Are you a giver or a taker? | Adam Grant

Translator: Leslie Gauthier Reviewer: Camille Martínez

譯者: Qiao Ma 審譯者: Ming Lee

I want you to look around the room for a minute

請各位環顧一下四周，

試著找出最疑神疑鬼的人。

and try to find the most paranoid person here --

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And then I want you to point at that person for me.

請你把那個人指出來。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

OK, don't actually do it.

不用真的指。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

身為一名組織心理學家，

But, as an organizational psychologist,

I spend a lot of time in workplaces,

我常常去很多工作場所，

and I find paranoia everywhere.

發現不少疑神疑鬼的人。

Paranoia is caused by people that I call "takers."

多疑是因為「取者」的存在。

Takers are self-serving in their interactions.

他們在互動中比較自利。

總想著你能為我做什麼。

It's all about what can you do for me.

The opposite is a giver.

相反的是「施者」。

It's somebody who approaches most interactions by asking,

他們常常會問：

「我能為你做什麼？」

"What can I do for you?"

我想要大家想一想自己是哪種人。

I wanted to give you a chance to think about your own style.

我們都有付出和受惠的時候。

We all have moments of giving and taking.

至於你是屬於哪種類型？

Your style is how you treat most of the people most of the time,

則要看你內建的思考模式； 看你平時如何看待他人而定。

your default.

有個測試可用來判斷 你是施者還是取者，

I have a short test you can take

to figure out if you're more of a giver or a taker,

你們可以現在就做一下測試。

and you can take it right now.

【自戀狂測試】

[The Narcissist Test]

【步驟 1：花時間想一想自己】

[Step 1: Take a moment to think about yourself.]

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

【步驟 2：如果你到了第二步， 你就不是一個自戀者】

[Step 2: If you made it to Step 2, you are not a narcissist.]

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

這是今天唯一沒有數據根據的測試，

This is the only thing I will say today that has no data behind it,

but I am convinced the longer it takes for you to laugh at this cartoon,

但我相信如果上面那個卡通，

引你笑起來的時間越久，

the more worried we should be that you're a taker.

那麼你就更傾向於是一個「取者」。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Of course, not all takers are narcissists.

當然，不是所有「取者」 都是自戀狂。

Some are just givers who got burned one too many times.

有些只是上當了太多次的「施者」。

Then there's another kind of taker that we won't be addressing today,

還有一種「取者」 我們今天不作討論，

and that's called a psychopath.

稱之為「神經病」。

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

I was curious, though, about how common these extremes are,

我曾好奇這種極端現象會有多普遍，

and so I surveyed over 30,000 people across industries

於是我對全世界不同文化的業者，

進行了超過三萬人的調查。

around the world's cultures.

And I found that most people are right in the middle

然後我發現大部分人都是介於 「施者」與「取者」之間。

between giving and taking.

They choose this third style called "matching."

人們把這種類型叫做「對等者」。

如果你是「對等者」， 你會在付出與獲取之間保持平衡：

If you're a matcher, you try to keep an even balance of give and take:

並以「等值交換」的角度思考；

quid pro quo -- I'll do something for you if you do something for me.

如果你能為我做甚麼， 我就會為你做些什麼。

And that seems like a safe way to live your life.

這是一種比較安全的生活方式。

但這是否是最有效率的生活方式呢？

But is it the most effective and productive way to live your life?

The answer to that question is a very definitive ...

這個問題的回答是非常確定的：

maybe.

可能吧。

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

I studied dozens of organizations,

我對很多組織 和數以千計的人進行研究。

thousands of people.

I had engineers measuring their productivity.

我評估工程師的生產率。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I looked at medical students' grades --

我研究醫學院學生的成績，

even salespeople's revenue.

甚至銷售員的業績。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

出人意外地發現；

And, unexpectedly,

the worst performers in each of these jobs were the givers.

工作表現最差者 都是來自那些「施者」。

The engineers who got the least work done

那些事情做得最少的工程師，

were the ones who did more favors than they got back.

都是那些「幫助別人」， 多於「被人幫助」的人。

They were so busy doing other people's jobs,

他們用了太多的時間去幫助別人，

they literally ran out of time and energy to get their own work completed.

