Why specializing early doesn't always mean career success | David Epstein

Transcriber: Leslie Gauthier Reviewer: Camille Martínez

譯者: Shelly Xie 審譯者: Val Zhang

So, I'd like to talk about the development of human potential,

我想要聊聊人類潛力的發展，

and I'd like to start with maybe the most impactful modern story of development.

並以──或許是當代影響 最深遠的發展故事開始。

Many of you here have probably heard of the 10,000 hours rule.

很多人大概聽過「一萬小時法則」。

Maybe you even model your own life after it.

或許你甚至以此為模範。

Basically, it's the idea that to become great in anything,

其基本概念：若想擅長任何事，

it takes 10,000 hours of focused practice,

你得花一萬個小時專注練習，

so you'd better get started as early as possible.

所以你最好盡早開始。

The poster child for this story is Tiger Woods.

這個故事的典型是老虎．伍茲。

His father famously gave him a putter when he was seven months old.

因 7 個月大時，爸爸就給了他根推桿而著名。

At 10 months, he started imitating his father's swing.

10 個月大時，他開始模仿爸爸揮桿。

At two, you can go on YouTube and see him on national television.

你可以在YouTube上找到 他 2 歲時上電視的片段。

Fast-forward to the age of 21,

快轉到 21 歲，

he's the greatest golfer in the world.

他已經是全世界最優秀的高爾夫球員。

Quintessential 10,000 hours story.

典型的一萬小時法則故事。

Another that features in a number of bestselling books

另一個被眾多暢銷書特寫的

is that of the three Polgar sisters,

就是波爾加三姐妹的故事，

whose father decided to teach them chess in a very technical manner

爸爸決定在她們很小的時候，

以非常專業的方式教她們下棋。

from a very early age.

And, really, he wanted to show

其實他是想證明

that with a head start in focused practice,

只要提前開始專注練習，

any child could become a genius in anything.

任何小孩皆能成為任何事物的佼佼者。

And in fact,

而事實上，

two of his daughters went on to become Grandmaster chess players.

他的兩個女兒都成為西洋棋特級大師。

So when I became the science writer at "Sports Illustrated" magazine,

在擔任《運動畫刊》雜誌的科學作家時

I got curious.

我感到好奇。

If this 10,000 hours rule is correct,

如果「一萬小時法則」是正確的，

then we should see that elite athletes get a head start

那我們應該看到那些 精英運動員搶先起步

in so-called "deliberate practice."

於所謂的「刻意練習」。

This is coached, error-correction-focused practice,

這是受指導的、專注於 糾正錯誤的練習，

not just playing around.

不只是玩玩而已。

And in fact, when scientists study elite athletes,

而事實上，當科學家研究精英運動員，

they see that they spend more time in deliberate practice --

他們發現運動員花 更多時間在刻意練習上，

這並不令人意外。

not a big surprise.

When they actually track athletes over the course of their development,

當他們追蹤運動員的發展歷程時，

the pattern looks like this:

他們的模式是這樣的：

the future elites actually spend less time early on

那些未來精英在早期花較少的時間

in deliberate practice in their eventual sport.

刻意練習他們將來從事的運動。

They tend to have what scientists call a "sampling period,"

他們通常有被科學家稱為 「抽樣階段」的經歷，

where they try a variety of physical activities,

此階段他們嘗試多種體育活動，

they gain broad, general skills,

並獲取廣泛、綜合的技能，

they learn about their interests and abilities

從中發現他們的興趣和能力，

and delay specializing until later than peers who plateau at lower levels.

並延後專攻，晚於那些之後 處於高原停滯期的同儕。

And so when I saw that, I said,

當看到此現象，我想：

"Gosh, that doesn't really comport with the 10,000 hours rule, does it?"

「天啊，這不完全符合 一萬小時法則吧？」

So I started to wonder about other domains

因此我開始對其他領域感到好奇，

that we associate with obligatory, early specialization,

那些我們亦認知 得盡早專攻的領域，

like music.

例如：音樂，

Turns out the pattern's often similar.

結果發現其模式大多相似。

This is research from a world-class music academy,

這個研究是來自於一所頂級的音樂學院，

and what I want to draw your attention to is this:

我想請大家注意的是這個：

the exceptional musicians didn't start spending more time in deliberate practice

那些卓越的音樂家並不 比其他普通音樂家

花更多的時間在刻意練習上，

than the average musicians

until their third instrument.

