Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

已審核 字幕已審核
  • In Oxford in the 1950s,

    在1950年代的牛津

  • there was a fantastic doctor, who was very unusual,

    有一位很優秀,不尋常的醫生,

  • named Alice Stewart.

    她叫Alice Stewart。

  • And Alice was unusual partly because, of course,

    她的特別之處在於

  • she was a woman, which was pretty rare in the 1950s.

    她是個女醫生,這在1950年代很罕見。

  • And she was brilliant, she was one of the,

    而且她非常厲害,她是當時被選為

  • at the time, the youngest Fellow to be elected to the Royal College of Physicians.

    "皇家醫師學院"最年輕的學員之一。

  • She was unusual too because she continued to work after she got married,

    還有特別在於她在結婚生子後

  • after she had kids,

    還繼續工作,

  • and even after she got divorced and was a single parent,

    甚至當她離婚成為單親媽媽之後,

  • she continued her medical work.

    她持續做她的醫學工作。

  • And she was unusual because she was really interested in a new science,

    還因為她對一門新科學十分感興趣,

  • the emerging field of epidemiology,

    也就是新興的流行病學,

  • the study of patterns in disease.

    專門研究疾病的型態。

  • But like every scientist, she appreciated

    但跟每個科學家一樣,她了解

  • that to make her mark, what she needed to do

    若要出名,她需要

  • was find a hard problem and solve it.

    找到難題然後解決它。

  • The hard problem that Alice chose

    Alice當時選擇的難題是

  • was the rising incidence of childhood cancers.

    增加的兒童癌症發生率。

  • Most disease is correlated with poverty,

    大多數疾病都跟貧窮有關,

  • but in the case of childhood cancers,

    不過在兒童癌症的例子來說,

  • the children who were dying seemed mostly to come

    這些垂死的孩子似乎大多數

  • from affluent families.

    來自富裕家庭。

  • So, what, she wanted to know,

    所以她想知道

  • could explain this anomaly?

    怎麼解釋這個異常現象?

  • Now, Alice had trouble getting funding for her research.

    當時,Alice很難幫她的研究籌備到資金。

  • In the end, she got just 1,000 pounds

    最後,她只從Lady Tata紀念獎

  • from the Lady Tata Memorial prize.

    得到1000英鎊。

  • And that meant she knew she only had one shot

    她知道她只有一次機會

  • at collecting her data.

    可以蒐集資料。

  • Now, she had no idea what to look for.

    但她完全不知道該尋找什麼。

  • This really was a needle in a haystack sort of search,

    這研究就像大海撈針一樣,

  • so she asked everything she could think of.

    因此她問了所有她能想到的問題。

  • Had the children eaten boiled sweets?

    這些孩子有沒有吃煮沸的甜食?

  • Had they consumed colored drinks?

    他們有沒有喝有顏色飲料?

  • Did they eat fish and chips?

    他們是不是吃了炸魚和薯條了?

  • Did they have indoor or outdoor plumbing?

    他們生活環境中是否有戶內或者戶外的管線裝置?

  • What time of life had they started school?

    他們什麼時候開始上學的?

  • And when her carbon copied questionnaire started to come back,

    而當她開始收回用碳粉印製成的問卷時,

  • one thing and one thing only jumped out

    一個,只有一個明確的統計數據

  • with the statistical clarity of a kind that

    顯現出來,

  • most scientists can only dream of.

    這是大多數科學家只能幻想的。

  • By a rate of two to one,

    這些死亡的孩子中,

  • the children who had died

    他們的母親在懷孕的時候

  • had had mothers who had been X-rayed when pregnant.

    做過X光檢查的人數是沒做過的兩倍。

  • Now that finding flew in the face of conventional wisdom.

    這個發現挑戰了傳統看法。

  • Conventional wisdom held

    傳統看法是

  • that everything was safe up to a point, a threshold.

    任何事情在一種程度上都是安全的,有一個門檻。

  • It flew in the face of conventional wisdom,

    這對於傳統看法是很大的衝擊,

  • which was huge enthusiasm for the cool new technology

    你要知道當代的酷炫新科技,也就是X光機,

  • of that age, which was the X-ray machine.

    可是非常熱門的。

  • And it flew in the face of doctors' idea of themselves,

    而這也挑戰醫生對自己的想法,

  • which was as people who helped patients,

    因為他們是要幫助病人,

  • they didn't harm them.

    而不是傷害他們。

  • Nevertheless, Alice Stewart rushed to publish

    儘管如此,Alice Stewart急切地

  • her preliminary findings in The Lancet in 1956.

