Goeie môre. Hoe gaan dit? (Gelag)
Good morning. How are you? (Audience) Good.
Dis fantasties sover, of hoe? Die hele ding het my stomgeslaan. Eintlik is ek op pad. (Gelag)
It's been great, hasn't it? I've been blown away by the whole thing. In fact, I'm leaving. (Laughter)
Daar was drie temas sover, deur die konferensie, wat betrekking het op my praatjie. Een is die ongelooflike bewyse van menslike kreatiwiteit in al die aanbiedings en in al die mense hier. Net die blote verskeidenheid en omvang daarvan. Tweedens is ons op ’n plek waar ons geen idee het wat gaan gebeur nie, ten opsigte van die toekoms. Geen idee hoe dinge dalk sal verloop nie.
There have been three themes running through the conference, which are relevant to what I want to talk about. One is the extraordinary evidence of human creativity in all of the presentations that we've had and in all of the people here; just the variety of it and the range of it. The second is that it's put us in a place where we have no idea what's going to happen in terms of the future. No idea how this may play out.
Ek't ’n belang by opvoedkunde. Eintlik het ons almal ’n belang by opvoedkunde. Het julle nie? Dis baie interessant. As jy by ’n ete is, en jy sê jy werk in opvoedkunde -- eintlik, om die waarheid te sê, is jy nie gereeld by etes nie. (Gelag) As jy in opvoedkunde werk, word jy nie genooi nie. (Gelag) En jy word nooit teruggenooi nie, snaaks genoeg. Dis vir my vreemd. Maar as jy is, en iemand vra: "Wat doen jy vir ’n lewe?" en jy sê jy werk in opvoedkunde, sien jy hoe hulle verbleek. Hulle's soos: "Aggenee, hoekom ek?" (Gelag) "My een aand uit hierdie hele week." (Gelag)
I have an interest in education. Actually, what I find is, everybody has an interest in education. Don't you? I find this very interesting. If you're at a dinner party, and you say you work in education -- actually, you're not often at dinner parties, frankly. (Laughter) If you work in education, you're not asked. (Laughter) And you're never asked back, curiously. That's strange to me. But if you are, and you say to somebody, you know, they say, "What do you do?" and you say you work in education, you can see the blood run from their face. They're like, "Oh my God. Why me?" (Laughter) "My one night out all week." (Laughter)
Maar as jy iemand vra oor hulle opvoeding, druk hulle jou in ’n hoek vas. Want dis een van daai dinge wat mense na aan die hart lê, is ek reg? Soos geloof, en geld en ander dinge. Ek't ’n groot belang by opvoedkunde en ek dink ons almal het -- ’n groot persoonlike belang -- deels omdat dit opvoeding is wat ons in hierdie onbegryplike toekoms moet in neem. Dink net, kinders wat dié jaar skool begin tree af in 2065. Niemand het ’n idee -- ten spyte van al die kennis wat die laaste vier dae hier vertoon is -- hoe die wêreld gaan lyk oor vyf jaar nie. En tog moet ons hulle daarvoor opvoed. So die onvoorspelbaarheid is ongelooflik.
But if you ask about their education, they pin you to the wall, because it's one of those things that goes deep with people, am I right? Like religion and money and other things. So I have a big interest in education, and I think we all do. We have a huge vested interest in it, partly because it's education that's meant to take us into this future that we can't grasp. If you think of it, children starting school this year will be retiring in 2065. Nobody has a clue, despite all the expertise that's been on parade for the past four days, what the world will look like in five years' time. And yet, we're meant to be educating them for it. So the unpredictability, I think, is extraordinary.
En die derde deel is dat ons almal nietemin saamgestem het oor die werklik buitengewone kapasiteite wat kinders het -- hulle kapasiteite vir innovasie. Sirena gisteraand was ongelooflik. Net om te sien wat sy kan doen. En sy's uitsonderlik, maar ek dink nie sy's uitsonderlik in die geheel van kindwees nie. Sy's ’n buitengewoon toegewyde persoon wat ’n talent gevind het. Ek voer aan dat alle kinders geweldige talente het. En ons vermors dit, nogal meedoënloos.