直至他們嘗試到第 3 種樂器。

They, too, tended to have a sampling period,

同樣，他們傾向於經歷「抽樣階段」，

even musicians we think of as famously precocious,

甚至是那些著名的早熟音樂家，

like Yo-Yo Ma.

像馬友友。

He had a sampling period,

他也曾經歷「抽樣階段」，

he just went through it more rapidly than most musicians do.

只不過他比多數音樂家 更快地完成這階段。

Nonetheless, this research is almost entirely ignored,

然而，這個研究幾乎完全被忽略，

and much more impactful

而更具衝擊力的

is the first page of the book "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,"

是《虎媽的戰歌》這本書的第一頁，

where the author recounts assigning her daughter violin.

作者講述她要求 女兒學小提琴的故事。

Nobody seems to remember the part later in the book

似乎沒有人記得書中後段，

where her daughter turns to her and says, "You picked it, not me,"

女兒跟母親說：「小提琴 是你選的，不是我選的。」

並幾乎放棄小提琴。

and largely quits.

So having seen this sort of surprising pattern in sports and music,

在體育和音樂界看到 這些出人意料的模式後，

I started to wonder about domains that affect even more people,

我對其他能影響更多人 領域開始感到好奇，

例如：教育。

like education.

一名經濟學家在英格蘭 和蘇格蘭的高等教育系統，

An economist found a natural experiment

in the higher-ed systems of England and Scotland.

發現了一個絕佳的天然對比。

在他研究的期間裡， 這兩個系統十分相似，

In the period he studied, the systems were very similar,

except in England, students had to specialize in their mid-teen years

除了英格蘭的學生得十幾歲

to pick a specific course of study to apply to,

就選擇特定的學科開始專精，

whereas in Scotland, they could keep trying things in the university

而在蘇格蘭，學生可以選擇

在大學嘗試不同的事物。

if they wanted to.

而他的問題是：

And his question was:

此取捨之下，誰獲利較多── 是早專精者？還是晚專精者？

Who wins the trade-off, the early or the late specializers?

And what he saw was that the early specializers jump out to an income lead

而他觀察到：早專精者的收入較高，

因為他們有更多領域所需的特定技巧。

because they have more domain-specific skills.

The late specializers get to try more different things,

那些晚專精者則能嘗試不同事物，

當他們做出選擇時，契合度更高，

and when they do pick, they have better fit,

或是經濟學家所稱的「符合質度」。

or what economists call "match quality."

And so their growth rates are faster.

所以他們的收入增長率更快。

By six years out,

6 年之後，

they erase that income gap.

收入差距已無異。

Meanwhile, the early specializers start quitting their career tracks

於此同時更多早專精者開始

退出原定的職涯，

in much higher numbers,

essentially because they were made to choose so early

因他們得在很早選定專業，

that they more often made poor choices.

而這常常導致人們做出不明智的決定。

So the late specializers lose in the short term

所以那些晚專精者

輸在短期，贏在長期。

and win in the long run.

我想如果把職業選擇看作約會，

I think if we thought about career choice like dating,

我們或許不會逼人們過早選定終生。

we might not pressure people to settle down quite so quickly.

再次看到這種模式，

So this got me interested, seeing this pattern again,

讓我想要探索我長期仰慕的 各領域專家的發展背景，

in exploring the developmental backgrounds of people whose work I had long admired,

像艾靈頓公爵，他兒時曾棄音樂課，

like Duke Ellington, who shunned music lessons as a kid

專注於棒球和繪畫。

to focus on baseball and painting and drawing.

又或是瑪麗安．米爾札哈尼， 兒時對數學並不感興趣，

Or Maryam Mirzakhani, who wasn't interested in math as a girl --

她夢想成為小說家，

dreamed of becoming a novelist --

但她最終成為第一位，也是迄今唯一

and went on to become the first and so far only woman

獲得菲爾茲獎的女性，

to win the Fields Medal,

這是數學界最有聲望的獎項。

the most prestigious prize in the world in math.

又或是梵谷，他曾有 5 個不同的職業，

Or Vincent Van Gogh had five different careers,

each of which he deemed his true calling before flaming out spectacularly,

直到失去興趣前， 每個都曾被他認為是使命，

and in his late 20s, picked up a book called "The Guide to the ABCs of Drawing."

20 歲後期，他拿起了 一本書：「繪畫基礎 ABC」。

That worked out OK.

