Daniel Goleman: Why arent we all Good Samaritans?

Translator: David J. Kreps Finnemann Reviewer: Anders Finn Jørgensen

You know, I'm struck by how one of the implicit themes of TED

I ved, jeg bliver berørt af hvordan et af de implicite temaer ved TED

is compassion, these very moving demonstrations we've just seen:

er medfølelse, disse meget bevægende demonstrationer vi lige har set:

HIV in Africa, President Clinton last night.

HIV i Afrika, Præsident Clinton i går nat.

And I'd like to do a little collateral thinking, if you will,

Og jeg vil gerne lave lidt følge tænkning, om man vil,

about compassion and bring it from the global level to the personal.

om medfølelse og at tage det fra det globale niveau til det personlige.

I'm a psychologist, but rest assured,

Jeg er psykolog, men stol trygt på,

I will not bring it to the scrotal.

at jeg ikke vil bringe det til det anale.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

There was a very important study done a while ago

Der blev lavet et meget interessant studie for noget tid siden,

at Princeton Theological Seminary that speaks to why it is

ved Princeton Theological Seminary der taler til hvordan det kan være,

that when all of us have so many opportunities to help,

at når vi alle har så mange muligheder for at hjælpe,

we do sometimes, and we don't other times.

gør vi det nogen gange, og ikke andre gange.

A group of divinity students at the Princeton Theological Seminary

En gruppe teologistuderende ved Princeton Theological Seminary

were told that they were going to give a practice sermon

blev fortalt at de skulle give en øvelsesprædiken

and they were each given a sermon topic.

og de blev hver givet et emne til prædikenen.

Half of those students were given, as a topic,

Halvdelen af de studerende blev givet, som emne,

the parable of the Good Samaritan:

historien om den barmhjertige Samaritaner:

the man who stopped the stranger in --

manden der stoppede den fremmede i --

to help the stranger in need by the side of the road.

for at hjælpe den nødlidende fremmede i kanten af vejen.

Half were given random Bible topics.

Halvdelen blev givet tilfældige bibelemner.

Then one by one, they were told they had to go to another building

Derefter blev de en efter en bedt om at gå til en anden bygning

and give their sermon.

og give deres prædiken.

As they went from the first building to the second,

Som de gik fra den første bygning til den næste,

each of them passed a man who was bent over and moaning,

gik de alle sammen forbi en mand der stod foroverbøjet og stønnede,

clearly in need. The question is: Did they stop to help?

tydeligvis nødlidende. Spørgsmålet er: Stoppede de for at hjælpe?

The more interesting question is:

Det mere interessante spørgsmål er:

Did it matter they were contemplating the parable

Gjorde det nogen forskel, at de overvejede historien

of the Good Samaritan? Answer: No, not at all.

om den barmhjertige Samaritaner? Svaret: Nej, slet ikke.

What turned out to determine whether someone would stop

Det der viste sig at gøre en forskel, om nogen ville stoppe

and help a stranger in need

og hjælpe en nødlidende fremmed,

was how much of a hurry they thought they were in --

var hvor travlt de mente de havde --

were they feeling they were late, or were they absorbed

følte de de kom for sent, eller var de opslugte

in what they were going to talk about.

i hvad de skulle til at snakke om.

And this is, I think, the predicament of our lives:

Og dette er, tror jeg, kniben i vores liv:

that we don't take every opportunity to help

at vi ikke bruger hver en mulighed for at hjælpe

because our focus is in the wrong direction.

fordi vores fokus er i den forkerte retning.

There's a new field in brain science, social neuroscience.

Der er et nyt felt i hjernevidenskab, social neurovidenskab.

This studies the circuitry in two people's brains

Dette studerer kredsløbet i to menneskers hjerne

that activates while they interact.

som aktiverer mens de interagerer.

And the new thinking about compassion from social neuroscience

Og den nye mening om medfølelse fra social neurovidenskab

is that our default wiring is to help.

er at vores standard kredsløb er at hjælpe.

That is to say, if we attend to the other person,

Det vil sige, hvis vi tager os af en anden person,

we automatically empathize, we automatically feel with them.

fatter vi automatisk empati, vi føler automatisk med dem.

There are these newly identified neurons, mirror neurons,

Der er nyligt identificerede neuroner, spejlneuroner,

that act like a neuro Wi-Fi, activating in our brain

der fungerer som et neuro Wi-Fi, der præcis aktiverer

exactly the areas activated in theirs. We feel "with" automatically.

de samme områder i vores hjerne, som i deres. Vi føler automatiske "med".

