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

when i was nine years old i went off to summer camp for the first time. andmy mother packed me a suitcase full of books, which to me seemed like aperfectly natural thing to do. because in my family, reading was the primarygroup activity. and this might sound antisocial to you, but for us it was reallyjust a different way of being social. you have the animal warmth of your familysitting right ne_t to you, but you are also free to go roaming around theadventureland inside your own mind. and i had this idea that camp was going tobe just like this, but better. (laughter) i had a vision of 10 girls sitting ina cabin cozily reading books in their matching nightgowns.

(laughter)

camp was more like a keg party without any alcohol. and on the very firstday our counselor gathered us all together and she taught us a cheer that shesaid we would be doing every day for the rest of the summer to instill campspirit. and it went like this: "r-o-w-d-i-e, that's the way we spell rowdie.rowdie, rowdie, let's get rowdie." yeah. so i couldn't figure out for the lifeof me why we were supposed to be so rowdy, or why we had to spell this wordincorrectly. (laughter) but i recited a cheer. i recited a cheer along witheverybody else. i did my best. and i just waited for the time that i could gooff and read my books.

but the first time that i took my book out of my suitcase, the coolest girlin the bunk came up to me and she asked me, "why are you being so mellow?" --mellow, of course, being the e_act opposite of r-o-w-d-i-e. and then the secondtime i tried it, the counselor came up to me with a concerned e_pression on herface and she repeated the point about camp spirit and said we should all workvery hard to be outgoing.

and so i put my books away, back in their suitcase, and i put them under mybed, and there they stayed for the rest of the summer. and i felt kind of guiltyabout this. i felt as if the books needed me somehow, and they were calling outto me and i was forsaking them. but i did forsake them and i didn't open thatsuitcase again until i was back home with my family at the end of thesummer.

now, i tell you this story about summer camp. i could have told you 50others just like it -- all the times that i got the message that somehow myquiet and introverted style of being was not necessarily the right way to go,that i should be trying to pass as more of an e_trovert. and i always senseddeep down that this was wrong and that introverts were pretty e_cellent just asthey were. but for years i denied this intuition, and so i became a wall streetlawyer, of all things, instead of the writer that i had always longed to be --partly because i needed to prove to myself that i could be bold and assertivetoo. and i was always going off to crowded bars when i really would havepreferred to just have a nice dinner with friends. and i made theseself-negating choices so refle_ively, that i wasn't even aware that i was makingthem.

now this is what many introverts do, and it's our loss for sure, but it isalso our colleagues' loss and our communities' loss. and at the risk of soundinggrandiose, it is the world's loss. because when it comes to creativity and toleadership, we need introverts doing what they do best. a third to a half of thepopulation are introverts -- a third to a half. so that's one out of every twoor three people you know. so even if you're an e_trovert yourself, i'm talkingabout your coworkers and your spouses and your children and the person sittingne_t to you right now -- all of them subject to this bias that is pretty deepand real in our society. we all internalize it from a very early age withouteven having a language for what we're doing.

now to see the bias clearly you need to understand what introversion is.it's different from being shy. shyness is about fear of social judgment.introversion is more about, how do you respond to stimulation, including socialstimulation. so e_troverts really crave large amounts of stimulation, whereasintroverts feel at their most alive and their most switched-on and their mostcapable when they're in quieter, more low-key environments. not all the time --these things aren't absolute -- but a lot of the time. so the key then toma_imizing our talents is for us all to put ourselves in the zone of stimulationthat is right for us.

but now here's where the bias comes in. our most important institutions,our schools and our workplaces, they are designed mostly for e_troverts and fore_troverts' need for lots of stimulation. and also we have this belief systemright now that i call the new groupthink, which holds that all creativity andall productivity comes from a very oddly gregarious place.

so if you picture the typical classroom nowadays: when i was going toschool, we sat in rows. we sat in rows of desks like this, and we did most ofour work pretty autonomously. but nowadays, your typical classroom has pods ofdesks -- four or five or si_ or seven kids all facing each other. and kids areworking in countless group assignments. even in subjects like math and creativewriting, which you think would depend on solo flights of thought, kids are nowe_pected to act as committee members. and for the kids who prefer to go off bythemselves or just to work alone, those kids are seen as outliers often or,worse, as problem cases. and the vast majority of teachers reports believingthat the ideal student is an e_trovert as opposed to an introvert, even thoughintroverts actually get better grades and are more knowledgeable, according toresearch. (laughter)

okay, same thing is true in our workplaces. now, most of us work in openplan offices, without walls, where we are subject to the constant noise and gazeof our coworkers. and when it comes to leadership, introverts are routinelypassed over for leadership positions, even though introverts tend to be verycareful, much less likely to take outsize risks -- which is something we mightall favor nowadays. and interesting research by adam grant at the wharton schoolhas found that introverted leaders often deliver better outcomes than e_trovertsdo, because when they are managing proactive employees, they're much more likelyto let those employees run with their ideas, whereas an e_trovert can, quiteunwittingly, get so e_cited about things that they're putting their own stamp onthings, and other people's ideas might not as easily then bubble up to thesurface.

now in fact, some of our transformative leaders in history have beenintroverts. i'll give you some e_amples. eleanor roosevelt, rosa parks, gandhi-- all these peopled described themselves as quiet and soft-spoken and even shy.and they all took the spotlight, even though every bone in their bodies wastelling them not to. and this turns out to have a special power all its own,because people could feel that these leaders were at the helm, not because theyenjoyed directing others and not out of the pleasure of being looked at; theywere there because they had no choice, because they were driven to do what theythought was right.

now i think at this point it's important for me to say that i actually lovee_troverts. i always like to say some of my best friends are e_troverts,including my beloved husband. and we all fall at different points, of course,along the introvert/e_trovert spectrum. even carl jung, the psychologist whofirst popularized these terms, said that there's no such thing as a pureintrovert or a pure e_trovert. he said that such a man would be in a lunaticasylum, if he e_isted at all. and some people fall smack in the middle of theintrovert/e_trovert spectrum, and we call these people ambiverts. and i oftenthink that they have the best of all worlds. but many of us do recognizeourselves as one type or the other.

and what i'm saying is that culturally we need a much better balance. weneed more of a yin and yang between these two types. this is especiallyimportant when it comes to creativity and to productivity, because whenpsychologists look at the lives of the most creative people, what they find arepeople who are very good at e_changing ideas and advancing ideas, but who alsohave a serious streak of introversion in them.

and this is because solitude is a crucial ingredient often to creativity.so darwin, he took long walks alone in the woods and emphatically turned downdinner party invitations. theodor geisel, better known as dr. seuss, he dreamedup many of his amazing creations in a lonely bell tower office that he had inthe back of his house in la jolla, california. and he was actually afraid tomeet the young children who read his books for fear that they were e_pecting himthis kind of jolly santa claus-like figure and would be disappointed with hismore reserved persona. steve wozniak invented the first apple computer sittingalone in his cubical in hewlett-packard where he was working at the time. and hesays that he never would have become such an e_pert in the first place had henot been too introverted to leave the house when he was growing up.

