TED英語演講：接受生活中的小意外

Tim Harford 先生通過"那架不能彈奏的鋼琴"的故事,拋磚引玉地向大家講述: 在我們的工作和生活中出現的一些意外狀況,小混亂,"陌生人"等,我們或許會很討厭這些, 但其實他們是在幫助我們，因為我們往往能從中激發創造力，從而能讓事情朝意想不到的，更好的方向發展。下面是小編為大家收集關於TED英語演講：接受生活中的小意外，歡迎借鑑參考。

演說題目：Know your worth, and then ask for it

演說者：Tim Harford

Late in January 1975, a 17-year-old German girl called Vera Brandes walked out onto the stage of the Cologne Opera House. The auditorium was empty. It was lit only by the dim, green glow of the emergency exit sign. This was the most exciting day of Vera's life.

1975年的一月下旬，一個叫維拉·布蘭德斯的17歲的德國女孩從幕後走上了科隆歌劇院的舞臺。 觀眾席上空無一人。全場僅僅被一個綠色安全出口標誌的昏暗的光微微照亮。這一天是維拉生命中最最激動的一天。

She was the youngest concert promoter in Germany, and she had persuaded the Cologne Opera House to host a late-night concert of jazz from the American musician, Keith Jarrett. 1,400 people were coming. And in just a few hours,Jarrett would walk out on the same stage, he'd sit down at the piano and without rehearsal or sheet music, he would begin to play.

她在當時是德國 最年輕的演奏會經紀人， 她說服了科隆歌劇院舉辦美國音樂家——基思·傑瑞特的一個爵士深夜場音樂會。1400位觀眾即將到場。再過幾個小時，傑瑞特就會走上那個舞臺，坐在鋼琴旁，不經過排練，沒有樂譜，就開始他的演奏。

But right now, Vera was introducing Keith to the piano in question, and it wasn't going well. Jarrett looked to the instrument a little warily, played a few notes, walked around it, played a few more notes,muttered something to his producer. Then the producer came over to Vera and said ... "If you don't get a new piano, Keith can't play."

但那時候， 維拉向基思展示的鋼琴出了些問題，而且情況不是太好。傑瑞特仔細地看了看那個鋼琴，彈了幾個音，繞著鋼琴走了一圈之後，又彈了幾個音，跟他的製作人嘟囔了幾句。然後製作人過去跟維拉說—— “如果你們弄不來一臺新的鋼琴，基思今天就彈不成了。”

There'd been a mistake. The opera house had provided the wrong instrument. This one had this harsh, tinny upper register, because all the felt had worn away. The black notes were sticking, the white notes were out of tune, the pedals didn't work and the piano itself was just too small. It wouldn't create the volume that would fill a large space such as the Cologne Opera House.

其實當時是出錯了。歌劇院沒準備好樂器。那臺鋼琴的高音部聽起來又尖又刺耳，因為其中的所有毛氈都磨損壞了。黑鍵聽起來感覺拖拖拉拉，白鍵走調了，腳踏板也壞了，而且那臺鋼琴也特別小。那鋼琴根本彈不出足夠大的聲音來讓像科隆歌劇院這麼大空間裡的觀眾都聽到。

So Keith Jarrett left. He went and sat outside in his car, leaving Vera Brandes to get on the phone to try to find a replacement piano. Now she got a piano tuner, but she couldn't get a new piano. And so she went outside and she stood there in the rain, talking to Keith Jarrett, begging him not to cancel the concert. And he looked out of his car at this bedraggled, rain-drenched German teenager, took pity on her, and said, "Never forget ... only for you."

