TED Technology, Entertainment, Design在英語中的縮寫，美國的一家私有非營利機構，以它組織的TED大會著稱；將"用思想的力量來改變世界"作為宗旨。事實上，除了科技、娛樂、設計的主題，這場盛會涉及的領域還在不斷擴展，展現著涉及幾乎各個領域的各種見解，TED的演講簡短且深刻，參加者們稱它為 “超級大腦SPA”。
Translated into Chinese (Traditional) by I-Chun Chen
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 competition. And yet, they're just a computer company. They're just like everyone else. They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media. Then 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 America, and he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day. Why him? And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out controlled, powered man 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 it. There's something else at play here.
你怎樣解釋當一些事情出乎我們意料的進行？ 或者說，你怎樣解釋當別人能成就一些看似不符合所有猜想的事？ 例如：為什麼蘋果那樣的樂於創新？ 一年一年又一年，他們比他所有的競爭對手都要敢於創新。 可是，他只是一家電腦公司。 他們就像其他人一樣。 他們擁有同樣的方法吸取同樣的人才，擁有同樣的代理商，同樣的顧問，同樣的媒體。 但是為什麼他們看上去會某些不同之處呢？ 為什麼馬丁路德金恩博士(Martin Luther King)領導公民權利運動？ 他不是唯一一個遭遇非公民待遇的美國公民。 他無疑不只僅僅是那個時候偉大的演講家。為什麼是他？ 為什麼懷特兄弟能夠發明人造帶動力控制的飛行器，而當時其他人無疑擁有更好的資格，更好的基礎，但他們卻沒能完成人造動力飛行器，而懷特兄弟於這點打敗了他們。 這是因為有其他東西於此發揮作用。
About three and a half years ago I made a discovery. And this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked, and it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it. As 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 way. And it's the complete opposite to everyone else. All I did was codify it, and it's probably the world's simplest idea. I call it the golden circle.
大約三年半之前，我有個新發現，這個發現深深的改變了我的對於我曾經認為這個世界如何工作的觀點。並且它甚至深深的改變了我運營事物的方式。 如它所示——這是一個圖案——如這個所示，這個世界上所有偉大的有感染力的領導者們或者組織，無論是蘋果，或者Martin Luther King或者懷特兄弟，他們都確切的以同一種方式思考，行動和交流。 但是這個是完全不同於其他人的方式。 所有我做的只是把他整理出來。並且這可能是世界上最簡單的注意。 我把它叫做黃金圈。
Why? How? What? This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't. Let me define the terms really quickly. Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 percent. Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP. But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do. And by "why" I don't mean "to make a profit." That's a result. It's always a result. By "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 in. It's obvious. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing. But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations -- regardless of their size, regardless of their industry -- all think, act and communicate from the inside out.
為何？ 如何？ 是何？ 這個小模型就解釋了為什麼一些組織和一些領導者們能有能力鼓舞那些其他人不能做到的地方。 讓我快速的定義這些標題。 地上上每個單獨的個人，每個單獨的組織都百分之百的明白他們在做什麼。 其中一些知道如何去做，無論你們把他叫做你們的差異價值，或者是你們的獨特工序，或者你們的專利。 但是很少很少的人們或者組織知道為什麼他們做他們所做的。 這裡的“為何”不是指“為利潤”。 利潤是個結果。 他總會是結果。 而“為何”我所指的是：你的目的是什麼？ 你的動機是什麼？ 你的信仰是什麼？ 為什麼你的組織會出現？ 你為什麼而在早上早起？ 為什麼其他人需要在乎你的這些？ 那麼，結果是，我們思考的方式，我們行動的方式，和我們交流的方式都是由外而內的。 這個很明顯，我們的方式都是從清晰的事物到模糊的事物。 但是激勵型領導者們和組織，不論他們的大小，行業，所有的思想，行動和交流都是自內於外的。
Let me give you an example. I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it. If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this: "We make great computers. They're beautifully designed , simple to use and user friendly. Want to buy one?" "Meh." And that's how most of us communicate. That's how most marketing is done, that's how most sales is done and that's how most of us communicate interpersonally. We 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 that. Here's our new law firm: We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients, we always perform for our clients who do business with us. Here's our new car: It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats, buy our car. But it's uninspiring.