以至於沒有時間和精力 完成自己的任務。

在醫學院，分數最低的學生，

In medical school, the lowest grades belong to the students

who agree most strongly with statements like,

會特別認同某些說法，

比如：「我喜歡幫助別人。」

"I love helping others,"

這是否代表那些你應該信任的醫生，

which suggests the doctor you ought to trust

is the one who came to med school with no desire to help anybody.

都來自於那些比較 不想幫別人的醫學生？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And then in sales, too, the lowest revenue accrued

在銷售行業也一樣，

收入最低的銷售員都是 那些最慷慨的人。

in the most generous salespeople.

I actually reached out to one of those salespeople

我接觸過一個那樣子的銷售員。

他在「施者」評價中有很高的分數。

who had a very high giver score.

And I asked him, "Why do you suck at your job --"

我問他「為何你工作表現那麼遜？」

I didn't ask it that way, but --

我沒用那種口氣問他，但……

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

"What's the cost of generosity in sales?"

「在行銷過程中慷慨的 代價是什麼？」

And he said, "Well, I just care so deeply about my customers

他說：「我只是特別在乎我的客戶，

that I would never sell them one of our crappy products."

我從來不會 把糟糕的產品賣給他們。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So just out of curiosity,

僅僅是出於好奇，

有多少人認為自己是「施者」，

how many of you self-identify more as givers than takers or matchers?

而不是「取者」或「對等者」？

Raise your hands.

請舉手。

OK, it would have been more before we talked about these data.

好的，在我們談到這些資料之前，

應該事先多談一點其他的。

But actually, it turns out there's a twist here,

但實際上，這裡有個轉折，

由於「施者」往往犧牲自己，

because givers are often sacrificing themselves,

but they make their organizations better.

但是他們總是讓組織變得更好。

We have a huge body of evidence --

我們有大量的證據──

（38 個研究，3611 工作單位）

many, many studies looking at the frequency of giving behavior

在不同團體組織中， 針對「給予頻率」做了無數的研究。

that exists in a team or an organization --

發現當組織中有更多人 分享他們的知識、

and the more often people are helping and sharing their knowledge

幫助他人或給他人提供指導時，

and providing mentoring,

這樣的組織在我們所評估的 各項指標中都做得更好：

the better organizations do on every metric we can measure:

更高的利潤、客戶滿意度、 員工留職率，

higher profits, customer satisfaction, employee retention --

even lower operating expenses.

甚至更低的運作支出。

So givers spend a lot of time trying to help other people

所以「施者」用了 許多時間來幫助別人，

and improve the team,

和幫助團隊，

and then, unfortunately, they suffer along the way.

不幸的是，一路上受苦的 是他們自己。

我想談的是：要怎麼做， 才能營造出一個讓「施者」

I want to talk about what it takes

to build cultures where givers actually get to succeed.

也能夠真正成功獲益的文化？

So I wondered, then, if givers are the worst performers,

於是我在想： 如果施者是表現最糟糕的人，

who are the best performers?

那誰才是表現最好的人呢？

Let me start with the good news: it's not the takers.

讓我先從好消息說起： 答案並不是「取者」。

「取者」在大多數工作中， 會迅速的成功，也會迅速的失敗。

Takers tend to rise quickly but also fall quickly in most jobs.

And they fall at the hands of matchers.

他們會敗在「對等者」手中。

If you're a matcher, you believe in "An eye for an eye" -- a just world.

假如你是一個「對等者」，

你信仰「以眼還眼」的教條； 認為這是正義的世界。

And so when you meet a taker,

當你遇到一個「取者」的時候，

you feel like it's your mission in life

你會自認搞死那些惡人， 是你生命中最神聖的任務。

to just punish the hell out of that person.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And that way justice gets served.

那是伸張正義的方式。

大部分人都是「對等者」。

Well, most people are matchers.

那意味著如果你是一個「取者」，

And that means if you're a taker,

it tends to catch up with you eventually;

出來混終於要還的：

what goes around will come around.

躲得了初一，躲不了十五。

And so the logical conclusion is:

合理的結論是：

「對等者」一定會是表現最好的；

it must be the matchers who are the best performers.

