关键词（Keyword）：TED演讲，行为，决定，改变，方法，我来为大家科普一下关于ted演讲中英字幕错误引导的艺术?以下内容希望对你有帮助!

ted演讲中英字幕错误引导的艺术

关键词（Keyword）：TED演讲，行为，决定，改变，方法

演讲简介：

为什么“我们知道了那么多道理，却依然过不好这一生”？为什么我们明知不该做出糟糕的决定，却还是做出了错误的决定？帮助我们脱离窘境、改变行为的最佳方法是什么？听行为经济学家 Dan Ariely 的有趣的、充满智慧的精彩演讲，帮助我们做正确的事情、让我们的生活更好。

TED演讲：让人改变行为的最佳方法（中英字幕版）

演讲者：Dan Ariely | TED Salon: Brightline Initiative主 题：How to change your behavior for the better整 理：tedtalking

双语演讲稿：

Hi. You might have noticed that I have half a beard. It's not because I lost a bet. Many years ago, I was badly burned. Most of my body is covered with scars, including the right side of my face. I just don't have hair. That's just how it happened. It looks symmetrical, but almost.

嗨， 你可能已经注意到了 我只有半边胡子， 这不是因为我打赌输了。 很多年前，我被严重烧伤。 我身体大部分都被伤疤覆盖， 包括我这右半边脸。 我只是不再长胡子。 事情就是这样发生的。 它看起来挺对称的， 差不多。

Anyway, now that we discussed facial hair, let's move to social science. And in particular, I want us to think about where is the potential for humanity and where we are now. And if you think about it, there's a big gap between where we think we could be and where we are, and it's in all kinds of areas.

不管怎样，我们已经谈论了胡子， 我们开始说社会科学。 尤其是，我想要大家思考的是 人类的潜能有多大， 并且我们已经到达了哪个水平。 如果你想一下这个问题， 在我们认为已经达到的水平 和能够达到的水平 不论哪一方面， 这里都有个很大的差距。

So let me ask you: How many of you in the last month have eaten more than you think you should? Just kind of general. OK. How many of you in the last month have exercised less than you think you should? OK, and for how many of you has raising your hands twice been the most exercise you got today?

所以，让我问你： 你们多少人上个月饮食超量了？ 这就很普遍，好。 你们多少人上个月 运动量没有达标？ 好，你们多少人举手两次 已经是今天最大的运动量了？

(Laughter)

（笑声）

How many of you have ever texted while driving? OK, we're getting honest. Let's test your honesty. How many people here in the last month have not always washed your hands when you left the bathroom?

你们多少人在开车的时候 发过短信？ 好，大家都在说实话。 让我们测一下你的诚实度。 你们在座多少人 在上个月 上完厕所没洗手？

(Laughter)

（笑声）

A little less honest. By the way, it's interesting how we're willing to admit texting and driving but not washing our hands, that's difficult.

没那么诚实了。 顺便，这很有趣。 我们对开车时发短信的承认意愿度 竟然比不洗手高。这不简单。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

We can go on and on. The problem, the topic is that there's lots of things when we know what we could do -- we could be very, very different, but we're acting in a very different way. And when we think how do we bridge that gap, the usual answer is, "Just tell people." For example, just tell people that texting and driving is dangerous. Did you know it's dangerous? You should stop doing it. You tell people something is dangerous, and they will stop.

我们可以一直问问题。 问题是，有很多事情， 当我们知道自己能够做到—— 我们会变得极其不一样， 但是这个情况下， 我们的应对行为截然不同。 当我们思考如何 能够缩小那个差距时， 通常的回答是“就告诉他们”。 比如，就告诉他们 开车时候发短信很危险。 你知道这很危险吗？ 你应该停止做这件事。 你告诉他们一件事很危险， 之后他们就会停止做它。

Texting and driving is one example. Another very sad example is that in the US, we spend between seven and eight hundred million dollars a year on what's called "financial literacy." And what do we get as a consequence of that? There was recently a study that looked at all the research ever to be conducted on financial literacy -- what's called a meta-analysis. And what they found is that when you tell people, you teach them financial literacy, they learn and they remember. But do people execute? Not so much. The improvement is about three or four percent immediately after the course, and then it goes down. And at the end of the day, the improvement is about 0.1 percent -- not zero, but as humanly close to zero as possible.