所以基思·傑瑞特就走了。他走出去坐在他的車裡，留下了維拉·布蘭德斯在那裡打電話試著弄來一臺能用的鋼琴。她找到了個鋼琴調音師，但她弄不到新鋼琴。然後她也出去了，站在雨中，開始跟基思·傑瑞特交談，求他不要取消那場音樂會。他看向車外那個全身被雨澆透的德國年輕人，心中升起了同情，說道， “別忘了啊——我只為你這樣做。”

And so a few hours later, Jarrett did indeed step out onto the stage of the opera house, he sat down at the unplayable piano and began.

然後幾個小時之後，傑瑞特真的走到了歌劇院的舞臺上，他坐到那個彈不了的鋼琴旁邊開始了演奏。

Within moments it became clear that something magical was happening. Jarrett was avoiding those upper registers, he was sticking to the middle tones of the keyboard, which gave the piece a soothing, ambient quality. But also, because the piano was so quiet, he had to set up these rumbling, repetitive riffs in the bass. And he stood up twisting, pounding down on the keys, desperately trying to create enough volume to reach the people in the back row.

當音樂逐漸響起的時候，神奇的事情發生了。傑瑞特避開了那些高音部分，他一直用鍵盤上的中音區部分演奏，這使得音樂非常舒緩，還有環繞音的效果了。而且，因為那臺鋼琴的聲音太小了，他要在低音區製造一些有轟隆隆聲的即興重複片段。他還站起來轉身用力敲擊琴鍵，極力地想要彈出大一些的音量好讓後排的觀眾們都能聽見。

It's an electrifying performance. It somehow has this peaceful quality, and at the same time it's full of energy, it's dynamic. And the audience loved it. Audiences continue to love it because the recording of the K?ln Concert is the best-selling piano album in history and the best-selling solo jazz album in history.

那次表演很令人興奮。既有安靜的質感，同時又充滿力量，非常有活力。觀眾們很喜歡這次演出。而觀眾們在演出之後繼續保持了對它的熱愛，因為那場科隆音樂會的錄音是有史以來最暢銷的鋼琴曲專輯和有史以來最暢銷的爵士獨奏專輯。

Keith Jarrett had been handed a mess. He had embraced that mess, and it soared. But let's think for a moment about Jarrett's initial instinct. He didn't want to play. Of course, I think any of us, in any remotely similar situation, would feel the same way, we'd have the same instinct. We don't want to be asked to do good work with bad tools. We don't want to have to overcome unnecessary hurdles.

基思·傑瑞特遇到了個麻煩。他容忍了那個麻煩，並想出瞭解決的創意。但讓我們想一想傑瑞特的直覺。他其實一開始並不想演奏。當然，我想我們每一個人，當遇到類似的情況時，可能都會有同樣的感覺，我們可能會有同樣的直覺。我們不想被要求用糟糕的工具幹出好活。我們也不願意克服不必要的麻煩。

But Jarrett's instinct was wrong, and thank goodness he changed his mind. And I think our instinct is also wrong. I think we need to gain a bit more appreciation for the unexpected advantages of having to cope with a little mess. So let me give you some examples from cognitive psychology, from complexity science, from social psychology, and of course, rock 'n' roll.

但是傑瑞特的直覺是錯的，不過感謝老天他改了主意。我覺得我們的直覺也是錯的。我覺得我們需要對那些因為必須解決一些小麻煩而獲得的出人意料的優勢而心懷感激。我來給大家舉一些例子，從認知心理學，複雜性科學，社會心理學，當然還有搖滾樂的角度來看一看。

So cognitive psychology first. We've actually known for a while that certain kinds of difficulty, certain kinds of obstacle, can actually improve our performance. For example, the psychologist Daniel Oppenheimer, a few years ago, teamed up with high school teachers. And he asked them to reformat the handouts that they were giving to some of their classes. So the regular handout would be formatted in something straightforward, such as Helvetica or Times New Roman.

