Why tech needs the humanities | Eric Berridge

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Yanyan Hong

You've all been in a bar, right?

你們都曾經去過酒吧，對嗎？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But have you ever gone to a bar

但，你們是否去過一個酒吧，

and come out with a $200 million business?

帶著兩億美元的生意出來？

That's what happened to us about 10 years ago.

那就是大約十年前我們遇到的事。

We'd had a terrible day.

我們那天過得很糟。

We had this huge client that was killing us.

我們有個要命的超級大客戶。

We're a software consulting firm,

我們是家軟體顧問公司，

and we couldn't find a very specific programming skill

我們找不到一項很特殊的程式技巧

to help this client deploy a cutting-edge cloud system.

來協助這客戶部署先進雲端系統。

We have a bunch of engineers,

我們有一票工程師，

but none of them could please this client.

但沒有一個能夠讓這位客戶滿意。

And we were about to be fired.

我們差不多就要被開除了。

So we go out to the bar,

所以我們去了一間酒吧，

and we're hanging out with our bartender friend Jeff,

我們和我們的酒保朋友 傑夫在那裡打發時間，

and he's doing what all good bartenders do:

他做的是所有好酒保都會做的事：

he's commiserating with us, making us feel better,

他同情我們，讓我們感覺好些，

relating to our pain,

同理我們的痛苦，

saying, "Hey, these guys are overblowing it.

他說：「嘿，這些傢伙誇大其詞。

Don't worry about it."

別太擔心。」

And finally, he deadpans us and says,

最後，他面無表情地對我們說：

"Why don't you send me in there?

「為什麼你們不派我去那裡？

I can figure it out."

我可以想出辦法。」

So the next morning, we're hanging out in our team meeting,

所以，隔天早上，我們 就在團隊會議上消磨時間，

and we're all a little hazy ...

我們都還有一點朦朧……

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

and I half-jokingly throw it out there.

半開玩笑地把話丟出來。

I say, "Hey, I mean, we're about to be fired."

我說：「嘿，我們就要被炒魷魚了。」

So I say,

於是我說：

"Why don't we send in Jeff, the bartender?"

「我們不如就派酒保傑夫去吧？」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And there's some silence, some quizzical looks.

沉默了一會兒，有些人表情滑稽。

Finally, my chief of staff says, "That is a great idea."

最後，我的參謀長說： 「那是個好主意。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

"Jeff is wicked smart. He's brilliant.

「傑夫有小聰明，他很優秀。

He'll figure it out.

他會想出辦法。

Let's send him in there."

就派他去吧。」

Now, Jeff was not a programmer.

傑夫並不是程式人員。

In fact, he had dropped out of Penn as a philosophy major.

事實上他在賓州大學 主修哲學，但退學了。

But he was brilliant,

但他很優秀，

and he could go deep on topics,

他能深入主題，

and we were about to be fired.

而且我們就要被開除了。

So we sent him in.

所以我們就派他去。

After a couple days of suspense,

懸念幾天後，

Jeff was still there.

傑夫還在那裡。

They hadn't sent him home.

他們沒有趕他回家。

I couldn't believe it.

我無法置信。

What was he doing?

他在做什麼？

Here's what I learned.

我所知道的如下。

He had completely disarmed their fixation on the programming skill.

他完全解除了 他們對於程式技巧的堅持，

And he had changed the conversation,

改變了對談，

even changing what we were building.

甚至改變了我們正在建的東西。

The conversation was now about what we were going to build and why.

對談變成是在談 我們要建什麼，以及為什麼建。

And yes, Jeff figured out how to program the solution,

是的，傑夫想出解決方案，

and the client became one of our best references.

這客戶成了我們最佳的參考人之一。

Back then, we were 200 people,

那時，我們公司有兩百人，

and half of our company was made up of computer science majors or engineers,

半數主修資訊科學或是工程，

but our experience with Jeff left us wondering:

但和傑夫合作的經驗讓我們納悶：

Could we repeat this through our business?

我們能在事業上重覆這做法嗎？

So we changed the way we recruited and trained.

我們因而改變招募和訓練的方式，

And while we still sought after computer engineers and computer science majors,

雖然還是會找電腦工程師 和主修資訊科學的人，

we sprinkled in artists, musicians, writers ...

