Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • You've all been in a bar, right?

    譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Yanyan Hong

  • (Laughter)

    你們都曾經去過酒吧,對嗎?

  • But have you ever gone to a bar

    (笑聲)

  • and come out with a $200 million business?

    但,你們是否去過一個酒吧,

  • That's what happened to us about 10 years ago.

    帶著兩億美元的生意出來?

  • We'd had a terrible day.

    那就是大約十年前我們遇到的事。

  • We had this huge client that was killing us.

    我們那天過得很糟。

  • We're a software consulting firm,

    我們有個要命的超級大客戶。

  • and we couldn't find a very specific programming skill

    我們是家軟體顧問公司,

  • to help this client deploy a cutting-edge cloud system.

    我們找不到一項很特殊的程式技巧

  • We have a bunch of engineers,

    來協助這客戶部署先進雲端系統。

  • but none of them could please this client.

    我們有一票工程師,

  • And we were about to be fired.

    但沒有一個能夠讓這位客戶滿意。

  • So we go out to the bar,

    我們差不多就要被開除了。

  • and we're hanging out with our bartender friend Jeff,

    所以我們去了一間酒吧,

  • and he's doing what all good bartenders do:

    我們和我們的酒保朋友 傑夫在那裡打發時間,

  • he's commiserating with us, making us feel better,

    他做的是所有好酒保都會做的事:

  • relating to our pain,

    他同情我們,讓我們感覺好些,

  • saying, "Hey, these guys are overblowing it.

    同理我們的痛苦,

  • Don't worry about it."

    他說:「嘿,這些傢伙誇大其詞。

  • And finally, he deadpans us and says,

    別太擔心。」

  • "Why don't you send me in there?

    最後,他面無表情地對我們說:

  • I can figure it out."

    「為什麼你們不派我去那裡?

  • So the next morning, we're hanging out in our team meeting,

    我可以想出辦法。」

  • and we're all a little hazy ...

    所以,隔天早上,我們 就在團隊會議上消磨時間,

  • (Laughter)

    我們都還有一點朦朧……

  • and I half-jokingly throw it out there.

    (笑聲)

  • I say, "Hey, I mean, we're about to be fired."

    半開玩笑地把話丟出來。

  • So I say,

    我說:「嘿,我們就要被炒魷魚了。」

  • "Why don't we send in Jeff, the bartender?"

    於是我說:

  • (Laughter)

    「我們不如就派酒保傑夫去吧?」

  • And there's some silence, some quizzical looks.

    (笑聲)

  • Finally, my chief of staff says, "That is a great idea."

    沉默了一會兒,有些人表情滑稽。

  • (Laughter)

    最後,我的參謀長說: 「那是個好主意。」

  • "Jeff is wicked smart. He's brilliant.

    (笑聲)

  • He'll figure it out.

    「傑夫有小聰明,他很優秀。

  • Let's send him in there."

    他會想出辦法。

  • Now, Jeff was not a programmer.

    就派他去吧。」

  • In fact, he had dropped out of Penn as a philosophy major.

    傑夫並不是程式人員。

  • But he was brilliant,

    事實上他在賓州大學 主修哲學,但退學了。

  • and he could go deep on topics,

    但他很優秀,

  • and we were about to be fired.

    他能深入主題,

  • So we sent him in.

    而且我們就要被開除了。

  • After a couple days of suspense,

    所以我們就派他去。

  • Jeff was still there.

    懸念幾天後,

  • They hadn't sent him home.

    傑夫還在那裡。

  • I couldn't believe it.

    他們沒有趕他回家。

  • What was he doing?

    我無法置信。

  • Here's what I learned.

    他在做什麼?

  • He had completely disarmed their fixation on the programming skill.

    我所知道的如下。

  • And he had changed the conversation,

    他完全解除了 他們對於程式技巧的堅持,

  • even changing what we were building.

    改變了對談,

  • The conversation was now about what we were going to build and why.

    甚至改變了我們正在建的東西。

  • And yes, Jeff figured out how to program the solution,

    對談變成是在談 我們要建什麼,以及為什麼建。

  • and the client became one of our best references.

    是的,傑夫想出解決方案,

  • Back then, we were 200 people,

    這客戶成了我們最佳的參考人之一。

  • and half of our company was made up of computer science majors or engineers,

    那時,我們公司有兩百人,

  • but our experience with Jeff left us wondering:

    半數主修資訊科學或是工程,

  • Could we repeat this through our business?

    但和傑夫合作的經驗讓我們納悶:

  • So we changed the way we recruited and trained.

    我們能在事業上重覆這做法嗎?

  • And while we still sought after computer engineers and computer science majors,

    我們因而改變招募和訓練的方式,

  • we sprinkled in artists, musicians, writers ...

    雖然還是會找電腦工程師 和主修資訊科學的人,

  • and Jeff's story started to multiply itself throughout our company.

