TED英語演講：你該如何面對艱難選擇
人生的選擇無處不在，有的選擇很簡單，有的選擇則很艱難。而艱難的選擇並不都是大的抉擇，甚至中午吃什麼也會變得很艱難。所以面對艱難選擇，我們應該如何抉擇?本期TED演講者Ruth Chang將告訴我們，面對艱難選擇，我們一開始的方向就錯了。下面是小編爲大家收集關於TED英語演講：你該如何面對艱難選擇，歡迎借鑑參考。
How to make hard choices
演講者：Ruth Chang
| 中英對照演講稿 |
Think of a hard choice you'll face in the near future. It might be between two careers--artist and accountant--or places to live--the city or the country--or even between two people to marry--you could marry Betty or you could marry Lolita. Or it might be a choice about whether to have children, to have an ailing parent move in with you, to raise your child in a religion that your partner lives by but leaves you cold. Or whether to donate your life savings to charity.
設想在不久的未來，你將面對一個艱難的決定。這也許是在兩份職業中做出一個選擇，藝術家還是會計師;也許是選擇居住的地方，城市還是鄉村;也許是在兩個人中選擇和誰結婚，Betty 或者是Lolita;抑或思考是否要孩子;是否讓年老體衰的父母跟你一起住;是否讓你的孩子信奉你配偶信仰的宗教，即便你會因自身不信奉而被冷落;又或者說，是否將畢生積儲捐贈給慈善機構。
Chances are, the hard choice you thought of was something big, something momentous, something that matters to you. Hard choices seem to be occasions for agonizing, hand-wringing, the gnashing of teeth. But I think we've misunderstood hard choices and the role they play in our lives. Understanding hard choicesuncovers a hidden power each of us possesses.
有可能，你所思考的這些艱難抉擇都十分龐大，十分重要你也十分重視。每當困難的選擇出現，他都會讓你感到痛苦、絕望，讓你咬牙切齒。但我認爲我們誤解了艱難抉擇的定義，更誤解了其在我們生活中扮演的角色。倘若能理解這些艱難決定，我們每個人便會發掘出 一種隱藏的潛力。
What makes a choice hard is the way the alternatives relate. In any easy choice, one alternative is better than the other. In a hard choice, one alternative is better in some ways, the other alternative is better in other ways, and neither is better than the other overall. You agonize over whether to stay in your current job in the city or uproot your life for more challenging work in the country, because staying is better in some ways,moving is better in others, and neither is better than the other overall.
一個抉擇之所以難是由於選項之間相互關聯。任何簡單的抉擇中，總有一種選擇比另一種要好。可在艱難抉擇中，一種選擇在某些方面較好，另一種選擇在其他方面較好，二者各有千秋讓人無法定奪。你痛苦地糾結於應該繼續呆在這座城市裏幹這份工作，還是改變一下你的生活方式到鄉村去接受更具挑戰性的工作，因爲留下有留下的好處，離開也有好處，兩種選擇各有千秋難以定奪。
We shouldn't think that all hard choices are big. Let's say you're deciding what to have for breakfast. You could have high fiber bran cereal or a chocolate donut. Suppose what matters in the choice is tastiness and healthfulness. The cereal is better for you, the donut tastes way better, but neither is better than the other overall, a hard choice.
我們不應該認爲所有的艱難抉擇都很龐大。打個比方，你正決定吃什麼早餐。你可以吃高纖維全谷幹麥片，或者吃巧克力甜甜圈。假設在此抉擇中的決定性因素是美味程度和健康程度。麥片對你身體好，甜甜圈卻好吃很多，但兩者都有自身優勢，這就是一個艱難抉擇。
Realizing that small choices can also be hard, may make big hard choices seem less intractable. After all, we manage to figure out what to have for breakfast, so maybe we can figure out whether to stay in the city or uproot for the new job in the country.