And if that person is in need, if that person is suffering,

Og hvis den person er nødlidende, hvis den person lider,

we're automatically prepared to help. At least that's the argument.

vi er automatisk klar til at hjælpe. Det er i det mindste argumentet.

But then the question is: Why don't we?

Men så er spørgsmålet: Hvorfor gør vi ikke det?

And I think this speaks to a spectrum

Og jeg tror dette taler til en skala

that goes from complete self-absorption,

der går fra komplet selvoptagethed,

to noticing, to empathy and to compassion.

til at bemærke det, til empati og til medfølelse.

And the simple fact is, if we are focused on ourselves,

Og det simple faktum er, at hvis vi er fokusere på os selv,

if we're preoccupied, as we so often are throughout the day,

hvis vi er åndsfraværende, som vi så ofte er i løbet af dagen,

we don't really fully notice the other.

lægger vi ikke fuldt ud mærke til den anden.

And this difference between the self and the other focus

Og forskellen mellem selvet og den andens fokus

can be very subtle.

kan være hårfin.

I was doing my taxes the other day, and I got to the point

Jeg lavede min skat den anden dag, og jeg kom til det punkt

where I was listing all of the donations I gave,

hvor jeg listede alle de donationer jeg gav,

and I had an epiphany, it was -- I came to my check

og jeg fik en åbenbaring, det var -- jeg kom til min check

to the Seva Foundation and I noticed that I thought,

til Seva Foundation og jeg lagde mærke til at jeg tænkte,

boy, my friend Larry Brilliant would really be happy

manner, min ven Larry Brilliant ville være rigtig glad for

that I gave money to Seva.

at jeg gav penge til Seva.

Then I realized that what I was getting from giving

Så indså jeg at det jeg fik at give

was a narcissistic hit -- that I felt good about myself.

var et narcissistisk sus -- at jeg havde det godt med mig selv.

Then I started to think about the people in the Himalayas

Så begyndte jeg at tænke på mennesker i Himalaya

whose cataracts would be helped, and I realized

hvis grå stær ville blive afhjulpet, og jeg indså

that I went from this kind of narcissistic self-focus

at det jeg gik fra denne slags narcissistiske selv fokus

to altruistic joy, to feeling good

til altruistisk glæde, til at have det godt

for the people that were being helped. I think that's a motivator.

på vegne af de mennesker der blev hjulpet. Jeg tror det er en motivationsfaktor.

But this distinction between focusing on ourselves

Men denne skelnen mellem at fokusere på os selv

and focusing on others

og at fokusere på andre,

is one that I encourage us all to pay attention to.

er noget jeg opmuntrer os alle til at lægge mærke til.

You can see it at a gross level in the world of dating.

Man kan se det på et samlet niveau i dating verden.

I was at a sushi restaurant a while back

Jeg var ved en sushi restaurant for noget tid siden

and I overheard two women talking about the brother of one woman,

og jeg overhørte to kvinder der talte om den ene kvindes bror,

who was in the singles scene. And this woman says,

der var single. Og denne kvinde siger,

"My brother is having trouble getting dates,

"Min bror har et problem med at få dates,

so he's trying speed dating." I don't know if you know speed dating?

så han prøver speed dating." Jeg ved ikke om I kender speed dating?

Women sit at tables and men go from table to table,

Kvinder sidder ved borde, og mænd går fra bord til bord,

and there's a clock and a bell, and at five minutes, bingo,

og der er et ur og en klokke, og efter fem minutter, bingo,

the conversation ends and the woman can decide

slutter samtalen, og kvinden kan afgøre

whether to give her card or her email address to the man

om hun vil give hendes kort eller mail adresse til manden

for follow up. And this woman says,

til opfølgning. Og denne kvinde siger,

"My brother's never gotten a card, and I know exactly why.

"Min bror har aldrig fået et kort, og jeg ved præcis hvorfor.

The moment he sits down, he starts talking non-stop about himself;

Det øjeblik han sætter sig ned, begynder han at tale om sig selv non-stop;

he never asks about the woman."

han spørger aldrig til kvinden."

And I was doing some research in the Sunday Styles section

Og jeg lavede noget research i Sunday Styles sektionen

of The New York Times, looking at the back stories of marriages --

af New York Times, og kiggede på historien bag ægteskaber --

because they're very interesting -- and I came to the marriage

fordi de var meget interessante -- og jeg kom til ægteskabet

of Alice Charney Epstein. And she said

af Alive Charney Epstein. Og hun sagde

that when she was in the dating scene,

at da hun var på dating markedet,

she had a simple test she put people to.

havde hun en simpel test hun udsatte mennesker for.

