Barack Obama appealed to each of us to give our best

在他的就職演說上，

as we try to extricate ourselves from this current financial crisis.

歐巴馬(Barack Obama)呼籲我們每個人極盡所能的

But what did he appeal to?

來擺脫當前的金融危機。

He did not, happily, follow in the footsteps of his predecessor,

但是甚麼是他所呼籲的呢?

and tell us to just go shopping.

很慶幸的，他並沒有像前總統布希，

Nor did he tell us, "Trust us. Trust your country.

就僅僅告訴大家多去購物而已。

Invest, invest, invest."

也沒有告訴我們 – “ 相信我們相信、你們的國家，

Instead, what he told us was to put aside childish things.

投資、投資、再投資”。

And he appealed to virtue.

反而，他告訴我們將這種幼稚的事情放一邊。

Virtue is an old-fashioned word.

他向我們呼籲美德。

It seems a little out of place in a cutting-edge environment like this one.

美德是一個過氣的名詞。

And besides, some of you might be wondering,

這樣的用詞在當前的環境似乎並不合適。

what the hell does it mean?

而且也許你們有些人會這樣想，

Let me begin with an example.

他到底在說甚麼?

This is the job description of a hospital janitor

讓我從一個例子開始說起。

that is scrolling up on the screen.

這是一家醫院裡一個清潔工的工作說明，

And all of the items on it are unremarkable.

在螢幕上滾動顯示著。

They're the things you would expect:

這上面所寫的事情都相當的平凡。

mop the floors, sweep them, empty the trash, restock the cabinets.

這些都是你可以想象到的事情：

It may be a little surprising how many things there are,

掃地、拖地、清理垃圾、補充櫃檯等等。

but it's not surprising what they are.

這些事的數量多到讓人吃驚，

But the one thing I want you to notice about them is this:

但是這些事情卻是很平常。

even though this is a very long list,

但是這邊有一件事是我要提出讓你們注意的：

there isn't a single thing on it that involves other human beings.

即使這些工作內容清單如此冗長，

Not one.

但是它確沒有一項是涉及他人的。

The janitor's job could just as well be done in a mortuary as in a hospital.

一個都沒有。

And yet, when some psychologists interviewed hospital janitors

這個清潔工的工作在停屍間或醫院都可以進行。

to get a sense of what they thought their jobs were like,

然而，當一些心理學家去採訪這類的清潔人員時，

they encountered Mike,

想瞭解他們是如何看待自己的工作的，

who told them about how he stopped mopping the floor

他們遇見了麥克，

because Mr. Jones was out of his bed getting a little exercise,

麥克告訴他們之所以他停止繼續拖地

trying to build up his strength, walking slowly up and down the hall.

是因為瓊斯先生都會起床做做簡單的運動，

And Charlene told them about how she ignored her supervisor's admonition

他試著藉由運動來恢復體力，並且緩慢的在樓梯裡上下的走動。

and didn't vacuum the visitor's lounge

而查麗告訴他們說之所以她沒有聽從上司的忠告，

because there were some family members who were there all day, every day

用真空吸塵器來打掃訪客室

who, at this moment, happened to be taking a nap.

是因為有一些家庭訪客成員會一整天都待在那邊，

And then there was Luke,

像現在就正有一些人在裡面休息。

who washed the floor in a comatose young man's room twice

接下來他們訪問了路克，

because the man's father, who had been keeping a vigil for six months,

他對一個年輕的昏迷病人的房間地板洗刷了兩次，

didn't see Luke do it the first time,

因為這個病人的父親足足在這邊待了六個月，

and his father was angry.

路克第一次來打掃的時後這位父親並沒有看到，

And behavior like this from janitors, from technicians, from nurses

所以這位病人的父親生氣了。

and, if we're lucky now and then, from doctors,

像這樣的行為，不管來自清潔人員、技術人員、護士

doesn't just make people feel a little better,

有些幸運的時後，還會是醫生，

it actually improves the quality of patient care

不僅僅讓人們感受好一點，

and enables hospitals to run well.

事實上也會改善病人照護的品質

Now, not all janitors are like this, of course.

使醫院有著良好的運作機制。

But the ones who are think that these sorts of human interactions

當然在現在的社會上並不是每一個清潔人員都這樣子。

involving kindness, care and empathy

但是能這樣子做的人都認為這些人與人之間的交流

are an essential part of the job.

涉及到善良、關懷與體諒，

And yet their job description contains not one word about other human beings.

這正是這份工作的核心部份。

These janitors have the moral will to do right by other people.

然而在這份工作的說明之中確未出現任何一個與他人有關的詞彙。

And beyond this, they have the moral skill to figure out what "doing right" means.

