How do you explain when things don't go as we assume?
你如何解释事情没有按照我们的假设发展？
01 / READ
Transcript
Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions?
或者更好的是，你如何解释其他人能够实现似乎违背所有假设的事情？
For example: Why is Apple so innovative?
例如：为什么苹果公司如此创新？
Year after year, after year, they're more innovative than all their competition.
年复一年，他们的创新能力超过了所有竞争对手。
And yet, they're just a computer company.
然而，他们只是一个计算机公司。
They're just like everyone else.
他们和其他人没有什么不同。
They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media.
他们拥有与其他人相同的人才、同样的代理机构、同样的顾问和同样的媒体。
Then why is it that they seem to have something different?
那么，为什么他们似乎拥有一些不同的东西？
Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement?
为什么马丁·路德·金领导了民权运动？
He wasn't the only man who suffered in pre-civil rights America, and he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day.
他并不是唯一一个在民权之前的美国受苦的人，当然他也不是当时唯一的杰出演说家。
Why him?
为什么是他？
And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out controlled, powered man flight when there were certainly other teams who were better qualified, better funded -- and they didn't achieve powered man flight, and the Wright brothers beat them to it.
为什么萊特兄弟能够在有其他更合格、资金更充足的团队的情况下，成功实现受控的动力飞行，而那些团队却没有做到，萊特兄弟却赢得了先机。
There's something else at play here.
这里还有其他因素在起作用。
About three and a half years ago, I made a discovery.
大约三年半前，我有了一个发现。
And this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked, and it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it.
这个发现深刻改变了我对世界运作方式的看法，甚至深刻改变了我在其中的运作方式。
As it turns out, there's a pattern.
事实证明，这里有一个模式。
As it turns out, all the great inspiring leaders and organizations in the world, whether it's Apple or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers, they all think, act and communicate the exact same way.
事实证明，世界上所有伟大的激励领导者和组织，无论是苹果，马丁·路德·金，还是萊特兄弟，他们的思维、行动和沟通方式完全相同。
And it's the complete opposite to everyone else.
而这与其他人完全相反。
All I did was codify it, and it's probably the world's simplest idea.
我所做的就是把它规范化，这可能是世界上最简单的想法。
I call it the golden circle.
我称之为黄金圆圈。
Why?
为什么？
How?
怎么？
What?
什么？
This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't.
这个小点子解释了为什么一些组织和一些领导者能够激励他人，而另一些则不能。
Let me define the terms really quickly.
让我快速定义一下这些术语。
Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 percent.
地球上每一个人、每一个组织都知道他们在做什么，百分之百。
Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP.
有些人知道他们是怎么做的，无论你称之为差异化价值主张、专有流程还是你的独特销售主张。
But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do.
但非常非常少的人或组织知道他们为什么做他们所做的事情。
And by "why" I don't mean "to make a profit."
“为什么”并不意味着“为了盈利”。
That's a result.
那是一个结果。
It's always a result.
这总是一个结果。
By "why," I mean: What's your purpose?
“为什么”我指的是：你的目标是什么？
What's your cause?
你的原因是什么？
What's your belief?
你的信念是什么？
Why does your organization exist?
你的组织为什么存在？
Why do you get out of bed in the morning?
你早上为什么起床？
And why should anyone care?
那么为什么任何人会在乎呢？
As a result, the way we think, we act, the way we communicate is from the outside in, it's obvious.
因此，我们的思维、行动方式、沟通方式是从外向内，这很明显。
We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing.
我们从最清晰的事情过渡到最模糊的事情。
But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations -- regardless of their size, regardless of their industry -- all think, act and communicate from the inside out.
但受到启发的领导者和受到启发的组织——无论他们的规模如何，行业如何——都从内向外思考、行动和沟通。
Let me give you an example.
让我给你举个例子。
I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it.
我使用苹果，因为它们简单易懂，每个人都能理解。
If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this: "We make great computers.
如果苹果像其他人一样，他们的营销信息可能会听起来像这样："我们制造优秀的计算机。
They're beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly.
它们设计精美，简单易用，对用户友好。
Want to buy one?" "
想买一台吗？" "
Meh."
呃。"
That's how most of us communicate.
这就是我们大多数人的沟通方式。
That's how most marketing and sales are done, that's how we communicate interpersonally.
这就是大多数营销和销售的方式，这就是我们人际沟通的方式。
We say what we do, we say how we're different or better and we expect some sort of a behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like that.
我们说我们做什么，我们说我们有什么不同或更好，并且我们期望某种行为，购买，投票，类似的事情。
Here's our new law firm: We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients, we always perform for our clients.
