Late in January 1975, a 17-year-old German girl called Vera Brandes walked out onto the stage of the Cologne Opera House. The auditorium was empty. It was lit only by the dim, green glow of the emergency exit sign. This was the most exciting day of Vera's life. She was the youngest concert promoter in Germany, and she had persuaded the Cologne Opera House to host a late-night concert of jazz from the American musician, Keith Jarrett. 1,400 people were coming. And in just a few hours, Jarrett would walk out on the same stage, he'd sit down at the piano and without rehearsal or sheet music, he would begin to play.
1975年1月末, 一位名叫薇拉·布蘭德斯的 17歲德國女孩 走上了科隆歌劇院的舞台。 觀眾席空無一人。 黑暗的空間里,只有 緊急出口的綠色標誌亮著。 這是薇拉生命中最激動的時刻。 她是德國最年輕的演奏會經紀人, 她說服了科隆歌劇院 舉辦美國音樂家, 凱斯·傑瑞特的 晚間爵士樂演奏會。 1400位聽眾即將到場。 幾個小時後, 傑瑞特就會走向這個舞台, 他坐在鋼琴邊 無需綵排或是散頁樂譜, 他會開始演奏。
But right now, Vera was introducing Keith to the piano in question, and it wasn't going well. Jarrett looked to the instrument a little warily, played a few notes, walked around it, played a few more notes, muttered something to his producer. Then the producer came over to Vera and said ... "If you don't get a new piano, Keith can't play."
但現在, 薇拉向凱斯展示的鋼琴 出了些問題, 事情進展不順利。 傑瑞特謹慎地看著樂器, 彈奏了幾個小片段, 繞著它轉了轉, 又彈奏了幾個小片段, 跟他的製作人嘟囔了些什麼。 製作人走到薇拉跟前說到 ... “如果沒有辦法送來一台新鋼琴, 凱斯會取消演奏。”
There'd been a mistake. The opera house had provided the wrong instrument. This one had this harsh, tinny upper register, because all the felt had worn away. The black notes were sticking, the white notes were out of tune, the pedals didn't work and the piano itself was just too small. It wouldn't create the volume that would fill a large space such as the Cologne Opera House.
一定發生了錯誤。 歌劇院提供了錯誤的樂器。 這台鋼琴的高音部 劣質而且刺耳, 因為鋼琴內部的毛氈磨損嚴重。 黑鍵粘粘的, 白鍵走調了。 踏板無法使用 鋼琴的個頭也太小了。 它無法發出 能夠填滿科隆歌劇院這樣 寬敞空間的聲音。
So Keith Jarrett left. He went and sat outside in his car, leaving Vera Brandes to get on the phone to try to find a replacement piano. Now she got a piano tuner, but she couldn't get a new piano. And so she went outside and she stood there in the rain, talking to Keith Jarrett, begging him not to cancel the concert. And he looked out of his car at this bedraggled, rain-drenched German teenager, took pity on her, and said, "Never forget ... only for you."
於是凱斯·傑瑞特離開了。 他站在他的車邊, 留下薇拉·布蘭德斯 撥打電話試圖尋找 一台能夠替代的鋼琴。 她找到了一個鋼琴調律師, 但她無法拿到新的鋼琴。 她走到外面 站在雨中, 和凱斯·傑瑞特說話, 拜託他不要取消演奏會。 他看著車外 這個被雨淋著渾身濕透的 德國年輕人, 有些同情, 隨後說道, “永遠別忘了...只是為了你。”
And so a few hours later, Jarrett did indeed step out onto the stage of the opera house, he sat down at the unplayable piano and began.
幾小時后, 傑瑞特走上了 歌劇院的舞台, 他坐在這台 無法達到演奏標準的鋼琴面前 開始了。
(Music)
(音樂)
Within moments it became clear that something magical was happening. Jarrett was avoiding those upper registers, he was sticking to the middle tones of the keyboard, which gave the piece a soothing, ambient quality. But also, because the piano was so quiet, he had to set up these rumbling, repetitive riffs in the bass. And he stood up twisting, pounding down on the keys, desperately trying to create enough volume to reach the people in the back row.
很快就發現 奇蹟正在發生。 傑瑞特避免了高音區, 他專注在鍵盤的中間區域, 這給了曲子一個舒緩, 音效環繞的品質。 但同時,因為鋼琴如此平靜, 他必須在低音區製造 重複出現的隆隆聲。 他站起身旋轉,重擊琴鍵, 拼命地想製造足夠的音量 讓後排的觀眾也能聽到。
It's an electrifying performance. It somehow has this peaceful quality, and at the same time it's full of energy, it's dynamic. And the audience loved it. Audiences continue to love it because the recording of the Köln Concert is the best-selling piano album in history and the best-selling solo jazz album in history.
