You know, I'm struck by how one of the implicit themes of TED is compassion, these very moving demonstrations we've just seen: HIV in Africa, President Clinton last night. And I'd like to do a little collateral thinking, if you will, about compassion and bring it from the global level to the personal. I'm a psychologist, but rest assured, I will not bring it to the scrotal.
Stiti, sunt uimit ca una dintre temele implicite la TED este compasiunea. Aceste demonstatii impresionante pe care tocmai le-am vazut: HIV in Africa, presedintele Clinton in prezentarea de aseara, si as vrea, cu voia voastra, sa exersam un pic gandirea colaterala pe tema compasiunii si sa o aducem de la un nivel general la unul personal. Sunt psiholog, dar va asigur ca nu voi intra pe panta sexuala.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
There was a very important study done a while ago at Princeton Theological Seminary that speaks to why it is that when all of us have so many opportunities to help, we do sometimes, and we don't other times. A group of divinity students at the Princeton Theological Seminary were told that they were going to give a practice sermon and they were each given a sermon topic. Half of those students were given, as a topic, the parable of the Good Samaritan: the man who stopped the stranger in -- to help the stranger in need by the side of the road. Half were given random Bible topics. Then one by one, they were told they had to go to another building and give their sermon. As they went from the first building to the second, each of them passed a man who was bent over and moaning, clearly in need. The question is: Did they stop to help?
Exista un studiu foarte important realizat mai de demult la Seminarul Teologic Princeton, in care se vorbeste despre motivele pentru care, desi avem atat de multe ocazii sa ajutam, uneori o facem si alteori nu. Unui grup de studenti ai Seminarului Teologic Princeton i s-a spus ca vor urma sa tina un exercitiu de predica si fiecaruia i s-a dat subiectul predicii. Jumatate dintre ei au primit ca si subiect parabola Bunului Samaritean: omul care a oprit un strain... care s-a oprit si a ajutat un strain la ananghie aflat pe marginea drumului. Cealalta jumatate a primit subiecte aleatorii din Biblie. Apoi, fiecaruia, rand pe rand i s-a spus sa se duca in alta cladire si sa isi sustina predica. Mergand de la prima cladire la cea de-a doua, fiecare dintre ei a trecut pe langa un om care era aplecat si gemea, clar in nevoie. Intrebarea este: s-au oprit sa il ajute?
The more interesting question is: Did it matter they were contemplating the parable of the Good Samaritan? Answer: No, not at all. What turned out to determine whether someone would stop and help a stranger in need was how much of a hurry they thought they were in -- were they feeling they were late, or were they absorbed in what they were going to talk about. And this is, I think, the predicament of our lives: that we don't take every opportunity to help because our focus is in the wrong direction.
O intrebare si mai interesanta este: A contat ca meditau la parabola Bunului Samaritean? Raspunsul: Nu, nu a contat deloc. Ceea ce s-a dovedit ca a determinat daca cineva se oprea sa ajute strainul care avea nevoie de ajutor a fost graba in care credeau ca se afla, daca simteau ca sunt in intarziere sau erau absorbiti de ceea ce aveau sa prezinte. Si cred ca acesta este necazul cu viata noastra: ca nu ne folosim de fiecare ocazie de a ajuta pentru ca suntem concentrati in directia gresita.
There's a new field in brain science, social neuroscience. This studies the circuitry in two people's brains that activates while they interact. And the new thinking about compassion from social neuroscience is that our default wiring is to help. That is to say, if we attend to the other person, we automatically empathize, we automatically feel with them. There are these newly identified neurons, mirror neurons, that act like a neuro Wi-Fi, activating in our brain exactly the areas activated in theirs. We feel "with" automatically. And if that person is in need, if that person is suffering, we're automatically prepared to help. At least that's the argument.
Exista un nou domeniu in cadrul neurologiei, stiinta neuro-sociala. Acesta studiaza circuitul din creierele a doua persoane care se activeaza in timp ce interactioneaza. Noua abordare legata de compasiune din punct de vedere al stiintei neuro-sociale este ca circuitele noastre de baza sunt create sa ajute. Asta inseamna ca, daca ingrijim o alta persoana, automat empatizam, automat intram in rezonanta. Exista niste neuroni nou identificati, neuroni gemeni, care actioneaza ca neuroni Wi-Fi, activand in creierul nostru exact zonele activate in creierul celeilate persoane. Intram in rezonanta automat. Daca cealalta persoana se afla la nevoie, daca acea persoana sufera, suntem automat pregatiti sa ajutam. Dovada, cel putin, aceasta este argumentatia.