那麼首先是認知心理學。我們都已經很明白了一些特定的困難和一些特定的障礙的存在實際上可以提升我們的表現。舉例來說，心理學家丹尼爾·奧本海默幾年前和一些高中老師進行了一次合作。他要求老師們重新規定他們的一些課堂教課所用講義的格式。普通講義的格式都是很直截了當的，比如Helvetica或Times New Roam字型。

But half these classes were getting handouts that were formatted in something sort of intense, like Haettenschweiler, or something with a zesty bounce, like Comic Sans italicized. Now, these are really ugly fonts, and they're difficult fonts to read. But at the end of the semester, students were given exams, and the students who'd been asked to read the more difficult fonts, had actually done better on their exams, in a variety of subjects.

但其中一半的課堂將會得到重新規定格式的講義，比如用Haettenschweiler這種稜角分明的字型，或者是斜體Comic Sans這種看起來有跳躍性的漫畫字型。這些字型是很醜的，並且不易讀。但在那個學期的期末，學生們考試的時候，那些被要求讀了一個學期複雜字型的學生們，最後很多學科的成績反而更好。

And the reason is, the difficult font had slowed them down,forced them to work a bit harder, to think a bit more about what they were reading, to interpret it ... and so they learned more.

原因就是，讀更復雜的字型讓他們塌下心來，逼著他們付出更多的努力，對他們正在讀的東西就會多一些思考，可以更好地理解······ 所以他們學到的就更多。

Another example. The psychologist Shelley Carson has been testing Harvard undergraduates for the quality of their attentional filters. What do I mean by that? What I mean is, imagine you're in a restaurant, you're having a conversation, there are all kinds of other conversations going on in the restaurant, you want to filter them out, you want to focus on what's important to you.

再看另一個例子。心理學家謝利·卡爾森給哈佛大學的畢業生做測試來研究他們注意力的過濾能力。知道我說的是什麼意思嗎?我的意思就是，想象你在一個餐廳中，正在和人交談，而餐廳中有很多各種各樣的交談正在進行著，你想要從中過濾出資訊，你想要專注於對你有用的資訊。

Can you do that?If you can, you have good, strong attentional filters. But some people really struggle with that. Some of Carson's undergraduate subjects struggled with that. They had weak filters, they had porous filters -- let a lot of external information in. And so what that meant is they were constantly being interruptedby the sights and the sounds of the world around them. If there was a television on while they were doing their essays, they couldn't screen it out.

你能做到嗎?如果你可以的話，你就有很好、很強的注意力過濾能力。但是有些人確實不容易做到。一些卡爾森實驗的畢業生也或多或少地缺乏這種能力。他們的過濾能力不強，容易把很多關鍵資訊漏掉——但卻會引入很多外部資訊。意思就是說他們會不斷地被他們周圍世界中的聲色所幹擾。如果當他們寫作的時候旁邊有一臺開著的電視， 他們排除不了電視的干擾。

Now, you would think that that was a disadvantage ... but no. When Carson looked at what these students had achieved, the ones with the weak filters were vastly more likely to have some real creative milestone in their lives, to have published their first novel, to have released their first e distractions were actually grists to their creative mill. They were able to think outside the box because their box was full of holes.

現在，你可能會覺得這是個缺點······ 但並不是。當卡爾森觀察這些學生的表現時，那些過濾能力較弱的學生極有可能在他們的一生中建立真正的創造性的里程碑，更可能出版他們的第一部小說，或者發行第一張唱片。這些外部的干擾實際上激發了他們的創意機能。他們可以跳出固有的思維模式，因為他們的思維模式中全是“小孔”。

Let's talk about complexity science. So how do you solve a really complex -- the world's full of complicated problems -- how do you solve a really complicated problem?

讓我們聊一聊複雜性科學。那麼你們是怎麼解決一個真正複雜的——這個世界充滿了複雜的問題——你們是怎麼解決一個 確實複雜的問題的呢?

For example, you try to make a jet engine. There are lots and lots of different variables, the operating temperature, the materials, all the different dimensions, the shape. You can't solve that kind of problem all in one go, it's too hard. So what do you do? Well, one thing you can do is try to solve it step-by-step. So you have some kind of prototype and you tweak it, you test it, you improve it. You tweak it, you test it, you improve it.

