IPP ted listening series

2017 TED Listening 24 “FILL IN THE BLANKS” EXERCISES TU PHAM IPP EDUCATION | www.ippeducation.vn Contents 01 Emma Watson - HEFORSHE CAMPAIGN Fill in the blanks Key 02 Rory Sutherland - PERSPECTIVE IS EVERYTHING 10 Fill in the blanks 10 Key 15 03 Jill Bolte Taylor - MY STROKE OF INSIGHT 19 Fill in the blanks 19 Key 24 04 Tristram Stuart - THE GLOBAL FOOD WASTE SCANDAL 29 Fill in the blanks 29 Key 33 05 Donald Sadoway - THE MISSING LINK TO RENEWABLE ENERGY 37 Fill in the blanks 37 Key 41 06 Kevin Robinson - DO SCHOOLS KILL CREATIVITY? 45 Fill in the blanks 45 Key 53 07 Chystia Freeland - THE RISE OF THE NEW GLOBAL SUPER-RICH 61 Fill in the blanks 61 Key 65 08 James Hansen - WHY I MUST SPEAK OUT ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE 69 Fill in the blanks 69 Key 73 09 Amanda Burden - HOW PUBLIC SPACES MAKE CITIES WORK 78 Fill in the blanks 78 Key 83 10 Maryn McKenna - WHAT DO WE DO WHEN ANTIBIOTICS DON’T WORK ANY MORE? 88 Fill in the blanks 88 Key 92 11 Wade DavisTHE WORLDWIDE WEB OF BELIEF AND RITUAL 96 Fill in the blanks 96 Key 102 12 Guy Winch - WHY WE ALL NEED TO PRACTICE EMOTIONAL FIRST AID 107 Fill in the blanks 107 Key 112 13 Simon Sinek - HOW GREAT LEADERS INSPIRE ACTIONS 117 Fill in the blanks 117 Key 123 14 Tim Urban - INSIDE THE MIND OF A MASTER PROCASTINATOR 128 Fill in the blanks 128 Key 134 15 Adam Alter - WHY OUR SCREENS MAKE US LESS UNHAPPY 139 Fill in the blanks 139 Key 143 16 Jonathan Marks - IN PRAISE OF CONFLICT 146 Fill in the blanks 146 Key 149 17 Shawn Achor - THE HAPPY SECRET TO BETTER WORK 153 Fill in the blanks 153 Key 158 18 Kelly McGonigal - HOW TO MAKE STRESS YOUR FRIEND 163 Fill in the blanks 163 Key 167 19 Amy Cuddy - YOUR BODY LANGUAGE SHAPES WHO YOU ARE 171 Fill in the blanks 171 Key 177 20 Julian Treasure - HOW TO SPEAK SO THAT PEOPLE WANT TO LISTEN 183 Fill in the blanks 183 Key 187 21 Anne Milgram - WHY SMART STATISTICS ARE THE KEY TO FIGHTING CRIME 190 Fill in the blanks 190 Key 194 22 Julie Lythcott Haims - HOW TO RAISE SUCCESSFUL KIDS WITHOUT OVER PARENTING 198 Fill in the blanks 198 Key 202 23 Naomi Oreskes - WHY WE SHOULD BELIEVE IN SCIENCE 206 Fill in the blanks 206 Key 211 24 Simon Anholt - WHICH COUNTRY DOES THE MOST GOOD FOR THE WORLD 216 Fill in the blanks 216 Key 221 01 Emma Watson - HEFORSHE CAMPAIGN Fill in the blanks Today we are _ a _ called for HeForShe I am _ out to you because we need your help We want to end gender _, and to this, we need everyone _ This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN We want to try to _ as many men and boys as possible to be _ for change And, we don’t just want to talk about it We want to try and make sure that it’s tangible I was _ as Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women six months ago And, the more I spoke about _, the more I realized that _ for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man- _ If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to _ For the record, feminism by definition is the _ that men and women should have equal rights and _ It is the theory of political, economic and _ equality of the sexes I started questioning gender-based _ a long time ago When I was 8, I was confused for being called _ because I wanted to _ the plays that we would put on for our parents, but the boys were not When at 14, I started to be sexualized by certain elements of the _ When at 15, my girlfriends started _ out of sports teams because they didn’t want to _ muscly When at 18, my male friends were _ to express their _ I decided that I was a _, and this seemed _ to me But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an _ word Women are choosing not to _ as feminists Apparently, I’m among the ranks of women whose _ are seen as too strong, too _, isolating, and anti-men _, even Why has the word become such an _ one? I am from Britain, and I think it is right I am paid the same as my male _ I think it is right that I should be able to make _ about my own body I think it is right that women be involved on my _ in the _ and decisions that will _ my life I think it is right that _, I am afforded the same _ as men But sadly, I can say that there is no one _ in the world where all women can _ to see these rights No country in the world can yet say that they _ gender equality These rights, I _ to be human rights, but I am one of the lucky _ My life is a sheer _ because my parents didn’t love me _ because I was born a daughter My school did not _ me because I was a girl My mentors didn't assume that I would go less far because I might give _ to a child one day These _ were the gender equality ambassadors that made me who I am today They may not know it, but they are the inadvertent feminists that are changing the world today We need more of _ And if you still hate the word, it is not the word that is _ It’s the idea and the _ behind it, because not all women have _ the same rights I have In fact, statistically, very _ have In 1997, Hillary Clinton made a _ speech in Beijing about women’s rights Sadly, many of the things that she _ to _ are still true today But what stood out for me the most was that less than _ percent of the _ were male How can we affect change in the world when only _ of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the _? Men, I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation Gender equality is your _, too Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a _ being valued less by _, despite my need of his _ as a child, as much as my mother’s I’ve seen _ men suffering from mental _, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them _ of a man In fact, in the UK, _ is the biggest killer of men _ 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, _ and coronary heart disease I’ve seen men made _ and _ by a distorted sense of what constitutes _ success Men don’t have the _ of equality, either We don’t _ talk about men being imprisoned by gender _, but I can see that they are, and that when they are _, things will change for women as a _ consequence If men don’t have to be aggressive in _ to be accepted, women won’t feel compelled to be submissive If men don’t have to _, women won’t have to be _ Both men and women should feel free to be _ Both men and women should feel free to be _ It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum, instead of two _ of opposing ideals If we stop _ each other by what we are not, and start defining ourselves by who we are, we can all be _, and this is what HeForShe is about It’s about freedom I want men to take up this mantle so that their _, _, and _ can be free from prejudice, but also so that their sons have _ to be vulnerable and human too, reclaim those parts of themselves they abandoned, and in doing so, be a more _ and _ version of themselves You might be thinking, “Who is this Harry Potter girl, and what is she _ _ at the UN?” And, it’s a really good question I’ve been asking myself the same thing All I know is that I care about this problem, and I want to make it better And, _ seen what I’ve seen, and given the _, I feel it is my _ to say something Statesman Edmund Burke said, “All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for _ men and women to _.” In my nervousness for this speech and in my _ of doubt, I told myself firmly, “If not me, who? If not now, when?” If you have _ doubts when opportunities are _ to you, I hope those words will be helpful Because the _ is that if we nothing, it will take seventy-five years, or for me to be _ 100, before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work 15.5 million girls will be _ in the next 16 years as children And at current _, it won't be until 2086 before all _ African girls can have a secondary education If you believe in equality, you might be one of those inadvertent feminists that I _ of earlier, and for this, I _ you We are struggling for a uniting word, but the good _ is, we have a uniting movement It is called HeForShe I _ you