And the third part of this is that we've all agreed, nonetheless, on the really extraordinary capacities that children have -- their capacities for innovation. I mean, Sirena last night was a marvel, wasn't she? Just seeing what she could do. And she's exceptional, but I think she's not, so to speak, exceptional in the whole of childhood. What you have there is a person of extraordinary dedication who found a talent. And my contention is, all kids have tremendous talents, and we squander them, pretty ruthlessly.
So ek wil praat oor opvoedkunde en ek wil praat oor kreatiwiteit. Kreatiwiteit is nou net so belangrik soos geletterheid in opvoeding en ons moet dit dieselfde status toeken. (Applous) Dankie.
So I want to talk about education, and I want to talk about creativity. My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status. (Applause)
(Applous)
Thank you. (Applause)
Dit was dit, terloops. Baie dankie. (Gelag)
That was it, by the way. Thank you very much. (Laughter)
So, nog 15 minute. (Gelag)
So, 15 minutes left. (Laughter)
Wel, ek is gebore... nee. (Gelag)
"Well, I was born ... " (Laughter)
Ek't onlangs ’n storie gehoor -- ek vertel dit graag -- van ’n dogtertjie in ’n tekenklas. Sy was ses, agter in die klas, aan't teken, en die juffrou het gesê dié kind het omtrent nooit aandag gegee nie, maar in dié tekenklas het sy. Die juffrou was gefassineerd. Sy't haar gaan vra: "Wat teken jy?" Die kind sê toe: "Ek teken ’n prentjie van God." En die juffrou sê: "Maar niemand weet hoe God lyk nie." En die dogtertjie sê toe: "Hulle sal nou-nou." (Gelag)
I heard a great story recently -- I love telling it -- of a little girl who was in a drawing lesson. She was six, and she was at the back, drawing, and the teacher said this girl hardly ever paid attention, and in this drawing lesson, she did. The teacher was fascinated. She went over to her, and she said, "What are you drawing?" And the girl said, "I'm drawing a picture of God." And the teacher said, "But nobody knows what God looks like." And the girl said, "They will in a minute." (Laughter)
Toe my seun vier was in Engeland -- eintlik was hy eerlikwaar oral vier. (Gelag) Strenggesproke, waarookal hy gegaan het, was hy vier daai jaar. Hy was in die Kersspel. Onthou julle die storie? (Gelag) Dit was ’n grote. Mel Gibson het die opvolg gedoen. (Gelag) "Kersspel II." James was Josef; ons was in ons noppies. Een van die hoofrolle! Ons't agente met T-hemde gehad: "James Robinson IS Josef!" (Gelag) Hy moes niks sê nie, maar julle weet mos, wanneer die drie wyse manne inkom? Hulle bring goud, wierook [frankincense] en mirre. Dit het rêrig gebeur. Ek dink hulle't net uit beurt uit gegaan, want ons't die seuntjie later gevra: "Was jy OK daarmee?" En hy't gesê: "Ja. Was dit dan verkeerd?" Hulle't net geruil. Die drie seuns kom in -- vierjariges met vatdoeke om hulle koppe -- en hulle sit die bokse neer, en die eerste een sê: "Ek bring vir U goud." Die tweede een sê: "Ek bring vir U mirre." En die derde een sê: "Frank sent this." (Gelag) (Gelag)
When my son was four in England -- actually, he was four everywhere, to be honest. (Laughter) If we're being strict about it, wherever he went, he was four that year. He was in the Nativity play. Do you remember the story? (Laughter) No, it was big, it was a big story. Mel Gibson did the sequel, you may have seen it. (Laughter) "Nativity II." But James got the part of Joseph, which we were thrilled about. We considered this to be one of the lead parts. We had the place crammed full of agents in T-shirts: "James Robinson IS Joseph!" (Laughter) He didn't have to speak, but you know the bit where the three kings come in? They come in bearing gifts, gold, frankincense and myrrh. This really happened. We were sitting there, and I think they just went out of sequence, because we talked to the little boy afterward and said, "You OK with that?" They said, "Yeah, why? Was that wrong?" They just switched. The three boys came in, four-year-olds with tea towels on their heads. They put these boxes down, and the first boy said, "I bring you gold." And the second boy said, "I bring you myrrh." And the third boy said, "Frank sent this." (Laughter)
Dit alles om te sê: kinders sal ’n kans vat. As hulle nie weet nie, sal hulle probeer. Nie waar nie? Hulle's nie bang om verkeerd te wees nie. Ek bedoel nie dat verkeerd wees en kreatief wees dieselfde is nie. Maar as jy nie bereid is om verkeerd te wees nie, sal jy nooit iets oorspronklik uitdink nie -- as jy nie bereid is om verkeerd te wees nie. Teen die tyd wat hulle groot is, het meeste kinders dié kapasiteit verloor. Hulle word bang om verkeerd te wees. En ons bestuur ons maatskappye so. Ons stigmatiseer foute. En nou bedryf ons nasionale opvoedingstelsels waar foute die ergste ding is wat ’n mens kan maak. En die gevolg is dat ons mense uit hulle kreatiewe kapasiteite uit opvoed.