开车时发短信，只是一个例子。 另一个非常悲哀的例子就是， 在美国， 我们每年大约花费 七亿到八亿美元 在我们所谓的“金融知识”上。 我们做这事的结果是什么？ 有个最近的研究， 调查了所有有关金融知识的论文—— 我们称之为整合分析。 研究发现，当你告诉人们， 你教他们金融知识， 他们学会了、记住了， 但是他们执行了吗？基本没吧。 3% - 4% 的进步只是 体现在 刚刚课程结束后， 之后便出现下滑。 到头来， 进步率仅为 0.1% —— 不是 0，但是从人的角度看， 接近于 0。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

So that's the sad news. The sad news is, giving information to people is just not a good recipe to change behavior. What is?

所以这是一件令人悲伤的事。 令人悲伤的是：给予人们信息 并不是改变行为的好方法。 那什么是？

Well, social science has made lots of strides, and the basic insight is that if we want to change behavior, we have to change the environment. The right way is not to change people, it's to change the environment. And I want to present a very simpleminded model of how to think about it: it's to think about behavioral change in the same way that we think about sending a rocket to space. When we think about sending a rocket to space, we want to do two main things. The first one is to reduce friction. We want to take the rocket and have as little friction as possible so it's the most aerodynamic possible. And the second thing is we want to load as much fuel as possible, to give it the most amount of motivation, energy to do its task. And behavior change is the same thing.

社会科学已经取得了很大的进步， 而其的基本观点是： 如果我们想要改变行为， 我们必须改变环境。 正确的方法不是改变人们， 而是改变环境。 我想提出一个非常简单的思维模式 来想这件事： 把行为改变 当作送火箭上太空 来思考这个问题。 当我们想到送火箭上太空， 我们一般主要要做两件事。 第一件事，就是减少摩擦。 我们想要乘坐火箭， 并且尽可能减少摩擦， 尽量最大化满足空气动力学。 第二件事，就是我们想要 装载尽量多的燃料， 给火箭足够多的动力和能量， 来完成它的任务。 而行为改变也是一样。

So let's first talk about friction. In this particular case study I'll tell you about, there's a pharmacy, an online pharmacy. Imagine you go to your doctor. You have a long-term illness, your doctor prescribes to you a medication, you sign up for this online pharmacy and you get your medication in the mail every 90 days. Every 90 days, medication, medication, medication. And this online pharmacy wants to switch people from branded medication to generic medication. So they send people letters, and they say, "please, please, please, switch to generics. You will save money, we will save money, your employer will save money." And what do people do? Nothing.

我们首先来说说摩擦。 在这个特定的案例分析中， 我会给你讲一个 药店的故事，一个网上药店。 想象一下你去找你的医生， 你有一个慢性疾病， 医生给了开了药， 你注册了这个网上药店 之后每隔 90 天， 你会收到这些药的邮寄包裹。 每 90 天，药，药，药。 之后这个网上药店 想要让人们 从品牌药换成仿制药。 所以他们给人们寄了信，说： “拜托，拜托，拜托， 换成仿制药。 由此你可以省钱，我们可以省钱， 你的雇主也能省钱。” 人们什么反应？ 没有任何反应。

So they try all kinds of things and nothing happens. So for one year, they give people an amazing offer. They send people a letter, and they say, "If you switch to generics now, it will be free for a whole year." Free for a whole year. Amazing! What percentage of people do you think switched? Less than 10 percent. At this point, they show up to my office. And they come to complain. Why did they pick me? I wrote a couple of papers on the "allure of free." In those papers, we showed that if you reduce the price of something for, let's say, 10 cents to one cent, nothing much happens. You reduce it from one cent to zero, now people get excited.

之后他们尝试了各种方法， 依旧没有任何改变发生。 后来，他们给人们 一个一年期的很棒的优惠。 他们给人们寄了一封信，说： “如果你们现在改成仿制药， 可以免去一整年的药费。” 一整年免费。多棒啊！ 你觉得有多少人改了处方？ 不到 10%。 这时候，他们跑来我的办公室。 他们开始抱怨。 他们为什么选择我？ 因为我写了几篇 关于“免费的诱惑”的研究论文。 在那些文章中，我们表明 如果你给某个东西降价， 假如我们说 10 分到 1 分钱， 不会有太多变化。 如果你从 1 分降价到不要钱， 人们就会开始激动起来。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

And they said, "Look, we read these papers on 'free,' we gave 'free.' Not working as we expected. What's going on?" I said, "You know, maybe it's a question of friction." They said, "What do you mean?" I said, "People are starting with branded. They can do nothing and end with branded. To move to generic, they have to choose generic over branded, but they also have to do something. They have to return the letter." So this is what we call a "confounded design." Two things are happening at the same time. It's branded versus generic, but it's doing nothing versus doing something. So I said, "Why don't we switch it? Why don't we send people a letter and say, 'We're switching you to generics. You don't need to do anything. If you want to stay with branded, please return the letter.'"