比如，你試著去製造一臺噴氣式發動機。這工作存在著很多不同的可變因素，工作溫度、材料、所有不同的維度、形狀。你不能一次性解決全部這些問題，那太難了。那你會怎麼做呢?你所能做的就是試著一步一步地解決。你做出了幾種原型出來，然後你會做出一些改變，做一下測試之後再改進。再做出一些改變，做一下測試之後再改進。

Now, this idea of marginal gains will eventually get you a good jet engine. And it's been quite widely implemented in the world. So you'll hear about it, for example, in high performance cycling, web designers will talk about trying to optimize their web pages, they're looking for these step-by-step gains.

這種邊際增益的理念最終可以讓你做出一個很好的噴氣式發動機。這種方法在全世界 都廣泛應用。你可能會聽說，比如在高效能迴圈領域，網頁設計師會討論試圖優化他們的網站，他們會尋找這些逐步收益。

That's a good way to solve a complicated problem. But you know what would make it a better way? A dash of mess. You add randomness, early on in the process, you make crazy moves, you try stupid things that shouldn't work, and that will tend to make the problem-solving work better. And the reason for that is the trouble with the step-by-step process, the marginal gains, is they can walk you gradually down a dead end. And if you start with the randomness, that becomes less likely, and your problem-solving becomes more robust.

這是一個解決複雜困難問題的好方法。但你知道更好的方法是什麼嗎?針對一系列的麻煩。你可以隨意一點，在工作的初期階段，你可以做一些瘋狂的事，你可以試著做一些並不管用的傻事情，而這可能會使解決問題的效果更好。原因就是一步一步地解決問題，所謂的邊際增益，會逐漸帶你走進死衚衕。但如果你一開始就隨意一些，那結果就會不太一樣了，你解決問題會變得更加高效。

Let's talk about social psychology. So the psychologist Katherine Phillips, with some colleagues,recently gave murder mystery problems to some students, and these students were collected in groups of four and they were given dossiers with information about a crime -- alibis and evidence, witness statements and three suspects.

我們來談一談社會心理學。心理學家凱瑟琳·菲利普斯和幾個同事最近把神祕謀殺案 交給了一些學生解決，這些學生編為四人一組，他們每組都得到了含有一個案件資訊的卷宗——包括不在場證明和證據，證人證言和三個嫌疑犯。

And the groups of four students were asked to figure out who did it, who committed the crime. And there were two treatments in this experiment. In some cases these were four friends, they all knew each other well. In other cases, three friends and a you can see where I'm going with this.

編成四人一組的這些學生們被要求要找出真凶，找出到底是誰犯了罪。這個實驗中有兩種分組。一部分分組中，組中的四個人都是好朋友，他們互相之間非常瞭解。另一種分組，組內有三個好朋友，一個陌生人。你可能知道了我要說什麼。

Obviously I'm going to say that the groups with the stranger solved the problem more effectively,which is true, they did. Actually, they solved the problem quite a lot more effectively. So the groups of four friends, they only had a 50-50 chance of getting the answer right. Which is actually not that great -- in multiple choice, for three answers? 50-50's not good.

很顯然我會說那種有個陌生人的組解決問題更加高效，這是真的，他們確實做到了。實際上，他們解決問題的效率非常高。那種四人都是好朋友的組，他們只有一半的機率找出了真凶。這可真不怎麼樣——只有三個備選答案的單選題，只有一半機率答對了可不怎麼樣。

The three friends and the stranger, even though the stranger didn't have any extra information, even though it was just a case of how that changed the conversation to accommodate that awkwardness,the three friends and the stranger, they had a 75 percent chance of finding the right answer. That's quite a big leap in performance.