讓我給你們一個例子。 我用蘋果公司作為例子是因為他們很容易去理解，並且每個人都能理解。 如果蘋果公司如同其他公司一樣，他們的市場營銷信息就可能是這樣。 “我們做最棒的電腦。設計精美，使用簡單，界面友好。你想要買一台嗎？”不怎麼樣吧。 這就是我們大部分人的交流方式。 這就是大部分的市場營銷所採取的。 這也是大部分商家所採取的。 這也是我們中大部分人於人際間的交流方式。 我們說我們做什麼工作的，我們說我們是何如與眾不同，或者我們是如何的更優秀，然後我們就期待著別人的一些反應，一個購買力，一個投票支持，類似於這些的反應。 這是我們新開的律師事務所。 我們擁有最好的律師和最大的客戶。 我們總是能滿足我們的客戶們的要求。 這是我們的新車型。 非常省油。 舒適的座椅。 買我們的車吧。 但是這些是毫無鼓舞作用的。
Here's how Apple actually communicates. "Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one?" Totally different right? You're ready to buy a computer from me. All I did was reverse the order of the information. What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do; people buy why you do it. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
而這是蘋果公司事實上如何交流的。 “我們做的所有事，我們相信在挑戰現狀。我們相信用不同的方式思考。而我們挑戰現狀的方式就是我們開發我們的產品擁有精美的設計，使用簡單，並且界面友好。我們讓最棒的電腦得以呈現。你想要買一台嗎？”完全不一樣對嗎？ 你們樂意從我這裡購買一台電腦嗎。 我所做的只是將這些信息的順序重新排列。 這些證明了人們不想從你那裡買你所做的產品；人們買的是你的信念和宗旨。 人們買的不是你做的什麼產品；他們買的是你做這些的信念和宗旨。
This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple. But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple. But, as I said before , Apple's just a computer company. There's nothing that distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors. Their competitors are all equally qualified to make all of these products. In fact, they tried. A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat screen TVs . They're eminently qualified to make flat screen TVs. They've been making flat screen monitors for years. Nobody bought one. Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs, and they make great quality products, and they can make perfectly well- designed products -- and nobody bought one. In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell. Why would you buy an MP3 player from a computer company? But we do it every day. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have. The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe. Here's the best part:
這個解釋了每個在座的人為什麼非常明白的自然的要買一台蘋果公司的電腦。 但是我們同樣完全明白自然的買一個蘋果公司的MP3播放器，或者一部蘋果電話，或者蘋果DVR。 但是如我之前所說，蘋果公司只是一個電腦公司。 從結構上沒有什麼能把它同其他競爭者區別開。 它的競爭者都同樣具備製作所有這樣產品的資格和能力。 而事實上，他們也嘗試過，幾年前，Gateway公司推出了平板電視機。 他們非常能勝任生產製造平板電視。 他們已經製造平板顯示器許多年了。 卻沒人購買。 Dell公司推出了MP3播放器和掌上電腦。 他們產品質量好。 他們的產品設計同樣出眾。 卻沒人購買。 事實上，現在來談論這些，我們甚至無法想像買一台Dell的MP3播放器。 你為什麼會從一家電腦公司買一台MP3播放器呢？ 但是我們每天都在這麼做。 人們不會因為你做什麼而購買；他們因為你做的產品的信念而購買。 目標不是與每個需要你生產的人做生意。 目標是與那些與你有共同景願的人做生意。 這就是最精彩的部分。
None of what I'm telling you is my opinion. It's all grounded in the tenets of biology. Not psychology, biology. If 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 circle. Our newest brain, our Homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the "what" level. The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language. The middle two sections make up our limbic brains, and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty. It's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language.
我所告訴你們的這些都不是我自己的觀點。 這些觀點都能從生物學裡找到根源。 不是心理學，而是生物學。 如果你觀察人類大腦的橫截面，由上自下觀察，你會發現人類大腦實際上是分成三個主要組成部分，而這三個部分和黃金圈匹配的非常好。 我們最新的腦部，我們管轄智力的腦部，我們的大腦皮層，對應著“what”這個圓環。 大腦皮層負責我們所有的理智和分析性思維和語言。 中間的兩個部分組成我們的邊緣大腦。 我們的邊緣大腦負責於我們所有的感受，象信任和忠誠。 它還負責所有的人類行為，所有的決策，而他沒有語言的能力。
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 figures. It just doesn't drive behavior. When 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 do. This is where gut decisions come from. You 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 language. And the best we can muster up is, "I don't know. It just doesn't feel right." Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart, or you' re leading with your soul. Well, I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts controlling your behavior. It's all happening here in your limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.