    在1956年的刺胳針雜誌(The Lancet)雜誌中發表了她的初步發現。

  • People got very excited, there was talk of the Nobel Prize,

    人們都很興奮,還有提到得諾貝爾獎的可能性。

  • and Alice really was in a big hurry

    Alice也很著急

  • to try to study all the cases of childhood cancer she could find

    試著在案例消失之前,

  • before they disappeared.

    研究所有她能找到的兒童癌症病例。

  • In fact, she need not have hurried.

    事實上,她不需要著急。

  • It was fully 25 years before the British and medical --

    過了整整25年之後,

  • British and American medical establishments

    英國和美國的醫療機構

  • abandoned the practice of X-raying pregnant women.

    禁止讓懷孕女人照X光。

  • The data was out there, it was open, it was freely available,

    數據都存在,開放且唾手可得,

  • but nobody wanted to know.

    但是沒人想知道。

  • A child a week was dying,

    每週都有一個小孩快死掉,

  • but nothing changed.

    但什麼都沒發生。

  • Openness alone can't drive change.

    單究開放性是無法帶來改變的。

  • So for 25 years Alice Stewart had a very big fight on her hands.

    25年來,Alice Stewart一直在奮鬥。

  • So, how did she know that she was right?

    所以她怎麼知道她當時是對的?

  • Well, she had a fantastic model for thinking.

    她有一個極佳的思考模式。

  • She worked with a statistician named George Kneale,

    她當時與一位名叫George Kneale的統計學家合作,

  • and George was pretty much everything that Alice wasn't.

    而George剛好與Alice互補。

  • So, Alice was very outgoing and sociable,

    Alice非常和善且擅交際,

  • and George was a recluse.

    而George是個隱居者。

  • Alice was very warm, very empathetic with her patients.

    Alice很熱情,用同理心和她的病人互動。

  • George frankly preferred numbers to people.

    而George則喜歡數字甚於人類。

  • But he said this fantastic thing about their working relationship.

    不過他提到件他們工作關係最棒的事。

  • He said, "My job is to prove Dr. Stewart wrong."

    他說:「我的工作就是證明Stewart博士是錯的。」

  • He actively sought disconfirmation.

    他積極地尋找錯誤的證明。

  • Different ways of looking at her models,

    以不同方式研究她的模型,

  • at her statistics, different ways of crunching the data

    她的數據,以及不同方式分析數據,

  • in order to disprove her.

    來證明她是錯的。

  • He saw his job as creating conflict around her theories.

    他把他自己的工作當作為Alice的理論創造矛盾。

  • Because it was only by not being able to prove

    因為只有當他無法證明

  • that she was wrong,

    Alice是錯的時候,

  • that George could give Alice the confidence she needed

    George就可以給Alice所需要的自信

  • to know that she was right.

    讓她知道她是正確的。

  • It's a fantastic model of collaboration --

    這是完美的合作的模式 --

  • thinking partners who aren't echo chambers.

    思考夥伴不當你的回聲蟲。

  • I wonder how many of us have,

    我想知道有多少人有過,

  • or dare to have, such collaborators.

    或者敢有這樣的合作夥伴。

  • Alice and George were very good at conflict.

    Alice和George擅長處理矛盾。

  • They saw it as thinking.

    他們認為這就是思考。

  • So what does that kind of constructive conflict require?

    那麼這種建設性的矛盾需要什麼呢?

  • Well, first of all, it requires that we find people

    首先,它需要我們去找到

  • who are very different from ourselves.

    與我們大不相同的人們。

  • That means we have to resist the neurobiological drive,

    這意味著我們必須抗拒神經生物學的驅力,

  • which means that we really prefer people mostly like ourselves,

    也就是我們喜歡像我們的人們,

  • and it means we have to seek out people

    而我們必須尋找

  • with different backgrounds, different disciplines,

    有不同背景,不同教養,

  • different ways of thinking and different experience,

    不同思考方法和不同經驗的人們,

  • and find ways to engage with them.

    而且去想辦法與他們交流。

  • That requires a lot of patience and a lot of energy.

    這需要很多耐心和精力。

  • And the more I've thought about this,

    當我更深層思考,

  • the more I think, really, that that's a kind of love.

    我更認為這真的是一種愛。

  • Because you simply won't commit that kind of energy

    因為如果你不在乎的話,

  • and time if you don't really care.

    你不可能付出這般的能量。

  • And it also means that we have to be prepared to change our minds.