這是個令人興奮地演出。 卻有著這樣平靜的質感, 同時又飽含能量, 富有活力, 聽眾太愛這場演出了。 聽眾持續保有熱情 因為科隆演奏會的錄音 是歷史上最暢銷的鋼琴專輯 也是歷史上最暢銷的個人爵士專輯。
Keith Jarrett had been handed a mess. He had embraced that mess, and it soared. But let's think for a moment about Jarrett's initial instinct. He didn't want to play. Of course, I think any of us, in any remotely similar situation, would feel the same way, we'd have the same instinct. We don't want to be asked to do good work with bad tools. We don't want to have to overcome unnecessary hurdles. But Jarrett's instinct was wrong, and thank goodness he changed his mind. And I think our instinct is also wrong. I think we need to gain a bit more appreciation for the unexpected advantages of having to cope with a little mess. So let me give you some examples from cognitive psychology, from complexity science, from social psychology, and of course, rock 'n' roll.
凱斯·傑瑞特遇到了一個麻煩。 他包容了這個麻煩, 讓麻煩變成了崛起的創意。 但是,讓我們想一想 傑瑞特最初的反應。 他不想演出了。 當然, 我想我們中的每個人, 在任何相似的情況下, 會有同樣的感受, 我們會有同樣的反應。 我們不想被要求 用糟糕的工具做好工作。 我們不想克服不必要的麻煩。 但是傑瑞特的直覺錯了, 感謝上帝他改變了主意。 我想我們的直覺也是錯的。 我想我們需要更多的感激 那些需要面對小麻煩的 出人意料的優勢。 讓我給你們提供一些例子 來自認知心理學 來自複雜性科學, 來自社會心理學, 以及當然,搖滾樂。
So cognitive psychology first. We've actually known for a while that certain kinds of difficulty, certain kinds of obstacle, can actually improve our performance. For example, the psychologist Daniel Oppenheimer, a few years ago, teamed up with high school teachers. And he asked them to reformat the handouts that they were giving to some of their classes. So the regular handout would be formatted in something straightforward, such as Helvetica or Times New Roman. But half these classes were getting handouts that were formatted in something sort of intense, like Haettenschweiler, or something with a zesty bounce, like Comic Sans italicized. Now, these are really ugly fonts, and they're difficult fonts to read. But at the end of the semester, students were given exams, and the students who'd been asked to read the more difficult fonts, had actually done better on their exams, in a variety of subjects. And the reason is, the difficult font had slowed them down, forced them to work a bit harder, to think a bit more about what they were reading, to interpret it ... and so they learned more.
首先,認知心理學。 長久以來我們知道 某些困難, 某些障礙, 能夠促使我們提高表現力。 比如, 心理學家丹尼爾·奧本海默, 數年前, 與高中老師合作。 他請他們革新 正在上課的一些講義。 普通的教案已一種 很直接的方式, 像是赫維提卡字體 或是新羅馬體。 但是超半數的學生會拿到 標準的講義 用一種加深顏色的嚴肅字體, 像是Haettenschweiler, 或者是增添興趣的字體, 像是斜體的Comic Sans。 現在,這些事很醜的字體, 也很難閱讀。 但在學期末, 學生們進行了測試, 那些被要求閱讀 更加難懂的字體的學生, 事實上在考試中表現更好, 很多學科都是這樣。 原因是, 難懂的字體拖慢了他們的速度, 逼迫他們更加努力學習, 更審慎思考他們所讀的內容, 來解讀它 ... 因此他們學到了更多。
Another example. The psychologist Shelley Carson has been testing Harvard undergraduates for the quality of their attentional filters. What do I mean by that? What I mean is, imagine you're in a restaurant, you're having a conversation, there are all kinds of other conversations going on in the restaurant, you want to filter them out, you want to focus on what's important to you. Can you do that? If you can, you have good, strong attentional filters. But some people really struggle with that. Some of Carson's undergraduate subjects struggled with that. They had weak filters, they had porous filters -- let a lot of external information in. And so what that meant is they were constantly being interrupted by the sights and the sounds of the world around them. If there was a television on while they were doing their essays, they couldn't screen it out.
