千文網(wǎng)小編為你整理了多篇相關(guān)的《ted中英文演講稿(合集)》，但愿對(duì)你工作學(xué)習(xí)有幫助，當(dāng)然你在千文網(wǎng)還可以找到更多《ted中英文演講稿(合集)》。

第一篇：ted演講稿永不放棄

各位老師，各位同學(xué)：

大家好!我演講的題目是“決不輕言放棄，勇敢面對(duì)挫折”。

作為即將參加高考的高三學(xué)子，或許三年高中，我們即將結(jié)束，但在人生征途中，我們卻永遠(yuǎn)在路上。一路來我們獲得過掌聲，也遭逢過挫折。

月考后的幾家歡樂幾家愁，就是最好的證明。面對(duì)成績(jī)，無疑要?jiǎng)俣或?，再接再?而面對(duì)失敗，我們則要堅(jiān)定地說，切莫放棄。

林肯先生，24歲經(jīng)商失敗，26歲戀人死去，27歲精神崩潰，中年時(shí)代多次競(jìng)選參議員和副總統(tǒng)，均告失敗?；蛟S只有這些，才能算得上人生中真正的挫折。

可面對(duì)這么多挫折，林肯并沒有放棄自己的追求，而是仍舊堅(jiān)持不懈地努力。最終，他成為了美國(guó)第十六任總統(tǒng)。正是因?yàn)闆Q不在挫折面前輕言放棄，林肯最終實(shí)現(xiàn)了自己的理想。

戰(zhàn)勝挫折走向成功的，不僅僅只有林肯總統(tǒng)一人。

著名作家馬克·吐溫還是一名“文學(xué)愛好者”時(shí)，寫了一篇自我感覺很好的小說，他滿懷信心的送到書商那里，不料竟遭到書商的冷嘲熱諷：

“難吃的菜吃一口就夠了，這是我見過的最爛的書稿，像你這樣的作者這一輩子也別想找出愿意出版你的書的人。別浪費(fèi)時(shí)間了，趁早干點(diǎn)別的活兒把!”多年以后，馬克·吐溫再次見到了那位書商，對(duì)他說：“這些年來，我日日夜夜都在想怎樣擺脫折磨你方解心頭之恨，事實(shí)上，我正是這么熬過來的?！瘪R克吐溫此時(shí)的調(diào)侃，活脫脫的證明了人們最出色的工作往往是在逆境與挫折中做出來的。然而，有些人，對(duì)于挫折，卻總是有消極的思想。

生活中，我們經(jīng)常在報(bào)紙與新聞中看到有人因?yàn)樯钪械拇煺鄱詺ⅰ?/p>

我想不明白，是什么樣的挫折，可以讓人放棄身上最寶貴的財(cái)富——生命!

好死不如賴活著，活著，就代表著希望，代表著一切都可以從頭開始。而死亡呢?能帶來什么?解脫?你自己是解脫了，你的親人呢?你的朋友呢?你所愛的和愛你的人呢?你給他們帶來的除了悲傷，除了難過，還有嗎?這是多么自私的一種做法啊!為什么，不能用自己的雙手，來克服那一個(gè)個(gè)挫折呢?命運(yùn)，是掌握在我們自己的手中的!

其實(shí)，只要我們有了積極的人生態(tài)度，向?qū)W習(xí)、生活中的艱難困苦挑戰(zhàn)，不被困難所嚇倒，不言放棄，就一定會(huì)歷經(jīng)風(fēng)雨見彩虹，贏得高的勝利，譜寫精彩的人生。

20xx年，牛津大學(xué)舉辦了一個(gè)“成功的秘訣”講座，邀請(qǐng)丘吉爾演講。人們想像著這樣一個(gè)大人物會(huì)透露出怎么樣的成功秘訣。不想?yún)s只聽到幾句話：“我的成功秘訣有三個(gè)：第一是‘決不放棄’，第二是‘決不、決不放棄’;第三是‘決不、決不、決不放棄’!”會(huì)場(chǎng)上沉寂片刻，隨即爆發(fā)出雷鳴般的掌聲，經(jīng)久不息。生活處處多風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，逆境往往多于順勢(shì)。在困難的時(shí)候，要看到希望，看到光明，成功往往就在再堅(jiān)持一下的努力中。不言放棄，成功的秘訣有時(shí)就這么簡(jiǎn)單。明白這一點(diǎn)，我們的求學(xué)之路會(huì)更順暢，我們的理想會(huì)更接近。

如今的我們，將理想分成了幾個(gè)小目標(biāo)，一個(gè)一個(gè)地去奮斗、去努力。倘若我們因?yàn)橐稽c(diǎn)小小的挫折就輕易說放棄，那些目標(biāo)又有什么意義?上蒼賦予我們生命，就是要我們?nèi)ゲ恍傅仄床　?/p>

同學(xué)們，決不輕言放棄，勇敢面對(duì)挫折是一種美德，更是一種積極的人生態(tài)度。我們無法創(chuàng)造命運(yùn)，但我們可以用實(shí)際行動(dòng)改變命運(yùn)，我們可以向命運(yùn)中的艱難困苦挑戰(zhàn)。不被挫折所嚇倒，不言放棄，終能歷經(jīng)風(fēng)雨見彩虹，譜寫精彩的人生。

桑蘭摔殘了肢體，張海迪高位截癱，貝多芬雙耳失聰，海倫·凱勒的生命中沒有光明與黑暗，可他們從未放棄自己對(duì)美好理想的追求。正是不輕言放棄，勇敢面對(duì)挫折讓她們有了壯美的人生，贏得了世人的尊重。

白駒過隙，流水無痕。在匆匆忙忙的塵世中，我們能做的只有不懈地努力，不懈地奮斗，最終實(shí)現(xiàn)自己的理想。這，才是我們生命的意義。

無論前面的路多么坎坷，“決不輕言放棄，勇敢面對(duì)挫折”將永遠(yuǎn)是我們?nèi)松非蟮挠篮銊?dòng)力。

我的演講完畢，謝謝大家!

第二篇：ted演講稿

大家好!

