演講稿具有觀點鮮明，內(nèi)容具有鼓動性的特點。隨著社會不斷地進步，越來越多人會去使用演講稿，演講稿的注意事項有許多，你確定會寫嗎？下面是范文網(wǎng)小編收集的Ted演講3篇 精選ted演講，以供參考。
Ted演講1
TED演講:做勇敢的女孩 不做完美的女孩
我們社會一直默認的教育方式是“將女孩養(yǎng)成完美無缺的人，將男孩育成勇敢無畏的人?！?但演講者Reshma Saujani卻否定這樣的觀點，每一個人都應(yīng)該有勇氣去挑戰(zhàn)自己從來就只是想想而不敢嘗試的事，男生女生都應(yīng)該為自己勇敢！TED演講英文文稿: TED演講中文文稿: 0:12 So a few years ago, I did something really brave, or some would say really ran :22 For years, I had existed safely behind the scenes in politics as a fundraiser, as an organizer, butin my heart, I always wanted to sitting congresswoman had been in my district had never lost a race, and no one had really even run against her in a in my mind, this was my way to make a difference, to disrupt the status , however, told a very different pollsters told me that I was crazy to run, thatthere was no way that I could :01 But I ran anyway, and in 2012, I became an upstart in a New York City congressional I was going to had the endorsement from the New York Daily News, the WallStreet Journal snapped pictures of me on election day, and CNBC called it one of the hottestraces in the raised money from everyone I knew, including Indian aunties that werejust so happy an Indian girl was on election day, the polls were right, and I only got19 percent of the vote, and the same papers that said I was a rising political star now said Iwasted million dollars on 6,321 't do the was :55 Now, before you get the wrong idea, this is not a talk about the importance of is itabout leaning tell you the story of how I ran for Congress because I was 33 years old and itwas the first time in my entire life that I had done something that was truly brave, where I didn'tworry about being :20 And I'm not alone: so many women I talk to tell me that they gravitate towards careers andprofessions that they know they're going to be great in, that they know they're going to beperfect in, and it's no wonder girls are taught to avoid risk and 're taught tosmile pretty, play it safe, get all A', on the other hand, are taught to play rough, swinghigh, crawl to the top of the monkey bars and then just jump off by the timethey're adults, whether they're negotiating a raise or even asking someone out on a date,they're habituated to take risk after 're rewarded for 's often said in Silicon Valley,no one even takes you seriously unless you've had two failed other words, we'reraising our girls to be perfect, and we're raising our boys to be :20 Some people worry about our federal deficit, but I, I worry about our bravery , our society, we're just losing out because we're not raising our girls to be deficit is why women are underrepresented in STEM, in C-suites, in boardrooms, inCongress, and pretty much everywhere you :45 In the 1980s, psychologist Carol Dweck looked at how bright fifth graders handled an assignmentthat was too difficult for found that bright girls were quick to give higher theIQ, the more likely they were to give boys, on the other hand, found the difficultmaterial to be a found it were more likely to redouble :11 What's going on? Well, at the fifth grade level, girls routinely outperform boys in every subject,including math and science, so it's not a question of difference is in how boys andgirls approach a it doesn't just end in fifth HP report found that men willapply for a job if they meet only 60 percent of the qualifications, but women, women will applyonly if they meet 100 percent of the study is usually invoked asevidence that, well, women need a little more I think it's evidence that womenhave been socialized to aspire to perfection, and they're overly :00(Applause)5:03 And even when we're ambitious, even when we're leaning in, that socialization of perfection hascaused us to take less risks in our so those 600,000 jobs that are open right now incomputing and tech, women are being left behind, and it means our economy is being leftbehind on all the innovation and problems women would