TED演讲双语演讲稿：为什么我们很难做出理性的决定？

合集下载

Ted中英对照演讲稿

Ted中英对照演讲稿As a child。

I often hear people calling me XXX I make XXX I am not XXX。

when we look at history and the world's problems。

it'XXX for many of them。

From XXX。

adults have caused a lotof harm.So。

what can we learn from children。

I believe that children have a lot to teach us about creativity。

sity。

and resilience。

Children are naturally creative and us。

always asking XXX the world around them。

They are not afraid to take risks or make mistakes。

and they are quick to XXX.As we grow older。

XXX。

rather than pursuing our ownXXX risk-averse and less willing to try new things。

often because we are afraid of XXX.But what if we could tap into our inner child and rediscover these qualities。

What if we could approach life with the samesense of XXX that we had as children。

I believe that doing so could help us live more XXX.So。

TED英语演讲：你该如何面对艰难选择

TED英语演讲：你该如何面对艰难选择人生的选择无处不在，有的选择很简单，有的选择则很艰难。

而艰难的选择并不都是大的抉择，甚至中午吃什么也会变得很艰难。

所以面对艰难选择，我们应该如何抉择?本期TED演讲者Ruth Chang将告诉我们，面对艰难选择，我们一开始的方向就错了。

下面是小编为大家收集关于TED英语演讲：你该如何面对艰难选择，欢迎借鉴参考。

How to make hard choices演讲者：Ruth Chang| 中英对照演讲稿 |Think of a hard choice you'll face in the near future. It might be between two careers--artist and accountant--or places to live--the city or the country--or even between two people to marry--you could marry Betty or you could marry Lolita. Or it might be a choice about whether to have children, to have an ailing parent move in with you, to raise your child in a religion that your partner lives by but leaves you cold. Or whether to donate your life savings to charity.设想在不久的未来，你将面对一个艰难的决定。

这也许是在两份职业中做出一个选择，艺术家还是会计师;也许是选择居住的地方，城市还是乡村;也许是在两个人中选择和谁结婚，Betty 或者是Lolita;抑或思考是否要孩子;是否让年老体衰的父母跟你一起住;是否让你的孩子信奉你配偶信仰的宗教，即便你会因自身不信奉而被冷落;又或者说，是否将毕生积储捐赠给慈善机构。

ted演讲中英对照拖延症

TED演讲——拖延症拖延症者的思维方式到底是什么样的？为什么有些人非要到deadline来的时候才知道打起精神做事情？是否存在执行力强的人或是说人人都有一定程度的拖延症？Tim Urban从一个被deadline 赶着走的拖延症者的角度带你走进拖延症的神奇思维世界。

中英对照翻译So in college, I was a government major, which means I had to write a lot of papers. Now, when a normal student writes a paper, they might spread the work out a little like this. So, you know --you get started maybe a little slowly, but you get enough done in the first week that, with some heavier days later on, everything gets done, things stay civil.And I would want to do that like that. That would be the plan. I would have it all ready to go, but then, actually, the paper would come along, and then I would kind of do this.在大学，我读的是政府专业。

也就是说，我需要写很多的论文。

一般的学生写论文时，他们可能会这样安排：(看图)你可能开头会慢一点，但第一周有这些已经足够。

后期再一点点的增加，最后任务完成，非常的有条理。

我也想这么做，所以一开始也是这么计划的。

我做了完美的安排(看图)，但后来，实际上论文任务一直出现，我就只能这样了(看图)。

莱温斯基ted经典演讲稿中英文版

莱温斯基(Ted)经典演讲稿（中英文版）Introduction莱温斯基（Ted）是一位备受瞩目的演讲家和领导者，他以他的演讲能力和深入的见解而闻名于世。

他的演讲风格充满激情和力量，能够深入人心，并启发观众。

以下是莱温斯基经典演讲稿的中英文版本。

Ted经典演讲稿（中文版）标题：挑战自我，追求卓越大家好，我感到非常荣幸能够站在这个讲台上与大家分享我的经验和观点。

我曾经历过很多困难和挫折，但正是这些经历塑造了我成为今天的自己。

我们每个人都有追求卓越的欲望，但往往在面对困难和逆境时，我们会放弃自己的梦想。

但事实上，只有通过挑战自我，我们才能够发现自己的潜力和实现我们的目标。

我的人生经历告诉我，成功的关键在于如何应对挑战和逆境。

我们不能逃避困难，而是要积极面对，尽力克服它们。

只有当我们不断挑战自我，突破自己的舒适区，我们才能够成长和取得更大的成功。

我们每个人都有不同的才能和激情，但只有通过不断努力和坚持，我们才能够将这些潜力转化为卓越的成就。

我们要明确自己的目标，并制定合理的计划和策略，为达到目标而努力奋斗。

面对困难时，我们要坚持乐观的心态。

困难并不能击败我们，只有我们自己能够决定是否放弃。

我们要相信自己的能力，坚持自己的梦想。

即使失败了，我们也要从中学习并继续前进。

最后，我希望鼓励大家，在追求卓越的道路上不断挑战自我。

面对困难和逆境时，不要害怕失败，而是要相信自己的能力，坚持奋斗。

只有这样，我们才能够获得真正的成功和满足感。

Ted Classic Speech (English Version)Title: Embrace the Challenge, Pursue ExcellenceHello everyone, I feel incredibly honored to stand on this podium and share my experiences and perspectives with all of you. I have gone through many difficulties and setbacks, but it is these experiences that shaped me into who I am today.We all have the desire to pursue excellence, but often, when faced with challenges and adversities, we give up on our dreams. However, the truth is, it isonly through challenging ourselves that we can discover our potential and achieve our goals.My life experiences have taught me that the key to success lies in how we handle challenges and adversities. We cannot avoid difficulties, but instead, we should face them head-on and strive to overcome them. Only when we constantly challenge ourselves and push beyond our comfort zones can we grow and achieve greater success.Each one of us has different talents and passions, but it is only through continuous effort and perseverance that we can turn these potentials into outstanding achievements. We need to clarify our goals and develop reasonable plans and strategies to work towards them.In the face of difficulties, we should mntn an optimistic mindset. Difficulties cannot defeat us; it is only ourselves who can decide whether to give up or not. We should believe in our abilities and persist in pursuing our dreams. Even in the face of flure, we should learn from it and keep moving forward.Lastly, I want to encourage everyone to constantly challenge themselves in the pursuit of excellence. Do not fear flure when faced with difficulties and adversities;instead, believe in your abilities and persevere. Only then can we achieve true success and fulfillment.Conclusion莱温斯基的演讲意味深长，他鼓励我们要不断挑战自我，追求卓越。