人生是短暫而又孤獨(dú)的，人必須獨(dú)立堅(jiān)強(qiáng)的戰(zhàn)斗下去，走自己認(rèn)為正確的道路，不能有絲毫的猶豫與放松。否則就會(huì)被時(shí)代所淘汰。

正如前幾天所報(bào)道的一樣，美國(guó)蘋果公司執(zhí)行官兼總裁史蒂夫喬布斯去世了，媒體網(wǎng)絡(luò)都相繼報(bào)道了起來，成為了論壇話題，很多人都為此感到了驚訝與惋惜，但從背后的角度來看，喬布斯的去世不得不說是蘋果傳奇的結(jié)束，自喬布斯1977年創(chuàng)立蘋果公司以來，蘋果公司一直保持著電子商業(yè)界的不朽傳奇，第一年就得到了盈利，之后經(jīng)過公司的不斷創(chuàng)新，蘋果成為人們不斷選擇的電子品牌之一，正因?yàn)橛袉滩妓乖?，才有了蘋果的今天，從而帶動(dòng)了電子商業(yè)界，使世界不斷走向電子科技化，他為電子界寫下了光輝的一筆，實(shí)現(xiàn)了自己的人生價(jià)值，他死的是重于泰山。

人生帶給我們的酸甜苦辣，對(duì)我們來說都是一種很好的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，會(huì)使我們逐漸成長(zhǎng)，正是人類社會(huì)有了這種思想，我們的社會(huì)才得以一代代延續(xù)下來，我們的生活才一天比一天好，人生才有了價(jià)值。

相信自己，不斷向前看齊，堅(jiān)定黎明后會(huì)是陽(yáng)光，為人生上色，走出一條自己繪畫的人生彩圖，使它絢麗起來，做的自己，不斷向前邁進(jìn)，去走向黎明后的彼岸，鋪設(shè)輝煌的人生。

第三篇：ted演講稿

I was one of the only kids in college who had a reason to go to the P.O.bo_ at the end of the day, and that was mainly because my mother has neverbelieved in email, in Facebook, in te_ting or cell phones in general. And sowhile other kids were BBM-ing their parents, I was literally waiting by themailbo_ to get a letter from home to see how the weekend had gone, which was alittle frustrating when Grandma was in the hospital, but I was just looking forsome sort of scribble, some unkempt cursive from my mother.

And so when I moved to New York City after college and got completelysucker-punched in the face by depression, I did the only thing I could think ofat the time. I wrote those same kinds of letters that my mother had written mefor strangers, and tucked them all throughout the city, dozens and dozens ofthem. I left them everywhere, in cafes and in libraries, at the U.N.,everywhere. I blogged about those letters and the days when they were necessary,and I posed a kind of crazy promise to the Internet: that if you asked me for ahand-written letter, I would write you one, no questions asked. Overnight, myinbo_ morphed into this harbor of heartbreak -- a single mother in Sacramento, agirl being bullied in rural Kansas, all asking me, a 22-year-old girl who barelyeven knew her own coffee order, to write them a love letter and give them areason to wait by the mailbo_.

Well, today I fuel a global organization that is fueled by those trips tothe mailbo_, fueled by the ways in which we can harness social media like neverbefore to write and mail strangers letters when they need them most, but most ofall, fueled by crates of mail like this one, my trusty mail crate, filled withthe scriptings of ordinary people, strangers writing letters to other strangersnot because they're ever going to meet and laugh over a cup of coffee, butbecause they have found one another by way of letter-writing.

But, you know, the thing that always gets me about these letters is thatmost of them have been written by people that have never known themselves lovedon a piece of paper. They could not tell you about the ink of their own loveletters. They're the ones from my generation, the ones of us that have grown upinto a world where everything is paperless, and where some of our bestconversations have happened upon a screen. We have learned to diary our painonto Facebook, and we speak swiftly in 140 characters or less.

But what if it's not about efficiency this time? I was on the subwayyesterday with this mail crate, which is a conversation starter, let me tellyou. If you ever need one, just carry one of these. (Laughter) And a man juststared at me, and he was like, "Well, why don't you use the Internet?" And Ithought, "Well, sir, I am not a strategist, nor am I specialist. I am merely astoryteller." And so I could tell you about a woman whose husband has just comehome from Afghanistan, and she is having a hard time unearthing this thingcalled conversation, and so she tucks love letters throughout the house as a wayto say, "Come back to me. Find me when you can." Or a girl who decides that sheis going to leave love letters around her campus in Dubuque, Iowa, only to findher efforts ripple-effected the ne_t day when she walks out onto the quad andfinds love letters hanging from the trees, tucked in the bushes and the benches.Or the man who decides that he is going to take his life, uses Facebook as a wayto say goodbye to friends and family. Well, tonight he sleeps safely with astack of letters just like this one tucked beneath his pillow, scripted bystrangers who were there for him when.

These are the kinds of stories that convinced me that letter-writing willnever again need to flip back her hair and talk about efficiency, because she isan art form now, all the parts of her, the signing, the scripting, the mailing,the doodles in the margins. The mere fact that somebody would even just sitdown, pull out a piece of paper and think about someone the whole way through,with an intention that is so much harder to unearth when the browser is up andthe iPhone is pinging and we've got si_ conversations rolling in at once, thatis an art form that does not fall down to the Goliath of "get faster," no matterhow many social networks we might join. We still clutch close these letters toour chest, to the words that speak louder than loud, when we turn pages intopalettes to say the things that we have needed to say, the words that we haveneeded to write, to sisters and brothers and even to strangers, for far toolong. Thank you.

第四篇：TED英文演講稿

On what we think we know?

我們以為自己知道的

I'm going to try and explain why it is that perhaps we don't understand as much as we think we do. I'd like to begin with four questions. This is not some sort of cultural thing for the time of year. That's an in-joke, by the way.

我會(huì)試著解釋為何 我們知道的東西很可能并沒有我們自以為知道的多 我想從四個(gè)問題開始,不是那種今年流行的文化問題 對(duì)了，剛剛那句是個(gè)圈內(nèi)笑話

But these four questions, actually, are ones that people who even know quite a lot about science find quite hard. And they're questions that I've asked of science television producers, of audiences of science educators -- so that's science teachers -- and also of seven-year-olds, and I find that the seven-year-olds do marginally better than the other audiences, which is somewhat surprising.

