斯坦福大學演講：別在不斷優(yōu)秀中淪落平庸

　　William Deresiewicz，威廉 · 德萊塞維茨，美國作家和文學評論家，美國《國家》雜志撰稿人和《新共和》雜志編輯。本文是他2010年在斯坦福大學的演講的下半部分。接下來由學習啦小編為大家推薦斯坦福大學演講：別在不斷優(yōu)秀中淪落平庸，希望對你有所幫助!

　　斯坦福大學演講：別在不斷優(yōu)秀中淪落平庸

　　There is an alternative, however, and it may be one that hasn't occurred to you. Let me try to explain it by telling you a story about one of your peers, and the alternative that hadn't occurred to her. A couple of years ago, I participated in a panel discussion at Harvard that dealt with some of these same matters, and afterward I was contacted by one of the students who had come to the event, a young woman who was writing her senior thesis about Harvard itself, how it instills in its students what she called self-efficacy, the sense that you can do anything you want. Self-efficacy, or, in more familiar terms, self-esteem. There are some kids, she said, who get an A on a test and say, "I got it because it was easy." And there are other kids, the kind with self-efficacy or self-esteem, who get an A on a test and say, "I got it because I'm smart."

　　Again, there's nothing wrong with thinking that you got an A because you're smart. But what that Harvard student didn't realize—and it was really quite a shock to her when I suggested it—is that there is a third alternative. True self-esteem, I proposed, means not caring whether you get an A in the first place. True self-esteem means recognizing, despite everything that your upbringing has trained you to believe about yourself, that the grades you get—and the awards, and the test scores, and the trophies, and the acceptance letters—are not what defines who you are.

　　不過，還有另外一種情況，或許中年危機并不會發(fā)生在你身上。讓我告訴你們一個同伴的故事來解釋我的意思吧，還有一個她沒有遇到過的可能。幾年前，我在哈佛參加了一次小組討論會，談到這些問題。后來參加這次討論的一個學生給我聯(lián)系，這個哈佛學生正在寫有關哈佛的畢業(yè)論文，討論哈佛是如何給學生灌輸她所說的“自我效能”，一種相信自己能做一切的意識。自我效能或更熟悉的說法“自我尊重”。她說有些在考試中得了優(yōu)秀的有些學生會說“我得優(yōu)秀是因為試題很簡單。” 但另外一些學生，那種具有自我效能感或自我尊重的學生，考試得了優(yōu)秀會說“我得優(yōu)秀是因為我聰明。”

　　再說一遍，認為得了優(yōu)秀是因為自己聰明的想法并沒有任何錯，不過，哈佛學生沒有認識到的是他們沒有第三種選擇。當我指出這一點時， 她十分震驚。我指出，真正的自尊意味著最初根本就不在乎成績是否優(yōu)秀。真正的自尊意味著對此問題的足夠認識：盡管你在成長過程中的一切都在教導你要相信自 己，但你所等獲得的成績，還有那些獎勵、成績、獎品、錄取通知書等所有這一切，都不能來定義你是誰。

　　She also claimed, this young woman, that Harvard students take their sense of self-efficacy out into the world and become, as she put it, "innovative." But when I asked her what she meant by innovative, the only example she could come up with was "being CEO of a Fortune 500." That's not innovative, I told her, that's just successful, and successful according to a very narrow definition of success. True innovation means using your imagination, exercising the capacity to envision new possibilities.

　　But I'm not here to talk about technological innovation, I'm here to talk about a different kind. It's not about inventing a new machine or a new drug. It's about inventing your own life. Not following a path, but making your own path. The kind of imagination I'm talking about is moral imagination. "Moral" meaning not right or wrong, but having to do with making choices. Moral imagination means the capacity to envision new ways to live your life.

　　她還說，這個年輕的女孩子說哈佛學生把他們的自我效能帶到了世界上，如她所說的“創(chuàng)新”。但當我問她“創(chuàng)新”意味著什么時，她能夠想到的唯一例子不過是“世界大公司五百強的首席執(zhí)行官”。我告訴她這不是創(chuàng)新，這只是成功，而且是狹義的成功而已。真正的創(chuàng)新意味著運用你的想象力，發(fā)揮你的潛力，創(chuàng)造新的可能性。

　　但這里我并不是在談論技術創(chuàng)新，不是發(fā)明新機器或者制造一種新藥，我談論的是另外一種創(chuàng)新，是創(chuàng)造你自己的生活。不是走現成的道路，而是創(chuàng)造一條屬于自己的道路。我談論的想象力是道德想象力(moral imagination：心理學專業(yè)名詞)。“道德”在這里無關對錯，而是與選擇有關。道德想象力意味著創(chuàng)造自己新生的能力。

　　It means not just going with the flow. It means not just "getting into" whatever school or program comes next. It means figuring out what you want for yourself, not what your parents want, or your peers want, or your school wants, or your society wants. Originating your own values. Thinking your way toward your own definition of success. Not simply accepting the life that you've been handed. Not simply accepting the choices you've been handed. When you walk into Starbucks, you're offered a choice among a latte and a macchiato and an espresso and a few other things, but you can also make another choice. You can turn around and walk out. When you walk into college, you are offered a choice among law and medicine and investment banking and consulting and a few other things, but again, you can also do something else, something that no one has thought of before.

　　Let me give you another counterexample. I wrote an essay a couple of years ago that touched on some of these same points. I said, among other things, that kids at places like Yale or Stanford tend to play it safe and go for the conventional rewards. And one of the most common criticisms I got went like this: What about Teach for America? Lots of kids from elite colleges go and do TFA after they graduate, so therefore I was wrong. TFA, TFA—I heard that over and over again. And Teach for America is undoubtedly a very good thing. But to cite TFA in response to my argument is precisely to miss the point, and to miss it in a way that actually confirms what I'm saying. The problem with TFA—or rather, the problem with the way that TFA has become incorporated into the system—is that it's just become another thing to get into.

　　它意味著不隨波逐流，不是下一步要“進入”什么名牌大學或研究生院。而是要弄清楚自己到底想要什么，而不是父母、同伴、 學校、或社會想要什么。即確認你自己的價值觀，思考邁向自己所定義的成功的道路，而不僅僅是接受別人給你的生活，不僅僅是接受別人給你的選擇。當今走進星巴克咖啡館，服務員可能讓你在牛奶咖啡、加糖咖啡、特制咖啡等幾樣東西之間做出選擇。但你可以做出另外的選擇，你可以轉身走出去。當你進入大學，人家給你眾多選擇，或法律或醫(yī)學或投資銀行和咨詢以及其他，但你同樣也可以做其他事，做從前根本沒有人想過的事。

　　讓我再舉一個反面的例子。幾年前我寫過一篇涉及同類問題的文章。我說，那些在耶魯和斯坦福這類名校的孩子往往比較謹慎，去追求一些穩(wěn)妥的獎勵。我得到的最常見的批評是：教育項目“為美國而教”如何?從名校出來的很多學生畢業(yè)后很多參與這個教育項目，因此我的觀點是錯誤的。我一再聽到TFA這個術語。“為美國而教”當然是好東西，但引用這個項目來反駁我的觀點恰恰是不得要領，實際上正好證明了我想說的東西。“為美國而教”的問題 或者“為美國而教”已經成為體系一部分的問題，是它已經成為另外一個需要“進入”的門檻。