But then the question is: Why don't we? And I think this speaks to a spectrum that goes from complete self-absorption, to noticing, to empathy and to compassion. And the simple fact is, if we are focused on ourselves, if we're preoccupied, as we so often are throughout the day, we don't really fully notice the other. And this difference between the self and the other focus can be very subtle.
Dar atunci intrebarea este: de ce nu o facem? Cred ca aceasta se refera la un spectru care merge de la o completa auto-preocupare pana la observare, empatie si compasiune. Si realitatea este ca, daca suntem concentrati pe noi insine, daca suntem preocupati, asa cum deseori suntem pe parcursul unei zile, nu ii observam pe ceilalti cu adevarat. Si diferenta dintre atentia concentrata pe noi si pe ceilalti poate fi foarte fina.
I was doing my taxes the other day, and I got to the point where I was listing all of the donations I gave, and I had an epiphany, it was -- I came to my check to the Seva Foundation and I noticed that I thought, boy, my friend Larry Brilliant would really be happy that I gave money to Seva. Then I realized that what I was getting from giving was a narcissistic hit -- that I felt good about myself. Then I started to think about the people in the Himalayas whose cataracts would be helped, and I realized that I went from this kind of narcissistic self-focus to altruistic joy, to feeling good for the people that were being helped. I think that's a motivator.
Acum cateva zile imi calculam impozitele si am ajuns la punctul in care am insirat toate donatiile facute si am avut o revelatie: am ajuns la un cec catre Fundatia Seva si am observat cum gandeam ca prietenul meu Larry Brilliant ar fi chiar fericit ca am donat bani catre Seva. Apoi am realizat ca ceea ce obtineam din donatie era un succes narcisistic: aveam o parere buna despre mine. Apoi am inceput sa ma gandesc la oamenii din Himalaya ale caror cataracte vor fi vindecate si am realizat ca m-am deplasat de la un fel de auto-focus narcisist catre o bucurie altruista, la a ma simti bine pentru oamenii care primeau ajutor. Cred ca acesta este un factor motivational.
But this distinction between focusing on ourselves and focusing on others is one that I encourage us all to pay attention to. You can see it at a gross level in the world of dating. I was at a sushi restaurant a while back and I overheard two women talking about the brother of one woman, who was in the singles scene. And this woman says, "My brother is having trouble getting dates, so he's trying speed dating." I don't know if you know speed dating? Women sit at tables and men go from table to table, and there's a clock and a bell, and at five minutes, bingo, the conversation ends and the woman can decide whether to give her card or her email address to the man for follow up. And this woman says, "My brother's never gotten a card, and I know exactly why. The moment he sits down, he starts talking non-stop about himself; he never asks about the woman."
Dar diferenta dintre a ne concentra pe noi insine si a ne concentra pe altii este una careia va incurajez sa ii dam cu totii atentie. O puteti observa la nivel macro in lumea intalnirilor amoroase. Am fost intr-un restaurant de sushi cu ceva timp in urma si am surprins doua femei vorbind despre fratele uneia dintre ele necasatorit. Si aceasta femeie spune: "Fratele meu are probleme sa aiba intalniri asa ca incearca intalnirile rapide." Nu stiu daca sunteti familiarizati cu fenomenul. Femeile stau la mese si barbatii se muta de la o masa la alta si exista un ceas si un clopotel si la fiecare 5 minute, bingo, conversatia se tremina si femeia poate decide daca sa ii dea cartea de vizita sau adresa de e-mail barbatului pentru o continuare. Si aceasta femeie spunea: "Fratele meu nu a obtinut niciodata o carte de vizita. Si stiu exact de ce. Din momentul in care se aseaza, incepe sa vorbeasca in continuu despre el, si nu intreaba nimic despre femeie".
And I was doing some research in the Sunday Styles section of The New York Times, looking at the back stories of marriages -- because they're very interesting -- and I came to the marriage of Alice Charney Epstein. And she said that when she was in the dating scene, she had a simple test she put people to. The test was: from the moment they got together, how long it would take the guy to ask her a question with the word "you" in it. And apparently Epstein aced the test, therefore the article.
