第一篇：TED演講

TED演講|激勵人心的領導力 西蒙·斯涅克:偉大的領袖如何激勵行動

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 control-powered, manned 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.各位，當事情不是我們料想的那樣時，你如何解釋？當別人能夠成就的事實似乎推翻了過去所有的假設的時候，你如何解釋？舉個例子，為什么蘋果如此具有創新能力？一年又一年，一年又一年，他們比競爭對手更加創新。而且，他們只是一家電腦公司。就像每個電腦公司一樣，他們能招到的人才，獲得的資源，找到的顧問，采訪的媒體都和別人一樣。那為什么他們好像總是能夠拿出一些不同的東西來？同樣，為什么是馬丁·路德·金來領導民權運動？他不是唯一遭受運動前社會歧視的黑人，他也肯定不是那個時代唯一偉大的演說家。那為什么是他領導民權運動？還有，為什么是萊特兄弟能夠研制出動力控制的載人飛機？當時還有其他團隊比他們兄弟倆更有能力，更多資金，他們卻沒能實現人力飛行，萊特兄弟打敗了他們。一定還有一些什么別的因素在起作用。

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.大概三年半前，我有了一個發現，這個發現從根本上改變了我對世界是如何運作的看法，甚至也根本改變了我運作的方式。事實顯示，有這么一個模式，這個世界上所有偉大的激動人心的領導者和組織，不管它是蘋果，或者馬丁·路德·金，或者萊特兄弟，他們思考，行動和溝通的方式完全一樣！而對其他人，則正好反其道而行之。我所做的就是把它整理出來，這可能是世界上最簡單的一個觀念。我稱之為“黃金圓環”。

（板上畫了三個圓環，中心是“為什么why”, 第二個環是“怎么做how”，最外面的環是“是什么what”）

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.為什么？怎么做？是什么？這個黃金圓環解釋了為什么有的組織和領導者能夠激發行動，而其他的不能。讓我很快地給這些詞下個定義。這個地球上每個人，每個組織都知道自己在做什么，百分之百的。其中有的知道他們該怎么做，不管你稱作差異價值定位，或是你的獨有工藝，或是你的獨特賣點都行。但是非常非常少的人和組織才知道他們為什么做手頭的事情。這里我說的“為什么“不是什么“贏利”。那只是結果，一直都是結果而已。說“為什么”我的意思是：你的目標目的是什么？你的原因是什么？你的信念是什么？你的機構為什么存在？你每天早上為什么起床？你起不起床對別人有什么不同，別人為什么要在乎？作為結果，我們思考的方式，我們行動的方式，和我們溝通的方式，在這個黃金圓環上都是從外到內的。我們從最清楚的再到最模糊的。但是激勵型的領導者和組織，不管他們大小規模，不管他們所在行業，都從內到外地思考，行動，和溝通。

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?“ Neh.And that's how most of us communicate.That's how most marketing is done.That's how most sales are 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.讓我給您舉個例子。我用蘋果電腦，因為它易于理解，每個人都能上手。如果蘋果和其他競爭對手一樣，他們的廣告語可能就會這樣寫：“我們制造出色的電腦，它們設計精美，使用簡單，界面友好。想要買一臺嗎？”不想！這就是我們大部分人溝通的方式。這也是大部分公司的市場推廣方式。這也是大部分銷售完成的方式。我們說我們要做什么，我們是怎樣與眾不同或者更好，然后我們就等著別人被打動或者掏腰包，投票，諸如此類。比如，你對客戶說，這是我們新的律師事務所，我們有最好的律師，最大的客戶，我們總是為我們的客戶竭盡全力。再比如，這是我們推出的新車型，非常省油，又有皮座墊，快來買我們的車吧──這些都無法激勵我們。

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 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.蘋果實際上是這樣溝通的，“我們所做的每件事情，我們都相信要打破現狀，以不同的角度思考。我們打破現狀的方式就是讓我們的產品設計精美，使用簡單，界面友好。我們只是碰巧制造電腦而已。想要買一臺嗎？”味道完全不同，對吧！你已經準備要向我訂購了。我所做的就是反轉信息的順序。事實已經向我們證明，顧客不是購買你所做的產品；顧客購買你制作它的理由。

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.這就解釋了為什么在這個大廳里的每個人都覺得購買蘋果電腦挺好的，但是我們也覺得買蘋果的MP3播放器(指iPod)挺好的，或者是蘋果出品的電話(iPhone)，或者是蘋果的數字錄像設備(Apple TV)。但是，就像我前面說到，蘋果只是一個電腦公司。沒有什么可以把蘋果和競爭者截然分開。那些競爭對手們也能生產品質很好的所有這些產品。實際上，他們也嘗試了。幾年前，Gateway公司推出了一款平面電視機。他們制造電視機的水平很高，在此之前他們做液晶顯示器已經很多年了。但他們推出的平板電視機無人問津。戴爾電腦也推出了自己的MP3播放器和PDA，他們的產品品質也很優秀，也設計良好。同樣沒有人買。想想吧，我們都難以想像，從戴爾買一臺MP3播放器是怎么一回事。你干嘛要從一家電腦公司買一臺MP3播放器呢？但我們每天就是這么做的。顧客不會購買你的產品，他們會買你制作它的理由。商業的目的不是和那些他有求你有供的人做生意，是和那些信念相同的人做生意。這就是我的主要論點。

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.我所說的沒有一個是我的觀點，都是生物學的觀念。對，不是心理學，是生物學。如果從上方俯視大腦的橫截面圖，你所看到的是人的大腦分為三個主要的部分，正好和與黃金環的三個部分對應。我們最新的腦部，即我們智人（生物學概念，指有了現代智慧的人種）的腦部，或者說我們的大腦皮層(neocortex)，對應著“是什么”這個環。大腦皮層負責我們所有的理性和邏輯的思考和語言組織。中間的兩個部分是我們的邊腦(limbic brain)，邊腦負責我們所有的情感，比如信任和忠誠，也負責所有的人體行動和做出決策。同時，這部分沒有語言功能。

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 you limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.換句話說，在這個黃金圓環上當我們從外向內溝通時，我們可以讓人們理解大量復雜的信息，比如特點，好處，事實，還有圖表，但就是無法激發他們的行動。當我們可以從內向外溝通時，我們就是在直接與大腦中控制行動的部分溝通，然后人們再理性地考慮我們所說和做的“怎樣”和“什么”。這就是那些勇敢大膽決定的來源。你可能也知道，有時候你給了別人所有的事實和圖表，然后他們說，“我知道所有的事實和細節是怎么回事，但就是感覺不對。” 我們為什么要用這個詞，“感覺”不對？因為控制行動的那部分邊腦，不控制語言，所以當邊腦這部分拒絕的時候，我們想來想去只好說，“我不知道為什么，就是感覺不對?！庇袝r候，你會說自己是在用心去帶領，或者用靈魂去引導，嗯，我不愿意打斷你，但這些都不是控制你行為的身體部分?？刂颇阈袨榈氖谴竽X的邊腦部分，它控制了你做的決定，而不是語言。

But if you don't know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how 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 hired 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 your you with blood and sweat and tears.And nowhere else is there a better example of this than with the Wright brothers.如果你自己都不知道所作所為的理由，而人們需要這樣的理由，你如何贏得大家對你的支持，從你這里下單購買，或者，更重要的，忠誠并且想成為你行動的一分子呢？再說一次，目標不是向那些有求于你的人銷售，目標是向那些相信你所堅信的人銷售，他們將為你付出熱血，汗水和淚水。對于這一點，沒有比萊特兄弟的故事更說明問題的了。

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 Deptartment 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 you've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley? 絕大部分人都沒有聽說過塞繆爾·蘭利這個人。在二十世紀早期，對載人飛行的探索的熱情，就像今天對建立網絡公司的熱度一樣。每個人都在嘗試。塞繆爾·蘭利有著我們大家所謂的成功的所有要素。是什么意思呢？比如今天，你要是問別人，“你的產品或公司為什么會失??？” 那人一定會給出同樣三樣事情的同樣組合──資本不夠，用人不善，市道不佳?？偸沁@三個原因，那么讓我們且來探討一番，究竟如何。塞繆爾·蘭利獲得國防部五萬美元投資，讓他研制載人飛機。所以對他來說，資金不是問題；他又在哈佛有一個職位，并在Smithsonian博物館工作，人脈很廣很深。他也認識當時所有該領域的專家學者。他用手里的資金可以雇傭當時最好的專家。如果研制出來載人飛行器，市場前景更是無可限量。除此之外，《紐約時報》記者整天跟在他屁股后面等新聞──每個人都支持他。那么你今天怎么會從來沒有聽說過塞繆爾·蘭利呢？