solve if they were socialized to be braveinstead of socialized to be :35(Applause)5:39 So in 2012, I started a company to teach girls to code, and what I found is that by teachingthem to code I had socialized them to be , it's an endless process of trial anderror, of trying to get the right command in the right place, with sometimes just a semicolonmaking the difference between success and breaks and then it falls apart, and itoften takes many, many tries until that magical moment when what you're trying to build comesto requires requires :21 We immediately see in our program our girls' fear of not getting it right, of not being Girls Who Code teacher tells me the same the first week, when the girls arelearning how to code, a student will call her over and she'll say, “I don't know what code towrite.” The teacher will look at her screen, and she'll see a blank text she didn't knowany better, she'd think that her student spent the past 20 minutes just staring at the if she presses undo a few times, she'll see that her student wrote code and then deleted tried, she came close, but she didn't get it exactly of showing the progressthat she made, she'd rather show nothing at or :13 It turns out that our girls are really good at coding, but it's not enough just to teach them :21 My friend Lev Brie, who is a professor at the University of Columbia and teaches intro to Javatells me about his office hours with computer science the guys are strugglingwith an assignment, they'll come in and they'll say, “Professor, there's something wrong with mycode.” The girls will come in and say, “Professor, there's something wrong with me.” 7:44 We have to begin to undo the socialization of perfection, but we've got to combine it with buildinga sisterhood that lets girls know that they are not trying harder is not going to fixa broken can't tell you how many women tell me, 8:00 "I'm afraid to raise my hand, I'm afraid to ask a question, because I don't want to be the onlyone who doesn't understand, the only one who is we teach girls to be braveand we have a supportive network cheering them on, they will build incredible things, and I seethis every , for instance, two of our high school students who built a game calledTampon Run--yes, Tampon Run--to fight against the menstruation taboo and sexism the Syrian refugee who dared show her love for her new country by building an appto help Americans get to the a 16-year-old girl who built an algorithm to help detectwhether a cancer is benign or malignant in the off chance that she can save her daddy'slifebecause he has are just three examples of thousands,thousandsofgirlswhohave been socialized to be imperfect, who have learned to keep trying, who have learned whether they become coders or the next Hillary Clinton or Beyoncé, they willnot defer their :26 And those dreams have never been more important for our the Americaneconomy, for any economy to grow, to truly innovate, we cannot leave behind half have to socialize our girls to be comfortable with imperfection, and we've got todo it cannot wait for them to learn how to be brave like I did when I was 33 years have to teach them to be brave in schools and early in their careers, when it has the mostpotential to impact their lives and the lives of others, and we have to show them that they will beloved and accepted not for being perfect but for being so I need each of youto tell every young woman you know--your sister, your niece, your employee, your colleague--to be comfortable with imperfection, because when we teach girls to be imperfect, and we helpthem leverage it, we will build a movement of young women who are brave and who will build abetter world for themselves and for each and every one of :44 Thank :45(Applause)Thank :56 Chris Anderson: Reshma, thank 's such a powerful vision you have a me how it's many girls are involved now in your program? 