如果意識到小的選擇也可能會變得困難，那面對大的艱難抉擇時我們可能就不會覺得那麼棘手了。畢竟，我們總能決定早餐吃什麼，所以我們也許能夠想明白，究竟要留在市區，還是到鄉下接手新的工作。
We also shouldn't think that hard choices are hard because we are stupid. When I graduated from college, I couldn't decide between two careers, philosophy and law. I really loved philosophy. There are amazing things you can learn as a philosopher, and all from the comfort of an armchair. But I came from a modest immigrant family where my idea of luxury was having a pork tongue and jelly sandwich in my school lunchbox, so the thought of spending my whole life sitting around in armchairs just thinking ... Well, that struck me as the height of extravagance and frivolity.
同時，我們也不應該覺得，選擇之所以難是因爲自己很愚蠢。在我剛大學畢業的時候，我無法從兩種職業中抉擇，哲學還是法律。我真心喜歡哲學，若能成爲哲學家，便能學到很多驚奇的東西，而且舒舒服服地坐在椅子上就好。可我出生自一個樸實簡素的移民家庭，我對奢侈的概念，就是能在上學的午餐盒裏找到一塊豬舌和一份果凍三明治。所以這種一輩子僅坐在椅子上思考的想法，其實，對我來說只是一種奢侈和輕浮的假象罷了。
So I got out my yellow pad, I drew a line down the middle, and I tried my best to think of the reasons for and against each alternative. I remember thinking to myself, if only I knew what my life in each career would be like. If only God or Netflix would send me a DVD of my two possible future careers, I'd be set. I'd compare them side by side, I'd see that one was better, and the choice would be easy.
所以我拿出自己黃色筆記本，在中間劃了一條線，然後竭盡所能地寫出每種選擇的利與弊。當時我就想：如果能知道選擇某種職業後我的人生會變成怎樣就好了。如果上帝或者網飛公司能送我一張DVD來向我描述這兩種充滿可能性的職業生涯，那我就能做出選擇了。我就能一一對比，看看哪種更好，這樣一來抉擇就簡單多了。
But I got no DVD, and because I couldn't figure out which was better, I did what many of us do in hard choices: I took the safest option. Fear of being an unemployed philosopher led me to become a lawyer, and as I discovered, lawyering didn't quite fit. It wasn't who I was.
但我沒有收到這種DVD，而且由於我實在想不出哪一種更優，我就和大多數人一樣：選擇了最安全的一項。成爲失業哲學家的恐懼，驅使我成了一名律師。可後來我發現，當律師不大適合我，這不是真正的我。
So now I'm a philosopher, and I study hard choices, and I can tell you, that fear of the unknown, while a common motivational default in dealing with hard choices, rests on a misconception of them.
所以我現在是名哲學家，我鑽研艱難抉擇，我可以告訴大家，對未知產生恐懼是在進行困難抉擇時的自然反應，而這種恐懼來源於對艱難抉擇的誤解。
It's a mistake to think that in hard choices, one alternative really is better than the other, but we're too stupid to know which, and since we don't know which, we might as well take the least risky option. Even taking two alternatives side by side with full information, a choice can still be hard. Hard choices are hard not because of us or our ignorance; they're hard because there is no best option.
我們不應該認爲，在艱難抉擇中某種選擇總會會比另一種好，可我們自身太愚蠢，所以無法辨別，那既然我們無法定奪，倒不如選風險最小的那項。就算你完全瞭解了兩種選項並將其一一對照，你仍然很難決定。選擇之所以難，不是因爲我們無知;難的原因在於沒有最優選項。
Now, if there's no best option, if the scales don't tip in favor of one alternative over another, then surely the alternatives must be equally good. So maybe the right thing to say in hard choices is that they're between equally good options. But that can't be right. If alternatives are equally good, you should just flip a coin between them, and it seems a mistake to think, here's how you should decide between careers, places to live, people to marry: Flip a coin.
那麼，如果沒有最佳項，如果衡量的天秤不會傾向於 任何一方，那麼任何選項都一定是好的。所以面對艱難抉擇，可能正確的思維方式，就是認爲選項雙方一樣好。這種想法肯定不對。如果選項都一樣好，那還不如直接拋硬幣算了，這樣就會產生思想誤區，讓你認爲自己選擇事業、住處、婚嫁時都拋硬幣選擇就好了。
There's another reason for thinking that hard choices aren't choices between equally good options. Suppose you have a choice between two jobs: you could be an investment banker or a graphic artist. There are a variety of things that matter in such a choice, like the excitement of the work, achieving financial security,having time to raise a family, and so on.