之后他们说：“看，我们读了那些 关于‘免费’的文章，所以我们‘免费’给药。 这并不如我们预期， 究竟怎么回事？” 我说：“你知道， 这可能是一个摩擦的问题。” 他们说：“什么意思？” 我说：“人们最初开的是品牌药。 他们可以什么都不做， 一直开着品牌药。 如果要改成仿制药， 他们必须选择仿制药， 而且他们必须有行动， 他们需要给你们回信。” 所以这就是我们说的 “混杂设计”。 两件事同时发生。 即，品牌药 vs 仿制药。 但实际却是 无行动 vs 有行动。 所以我说： “我们为什么不调换过来？ 为何不给人们寄封信，告诉他们： 我们将要把你的处方改成仿制药。 你不需要做任何事情。 如果你想要保留品牌药的选择， 请给我们回信。”

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Right? What do you think happened? Lawyers, lawyers happened.

对吧？ 现在你认为什么情况会发生？ 律师，律师找上门了。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

It turns out, this is illegal.

结果证明，这种做法并不合法。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

By the way, for brainstorming and creativity, doing things that are illegal and immoral, it's fine, as long as it's just in the brainstorming phase.

顺便说一下，为头脑风暴和创新， 做不合法不道德的事情， 没有关系， 只要这些事情 仅停留于头脑风暴的层面。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

But this was the purity of the idea, because the initial design was the branded had the no-action benefit. In my illegal, immoral design, generic had the no-action benefit. But they agreed to give people a T-intersection: send people a letter and say, "If you don't return this letter, we will be forced to stop your medications. But when you return the letter, you could choose branded at this price, generic at this price." Now people had to take an action. They were on even footing. Right? It wasn't that one had the no-action benefit. What percentage do you think switched? The vast majority switched. So what does it tell us? Do people like generics, or do we like branded? We hate returning letters.

但这是那想法最纯粹的地方。 因为这个原始设计是 品牌药有不作为的好处。 在我违法、不道德的设计中， 仿制药有了不作为的好处。 但是他们同意给人们双向选择： 给他们寄一封信，并说： “如果你不寄回这封信， 我们将会被迫停止您的药物订阅。 但当你寄回这封信， 你可以选择付这么多钱买品牌药， 那么多钱仿制药。” 现在人们必须做出行动， 他们甚至加快了行动。对吧？ 这情况下不作为好处没了。 那么，有多少人换了？ 大多数人都换了。 所以这告诉我们什么？ 人们喜欢仿制药， 或者喜欢品牌药？ 我们讨厌回信。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

This is the story of friction: small things really matter. And friction is about taking the desired behavior and saying: Where do we have too much friction so it's slowing people down from acting on it? And every time you see that the desired behavior and the easy behavior are not aligned, it means we want to try and realign them.

这是关于摩擦的故事： 小事，但重要。 摩擦的意思是 思考着预期行为， 之后想：哪里存在太多摩擦 减慢了人们采取行动的速度? 之后每次你都会看到 那个预期行为 和容易的行为不一致， 这说明我们想要尝试， 并重新调整那些行为。

That's the first part. We talked about friction. Now let's talk about motivation. In this particular study, we were trying to get very poor people in a slum called Kibera in Kenya to save a little bit of money for a rainy day. You know, if you're very, very poor, you have no extra money, you live hand to mouth, and from time to time, bad things happen. And when something bad happens, you have nothing to draw on, you borrow. The Kibera people can borrow at sometimes up to 10 percent interest a week. And then, of course, it's really hard to get out of it. You live hand to mouth, something bad happens, you borrow, things get worse and worse and worse. So we wanted people to keep a little bit of money for a rainy day. And we thought about what is the motivation, what is the fuel that we need to add? And we tried all kinds of things. Some people, we texted them once a week and said, "Please try to save 100 shillings" -- about a dollar -- "this week." Some people, we sent a text message as if it came from their kids. So it said, "Hi Mom, hi Dad, this is little Joey" -- whatever the name of the kid was -- "Try and save 100 shillings this week for the future of our family." Right? I'm Jewish, a little bit of guilt always works.

