How frustration can make us more creative | Tim Harford

譯者: Zhiting Chen 審譯者: Geoff Chen

Late in January 1975,

1975年1月末，

a 17-year-old German girl called Vera Brandes

一位名叫薇拉·布蘭德斯的 17歲德國女孩

walked out onto the stage of the Cologne Opera House.

走上了科隆歌劇院的舞台。

The auditorium was empty.

觀眾席空無一人。

It was lit only by the dim, green glow of the emergency exit sign.

黑暗的空間里，只有 緊急出口的綠色標誌亮著。

This was the most exciting day of Vera's life.

這是薇拉生命中最激動的時刻。

She was the youngest concert promoter in Germany,

她是德國最年輕的演奏會經紀人，

and she had persuaded the Cologne Opera House

她說服了科隆歌劇院

to host a late-night concert of jazz

舉辦美國音樂家， 凱斯·傑瑞特的

from the American musician, Keith Jarrett.

晚間爵士樂演奏會。

1,400 people were coming.

1400位聽眾即將到場。

And in just a few hours,

幾個小時後，

Jarrett would walk out on the same stage,

傑瑞特就會走向這個舞台，

he'd sit down at the piano

他坐在鋼琴邊

and without rehearsal or sheet music,

無需綵排或是散頁樂譜，

he would begin to play.

他會開始演奏。

But right now,

但現在，

Vera was introducing Keith to the piano in question,

薇拉向凱斯展示的鋼琴 出了些問題，

and it wasn't going well.

事情進展不順利。

Jarrett looked to the instrument a little warily,

傑瑞特謹慎地看著樂器，

played a few notes,

彈奏了幾個小片段，

walked around it,

繞著它轉了轉，

played a few more notes,

又彈奏了幾個小片段，

muttered something to his producer.

跟他的製作人嘟囔了些什麼。

Then the producer came over to Vera and said ...

製作人走到薇拉跟前說到 ...

"If you don't get a new piano, Keith can't play."

“如果沒有辦法送來一台新鋼琴， 凱斯會取消演奏。”

There'd been a mistake.

一定發生了錯誤。

The opera house had provided the wrong instrument.

歌劇院提供了錯誤的樂器。

This one had this harsh, tinny upper register,

這台鋼琴的高音部 劣質而且刺耳，

because all the felt had worn away.

因為鋼琴內部的毛氈磨損嚴重。

The black notes were sticking,

黑鍵粘粘的，

the white notes were out of tune,

白鍵走調了。

the pedals didn't work

踏板無法使用

and the piano itself was just too small.

鋼琴的個頭也太小了。

It wouldn't create the volume

它無法發出

that would fill a large space such as the Cologne Opera House.

能夠填滿科隆歌劇院這樣 寬敞空間的聲音。

So Keith Jarrett left.

於是凱斯·傑瑞特離開了。

He went and sat outside in his car,

他站在他的車邊，

leaving Vera Brandes

留下薇拉·布蘭德斯

to get on the phone to try to find a replacement piano.

撥打電話試圖尋找 一台能夠替代的鋼琴。

Now she got a piano tuner,

她找到了一個鋼琴調律師，

but she couldn't get a new piano.

但她無法拿到新的鋼琴。

And so she went outside

她走到外面

and she stood there in the rain,

站在雨中，

talking to Keith Jarrett,

和凱斯·傑瑞特說話，

begging him not to cancel the concert.

拜託他不要取消演奏會。

And he looked out of his car

他看著車外

at this bedraggled, rain-drenched German teenager,

這個被雨淋著渾身濕透的 德國年輕人，

took pity on her,

有些同情，

and said,

隨後說道，

"Never forget ... only for you."

“永遠別忘了...只是為了你。”

And so a few hours later,

幾小時后，

Jarrett did indeed step out onto the stage of the opera house,

傑瑞特走上了 歌劇院的舞台，

he sat down at the unplayable piano

他坐在這台 無法達到演奏標準的鋼琴面前

and began.