11:06 Reshma Saujani: in 2012, we taught 20 year we'll teach 40,000 in all :15 And that number is really powerful, because last year we only graduated 7,500 women incomputer , the problem is so bad that we can make that type of change :29 CA: And you're working with some of the companies in this room even, who are welcominggraduates from your program? 11:35 RS: Yeah, we have about 80 partners, from Twitter to Facebook to Adobe to IBM to Microsoftto Pixar to Disney, I mean, every single company out if you're not signed up, I'mgoing to find you, because we need every single tech company to embed a Girls Who Codeclassroom in their :52 CA: And you have some stories back from some of those companies that when you mix in moregender balance in the engineering teams, good things :01 RS: Great things mean, I think that it's crazy to me to think about the fact that rightnow 85 percent of all consumer purchases are made by use social media at arate of 600 percent more than own the Internet, and we should be building thecompanies of I think when companies have diverse teams, and they haveincredible women that are part of their engineering teams, they build awesome things, and wesee it every :24 CA: Reshma, you saw the reaction 're doing incredibly important wholecommunity is cheering you power to :32
Ted演講2
羅茲·薩維其：只身橫渡大西洋的現(xiàn)代傳奇
假如你要知道自己的人生該怎么走，不妨在你年輕的時候就給自己寫一份訃告。這是只身劃船橫渡大西洋的羅茲·薩維其（Roz Savage）的做法。
Roz在還年輕的時候是在英國當(dāng)管理咨詢顧問，但她一直感到那不是她一生要追求的東西，因為她更喜歡當(dāng)一位探險家。當(dāng)她過了35歲之后，有一天給自己寫了兩份訃告。一份是按照自己希望過的生活形態(tài)來寫的，另外一份是按照現(xiàn)有的生活規(guī)律來寫的。寫完后，Roz認真讀了兩份訃告，她感到假如自己是按照現(xiàn)有的生活方式生活下去的話，無疑會像第二份訃告里所描述的那樣度過自己未來的五年、十年，乃至余生。這樣的生活也很如意，但就是缺了點什么。Roz覺得第一份訃告所記述的人生才是她所認同的人生。她說，那天我看著這兩份訃告，我在想，天啊，我現(xiàn)在走的是完全錯誤的道路啊。后來，她辭掉了工作，又經(jīng)過一番掙扎，最后決定跳出常規(guī)思維的局限，并下決心要坐一只小船，拿著雙槳劃行大西洋。
也許經(jīng)?？刺诫U片的人馬上會想到粗胡子大漢獨自一人闖蕩大海的影像。但是，Roz是一個普普通通的女子，她也不是職業(yè)探險家，更不曾有過特別的經(jīng)歷。但是，她還是決定試一試。
2005年，Roz出發(fā)了。非常不幸的是，她選的時間剛好是大西洋上氣旋特別活躍的時期，小船出行甚為困難。另外，她所準備的4對船槳都相繼折斷，在茫茫的大海中，沒有人能幫到她，Roz唯一能做的，就是用船上的工具把船槳修補好，繼續(xù)前行。
在大海上的劃行給Roz帶來了巨大的心理和生理挑戰(zhàn)，她甚至在想，以每個小時2英里的速度來劃行，要到哪個牛年馬月才能完成3000英里的征途？但她沒有辦法，只能一步一步的前進。經(jīng)過103天的努力，Roz終于順利到達彼岸。在岸上，她得到了現(xiàn)場諸多粉絲的熱烈歡迎，她說，那種感覺就像是當(dāng)上了電影明星。同時也印證了一個講法，險阻越大，克服困難后最終得到的成果也越大。從大西洋回來后，Roz又開始計劃她的太平洋劃行之旅?，F(xiàn)在，她已經(jīng)完成了太平洋旅程（約9000至英里）的三分之二。她回頭反思，總結(jié)出大海劃行給她帶來的一些啟示：
首先，我們給自己講述的故事會影響我們的態(tài)度。開始時，Roz也認為只有那些粗胡子的大漢才有能力劃行大海。但事實并非如此。同樣道理，我們一直認為石油是比不可少的。但實際上，除了石油之外是有很多其他可持續(xù)的選擇的，我們也有這樣的自由意志去作出恰當(dāng)?shù)倪x擇。
其次，是關(guān)于一點一滴的個體行動本身。我們會以外單獨的個體就是大海中的一滴水，無足輕重。但正是很多人的壞決定之累計使得我們所有人走向災(zāi)難之邊緣。而假如我們可以換個角度去思考，可以試想，假如每個人都能做出智慧的抉擇，我們就有可能走向更可持續(xù)的未來。并且我們將會是與很多人一道來做這樣的事
情，假如我們都開始做智慧的抉擇，那么也許未來到超市購物使用塑料袋就會被大眾認為是愚蠢的抉擇。而這也僅僅是其中一個例子。
最后，整個過程都是關(guān)乎承擔(dān)責(zé)任的。Roz曾一直以為只有當(dāng)她有了好房子、好車、好男人之后，快樂就會自然降臨到她身上。但當(dāng)她寫完了那兩份訃告之后，她似乎懂得了一點什么。她知道自己不能被動的去等待。另一方面，即使能夠活到90歲，但是，生活在一個有饑荒和干旱的地球而祈求獲得快樂也是非常困難的事情，更不能指望在這樣的環(huán)境下生活會讓人健康長壽了。于是，Roz決定發(fā)起一個叫EcoHeroes的倡導(dǎo)活動，幫助人們記錄生活中的環(huán)境友好行為。也許單純換一個燈泡不能帶來太多改變，但這樣的精神卻是拯救地球所必須的一種態(tài)度。
我們站在歷史上非常關(guān)鍵的時刻，我們曾被關(guān)愛的，也曾被詛咒。我們還能選擇一個綠色的未來——唯需每個人一點一滴的努力?！猂oz Savage
Ted演講3
TED演講|激勵人心的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力 西蒙·斯涅克:偉大的領(lǐng)袖如何激勵行動
How do you explain when things don't go as we assume? Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions? For example: Why is Apple so innovative? Year after year, after year, after year, they're more innovative than all their yet, they're just a computer 're just like everyone have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same why is it that they seem to have something different? Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement? He wasn't the only man who suffered in a pre-civil rights he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the him? And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out control-powered, manned flight when there were certainly other teams who were better qualified, better funded, and they didn't achieve powered man flight, and the Wright brothers beat them to 's something else at play here.各位，當(dāng)事情不是我們料想的那樣時，你如何解釋？當(dāng)別人能夠成就的事實似乎推翻了過去所有的假設(shè)的時候，你如何解釋？舉個例子，為什么蘋果如此具有創(chuàng)新能力？一年又一年，一年又一年，他們比競爭對手更加創(chuàng)新。而且，他們只是一家電腦公司。就像每個電腦公司一樣，他們能招到的人才，獲得的資源，找到的顧問，采訪的媒體都和別人一樣。那為什么他們好像總是能夠拿出一些不同的東西來？同樣，為什么是馬丁·路德·金來領(lǐng)導(dǎo)民權(quán)運動？他不是唯一遭受運動前社會歧視的黑人，他也肯定不是那個時代唯一偉大的演說家。那為什么是他領(lǐng)導(dǎo)民權(quán)運動？還有，為什么是萊特兄弟能夠研制出動力控制的載人飛機？當(dāng)時還有其他團隊比他們兄弟倆更有能力，更多資金，他們卻沒能實現(xiàn)人力飛行，萊特兄弟打敗了他們。一定還有一些什么別的因素在起作用。
