Barry Schwartz: Our loss of wisdom

譯者: Chih-Yuan Huang 審譯者: Amy Zerotus

In his inaugural address,

在他的就職演說上，

Barack Obama appealed to each of us to give our best

歐巴馬(Barack Obama)呼籲我們每個人極盡所能的

as we try to extricate ourselves from this current financial crisis.

來擺脫當前的金融危機。

But what did he appeal to?

但是甚麼是他所呼籲的呢?

He did not, happily, follow in the footsteps of his predecessor,

很慶幸的，他並沒有像前總統布希，

and tell us to just go shopping.

就僅僅告訴大家多去購物而已。

Nor did he tell us, "Trust us. Trust your country.

也沒有告訴我們 – “ 相信我們相信、你們的國家，

Invest, invest, invest."

投資、投資、再投資”。

Instead, what he told us was to put aside childish things.

反而，他告訴我們將這種幼稚的事情放一邊。

And he appealed to virtue.

他向我們呼籲美德。

Virtue is an old-fashioned word.

美德是一個過氣的名詞。

It seems a little out of place in a cutting-edge environment like this one.

這樣的用詞在當前的環境似乎並不合適。

And besides, some of you might be wondering,

而且也許你們有些人會這樣想，

what the hell does it mean?

他到底在說甚麼?

Let me begin with an example.

讓我從一個例子開始說起。

This is the job description of a hospital janitor

這是一家醫院裡一個清潔工的工作說明，

that is scrolling up on the screen.

在螢幕上滾動顯示著。

And all of the items on it are unremarkable.

這上面所寫的事情都相當的平凡。

They're the things you would expect:

這些都是你可以想象到的事情：

mop the floors, sweep them, empty the trash, restock the cabinets.

掃地、拖地、清理垃圾、補充櫃檯等等。

It may be a little surprising how many things there are,

這些事的數量多到讓人吃驚，

but it's not surprising what they are.

但是這些事情卻是很平常。

But the one thing I want you to notice about them is this:

但是這邊有一件事是我要提出讓你們注意的：

even though this is a very long list,

即使這些工作內容清單如此冗長，

there isn't a single thing on it that involves other human beings.

但是它確沒有一項是涉及他人的。

Not one.

一個都沒有。

The janitor's job could just as well be done in a mortuary as in a hospital.

這個清潔工的工作在停屍間或醫院都可以進行。

And yet, when some psychologists interviewed hospital janitors

然而，當一些心理學家去採訪這類的清潔人員時，

to get a sense of what they thought their jobs were like,

想瞭解他們是如何看待自己的工作的，

they encountered Mike,

他們遇見了麥克，

who told them about how he stopped mopping the floor

麥克告訴他們之所以他停止繼續拖地

because Mr. Jones was out of his bed getting a little exercise,

是因為瓊斯先生都會起床做做簡單的運動，

trying to build up his strength, walking slowly up and down the hall.

他試著藉由運動來恢復體力，並且緩慢的在樓梯裡上下的走動。

And Charlene told them about how she ignored her supervisor's admonition

而查麗告訴他們說之所以她沒有聽從上司的忠告，

and didn't vacuum the visitor's lounge

用真空吸塵器來打掃訪客室

because there were some family members who were there all day, every day

是因為有一些家庭訪客成員會一整天都待在那邊，

who, at this moment, happened to be taking a nap.

像現在就正有一些人在裡面休息。

And then there was Luke,

接下來他們訪問了路克，

who washed the floor in a comatose young man's room twice

他對一個年輕的昏迷病人的房間地板洗刷了兩次，

because the man's father, who had been keeping a vigil for six months,

因為這個病人的父親足足在這邊待了六個月，

didn't see Luke do it the first time,

路克第一次來打掃的時後這位父親並沒有看到，

and his father was angry.

所以這位病人的父親生氣了。

And behavior like this from janitors, from technicians, from nurses

像這樣的行為，不管來自清潔人員、技術人員、護士

and, if we're lucky now and then, from doctors,

有些幸運的時後，還會是醫生，

doesn't just make people feel a little better,

不僅僅讓人們感受好一點，

it actually improves the quality of patient care

事實上也會改善病人照護的品質

and enables hospitals to run well.

使醫院有著良好的運作機制。

Now, not all janitors are like this, of course.

