novelist vladimir nabokov said that the best reader has a combination of two very different temperaments, the artistic and the scientific.

  为什么他们会被一个故事 影响如此之大呢? 从另一个角度来看, 这是一个关于解读的故事。 小说家弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫(vladimir nabokov)说 最好的读者能把两种截然不同的性格结合起来, 一个是艺术气质,一个是科学精神。

  a good reader has an artist's passion, a willingness to get caught up in the story, but just as importantly, the readers also needs the coolness of judgment of a scientist, which acts to temper and complicate the reader's intuitive reactions to the story. as we've seen, the men of the essex had no trouble with the artistic part.

  好的读者有艺术家的热情, 愿意融入故事当中, 但是同样重要的是,这些读者还要 有科学家的冷静判断, 这能帮助他们稳定情绪并分析 其对故事的直觉反应。 我们可以看出来,essex上的人在艺术部分一点问题都没有。

  they dreamed up a variety of horrifying scenarios. the problem was that they listened to the wrong story. of all the narratives their fears wrote, they responded only to the most lurid, the most vivid, the one that was easiest for their imaginations to picture: cannibals.

  他们梦想到一系列恐怖的场景。 问题在于他们听从了一个错误的故事。 所有他们恐惧中 他们只对其中最耸人听闻,最生动的故事, 也是他们想象中最早出现的场景: 食人族。

  but perhaps if they'd been able to read their fears more like a scientist, with more coolness of judgment, they would have listened instead to the less violent but the more likely tale, the story of starvation, and headed for tahiti, just as melville's sad commentary suggests.

  也许,如果他们能像科学家那样 稍微冷静一点解读这个故事, 如果他们能听从不太惊悚但是更可能发生的 半路饿死的故事,他们可能就会直奔塔西提群岛, 如梅尔维尔充满惋惜的评论所建议的那样。

  and maybe if we all tried to read our fears, we too would be less often swayed by the most salacious among them.

  也许如果我们都试着解读自己的恐惧, 我们就能少被 其中的一些幻象所迷惑。

  maybe then we'd spend less time worrying about serial killers and plane crashes, and more time concerned with the subtler and slower disasters we face: the silent buildup of plaque in our arteries, the gradual changes in our climate.

  我们也就能少花一点时间在 为系列杀手或者飞机失事方面的担忧, 而是更多的关心那些悄然而至 的灾难: 动脉血小板的逐渐堆积, 气候的逐渐变迁。

  just as the most nuanced stories in literature are often the richest, so too might our subtlest fears be the truest. read in the right way, our fears are an amazing gift of the imagination, a kind of everyday clairvoyance, a way of glimpsing what might be the future when there's still time to influence how that future will play out.

  如同文学中最精妙的故事通常是最丰富的故事, 我们最细微的恐惧才是最真实的恐惧。 用正确的方法的解读,我们的恐惧就是我们想象力 赐给我们的礼物,借此一双慧眼, 让我们能管窥未来 甚至影响未来。

  properly read, our fears can offer us something as precious as our favorite works of literature: a little wisdom, a bit of insight and a version of that most elusive thing -- the truth. thank you.

  如果能得到正确的解读,我们的恐惧能 和我们最喜欢的文学作品一样给我们珍贵的东西: 一点点智慧,一点点洞悉 以及对最玄妙东西—— 真相的诠释。 谢谢。



ted英文演讲稿(3) | 返回目录

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  thank you very much.


  thank you. thank you.