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.與此同時，在俄亥俄州戴頓市幾百里外，奧維爾·萊特和維爾伯·萊特兄弟，他們倆沒有任何我們認定的成功要素──他們資金匱乏，研制經費都來自于兄弟倆開的自行車鋪的微薄利潤；他們團隊里的人沒有一個上過大學，連他們倆自己也沒上過；《紐約時報》記者更是不沾他們的邊。不同的地方是，奧維爾和維爾伯有一個理由，一個目標，一個信仰驅使著他們去做這些事情。他們相信，如果他們能研制出來載人飛行器，將會改變世界。塞繆爾·蘭利就不同了。他想要成名，想要發財。他追求的就是這兩個結果。事情如何發展呢？ 那些相信萊特兄弟夢想的人，與他們同甘共苦，同灑熱血淚水和汗水。其他人只是為工資單工作，而且他們還對外人講述他們是怎么樣在萊特兄弟出去的時候不得不偷偷拿走零件，因為他們晚餐都無以為繼，生活瀕于崩潰。

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.1903年12月17日，萊特兄弟進行試飛成功，當時無人在場見證，而外界幾天之后才知曉。后來事情進一步證實，塞繆爾·蘭利動機不純，因為在萊特兄弟試飛成功后，他退出了。他本來可以說：“干得真棒，伙計們！讓我們在你們的技術基礎上做個更好的！” 但是他沒有。他是第一個投入研制的，卻沒能第一個成功，看來他沒能成名，也無法借機發財，于是他放棄了。

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.人們不會為你所做的買單；他們為你這么做的理由買單。如果你講述你的信念，你會吸引那些與你具有同樣信念的人。為什么吸引和你信念相同的人這么重要呢？是因為一個革新擴散的法則在起作用。如果你沒有聽說過這個法則的話，你肯定知道這個概念。在這個社會里，2.5%的人是革新者，接下來的13.5%的人是我們早期的采用者，后面的34%是早期的主流，后面還有晚期的主流，以及最后拖后腿的人，這些拖后腿的人購買按鍵電話的唯一原因是因為他們再也買不到轉盤電話了。

(Laughter)（笑）

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.在這個刻度上，我們不同的時候處在不同的區間內，但是革新擴散法則告訴我們，如果你想要大眾市場的成功，或是大眾市場接受一個觀念，你只有到達15%到18%這個市場份額的轉折點的時候才會發生。我總是問企業，“你的新業務什么時候開始轉變？” 他們喜歡告訴我說，“噢，大概10%?！?很自豪地說。好吧，算你可以遍訪10%的客戶。我們都有10%的客戶已經“接受”了。那是我們怎樣描述他們，那就像那種勇敢的感覺，“哦，他們剛剛接受了?！?問題是，在你和他們做生意之前，你怎樣找到那些接受了的人而非那些不接受的人呢？所以就是這兒，就是這條小溝，你必須彌補，就像杰夫瑞·摩爾說的，“跨越鴻溝”。因為，你看，那些早期的主流人群不會嘗試新事物，直到別人先嘗試過了。而這些人，這些革新者和早期采用者，他們勇于嘗試新事物，他們更易于憑直覺做決定，靠的是他們對世界的信念，而非只是市場上有什么樣的產品。

These are the people who stood on 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 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 what 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.就是這樣的人，當iPhone推出的時候愿意排上六個小時的隊，第一時間買到手，哪怕一個星期后，你就可以輕松走進店里隨意從貨架上拿一個下來。就是這些人，在平板電視剛推出的時候，愿意花費四萬美元購買，即使技術還沒完全成熟。對，順便提一句，他們這么做不是因為產品的技術有多么偉大。他們是為自己而購買。因為他們就是想喝頭羹湯。所以還是那句話，人們不因你所做的而買單，他們因你所做的理由而買單，你的行動就證明了你的信念。實際上，人們會做那些證明他們信念的事情。那些在iPhone開售前排隊6個小時的人，是因為他們對世界的看法──智能手機和移動計算將是業界的未來，于是他們排隊證明給世人看，他們將是第一批走向這個未來的人。人們不為你的行為買單，他們為你的信念買單。

So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation.First, the famous failure.It's a commercial example.As we said before, a second ago, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions.Right.You should have success then.Look at TiVo.From the time TiVo came out, about eight or nine years ago, to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no dispute.They were extremely well-funded.Market conditions were fantastic.I mean, we use TiVo as verb.I TiVo stuff on my piece of junk Time Warner DVR all the time.關于革新擴散理論，讓我給你一個著名的例子，一個著名的失敗和一個著名的成功例子。首先，著名的失敗例子，是在商業領域內的。像我前面提到的，成功的要素是資金充裕，用人為善，市道正好。沒錯，這樣你就可以享有成功了。那么看看TiVo吧。從八、九年前TiVo問世，直到今天，他們都是市場上唯一品質最高的產品。（對聽眾）不用舉手，這沒什么可爭議。他們資金極為充裕，市場需求非常好。我們幾乎把TiVo當作日常用語了──我一直把東西TiVo在我那時代華納的垃圾DVR里面。

But TiVo's a commercial failure.They've never made money.And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10.In fact, I don't even think it's traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes.Because you see, when TiVo launched their product, they told us all what they had.They said, ”We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits without you even asking.“ And the cynical majority said, ”We don't believe you.We don't need it.We don't like it.You're scaring us.“ What if they had said, ”If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for you.It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc.“ People don't buy what you do;they buy why you do it.And what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe.但是TiVo是個商業上的大失敗。他們從未盈利。當他們上市時，他們的股票價格大約30到40美元，然后就直線下跌，而成交價格從沒超過10美元，實際上，我記得就沒有超過6美元，除了幾次價格小漲起落。為什么？因為你看，當TiVo發布產品的時候，他們告訴我們顧客的是他們的“what是什么”。他們說，“我們有一個產品，可以暫停直播電視節目，跳過廣告，倒回節目開始，記住你的觀看習慣，甚至你都不用設置?！?而挑剔的大眾回答，“我們不相信你，我們不需要這個東西，我們也不喜歡它，你在唬人?！?市場反應如此糟糕！要是他們像下面這樣說會怎樣呢，“如果你是那種喜歡全面掌控生活每個方面的人，伙計，我們這兒為你量身打造一款產品，它可以暫停直播電視節目，跳過廣告，倒回節目開始，記住你的觀看習慣，等等等等?！?人們不因你所做的而買單，他們因你所做的理由而買單，你的行動就證明了你的信念。

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 low and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day, at the right time, to hear him speak.現在我再給你一個革新擴散法則的成功例子。1963年夏天，25萬人匯集華盛頓DC，聆聽馬丁·路德·金博士的演講。沒有什么邀請信，沒有什么網站讓你查演講日期。怎么做到（匯集這么多人）的？ 金博士并非美國唯一偉大的演說家，他不是唯一飽受社會歧視之苦的人。實際上，他的部分觀點很糟糕。但他有一個天分。他沒有巡回告訴人們要做什么去改變美國。他巡回演講告訴人們他的信念?！拔蚁嘈庞幸惶臁蚁嘈拧蚁嘈拧?他告訴人們。

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.而那些和他懷有同樣信念的人接受了他的理由，把它們變為自己的觀念，再告訴別人。還有人進一步構建信念把話語傳給更多的人，結果，25萬人在那天準時出現，聆聽他演講。有多少人是為金博士而來？沒有誰是。他們為自己而來，是他們自己對美國的信念把他們帶上大巴，跋涉八個小時，在八月夏日的太陽底下來到華盛頓。這是他們的信念，這信念無關黑人與白人，現場聽眾有25%是白人。金博士相信世間有兩種法則，一種是上帝制定的，一種是世人制定的。直到世人制定的法律和上帝制定的律法相符合，我們才真正生活在公義的世界里。只是碰巧民權運動是幫他將信念付諸實現的最佳載體。我們跟隨他，不是為了他，是為了我們自己。順便說一句，他的演講是“我有一個夢想”，不是“我有一個方案”。

