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 TiV o. From the time TiV o 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 TiV o as verb. I TiV o stuff on my piece of junk Time Warner DVR all the time.

14:08

But TiV o'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 TiV o 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

Ted中英对照演讲稿.

Ted中英对照演讲稿 大人能从小孩身上学到什么 Now, I want to start with a question: When was the last time you were called childish? For kids like me, being called childish can be a frequent occurrence. Every time we make irrational demands, exhibit irresponsible behavior, or display any other signs of being normal American citizens, we are called childish, which really bothers me. After all, take a look at these events: Imperialism and colonization, world wars, George W. Bush. Ask yourself: Who's responsible? Adults. 首先我要问大家一个问题：上一回别人说你幼稚是什么时候？像我这样的小孩，可能经常会被 人说成是幼稚。每一次我们提出不合理的要求，做出不负责任的行为，或者展现出有别于普通美 国公民的惯常行为之时，我们就被说成是幼稚。这让我很不服气。首先，让我们来回顾下这些事件：帝国主义和殖民主义，世界大战，小布什。请你们扪心自问下：这些该归咎于谁？是大人。 Now, what have kids done? Well, Anne Frank touched millions with her powerful account of the Holocaust, Ruby Bridges helped end segregation in the United States, and, most recently, Charlie Simpson helped to raise 120,000 pounds for Haiti on his little bike. So, as you can see evidenced by such examples, age has absolutely nothing to do with it. The traits the word childish addresses are seen so often in adults that we should abolish this age-discriminatory word when it comes to criticizing behavior associated with irresponsibility and irrational thinking. 而小孩呢，做了些什么？安妮·弗兰克(Anne Frank)对大屠杀强有力的叙述打动了数百万人的心。鲁比·布里奇斯为美国种族隔离的终结作出了贡献。另外，最近还有一个例子，查理·辛普 森（Charlie Simpson）骑自行车为海地募得 12万英镑。所以，这些例子证明了年龄与行为完 全没有关系。 "幼稚"这个词所对应的特点是常常可以从大人身上看到，由此我们在批评不负责 和非理性的相关行为时，应停止使用这个年龄歧视的词。 (Applause) Thank you. Then again, who's to say that certain types of irrational thinking aren't exactly what the world needs? Maybe you've had grand plans before, but stopped yourself, thinking: That's impossible or that costs too much or that won't

李世默 两种制度的传说 观后感 思考

两种制度的看法 李世默将演讲的题目定为两种制度的传说，主要论述的就是两种社会制度，一党专政下的社会主义和讲民主选举制的资本主义，典型的国家就是中国和美国。首先梳理一下他的讲演思路。 两个三十年的元叙事灌输了不同的故事：一个基于马克思主义的社会制度演变，人类社会最终走向共产主义社会，一方面它本身要求社会主义替代资本主义，进行一场正义和邪恶的较量，另一方面，作为社会主义制度的典型代表，中国现存的一党制与西方讲求的民主水火不容。但按照现在中国呈现出来的发展形势是社会稳定、经济繁荣，而这些在西方政治制度逻辑中是不可能出现在中国的，于是从中国社会的繁荣景象对西方民主政治唯一论提出质疑。那么如何指出西方民主选举制唯一性和普适性的荒谬呢，抑或说如何反驳这种民主选举不适合中国发展？李顺着民主选举制指出一党制的“弊病”：僵化、封闭、不具合法性，然后从国家制度改革、组织部任命、民意满意度调查三个角度阐述了中国的一党制具有与时俱进的能力、选贤任能的体制、深植于民心的政权合法性。在指出世界大多是选举民主制国家“惨淡经营”后，又明确地表示不存在中国威胁论，腐败现象跟一党制没有根本关系。最后大胆做出预测中国未来的发展，将两种制度的传说落脚到都是人类最美好的追求，不存在某种普适的政治模式。 其实从社会最终形态上讲，民主和社会主义、共产主义并不矛盾，只是有深有浅。但是资本主义推行的民主政治是将人都定位为理性的个体，具有不可剥夺的权利，然后选举出来最好的政府，实行最好的制度，可以事实上人还不都是理性的个体，没有那么完美绝对的认识水平，因此选举产生的政党都不可能脱离阶级局限性和个体狭隘性，同样被选举政要也难免带有自身狭隘性，不可能完全的公平公正民主，相反不断的选举变换执政党，对社会各方面发展都有严重影响，因此这方面它相对于一党制没有明显的优势。共产主义的宏伟蓝图是将人性至善之美作为终极目标，即是说要实现共产主义首先消灭私有制，人不能有私心，天下大同，这是对人性一个很高的要求，它必须建立在丰厚的物质财富基础之上，就是必须有先进的生产力创造足够的财富为基础，在向共产主义演化的过程中，消灭阶级差别，消灭私有制。但这种把理性个体作为终极目标是实现是合情合理的，相反若要把每个个体（都有选举权）考虑为理性个体，然后再一次得出所谓的民主，以及民主选举制带来的优越性，我认为是有待考量的。 在坚持改革上，要消除一党制僵化的弊病，必须要不断深化改革，提升自我纠错能力。古语云“变则通，通则达”，首先得改变，即改革才能带来发展，发展必然带来选择，我们要有正确的认识去面对选择。过去的“吃大锅饭”就是对共产主义的一种误解，认为把生产资料计划分配就是共产主义；虽然现在还有一些社会主义国家仍然实行计划经济，但它已经不足以调动劳动者的积极性，促使经济发展。中华人民共和国成立后，我们实施了很多改革，在演讲中也有提到，只有不断深化改革才能做到与时俱进，不断促进社会经济和谐稳定发展。 选贤任能是打破一党制封闭性的必然要求。大体上国家实行全国政治协商制度，公民有参政议政权利；从李给出的材料证明在高层领导的任命上是相当严格的，个人履历等方面也是精益求精。似乎腐败是目前很多国家都面临的一个问题，它带有人性本身的弱点，由于目前还存在一些制度不够完善，所以一些职能部门领导行使公职还有不合理的地方。 一党制是不同于民主选举制的另一种政治模式，是凸显社会多元化的一个例子，在中国