這些清潔人員有良知的去正確的對待人們。

"Practical wisdom," Aristotle told us,

除此之外，他們還有道德的技能去判斷甚麼才是正確的做法。

"is the combination of moral will and moral skill."

亞里斯多德告訴我們”實踐的智慧”，

A wise person knows when and how to make the exception to every rule,

”就是道德意願與道德技能的結合。

as the janitors knew when to ignore the job duties in the service of other objectives.

一個明智的人懂得甚麼時後以及如何去對應每一條規定而做出特殊的處理，

A wise person knows how to improvise,

就像是這些清潔人員知道在為他人服務時甚麼時後可以不用在意這項工作本身職能的要求一般的。

as Luke did when he re-washed the floor.

一個明智的人知道如何隨機應變，

Real-world problems are often ambiguous and ill-defined

就像是路克再去洗刷一次地板一樣。

and the context is always changing.

現實生活中的問題常常很曖昧且模糊不清的，

A wise person is like a jazz musician --

而且問題的內容常常在改變。

using the notes on the page, but dancing around them,

一個明智的人就像爵士樂手般的，

inventing combinations that are appropriate for the situation and the people at hand.

看著歌譜演奏的時後並不完全遵從，

A wise person knows how to use these moral skills

會即興創作來與當時的環境與人們相互配合。

in the service of the right aims.

一個明智的人知道如何使用道德技能

To serve other people, not to manipulate other people.

為一個正確的目的而工作。

And finally, perhaps most important,

為他人服務，而不是應付他人。

a wise person is made, not born.

最後，也許是會重要的，

Wisdom depends on experience,

一個明智的人不是天生的，而是後天養成的。

and not just any experience.

智慧依靠經驗，

You need the time to get to know the people that you're serving.

但也不完全所有的經驗都可依賴。

You need permission to be allowed to improvise,

你需要時間去瞭解你正在服務的人們。

try new things, occasionally to fail and to learn from your failures.

你需要得到許可去做一些臨時的決定，

And you need to be mentored by wise teachers.

嘗試新的事物，偶爾會失敗，但你可以從中學習。

When you ask the janitors who behaved like the ones I described

同時你也需要一個明智的導師來指導你。

how hard it is to learn to do their job,

當你問我那些剛才我提到的清潔人員

they tell you that it takes lots of experience.

學會他們那樣子的工作有多難，

And they don't mean it takes lots of experience to learn how to mop floors and empty trash cans.

他們會告訴你需要很多的經驗才能。

It takes lots of experience to learn how to care for people.

那並不是說你需要在學習托地與倒垃圾花很多的時間來累積經驗，

At TED, brilliance is rampant.

而是說你在關心照護人們是需要很多經驗的累積的。

It's scary.

在TED中，有才華的人越來越多

The good news is you don't need to be brilliant to be wise.

這有點可怕。

The bad news is that without wisdom,

好消息是想要成為明智的人你不需要聰明絕頂。

brilliance isn't enough.

壞消息是如果沒有智慧，

It's as likely to get you and other people into trouble as anything else.

僅僅有小聰明是不夠的。

(Applause)

小聰明和一些其他的東西一樣會讓你惹上麻煩

Now, I hope that we all know this.

(掌聲)

There's a sense in which it's obvious,

現在我希望我們都能清楚的知道這一點。

and yet, let me tell you a little story.

這個道理是很明顯的，

It's a story about lemonade.

我再跟你們說一個小故事。

A dad and his seven-year-old son were watching a Detroit Tigers game at the ballpark.

這是一個關於檸檬水的故事。

His son asked him for some lemonade

一位父親與他七歲的兒子在球場觀看底特律老虎隊的比賽。

and Dad went to the concession stand to buy it.

兒子說他想喝檸檬水

All they had was Mike's Hard Lemonade,

這位父親就到商店去買。

which was five percent alcohol.

但店裡只有一種Mike’s Hard檸檬水，

Dad, being an academic, had no idea that Mike's Hard Lemonade contained alcohol.

裡面含有5%的酒精成份。

So he brought it back.

身為學者的父親並不知道這裡面含有酒精成份。

And the kid was drinking it, and a security guard spotted it,

所以他就買了回來。

and called the police, who called an ambulance

孩子正在喝時被警衛發現了，

that rushed to the ballpark, whisked the kid to the hospital.

警衛叫了警察，警察又叫了救護車，

The emergency room ascertained that the kid had no alcohol in his blood.

救護車迅速的到達棒球場把孩子帶去醫院。

And they were ready to let the kid go.

急診室後來確定孩子的血液中並沒有酒精

But not so fast.

他們才讓孩子離開。

The Wayne County Child Welfare Protection Agency said no.

可這事還沒完。

And the child was sent to a foster home for three days.

韋恩縣兒童福利保護局並不允許孩子被帶走。

At that point, can the child go home?

