【www.gbppp.com--百科】
世界需要不同的思考
我想以简单谈谈自闭症是什么作为开场。自闭症是个非常大的范围，从非常严重不会说话的小孩到天才的科学家及工程师。而我事实上觉得这里像家一样，因为在这有许多自闭症遗传学，各位不会有任何，这是特质的范围。呆瓜何时变成亚斯伯格，只是中等的自闭症，我是说爱因斯坦、莫扎特及特斯拉可能被诊断为自闭症。依照现今自闭的等级，而现在我真正有疑虑的一件事是，如何培育这些将发明未来能量的小孩。这问题比尔盖茨今早有谈到，现在若你想了解自闭症、动物，我要跟各位谈谈不同的思考模式，你必须脱离口语化的语言，我以图片为思考，我不以语言为思考。现在重点是自闭的脑专注于细节。这是一个你必须选择大字母或小字母的测试，而自闭症的脑子选出小字母比较快，重点是正常的脑子忽略细节，若你要建条桥，细节是颇为重要的，因为若你忽视细节则桥会垮。而我最大的疑虑是现今多数的政策，这些事务渐渐太过深奥了，人们渐渐逃离亲手实作的这些事物，我真的很担心许多学校取消动手实作课程，因为艺术及这类课程是我表现突出之处。在我研究牛隻时，我发现大部分人不注意的小事会让牛隻畏惧，就像是这在兽医中心前方飘扬的旗帜，这喂食场要将他们整座兽医中心拆除，他们只需要迁移旗杆，相对而言，快速的迁移。在70年代早期我刚开始时，我亲自跑到牛道中来观察牛隻看到什么，人家觉得我狠疯狂，挂在围篱上的大衣会让他们畏怯，阴影会让他们畏怯，地上的水管„„人们不去注意这些事，一条铁链垂挂，而电影里都是美化的。事实上我狠喜欢他们复制我所有的研究专案，那是我怪咖的一面，我的手绘图也在电影里客串上一角，这电影叫「天宝葛兰汀」，不是「图像思考」。所以，什么是图像思考，实际上就是你脑中的电影。我脑子的运作像是影像的Google，当我是个小孩时我不了解我的思考有何不同，我以为每个人都是以图像来思考。 后来当我写「图像思考」时，我开始访谈一些人看他们如何思考，我很讶异的发现我的思考是非常不同的。如同，若我说「思考一座教堂的顶端」，大部分的人得到的是一般普通的顶端，或许对现场的各位不是如此，但在许多不同地方却是如此。我只看得到特定的图像，它们由我记忆中跳出，就像Google的图片，在电影中，它们有个很好的场景，当「鞋」这一字被说出时，一大堆50及60年代的鞋子就跳入到我脑海中。这是我小时候的教堂，那很明确，还有更多，科林斯堡，那些有名气的又如何呢？它们会出现，像
这样，只是非常快速，像Google的图片，它们一次出现一张，然后我会想，或许我们可以有点雪或是来场暴风雨，我们可以保持住图像然后转为影片。图像思考在我设计牛隻中心时是巨大的资产，我非常努力研究改良牛隻在屠宰场的待遇，我在设计上能够实际在我脑中做设备的测试，就像一台虚拟实境的电脑系统，我其中一个案子的休息区的鸟瞰图，这是被用在电影中，那可是超级酷的。有许多像是亚斯伯格及自闭类型的，也在电影场景中工作，但是其中有件事让我很担心的是，这些小孩未来的愿景何在？他们不会在属于他们的硅谷出现。我在很早期学到的一件事是，因为我不是很社会化，我必须贩售我的作品而不是我本身，我贩售我家畜作品的方式是，我展现我的手绘稿、展现物品的图片。作为一个小孩另外帮助我的是，50年代你被教导要有规矩，你被教导你不可以在商店里乱动商品、捣蛋。当小朋友在三或四年级时，你可以发现这小孩将成为一位图像思考者，以透视法来作图，我要强调并非所有的自闭症儿都是图像思考者。我许多年前做过这脑部扫描，我以前常笑说，我有这条很粗的网路干线深入我的视觉皮层，这是张量造影，而我巨大的网路干线是比控制线大两倍，红线是我的，而蓝线是性别及年龄的控制线，而我有这条巨大的干线，而控制线在那边，真的很细的蓝线。目前有些研究显示，在自闭症范畴里的人，实际上以视觉皮层为主要的思考，但是重点是，视觉思考着只是其中一种思考方式，自闭症的脑是倾向为特别的脑，善于一件事，而不良于其他事，而我不优的就是代数，而我不能上几何或是三角函数，超大的错误。我发现许多孩童需略过代数，直接学几何或是三角函数。另外一种思考方式是模式思考着，更抽象，这类是工程师、电脑程式师。这是模式思考，那张合掌螳螂是由单一的一张纸做出来的，没胶带、没裁剪，那背景是折叠的图案。这是思考的种类：图片写实视觉思考，像我就是；模式思考者，音乐及数学的脑子，有些这类的人常有阅读上的问题，你也会发现有这类问题的孩童是朗读困难的，你将发现这些不同种类的脑，还有口语的脑，他们知道所有事情的理论。另一件事情是感知的问题，我对必须在脸上穿戴这装备很有疑虑，我在开场前半小时就到场，好将设备安装好且习惯它，为了不要碰到我的下巴，他们还把它折弯了。但是感知是个问题，有些孩童会被日光灯干扰，有些则有声音敏感的问题，各类型的问题。视觉思考让我了解很多动物的想法，因为想想看，动物是一个感知为基础的思考着，而非口语的，以图像来思考、以声音来
思考、以味觉来思考。思考路边的消防栓上有多少资讯，它知道谁去过那里，知道何时去那里，是敌是友，有谁可以当伴吗。消防栓上可有数以万计的讯息，全都是非常细节的资讯，观察这种细节让我更深入了解动物。动物与我的思考将感知为主的资讯归类：骑在马上的男人与在地上的男人，被视为两件决然不同的事。你可以有一只被骑士虐待过的马，兽医检视没有问题，也可以钉马蹄铁，但你不能骑它；你有另外一只马，可能马夫揍过它，那它将对所有在地上的事物恐惧，对兽医也是，但是人可以骑它。牛隻也是如此，骑在马上的男人与站在地上的男人被视为两件决然不同的事，你看这是不同的图片，各位看看，我希望各位思考这有多么明确，这种将资讯归类的能力，我发觉许多人对这能力可不擅长。当我去察看问题设备或农场东西有问题时，他们似乎是无法发觉问题所在，「我有训练上面的问题吗，或是我设备上有问题吗」。换句话说，将问题归类于设备而非人的问题，我发现很多人在这部分有困难。这样说吧！我发现是设备问题，这是个小问题，简单的我可以修理，或是整个系统设计不良。人们理解上有困难。让我们来看看这个，各位，解决问题与让飞机更安全，是的，我是个飞行常客，我常在飞行，我若是任职FFA，我对什么会做很多直接观察？那就是他们飞机的机尾。过去20年间有5次严重的失事，不是机尾脱落就是机尾内导向的东西坏掉，就是机尾，简单明了。当驾驶员环机检查时，猜猜看，他们就是没看到机尾里面的东西。现在当我思考那问题时，我抽出所有明确的资讯，就是明确的，所以，我的思考是由下而上，我将所有的小片段放在一起就像拼图一样。这是一只怕死黑色牛仔帽的马，它曾被戴黑色牛仔帽的人虐待过，白色牛仔帽则完全没问题。重点是这世界需要各种不同的思考一起合作，我们必须合力开发所有类型的思考。有件让我真的很受不了的事就是，当我四处旅行、进行自闭症会议时，我遇到很多聪明、怪咖、书呆的孩童，他们只是不太懂社交，而没有人对他们在科学上的兴趣进行开发。这带出我的科学老师，我的科学老师在电影中被呈现的完全美好，我曾是个傻瓜呆的学生，当我在中学时期我对学习完全不关心，直到我上了卡拉克老师的科学课，他在电影里是卡拉克博士了，他让我挑战一个错觉室。这就指出各位必须对孩子们展现有趣的事物，有一件事我觉得TED应该要做，是告诉所有学校关于TED上面优良的演讲，网路上有各种好东西，吸引这些孩童，因为我遇到很多怪咖、书呆的孩童。中西部及国内其他地方的老师，当你远