Am facut un studiu pentru rubrica Sunday Styles a New York Times, uitatndu-ma la inceputurile casniciilor, pentru ca sunt foarte interesante - si am ajuns la casatoria lui Alice Charney Epstein. Ea spunea ca atunci cand era pe piata intalnirilor amoroase, utiliza un test simplu cu care verifica oamenii. Testul era: din momentul in care se intalneau cat trecea pana cand tipul ii adresa ei o intrebare care continea cuvantul "tu". Se pare ca Epstein a castigat testul, de unde si articolul.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
Now this is a -- it's a little test I encourage you to try out at a party. Here at TED there are great opportunities. The Harvard Business Review recently had an article called "The Human Moment," about how to make real contact with a person at work. And they said, well, the fundamental thing you have to do is turn off your BlackBerry, close your laptop, end your daydream and pay full attention to the person. There is a newly coined word in the English language for the moment when the person we're with whips out their BlackBerry or answers that cell phone, and all of a sudden we don't exist. The word is "pizzled": it's a combination of puzzled and pissed off.
Va arat acum un mic test pe care va incurajez sa il incercati la o petrecere. Aici la TED sunt multe momente prielnice. Harvard Business Review a prezentat de curand un articol intitulat " Momentul Uman" despre cum sa interactionezi cu adevarat cu o persoana de la birou. Si spuneau: lucrul de baza pe care trebuie sa il faci este sa iti inchizi BlackBerry-ul, sa iti inchizi laptopul, sa nu mai visezi cu ochii deschisi si sa ii oferi celuilalt atentia ta completa. Exista un cuvant nou aparut in limba engleza pentru momentul in care persoana cu care esti toceste tastele BlackBerry-ului sau raspunde la mobilul si dintr-o data noi ceilalti nu mai existam. Cuvantul este "pizzled" o combinatie intre perplex si infuriat.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
I think it's quite apt. It's our empathy, it's our tuning in which separates us from Machiavellians or sociopaths. I have a brother-in-law who's an expert on horror and terror -- he wrote the Annotated Dracula, the Essential Frankenstein -- he was trained as a Chaucer scholar, but he was born in Transylvania and I think it affected him a little bit. At any rate, at one point my brother-in-law, Leonard, decided to write a book about a serial killer. This is a man who terrorized the very vicinity we're in many years ago. He was known as the Santa Cruz strangler. And before he was arrested, he had murdered his grandparents, his mother and five co-eds at UC Santa Cruz.
Cred ca se potriveste. Empatia, contactul ne separa de persoanele machiavelice sau sociopate. Am un cumnat expert in domeniul groazei si terorii a scris Insemnari despre Dracula, Frankenstein concis, a fost educat ca discipol al lui Chaucer, dar s-a nascut in Transilvania si cred ca l-a afectat un pic. La un moment dat cumnatul meu, Leonard, s-a hotarat sa scrie o carte despre un criminal in serie. Acesta teroriza chiar zona in care stateam cu multi ani in urma. Era cunoscut drept sugrumatorul din Santa Cruz, iar inainte sa fie arestat isi omorase bunicii, mama si 5 dintre colegii de la UC Santa Cruz.
So my brother-in-law goes to interview this killer and he realizes when he meets him that this guy is absolutely terrifying. For one thing, he's almost seven feet tall. But that's not the most terrifying thing about him. The scariest thing is that his IQ is 160: a certified genius. But there is zero correlation between IQ and emotional empathy, feeling with the other person. They're controlled by different parts of the brain.
Cumnatul meu merge sa intervieveze ucigasul si cand il intalneste realizeaza ca omul este absolut inspaimantator. In primul rand are aproape 7 picioare inaltime, dar asta nu e cel mai inspaimantator lucru. Cel mai infricosator este ca IQ-ul lui este 160: un geniu cu acte. Dar corelatia este zero intre IQ si empatia emotionala, relationarea cu o alta persoana. Acestea sunt controlate de parti diferite ale creierului.
So at one point, my brother-in-law gets up the courage to ask the one question he really wants to know the answer to, and that is: how could you have done it? Didn't you feel any pity for your victims? These were very intimate murders -- he strangled his victims. And the strangler says very matter-of-factly, "Oh no. If I'd felt the distress, I could not have done it. I had to turn that part of me off. I had to turn that part of me off."