    這也意味著我們必須準備去改變我們的想法。

  • Alice's daughter told me

    Alice的女兒告訴我

  • that every time Alice went head-to-head with a fellow scientist,

    每次Alice和一個同事科學家正面交鋒時,

  • they made her think and think and think again.

    他們讓她一次又一次的思考。

  • "My mother," she said, "My mother didn't enjoy a fight,

    「我的母親,」她說,「我的母親不喜歡爭吵,

  • but she was really good at them."

    但是她很擅長。」

  • So it's one thing to do that in a one-to-one relationship.

    所以這是在一對一的關係中要做的事。

  • But it strikes me that the biggest problems we face,

    但這使我想到那些我們面對的最大難題,

  • many of the biggest disasters that we've experienced,

    很多我們經歷過的最嚴重災難,

  • mostly haven't come from individuals,

    大多都不是由個人引起的,

  • they've come from organizations,

    而是從組織中來的,

  • some of them bigger than countries,

    當中有些還比國家還大,

  • many of them capable of affecting hundreds,

    大多數都有影響上百人,

  • thousands, even millions of lives.

    上千人,甚至上百萬人生命的能力。

  • So how do organizations think?

    那麼這些組織是怎麼想的呢?

  • Well, for the most part, they don't.

    大多數情況下,他們不思考。

  • And that isn't because they don't want to,

    這不是因為他們不要,

  • it's really because they can't.

    而是因為他們不能。

  • And they can't because the people inside of them

    他們不能是因為在組織裡的人

  • are too afraid of conflict.

    太害怕衝突。

  • In surveys of European and American executives,

    在對歐洲和美國經理人所作的調查中,

  • fully 85 percent of them acknowledged

    當中有百分之85承認

  • that they had issues or concerns at work

    他們害怕提出一些

  • that they were afraid to raise.

    工作上的話題和擔憂。

  • Afraid of the conflict that that would provoke,

    對可能挑起的衝突有恐懼,

  • afraid to get embroiled in arguments

    害怕被捲入

  • that they did not know how to manage,

    他們不知道該怎麼處理的爭論中,

  • and felt that they were bound to lose.

    而且感到他們肯定會輸。

  • Eighty-five percent is a really big number.

    百分之85可是很大的數字。

  • It means that organizations mostly can't do

    這意味著大多數組織沒法做

  • what George and Alice so triumphantly did.

    George和Alice成功做到的事情。

  • They can't think together.

    他們不能一起思考。

  • And it means that people like many of us,

    而這代表著許多跟我們一樣

  • who have run organizations,

    帶領組織的人,

  • and gone out of our way to try to find the very best people we can,

    都盡我們能力找尋最好的人,

  • mostly fail to get the best out of them.

    但大多數無法帶出他們最好的一面。

  • So how do we develop the skills that we need?

    那麼我們要如何培養所需要的技巧呢?

  • Because it does take skill and practice, too.

    因為這的確需要技巧和練習。

  • If we aren't going to be afraid of conflict,

    如果我們要不懼怕衝突的話,

  • we have to see it as thinking,

    我們必須把它是為思考,

  • and then we have to get really good at it.

    然後我們必須上手。

  • So, recently, I worked with an executive named Joe,

    因此,最近我在和一個叫Joe的管理者工作,

  • and Joe worked for a medical device company.

    Joe在一家醫療設備公司工作。

  • And Joe was very worried about the device that he was working on.

    Joe非常擔心他正在作的這台設備。

  • He thought that it was too complicated

    他覺得這機器實在太複雜了,

  • and he thought that its complexity

    以至於它可能

  • created margins of error that could really hurt people.

    會產生一些錯誤去傷害人們。

  • He was afraid of doing damage to the patients he was trying to help.

    他很害怕去傷害那些他想幫助的病人。

  • But when he looked around his organization,

    但當他看了組織周遭的人,

  • nobody else seemed to be at all worried.

    似乎沒有人會擔心。

  • So, he didn't really want to say anything.

    所以他不想把自己的想法說出來。

  • After all, maybe they knew something he didn't.

    畢竟其他人可能知道他不知道的東西。

  • Maybe he'd look stupid.

    或許他會看起來很愚蠢。

  • But he kept worrying about it,

    但是他一直在擔心,

  • and he worried about it so much that he got to the point

    擔心到達一種程度

  • where he thought the only thing he could do

    他覺得唯一可以做的事情

  • was leave a job he loved.

    就是辭掉他熱愛的工作。

  • In the end, Joe and I found a way

    最後Joe和我找到一個

  • for him to raise his concerns.