But they're not.

但其實並非如此。

In every job, in every organization I've ever studied,

在我所研究過的所有工作和組織中，

the best results belong to the givers again.

表現最好的還是「施者」。

Take a look at some data I gathered from hundreds of salespeople,

看我收集到的數百名 銷售員利潤數據，

tracking their revenue.

可以看出「施者」分佈在兩個極端。

What you can see is that the givers go to both extremes.

They make up the majority of people who bring in the lowest revenue,

他們是創造最低利潤的主要群體，

但同時也是創造 最高利潤的主要族群。

but also the highest revenue.

呈現出相同模式的還有 工程師的生產率，

The same patterns were true for engineers' productivity

和醫學院學生的成績。

and medical students' grades.

「施者」在成功指標分布曲線中，

Givers are overrepresented at the bottom and at the top

不成比例的呈現在 我所有成功指標的頂端和底端。

of every success metric that I can track.

Which raises the question:

這產生了一個問題：

How do we create a world where more of these givers get to excel?

我們如何能夠創造一種環境？ 讓更多的「施者」變得成功？

I want to talk about how to do that, not just in businesses,

我想聊一下這個話题， 不僅僅針對企業，

but also in nonprofits, schools --

還包括非盈利機構、學校、

even governments.

甚至政府。

Are you ready?

你們準備好了嗎？

(Cheers)

（歡呼）

I was going to do it anyway, but I appreciate the enthusiasm.

無論如何我都是要說的， 不過我很感謝你們的熱情。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The first thing that's really critical

首先至關重要的是，

is to recognize that givers are your most valuable people,

你必須了解到「施者」 是最有價值的人，

但是如果他們不小心， 就會把自己累死。

but if they're not careful, they burn out.

So you have to protect the givers in your midst.

所以你要保護好這些「施者」。

我從財星雜誌 最佳社交網路達人那裡，

And I learned a great lesson about this from Fortune's best networker.

學到了很棒的一課。

It's the guy, not the cat.

是那個人，不是那只貓。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

His name is Adam Rifkin.

他叫亞當．里夫金，

He's a very successful serial entrepreneur

他是一個非常成功的連續創業者。

who spends a huge amount of his time helping other people.

他花了超級多的時間來幫助其他人。

And his secret weapon is the five-minute favor.

他的秘密武器是： 「幫忙 5 分鐘。」

Adam said, "You don't have to be Mother Teresa or Gandhi

亞當說：「你不需要像 德蕾莎修女或甘地

to be a giver.

才能成為一個施者。

你只需要利用很小的方法，

You just have to find small ways to add large value

就可以給別人的生命 帶來巨大的價值。」

to other people's lives."

就像介紹人互相認識那樣簡單，

That could be as simple as making an introduction

引介兩個彼此有利的人 互相認識就可了！

between two people who could benefit from knowing each other.

可以彼此分享知識或提供一些回饋。

It could be sharing your knowledge or giving a little bit of feedback.

也可以做一些很基本的事，

Or It might be even something as basic as saying,

你可以開口這樣說：

"You know,

「你知道嗎？我可以去發掘 那些工作成果被忽視的人。」

I'm going to try and figure out

if I can recognize somebody whose work has gone unnoticed."

And those five-minute favors are really critical

那些「幫助 5 分鐘」的 工作真的很重要，

to helping givers set boundaries and protect themselves.

可以幫助「施者」 設下界線來保護自己。

The second thing that matters

其次重要的是，

if you want to build a culture where givers succeed,

如果你想創造一個 施者可以成功的文化，

is you actually need a culture where help-seeking is the norm;

你真正需要創造的是： 一個以尋求幫助別人為文化的環境。

where people ask a lot.

人們可以提出一堆問題的環境。

（字幕：鼓勵尋求幫助）

This may hit a little too close to home for some of you.

這一幕可能會讓 在座的某些人產生共鳴，

（字幕：在你經歷過的人際關係中， 你總是扮演 「施者」的腳色嗎？)

[So in all your relationships, you always have to be the giver?]

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

What you see with successful givers

你看到的成功「施者」， 都知道作為一個收受者也是正常的。

is they recognize that it's OK to be a receiver, too.