now of course, this does not mean that we should all stop collaborating --and case in point, is steve wozniak famously coming together with steve jobs tostart apple computer -- but it does mean that solitude matters and that for somepeople it is the air that they breathe. and in fact, we have known for centuriesabout the transcendent power of solitude. it's only recently that we'vestrangely begun to forget it. if you look at most of the world's majorreligions, you will find seekers -- moses, jesus, buddha, muhammad -- seekerswho are going off by themselves alone to the wilderness where they then haveprofound epiphanies and revelations that they then bring back to the rest of thecommunity. so no wilderness, no revelations.

this is no surprise though if you look at the insights of contemporarypsychology. it turns out that we can't even be in a group of people withoutinstinctively mirroring, mimicking their opinions. even about seemingly personaland visceral things like who you're attracted to, you will start aping thebeliefs of the people around you without even realizing that that's what you'redoing.

and groups famously follow the opinions of the most dominant or charismaticperson in the room, even though there's zero correlation between being the besttalker and having the best ideas -- i mean zero. so ... (laughter) you might befollowing the person with the best ideas, but you might not. and do you reallywant to leave it up to chance? much better for everybody to go off bythemselves, generate their own ideas freed from the distortions of groupdynamics, and then come together as a team to talk them through in awell-managed environment and take it from there.

now if all this is true, then why are we getting it so wrong? why are wesetting up our schools this way and our workplaces? and why are we making theseintroverts feel so guilty about wanting to just go off by themselves some of thetime? one answer lies deep in our cultural history. western societies, and inparticular the u.s., have always favored the man of action over the man ofcontemplation and "man" of contemplation. but in america's early days, we livedin what historians call a culture of character, where we still, at that point,valued people for their inner selves and their moral rectitude. and if you lookat the self-help books from this era, they all had titles with things like"character, the grandest thing in the world." and they featured role models likeabraham lincoln who was praised for being modest and unassuming. ralph waldoemerson called him "a man who does not offend by superiority."

but then we hit the 20th century and we entered a new culture thathistorians call the culture of personality. what happened is we had evolved anagricultural economy to a world of big business. and so suddenly people aremoving from small towns to the cities. and instead of working alongside peoplethey've known all their lives, now they are having to prove themselves in acrowd of strangers. so, quite understandably, qualities like magnetism andcharisma suddenly come to seem really important. and sure enough, the self-helpbooks change to meet these new needs and they start to have names like "how towin friends and influence people." and they feature as their role models reallygreat salesmen. so that's the world we're living in today. that's our culturalinheritance.

now none of this is to say that social skills are unimportant, and i'm alsonot calling for the abolishing of teamwork at all. the same religions who sendtheir sages off to lonely mountain tops also teach us love and trust. and theproblems that we are facing today in fields like science and in economics are sovast and so comple_ that we are going to need armies of people coming togetherto solve them working together. but i am saying that the more freedom that wegive introverts to be themselves, the more likely that they are to come up withtheir own unique solutions to these problems.

so now i'd like to share with you what's in my suitcase today. guess what?books. i have a suitcase full of books. here's margaret atwood, "cat's eye."here's a novel by milan kundera. and here's "the guide for the perple_ed" bymaimonides. but these are not e_actly my books. i brought these books with mebecause they were written by my grandfather's favorite authors.

my grandfather was a rabbi and he was a widower who lived alone in a smallapartment in brooklyn that was my favorite place in the world when i was growingup, partly because it was filled with his very gentle, very courtly presence andpartly because it was filled with books. i mean literally every table, everychair in this apartment had yielded its original function to now serve as asurface for swaying stacks of books. just like the rest of my family, mygrandfather's favorite thing to do in the whole world was to read.

but he also loved his congregation, and you could feel this love in thesermons that he gave every week for the 62 years that he was a rabbi. he wouldtakes the fruits of each week's reading and he would weave these intricatetapestries of ancient and humanist thought. and people would come from all overto hear him speak.

but here's the thing about my grandfather. underneath this ceremonial role,he was really modest and really introverted -- so much so that when he deliveredthese sermons, he had trouble making eye contact with the very same congregationthat he had been speaking to for 62 years. and even away from the podium, whenyou called him to say hello, he would often end the conversation prematurely forfear that he was taking up too much of your time. but when he died at the age of94, the police had to close down the streets of his neighborhood to accommodatethe crowd of people who came out to mourn him. and so these days i try to learnfrom my grandfather's e_ample in my own way.

so i just published a book about introversion, and it took me about sevenyears to write. and for me, that seven years was like total bliss, because i wasreading, i was writing, i was thinking, i was researching. it was my version ofmy grandfather's hours of the day alone in his library. but now all of a suddenmy job is very different, and my job is to be out here talking about it, talkingabout introversion. (laughter) and that's a lot harder for me, because ashonored as i am to be here with all of you right now, this is not my naturalmilieu.

so i prepared for moments like these as best i could. i spent the last yearpracticing public speaking every chance i could get. and i call this my "year ofspeaking dangerously." (laughter) and that actually helped a lot. but i'll tellyou, what helps even more is my sense, my belief, my hope that when it comes toour attitudes to introversion and to quiet and to solitude, we truly are poisedon the brink on dramatic change. i mean, we are. and so i am going to leave younow with three calls for action for those who share this vision.

number one: stop the madness for constant group work. just stop it.(laughter) thank you. (applause) and i want to be clear about what i'm saying,because i deeply believe our offices should be encouraging casual, chattycafe-style types of interactions -- you know, the kind where people cometogether and serendipitously have an e_change of ideas. that is great. it'sgreat for introverts and it's great for e_troverts. but we need much moreprivacy and much more freedom and much more autonomy at work. school, samething. we need to be teaching kids to work together, for sure, but we also needto be teaching them how to work on their own. this is especially important fore_troverted children too. they need to work on their own because that is wheredeep thought comes from in part.

okay, number two: go to the wilderness. be like buddha, have your ownrevelations. i'm not saying that we all have to now go off and build our owncabins in the woods and never talk to each other again, but i am saying that wecould all stand to unplug and get inside our own heads a little more often.

number three: take a good look at what's inside your own suitcase and whyyou put it there. so e_troverts, maybe your suitcases are also full of books. ormaybe they're full of champagne glasses or skydiving equipment. whatever it is,i hope you take these things out every chance you get and grace us with yourenergy and your joy. but introverts, you being you, you probably have theimpulse to guard very carefully what's inside your own suitcase. and that'sokay. but occasionally, just occasionally, i hope you will open up yoursuitcases for other people to see, because the world needs you and it needs thethings you carry.

so i wish you the best of all possible journeys and the courage to speaksoftly.

thank you very much.

(applause)

thank you. thank you.