这是第一部分， 我们讲了摩擦。 现在来谈谈动力。 在这个特别的研究中， 我们尝试着让肯尼亚的 基贝拉贫民窟里非常贫穷的人们 存一点点钱，以备不时之需。 你知道，如果你非常非常贫穷， 你不会有一点多余的钱， 你只能勉强度日， 有时，坏事还会发生。 当坏事发生的时候， 你没有任何依靠，所以你借钱。 基贝拉的人们有时会借那种 高达 10% 周利率的钱。 之后，当然， 就很难脱离这种窘境。 你勉强度日，坏事发生， 你借钱，情况变得更糟， 之后更糟，更糟。 所以我们想要让人们 存下一点点钱备用。 我们考虑了 他们做这事的动力是什么， 我们还需要加入一些 什么动力因素？ 我们尝试了各种东西。 有些人， 我们每周发消息给他们并说： “请尝试着存下 100 先令”—— 大约 1 美金——“这周。” 有些人，我们给他们发 仿佛是他们的孩子发来的消息。 所以短信写着，“爸爸妈妈， 我是小乔伊，”—— 不管孩子的名字是什么—— “这周请尝试着存下 100 先令， 为了我们家的未来。” 对吧？我是犹太人， 愧疚感总是有帮助。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Some people got 10 percent. "Save up to a hundred shillings, we'll give you 10 percent." Some people got 20 percent. Some people got also 10 percent and 20 percent, but they got it with loss aversion. What is loss aversion? Loss aversion is the idea that we hate losing more than we enjoy gaining. Now, think about somebody who is in a 10-percent condition and they put 40 shillings in. They put 40 shillings, we give them four more, they say thank you very much. That person gave up six. They could have gotten six more if they gave a hundred, but they don't see it. So we created what we call pre-match. We put the 10 shillings in at the beginning of the week. We said, "It's waiting for you!" And then if somebody puts 40 in, we say, "Oh, you put 40 in, we're leaving four, and we're taking six back." So in both cases, pre-match or post-match, people get 10 percent. But in the pre-match, they see the money they did not match leaving their account. So we have text, text from kids, 10 percent, 20 percent, pre-match, post-match. And we had one more condition. It was a coin about this size, with 24 numbers written on it. And we asked them to put the coin somewhere in their hut, and every week, take a knife and scratch the number for that week -- week one, two, three, four -- scratch it like a minus if they didn't save and scratch it up and down if they saved.

有的人拿了 10% 的利率。 “请存下 100 先令， 我们将会给你们 10% 利息。” 有的人拿了 20%。 有些人同时拿了 10% 和 20%， 但他们是通过损失厌恶而获得的。 什么是损失厌恶？ 损失厌恶就是 我们讨厌输钱的程度 远大于我们享受赢钱的程度。 现在，想一下 在 10% 条件下的某个人 存了 40 先令， 他们存了 40 先令， 我们给他们额外的 4 先令。 他们说“非常感谢。” 其实那个人损失了 6 先令。 如果他们能存 100， 本可以拿额外的 6 先令， 但是他们看不到。 所以我们搞了个实验前匹配。 我们在一周开始的时候 把 10 先令放在他们跟前， 说：“它在等着你！” 之后如果有人存进 40， 我们会说：“喔，你存了 40 ， 可以给你 4 先令， 另外的 6 先令我们拿走了。” 所以这两个情况， 实验前、或后的匹配， 人们都拿到了 10%。 但是在实验前匹配中， 他们看到了不匹配的钱 消失在他们的账户上。 我们尝试了短信、来自孩子的短信、 10% 和 20% 现金奖励， 实验前和实验后匹配。 我们还另加了一个条件。 那是一枚硬币， 大概这样的大小， 上面写有 24 个数字。 我们叫他们把这枚硬币 放在屋子里的某个地方， 之后每个星期，拿把刀 在硬币上划掉一个数字—— 第 1 周， 第 2、3、4周—— 像减法符号一样横着划线， 如果他们没有存钱， 之后他们如果存钱了， 就上下划线。

Now, think to yourself: Which one of those methods do you think worked the best? Text, text from the kids, 10 percent, 20 percent, beginning of the week, end of the week, and the coin? I'll tell you what the average people think. We've done these studies of prediction, both in the US and in Kenya. People think that 20 percent will get a lot of action, 10 percent less, the rest of it will do nothing -- kids, coin, doesn't matter. People think loss aversion will have a small effect.