这是我们新的律师事务所：我们拥有最好的律师和最大的客户，我们总是为客户表现出色。
Here's our new car: It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats.
这是我们的新车：它的油耗很棒，有真皮座椅。
Buy our car.
买我们的车。
But it's uninspiring.
但这缺乏灵感。
Here's how Apple actually communicates. "
这是苹果实际沟通的方式。"
Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo.
我们所做的一切，都是相信挑战现状。
We believe in thinking differently.
我们相信要与众不同。
The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly.
我们挑战现状的方式是通过使我们的产品设计精美、简单易用和用户友好。
We just happen to make great computers.
我们只是刚好制造出优秀的计算机。
Want to buy one?"
想买一台吗？"
Totally different, right?
完全不同，对吧？
You're ready to buy a computer from me.
你准备从我这里购买一台电脑。
I just reversed the order of the information.
我刚刚颠倒了信息的顺序。
What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do; people buy why you do it.
这向我们证明，人们并不是因为你做了什么而购买；人们购买的是你为什么这样做。
This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple.
这解释了为什么在座的每一个人都非常乐于从苹果公司购买电脑。
But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple.
但我们也非常乐于从苹果公司购买MP3播放器，或者手机，或者DVR。
As I said before, Apple's just a computer company.
正如我之前所说，苹果只是一个电脑公司。
Nothing distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors.
在结构上，他们与任何竞争对手没有什么区别。
Their competitors are equally qualified to make all of these products.
他们的竞争对手同样有能力生产这些产品。
In fact, they tried.
事实上，他们尝试过。
A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat-screen TVs.
几年前，Gateway推出了平板电视。
They're eminently qualified to make flat-screen TVs.
他们非常有资格制造平板电视。
They've been making flat-screen monitors for years.
他们已经制造平板显示器多年。
Nobody bought one.
但没有人买过。
Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs, and they make great quality products, and they can make perfectly well-designed products -- and nobody bought one.
戴尔推出了MP3播放器和PDA，他们制造出高质量的产品，设计也很出色——但没有人买过。
In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell.
事实上，现在谈到这个，我们甚至无法想象从戴尔购买MP3播放器。
Why would you buy one from a computer company?
你为什么要从一家电脑公司购买呢？
But we do it every day.
但我们每天都在这样做。
People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
人们并不是因为你做了什么而购买；他们购买的是你为什么这样做。
The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have.
目标不是与每一个需要你所拥有的东西的人做生意。
The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe.
目标是与相信你所相信的人做生意。
Here's the best part: None of what I'm telling you is my opinion.
最好的部分是：我告诉你的这一切都不是我的观点。
It's all grounded in the tenets of biology.
这一切都基于生物学的原则。
Not psychology, biology.
不是心理学，是生物学。
If you look at a cross-section of the human brain, from the top down, the human brain is actually broken into three major components that correlate perfectly with the golden circle.
如果你从上往下看人脑的横截面，人脑实际上被分为三个主要部分，完美地与黄金圈相对应。
Our newest brain, our Homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the "what" level.
我们最新的脑，智人脑，我们的新人皮层，对应于“什么”的层面。
The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language.
新人皮层负责我们所有的理性和分析思维以及语言。
The middle two sections make up our limbic brains, and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty.
中间的两部分组成了我们的边缘脑，而我们的边缘脑负责我们所有的感受，比如信任和忠诚。
It's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language.
它还负责所有人类行为、所有决策，并且没有语言能力。
In other words, when we communicate from the outside in, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information like features and benefits and facts and figures.
换句话说，当我们从外向内沟通时，是的，人们可以理解大量复杂的信息，例如特征、好处和事实数据。
It just doesn't drive behavior.
这并不会驱动行为。
When we can communicate from the inside out, we're talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior, and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do.
当我们能够从内向外沟通时，我们就在直接与控制行为的大脑部分对话，然后我们让人们用我们所说和所做的具体事物来合理化它。
This is where gut decisions come from.
这就是直觉决策的来源。
Sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures, and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right."
有时你可以给某人所有的事实和数据，他们会说：“我知道所有事实和细节，但这感觉就是不对。”
Why would we use that verb, it doesn't "feel" right?
我们为什么会使用那个动词，它“感觉”不对？
Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn't control language.
因为控制决策的大脑部分不控制语言。
The best we can muster up is, "I don't know.
我们能想到的最多就是，“我不知道。
It just doesn't feel right."
这就是感觉不对。”
Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart or soul.
或者有时你会说你是在跟随你的心或灵魂。
I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts controlling your behavior.