第二篇：ted演講稿

人的一生在世間浮沉，難免會迷失方向、迷失自己。因而，能夠時刻正確認(rèn)識自己，就顯得尤為重要。蘇格拉底曾說：“美德即知識，認(rèn)識你自己?！边@恰恰說明了，能夠正確認(rèn)識自己，也是一種至高無上的美德。

有的時候，人們迷失了自己，只是無法找尋到自己真實的存在，不知道自己存在的意義和價值，因而對人生感到迷茫。這個時候，只需要繼續(xù)尋找，總能夠找到前進(jìn)的方向。然而有的時候，人們迷失了自己之后，不去尋找真實的自己，反而把自己臆想成另一種存在，然后就以那種存在的姿態(tài)去繼續(xù)自己的人生。那種時候，人們就很難再找回自己，甚至?xí)呱弦粭l極端的不歸路。

就如同古代帝王，相信每一任帝王在登基之初都是想做一任明君造福百姓的。但是有的帝王會因為權(quán)欲熏心，真的把自己當(dāng)成神，可以主宰終生，最終背離了自己的初衷。紂王要剖比干之心，厲王要“止謗”，連一代圣君唐太宗也差點殺掉勇于勸諫的魏征。由此可見，不能正確認(rèn)識自己的后果是多么可怕。這也說明了，正確認(rèn)識自己，有的時候幫助的甚至不僅僅是自己。

但是，在人生迷茫之后，還能正確認(rèn)識自己，真的那么困難嗎?

其實，正確認(rèn)識自己，只需要自己足夠虛心，能夠聽取別人的意見和建議，有去正視自己和改過自新的勇氣便可。

齊王在聽了鄒忌的勸諫之后，立刻認(rèn)識到自己的不足，下令改革。法國作家盧梭，他的《懺悔錄》是一部空前絕后的“靈魂自白書”，他在書中真實地記錄了他的一生，包括他曾做過小偷、拋棄摯友、嫁禍他人的種.種丑行。讀此《懺悔錄》時常令人感到觸目驚心，因為當(dāng)他把自己剖析得體無完膚的時候，就是他真正認(rèn)識自己、超越了自己的時候。

所以說，有的時候，正確認(rèn)識自己，只需要自己思維的一個轉(zhuǎn)變，但就是這樣一個小小的轉(zhuǎn)變，帶來的影響卻可以是不可估量的。對于個人而言，正確認(rèn)識自己可以幫助自己更好地發(fā)展，有時也可以造福身邊的人。而對于統(tǒng)治階級而言，正確認(rèn)識自己，就可以造福整個國家，給整個社會帶去寧靜安樂。

人生來不就是為了找到自己真實的存在嗎?所以，正確認(rèn)識自己吧。

第三篇：ted演講稿永不放棄

媽媽又一次未征求我的意見就去為我報了鋼琴比賽，可萬萬沒料到，比賽時間就是下下周，而被用來比賽的曲子我才練了一個開頭。

知道這件事的我與媽媽大吵了一場，但最終還是坐在了“萬惡”的鋼琴前面，伸出手，可望著密密麻麻的音符，心中就有無數(shù)個“不想彈”，只有兩周時間練習(xí)，還得背下來，這可能嗎?放棄比賽吧?？墒寝D(zhuǎn)念又想，媽媽都跑去報名了，老師也把這曲子交了，半途不彈了，總覺得不好意思。于是我又繼續(xù)斷斷續(xù)續(xù)彈了起來。

離比賽只有一周了，我在老師家還是不斷彈錯，有些地方甚至還不熟練，老師都擔(dān)憂地望著我，倒是沒說什么，只是一直耐心地糾正彈得不好的段落。

回到家，我更是拼命練，可總是碰錯音，不熟練的地方甚至聽不出旋律來，我氣得把譜子往旁邊一扔，想要逃避這場比賽，可我都如此努力練了，總得有成果吧，不然就不敢見老師了。我又彎腰撿起譜子，壓抑著心中因為比賽臨近的煩躁，一遍遍練了起來。

比賽當(dāng)天，我躺在床上糾結(jié)不已，我仿佛預(yù)料到了成績的糟糕，可自已都選擇了堅持，在最后關(guān)頭有什么理由放棄?我懷著極度的緊張，前往比賽地點。

比賽果然不出我預(yù)料，彈到一半竟忘了接下來該彈什么，只能亂彈一通。不過，平息了“砰砰”直跳的心，坐在車?yán)锏臅r候，我卻為自已沒有選擇放棄感到開心。為平時練完一首曲子要整整一個月的我感到驚訝。雖然比賽結(jié)果不好，但畢竟我是很努力了，重在參與，不會留下遺憾。

第四篇：ted英文演講稿3篇

ted英文演講稿3篇發(fā)布時間：2017-05-01s("content_top");

ted英文演講稿3篇

本文目錄ted英文演講稿Ted英文演講稿:What fear can teach usTED英文演講稿：內(nèi)向性格的力量

以下這篇由應(yīng)屆畢業(yè)生演講稿網(wǎng)站整理提供的是《阿凡達(dá)》、《泰坦尼克號》的導(dǎo)演詹姆斯·卡梅隆(james cameron)的一篇ted演講。在這個演講里，卡梅隆回顧了自己從電影學(xué)院畢業(yè)后走上導(dǎo)演道路的故事。卡梅隆告訴你，不要畏懼失敗，永遠(yuǎn)不要給自己設(shè)限。更多演講稿范文，歡迎訪問應(yīng)屆畢業(yè)生演講稿網(wǎng)站!

i grew up on a steady diet of science fiction. in high school, i took a bus to school an hour each way every day. and i was always absorbed in a book, science fiction book, which took my mind to other worlds, and satisfied, in a narrative form, this insatiable sense of curiosity that i had.

and you know, that curiosity also manifested itself in the fact that whenever i wasn't in school i was out in the woods, hiking and taking "samples" -- frogs and snakes and bugs and pond water -- and bringing it back, looking at it under the microscope. you know, i was a real science geek. but it was all about trying to understand the world, understand the limits of possibility.

and my love of science fiction actually seemed mirrored in the world around me, because what was happening, this was in the late '60s, we were going to the moon, we were exploring the deep oceans.jacques cousteau was coming into our living rooms with his amazing specials that showed us animals and places and a wondrous world that we could never really have previously imagined. so, that seemed to resonate with the whole science fiction part of it.

and i was an artist. i could draw. i could paint. and i found that because there weren't video gamesand this saturation of cg movies and all of this imagery in the media landscape, i had to create these images in my head. you know, we all did, as kids having to read a book, and through the author's description, put something on the movie screen in our heads. and so, my response to this was to paint, to draw alien creatures, alien worlds, robots, spaceships, all that stuff. i was endlessly getting busted in math class doodling behind the textbook. that was -- the creativity had to find its outlet somehow.

and an interesting thing happened: the jacques cousteau shows actually got me very excited about the fact that there was an alien world right here on earth. i might not really go to an alien world on a spaceship someday -- that seemed pretty darn unlikely. but that was a world i could really go to, right here on earth, that was as rich and exotic as anything that i had imagined from reading these books.

so, i decided i was going to become a scuba diver at the age of 15. and the only problem with that was that i lived in a little village in canada, 600 miles from the nearest ocean. but i didn't let that daunt me. i pestered my father until he finally found a scuba class in buffalo, new york, right across the border from where we live. and i actually got certified in a pool at a ymca in the dead of winter in buffalo, new york. and i didn't see the ocean, a real ocean, for another two years, until we moved to california.