What these things have in common is that kids will take a chance. If they don't know, they'll have a go. Am I right? They're not frightened of being wrong. I don't mean to say that being wrong is the same thing as being creative. What we do know is, if you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original -- if you're not prepared to be wrong. And by the time they get to be adults, most kids have lost that capacity. They have become frightened of being wrong. And we run our companies like this. We stigmatize mistakes. And we're now running national education systems where mistakes are the worst thing you can make. And the result is that we are educating people out of their creative capacities.
Picasso het gesê dat alle kinders gebore kunstenaars is. Die probleem is om een te bly soos ons grootword. Ek glo vas: Ons groei nie in kreatiwiteit in nie, ons groei uit dit uit. Of ons word uit dit uit opgevoed. So hoekom is dit so?
Picasso once said this, he said that all children are born artists. The problem is to remain an artist as we grow up. I believe this passionately, that we don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it. Or rather, we get educated out of it. So why is this?
Ek't tot vyf jaar gelede op Stratford-op-Avon gewoon. Ons't van Stratford na Los Angeles getrek. So julle kan julle indink wat ’n seepgladde oorgang dit was. (Gelag) Eintlik het ons in Snitterfield gewoon, net buite Stratford, en dis waar Shakespeare se pa gebore is. Is julle getref deur ’n nuwe gedagte? Ek is. Mens dink nie aan Shakespeare as iemand met ’n pa nie. Want mens dink nie aan Shakespeare as ’n kind nie. Shakespeare op sewe? Nooit nie. Hy was tog op ’n kol sewe. In iemand se Engelse klas. (Gelag) Hoe irriterend moet dit nie wees nie? (Gelag) "Moet harder probeer." (Gelag) Word bed toe gestuur deur sy pa, "Klim in die bed, nou! "Een sit neer daai potlood." (Gelag) "En hou op om so te praat." (Gelag) "Dit verwar almal." (Gelag)
I lived in Stratford-on-Avon until about five years ago. In fact, we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles. So you can imagine what a seamless transition this was. (Laughter) Actually, we lived in a place called Snitterfield, just outside Stratford, which is where Shakespeare's father was born. Are you struck by a new thought? I was. You don't think of Shakespeare having a father, do you? Do you? Because you don't think of Shakespeare being a child, do you? Shakespeare being seven? I never thought of it. I mean, he was seven at some point. He was in somebody's English class, wasn't he? (Laughter) How annoying would that be? (Laughter) "Must try harder." (Laughter) Being sent to bed by his dad, to Shakespeare, "Go to bed, now!" To William Shakespeare. "And put the pencil down!" (Laughter) "And stop speaking like that." (Laughter) "It's confusing everybody." (Laughter)
In elk geval, ons't getrek van Statford na Los Angeles, en ek wil net iets sê oor die oorgang. My seun wou nie kom nie. Ek't twee kinders. Hy's nou 21; my dogter is 16. Hy wou nie Los Angeles toe kom nie. Hy was mal daaroor, maar hy't ’n meisie in Engeland gehad. Die liefde van sy lewe, Sarah. Hy't haar al ’n maand geken. (Gelag) Maar hulle't al vier herdenkings gevier, want dis ’n lang tyd op 16. Hy was ontsteld op die vlug, hy't gesê: "Ek sal nooit weer ’n meisie soos Sarah kry nie." Ons was nogals opgemaak daaroor, om die waarheid te sê -- (Gelag) Sy was die hoofrede hoekom ons landuit is. (Gelag)
Anyway, we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles, and I just want to say a word about the transition. Actually, my son didn't want to come. I've got two kids; he's 21 now, my daughter's 16. He didn't want to come to Los Angeles. He loved it, but he had a girlfriend in England. This was the love of his life, Sarah. He'd known her for a month. (Laughter) Mind you, they'd had their fourth anniversary, because it's a long time when you're 16. He was really upset on the plane. He said, "I'll never find another girl like Sarah." And we were rather pleased about that, frankly -- (Laughter) because she was the main reason we were leaving the country. (Laughter)