(Laughter)（大笑）

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.聽聽今天的政治人物提出的綜合12點方案，對聽眾而言真是毫無激動人心之處。有兩種人，一種是領導，一種是能領導的人。領導只是處在有權力或權威的位置。但能領導的人才能激勵我們，不論他們是個人還是組織。我們跟隨那些能領導的人，不是因為我們不得不，而是因為我們想要。我們跟隨那些能領導的人，不是為他們，是為我們自己。正是那些從“為什么”開始的人，有能力激勵他們周圍的人，或者找到那些能激勵他們的人。

Thank you very much.非常感謝！

第二篇：Ted演講

私有制：中國經濟奇跡的真正源泉

甚至連許多西方經濟學家都認為,中國已經找到了主要依靠國家財政與控制的繁榮之路。但是，他們大錯特錯了。

2009年3月 ? 黃亞生

美國式資本主義的可信性是全球金融危機中最早的犧牲品之一。隨著雷曼兄弟銀行的破產倒閉，全世界的權威評論家一窩蜂地唱衰美國經濟理念——有限政府、最小限度的監管和對信貸的自由市場分配等。在考慮以何種模式取代沒落的美國模式時，有些人把目光轉向了中國。在中國，市場受到嚴格的監管，而金融機構則由國家控制。在經歷了華爾街的潰敗后，焦躁不安的弗朗西斯?福山在《新聞周刊》（Newsweek）上撰文指出，中國式的國家資本主義“看起來越來越有吸引力了?！薄度A盛頓郵報》（Washington Post）的專欄作家大衛?伊格內修斯為基于孔子思想的“新干預主義”在全球的出現而高聲歡呼；伊格內修斯引用理查德?尼克松間接稱頌經濟學家凱恩斯（John Maynard Keynes）的話說：“現在我們都中國化了?！?/p>

但是，在宣布新的中國世紀的曙光到來之前，全球的領導人和高管們需要好好再想一想，中國活力的源泉到底是什么。說到中國經濟奇跡產生的原因，獲得廣泛認可的看法——那是專家治國論的勝利，共產黨依靠國家控制的企業實現了向市場經濟的逐步轉型——從各個重要方面來講都錯了。這種標準的看法認為，企業家精神、私有財產權、金融自由化和政治改革對中國的經濟奇跡只發揮了很小的作用。但是，基于對中國政府的調查數據和中央及地方政府文件的詳細分析，我的研究結論是，財產權和私營企業是高速增長和貧困水平降低最主要的激勵因素。

我們經常讀到這樣的文章，認為漸進主義是中國成功地從馬克思主義轉型到市場經濟的關鍵因素；許多文章稱贊北京摒棄了俄羅斯式的休克療法，采用更加務實的方法，創建了良好的商業環境，讓私營企業有機地發展。這種觀點認為，通過在上世紀80年代首先進行小范圍改革，中國經濟發展的自由度和市場導向水平逐漸提高，并在90年代后期積蓄了發展動力。但事實并非如此。實際發生的情況是，上世紀80年代進行的金融自由化和私營企業的早期地方性試驗，催生了鄉鎮企業最初的蓬勃發展。正是這些早期的收獲——而并非國家主導的大規?；A設施投資和90年代的城市化——為中國奇跡奠定了真正的基礎。盡管有許多專家將中國宏大的基礎設施項目和利用外國資金建設的嶄新工廠與印度破敗不堪的公路和微不足道的外國直接投資流進行比較，但這種觀點夸大了公共開支和外國投資對中國發展的貢獻。直到上世紀90年代后期以前，這兩種因素在中國的影響力所占比重都不大——它們的出現比80年代寬松的金融控制和最初的鄉鎮企業發展大潮要晚得多。在上世紀80年代，中國經濟的發展要比90年代快得多，并且產生了更好的社會效益：貧困人口下降，貧富差距縮小，而且勞動力在GDP中所占份額——衡量從經濟發展中人均獲益的指標——顯著上升。從1978年到1988年，生活水平低于中國貧困線的農村人口減少了1.5億以上。而在90年代，盡管GDP幾乎都達到了兩位數增長，并且實施了大規模的基礎設施建設，但貧困人口數量卻只下降了6,000萬。此外，在80年代，中國經濟增長主要靠投資而不是消費驅動的程度遠不像今天這樣嚴重。

換句話說，企業資本主義與國家資本主義不同，它不僅帶來了增長，而且還對增長所帶來的利益進行了廣泛的分配。企業主義（Entrepreneurialism）既充滿活力，又符合社會道德。

西方媒體總愛把像北京、上海和深圳這樣的大城市稱頌為生機勃勃的發展中心（見圖表）。而中國的農村地區，即使被提到，也通常被形容為貧困的窮鄉僻壤。但是，只要對經濟數據進行仔細分析，就會發現，對中國現代化城市高樓大廈的這些令人震撼的描述完全是一種誤導：事實上，中國的農村才具有最大的經濟活力，而政府的強勢干預已經窒息了中心城市的企業家精神和所有權。

后一種觀點的重要性無論怎樣強調都不過分。中國資本主義的發展歷史事實上大部分都可以被描述為兩個中國的斗爭：由市場推動的、富有企業家精神的農村與由國家主導的城市之間的斗爭。無論何時何地，只要中國農村占據優勢地位，中國的資本主義就是企業式的、獨立于政治的，并且是充滿競爭活力的。無論何時何地，只要中國城市占據主導地位，中國的資本主義就會朝著依賴于政治和國家集權的方向發展。

上海是中國城市發展最顯著的象征，其現代化的摩天大樓、外國奢侈品商店和全國最高的人均GDP使其成為中國的模范城市——一個國家資本主義獲得成功的最好例證。事實果真如此嗎？采用更具有實際意義的經濟成就指標來衡量，上海的發展遠不及溫州。溫州是位于上海南邊數百英里以外一個浙江省的城市，這里是企業資本主義的一片樂土。上世紀80年代初期，使溫州聞名于世的僅僅是它那勤勞的農民。當時，在溫州的500萬居民中，城市人口還不到10%。如今，溫州是中國最具活力的城市，其數量眾多的企業主宰著歐洲的服裝市場。而相比之下，曾經是中國最早的實業家樂園的上海，如今卻很少涌現出本土企業家。

溫州的轉型幾乎完全是靠自由市場政策來實現的。早在1982年，當地官員就開始試行民間借貸、自由利率、存貸款機構的跨地區競爭，以及向私營企業提供貸款等。溫州市政府還大力保護私營企業家的財產權，并從其他諸多方面使城市更有利于企業的發展。

本土企業為民生福祉帶來了什么變化嗎？非常多。按人均GDP計，上海幾乎是溫州所在的浙江省的兩倍（難以獲得溫州人均GDP的詳細數據）。但是，如果衡量家庭收入——一般居民的實際的支出能力——這兩個地區的繁榮程度就旗鼓相當了。2006年，一個典型上海居民的家庭收入比一個典型浙江居民的家庭收入高13%，但上海居民的非工薪收入水平（如政府福利）卻幾乎是浙江居民的兩倍。兩地居民的平均勞動收入大體相當。平均來看，上海居民從經營企業中獲得的收入比浙江居民低44%，而從所擁有的資產中獲得的收入則要低34%。這就意味著：國家資本主義可以提高城市高樓大廈的樓高和GDP的統計數據，但并未提升居民的實際生活水平。

如果研究一下浙江省與其北部近鄰江蘇省的經濟狀況，這種對比就會更加清晰。這兩個省份可以進行近乎完美的比較。它們的地理條件差不多相同：都是沿海省份，江蘇位于上海北面，而浙江位于上海南面。它們還擁有相似的企業發展歷史：都對解放前上海的實業家

和企業家階層做出過重大貢獻。然而，在改革以后的若干年里，江蘇省吸引了外國投資并從公共建設工程開支中受益頗多，而浙江省卻不然。這種差異產生了令人吃驚的結果。

20年前，江蘇省比浙江省更為富庶，但如今卻比浙江窮，在每一項重要的經濟和社會福利指標上都落后于浙江。平均來看，浙江居民的資產性收入要大大高于其北方鄰省的居民，他們居住的房子更大，擁有電話、計算機、彩電、相機或汽車的比例更高。浙江的嬰兒死亡率更低，浙江人的平均預期壽命更長，識字率也更高。值得注意的是，浙江的收入不平等程度也遠遠低于江蘇。應該如何解釋浙江更勝一籌的繁榮呢？最令人信服的解釋是，在江蘇，政府對經濟干預過多，歧視本地企業而青睞外國資本；而浙江的官員則讓本土企業家擁有自由支配權，允許他們構建更大、更富有活力的本地供應鏈。