to step forward, to be seen and to _ yourself, “If not me, who? If not now, when?” Thank you very, very much Discussion questions: - What are the benefits of feminism to men? How you define an inadvertent feminist? Key Full transcript Today we are launching a campaign called for HeForShe I am reaching out to you because we need your help We want to end gender inequality, and to this, we need everyone involved This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN We want to try to mobilize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for change And, we don’t just want to talk about it We want to try and make sure that it’s tangible I was appointed as Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women six months ago And, the more I spoke about feminism, the more I realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop For the record, feminism by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities It is the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes I started questioning gender-based assumptions a long time ago When I was 8, I was confused for being called bossy because I wanted to direct the plays that we would put on for our parents, but the boys were not When at 14, I started to be sexualized by certain elements of the media When at 15, my girlfriends started dropping out of sports teams because they didn’t want to appear muscly When at 18, my male friends were unable to express their feelings I decided that I was a feminist, and this seemed uncomplicated to me But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word Women are choosing not to identify as feminists Apparently, I’m among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, and anti-men Unattractive, even Why has the word become such an uncomfortable one? I am from Britain, and I think it is right I am paid the same as my male counterparts I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decisions that will affect my life I think it is right that socially, I am afforded the same respect as men But sadly, I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to see these rights No country in the world can yet say that they achieved gender equality These rights, I consider to be human rights, but I am one of the lucky ones My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter My school did not limit me because I was a girl My mentors didn't assume that I would go less far because I might give birth to a child one day These influences were the gender equality ambassadors that made me who I am today They may not know it, but they are the inadvertent feminists that are changing the world today We need more of those And if you still hate the word, it is not the word that is important It’s the idea and the ambition behind it, because not all women have received the same rights I have In fact, statistically, very few have In 1997, Hillary Clinton made a famous speech in Beijing about women’s rights Sadly, many of the things that she wanted to change are still true today But what stood out for me the most was that less than thirty percent of the audience were male How can we effect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation? Men, I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation Gender equality is your issue, too Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society, despite my need of his presence as a child, as much as my mother’s I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a man In fact, in the UK, suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success Men don’t have the benefits of equality, either We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes, but I can see that they are, and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won’t feel compelled to be submissive If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive Both men and women should feel free to be strong It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum, instead of two sets of opposing ideals If we stop defining each other by what we are not, and start defining ourselves by who we are, we can all be freer, and this is what HeForShe is about It’s about freedom I want men to take up this mantle so that their daughters, sisters, and mothers can be free from prejudice, but also so that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human too, reclaim those parts of themselves they abandoned, and in doing so, be a more true and complete version of themselves You might be thinking, “Who is this Harry Potter girl, and what is she doing speaking at the UN?” And, it’s a really good question I’ve been asking myself the same thing All I know is that I care about this problem, and I want to make it better And, having seen what I’ve seen, and given the chance, I feel it is my responsibility to say something Statesman Edmund Burke said, “All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for good men and women to nothing.” In my nervousness for this speech and in my moments of doubt, I told myself firmly, “If not me, who? If not now, when?” If you have similar doubts when opportunities are presented to you, I hope those words will be helpful Because the reality is that if we nothing, it will take seventy-five years, or for me to be nearly 100, before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work 15.5 million girls will be married in the next 16 years as children And at current rates, it won't be until 2086 before all rural African girls can have a secondary education If you believe in equality, you might be one of those inadvertent feminists that I spoke of earlier, and for this, I applaud you We are struggling for a uniting word, but the good news is, we have a uniting movement It is called HeForShe I invite you to step forward, to be seen and to ask yourself, “If not me, who? If not now, when?” Thank you very, very much Key https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science Every day we face issues like climate change or the safety of vaccines where we have to answer questions whose answers rely heavily on scientific information Scientists tell us that the world is warming Scientists tell us that vaccines are safe But how we know if they are right? Why should be believe the science? The fact is, many of us actually don't believe the science Public opinion polls consistently show that significant proportions of the American people don't believe the climate is warming due to human activities, don't think that there is evolution by natural selection, and aren't persuaded by the safety of vaccines So why should we believe the science? Well, scientists don't like talking about science as a matter of belief In fact, they would contrast science with faith, and they would say belief is the domain of faith And faith is a separate thing apart and distinct from science Indeed they would say religion is based on faith or maybe the calculus of Pascal's wager Blaise Pascal was a 17th-century mathematician who tried to bring scientific reasoning to the question of whether or not he should believe in God, and his wager went like this: Well, if God doesn't exist but I decide to believe in him nothing much is really lost Maybe a few hours on Sunday (Laughter) But if he does exist and I don't believe in him, then I'm in deep trouble And so Pascal said, we'd better believe in God Or as one of my college professors said, "He clutched for the handrail of faith." He made that leap of faith leaving science and rationalism behind Now the fact is though, for most of us, most scientific claims are a leap of faith We can't really judge scientific claims for ourselves in most cases And indeed this is actually true for most scientists as well outside of their own specialties So if you think about it, a geologist can't tell you whether a vaccine is safe Most chemists are not experts in evolutionary theory A physicist cannot tell you, despite the claims of some of them, whether or not tobacco causes cancer