Maar iets tref jou wanneer jy Amerika toe trek en om die wêreld reis: Elke opvoedingstelsel op aarde het dieselfde hiërargie van vakke. Elke een. Jy sou dink dis anders, maar nee. Heel bo is wiskunde en tale, dan die wysbegeerte, en heel onder is die kunste. Orals op aarde. En in min of meer elke stelsel is daar ook ’n hiërargie binne die kunste Kuns en musiek kry gewoonlik ’n hoër status in skole as drama en dans. Daar's geen opvoedingstelsel wat dans elke dag vir kinders leer soos ons vir hulle wiskunde leer nie. Hoekom? Hoekom nie? Ek dink dis nogal belangrik. Wiskunde is belangrik, maar dans is ook. Kinders dans baie as hulle mag, ons almal doen dit. Ons het almal liggame, of hoe? Het ek ’n vergadering misgeloop? (Gelag)
But something strikes you when you move to America and travel around the world: every education system on earth has the same hierarchy of subjects. Every one. Doesn't matter where you go. You'd think it would be otherwise, but it isn't. At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities. At the bottom are the arts. Everywhere on earth. And in pretty much every system, too, there's a hierarchy within the arts. Art and music are normally given a higher status in schools than drama and dance. There isn't an education system on the planet that teaches dance every day to children the way we teach them mathematics. Why? Why not? I think this is rather important. I think math is very important, but so is dance. Children dance all the time if they're allowed to, we all do. We all have bodies, don't we? Did I miss a meeting? (Laughter)
Wat waarlik gebeur is, soos kinders grootword, begin ons hulle geleidelik van die middellyf af boontoe opvoed. En dan fokus ons op hulle koppe. En effens na een kant toe.
Truthfully, what happens is, as children grow up, we start to educate them progressively from the waist up. And then we focus on their heads. And slightly to one side.
As jy opvoeding sou besoek, as ’n ruimtewese, en sê: "Waarvoor is openbare opvoeding?" sou jy moes aflei -- as jy kyk na die uitset, wie behaal sukses hierdeur, wie doen alles wat hulle moet, wie kry al die "brownie points", wie is die wenners -- sou jy moes aflei dat die hele doel van openbare opvoeding regoor die wêreld is om universiteitsprofessors te lewer. Of hoe? Hulle's die mense wat bo uitkom. En ek was een, so vat so. (Gelag) En ek hou van hulle, maar julle weet, ons moet hulle nie as die hoogtepunt van alle prestasie voorhou nie. Hulle's net ’n vorm van lewe, nog ’n vorm van lewe. Maar hulle's nogal vreemd, en ek sê dit uit toegeneentheid. Daar's iets vreemd omtrent hulle in my ervaring -- nie almal nie, maar tipies, lewe hulle in hul koppe. Hulle lewe daar bo, en effens na een kant toe. Hulle's ontliggaam, julle weet, op ’n soortvan letterlike manier. Hulle sien hul liggame as ’n vervoermiddel vir hul koppe. (Gelag) Of hoe? Dis ’n manier om hulle koppe by vergaderings te kry. (Gelag)
If you were to visit education as an alien and say "What's it for, public education?" I think you'd have to conclude, if you look at the output, who really succeeds by this, who does everything they should, who gets all the brownie points, who are the winners -- I think you'd have to conclude the whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors. Isn't it? They're the people who come out the top. And I used to be one, so there. (Laughter) And I like university professors, but, you know, we shouldn't hold them up as the high-water mark of all human achievement. They're just a form of life. Another form of life. But they're rather curious. And I say this out of affection for them: there's something curious about professors. In my experience -- not all of them, but typically -- they live in their heads. They live up there and slightly to one side. They're disembodied, you know, in a kind of literal way. They look upon their body as a form of transport for their heads. (Laughter) Don't they? It's a way of getting their head to meetings. (Laughter)