開始了。

(Music)

（音樂）

Within moments it became clear that something magical was happening.

很快就發現 奇蹟正在發生。

Jarrett was avoiding those upper registers,

傑瑞特避免了高音區，

he was sticking to the middle tones of the keyboard,

他專注在鍵盤的中間區域，

which gave the piece a soothing, ambient quality.

這給了曲子一個舒緩， 音效環繞的品質。

But also, because the piano was so quiet,

但同時，因為鋼琴如此平靜，

he had to set up these rumbling, repetitive riffs in the bass.

他必須在低音區製造 重複出現的隆隆聲。

And he stood up twisting, pounding down on the keys,

他站起身旋轉，重擊琴鍵，

desperately trying to create enough volume to reach the people in the back row.

拼命地想製造足夠的音量 讓後排的觀眾也能聽到。

It's an electrifying performance.

這是個令人興奮地演出。

It somehow has this peaceful quality,

卻有著這樣平靜的質感，

and at the same time it's full of energy,

同時又飽含能量，

it's dynamic.

富有活力，

And the audience loved it.

聽眾太愛這場演出了。

Audiences continue to love it

聽眾持續保有熱情

because the recording of the Köln Concert

因為科隆演奏會的錄音

is the best-selling piano album in history

是歷史上最暢銷的鋼琴專輯

and the best-selling solo jazz album in history.

也是歷史上最暢銷的個人爵士專輯。

Keith Jarrett had been handed a mess.

凱斯·傑瑞特遇到了一個麻煩。

He had embraced that mess, and it soared.

他包容了這個麻煩， 讓麻煩變成了崛起的創意。

But let's think for a moment about Jarrett's initial instinct.

但是，讓我們想一想 傑瑞特最初的反應。

He didn't want to play.

他不想演出了。

Of course,

當然，

I think any of us, in any remotely similar situation,

我想我們中的每個人， 在任何相似的情況下，

would feel the same way, we'd have the same instinct.

會有同樣的感受， 我們會有同樣的反應。

We don't want to be asked to do good work with bad tools.

我們不想被要求 用糟糕的工具做好工作。

We don't want to have to overcome unnecessary hurdles.

我們不想克服不必要的麻煩。

But Jarrett's instinct was wrong,

但是傑瑞特的直覺錯了，

and thank goodness he changed his mind.

感謝上帝他改變了主意。

And I think our instinct is also wrong.

我想我們的直覺也是錯的。

I think we need to gain a bit more appreciation

我想我們需要更多的感激

for the unexpected advantages of having to cope with a little mess.

那些需要面對小麻煩的 出人意料的優勢。

So let me give you some examples

讓我給你們提供一些例子

from cognitive psychology,

來自認知心理學

from complexity science,

來自複雜性科學，

from social psychology,

來自社會心理學，

and of course, rock 'n' roll.

以及當然，搖滾樂。

So cognitive psychology first.

首先，認知心理學。

We've actually known for a while

長久以來我們知道

that certain kinds of difficulty,

某些困難，

certain kinds of obstacle,

某些障礙，

can actually improve our performance.

能夠促使我們提高表現力。

For example,

比如，

the psychologist Daniel Oppenheimer,

心理學家丹尼爾·奧本海默，

a few years ago,

數年前，

teamed up with high school teachers.

與高中老師合作。

And he asked them to reformat the handouts

他請他們革新

that they were giving to some of their classes.

正在上課的一些講義。

So the regular handout would be formatted in something straightforward,

普通的教案已一種 很直接的方式，

such as Helvetica or Times New Roman.

像是赫維提卡字體 或是新羅馬體。

But half these classes were getting handouts that were formatted

但是超半數的學生會拿到 標準的講義

in something sort of intense, like Haettenschweiler,

用一種加深顏色的嚴肅字體， 像是Haettenschweiler，

or something with a zesty bounce, like Comic Sans italicized.