现在，你想想： 哪一个方法最有效？ 短信、来自孩子的短信、 每周 10% 和 20% 现金奖励， 以及硬币？ 我可以告诉你们普遍人们的想法。 我们做了这样一个预测研究， 在美国和肯尼亚。 人们认为 20% 的方法 能鼓励大家存钱， 10% 鼓励力度少一些， 其余的没有用—— 孩子，硬币，不重要。 人们认为损失厌恶的影响很小。

What actually happened? Sending a text reminder once a week helps a lot. Good news! This program lasted six months. People forget. Reminding people is great. Ten percent at the end of the week helped some more. Financial incentives work. Twenty percent at the end of the week -- just like 10 percent, no difference. Ten percent in the beginning of the week helps some more. Loss aversion works. Twenty percent in the beginning of the week, just like 10 percent in the beginning of the week, no difference. And the text message from the kids was just as effective as 20 percent plus loss aversion -- which is amazing, right? It's amazing how motivating messages from kids were. And one conclusion is we don't use kids enough.

但实际上？ 每周一次的短信 帮助程度很大。 好消息！ 这个项目持续了 6 个月。 人们会忘记，提醒他们很好。 一周结束时的 10% 帮助更大。 金钱激励是有用的。 一周结束时的 20% —— 就和 10% 一样，没有差别。 一周开始时的 10%， 帮助更大。 损失厌恶有用。 一周开始时的 20%， 就和一周开始时的 10% 一样， 没有什么差别。 之后来自孩子的短信 就和 20% 外加损失厌恶 一样有效—— 这很令人惊讶，对吧？ 孩子的短信如此激励人们， 是一件多棒的事。 所以还有一个结论就是： 我们还没有充分利用孩子。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

And, of course, I don't mean in a child labor sense. But if you think about parents and their kids, we are the best that we can for our kids, and we think about the future, and I think we should think about how to use that amazing source of motivation to get parents to behave in a better way.

当然，我不是指使用童工。 但是如果你想想家长和孩子， 我们能为孩子们做到最好。 我们再想想未来， 我觉得我们应该思考 如何利用人们的动力源泉 让家长们表现得更好。

But the big surprise of this study was the coin. The coin basically doubled savings compared to everything else. And now the question is: Why? What was it about the coin? So I'll tell you how I started thinking about the coin, and then we'll come back to it.

但这个研究中的大惊喜 是这个硬币。 使用硬币方法的， 他们的存款是别的方法的 2 倍。 现在问题是： 为什么？硬币有什么奇特之处？ 所以让我现在来和你说 我是怎么开始思考那个硬币的， 之后再回来解决这个问题。

So you know, when I do research on, let's say, buying coffee, I don't need to go anywhere. I can sit in my office. I've bought enough coffee. I know how it works. The details, I'm familiar with. When you do research in some of the poorest places in the world, you have to go and visit and see what's going on and get some insight about how the system works. And on that particular day, I'm in a place called Soweto in South Africa, and I'm sitting in a place that sells funeral insurance. You know, in the US people spend crazy amounts of money on weddings? In South Africa, it's funerals. People spend up to a year or two years of income on funerals. And I sit in this place -- by the way, before you judge the South Africans as being irrational with this, I just want to remind you that spending a lot of money on funerals compared to weddings, at least you know for sure you only have one.

当我做关于买咖啡的研究时， 我不需要去任何地方。 我可以就坐在办公室。 我已经买了足够多的咖啡， 也知道整个流程是什么。 细节，我很熟悉。 当你在一些世界上 最贫穷的地方做研究时， 你必须亲自实地调查， 看看那里的情况， 获得有关系统如何运转的 一些见解， 之后就在那一天， 我在南非一个叫索韦托的地方， 坐在一个卖丧葬保险的地方。 你知道，在美国， 人们都是在婚礼上砸大把金钱。 但在南非，是葬礼。 人们会为葬礼 花掉一到两年的收入。 之后我坐在这里面—— 顺便说一下，在你评价南非人 针对葬礼的行为“不理性”之前， 我只想提醒你 相比花很多钱在婚礼上， 花大手笔在葬礼上 至少你可以确认一生只有一次。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