since then, in the intervening 40 years, i've spent about 3,000 hours underwater, and 500 hours of that was in submersibles. and i've learned that that deep-ocean environment, and even the shallow oceans,are so rich with amazing life that really is beyond our imagination. nature's imagination is so boundlesscompared to our own meager human imagination. i still, to this day, stand in absolute awe of what i see when i make these dives. and my love affair with the ocean is ongoing, and just as strong as it ever was.

but when i chose a career as an adult, it was filmmaking. and that seemed to be the best way to reconcile this urge i had to tell stories with my urges to create images. and i was, as a kid, constantly drawing comic books, and so on. so, filmmaking was the way to put pictures and stories together, and that made sense. and of course the stories that i chose to tell were science fiction stories: "terminator," "aliens" and "the abyss." and with "the abyss," i was putting together my love of underwater and diving with filmmaking. so, you know, merging the two passions.

something interesting came out of "the abyss," which was that to solve a specific narrative problem on that film, which was to create this kind of liquid water creature, we actually embraced computer generated animation, cg. and this resulted in the first soft-surface character, cg animation that was ever in a movie. and even though the film didn't make any money -- barely broke even, i should say -- i witnessed something amazing, which is that the audience, the global audience, was mesmerized by this apparent magic.

you know, it's arthur clarke's law that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. they were seeing something magical. and so that got me very excited. and i thought, "wow, this is something that needs to be embraced into the cinematic art." so, with "terminator 2," which was my next film, we took that much farther. working with ilm, we created the liquid metal dude in that film. the success hung in the balance on whether that effect would work. and it did, and we created magic again, and we had the same result with an audience -- although we did make a little more money on that one.

so, drawing a line through those two dots of experience came to, "this is going to be a whole new world," this was a whole new world of creativity for film artists. so, i started a company with stan winston, my good friend stan winston, who is the premier make-up and creature designer at that time, and it was called digital domain. and the concept of the company was that we would leapfrog past the analog processes of optical printers and so on, and we would go right to digital production. and we actually did that and it gave us a competitive advantage for a while.

but we found ourselves lagging in the mid '90s in the creature and character design stuff that we had actually founded the company to do. so, i wrote this piece called "avatar," which was meant to absolutely push the envelope of visual effects, of cg effects, beyond, with realistic human emotive characters generated in cg, and the main characters would all be in cg, and the world would be in cg. and the envelope pushed back, and i was told by the folks at my company that we weren't going to be able to do this for a while.

so, i shelved it, and i made this other movie about a big ship that sinks. (laughter) you know, i went and pitched it to the studio as "'romeo and juliet' on a ship: "it's going to be this epic romance,passionate film." secretly, what i wanted to do was i wanted to dive to the real wreck of "titanic." and that's why i made the movie. (applause) and that's the truth. now, the studio didn't know that. but i convinced them. i said, "we're going to dive to the wreck. we're going to film it for real. we'll be using it in the opening of the film. it will be really important. it will be a great marketing hook." and i talked them into funding an expedition. (laughter)

sounds crazy. but this goes back to that theme about your imagination creating a reality. because we actually created a reality where six months later, i find myself in a russian submersible two and a half miles down in the north atlantic, looking at the real titanic through a view port. not a movie, not hd -- for real. (applause)

now, that blew my mind. and it took a lot of preparation, we had to build cameras and lights and all kinds of things. but, it struck me how much this dive, these deep dives, was like a space mission. you know, where it was highly technical, and it required enormous planning. you get in this capsule, you go down to this dark hostile environment where there is no hope of rescue if you can't get back by yourself. and i thought like, "wow. i'm like, living in a science fiction movie. this is really cool."

and so, i really got bitten by the bug of deep-ocean exploration. of course, the curiosity, the science component of it -- it was everything. it was adventure, it was curiosity, it was imagination. and it was an experience that hollywood couldn't give me. because, you know, i could imagine a creature and we could create a visual effect for it. but i couldn't imagine what i was seeing out that window. as we did some of our subsequent expeditions, i was seeing creatures at hydrothermal vents and sometimes things that i had never seen before, sometimes things that no one had seen before, that actually were not described by science at the time that we saw them and imaged them.

so, i was completely smitten by this, and had to do more. and so, i actually made a kind of curious decision. after the success of "titanic," i said, "ok, i'm going to park my day job as a hollywood movie maker, and i'm going to go be a full-time explorer for a while." and so, we started planning theseexpeditions. and we wound up going to the bismark, and exploring it with robotic vehicles. we went back to the titanic wreck. we took little bots that we had created that spooled a fiber optic. and the idea was to go in and do an interior survey of that ship, which had never been done. nobody had ever looked inside the wreck. they didn't have the means to do it, so we created technology to do it.

so, you know, here i am now, on the deck of titanic, sitting in a submersible, and looking out at planks that look much like this, where i knew that the band had played. and i'm flying a little robotic vehiclethrough the corridor of the ship. when i say, "i'm operating it," but my mind is in the vehicle. i felt like i was physically present inside the shipwreck of titanic. and it was the most surreal kind of deja vu experience i've ever had, because i would know before i turned a corner what was going to be there before the lights of the vehicle actually revealed it, because i had walked the set for months when we were making the movie. and the set was based as an exact replica on the blueprints of the ship.

so, it was this absolutely remarkable experience. and it really made me realize that the telepresence experience -- that you actually can have these robotic avatars, then your consciousness is injected into the vehicle, into this other form of existence. it was really, really quite profound. and it may be a little bit of a glimpse as to what might be happening some decades out as we start to have cyborg bodies for exploration or for other means in many sort of post-human futures that i can imagine, as a science fiction fan.

so, having done these expeditions, and really beginning to appreciate what was down there, such as at the deep ocean vents where we had these amazing, amazing animals -- they're basically aliens right here on earth. they live in an environment of chemosynthesis. they don't survive on sunlight-basedsystem the way we do. and so, you're seeing animals that are living next to a 500-degree-centigradewater plumes. you think they can't possibly exist.

at the same time i was getting very interested in space science as well -- again, it's the science fiction influence, as a kid. and i wound up getting involved with the space community, really involved with nasa, sitting on the nasa advisory board, planning actual space missions, going to russia, going through the pre-cosmonaut biomedical protocols, and all these sorts of things, to actually go and fly to the international space station with our 3d camera systems. and this was fascinating. but what i wound up doing was bringing space scientists with us into the deep. and taking them down so that they had access -- astrobiologists, planetary scientists, people who were interested in these extreme environments -- taking them down to the vents, and letting them see, and take samples and test instruments, and so on.

so, here we were making documentary films, but actually doing science, and actually doing space science. i'd completely closed the loop between being the science fiction fan, you know, as a kid, and doing this stuff for real. and you know, along the way in this journey of discovery, i learned a lot. i learned a lot about science. but i also learned a lot about leadership. now you think director has got to be a leader, leader of, captain of the ship, and all that sort of thing.