离这些科技区域时，他们就不知道该如何对待这些孩童，而且他们病没走在对的道路上。重点是你可以让脑子变为较思考及认知的脑子，或者你的脑可以被架构的更社会化。而现今有些自闭症的研究是说，或许有额外的架构在脑后面。在真正天才的脑中，我们缺少一些社交的电路，有点像是思考及社交间的折中，而到达某种程度时，就会有人时无法言语的。在普通的人脑中，语言取代我们与动物分享的视觉思考。这是布鲁斯米勒博士的作品，他研究有额显叶失智症的老人痴呆症患者，而失智症侵蚀脑中语言部分，这艺术作品由曾经从事安装汽车音响的人所做的。梵高对物理全然不解，但是我认为非常有趣的是，这幅画中的涡轮图案遵循了乱流的统计模型，这引发了一整个有趣的想法，或许这种数学的模式是在我们自己的脑中。而我记录的Wolfram东西及我写下我能使用所有搜寻的字，因为我认为将会登录在我自闭症的教学上。我们必须展现给这些小孩有趣的东西，这些由汽修课、绘图课及艺术课，我是说艺术曾是我在学校时表现最好的科目，我们必须思考所有这些不同的脑，而我们必须完全与这些不同的脑合力，因为未来我们必定将需要这种人。让我们来谈谈工作，我的科学老师让我学习，因为我是个不想学习的傻瓜呆，但是各位知道吗，我获得工作经验，我看到太多这类聪明小孩没学习到基础的事物，例如如何守时，我8岁时就被教导要守时，如何在祖母的周日派对上有餐桌礼节，我在很小很小的时候就被这样教导。而当我13岁时，我在制衣店有份卖衣服的工作，我在学院时做实验，我那时在建筑东西，我也必须学习如何做任务。当我小的时候，我只想要画马的图，我妈妈说「让我们来画点别的东西」，他们必须学习如何做其他事物，例如一个小孩专注在乐高上，让我们来让他盖点不同的东西。自闭症的思绪是倾向于专注，若小孩喜爱赛车，让我们运用赛车来教数学，让我们来算算一辆赛车形式一段距离要多久。换句话说，运用专注力以激励这些小孩，这是我们需要做的其中一件事，我真的受够，他们、这些老师们，尤其是当你离开这国家的这部分，他们不了解如何对待这些聪明的小孩，这让我很发狂。当视觉思考着长大后能做些什么？他们可以从事图像设计、跟电脑有关的所有事、摄影及工业设计。模式思考着，他们则是成为各位的数学老师、各位的电脑程序设计师，所有这类的工作，然后又文字的思考着，他们可成为很优秀的记者，他们也可以成为很好的舞台演员，因为身为自闭症者是，我必须学习社交技巧如同身处于一部剧中，你就是必须学习它。我
们必须与这些学生合作，这引导出心灵导师，我的科学老师不是一位认证老师，他曾是一位NASA太空科学家，目前有些州采取的方式是，若你有生物或化学的学位，你可以进学校教生物或化学，我们需要这样做，因为我观察到的是，对许多这些孩童有益的老师都是在社区大学里。我们的高中需要引进这些好老师。另一件可以非常非常成功的事是，有许多人可能从软件业退休，而他们可以教一个小孩，若他们教授的是事物也没关系，因为你所做的是点燃火花、你启发那小孩，你启发他，然后他将学习所有的新事物。心灵导师是不可或缺的，我无法言喻我的科学老师为我做了什么，我们必须引导他们、雇佣他们，若你的公司雇佣他们实习，关于自闭症、亚斯伯格类的思考，你必须给他们一向特定的任务，别只说设计个新软件，你必须告诉他们更明确的东西「好吧！我们正要设计一套电脑软件，而且它必须能做一些特定的功能，而且它只能使用这么多的记忆体」，那样的明确性是你所需要的。
提问：你曾写道，我很喜欢这段话：若有些奇迹，自闭症从世上被消除，那人类将仍在山洞口的火堆前社会化。
天宝葛兰汀：因为你认为是谁做了第一把石矛？就是亚斯伯格患者，若去除所有自闭症遗传，那将不会有硅谷存在，而且能源危机也无法解决
提问：所以我想问你其他问题，若你觉得不适当，只要说“下个问题”。但若现场有人有自闭症的小孩或认识一个自闭症的小孩，觉得有些无法跟他们沟通，你给他们的建议是？
天宝葛兰汀：首先，你必须看年龄。若你认识一个2、3岁或4岁的小孩，不会说话、不会互动，我一直强调：不能等。你每周需要至少20小时的一对一教学。重点是自闭症是有不同程度的，在自闭症的范畴里大约有一半的人将学不会说话，而他们将无法在硅谷工作，这对他们来说并不是合理的事。但你也有聪明怪咖的小孩有些自闭，而这就是你必须引发他们做些有趣的事，我藉由共同兴趣而获得社会化的互动，我跟其他小孩一起骑马，我跟其他小孩一起做火箭模型、做电子实验室。在60年代那是将镜子黏在橡胶膜扬声器，做出一个灯光秀，那时我们认为是超级酷的。
提问：对他们而言希望或是认为自闭小孩爱他们是不切实际的，少数可能、大多数则盼望？
Shanghai, at the height of the cultural revolution. My grandmother teel me that she heard the sound of the gunfire along with my first cries. When I grew up, I was told a story that explained all I needed to know about humanity. It went like this. All human societies develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally guess where we end up.Communism! Sooner or later, all of humanity,regardless of culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development. The entire world’s peoples will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after. Before we get there, we need to engage in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism and the good shall triumph. That, of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx. And the Chinese bought it. We were taught that grand story day in and day out. It became part of us, and we believed in it. The story was a bestseller. About one third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta narrative. Then, the world changed overnight. As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie.Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened. As if one big story wasn't’t enough, I was told another one. This one was just as grand. It also claims that all human societies develop in linear progression towards a singular end. This one went as follows: All society, regardless