結果還算可接受。

Claude Shannon was an electrical engineer at the University of Michigan

克勞德．夏農在密西根大學 修習電子工程，

who took a philosophy course just to fulfill a requirement,

他依規定修了哲學課，

and in it, he learned about a near-century-old system of logic

在這堂課，他學到了一套 將近百年歷史的邏輯系統，

by which true and false statements could be coded as ones and zeros

通過它，真假陳述 可以被編碼為 1 和 0，

and solved like math problems.

並用來解決例如數學問題。

This led to the development of binary code,

這促進了二進位碼的發展，

which underlies all of our digital computers today.

為今日所有的電腦打下基礎。

Finally, my own sort of role model, Frances Hesselbein --

最後，我的榜樣── 法蘭西絲．賀瑟貝，

this is me with her --

這是我和她的合照，

she took her first professional job at the age of 54

她在 54 歲時開始第一份正職，

and went on to become the CEO of the Girl Scouts,

進而成為女童軍的執行長，

which she saved.

翻轉了營運劣勢。

She tripled minority membership,

她讓少數族群會員增加了 3 倍，

added 130,000 volunteers,

新增了 13 萬名志工，

and this is one of the proficiency badges that came out of her tenure --

這是她任職期間創立的 其中之一個專科章，

it's binary code for girls learning about computers.

是給學習電腦的女孩 的二進位碼徽章。

Today, Frances runs a leadership institute

如今法蘭西絲經營一家領導力研究院，

where she works every weekday, in Manhattan.

週間都在曼哈頓工作。

And she's only 104,

而她芳齡僅 104 歲，

so who knows what's next.

誰知道她還會做什麼。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

We never really hear developmental stories like this, do we?

我們從來不會聽到 這樣的發展故事。

我們不會聽到研究報告指出：

We don't hear about the research

獲得諾貝爾獎的科學家，

that found that Nobel laureate scientists are 22 times more likely

在工作之外有業餘愛好的可能性

to have a hobby outside of work

比其他科學家高出 22 倍。

as are typical scientists.

我們從沒聽過。

We never hear that.

Even when the performers or the work is very famous,

即使是知名的表演者或作品，

we don't hear these developmental stories.

我們也不會聽到類似的發展故事。

例如，這是一名我關注的運動員。

For example, here's an athlete I've followed.

Here he is at age six, wearing a Scottish rugby kit.

這是他 6 歲時，穿著蘇格蘭橄欖球球服。

他嘗試過網球、滑雪和摔角。

He tried some tennis, some skiing, wrestling.

His mother was actually a tennis coach but she declined to coach him

他的媽媽其實是位網球教練， 但她拒絕訓練他，

because he wouldn't return balls normally.

因為他不願規矩地回球。

He did some basketball, table tennis, swimming.

他嘗試了籃球、桌球和游泳。

When his coaches wanted to move him up a level

當他的教練想讓他升級，

to play with older boys,

和年長的男孩一起受訓，

he declined, because he just wanted to talk about pro wrestling

他拒絕了，

因為他只想和朋友在練習完後

談論專業摔角。

after practice with his friends.

他繼續嘗試更多體育項目：

And he kept trying more sports:

handball, volleyball, soccer, badminton, skateboarding ...

手球 、排球、足球、羽毛球、滑板⋯⋯

So, who is this dabbler?

那麼，這位淺嘗者是誰？

This is Roger Federer.

他是羅傑．費德勒。

Every bit as famous as an adult as Tiger Woods,

雖然成年的他像老虎．伍茲一樣出名，

and yet even tennis enthusiasts don't usually know anything

然而，即使是網球愛好者通常也不知道

about his developmental story.

他的發展故事。

Why is that, even though it's the norm?

即使這是常態，那又為什麼呢？

I think it's partly because the Tiger story is very dramatic,

我認為部分原因是 伍茲的故事非常戲劇化，

but also because it seems like this tidy narrative

也是順理成章的故事，

that we can extrapolate to anything that we want to be good at

可以延伸出：我們能擅長於 任何生命中想要的東西。

in our own lives.

But that, I think, is a problem,

但我認為這有問題，

because it turns out that in many ways, golf is a uniquely horrible model

因為實際上，高爾夫的許多面向， 並非所有領域的完美模型。

of almost everything that humans want to learn.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Golf is the epitome of

高爾夫是心理學家羅賓．何高士

what the psychologist Robin Hogarth called a "kind learning environment."