不過這四個(gè)問題，事實(shí)上 即使是很懂科學(xué)的人也會(huì)覺得很難應(yīng)答 我拿這些問題去問科學(xué)節(jié)目制片人 問那些有科學(xué)教育背景的觀眾 也問教科學(xué)的老師還有七歲孩童 我發(fā)現(xiàn)七歲孩童答得比其他人好 這是有些令人驚訝

So the first question, and you might want to write this down, either on a bit of paper, physically, or a virtual piece of paper in your head. And, for viewers at home, you can try this as well.

第一個(gè)問題，我建議你把問題記下來 抄在紙上，或想像中的紙上 坐在電腦前的你也可以試著作答.

A little seed weighs next to nothing and a tree weighs a lot, right? I think we agree on that. Where does the tree get the stuff that makes up this chair, right? Where does all this stuff come from?

種籽很輕，而大樹很重，是嗎?我想我們都同意吧，大樹用來制成椅子的東西是從哪來的? 對(duì)吧?這些東西都是怎么來的?

(Knocks)

(敲椅聲)

And your next question is, can you light a little torch-bulb with a battery, a bulb and one piece of wire? And would you be able to, kind of, draw a -- you don't have to draw the diagram, but would you be able to draw the diagram, if you had to do it? Or would you just say, that's actually not possible?

問題二，你能否點(diǎn)亮一個(gè)小燈泡 只用1個(gè)電池、1個(gè)燈泡、和1條電線? 那你能畫出上述問題的圖解嗎?不用真的畫 但如果需要的話， 你能畫出來嗎? 還是你會(huì)說 這個(gè)不可能?

The third question is, why is it hotter in summer than in winter? I think we can probably agree that it is hotter in summer than in winter, but why? And finally, would you be able to -- and you can sort of scribble it, if you like -- scribble a plan diagram of the solar system, showing the shape of the planets' orbits? Would you be able to do that? And if you can, just scribble a pattern.

第三個(gè)問題，為什么夏天比冬天熱? 大家應(yīng)該都同意夏天比冬天還熱 但為何如此?最后，你能不能 簡(jiǎn)單的勾勒出 太陽(yáng)系的平面圖... 呈現(xiàn)出行星軌道運(yùn)行的形狀 你可以畫得出來嗎? 你畫得出來的話，就把形狀畫出來

OK. Now, children get their ideas not from teachers, as teachers often think, but actually from common sense, from experience of the world around them, from all the things that go on between them and their peers, and their carers, and their parents, and all of that. Experience. And one of the great experts in this field, of course, was, bless him, Cardinal Wolsey. Be very careful what you get into people's heads because it's virtually impossible to shift it afterwards, right?

好，孩童對(duì)事物的概念不是老師教的 老師時(shí)常這么以為，但實(shí)際上概念來自于常理 來自于孩童對(duì)周遭世界的體驗(yàn) 來自于他們跟同伴彼此交流 還有跟保姆、父母親、所有人交流的經(jīng)驗(yàn) 這個(gè)領(lǐng)域中的一個(gè)專家，對(duì)了，愿他安息 就是渥西主教，他說要你將東西放進(jìn)其他人的鬧袋里的時(shí)候要小心 因?yàn)槟切〇|西幾乎不會(huì)再改變，對(duì)吧?

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

I'm not quite sure how he died, actually. Was he beheaded in the end, or hung?

我不太清楚他的死因，真的 他最后上了斷頭臺(tái)?還是被吊死?

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Now, those questions, which, of course, you've got right, and you haven't been conferring, and so on. And I -- you know, normally, I would pick people out and humiliate, but maybe not in this instance.

現(xiàn)在回到那四個(gè)問題，大家都知道是什么問題了 你們彼此之間也沒有討論答案 我平時(shí)習(xí)慣點(diǎn)人站起來回答讓他丟臉 不過這次就不點(diǎn)了

A little seed weighs a lot and, basically, all this stuff, 99 percent of this stuff, came out of the air. Now, I guarantee that about 85 percent of you, or maybe it's fewer at TED, will have said it comes out of the ground. And some people, probably two of you, will come up and argue with me afterwards, and say that actually, it comes out of the ground. Now, if that was true, we'd have trucks going round the country, filling people's gardens in with soil, it'd be a fantastic business. But, actually, we don't do that. The mass of this comes out of the air. Now, I passed all my biology exams in Britain. I passed them really well, but I still came out of school thinking that that stuff came out of the ground.

種籽可以很重，基本上所有的這些 99%都來自于空氣 我相信有85%的人，或許在你們TED會(huì)比較少 會(huì)說木材來自于大地，而有些人 也許你們中的一兩位， 可能結(jié)束后會(huì)來找我爭(zhēng)論 說木材其實(shí)是來自于大地 若是如此，那我們就會(huì)有讓卡車跑來跑去 把人們的花園都填上土，那會(huì)是很棒的生意。 不過實(shí)際上我們不會(huì)那么做 因?yàn)槟静牡牟牧洗蟛糠制鋵?shí)是從空氣中來的 我在英國(guó)念書時(shí)考生物每考必過 我的成績(jī)很好，但畢業(yè)后 還是以為木材來自于大地

Second one: can you light a little torch-bulb with a battery bulb and one piece of wire? Yes, you can, and I'll show you in a second how to do that. Now, I have some rather bad news, which is that I had a piece of video that I was about to show you, which unfortunately -- the sound doesn't work in this room, so I'm going to describe to you, in true "Monty Python" fashion, what happens in the video. And in the video, a group of researchers go to MIT on graduation day. We chose MIT because, obviously, that's a very long way away from here, and you wouldn't mind too much, but it sort of works the same way in Britain and in the West Coast of the USA. And we asked them these questions, and we asked those questions of science graduates, and they couldn't answer them. And so, there's a whole lot of people saying, "I'd be very surprised if you told me that this came out of the air. That's very surprising to me." And those are science graduates. And we intercut it with, "We are the premier science university in the world," because of British-like hubris.