    也分散找些藝術家、音樂家、作家……

  • Our chief technology officer is an English major,

    傑夫的故事在我們公司裡開始擴增。

  • and he was a bike messenger in Manhattan.

    我們的技術長主修的是英文,

  • And today, we're a thousand people,

    他原是曼哈頓的自行車送貨員。

  • yet still less than a hundred have degrees in computer science or engineering.

    我們現今有一千人,

  • And yes, we're still a computer consulting firm.

    但其中有資訊科學或工程 相關學位的人不到一百人。

  • We're the number one player in our market.

    是的,我們還是電腦顧問公司。

  • We work with the fastest-growing software package

    我們是這個領域的第一名。

  • to ever reach 10 billion dollars in annual sales.

    我們的套裝軟體快速成長,

  • So it's working.

    是市場上最早達到 年業績一百億美元的。

  • Meanwhile, the push for STEM-based education in this country --

    這行得通。

  • science, technology, engineering, mathematics --

    在此同時,我國正在推行 以 STEM 為基礎的教育──

  • is fierce.

    STEM 代表科學、 科技、工程、數學──

  • It's in all of our faces.

    推行得如火如荼,

  • And this is a colossal mistake.

    全面性地推動。

  • Since 2009, STEM majors in the United States

    這是個巨大的錯誤。

  • have increased by 43 percent,

    從 2009 年起,

  • while the humanities have stayed flat.

    美國主修 STEM 的人增加了 43%,

  • Our past president

    而人文學科則持平。

  • dedicated over a billion dollars towards STEM education

    我們過去的總統

  • at the expense of other subjects,

    投入了十億美元到 STEM 教育上,

  • and our current president

    犧牲了其他的學科,

  • recently redirected 200 million dollars of Department of Education funding

    而我們目前的總統

  • into computer science.

    最近將兩億美元的教育部資金

  • And CEOs are continually complaining about an engineering-starved workforce.

    轉為導入資訊科學。

  • These campaigns,

    而執行長們不斷地抱怨 勞動力中很缺乏工程師。

  • coupled with the undeniable success of the tech economy --

    這些倡議

  • I mean, let's face it,

    和無可否認的資訊經濟 成功結合在一起──

  • seven out of the 10 most valuable companies in the world by market cap

    我們要面對這個事實,

  • are technology firms --

    世界上市值最有高的公司,

  • these things create an assumption

    十個中有七個是科技公司──

  • that the path of our future workforce will be dominated by STEM.

    因而形成了一個假設,

  • I get it.

    假設我們未來的勞動力之路 將會由 STEM 所支配。

  • On paper, it makes sense.

    我懂。

  • It's tempting.

    理論上這是合理的,

  • But it's totally overblown.

    它很誘人。

  • It's like, the entire soccer team chases the ball into the corner,

    但它完全是誇大其詞,

  • because that's where the ball is.

    這就像是整支足球隊 都追著球跑到角落,

  • We shouldn't overvalue STEM.

    只因為球在角落。

  • We shouldn't value the sciences any more than we value the humanities.

    我們不應該過度重視 STEM。

  • And there are a couple of reasons.

    我們不應該把科學學科 看得比人文學科還重要。

  • Number one, today's technologies are incredibly intuitive.

    原因有幾個:

  • The reason we've been able to recruit from all disciplines

    第一,現今的科技是極端直覺的。

  • and swivel into specialized skills

    我們之所以能從各學科領域招募人才

  • is because modern systems can be manipulated without writing code.

    再轉為專業技能,

  • They're like LEGO: easy to put together, easy to learn, even easy to program,

    是因為現代的系統 不需要寫程式碼也可以操作。

  • given the vast amounts of information that are available for learning.

    它們就像樂高:容易組裝、 容易學,甚至容易寫程式,

  • Yes, our workforce needs specialized skill,

    前提是能取得大量的資訊 供學習之用。

  • but that skill requires a far less rigorous and formalized education

    是的,我們的勞動力 需要特殊化的技能,

  • than it did in the past.

    但和過去相比,那技能不再需要

  • Number two, the skills that are imperative and differentiated

    那麼嚴格和制式化的教育。

  • in a world with intuitive technology

    第二,這個直覺式的科技世界

  • are the skills that help us to work together as humans,

    必須有差異性的技能,

  • where the hard work is envisioning the end product

    那些能協助人類團結合作的技能,

  • and its usefulness,

    困難的是要預想出最終產品

  • which requires real-world experience and judgment and historical context.

    以及其用處,

  • What Jeff's story taught us

    這就需要有真實世界的經驗、 判斷,以及歷史的情境。

  • is that the customer was focused on the wrong thing.

    傑夫的故事讓我們學到,

  • It's the classic case:

    客戶把焦點放錯了地方。

  • the technologist struggling to communicate with the business and the end user,

    這是個經典的案例:

  • and the business failing to articulate their needs.

    技術人員努力和那些

  • I see it every day.