As julle ware bewys soek van buiteliggaamlike ervarings, besoek ’n residensiële konferensie van senior akademici, en maak ’n draai by die sokkie op die laaste aand. (Gelag) En daar sal julle dit sien. Volwasse mans en vroue wat ritmeloos wriemel. (Gelag) In afwagting van die einde om tuis ’n artikel daaroor te gaan skryf. (Gelag)
If you want real evidence of out-of-body experiences, by the way, get yourself along to a residential conference of senior academics and pop into the discotheque on the final night. (Laughter) And there, you will see it. Grown men and women writhing uncontrollably, off the beat. (Laughter) Waiting until it ends, so they can go home and write a paper about it. (Laughter)
Ons opvoedingstelsel berus op die idee van akademiese vaardigheid. En daar's ’n rede daarvoor. Regoor die wêreld was daar geen openbare opvoedingstelsels voor die 19de eeu nie. Hulle't almal moes in die behoeftes van industrialisme voorsien. Die hierargie is gewortel in twee idees.
Our education system is predicated on the idea of academic ability. And there's a reason. Around the world, there were no public systems of education, really, before the 19th century. They all came into being to meet the needs of industrialism. So the hierarchy is rooted on two ideas.
Een, dat die mees nuttige vakke vir werk heel bo is. So op skool is jy waarskynlik goedgunstiglik van goed waarvan jy gehou het weggestuur, op grond daarvan dat jy nooit ’n werk daardeur sou kry nie. Nè? Nie musiek nie, jy sal nie ’n musikant word nie; nie kuns nie, jy sal nie ’n kunstenaar word nie. Goedgunstige advies -- nou, uiters verkeerd. Die hele wêreld is verswelg in ’n rewolusie.
Number one, that the most useful subjects for work are at the top. So you were probably steered benignly away from things at school when you were a kid, things you liked, on the grounds you would never get a job doing that. Is that right? "Don't do music, you're not going to be a musician; don't do art, you won't be an artist." Benign advice -- now, profoundly mistaken. The whole world is engulfed in a revolution.
En die tweede is akademiese vaardigheid, wat ons idee van intelligensie oorskadu, omdat die universiteite die stelsel na hul eie beeld ontwerp het. Die hele stelsel regoor die wêreld is ’n uitgerekte proses van universiteitstoelating. En die gevolg is dat baie uiters talentvolle, briljante, kreatiewe mense dink dat hulle nie is nie, omdat dit waarin hulle goed was op skool nie waardeer is nie, of selfs gestigmatiseer is. En ons kan bekostig om so voort te gaan nie.
And the second is academic ability, which has really come to dominate our view of intelligence, because the universities design the system in their image. If you think of it, the whole system of public education around the world is a protracted process of university entrance. And the consequence is that many highly talented, brilliant, creative people think they're not, because the thing they were good at at school wasn't valued, or was actually stigmatized. And I think we can't afford to go on that way.
In die volgende 30 jaar, volgens UNESCO, gaan meer mense wêreldwyd deur opvoeding gradueer as sedert die begin van geskiedenis. En dis die kombinasie van al ons temas -- tegnologie en hoe dit werk getransformeer het, en demografie en die massiewe bevolkingsontploffing.
In the next 30 years, according to UNESCO, more people worldwide will be graduating through education than since the beginning of history. More people. And it's the combination of all the things we've talked about: technology and its transformational effect on work,
Skielik is grade niks werd nie.
and demography and the huge explosion in population.