所稱「友善」學習環境的縮影。

Kind learning environments have next steps and goals that are clear,

友善學習環境有清晰的步驟和目標，

rules that are clear and never change,

明確且不變的規則，

when you do something, you get feedback that is quick and accurate,

你的行動能快速收到準確的反饋，

work next year will look like work last year.

明年跟去年做的事 看來一模一樣。

Chess: also a kind learning environment.

西洋棋也是一種友善學習環境。

The grand master's advantage

西洋棋特級大師的優勢

is largely based on knowledge of recurring patterns,

很大程度是了解反覆出現的模式，

which is also why it's so easy to automate.

這也是能容易地被自動化的原因。

On the other end of the spectrum are "wicked learning environments,"

另個極端是「詭變」的學習環境，

where next steps and goals may not be clear.

在這種環境，接下來的 步驟和目標可能很模糊。

Rules may change.

規矩可能會變。

You may or may not get feedback when you do something.

在你行動時，不一定會收到反饋。

It may be delayed, it may be inaccurate,

或許會延遲，或許不準確，

and work next year may not look like work last year.

而明年跟去年做的事， 或許不盡相同。

So which one of these sounds like the world we're increasingly living in?

所以哪一個聽起來 更像我們所處的世界？

In fact, our need to think in an adaptable manner

事實上，我們需要觸類旁通

and to keep track of interconnecting parts

並掌握聯結互動，

has fundamentally changed our perception,

已經從本質上改變了我們的認知，

so that when you look at this diagram,

所以當你看這幅圖時，

the central circle on the right probably looks larger to you

你或許覺得右邊的 中心圓看來較大，

because your brain is drawn to

因為你的大腦

被相對的關係所吸引，

the relationship of the parts in the whole,

whereas someone who hasn't been exposed to modern work

然而沒有接觸過

要求適應性和概念性思維的 現代工作的那些人

with its requirement for adaptable, conceptual thought,

will see correctly that the central circles are the same size.

會正確地看到中心圓是一樣大的。

So here we are in the wicked work world,

所以我們處於一個詭變的工作環境，

and there, sometimes hyperspecialization can backfire badly.

有時候過度專業化 會產生嚴重的反效果。

For example, in research in a dozen countries

在十幾個國家進行的一項研究中，

that matched people for their parents' years of education,

根據研究對象父母的教育程度、

their test scores,

他們的考試成績、

their own years of education,

他們自己的教育程度做比較，

the difference was some got career-focused education

不同的是有些人接受專注的職業教育，

and some got broader, general education.

而有些人接受更廣泛綜合的教育。

The pattern was those who got the career-focused education

模式是：接受專注於職業教育的人，

are more likely to be hired right out of training,

更有可能在學習結束後馬上找到工作，

more likely to make more money right away,

更可能馬上賺更多錢，

but so much less adaptable in a changing work world

但對多變的工作環境的適應性更差，

that they spend so much less time in the workforce overall

因此總體來說他們在職場的時間更短，

that they win in the short term and lose in the long run.

他們贏在短期，但輸在長期。

Or consider a famous, 20-year study of experts

又或是：著名的、20 年資歷的專家

making geopolitical and economic predictions.

對地緣政治和經濟做預測。

The worst forecasters were the most specialized experts,

最糟糕的預測員是那些最專業化的專家，

those who'd spent their entire careers studying one or two problems

那些用整個職業生涯研究一兩個問題，

and came to see the whole world through one lens or mental model.

然後用一個角度或思維模式 來看整個世界。

Some of them actually got worse

其中有些人預測的落差更大，

as they accumulated experience and credentials.

因為他們積累了經驗和資格。

The best forecasters were simply bright people with wide-ranging interests.

最優秀的預測員則是那些 有著廣泛興趣的聰明人。

Now in some domains, like medicine,

如今在某些領域，例如醫學，

increasing specialization has been both inevitable and beneficial,

日益專業化乃無可避免而且有益，

no question about it.

這是無庸置疑的。

And yet, it's been a double-edged sword.

但這仍然是一把雙刃劍。

A few years ago, one of the most popular surgeries in the world for knee pain

幾年前，一種很普遍的膝關節疼痛手術

進行安慰劑對照實驗。

was tested in a placebo-controlled trial.

Some of the patients got "sham surgery."