About three and a half years ago I made a discovery, and this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it turns out--there's a pattern--as it turns out, all the great and inspiring leaders and organizations in the world, whether it's Apple, or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers, they all think, act and communicate the exact same it's the complete opposite to everyone I did was codify it's probably the world's simplest call it the golden circle.大概三年半前，我有了一個發(fā)現(xiàn)，這個發(fā)現(xiàn)從根本上改變了我對世界是如何運作的看法，甚至也根本改變了我運作的方式。事實顯示，有這么一個模式，這個世界上所有偉大的激動人心的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和組織，不管它是蘋果，或者馬丁·路德·金，或者萊特兄弟，他們思考，行動和溝通的方式完全一樣！而對其他人，則正好反其道而行之。我所做的就是把它整理出來，這可能是世界上最簡單的一個觀念。我稱之為“黃金圓環(huán)”。
（板上畫了三個圓環(huán)，中心是“為什么why”, 第二個環(huán)是“怎么做how”，最外面的環(huán)是“是什么what”）
Why? How? What? This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren' me define the terms really single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they by “why” I don't mean “to make a profit.” That's a 's always a “why” I mean: what's your purpose? What's your cause? What's your belief? Why does your organization exist? Why do you get out of bed in the morning? And why should anyone care? Well, as a result, the way we think, the way we act, the way we communicate is from the outside 's go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations, regardless of their size, regardless of their industry, all think, act and communicate from the inside out.為什么？怎么做？是什么？這個黃金圓環(huán)解釋了為什么有的組織和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者能夠激發(fā)行動，而其他的不能。讓我很快地給這些詞下個定義。這個地球上每個人，每個組織都知道自己在做什么，百分之百的。其中有的知道他們該怎么做，不管你稱作差異價值定位，或是你的獨有工藝，或是你的獨特賣點都行。但是非常非常少的人和組織才知道他們?yōu)槭裁醋鍪诸^的事情。這里我說的“為什么“不是什么“贏利”。那只是結(jié)果，一直都是結(jié)果而已。說“為什么”我的意思是：你的目標目的是什么？你的原因是什么？你的信念是什么？你的機構(gòu)為什么存在？你每天早上為什么起床？你起不起床對別人有什么不同，別人為什么要在乎？作為結(jié)果，我們思考的方式，我們行動的方式，和我們溝通的方式，在這個黃金圓環(huán)上都是從外到內(nèi)的。我們從最清楚的再到最模糊的。但是激勵型的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和組織，不管他們大小規(guī)模，不管他們所在行業(yè)，都從內(nèi)到外地思考，行動，和溝通。
Let me give you an use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this.”We make great 're beautifully designed, simple to use and user to buy one?“ that's how most of us 's how most marketing is 's how most sales are that's how most of us communicate say what we do, we say how we're different or how we're better and we expect some sort of a behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like 's our new law have the best lawyers with the biggest always perform for our clients who do business with 's our new gets great gas has leather our it's uninspiring.讓我給您舉個例子。我用蘋果電腦，因為它易于理解，每個人都能上手。如果蘋果和其他競爭對手一樣，他們的廣告語可能就會這樣寫：“我們制造出色的電腦，它們設(shè)計精美，使用簡單，界面友好。想要買一臺嗎？”不想！這就是我們大部分人溝通的方式。這也是大部分公司的市場推廣方式。這也是大部分銷售完成的方式。我們說我們要做什么，我們是怎樣與眾不同或者更好，然后我們就等著別人被打動或者掏腰包，投票，諸如此類。比如，你對客戶說，這是我們新的律師事務(wù)所，我們有最好的律師，最大的客戶，我們總是為我們的客戶竭盡全力。再比如，這是我們推出的新車型，非常省油，又有皮座墊，快來買我們的車吧──這些都無法激勵我們。
Here's how Apple actually communicates.”Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status believe in thinking way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user just happen to make great to buy one?“ Totally different right? You're ready to buy a computer from I did was reverse the order of it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do;people buy why you do don't buy what you do;they buy why you do it.蘋果實際上是這樣溝通的，“我們所做的每件事情，我們都相信要打破現(xiàn)狀，以不同的角度思考。我們打破現(xiàn)狀的方式就是讓我們的產(chǎn)品設(shè)計精美，使用簡單，界面友好。我們只是碰巧制造電腦而已。想要買一臺嗎？”味道完全不同，對吧！你已經(jīng)準備要向我訂購了。我所做的就是反轉(zhuǎn)信息的順序。事實已經(jīng)向我們證明，顧客不是購買你所做的產(chǎn)品；顧客購買你制作它的理由。