Nie waar nie? Toe ek ’n student was, het jy met ’n graad ’n werk gehad. As jy nie ’n werk gehad het nie, wou jy nie een hê nie. En ek wou nie een hê nie, om die waarheid te sê. (Gelag) Maar deesdae is kinders met grade gereeld oppad huis toe om verder te gaan TV speletjies speel, omdat jy ’n MA nodig het waar ’n BA voorheen voldoende was, en ’n PhD vir die volgende een. Dis ’n proses van akademiese inflasie. Die hele struktuur van opvoeding is besig om onder ons te skuif. Ons moet ons siening van intelligensie hersien.
Suddenly, degrees aren't worth anything. Isn't that true? When I was a student, if you had a degree, you had a job. If you didn't have a job, it's because you didn't want one. And I didn't want one, frankly. (Laughter) But now kids with degrees are often heading home to carry on playing video games, because you need an MA where the previous job required a BA, and now you need a PhD for the other. It's a process of academic inflation. And it indicates the whole structure of education is shifting beneath our feet. We need to radically rethink our view of intelligence.
Ons weet drie dinge. Een, dis divers. Ons dink oor die wêreld op al die maniere wat ons dit ervaar. Ons dink visueel, ons dink in klank, ons dink kineties. Ons dink in abstrakte terme, ons dink in beweging. Tweedens, intelligensie is dinamies. Kyk na die interaksies van ’n menslike brein: soos ons gister tydens heelwat aanbiedings gehoor het, is intelligensie wonderlik interaktief. Die brein is nie opgedeel in kompartemente nie. Inderwaarheid, is kreatiwiteit -- wat ek definieer as die proses van oorspronklike idees met waarde hê -- gewoonlik iets wat gebeur deur die interaksie van verskillende maniere van dinge sien.
We know three things about intelligence. One, it's diverse. We think about the world in all the ways that we experience it. We think visually, we think in sound, we think kinesthetically. We think in abstract terms, we think in movement. Secondly, intelligence is dynamic. If you look at the interactions of a human brain, as we heard yesterday from a number of presentations, intelligence is wonderfully interactive. The brain isn't divided into compartments. In fact, creativity -- which I define as the process of having original ideas that have value -- more often than not comes about through the interaction of different disciplinary ways of seeing things.
Daar's ’n senuweebundel wat die twee helftes van die brein verbind: die corpus callosum. Dis dikker by vroue. Om aan te sluit by Helen gister: Dis waarskynlik hoekom vroue beter is met "multi-tasking". Want julle is mos, nè? Daar's baie navorsing, maar ek ervaar dit persoonlik. As my vrou tuis iets kook -- nie gereeld nie, dankie tog. (Gelag) Nee, sy het talente -- maar as sy kook, hanteer sy foonoproepe, praat sy met die kinders, verf sy die plafon. Sy doen ’n oophart-operasie hier. As ek kook, is die deur toe, die kinders is uit, die foon is op die mik, as sy inkom raak ek geïrriteerd. Ek sê: "Terry, asseblief, ek probeer ’n eier bak hier." (Gelag) "Gee my tog ’n kans." (Gelag)
By the way, there's a shaft of nerves that joins the two halves of the brain, called the corpus callosum. It's thicker in women. Following off from Helen yesterday, this is probably why women are better at multitasking. Because you are, aren't you? There's a raft of research, but I know it from my personal life. If my wife is cooking a meal at home, which is not often ... thankfully. (Laughter) No, she's good at some things. But if she's cooking, she's dealing with people on the phone, she's talking to the kids, she's painting the ceiling -- (Laughter) she's doing open-heart surgery over here. If I'm cooking, the door is shut, the kids are out, the phone's on the hook, if she comes in, I get annoyed. I say, "Terry, please, I'm trying to fry an egg in here." (Laughter) "Give me a break." (Laughter)
Ken julle daai ou filosofiese ding, as ’n boom in die bos val en niemand hoor dit nie, het dit gebeur? Onthou julle daai ou sê-ding? Ek't onlangs ’n goeie T-hemp gesien: "As ’n man homself uitspreek in ’n bos, en geen vrou hoor hom nie, is hy steeds verkeerd?" (Gelag)