ted演讲inside the mind of中英对照

ted演讲inside the mind of中英对照作为一个十几岁的少年，我的父母晚上会出去参加聚会或晚餐，我会对自己承诺利用这个时间来学习。

但一旦他们离开，我就发现自己被电视机粘住了，看着情景喜剧和肥皂剧的重播。

When I was in college, I'd tell myself that I'd start working on a paper weeks before it was due. But instead, I'd wait until the last minute, cramming all my research and writing into a single all-nighter.当我上大学时，我告诉自己要在作业到期前几周开始写作。

但我会等到最后一刻，将所有研究和写作都挤在一个通宵之内。

Even now, as a successful writer and speaker, I still struggle with procrastination. In fact, I'm doing it right now as I write this article. I've been putting it off for hours, checking emails and social media instead.即使现在，作为一名成功的作家和演讲者，我仍然在与拖延症作斗争。

事实上，当我写这篇文章时，我正在拖延。

我已经拖了好几个小时，而是去查看电子邮件和社交媒体。

So why do I procrastinate so much? And why do so many others struggle with it too?那么，为什么我这么拖延呢？为什么其他人也会有这个问题呢？ To answer these questions, I started doing some research on the science of procrastination. I read books and articles,I watched TED talks and YouTube videos. And what I discovered is that procrastination isn't just a bad habit or a lack of willpower. It's a complex psychological behavior with deep roots in our brains.为了回答这些问题，我开始研究拖延症的科学。