of culture, be it Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote. Because they are rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after. Paradise on earth again. Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich. But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil. The good belongs to those who are democracies and are charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force against the evil of those who do not hold elections. This story also became a bestseller. According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010. In the last 20 years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on them is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world. Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success. Those who do not are doomed to fail. But this time, the Chinese didn't’t buy it. Fool me once. The rest is history. In just 30 years, China went form one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to its second-largest economy. Six hundred fifty million people were lifted out of poverty. Eighty percent of the entire world’s
poverty alleviation during that period happened in China. In other words, all the old and new democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single,one-party state did without voting. See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps. Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point. Needless to say, I ate all my mother’s portions. So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds. Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day. Middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented in history. Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening. So I went and did the only thing I could. I studied it. Yes, China is a one-party state, run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections. Three assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time. Such a system is operationally rigid, political closed, and morally illegitimate. Well, the assumptions are wrong. The opposites are true. Adaptability, meritocracies, legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of Chin’ s one-party system. Now, most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction. It won’t last long because it cannot adapt. Now here are the facts. In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than any other country in recent memory, from radical land collectivization to Great Leap Forward, then privatization of
farmland, then the Cultural Revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party member to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule. So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions. Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions. For example, term limits. Political leaders used to retain their positions for life and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules. Mao was the father of modern China, yet his to prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes. So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70. One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform. But this claim is rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias. See, some have decided a priori what kind of changes they want to see and only such changes can be called political reform. The truth is, political reforms have never stopped. Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years, even 10 years ago, every aspect of Chinese society, how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center are recognizable today. Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind. Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform. The second assumption is that in a one-party state power gets concentrated in the hands of the few and bad governance and corruption
follow. Indeed, corruption is a big problem, but let’s first look at the larger context. Now this may be counterintuitive to you. The Party happens to be the most meritocratic political institution in the world today. China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members. In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called princelings. The other 20, including the President and the Premier came from entirely ordinary backgrounds. In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller. The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top. Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you’ll find the Party being near the top in upward mobility. The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? Now we come to a powerful political institution little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department. The Department functions like a giant, human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations. It operates a rotating pyramid made up of three components: civil service,state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like a university or a community program. They form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials. They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called kuyen. Then they could get promoted through
TED演讲集：Sir Ken Robinson 谈推动学习革命
Bring on the learning revolution!
education, in a way, dislocates very many people from their natural talents. And human resources are like natural resources; they're often buried deep. You have to go looking for them. They're not just lying around on the surface. You have to create the circumstances where they show themselves.