於是孩子被送去寄養家庭待了三天。

Well, a judge said yes, but only if the dad leaves the house and checks into a motel.

到這時了，小孩可以回家了嗎?

After two weeks, I'm happy to report,

是的，法官說可以了，但是前提是這位父親必須離開家裡到外面的旅館去住。

the family was reunited.

等兩周後，我很高興的告訴大家，

But the welfare workers and the ambulance people

這一家人終於團聚了。

and the judge all said the same thing:

但是社福機構、救護人員

"We hate to do it but we have to follow procedure."

還有法官都說了同樣的話：

How do things like this happen?

”我們也討厭這樣子做，但是我們必需按規定辦事”。

Scott Simon, who told this story on NPR,

這樣的事情怎麼會發生呢?

said, "Rules and procedures may be dumb,

史考特賽門(Scott Simon)在NPR內講了這個故事，

but they spare you from thinking."

他說：規則與制度可能死板呆滯，

And, to be fair, rules are often imposed

但是他們可以讓你不用思考。"

because previous officials have been lax

公平一點的來說，規則常常都是強制性的，

and they let a child go back to an abusive household.

因為以前的官員比較鬆懈，

Fair enough.

他們讓一個孩子回到一個充滿漫罵與傷害的家庭。

When things go wrong, as of course they do,

這樣的理由充份了。

we reach for two tools to try to fix them.

當事情做錯了，

One tool we reach for is rules.

我們就會利用這類的工具去彌補。

Better ones, more of them.

這第一類的工具就是規則條例。

The second tool we reach for is incentives.

更多更好的規則。

Better ones, more of them.

第二種工具就是我們會尋求激勵的制度。

What else, after all, is there?

更多更好的激勵方式。

We can certainly see this in response to the current financial crisis.

還有甚麼其他的方法與工具呢？

Regulate, regulate, regulate.

我們可以輕易的在現在的金融危機的回應上發現到。

Fix the incentives, fix the incentives, fix the incentives ...

管制、管制再管制。

The truth is that neither rules nor incentives

改善激勵方式、改善激勵方式還是改善激勵方式...

are enough to do the job.

事实是：不管是規則條例還是激勵方式，

How could you even write a rule that got the janitors to do what they did?

都不足以完成這樣的工作。

And would you pay them a bonus for being empathic?

你要如何去製定一條規定讓剛剛提到的那些清潔人員去做到他們應盡的工作內容呢?

It's preposterous on its face.

你會因為他們的同情心而發給他們獎金嗎?

And what happens is that as we turn increasingly to rules,

這看起來太荒謬了。

rules and incentives may make things better in the short run,

當我們求助更多的獎勵制度時會發生甚麼事，

but they create a downward spiral

規則條例與激勵方式只會在短期內讓事情變好，

that makes them worse in the long run.

但是那些制度與條例產生了向下的漩渦，

Moral skill is chipped away by an over-reliance on rules

讓事情在長期內變的更糟。

that deprives us of the opportunity

道德的技能已經被規則的過度信賴給粉碎了，

to improvise and learn from our improvisations.

它剝奪了我們的機會

And moral will is undermined

去隨機應變和臨場反應之中去學習。

by an incessant appeal to incentives

道德意願也被埋沒了

that destroy our desire to do the right thing.

因為不斷的尋求激勵方式

And without intending it,

而破壞了我們本身對於正確對待事情的欲望。

by appealing to rules and incentives,

不用去預想，

we are engaging in a war on wisdom.

尋求規則和激勵方式，

Let me just give you a few examples,

我們將會經歷一場智慧的戰爭。

first of rules and the war on moral skill.

讓我來舉幾個例子，

The lemonade story is one.

先是規則與道德技能的衝突。

Second, no doubt more familiar to you,

檸檬水的故事就是一個。

is the nature of modern American education:

第二個你們會更熟悉，

scripted, lock-step curricula.

美國現有的教育現況：

Here's an example from Chicago kindergarten.

照本宣科，遵尋著舊有的課程。

Reading and enjoying literature

這是一個發生在芝加哥幼稚園的例子。

and words that begin with 'B.'

閱讀和欣賞

"The Bath:" Assemble students on a rug

以B開頭的單字和文學作品。

and give students a warning about the dangers of hot water.

浴室：把學生們聚集在一個小墊子上，

Say 75 items in this script to teach a 25-page picture book.

警告學生們熱水的危險性。

All over Chicago in every kindergarten class in the city,

在計案中提出75件物品來教一本只有25頁的圖畫書籍。

every teacher is saying the same words in the same way on the same day.

整個芝加哥的幼稚園，

We know why these scripts are there.

每個老師在同一天都以相同的方式說著同樣的話。

We don't trust the judgment of teachers enough

我們清楚為甚麼有這樣的教案。

to let them loose on their own.