So, if even scientists themselves have to make a leap of faith outside their own fields, then why they accept the claims of other scientists? Why they believe each other's claims? And should we believe those claims? So what I'd like to argue is yes, we should, but not for the reason that most of us think Most of us were taught in school that the reason we should believe in science is because of the scientific method We were taught that scientists follow a method and that this method guarantees the truth of their claims The method that most of us were taught in school, we can call it the textbook method, is the hypothetical deductive method According to the standard model, the textbook model, scientists develop hypotheses, they deduce the consequences of those hypotheses, and then they go out into the world and they say, "Okay, well are those consequences true?" Can we observe them taking place in the natural world? And if they are true, then the scientists say, "Great, we know the hypothesis is correct." So there are many famous examples in the history of science of scientists doing exactly this One of the most famous examples comes from the work of Albert Einstein When Einstein developed the theory of general relativity, one of the consequences of his theory was that space-time wasn't just an empty void but that it actually had a fabric And that that fabric was bent in the presence of massive objects like the sun So if this theory were true then it meant that light as it passed the sun should actually be bent around it That was a pretty startling prediction and it took a few years before scientists were able to test it but they did test it in 1919, and lo and behold it turned out to be true Starlight actually does bend as it travels around the sun This was a huge confirmation of the theory It was considered proof of the truth of this radical new idea, and it was written up in many newspapers around the globe Now, sometimes this theory or this model is referred to as the deductive-nomological model, mainly because academics like to make things complicated But also because in the ideal case, it's about laws 211 So nomological means having to with laws And in the ideal case, the hypothesis isn't just an idea: ideally, it is a law of nature Why does it matter that it is a law of nature? Because if it is a law, it can't be broken If it's a law then it will always be true in all times and all places no matter what the circumstances are And all of you know of at least one example of a famous law: Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, which tells us what the relationship is between energy and mass And that relationship is true no matter what Now, it turns out, though, that there are several problems with this model The main problem is that it's wrong It's just not true (Laughter) And I'm going to talk about three reasons why it's wrong So the first reason is a logical reason It's the problem of the fallacy of affirming the consequent So that's another fancy, academic way of saying that false theories can make true predictions So just because the prediction comes true doesn't actually logically prove that the theory is correct And I have a good example of that too, again from the history of science This is a picture of the Ptolemaic universe with the Earth at the center of the universe and the sun and the planets going around it The Ptolemaic model was believed by many very smart people for many centuries Well, why? Well the answer is because it made lots of predictions that came true The Ptolemaic system enabled astronomers to make accurate predictions of the motions of the planet, in fact more accurate predictions at first than the Copernican theory which we now would say is true So that's one problem with the textbook model A second problem is a practical problem, and it's the problem of auxiliary hypotheses Auxiliary hypotheses are assumptions that scientists are making that they may or may not even be aware that they're making So an important example of this comes from the Copernican model, which ultimately replaced the Ptolemaic system So when Nicolaus Copernicus said, actually the Earth is not the center of the universe, the sun is the center of the solar system, the Earth moves around the sun Scientists said, well okay, Nicolaus, if that's true we ought to be able to detect the motion of the Earth around the sun And so this slide here illustrates a concept known as stellar parallax And astronomers said, if the Earth is moving and we look at a prominent star, let's say, Sirius well I know I'm in Manhattan so you guys can't see the stars, but imagine you're out in the country, imagine you chose that rural life — and we look at a star in December, we see that star against the backdrop of distant stars If we now make the same observation six months later when the Earth has moved to this position in June, we look at that same star and we see it against a different backdrop That difference, that angular difference, is the stellar parallax So this is a prediction that the Copernican model makes Astronomers looked for the stellar parallax and they found nothing, nothing at all And many people argued that this proved that the Copernican model was false So what happened? Well, in hindsight we can say that astronomers were making two auxiliary hypotheses, both of which we would now say were incorrect The first was an assumption about the size of the Earth's orbit Astronomers were assuming that the Earth's orbit was large relative to the distance to the stars Today we would draw the picture more like this, this comes from NASA, and you see the Earth's orbit is actually quite small In fact, it's actually much smaller even than shown here The stellar parallax therefore, is very small and actually very hard to detect And that leads to the second reason why the prediction didn't work, because scientists were also assuming that the telescopes they had were sensitive enough to detect the parallax And that turned out not to be true It wasn't until the 19th century that scientists were able to detect the stellar parallax So, there's a third problem as well The third problem is simply a factual problem, that a lot of science doesn't fit the textbook model A lot of science isn't deductive at all, it's actually inductive And by that we mean that scientists don't necessarily start with theories and hypotheses, often they just start with observations of stuff going on in the world And the most famous example of that is one of the most famous scientists who ever lived, Charles Darwin When Darwin went out as a young man on the voyage 212 of the Beagle, he didn't have a hypothesis, he didn't have a theory He just knew that he wanted to have a career as a scientist and he started to collect data Mainly he knew that he hated medicine because the sight of blood made him sick so he had to have an alternative career path So he started collecting data And he collected many things, including his famous finches When he collected these finches, he threw them in a bag and he had no idea what they meant Many years later back in London, Darwin looked at his data again and began to develop an explanation, and that explanation was the theory of natural selection Besides inductive science, scientists also often participate in modeling One of the things scientists want to in life is to explain the causes of things And how we that? Well, one way you can it is to build a model that tests an idea So this is a picture of Henry Cadell, who was a Scottish geologist in the 19th century You can tell he's Scottish because he's wearing a deerstalker cap and Wellington boots (Laughter) And Cadell wanted to answer the question, how are mountains formed? And one of the things he had observed is that if you look at mountains like the Appalachians, you often find that the rocks in them are folded, and they're folded in a particular way, which suggested to him that they were actually being