有些病人接受了「假手術」。

That means the surgeons make an incision,

意思是外科醫師切了一刀，

they bang around like they're doing something,

假裝在做事，

then they sew the patient back up.

然後替病人縫合。

成效跟正規手術無異。

That performed just as a well.

And yet surgeons who specialize in the procedure continue to do it

但專精此手術的外科醫師

仍繼續進行數百萬的真手術。

by the millions.

So if hyperspecialization isn't always the trick in a wicked world, what is?

那詭變世界裡，高度專業化 不總是成功的訣竅，那什麼才是？

That can be difficult to talk about,

這個有點難說，

因為它不總是直線前進的。

because it doesn't always look like this path.

Sometimes it looks like meandering or zigzagging

有時候它看起來是蜿蜒曲折的，

or keeping a broader view.

又或有廣闊的視野。

It can look like getting behind.

可能看來像進度落後。

But I want to talk about what some of those tricks might be.

但我想聊聊可能的成功訣竅。

如果看看技術創新的研究，我們會發現：

If we look at research on technological innovation, it shows that increasingly,

越來越多最具影響力的專利，

the most impactful patents are not authored by individuals

並不是由那些在美國專利局 歸類的單一技術領域中

who drill deeper, deeper, deeper into one area of technology

鑽研越來越深的個人發明的，

as classified by the US Patent Office,

而是由團隊完成的，

but rather by teams that include individuals

這些團隊中包含了

who have worked across a large number of different technology classes

曾工作於多個不同技術類別的人，

and often merge things from different domains.

他們常把不同領域的事物融合在一起。

Someone whose work I've admired who was sort of on the forefront of this

有位可算此概念的先驅者， 我一直很欣賞其作品，

他是位日本人──橫井軍平。

is a Japanese man named Gunpei Yokoi.

Yokoi didn't score well on his electronics exams at school,

求學時，橫井的電子學成績並不出色，

so he had to settle for a low-tier job as a machine maintenance worker

所以他只能做一份初階的工作，

在京都的一間紙牌公司 當機器維修工人。

at a playing card company in Kyoto.

He realized he wasn't equipped to work on the cutting edge,

他自覺不具備尖端科技的能力，

but that there was so much information easily available

但是有許多容易取得的資訊，

that maybe he could combine things that were already well-known

或許他可以結合已經很普遍的東西，

in ways that specialists were too narrow to see.

但專家因過於專注而無法看見。

So he combined some well-known technology from the calculator industry

所以他結合了來自計算器

with some well-known technology from the credit card industry

和信用卡產業的普遍技術，

and made handheld games.

製作了掌上遊戲。

And they were a hit.

結果很受歡迎。

And it turned this playing card company,

他把這家 19 世紀 木造店鋪的紙牌公司，

which was founded in a wooden storefront in the 19th century,

into a toy and game operation.

轉型成一間玩具和遊戲公司。

You may have heard of it; it's called Nintendo.

你可能聽過，它叫任天堂。

Yokoi's creative philosophy

橫井的創作哲學

translated to "lateral thinking with withered technology,"

被譯為「成熟技術的水平思考」，

taking well-known technology and using it in new ways.

創新地運用已成熟的技術。

And his magnum opus was this:

他的代表作是這個：

the Game Boy.

Game Boy。

Technological joke in every way.

名副其實的科技笑話。

And it came out at the same time as color competitors from Saga and Atari,

它與競爭對手 Sega 和 Atari 的 彩色遊戲機同時上市，

and it blew them away,

但 Game Boy 擊垮了對手，

because Yokoi knew what his customers cared about

因為橫井知道顧客關心的

wasn't color.

不是顏色；

It was durability, portability, affordability, battery life,

而是耐久性、便攜性、價格、耗電量，

game selection.

還有遊戲的多樣性。

This is mine that I found in my parents' basement.

這是在我父母家地下室 找到的 Game Boy。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

It's seen better days.

它曾有過風光的時候。

But you can see the red light is on.

但你能看到那個紅燈是亮著的。

我打開它玩了下俄羅斯方塊，

I flipped it on and played some Tetris,

我認為這很神，

which I thought was especially impressive

因為電池在 2007、2013 年就過期了。

because the batteries had expired in 2007 and 2013.

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

So this breadth advantage holds in more subjective realms as well.