Actually, do you know that old philosophical thing, "If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears it, did it happen?" Remember that old chestnut? I saw a great T-shirt recently, which said, "If a man speaks his mind in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?" (Laughter)
En die derde ding omtrent intelligensie is, dis spesifiek. Ek skryf tans aan ’n nuwe boek -- "Epiphany" -- gebaseer op ’n reeks onderhoude met mense oor hoe hulle hul talent ontdek het. Dis fassinerend hoe mense daar uitgekom het. Dis aangespoor deur ’n gesprek met ’n wonderlike vrou wat baie mense nie ken nie, Gillian Lynne. Al gehoor? Sommige het. Sy's ’n choreograaf; almal ken haar werk. Sy't "Cats" en "Phantom of the Opera" gedoen. Sy's wonderlik. Ek was van te vore raadslid van die Koninklike Ballet, soos julle kan sien. Ek't haar eendag gevra: "Gillian, hoe't jy ’n danser geword?" Dit was interessant. Toe sy op skool was, was sy rêrig hopeloos. En die skool, in die 30's, skryf toe vir haar ouers: "Ons dink Gillian het ’n leerprobleem." Sy kon nie konsentreer nie, sy't gevroetel. Ek dink deesdae sou hulle sê sy't AGHS. Sou julle nie ook nie? Maar dit was die 1930's, en aandagafleibaarheid was nog nie ’n beskikbare kwaal nie. (Gelag) Mense was nie bewus hulle kon daaraan ly nie. (Gelag)
And the third thing about intelligence is, it's distinct. I'm doing a new book at the moment called "Epiphany," which is based on a series of interviews with people about how they discovered their talent. I'm fascinated by how people got to be there. It's really prompted by a conversation I had with a wonderful woman who maybe most people have never heard of, Gillian Lynne. Have you heard of her? Some have. She's a choreographer, and everybody knows her work. She did "Cats" and "Phantom of the Opera." She's wonderful. I used to be on the board of The Royal Ballet, as you can see. (Laughter) Gillian and I had lunch one day. I said, "How did you get to be a dancer?" It was interesting. When she was at school, she was really hopeless. And the school, in the '30s, wrote to her parents and said, "We think Gillian has a learning disorder." She couldn't concentrate; she was fidgeting. I think now they'd say she had ADHD. Wouldn't you? But this was the 1930s, and ADHD hadn't been invented at this point. It wasn't an available condition. (Laughter) People weren't aware they could have that. (Laughter)
In elk geval, sy gaan sien toe ’n spesialis. So sy's in ’n eikepaneel kamer met haar ma en sy't op ’n stoel se punt gaan sit, op haar hande vir 20 minute, terwyl die man met haar ma praat oor al die probleme wat Gillian by die skool het. Want sy't ander ontwrig; huiswerk altyd laat; ens. -- kleine kind van agt. Op die ou end, gaan sit die dokter langs Gillian en sê: "Gillian, ek't nou geluister na alles wat jou ma my vertel het, nou moet ek privaat met haar gesels. "Wag hier, ons is nou-nou terug." En hulle't haar daar gelos.
Anyway, she went to see this specialist. So, this oak-paneled room, and she was there with her mother, and she was led and sat on this chair at the end, and she sat on her hands for 20 minutes, while this man talked to her mother about all the problems Gillian was having at school, because she was disturbing people, her homework was always late, and so on. Little kid of eight. In the end, the doctor went and sat next to Gillian and said, "I've listened to all these things your mother's told me. I need to speak to her privately. Wait here. We'll be back. We won't be very long," and they went and left her.
Maar soos hulle uitgegaan het, het hy die radio op sy lessenaar aangesit. En toe hulle uit is, sê hy vir haar ma: "Hou haar net dop." En die oomblik toe hulle uit is, was sy op haar voete, bewegend op die maat van die musiek. Hulle't vir ’n paar minute gekyk en toe sê hy vir haar ma: "Mev. Lynne, Gillian is nie siek nie; sy's ’n danser. "Neem haar na ’n dansskool toe."
But as they went out of the room, he turned on the radio that was sitting on his desk. And when they got out of the room, he said to her mother, "Just stand and watch her." And the minute they left the room, she was on her feet, moving to the music. And they watched for a few minutes, and he turned to her mother and said, "Mrs. Lynne, Gillian isn't sick. She's a dancer. Take her to a dance school."