compressed from the side And this idea would later play a major role in discussions of continental drift So he built this model, this crazy contraption with levers and wood, and here's his wheelbarrow, buckets, a big sledgehammer I don't know why he's got the Wellington boots Maybe it's going to rain And he created this physical model in order to demonstrate that you could, in fact, create patterns in rocks, or at least, in this case, in mud, that looked a lot like mountains if you compressed them from the side So it was an argument about the cause of mountains Nowadays, most scientists prefer to work inside, so they don't build physical models so much as to make computer simulations But a computer simulation is a kind of a model It's a model that's made with mathematics, and like the physical models of the 19th century, it's very important for thinking about causes So one of the big questions to with climate change, we have tremendous amounts of evidence that the Earth is warming up This slide here, the black line shows the measurements that scientists have taken for the last 150 years showing that the Earth's temperature has steadily increased, and you can see in particular that in the last 50 years there's been this dramatic increase of nearly one degree centigrade, or almost two degrees Fahrenheit So what, though, is driving that change? How can we know what's causing the observed warming? Well, scientists can model it using a computer simulation So this diagram illustrates a computer simulation that has looked at all the different factors that we know can influence the Earth's climate, so sulfate particles from air pollution, volcanic dust from volcanic eruptions, changes in solar radiation, and, of course, greenhouse gases And they asked the question, what set of variables put into a model will reproduce what we actually see in real life? So here is the real life in black Here's the model in this light gray, and the answer is a model that includes, it's the answer E on that SAT, all of the above The only way you can reproduce the observed temperature measurements is with all of these things put together, including greenhouse gases, and in particular you can see that the increase in greenhouse gases tracks this very dramatic increase in temperature over the last 50 years And so this is why climate scientists say it's not just that we know that climate change is happening, we know that greenhouse gases are a major part of the reason why So now because there all these different things that scientists do, the philosopher Paul Feyerabend famously said, "The only principle in science that doesn't inhibit progress is: anything goes." Now this quotation has often been taken out of context, because Feyerabend was not actually saying that in science anything goes What he was saying was, actually the full quotation is, "If you press me to say 213 what is the method of science, I would have to say: anything goes." What he was trying to say is that scientists a lot of different things Scientists are creative But then this pushes the question back: If scientists don't use a single method, then how they decide what's right and what's wrong? And who judges? And the answer is, scientists judge, and they judge by judging evidence Scientists collect evidence in many different ways, but however they collect it, they have to subject it to scrutiny And this led the sociologist Robert Merton to focus on this question of how scientists scrutinize data and evidence, and he said they it in a way he called "organized skepticism." And by that he meant it's organized because they it collectively, they it as a group, and skepticism, because they it from a position of distrust That is to say, the burden of proof is on the person with a novel claim And in this sense, science is intrinsically conservative It's quite hard to persuade the scientific community to say, "Yes, we know something, this is true." So despite the popularity of the concept of paradigm shifts, what we find is that actually, really major changes in scientific thinking are relatively rare in the history of science So finally that brings us to one more idea: If scientists judge evidence collectively, this has led historians to focus on the question of consensus, and to say that at the end of the day, what science is, what scientific knowledge is, is the consensus of the scientific experts who through this process of organized scrutiny, collective scrutiny, have judged the evidence and come to a conclusion about it, either yea or So we can think of scientific knowledge as a consensus of experts We can also think of science as being a kind of a jury, except it's a very special kind of jury It's not a jury of your peers, it's a jury of geeks It's a jury of men and women with Ph.D.s, and unlike a conventional jury, which has only two choices, guilty or not guilty, the scientific jury actually has a number of choices Scientists can say yes, something's true Scientists can say no, it's false Or, they can say, well it might be true but we need to work more and collect more evidence Or, they can say it might be true, but we don't know how to answer the question and we're going to put it aside and maybe we'll come back to it later That's what scientists call "intractable." But this leads us to one final problem: If science is what scientists say it is, then isn't that just an appeal to authority? And weren't we all taught in school that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy? Well, here's the paradox of modern science, the paradox of the conclusion I think historians and philosophers and sociologists have come to, that actually science is the appeal to authority, but it's not the authority of the individual, no matter how smart that individual is, like Plato or Socrates or Einstein It's the authority of the collective community You can think of it is a kind of wisdom of the crowd, but a very special kind of crowd Science does appeal to authority, but it's not based on any individual, no matter how smart that individual may be It's based on the collective wisdom, the collective knowledge, the collective work, of all of the scientists who have worked on a particular problem Scientists have a kind of culture of collective distrust, this "show me" culture, illustrated by this nice woman here showing her colleagues her evidence Of course, these people don't really look like scientists, because they're much too happy (Laughter) Okay, so that brings me to my final point Most of us get up in the morning Most of us trust our cars Well, see, now I'm thinking, I'm in Manhattan, this is a bad analogy, but most Americans who don't live in Manhattan get up in the morning and get in their cars and turn on that ignition, and their cars work, and they work incredibly well The modern automobile hardly ever breaks down So why is that? Why cars work so well? It's not because of the genius of Henry Ford or Karl Benz or even Elon Musk It's because the modern automobile is the product of more than 100 years of work by hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of people The modern automobile is the product of 214 the collected work and wisdom and experience of every man and woman who has ever worked on a car, and the reliability of the technology is the result of that accumulated effort We benefit not just from the genius of Benz and Ford and Musk but from the collective intelligence and hard work of all of the people who have worked on the modern car And the same is true of science, only science is even older Our basis for trust in science is actually the same as our basis in trust in technology, and the same as our basis for trust in anything, namely, experience But it shouldn't be blind trust any more than we would have blind trust in anything Our trust in science, like science itself, should be based on evidence, and that means that scientists have to become better communicators They have to explain to us not