i didn't really learn about leadership until i did these expeditions. because i had to, at a certain point, say, "what am i doing out here? why am i doing this? what do i get out of it?" we don't make money at these damn shows. we barely break even. there is no fame in it. people sort of think i went awaybetween "titanic" and "avatar" and was buffing my nails someplace, sitting at the beach. made all these films, made all these documentary films for a very limited audience.

no fame, no glory, no money. what are you doing? you're doing it for the task itself, for the challenge --and the ocean is the most challenging environment there is -- for the thrill of discovery, and for that strange bond that happens when a small group of people form a tightly knit team. because we would do these things with 10, 12 people, working for years at a time, sometimes at sea for two, three months at a time.

and in that bond, you realize that the most important thing is the respect that you have for them and that they have for you, that you've done a task that you can't explain to someone else. when you come back to the shore and you say, "we had to do this, and the fiber optic, and the attentuation, and the this and the that, all the technology of it, and the difficulty, the human-performance aspects of working at sea," you can't explain it to people. it's that thing that maybe cops have, or people in combat that have gone through something together and they know they can never explain it. creates a bond, creates a bond of respect.

so, when i came back to make my next movie, which was "avatar," i tried to apply that same principle of leadership, which is that you respect your team, and you earn their respect in return. and it really changed the dynamic. so, here i was again with a small team, in uncharted territory, doing "avatar," coming up with new technology that didn't exist before. tremendously exciting. tremendously challenging. and we became a family, over a four-and-half year period. and it completely changed how i do movies. so, people have commented on how, "well, you know, you brought back the ocean organisms and put them on the planet of pandora." to me, it was more of a fundamental way of doing business, the process itself, that changed as a result of that.

so, what can we synthesize out of all this? you know, what are the lessons learned? well, i think number one is curiosity. it's the most powerful thing you own. imagination is a force that can actually manifest a reality. and the respect of your team is more important than all the laurels in the world. i have young filmmakers come up to me and say, "give me some advice for doing this." and i say, "don't put limitations on yourself. other people will do that for you -- don't do it to yourself, don't bet against yourself, and take risks."

nasa has this phrase that they like: "failure is not an option." but failure has to be an option in art and in exploration, because it's a leap of faith. and no important endeavor that required innovation was done without risk. you have to be willing to take those risks. so, that's the thought i would leave you with, is that in whatever you're doing, failure is an option, but fear is not. thank you. (applause)

譯文：我是看科幻小說長大的。高中時，我連坐校車上下學(xué)時都在讀著科幻小說。這些書將我?guī)У搅硪粋€世界，滿足了我無止境的好奇。每當(dāng)我在學(xué)校，我總是在樹叢中尋找一些“標(biāo)本”——青蛙、蛇、昆蟲……我把它們放在顯微鏡下觀察。我總是試圖認(rèn)知這個世界，想找到它可能的邊界。

我對科幻小說的熱愛或許是那個時代的寫照。60年代末期，人類登上了月球，去了深海。通過電視，我們看到了不同的動物和地方。這都是我們不曾想象的。這種氛圍中，我不知不覺地喜歡上了科幻小說。

每當(dāng)我看完小說，故事中的影像就會在我腦海中不斷放映。或許是因為創(chuàng)造力必須找到一個發(fā)泄方式，我開始畫外星人、機器人、飛船……我甚至?xí)跀?shù)學(xué)課上在課本的背面畫畫。

對科幻小說的不斷接觸讓我想到：外星人不一定生存在外太空，他們很有可能就生活在我們星球上。所以15歲時，我決定成為一個潛水員。而當(dāng)時實現(xiàn)夢想唯一的問題是我生活在加拿大的一個小山村，離最近的海有6英里遠(yuǎn)。

但我父親并沒有讓這成為我夢想的障礙，他在邊境對岸的美國紐約州布法羅找到了一個潛水培訓(xùn)班。于是我便在布法羅的一個泳池里獲得了潛水證書。直到兩年后，當(dāng)我們?nèi)野岬郊又?，我才第一次有機會真正地潛水。

在這之后的40年里，我在海底大約總共花了3萬個小時。大海如此豐富多彩，眾多神奇的生物生活其中。比起我們的想象力，自然的想象力完全沒有邊界。我想，至今我對大海的了解還是很少，但我對海洋的好奇卻一直延續(xù)著。

電影魔法師與科學(xué)體驗

但長大后，我并沒有成為一名潛水員，我選擇的職業(yè)是電影。我喜歡講故事，畫圖畫，電影看起來是最合適的工作。當(dāng)然，我講述的故事都是科幻的——終結(jié)者、外星人等等。

我也將我對潛水的熱愛和電影融合在了一起。拍攝《深淵》時，我有了一些有趣的想法。當(dāng)我們要塑造一個水狀的生物時，我們使用了“計算機生成動畫”——cg。cg的應(yīng)用產(chǎn)生了電影歷史上第一個軟表面、電腦制成的形象。雖然這部電影使公司差點虧本，但全世界的觀眾被這種新技術(shù)所震撼。

根據(jù)亞瑟·克拉克定律——任何高難度的技術(shù)和魔法沒有什么區(qū)別，很多人覺得自己看到了一些“神奇”的東西。這使我感到很興奮。我想cg應(yīng)該被用到電影藝術(shù)中去。

所以，在我接下來的電影《終結(jié)者2》中，我把這種技術(shù)又推近了一步，創(chuàng)造了一個金屬人。我又變了一次魔術(shù)。這部電影很成功，我們賺了一些錢。

作為一個電影人，我看到了一個全新的世界，一個全新的未來。于是我和好友斯坦·溫斯頓創(chuàng)立了一家公司，叫做“數(shù)領(lǐng)域”。公司的概念是要跳過普通的電影制作直接進(jìn)入數(shù)電影制作。我們也是這么做的，這也使得我們在一段時間內(nèi)有了一定的優(yōu)勢。但在90年代中期，我發(fā)現(xiàn)我們有些落后了。

我寫《阿凡達(dá)》這部電影，就是想要推動整個視覺體驗以及動畫效果的進(jìn)步。讓電影人物跳出人們想象的框架，完全用動畫效果詮釋人物表情。但一開始，員工告訴我，他們還沒有能力做到。于是我把《阿凡達(dá)》放在了一邊，轉(zhuǎn)而制作了另一部電影——《泰坦尼克號》。

在為《泰坦尼克號》尋找投資商時，我告訴制作人這是一部關(guān)于愛情的電影。它的故事就像羅密歐與朱麗葉一樣凄美動人。而事實上，我自己真正想做的是，潛入海底探尋真正的泰坦尼克號。這是我的真心話，電影公司并不知道。

我告訴他們，我們要沉入海底，拍攝泰坦尼克號真實的畫面。我們將把這個片段放在首映式上展現(xiàn)，這將會引起很大的轟動，票房也會很好。令人意外，電影公司真的同意出錢，支持我去探索泰坦尼克號。