你能用一枚電池和一根電線點(diǎn)亮燈泡嗎? 是，你可以，我會(huì)示范怎么做。 不過，現(xiàn)在有個(gè)壞消息 本來有個(gè)影片要給大家看 可惜在這邊聲音放不出來 所以我就口頭描述一下的，用巨蟒劇團(tuán)的表演方式， 影片內(nèi)容是這樣的，在影片里有一群研究員 在畢業(yè)典禮那天去麻省理工學(xué)院 為什么是麻省理工呢?因?yàn)樗x這里很遠(yuǎn) 大家也就不會(huì)太介意 不過場(chǎng)景設(shè)在英國(guó)結(jié)果也差不多 或是設(shè)在美國(guó)西岸 我們問了麻省理工的畢業(yè)生這四個(gè)問題 這些理工科畢業(yè)生也答不出來 而且還有很多學(xué)生表示 “我很驚訝你說木材是從空氣中來的 ”這真的讓我很吃驚“，那些理工的畢業(yè)生這么說 我們用”我們是全球第一的理工大學(xué)“來作影片的結(jié)尾。 因?yàn)橛?guó)人很傲慢

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

And when we gave graduate engineers that question, they said it couldn't be done. And when we gave them a battery, and a piece of wire, and a bulb, and said, "Can you do it?" They couldn't do it. Right? And that's no different from Imperial College in London, by the way, it's not some sort of anti-American thing going on.

我們拿第二個(gè)問題去問碩士畢業(yè)的工程師們 他們說這不可能做得到 我們拿了電池、電線、和燈泡 問他們”你能做到嗎?“，他們沒辦法，是吧? 順道一提，倫敦的帝國(guó)學(xué)院的情況估計(jì)也差不多如此 我們不是在做什么反美的事

As if. Now, the reason this matters is we pay lots and lots of money for teaching people -- we might as well get it right. And there are also some societal reasons why we might want people to understand what it is that's happening in photosynthesis. For example, one half of the carbon equation is how much we emit, and the other half of the carbon equation, as I'm very conscious as a trustee of Kew, is how much things soak up, and they soak up carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

雖然聽來頗像。問題的關(guān)鍵是我們花了很多錢 來教育大眾，我們應(yīng)該正確地來做這件事。 其中也有一些社會(huì)因素 讓我們想使大眾了解光合作用如何運(yùn)作 例如，有一半的碳儲(chǔ)量是人類排放的 而另一半碳儲(chǔ)量 我相當(dāng)關(guān)切，身為皇家植物園的受托管理人

That's what plants actually do for a living. And, for any Finnish people in the audience, this is a Finnish pun: we are, both literally and metaphorically, skating on thin ice if we don't understand that kind of thing.Now, here's how you do the battery and the bulb. It's so easy, isn't it? Of course, you all knew that. But if you haven't played with a battery and a bulb, if you've only seen a circuit diagram, you might not be able to do that, and that's one of the problems.

是植物吸收多少二氧化碳 植物就是以此維生的 如果在場(chǎng)有芬蘭人，這是芬蘭話的雙關(guān)語 我們無論在實(shí)際上或隱喻上，都是如履薄冰 要是我們不明白那些事 電池和燈泡只要這要做就行 很簡(jiǎn)單，不是嗎?你們都懂了 但要是你沒有親手碰過電池和燈泡 如果你只看過電路圖 你可能就做不出來，這是個(gè)麻煩

So, why is it hotter in summer than in winter? We learn, as children, that you get closer to something that's hot, and it burns you. It's a very powerful bit of learning, and it happens pretty early on. By extension, we think to ourselves, "Why it's hotter in summer than in winter must be because we're closer to the Sun." I promise you that most of you will have got that. Oh, you're all shaking your heads, but only a few of you are shaking your heads very firmly.

那么，為何夏天比冬天熱? 我們從小就知道，離熱的東西太近 你就被燙到，這真很有效的教育方法 很小的時(shí)候大家就學(xué)到了 延伸這個(gè)論點(diǎn)，我們覺得夏天比冬天熱 一定是因?yàn)槲覀冸x太陽(yáng)比較近 我相信大多人都懂了 哦，大家都在搖頭 不過只有幾個(gè)人搖得很堅(jiān)定

Other ones are kind of going like this. All right. It's hotter in summer than in winter because the rays from the Sun are spread out more, right, because of the tilt of the Earth. And if you think the tilt is tilting us closer, no, it isn't. The Sun is 93 million miles away, and we're tilting like this, right? It makes no odds. In fact, in the Northern Hemisphere, we're further from the Sun in summer, as it happens, but it makes no odds, the difference.

其他人只是這樣子搖而已，好吧 夏天比冬天熱是因?yàn)樘?yáng)的輻射線 傳播得比較多，地球傾斜的關(guān)系 如果你以為是朝太陽(yáng)的方向傾斜，那就錯(cuò)了 太陽(yáng)離地球1億5千萬公里，地球傾斜角度大略如此 傾斜不是差別所在，在北半球 夏天時(shí)我們離太陽(yáng)更遠(yuǎn) 跟傾斜沒有關(guān)系

OK, now, the scribble of the diagram of the solar system. If you believe, as most of you probably do, that it's hotter in summer than in winter because we're closer to the Sun, you must have drawn an ellipse. Right? That would explain it, right? Except, in your -- you're nodding -- now, in your ellipse, have you thought, "Well, what happens during the night?"

好，問題四是畫出太陽(yáng)系的平面圖 如果大家相信，大多數(shù)可能都相信 夏天比冬天熱是因?yàn)榈厍螂x太陽(yáng)較近 大家應(yīng)該都畫了橢圓形 對(duì)吧?這就能解釋了吧? 除非，你點(diǎn)頭了，你畫了個(gè)橢圓形 你有想過，「夜晚又是怎么回事」?