Every education system in the world is being reformed at the moment. And it's not enough. Reform is no use anymore, because that's simply improving a broken model. What we need -- and the word's been used many times during the course of the past few days -- is not evolution, but a revolution in education. This has to be transformed into something else.
One of the real challenges is to innovate fundamentally in education. Innovation is hard because it means doing something that people don't find very easy for the most part. It means challenging what we take for granted, things that we think are obvious. The great problem for reform or transformation is the tyranny of common sense -- things that people think, "Well, it can't be done any other way because that's the way it's done." "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion." "As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."
That there are ideas that all of us are enthralled to, which we simply take for granted as the natural order of things, the way things are. And many of our ideas have been formed, not to meet the circumstances of this century, but to cope with the circumstances of previous centuries. But our minds are still hypnotized by them. And we have to disenthrall ourselves of some of them.
Everybody who's spoken at TED has told us implicitly, or sometimes explicitly, a different story, that life is not linear, it's organic. We create our lives symbiotically as we explore our talents in relation to the
circumstances they help to create for us.
human communities depend upon a diversity of talent, not a singular conception of ability. And at the heart of the challenge is to reconstitute our sense of ability and of intelligence. This linearity thing is a
problem.The other big issue is conformity. We have built our education systems on the model of fast food.
And we have sold ourselves into a fast food model of education. And it's impoverishing our spirit and our energies as much as fast food is depleting our physical bodies. I think we have to recognize a couple of things here. One is that human talent is tremendously diverse. People have very different aptitudes.【ted演讲集百度影音】
But it's not only about that. It's about passion. Often, people are good at things they don't really care for. It's about passion, and what excites our spirit and our energy. And if you're doing the thing that you love to do, that you're good at, time takes a different course entirely.You know this, if you're doing something you love, an hour feels like five minutes. If you're doing something that doesn't resonate with your spirit, five minutes feels like an hour. And the reason so many people are opting out of education is because it doesn't feed their spirit, it doesn't feed their energy or their passion. So I think we have to change metaphors. We have to go from what is essentially an industrial model of education, a manufacturing model, which is based on linearity and conformity and batching people. We have to move to a model that is based more on principles of
agriculture. We have to recognize that human flourishing is not a mechanical process, it's an organic process. And you cannot predict the outcome of human development; all you can do, like a farmer, is create the
conditions under which they will begin to flourish.So when we look at reforming education and transforming it, it isn't like cloning a system. There are great ones like KIPPs, it's a great system. There are many great models. It's about customizing to your circumstances, and personalizing education to the people you're actually teaching. And doing that, I think is the answer to the future because it's not about scaling a new solution; it's about creating a movement in education in which people develop their own solutions, but with external support based on a personalized curriculum.
I've watched more than 800 TED talks in the last 7 years. Last night, I went through all 1400 TED talks and picked out the talks that left long-lasting impressions.
:
Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity
(Part 1)
Sir Ken Robinson: Bring on the learning revolution!
(Part 2)
"Creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson challenges the way we're educating
our children. He champions a radical rethink of our school systems, to cultivate creativity and acknowledge multiple types of intelligence."
E.O. Wilson: Advice to young scientists
“Biologist E.O. Wilson explores the world of ants and other tiny
creatures, and writes movingly about the way all creatures great and small are interdependent.“
Ben Dunlap: The life-long learner
“Ben Dunlap is a true polymath, whose talents span poetry, opera, ballet,
literature and administration. He is the president of South Carolina’s Wofford College.”
Tim Ferriss: Smash fear, learn anything
"Tim Ferriss is author of bestsellerThe 4-Hour Workweek, a
self-improvement program of four steps: defining aspirations, managing time, creating automatic income and escaping the trappings of the 9-to-5 life."
Terry Moore: How to tie your shoes
"Terry Moore is the director of the Radius Foundation, a forum for
exploring and gaining insight from different worldviews."
JJ Abrams: The mystery box
"Writer, director and producer J.J. Abrams makes smart, addictive
dramas like TV's Lost, and films like Cloverfield and the new Star Trek."
