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.
Znate, iznenađen sam time što je saosjećajnonst jedna od implicitnih tema TED-a. Veoma potresne demonstracije koje smo vidjeli: HIV u Africi, predsjednik Klinton sinoć... Htio bih da pridodam malo kolateralnog razmišljanja, o saosjećanju i da ga spustim sa globalnog na jedan niži (lični) nivo. Ja sam psiholog, ali budite uvjereni, da ga nećemo spuštati ispod pojasa.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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?
Nedavno je urađena jedna studija na Princeton Theological Seminary koja govori o tome zašto iako nam se pružaju mnogobrojne mogućnosti da pomognemo, nekad to činimo, a nekad ne. Grupi studenata teologije na Princeton Theological Seminary dodijeljeno je da održe po jednu propovijed na zadatu temu. Polovini ovih studenata je zadata parabola dobrog Samarićanina čovjeka koji bi zastao da pomogne strancu u nevolji pokraj puta. Drugoj polovini su zadate nasumične bibilijske teme. Onda je jednom po jednom rečeno da odu u drugu zgradu i tamo održe svoju propovijed. Na putu do druge zgrade, svi oni bi prošli pored pognutog čovjeka koji stenje, čovjeku kojem očigledno treba pomoć. Pitanje je: da li su stali da pomognu?
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.
Još interesantnije pitanje je: Da li je to imalo ikakve veze sa tim što su razmišljali o paraboli o dobrom Samarićaninu. Odgovor: Ne, uopšte. Ispostavilo se da je o tome da li će stati i pomoći strancu u nevolji odlučilo u kolikoj su se se žurbi našli - da li su osjećali da kasne, ili su utonuli u temu o kojoj su trebali govoriti. Mislim da je ovo tvrdnja naših života: ne iskorištavamo svaku priliku da pomognemo, jer je fokus naše pažnje pogrešno usmjeren.
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.
Postoji nova oblast neurologije - socijalna neurologija. Oni proučavaju električnu spregu u mozgovima dvije osobe koja je aktivna kada oni interaguju. I novo, neurološko, poimanje saosjećajnosti je da je podrazumijevano pomoći. Što će reći, ako se posvetimo drugoj osobi automatski osjećamo empatiju, automatski saosjećamo. Postoje tri novoidentifikovana neurona - neuroni ogledala, koji se ponašaju kao neuro Wi-Fi, aktivirajući u našem mozgu iste oblasti koje su aktivne u mozgu sagovornika. Mi "sa"-osjećamo automatski. I ako je osoba sa kojom komuniciramo u nevolji, ako pati, mi smo automatski spremni da pomognemo. Barem je takva tvrdnja.
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.
Ali onda se postavlja pitanje: Zašto ne mi? I ja mislim da ovo govori spektru koji ide od kompletne samo-preokupiranosti do primjećivanja, empatiziranja i saosjećanja. I prosta činjenica je da, ako smo preokupirani sobom, ako smo prezauzeti, kao što i jesmo tokom dana, mi zaista i ne primjećujemo druge. I u ta razlika između fokusa na sebi i drugima može biti vrlo suptilna.
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.
Prije neki dan sam sređivao porezske papire, i došao sam do tačke gdje je potrebno napisati sve donacije koje sam dao, u tom trenutku osjetih otkrovenje - naišao sam na ček Seva fondaciji i sjetih se, čovječe moj prijatelj Leri Brilijant bi bio oduševljen ako bih dao novac Sevi. Onda sam shvatio šta sam dobio dajući narcistično zadovoljstvo - osjećao sam se dobro. Onda sam počeo da razmišljam o ljudima u Himalajima koji bi dobili operaciju katarakte, i shvatio sam da sam prošao put od ove narcistične samo-preokupiranosti u altruističku radost, osjećanje blagosti prema ljudima kojima će biti pružena pomoć. Mislim da je ovo veliki motivator.
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."