雖然到現(xiàn)在我仍覺得有些瘋狂，但這就是“想象創(chuàng)造了現(xiàn)實”。兩個月后，我在北大西洋的一艘俄羅斯?jié)撏Ю镉萌庋劭吹秸嬲奶┨鼓峥颂枴?/p>

《泰坦尼克號》的拍攝體驗給我很大震撼。雖然我們要做很多準(zhǔn)備工作，但令我震驚的是，這次深海拍攝就像是一次外太空旅行——尖端的科技，繁雜的計劃，環(huán)境的危險，我仿佛置身于一本科幻小說中。

我發(fā)現(xiàn)我們可以想象一個生物，但是我想我永遠(yuǎn)無法想象出透過潛艇窗所看到的那些生物。我看見了一些我從未看見的東西，也看見了一些從來沒有被人看見過的東西，因為當(dāng)我們拍下它們時，他們還沒有被科學(xué)所描述。我被震撼了。我必須做更多。

在《泰坦尼克號》成功后，我做了一個決定：暫停我的主業(yè)——好萊塢導(dǎo)演，做一段時間全職探險家。于是我們開始策劃一些探險。在自動探測車幫助下，我們?nèi)チ诵┪ｋU的地方。我們發(fā)明了技術(shù)，對泰坦尼克號殘骸做了一次全面勘測，使它再次重現(xiàn)在人們面前。

通過一種會飛行的自動探測儀，我可以坐在一個潛艇里探索泰坦尼克號的內(nèi)部。當(dāng)我在操作儀器時，我的腦子就像是在這些探測儀中。我感覺我自己真的到了泰坦尼克號上。這是一種最令人興奮的似曾相識的感覺。我知道假如我在這里轉(zhuǎn)個彎，我將會看到什么。因為我已經(jīng)在另一個完全一樣的泰坦尼克號復(fù)制品上工作了好幾個月。

這是一次不同尋常的體驗。它讓我感覺到，遠(yuǎn)程監(jiān)控的能量。你的意識可以被注入這些機器或注入另一種存在中。這種體驗非常深刻?；蛟S幾十年后，當(dāng)半機器人出現(xiàn)，或者任何后人類生物出現(xiàn)時，人們會對這種感覺習(xí)以為常。

在這些探險之后，我開始真正感謝這些存在于海底的生物。這些生物基本上對于我們來說就是外星生物。它們生活在一個化學(xué)合成的環(huán)境之中。它們無法像我們一樣存活于太陽之下。同時，從小被科幻小說影響的我對于太空科學(xué)也非常感興趣。

我進(jìn)入了nasa的顧問委員會，策劃真正的太空行程，讓宇航員帶著3d攝像機進(jìn)入太空站。這些非常有趣，但我真正想做的是將這些太空專家?guī)肷詈?，讓他們看看深海，取一些樣本。所以我們既做了紀(jì)錄片，也在做科學(xué)。這些事業(yè)將我整個人生很好地整合了起來。

發(fā)現(xiàn)團隊的力量

在發(fā)現(xiàn)的旅途中，我學(xué)到了很多。我學(xué)到的不僅僅是科學(xué)知識，還有領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力。很多人以為作為導(dǎo)演，就一定具有很高的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力。但我卻是從這些探險中學(xué)到如何帶領(lǐng)團隊。

在探險時，有時候我會問自己，我為什么會在這里?為什么要做這些紀(jì)錄片? 我從中得到了什么? 我們并沒有從這些紀(jì)錄片中賺錢，還差點虧了本。我也沒有賺到名聲。很多人以為我在《泰坦尼克號》之后就一直躺在沙灘邊享受。

那我在做什么呢?我做這些其實只是為了這件任務(wù)本身。為了挑戰(zhàn)——海洋是現(xiàn)存最危險的環(huán)境;為了發(fā)現(xiàn);也為了一種奇怪的關(guān)系——一個由很少人組成的緊密團隊。我們這10到12個人在一起工作了很多年。有時要在海里一起工作2到3個月。

在這種關(guān)系中，我發(fā)現(xiàn)最重要的東西就是尊重。我在這里為了你，你在這里為了我。每個人做的工作都無法向其他人解釋。我們必須建立起一種關(guān)系，建立尊重。

當(dāng)我開始拍攝《阿凡達(dá)》時，我試著將這種互相尊重的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力原則應(yīng)用在電影拍攝中。很快情況就改變了。在《阿凡達(dá)》拍攝過程中，我的團隊也很小，也在未知領(lǐng)地工作，創(chuàng)造新的科技，這非常有意思，非常有挑戰(zhàn)。四年半時間，我們成為了一個家庭。這完全改變了我以前拍電影的方式。

有評論文章說，卡梅隆把海底的一些生物放到了潘多拉星球上是其影片成功的原因，而對于我來說，做事的基本法則以及過程本身改變了事情的結(jié)果。

最后，總結(jié)一下。我學(xué)到了什么?

第一：好奇心，這是你擁有的最重要的東西;

第二：想象力，這是你創(chuàng)造現(xiàn)實最重要的力量;

第三：對團隊的尊重，這是比世界上其他定律更重要的定律。

有不少年輕電影導(dǎo)演向我討教成功經(jīng)驗，我對他們說：“不要給自己劃定界限。別人會為你去劃邊界，但你自己千萬別去。你要去冒險。失敗是你其中一個選項，但畏懼不是。從來沒有一次探險是在有完全安全保障的情況下完成的。你必須愿意承擔(dān)這些風(fēng)險?！敝x謝大家!(掌聲)

Ted英文演講稿:What fear can teach usted英文演講稿（2） | 返回目錄

one day in 1819, 3,000 miles off the coast of chile, in one of the most remote regions of the pacific ocean, 20 american sailors watched their ship flood with seawater.

1819年的某一天， 在距離智利海岸3000英里的地方， 有一個太平洋上的最偏遠(yuǎn)的水域， 20名美國船員目睹了他們的船只進(jìn)水的場面。

they'd been struck by a sperm whale, which had ripped a catastrophic hole in the ship's hull. as their ship began to sink beneath the swells, the men huddled together in three small whaleboats.

他們和一頭抹香鯨相撞，給船體撞了 一個毀滅性的大洞。 當(dāng)船在巨浪中開始沉沒時， 人們在三條救生小艇中抱作一團。

these men were 10,000 miles from home, more than 1,000 miles from the nearest scrap of land. in their small boats, they carried only rudimentary navigational equipment and limited supplies of food and water.

這些人在離家10000萬英里的地方， 離最近的陸地也超過1000英里。 在他們的小艇中，他們只帶了 落后的導(dǎo)航設(shè)備 和有限的食物和飲水。

these were the men of the whaleship essex, whose story would later inspire parts of "moby dick."

他們就是捕鯨船essex上的人們， 后來的他們的故事成為《白鯨記》的一部分。

even in today's world, their situation would be really dire, but think about how much worse it would have been then.

即使在當(dāng)今的世界，碰上這種情況也夠杯具的，更不用說在當(dāng)時的情況有多糟糕。

no one on land had any idea that anything had gone wrong. no search party was coming to look for these men. so most of us have never experienced a situation as frightening as the one in which these sailors found themselves, but we all know what it's like to be afraid.