Between Australia and here, right, they've got summer and we've got winter, and what -- does the Earth kind of rush towards the Sun at night, and then rush back again? I mean, it's a very strange thing going on, and we hold these two models in our head, of what's right and what isn't right, and we do that, as human beings, in all sorts of fields.

澳洲和美國(guó)這邊，澳洲是夏天 這邊是冬天，難道說 地球在晚上會(huì)沖向太陽(yáng) 然后再?zèng)_回來?這實(shí)在很奇怪 我們腦中有兩種思考模式，對(duì)的和錯(cuò)的 身為人類，我們?cè)诤芏囝I(lǐng)域都這樣思考

So, here's Copernicus' view of what the solar system looked like as a plan. That's pretty much what you should have on your piece of paper. Right? And this is NASA's view. They're stunningly similar. I hope you notice the coincidence here.

左邊是哥白尼畫的太陽(yáng)系平面圖 跟你們紙上畫的差不多，對(duì)吧 右邊是NASA的版本，兩張圖非常相似 我希望大家注意其中的巧合 要是你知道人們有錯(cuò)誤觀念

What would you do if you knew that people had this misconception, right, in their heads, of elliptical orbits caused by our experiences as children? What sort of diagram would you show them of the solar system, to show that it's not really like that? You'd show them something like this, wouldn't you? It's a plan, looking down from above. But, no, look what I found in the textbooks. That's what you show people, right?

你會(huì)怎么做 在他們腦中，殘蔚墓斕 是他們兒時(shí)經(jīng)驗(yàn)教的嗎? 你會(huì)給他們看什么樣的太陽(yáng)系示意圖? 證明太陽(yáng)系不是他們想的那樣 你會(huì)給他們看這種圖嗎? 這是俯瞰的平面圖 可是并非如此，瞧瞧我在教科書里找到的 你會(huì)給他們看這種圖對(duì)吧?

These are from textbooks, from websites, educational websites -- and almost anything you pick up is like that. And the reason it's like that is because it's dead boring to have a load of concentric circles, whereas that's much more exciting, to look at something at that angle, isn't it? Right?

出自教科書 出自教育網(wǎng)站 你找得到的幾乎都是這種圖 會(huì)以這種視角呈現(xiàn)是因?yàn)?只有一堆同心圓太死板無趣 從這種視角看太陽(yáng)系比較新鮮刺激 不是嗎?

And by doing it at that angle, if you've got that misconception in your head, then that two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional thing will be ellipses. So you've -- it's crap, isn't it really? As we say.

因?yàn)榕蛇@種視角 如果你腦中有了這種誤解 用二度空間來呈現(xiàn)三度空間就會(huì)變成橢圓形 這真是糟糕，可不是嗎?

So, these mental models -- we look for evidence that reinforces our models. We do this, of course, with matters of race, and politics, and everything else, and we do it in science as well. So we look, just look -- and scientists do it, constantly -- we look for evidence that reinforces our models, and some folks are just all too able and willing to provide the evidence that reinforces the models.

因此，我們尋求證據(jù)來增強(qiáng)我們的心智模式 我們用這種方式處理種族、政治、所有事 當(dāng)然也用這種方式處理科學(xué)，我們只觀看 是科學(xué)家在這么做，我們不斷尋求證據(jù) 來增強(qiáng)我們的心智模式，有些人很有辦法 也樂意提供證據(jù)來增強(qiáng)那些模式

So, being I'm in the United States, I'll have a dig at the Europeans. These are examples of what I would say is bad practice in science teaching centers.

所以我現(xiàn)在人在美國(guó)，就會(huì)說歐洲人的壞話 這些圖片都是我認(rèn)為不良的科學(xué)教育

These pictures are from La Villette in France and the welcome wing of the Science Museum in London. And, if you look at the, kind of the way these things are constructed, there's a lot of mediation by glass, and it's very blue, and kind of professional -- in that way that, you know, Woody Allen comes up from under the sheets in that scene in "Annie Hall," and said, "God, that's so professional." And that you don't -- there's no passion in it, and it's not hands on, right, and, you know, pun intended.

類似教學(xué)中心，這些圖取自法國(guó)維葉特科博館 以及倫敦科博館的迎賓翼展示區(qū) 你看看這些東西建成的模樣 有很多玻璃隔板，藍(lán)光色調(diào)，弄得很專業(yè)似的 那種方式，就像是伍迪艾倫從床單里冒出來 在《安妮霍爾》戲中的那一幕 他說“老天，這真是太專業(yè)了” 這其中沒有熱情，沒有動(dòng)手參與，是嗎 這是個(gè)雙關(guān)，不過也有好的教學(xué)方法

Whereas good interpretation -- I'll use an example from nearby -- is San Francisco Exploratorium, where all the things that -- the demonstrations, and so on, are made out of everyday objects that children can understand, it's very hands-on, and they can engage with, and experiment with. And I know that if the graduates at MIT and in the Imperial College in London had had the battery and the wire and the bit of stuff, and you know, been able to do it, they would have learned how it actually works, rather than thinking that they follow circuit diagrams and can't do it. So good interpretation is more about things that are bodged and stuffed and of my world, right? And things that -- where there isn't an extra barrier of a piece of glass or machined titanium, and it all looks fantastic, OK?

我舉一個(gè)例子，離這里很近，舊金山探索館 在那里所有的東西，展示品之類的 都是用孩子能懂的日常用品做成的 都可以動(dòng)手玩，孩子們可以專心玩好好體驗(yàn) 我知道麻省理工畢業(yè)生 以及倫敦帝國(guó)學(xué)院畢業(yè)生 手上有電池電線點(diǎn)亮燈泡的話 他們會(huì)明白其中的原理 而不是覺得他們照著電路圖來做是做不到的 好的教學(xué)方法不是 沉溺陶醉在自己世界里對(duì)吧? 那些東西也不該被隔著 用玻璃或是鈦制品隔開 看起來很漂亮就好，好嗎?

And the Exploratorium does that really, really well. And it's amateur, but amateur in the best sense, in other words, the root of the word being of love and passion.