另一個例子。 心理學家謝麗·卡森 給哈佛大學的大學生做測試 來研究他們的專注力的過濾能力。 那是什麼意思呢? 我是說, 想像你在一間餐廳裡, 你正在進行一場對話, 餐廳裡還有很多別的 正在進行中的對話, 你會過濾它們, 你想要專注於對你來說重要的對話。 你能做到嗎? 如果你能,那說明你有 很好地很強的注意力過濾能力。 但是很多人真的在 為這樣的能力奮鬥著。 卡森測試的一部分大學生 就為這樣的能力掙扎。 他們有較弱的過濾能力, 他們的過濾機制有漏洞﹣﹣ 讓很多外部的資訊進入。 那就意味著, 他們時常被干擾 被周圍的畫面和聲音干擾。 如果他們在寫作的時候 旁邊有一台正在播放的電視機, 他們無法把電視機的干擾過濾出去。
Now, you would think that that was a disadvantage ... but no. When Carson looked at what these students had achieved, the ones with the weak filters were vastly more likely to have some real creative milestone in their lives, to have published their first novel, to have released their first album. These distractions were actually grists to their creative mill. They were able to think outside the box because their box was full of holes.
現在,你會想 這是個劣勢 ... 但不是這樣的。 當卡森查看這些學生的表現時, 那些過濾能力弱的 極大程度上更可能 在他們的人生中 創作出真正的里程碑, 出版他們的第一本小說, 發第一張唱片, 這些外部的干擾真正 引發了他們的創意工廠。 他們因此能夠跳出盒子思考問題 因為他們的盒子上全是小洞。
Let's talk about complexity science. So how do you solve a really complex -- the world's full of complicated problems -- how do you solve a really complicated problem?
讓我們來說說複雜性科學。 你是如何解決一個真正複雜問題的-- 這個世界充滿了複雜的問題 -- 你要如何解決一個真正複雜的問題?
For example, you try to make a jet engine. There are lots and lots of different variables, the operating temperature, the materials, all the different dimensions, the shape. You can't solve that kind of problem all in one go, it's too hard. So what do you do? Well, one thing you can do is try to solve it step-by-step. So you have some kind of prototype and you tweak it, you test it, you improve it. You tweak it, you test it, you improve it. Now, this idea of marginal gains will eventually get you a good jet engine. And it's been quite widely implemented in the world. So you'll hear about it, for example, in high performance cycling, web designers will talk about trying to optimize their web pages, they're looking for these step-by-step gains.
比如,你要試圖製造飛機引擎, 面對很多很多不同的變量、 運作溫度、材料、 所有不同的維度、形狀。 你無法一次性解決所有的問題, 這太艱難了。 你要怎麼做呢? 你能做的 是試圖一步步解決它。 你有了初樣 然後你改進它, 實驗,然後提高它的質量。 再改進,實驗,提高質量。 這樣的邊際增益的概念最終能 讓你完成一個性能優良的飛機引擎, 這樣的做事方式在世界上很常見。 你會在比如說,高強度自行車 運動練習中見到這樣的過程, 網頁設計師會討論 試圖優化他們的網站, 他們都在尋找著 這樣一步步的收穫。
That's a good way to solve a complicated problem. But you know what would make it a better way? A dash of mess. You add randomness, early on in the process, you make crazy moves, you try stupid things that shouldn't work, and that will tend to make the problem-solving work better. And the reason for that is the trouble with the step-by-step process, the marginal gains, is they can walk you gradually down a dead end. And if you start with the randomness, that becomes less likely, and your problem-solving becomes more robust.
這是一個解決複雜問題的好方法。 但你知道有什麼 能夠讓它更好嗎? 一些雜亂。 你在過程開始的時候, 加入不確定性, 你做出瘋狂的舉動, 你做本不可能成功地蠢事, 這都會使問題解決方法效果更好, 原因是 一步一步的過程的問題在於, 邊際增益, 是它們引導你走到死胡同。 如果你開始就很隨意, 那就不大會這樣, 你的問題解決過程會更加高效。
Let's talk about social psychology. So the psychologist Katherine Phillips, with some colleagues, recently gave murder mystery problems to some students, and these students were collected in groups of four and they were given dossiers with information about a crime -- alibis and evidence, witness statements and three suspects. And the groups of four students were asked to figure out who did it, who committed the crime. And there were two treatments in this experiment. In some cases these were four friends, they all knew each other well. In other cases, three friends and a stranger. And you can see where I'm going with this.