The test was: from the moment they got together,

Testen var: fra det øjeblik de mødtes,

how long it would take the guy to ask her a question

hvor lang tid det ville tage fyren at stille hende et spørgsmål

with the word "you" in it.

med ordet "dig" i det.

And apparently Epstein aced the test, therefore the article.

Og åbenbart scorede Epstein topkarakter i testen, deraf artiklen.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Now this is a -- it's a little test

Nu er dette en -- det er en lille test

I encourage you to try out at a party.

jeg tilskynder jer til at prøve det ved en fest.

Here at TED there are great opportunities.

Her ved TED er der fantastiske muligheder.

The Harvard Business Review recently had an article called

Harvard Business Review havde for nylig en artikel der hed

"The Human Moment," about how to make real contact

"The Human Moment", om hvordan man opnår ægte kontakt

with a person at work. And they said, well,

men en person på arbejdet. Og de sagde, jamen,

the fundamental thing you have to do is turn off your BlackBerry,

den fundamentale ting man skal gøre, er at slukke for sin BlackBerry,

close your laptop, end your daydream

luk den bærbare, afslut ens dagdrøm

and pay full attention to the person.

og læg fuldstændig mærke til personen.

There is a newly coined word in the English language

Der er et nyt opfundet ord i den engelske sprog

for the moment when the person we're with whips out their BlackBerry

til de øjeblikke hvor personen hiver deres BlackBerry frem

or answers that cell phone, and all of a sudden we don't exist.

eller svarer på det opkald, og pludselig eksisterer vi ikke.

The word is "pizzled": it's a combination of puzzled and pissed off.

Ordet er "pizzled": det er en kombination af puzzled og pissed off.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

I think it's quite apt. It's our empathy, it's our tuning in

Jeg synes det er temmelig passende. Det er vores empati, det er vores bølgelængde

which separates us from Machiavellians or sociopaths.

der skiller os fra Machiavellisterne eller sociopaterne.

I have a brother-in-law who's an expert on horror and terror --

Jeg har en svoger der er ekspert i skræk og rædsel --

he wrote the Annotated Dracula, the Essential Frankenstein --

han skrev the Annotated Dracula, the Essential Frankenstein --

he was trained as a Chaucer scholar,

han blev trænet som en Chaucer lærd,

but he was born in Transylvania

men han blev født i Transylvanien

and I think it affected him a little bit.

og jeg tror det påvirkede ham en lille smule.

At any rate, at one point my brother-in-law, Leonard,

Under alle omstændigheder, på et tidspunkt besluttede min svoger, Leonard,

decided to write a book about a serial killer.

at skrive en bog om en seriemorder.

This is a man who terrorized the very vicinity we're in

Dette er en mand der terroriserede det samme nabolag vi er i

many years ago. He was known as the Santa Cruz strangler.

for mange år siden. Han var kendt som the Santa Cruz strangler.

And before he was arrested, he had murdered his grandparents,

Og inden han blev anholdt myrdede han sine bedsteforældre,

his mother and five co-eds at UC Santa Cruz.

hans mor og fem kvindelige studerende ved UC Santa Cruz.

So my brother-in-law goes to interview this killer

Så min svoger tager ind for at interviewe denne morder

and he realizes when he meets him

og da han møder ham, bliver han klar over

that this guy is absolutely terrifying.

at denne fyr er aldeles skrækindjagende.

For one thing, he's almost seven feet tall.

For det første, han er over to meter høj.

But that's not the most terrifying thing about him.

Men det er ikke det mest skrækindjagende ved ham.

The scariest thing is that his IQ is 160: a certified genius.

Det meste skræmmende er at hans IQ er 160: et godkendt geni.

But there is zero correlation between IQ and emotional empathy,

Men der er ingen korrelation mellem IQ og følelsesmæssig empati,

feeling with the other person.

at føle med den anden person.

They're controlled by different parts of the brain.

De bliver kontrolleret af forskellige dele af hjernen.

So at one point, my brother-in-law gets up the courage

Så på et tidspunkt, samler min svoger modet

to ask the one question he really wants to know the answer to,

til at stille et spørgsmål som han virkelig gerne vil have et svar på,

and that is: how could you have done it?

og det er: hvordan kunne du gøre det?

Didn't you feel any pity for your victims?

Følte du ingen medlidenhed med dine ofre?

These were very intimate murders -- he strangled his victims.

Dette var meget intime mord -- han kvælte sine ofre.

And the strangler says very matter-of-factly,

Og morderen siger meget nøgtern,

"Oh no. If I'd felt the distress, I could not have done it.