或者是增添興趣的字體， 像是斜體的Comic Sans。

Now, these are really ugly fonts,

現在，這些事很醜的字體，

and they're difficult fonts to read.

也很難閱讀。

But at the end of the semester,

但在學期末，

students were given exams,

學生們進行了測試，

and the students who'd been asked to read the more difficult fonts,

那些被要求閱讀 更加難懂的字體的學生，

had actually done better on their exams,

事實上在考試中表現更好，

in a variety of subjects.

很多學科都是這樣。

And the reason is,

原因是，

the difficult font had slowed them down,

難懂的字體拖慢了他們的速度，

forced them to work a bit harder,

逼迫他們更加努力學習，

to think a bit more about what they were reading,

更審慎思考他們所讀的內容，

to interpret it ...

來解讀它 ...

and so they learned more.

因此他們學到了更多。

Another example.

另一個例子。

The psychologist Shelley Carson has been testing Harvard undergraduates

心理學家謝麗·卡森 給哈佛大學的大學生做測試

for the quality of their attentional filters.

來研究他們的專注力的過濾能力。

What do I mean by that?

那是什麼意思呢？

What I mean is, imagine you're in a restaurant,

我是說， 想像你在一間餐廳裡，

you're having a conversation,

你正在進行一場對話，

there are all kinds of other conversations going on in the restaurant,

餐廳裡還有很多別的 正在進行中的對話，

you want to filter them out,

你會過濾它們，

you want to focus on what's important to you.

你想要專注於對你來說重要的對話。

Can you do that?

你能做到嗎？

If you can, you have good, strong attentional filters.

如果你能，那說明你有 很好地很強的注意力過濾能力。

But some people really struggle with that.

但是很多人真的在 為這樣的能力奮鬥著。

Some of Carson's undergraduate subjects struggled with that.

卡森測試的一部分大學生 就為這樣的能力掙扎。

They had weak filters, they had porous filters --

他們有較弱的過濾能力， 他們的過濾機制有漏洞﹣﹣

let a lot of external information in.

讓很多外部的資訊進入。

And so what that meant is they were constantly being interrupted

那就意味著， 他們時常被干擾

by the sights and the sounds of the world around them.

被周圍的畫面和聲音干擾。

If there was a television on while they were doing their essays,

如果他們在寫作的時候 旁邊有一台正在播放的電視機，

they couldn't screen it out.

他們無法把電視機的干擾過濾出去。

Now, you would think that that was a disadvantage ...

現在，你會想 這是個劣勢 ...

but no.

但不是這樣的。

When Carson looked at what these students had achieved,

當卡森查看這些學生的表現時，

the ones with the weak filters

那些過濾能力弱的

were vastly more likely

極大程度上更可能

to have some real creative milestone in their lives,

在他們的人生中 創作出真正的里程碑，

to have published their first novel,

出版他們的第一本小說，

to have released their first album.

發第一張唱片，

These distractions were actually grists to their creative mill.

這些外部的干擾真正 引發了他們的創意工廠。

They were able to think outside the box because their box was full of holes.

他們因此能夠跳出盒子思考問題 因為他們的盒子上全是小洞。

Let's talk about complexity science.

讓我們來說說複雜性科學。

So how do you solve a really complex --

你是如何解決一個真正複雜問題的--

the world's full of complicated problems --

這個世界充滿了複雜的問題 --

how do you solve a really complicated problem?

你要如何解決一個真正複雜的問題？

For example, you try to make a jet engine.

比如，你要試圖製造飛機引擎，

There are lots and lots of different variables,

面對很多很多不同的變量、

the operating temperature, the materials,

運作溫度、材料、

all the different dimensions, the shape.

所有不同的維度、形狀。

You can't solve that kind of problem all in one go,

你無法一次性解決所有的問題，

it's too hard.

這太艱難了。

So what do you do?