這種廣度優勢也適用於 更主觀的領域。

In a fascinating study of what leads some comic book creators

一項有趣的研究：某些漫畫作者

to be more likely to make blockbuster comics,

較可能創作出熱門作品的關鍵；

a pair of researchers found

一對研究人員發現：

that it was neither the number of years of experience in the field

原因既不是在該領域多年的經驗，

nor the resources of the publisher

也不是出版商的資源，

nor the number of previous comics made.

也不是之前創作的漫畫數量。

It was the number of different genres that a creator had worked across.

而是作者所創作不同 類型的作品種類數，

And interestingly,

而有趣的是，

a broad individual could not be entirely replaced

一個有著廣泛經驗的個人

不能完全被一個專家團隊所取代。

by a team of specialists.

We probably don't make as many of those people as we could

我們或許沒有盡可能多培養這類人，

because early on, they just look like they're behind

因為在早期，他們只是看起來落後了，

and we don't tend to incentivize anything that doesn't look like a head start

而我們不傾向於鼓勵 任何看起來不像領先

or specialization.

或專業化的東西。

In fact, I think in the well-meaning drive for a head start,

事實上，為了贏在起跑點，

we often even counterproductively short-circuit even the way

我們經常簡化過程並產生反效果，

we learn new material,

這甚至表現於我們學習 新事物的基本方式上。

at a fundamental level.

In a study last year, seventh-grade math classrooms in the US

去年的一項研究裡， 美國 7 年級的數學課，

were randomly assigned to different types of learning.

班級被隨機分配不同的學習類型。

Some got what's called "blocked practice."

有些班級被分配到「封閉練習」。

That's like, you get problem type A,

例如你有 A 類問題，

AAAAA, BBBBB, and so on.

你練習 AAAAA，然後 BBBBB，依此類推。

Progress is fast,

這樣的進度很快，

kids are happy,

小朋友很開心，

everything's great.

一切都很好。

Other classrooms got assigned to what's called "interleaved practice."

其他班級被分到「交叉練習」。

That's like if you took all the problem types and threw them in a hat

它就像把所有類型的 問題都扔進一個帽子裡

並隨機抽取問題。

and drew them out at random.

進度較慢，小朋友覺得挫折。

Progress is slower, kids are more frustrated.

But instead of learning how to execute procedures,

但他們不是在學習如何執行程序，

they're learning how to match a strategy to a type of problem.

而是在學習如何找到解決問題的策略。

And when the test comes around,

當測試來臨時，

the interleaved group blew the block practice group away.

交叉練習的學生大幅領先 封閉練習的學生。

It wasn't even close.

Now, I found a lot of this research deeply counterintuitive,

現在，我發現這個研究的 很多內容都是違反直覺的，

the idea that a head start,

「贏在起跑點」這個概念，

whether in picking a career or a course of study

無論是選擇職業還是學習方向

or just in learning new material,

或者只是學習新的事物，

can sometimes undermine long-term development.

這個概念有時候會破壞長期的發展。

And naturally, I think there are as many ways to succeed

自然地，我認為：

世界上有多少人 就有多少種成功方式。

as there are people.

But I think we tend only to incentivize and encourage the Tiger path,

但我認為我們傾向於 只激勵和提倡「伍茲之路」，

when increasingly, in a wicked world,

在愈發詭變的環境中，

we need people who travel the Roger path as well.

我們同時也需要越來越多人 走「費德勒之路」。

Or as the eminent physicist and mathematician

或正如傑出的物理學家、數學家

and wonderful writer, Freeman Dyson, put it --

和優秀的作家弗里曼．戴森所說——

and Dyson passed away yesterday,

戴森昨天去世了，

so I hope I'm doing his words honor here --

所以我希望在此用他的話致敬，

as he said: for a healthy ecosystem, we need both birds and frogs.

他說：「為了健康的生態系統， 我們需要飛鳥和青蛙。

Frogs are down in the mud,

青蛙在泥地裡，

seeing all the granular details.

看到所有微小的細節。

The birds are soaring up above not seeing those details

飛鳥翱翔於高空，看不見那些細節，

but integrating the knowledge of the frogs.

但整合了青蛙所有的知識。

And we need both.

我們兩者都需要。」

The problem, Dyson said,

問題是，戴森說：

is that we're telling everyone to become frogs.

「我們告訴所人有都要變成青蛙。」

And I think,

而我認為，

in a wicked world,

在詭變的環境裡，

that's increasingly shortsighted.

那是愈顯目光短淺的。

Thank you very much.

謝謝大家。

(Applause)

（掌聲）