    未能表達需求的企業、 終端使用者溝通。

  • We are scratching the surface

    我每天都會看到這種事,

  • in our ability as humans to communicate and invent together,

    我們正觸及

  • and while the sciences teach us how to build things,

    人類溝通和共同發明能力的表面。

  • it's the humanities that teach us what to build and why to build them.

    雖然科學教我們如何建造東西,

  • And they're equally as important,

    但人文卻教導我們 要建什麼和為什麼要建。

  • and they're just as hard.

    它們同等重要,

  • It irks me ...

    也一樣困難。

  • when I hear people treat the humanities as a lesser path,

    有件事會讓我惱怒……

  • as the easier path.

    就是聽到有人把人文學科 視為是比較差的路、

  • Come on!

    比較簡單的路。

  • The humanities give us the context of our world.

    拜託!

  • They teach us how to think critically.

    人文學科讓我們能夠了解 世界的來龍去脈,

  • They are purposely unstructured,

    教導我們如何做批評性思考。

  • while the sciences are purposely structured.

    它們本來就沒有結構,

  • They teach us to persuade, they give us our language,

    而科學本來就有結構。

  • which we use to convert our emotions to thought and action.

    它們教我們說服,給我們語言,

  • And they need to be on equal footing with the sciences.

    我們用語言把情緒 轉換成思想和行動。

  • And yes, you can hire a bunch of artists

    它們必需要和科學學科 有一樣的立基點。

  • and build a tech company

    你的確可以僱用一群藝術家

  • and have an incredible outcome.

    來創立一間科技公司,

  • Now, I'm not here today to tell you that STEM's bad.

    得到了不起的結果。

  • I'm not here today to tell you that girls shouldn't code.

    今天我來這裡並不是要 告訴各位 STEM 不好。

  • (Laughter)

    我今天在這裡不是要告訴各位 女生不應該寫程式。

  • Please.

    (笑聲)

  • And that next bridge I drive over

    拜託。

  • or that next elevator we all jump into --

    我開車經過的下一座橋,

  • let's make sure there's an engineer behind it.

    或是我們進入的下一台電梯──

  • (Laughter)

    我們要確保它背後有個工程師。

  • But to fall into this paranoia

    (笑聲)

  • that our future jobs will be dominated by STEM,

    但若是陷入這種偏執,

  • that's just folly.

    認為我們未來的工作 將由 STEM 主導,

  • If you have friends or kids or relatives or grandchildren

    那就是太愚蠢了。

  • or nieces or nephews ...

    如果你有朋友、孩子、 親戚、孫子孫女,

  • encourage them to be whatever they want to be.

    或姪子姪女……

  • (Applause)

    鼓勵他們做他們想要做的。

  • The jobs will be there.

    (掌聲)

  • Those tech CEOs

    工作會等在那裡的。

  • that are clamoring for STEM grads,

    那些大聲吵著

  • you know what they're hiring for?

    要 STEM 畢業生的執行長們,

  • Google, Apple, Facebook.

    他們僱人是要做什麼工作?

  • Sixty-five percent of their open job opportunities

    Google、蘋果、臉書,

  • are non-technical:

    它們的事求人中

  • marketers, designers, project managers, program managers,

    有 65% 是非技術的工作:

  • product managers, lawyers, HR specialists,

    行銷人員、設計師、 專案經理、項目經理、

  • trainers, coaches, sellers, buyers, on and on.

    產品經理、律師、人力資源專員、

  • These are the jobs they're hiring for.

    訓練師、教練、銷售員、買家等等,

  • And if there's one thing that our future workforce needs --

    是他們要僱人來做的工作。

  • and I think we can all agree on this --

    如果我們未來的勞動力 真需要什麼的話──

  • it's diversity.

    我想大家都能認同這點──

  • But that diversity shouldn't end with gender or race.

    那就是多樣性。

  • We need a diversity of backgrounds

    但,多樣性不該只限於 性別或種族方面而已。

  • and skills,

    我們也需要有多樣的背景和技能,

  • with introverts and extroverts

    有內向者也有外向者,

  • and leaders and followers.

    有領導者也有追隨者。

  • That is our future workforce.

    那是我們未來的勞動力。

  • And the fact that the technology is getting easier and more accessible

    科技越來越簡單、 越來越容易取得的事實,

  • frees that workforce up

    讓勞動力能夠有餘裕,

  • to study whatever they damn well please.

    依他們的意願去學他們想學的。

  • Thank you.

    謝謝。

  • (Applause)

    (掌聲)

You've all been in a bar, right?

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Yanyan Hong

字幕與單字

影片操作 你可以在這邊進行「影片」的調整,以及「字幕」的顯示

B1 中級 中文 美國腔 TED 傑夫 學科 勞動力 主修 科學

TED】Eric Berridge:為什麼科技需要人文學科(Why tech needs the humanities | Eric Berridge) (【TED】Eric Berridge: Why tech needs the humanities (Why tech needs the humanities | Eric Berridge))

  • 1598 158
    林宜悉 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字