Godmorgen. Hvordan har I det? Det har været fantastisk, har det ikke?
Good morning. How are you?
Jeg er helt overvældet af det hele. Faktisk, så går jeg nu. (Latter) Der har været tre temaer, ikke sandt, igennem hele konferencen, som er relevante for det jeg gerne vil tale om. Et af dem er de fantastiske beviser på menneskelig kreativitet i alle de præsentationer vi har set og fra alle folk her. Alene omfanget af det og bredden. Det andet er, at det sætter os i en position, hvor vi slet ikke har nogen ide om, hvad der kommer til at ske i forhold til fremtiden. Ingen ide om hvordan det her kommer til at ske.
(Audience) Good. It's been great, hasn't it? I've been blown away by the whole thing. In fact, I'm leaving. (Laughter) 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.
Jeg er interesseret i uddannelse -- det vil sige, mit indtryk er, at alle har en interesse i uddannelse. Er I ikke enige? Det synes jeg er meget interessant. Hvis du er til et middagsselskab, og du siger at du arbejder inden for uddannelse -- det vil sige, du er ikke så tit til middagsselskaber, hvis vi skal være helt ærlige, hvis du arbejder inden for uddannelse.
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.
(Latter) Du bliver ikke inviteret. Og du bliver aldrig inviteret igen, mærkelig nok. Det synes jeg er underligt. Men hvis du er, og du fortæller nogen, du ved, de spørger, "Hvad arbejder du med?" og du siger, at du arbejder inden for uddannelse, kan du se blodet forsvinde fra deres ansigt. De tænker, "Åh gud," du ved, "Hvorfor mig? Den ene aften i ugen jeg er i byen." (Latter)
(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)
Men hvis du spørger om deres uddannelse, så skal du bare se. Det er nemlig en af de ting, der virkelig betyder noget for folk, er det ikke rigtigt? Ligesom religion, og penge og andre ting. Jeg er meget interesset i uddannelse, og det tror jeg vi allesammen er. Det er i virkeligheden i vores egen interesse, dels for det er uddannelse som skal forestille at føre os ind i den fremtid, som vi dårligt kan forstå. Hvis du tænker over det, så vil børn, der starter i skolen i år, blive pensioneret i 2065. Der er ingen der aner -- på trods af al den ekspertise, som er blevet vist frem de sidste fire dage -- hvordan verden kommer til at se ud om bare fem år. Og alligevel skal vi uddanne dem til det. Så uforudsigeligheden, mener jeg, er helt utrolig.
"My one night out all week." (Laughter) 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.
Og for det tredje, så så er vi allesammen enige om, uanset hvad, at børnene har en ufattelig evne -- en evne for innovation. Jeg mener, Sirena var i går aftes helt vidunderlig, var hun ikke? Bare det at se hvad hun kunne. Og hun er er exceptionel, men jeg tror ikke hun er, så at sige, exceptionel i hele sin barndom. Det er en person med en ekstraordinær dedikation som har fundet et talent. Og mit postulat er, at børn har utrolige talenter. Og vi spilder dem, ganske tankeløst. Så jeg vil gerne tale om uddannelse og jeg vil gerne tale om kreativitet. Mit postulat er, at kreativitet er lige så vigtigt i uddannelse som stavning, og vi burde behandle det tilsvarende. (Bifald) Tak. Det var det i øvrigt det hele.
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 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)
Thank you.
Mange tak skal I have. (Latter) Okay, 15 minutter tilbage.
(Applause) That was it, by the way. Thank you very much.
Altså, jeg blev født -- nej. (Latter)
(Laughter) So, 15 minutes left.
(Laughter)
"Well, I was born ... "
Jeg hørte for nyligt en sjov historie -- jeg elsker at fortælle det her -- om en lille pige, som var til tegneundervisning. Hun var seks år og hun sad nede bagerst og tegnede, og læreren fortalte, at denne lille pige næsten aldrig fulgte med, men i denne time gjorde hun. Læreren var fascineret, og gik over til hende og spurgte, "Hvad tegner du?" Pigen svarede, "Jeg tegner Gud." Og læreren spurgte, "Men der er jo ingen der ved, hvordan Gud ser ud?" Pigen svarede, "Det gør de om lidt." (Latter)
(Laughter) 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)
Da min søn var fire i England -- det vil sige, han var fire overalt, hvis jeg skal være helt ærlig. (Latter) Teknisk set var han, uanset hvor han befandt, fire år gammel det år. Han var med i et krybbespil. Kan I huske historien? Nej, det var stort.