舊金山探索館在這點(diǎn)做得非常好 看上去很業(yè)余，但業(yè)余得很對(duì)頭 也就是說，根本的出發(fā)點(diǎn)是出自愛和熱情

So, children are not empty vessels, OK?So, as "Monty Python" would have it, this is a bit Lord Privy Seal to say so, but this is -- children are not empty vessels.

所以，孩童不是空瓶子 用“巨蟒劇團(tuán)”的說法 就是有點(diǎn)像英國(guó)掌璽大臣會(huì)說的 意思是說孩童不是空無一物的瓶子

They come with their own ideas and their own theories, and unless you work with those, then you won't be able to shift them, right?

他們生來就有自己的想法和理念 如果你沒從這些地方著手，就改變不了他們 對(duì)吧?

And I probably haven't shifted your ideas of how the world and universe operates, either. But this applies, equally, to matters of trying to sell new technology.

我大概沒有改變大家的想法 對(duì)于世界和宇宙到底如何運(yùn)作 不過這些道理同樣可以用在推銷新科技上也

For example, we are, in Britain, we're trying to do a digital switchover of the whole population into digital technology [for television].

例如，在英國(guó)，我們?cè)囍讶康碾娨?都換成新科技的數(shù)位電視

And it's one of the difficult things is that when people have preconceptions of how it all works, it's quite difficult to shift those.

有個(gè)難題是 人們對(duì)事物運(yùn)作的方式一旦有了成見 就很難去改變

So we're not empty vessels; the mental models that we have as children persist into adulthood. Poor teaching actually does more harm than good.

我們不是空瓶子，我們保有心智模式 從幼年到成年一直都存在 不良的教學(xué)是弊多于利

In this country and in Britain, magnetism is understood better by children before they've been to school than afterwards, OK? Same for gravity, two concepts, so it's -- which is quite humbling, as a, you know, if you're a teacher, and you look before and after, that's quite worrying. They do worse in tests afterwards, after the teaching.

在美國(guó)和英國(guó)，在磁力知識(shí)上 孩童在就學(xué)前學(xué)得比較好 重力知識(shí)也一樣，兩個(gè)不同概念，這實(shí)在可悲 如果你是個(gè)老師，看見受教前和受教后的差別 實(shí)在令人憂心，學(xué)童在受教后考得更差

And we collude. We design tests, or at least in Britain, so that people pass them. Right? And governments do very well. They pat themselves on the back. OK?

我們都是共犯，我們?cè)O(shè)計(jì)測(cè)驗(yàn)方式 至少在英國(guó)是這樣，好讓人們能通過考試 政府也幫了不少忙，他們推波助瀾 懂嗎?

We collude, and actually if you -- if someone had designed a test for me when I was doing my biology exams, to really understand, to see whether I'd understood more than just kind of putting starch and iodine together and seeing it go blue, and really understood that plants took their mass out of the air, then I might have done better at science. So the most important thing is to get people to articulate their models.

我們都是共犯 如果有人替我設(shè)計(jì)測(cè)驗(yàn) 在我要考生物的時(shí)候 讓我能真正明白，明白我是否真的懂了 不是只在淀粉中加入碘液 看著反應(yīng)呈現(xiàn)藍(lán)色 而且能真正明白植物是從空氣中茁壯的 我的科學(xué)可能就會(huì)學(xué)得比較好 所以，最重要的是要讓人們能表述清楚他們的模型

Your homework is -- you know, how does an aircraft's wing create lift? An obvious question, and you'll have an answer now in your heads. And the second question to that then is, ensure you've explained how it is that planes can fly upside down. Ah ha, right.

回家作業(yè)是，機(jī)翼是怎樣幫助飛機(jī)起飛的? 這問題很好懂，大家心中也有答案了 注意事項(xiàng)是 你要確保自己能解釋為何飛機(jī)頭向下的時(shí)候也能飛， 對(duì)吧

Second question is, why is the sea blue? All right? And you've all got an idea in your head of the answer. So, why is it blue on cloudy days? Ah, see.

問題二，海為何是藍(lán)色的? 大家心中應(yīng)該都有答案了 那么，為什么陰天時(shí)海還是藍(lán)的?看吧 (笑聲) 我一直想在美國(guó)講這句話

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

I've always wanted to say that in this country. (Laughter) Finally, my plea to you is to allow yourselves, and your children, and anyone you know, to kind of fiddle with stuff, because it's by fiddling with things that you, you know, you complement your other learning. It's not a replacement, it's just part of learning that's important. Thank you very much. Now -- oh, oh yeah, go on then, go on.

最后，我希望大家能讓自己，還有孩子 以及任何你認(rèn)識(shí)的人，去動(dòng)手接觸事物 因?yàn)橛H自接觸了事物，你知道的 你就補(bǔ)足了其他方面的學(xué)習(xí)不足，這不是替換 這只是學(xué)習(xí)中很重要的一部分 謝謝大家 那么，噢，沒關(guān)系，繼續(xù)吧

(Applause)

(鼓掌)

第五篇：ted演講稿

簡(jiǎn)介：殘奧會(huì)短跑冠軍aimeemullins天生沒有腓骨，從小就要學(xué)習(xí)靠義肢走路和奔跑。如今，她不僅是短跑選手、演員、模特，還是一位穩(wěn)健的演講者。她不喜歡字典中“disabled”這個(gè)詞，因?yàn)樨?fù)面詞匯足以毀掉一個(gè)人。但是，坦然面對(duì)不幸，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)等待你的是更多的機(jī)會(huì)。

i'd like to share with you a discovery that i made a few months ago whilewriting an article for italian wired. i always keep my thesaurus handy wheneveri'm writing anything, but i'd already finished editing the piece, and i realizedthat i had never once in my life looked up the word "disabled" to see what i'dfind.

let me read you the entry. "disabled, adjective: crippled, helpless,useless, wrecked, stalled, maimed, wounded, mangled, lame, mutilated, run-down,worn-out, weakened, impotent, castrated, paralyzed, handicapped, senile,decrepit, laid-up, done-up, done-for, done-in cracked-up, counted-out; see alsohurt, useless and weak. antonyms, healthy, strong, capable." i was reading thislist out loud to a friend and at first was laughing, it was so ludicrous, buti'd just gotten past "mangled," and my voice broke, and i had to stop andcollect myself from the emotional shock and impact that the assault from thesewords unleashed.