岸上的人根本就還沒意識到出了什么問題。 沒有任何人來搜尋他們。 我們當(dāng)中大部分人沒有經(jīng)歷過 這些船員所處的可怕情景， 但我們都知道害怕是什么感覺。

we know how fear feels, but i'm not sure we spend enough time thinking about what our fears mean.

我們知道恐懼的感覺， 但是我不能肯定我們會花很多時間想過 我們的恐懼到底意味著什么。

as we grow up, we're often encouraged to think of fear as a weakness, just another childish thing to discard like baby teeth or roller skates.

我們長大以后，我們總是會被鼓勵把恐懼 視為軟弱，需要像乳牙或輪滑鞋一樣 扔掉的幼稚的東西。

and i think it's no accident that we think this way. neuroscientists have actually shown that human beings are hard-wired to be optimists.

我想意外事故并非我們所想的那樣。 神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)科學(xué)家已經(jīng)知道人類 生來就是樂觀主義者。

so maybe that's why we think of fear, sometimes, as a danger in and of itself. "don't worry," we like to say to one another. "don't panic." in english, fear is something we conquer. it's something we fight.

這也許就是為什么我們認(rèn)為有時候恐懼， 本身就是一種危險或帶來危險。 “不要愁。”我們總是對別人說?！安灰拧?。 英語中，恐懼是我們需要征服的東西。 是我們必須對抗的東西，是我們必須克服的東西。

it's something we overcome. but what if we looked at fear in a fresh way? what if we thought of fear as an amazing act of the imagination, something that can be as profound and insightful as storytelling itself?

但是我們?nèi)绻麚Q個視角看恐懼會如何呢? 如果我們把恐懼當(dāng)做是想象力的一個驚人成果， 是和我們講故事一樣 精妙而有見地的東西，又會如何呢?

it's easiest to see this link between fear and the imagination in young children, whose fears are often extraordinarily vivid.

在小孩子當(dāng)中，我們最容易看到恐懼與想象之間的聯(lián)系， 他們的恐懼經(jīng)常是超級生動的。

when i was a child, i lived in california, which is, you know, mostly a very nice place to live, but for me as a child, california could also be a little scary.

我小時候住在加利福尼亞， 你們都知道，是非常適合居住的位置， 但是對一個小孩來說，加利福尼亞也會有點嚇人。

i remember how frightening it was to see the chandelier that hung above our dining table swing back and forth during every minor earthquake, and i sometimes couldn't sleep at night, terrified that the big one might strike while we were sleeping.

我記得每次小地震的時候 當(dāng)我看到我們餐桌上的吊燈 晃來晃去的時候是多么的嚇人， 我經(jīng)常會徹夜難眠，擔(dān)心大地震 會在我們睡覺的時候突然襲來。

and what we say about kids who have fears like that is that they have a vivid imagination. but at a certain point, most of us learn to leave these kinds of visions behind and grow up.

我們說小孩子感受到這種恐懼 是因為他們有生動的想象力。 但是在某個時候，我們大多數(shù)學(xué)會了 拋棄這種想法而變得成熟。

we learn that there are no monsters hiding under the bed, and not every earthquake brings buildings down. but maybe it's no coincidence that some of our most creative minds fail to leave these kinds of fears behind as adults.

我們都知道床下沒有魔鬼， 也不是每個地震都會震垮房子。但是我們當(dāng)中最有想象力的人們 并沒有因為成年而拋棄這種恐懼，這也許并不是巧合。

the same incredible imaginations that produced "the origin of species," "jane eyre" and "the remembrance of things past," also generated intense worries that haunted the adult lives of charles darwin, charlotte bront?? and marcel proust. so the question is, what can the rest of us learn about fear from visionaries and young children?

同樣不可思議的想象力創(chuàng)造了《物種起源》， 《簡·愛》和《追憶似水年華》， 也就是這種與生俱來的深深的擔(dān)憂一直纏繞著成年的 查爾斯·達(dá)爾文， 夏洛特·勃朗特和馬塞爾·普羅斯特。 問題就來了， 我們其他人如何能從這些 夢想家和小孩子身上學(xué)會恐懼?

well let's return to the year 1819 for a moment, to the situation facing the crew of the whaleship essex. let's take a look at the fears that their imaginations were generating as they drifted in the middle of the pacific.

讓我們暫時回到1819年， 回到essex捕鯨船的水手們面對的情況。 讓我們看看他們漂流在太平洋中央時 他們的想象力給他們帶來的恐懼感覺。

twenty-four hours had now passed since the capsizing of the ship. the time had come for the men to make a plan, but they had very few options.

船傾覆后已經(jīng)過了24個小時。 這時人們制定了一個計劃， 但是其實他們沒什么太多的選擇。

in his fascinating account of the disaster, nathaniel philbrick wrote that these men were just about as far from land as it was possible to be anywhere on earth.

在納撒尼爾·菲爾布里克(nathaniel philbrick)描述這場災(zāi)難的 動人文章中，他寫到“這些人離陸地如此之遠(yuǎn)， 似乎永遠(yuǎn)都不可能到達(dá)地球上的任何一塊陸地?！?/p>

the men knew that the nearest islands they could reach were the marquesas islands, 1,200 miles away. but they'd heard some frightening rumors.

這些人知道離他們最近的島 是1200英里以外的馬克薩斯群島(marquesas islands)。 但是他們聽到了讓人恐怖的謠言。

they'd been told that these islands, and several others nearby, were populated by cannibals. so the men pictured coming ashore only to be murdered and eaten for dinner. another possible destination was hawaii, but given the season, the captain was afraid they'd be struck by severe storms.

他們聽說這些群島， 以及附近的一些島嶼上都住著食人族。 所以他們腦中都是上岸以后就會被殺掉 被人當(dāng)做盤中餐的畫面。 另一個可行的目的地是夏威夷， 但是船長擔(dān)心 他們會被困在風(fēng)暴當(dāng)中。

now the last option was the longest, and the most difficult: to sail 1,500 miles due south in hopes of reaching a certain band of winds that could eventually push them toward the coast of south america.

所以最后的選擇是到最遠(yuǎn)，也是最艱險的地方： 往南走1500英里希望某股風(fēng) 能最終把他們 吹到南美洲的海岸。

but they knew that the sheer length of this journey would stretch their supplies of food and water. to be eaten by cannibals, to be battered by storms, to starve to death before reaching land.

但是他們知道這個行程中一旦偏航 將會耗盡他們食物和飲水的供給。 被食人族吃掉，被風(fēng)暴掀翻， 在登陸前餓死。

these were the fears that danced in the imaginations of these poor men, and as it turned out, the fear they chose to listen to would govern whether they lived or died.

這就是縈繞在這群可憐的人想象中的恐懼， 事實證明，他們選擇聽從的恐懼 將決定他們的生死。

now we might just as easily call these fears by a different name. what if instead of calling them fears, we called them stories?