那種三個好朋友一個陌生人的組，即使那個陌生人沒有得到任何額外資訊，即使他們組員之間需要不斷改變交談的方式來緩解尷尬。但三個好朋友和一個陌生人的組仍然有75%的機率找出真凶。這兩種表現實在差距很大。

But I think what's really interesting is not just that the three friends and the stranger did a better job,but how they felt about it. So when Katherine Phillips interviewed the groups of four friends, they had a nice time, they also thought they'd done a good job. They were complacent. When she spoke to the three friends and the stranger, they had not had a nice time -- it's actually rather difficult, it's rather awkward ... and they were full of doubt. They didn't think they'd done a good job even though they had. And I think that really exemplifies the challenge that we're dealing with here.

但我覺得真正有趣的不僅僅是三個好朋友和一個陌生人的組做得更好，而是他們參加這次實驗的感受。當凱瑟琳·菲利普斯採訪四個好朋友的組時，他們說感覺很開心，他們同樣也覺得自己做得很好。他們很滿足。當她採訪三個好朋友和一個陌生人的組時，他們說他們相處的不是很好——他們相處得比較困難，互相之間還很尷尬······ 工作之中充滿了疑惑。即使他們已經做得很好了，然而他們還是覺得不太好。而我覺得這可以很好地例證 我們今天討論的問題。

Because, yeah -- the ugly font, the awkward stranger, the random move ... these disruptions help us solve problems, they help us become more creative. But we don't feel that they're helping us. We feel that they're getting in the way ... and so we resist. And that's why the last example is really important.

因為，其實——難看的字型，尷尬的陌生人，隨意的工作方法······ 這些阻礙使我們更好地解決問題，它們使我們更加迸發創意。但我們卻並不覺得這些幫助了我們。我們覺得它們阻礙了我們······ 我們就跟它們對抗。這就是為什麼這最後一個例子特別重要的原因。

So I want to talk about somebody from the background of the world of rock 'n' roll. And you may know him, he's actually a TED-ster. His name is Brian Eno. He is an ambient composer -- rather brilliant.

我來給你們介紹來自搖滾世界的一個人。你們可能認識他，他是個實實在在的TED迷。他叫布萊恩·伊諾。他是個環境音樂作曲家——非常優秀。

He's also a kind of catalyst behind some of the great rock 'n' roll albums of the last 40 years. He's worked with David Bowie on "Heroes," he worked with U2 on "Achtung Baby" and "The Joshua Tree,"he's worked with DEVO, he's worked with Coldplay, he's worked with everybody.

他也是過去40年中 很多搖滾樂鉅作誕生的催化劑。他和大衛·鮑伊合作過歌曲《Heroes》，他和U2合作過歌曲《Achtung Baby》《The Joshua Tree》。他和退化樂隊(DEVO)合作過，他和酷玩樂隊(Coldplay)合作過，他和很多人都合作過。

And what does he do to make these great rock bands better? Well, he makes a mess. He disrupts their creative processes. It's his role to be the awkward stranger. It's his role to tell them that they have to play the unplayable piano.

那麼他為了使這些搖滾樂隊變得更好做了些什麼呢? 他製造麻煩。他阻礙他們的創作過程。他的角色就是做那個“尷尬的陌生人”。他的任務就是告訴他們一定要彈一下 那臺壞了的鋼琴。

And one of the ways in which he creates this disruption is through this remarkable deck of cards -- I have my signed copy here -- thank you, Brian. They're called The Oblique Strategies, he developed them with a friend of his. And when they're stuck in the studio, Brian Eno will reach for one of the cards. He'll draw one at random, and he'll make the band follow the instructions on the card.

他其中一個創造阻礙的方式就是用這一疊卡片——我手中的這疊是份簽名版——布萊恩，謝謝你。這叫“傾斜策略”，是他是和一個朋友一塊兒發明的。當他們在工作室創意枯竭的時候，布萊恩·伊諾就會拿出其中一張卡片。他會隨意取出一張，然後讓樂隊根據卡片上的指示去做。

So this one ... "Change instrument roles." Yeah, everyone swap instruments -- Drummer on the piano -- Brilliant, brilliant idea.