ted演讲稿敢于不同意,去怀疑的勇气中英对照

ted演讲稿敢于不同意,去怀疑的勇气中英对照TED演讲稿《敢于不同意，去怀疑的勇气》是一场由比尔·莫盖奇（Bill Moge）所进行的精彩演讲。

他在演讲中强调了人们在面对各种观点和观念时，应该保持怀疑的态度，敢于提出不同意见。

这种勇气不仅是个人成长的必备品，而且对于社会的进步也是至关重要的。

在这篇文章中，我们将从不同的角度对《敢于不同意，去怀疑的勇气》这个主题进行全面评估和探讨。

我们将从简单的概念出发，逐步深入，帮助读者更好地理解这个主题的深度和广度。

1. 为什么要敢于不同意？在现代社会，人们往往习惯于遵循主流观点，少有人愿意提出自己的不同看法。

然而，敢于不同意意味着对自己的想法和观点负责，是对自己思维能力和独立性的肯定。

通过敢于不同意，人们可以更好地发现问题，挑战权威，开拓思维，从而促进个人成长和社会进步。

2. 怎样去怀疑？怀疑并不是一味否定一切，而是基于理性和经验的思考。

人们在怀疑中应保持谦卑和坚定，不断追问为什么，寻求真理。

正如比尔·莫盖奇在演讲中所强调的，“怀疑不是一种态度，而是一种方法”。

只有通过怀疑，人们才能更深入地理解事物的本质，发现新的可能性。

3. 敢于不同意的意义在社会发展和个人成长中，敢于不同意具有重要意义。

它可以激发创新和变革。

历史上许多伟大的发明和发现都来自于对传统观念的挑战。

敢于不同意可以促进多元文化的交流和包容。

当人们敢于提出自己的意见时，就有可能更好地理解和尊重不同文化之间的差异。

敢于不同意可以培养个人的独立思考能力和自信心，让人更加坚定地走自己的道路。

从个人的角度来看，《敢于不同意，去怀疑的勇气》主题对我来说意义重大。

在我的学习和工作中，我常常遇到各种各样的观点和问题，而敢于不同意让我敢于提出自己的见解，并且在怀疑中不断地思考，从而取得了不少收获。

总结回顾，敢于不同意、去怀疑的勇气是一种重要的品质，它不仅对个人成长有益，而且对社会的发展具有重要意义。

TED演讲稿英文修订稿

T E D演讲稿英文集团标准化工作小组 [Q8QX9QT-X8QQB8Q8-NQ8QJ8-M8QMN]当工作越来越复杂，给你6个简化守则I have spent the last years, trying to resolve two enigmas: why isproductivity so disappointing in all the companies where I workI have worked with more than 500 companies. Despite all the technological advance – computers, IT, communications, telecommunications, the internet.Enigma number two: why is there so little engagement at work Why do people feel so miserable, even actively disengaged Disengaged their colleagues. Acting against the interest of their company. Despite allthe affiliation events, the celebration, the people initiatives, the leadership development programs to train managers on how to better motivate their teams.At the beginning, I thought there was a chicken and egg issue: because people are less engaged, they are less productive. Or vice versa, because they are less productive, we put more pressure and they are less engaged. But as we were doing our analysis we realized that there was a common root cause to these two issues that relates, in fact, to thebasic pillars of management. The way we organize is based on two pillars.The hard—structure, processes, systems.The soft—feeling, sentiments, interpersonal relationship, traits, personality.And whenever a company reorganizes, restructures, reengineers, goes through a cultural transformation program, it chooses these two pillars. Now we try to refine them, we try to combine them. The real issue is –and this is the answer to the two enigmas – these pillar are obsolete.Everything you read in business books is based either two of the other or their combine. They are obsolete. How do they work when you try to use these approaches in front of the new complexity of business The hard approach, basically is that you start from strategy, requirement, structure, processes, systems, KPIs, scorecards, committees, headquarters, hubs, clusters, you name it. I forgot all the metrics, incentives, committees, middle offices and interfaces. What happens basically on the left, you have more complexity, the new complexity of business. We need quality, cost, reliability, speed. And every time there is a new requirement, we use the same approach. We create dedicated structure processed systems, basically to deal with the new complexity of business. The hard approach creates just complicatednessin the organization.Let’s take an example. An automotive company, the engineering division is a five-dimensional matrix. If you open any cell of the matrix, you find another 20-dimensional matrix. You have Mr. Noise, Mr. Petrol Consumption, Mr. Anti-Collision Propertise. For any new requirement, you have a dedicated function in charge of aligning engineers against the new requirement. What happens when the new requirement emerges?Some years ago, a new requirement appeared on the marketplace: the length of the warranty period. So therefore the requirement is repairability, making cars easy to repair. Otherwise when you bring the car to the garage to fix the light, if you have to remove the engine to access the lights, the car will have to stay one week in the garage instead of two hours, and the warranty budget will explode. So, what was the solution using the hard approachIf repairability is the rew requirement, the solution is to create a new function, Mr. Repairability. And Mr. Repairability creates the repairability process. With a repairability scorecard, with a repairability metric and eventually repairability incentive. That came on top of 25 other KPIs. What percentage of these people is variable compensation Twenty percent at most, divided by 26 KPIs, repairabilitymakes a difference of 0.8 percent. What difference did it make in their action, their choices to simplify Zero. But what occurs for zero impact Mr. Repairability, process, scorecard, evaluation, coordination with the 25 other coordinators to have zero impact. Now, in front of the new complexity of business, the only solution is not drawing box es with reporting lines. It is basically the interplay. How the parts work together. The connection, the interaction, the synapse. It is not skeleton of boxes, it is the nervous system of adaptiveness and intelligence. You know, you could call it cooperation, basically. Whenever people cooperate, they use less resources. In everything. You know, the repairability issue is a cooperation problem.When you design cars, please take into account the need of those who will repair the cars in the after sales garage. When we don’t cooperate we need more time, more equipment, more system, more teams. We need –when procurement, supply chain, manufacturing don’t cooperate we need more stock, more investories, more working capital.Who will pay for that? Shareholder Customers No, they will refuse. So who is left The employees, who have to compensate through their super individual efforts for the lack of cooperation. Stress, burnout, they are overwhelmed, accidents. No wonder they disengage.How do the hard and the soft try to foster cooperationThe hard: in banks, when there is problem between the back office and the front office, they don’t cooperate. What is the solution They create a middle office.What happens one years later Instead of one problem between the back and front, now have to problems. Between the back and the middle and between the middle and the front. Plus I have to pay for the middle office. The hard approach is unable to foster cooperation. It can only add new boxes, new bones in the skeleton.The soft approach: to make people cooperate, we need to make then like each other. Improve interpersonal feelings, the more people laike each other, the more they will cooperate. It is totally worng. It even counterproductive.Look, at home I have two TVs. Why Precisely not to have to cooperate with my wife. Not to have to impose tradeoffs to my wife. And why I try not to impose tradeoffs to my wife is precisely because I love my wife. If I didn’t love my wife, one TV would be enough: you will watch my favorite football game, if you are not happy, how is the book or the door?The more we like each other, the more we avoid the real cooperation that would strain our relationships by imposing tough tradeoffs. And we go for a second TV or we escalate the decision above for arbitration.Definitely, these approaches are obsolete. To deal with complexity, to enhance nervous system, we have created what we call the smart simplicity approach based on simple rules. Simple rule number one: understand what others do. What is their real work We need go beyond the boxes, the job description, beyond the surface of the container, to understand the real content. Me, designer, if I put a wire here, I know that it will mean that we will have to remove the engine to access the lights. Second, you need to reinforce integrators. Integrators are not middle office, they are managers, existing managers that you reinforce so that they have power and interest to make others cooperate. How can you reinforce your managers as integratorsBy removing layers. When there are too many layers people are toofar from the action. Therefore they need KPIs, metrics, they need poor proxies for reality. They don’t understand reality and they add the complicatedness of metrics, KPIs. By removing rules—the bigger we are, the more we need integrators, therefore the less rules we must have, to give discretionary power to managers. And we do the opposite – the bigger we are, the more rules we create. And we end up with the Encyclopedia Britannica of rules. You need to increase the quanitity of power so that you can empower everybody to use their judgment, their intelligence. You must give more cards to people so that they have the critical mass of cards to take the risk to cooperate, to move out ofinsulation. Otherwise, they will withdraw. They will disengage. These rules, they come from game theory and organizational sociology. You can increase the shadow of the future. Create feedback loops that expose people to the consequences of their actions. This is what the automotive company did when they saw that Mr. Repairability had no impact. Theysaid the design engineers: now, in the three years, when the new car is launched on the market, you will move to the after sales network, and become in charge of the warranty budget, and if the warranty budget explodes, it will explode in your face. Much more powerful than 0.8 percent variable compensation. You need also to increase reciprocity, by removing the buffers that make us self-sufficient. When you remove these buffers, you hold me by the nose, I hold you by the ear. We will cooperate. Remove the second TV. There are many second TVs at work that don’t create value, they just provide dysfunctional self-sufficiency.You need to reward those who cooperate and bla me those who don’t cooperate. The CEO of The Lego Group, JK, has a great way to use it. He say, blame is not for failure, it is for failing to help or ask for help. It changes everything. Suddenly it becomes in my interest to be transparent on my real weakness, my real forecast, because I know I will not be blamed if I fail, but if I fail to help or ask for help. When you do this, it has a lot of implications on organizational design. You stop drawing boxes, dotted lines, full lines; you look at their interplay.It has a lot of implication on financial policies that we use. On human resource management practices. When you do that, you can manage complexity, the new complexity of business, without getting complicated. You create more value with lower cost. You simultaneously improve performance and satisfaction at work because you have remove the common root cause that hinders both.Complicatedness: this is your battle, business leader. The real battle is not against competitors. This is rubbish, very abstract. When do we meet competitors to fight them The real battle is against ourselves, against our bureaucracy, our complicatedness. Only you can fight, can do it. Thank you!。