"Slet ikke. Hvis jeg havde følt den lidelse, kunne jeg ikke have gjort det.

I had to turn that part of me off. I had to turn that part of me off."

Jeg var nød til at slukke den del af mig. Jeg var nød til at slukke den del af mig."

And I think that that is very troubling,

Og jeg tænkte at det er meget foruroligende,

and in a sense, I've been reflecting on turning that part of us off.

og på en måde, har jeg tænkt over det at slukke for den del af os.

When we focus on ourselves in any activity,

Når vi fokuserer på os selv i hvilken som helst aktivitet,

we do turn that part of ourselves off if there's another person.

slukker vi for den del i os selv, hvis der er en anden person.

Think about going shopping and think about the possibilities

Tænk over det at tage ud og shoppe og tænk på mulighederne

of a compassionate consumerism.

af en medfølende forbrugerisme.

Right now, as Bill McDonough has pointed out,

Lige nu, som Bill McDonough har pointeret,

the objects that we buy and use have hidden consequences.

har de objekter vi køber og bruger en hemmelig konsekvens.

We're all unwitting victims of a collective blind spot.

Vi er alle uvillige ofre af en kollektiv blind vinkel.

We don't notice and don't notice that we don't notice

Vi lægger ikke mærke til det og lægger ikke mærke til at vi ikke lægger mærke til

the toxic molecules emitted by a carpet or by the fabric on the seats.

at de giftige molekyler der afgives af et tæppe eller af stoffet i vores sæder.

Or we don't know if that fabric is a technological

Eller vi ved ikke om det stof er et teknologisk

or manufacturing nutrient; it can be reused

eller et fabrikations næringsstof; det kan blive genbrugt

or does it just end up at landfill? In other words,

eller ender det på en losseplads? Med andre ord,

we're oblivious to the ecological and public health

vi er uvidende om det økologiske og offentlige helbred

and social and economic justice consequences

og sociale og økonomiske retslige konsekvenser

of the things we buy and use.

af de ting vi køber og bruger.

In a sense, the room itself is the elephant in the room,

På en måde, er rummet i sig selv det store problem,

but we don't see it. And we've become victims

men vi ser det ikke. Og vi er blevet ofre

of a system that points us elsewhere. Consider this.

af det system der peger os i en anden retning. Overvej dette.

There's a wonderful book called

Der er en vidunderlig bog, der hedder

Stuff: The Hidden Life of Everyday Objects.

Stuff: The Hidden Life of Everyday Objects.

And it talks about the back story of something like a t-shirt.

Og den fortæller om historien bag ting som t-shirten.

And it talks about where the cotton was grown

Og den fortæller om hvor bomulden blev dyrket

and the fertilizers that were used and the consequences

og gødningen der blev brugt og konsekvenserne

for soil of that fertilizer. And it mentions, for instance,

af den gødning var for jorden. Og den nævner, for eksempel,

that cotton is very resistant to textile dye;

at bomuld er meget afvisende overfor farvestof;

about 60 percent washes off into wastewater.

cirka 60 procent bliver vasket væk af spildevandet.

And it's well known by epidemiologists that kids

Og det er velkendt blandt epidemiologer, at børn

who live near textile works tend to have high rates of leukemia.

der bor i nærheden af tekstil fabrikker har en tendens til stor hyppighed af leukæmi.

There's a company, Bennett and Company, that supplies Polo.com,

Der er et firma, Bennet and Copmany, der er leverandør til Polo.com,

Victoria's Secret -- they, because of their CEO, who's aware of this,

Victorias Secret -- de, på grund af deres administrerende direktør, der er klar over dette,

in China formed a joint venture with their dye works

dannede de i Kina et joint venture med deres farverier

to make sure that the wastewater

for at sørge for at deres spildevand

would be properly taken care of before it returned to the groundwater.

vil blive behandlet korrekt, før det kommer tilbage til grundvandet.

Right now, we don't have the option to choose the virtuous t-shirt

Lige nu, har vi ikke den mulighed at vælge den dydige t-shirt

over the non-virtuous one. So what would it take to do that?

frem for den ikke dydige. Så hvad skal der til for at kunne det?

Well, I've been thinking. For one thing,

Jamen, det har vi tænkt over. For det første,

there's a new electronic tagging technology that allows any store

er der en ny elektronisk mærknings teknologi der tillader en hvilken som helst butik,

to know the entire history of any item on the shelves in that store.

at kende hele historien bag et hvilket som helst produkt på hylden i den butik.