中國經濟奇跡的真正難解之處并不是其經濟如何發展，而是西方專家為何對其發展歷程的理解錯誤百出。一個原因是，這些外來旁觀者誤解了構成中國經濟體系最基本的元素之一——鄉鎮企業——的性質。一些西方最知名的經濟學家將鄉鎮企業稱為具有中國特色——具有創新意義的混合體，在政府的控制下實現了高速增長——的資本主義象征。例如，諾貝爾獎得主約瑟夫?斯蒂格里茲就稱贊鄉鎮企業為從社會主義到資本主義轉型時最常見的問題——私人投資者的資產剝離——提供了具有獨創性的解決方案1他認為，這些企業既具有公有制的形式，可以避免被掠奪，同時又能實現私營企業的高效率。

簡而言之，西方經濟學家常常認為鄉鎮企業歸鄉鎮政府所有。就在2005年，另一位諾貝爾獎得主道格拉斯?羅斯在《華爾街日報》上撰文指出，鄉鎮企業“與經濟學中的標準企業很少有相似之處” 2。但有證據表明，情況并非如此。在中國國務院1984年3月1日發布的一份政策性文件中，第一次正式提到了鄉鎮企業的名稱。該文件將它們定義為“由鄉鎮主辦的企業、由農民組成的聯合企業、其他聯合企業和個體企業?！薄坝舌l鎮主辦的企業”一詞指的是歸鄉鎮所有并管理的集體企業。該政策文件中提到的所有其他企業均為私營企業：個人所有的企業或有多個股東的較大型企業——都是嚴格意義上的“經濟學中的標準企業”。官方對“鄉鎮企業”一詞的使用具有非常顯著的一致性：它一直是既包括私營企業，也包括政府主辦的企業。

西方經濟學家之所以會犯錯誤，是因為他們認定該名稱涉及到所有制。但中國官方卻從地理含義上去理解它——位于鄉鎮的企業。中國農業部的記錄證明，私人擁有并管理的企業實體在鄉鎮企業中占絕大部分。在1985年到2002年期間，集體所有制企業的數量于1986年達到頂峰，為173萬家，而私營企業的數量卻迅猛增長，從大約1050萬家增加到超過2,000萬家。換句話說，在改革時期，鄉鎮企業數量的增長完全歸功于私營企業。到1990年，在改革的頭10年中，此類私營企業雇用的勞動力數量占到了鄉鎮企業雇用勞動力總數的50%，而稅后利潤則占到了58%。

對中國發展的真正源泉的思想混亂也攪亂了外國人對中國企業出現在國際市場上的理解認知。人們常說，中國為全球競爭帶來了新的企業模式，國家所有制與明智的運用政府對金融的控制相結合，創造了獨一無二的競爭力源泉。計算機制造商聯想公司就經常被贊頌為中國非傳統商業環境中的一個杰作。

但是，聯想的成功大部分要歸功于其早期便在香港注冊并在香港募集資本的能力，而香港被認為是世界上最自由的市場經濟。1984年，聯想公司從中國科學院獲得了第一筆啟

動資金，但其后所有重大投資的資金均來自于香港3。1988年，該公司從總部位于香港的中國技術公司獲得了90萬港幣（11.6萬美元）的投資，成立了合資公司，使聯想能夠將香港作為其法定的公司所在地。1993年，香港聯想公司在香港證券交易所首次公開上市，集資1,200萬美元。聯想公司是香港基于市場的金融與法律體系的成功故事，而并非中國由國家控制的金融體系的成功案例。

當中國在汲取華爾街崩潰的教訓，并準備應對全球經濟低迷之時，它可能做的最糟糕的事情莫過于去接受它已經發現了比自由市場更高效的發展模式的說法。中國經濟奇跡的真正經驗其實非常傳統——基于私有制和自由市場金融。中國的經驗為全世界提供了非常及時的提示：旨在鼓勵這些力量發展的改革的確奏效。

作者簡介：

黃亞生，麻省理工學院Sloan管理學院副教授，從事政治經濟學的教學工作，創建并管理麻省理工學院的中國和印度實驗室，該實驗室旨在幫助本土企業家提高管理技能。本文摘自其《具有中國特色的資本主義：企業精神與國家》（Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the State）一書。

第三篇：Ted演講

Tony Porter 談對男性的呼吁

關于這場演講

在TEDWomen，Tony Porter對全世界男性發出呼吁，別太“大男子主義”。他講述了自己切身經歷，闡述了為何這種在多數男性身上根深蒂固的觀念，會致使男性對女性，以及對彼此發生不尊重、虐待和傷害。他提出解決辦法：打破陳規，從“男子漢標準”中解放。

關于Tony Porter

Tony Porter是教育家和活動者，他為消除對女性暴力侵害所作的努力受到國際認可。

為何要聽他演講：

Tony Porter是非盈利組織“對男性的呼吁：終止對女性暴力侵害組織”的策劃者和共同創始人。Porter的參與和自我檢查的要點，與許多家庭暴力和性暴力項目緊密相聯，施行于一些知名組織，如全國橄欖球聯盟和全國職業籃球聯賽，以及全國各地高校，包括美國西點軍校和安納波利斯美國海軍學院。Porter還是美國國務院國際講師，在剛果民主共和國做過大量工作。

他是酒精與藥物成癮研究機構紐約辦公室的教員，在此，他參與編著了針對美國黑人化學品依賴的臨床課程。他還為社會服務組織開發社會公正模型。

“Ted Bunch和Tony Porter就男性有責任終止對女性的暴力侵害，以精彩的親身經歷分享他們的觀點，他們提出更正人們心中的男子漢標準，就是解決辦法之

一。兩人通過自己的人生經歷，來說明家庭暴力問題，其實是公民權利問題。” —摘自My Sister's Place網站

Tony Porter的英語網上資料

首頁：acalltomen.com

[TED科技?娛樂?設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄（繁體）（簡體）。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

Tony Porter 談對男性的呼吁

我在紐約長大，位于哈萊姆區跟布朗克斯區之間。作為男孩子，大人教給我們，男人必須要堅決，要強壯，要勇敢，要強硬；不許痛苦，不許表露情感，憤怒除外。當然，也不能畏縮。男性負責，也就是說女性不用。男性引路，你們只要跟著照做就好。男性高一等，女性低一等。男性強大，女性弱小。女性價值不大，是男性的所有物，是物品。更確切說，是性對象。后來我知道，那是男性的社會形象標準，或稱其為“男子漢的標準”?？纯催@里面都有什么，所有關于如何做

才夠男人的定義。我還想說，毫無疑問，作為男人，有很多美好的事情，非常美好。但與此同時，有些東西實在非常糾結。我們確實需要開始質疑它，審視它，并對我們所熟知的男子漢標準進行拆析和重定義。

這是我的兩個孩子，Kendall和Jay，一個11歲，一個12歲。Kendall比Jay大15個月。有段時間我的妻子，她叫Tammie，還有我，我們非常忙，叮，咚，當，Kendall和Jay誕生了。（笑聲）當他們長到五六歲，四五歲時，Jay可以過來，哭著跑過來。至于她為什么哭沒有關系，她可以趴在我的膝蓋上，拿我的袖子擦鼻涕?？薨桑舐暱?，爸爸在呢，就是這樣。

另一方面，如果Kendall，如我所說，他只比妹妹大15個月，他哭著跑過來，或是只要我聽到他的哭聲，就要拉警報了。我會給他大約30秒的時間，也就是說，等他到我跟前，我就會說，“你哭什么哭？抬起頭來，看著我，告訴我怎么了？告訴我怎么了？我不能理解，你為什么哭？”由于自己的失職，我有責任和義務把他教育成一個男人，讓他符合這些男子漢標準中的條條框框。我發現我會這么說，“回你的房間去?；厝ィ啬愕姆块g。坐下，振作一下，再回來跟我說話，當你可以像...” 像什么？（觀眾：男人）“像男人一樣?！彼盼鍤q。當我這么做的時候，我會對自己說，“天呢，我是怎么了？我在做什么？我為什么要這樣？”回想一下，我想到了我父親。