La un moment dat cumnatul meu isi face curaj si pune intrebarea la care vroia neaparat un raspuns: Cum ai putut sa faci asa ceva? Nu ai simtit niciun fel de mila pentru victime? Crimele erau foarte intime - isi strangula victimele. Ucigasul raspune cu nonsalanta: "Nu. Daca as fi simtit discomfort, nu as fi putut sa o fac. A trebuit sa opresc acea parte a mea. A trebuit sa opresc acea parte a mea."
And I think that that is very troubling, and in a sense, I've been reflecting on turning that part of us off. When we focus on ourselves in any activity, we do turn that part of ourselves off if there's another person. Think about going shopping and think about the possibilities of a compassionate consumerism. Right now, as Bill McDonough has pointed out, the objects that we buy and use have hidden consequences. We're all unwitting victims of a collective blind spot. We don't notice and don't notice that we don't notice the toxic molecules emitted by a carpet or by the fabric on the seats. Or we don't know if that fabric is a technological or manufacturing nutrient; it can be reused or does it just end up at landfill? In other words, we're oblivious to the ecological and public health and social and economic justice consequences of the things we buy and use. In a sense, the room itself is the elephant in the room, but we don't see it. And we've become victims of a system that points us elsewhere. Consider this.
Cred ca asta e foarte tulburator. Intr-un fel m-am gandit la oprirea acelei parti din fiecare dintre noi. Cand suntem absorbiti de orice si ne concentram asupra noastra chiar blocam acea parte a noastra ca si cand am fi alta persoana. Ganditi-va la fenomenul cumparaturilor si la posibilitatea unui consumerism milos. In acest moment, asa cum sublinia Bill McDonough, obiectele pe care le cumparam si le folosim au consecinte ascunse. Suntem cu totii victimele inocente ale unui unghi mort colectiv. Nu observam si nu observam ca nu observam moleculele toxice emise de un covor sau de tapiteria de pe scaune. Nu stim daca materialul este un nutrient tehnologic sau lucrat de mana; poate fi refolosit sau ajunge la groapa de gunoi? Cu alte cuvinte, suntem orbi la consecintele ecologice si de sanatate publica, de dreptate sociala si economica ale lucrurilor pe care le cumparam si folosim. Intr-un fel camera in sine este elefantul din camera, doar ca nu il vedem. Si am devenit victimele unui sistem care ne indreapta in alta directie. Ganditi-va la asta.
There's a wonderful book called Stuff: The Hidden Life of Everyday Objects. And it talks about the back story of something like a t-shirt. And it talks about where the cotton was grown and the fertilizers that were used and the consequences for soil of that fertilizer. And it mentions, for instance, that cotton is very resistant to textile dye; about 60 percent washes off into wastewater. And it's well known by epidemiologists that kids who live near textile works tend to have high rates of leukemia. There's a company, Bennett and Company, that supplies Polo.com, Victoria's Secret -- they, because of their CEO, who's aware of this, in China formed a joint venture with their dye works to make sure that the wastewater would be properly taken care of before it returned to the groundwater. Right now, we don't have the option to choose the virtuous t-shirt over the non-virtuous one. So what would it take to do that?
Exista o carte minunata numita: "Lucruri: viata ascunsa a obiectelor uzuale" si vorbeste despre povestea din spatele unui tricou, despre locul in care a fost cultivat bumbacul ingrasamintele folosite si consecintele lor asupra solului. Cartea mentioneaza, de exemplu, ca bumbacul este foarte rezistent la colorantii textili; in jur de 60% se pierde in apa reziduala. E un lucru bine stiu de catre epidemiologi ca acei copii care locuiesc in preajma fabricilor de textile tind sa aiba leucemie intr-o mai mare masura. Exista o companie, Bennett and Company, care este furnizor pentru Polo, Victoria' Secret. Acestia, datorita directorului general care este constient de ce se intampla, a creat in China o alianta cu fabrica de coloranti pentru a se asigura ca apa reziduala va fi tratata corespunzator inainte de a se intoarce in pamant. In prezent nu avem posibilitatea de a alege intre tricoul merituos si cel imoral. De ce ar fi nevoie ca sa facem asta?