還有另外一個原因，使艱難選擇並非是在同等好的選項中抉擇。 假設你要在兩份工作中挑選： 你可以做投資銀行家，或做平面設計師。在這個選擇當中有頗多決定性因素，譬如工作帶來的興奮程度、能獲得的經濟保障、顧家時間等等。
Maybe the artist's career puts you on the cutting edge of new forms of pictorial expression. Maybe the banking career puts you on the cutting edge of new forms of financial manipulation.
也許藝術家這個職業能讓你接觸最前沿的圖像表達技術。或許當銀行家你就能接觸最前端的金融操縱手段。你可以想象任何兩種你喜歡的職業，但兩者都不會比另一方好的。
Imagine the two jobs however you like, so that neither is better than the suppose we improve one of them, a bit. Suppose the bank, wooing you, adds 500 dollars a month to your salary. Does the extra money now make the banking job better than the artist one? Not necessarily. A higher salary makes the banking job better than it was before, but it might not be enough to make being a banker better than being an artist.
現在，假設我們能稍微改進其中的一方。假設一間銀行嘗試討好你，在你的月薪裏增加500美元。這一筆額外的金錢會不會讓這份銀行家的工作優於當藝術家呢?說不準。更高的薪酬讓銀行家的工作優於以前，但額外薪水不一定足夠讓成爲銀行家變得比成爲藝術家好。
But if an improvement in one of the jobs doesn't make it better than the other, then the two original jobs could not have been equally good. If you start with two things that are equally good, and you improve one of them, it now must be better than the other. That's not the case with options in hard choices.
可如果對其中一種職業進行改進後結果並沒有讓一方優於另一方，那麼兩種選擇本身就不可能是一樣好。如果兩件事一開始都同等的好 ，當你改進了其中一件，那它就一定會優於另一個。在艱難抉擇中並非如此。
So now we've got a puzzle. We've got two jobs. Neither is better than the other, nor are they equally how are we supposed to choose? Something seems to have gone wrong here. Maybe the choice itself is problematic, and comparison is impossible. But that can't be right. It's not like we're trying to choose between two things that can't be compared. We're weighing the merits of two jobs, after all, not the merits of the number nine and a plate of fried eggs. A comparison of the overall merits of two jobs is something we can make, and one we often do make.
那麼現在我們就有一個疑惑了。這兩份工作，沒有一方能完勝另一方，但又不是同等的好。究竟該怎麼選擇呢? 貌似有些事情出錯了。可能選項的本身就存在問題，導致我們無法比較。但這也不對啊。我們並不是要在兩種不能被對比的事物間選擇。我們說到底是在衡量兩份工作的利弊，不是對比數字9和 一盤煎雞蛋的好處。對比兩份工作的總體優勢是我們能做到的，也是我們經常做的事。
I think the puzzle arises because of an unreflective assumption we make about value. We unwittingly assume that values like justice, beauty, kindness, are akin to scientific quantities, like length, mass and weight. Take any comparative question not involving value, such as which of two suitcases is heavier. There are only three possibilities.
我認爲疑惑產生的原因源於一種我們對價值的草率設想。我們不知不覺地認爲，諸如正義、美麗、善良的價值觀都與一些科學度量類似，都能被量度，譬如長度、質量、重量。試想一個與價值觀毫不相關的比較，例如兩個行李箱中哪個更重。僅有三種可能性。
The weight of one is greater, lesser or equal to the weight of the other. Properties like weight can be represented by real numbers -- one, two, three and so on -- and there are only three possible comparisons between any two real numbers. One number is greater, lesser, or equal to the so with values.