當然在現在的社會上並不是每一個清潔人員都這樣子。

But the ones who are think that these sorts of human interactions

但是能這樣子做的人都認為這些人與人之間的交流

involving kindness, care and empathy

涉及到善良、關懷與體諒，

are an essential part of the job.

這正是這份工作的核心部份。

And yet their job description contains not one word about other human beings.

然而在這份工作的說明之中確未出現任何一個與他人有關的詞彙。

These janitors have the moral will to do right by other people.

這些清潔人員有良知的去正確的對待人們。

And beyond this, they have the moral skill to figure out what "doing right" means.

除此之外，他們還有道德的技能去判斷甚麼才是正確的做法。

"Practical wisdom," Aristotle told us,

亞里斯多德告訴我們”實踐的智慧”，

"is the combination of moral will and moral skill."

”就是道德意願與道德技能的結合。

A wise person knows when and how to make the exception to every rule,

一個明智的人懂得甚麼時後以及如何去對應每一條規定而做出特殊的處理，

as the janitors knew when to ignore the job duties in the service of other objectives.

就像是這些清潔人員知道在為他人服務時甚麼時後可以不用在意這項工作本身職能的要求一般的。

A wise person knows how to improvise,

一個明智的人知道如何隨機應變，

as Luke did when he re-washed the floor.

就像是路克再去洗刷一次地板一樣。

Real-world problems are often ambiguous and ill-defined

現實生活中的問題常常很曖昧且模糊不清的，

and the context is always changing.

而且問題的內容常常在改變。

A wise person is like a jazz musician --

一個明智的人就像爵士樂手般的，

using the notes on the page, but dancing around them,

看著歌譜演奏的時後並不完全遵從，

inventing combinations that are appropriate for the situation and the people at hand.

會即興創作來與當時的環境與人們相互配合。

A wise person knows how to use these moral skills

一個明智的人知道如何使用道德技能

in the service of the right aims.

為一個正確的目的而工作。

To serve other people, not to manipulate other people.

為他人服務，而不是應付他人。

And finally, perhaps most important,

最後，也許是會重要的，

a wise person is made, not born.

一個明智的人不是天生的，而是後天養成的。

Wisdom depends on experience,

智慧依靠經驗，

and not just any experience.

但也不完全所有的經驗都可依賴。

You need the time to get to know the people that you're serving.

你需要時間去瞭解你正在服務的人們。

You need permission to be allowed to improvise,

你需要得到許可去做一些臨時的決定，

try new things, occasionally to fail and to learn from your failures.

嘗試新的事物，偶爾會失敗，但你可以從中學習。

And you need to be mentored by wise teachers.

同時你也需要一個明智的導師來指導你。

When you ask the janitors who behaved like the ones I described

當你問我那些剛才我提到的清潔人員

how hard it is to learn to do their job,

學會他們那樣子的工作有多難，

they tell you that it takes lots of experience.

他們會告訴你需要很多的經驗才能。

And they don't mean it takes lots of experience to learn how to mop floors and empty trash cans.

那並不是說你需要在學習托地與倒垃圾花很多的時間來累積經驗，

It takes lots of experience to learn how to care for people.

而是說你在關心照護人們是需要很多經驗的累積的。

At TED, brilliance is rampant.

在TED中，有才華的人越來越多

It's scary.

這有點可怕。

The good news is you don't need to be brilliant to be wise.

好消息是想要成為明智的人你不需要聰明絕頂。

The bad news is that without wisdom,

壞消息是如果沒有智慧，

brilliance isn't enough.

僅僅有小聰明是不夠的。

It's as likely to get you and other people into trouble as anything else.

小聰明和一些其他的東西一樣會讓你惹上麻煩

(Applause)

(掌聲)

Now, I hope that we all know this.

現在我希望我們都能清楚的知道這一點。

There's a sense in which it's obvious,

這個道理是很明顯的，

and yet, let me tell you a little story.

我再跟你們說一個小故事。

It's a story about lemonade.

這是一個關於檸檬水的故事。

A dad and his seven-year-old son were watching a Detroit Tigers game at the ballpark.

一位父親與他七歲的兒子在球場觀看底特律老虎隊的比賽。

His son asked him for some lemonade

兒子說他想喝檸檬水

and Dad went to the concession stand to buy it.

這位父親就到商店去買。

All they had was Mike's Hard Lemonade,

但店裡只有一種Mike’s Hard檸檬水，

which was five percent alcohol.