Ali razlika između fokusiranja na sebe i fokusiranja na druge je razlika na koju treba obratiti pažnju. Možete ovo vidjeti u velikim količinama u svijetu zabavljanja. Bio sam skoro u suši restoranu i načuo sam dvije žene kako govore o bratu jedne od njih, koji je bio neženja. I ova žena kaže, "Moj brat ima problema da nađe djevojku za izlazak, pa je otišao na jedan od onih speed-dating sastanaka". Ne znam da li vam je taj pojam poznat? Žene sjede za stolovima i muškarci idu od stola do stola, i na svakom stolu stoji tajmer. Kada prođe pet minuta BINGO razgovor se završava i žena može da odluči da li će da dâ svoj broj ili email adresu muškarcu. I, kako ova žena kaže, "Moj brat nikad nije dobio broj telefona. I ja znam upravo zašto. Onoga trenutka kad sjedne za sto, on počne da non-stop govori o sebi, ne zanima ga njegova sagovornica."
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.
I istraživao sam u Sunday Styles sekciji New York Timesa, tražeći priče o brakovima -- zato što su veoma interesantne -- i stigao sam do braka Alice Charney Epstein. I ona kaže da kad se zabavljala, ona je imala jednostavan test za svoje partnere. Test je bilo koliko vremena prođe od trenutka kad se vide, dok on nešto ne upita sa riječju "ti" u rečenici. I, očigledno, Epstein je položio test - odatle i članak.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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.
Ne, to je.. -- samo jedan mali test isprobajte ga na žurkama. Ovdje na TEDu ima dosta dobrih prilika. Harvard Business Review je skoro objavio članak nazvan "Ljudski moment", o tome kako se uspostavlja pravi kontakt sa osobom na poslu. I oni kažu da je fundamentalna stvar koju treba da uradite je da isključite BlackBerry, zatvorite laptop, probudite se iz sanjarenja i posvetite pažnju osobi. Pojavila se u engleskom jeziku nova kovanica za trenutak kad osoba sa kojom smo isuče BlackBerry ili se javi na telefon, i kada iznenada nestanemo. Riječ je "pizzled": kombinacija "pizzled" i "pissed off".
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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.
Mislim da je prilično dobar termin. Naša empatija je ono što nas razdvaja od Makijavelista i sociopata. Moj zet je ekspert u hororu i teroru -- napisao je Anotiranog Drakulu, Osnove Frankenštajna -- odrastao je na Chauceru, ali je rođen u Transilvaniji i mislim da je to malo uticalo na njega. U svakom slučaju, u jednom trenutku, moj zet Leonard je odlučio da napiše knjigu o serijskom ubici. Ovo je čovjek koji je terorisao u neposrednoj nam blizini prije mnogo godina. Bio je poznat kao Davitelj iz Santa Cruza. I prije no je uhapšen, ubio je svoju babu, svog dedu, majku i pet kolega na 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.
Moj brat ode da intervjuiše ovog ubicu i shvati, kad ga je upoznao da je ovaj lik apsolutno zastrašujući. Za početak čovjek ima preko dva metra. Ali ovo nije najstrašnija stvar na njemu. Najstrašnije je to što je njegov IQ 160: potvrđeni genije. Ali nema korelacije između inteligencije i emocionalne empatije, saosjećanja sa drugima. Oni se nalaze u različitim djelovima mozga.
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."
U jednom trenutku, moj zet skupi snagu da pita jedno pitanje koje ga je zaista interesovalo. A to je: "Kako si mogao?" "Osjećaš li imalo sažaljenja prema svojim žrtvama?" Davitelji su veoma intimne ubice. I davitelj odgovara, vrlo činjenično, "O, ne. Da sam osjetio bol ne bih mogao to da učinim. Morao sam taj dio da isključim. Morao sam taj dio da isključim."
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.