TED英语演讲稿

TED英语演讲稿 When you are a kid, you get asked this one particular question a lot, it really gets kind of annoying. What do you want to be when you grow up? Now, adults are hoping for answers like, I want to be an astronaut or I want to be a neurosurgeon, youre adults in your imaginations. Kids, theyre most likely to answer with pro-skateboarder, surfer or minecraft player. I asked my little brother, and he said, seriously dude, Im 10, I have no idea, probably a pro-skier, lets go get some ice cream. See, us kids are going to answer something were stoked on, what we think is cool, what we have experience with, and thats typically the opposite of what adults want to hear. But if you ask a little kid, sometimes youll get the best answer, something so simple, so obvious and really profound. When I grow up, I want to be happy. For me, when I grow up, I want to continue to be happy like I am now. Im stoked to be here at TedEx, I mean, Ive been watching Ted videos for as long as I can remember, but I never thought Id make it on the stage here so soon. I mean, I just became a teenager, and like most teenage boys, I spend most of my time wondering,

ted演讲中英对照-拖延症

TED演讲——拖延症 拖延症者的思维方式到底是什么样的？为什么有些人非要到deadline来的时候才知道打起精神做事情？是否存在执行力强的人或是说人人都有一定程度的拖延症？Tim Urban从一个被deadline 赶着走的拖延症者的角度带你走进拖延症的神奇思维世界。 中英对照翻译 So in college, I was a government major, which means I had to write a lot of papers. Now, when a normal student writes a paper, they might spread the work out a little like this. So, you know --you get started maybe a little slowly, but you get enough done in the first week that, with some heavier days later on, everything gets done, things stay civil.And I would want to do that like that. That would be the plan. I would have it all ready to go, but then, actually, the paper would come along, and then I would kind of do this. 在大学，我读的是政府专业。也就是说，我需要写很多的论文。一般的学生写论文时，他们可能会这样安排：(看图)你可能开头会慢一点，但第一周有这些已经足够。后期再一点点的增加，最后任务完成，非常的有条理。我也想这么做，所以一开始也是这么计划的。我做了完美的安排(看图)，但后来，实际上论文任务一直出现，我就只能这样了(看图)。 And that would happen every single paper. But then came my 90-page senior thesis, a paper you're supposed to spend a year on. And I knew for a paper like that, my normal work flow was not an option. It was way too big a project. So I planned things out, and I decided I kind of had to go something like this. This is how the year would go. So I'd start off light, and I'd bump it up in the middle months, and then at the end, I would kick it up into high gear just like a little staircase. How hard could it be to walk up the stairs? No big deal, right? 我的每一篇论文都是这种情况，直到我长达90页的毕业论文任务，这篇论文理应花一年的时间来做，我也知道这样的工作，我先前的工作方式是行不通的，这个项目太大，所以我制定了计划。决定按照这样的方式工作，这样来安排我这一年。(看图)开头我会轻松一点，中期任务逐渐增加，到最后，我再全力冲刺一下。整体是这种阶梯式安排，一层一层走楼梯有多难?