you know, of course, this is my raggedy old thesaurus so i'm thinking thismust be an ancient print date, right? but, in fact, the print date was the early1980s, when i would have been starting primary school and forming anunderstanding of myself outside the family unit and as related to the other kidsand the world around me. and, needless to say, thank god i wasn't using athesaurus back then. i mean, from this entry, it would seem that i was born intoa world that perceived someone like me to have nothing positive whatsoever goingfor them, when in fact, today i'm celebrated for the opportunities andadventures my life has procured.

so, i immediately went to look up the __ online edition, e_pecting to finda revision worth noting. here's the updated version of this entry.unfortunately, it's not much better. i find the last two words under "nearantonyms," particularly unsettling: "whole" and "wholesome."

so, it's not just about the words. it's what we believe about people whenwe name them with these words. it's about the values behind the words, and howwe construct those values. our language affects our thinking and how we view theworld and how we view other people. in fact, many ancient societies, includingthe greeks and the romans, believed that to utter a curse verbally was sopowerful, because to say the thing out loud brought it into e_istence. so, whatreality do we want to call into e_istence: a person who is limited, or a personwho's empowered? by casually doing something as simple as naming a person, achild, we might be putting lids and casting shadows on their power. wouldn't wewant to open doors for them instead?

one such person who opened doors for me was my childhood doctor at the a.i.dupont institute in wilmington, delaware. his name was dr. pizzutillo, anitalian american, whose name, apparently, was too difficult for most americansto pronounce, so he went by dr. p. and dr. p always wore really colorful bowties and had the very perfect disposition to work with children.

i loved almost everything about my time spent at this hospital, with thee_ception of my physical therapy sessions. i had to do what seemed likeinnumerable repetitions of e_ercises with these thick, elastic bands --different colors, you know -- to help build up my leg muscles, and i hated thesebands more than anything -- i hated them, had names for them. i hated them. and,you know, i was already bargaining, as a five year-old child, with dr. p to tryto get out of doing these e_ercises, unsuccessfully, of course. and, one day, hecame in to my session -- e_haustive and unforgiving, these sessions -- and hesaid to me, "wow. aimee, you are such a strong and powerful little girl, i thinkyou're going to break one of those bands. when you do break it, i'm going togive you a hundred bucks."

now, of course, this was a simple ploy on dr. p's part to get me to do thee_ercises i didn't want to do before the prospect of being the richestfive-year-old in the second floor ward, but what he effectively did for me wasreshape an awful daily occurrence into a new and promising e_perience for me.and i have to wonder today to what e_tent his vision and his declaration of meas a strong and powerful little girl shaped my own view of myself as aninherently strong, powerful and athletic person well into the future.

this is an e_ample of how adults in positions of power can ignite the powerof a child. but, in the previous instances of those thesaurus entries, ourlanguage isn't allowing us to evolve into the reality that we would all want,the possibility of an individual to see themselves as capable. our languagehasn't caught up with the changes in our society, many of which have beenbrought about by technology. certainly, from a medical standpoint, my legs,laser surgery for vision impairment, titanium knees and hip replacements foraging bodies that are allowing people to more fully engage with their abilities,and move beyond the limits that nature has imposed on them -- not to mentionsocial networking platforms allow people to self-identify, to claim their owndescriptions of themselves, so they can go align with global groups of their ownchoosing. so, perhaps technology is revealing more clearly to us now what hasalways been a truth: that everyone has something rare and powerful to offer oursociety, and that the human ability to adapt is our greatest asset.

the human ability to adapt, it's an interesting thing, because people havecontinually wanted to talk to me about overcoming adversity, and i'm going tomake an admission: this phrase never sat right with me, and i always felt uneasytrying to answer people's questions about it, and i think i'm starting to figureout why. implicit in this phrase of "overcoming adversity" is the idea thatsuccess, or happiness, is about emerging on the other side of a challenginge_perience unscathed or unmarked by the e_perience, as if my successes in lifehave come about from an ability to sidestep or circumnavigate the presumedpitfalls of a life with prosthetics, or what other people perceive as mydisability. but, in fact, we are changed. we are marked, of course, by achallenge, whether physically, emotionally or both. and i'm going to suggestthat this is a good thing. adversity isn't an obstacle that we need to getaround in order to resume living our life. it's part of our life. and i tend tothink of it like my shadow. sometimes i see a lot of it, sometimes there's verylittle, but it's always with me. and, certainly, i'm not trying to diminish theimpact, the weight, of a person's struggle.

there is adversity and challenge in life, and it's all very real andrelative to every single person, but the question isn't whether or not you'regoing to meet adversity, but how you're going to meet it. so, our responsibilityis not simply shielding those we care for from adversity, but preparing them tomeet it well. and we do a disservice to our kids when we make them feel thatthey're not equipped to adapt. there's an important difference and distinctionbetween the objective medical fact of my being an amputee and the subjectivesocietal opinion of whether or not i'm disabled. and, truthfully, the only realand consistent disability i've had to confront is the world ever thinking that icould be described by those definitions.

in our desire to protect those we care about by giving them the cold, hardtruth about their medical prognosis, or, indeed, a prognosis on the e_pectedquality of their life, we have to make sure that we don't put the first brick ina wall that will actually disable someone. perhaps the e_isting model of onlylooking at what is broken in you and how do we fi_ it, serves to be moredisabling to the individual than the pathology itself.

by not treating the wholeness of a person, by not acknowledging theirpotency, we are creating another ill on top of whatever natural struggle theymight have. we are effectively grading someone's worth to our community. so weneed to see through the pathology and into the range of human capability. and,most importantly, there's a partnership between those perceived deficiencies andour greatest creative ability. so it's not about devaluing, or negating, thesemore trying times as something we want to avoid or sweep under the rug, butinstead to find those opportunities wrapped in the adversity. so maybe the ideai want to put out there is not so much overcoming adversity as it is openingourselves up to it, embracing it, grappling with it, to use a wrestling term,maybe even dancing with it. and, perhaps, if we see adversity as natural,consistent and useful, we're less burdened by the presence of it.