just what they know but how they know it, and it means that we have to become better listeners Thank you very much (Applause) 215 24 Simon Anholt - WHICH COUNTRY DOES THE MOST GOOD FOR THE WORLD Fill in the blanks https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_anholt_which_country_does_the_most_good_for_the_world# t-1103 I've been thinking a lot about the world recently and how it's changed over the 20, 30, 40 years Twenty or 30 years ago, if a chicken caught a cold and and died in a remote village in East Asia, it would have been a for the chicken and its closest relatives, but I don't think there was much possibility of us a global pandemic and the deaths of millions Twenty or 30 years ago, if a in North America lent too much money to some people who couldn't afford to pay it back and the bank went , that was bad for the lender and bad for the , but we didn't imagine it would bring the global economic system to its for nearly a decade This is globalization This is the that has enabled us to transship our bodies and our minds and our words and our pictures and our ideas and our and our learning around the planet ever faster and ever It's brought a lot of bad stuff, like the stuff that I just , but it's also brought a lot of good stuff A lot of us are not aware of the successes of the Millennium Development Goals, several of which have achieved their long before the due date That proves that this species of humanity is capable of achieving extraordinary progress if it really together and it really tries hard But if I had to put it in a these days, I sort of feel that globalization has taken us by , and we've been slow to respond to it If you look at the downside of globalization, it really does seem to be sometimes All of the grand challenges that we face today, like climate change and human rights and demographics and and pandemics and narco-trafficking and human slavery and species , I could go on, we're not making an awful lot of progress against an awful lot of those challenges So in a nutshell, that's the challenge that we all today at this interesting point in history That's clearly what we've got to We've somehow got to get our act together and we've got to figure out how to globalize the solutions better so that we don't simply become a species which is the of the globalization of problems Why are we so slow at achieving these ? What's the reason for it? Well, there are, of course, a number of reasons, but perhaps the reason is because we're still organized as a species in the same way that we were organized 200 or 300 years ago There's one left on the planet and that is the seven billion people, the seven billion of us who cause all these problems, the same seven billion, by the way, who will them all But how are those seven billion ? They're still organized in 200 or so nation-states, and the nations have governments that make and cause us to behave in certain ways And that's a pretty system, but the problem is that the way that those laws are made and the way those governments think is wrong for the solution of global problems, because it all looks The politicians that we elect and the politicians we don't , on the whole, have minds that microscope They don't have minds that telescope They look They pretend, they behave, as if they believed that every country was an island that existed quite happily, independently of all the others on its own little planet in its own little 216 system This is the problem: countries competing each other, countries fighting against each other This week, as any week you to look at, you'll find people actually trying to kill each other from country to country, but even when that's not going on, there's competition between countries, each one trying to the next This is clearly not a good We clearly need to change it We clearly need to find ways of encouraging countries to start working a little bit better And why won't they that? Why is it that our leaders still in looking inwards? Well, the first and most obvious reason is because that's what we ask them to That's what we tell them to When we elect governments or when we unelected governments, we're effectively telling them that what we want is for them to us in our country a number of things We want them to deliver , growth, competitiveness, transparency, justice and all of those things So unless we start asking our governments to think a little bit, to consider the global problems that will finish us all if we don't start considering them, then we can hardly them if what they carry on doing is looking inwards, if they still have minds that microscope rather than minds that telescope That's the first reason why things not to change The second reason is that these governments, just like all the rest of us, are psychopaths I don't mean to be rude, but you know what a psychopath is A psychopath is a person who, unfortunately for him or her, the ability to really empathize with other human beings When they look around, they don't see other human beings with , rich, three-dimensional personal lives and aims and What they see is cutouts, and it's very sad and it's very , and it's very rare, fortunately But actually, aren't most of us not really so very good at ? Oh sure, we're very good at empathy when it's a question of dealing with people who kind of look like us and kind of walk and talk and eat and and wear like us, but when it comes to people who don't that, who don't dress like us and don't quite pray like us and don't quite talk like us, we not also have a to see them ever so slightly as cardboard cutouts too? And this is a question we need to ask ourselves I think constantly we have to it Are we and our politicians to a degree cultural psychopaths? The third reason is hardly worth mentioning because it's so silly, but there's a belief amongst governments that the agenda and the international agenda are incompatible and always will be This is just In my day job, I'm a policy adviser I've spent the last 15 years or so advising governments around the world, and in all of that time I have never once seen a single domestic issue that could not be more imaginatively, effectively and rapidly resolved than by treating it as an problem, looking at the international context, comparing what others have done, bringing others, working externally instead of working internally And so you may say, well, given all of that, why then doesn't it work? Why can we not make our change? Why can't we demand them? Well I, like a lot of us, spend a lot of time complaining about how it is to make people change, and I don't think we should about it I think we should just accept that we are an inherently species We don't like to change It exists for very sensible evolutionary reasons We probably wouldn't still be here today if we weren't so to change It's very simple: Many thousands of years ago, we discovered that if we on doing the same things, we wouldn't die, 217 because the things that we've done before by didn't kill us, and therefore as long as we carry on doing them, we'll be okay, and it's very not to anything new, because it might kill you But of course, there are to that Otherwise, we'd never get anywhere And one of the exceptions, the exception, is when you can show to people that there might be some self-interest in them that leap of faith and changing a little bit So I've spent a lot of the last 10 or 15 years trying to find out what could be that self-interest that would not just politicians but also businesses and populations, all of us, to start to think a little more outwardly, to think in a bigger , not always to look , sometimes to look outwards And this is where I discovered something quite important In 2005, I a study called the Nation Brands Index What it is, it's a very large-scale study that polls a very sample of the world's population, a sample that about 70 percent of the planet's population, and I started asking them a series of questions about