If you run an organization, we can actually make this easier.

如果你是一位企業經營者， 我們可以讓這事情做得更容易些。

We can make it easier for people to ask for help.

我們可以讓人們更願意去尋求幫助。

A couple colleagues and I studied hospitals.

我和一些同事學對醫院進行了研究。

我們發現在一些特定的樓層， 護士會做很多尋求幫助的事，

We found that on certain floors, nurses did a lot of help-seeking,

and on other floors, they did very little of it.

在其它樓層，他們很少那樣做。

The factor that stood out on the floors where help-seeking was common,

那些把尋求幫助視為常態的樓層，

where it was the norm,

是因為那裡有一個只做 一件事的護士，

was there was just one nurse whose sole job it was

to help other nurses on the unit.

那就是專門負責幫助 單位內的其他護士。

When that role was available,

當那個角色存在的時候，

nurses said, "It's not embarrassing, it's not vulnerable to ask for help --

護士們會想：「哦， 找人幫忙並不是可恥的事，

也不會令人自覺軟弱， 反之更受到激勵。」

it's actually encouraged."

Help-seeking isn't important just for protecting the success

尋求幫助的重要性， 不僅是只有提供「施者」保護而已，

對「施者」 的福利亦然。

and the well-being of givers.

It's also critical to getting more people to act like givers,

對於促使更多的人， 學習成為「施者」也是很關鍵。

because the data say

因為由數據中可以看出，

that somewhere between 75 and 90 percent of all giving in organizations

組織中的給予行為， 有 75% 至 90%

是由尋求協助開始。

starts with a request.

But a lot of people don't ask.

但是很多人不會開口。

They don't want to look incompetent,

他們不想被認為能力不足，

they don't know where to turn, they don't want to burden others.

他們不知道該向誰尋求幫助， 他們不想給別人造成負擔。

Yet if nobody ever asks for help,

然而如果沒有人尋求幫助，

在組織中會有很多失落的「施者」，

you have a lot of frustrated givers in your organization

who would love to step up and contribute,

他們很想主動幫助別人，

if they only knew who could benefit and how.

只要有人告訴他誰需要幫助， 和如何去幫助別人。

But I think the most important thing,

但我想最重要的事情，

if you want to build a culture of successful givers,

如果你想營造一個 「施者」成功的文化，

is to be thoughtful about who you let onto your team.

必須思慮周全的選擇適當的團隊。

I figured, you want a culture of productive generosity,

我猜你想創造一個非常慷慨的文化，

you should hire a bunch of givers.

你應該聘請一批「施者」才對。

But I was surprised to discover, actually, that that was not right --

但我驚訝的發現 那樣做其實是不對的。

that the negative impact of a taker on a culture

「取者」對文化的負面影響，

is usually double to triple the positive impact of a giver.

通常會是「施者」 正面影響的 2~3 倍。

Think about it this way:

試著這樣想：

one bad apple can spoil a barrel,

一個壞蘋果會毀了一桶蘋果，

but one good egg just does not make a dozen.

但是一顆好雞蛋， 不會把一打壞雞蛋變好。

I don't know what that means --

我不知道這是什麼意思……

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But I hope you do.

但是我希望你們明白。

絕對不可以讓「取者」進入團隊， 哪怕是只有一位。

No -- let even one taker into a team,

and you will see that the givers will stop helping.

因為那樣的話， 「施者」會停止幫助別人。

They'll say, "I'm surrounded by a bunch of snakes and sharks.

他們會說：「我被蛇和鯊魚包圍著，

Why should I contribute?"

我為什麼需要付出？」

Whereas if you let one giver into a team,

然而你讓一個「施者」進入團隊，

you don't get an explosion of generosity.

你團隊裡的慷慨行為 不會因此而爆增，

更多情況下，人們會說：

More often, people are like,

"Great! That person can do all our work."

「太好了！

這個人可以包下我們 所有的工作了。」

So, effective hiring and screening and team building

所以，有效的聘僱、 篩選和團隊建構，

is not about bringing in the givers;

不是引入更多的「施者」；

而是要將重點放在把 「取者」剔除掉！

it's about weeding out the takers.