你要怎麼做呢？

Well, one thing you can do is try to solve it step-by-step.

你能做的 是試圖一步步解決它。

So you have some kind of prototype

你有了初樣

and you tweak it, you test it, you improve it.

然後你改進它， 實驗，然後提高它的質量。

You tweak it, you test it, you improve it.

再改進，實驗，提高質量。

Now, this idea of marginal gains will eventually get you a good jet engine.

這樣的邊際增益的概念最終能 讓你完成一個性能優良的飛機引擎，

And it's been quite widely implemented in the world.

這樣的做事方式在世界上很常見。

So you'll hear about it, for example, in high performance cycling,

你會在比如說，高強度自行車 運動練習中見到這樣的過程，

web designers will talk about trying to optimize their web pages,

網頁設計師會討論 試圖優化他們的網站，

they're looking for these step-by-step gains.

他們都在尋找著 這樣一步步的收穫。

That's a good way to solve a complicated problem.

這是一個解決複雜問題的好方法。

But you know what would make it a better way?

但你知道有什麼 能夠讓它更好嗎？

A dash of mess.

一些雜亂。

You add randomness,

你在過程開始的時候，

early on in the process,

加入不確定性，

you make crazy moves,

你做出瘋狂的舉動，

you try stupid things that shouldn't work,

你做本不可能成功地蠢事，

and that will tend to make the problem-solving work better.

這都會使問題解決方法效果更好，

And the reason for that is

原因是

the trouble with the step-by-step process,

一步一步的過程的問題在於，

the marginal gains,

邊際增益，

is they can walk you gradually down a dead end.

是它們引導你走到死胡同。

And if you start with the randomness, that becomes less likely,

如果你開始就很隨意， 那就不大會這樣，

and your problem-solving becomes more robust.

你的問題解決過程會更加高效。

Let's talk about social psychology.

讓我們從社會心理學角度分析。

So the psychologist Katherine Phillips, with some colleagues,

心理學家凱瑟琳．飛利浦 和她的同事們，

recently gave murder mystery problems to some students,

近期向學生們 提出了怪誕的的謀殺問題，

and these students were collected in groups of four

這些學生編成四人一組

and they were given dossiers with information about a crime --

學生們拿到關於謀殺的檔案﹣﹣

alibis and evidence, witness statements and three suspects.

不在場證明和證據、 證人的證詞和三個疑犯。

And the groups of four students were asked to figure out who did it,

他們需要找出真兇是誰，

who committed the crime.

誰為這場謀殺負責。

And there were two treatments in this experiment.

這項實驗有兩個項目。

In some cases these were four friends,

在一些案例中，有四個友人，

they all knew each other well.

他們都非常了解對方。

In other cases,

在另一些案例中，

three friends and a stranger.

是三個友人和一個陌生人。

And you can see where I'm going with this.

一會兒你就會了解到 我這麼做的意義。

Obviously I'm going to say

很明顯，我要說的是

that the groups with the stranger solved the problem more effectively,

那些由三個友人一個陌生人組成的小組 更高效地解決了問題，

which is true, they did.

這是真的，他們確實做到了。

Actually, they solved the problem quite a lot more effectively.

事實上，他們解決問題的效率 非常高。

So the groups of four friends,

那些由四個友人組成的小組，

they only had a 50-50 chance of getting the answer right.

他們只有50﹣50的幾率 來得出正確答案。

Which is actually not that great --

這聽起來確實不那麼好﹣﹣

in multiple choice, for three answers? 50-50's not good.

在多項選擇中，有三個答案？ 50﹣50的幾率不那麼好。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The three friends and the stranger,

三個友人和一個陌生人，

even though the stranger didn't have any extra information,

即使陌生人沒有獲得額外的資訊，

even though it was just a case

即使是在

of how that changed the conversation to accommodate that awkwardness,

如何對話以防止尷尬，

the three friends and the stranger,

三個友人和一個陌生人的組合，

they had a 75 percent chance of finding the right answer.