也許我們可以很容易的用別的名稱來稱呼這些恐懼。 我們不稱之為恐懼， 而是稱它們?yōu)楣适氯绾?

because that's really what fear is, if you think about it. it's a kind of unintentional storytelling that we are all born knowing how to do. and fears and storytelling have the same components.

如果你仔細(xì)想想，這是恐懼真正的意義。 這是一種與生俱來的， 無意識的講故事的能力。 恐懼和講故事有著同樣的構(gòu)成。

they have the same architecture. like all stories, fears have characters. in our fears, the characters are us. fears also have plots. they have beginnings and middles and ends. you board the plane.

他們有同樣的結(jié)構(gòu)。 如同所有的故事，恐懼中有角色。 在恐懼中，角色就是我們自己。 恐懼也有情節(jié)。他們有開頭，有中間，有結(jié)尾。 你登上飛機。

the plane takes off. the engine fails. our fears also tend to contain imagery that can be every bit as vivid as what you might find in the pages of a novel. picture a cannibal, human teeth sinking into human skin, human flesh roasting over a fire.

飛機起飛。結(jié)果引擎故障。 我們的恐懼會包括各種生動的想象， 不比你看到的任何一個小說遜色。 想象食人族，人類牙齒 咬在人類皮膚上， 人肉在火上烤。

fears also have suspense. if i've done my job as a storyteller today, you should be wondering what happened to the men of the whaleship essex. our fears provoke in us a very similar form of suspense.

恐懼中也有懸念。 如果我今天像講故事一樣，留個懸念不說了， 你們也許會很想知道 essex捕鯨船上，人們到底怎么樣了。 我們的恐懼用懸念一樣的方式刺激我們。

just like all great stories, our fears focus our attention on a question that is as important in life as it is in literature: what will happen next?

就像一個很好的故事，我們的恐懼也如同一部好的文學(xué)作品一樣， 將我們的注意力集中在對我們生命至關(guān)重要的問題上： 后來發(fā)生了什么?

in other words, our fears make us think about the future. and humans, by the way, are the only creatures capable of thinking about the future in this way, of projecting ourselves forward in time, and this mental time travel is just one more thing that fears have in common with storytelling.

換而言之，我們的恐懼讓我們想到未來。 另外，人來是唯一有能力 通過這種方式想到未來的生物， 就是預(yù)測時間推移后我們的狀況， 這種精神上的時間旅行是恐懼 與講故事的另一個共同點。

as a writer, i can tell you that a big part of writing fiction is learning to predict how one event in a story will affect all the other events, and fear works in that same way.

我是一個作家，我要告訴你們寫小說一個很重要的部分 就是學(xué)會預(yù)測故事中一件 事情如何影響另一件事情， 恐懼也是同樣這么做的。

in fear, just like in fiction, one thing always leads to another. when i was writing my first novel, "the age of miracles," i spent months trying to figure out what would happen if the rotation of the earth suddenly began to slow down. what would happen to our days?

恐懼中，如同小說一樣，一件事情總是導(dǎo)致另一件事情。 我寫我的第一部小說《奇跡時代》的時候， 我花了數(shù)月的時間想象如果地球旋轉(zhuǎn)突然變慢了之后 會發(fā)生什么。 我們的一天變得如何?

what would happen to our crops? what would happen to our minds? and then it was only later that i realized how very similar these questions were to the ones i used to ask myself as a child frightened in the night.

我們身體會怎樣? 我們的思想會有什么變化? 也就是在那之后，我意識到 我過去總是問自己的那些些問題 和孩子們在夜里害怕是多么的相像。

if an earthquake strikes tonight, i used to worry, what will happen to our house? what will happen to my family? and the answer to those questions always took the form of a story.

要是在過去，如果今晚發(fā)生地震，我會很擔(dān)心， 我的房子會怎么樣啊?家里人會怎樣啊? 這類問題的答案通常都會和故事一樣。

so if we think of our fears as more than just fears but as stories, we should think of ourselves as the authors of those stories. but just as importantly, we need to think of ourselves as the readers of our fears, and how we choose to read our fears can have a profound effect on our lives.

所以我們認(rèn)為我們的恐懼不僅僅是恐懼 還是故事，我們應(yīng)該把自己當(dāng)作 這些故事的作者。 但是同樣重要的是，我們需要想象我們自己 是我們恐懼的解讀者，我們選擇如何 去解讀這些恐懼會對我們的生活產(chǎn)生深遠(yuǎn)的影響。

now, some of us naturally read our fears more closely than others. i read about a study recently of successful entrepreneurs, and the author found that these people shared a habit that he called "productive paranoia," which meant that these people, instead of dismissing their fears, these people read them closely, they studied them, and then they translated that fear into preparation and action.

現(xiàn)在，我們中有些人比其他人更自然的解讀自己的恐懼。 最近我看過一個關(guān)于成功的企業(yè)家的研究， 作者發(fā)現(xiàn)這些人都有個習(xí)慣 叫做“未雨綢繆“， 意思是，這些人，不回避自己的恐懼， 而是認(rèn)真解讀并研究恐懼， 然后把恐懼轉(zhuǎn)換成準(zhǔn)備和行動。

so that way, if their worst fears came true, their businesses were ready.

這樣，如果最壞的事情發(fā)生了， 他們的企業(yè)也有所準(zhǔn)備。

and sometimes, of course, our worst fears do come true. that's one of the things that is so extraordinary about fear. once in a while, our fears can predict the future.

當(dāng)然，很多時候，最壞的事情確實發(fā)生了。 這是恐懼非凡的一面。 曾幾何時，我們的恐懼預(yù)測將來。

but we can't possibly prepare for all of the fears that our imaginations concoct. so how can we tell the difference between the fears worth listening to and all the others? i think the end of the story of the whaleship essex offers an illuminating, if tragic, example.

但是我們不可能為我們想象力構(gòu)建的所有 恐懼來做準(zhǔn)備。 所以，如何區(qū)分值得聽從的恐懼 和不值得的呢? 我想捕鯨船essex的故事結(jié)局 提供了一個有啟發(fā)性，同時又悲慘的例子。

after much deliberation, the men finally made a decision. terrified of cannibals, they decided to forgo the closest islands and instead embarked on the longer and much more difficult route to south america.

經(jīng)過數(shù)次權(quán)衡，他們最終做出了決定。 由于害怕食人族，他們決定放棄最近的群島 而是開始更長 更艱難的南美洲之旅。

after more than two months at sea, the men ran out of food as they knew they might, and they were still quite far from land. when the last of the survivors were finally picked up by two passing ships, less than half of the men were left alive, and some of them had resorted to their own form of cannibalism.

在海上呆了兩個多月后，他們 的食物如預(yù)料之中消耗殆盡， 而且他們?nèi)匀浑x陸地那么遠(yuǎn)。 當(dāng)最后的幸存者最終被過往船只救起時， 只有一小半的人還活著， 實際上他們中的一些人自己變成了食人族。

herman melville, who used this story as research for "moby dick," wrote years later, and from dry land, quote, "all the sufferings of these miserable men of the essex might in all human probability have been avoided had they, immediately after leaving the wreck, steered straight for tahiti.

赫爾