我不想让你失望，那些不是其他身体部位在控制你的行为。
It's all happening here in your limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.
这一切都发生在你的边缘脑中，这一部分控制决策，而不是语言。
But if you don't know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how will you ever get people to vote for you, or buy something from you, or, more importantly, be loyal and want to be a part of what it is that you do.
但是，如果你不知道自己为什么做你所做的事情，而人们也关注你为什么做你所做的事情，那你怎么能让人们投票支持你，或者购买你的东西，或者，更重要的是，忠诚并想参与你所做的事情呢？
The goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have; the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe.
目标不仅仅是向需要你所拥有的人销售；目标是向相信你所相信的人销售。
The goal is not just to hire people who need a job; it's to hire people who believe what you believe.
目标不仅仅是雇佣需要工作的人；而是雇佣相信你所相信的人的人。
I always say that, you know, if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money, but if they believe what you believe, they'll work for you with blood and sweat and tears.
我总是说，你知道的，如果你仅仅是因为他们能做一份工作而雇佣他们，他们会为你的钱工作，但如果他们相信你所相信的，他们会为你拼尽全力。
Nowhere else is there a better example than with the Wright brothers.
没有比怀特兄弟更好的例子了。
Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley.
大多数人对塞缪尔·皮尔庞特·兰利并不了解。
And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day.
在20世纪初，有动力的人类飞行的追求就像当时的网络泡沫一样。
Everybody was trying it.
每个人都在尝试。
And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for success.
而塞缪尔·皮尔庞特·兰利拥有我们所认为的成功秘诀。
Even now, you ask people, "Why did your product or why did your company fail?" and people always give you the same permutation of the same three things: under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions.
即使到现在，你问人们‘你的产品或你的公司为什么失败？’人们总是给出同样的三样东西：资金不足，错误的人，市场条件不好。
It's always the same three things, so let's explore that.
总是这三样东西，所以让我们探讨一下。
Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department to figure out this flying machine.
塞缪尔·皮尔庞特·兰利得到了战部提供的5万美元来搞清楚这个飞行器。
Money was no problem.
钱不是问题。
He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected; he knew all the big minds of the day.
他在哈佛大学有一个职位，并在史密森学会工作，与当时所有的大人物都关系密切。
He hired the best minds money could find and the market conditions were fantastic.
他雇佣了最优秀的人才，资金充足，市场条件也很好。
The New York Times followed him around everywhere, and everyone was rooting for Langley.
《纽约时报》到处跟踪他，每个人都为兰利加油。
Then how come we've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley?
那么我们为什么从未听过塞缪尔·皮尔庞特·兰利呢？
A few hundred miles away in Dayton, Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success.
在几百英里外的俄亥俄州代顿，奥维尔和威尔bur怀特兄弟，他们没有我们认为的成功秘诀。
They had no money; they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop.
他们没有钱；他们用自行车店的收益来支付他们的梦想。
Not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur.
怀特兄弟团队中没有一个人有大学学历，甚至奥维尔和威尔bur也没有。
And The New York Times followed them around nowhere.
《纽约时报》跟踪他们游荡在无处。
The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief.
不同之处在于，奥维尔和威尔伯受到一种事业、一个目标、一个信念的驱动。
They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it'll change the course of the world.
他们相信，如果能够弄清楚这架飞行器，将改变世界的进程。
Samuel Pierpont Langley was different.
塞缪尔·皮尔庞特·兰利是不同的。
He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous.
他想要变得富有，他想要成名。
He was in pursuit of the result.
他在追求结果。
He was in pursuit of the riches.
他在追求财富。
And lo and behold, look what happened.
哇，看看发生了什么。
The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream worked with them with blood and sweat and tears.
相信莱特兄弟梦想的人与他们一起用血汗和泪水工作。
The others just worked for the paycheck.
其他人只是为了工资而工作。
They tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out, they would have to take five sets of parts, because that's how many times they would crash before supper.
他们讲述每当莱特兄弟出门时，总要带上五套零件，因为他们在晚餐前会坠毁那么多次。
And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it.
最终在1903年12月17日，莱特兄弟成功飞行，而没有人亲身经历这一切。
We found out about it a few days later.
几天后我们才得知这个消息。
And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing: the day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit.
进一步证明兰利受到错误动机驱动的是：莱特兄弟起飞那天，他 quit 了。
He could have said, "That's an amazing discovery, guys, and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn't.
他本可以说：‘这是一个了不起的发现，伙计们，我会在你们的技术基础上改进，’但他没有这样做。
He wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous, so he quit.