換句話說，當我們由外自內交流時，是的，人們能理解大量的複雜信息，比如特徵，優點，事實和圖標。但不會激發行為。 當我們能由內自外的交流時，我們是直接同大腦負責控制行為的部分進行交流，然後我們通過一些我們所說和所做的實際的事物使得人們理性的思考這些。 這就是內心決策的由來。 你們知道，有時候你們給某人展示所有的事實和圖表，他們會說，“我知道所有的事實和細節說明什麼，但是就是感覺有什麼不對。”為什麼我們會用那個動詞，“feel”不對？ 因為我們大腦中負責控制決策的部分不負責控制語言。 我們只好說，“我不知道，這個就是感覺不對。”或者有時候你們會說你是由你的內心所引導，或者由你的靈魂所引導。 我不想對你們把這些觀點分得太徹底，這些不是身體的其他部分在控制著你的行為。 它全發生在你的邊緣大腦裡，大腦中控制決策但不負責語言的那部分。
But if you don't know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how will 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 do. Again, 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 believe. The goal is not just to hire people who need a job; it's to hire people who believe what you believe. I 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 you with blood and sweat and tears. And nowhere else is there a better example of this than with the Wright brothers.
但是如果你不知道為什麼做你正在做的事，而人們對為何你正在做的事有反應，然後甚至是你如何贏得人們的選票，或買你的東西，或更重要的是，想成為你正在做的事的一份子。 再者，目的不是僅僅出售給那些需要你所有用的物品的人們；目的是銷售給那些同你擁有共同景願的人們。 目標不是僅僅僱傭那些需要工作的人們；是僱傭那些與你擁有同樣景願的人。 我總是說，你們知道，如果你僱傭一個僅僅是因為他們能勝任這項工作的人，他們會為了你的錢而工作，但是如果你僱傭同你擁有共同景願的人，他們會為你付出血汗，辛酸和淚水般的工作。 這一點沒有比懷特兄弟故事更好的例子了。
Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley. And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day. Everybody was trying it. And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for success. I 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 conditions. It's always the same three things, so let's explore that. Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department to figure out this flying machine. Money was no problem. He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected; he knew all the big minds of the day. He hired the best minds money could find and the market conditions were fantastic. The New York Times followed him around everywhere, and everyone was rooting for Langley. Then how come we've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley?
大部分人不知道Samuel Pierpont Langley這個人。 然而回到20th世紀初期，投入人造飛行器的熱情就像如今的網站一樣熱。 每個人都在嘗試它。 Samuel Pierpont Langley擁有，我們認為，最能成功的要領。我的意思是，即使是現在，你問別人，“為什麼你的產品或者你的公司失敗了，破裂了？”人們總是給你同樣的三個東西以同樣的順序，缺乏資金，用人不善，形勢不好。 總會是這三個原因，那麼讓我們仔細觀察下。 國防部投資Samuel Pierpont Langley 50，000美元作為研發飛行器。 資金不是問題。 他曾在哈佛工作過，也在Smithsonian工作過，並且他擁有極其寬廣的人脈。 他認識當時最優秀的人才。 因此，他僱傭能用資金吸引到的最優秀的人才。 並且當時的形勢更是空前的出色。 紐約時報時刻跟踪報導他。 每個人都支持他。 但是為什麼你們連聽都沒聽說過他呢？
A few hundred miles away in Dayton Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success. They had no money; they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop; not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur; and The New York Times followed them around nowhere. The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief. They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it'll change the course of the world. Samuel Pierpont Langley was different. He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous. He was in pursuit of the result. He was in pursuit of the riches. And lo and behold, look what happened. The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream worked with them with blood and sweat and tears. The others just worked for the paycheck. And 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，幾百英里外的俄亥俄洲Dayton小鎮，Orville Wright和Wilbur Wright兩兄弟，他們沒有任何我們認為是成功的要素的基礎。 他們沒有錢。 他們把他們在單車店的收益作為夢想的資金。 團隊裡沒有一人受過大學教育，就連兩兄弟一樣也沒有上過大學。 沒有紐約時報的跟踪報導。 不同的是，懷特兄弟是發自內心的想去做這件事。 他們相信，如果他們能夠製造出飛行機器，那會改變世界前進的腳步。 Samuel Pierpont Langley卻不同。 他想要變得富有，他想要出名。 他在追求最終結果。 他在追求富裕。 看吧，看接下來怎麼樣。 那些相信懷特兄弟夢想的人們，與他倆付出血汗，辛酸與淚水的工作。 而另外的只是為了薪水支票而工作。 後來流傳的故事說，懷特兄弟每次出去工作，都必須帶五組零件，因為那是他們回來吃晚飯前將會墜毀的次數。
And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it. We found out about it a few days later. And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing: The day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit. He could have said, "That's an amazing discovery, guys, and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn't. He wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous so he quit.