讓我們從社會心理學角度分析。 心理學家凱瑟琳.飛利浦 和她的同事們, 近期向學生們 提出了怪誕的的謀殺問題, 這些學生編成四人一組 學生們拿到關於謀殺的檔案﹣﹣ 不在場證明和證據、 證人的證詞和三個疑犯。 他們需要找出真兇是誰, 誰為這場謀殺負責。 這項實驗有兩個項目。 在一些案例中,有四個友人, 他們都非常了解對方。 在另一些案例中, 是三個友人和一個陌生人。 一會兒你就會了解到 我這麼做的意義。
Obviously I'm going to say that the groups with the stranger solved the problem more effectively, which is true, they did. Actually, they solved the problem quite a lot more effectively. So the groups of four friends, they only had a 50-50 chance of getting the answer right. Which is actually not that great -- in multiple choice, for three answers? 50-50's not good.
很明顯,我要說的是 那些由三個友人一個陌生人組成的小組 更高效地解決了問題, 這是真的,他們確實做到了。 事實上,他們解決問題的效率 非常高。 那些由四個友人組成的小組, 他們只有50﹣50的幾率 來得出正確答案。 這聽起來確實不那麼好﹣﹣ 在多項選擇中,有三個答案? 50﹣50的幾率不那麼好。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
The three friends and the stranger, even though the stranger didn't have any extra information, even though it was just a case of how that changed the conversation to accommodate that awkwardness, the three friends and the stranger, they had a 75 percent chance of finding the right answer. That's quite a big leap in performance.
三個友人和一個陌生人, 即使陌生人沒有獲得額外的資訊, 即使是在 如何對話以防止尷尬, 三個友人和一個陌生人的組合, 有 75% 的機會能夠找到正確的答案。 那是一個很大的飛越。
But I think what's really interesting is not just that the three friends and the stranger did a better job, but how they felt about it. So when Katherine Phillips interviewed the groups of four friends, they had a nice time, they also thought they'd done a good job. They were complacent. When she spoke to the three friends and the stranger, they had not had a nice time -- it's actually rather difficult, it's rather awkward ... and they were full of doubt. They didn't think they'd done a good job even though they had. And I think that really exemplifies the challenge that we're dealing with here.
但我覺得真正有趣的 不是三個友人和一個陌生人的組合 完成得更好, 而是他們對這次活動的感受。 當凱瑟琳.飛利浦詢問 四個友人組合的感受時, 他們相處很愉悅, 他們也認為自己做得很好。 他們很滿足。 當她詢問 三個友人一個陌生人組合時 他們並沒有很愉快﹣﹣ 有點兒困難, 有些尷尬 ... 他們充滿了疑慮。 他們不認為自己完成得很好 即使他們確實完成得很好。 我想這個例子很適合 拿來討論今天我們面對的難題。
Because, yeah -- the ugly font, the awkward stranger, the random move ... these disruptions help us solve problems, they help us become more creative. But we don't feel that they're helping us. We feel that they're getting in the way ... and so we resist. And that's why the last example is really important.
因為,是的﹣﹣ 難看的字體, 尷尬的陌生人, 那些不確定性 ... 這些打擾我們的事情 幫助我們解決問題, 它們讓我們更加有創意。 但我們感受不到它們的幫助。 我們認為它們是 路上的障礙 ... 所以我們反抗。 這就是為什麼最後一個例子 非常重要。
So I want to talk about somebody from the background of the world of rock 'n' roll. And you may know him, he's actually a TED-ster. His name is Brian Eno. He is an ambient composer -- rather brilliant.
我想要談到某個人 他的背景是搖滾樂。 你也許知道他是誰, 他是一個 TED 迷。 他的名字是布萊恩.伊諾。 他是一個著名音樂製作人﹣﹣ 非常傑出。
He's also a kind of catalyst behind some of the great rock 'n' roll albums of the last 40 years. He's worked with David Bowie on "Heroes," he worked with U2 on "Achtung Baby" and "The Joshua Tree," he's worked with DEVO, he's worked with Coldplay, he's worked with everybody.
他同時也是一種催化劑 催化了過去 40 年裡 很多搖滾巨作的產生。 他和大衛.鮑伊合作歌曲《Heroes》, 他和 U2 合作歌曲《Achtung Baby》 和《The Joshua Tree》, 他和 DEVO 合作, 和酷玩樂團 Coldplay 合作, 和很多人合作。
And what does he do to make these great rock bands better? Well, he makes a mess. He disrupts their creative processes. It's his role to be the awkward stranger. It's his role to tell them that they have to play the unplayable piano.