他没有成为第一，他没有变得富有，也没有成名，所以他 quit 了。
People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
人们并不购买你所做的事情，而是购买你为什么要这样做。
If you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe.
如果你谈论你的信念，你将吸引那些相信你信念的人。
But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe?
但是，为什么吸引那些相信你信念的人很重要呢？
Something called the law of diffusion of innovation, if you don't know the law, you know the terminology.
这与创新扩散的法则有关，如果你不知道这个法则，你也知道这个术语。
The first 2.5% of our population are our innovators.
我们人口的前2.5%是我们的创新者。
The next 13.5% of our population are our early adopters.
接下来13.5%是我们的早期采用者。
The next 34% are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards.
接下来的34%是你的早期大众、后期大众和滞后者。
The only reason these people buy touch-tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.
这些人购买触控电话的唯一原因是你无法再购买旋转电话了。
We all sit at various places at various times on this scale, but what the law of diffusion of innovation tells us is that if you want mass-market success or mass-market acceptance of an idea, you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point between 15 and 18 percent market penetration, and then the system tips.
我们在这个范围内的不同位置和时间上，但创新扩散法则告诉我们，如果你想要大众市场的成功或接受一种想法，在你达到15%到18%的市场渗透率之前，你是不可能拥有它的，之后系统就会发生转变。
I love asking businesses, "What's your conversion on new business?"
我喜欢问企业，"你们的新业务转化率是多少？"
They love to tell you, "It's about 10 percent," proudly.
他们喜欢自豪地告诉你，"大约是10%"。
Well, you can trip over 10% of the customers.
好吧，你可以碰到10%的客户。
We all have about 10% who just "get it."
我们都有大约10%的人能够"理解"。
That's how we describe them, right?
这就是我们描述他们的方式，对吧？
That's like that gut feeling, "Oh, they just get it."
这就像一种直觉，"哦，他们就是明白了。"
The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before doing business versus the ones who don't get it?
问题是：在做生意之前，如何找到那些理解的人，而不是那些不理解的人？
So it's this here, this little gap that you have to close, as Jeffrey Moore calls it, "Crossing the Chasm" -- because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first.
所以这里有个小缺口，正如杰弗里·摩尔所称的，"跨越鸿沟"——因为你看，早期大众不会尝试某样东西，直到别人先尝试过。
And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they're comfortable making those gut decisions.
而这些家伙，创新者和早期采用者，他们在做这些直觉决定时感到自在。
They're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions that are driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available.
他们更愿意做那些由他们对世界的信念驱动的直觉决定，而不仅仅是基于可用的产品。
These are the people who stood in line for six hours to buy an iPhone when they first came out, when you could have bought one off the shelf the next week.
这些人是在iPhone首次推出时排队六个小时购买的人，而你下周就可以直接从货架上买到。
These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars on flat-screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard.
这些人是在平板电视首次推出时花了40000美元的人，尽管技术并不先进。
And, by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great; they did it for themselves.
顺便提一下，他们这样做并不是因为技术如此出色；他们是为了自己。
It's because they wanted to be first.
因为他们想要成为第一。
People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe.
人们并不是购买你所做的事；他们购买你为什么这样做，而你所做的事只是证明了你的信念。
In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe.
事实上，人们会做出能证明他们信仰的事情。
The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours, stood in line for six hours, was because of what they believed about the world, and how they wanted everybody to see them: they were first.
这个人之所以在头六个小时内购买iPhone，站了六个小时的队，是因为他们对这个世界的信念，以及他们想要让每个人看到他们的方式：他们是第一个。
People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
人们并不是买你做的事情；他们购买的是你为什么这样做。
So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation.
所以让我给你一个著名的例子，一个著名的失败和一个著名的成功，来说明创新扩散法则。
First, the famous failure.
首先，著名的失败。
It's a commercial example.
这是一个商业例子。
As we said before, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions.
正如我们之前所说，成功的秘诀是资金、合适的人以及合适的市场条件。
You should have success then.
那你应该会成功。
Look at TiVo.
看看TiVo。
From the time TiVo came out about eight or nine years ago to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no dispute.
自从TiVo大约八九年前推出以来，他们的产品在市场上始终是单一的高质量产品，毫无争议。
They were extremely well-funded.
他们有极其充足的资金支持。
Market conditions were fantastic.
市场状况非常好。
I mean, we use TiVo as verb.
我是说，我们把TiVo作为动词使用。
I TiVo stuff on my piece-of-junk Time Warner DVR all the time.