Kenichi Ebina's magic moves
“Self-taught dancer Kenichi Ebina blends hip-hop, martial arts, modern
dance, magic and a blast of pop culture in his mesmerizing performances.”
Rives: If I controlled the Internet …
"Performance artist and storyteller Rives has been called "the first 2.0
poet," using images, video and technology to bring his words to life."
Aubrey de Grey: A roadmap to end aging
"Aubrey de Grey, British researcher on aging, claims he has drawn a
roadmap to defeat biological aging. He provocatively proposes that the first human beings who will live to 1,000 years old have already been born."
Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes
"Elaine Morgan is an octogenarian scientist, armed with an arsenal of
television writing credits and feminist instincts, on a mission to prove humans evolved in water."
VS Ramachandran: 3 clues to understanding your brain
"Neurologist V.S. Ramachandran looks deep into the brain’s most basic
mechanisms. By working with those who have very specific mental disabilities caused by brain injury or stroke, he can map functions of the mind to physical structures of the brain."
Stephen Petranek counts down to Armageddon
“When he was editor-in-chief ofDiscover magazine, Stephen Petranek
tangled with questions as big as the universe. Here he confronts the biggest question on the planet: What are the 10 most likely ways that life on the Earth could end?”
:
Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire
action"In 2009, Simon Sinek released the book "Start With Why" -- a synopsis of the theory he has begun using to teach others how to become effective leaders and inspire change."
Derek Sivers: How to start a movement
"Through his new project, MuckWork, Derek Sivers wants to lessen the
burdens (and boredom) of creative people."
Jane McGonigal: Gaming can make a better world【ted演讲集百度影音】
"Reality is broken, says Jane McGonigal, and we need to make it work
more like a game. Her work shows us how."
Temple Grandin: The world needs all kinds of minds
"Through groundbreaking research and the lens of her own autism,
Temple Grandin brings startling insight into two worlds."
Seth Godin: How to get your ideas to spread
"Seth Godin is an entrepreneur and blogger who thinks about the
marketing of ideas in the digital age. His newest interest: the tribes we lead."
Jonas Eliasson: How to solve traffic jams“Jonas Eliasson is dedicated to researching transportation flow, analyzing how people think about their commutes and what can influence their travel decisions.”【ted演讲集百度影音】
Larry Lessig: Laws that choke creativity
"The U.S. Congress is broken, and law professor and legal activist
Lawrence Lessig wants you to help him fix it. In "Republic, Lost," he tells you how."
Malcolm Gladwell: Choice, happiness and spaghetti sauce"Detective of fads and emerging subcultures, chronicler of jobs-you-never-knew-existed, Malcolm Gladwell's work is toppling the popular understanding of bias, crime, food, marketing, race, consumers and intelligence."
Jason Fried: Why work doesn't happen at
work"Jason Fried thinks deeply about collaboration, productivity and the nature of work. He's the co-founder of 37signals, makers of Basecamp and other web-based collaboration tools, and co-author of Rework."
Thulasiraj Ravilla: How low-cost eye care can be world-class
"Thulasiraj Ravilla is the executive director of the Lions Aravind Institute
of Community Ophthalmology, helping eye-care hospitals around the world build capacity to prevent blindness."
Amos Winter: The cheap all-terrain wheelchair
”Amos Winter and his team at MIT built the Leveraged Freedom Chair, a cheap lever-powered wheelchair whose design and develop put the user first.“
Why TED talks are better than the last speech you sat through
世上最好的演讲：TED演讲吸引人的秘密
Think about the last time you heard someone give a speech, or any formal presentation. Maybe it was so long that you were either overwhelmed with data, or you just tuned the speaker out. If PowerPoint was involved, each slide was probably loaded with at least 40 words or figures, and odds are that you don't remember more than a tiny bit of what they were supposed to show. 回想一下你上次聆听某人发表演讲或任何正式陈述的情形。它也许太长了，以至于你被各种数据搞得头昏脑胀，甚或干脆不理会演讲者。如果演讲者使用了PPT文档，那么每张幻灯片很可能塞入了至少40个单词或数字，但你现在或许只记得一丁点内容。
Pretty uninspiring, huh? Talk Like TED: 9 Public-Speaking Secrets of The World's Best Mindsexamines why in prose that's as lively and appealing as, well, a TED talk. Timed to coincide with the 30th anniversary in March of those now-legendary TED conferences, the book draws on current brain science to explain what wins over, and fires up, an audience -- and what doesn't. Author Carmine Gallo also studied more than 500 of the most popular TED speeches (there have been about 1,500 so far) and interviewed scores of the people who gave them.