Mislim da je to veoma zabrinjavajuće. U neku ruku, razmišljao sam o tome kako i mi to činimo. Kada se preokupiramo sobom u nekoj aktivnosti, mi zaista isključujemo taj dio ako postoji druga osoba. Razmišljajte o odlasku u trgovinu i mislite o mogućnosti saosjećajnog potrošača. Sada, kako je BIll McDonough pokazao, stvari koje kupujemo imaju skrivene konsekvence. Svi mi smo nenamjerne žrtve kolektivne slijepe mrlje. Ne primjećujemo i ne primjećujemo da ne primjećujemo toksične molekulie koje ispušta tepih ili presvlake na sjedištima. Ili ne znamo je li ta tkanina tehnološki ili fabrički nutrijent; može li se ponovo iskoristiti ili završi na deponijama? Drugačije rečeno, ne razmišljamo o ekološkom i javnom zdravlju i društveno-ekonomskim posljedicama stvari koje kupujemo. U neku ruku, sama soba je slon u sobi, ali mi ga ne vidimo. I postajemo žrtve sistema koji nas upućuje na pogrešnu stranu. Razmislite o ovom.
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?
Ima jedna divna knjiga koja se zove Stvari: Skriveni život svakodnevnih objekata. Ov knjiga govori o priči koja stoji iza nečega kao što je majica. Govori o tome gdje je uzgajan pamuk đubriva koja su korišćena i posljedice koje je imalo na zemljište. Spominje se, na primjer, da je pamuk jako otporan na tekstilne boje; oko 60 posto se ispere i ode u kanalizaciju. A poznato je mnogim epidemiolozima da djeca koja žive blizu tekstilne industrije često boluju od leukemije. Bennet and Company, koja snabdijeva Polo.com, Victoria's Secret - oni, zato što je njihov direktor, koji je svjestan ovoga, u Kini je formirao zajedničku firmu sa njihovim proizvođačima boje da se postara da njihove otpadne vode budu propisno prečišćene prije nego se vrate u rijeke. Za sada nam nije pružena mogućnost da izaberemo plemenite majice nad ne-plemenitim. Šta bi bilo potrebno da se tako nešto ostvari?
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.
Pa, razmišljao sam o tome. Kao prvo, postoji nova elektronska tehnologija taovanja koja omogućava da bilo koja radnja zna cijelu istoriju bilo kojeg artikla na rafovima. Možete da pratite prozivod do fabrike. Kada to uradite možete pogledati proces proizvodnje i ako je proces proizvodnje prihvatljiv možete je označiti kao takvu. Ako to nije slučaj možete otići -- danas, možete otići u bilo koju radnju, skenirati bar kod koji vas odvede na sajt. To već postoji za ljude sa alergijom na kikiriki. Taj sajt vam može pružiti informacije o tom objektu. Drugim riječima, na mjestu kupovine, možemo napraviti čin saosjećanja.
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.
Postoji izreka u svijetu informacionih tehnologija na kraju krajeva svi će znati sve. A pitanje je: Hoće li to promijeniti nešto? Nekada davno, kada sam radio za New York Times, bilo je to osamdesetih, napisao sam članak o tome šta je novi problem New Yorka -- to su bili beskućnici na ulicama. I proveo sam par nedjelja prateći socijalne radnike koji su pomagali beskućnicima. I shvatio sam da vidjevši te ljude njihovim očima da su većina njih psihijatrijski pacijenti koji nisu imali kuda otići. Imali su dijagnozu. To me je probudilo iz urbanog transa u kojem sam se nalazio, kada vidimo u prolazu nekoga koje beskućnik ono što je u periferalnom vidu ostaje tamo. Ne primjećujemo i stoga ne djelamo.
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.
Nekoliko dana kasnije -- bio je petak -- na kraju dana, sišao sam u metro. Bio je špic hiljade ljudi je jurilo niz stepenice. Iznenada, dok sam silazio niz stepenice primijetio sam čovjeka onesviješćenog po strani, bez majice, bez pokreta, i ljude koji su ga naprosto gazili -- stotine i stotine ljudi. I pošto je moj gradski trans bio malčiče oslabljen, zastao sam da pomognem. Čim sam stao još desetak drugih ljudi priteklo je u pomoć Saznali smo da je Hispano, nije govorio engleski, nije imao para, lutao je ulicama danima, gladujući, i onesvijestio se od gladi. Istog trenutka neko je otišao da donese sok, neko je kupio hot dog, a neko je doveo policajca na dužnosti. Čovjek je bio na nogama u istom trenutku. A sve što je bilo potrebno je primijetiti. I zato sam optimističan.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam puno.
(Applause)
(aplauz)