This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from , as I said before, Apple's just a computer 's nothing that distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors are all equally qualified to make all of these fact, they few years ago, Gateway came out with flat screen 're eminently qualified to make flat screen 've been making flat screen monitors for bought came out with MP3 players and they make great quality they can make perfectly well-designed nobody bought fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying an MP3 player from would you buy an MP3 player from a computer company? But we do it every don't buy what you do;they buy why you do goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you goal is to do business with people who believe what you 's the best part.這就解釋了為什么在這個大廳里的每個人都覺得購買蘋果電腦挺好的，但是我們也覺得買蘋果的MP3播放器(指iPod)挺好的，或者是蘋果出品的電話(iPhone)，或者是蘋果的數(shù)字錄像設(shè)備(Apple TV)。但是，就像我前面說到，蘋果只是一個電腦公司。沒有什么可以把蘋果和競爭者截然分開。那些競爭對手們也能生產(chǎn)品質(zhì)很好的所有這些產(chǎn)品。實際上，他們也嘗試了。幾年前，Gateway公司推出了一款平面電視機。他們制造電視機的水平很高，在此之前他們做液晶顯示器已經(jīng)很多年了。但他們推出的平板電視機無人問津。戴爾電腦也推出了自己的MP3播放器和PDA，他們的產(chǎn)品品質(zhì)也很優(yōu)秀，也設(shè)計良好。同樣沒有人買。想想吧，我們都難以想像，從戴爾買一臺MP3播放器是怎么一回事。你干嘛要從一家電腦公司買一臺MP3播放器呢？但我們每天就是這么做的。顧客不會購買你的產(chǎn)品，他們會買你制作它的理由。商業(yè)的目的不是和那些他有求你有供的人做生意，是和那些信念相同的人做生意。這就是我的主要論點。
None of what I'm telling you is my 's all grounded in the tenets of psychology, you look at a cross-section of the human brain, looking from the top down, What you see is the human brain is actually broken into three major components that correlate perfectly with the golden newest brain, our homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the ”what“ neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and middle two sections make up our limbic our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and 's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language.我所說的沒有一個是我的觀點，都是生物學(xué)的觀念。對，不是心理學(xué)，是生物學(xué)。如果從上方俯視大腦的橫截面圖，你所看到的是人的大腦分為三個主要的部分，正好和與黃金環(huán)的三個部分對應(yīng)。我們最新的腦部，即我們智人（生物學(xué)概念，指有了現(xiàn)代智慧的人種）的腦部，或者說我們的大腦皮層(neocortex)，對應(yīng)著“是什么”這個環(huán)。大腦皮層負責(zé)我們所有的理性和邏輯的思考和語言組織。中間的兩個部分是我們的邊腦(limbic brain)，邊腦負責(zé)我們所有的情感，比如信任和忠誠，也負責(zé)所有的人體行動和做出決策。同時，這部分沒有語言功能。
In other words, when we communicate from the outside in, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information like features and benefits and facts and just doesn't drive we can communicate from the inside out, we're talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior, and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and is where gut decisions come know, sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures, and they say, ”I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right.“ Why would we use that verb, it doesn't ”feel“ right? Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making, doesn't control the best we can muster up is, ”I don't just doesn't feel right.“ Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart, or you're leading with your , I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts controlling your 's all happening here in you limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.換句話說，在這個黃金圓環(huán)上當(dāng)我們從外向內(nèi)溝通時，我們可以讓人們理解大量復(fù)雜的信息，比如特點，好處，事實，還有圖表，但就是無法激發(fā)他們的行動。當(dāng)我們可以從內(nèi)向外溝通時，我們就是在直接與大腦中控制行動的部分溝通，然后人們再理性地考慮我們所說和做的“怎樣”和“什么”。這就是那些勇敢大膽決定的來源。你可能也知道，有時候你給了別人所有的事實和圖表，然后他們說，“我知道所有的事實和細節(jié)是怎么回事，但就是感覺不對?！?我們?yōu)槭裁匆眠@個詞，“感覺”不對？因為控制行動的那部分邊腦，不控制語言，所以當(dāng)邊腦這部分拒絕的時候，我們想來想去只好說，“我不知道為什么，就是感覺不對?！庇袝r候，你會說自己是在用心去帶領(lǐng)，或者用靈魂去引導(dǎo)，嗯，我不愿意打斷你，但這些都不是控制你行為的身體部分?？刂颇阈袨榈氖谴竽X的邊腦部分，它控制了你做的決定，而不是語言。