所以没什么大不了的，是吧? But then, the funniest thing happened. Those first few months? They came and went, and I couldn't quite do stuff. So we had an awesome new revised plan. And then --But then those middle months actually went by, and I didn't really write words, and so we were here.And then two months turned into one month, which turned into two weeks. 但后来，好笑的事情出现了，头几个月时光匆匆而逝，我还没有来得及动工，所以我们明智的调整了计划。然后，中间的几个月也过去了，我还是一个字也没有动，眨眼就到了这里，然后两个月变成了一个月，再变成了2周。 And one day I woke up with three days until the deadline, still not having written a word, and so I did the only thing I could: I wrote 90 pages over 72 hours, pulling not one but two all-nighters -- humans are not supposed to pull two all-nighters -- sprinted across campus, dove in slow motion, and got it in just at the deadline. 一天我醒来，发现离交稿日期只剩3天了，但我还一个字都没写。我别无选择，只能在接下来的72小时里，连续通宵两个晚上赶论文——一般人不应连续通宵两个晚上。90页赶出来后，我飞速冲过校园，像电影中的特写慢镜头一样，恰好在截止日期前的最后一刻交上。 I thought that was the end of everything. But a week later I get a call, and it's the school. And they say, "Is this Tim Urban?" And I say, "Yeah." And they say, "We need to talk about your thesis." And I say, "OK." And they say, "It's the best one we've ever seen." That did not happen.It was a very, very bad thesis. I just wanted to enjoy that one moment when all of you thought, "This guy is amazing!" No, no, it was very, very bad. 我以为事情就这么完了，但一周后，我接到一个电话，是学校打来的。他们说：“你是Tim Urban 吗?”我说：“是。”他们说：“我们要说一说你的毕业论文。”我说：“好啊。”他们说：“这是我见过最棒

2016thomas suarez ted演讲稿中英文

2016thomas suarez ted演讲稿中英文 thomassuarez年纪12岁的他，制作iphoneApp的他被大家称之为小乔布斯，在TED上发表精彩演讲，讲述他的童年时代那些创作故事，下面是第一公文网小编整理的thomassuarezted演讲稿中英文 thomassuarezted演讲稿中英文 Helloeveryone，mynameisThomasSuarez. I'vealwayshadafascinationforcomputersandtechnology,andImadeafewappsfort heiphone,ipodTouch,andipad.I'dliketoshareacouplewithyoutoday. 我一直都对计算机与科技很入迷，我研制了一些适用于Iphone,iTouch以及ipad的应用。今天，我想与大家分享一些我研发出的应用。 MyfirstappwasauniquefortunetellercalledEarthFortunethatwoulddisplaydifferen tcolorsofearthdependingonwhatyourfortunewas.Myfavoriteandmostsuccessfulappi sBustinJieber,whichis—(Laughter)—whichi saJustinBieberWhac-A-Mole. 我最先研制出的应用是一个叫EarthFortune的运势测试器，它能根据你的运势呈现不同颜色的地球图形我个人最喜欢、也是最成功的应用叫BustinJieber它是一个---(笑声)它是一个贾斯汀·比伯攻击器(Whac-A-Mole原意为"打地鼠"游戏) IcreateditbecausealotofpeopleatschooldislikedJustinBieberalittlebit,soIdeci dedtomaketheapp. 在学校里，我的很多同学都不太喜欢贾斯汀·比伯，所以我决定开发这样一个应用。 SoIwenttoworkprogrammingit,andIreleaseditjustbeforetheholidaysin2016. 于是我就开始写这个程序，并且在2016年圣诞假期和新年来临之前发布了这个应用。 Alotofpeopleaskme,howdidImakethese?Alotoftimesit'sbecausethepersonwhoas kedthequestionwantstomakeanappalso. 很多人都问我，是怎样开发出这些应用的?很多情况下，那些问这个问题的人，其实也想开发应用。 Alotofkidsthesedaysliketoplaygames,butnowtheywanttomakethem,andit'sdiff icult,becausenotmanykidsknowwheretogotofindouthowtomakeaprogram. 如今，很多的孩子都喜欢玩游戏，但是，现在他们也想制作游戏。这是很困难的，因为