感性与理性的完美结合——杨澜TED英语演讲稿

感性与理性的完美结合——杨澜TED英语演讲稿英语演讲稿杨澜是一位拥有着丰富媒体经验的作家和主持人，人称“中国脸谱”，她以其深刻的见解和广的知识面而闻名。

在2014年，杨澜在TED的演讲中阐述了感性与理性的完美结合，引起了人们的共鸣。

那么，感性和理性的结合究竟能带给我们怎样的启示呢？杨澜观察到了人们在追求真相和答案时，常常陷入偏见和盲目，这是因为我们缺乏对情感的理解和运用。

情感是人类交流的重要方式，因为它能够帮助我们看到事物的多个方面和角度，而且可以启迪我们理性思考的能力。

与此同时，理性的重要性也是不可忽视的，理性是我们分析和了解世界的基础。

与情感不同，理性涉及到逻辑、推理和分析，这种思维方式是客观与准确的，是取得成功的关键所在。

然而，我们需要理解的是，单单只有情感或是理性并不能带来成功，决策的正确性，也并不是在表现情感或理性上占优势的过程中取得。

正是因为情感和理性的结合，人们得以拥有一个充满感性和理性合二为一的脑袋，使我们更加合理、甚至是追求极致地了解我们所看到的或所经历的。

那么，如何将情感和理性结合得更加完美呢？我们要更加开放地面对不同的想法和见解，尽可能地了解他人的想法和经验。

当我们能够承认不同的文化、价值和观点的存在时，我们就能更好地结合感性和理性，从而更准确地解决问题。

我们要注重培养自己的情感与理性兼备的能力，只有通过学习、实践和反思，才能真正地拥有这种能力。

我们要注意自己的情感和理性的平衡，不可偏废，只有平衡地发挥情感和理性的优势，才能做出正确的决策。

在结束其演讲时，杨澜发出了一个深刻的思考，也是一个启示：感性和理性的完美结合，不仅是一个个体的成功之路，更是一个国家和社会的繁荣之路。

当人们拥有一个完整的情感与理性的系统，当我们能够坚持开放和平衡，当我们有意识地去培养和发挥这种系统的能力时，我们也将能够更好地找到问题的答案，解决我们所面临的困惑。

我们可以预见一个充满爱、包容和诚信的未来，也可以预见一个更加和谐、进步的世界。

英语ted演讲稿中英文

英语ted演讲稿中英文以下是聘才小编为大家搜索整理的，欢迎大家阅读。

英语ted演讲稿中英文When I was nine years old I went off to summer camp for the first time. And my mother packed me a suitcase full of books, which to me seemed like a perfectly natural thing to do. Because in my family, reading was the primary group activity. And this might sound antisocial to you, but for us it was really just a different way of being social. You have the animal warmth of your family sitting right next to you, but you are also free to go roaming around the adventureland inside your own mind. And I had this idea that camp was going to be just like this, but better. (Laughter) I had a vision of 10 girls sitting in a cabin cozily reading books in their matching nightgowns.当我九岁的时候我第一次去参加夏令营我妈妈帮我整理好了我的行李箱里面塞满了书这对于我来说是一件极为自然的事情因为在我的家庭里阅读是主要的家庭活动听上去你们可能觉得我们是不爱交际的但是对于我的家庭来说这真的只是接触社会的另一种途径你们有自己家庭接触时的温暖亲情家人静坐在你身边但是你也可以自由地漫游在你思维深处的冒险乐园里我有一个想法野营会变得像这样子，当然要更好些 (笑声) 我想象到十个女孩坐在一个小屋里都穿着合身的女式睡衣惬意地享受着读书的过程(Laughter)(笑声)Camp was more like a keg party without any alcohol. And on the very first day our counselor gathered us all together and she taught us a cheer that she said we would be doing every day for the rest of the summer to instill camp spirit. 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 life of me why we were supposed to be so rowdy, or why we had to spell this word incorrectly. (Laughter) But I recited a cheer. I recited a cheer along with everybody else. I did my best. And I just waited for the time that I could go off and read my books.野营这时更像是一个不提供酒水的派对聚会在第一天的时候呢我们的顾问把我们都集合在一起并且她教会了我们一种今后要用到的庆祝方式在余下夏令营的每一天中让“露营精神”浸润我们之后它就像这样继续着R-O-W-D-I-E 这是我们拼写“吵闹"的口号我们唱着“噪音，喧闹，我们要变得吵一点”对，就是这样可我就是弄不明白我的生活会是什么样的为什么我们变得这么吵闹粗暴或者为什么我们非要把这个单词错误地拼写 (笑声) 但是我可没有忘记庆祝。