最後，在1903年12月17日，懷特兄弟成功試飛，甚至沒人在場見證這個。 我們在數天之後才得知此消息。後來的事情進一步證明了Langley的動機不純，他在懷特兄弟成功試飛的當天就辭職了。 他本應該說：“大家，這是一個偉大的發明，我將會改進你們的技術，”但是他沒有。 他不是第一個發明飛行器的人，他沒能變的富有，他沒能成為名人，因此他離開了。
People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. And if you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe. But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Something called the law of diffusion of innovation, and if you don't know the law, you definitely know the terminology. The first two and a half percent of our population are our innovators. The next 13 and a half percent of our population are our early adopters. The next 34 percent are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards. The only reason these people buy touch tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.
人們不會買你做什麼；他們買你的為什麼。 如果你談論你的信仰是什麼，你將會吸引那些與有同樣景願的人。 但是為什麼吸引那些與你有同樣景願的人很重要呢？ 有種東西叫做創意的散播法則。如果你們不知道這個定律，你們肯定知道這個說法。 首先，人口中2.5%是革新者。 剩下的13.5%是我們早期的採納者。 接下來的34%是我們早期接受的大多數對象，是比較晚接受的大多數的行動的。 這部分最後行動的人買按鍵電話的唯一原因是因為他們再也買不到轉盤式電話了。
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 penetration, and then the system tips. And I love asking businesses, "What's your conversion on new business?" And they love to tell you, "Oh, it's about 10 percent," proudly. Well, you can trip over 10 percent of the customers. We all have about 10 percent who just "get it." That's how we describe them, right? That's like that gut feeling, "Oh, 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 first. And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they're comfortable making those gut decisions. They're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions that are driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available.
雖然我都在不同的時間不同的地點在這個範圍內，但是創意的散播法則告訴我們如果你想要在大眾市場讓一個點子成功或者被接受，在你獲得15%到18%的市場接受度這個轉折點前是無法實現的。 那時之後市場之門才會得以打開。 我喜歡問一些公司，“你的新生意怎麼樣啊？”他們就喜歡很自豪的告訴你，“哦,大約是10%吧”。 你可能抓住10%的客戶後就難再上升了。 我們都能那10%的客戶“了解。”是的，這是我們如何描述他們的。 那就像內心的感覺。 “哦，他們就只是了解。”問題是：你如何發洩那些在你與之做生意前能意會的，和那些沒能意會的？ 那麼就是這點縫隙，你必須填補這個小小的縫隙，如Jeffrey Moore把他叫做“跨越鴻溝”。 因為，你知道，早期的大部分在某些人已經作為第一個嘗試之前是不會去嘗試某些事物的。 這些人們，革新者和早期接受者，他們是很樂意嘗試這個勇敢的決定。 他們更樂意去做這些由他們對這個的信念和世界觀的直覺去決定這些，而不是因為產品是什麼樣的。
These are the people who stood in 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 shelf. These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars on flat screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard. And, by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great; they did it for themselves. It's because they wanted to be first. People don 't buy what you do; they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe. In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe. The 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 them: They were first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
這是一批在iPhone剛出來時排隊等上六小時去購買的人，而其實你只要一星期後進入商店就能在貨架上買到一個。 這是一批在平板電腦剛出來時花40，000美元買上一台的人們，儘管當時技術還不夠好。 順便說句，他們這麼做的原因並不是當時產品技術很好。 而是因為他們自己的原因。 因為他們想成為第一個體驗的人。 人們不會因為你的產品而去購買；他們因為你的信念而去購買。 你所做的不過是簡單的表達了你的信念。 事實上，人們會做那些表現他們信念的事。 那些在iPhone剛出來的六個小時，去花上六個小時排隊的人，是因為他們的世界觀，出於別人怎麼去想他們。 他們作為第一批體驗者購買不是因為你的產品，而是你的信念。
So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation. First, the famous failure. It's a commercial example. As we said before, a second ago, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions, right? You should have success then. Look at TiVo. From 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 dispute. They were extremely well-funded. Market conditions were fantastic. I mean, we use TiVo as verb. I TiVo stuff on my piece of junk Time Warner DVR all the time.