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?
Det var en stor historie. Mel Gibson lavede efterfølgeren. I har måske set den: "Krybbespil II." Men James havde rollen som Joseph,
(Laughter) No, it was big, it was a big story. Mel Gibson did the sequel, you may have seen it.
(Laughter)
hvilket vi var henrykte over. Vi betragtede det som en af de ledende roller. Vi havde fyldt stedet med agenter i T-shirts: "James Robinson ER Joseph!" (Latter) Han havde ikke nogen replikker, men I ved der hvor de tre konger kommer ind. De kommer med gaver, og med guld, røgelse og myrra. Det skete virkelig. Vi sad lige der og jeg tror, at de kom lidt ud af takt, fordi vi talte med den lille dreng bagefter, og vi spurgte, "Er du okay med det?" Han svarede, "Ja, hvorfor? Var det forkert?" De byttede bare, det var det hele. Nå, men de tre drenge kom ind, fire-årige med viskestykker på hovedet, og de satte de her kasser ned, og den første dreng sagde, "Jeg kommer med guld til jer." Den anden dreng sagde, "Jeg kommer med Myrra." Og den tredje dreng sagde, "Frank sendte det her." (Latter)
"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)
Fælles for de her ting er, at børn tager gerne en chance. Selv hvis de ikke ved det, prøver de alligevel. Har jeg ret? De er ikke bange for at tage fejl. Det skal lige siges, at jeg ikke mener, at det at tage fejl, er det samme som at være kreativ. Hvad vi ved er, at hvis du ikke er forberedt på at lave fejl, kommer du aldrig til at finde på noget originalt. Hvis du ikke er klar til at lave fejl. Og når de endelig bliver voksne, har de fleste børn mistet den evne. De er blevet bange for at lave fejl. Og sådan leder vi i øvrigt vores virksomheder. Vi stigmatiserer fejl. Vi har nu uddannelsessystemer hvor det at fejle er det værste man kan gøre. Resultatet er, at vi uddanner folk ud af deres kreative evner. Picasso sagde engang: han sagde, at alle børn bliver født som kunstere. Udfordringen er, at forblive kunstner, når vi vokser op. Det er min klare holdning at vi ikke vokser ind i kreavitet, vi vokser ud af det. Eller rettere, vi bliver uddannet ud af det. Hvordan kan det være?
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 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.
Jeg boede i Stratford-on-Avon indtil for fem år siden. Faktisk så flyttede vi fra Stratford til Los Angeles. Så I kan nok forestille jer, hvordan det var en helt gnidningsfri overgang. (Latter) Faktisk
So why is this? 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.
boede vi et sted kaldet Snitterfield, lige udenfor Stratford, hvor Shakespeares far blev født. Blev I lige ramt af en ny tanke? Det blev jeg. Man tænker ikke på, at Shakespeare havde en far, gør man? Gør I? Fordi jeg tænker ikke på Shakespeare som barn, gør I? Shakespeare som syv-årig? Jeg har aldrig tænkt over det. Jeg mener, han var syv år på et tidspunkt. Han var i en eller andens engelskklasse. Hvor irriterende ville det ikke være?
(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?
(Latter) "Bør arbejde hårdere." At blive sendt i seng af sin far, I ved,
(Laughter) How annoying would that be?
(Laughter)
"Must try harder."
til Shakespeare," Gå i seng, nu," til William Shakespeare, "og læg så den blyant. Og hold op med at tale sådan. Det forvirrer alle."
(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."
(Latter)
(Laughter) "It's confusing everybody."
Nå, men vi flyttede fra Stratford til Los Angeles, og jeg vil egentlig gerne lige sige et par ord om overgangen. Min søn ville ikke med. Jeg har to børn. Han er 21 nu; min datter er 16. Han ville ikke med til Los Angeles. Han elskede tanken, men han havde en kæreste i England. Dette var hans livs store kærlighed, Sarah. Han havde kendt hende en måned. De havde haft deres fire års jubilæum,
(Laughter) 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.
fordi det er lang tid, når man er 16. Nå, men han var virkelig ophidset i flyet, og han sagde, "Jeg finder aldrig en anden pige som Sarah." Og det passede os egentlig ganske fint, hvis jeg skal være helt ærlig. fordi hun var den primære årsag til, at vi forlod landet.