理性演讲稿：理性决策,坚定不移

理性演讲稿：理性决策，坚定不移！今天，我想和大家谈论的话题是：理性演讲稿：理性决策，坚定不移。

在明年的高考即将到来之际，作为一名即将面临考试的学生，我深刻地认识到面对未来和选择的重要性。

但面临这个现实情况，我们不能被情绪所左右，面对选择，我们必须做到理性决策和坚定信仰。

理性决策。

理性思考、客观分析和科学决策是非常重要的。

我们都知道，一些学生在高考期间会出现紧张、焦虑等状态。

这时候，我们就需要进行分析和自我调节，以确保我们能够保持冷静，发挥自己的最佳水平。

可如何实现理性决策呢?需要我们保持头脑清醒。

在学习和考试期间，我们应该把手机等外界干扰因素隔离，让自己专注学习。

同时，我们可以使用一些心理学技巧，如深呼吸、放松肌肉等等，来调整自己的情绪状态。

需要加强自己的知识储备。

世界在变化，知识也在不断更新，对于我们来说，我们需要及时更新并掌握最新的知识。

在学习期间，我们应把握每个细节，逐渐将知识体系化，这样即使换一个角度也能够很好的理清思路，保持冷静，做出最优的决策。

需要学习积极思考的方法。

在学习决策时，我们应该从不同角度去思考，从各种可能的结果中去寻找最优解。

在这个过程中，我们应该加强掌握离问题最近的关键信息，将思考的视线和领域拓宽，去寻找与已掌握的知识的相关性。

坚定信仰。

当我们做出了理性决策后，我们还需要坚定不移的去执行。

坚定信仰在高考的意义非凡，它将会直接影响到我们的决策和未来的成就，而如何去坚定信仰呢？需要目标明确。

在高考之前，我们应该坚定自己要上理想的大学的决心，明确自己为何要学习，以及将来想要成为什么样的人。

我们不要让外界的干扰和名利获得所影响，从而产生迷茫和犹豫，耽误我们的发展。

需要追求卓越。

只有积极追求卓越，不断进步和跟进，才能够为自己的未来取得更好的发展。

我们必须有追求卓越的精神，不断学习、钻研，从而让自己变得更加自信和坚定。

要有意志力。

当我们遭遇挫折和难题时，我们需要有克服困难的意志力。

Helen Fisher在Ted演讲中英对照

Helen Fisher在Ted演讲中英对照小编今天推荐给大家的是Helen Fisher在Ted演讲中英对照，仅供参考，希望对大家有用。

关注网获得更多内容。

Helen Fisher在Ted演讲中英对照I and my colleagues Art Aron and Lucy Brown and others, have put 37 people who are madly in love into a functional MRI brain scanner. 17 who were happily in love, 15 who had just been dumped, and we're just starting our third experiment: studying people who report that they're still in love after 10 to 25 years of marriage. So, this is the short story of that research.我和阿尔特.阿伦、露西.布朗还有其他同事对37位处在恋爱不同阶段的人的大脑进行了核磁共振测试，其中17位正享受爱情带来的幸福，而15位则刚刚被甩。

我们刚刚开始第三项实验：研究那些在10到25年后仍然处在爱恋中的人们，接下来是关于这项研究的一些介绍。

In the jungles of Guatemala, in Tikal, stands a temple. It was built by the grandest Sun King, of the grandest city-state, of the grandest civilization of the Americas, the Mayas. His name was Jasaw Chan K'awiil. He stood over six feet tall. He lived into his 80s, andhe was buried beneath this monument in 720 AD. And Mayan inscriptions proclaim that he was deeply in love with his wife. So, he built a temple in her honor, facing his. And every spring and autumn, exactly at the equinox, the sun rises behind his temple, and perfectly bathes her temple with his shadow. And as the sun sets behind her temple in the afternoon, it perfectly bathes his temple with her shadow. After 1,300 years, these two lovers still touch and kiss from their tomb.在危地马拉的丛林深处的提卡尔，矗立着一座神庙。

TED演讲双语演讲稿：做出正确决策的三个关键(精编word打印版)

TED演讲双语演讲稿：做出正确决策的三个关键（精编word打印版）演讲时间：2018年10月讲者简介：Tom Griffiths：认知学家演讲简介：做决定是让人头疼的事，认知学家Tom Griffiths认为，我们可以从计算机运算那里学到一些解决问题的逻辑，不论是决定晚上吃什么还是该买怎样的房子，这些技巧都能让我们做出更好的决策。

双语演讲稿If there's one city in the world where it's hard to find a place to buy or rent, it's Sydney. And if you've tried to find a home here recently, you're familiar with the problem. Every time you walk into an open house, you get some information about what's out there and what's on the market, but every time you walk out, you're running the risk of the very best place passing you by. So how do you know when to switch from looking to being ready to make an offer?如果世界上有个城市很难买房或者租房，它就是悉尼。

如果你最近在找地方安家，你一定对此深有感触。

每次你走进一个对公众开放的待售房，就会了解到市场上相关的信息，但每次你从房子里走出去，就冒着错过最好房子的风险。

那么你怎么知道何时从单纯的寻找，转向准备出手呢？This is such a cruel and familiar problem that it might come as a surprise that it hasa simple solution. 37 percent.这个如此残酷和熟悉的问题却可能有个让人惊讶的简单解决方案。

阿兰德波顿ted演讲稿

阿兰德波顿ted演讲稿为大家整理英伦才子作家阿兰德波顿在TED大舞台上的励志演讲，他说在人生路上不要放弃对成功的想象，在这个演讲中，阿兰德波顿陈述自己对成功的理解，下面是这篇阿兰德波顿ted 演讲稿阿兰德波顿ted演讲稿我们不该放弃对成功的想象我经常对事业感到恐慌。

周日下午，晚霞洒满天空，我的理想和现实的差距却是这样残酷，令我沮丧的只想抱头痛哭。

我提出这件事是因为，我认为不只有我这么感觉。

你可能不这么认为，但我感觉我们活在一个充满事业恐慌的时代，就在我们认为我们已经理解我们的人生和事业时，真实便来恐吓我们。

现在或许比以前更容易过上好生活，但却比以前更难保持冷静，或不为事业感到焦虑。

今天我想要检视，我们对事业感到焦虑的一些原因，为何我们会变成事业焦虑的囚徒。

不时抱头痛哭，折磨人的因素之一是，我们身边的那些势利鬼。

对那些来访牛津大学的外国友人，我有一个坏消息，这里的人都很势利。

有时候，英国以外的人会想象，势利是英国人特有的个性，来自那些乡间别墅和头衔爵位。

坏消息是，并不只是这样，势利是一个全球性的问题，我们是个全球性的组织，这是个全球性的问题，它确实存在。

势利是什么?势利是以一小部分的你，来判别你的全部价值，那就是势利。

今日最主要的势利，就是对职业的势利。

你在派对中不用一分钟就能体会到，当你被问到这个21世纪初，最有代表性的问题：你是做什么的?你的答案将会决定对方接下来的反应，对方可能对你在场感到荣幸，或是开始看表，然后想个借口离开。

势利鬼的另一个极端，是你的母亲。

不一定是你我的母亲，而是一个理想母亲的想象，一个永远义无反顾的爱你，不在乎你是否功成名就的人。

不幸地，大部分世人都不怀有这种母爱，大部分世人决定要花费多少时间，给予多少爱，不一定是浪漫的那种爱，虽然那也包括在内。

世人所愿意给我们的关爱、尊重，取决于我们的社会地位。

这就是为什么我们如此在乎事业和成就，以及看重金钱和物质。

我们时常被告知我们处在一个物质挂帅的时代，我们都是贪婪的人。

TED英文演讲稿Why you will fail to have a great career

TED英文演讲稿：Why you will fail to have a greatcareerwhy you will fail to have a great career为什么你干不成一番大事业i want to discuss with you this afternoon why youre going to fail to have a great career. (laughter)今天下午我想和你们讨论一下你为什么不会成就伟业。