ted演讲稿中英文对照

ted演讲稿中英文对照 小编今天推荐给大家的是 ted演讲稿中英文对照，仅供参考，希望对大家有用。关注网获得更多内容。 ted演讲稿中英文对照 Hi. I'm here to talk to you about the importance of praise, admiration and thank you, and having it be specific and genuine. 嗨。我在这里要和大家谈谈向别人表达赞美，倾佩和谢意的重要性。并使它们听来真诚，具体。 And the way I got interested in this was, I noticed in myself, when I was growing up, and until about a few years ago, that I would want to say thank you to someone, I would want to praise them, I would want to take in their praise of me and I'd just stop it. And I asked myself, why? I felt shy, I felt embarrassed. And then my question became, am I the only one who does this? So, I decided to investigate. 之所以我对此感兴趣是因为我从我自己的成长中注意到几年前，当我想要对某个人说声谢谢时，当我想要赞美他们时，当我想接受他们对我的赞扬，但我却没有说出口。我问我自己，这是为什么? 我感到害羞，我感到尴尬。接着我产生了一个问题难道我是唯一一个这么做的人吗?

TED演讲稿-20岁光阴不再(中英互译)

When I was in my 20s, I saw my very first psychotherapy client. I was a Ph.D. student in clinical psychology at Berkeley. She was a 26-year-old woman named Alex. 记得见我第一位心理咨询顾客时,我才20多岁。当时我是Berkeley临床心理学在读博士生。我的第一位顾客是名叫Alex的女性,26岁。 Now Alex walked into her first session wearing jeans and a big slouchy top, and she dropped onto the couch in my office and kicked off her flats and told me she was there to talk about guy problems. Now when I heard this, I was so relieved. My classmate got an arsonist for her first client. (Laughter) And I got a twentysomething who wanted to talk about boys. This I thought I could handle. 第一次见面Alex穿着牛仔裤和宽松上衣走进来,她一下子栽进我办公室的沙 发上,踢掉脚上的平底鞋,跟我说她想谈谈男生的问题。当时我听到这个之后松了一口气。因为我同学的第一个顾客是纵火犯,而我的顾客却是一个20出头想谈谈男生的女孩。我觉得我可以搞定。But I didn't handle it. With the funny stories that Alex would bring to session, it was easy for me just to nod my head while we kicked the can down the road. 但是我没有搞定。Alex不断地讲有趣的事情,而我只能简单地点头认同她所 说的,很自然地就陷入了附和的状态。 "Thirty's the new 20," Alex would say, and as far as I could tell, she was right. Work happened later, marriage happened later, kids happened later, even death happened later. Twentysomethings like

TED演讲：越有钱越无情(中英对照版)解析

越有钱越无情 It's amazing what a rigged game of Monopoly can reveal. In this entertaining but sobering talk, social psychologist Paul Piff shares his research into how people behave when they feel wealthy. (Hint: badly.) But while the problem of inequality is a complex and daunting challenge, there's good news too. (Filmed at TEDx Marin.) 一个被操纵的大富翁游戏能告诉我们的东西竟然有那么多！在这个有趣且发人深省的演讲中，社会心理学家保罗-皮夫分享了他对于“人感到富有时如何表现”的研究结果（暗示：很坏）。在面对异常复杂、异常严峻的不平等问题的同时，我们也听到了好的消息。。（摄于TEDx加州马林县） Paul Piff studies how social hierarchy, inequality and emotion shape relations between individuals and groups. Why you should listen: Paul Piff is an Assistant Professor of Psychology and Social Behavior at the University of California, Irvine. In particular, he studies how wealth (having it or not having it) can affect interpersonal relationships. His surprising studies include running rigged games of Monopoly, tracking how those who drive expensive cars behave versus those driving less expensive vehicles and even determining that rich people are literally more likely to take candy from children than the less well-off. The results often don't paint a pretty picture about the motivating forces of wealth. He writes, "specifically, I have been finding that increased wealth and status in society lead to increased self-focus and, in turn, decreased compassion, altruism, and ethical behavior." What others say: “When was the last time, as Piff puts it, that you prioritized your own interests above the interests of other people? Was it yesterday, when you barked at the waitress for not delivering your cappuccino with sufficient promptness? Perhaps it was last week, when, late to