(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 --
(Latter)
(Laughter) because she was the main reason we were leaving the country.
Men når man opdager noget, når man flytter til Amerika og når man rejser omkring i verden: samtlige uddannelsessystemer på jorden har det samme hierarki for uddannelsesretninger. Samtlige. Uanset hvor man tager hen. Man skulle ikke tro det, men sådan er det. Øverst at matematik og sprog, og så humaniora, og nederst er kunst. Overalt på Jorden. Og i stort set samtlige systemer, er der også et hierarki inden for kunst. Kunst og musik får normalt en højere status i skolerne, end drama og dans. Der er ikke et uddannelsessystem på planeten, hvor børn dagligt bliver undervist i dans som vi gør med matematik. Hvorfor? Hvorfor ikke? Det, tror jeg, er ganske vigtigt. Jeg tror, at matematik er meget vigtigt, men det er dans også. Børn danser konstant, hvis de får lov til det. Det gør vi allesammen. Vi har allesammen en krop, har vi ikke? Eller har jeg misforstået noget? (Latter) I virkeligheden sker der det,
(Laughter) 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?
at efterhånden som børn vokser op, begynder vi at uddanne dem i stigende grad fra taljen og op. Og derefter fokuserer vi på deres hoveder. Lidt til den ene side.
(Laughter) 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.
Hvis du besøgte uddannelse, som et rumvæsen, og spurgte, "Hvad skal uddannelse gøre godt for?" Jeg tror du ville være nødt til at konkludere -- hvis du ser på resultatet, hvem det i virkeligheden gavner, dem der gør alt hvad de får besked på, dem der får alle de gode karakterer, dem der er vinderne -- Jeg tror du ville være nødt til at konkludere, at hele formålet med offentlig uddannelse verden over er, at producere universitetsprofessorer. Er det ikke rigtigt? Det er dem, der kommer ud i toppen. Og jeg plejede at være en af dem. (Latter) Jeg kan godt lide universitetsprofessorer, men
And slightly to one side. 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)
vi bør ikke holde dem op som det ypperste mennesker kan opnå. De er bare en slags liv, en lidt anden slags liv. Men de er ganske specielle, og jeg siger dette med stor kærlighed for dem. Det er min erfaring, at der er noget specielt ved professorer -- ikke dem alle, men typisk -- de lever i deres hoved. De lever deroppe, og lidt til den ene side. De er kropsløse, I ved, på en lidt bogstavelig måde. De ser deres krop som en form for transportmiddel til deres hoved.
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.
(Latter) Det er en måde at få deres hoveder rundt til møder. Hvis I vil se ægte beviser på ud-af-kroppen oplevelser, i øvrigt, så tag til en konference for højtstående akademikere, og kig ind forbi dansegulvet den sidste aften. (Latter) Der vil I se det, voksne mænd og kvinder
(Laughter) Don't they? It's a way of getting their head to meetings. (Laughter) 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)
der vrider sig ukontrollabelt, ude af takt, mens de venter på at det stopper, så de kan tage hjem og skrive en rapport om det.
And there, you will see it. Grown men and women writhing uncontrollably, off the beat. (Laughter)
Vores uddannelsessystem er baseret på akademiske evner.
Waiting until it ends, so they can go home and write a paper about it.
Og det er der en grund til. Hele systemet blev opfundet -- der var, verden over, ikke noget offentligt uddannelsessystem før det 19. århundrede. Det blev altsammen til i takt med industrialiseringen. Så hierarkiet bygger på to ideer. Et, at de mest brugbare emner i forhold til arbejde I ting i skolen, i god tro, da I var børn. Ting I kunne lide, med argumentet, at det ville I aldrig komme til at arbejde med. Har jeg ret? Hold dig fra musik, du bliver aldrig musiker; hold dig fra kunst, du bliver aldrig en kunstner. Givet i god tro -- nu, dybt perfekt. Hele verden er i gang med en revolution. Det andet er akademiske evner, som efterhånden dominerer vores syn på intelligens, fordi universiteterne designede systemerne i deres eget billede. Hvis I tænker over det, er hele systemet med offentlig uddannelse, verden over, en lang optagelse til universiteter. Konsekvensen er, at mange talentfulde, geniale, kreative mennesker tror, at de ikke er det, fordi det de var gode til i skolen ikke blev påskønnet, eller i virkeligheden blev stigmatiseret. Jeg mener ikke, at vi har råd til at gøre det sådan.