(笑声)im an economist. i do dismal. end of the day, its ready for dismal remarks. i only want to talk to those of you who want a great career. i know some of you have already decided you want a good career. youre going to fail, too (laughter) because goodness, youre all cheery about failing. (laughter) canadian group, undoubtedly. (laughter) those trying to have good careers are going to fail, because, really, good jobs are now disappearing. there are great jobs and great careers, and then there are the high-workload, high-stress, bloodsucking, soul-destroying kinds of jobs, and practically nothing in between.我是个经济学家。

ted julie lythcott-haims双语对照文稿

ted julie lythcott-haims双语对照文稿TED演讲是全球知名的分享平台，吸引了来自各行各业的讲者和听众。

Julie Lythcott-Haims是TED演讲中的一位讲者，她的演讲题为《怎样养育出自信的孩子》（How to Raise Confident Kids）。

本文将对这个演讲进行双语对照，为读者呈现Julie Lythcott-Haims的观点和建议。

引言概述：在这个竞争激烈的社会中，如何培养自信的孩子成为了许多家长关注的焦点。

Julie Lythcott-Haims在她的TED演讲中分享了她对这个问题的思考和观点。

她认为，培养自信的孩子需要家长给予他们足够的自主权和责任感，而不是过度干预和保护。

正文内容：1. 自主权的重要性1.1 培养孩子的独立思考能力Julie Lythcott-Haims认为，家长应该鼓励孩子独立思考，而不是一味地告诉他们应该怎么做。

通过让孩子自己做决策和解决问题，他们能够培养出自信心和解决问题的能力。

1.2 提供选择的机会家长应该给予孩子足够的选择权，让他们在一定的范围内自由决定。

这样做可以帮助孩子培养自主性和责任感，同时也能够让他们更好地认识自己的兴趣和能力。

1.3 鼓励孩子承担责任Julie Lythcott-Haims强调，家长应该让孩子承担一定的责任，如做家务、管理时间等。

通过这样的方式，孩子能够学会自律和解决问题，从而增强他们的自信心。

2. 避免过度保护2.1 不要为孩子解决一切问题家长应该让孩子自己面对问题和困难，而不是一味地替他们解决。

只有通过自己的努力和经历，孩子才能够培养出自信心和应对挑战的能力。

2.2 鼓励孩子接受失败失败是成长的一部分，家长应该鼓励孩子接受失败并从中学习。

通过这样的经历，孩子能够更好地理解自己的能力和不足，从而更加自信地面对未来的挑战。

2.3 培养孩子的坚韧精神家长应该鼓励孩子坚持不懈地追求目标，不轻易放弃。

理性思维演讲稿

理性思维演讲稿尊敬的各位老师、亲爱的同学们：大家好！今天我想和大家分享的主题是“理性思维”。

在这个信息爆炸的时代，我们每天都会接触到各种各样的信息，有些是真实的，有些是虚假的，有些是有意误导的。

如何在这样的环境下保持理性思维，成为了我们每个人都需要面对的问题。

首先，让我们来看看什么是理性思维。

理性思维是指在认识和判断问题时，以事实和逻辑为依据，进行客观、全面、准确的分析和判断。

理性思维是一种严谨而深刻的思维方式，它要求我们不受情绪的影响，不受个人偏见的干扰，客观地看待问题，科学地分析问题，理性地解决问题。

那么，为什么我们要强调理性思维呢？首先，理性思维是我们认识世界、解决问题的有效方式。

只有通过理性思维，我们才能更好地认识世界，更好地理解自己，更好地解决问题。

其次，理性思维是我们成为独立思考者、自由人的必备条件。

只有通过理性思维，我们才能摆脱外界的影响，找到自己的立场，成为真正的自由人。

那么，如何培养理性思维呢？首先，我们要注重知识的积累。

只有通过广泛的知识积累，我们才能有更多的信息和事实作为依据，进行更准确的分析和判断。

其次，我们要注重逻辑的训练。

只有通过逻辑的训练，我们才能更好地进行思维的整合和推理，进行更深入的分析和判断。

最后，我们要注重批判的精神。

只有通过批判的精神，我们才能更好地审视自己的观点，更好地接受他人的批评，更好地改进自己的思维方式。

最后，我想说的是，理性思维不仅仅是一种思维方式，更是一种生活态度。

只有通过理性思维，我们才能更好地认识自己，更好地认识世界，更好地解决问题，更好地成为自由人。

让我们一起努力，培养理性思维，成为更加理性、深刻、自由的人！谢谢大家！。

TED演讲双语演讲稿：为什么我们很难做出理性的决定？(精编word打印版)

TED演讲双语演讲稿：为什么我们很难做出理性的决定？（精编word打印版）演讲时间：2019年讲者简介：David Asch：经济学家演讲简介：为什么我们在明明知道的情况下还做出对健康有害的错误决定？在这个坦率，有趣的演讲中，行为经济学家和健康政策专家大卫·阿施（David Asch）解释了为什么我们的行为常常是非理性的。

双语演讲稿翻译人员: Jessie Zhang 校对人员: Jiasi HaoIt's April of 2007,那是 2007 年的 4 月，and Jon Corzine, the Governor of New Jersey,新泽西州的州长，荣·科赞（Jon Corzine），is in this horrific car accident.陷入了一场可怕的车祸。

He's in the right front passenger seat of this SUV当他乘坐的那辆 SUV 在花园州高速公路撞毁的时候，when it crashes on the Garden State Parkway.他正坐在副驾驶的座位上。

He's transported to a New Jersey trauma center他被转移到一家新泽西的创伤治疗中心，with multiple broken bones and multiple lacerations.身上伴有多处骨折和撕裂。