其中一個的重量大於、小於 或等於另一個。像重量這樣的性質能夠用真實的數字來表達——1,2,3…… 而且在兩個數字間的比較中只有三種可能。一個數字大於、小於或等於另一個數字價值觀卻不是如此。
As post-Enlightenment creatures, we tend to assume that scientific thinking holds the key to everything of importance in our world, but the world of value is different from the world of science. The stuff of the one world can be quantified by real numbers. The stuff of the other world can't. We shouldn't assume that the world of is, of lengths and weights, has the same structure as the world of ought, of what we should do.
作爲後啓蒙時期的生物，我們總是設想科學思維可以解決世界上一切重要的問題，但價值觀的世界不同於科學的世界。科學界中， 一切事物可被數字度量。可價值觀的世界中卻不能。我們不能認爲充斥着“是否”、“長度”和“重量”的數字世界與“該不該”和“該做什麼”的價值世界有着同樣的架構。
So if what matters to us -- a child's delight, the love you have for your partner — can't be represented by real numbers, then there's no reason to believe that in choice, there are only three possibilities -- that one alternative is better, worse or equal to the other. We need to introduce a new, fourth relation beyond being better, worse or equal, that describes what's going on in hard choices. I like to say that the alternatives are "on a par."
所以，如果我們覺得重要的東西，如：孩子的幸福、對另一半的愛，不能用數字來表示， 那麼我們就沒有理由相信， 在抉擇過程中只有三種可能性： 其中一選項總會優於、劣於或等於另一項。我們需要一種全新的思考維度，第四種關係除了優於、劣於和等於之外，第四種關係能描述艱難抉擇的運行模式。我偏好把各選項看做 “等價”。
When alternatives are on a par, it may matter very much which you choose, but one alternative isn't better than the other. Rather, the alternatives are in the same neighborhood of value, in the same league of value, while at the same time being very different in kind of value. That's why the choice is hard.
當所有選項等價時，你的選擇就變得極爲重要，但選項本身卻沒有哪個比其他的好。反之，所有的選擇項都有類似的價值，都處於同一種價值範疇當中，但同時他們又具有不同的價值。這正是讓選擇變得困難的原因。
Understanding hard choices in this way uncovers something about ourselves we didn't know. Each of us has the power to create reasons. Imagine a world in which every choice you face is an easy choice, that is, there's always a best alternative. If there's a best alternative, then that's the one you should choose,because part of being rational is doing the better thing rather than the worse thing, choosing what you have most reason to choose.
如此理解艱難抉擇，我們就會在自己身上發現一些意料之外的東西。我們每個人都有能力去創造理由。想象一下若在某個世界中你只需面對簡單抉擇，那麼，永遠都有最佳項。若有最佳項，你就應該選它，因爲保持理智就意味着選好的不選壞的，選最合理的。
In such a world, we'd have most reason to wear black socks instead of pink socks,to eat cereal instead of donuts, to live in the city rather than the country, to marry Betty instead of Lolita. A world full of only easy choices would enslave us to reasons.
在這樣的世界裏，我們有充足的理由去穿黑襪子而不穿粉色襪子，去吃幹麥片不吃甜甜圈，去留在城市裏不轉向鄉區，去娶Betty而不娶Lolita。充滿簡單抉擇的世界，會讓我們成爲“原由”的奴隸。
When you think about it,it's nuts to believe that the reasons given to you dictated that you had most reason to pursue the exact hobbies you do, to live in the exact house you do, to work at the exact job you do. Instead, you faced alternatives that were on a par -- hard choices -- and you made reasons for yourself to choose that hobby, that house and that job.
當你這樣想，你會發現自己一定是瘋了纔會相信 擺在你面前的選擇會決定你追尋各種事物的理由，會決定你的愛好，讓你住現在的房子，讓你選現在的工作。事實上，當你面對的是多個選擇，多個等價的選擇，困難的選擇，你會爲自己製造理由來選擇這項愛好、這所房子和這份工作。
When alternatives are on a par, the reasons given to us, the ones that determine whether we're making a mistake, are silent as to what to do. It's here, in the space of hard choices, that we get to exercise our normative power -- the power to create reasons for yourself, to make yourself into the kind of person for whom country living is preferable to the urban life.