他做了什麼讓這些搖滾樂團更加好呢? 嗯,他製造麻煩。 他干擾他們的創意過程。 他的角色就是一個尷尬的陌生人。 他存在就是為了告訴他們 他們必須要彈奏 無法演奏的鋼琴。
And one of the ways in which he creates this disruption is through this remarkable deck of cards -- I have my signed copy here -- thank you, Brian. They're called The Oblique Strategies, he developed them with a friend of his. And when they're stuck in the studio, Brian Eno will reach for one of the cards. He'll draw one at random, and he'll make the band follow the instructions on the card.
他製造這些干擾的一個方式就是 通過這一疊紙牌﹣﹣ 我手中的這疊是簽名版﹣﹣ 謝謝你,布萊恩。 這是傾斜戰術, 他和一個朋友一起發明了這個。 當他們在工作室文思枯竭的時候, 布萊恩.伊諾拿出牌中的一張。 他會任意選一張, 然後讓樂隊根據卡片上的引導。
So this one ... "Change instrument roles." Yeah, everyone swap instruments -- Drummer on the piano -- Brilliant, brilliant idea.
這一個 ... 「改變彈奏的樂器。」 是的,每個人都交換樂器﹣﹣ 鼓手來彈鋼琴﹣﹣ 太棒了,太棒的主意了。
"Look closely at the most embarrassing details. Amplify them."
「仔細研究最尷尬的細節。 然後放大它們。」
"Make a sudden, destructive, unpredictable action. Incorporate."
「做出突然地,具有毀滅性的, 無法預測的反應。合併它們。」
These cards are disruptive.
這些卡片製造混亂。
Now, they've proved their worth in album after album. The musicians hate them.
現在,它們通過一張張唱片 證實了自己的價值所在。 音樂家們厭惡它們。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
So Phil Collins was playing drums on an early Brian Eno album. He got so frustrated he started throwing beer cans across the studio.
在布萊恩.伊諾早期的一張唱片裡 菲爾.柯林斯是鼓手。 他有強烈的挫敗感 於是開始在工作室裡扔啤酒罐。
Carlos Alomar, great rock guitarist, working with Eno on David Bowie's "Lodger" album, and at one point he turns to Brian and says, "Brian, this experiment is stupid." But the thing is it was a pretty good album, but also, Carlos Alomar, 35 years later, now uses The Oblique Strategies. And he tells his students to use The Oblique Strategies because he's realized something. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't helping you.
卡洛斯.阿洛馬, 偉大的搖滾吉他手, 和伊諾一起工作 製作大衛.鮑伊的唱片《Lodger》, 在某個時刻, 他轉向布萊恩說到, 《布萊恩,這個實驗很愚蠢。》 但是,這是一張很好地唱片, 但同時, 卡洛斯.阿洛馬,35 年後, 現在使用傾斜戰術。 他告訴他的學生們 來使用傾斜戰術, 因為他意識到了一些事。 你不喜歡它並不代表 它不能幫助你。
The strategies actually weren't a deck of cards originally, they were just a list -- list on the recording studio wall. A checklist of things you might try if you got stuck.
這個戰術實際上 原本並不是一疊紙牌, 它們是一個列表﹣﹣ 貼在工作室墻上。 一張清單寫著,當你思路停滯的時候 你能嘗試的事。
The list didn't work. Know why? Not messy enough. Your eye would go down the list and it would settle on whatever was the least disruptive, the least troublesome, which of course misses the point entirely.
這張清單沒起作用。 知道為什麼嗎? 不夠雜亂。 你會由上而下看這張清單 然後選擇最不混亂的, 最少麻煩的的那條, 這當然完全沒有抓住要點。
And what Brian Eno came to realize was, yes, we need to run the stupid experiments, we need to deal with the awkward strangers, we need to try to read the ugly fonts. These things help us. They help us solve problems, they help us be more creative.
布萊恩.伊諾意識到, 是的,我們需要進行 愚蠢的實驗, 我們需要和尷尬的陌生人相處, 我們要試著閱讀難看的字體。 這些事幫助了我們。 它們幫助我們解決問題, 它們幫助我們更加具有創造力。
But also ... we really need some persuasion if we're going to accept this. So however we do it ... whether it's sheer willpower, whether it's the flip of a card or whether it's a guilt trip from a German teenager, all of us, from time to time, need to sit down and try and play the unplayable piano.
但同時 ... 如果我們通過一些勸說 來接受這樣的事情。 無論我們如何做 ... 無論它是純粹的意志力, 無論是輕彈一張卡片, 或者是一場德國年輕人 內疚的旅程, 我們所有人, 總有這樣的時刻, 需要坐下來,試著彈奏 無法彈奏的鋼琴。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)