(Laughter) 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. 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. 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.
Ifølge UNESCO vil der i løbet af de næste 30 år være flere mennesker der består en uddannelse, end der har været i hele historien. Flere mennesker, og det er kombinationen af alle de ting, vi har talt om -- teknologi og dets indvirkning på arbejde, og demografien og den store eksplosion i befolkningstal. Pludselig er diplomer ikke noget værd. Er det ikke rigtigt? Da jeg studerende var det sådan, at hvis du havde et diplom, havde du et job. Hvis du ikke havde et job, var det fordi du ikke ville have et. Og jeg ville ikke have et, for at være helt ærlig. (Latter) Men nu drager børn med diplomer ofte
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, and demography and the huge explosion in population. 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.
hjem, for at fortsætte med at spille videospil, fordi du har brug for mastergrad, hvor den tidligere stilling krævede en bachelorgrad, og nu skal du have en ph.d. for det andet. Det er akademisk inflation. Og det indikerer, at uddannelseskonstruktionen ændrer sig under os. Vi er nødt til at tænke i helt nye baner i forhold til vores syn på intelligens.
(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.
Vi ved tre ting om intelligens. Et, intelligens er fleksibelt. Vi tænker på verden på alle de måder vi oplever den. Vi tænker visuelt, vi tænker i lyd, vi tænker med hele kroppen. Vi tænker i abstrakte begreber, vi tænker i bevægelse. To, intelligens er dynamisk. Hvis du ser på interaktionerne i den menneskelige hjerne, som vi hørte om i går fra flere talere, intelligens er vidunderligt interaktiv. Hjernen er ikke delt ind i afdelinger. Faktisk er kreativitet -- hvilket jeg definerer som det at få en original idea af værdi -- som regel noget der kommer via interaktion med forskellige måder at se ting på.
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.
Hjernen er bevidst -- der er i øvrigt en samling af nerver, som samler de to hjernehalvdele, kaldet corpus callosum. Den er tykkere hos kvinder. I forlængelse af Helen i går, tror jeg, at det formentlig er derfor kvinder er bedre til at multi-taske. Fordi det er I, er I ikke? Der er en masse research, men jeg ved det fra mit eget liv. Hvis min kone er i gang med at lave mad derhjemme -- hvilket heldigvis ikke sker så tit, gudskelov. (Latter) Men I ved, hun er i gang -- nej, hun er faktisk god til nogle ting -- men hvis hun laver mad,
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)
er hun igang med at tale i telefon, hun taler med børnene, maler loftet, laver hjertekirurgi herovre. Hvis jeg laver mad, er døren lukket, ungerne er ude, telefonstikket er trukket ud. Hvis hun kommer ind, bliver jeg irriteret. Jeg siger, "Terry, helt ærligt, jeg er lige ved at stege et æg. Prøv lige at giv mig lidt plads." (Latter)
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)
I kender den der gamle filosofiske ting, når et træ falder i skoven, og der ikke er nogen der hører det, skete det så overhovedet? Kan I huske den gamle kending? Jeg så en t-shirt for kort tid siden, hvor der stod, "Hvis en mand siger sin mening i en skov, og ingen kvinde hører hvad han siger, tager han så stadig fejl?" (Latter)
"Give me a break." (Laughter) 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)
Den tredje ting ved intelligens er, at det er tydeligt. Jeg er i gang med at skrive en ny bog for tiden med titlen "Åbenbaring," som er baseret på en række interviews med folk, om hvordan de har opdaget deres talent. Jeg er fascineret af, hvordan folk kom frem til det. Det startede i virkeligheden med en samtale jeg havde med en vidunderlig kvinde, som de færreste formentlig har hørt om. Hun hedder Gillian Lynne. Kender I hende? Nogle gør. Hun er koreograf og alle kender det hun har lavet. Hun har lavet "Cat," og "Phantom of the Opera." Hun er vidunderlig. Jeg var tidligere i bestyrelsen ved Den Kongelige Ballet, i England, som I kan se. Nå, men Gillian og jeg spiste frokost en dag, og jeg spurgte "Gillian, hvordan gik det til, at du blev danser?" Hun svarede, at det var interessant, fordi da hun gik i skole, var hun helt håbløs. Og skolen, i 30'erne, skrev til hendes forældre, at "Vi tror Gillian har problemer med at lære." Hun kunne ikke koncentrere sig, hun var rastløs. Jeg tror man i dag ville sige, at hun har DAMP. Ville I ikke? Men det her var i 30'erne, og DAMP var ikke opfundet endnu. Det var ikke en tilgængelig diagnose. (Latter) Folk vidste slet ikke, at de kunne have det.