那麼讓我給你們一個很著名的例子，一個關於創意散播法則的著名的失敗和著名的成功的例子。 首先是這個著名的失敗的例子。 是一個商業例子。 如我一秒之前所說的，成功的要素是資金，人才，和良好的市場環境。 是的，是不是你擁有這些你就應該會成功。 看看TiVo（數字視頻公司）。 自TiVo推出之時，大概是八年，九年以前，一直到如今，他們是唯一的最高品質的產品，這沒有任何意義。 他們的資金實力非常雄厚。 市場環境也極其之好。 我的意思是，我們把TiVo作為一個動詞。 如我經常把東西蒂沃到我那台華納數碼視頻錄像機裡面。
But TiVo's a commercial failure. They've never made money. And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10. In fact, I don't think it's even traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes. Because you see, when TiVo launched their product they told us all what they had. 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 you. We don't need it. We don't like it. You'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 you. It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc." People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it, and what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe.
但TiVo卻是一個商業上的失敗。 他們未曾賺一分錢。 當他上市時，他們的股票大概在30或40美元，隨後就一落千丈，成交價沒能超過10美元。 事實上，我的印像中他的成交價沒有超過6美元，除開一些小的震盪。因為你會發現，當TiVo發行他們的產品時，他們告訴我們的只是他們擁有什麼產品。 他們說道，“我們的產品能讓直播電視得以暫停，跳過商業廣告，恢復電視直播，並且不需要你的刻意設置就能記住你的收看習慣。”挑剔的人們就說了，“我們不相信你們。我們不需要你的產品。我們不喜歡他。你在嚇唬我們。”但如果他們這樣說，“如果你是想要完全掌控你生活方方面面的人，朋友，我們有你想要的產品。它能暫停直播節目，跳過廣告，記憶你的收看習慣，等等等等。”人們不會因為你的產品而購買；他們因為你的信念而購買。 你所做的僅僅是要證明你的信念而已。
Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation. In the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear Dr. King speak. They sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the date. How do you do that? Well, Dr. King wasn't the only man in America who was a great orator. He wasn't the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights America. In fact , some of his ideas were bad. But he had a gift. He didn't go around telling people what needed to change in America. He went around and told people what he believed. "I believe, I believe, I believe," he told people. And people who believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people. And some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more people. And lo and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day at the right time to hear him speak.
現在讓我給你們一個創新擴散定律成功的例子。 1963年的夏天，250，000人出現在華盛頓廣場前，只為聽到Dr. King的演講。 他們未收到任何請帖，也沒有網站能確定時間日期。 怎麼會有這麼多人參加的呢？ Dr. King不是美國唯一一個偉大的演講家。 他也不是唯一一個在民權法案出台前在美國遭受歧視的美國人。 事實上，他的有些想法並不好。 但是他有個天賦。 他並沒有到處給人們說美國需要改變什麼。 他只是到處告訴人們他相信什麼。 “我相信。我相信。我相信。”這是他告訴人們的。 而那些與他有同樣信念的人受到了他的啟發，他們也開始把自己的信念告訴別人。 有些人就建立起一些組織讓這些話傳給更多人。 就這樣，250，000人在那天準確的時間出現了，去聆聽他的演講。
How many of them showed up for him? Zero. They showed up for themselves. It'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 August. It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white: 25 percent of the audience was white. Dr. King 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 man . And 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 world. It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life. We followed, not for him, but for ourselves. And, by the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech, not the "I have a plan" speech.
有多少人是因為他而去的呢？ 沒有。 他們是為他們自己去的。 是他們對美國的一種信念使得他們會坐八小時的公車到達，並且站在八月中旬的烈日下的華盛頓。 是因為他們的信念，而不是因為黑人與白人的鬥爭。 25%的聽眾是白人。 Dr. King相信世界上有兩種類型的法律，一種是上帝制定的，另一種則是人制定的。 在人們制定的所有法律同上帝制定的法律完全一致之前，我們將會生活在一個公正的世界裡。 而公民權利運動則恰巧一個絕好的機會幫助他把這個信念實現。 我們追隨的不是他，而是我們自己。 順便說句，他發表了“我有一個夢想”的演講，而不是“我有一個計劃”的演講。
Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans. They're not inspiring anybody. Because there are leaders and there are those who lead. Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us. Whether they' re individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to. We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves. And it's those who start with "why" that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them.
聽聽現在政治家提出的12點的大雜燴計劃。 他們沒能鼓動任何人。 因為一些是人當官的，一些是領袖。 領導者擁有權利和身份。 但是那些具有領袖氣質的才能領導我們的，無論是個人或組織，我們追隨那些領導者，不是因為我們必須追隨，因為我們想要追隨。 我們追隨的那些領導者，不是因為他，而是因為我們自己。 也只有那些從“Why”這個圓圈出發的人才有能力激勵周圍的人， 或者找到能夠激勵他們的人。
Thank you very much.