相当平淡，是吧？《像TED那样演讲：全球顶级人才九大演讲秘诀》(Talk Like TED: 9 Public-Speaking Secrets of The World's Best Minds)一书以流畅的文笔审视了为什么TED演讲如此生动，如此引人入胜。出版方有意安排在今年3月份发行此书，以庆贺如今已成为经典的TED大会成立30周年。这部著作借鉴
当代脑科学解释了什么样的演讲能够说服听众、鼓舞听众，什么样的演讲无法产生这种效果。
Much of what he found out is surprising. Consider, for instance, the fact that each TED talk is limited to 18 minutes. That might sound too short to convey much. Yet TED curator Chris Anderson imposed the time limit, he told Gallo, because it's "long enough to be serious and short enough to hold people's attention ... By forcing speakers who are used to going on for 45 minutes to bring it down to 18, you get them to think about what they really want to say." It's also the perfect length if you want your message to go viral, Anderson says. 他挖出了不少令人吃惊的演讲策略。例如，每场TED演讲都被限制在18分钟以内。听起来太过短暂，似乎无法传达足够多讯息。然而，TED大会策办人克里斯•安德森决议推行这项时间限制规则，因为“这个时间长度足够庄重，同时又足够短，能够吸引人们的注意力。通过迫使那些习惯于滔滔不绝讲上45分钟的嘉宾把演讲时间压缩至18分钟，你就可以让他们认真思考他们真正想说的话，”他对加洛说。此外，安德森说，如果你希望你的讯息像病毒般扩散，这也是一个完美的时间长度。
Recent neuroscience shows why the time limit works so well: People listening to a presentation are storing data for retrieval in the future, and too much information leads to "cognitive overload," which gives rise to elevated levels of anxiety -- meaning that, if you go on and on, your audience will start to resist you. Even worse, they won't recall a single point you were trying to make.
最近的神经科学研究说明了为什么这项时间限制产生如此好的效果：聆听陈述的人们往往会存储相关数据，以备未来检索之用，而太多的信息会导致“认知超负荷”，进而推升听众的焦虑度。它意味着，如果你说个没完没了，听众就会开始抗拒你。更糟糕的是，他们不会记得你努力希望传递的信息点，甚至可能一个都记不住。
"Albert Einstein once said, 'If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough,'" Gallo writes, adding that the physicist would have applauded astronomer David Christian who, at TED in 2011, narrated the complete history of the universe -- and Earth's place in it -- in 17 minutes and 40 seconds.
“爱因斯坦曾经说过，‘要是你不能言简意赅地解释某种理论，那就说明你自己都还没有理解透彻，’”加罗写道。他还举例说，物理学家或许会大加赞赏天文学家大卫•克里斯蒂安在2011年TED大会上发表的演讲。克里斯蒂安在这个演讲中完整地讲述了宇宙史及地球在宇宙的地位，整场演讲用时只有17分40秒。 Gallo offers some tips on how to boil a complex presentation down to 18 minutes or so, including what he calls the "rule of three," or condensing a plethora of ideas into three main points, as many top TED talkers do. He also notes that, even if a speech just can't be squeezed down that far, the effort alone is bound to improve it: "Your presentation will be far more creative and impactful simply by going through the exercise."
如何把一个复杂的陈述压缩至18分钟左右？加洛就这个问题提供了一些小建议，其中包括他所称的“三的法则”。具体说就是，把大量观点高度浓缩为三大要点。TED大会上的许多演讲高手就是这样做的。他还指出，即使一篇演讲无法提炼到这样的程度，单是这番努力也一定能改善演讲的效果：“仅仅通过这番提炼，你就可以大大增强陈述的创造性和影响力。”
Then there's PowerPoint. "TED represents the end of PowerPoint as we know it," writes Gallo. He hastens to add that there's nothing wrong with PowerPoint as a tool, but that most speakers unwittingly make it work against them by cluttering up their slides with way too many words (40, on average) and numbers.