有一段時間，我們家發生了一次很痛苦的經歷。我哥哥，Henry，當我們十幾歲的時候，他死于不幸。如我所說，我們住在紐約，當時我們住在布朗克斯區。葬禮在一個叫長島的地方舉行，距市區有兩小時車程。當我們準備從墓地返回時，車子停在洗手間旁，讓大家在長途返回之前下車方便一下。隨后人們都下車了，我母親，我姐姐，我姑姑，她們都出去了，只有我爸爸和我留在車里。女人們離

開不久，他便放聲大哭。他不想在我面前哭，但他知道，回去的路上他會忍不住的。在我面前哭，要比在有女性的場合下哭的好。這個男人，在10分鐘之前，剛剛把他年幼的兒子親手埋葬。這種痛苦是我無法想象的。我印象最深的是，他為在我面前哭而向我道歉。同時，他還給我鼓勵，把我舉起來，因為我沒哭。

我重新審視這件事。作為男人，我們會害怕，這種害怕讓我們癱瘓，讓我們成為男子漢的標準的奴隸。我還記得跟一個12歲男孩的對話，他是足球選手。我問他，我說，“如果當著所有隊員的面，教練說你踢球像個女孩，你會怎么樣？”我本以為他會說，我會很傷心，很憤怒，很生氣之類的。但不，男孩這么跟我說，男孩說，“這會把我毀掉?！庇谑俏易詥?，“天呢，如果被稱作女孩就會把他毀掉，那么關于女孩，我們都教給他些什么？”

（掌聲）

這把我帶回了我的12歲那年。我在市區的廉租公寓長大，那時我們住在布朗克斯區。一個叫Johnny的家伙住在我家附近，他當時16歲左右，我們都12歲左右，比較小。他總是跟我們這些小孩呆在一起。這個家伙，他經常不干好事。他讓很多家長感到奇怪，“這個16歲孩子，在一群12歲孩子中做什么？”他也確實不做好事。他是個問題少年，母親因海洛因攝入過量而死，奶奶把他養大，父親不管他。他奶奶有兩份工作，他經常獨自在家。我說過，我們都是小孩，得仰望這個大哥哥。他很酷，他很好。這是那些小妹妹說的，“他很好?！彼鲞^愛，我們都仰望他。

一天，我出門玩，就在周圍玩，我記不得在玩什么。他在窗口，叫我上去。他說，“嘿，Anthony?！毙r候他叫我Anthony?！昂?，Anthony，快上來?！盝ohnny

叫我，我就去。我跑上樓。他打開門后，對我說，“你想要嗎？”我立刻明白了他的意思。因為在我們長大的那個年代，根據當時的男子漢標準，“你想要嗎”只有兩層意思，不是性就是毒品。而我們不吸毒。我的準則，我的男子漢準則，立刻受到威脅。有兩點：一，我沒做過愛。男人之間不討論這個。你只會告訴最親密的朋友，讓他發誓保密，跟他講你的第一次。而對其他人，則會說我兩歲就開始做愛了，沒什么第一次可言。（笑聲）另一點我不能說的是，我不想要。這樣更糟。我們應該時刻窺伺，女性只是物品，確切說，是性對象。總之，這些我都不能說。所以，就如我母親所言，長話短說，我只是對Johnny說，“好?！彼屛业剿块g里。我進去了，躺在床上的是個叫Sheila的鄰居女孩，她16歲，全身赤裸?，F在來看，她有心理疾病，有時會比其他人更自閉。我們給她取了很多不好的綽號。總之，Johnny剛跟她做完愛。其實，他強奸了她，但他會說是做愛。因為，當時Sheila沒有說“不”，她也沒說“是”。

因此他給我機會也這樣做。于是我走進去，關上門。各位，我呆住了。我依門而立，這樣Johnny不能破門而入，發現我什么都沒干。我站了好長一會，長到足夠我干點什么了?，F在，我想的不是要做什么，而是要怎么出去。我只有12歲，但很聰明。我把褲拉鏈拉下來，走進客廳。我看到的是，當我和Sheila在房間里時，Johnny到窗邊招呼別人上來，所以現在滿屋子都是人，就像醫生的候診室。他們問我感覺如何，我對他們說，“感覺不錯?！比缓笤谒麄兠媲袄涎澙?，走出門去。

我是帶著愧疚說出這段的。當時我也帶著極大的愧疚感，但我很矛盾。因為我感到愧疚的同時，又感到興奮，我沒被抓住。而對發生的一切，我覺得糟糕。這種害怕脫離了男子漢的標準，完全包住了我。對我來說，我和我的男子漢標準，曾經比Sheila和她的遭遇更重要?？偟膩碚f，我們作為男人，被教育說女性價值

不大，把她們看做所有物，看做男人的性對象，這就形成一個等式，等號右邊是對女性的暴力侵害。我們作為男人，作為好男人，就如大多數的男人，我們所做的事，都是在這個社會形象標準下進行。我們以為自己不在此列，但其實我們正是其中之一?？吹搅藛?，我們必須明白，這類價值不大，所有物，性對象的觀念，致使暴力現象頻頻發生。因此解決辦法就在我們身上，同時問題也在我們身上。疾病控制中心說過，男性對女性的暴力現象，已達到流行病的普遍程度，是女性的最大健康隱憂。國內如此，國外亦如此。

所以我再簡單說幾句。這是我生命中的摯愛，我女兒Jay，我希望她的世界里，我會希望男性如何對待女性？我需要你們與我一道，共同努力。你我共同合作，致力于如何培養我們的兒子，教導他們成為男人?？梢圆粡娪玻部梢员砺肚楦?，可以促進平等，可以擁有女性朋友，就是這樣，可以做一個完整的人。我們男性的解放，與你們女性的解放相依存。我問過一個九歲男孩，我問他說，“如果你不用再遵循這些男子漢標準，你會怎樣？”他告訴我，“我就自由了?！?/p>

第四篇：Ted演講

Ralph Langner談21世紀電子武器Stuxnet揭密

關于這場演講

Stuxnet計算機蠕蟲于2010年首次被發現，帶來了令人費解的謎團。除了它不尋常且高度復雜的編碼以外，還隱藏著一個更令人不安的謎團：它的攻擊目標。Ralph Langner及其團隊協助破解Stuxnet編碼，找出這個數字彈頭的最終攻擊目標－以及其幕后源頭。經使用計算機數字鑒識方法深入檢視后，他解釋了其運作原理。

關于Ralph Langner

Ralph Langner是德國控制系統的安全顧問。他對Stuxnet惡意軟件的分析受到全球矚目。

為什么要聽他演講

Ralph Langner為獨立網絡安全公司Langner的領導者，專營控制系統－監控和調控其它設備的電子裝置，如生產設備。這些裝置與運作我們城市和國家的基礎設施有密切關系，這使它們逐漸成為一場新興且具高度復雜型態的電子戰爭攻擊目標。自2010年起，當Stuxnet計算機蠕蟲首次現身時，Langner堅決地投身于這個戰場。

身為致力于譯碼這個神秘程序的一份子，Langner和他的團隊分析Stuxnet的數據結構，并找出他認為其最終的攻擊目標：運行于核工廠離心機的控制系統軟件－特別是伊朗的核工廠。Langner進一步分析，發現Stuxnet可能的幕后源頭，并于TED2011演講中透露這個秘密。

Ralph Langner的英語網上資料

網站：Langner

[TED科技?娛樂?設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄（繁體）（簡體）。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

Ralph Langner談21世紀電子武器Stuxnet揭密

Stuxnet計算機蠕蟲背后的想法其實很簡單，我們不希望伊朗造出原子彈，他們發展核武器的主要資產是納坦茲的濃縮鈾工廠，你們看到的灰色方塊是實時控制系統，現在，如果我們設法破壞控制速度和閥門的驅動系統，我們事實上可以使離心機產生很多問題。這些灰色方塊無法執行Windows軟件，兩者是完全不同的技術，但如果我們設法將一個有效的Windows病毒放進一臺筆記本電腦里，由一位機械工程師操作，設定這個灰色方塊，那么我們就可以著手進行了，這就是Stuxnet大致背景。