how they other countries And the Nation Brands Index over the years has grown to be a very, very large It's about 200 billion data points tracking what people think about other countries and why Why did I this? Well, because the governments that I advise are very, very keen on knowing how they are They've known, partly because I've encouraged them to realize it, that countries depend enormously on their in order to survive and prosper in the world If a country has a great, positive , like Germany has or Sweden or Switzerland, everything is easy and everything is cheap You get more tourists You get more You sell your products more expensively If, on the other hand, you have a country with a very weak or a very negative image, everything is and everything is expensive So governments care desperately about the image of their country, because it makes a difference to how much money they can make, and that's what they've their populations they're going to deliver So a couple of years ago, I thought I would take some time and speak to that database and ask it, why some people prefer one country more than another? And the that the database gave me completely staggered me It was 6.8 I haven't got time to explain in Basically what it told me was — (Laughter) (Applause) — the kinds of countries we prefer are good countries We don't countries primarily because they're rich, because they're powerful, because they're successful, because they're modern, because they're technologically We primarily admire countries that are What we mean by good? We mean countries that seem to contribute something to the world in we live, countries that actually make the world safer or better or richer or Those are the countries we like This is a discovery of significant — you see where I'm going — because it the circle I can now say, and often do, to any government, in order to well, you need to good If you want to sell more products, if you want to get more , if you want to become more competitive, then you need to start behaving, because that's why people will respect you and business with you, and therefore, the more you collaborate, the more competitive you This is quite an important discovery, and as soon as I discovered this, I felt another coming on I swear that as I get older, my ideas become simpler and more and more This one is called the Good Country Index, and it does exactly what it says on the It measures, or at least it tries to measure, exactly how much each country on Earth contributes not to its own population but to the rest of Bizarrely, nobody had ever thought of measuring this before So my colleague Dr Robert Govers and I have spent the best part of the last two years, with the of a large number of very serious and people, cramming together all the data in the world we could find 218 about what countries give to the world And you're waiting for me to tell you which one comes And I'm going to tell you, but first of all I want to tell you precisely what I mean when I say a good country I not mean good When I say that Country X is the goodest country on Earth, and I mean goodest, I don't mean Best is something different When you're talking about a good country, you can be good, gooder and goodest It's not the same thing as good, better and best This is a country which simply gives more humanity than any other country I don't talk about how they behave at home because that's measured And the is Ireland (Applause) According to the data here, no country on Earth, per head of population, per dollar of GDP, contributes more to the world that we live in than Ireland What does this mean? This means that as we go to sleep at night, all of us in the last 15 seconds before we off to sleep, our final thought should be, godammit, I'm glad that Ireland exists (Laughter) And that — (Applause) — In the depths of a very economic recession, I think that there's a really important lesson there, that if you can remember your international whilst you are trying to rebuild your own economy, that's really something Finland pretty much the same The only reason why it's below Ireland is because its lowest score is than Ireland's lowest score Now the other thing you'll notice about the top 10 there is, of course, they're all, from New Zealand, Western European nations They're also all rich This me, because one of the things that I did not want to with this index is that it's purely the of rich countries to help poor countries This is not what it's all about And indeed, if you look further down the list, I don't have the here, you will see something that made me very happy indeed, that Kenya is in the top 30, and that demonstrates one very, very important thing This is not about money This is about This is about culture This is about a government and a people that care about the of the world and have the imagination and the courage to think instead of only thinking selfishly I'm going to through the other slides just so you can see some of the lower-lying countries There's Germany at 13th, the U.S comes 21st, Mexico comes 66th, and then we have some of the big countries, like Russia at 95th, China at 107th Countries like China and Russia and India, which is in the same part of the index, well, in some ways, it's not surprising They've spent a great of time over the last decades building their own , building their own society and their own polity, but it is to be hoped that the second of their growth will be somewhat more outward-looking than the first phase has been so And then you can each country in terms of the actual datasets that build into it I'll you to that From midnight tonight it's going to be on goodcountry.org, and you can look at the country You can look right down to the of the individual datasets Now that's the Good Country Index What's it for? Well, it's there really because I want to try to introduce this word, or this word, into the discourse I've had enough about competitive countries I've had enough hearing about prosperous, wealthy, fastgrowing countries I've even had enough hearing about happy countries because in the end that's still That's still about us, and if we carry on thinking about us, we are in deep, deep I think we all know what it is that we want to hear about We want to hear about good countries, and so I want to ask you all a I'm not asking a lot It's something that you might find to and you might even find and even helpful to 219 do, and that's simply to start using the word "good" in this When you think about your own country, when you think about other people's countries, when you think about , when you talk about the world that we live in today, start using that word in the that I've talked about this evening Not good, the of bad, because that's an argument that never finishes Good, the opposite of selfish, good a country that thinks about all of us That's what I would like you to do, and I'd like you to use it as a stick with which to your politicians When you elect them, when you them, when you vote for them, when you listen to what they're offering you, use that word, "good," and ask yourself, "Is that what a good country would do?" And if the answer is no, be very Ask yourself, is that the behavior of my country? Do I want to come from a country where the government, in my , is doing things like that? Or I, on the other hand, prefer the idea of walking around the world with my head high thinking, "Yeah, I'm proud to come from a good country"? And everybody will you And everybody in the last 15 seconds before they drift off to sleep at night will say, "Gosh, I'm that person's country exists." Ultimately, that, I think, is what will make the change That word, "good," and the number 6.8 and the discovery that's it have changed my life I think they can change your life, and I think we can it to change the way that our politicians and our companies , and in doing so, we can change the world I've started thinking very differently about my own country