But if you don't know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how you ever get people to vote for you, or buy something from you, or, more importantly, be loyal and want to be a part of what it is that you , the goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have;the goal is to sell to people who believe what you goal is not just to hire people who need a job;it's to hired people who believe what you always say that, you know, if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money, but if you hire people who believe what you believe, they'll work for your you with blood and sweat and nowhere else is there a better example of this than with the Wright brothers.如果你自己都不知道所作所為的理由，而人們需要這樣的理由，你如何贏得大家對你的支持，從你這里下單購買，或者，更重要的，忠誠并且想成為你行動的一分子呢？再說一次，目標不是向那些有求于你的人銷售，目標是向那些相信你所堅信的人銷售，他們將為你付出熱血，汗水和淚水。對于這一點，沒有比萊特兄弟的故事更說明問題的了。
Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the was trying Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for mean, even now, you ask people, ”Why did your product or why did your company fail?“ and people always give you the same permutation of the same three things, under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market 's always the same three things, so let's explore Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Deptartment to figure out this flying was no held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely knew all the big minds of the hired the best minds money could the market conditions were New York Times followed him around everyone was rooting for how come you've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley? 絕大部分人都沒有聽說過塞繆爾·蘭利這個人。在二十世紀早期，對載人飛行的探索的熱情，就像今天對建立網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司的熱度一樣。每個人都在嘗試。塞繆爾·蘭利有著我們大家所謂的成功的所有要素。是什么意思呢？比如今天，你要是問別人，“你的產(chǎn)品或公司為什么會失??？” 那人一定會給出同樣三樣事情的同樣組合──資本不夠，用人不善，市道不佳?？偸沁@三個原因，那么讓我們且來探討一番，究竟如何。塞繆爾·蘭利獲得國防部五萬美元投資，讓他研制載人飛機。所以對他來說，資金不是問題；他又在哈佛有一個職位，并在Smithsonian博物館工作，人脈很廣很深。他也認識當(dāng)時所有該領(lǐng)域的專家學(xué)者。他用手里的資金可以雇傭當(dāng)時最好的專家。如果研制出來載人飛行器，市場前景更是無可限量。除此之外，《紐約時報》記者整天跟在他屁股后面等新聞──每個人都支持他。那么你今天怎么會從來沒有聽說過塞繆爾·蘭利呢？
A few hundred miles away in Dayton Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for had no paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or the New York Times followed them around difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it'll change the course of the Pierpont Langley was wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be was in pursuit of the was in pursuit of the lo and behold, look what people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream, worked with them with blood and sweat and others just worked for the they tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out, they would have to take five sets of parts, because that's how many times they would crash before they came in for supper.與此同時，在俄亥俄州戴頓市幾百里外，奧維爾·萊特和維爾伯·萊特兄弟，他們倆沒有任何我們認定的成功要素──他們資金匱乏，研制經(jīng)費都來自于兄弟倆開的自行車鋪的微薄利潤；他們團隊里的人沒有一個上過大學(xué)，連他們倆自己也沒上過；《紐約時報》記者更是不沾他們的邊。不同的地方是，奧維爾和維爾伯有一個理由，一個目標，一個信仰驅(qū)使著他們?nèi)プ鲞@些事情。他們相信，如果他們能研制出來載人飛行器，將會改變世界。塞繆爾·蘭利就不同了。他想要成名，想要發(fā)財。他追求的就是這兩個結(jié)果。事情如何發(fā)展呢？ 那些相信萊特兄弟夢想的人，與他們同甘共苦，同灑熱血淚水和汗水。其他人只是為工資單工作，而且他們還對外人講述他們是怎么樣在萊特兄弟出去的時候不得不偷偷拿走零件，因為他們晚餐都無以為繼，生活瀕于崩潰。
And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience found out about it a few days further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing, the day the Wright brothers took flight, he could have said, ”That's an amazing discovery guys, and I will improve upon your technology,“ but he didn' wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous, so he 年12月17日，萊特兄弟進行試飛成功，當(dāng)時無人在場見證，而外界幾天之后才知曉。后來事情進一步證實，塞繆爾·蘭利動機不純，因為在萊特兄弟試飛成功后，他退出了。他本來可以說：“干得真棒，伙計們！讓我們在你們的技術(shù)基礎(chǔ)上做個更好的！” 但是他沒有。他是第一個投入研制的，卻沒能第一個成功，看來他沒能成名，也無法借機發(fā)財，于是他放棄了。