因此，我們從Windows釋放程序開始，讓病毒載體進入灰色方塊中，破壞離心機，延遲伊朗的核計劃，任務完成，很簡單，對吧？我想說明我們是如何發現這個的，當我們在半年前開始研究Stuxnet時，對這個東西的攻擊目標一無所知，唯一了解的是它在Windows的部份非常、非常復雜，釋放程序部份使用多個零日漏洞，它似乎想要做些什么，用這些灰色方塊，這些實時控制系統，因此，這引起我們的注意，我們開始了一個實驗計劃，我們用Stuxnet感染我們的系統并審視結果，然后一些非常有趣的事發生了。Stuxnet表現得像只白老鼠，不喜歡我們的奶酪，聞一聞，但不想吃。這根本沒道里。之后，我們用不同口味的奶酪進行實驗，我意識到，哦，這是一個直接攻擊，完全直接的。釋放程序在這些灰

色方塊中有效的潛伏著，如果它發現了一個特定程序組態，甚至是它正試圖感染的程序，它都會確實針對這個目標執行，如果沒發現，Stuxnet就不起作用。

所以這真的引起了我的注意，我們開始進行這方面的工作，幾乎日以繼夜，因為我想，好吧，我們不知道它的目標是什么，很可能的，比方說美國的發電廠，或德國的化工廠，所以我們最好盡快找出目標。因此，我們抽出攻擊代碼并進行反編譯，我們發現它的結構由兩個數字炸彈組成，一個較小、一個較大。我們也看到，這是非常專業的設計，由顯然知道所有內幕信息的人編寫，他們知道所有必需攻擊的位和字節，搞不好他們還知道控制員的鞋子尺寸，因此他們什么都知道。

如果你曾聽過Stuxnet的釋放程序，是復雜、高科技的，讓我跟你們說明一下。病毒本身是很高科技沒錯，比我們曾見過的任何編碼都高深，這是這個實際攻擊代碼的樣本，我們談論的是大概15,000行的代碼，看起來很像舊式的匯編語言。我想告訴你們的是，我們如何能夠理解這段代碼，所以，我們首先要尋找的是系統的函數調用，因為我們知道它們的作用是什么。

然后，我們尋找時間控制器和數據結構，試圖將其與真實世界連結起來，尋找現實世界中的潛在目標，因此我們必需進行目標推測，以便確認或排除。為了找到推測目標，我們想到，它必定具有絕對破壞性，必定是一個高價值目標，最可能設置在伊朗，因為這是大部份感染發生的地點。在這區域內你不會找到幾千個目標，基本上范圍可以縮小為布什爾核電廠及納坦茲濃縮鈾工廠。

所以我告訴我的助手，“列出我們客戶中所有離心機和核電廠專家的名單”，我打電話給他們，聽取他們的意見，努力用我們在代碼和數據中的發現與他們的專業知識做對照。這很有效，因此，我們找出了這個小數字彈頭與轉子控制的關聯，轉子是離心機內部的運轉零件，就是你們看到的這個黑色物體，如果控制這個轉子的速度，事實上你就能使轉子損壞，甚至最后使離心機爆炸。我們也看到了這次攻擊的目標，實際上進行的相當緩慢、低調，顯然為了達成目標，快把維修工程師逼瘋了，因為他們無法迅速找出答案。

這個大數字彈頭－我們做過嘗試，非常仔細檢查數據和數據結構，因此，例如數字164在這些代碼中確實很突出，你不能忽視它。我開始研究科學文獻，這些離心機如何在納坦茲組建，并找出它們的結構，就是所謂的層級。每個層級由164臺離心機組成，這就說的通了，與我們的結果匹配。

而它甚至更有幫助。這些在伊朗的離心機細分為15種所謂的等級，你猜我們在攻擊代碼中發現什么？一個幾乎相同的結構。所以，同樣的，這與結果完美匹配，就我們所尋找的東西來說，這給了我們相當大的信心。別誤解我的意思，不是像這樣彈指之間，為了獲致這些成果，歷經幾星期相當艱苦的奮斗，我們常常走進死胡同，必需重新來過。

總之，我們找到了這兩個數字彈頭，實際上是針對同一個目標，但從不同角度。小彈頭對準一個層級，讓轉子加速旋轉然后急遽減速，而大彈頭影響六個層級并操縱閥門，總之，我們非常有信心，我們已經確認目標是什么，是納坦茲，就只有納坦茲。因此，我們不必擔心其它目標可能被Stuxnet攻擊。

我們看到一些非?？岬臇|西，真的讓我印象深刻。下方是灰色方塊，頂端你們看到的是離心機，這些東西所做的是攔截來自傳感器的輸入值，例如，來自壓力傳感器和振動傳感器的，它提供正常代碼，在攻擊中依然執行，用的是假的輸入數

據。事實上，這個假的輸入數據是Stuxnet事先錄制的，因此，這就像來自好萊塢電影的搶劫過程中，監視器被放入預錄的影片，酷吧？

這里的想法顯然不僅是愚弄控制室中的操作者，實際上更加危險且更具攻擊性，這個想法是規避數字安全系統。我們需要數字安全系統，當一位人類操作員的行動不夠快時，因此，例如在一座核電廠中，當一臺大蒸汽渦輪機嚴重超速時，你必須在一毫秒內打開泄壓閥。顯然，一位人類操作員辦不到，因此，這就是我們需要使用數字安全系統之處。當它們被破壞，真正糟糕的事就會發生了，你的工廠會爆炸，無論你的操作員或安全系統都無法注意到這一點，這很可怕。

但還會更糟。我要說的這些相當重要，想想看，這種攻擊是一般性的，它沒什么特定性，對離心機來說，還有濃縮鈾，因此，它也會作用于，例如一座核電廠或一座汽車工廠，它是通用的，你不需要－身為攻擊者，你不需要藉由USB裝置傳遞這個病毒載體，如我們在Stuxnet例子中看到的，你也可以使用傳統的蠕蟲病毒技術的來散播，盡可能傳播四方。如果你這么做，最終它會變成具大規模破壞性的網絡武器，這是我們必然會面臨的后果。所以，不幸的是，這種攻擊最大量的目標并不是在中東，而是在美國、歐洲和日本。因此，所有這些綠色區域就是遭受最多攻擊的目標，我們必須面對這個后果，我們最好現在開始做準備。

謝謝。

（掌聲）

Chris Anderson：我有個問題，Ralph，這件事已廣為人知，人們認為摩薩德（以色列情報機構）是幕后的主要推手，你也這么認為嗎？

Ralph Langner：好，你真的想知道嗎？

Chris Anderson：是啊!

Ralph Langner：好，我的看法是，摩薩德有參與，但以色列并非領導勢力。因此，背后的主導力量是網絡超級大國，只有一個，就是美國。幸好、幸好，因為如果不是這樣，我們的問題可能更大。