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)
Nå, men hun gik til en specialist. Hun var i det her rum med egepaneler
People weren't aware they could have that.
og hun var der sammen med sin mor, og hun blev ført hen til en stol og satte sig, og hun sad på sine hænder i 20 minutter, mens den her mand talte med hendes mor om alle de problemer, som Gillian havde i skolen. Til sidst -- fordi hun forstyrrede folk, hendes lektier blev altid afleveret for sent, og så videre, et lille barn på otte -- til sidst gik lægen hen og satte sig ved siden af Gillian, og sagde, "Gillian, jeg har hørt på alle de ting din mor har fortalt mig, og jeg er nødt til at tale med hende alene." Han sagde," Vent her, vi kommer tilbage, og der varer ikke særlig længe." De gik, og efterlod hende der. Men på vej ud af rummet, tændte han for en radio der stod på hans skrivebord. Og da de kom ud af lokalet, sagde han til hendes mor, "Prøv bare at stå her og se på hende." Og i samme øjeblik de gik ud af rummet, fortalte hun, var hun oppe og stå, og bevægede sig til musikken. De så på hende i nogle minutter og han vendte sig mod hendes mor og sagde, "Fru Lynne, Gillian er ikke syg. Hun er en danser. Tag hende med til en danseskole."
(Laughter) 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. 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."
Jeg spurgte, "Hvad skete der?" Hun sagde, "Det gjorde hun. Jeg kan slet ikke fortælle dig hvor vidunderligt det var. Vi kom ind i det her lokale, og det var fyldt med folk som mig. Folk der ikke kunne sidde stille. Folk der var nødt til at bevæge sig, for at kunne tænke." Som var nødt til at bevæge sig, for at kunne tænke. De lærte ballet, de lærte steppedans, de lærte jazz, de lærte moderne dans, de lærte tidens dans. Hun var endeligt til optagelsesprøve ved Den Kongelig Balletskole, hun blev solodanser. Hun havde en vidunderlig karriere ved Den Kongelige Ballet. Endelig blev hun færdig ved Den Kongelige Balletskole, og stiftede sit eget kompagni, Gillian Lynne Dansekompagni, mødte Andrew Lloyd Weber. Hun har lavet nogle af de mest succesfulde musikalske teaterproduktioner i historien, hun har skabt glæde for millioner, og hun er en multimillionær. Andre havde måske givet hende medicin og bedt hende om at slappe af.
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)
Jeg tror -- (Bifald) Jeg tror følgende: Al Gore talte den anden aften om økologi, og den revolution der blev udløst af Rachel Carson. Jeg tror vores eneste håb for fremtiden er, at tillægge os en ny forståelse for menneskelig økologi, en hvor vi starter med at genoplive vores opfattelse af den menneskelige kreativitets rigdom. Vores uddannelsessystem har udnyttet vores hjerner på samme måde som vi har drevet minedrift på Jorden: for at finde en specifik vare. I fremtiden vil det ikke være til vores fordel. Vi er nødt til at tænke anderledes på de fundamentale principper. På den måde vi uddanner vores børn. Der var et vidunderligt citat af Jonas Salk, som sagde, "Hvis alle insekter forsvandt fra Jorden, ville alt liv på Jorden ende inden for 50 år. Hvis alle mennesker forsvandt fra Jordens overflade, ville alle former for liv blomstre inden for 50 år." Han har ret.
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. 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.
Det TED fejrer, er den menneskelige opfindsomhed. Vi er nødt til at sørge for, at vi bruger denne gave fornuftigt, og at vi undgår nogle af de scenarier, scenarier vi har talt om. Den eneste måde vi kan gøre det på, er ved at se vores kreative evner som den rigdom det er, og se vores børn som det håb de er. Det er vores opgave at uddanne hele deres væsen, så de kan gå fremtiden i møde. I øvrigt -- vi kommer måske ikke til at se den fremtid, men de gør. Det er vores job at hjælpe dem med at få noget godt ud af den. Mange tak skal I have.
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.