He needs immediate surgery, seven units of blood,他需要立即接受手术、 7 品脱的输血、a mechanical ventilator to help him breathe一个帮助他呼吸的呼吸机，and several more operations along the way.以及即将面临的又几场手术。

It's amazing he survived.他能活下来真的令人震惊。

TED演讲稿 Are we in control of our own decisions

Are we in control of our own decisions?by Dan ArielyI'll tell you a little bit about irrational behavior. Not yours, of course -- other people's. (Laughter)So after being at MIT for a few years, I realized that writing academic papers is not that exciting. You know, I don't know how many of those you read, but it's not fun to read and often not fun to write -- even worse to write. So I decided to try and write something more fun. And I came up with an idea that I will write a cookbook. And the title for my cookbook was going to be "Dining Without Crumbs: The Art of Eating Over the Sink." (Laughter) And it was going to be a look at life through the kitchen. And I was quite excited about this. I was going to talk a little bit about research, a little bit about the kitchen. You know, we do so much in the kitchen I thought this would be interesting. And I wrote a couple of chapters. And I took it to MIT press and they said, "Cute, but not for us. Go and find somebody else." I tried other people and everybody said the same thing, "Cute. Not for us."Until somebody said, "Look, if you're serious about this, you first have to write a book about your research. You have to publish something, and then you'll get the opportunity to write something else. If you really want to do it you have to do it." So I said, "You know, I really don't want to write about my research. I do this all day long. I want to write something else. Something a bit more free, less constrained." And this person was very forceful and said, "Look. That's the only way you'll ever do it." So I said, "Okay, if I have to do it -- " I had a sabbatical. I said, "I'll write about my research if there is no other way. And then I'll get to do my cookbook." So I wrote a book on my research.※And it turned out to be quite fun in two ways. First of all, I enjoyed writing. But the more interesting thing was that I started learning from people. It's a fantastic time to write, because there is so much feedback you can get from people. People write me about their personal experience, and about their examples, and what they disagree, and nuances. And even being here -- I mean the last few days, I've known really heights of obsessive behavior I never thought about. (Laughter) Which I think is just fascinating.I will tell you a little bit about irrational behavior. And I want to start by giving you some examples of visual illusion as a metaphor for rationality. So think about these two tables. And you must have seen this illusion. If I asked you what's longer, the vertical line on the table on the left, or the horizontal line on the table on the right? Which one seems longer? Can anybody see anything but the left one being longer? No, right? It's impossible. But the nice thing about visual illusion is we can easily demonstrate mistakes. So I can put some lines on; it doesn't help. I can animate the lines. And to the extent you believe I didn't shrink the lines, which I didn't, I've proven to you that your eyes were deceiving you. Now,the interesting thing about this is when I take the lines away, it's as if you haven't learned anything in the last minute. (Laughter) You can't look at this and say, "Okay now I see reality as it is." Right? It's impossible to overcome this sense that this is indeed longer. Our intuition is really fooling us in a repeatable, predictable, consistent way. And there is almost nothing we can do about it, aside from taking a ruler and starting to measure it.Here is another one -- this is one of my favorite illusions. What do you see the color that top arrow is pointing to? Brown. Thank you. The bottom one? Yellow. Turns out they're identical. Can anybody see them as identical? Ver y very hard. I can cover the rest of the cube up. And if I cover the rest of the cube you can see that they are identical. And if you don't believe me you can get the slide later and do some arts and crafts and see that they're identical. But again it's the same story that if we take the background away, the illusion comes back. Right. There is no way for us not to see this illusion. I guess maybe if you're colorblind I don't think you can see that. I want you to think about illusion as a metaphor.Vision is one of the best things we do. We have a huge part of our brain dedicated to vision -- bigger than dedicated to anything else. We do more vision more hours of the day than we do anything else. And we are evolutionarily designed to do vision. And if we have these predictable repeatable mistakes in vision, which we're so good at, what's the chance that we don't make even more mistakes in something we're not as good at -- for example, financial decision making: (Laughter) something we don't have an evolutionary reason to do, we don't have a specialized part of the brain, and we don't do that many hours of the day. And the argument is in those cases it might be the issue that we actually make many more mistakes and, worse, not have an easy way to see them. Because in visual illusions we can easily demonstrate the mistakes; in cognitive illusion it's much, much harder to demonstrate to people the mistakes.So I want to show you some cognitive illusions, or decision-making illusions, in the same way. And this is one of my favorite plots in social sciences. It's from a paper by Johnson and Goldstein. And it basically shows the percentage of people who indicated they would be interested in giving their organs to donation. And these are different countries in Europe. And you basically see two types of countries: countries on the right, that seem to be giving a lot; and countries on the left that seem to giving very little, or much less. The question is, why? Why do some countries give a lot and some countries give a little?When you ask people this question, they usually think that it has to be something about culture. Right? How much do you care about people? Giving your organs to somebody else is probably about how much you care about society, how linked you are. Or maybe it is about religion. But, if you look at this plot, you can see that countries that we think about as very similar actually exhibit very different behavior. For example, Sweden is all the wayon the right, and Denmark, that we think is culturally very similar, is all the way on the left. Germany is on the left. And Austria is on the right. The Netherlands is on the left. And Belgium is on the right. And finally, depending on your particular version of European similarity, you can think about the U.K and France as either similar culturally or not. But it turns out that from organ donation they are very different.By the way, the Netherlands is an interesting story. You see the Netherlands is kind of the biggest of the small group. Turns out that they got to 28 percent after mailing every household in the country a letter begging people to join this organ donation program. You know the expression, "Begging only gets you so far"? It's 28 percent in organ donation.(Laughter)But whatever the countries on the right are doing they are doing a much better job than begging. So what are they doing? Turns out the secret has to do with a form at the DMV. And here is the story. The countries on the left have a form at the DMV that looks something like this. Check the box below if you want to participate in the organ donor program. And what happens? People don't check, and they don't join. The countries on the right, the ones that give a lot, have a slightly different form. It says check the box below if you don't want to participate. Interestingly enough, when people get this, they again don't check -- but now they join.