裡面含有5%的酒精成份。

Dad, being an academic, had no idea that Mike's Hard Lemonade contained alcohol.

身為學者的父親並不知道這裡面含有酒精成份。

So he brought it back.

所以他就買了回來。

And the kid was drinking it, and a security guard spotted it,

孩子正在喝時被警衛發現了，

and called the police, who called an ambulance

警衛叫了警察，警察又叫了救護車，

that rushed to the ballpark, whisked the kid to the hospital.

救護車迅速的到達棒球場把孩子帶去醫院。

The emergency room ascertained that the kid had no alcohol in his blood.

急診室後來確定孩子的血液中並沒有酒精

And they were ready to let the kid go.

他們才讓孩子離開。

But not so fast.

可這事還沒完。

The Wayne County Child Welfare Protection Agency said no.

韋恩縣兒童福利保護局並不允許孩子被帶走。

And the child was sent to a foster home for three days.

於是孩子被送去寄養家庭待了三天。

At that point, can the child go home?

到這時了，小孩可以回家了嗎?

Well, a judge said yes, but only if the dad leaves the house and checks into a motel.

是的，法官說可以了，但是前提是這位父親必須離開家裡到外面的旅館去住。

After two weeks, I'm happy to report,

等兩周後，我很高興的告訴大家，

the family was reunited.

這一家人終於團聚了。

But the welfare workers and the ambulance people

但是社福機構、救護人員

and the judge all said the same thing:

還有法官都說了同樣的話：

"We hate to do it but we have to follow procedure."

”我們也討厭這樣子做，但是我們必需按規定辦事”。

How do things like this happen?

這樣的事情怎麼會發生呢?

Scott Simon, who told this story on NPR,

史考特賽門(Scott Simon)在NPR內講了這個故事，

said, "Rules and procedures may be dumb,

他說：規則與制度可能死板呆滯，

but they spare you from thinking."

但是他們可以讓你不用思考。"

And, to be fair, rules are often imposed

公平一點的來說，規則常常都是強制性的，

because previous officials have been lax

因為以前的官員比較鬆懈，

and they let a child go back to an abusive household.

他們讓一個孩子回到一個充滿漫罵與傷害的家庭。

Fair enough.

這樣的理由充份了。

When things go wrong, as of course they do,

當事情做錯了，

we reach for two tools to try to fix them.

我們就會利用這類的工具去彌補。

One tool we reach for is rules.

這第一類的工具就是規則條例。

Better ones, more of them.

更多更好的規則。

The second tool we reach for is incentives.

第二種工具就是我們會尋求激勵的制度。

Better ones, more of them.

更多更好的激勵方式。

What else, after all, is there?

還有甚麼其他的方法與工具呢？

We can certainly see this in response to the current financial crisis.

我們可以輕易的在現在的金融危機的回應上發現到。

Regulate, regulate, regulate.

管制、管制再管制。

Fix the incentives, fix the incentives, fix the incentives ...

改善激勵方式、改善激勵方式還是改善激勵方式...

The truth is that neither rules nor incentives

事实是：不管是規則條例還是激勵方式，

are enough to do the job.

都不足以完成這樣的工作。

How could you even write a rule that got the janitors to do what they did?

你要如何去製定一條規定讓剛剛提到的那些清潔人員去做到他們應盡的工作內容呢?

And would you pay them a bonus for being empathic?

你會因為他們的同情心而發給他們獎金嗎?

It's preposterous on its face.

這看起來太荒謬了。

And what happens is that as we turn increasingly to rules,

當我們求助更多的獎勵制度時會發生甚麼事，

rules and incentives may make things better in the short run,

規則條例與激勵方式只會在短期內讓事情變好，

but they create a downward spiral

但是那些制度與條例產生了向下的漩渦，

that makes them worse in the long run.

讓事情在長期內變的更糟。

Moral skill is chipped away by an over-reliance on rules

道德的技能已經被規則的過度信賴給粉碎了，

that deprives us of the opportunity

它剝奪了我們的機會

to improvise and learn from our improvisations.

去隨機應變和臨場反應之中去學習。

And moral will is undermined

道德意願也被埋沒了

by an incessant appeal to incentives

因為不斷的尋求激勵方式

that destroy our desire to do the right thing.

而破壞了我們本身對於正確對待事情的欲望。

And without intending it,

不用去預想，

by appealing to rules and incentives,

尋求規則和激勵方式，

we are engaging in a war on wisdom.