You can track it back to the factory. Once you can track it

Man kan spore det tilbage til fabrikken. Når man først kan spore det

back to the factory, you can look at the manufacturing processes

tilbage til fabrikken, kan man se på fremstillings processerne

that were used to make it, and if it's virtuous,

der blev brugt til at fremstille det, og hvis det er dydigt,

you can label it that way. Or if it's not so virtuous,

kan det blive mærket som sådant. Hvis det ikke er så dydigt,

you can go into -- today, go into any store,

kan man gå ind i -- i dag, gå ind i hvilken som helst butik,

put your scanner on a palm onto a barcode,

sætte scanneren på en stregkode,

which will take you to a website.

som vil bringe en videre til en hjemmeside.

They have it for people with allergies to peanuts.

De har dem til mennesker med jordnøddeallergi.

That website could tell you things about that object.

Hjemmesiden kunne fortælle en ting om den genstand.

In other words, at point of purchase,

Med andre ord, på købstidspunktet,

we might be able to make a compassionate choice.

kunne vi være i stand til at tage det medfølende valg.

There's a saying in the world of information science:

Der er en talemåde i informations videnskabs verdenen:

ultimately everybody will know everything.

til sidst vil alle vide alt.

And the question is: will it make a difference?

Og spørgsmålet er: vil det gøre nogen forskel?

Some time ago when I was working for The New York Times,

For noget tid siden arbejdede jeg for The New York Times,

it was in the '80s, I did an article

det var i 80'erne, jeg skrev en artikel

on what was then a new problem in New York --

om hvad der var det nye problem i New York --

it was homeless people on the streets.

det var hjemløse mennesker på gaden.

And I spent a couple of weeks going around with a social work agency

Og jeg tilbragte et par uger med at gå rundt med et social arbejdsagentur

that ministered to the homeless. And I realized seeing the homeless

der gav til de hjemløse. Og jeg blev klar over, at se de hjemløse

through their eyes that almost all of them were psychiatric patients

gennem deres øjne, at næsten dem alle var psykiatriske patienter

that had nowhere to go. They had a diagnosis. It made me --

der ikke havde noget sted at tage hen. De havde en diagnose. Det gjorde mig --

what it did was to shake me out of the urban trance where,

det det gjorde var at ryste mig ud af den urbane trance hvor,

when we see, when we're passing someone who's homeless

når vi ser, når vi går forbi nogen der er hjemløse

in the periphery of our vision, it stays on the periphery.

i periferien af vores synsfelt, bliver det i periferien.

We don't notice and therefore we don't act.

Vi lægger ikke mærke til det, og derfor handler vi ikke.

One day soon after that -- it was a Friday -- at the end of the day,

En dag efter det -- det var en fredag -- i slutningen af dagen,

I went down -- I was going down to the subway. It was rush hour

gik jeg ned -- jeg gik ned i metroen. Det var i myldretiden

and thousands of people were streaming down the stairs.

og tusindevis af mennesker strømmede ned af trapperne.

And all of a sudden as I was going down the stairs

Og pludselig da gik jeg ned af trapperne,

I noticed that there was a man slumped to the side,

lagde jeg mærke til at der var en mand der var faldet til siden

shirtless, not moving, and people were just stepping over him --

uden skjorte, uden at bevæge sig, og mennesker trådt hen over ham --

hundreds and hundreds of people.

hundrevis og hundredevis af mennesker.

And because my urban trance had been somehow weakened,

Og fordi min urbane trance var noget svækket,

I found myself stopping to find out what was wrong.

stoppede jeg for at finde ud af hvad der var i vejen.

The moment I stopped, half a dozen other people

Det øjeblik jeg stoppede, omringede et halvt dusin mennesker

immediately ringed the same guy.

øjeblikkeligt den samme mand.

And we found out that he was Hispanic, he didn't speak any English,

Og vi fandt ud af at han var latinamerikansk, han talte ikke noget engelsk,

he had no money, he'd been wandering the streets for days, starving,

han havde ingen penge, han var gået rundt i gaderne i flere dage, sultende,

and he'd fainted from hunger.

og han var besvimet af sulten.

Immediately someone went to get orange juice,

Øjeblikkeligt var der en der gik efter appelsinjuice,

someone brought a hotdog, someone brought a subway cop.

nogen kom med en hotdog, nogen kom med en metrobetjent.

This guy was back on his feet immediately.

Denne fyr var oppe på benene med det samme.

But all it took was that simple act of noticing,

Men alt det krævede var en simpel handling af bemærkelse,

and so I'm optimistic.

så jeg er optimistisk.

Thank you very much.

Mange tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)