People don't buy what you do;they buy why you do if you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Something called the law of diffusion of if you don't know the law, you definitely know the first two and a half percent of our population are our next 13 and a half percent of our population are our early next 34 percent are your early majority, your late majority and your only reason these people buy touch tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.人們不會為你所做的買單；他們?yōu)槟氵@么做的理由買單。如果你講述你的信念，你會吸引那些與你具有同樣信念的人。為什么吸引和你信念相同的人這么重要呢？是因為一個革新擴散的法則在起作用。如果你沒有聽說過這個法則的話，你肯定知道這個概念。在這個社會里，%的人是革新者，接下來的%的人是我們早期的采用者，后面的34%是早期的主流，后面還有晚期的主流，以及最后拖后腿的人，這些拖后腿的人購買按鍵電話的唯一原因是因為他們再也買不到轉(zhuǎn)盤電話了。
(Laughter)（笑）
We all sit at various places at various times on this scale, but what the law of diffusion of innovation tells us is that if you want mass-market success or mass-market acceptance of an idea, you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point between 15 and 18 percent market then the system I love asking businesses, ”What's your conversion on new business?“ And they love to tell you, ”O(jiān)h, it's about 10 percent,“ , you can trip over 10 percent of the all have about 10 percent who just ”get it.“ That's how we describe them, 's like that gut feeling, ”O(jiān)h, they just get it.“ The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before you're doing business with them versus the ones who don't get it? So it's this here, this little gap, that you have to close, as Jeffrey Moore calls it, ”crossing the chasm.“ Because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they're comfortable making those gut 're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions that are driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available.在這個刻度上，我們不同的時候處在不同的區(qū)間內(nèi)，但是革新擴散法則告訴我們，如果你想要大眾市場的成功，或是大眾市場接受一個觀念，你只有到達15%到18%這個市場份額的轉(zhuǎn)折點的時候才會發(fā)生。我總是問企業(yè)，“你的新業(yè)務(wù)什么時候開始轉(zhuǎn)變？” 他們喜歡告訴我說，“噢，大概10%?！?很自豪地說。好吧，算你可以遍訪10%的客戶。我們都有10%的客戶已經(jīng)“接受”了。那是我們怎樣描述他們，那就像那種勇敢的感覺，“哦，他們剛剛接受了。” 問題是，在你和他們做生意之前，你怎樣找到那些接受了的人而非那些不接受的人呢？所以就是這兒，就是這條小溝，你必須彌補，就像杰夫瑞·摩爾說的，“跨越鴻溝”。因為，你看，那些早期的主流人群不會嘗試新事物，直到別人先嘗試過了。而這些人，這些革新者和早期采用者，他們勇于嘗試新事物，他們更易于憑直覺做決定，靠的是他們對世界的信念，而非只是市場上有什么樣的產(chǎn)品。
These are the people who stood on line for six hours to buy an iPhone when they first came out, when you could have just walked into the store the next week and bought one off the are the people 40,000 dollars on flat screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was , by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so did it for 's because they wanted to be don't buy what you do;they buy what you do what you do simply proves what you fact, people will do the things that prove what they reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours, stood in line for six hours, was because of what they believed about the world, and how they wanted everybody to see were don't buy what you do;they buy why you do it.就是這樣的人，當(dāng)iPhone推出的時候愿意排上六個小時的隊，第一時間買到手，哪怕一個星期后，你就可以輕松走進店里隨意從貨架上拿一個下來。就是這些人，在平板電視剛推出的時候，愿意花費四萬美元購買，即使技術(shù)還沒完全成熟。對，順便提一句，他們這么做不是因為產(chǎn)品的技術(shù)有多么偉大。他們是為自己而購買。因為他們就是想喝頭羹湯。所以還是那句話，人們不因你所做的而買單，他們因你所做的理由而買單，你的行動就證明了你的信念。實際上，人們會做那些證明他們信念的事情。那些在iPhone開售前排隊6個小時的人，是因為他們對世界的看法──智能手機和移動計算將是業(yè)界的未來，于是他們排隊證明給世人看，他們將是第一批走向這個未來的人。人們不為你的行為買單，他們?yōu)槟愕男拍钯I單。
So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of , the famous 's a commercial we said before, a second ago, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market should have success at the time TiVo came out, about eight or nine years ago, to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no were extremely conditions were mean, we use TiVo as TiVo stuff on my piece of junk Time Warner DVR all the time.關(guān)于革新擴散理論，讓我給你一個著名的例子，一個著名的失敗和一個著名的成功例子。首先，著名的失敗例子，是在商業(yè)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的。像我前面提到的，成功的要素是資金充裕，用人為善，市道正好。沒錯，這樣你就可以享有成功了。那么看看TiVo吧。從八、九年前TiVo問世，直到今天，他們都是市場上唯一品質(zhì)最高的產(chǎn)品。（對聽眾）不用舉手，這沒什么可爭議。他們資金極為充裕，市場需求非常好。我們幾乎把TiVo當(dāng)作日常用語了──我一直把東西TiVo在我那時代華納的垃圾DVR里面。