也分散找些藝術家、音樂家、作家……

and Jeff's story started to multiply itself throughout our company.

傑夫的故事在我們公司裡開始擴增。

Our chief technology officer is an English major,

我們的技術長主修的是英文，

and he was a bike messenger in Manhattan.

他原是曼哈頓的自行車送貨員。

And today, we're a thousand people,

我們現今有一千人，

yet still less than a hundred have degrees in computer science or engineering.

但其中有資訊科學或工程 相關學位的人不到一百人。

And yes, we're still a computer consulting firm.

是的，我們還是電腦顧問公司。

We're the number one player in our market.

我們是這個領域的第一名。

We work with the fastest-growing software package

我們的套裝軟體快速成長，

to ever reach 10 billion dollars in annual sales.

是市場上最早達到 年業績一百億美元的。

So it's working.

這行得通。

Meanwhile, the push for STEM-based education in this country --

在此同時，我國正在推行 以 STEM 為基礎的教育──

science, technology, engineering, mathematics --

STEM 代表科學、 科技、工程、數學──

is fierce.

推行得如火如荼，

It's in all of our faces.

全面性地推動。

And this is a colossal mistake.

這是個巨大的錯誤。

Since 2009, STEM majors in the United States

從 2009 年起，

美國主修 STEM 的人增加了 43%，

have increased by 43 percent,

while the humanities have stayed flat.

而人文學科則持平。

Our past president

我們過去的總統

dedicated over a billion dollars towards STEM education

投入了十億美元到 STEM 教育上，

at the expense of other subjects,

犧牲了其他的學科，

and our current president

而我們目前的總統

recently redirected 200 million dollars of Department of Education funding

最近將兩億美元的教育部資金

轉為導入資訊科學。

into computer science.

And CEOs are continually complaining about an engineering-starved workforce.

而執行長們不斷地抱怨 勞動力中很缺乏工程師。

These campaigns,

這些倡議

coupled with the undeniable success of the tech economy --

和無可否認的資訊經濟 成功結合在一起──

I mean, let's face it,

我們要面對這個事實，

seven out of the 10 most valuable companies in the world by market cap

世界上市值最有高的公司，

十個中有七個是科技公司──

are technology firms --

these things create an assumption

因而形成了一個假設，

that the path of our future workforce will be dominated by STEM.

假設我們未來的勞動力之路 將會由 STEM 所支配。

I get it.

我懂。

On paper, it makes sense.

理論上這是合理的，

It's tempting.

它很誘人。

But it's totally overblown.

但它完全是誇大其詞，

It's like, the entire soccer team chases the ball into the corner,

這就像是整支足球隊 都追著球跑到角落，

because that's where the ball is.

只因為球在角落。

We shouldn't overvalue STEM.

我們不應該過度重視 STEM。

We shouldn't value the sciences any more than we value the humanities.

我們不應該把科學學科 看得比人文學科還重要。

And there are a couple of reasons.

原因有幾個：

Number one, today's technologies are incredibly intuitive.

第一，現今的科技是極端直覺的。

The reason we've been able to recruit from all disciplines

我們之所以能從各學科領域招募人才

and swivel into specialized skills

再轉為專業技能，

is because modern systems can be manipulated without writing code.

是因為現代的系統 不需要寫程式碼也可以操作。

They're like LEGO: easy to put together, easy to learn, even easy to program,

它們就像樂高：容易組裝、 容易學，甚至容易寫程式，

given the vast amounts of information that are available for learning.

前提是能取得大量的資訊 供學習之用。

Yes, our workforce needs specialized skill,

是的，我們的勞動力 需要特殊化的技能，

but that skill requires a far less rigorous and formalized education

但和過去相比，那技能不再需要

那麼嚴格和制式化的教育。

than it did in the past.

Number two, the skills that are imperative and differentiated

第二，這個直覺式的科技世界

in a world with intuitive technology

必須有差異性的技能，

are the skills that help us to work together as humans,

那些能協助人類團結合作的技能，

where the hard work is envisioning the end product

困難的是要預想出最終產品

and its usefulness,

以及其用處，

which requires real-world experience and judgment and historical context.