    提出他擔憂的方法。

  • And what happened then is what almost always

    接著發生的是這種情況中

  • happens in this situation.

    總是在發生的事。

  • It turned out everybody had exactly the same

    結果是所有人都有著相同的

  • questions and doubts.

    問題和懷疑。

  • So now Joe had allies. They could think together.

    所以現在Joe和他的夥伴,他們可以一起思考。

  • And yes, there was a lot of conflict and debate

    是的,這其中有很多的衝突,辯論

  • and argument, but that allowed everyone around the table

    和爭執,不過這使得所有相關的人

  • to be creative, to solve the problem,

    有創造力,能解決問題,

  • and to change the device.

    和改變這台設備。

  • Joe was what a lot of people might think of

    Joe有點像是大多數人認為的

  • as a whistle-blower,

    告密者,

  • except that like almost all whistle-blowers,

    但不像大多數的告密者,

  • he wasn't a crank at all,

    他不是在異想天開,

  • he was passionately devoted to the organization

    他激情地為組織付出,

  • and the higher purposes that that organization served.

    以及為組織的目標所努力。

  • But he had been so afraid of conflict,

    不過他太過於懼怕衝突,

  • until finally he became more afraid of the silence.

    直到最後沉默對他來說更為可怕。

  • And when he dared to speak,

    當他敢說出口的時候,

  • he discovered much more inside himself

    他發現更深層的自己

  • and much more give in the system than he had ever imagined.

    以及他付出比想象中更多的貢獻到系統中。

  • And his colleagues don't think of him as a crank.

    而且他的同事不認為他的想法是天方夜譚。

  • They think of him as a leader.

    他們視他為領導者。

  • So, how do we have these conversations more easily

    所以我們要如何簡單且經常地

  • and more often?

    進行這些對話呢?

  • Well, the University of Delft

    Delft 大學

  • requires that its PhD students

    要求所有的博士班學生

  • have to submit five statements that they're prepared to defend.

    提交他們已經準備好可以辯護的五個陳述。

  • It doesn't really matter what the statements are about,

    這些陳述的內容是什麼無所謂,

  • what matters is that the candidates are willing and able

    重要的是這些候選人願意而且有能力

  • to stand up to authority.

    挑戰權威。

  • I think it's a fantastic system,

    我認為這是一個絕佳的系統,

  • but I think leaving it to PhD candidates

    不過我覺得留給博士候選人來做

  • is far too few people, and way too late in life.

    實在太少人,而且時機太晚了。

  • I think we need to be teaching these skills

    我認為我們應該在小孩和大人

  • to kids and adults at every stage of their development,

    發展的每個階段都教授這些技巧。

  • if we want to have thinking organizations

    如果我們想要能夠思考的組織

  • and a thinking society.

    和能思考的社會。

  • The fact is that most of the biggest catastrophes that we've witnessed

    事實是多數我們曾經見證過的最大的災難,

  • rarely come from information that is secret or hidden.

    很少是從一些祕密或者隱藏的信息中產生。

  • It comes from information that is freely available and out there,

    都是從那些公開可取得的信息中而來的,

  • but that we are willfully blind to,

    不過我們蓄意忽略了,

  • because we can't handle, don't want to handle,

    因為我們不能也不想去處理

  • the conflict that it provokes.

    會挑起的各種衝突。

  • But when we dare to break that silence,

    但是當我們敢打破沉默,

  • or when we dare to see,

    或者我們敢於看見,

  • and we create conflict,

    並且製造衝突,

  • we enable ourselves and the people around us

    我們讓自己和周圍的人

  • to do our very best thinking.

    進行最有效的思考。

  • Open information is fantastic,

    公開信息是很棒的,

  • open networks are essential.

    公開的網絡很關鍵。

  • But the truth won't set us free

    但是直到我們發揮技能,習慣,天賦

  • until we develop the skills and the habit and the talent

    以及道德上的勇氣去利用它

  • and the moral courage to use it.

    事實才會讓我們自由。

  • Openness isn't the end.

    公開並不是結束

  • It's the beginning.

    它只是開始。

  • (Applause)

    (鼓掌)

In Oxford in the 1950s,

在1950年代的牛津

字幕與單字
已審核 字幕已審核

影片操作 你可以在這邊進行「影片」的調整,以及「字幕」的顯示

A2 初級 中文 美國腔 TED 思考 衝突 組織 工作 公開

【TED】Margaret Heffernan: 敢於否定 (Dare to disagree | Margaret Heffernan)

  • 12071 1165
    Amber Chang 發佈於 2014 年 08 月 21 日
影片單字