我們將會經歷一場智慧的戰爭。

Let me just give you a few examples,

讓我來舉幾個例子，

first of rules and the war on moral skill.

先是規則與道德技能的衝突。

The lemonade story is one.

檸檬水的故事就是一個。

Second, no doubt more familiar to you,

第二個你們會更熟悉，

is the nature of modern American education:

美國現有的教育現況：

scripted, lock-step curricula.

照本宣科，遵尋著舊有的課程。

Here's an example from Chicago kindergarten.

這是一個發生在芝加哥幼稚園的例子。

Reading and enjoying literature

閱讀和欣賞

and words that begin with 'B.'

以B開頭的單字和文學作品。

"The Bath:" Assemble students on a rug

浴室：把學生們聚集在一個小墊子上，

and give students a warning about the dangers of hot water.

警告學生們熱水的危險性。

Say 75 items in this script to teach a 25-page picture book.

在計案中提出75件物品來教一本只有25頁的圖畫書籍。

All over Chicago in every kindergarten class in the city,

整個芝加哥的幼稚園，

every teacher is saying the same words in the same way on the same day.

每個老師在同一天都以相同的方式說著同樣的話。

We know why these scripts are there.

我們清楚為甚麼有這樣的教案。

We don't trust the judgment of teachers enough

我們無法充份的信任老師們的判斷力

to let them loose on their own.

讓他們去自由發揮。

Scripts like these are insurance policies against disaster.

像這樣的教案就像是應對災難的保險一樣。

And they prevent disaster.

他們能夠預防災難。

But what they assure in its place is mediocrity.

但是他們身為教師的職位，能肯定的是，他們造就了平庸。

(Applause)

(掌聲)

Don't get me wrong. We need rules!

不要誤會我的意思。我們需要規則!

Jazz musicians need some notes --

爵士樂手也需要一些樂譜，

most of them need some notes on the page.

他們大部份的人還是需要看著樂譜演奏。

We need more rules for the bankers, God knows.

我們需要更多的規則來約束銀行家，神也知道。

But too many rules prevent accomplished jazz musicians

但是太多的規則會讓熟練的爵士樂手

from improvising.

無法即興創作。

And as a result, they lose their gifts,

最後，他們就會失去他們的天賦，

or worse, they stop playing altogether.

或者更壞的狀況是他們完全不再演出。

Now, how about incentives?

那激勵方式呢?

They seem cleverer.

它們看起來更聰明些。

If you have one reason for doing something

如果你有一個理由去做某件事，

and I give you a second reason for doing the same thing,

我會給你第二個理由做相同的事情

it seems only logical that two reasons are better than one

單單從邏輯上來說兩個理由似乎比一個理由 好

and you're more likely to do it.

而你就更有理由去做。

Right?

是吧?

Well, not always.

其實不一定。

Sometimes two reasons to do the same thing seem to compete with one another

有的時後做同一件事的兩個理由可能會相當矛盾，

instead of complimenting,

而不是相輔相成

and they make people less likely to do it.

他們就會使人不那麼願意去做。

I'll just give you one example because time is racing.

因為時間有限我就在舉一個例子。

In Switzerland, back about 15 years ago,

大概在15年前的瑞士，

they were trying to decide where to site nuclear waste dumps.

人們試圖決定要在哪裡處理核廢料。

There was going to be a national referendum.

那時舉行了全國性的公民投票。

Some psychologists went around and polled citizens who were very well informed.

一些心理學家就四處游走，向一些知識豐富的公民拉票。

And they said, "Would you be willing to have a nuclear waste dump in your community?"

他們就問”你願意在你的社區內放置核廢料嗎?”

Astonishingly, 50 percent of the citizens said yes.

吃驚的是50%的公民都說願意。

They knew it was dangerous.

他們也知道危險性。

They thought it would reduce their property values.

他們知道這將降低他們房屋的價值。

But it had to go somewhere

但是這些核廢料總要放到某地方

and they had responsibilities as citizens.

而且做為公民也有義務負責。

The psychologists asked other people a slightly different question.

心理學家們稍微改了一下問題，又問了其它的人。

They said, "If we paid you six weeks' salary every year

他們問”如果我們每年付你六周的薪水，

would you be willing to have a nuclear waste dump in your community?"