this year we celebrate the 200th birthday of charles darwin, and it was 150years ago, when writing about evolution, that darwin illustrated, i think, atruth about the human character. to paraphrase: it's not the strongest of thespecies that survives, nor is it the most intelligent that survives; it is theone that is most adaptable to change. conflict is the genesis of creation. fromdarwin's work, amongst others, we can recognize that the human ability tosurvive and flourish is driven by the struggle of the human spirit throughconflict into transformation. so, again, transformation, adaptation, is ourgreatest human skill. and, perhaps, until we're tested, we don't know what we'remade of. maybe that's what adversity gives us: a sense of self, a sense of ourown power. so, we can give ourselves a gift. we can re-imagine adversity assomething more than just tough times. maybe we can see it as change. adversityis just change that we haven't adapted ourselves to yet.

i think the greatest adversity that we've created for ourselves is thisidea of normalcy. now, who's normal? there's no normal. there's common, there'stypical. there's no normal, and would you want to meet that poor, beige personif they e_isted? (laughter) i don't think so. if we can change this paradigmfrom one of achieving normalcy to one of possibility -- or potency, to be even alittle bit more dangerous -- we can release the power of so many more children,and invite them to engage their rare and valuable abilities with thecommunity.

anthropologists tell us that the one thing we as humans have alwaysrequired of our community members is to be of use, to be able to contribute.there's evidence that neanderthals, 60,000 years ago, carried their elderly andthose with serious physical injury, and perhaps it's because the life e_perienceof survival of these people proved of value to the community. they didn't viewthese people as broken and useless; they were seen as rare and valuable.

a few years ago, i was in a food market in the town where i grew up in thatred zone in northeastern pennsylvania, and i was standing over a bushel oftomatoes. it was summertime: i had shorts on. i hear this guy, his voice behindme say, "well, if it isn't aimee mullins." and i turn around, and it's thisolder man. i have no idea who he is.

and i said, "i'm sorry, sir, have we met? i don't remember meetingyou."

he said, "well, you wouldn't remember meeting me. i mean, when we met i wasdelivering you from your mother's womb." (laughter) oh, that guy. and, but ofcourse, actually, it did click.

this man was dr. kean, a man that i had only known about through mymother's stories of that day, because, of course, typical fashion, i arrivedlate for my birthday by two weeks. and so my mother's prenatal physician hadgone on vacation, so the man who delivered me was a complete stranger to myparents. and, because i was born without the fibula bones, and had feet turnedin, and a few toes in this foot and a few toes in that, he had to be the bearer-- this stranger had to be the bearer of bad news.

he said to me, "i had to give this prognosis to your parents that you wouldnever walk, and you would never have the kind of mobility that other kids haveor any kind of life of independence, and you've been making liar out of me eversince." (laughter) (applause)

the e_traordinary thing is that he said he had saved newspaper clippingsthroughout my whole childhood, whether winning a second grade spelling bee,marching with the girl scouts, you know, the halloween parade, winning mycollege scholarship, or any of my sports victories, and he was using it, andintegrating it into teaching resident students, med students from hahnemannmedical school and hershey medical school. and he called this part of the coursethe _ factor, the potential of the human will. no prognosis can account for howpowerful this could be as a determinant in the quality of someone's life. anddr. kean went on to tell me, he said, "in my e_perience, unless repeatedly toldotherwise, and even if given a modicum of support, if left to their own devices,a child will achieve."

see, dr. kean made that shift in thinking. he understood that there's adifference between the medical condition and what someone might do with it. andthere's been a shift in my thinking over time, in that, if you had asked me at15 years old, if i would have traded prosthetics for flesh-and-bone legs, iwouldn't have hesitated for a second. i aspired to that kind of normalcy backthen. but if you ask me today, i'm not so sure. and it's because of thee_periences i've had with them, not in spite of the e_periences i've had withthem. and perhaps this shift in me has happened because i've been e_posed tomore people who have opened doors for me than those who have put lids and castshadows on me.

see, all you really need is one person to show you the epiphany of your ownpower, and you're off. if you can hand somebody the key to their own power --the human spirit is so receptive -- if you can do that and open a door forsomeone at a crucial moment, you are educating them in the best sense. you'reteaching them to open doors for themselves. in fact, the e_act meaning of theword "educate" comes from the root word "educe." it means "to bring forth whatis within, to bring out potential." so again, which potential do we want tobring out?

there was a case study done in 1960s britain, when they were moving fromgrammar schools to comprehensive schools. it's called the streaming trials. wecall it "tracking" here in the states. it's separating students from a, b, c, dand so on. and the "a students" get the tougher curriculum, the best teachers,etc. well, they took, over a three-month period, d-level students, gave thema's, told them they were "a's," told them they were bright, and at the end ofthis three-month period, they were performing at a-level.

and, of course, the heartbreaking, flip side of this study, is that theytook the "a students" and told them they were "d's." and that's what happened atthe end of that three-month period. those who were still around in school,besides the people who had dropped out. a crucial part of this case study wasthat the teachers were duped too. the teachers didn't know a switch had beenmade. they were simply told, "these are the 'a-students,' these are the'd-students.'" and that's how they went about teaching them and treatingthem.

so, i think that the only true disability is a crushed spirit, a spiritthat's been crushed doesn't have hope, it doesn't see beauty, it no longer hasour natural, childlike curiosity and our innate ability to imagine. if instead,we can bolster a human spirit to keep hope, to see beauty in themselves andothers, to be curious and imaginative, then we are truly using our power well.when a spirit has those qualities, we are able to create new realities and newways of being.

i'd like to leave you with a poem by a fourteenth-century persian poetnamed hafiz that my friend, jacques dembois told me about, and the poem iscalled "the god who only knows four words": "every child has known god, not thegod of names, not the god of don'ts, but the god who only knows four words andkeeps repeating them, saying, 'come dance with me. come, dance with me. come,dance with me.'"

thank you. (applause)