當各選項等價時， 我們面前的各種理性原由， 這些讓我們分清對錯的原由， 都無法給予我們一個答案。 唯有在這個有艱難抉擇的世界裏， 我們才能鍛鍊自己的 規範性力量，以創造自我的原由， 讓自己變成 心中想成爲的人， 一種更喜愛鄉村生活而不是城市生活的人。
When we choose between options that are on a par, we can do something really rather remarkable. We can put our very selves behind an option. Here's where I stand. Here's who I am, I am for banking. I am for chocolate donuts.
當我們需要在等價選項間抉擇時，我們能做出一些十分了不起的事。我們能把自身放在一個選項之後。(說道)這就是我的選擇，這就是我。我選銀行業。我選巧克力甜甜圈。
This response in hard choices is a rational response, but it's not dictated by reasons given to us. Rather, it's supported by reasons created by us. When we create reasons for ourselves to become this kind of person rather than that, we wholeheartedly become the people that we are. You might say that we become the authors of our own lives.
在艱難抉擇中，這種反應是一種理性反應，但卻不是由我們面前的各種原由所決定的。反而，這是由我們自己創造的理由所支撐起來的。當我們爲自我創造原由去成爲這種人而非那種人時，我們就打心底裏完完全全地成就了真正的自己。你可以說，我們成了譜寫自我人生篇章的作者。
So when we face hard choices, we shouldn't beat our head against a wall trying to figure out which alternative is better. There is no best alternative. Instead of looking for reasons out there, we should be looking for reasons in here: Who am I to be? You might decide to be a pink sock-wearing, cereal-loving, country-living banker, and I might decide to be a black sock-wearing, urban, donut-loving artist. What we do in hard choices is very much up to each of us.
所以當面對艱難抉擇，不應該拿腦袋撞牆絞盡腦汁地去想哪個選項更優。最佳項並不存在。與其在外界苦命尋找理由，我們該往心裏找： 我想成爲什麼樣的人?你可能會決定成爲一個穿粉色襪子、愛好乾麥片，還住在鄉村的銀行家。而我可能會決定成爲一個穿黑襪子，住在城市裏，喜歡吃甜甜圈的藝術家。面臨艱難抉擇時的反應很大程度上 取決於我們自己每個人。
Now, people who don't exercise their normative powers in hard choices are drifters. We all know people like that. I drifted into being a lawyer. I didn't put my agency behind lawyering. I wasn't for lawyering. Drifters allow the world to write the story of their lives. They let mechanisms of reward and punishment -- pats on the head, fear, the easiness of an option -- to determine what they do. So the lesson of hard choices: reflect on what you can put your agency behind, on what you can be for, and through hard choices, become that person.
那些不鍛鍊自己規範性力量的人會成爲“漂流者”。我們都認識那樣的人。我(被理性原由限定)“漂流”成了律師。我並沒有全身心投入到律師業務當中。我不適合當律師。漂流者允許這個世界譜寫他們的生命篇章(被拖着走)。他們讓獎罰機制—— 鼓勵、畏懼、選擇的簡單性——來決定自己的道路。所以艱難抉擇教會我們要審視自己能把身心與精力放到何處，自己究竟追求什麼，並通過困難抉擇來成爲那種人。
Far from being sources of agony and dread, hard choices are precious opportunities for us to celebrate what is special about the human condition, that the reasons that govern our choices as correct or incorrectsometimes run out, and it is here, in the space of hard choices, that we have the power to create reasons for ourselves to become the distinctive people that we are. And that's why hard choices are not a curse but a godsend.
艱難抉擇不是痛苦和恐懼的來源，而是難得的機遇讓我們慶幸人類有如此特殊的選擇權利，慶幸有時候區分選擇正誤的理性原由會用盡，而且，慶幸有在這個具有艱難抉擇的世界裏，我們有能力去爲自己創造理由，去成爲與衆不同的自己。這就是爲什麼，艱難抉擇不是一種詛咒，而是天賜之物。
Thank you.(Applause)
謝謝(掌聲)