CA：謝謝你嚇壞了美國人，謝謝Ralph。

第五篇：TED演講

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.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.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.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.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 that we understand it really in Western terms, using Western ideas.We can’t.Now I want to offer you 3 building blocks for trying to understand what China is like just as a beginning.The first is this, that China is not really a nation state.Okay, it's called itself a nation state for the last hundred years.But everyone who knows anything about China knows it’s a lot older than this.This was what China looked with the victory of the Qin Dynasty in 221 B.C.at the end of warring state period—the birth of modern China.And you can see it against the boundaries of modern China.Or immediately afterward, the Han Dynasty, still 2000 years ago, and you can see already it occupies most of what we now know as Eastern China which is where the vast majority of Chinese lived then and live now.Now what is extraordinary about this is what gives China it’s sense of being China, what gives the Chinese the sense of what it is to be Chinese, comes not from the last hundred years, not from the nation state period which is what happened in the West, but from the period, if you like, of the civilization state.I’m thinking here, for example, of customs like ancestral worship, of a very distinctive notion of the state, likewise, a very distinctive notion of the family, social relationships like “guanxi”, Confucian values and so on.These are all things that come from the period of the civilization state.In other words, China, unlike the Western states and most countries in the world, is shaped by its sense of civilization, its existence as a civilization state, rather than as a nation state.And there’s one other thing to add to this, and that is this.Of course we know China’s big, huge demographically and geographically, with a population of 1.3 billion people.What we often aren’t really aware of is the fact that China is extremely diverse and very pluralistic, and in many ways very decentralized.You can’t run a place on this scale simply from Beijing, even though we think this to be the case.It’s never been the case.So this is China, a civilization state, rather than a nation state.And what does it mean? Well, I think it has all sorts of profound implications.I'll give you two quick ones.The first is that the most important political value for the Chinese is unity, is the maintenance of Chinese civilization.You know, 2000 years ago, Europe breakdown, the fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire, it divided, and its remained divided ever since.China, over the same time period, went in exactly the opposite direction, very painfully holding this huge civilization, civilization state together.The second is, maybe more prosaic, which is Hong Kong.Do you remember the handover of Hong Kong by Britain to China in 1997? You may remember what the Chinese constitutional proposition was, one country, two systems.And I’ll lay a wager that barely anyone in the West believed them.Window dressing.When China gets its hands on Hong Knong, that won’t be the case.13 years on, the political and legal system in Hong Kong is as different now as it was in 1997.We were wrong.Why were we wrong? We were wrong because we though, naturally enough in nation state ways.Think of German unification, 1990.What happened? Well, basically the East was swallowed by the West.One nation, one system—that is the nation state mentality.But you can’t run a country like China, a civilization state on the basis of one civilization, one system.It doesn't work.So actually the response of China to the question of Hong Kong—as it will be to the question of Taiwan—was a natural response: one civilization, many systems.Let me offer you another building block to try to understand China, maybe it’s not such a comfortable one.The Chinese have a very very different conception of race to most other countries.Do you know of the 1.3 billion Chinese, over 90% of them think they belong to the same race, the Han.Now this is completely different from the other world’s most populous countries.India, the United States, Indonesia, Brazil—all of them are multiracial.The Chinese don’t feel like that.China is only multiracial really at the margins.So the question is, why? Well, the reason I think essentially is again back to the civilization state.Very very…you know, at least 2000 years, a history of conquest, absorption, assimilation and so on, led to the process by which over time this notion of the Han emerged, of course, nurtured by a growing and very powerful sense of cultural identity.Now the great advantage of this historical experience has been that, without the Han, China could never have held together.The Han identity has been the cement which has held this country together.The great disadvantage of it is that the Han have a very weak conception of cultural differences.They really believe in their own superiority, and they are disrespectful of those who are not.Hence their attitude, for example, to the Uyghurs and to the Tibetans.Or let me give you my third building block, the Chinese state.Now the relationship between the state and society in China is very different from that in the West.Now we in the West are overwhelmingly seem to think—in these days at least—that the authority and legitimacy of the state is a function of democracy.The problem of this proposition is that the Chinese state enjoys more legitimacy and more authority amongst the Chinese that is true with any Western state.And the reason for this is because—well, there’re two reasons I think.And it’s obviously got nothing to do with democracy, because in our terms the Chinese certainly don’t have a democracy.And the reason for this is, firstly, because the state in China is given a very special.It enjoys a very special significance as the representative, the embodiment and the guardian of Chinese civilization, of the civilization state.This is as close as China gets to a kind of spiritual role.And the second reason is because, whereas in Europe and North America, the state’s power is continuously challenged—I mean in the European tradition, historically against the church, against other sectors of the aristocracy, against merchants and so on.For 1000 years, the power of the Chinese state has not been challenged.It’s had no serious rivals.So you can see, the way in which power has been constructed in China is very different from our experience in Western history.The result, by the way, is that the Chinese have a very different view of the state.Whereas we tend to view it as an intruder, a stranger, certainly an organ whose powers need to be limited or defined and constrained, the Chinese don’t see the state like that at all.The Chinese view the state as an intimate—not just as an intimate actually, as a member of the family;not just in fact as a member of the family, but as the head of the family, the patriarch of the family.This the Chinese view of the state, very very different to us.It’s embedded in society in a different kind of way to what the case in the West.And I would suggest you that actually what we are dealing with here, in the Chinese context, is a new kind of paradigm, which is different from anything we’ve had to think about in the past.You know that China believes in the state and market, I mean, Adam Smith already writing in the late 18th century, said, “the Chinese market is larger and more developed and more sophisticated than anything in Europe.” And, apart from the Mao period, that remained more-or-less the case ever since.But this is combined with an extremely strong and ubiquitous state.The state is everywhere in China.I mean, its leading firms, many of them are still publicly owned.Private firms, however large they are, like Lenovo, depend in many ways on the state patronage.Targets for the economy and so on are set by the state.And the state, of course, its authority flows into lot of other areas as we are familiar with, with something like the one-child policy.Moreover, this is a very old state tradition, a very old tradition of statecraft.I mean, if you want an illustration of this, the Great Wall is one.But this is another, this is the Grand Canal, which was constructed in the first instance in the 5th century B.C.and was finally completed in the 7th century A.D.It went for 1114 miles, linking Beijing with Hangzhou and Shanghai.So there’s a long history of extraordinary state infrastructure projects in China, which I suppose helps us to explain what we see today, which is something like the Three Gorges Dam and many other expressions of state competence within China.So there we have 3 building blocks for trying to understand the difference that is China—the civilization state, the notion of race and the nature of the state and its relationship to society.And yet we still insist, by-and-large, in thinking that we can understand China by simply drawing on Western experience, looking at it through Western eyes, using Western concepts.If you want to know why we unerringly to get China wrong, our predictions about what’s going to happen to China are incorrect, this is the reason.Unfortunately I think, I have to say that I think attitude towards China is that of a kind of little Westerner mentality.There’s kind of arrogant.It’s arrogant in the sense that we think that we are best, and therefore we have the universal measure.And secondly, it’s ignorant.We refuse to really address the issue of difference.You know, there’s a very interesting passage in a book by Paul Cohen, the American historian.And Paul Cohen argues that the West thinks of itself as probably the most cosmopolitan of all cultures.But it’s not.In many ways, it’s the most parochial, because for 200 years, the West has been so dominant in the world that it’s not really needed to understand other cultures, other civilizations.Because at the end of the day, it could, if necessary by force, get its own way.Whereas those cultures, virtually the rest of the world in fact, which have been in a far weaker position, vis-à-vis the West, have been thereby forced to understand the West, because the West’s presence in those societies.And, they are, as a result, more cosmopolitan in many ways than the West.I mean take the question of East Asia: Japan, Korea, China, etc.a third of the world’s population lives there, now the largest economic region in the world.And I’ll tell you now, that East Asianers, people from East Asia, are far more knowledgeable about the West than the West is about East Asian.Now this point is very germane, I’m afraid, to the present.Because what’s happening? Back to that chart at the beginning the Goldman Sachs chart.What is happening is that, very rapidly in historical terms, the world is being driven and shaped, not by the old developed countries, but by the developing world.I mean we’ve seen this in terms of the G20 usurping very rapidly the position of the G7 or the G8.And there are 2 consequences of this, first, the West is rapidly losing its influence in the world.There was a dramatic illustration of this actually, a year ago, Copenhagen, climate change conference, Europe was not at the final negotiating table.When did that last happen? I would wager it was probably about 200 years ago, and that is what is going to happen in the future.And the second implication is that the world will inevitably as a consequence, become increasingly unfamiliar to us, because it’ll be shaped by cultures and experiences and histories that we are not really familiar with or conversant with.And at last, I’m afraid, take Europe, America is slightly different, but Europeans by and large I have to say are ignorant, are unaware about the way the world is changing.Some people, I’ve got an English friend in China, he said “the continent is sleepwalking into oblivion.” Well maybe that’s true, maybe that’s an exaggeration.But there’s another problem which goes along with this that Europe is increasing out of touch with the world and that is a sort of a loss of a sense of the future.I mean, Europe once, of course, once commanded the future in its confidence.Take the 19th century for example, but this, alas, is no longer true.If you want to feel the future, if you want to taste the future, try China—there’s old Confucius.This is a railway station the like of which you’ve never seen before.It doesn’t even look like a railway station.This is the new Guangzhou railway station for the high-speed trains.China already has more of the bigger network than any other country in the world and will soon have more than all the rest of the world put together.Or take this: now this is an idea, but it’s an idea to be tried out shortly in a suburb of Beijing.Here you have a megbus, on the upper deck carries about 2000 people.It travels on rails down a suburban road, and the cars travel underneath it.And it does speeds of up to about 100 miles an hour。

Now this is the way things are going to move, because China has a very specific problem, which is different from Europe and different from the United States.China has huge numbers of people and no space.So this is a solution to a situation where China’s going to have many, many, many cities over 20 million people。

Okay, so how would I like to finish? Well, what should our attitude be towards this world that we see very rapidly developing before us? I think there will be good things about it and there will be bad things about it.But I want to argue above all, a big picture positive for this world.You know, for 200 years, the world was essentially governed by a fragment of the human population.That’s what Europe and North America represented.The arrival of countries like China and India—between them 38% of the world’s population, and others like Indonesia and Brazil and so on, represent the most important single act of democratization in the last 200 years.Civilizations and cultures which had been ignored, which had no voice, which were not listened to, which were not known about, will have a different sort of representation in this world.As humanists, we must welcome, surely, this transformation.And we will have to learn about these civilizations.This big ship here was the one sailed in by Zheng He in the early 15th century on his great voyages around the South China Sea, the East China Sea and across the Indian Ocean to East Africa.The little boat in front of it, was the one in which, 80 years later, Christopher Columbus crossed the Atlantic.Or, look carefully at this silk scroll made by Zhu Zhou in 1368.I think they’re playing golf.Christ, the Chinese even invented golf.Welcome to the future.Thank you!