另一个建议与PPT文档有关。“TED大会象征着我们所知的PPT文档正走向终结，”加洛写道。他随后又马上补充说，作为工具的PowerPoint本身并没有什么错，但大多数演讲者为他们的幻灯片塞进了太多的单词（平均40个）和数字，
让这种工具不经意间带来了消极影响。
The remedy for that, based on the most riveting TED talks: If you must use slides, fill them with a lot more images. Once again, research backs this up, with something academics call the Picture Superiority Effect: Three days after hearing or reading a set of facts, most people will remember about 10% of the information. Add a photo or a drawing, and recall jumps to 65%.
最吸引人的TED演讲为我们提供了一个补救策略：如果你必须使用幻灯片，务必记得要大量运用图像资源。这种做法同样有科学依据，它就是研究人员所称的“图优效应”(Picture Superiority Effect)：听到或读到一组事实三天后，大多数人会记得大约10%的信息。而添加一张照片或图片后，记忆率将跃升至65%。 One study, by molecular biologist John Medina at the University of Washington School of Medicine, found that not only could people recall more than 2,500 pictures with at least 90% accuracy several days later, but accuracy a whole year afterward was still at about 63%.
华盛顿大学医学院(University of Washington School of Medicine)分子生物学家约翰•梅迪纳主持的研究发现，几天后，人们能够回想起超过2,500张图片，准确率至少达到90%；一年后的准确率依然保持在63%左右。
That result "demolishes" print and speech, both of which were tested on the same group of subjects, Medina's study indicated, which is something worth bearing in mind for anybody hoping that his or her ideas will be remembered. 梅迪纳的研究表明，这个结果“完胜”印刷品和演讲的记忆效果（由同一组受试者测试）。任何一位希望自己的思想被听众铭记在心的演讲者或许都应该记住这一点。
TED精彩演讲：坠机让我学到的三件事 Imagine a big explosion as you climb through 3,000 ft. Imagine a plane full of smoke. Imagine an engine going clack, clack, clack, clack, clack, clack, clack. It sounds scary. 想像一个大爆炸，当你在三千多英尺的高空；想像机舱内布满黑烟，想像引擎发出喀啦、喀啦、喀啦、喀啦、喀啦的声响，听起来很可怕。
Well I had a unique seat that day. I was sitting in 1D. I was the only one who can talk to the flight attendants. So I looked at them right away, and they said, "No problem. We probably hit some birds." The pilot had already turned the plane around, and we weren't that far. You could see Manhattan.
那天我的位置很特別，我坐在1D，我是唯一可以和空服员说话的人，于是我立刻看着他们，他们说，“没问题，我们可能撞上鸟了。” 机长已经把机头转向，我们离目的地很近，已经可以看到曼哈顿了。
Two minutes later, 3 things happened at the same time. The pilot lines up the plane with the Hudson River. That's usually not the route. He turns off the engines. Now imagine being in a plane with no sound. And then he says 3 words-the most unemotional 3 words I've ever heard. He says, "Brace for impact."
两分钟以后，三件事情同时发生：机长把飞机对齐哈德逊河，一般的航道可不是这样。他关上引擎。想像坐在一架没有声音的飞机上。然后他说了几个字，我听过最不带情绪的几个字，他说，“即将迫降，小心冲击。”
I didn't have to talk to the flight attendant anymore. I could see in her eyes, it was terror. Life was over.
我不用再问空服员什么了。我可以在她眼神里看到恐惧，人生结束了。
Now I want to share with you 3 things I learned about myself that day. 现在我想和你们分享那天我所学到的三件事。
I leant that it all changes in an instant. We have this bucket list, we have these things we want to do in life, and I thought about all the people I wanted to reach out to that I didn't, all the fences I wanted to mend, all the experiences I wanted to have and I never did. As I
thought about that later on, I came up with a saying, which is, "collect bad wines". Because if the wine is ready and the person is there, I'm opening it. I no longer want to postpone anything in life. And that urgency, that purpose, has really changed my life.
在那一瞬间内，一切都改变了。我们的人生目标清单，那些我们想做的事，所有那些我想联络却没有联络的人，那些我
本文来源：http://www.gbppp.com/sh/461749/
推荐访问:ted演讲百度百科