你願意在你的社區內安置核廢料嗎?”

Two reasons. It's my responsibility and I'm getting paid.

兩個理由，這是我的義務而且我還拿的到錢。

Instead of 50 percent saying yes,

不像是之前的50%說願意而已，

25 percent said yes.

現在只有25%的人願意這麼做。

What happens is that

這個結果

the second this introduction of incentive gets us

就是第二個激勵條件所造成的。

so that instead of asking, "What is my responsibility?"

它没有使我們去問”甚麼是我的職責義務?”

all we ask is, "What serves my interests?"

而是問:”什麼符合我的利益？“

When incentives don't work,

當激勵機制不奏效的時候，

when CEOs ignore the long-term health of their companies

當首席執行長不顧公司的長期健康的發展

in pursuit of short-term gains that will lead to massive bonuses,

而去追求可以立即得到大量紅利的短期利益的時後，

the response is always the same.

回應終是一樣的。

Get smarter incentives.

建立更加巧妙的激勵制度。

The truth is that there are no incentives that you can devise

事情的真相確是:你不可能想出

that are ever going to be smart enough.

足夠巧妙的激勵機制。

Any incentive system can be subverted by bad will.

任何激勵機制都可以被惡意的意願給推翻的。

We need incentives. People have to make a living.

我們是需要激勵機制的。人們總是需要生活。

But excessive reliance on incentives

但是對於激勵機制過分的依賴

demoralizes professional activity

會讓道德的活躍性受挫

in two senses of that word.

這可以由兩個面向來看。

It causes people who engage in that activity to lose morale

他會讓已經在這個活動裡面的人失去士氣

and it causes the activity itself to lose morality.

也會讓活動喪失民心。

Barack Obama said, before he was inaugurated,

在就職之前歐巴馬說

"We must ask not just 'Is it profitable?' but 'Is it right?'"

”我們不僅僅問’這個有利潤嗎’還要問’這是對的嗎?’”

And when professions are demoralized,

當職位士氣受挫時，

everyone in them becomes dependent on -- addicted to -- incentives

從事這個職位的人都會變得依賴甚至沉溺於激勵制度

and they stop asking "Is it right?"

而且他們也不會問”這是正確的嗎?”

We see this in medicine.

我們能在醫療行業中看到這些事。

("Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.")

”儘管不是那麼嚴重，我們最好注意一下確保這些事部會變成嚴重的訴訟。”

And we certainly see it in the world of business.

”我們當然也能在商業的世界裡看到這些。

("In order to remain competitive in today's marketplace, I'm afraid we're going to have to replace you with a sleezeball.")

”為了在當今的市場保持競爭力，我們恐怕要用個懶漢來取代你的位置了。”

("I sold my soul for about a tenth of what the damn things are going for now.")

”為了這些混賬事將要達到目標的十分之一，我現在就出賣了我的靈魂。”

It is obvious that this is not the way people want to do their work.

這很顯然並不是人們所期待的工作方式。

So what can we do?

那麼我們可以做些甚麼呢?

A few sources of hope:

下面是一些希望的來源:

we ought to try to re-moralize work.

我們應該常是重新賦予工作道德的意涵。

One way not to do it: teach more ethics courses.

一個方法就是:不要教授過多的道德規範課程。

(Applause)

(掌聲)

There is no better way to show people that you're not serious

要向人們展示你並不是那麼嚴肅，最好的方法就是

than to tie up everything you have to say about ethics

把你要說的那些關於道德規範的事包裝起來

into a little package with a bow and consign it to the margins as an ethics course.

帶到一個有蝴蝶結的小包裝裡，然後把它當成一節道德的課程交出來。

What to do instead?

除此之外還可以做甚麼呢?

One: Celebrate moral exemplars.

方式一 : 表揚道德榜樣。

Acknowledge, when you go to law school,

當你走進法學院的時候會有

that a little voice is whispering in your ear

一個很小的聲音就在你耳邊講訴

about Atticus Finch.

阿提卡斯芬奇這位正義律師的故事。

No 10-year-old goes to law school to do mergers and acquisitions.

没有10歲的小孩進法學院是為了從事兼併和收購。

People are inspired by moral heroes.

人們會被道德英雄們給激勵。

But we learn that with sophistication

但我們知道，當詭辯強詞奪理的時後，

comes the understanding that you can't acknowledge that you have moral heroes.