since I've been thinking about these things I used to think that I wanted to live in a rich country, and then I started thinking I wanted to live in a country, but I began to realize, it's not I don't want to live in a rich country I don't want to live in a fast-growing or country I want to live in a good country, and I so, so hope that you too Thank you (Applause) 220 Key https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_anholt_which_country_does_the_most_good_for_the_world# t-1103 I've been thinking a lot about the world recently and how it's changed over the last 20, 30, 40 years Twenty or 30 years ago, if a chicken caught a cold and sneezed and died in a remote village in East Asia, it would have been a tragedy for the chicken and its closest relatives, but I don't think there was much possibility of us fearing a global pandemic and the deaths of millions Twenty or 30 years ago, if a bank in North America lent too much money to some people who couldn't afford to pay it back and the bank went bust, that was bad for the lender and bad for the borrower, but we didn't imagine it would bring the global economic system to its knees for nearly a decade This is globalization This is the miracle that has enabled us to transship our bodies and our minds and our words and our pictures and our ideas and our teaching and our learning around the planet ever faster and ever cheaper It's brought a lot of bad stuff, like the stuff that I just described, but it's also brought a lot of good stuff A lot of us are not aware of the extraordinary successes of the Millennium Development Goals, several of which have achieved their targets long before the due date That proves that this species of humanity is capable of achieving extraordinary progress if it really acts together and it really tries hard But if I had to put it in a nutshell these days, I sort of feel that globalization has taken us by surprise, and we've been slow to respond to it If you look at the downside of globalization, it really does seem to be sometimes overwhelming All of the grand challenges that we face today, like climate change and human rights and demographics and terrorism and pandemics and narco-trafficking and human slavery and species loss, I could go on, we're not making an awful lot of progress against an awful lot of those challenges So in a nutshell, that's the challenge that we all face today at this interesting point in history That's clearly what we've got to next We've somehow got to get our act together and we've got to figure out how to globalize the solutions better so that we don't simply become a species which is the victim of the globalization of problems Why are we so slow at achieving these advances? What's the reason for it? Well, there are, of course, a number of reasons, but perhaps the primary reason is because we're still organized as a species in the same way that we were organized 200 or 300 years ago There's one superpower left on the planet and that is the seven billion people, the seven billion of us who cause all these problems, the same seven billion, by the way, who will resolve them all But how are those seven billion organized? They're still organized in 200 or so nation-states, and the nations have governments that make rules and cause us to behave in certain ways And that's a pretty efficient system, but the problem is that the way that those laws are made and the way those governments think is absolutely wrong for the solution of global problems, because it all looks inwards The politicians that we elect and the politicians we don't elect, on the whole, have minds that microscope They don't have minds that telescope They look in They pretend, they behave, as if they believed that every country was an island that existed quite happily, independently of all the others on its own little planet in its own little solar system This is the problem: countries competing against each other, countries fighting against each other This week, as any week you care to look at, you'll find people actually trying to kill each other from country to country, but even when that's not going on, there's competition between countries, each one trying to shaft the next This is clearly not a good arrangement We clearly need to change it We clearly need to find ways of encouraging countries to start working together a little bit better And why won't they that? Why is 221 it that our leaders still persist in looking inwards? Well, the first and most obvious reason is because that's what we ask them to That's what we tell them to When we elect governments or when we tolerate unelected governments, we're effectively telling them that what we want is for them to deliver us in our country a certain number of things We want them to deliver prosperity, growth, competitiveness, transparency, justice and all of those things So unless we start asking our governments to think outside a little bit, to consider the global problems that will finish us all if we don't start considering them, then we can hardly blame them if what they carry on doing is looking inwards, if they still have minds that microscope rather than minds that telescope That's the first reason why things tend not to change The second reason is that these governments, just like all the rest of us, are cultural psychopaths I don't mean to be rude, but you know what a psychopath is A psychopath is a person who, unfortunately for him or her, lacks the ability to really empathize with other human beings When they look around, they don't see other human beings with deep, rich, three-dimensional personal lives and aims and ambitions What they see is cardboard cutouts, and it's very sad and it's very lonely, and it's very rare, fortunately But actually, aren't most of us not really so very good at empathy? Oh sure, we're very good at empathy when it's a question of dealing with people who kind of look like us and kind of walk and talk and eat and pray and wear like us, but when it comes to people who don't that, who don't quite dress like us and don't quite pray like us and don't quite talk like us, we not also have a tendency to see them ever so slightly as cardboard cutouts too? And this is a question we need to ask ourselves I think constantly we have to monitor it Are we and our politicians to a degree cultural psychopaths? The third reason is hardly worth mentioning because it's so silly, but there's a belief amongst governments that the domestic agenda and the international agenda are incompatible and always will be This is just nonsense In my day job, I'm a policy adviser I've spent the last 15 years or so advising governments around the world, and in all of that time I have never once seen a single domestic policy issue that could not be more imaginatively, effectively and rapidly resolved than by treating it as an international problem, looking at the international context, comparing what others have done, bringing in others, working externally instead of working internally And so you may say, well, given all of that, why then doesn't it work? Why can we not make our politicians change? Why can't we demand them? Well I, like a lot of us, spend a lot of time complaining about how hard it is to make people change, and I don't think we should fuss about it I think we should just accept that we are an inherently conservative species We don't like to change It exists for very sensible evolutionary reasons We probably wouldn't still be here today if we weren't so resistant to change It's very simple: Many thousands of years ago, we discovered that if we carried on doing the same things, we wouldn't die, because the things that we've done before by definition didn't kill us, and therefore as long as we carry on doing them, we'll be okay, and it's very sensible not to anything new, because it might kill you But of course, there are exceptions to that Otherwise, we'd never get anywhere And one of the exceptions, the interesting