David Steindl Rast Want to be Happy be Grateful

There is something you know about me, something very personal, and there is something I know about every one of you and that's very central to your concerns.There is something that we know about everyone we meet anywhere in the world, on the street, that is the very mainspring of whatever they do and whatever they put up with, and that is that all of us want to be happy.In this, we are all together.How we imagine our happiness, that differs from one another, but it's already a lot that we have all in common, that we want to be happy.Now my topic is gratefulness.How is the connection between happiness and gratefulness? Many people would say, well, that's very easy.When you are happy, you are grateful.But think again.Is it really the happy people that are grateful? We all know quite a number of people who have everything that it would take to be happy, and they are not happy, because they want something else or they want more of the same.And we all know people who have lots of misfortune, misfortune that we ourselves would not want to have, and they are deeply happy.They radiate happiness.You are surprised.Why? Because they are grateful.So it is not happiness that makes us grateful.It's gratefulness that makes us happy.If you think it's happiness that makes you grateful, think again.It's gratefulness that makes you happy.Now, we can ask, what really do we mean by gratefulness? And how does it work? I appeal to your own experience.We all know from experience how it goes.We experience something that's valuable to us.Something is given to us that's valuable to us.And it's really given.These two things have to come together.It has to be something valuable, and it's a real gift.You haven't bought it.You haven't earned it.You haven't traded it in.You haven't worked for it.It's just given to you.And when these two things come together, something that's really valuable to me and I realize it's freely given, then gratefulness spontaneously rises in my heart, happiness spontaneously rises in my heart.That's how gratefulness happens.Now the key to all this is that we cannot only experience this once in a while.We cannot only have grateful experiences.We can be people who live gratefully.Grateful living, that is the thing.And how can we live gratefully? By experiencing, by becoming aware that every moment is a given moment, as we say.It's a gift.You haven't earned it.You haven't brought it about in any way.You have no way of assuring that there will be another moment given to you, and yet, that's the most valuable thing that can ever be given to us, this moment, with all the opportunity that it contains.If we didn't have this present moment, we wouldn't have any opportunity to do anything or experience anything, and this moment is a gift.It's a given moment, as we say.Now, we say the gift within this gift is really the opportunity.What you are really grateful for is the opportunity, not the thing that is given to you, because if that thing were somewhere else and you didn't have the opportunity to enjoy it, to do something with it, you wouldn't be grateful for it.Opportunity is the gift within every gift, and we have this saying, opportunity knocks only once.Well, think again.Every moment is a new gift, over and over again, and if you miss the opportunity of this moment, another moment is given to us, and another moment.We can avail ourselves of this opportunity, or we can miss it, and if we avail ourselves of the opportunity, it is the key to happiness.Behold the master key to our happiness in our own hands.Moment by moment, we can be grateful for this gift.Does that mean that we can be grateful for everything? Certainly not.We cannot be grateful for violence, for war, for oppression, for exploitation.On the personal level, we cannot be grateful for the loss of a friend, for unfaithfulness, for bereavement.But I didn't say we can be grateful for everything.I said we can be grateful in every given moment for the opportunity, and even when we are confronted with something that is terribly difficult, we can rise to this occasion and respond to the opportunity that is given to us.It isn't as bad as it might seem.Actually, when you look at it and experience it, you find that most of the time, what is given to us is opportunity to enjoy, and we only miss it because we are rushing through life and we are not stopping to see the opportunity.But once in a while, something very difficult is given to us, and when this difficult thing occurs to us, it's a challenge to rise to that opportunity, and we can rise to it by learning something which is sometimes painful.Learning patience, for instance.We have been told that the road to peace is not a sprint, but is more like a marathon.That takes patience.That's difficult.It may be to stand up for your opinion, to stand up for your conviction.That's an opportunity that is given to us.To learn, to suffer, to stand up, all these opportunities are given to us, but they are opportunities, and those who avail themselves of those opportunities are the ones that we admire.They make something out of life.And those who fail get another opportunity.We always get another opportunity.That's the wonderful richness of life.So how can we find a method that will harness this? How can each one of us find a method for living gratefully, not just once in a while being grateful, but moment by moment to be grateful.How can we do it? It's a very simple method.It's so simple that it's actually what we were told as children when we learned to cross the street.Stop.Look.Go.That's all.But how often do we stop? We rush through life.We don't stop.We miss the opportunity because we don't stop.We have to stop.We have to get quiet.And we have to build stop signs into our lives.When I was in Africa some years ago and then came back, I noticed water.In Africa where I was, I didn't have drinkable water.Every time I turned on the faucet, I was overwhelmed.Every time I clicked on the light, I was so grateful.It made me so happy.But after a while, this wears off.So I put little stickers on the light switch and on the water faucet, and every time I turned it on, water.So leave it up to your own imagination.You can find whatever works best for you, but you need stop signs in your life.And when you stop, then the next thing is to look.You look.You open your eyes.You open your ears.You open your nose.You open all your senses for this wonderful richness that is given to us.There is no end to it, and that is what life is all about, to enjoy, to enjoy what is given to us.And then we can also open our hearts, our hearts for the opportunities, for the opportunities also to help others, to make others happy, because nothing makes us more happy than when all of us are happy.And when we open our hearts to the opportunities, the opportunities invite us to do something, and that is the third.Stop, look, and then go, and really do something.And what we can do is whatever life offers to you in that present moment.Mostly it's the opportunity to enjoy, but sometimes it's something more difficult.But whatever it is, if we take this opportunity, we go with it, we are creative, those are the creative people, and that little stop, look, go, is such a potent seed that it can revolutionize our world.Because we need, we are at the present moment in the middle of a change of consciousness, and you will be surprised if you--I am always surprised when I hear how many times this word “gratefulness” and “gratitude” comes up.Everywhere you find it, a grateful airline, a restaurant gratefulness, a cafe gratefulness, a wine that is gratefulness.Yes, I have even come across a toilet paper that the brand is called Thank You.(Laughter)There is a wave of gratefulness because people are becoming aware how important this is and how this can change our world.It can change our world in immensely important ways, because if you're grateful, you're not fearful, and if you're not fearful, you're not violent.If you're grateful, you act out of a sense of enough and not of a sense of scarcity, and you are willing to share.If you are grateful, you are enjoying the differences between people, and you are respectful to everybody, and that changes this power pyramid under which we live.And it doesn't make for equality, but it makes for equal respect, and that is the important thing.The future of the world will be a network, not a pyramid, not a pyramid turned upside down.The revolution of which I am speaking is a nonviolent revolution, and it's so revolutionary that it even revolutionizes the very concept of a revolution, because a normal revolution is one where the power pyramid is turned upside down and those who were on the bottom are now on the top and are doing exactly the same thing that the ones did before.What we need is a networking of smaller groups, smaller and smaller groups who know one another, who interact with one another, and that is a grateful world.A grateful world is a world of joyful people.Grateful people are joyful people, and joyful people, the more and more joyful people there are, the more and more we'll have a joyful world.We have a network for grateful living, and it has mushroomed.We couldn't understand why it mushroomed.We have an opportunity for people to light a candle when they are grateful for something.And there have been 15 million candles lit in one decade.People are becoming aware that a grateful world is a happy world, and we all have the opportunity by the simple stop, look, go, to transform the world, to make it a happy place.And that is what I hope for us, and if this has contributed a little to making you want to do the same, stop, look, go.