如果你能把這件事做得很好，

If you can do that well,

you'll be left with givers and matchers.

你會只留下「施者」和「對等者」。

「施者」會變得更開放自在，

The givers will be generous

because they don't have to worry about the consequences.

因為他們不用擔心後果。

「對等者」的好處是 他們會跟著規範走。

And the beauty of the matchers is that they follow the norm.

So how do you catch a taker before it's too late?

那麼如何在太晚之前 找出那個「取者」？

We're actually pretty bad at figuring out who's a taker,

我們其實不善於辨識誰是「取者」，

especially on first impressions.

特別是憑藉第一印象。

There's a personality trait that throws us off.

但有一個特徵可以暴露他的本性，

It's called agreeableness,

它被稱為「友善度。」

在各種文化中都有這種人的特徵。

one the major dimensions of personality across cultures.

Agreeable people are warm and friendly, they're nice, they're polite.

友善度高的人通常較熱情友善，

他們很善良且都很有禮貌。

你會在加拿大找到很多這樣的人。

You find a lot of them in Canada --

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

Where there was actually a national contest

加拿大舉辦了一個全國性的競賽，

to come up with a new Canadian slogan and fill in the blank,

來為加拿大設計一個新口號，

題目就是：「作為加拿大人……」

"As Canadian as ..."

I thought the winning entry was going to be,

我以為冠軍的答案是，

加拿大人就像是 「楓糖漿」或「曲棍球。」

"As Canadian as maple syrup," or, "... ice hockey."

但這些都不是， 加拿大人票選出的新國家口號是──

But no, Canadians voted for their new national slogan to be --

不是開你的玩笑，

I kid you not --

「在各種情況下， 盡量表現得像加拿大人。」

"As Canadian as possible under the circumstances."

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

現在對於你們當中特別友善的人，

Now for those of you who are highly agreeable,

或多少像個加拿大人的人來說，

or maybe slightly Canadian,

you get this right away.

你們應該知道我在說甚麼吧！

How could I ever say I'm any one thing

我怎麼可能是一個什麼固定樣的人， 如果我不停地嘗試去取悅別人?

when I'm constantly adapting to try to please other people?

Disagreeable people do less of it.

不友善的人通常很少這樣子做，

They're more critical, skeptical, challenging,

他們更加的苛刻、 多疑、具有攻擊性，

and far more likely than their peers to go to law school.

而且遠比他的同儕 更可能去讀法學系。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

That's not a joke, that's actually an empirical fact.

這不是一個玩笑，這是經驗之談。

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

So I always assumed that agreeable people were givers

所以我經常假設； 友善的人都是屬於「施者」，

and disagreeable people were takers.

不友善的人是「取者」。

But then I gathered the data,

但當我收集數據後，

and I was stunned to find no correlation between those traits,

我驚訝的發現兩者之間沒有關聯，

because it turns out that agreeableness-disagreeableness

因為友善與不友善是你的外在裝飾：

is your outer veneer:

跟你接觸的快樂值是多少？

How pleasant is it to interact with you?

但給予和獲取則是你內在的動機：

Whereas giving and taking are more of your inner motives:

What are your values? What are your intentions toward others?

你對他人的價值是什麼？ 你對他人的意圖是什麼？

所以如果你想準確的判斷一個人，

If you really want to judge people accurately,

你需要等到屋內 每個咨詢顧問期盼的那一刻，

you have to get to the moment every consultant in the room is waiting for,

然後畫一個像螢幕中的 2*2 的表格，

and draw a two-by-two.

(Laughter)

（螢幕中 2*2 表格內容）

上列：「施者」、「取者」

左欄：「友善度」 、「不友善度」

The agreeable givers are easy to spot:

配合度友善的人是非常容易辨別的：

they say yes to everything.

他們對每件事都點頭。（魯肉王）

The disagreeable takers are also recognized quickly,

不友善的人也很容易被辨識，

although you might call them by a slightly different name.

你可能會用一個稍微不同的名字；

(Laughter)

（白卜庭）

（笑聲）

We forget about the other two combinations.

我們忘記了另外兩種組合。

There are disagreeable givers in our organizations.