But TiVo's a commercial 've never made when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it's never traded above fact, I don't even think it's traded above six, except for a couple of little you see, when TiVo launched their product, they told us all what they said, ”We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits without you even asking.“ And the cynical majority said, ”We don't believe don't need don't like 're scaring us.“ What if they had said, ”If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc.“ People don't buy what you do;they buy why you do what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe.但是TiVo是個商業(yè)上的大失敗。他們從未盈利。當(dāng)他們上市時，他們的股票價格大約30到40美元，然后就直線下跌，而成交價格從沒超過10美元，實際上，我記得就沒有超過6美元，除了幾次價格小漲起落。為什么？因為你看，當(dāng)TiVo發(fā)布產(chǎn)品的時候，他們告訴我們顧客的是他們的“what是什么”。他們說，“我們有一個產(chǎn)品，可以暫停直播電視節(jié)目，跳過廣告，倒回節(jié)目開始，記住你的觀看習(xí)慣，甚至你都不用設(shè)置?！?而挑剔的大眾回答，“我們不相信你，我們不需要這個東西，我們也不喜歡它，你在唬人?！?市場反應(yīng)如此糟糕！要是他們像下面這樣說會怎樣呢，“如果你是那種喜歡全面掌控生活每個方面的人，伙計，我們這兒為你量身打造一款產(chǎn)品，它可以暫停直播電視節(jié)目，跳過廣告，倒回節(jié)目開始，記住你的觀看習(xí)慣，等等等等?！?人們不因你所做的而買單，他們因你所做的理由而買單，你的行動就證明了你的信念。
Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the do you do that? Well, wasn't the only man in America who was a great wasn't the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights fact, some of his ideas were he had a didn't go around telling people what needed to change in went around and told people what he believed.”I believe,“ he told people who believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more low and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day, at the right time, to hear him speak.現(xiàn)在我再給你一個革新擴散法則的成功例子。1963年夏天，25萬人匯集華盛頓DC，聆聽馬丁·路德·金博士的演講。沒有什么邀請信，沒有什么網(wǎng)站讓你查演講日期。怎么做到（匯集這么多人）的？ 金博士并非美國唯一偉大的演說家，他不是唯一飽受社會歧視之苦的人。實際上，他的部分觀點很糟糕。但他有一個天分。他沒有巡回告訴人們要做什么去改變美國。他巡回演講告訴人們他的信念?！拔蚁嘈庞幸惶臁蚁嘈拧蚁嘈拧?他告訴人們。
How many of them showed up for him? showed up for 's what they believed about America that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours, to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of 's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus percent of the audience was believed that there are two types of laws in this world, those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by not until all the laws that are made by man are consistent with the laws that are made by the higher authority, will we live in a just just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to followed, not for him, but for , by the way, he gave the ”I have a dream“ speech, not the ”I have a plan“ speech.而那些和他懷有同樣信念的人接受了他的理由，把它們變?yōu)樽约旱挠^念，再告訴別人。還有人進一步構(gòu)建信念把話語傳給更多的人，結(jié)果，25萬人在那天準時出現(xiàn)，聆聽他演講。有多少人是為金博士而來？沒有誰是。他們?yōu)樽约憾鴣?，是他們自己對美國的信念把他們帶上大巴，跋涉八個小時，在八月夏日的太陽底下來到華盛頓。這是他們的信念，這信念無關(guān)黑人與白人，現(xiàn)場聽眾有25%是白人。金博士相信世間有兩種法則，一種是上帝制定的，一種是世人制定的。直到世人制定的法律和上帝制定的律法相符合，我們才真正生活在公義的世界里。只是碰巧民權(quán)運動是幫他將信念付諸實現(xiàn)的最佳載體。我們跟隨他，不是為了他，是為了我們自己。順便說一句，他的演講是“我有一個夢想”，不是“我有一個方案”。
(Laughter)（大笑）
Listen to politicians now with their comprehensive 12-point 're not inspiring there are leaders and there are those who hold a position of power or those who lead inspire they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want follow those who lead, not for them, but for it's those who start with ”why" that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them.聽聽今天的政治人物提出的綜合12點方案，對聽眾而言真是毫無激動人心之處。有兩種人，一種是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，一種是能領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的人。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)只是處在有權(quán)力或權(quán)威的位置。但能領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的人才能激勵我們，不論他們是個人還是組織。我們跟隨那些能領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的人，不是因為我們不得不，而是因為我們想要。我們跟隨那些能領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的人，不是為他們，是為我們自己。正是那些從“為什么”開始的人，有能力激勵他們周圍的人，或者找到那些能激勵他們的人。
Thank you very much.非常感謝！
Ted演講3篇 精選ted演講相關(guān)文章：
★ 楊瀾TED演講中英文對照3篇(楊瀾ted演講稿中英文對照)
★ TED演講觀后感—為什么快樂3篇(ted我們?yōu)槭裁纯鞓酚^后感)
★ 2022ted演講稿6篇 致敬,展望,我們一起努力演講稿
★ ted大學(xué)生活演講14篇 大學(xué)生ted演講題目
★ TED演講：如何掌控你的時間――2（TED演講如何掌控你的時間）
★ NO.27遇見｜《TED演講的秘密》（《遇見》主題演講稿）