我经常在我的低劣的时代华纳DVR上TiVo各种东西。
But TiVo's a commercial failure.
但TiVo是一个商业上的失败。
They've never made money.
他们从未盈利。
And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10.
当他们上市时，他们的股票大约在30或40美元，但随后暴跌，从此未曾高于10美元。
In fact, I don't think it's even traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes.
事实上，我认为它甚至没有超过6美元，除了几个小的高峰。
Because you see, when TiVo launched their product, they told us all what they had.
因为你看，当TiVo推出他们的产品时，他们告诉我们他们所拥有的。
They said, "We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits without you even asking."
他们说，"我们有一款产品可以暂停直播电视，跳过广告，倒回直播电视，并且在你甚至没有请求的情况下记住你的观看习惯。"
And the cynical majority said, "We don't believe you.
而愤世嫉俗的多数人说："我们不相信你。
We don't need it.
我们不需要它。
We don't like it.
我们不喜欢它。
You're scaring us."
你在吓唬我们。"
What if they had said, "If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for you.
如果他们说："如果你是那种喜欢完全控制自己生活各个方面的人，那么，我们有一款产品适合你。
It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc." People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it, and what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe.
它暂停直播电视，跳过广告，记住你的观看习惯，等等，等等。"人们不是购买你做的事情，而是购买你为什么做事情，你的所作所为只是你信仰的证明。
Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation.
现在让我给你一个成功的创新扩散法则的例子。
In the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear Dr. King speak.
在1963年夏天，25万人聚集在华盛顿的购物中心听金博士发言。
They sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the date.
他们没有发出邀请，也没有网站检查日期。
How do you do that?
你是怎么做到的？
Well, Dr. King wasn't the only man in America who was a great orator.
好吧，金博士并不是美国唯一一位伟大的演说家。
He wasn't the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights America.
他并不是美国唯一一位在公民权利运动之前遭受苦难的人。
In fact, some of his ideas were bad.
事实上，他的一些想法是错误的。
But he had a gift.
但他有一份天赋。
He didn't go around telling people what needed to change in America.
他并没有到处告诉人们美国需要改变什么。
He went around and told people what he believed. "
他走到哪里，告诉人们他相信什么。"
I believe, I believe, I believe," he told people.
"我相信，我相信，我相信，"他告诉人们。
And people who believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people.
而那些相信他信仰的人支持他的事业，他们将其变成自己的事业，并告诉其他人。
And some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more people.
而那些人还创造了结构，以传播给更多人。
And lo and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day at the right time to hear him speak.
结果，25万人在正确的时间和正确的日期出现，听他发言。
How many of them showed up for him?
他们有多少人为他而来？
Zero.
零。
They showed up for themselves.
他们是为了自己而来。
It's what they believed about America that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August.
正是他们对美国的信仰让他们乘坐巴士旅行八个小时，在八月中旬的华盛顿太阳下站立。
It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white: 25% of the audience was white.
这就是他们的信仰，这不仅仅是关于黑人和白人：25%的观众是白人。
Dr. King believed that there are two types of laws in this world: those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by men.
金博士相信这个世界上有两种法律：一种是由更高权威制定的法律，另一种是由人类制定的法律。
And not until all the laws that are made by men are consistent with the laws made by the higher authority will we live in a just world.
直到所有由人制定的法律与由更高权威制定的法律一致时，我们才能生活在一个公正的世界中。
It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life.
正巧民权运动是帮助他实现他的事业的完美事情。
We followed, not for him, but for ourselves.
我们追随，不是为了他，而是为了我们自己。
By the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech, not the "I have a plan" speech.
顺便说一下，他发表的是"我有一个梦想"的演讲，而不是"我有一个计划"的演讲。
Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans.
现在听听政客们，他们有全面的12点计划。
They're not inspiring anybody.
他们并没有激励任何人。
Because there are leaders and there are those who lead.
因为有领导者和那些引导的人。
Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us.
领导者拥有权力或权威，但那些引导的人会激励我们。
Whether they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to.
无论他们是个人还是组织，我们追随那些引导的人，不是因为必须，而是因为我们想。
We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves.
我们追随那些引导的人，不是为了他们，而是为了我们自己。
And it's those who start with "why" that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them.
而那些以"为什么"开头的人有能力激励周围的人，或找到能激励他们的其他人。
Thank you very much.
非常感谢你。
02 / UNDERSTAND
A closer look
IN THIS CONTEXT ·0:16
How do you explain when things don't go as we assume?
你如何解释事情没有按照我们的假设发展？
Write your understanding, then save it.
Select a whole sentence or an expression to get grammar and usage analysis.