有 75％ 的機會能夠找到正確的答案。

That's quite a big leap in performance.

那是一個很大的飛越。

But I think what's really interesting

但我覺得真正有趣的

is not just that the three friends and the stranger did a better job,

不是三個友人和一個陌生人的組合 完成得更好，

but how they felt about it.

而是他們對這次活動的感受。

So when Katherine Phillips interviewed the groups of four friends,

當凱瑟琳．飛利浦詢問 四個友人組合的感受時，

they had a nice time,

他們相處很愉悅，

they also thought they'd done a good job.

他們也認為自己做得很好。

They were complacent.

他們很滿足。

When she spoke to the three friends and the stranger,

當她詢問 三個友人一個陌生人組合時

they had not had a nice time --

他們並沒有很愉快﹣﹣

it's actually rather difficult, it's rather awkward ...

有點兒困難， 有些尷尬 ...

and they were full of doubt.

他們充滿了疑慮。

They didn't think they'd done a good job even though they had.

他們不認為自己完成得很好 即使他們確實完成得很好。

And I think that really exemplifies

我想這個例子很適合

the challenge that we're dealing with here.

拿來討論今天我們面對的難題。

Because, yeah --

因為，是的﹣﹣

the ugly font,

難看的字體，

the awkward stranger,

尷尬的陌生人，

the random move ...

那些不確定性 ...

these disruptions help us solve problems,

這些打擾我們的事情 幫助我們解決問題，

they help us become more creative.

它們讓我們更加有創意。

But we don't feel that they're helping us.

但我們感受不到它們的幫助。

We feel that they're getting in the way ...

我們認為它們是 路上的障礙 ...

and so we resist.

所以我們反抗。

And that's why the last example is really important.

這就是為什麼最後一個例子 非常重要。

So I want to talk about somebody

我想要談到某個人

from the background of the world of rock 'n' roll.

他的背景是搖滾樂。

And you may know him, he's actually a TED-ster.

你也許知道他是誰， 他是一個 TED 迷。

His name is Brian Eno.

他的名字是布萊恩．伊諾。

He is an ambient composer -- rather brilliant.

他是一個著名音樂製作人﹣﹣ 非常傑出。

He's also a kind of catalyst

他同時也是一種催化劑

behind some of the great rock 'n' roll albums of the last 40 years.

催化了過去 40 年裡 很多搖滾巨作的產生。

He's worked with David Bowie on "Heroes,"

他和大衛．鮑伊合作歌曲《Heroes》，

he worked with U2 on "Achtung Baby" and "The Joshua Tree,"

他和 U2 合作歌曲《Achtung Baby》 和《The Joshua Tree》，

he's worked with DEVO,

他和 DEVO 合作，

he's worked with Coldplay, he's worked with everybody.

和酷玩樂團 Coldplay 合作， 和很多人合作。

And what does he do to make these great rock bands better?

他做了什麼讓這些搖滾樂團更加好呢？

Well, he makes a mess.

嗯，他製造麻煩。

He disrupts their creative processes.

他干擾他們的創意過程。

It's his role to be the awkward stranger.

他的角色就是一個尷尬的陌生人。

It's his role to tell them

他存在就是為了告訴他們

that they have to play the unplayable piano.

他們必須要彈奏 無法演奏的鋼琴。

And one of the ways in which he creates this disruption

他製造這些干擾的一個方式就是

is through this remarkable deck of cards --

通過這一疊紙牌﹣﹣

I have my signed copy here -- thank you, Brian.

我手中的這疊是簽名版﹣﹣ 謝謝你，布萊恩。

They're called The Oblique Strategies,

這是傾斜戰術，

he developed them with a friend of his.

他和一個朋友一起發明了這個。

And when they're stuck in the studio,

當他們在工作室文思枯竭的時候，

Brian Eno will reach for one of the cards.