你就會為不承認你有敬仰的道德英雄。

Well, acknowledge them.

還是承認他們吧。

Be proud that you have them.

因你擁有他們而自豪吧。

Celebrate them.

讚美他們。

And demand that the people who teach you acknowledge them and celebrate them too.

也需要有些人來教你認識與讚美這些道德英雄。

That's one thing we can do.

這是我們可以做的一件事。

I don't know how many of you remember this:

我不知道您們有多少人記得這件事:

another moral hero, 15 years ago, Aaron Feuerstein,

十五年前另一個道德英雄，愛倫福爾斯丁(Aaron Feuerstein)，

who was the head of Malden Mills in Massachusetts --

他是麻薩諸塞州梅爾登米爾斯的老板 –

they made Polartec --

這公司是生產Polarter材料

The factory burned down.

工廠燒毀了，

3,000 employees. He kept every one of them on the payroll.

有3000個工人，他還是讓每一個工人都領到了工錢。

Why? Because it would have been a disaster for them

為甚麼呢?因為如果讓工人離開對於他們來說，或者對於

and for the community if he had let them go.

社區來說，這將是很不幸的災難。

"Maybe on paper our company is worth less to Wall Street,

”可能名稱上我們並沒有華爾街的公司值錢，

but I can tell you it's worth more. We're doing fine."

但我可告訴你們，它比想像的更有價值，我們做的很好”

Just at this TED we heard talks from several moral heroes.

就在TED，我就聽到了好幾個道德英雄的演講。

Two were particularly inspiring to me.

有兩個特別激勵我。

One was Ray Anderson, who turned --

一個是雷安德森(Ray Anderson)，他 –

(Applause)

(掌聲)，

-- turned, you know, a part of the evil empire

你們也知道，他把邪惡帝國的一部份變成了

into a zero-footprint, or almost zero-footprint business.

一個碳零排放，或者說是零排放的生意。

Why? Because it was the right thing to do.

為甚麼呢?因為這是正確的事。

And a bonus he's discovering is

他發現的另一個額外的獎勵是:

he's actually going to make even more money.

他實際上將會賺更多的錢。

His employees are inspired by the effort.

他的員工被他的作為所激勵。

Why? Because there happy to be doing something that's the right thing to do.

為甚麼呢?因為他們很樂意去做那些正確的事。

Yesterday we heard Willie Smits talk about re-foresting in Indonesia.

昨天我們聽了威力斯密特(Willie Smits)關於重建印尼森林的演講。

(Applause)

(掌聲)

In many ways this is the perfect example.

從很多方面來說這是一個完美的例子。

Because it took the will to do the right thing.

因為它利用了意願來做正確的事。

God knows it took a huge amount of technical skill.

上帝也知道這會用到很多的技術技能。

I'm boggled at how much he and his associates needed to know

我非常吃驚的是他和他的組織到底需要知道多少細節內容

in order to plot this out.

才能把事情規劃出來。

But most important to make it work --

但是最重要的是讓它運作起來，

and he emphasized this --

而且他強調

is that it took knowing the people in the communities.

這是用來讓很多團體的人們瞭解的一部份。

Unless the people you're working with are behind you,

除非和你一起工作的人們在身後支持你，

this will fail.

不然這將會失敗。

And there isn't a formula to tell you how to get the people behind you,

但沒有一個公式會告訴你如何讓人們支持你。

because different people in different communities

因為在不同團體內有不同的人

organize their lives in different ways.

會用各種不同的方式來進行他們的生活。

So there's a lot here at TED, and at other places, to celebrate.

在TED和很多其它的地方都有很多事值得稱讚。

And you don't have to be a mega-hero.

你也不必非要去當個超級英雄。

There are ordinary heroes.

有很多平凡的英雄

Ordinary heroes like the janitors who are worth celebrating too.

就像是之前提到的清潔工人一樣，他們就是值得讚揚的平凡英雄。

As practitioners each and every one of us should strive

作為參與者，我們每一個人都應該努力

to be ordinary, if not extraordinary heroes.

如果成不了非凡的英雄也要成為一個平凡的英雄。

As heads of organizations,

作為公司的老板，

we should strive to create environments

我們應該努力的創造環境

that encourage and nurture both moral skill and moral will.

來鼓勵和培養道德技能與道德意願。

Even the wisest and most well-meaning people

即使是最聰明善解人意的人

will give up if they have to swim against the current

也會放棄如果要他們去逆流而行

in the organizations in which they work.