(Laughter)Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the driver's seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standardeconomist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.I'll give you one more example for this. This is from a paper by Redelmeier and Schaefer. And they said, "Well, this effect also happens to experts, people who are well-paid, experts in their decisions, do it a lot." And they basically took a group of physicians. And they presented to them a case study of a patient. Here is a patient. He is a 67-year-old farmer. He's been suffering from a right hip pain for a while. And then they said to the physician, "You decided a few weeks ago that nothing is working for this patient. All these medications, nothing seems to be working. So you refer the patient to hip replacement therapy. Hip replacement. Okay?" So the patient is on a path to have his hip replaced. And then they said to half the physicians, they said, "Yesterday you reviewed the patient's case and you realized that you forgot to try one medication. You did not try ibuprofen. What do you do? Do you pull the patient back and try ibuprofen? Or do you let them go and have hip replacement?" Well the good news is that most physicians in this case decided to pull the patient and try the ibuprofen. Very good for the physicians.The other group of the physicians, they said, "Yesterday when you reviewed the case you discovered there were two medications you didn't try out yet, ibuprofen and piroxicam." And they said, "You have two medications you didn't try out yet. What do you do? You let them go. Or you pull them back. And if you pull them back do you try ibuprofen or piroxicam? Which one?" Now think of it. This decision makes it as easy to let the patient continue with hip replacement. But pulling them back, all of the sudden becomes more complex. There is one more decision. What happens now? Majority of the physicians now choose to let the patient go to hip replacement. I hope this worries you, by the way -- (Laughter) when you go to see your physician. The thing is is that no physician would ever say, "Piroxicam, ibuprofen, hip replacement. Let's go for hip replacement." But the moment you set this as the default it has a huge power over whatever people end up doing.I'll give you a couple of more examples on irrational decision-making. Imagine I give you a choice. Do you want to go for a weekend to Rome? All expenses paid: hotel, transportation, food, breakfast, a continental breakfast, everything. Or a weekend in Paris? Now, a weekend in Paris, a weekend in Rome, these are different things; they have different food, different culture, different art. Now imagine I added a choice to the set that nobody wanted. Imagine I said, "A weekend in Rome, a weekend in Paris, or having your car stolen?" (Laughter) It's a funny idea, because why would having your car stolen, in this set,influence anything? (Laughter) But what if the option to have your car stolen was not exactly like this. What if it was a trip to Rome, all expenses paid, transportation, breakfast, but doesn't include coffee in the morning. If you want coffee you have to pay for it yourself. It's two euros 50. Now in some ways, given that you can have Rome with coffee, why would you possibly want Rome without coffee? It's like having your car stolen. It's an inferior option. But guess what happened. The moment you add Rome without coffee, Rome with coffee becomes more popular. And people choose it. The fact that you have Rome without coffee makes Rome with coffee look superior, and not just to Rome without coffee -- even superior to Paris. (Laughter)Here are two examples of this principle. This was an ad from The Economist a few years ago that gave us three choices. An online subscription for 59 dollars. A print subscription for 125. Or you could get both for 125. (Laughter) Now I looked at this and I called up The Economist. And I tried to figure out what were they thinking. And they passed me from one person to another to another, until eventually I got to a person who was in charge of the website. And I called them up. And they went to check what was going on. The next thing I know, the ad is gone. And no explanation.So I decided to do the experiment that I would have loved The Economist to do with me. I took this and I gave it to 100 MIT students. I said, "What would you choose?" These are the market share. Most people wanted the combo deal. Thankfully nobody wanted the dominated option. That means our students can read. (Laughter) But now if you have an option that nobody wants, you can take it off. Right? So I printed another version of this, where I eliminated the middle option. I gave it to another 100 students. Here is what happens. Now the most popular option became the least popular. And the least popular became the most popular.What was happening was the option that was useless, in the middle, was useless in the sense that nobody wanted it. But it wasn't useless in the sense that it helped people figure out what they wanted. In fact, relative to the option in the middle, which was get only the print for 125, the print and web for 125 looked like a fantastic deal. And as a consequence, people chose it. The general idea here, by the way, is that we actually don't know our preferences that well. And because we don't know our preferences that well we're susceptible to all of these influences from the external forces: the defaults, the particular options that are presented to us, and so on.One more example of this. People believe that when we deal with physical attraction, we see somebody, and we know immediately whether we like them or not, attracted or not. Which is why we have these four-minute dates. So I decided to do this experiment with people. I'll show you graphic images of people -- not real people. The experiment was with people. I showed some people a picture of Tom, and a picture of Jerry. I said "Who do youwant to date? Tom or Jerry?" But for half the people I added an ugly version of Jerry. I took Photoshop and I made Jerry slightly less attractive. (Laughter) The other people, I added an ugly version of Tom. And the question was, will ugly Jerry and ugly Tom help their respective, more attractive brothers? The answer was absolutely yes. When ugly Jerry was around, Jerry was popular. When ugly Tom was around, Tom was popular.(Laughter)This of course has two very clear implications for life in general. If you ever go bar hopping, who do you want to take with you? (Laughter) You want a slightly uglier version of yourself. (Laughter) Similar. Similar ... but slightly uglier. (Laughter) The second point, or course, is that if somebody else invites you, you know how they think about you. (Laughter) Now you're getting it.What is the general point? The general point is that when we think about economics we have this beautiful view of human nature. "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason!" We have this view of ourselves, of others. The behavioral economics perspective is slightly less generous to people. In fact in medical terms, that's our view. (Laughter) But there is a silver lining. The silver lining is, I think, kind of the reason that behavioral economics is interesting and exciting. Are we Superman? Or are we Homer Simpson?When it comes to building the physical world, we kind of understand our limitations. We build steps. And we build these things that not everybody can use obviously. (Laughter) We understand our limitations, and we build around it. But for some reason when it comes to the mental world, when we design things like healthcare and retirement and stockmarkets, we somehow forget the idea that we are limited. I think that if we understood our cognitive limitations in the same way that we understand our physical limitations, even though they don't stare us in the face in the same way, we could design a better world. And that, I think, is the hope of this thing.Thank you very much.(Applause)今天我想谈谈非理性行为。