在組織中有許多不友善的「施者」。

There are people who are gruff and tough on the surface

他們表面上看來粗暴和強硬，

but underneath have others' best interests at heart.

但是內心裡也有替人設想的想法。

用工程師的話說： 「配合度不高的施者──

Or as an engineer put it,

"Oh, disagreeable givers --

就像操作界面很差， 但作業系統超棒。」

like somebody with a bad user interface but a great operating system."

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

If that helps you.

如果這種比喻對你有幫助的話。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Disagreeable givers are the most undervalued people in our organizations,

不友善的「施者」， 是組織中最被低估價值的人。

because they're the ones who give the critical feedback

因為他們是那種一針見血的回饋者，

沒人喜歡聽，但每人都需要聽。

that no one wants to hear but everyone needs to hear.

We need to do a much better job valuing these people

在評價這些人的時候， 我們必需做得更好一點，

as opposed to writing them off early,

以免過早剔除掉他們，

and saying, "Eh, kind of prickly,

並且說：「真會吹毛求疵， 他一定是個自私的『取者』。」

must be a selfish taker."

The other combination we forget about is the deadly one --

另一個我們忘記的組合 是殺手級的……

the agreeable taker, also known as the faker.

友善的「取者」，亦稱為「偽者」。

This is the person who's nice to your face,

這些人當著你面非常好，

and then will stab you right in the back.

但是他會背地捅你一刀。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And my favorite way to catch these people in the interview process

我最喜歡在面試時分辨人的方法，

is to ask the question,

就是提出一個問題：

「你能說出四位曾在職場上 受你幫助而事業獲得改善的人嗎？」

"Can you give me the names of four people

whose careers you have fundamentally improved?"

The takers will give you four names,

「取者」會告訴你四個名字，

and they will all be more influential than them,

而且都是比他有影響力的人。

因為「取者」擅長於拍馬屁， 然後過河拆橋。

because takers are great at kissing up and then kicking down.

Givers are more likely to name people who are below them in a hierarchy,

「施者」較會提出職位 比他們低的人名，

who don't have as much power,

那些人沒有很多權力，

who can do them no good.

對「施者」也沒什麼好處。

And let's face it, you all know you can learn a lot about character

讓我們坦白點，你們都知道；

透過觀察人們對待餐廳服務員， 或「優步」司機的態度，

by watching how someone treats their restaurant server

我們就可以了解一個人的個性。

or their Uber driver.

So if we do all this well,

因此，如果我們妥善的處理，

if we can weed takers out of organizations,

如果我們可以將「取者」 剔除在組織外面，

if we can make it safe to ask for help,

如果我們可以讓 尋求幫助變得很安全，

if we can protect givers from burnout

如果我們能夠不讓 「施者」產生倦怠感，

and make it OK for them to be ambitious in pursuing their own goals

讓他們敢於追求他們自己的目標，

as well as trying to help other people,

並且勇於嘗試幫助他人，

我們就可以改變人們 對於成功的定義。

we can actually change the way that people define success.

與其說成功只是 有關贏取競爭的勝利，

Instead of saying it's all about winning a competition,

people will realize success is really more about contribution.

不如大家將成功的重點關注在， 人們對他人的「奉獻」。

I believe that the most meaningful way to succeed

我覺得最有意義的成功方式， 就是「成功不必在我」的精神。

is to help other people succeed.

如果我們可以將這個觀點擴散，

And if we can spread that belief,

we can actually turn paranoia upside down.

我們可以逆轉那種疑神疑鬼現象。

There's a name for that.

有個名稱很適合形容它：

It's called "pronoia."

叫做「別人都對我好」。

「別人都對我好」是一種幻覺，

Pronoia is the delusional belief

that other people are plotting your well-being.

覺得其他人都是你的貴人。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

That they're going around behind your back

他們會躲在你的背後，

and saying exceptionally glowing things about you.

談論關於你無比光彩的事蹟。

The great thing about a culture of givers is that's not a delusion --

由「施者」主導的文化好處在於，

那並不是一個幻覺，而是一種實現。

it's reality.

I want to live in a world where givers succeed,

我想生活在一個 「施者」成功的世界。

and I hope you will help me create that world.

我希望你們能幫我創造那個世界。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）