和他們工作的單位抗爭。

If you run an organization, you should be sure

如果你要成立一家公司，你要確保

that none of the jobs -- none of the jobs --

沒有一個工作 – 沒有一個工作

have job descriptions like the job descriptions of the janitors.

的工作說明會像之前的清潔人員的工作說明一樣。

Because the truth is that

因為真相是

any work that you do that involves interaction with other people

你做的任何一個與人打交道的工作

is moral work.

都是道德的工作。

And any moral work depends upon practical wisdom.

任何一個道德的工作都會依賴於實踐的智慧。

And, perhaps most important,

然後最重要的是

as teachers, we should strive to be the ordinary heroes,

身為一個老師，我們應該努力成為平凡的英雄，

the moral exemplars, to the people we mentor.

成為我們做為教導人們的道德模範。

And there are a few things that we have to remember as teachers.

作為老師有一些事我們應該記住。

One is that we are always teaching.

一是我們一直都在教導。

Someone is always watching.

而有人會一直在觀察。

The camera is always on.

鏡頭永遠是打開著的。

Bill Gates talked about the importance of education

比爾蓋茲談論過教育的重要性，

and, in particular, the model that KIPP was providing:

還特別提供了KIPP規範。

"Knowledge is power."

”知識就是力量”

And he talked about a lot of the wonderful things

他也談到了許多美好的事情

that KIPP is doing

KIPP正在

to take inner-city kids and turn them in the direction of college.

讓市中心的孩子走向大學的道路。

I want to focus on one particular thing KIPP is doing

我想把重點放在KIPP正在做的一件事情上那是

that Bill didn't mention.

比爾蓋茲沒提過的。

That is that they have come to the realization

他們發現這樣一件事實

that the single most important thing kids need to learn

就是孩子需要學的最重要的一件事

is character.

就是人格。

They need to learn to respect themselves.

他們需要學習尊重自己。

They need to learn to respect their schoolmates.

他們需要學習尊重他們的同學。

They need to learn to respect their teachers.

他們需要學習尊重他們的老師。

And, most important, they need to learn to respect learning.

最重要的是，他們需要學習尊重學習。

That's the principle objective.

這是一個理論性的目標。

If you do that, the rest is just pretty much a coast downhill.

如果你這麼做了，剩下的就像是向下的滑坡一路好走。

And the teachers: the way you teach these things to the kids

老師們你們教導孩子的方法

is by having the teachers and all the other staff embody it every minute of every day.

應該把每天每一分鐘所有的東西都融合在一起。

Obama appealed to virtue.

歐巴瑪呼籲美德。

And I think he was right.

我認為他是對的。

And the virtue I think we need above all others is practical wisdom,

而且我認為我們最需要的美德就是實踐的智慧。

because it's what allows other virtues -- honesty, kindness, courage and so on --

因為它讓其它的美德 – 誠實，善良，勇氣等等 –

to be displayed at the right time and in the right way.

在正確的時間以正確的方式展現出來。

He also appealed to hope.

他還呼籲期望。

Right again.

也是對的。

I think there is reason for hope.

我認為呼籲期望是有原因的。

I think people want to be allowed to be virtuous.

我想人人都希望能都是善的。

In many ways, it's what TED is all about.

從很大的程度上來說這就是TED的意義所在。

Wanting to do the right thing

期望能做正確的事情，

in the right way

以正確的方式，

for the right reasons.

為正當的理由。

This kind of wisdom is within the grasp of each and every one of us

這種智慧是我們每一個都能獲得的，

if only we start paying attention.

只要我們開始注意。

Paying attention to what we do,

注意我們所做的事情，

to how we do it,

留心我們做事的方式，

and, perhaps most importantly,

以及，可能是最重要的，

to the structure of the organizations within which we work,

去構築我們所工作的組織，

so as to make sure that it enables us and other people to develop wisdom

以此來保證它可以讓我們和其它人開發智慧

rather than having it suppressed.

而不是壓制我們的智慧。

Thank you very much.

非常感謝您們。

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

(掌聲)

Chris Anderson: You have to go and stand out here a sec.

克里斯‧安德森 : 你可能要到那邊站著等一下。

Barry Schwartz: Thank you very much.

巴瑞‧史瓦茲 : 非常感謝大家。

(Applause)

(掌聲)