TED演讲—Martin Jacques《了解中国的崛起》(中英对照)

Martin Jacques: Understanding the rise of China The world is changing with really remarkable speed. If you look at the chart at the top here, you’ll see that in 2025 these Goldman Sachs projections suggest that the Chinese economy will be almost the same size as the American economy. And if you look at the chart for 2050, it’s projected that the Chinese economy will be twice the size of the American economy, and the Indian economy will be almost the same size as the American economy. We should bear in mind here these projections were drawn up before the Western financial crises. 世界正在以惊人的速度飞快得改变着。如果你看着这上方的图表,你会看到在2025年，高盛投资公司的这些预测表明中国经济规模会和美国经济几乎相当。如果看2050年的图表，预测表明中国经济规模将会是美国经济的两倍，印度的经济规模将会和美国的经济几乎持平。在这里，我们应该记住这些预测是在西方经济危机之前做出的。 A couple of weeks ago, I was looking at the latest projection by BNP (Banque Nationale de Paris) PARIBAS for when China will have a larger economy than the United States. Goldman Sachs projected 2027. The post-crisis projection is 2010. That’s just a decade way. 几周前，我查看法国巴黎银行的最近预测，中国在什么时候会超越美国经济，成为第一大经济体。高盛投资公司预测2027年。危机过后的预测是2020年。这也不过只有10年的光景。 China is going to change the world in two fundamental respects. First of all, it's a huge developing country with a population of 1.3 billion people, which has been growing for over 30 years at around 10% a year. And within a decade it will have the largest economy in the world. Never before in the modern era has the largest economy in the world been that of a developing country, rather than a developed country. 中国将在两个基本方面上改变世界。首先，中国是一个幅员广大的发展中国家它有13亿人口，在过去30年间它以每年10%左右的经济增长率发展。在未来10年间，它会有世界上最大的经济体。在世界现代史中，以前从来都是发达国家还没有一个发展中的国家变成了世界上最大的经济体。 Secondly, for the first time in the modern era, the dominant country in the world which I think is China will become, will be not from the West, and from very very different civilizational roots. 第二，在现代史中第一次在世界上，我认为中国会变成大国，它有别于西方国家而它是从非常，非常不同的文明根源发展起的大国。 Now I know it’s a widespread assumption in the West that as countries modernize, they also Westernize. This is an illusion. It’s an assumption that modernity is a product simply of competition markets and technology. It is not; it is also shaped equally by history and culture. China is not like the West, and it will not become like the West. It will remain in very fundamental respects very different. Now the big question here is obviously, how do we make sense of China? How do we try to understand what China is? And the problem we have in the West at the moment by-and-large is that the conventional approach is

杨澜TED演讲稿中英文

Yang Lan: The generation that's remaking China The night before I was heading for Scotland, I was invited to host the final of "China's 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, "I'm going to Scotland the next day." She sang beautifully, and she even managed to say a few words in Chinese. [Chinese]So it's 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 didn't 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 -- it's 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 didn't 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. Around the same time, I was going through an audition -- the first ever open audition by national television in China -- with another thousand college girls. The producer told us they were looking for some sweet, innocent and beautiful fresh face. So when it was my turn, I stood up and said, "Why [do] women's personalities on television always have to be beautiful, sweet, innocent and, you know, supportive? Why can't they have their own ideas and their own voice?" I thought I kind of offended them. But actually, they were impressed by my words. And so I was in the second round of competition, and then the third and the fourth. After seven rounds of competition, I was the last one to survive it. So I was on a national television prime-time show. And believe it or not, that was the first show on Chinese television that allowed its hosts to speak out of their own minds without reading an approved script. (Applause) And my weekly audience at that time was between 200 to 300 million people. Well after a few years, I decided to go to the U.S. and Columbia University to pursue my postgraduate studies, and then started my own media company, which was unthought of during the years that I started my career. So we do a lot of things. I've interviewed more than a thousand people in the past. And sometimes I have young people approaching me say, "Lan, you changed