OK, so I sit in this place that sells funeral insurance. And this guy comes in with his son -- his son is about 12 -- and he buys funeral insurance for a week. It will cover 90 percent of his funeral expense only if he dies in the next seven days. Right? These are very poor people, they buy small amounts of insurance and small amount of soap and such. And he gets that certificate, and in a very ceremonious way, he gives it to his son. And as he gives it to his son, I think to myself, why the ceremony? What is this father doing? Now, think about the breadwinner that decides on that particular day to direct some money into insurance or savings. What is the family going to see tonight? They're going to see less. Right? At that level of poverty, there'll be less food, less kerosene, less water -- something less tonight. And what his father was doing and what our coin was trying to do is to say, yes, there's less food on the table, but there's another activity. You see, what happened is, there are many good, important economic activities, like savings and insurance, that are invisible. And now the question is: How do we make them visible?

好吧，所以我坐在 卖丧葬保险的地方。 之后一个男子和他的儿子进来—— 他的儿子大约 12 岁—— 他买了一个礼拜的丧葬保险。 如果他在未来 7 天内死亡， 能报销 90% 他的丧葬费用。 对吧？这些是非常贫穷的人们， 他们买非常小额的保险 以及少量肥皂，诸如此类。 当他拿到那个保险证书， 他非常隆重地将证书 递给了他儿子。 当他递出的时候， 我在想，为什么这么隆重？ 这父亲在做什么？ 现在，想想这个养家糊口的人 在特定的那天 决定把钱放进保险或存款。 这家人今晚将会经历什么？ 他们将会看到更少的东西。 对吧？那样程度的贫困， 更少的食物、煤油，和水—— 有些东西今晚会变少。 之后他的父亲所为， 以及我们研究中硬币尝试做的 是为了说，没错， 餐桌上更少的食物， 但是，还有另一个活动。 发生的事情是， 这里有不少很好且重要的经济活动， 例如存款、保险， 它们都是不可见的。 那现在的问题就是： 我们如何让它们变得可见？

So let's go back to our rocket model. We have to, first of all, look at the system and see where there's little things we can fix, with friction, where is there that we can remove friction? And then the next thing we want to do is to think broadly about the system, and say: What other motivations can we bring in? And that's a much more difficult exercise, and we don't always know what would work best. Is it going to be money? Is it going to be loss aversion? Is it going to be something that is visible? We don't know, and we have to try different things. We also have to realize that our intuition sometimes misleads us. We don't always necessarily know what would work the best.

所以让我们回到开始的火箭模型。 我们必须，首先，看看系统 并且看看其中哪些地方， 利用摩擦，是我们可以改进的， 我们在哪里能够消除摩擦？ 在这之后，我们想做的下一件事 就是广泛地思考这个系统， 并说：我们可以加入 什么其它的动力因素？ 这是一个困难很多的操作， 并且我们不总是知道 什么最管用。 会是钱吗？ 会是损失厌恶吗？ 会是某个可见的东西吗？ 我们不知道， 所以我们要不断尝试不同的东西。 我们也需要意识到 我们的直觉有时会误导我们。 我们并不总是知道 怎么做效果最好。

So if we think about this gap between where we could be and where we are, it's a really sad thing to see this gap and to think about it. But the good news is, there's lots we can do. Some of the changes are easy, some of the changes are more complex. But if we'll attack each problem directly, not by just providing more information to people but trying to change the friction, add motivation, I think we can ... Can we close the gap? No. But can we get much better? Absolutely, yes.

所以，如果我们回想开篇说的 我们在哪个水平和 我们将能达到哪个水平的差距， 看着这个差距，并且思考这件事， 真的非常令人难过。 但好消息是， 还有很多我们能做的事。 有的改变是简单的， 有的改变会更加复杂。 但如果我们能直接击破每个问题， 不仅是通过给人们提供更多信息， 而且尝试着改变摩擦， 加强动力， 我想我们可以…… 我们能弥补差距吗？不能。 但我们能做得更好吗？ 绝对可以。

Thank you very much.

非常感谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）

传播有价值的思想和观点！我相信这些新观点和有价值思想将让我们的人生大不同！从中英文字幕到无字幕，重复视听，享受演讲内容！不用过于刻意，思维方式将会改变，生活将会改变，英文水平也会随之提高！欢迎关注！