我們無法充份的信任老師們的判斷力

Scripts like these are insurance policies against disaster.

讓他們去自由發揮。

And they prevent disaster.

像這樣的教案就像是應對災難的保險一樣。

But what they assure in its place is mediocrity.

他們能夠預防災難。

(Applause)

但是他們身為教師的職位，能肯定的是，他們造就了平庸。

Don't get me wrong. We need rules!

(掌聲)

Jazz musicians need some notes --

不要誤會我的意思。我們需要規則!

most of them need some notes on the page.

爵士樂手也需要一些樂譜，

We need more rules for the bankers, God knows.

他們大部份的人還是需要看著樂譜演奏。

But too many rules prevent accomplished jazz musicians

我們需要更多的規則來約束銀行家，神也知道。

from improvising.

但是太多的規則會讓熟練的爵士樂手

And as a result, they lose their gifts,

無法即興創作。

or worse, they stop playing altogether.

最後，他們就會失去他們的天賦，

Now, how about incentives?

或者更壞的狀況是他們完全不再演出。

They seem cleverer.

那激勵方式呢?

If you have one reason for doing something

它們看起來更聰明些。

and I give you a second reason for doing the same thing,

如果你有一個理由去做某件事，

it seems only logical that two reasons are better than one

我會給你第二個理由做相同的事情

and you're more likely to do it.

單單從邏輯上來說兩個理由似乎比一個理由 好

Right?

而你就更有理由去做。

Well, not always.

是吧?

Sometimes two reasons to do the same thing seem to compete with one another

其實不一定。

instead of complimenting,

有的時後做同一件事的兩個理由可能會相當矛盾，

and they make people less likely to do it.

而不是相輔相成

I'll just give you one example because time is racing.

他們就會使人不那麼願意去做。

In Switzerland, back about 15 years ago,

因為時間有限我就在舉一個例子。

they were trying to decide where to site nuclear waste dumps.

大概在15年前的瑞士，

There was going to be a national referendum.

人們試圖決定要在哪裡處理核廢料。

Some psychologists went around and polled citizens who were very well informed.

那時舉行了全國性的公民投票。

And they said, "Would you be willing to have a nuclear waste dump in your community?"

一些心理學家就四處游走，向一些知識豐富的公民拉票。

Astonishingly, 50 percent of the citizens said yes.

他們就問”你願意在你的社區內放置核廢料嗎?”

They knew it was dangerous.

吃驚的是50%的公民都說願意。

They thought it would reduce their property values.

他們也知道危險性。

But it had to go somewhere

他們知道這將降低他們房屋的價值。

and they had responsibilities as citizens.

但是這些核廢料總要放到某地方

The psychologists asked other people a slightly different question.

而且做為公民也有義務負責。

They said, "If we paid you six weeks' salary every year

心理學家們稍微改了一下問題，又問了其它的人。

would you be willing to have a nuclear waste dump in your community?"

他們問”如果我們每年付你六周的薪水，

Two reasons. It's my responsibility and I'm getting paid.

你願意在你的社區內安置核廢料嗎?”

Instead of 50 percent saying yes,

兩個理由，這是我的義務而且我還拿的到錢。

25 percent said yes.

不像是之前的50%說願意而已，

What happens is that

現在只有25%的人願意這麼做。

the second this introduction of incentive gets us

這個結果

so that instead of asking, "What is my responsibility?"

就是第二個激勵條件所造成的。

all we ask is, "What serves my interests?"

它没有使我們去問”甚麼是我的職責義務?”

When incentives don't work,

而是問:”什麼符合我的利益？“

when CEOs ignore the long-term health of their companies

當激勵機制不奏效的時候，

in pursuit of short-term gains that will lead to massive bonuses,

當首席執行長不顧公司的長期健康的發展

the response is always the same.

而去追求可以立即得到大量紅利的短期利益的時後，

Get smarter incentives.

回應終是一樣的。

The truth is that there are no incentives that you can devise

建立更加巧妙的激勵制度。

that are ever going to be smart enough.

事情的真相確是:你不可能想出

Any incentive system can be subverted by bad will.

足夠巧妙的激勵機制。

We need incentives. People have to make a living.

任何激勵機制都可以被惡意的意願給推翻的。

But excessive reliance on incentives

我們是需要激勵機制的。人們總是需要生活。

demoralizes professional activity

但是對於激勵機制過分的依賴

in two senses of that word.

會讓道德的活躍性受挫

It causes people who engage in that activity to lose morale

這可以由兩個面向來看。

and it causes the activity itself to lose morality.

他會讓已經在這個活動裡面的人失去士氣

Barack Obama said, before he was inaugurated,

也會讓活動喪失民心。

"We must ask not just 'Is it profitable?' but 'Is it right?'"

在就職之前歐巴馬說