Well, I've been thinking. For one thing, there's a new electronic tagging technology that allows any store to know the entire history of any item on the shelves in that store. You can track it back to the factory. Once you can track it back to the factory, you can look at the manufacturing processes that were used to make it, and if it's virtuous, you can label it that way. Or if it's not so virtuous, you can go into -- today, go into any store, put your scanner on a palm onto a barcode, which will take you to a website. They have it for people with allergies to peanuts. That website could tell you things about that object. In other words, at point of purchase, we might be able to make a compassionate choice.
Ei bine, m-am gandit. Si in primul rand, exista o tehnologie noua de marcaj electronic care permite oricarui magazin sa afle intregul istoric al oricarui obiect de pe raftul magazinului. Poti sa il urmaresti pana la fabrica de unde provine. Odata ce il poti urmari pana la fabrica, poti analiza procesele de productie folosite pentru fabricare si, daca este corect, il poti eticheta ca atare.Iar daca nu este chiar corect, poti merge, chiar astazi, poti merge in orice magazin si scanand codul de bare vei ajunge pe un site web. Site-ul a fost creat pentru oamenii alergici la alune. Pe site poti gasi date despre obiectul respectiv. Cu alte cuvinte, in momentul achizitiei, putem sa facem o alegere bazata pe compasiune.
There's a saying in the world of information science: ultimately everybody will know everything. And the question is: will it make a difference? Some time ago when I was working for The New York Times, it was in the '80s, I did an article on what was then a new problem in New York -- it was homeless people on the streets. And I spent a couple of weeks going around with a social work agency that ministered to the homeless. And I realized seeing the homeless through their eyes that almost all of them were psychiatric patients that had nowhere to go. They had a diagnosis. It made me -- what it did was to shake me out of the urban trance where, when we see, when we're passing someone who's homeless in the periphery of our vision, it stays on the periphery. We don't notice and therefore we don't act.
Exista o zicala in lumea informaticii: intr-un final toata lumea va stii tot. Intrebarea este: va face vreo diferenta? Cu ceva timp in urma, cand lucram pentru New York Times, era in anii '80, am scris un articol despre ceva ce atunci reprezenta o problema in New York: oamenii fara adapost de pe strazi. Am petrecut cateva saptamani pe teren cu o agentie de ajutor social care avea grija de cei fara adapost. Am realizat privindu-i prin ochii lor ca aproape toti erau pacienti de psihiatrie care nu aveau unde sa se duca. Erau diagnosticati. Efectul asupra mea a fost sa ma scuture din transa urbana in care, atunci cand vedem in trecere un cersetor cu coltul ochiului, ramane acolo, in zona periferica. Nu observam si in consecinta nu actionam.
One day soon after that -- it was a Friday -- at the end of the day, I went down -- I was going down to the subway. It was rush hour and thousands of people were streaming down the stairs. And all of a sudden as I was going down the stairs I noticed that there was a man slumped to the side, shirtless, not moving, and people were just stepping over him -- hundreds and hundreds of people. And because my urban trance had been somehow weakened, I found myself stopping to find out what was wrong. The moment I stopped, half a dozen other people immediately ringed the same guy. And we found out that he was Hispanic, he didn't speak any English, he had no money, he'd been wandering the streets for days, starving, and he'd fainted from hunger. Immediately someone went to get orange juice, someone brought a hotdog, someone brought a subway cop. This guy was back on his feet immediately. But all it took was that simple act of noticing, and so I'm optimistic.
Intr-o zi imediat urmatorare, era o vineri, la sfarsitul zilei, coboram spre metrou. Era ora de varf si mii de oameni se scurgeau pe scari. Din senin pe cand coboram scarile am observat ca era un om cazut intr-o parte fara camasa, nu misca, iar oamenii treceau peste el, sute si sute de oameni. Pentru ca transa mea urbana fusese oarecum slabita m-am oprit sa vad ce se intamplase. In momentul in care m-am oprit, jumatate de duzina de alti oameni au sesizat imediat acelasi tip. Am aflat ca era hispanic, nu vorbea engleza deloc, nu avea bani, bantuise pe strazi zile intregi, infometat, si lesinase de foame. Imediat cineva s-a dus sa ia suc de portocale, cineva a adus un hotdog, altcineva a chemat paza de la metrou. Individul a fost imediat inapoi pe picioare. A fost necesar doar un simplu act de observare. Asa ca sunt optimist.
Thank you very much.
Multumesc foarte mult.
(Applause)
(Aplauze)