Ek vra: "En toe?" "Sy het. Ek kan nie vir jou sê hoe wonderlik dit was nie. "Ons't in ’n kamer ingeloop en dit was vol mense soos ek. "Mense wat nie kon stilsit nie. "Mense wat moes beweeg om te dink." Hulle't ballet gedoen, en tap, jazz en moderne en kontemporêre dans. Sy't vir die Koninklike Ballet oudisie gedoen; ’n solois geword; ’n wonderlike loopbaan daar gehad. Sy't gegradueer van die Koninklike Balletskool, die Gillian Lynne Dance Company gestig, en Andrew Lloyd Weber ontmoet. Sy's verantwoordelik vir van die suksesvolste musikale teater produksies ooit, sy't al aan miljoene plesier gegee, en sy's ’n multi-millionêr. Iemand anders het haar dalk op medikasie gesit en gesê om te kalmeer. (Applous)
I said, "What happened?" She said, "She did. I can't tell you how wonderful it was. We walked in this room, and it was full of people like me -- people who couldn't sit still, people who had to move to think." Who had to move to think. They did ballet, they did tap, jazz; they did modern; they did contemporary. She was eventually auditioned for the Royal Ballet School. She became a soloist; she had a wonderful career at the Royal Ballet. She eventually graduated from the Royal Ballet School, founded the Gillian Lynne Dance Company, met Andrew Lloyd Webber. She's been responsible for some of the most successful musical theater productions in history, she's given pleasure to millions, and she's a multimillionaire. Somebody else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down. (Applause)
Waarop dit neerkom is dit: Al Gore het die ander aand gepraat oor ekologie en die rewolusie wat ontketen is deur Rachel Carson. Ek glo ons enigste hoop vir die toekoms is om ’n nuwe idee van menslike ekologie aan te neem, een waarin ons begin om ons konsep van menslike kapasiteit se rykdom te hersien. Ons opvoedingstelsel het ons breine gemyn soos ons die aarde stroopmyn: vir ’n spesifieke kommoditeit. En vir die toekoms, sal dit ons nie dien nie. Ons moet die fundamentele beginsels waarmee ons ons kinders opvoed, heroorweeg.
What I think it comes to is this: Al Gore spoke the other night about ecology and the revolution that was triggered by Rachel Carson. I believe our only hope for the future is to adopt a new conception of human ecology, one in which we start to reconstitute our conception of the richness of human capacity. Our education system has mined our minds in the way that we strip-mine the earth for a particular commodity. And for the future, it won't serve us. We have to rethink the fundamental principles on which we're educating our children.
Jonas Salk het gesê: "As al die insekte van die aarde af sou verdwyn, sou alle lewe op aarde binne 50 jaar uitsterf. "As al die mense van die aarde af sou verdwyn, sou alle vorms van lewe binne 50 jaar floreer." En hy's reg.
There was a wonderful quote by Jonas Salk, who said, "If all the insects were to disappear from the Earth, within 50 years, all life on Earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the Earth, within 50 years, all forms of life would flourish." And he's right.
Wat TED vier is die skat van die menselike verbeeldingsin. Ons moet nou versigtig wees dat ons dit met wysheid gebruik en dat ons van die senarios vermy waaroor ons gepraat het. En die enigste manier is om ons kreatiewe kapasiteite te sien vir die rykdom wat hulle is en ons kinders te sien vir die hoop wat hulle is. Ons opdrag is om hulle hele wese op te voed, om hierdie toekoms te kan trotseer. Ons sien dalk nie hierdie toekoms nie, maar hulle sal. En ons plig is om hulle te help om iets daarvan te maak.
What TED celebrates is the gift of the human imagination. We have to be careful now that we use this gift wisely, and that we avert some of the scenarios that we've talked about. And the only way we'll do it is by seeing our creative capacities for the richness they are and seeing our children for the hope that they are. And our task is to educate their whole being, so they can face this future. By the way -- we may not see this future, but they will. And our job is to help them make something of it.
Baie dankie.
Thank you very much.
(Applous)
(Applause)