布萊恩．伊諾拿出牌中的一張。

He'll draw one at random,

他會任意選一張，

and he'll make the band follow the instructions on the card.

然後讓樂隊根據卡片上的引導。

So this one ...

這一個 ...

"Change instrument roles."

「改變彈奏的樂器。」

Yeah, everyone swap instruments -- Drummer on the piano --

是的，每個人都交換樂器﹣﹣ 鼓手來彈鋼琴﹣﹣

Brilliant, brilliant idea.

太棒了，太棒的主意了。

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

「仔細研究最尷尬的細節。 然後放大它們。」

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

「做出突然地，具有毀滅性的， 無法預測的反應。合併它們。」

These cards are disruptive.

這些卡片製造混亂。

Now, they've proved their worth in album after album.

現在，它們通過一張張唱片 證實了自己的價值所在。

The musicians hate them.

音樂家們厭惡它們。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So Phil Collins was playing drums on an early Brian Eno album.

在布萊恩．伊諾早期的一張唱片裡 菲爾．柯林斯是鼓手。

He got so frustrated he started throwing beer cans across the studio.

他有強烈的挫敗感 於是開始在工作室裡扔啤酒罐。

Carlos Alomar, great rock guitarist,

卡洛斯．阿洛馬， 偉大的搖滾吉他手，

working with Eno on David Bowie's "Lodger" album,

和伊諾一起工作 製作大衛．鮑伊的唱片《Lodger》，

and at one point he turns to Brian and says,

在某個時刻， 他轉向布萊恩說到，

"Brian, this experiment is stupid."

《布萊恩，這個實驗很愚蠢。》

But the thing is it was a pretty good album,

但是，這是一張很好地唱片，

but also,

但同時，

Carlos Alomar, 35 years later, now uses The Oblique Strategies.

卡洛斯．阿洛馬，35 年後， 現在使用傾斜戰術。

And he tells his students to use The Oblique Strategies

他告訴他的學生們 來使用傾斜戰術，

because he's realized something.

因為他意識到了一些事。

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't helping you.

你不喜歡它並不代表 它不能幫助你。

The strategies actually weren't a deck of cards originally,

這個戰術實際上 原本並不是一疊紙牌，

they were just a list --

它們是一個列表﹣﹣

list on the recording studio wall.

貼在工作室墻上。

A checklist of things you might try if you got stuck.

一張清單寫著，當你思路停滯的時候 你能嘗試的事。

The list didn't work.

這張清單沒起作用。

Know why?

知道為什麼嗎？

Not messy enough.

不夠雜亂。

Your eye would go down the list

你會由上而下看這張清單

and it would settle on whatever was the least disruptive,

然後選擇最不混亂的，

the least troublesome,

最少麻煩的的那條，

which of course misses the point entirely.

這當然完全沒有抓住要點。

And what Brian Eno came to realize was,

布萊恩．伊諾意識到，

yes, we need to run the stupid experiments,

是的，我們需要進行 愚蠢的實驗，

we need to deal with the awkward strangers,

我們需要和尷尬的陌生人相處，

we need to try to read the ugly fonts.

我們要試著閱讀難看的字體。

These things help us.

這些事幫助了我們。

They help us solve problems,

它們幫助我們解決問題，

they help us be more creative.

它們幫助我們更加具有創造力。

But also ...

但同時 ...

we really need some persuasion if we're going to accept this.

如果我們通過一些勸說 來接受這樣的事情。

So however we do it ...

無論我們如何做 ...

whether it's sheer willpower,

無論它是純粹的意志力，

whether it's the flip of a card

無論是輕彈一張卡片，

or whether it's a guilt trip from a German teenager,

或者是一場德國年輕人 內疚的旅程，

all of us, from time to time,

我們所有人， 總有這樣的時刻，

need to sit down and try and play the unplayable piano.

需要坐下來，試著彈奏 無法彈奏的鋼琴。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）