這就需要有真實世界的經驗、 判斷，以及歷史的情境。

What Jeff's story taught us

傑夫的故事讓我們學到，

is that the customer was focused on the wrong thing.

客戶把焦點放錯了地方。

It's the classic case:

這是個經典的案例：

the technologist struggling to communicate with the business and the end user,

技術人員努力和那些

未能表達需求的企業、 終端使用者溝通。

and the business failing to articulate their needs.

I see it every day.

我每天都會看到這種事，

We are scratching the surface

我們正觸及

in our ability as humans to communicate and invent together,

人類溝通和共同發明能力的表面。

and while the sciences teach us how to build things,

雖然科學教我們如何建造東西，

it's the humanities that teach us what to build and why to build them.

但人文卻教導我們 要建什麼和為什麼要建。

And they're equally as important,

它們同等重要，

and they're just as hard.

也一樣困難。

It irks me ...

有件事會讓我惱怒……

when I hear people treat the humanities as a lesser path,

就是聽到有人把人文學科 視為是比較差的路、

as the easier path.

比較簡單的路。

Come on!

拜託！

The humanities give us the context of our world.

人文學科讓我們能夠了解 世界的來龍去脈，

They teach us how to think critically.

教導我們如何做批評性思考。

They are purposely unstructured,

它們本來就沒有結構，

while the sciences are purposely structured.

而科學本來就有結構。

They teach us to persuade, they give us our language,

它們教我們說服，給我們語言，

which we use to convert our emotions to thought and action.

我們用語言把情緒 轉換成思想和行動。

And they need to be on equal footing with the sciences.

它們必需要和科學學科 有一樣的立基點。

And yes, you can hire a bunch of artists

你的確可以僱用一群藝術家

and build a tech company

來創立一間科技公司，

and have an incredible outcome.

得到了不起的結果。

Now, I'm not here today to tell you that STEM's bad.

今天我來這裡並不是要 告訴各位 STEM 不好。

I'm not here today to tell you that girls shouldn't code.

我今天在這裡不是要告訴各位 女生不應該寫程式。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Please.

拜託。

And that next bridge I drive over

我開車經過的下一座橋，

or that next elevator we all jump into --

或是我們進入的下一台電梯──

let's make sure there's an engineer behind it.

我們要確保它背後有個工程師。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But to fall into this paranoia

但若是陷入這種偏執，

that our future jobs will be dominated by STEM,

認為我們未來的工作 將由 STEM 主導，

that's just folly.

那就是太愚蠢了。

If you have friends or kids or relatives or grandchildren

如果你有朋友、孩子、 親戚、孫子孫女，

or nieces or nephews ...

或姪子姪女……

encourage them to be whatever they want to be.

鼓勵他們做他們想要做的。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

The jobs will be there.

工作會等在那裡的。

Those tech CEOs

那些大聲吵著

that are clamoring for STEM grads,

要 STEM 畢業生的執行長們，

you know what they're hiring for?

他們僱人是要做什麼工作？

Google, Apple, Facebook.

Google、蘋果、臉書，

Sixty-five percent of their open job opportunities

它們的事求人中

有 65% 是非技術的工作：

are non-technical:

marketers, designers, project managers, program managers,

行銷人員、設計師、 專案經理、項目經理、

product managers, lawyers, HR specialists,

產品經理、律師、人力資源專員、

trainers, coaches, sellers, buyers, on and on.

訓練師、教練、銷售員、買家等等，

These are the jobs they're hiring for.

是他們要僱人來做的工作。

And if there's one thing that our future workforce needs --

如果我們未來的勞動力 真需要什麼的話──

and I think we can all agree on this --

我想大家都能認同這點──

it's diversity.

那就是多樣性。

But that diversity shouldn't end with gender or race.

但，多樣性不該只限於 性別或種族方面而已。

We need a diversity of backgrounds

我們也需要有多樣的背景和技能，

and skills,

with introverts and extroverts

有內向者也有外向者，

and leaders and followers.

有領導者也有追隨者。

That is our future workforce.

那是我們未來的勞動力。

And the fact that the technology is getting easier and more accessible

科技越來越簡單、 越來越容易取得的事實，

frees that workforce up

讓勞動力能夠有餘裕，

to study whatever they damn well please.

依他們的意願去學他們想學的。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）