看看這一張—— “改變演奏樂器”。是的，每個人都交換一下樂器——比如鼓手去彈鋼琴—— 真是非常非常棒的主意。

"Look closely at the most embarrassing details. Amplify them."

"Make a sudden, destructive, unpredictable action. Incorporate."

These cards are disruptive.

“仔細看看最尷尬的細節。然後把它們放大。”

“做出既突然、同時又具有破壞性且無法預料的行動。”

這些卡片都有阻礙作用。

Now, they've proved their worth in album after album. The musicians hate them.

現在，這些卡片已經通過一張張的唱片證明了它的價值。音樂家們恨透了它們。

So Phil Collins was playing drums on an early Brian Eno album. He got so frustrated he started throwing beer cans across the studio.

菲爾·柯林斯曾經在布萊恩-伊諾的一張唱片裡打過鼓。有一次把他氣得把啤酒罐從工作室的一頭扔到了另一頭。

Carlos Alomar, great rock guitarist, working with Eno on David Bowie's "Lodger" album, and at one point he turns to Brian and says, "Brian, this experiment is stupid." But the thing is it was a pretty good album, but also, Carlos Alomar, 35 years later, now uses The Oblique Strategies. And he tells his students to use The Oblique Strategies because he's realized something. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't helping you.

卡洛斯·阿洛瑪，非常優秀的搖滾吉他手，和伊諾一起參與過大衛·鮑伊專輯《Lodger》的製作。有一回，他跟布萊恩說， “布萊恩，這個實驗蠢透了。” 但事實證明那是一張非常棒的專輯，而且，卡洛斯·阿洛瑪在35年後，也就是現在正在使用“傾斜策略”。他還介紹給他的學生們使用“傾斜策略”，因為他懂了一個道理。那就是你不喜歡它並不代表它對你沒用。

The strategies actually weren't a deck of cards originally, they were just a list -- list on the recording studio wall. A checklist of things you might try if you got stuck.

這種策略實際上 原本並不是那一疊卡片， 而是一個列表—— 列在錄音工作室的牆上。 列表上寫著當你創意枯竭的時候 你可以嘗試做的事。

The list didn't work. Know why? Not messy enough. Your eye would go down the list and it would settle on whatever was the least disruptive, the least troublesome, which of course misses the point entirely.

而這個列表並不管用。知道為什麼嗎?因為還不夠麻煩。你的眼睛會瀏覽一遍列表，然後你就會選擇那個最不混亂的，最不麻煩的那條，這樣當然就完全違背初衷了。

And what Brian Eno came to realize was, yes, we need to run the stupid experiments, we need to deal with the awkward strangers, we need to try to read the ugly fonts. These things help us. They help us solve problems, they help us be more creative.

然後布萊恩·伊諾就意識到，是的，我們需要進行這樣愚蠢的實驗，我們需要有尷尬的陌生人加入，我們需要試著去讀一讀難看的字型。這些都會幫助我們。它們可以幫我們解決問題，它們可以讓我們變得更有創造力。

But also ... we really need some persuasion if we're going to accept this. So however we do it her it's sheer willpower, whether it's the flip of a card or whether it's a guilt trip from a German teenager, all of us, from time to time, need to sit down and try and play the unplayable piano.

但是同樣······ 我們需要一些“外部因素” 來讓我們接受這樣做。所以不管我們怎樣做······ 不管是靠純粹的意志力，還是靠抽出的那張卡片，還是碰見了一個德國青年內疚的經歷，我們所有人，有時，都需要坐下來，試著彈彈那臺彈不了的鋼琴。

Thank you.(Applause)

謝謝。(掌聲)