exception, is when you can show to people that there might be some self-interest in them making that leap of faith and changing a little bit So I've spent a lot of the last 10 or 15 years trying to find out what could be that self-interest that would encourage not just politicians but also businesses and general populations, all of us, to start to think a little more outwardly, to think in a bigger picture, not always to look inwards, sometimes to look outwards And this is where I discovered something quite important In 2005, I launched a study called the Nation Brands Index What it is, it's a very large-scale study that polls a very large sample of the world's population, a sample that represents about 70 percent of the planet's population, and I started asking them a series of questions about how they perceive other countries And the Nation Brands Index 222 over the years has grown to be a very, very large database It's about 200 billion data points tracking what ordinary people think about other countries and why Why did I this? Well, because the governments that I advise are very, very keen on knowing how they are regarded They've known, partly because I've encouraged them to realize it, that countries depend enormously on their reputations in order to survive and prosper in the world If a country has a great, positive image, like Germany has or Sweden or Switzerland, everything is easy and everything is cheap You get more tourists You get more investors You sell your products more expensively If, on the other hand, you have a country with a very weak or a very negative image, everything is difficult and everything is expensive So governments care desperately about the image of their country, because it makes a direct difference to how much money they can make, and that's what they've promised their populations they're going to deliver So a couple of years ago, I thought I would take some time out and speak to that gigantic database and ask it, why some people prefer one country more than another? And the answer that the database gave me completely staggered me It was 6.8 I haven't got time to explain in detail Basically what it told me was — (Laughter) (Applause) — the kinds of countries we prefer are good countries We don't admire countries primarily because they're rich, because they're powerful, because they're successful, because they're modern, because they're technologically advanced We primarily admire countries that are good What we mean by good? We mean countries that seem to contribute something to the world in which we live, countries that actually make the world safer or better or richer or fairer Those are the countries we like This is a discovery of significant importance — you see where I'm going — because it squares the circle I can now say, and often do, to any government, in order to well, you need to good If you want to sell more products, if you want to get more investment, if you want to become more competitive, then you need to start behaving, because that's why people will respect you and business with you, and therefore, the more you collaborate, the more competitive you become This is quite an important discovery, and as soon as I discovered this, I felt another index coming on I swear that as I get older, my ideas become simpler and more and more childish This one is called the Good Country Index, and it does exactly what it says on the tin It measures, or at least it tries to measure, exactly how much each country on Earth contributes not to its own population but to the rest of humanity Bizarrely, nobody had ever thought of measuring this before So my colleague Dr Robert Govers and I have spent the best part of the last two years, with the help of a large number of very serious and clever people, cramming together all the reliable data in the world we could find about what countries give to the world And you're waiting for me to tell you which one comes top And I'm going to tell you, but first of all I want to tell you precisely what I mean when I say a good country I not mean morally good When I say that Country X is the goodest country on Earth, and I mean goodest, I don't mean best Best is something different When you're talking about a good country, you can be good, gooder and goodest It's not the same thing as good, better and best This is a country which simply gives more to humanity than any other country I don't talk about how they behave at home because that's measured elsewhere And the winner is Ireland (Applause) According to the data here, no country on Earth, per head of population, per dollar of GDP, contributes more to the world that we live in than Ireland What does this mean? This means that as we go to sleep at night, all of us in the last 15 seconds before we drift off to sleep, our final thought should be, godammit, I'm glad that Ireland exists (Laughter) And that — (Applause) — In the depths of a very severe economic recession, I think that there's a really important lesson there, that if you can remember your international obligations whilst you are trying to rebuild your own economy, that's really something Finland ranks pretty much the same The only reason why it's below Ireland is because its lowest score is lower than Ireland's lowest score 223 Now the other thing you'll notice about the top 10 there is, of course, they're all, apart from New Zealand, Western European nations They're also all rich This depressed me, because one of the things that I did not want to discover with this index is that it's purely the province of rich countries to help poor countries This is not what it's all about And indeed, if you look further down the list, I don't have the slide here, you will see something that made me very happy indeed, that Kenya is in the top 30, and that demonstrates one very, very important thing This is not about money This is about attitude This is about culture This is about a government and a people that care about the rest of the world and have the imagination and the courage to think outwards instead of only thinking selfishly I'm going to whip through the other slides just so you can see some of the lower-lying countries There's Germany at 13th, the U.S comes 21st, Mexico comes 66th, and then we have some of the big developing countries, like Russia at 95th, China at 107th Countries like China and Russia and India, which is down in the same part of the index, well, in some ways, it's not surprising They've spent a great deal of time over the last decades building their own economy, building their own society and their own polity, but it is to be hoped that the second phase of their growth will be somewhat more outward-looking than the first phase has been so far And then you can break down each country in terms of the actual datasets that build into it I'll allow you to that From midnight tonight it's going to be on goodcountry.org, and you can look at the country You can look right down to the level of the individual datasets Now that's the Good Country Index What's it there for? Well, it's there really because I want to try to introduce this word, or reintroduce this word, into the discourse I've had enough hearing about competitive countries I've had enough hearing about prosperous, wealthy, fast-growing countries I've even had enough hearing about happy countries because in the end that's still selfish That's still about us, and if we carry on thinking about us, we are in deep, deep trouble I think we all know what it is that we want to hear about We want to hear about good countries, and so I want to ask you all a favor I'm not asking a lot It's something that you might find easy to and you might even find enjoyable and even helpful to do, and that's simply to start using the word "good" in this context When you think about your own country, when you think about other people's countries, when you think about companies, when you talk about the world that we live in today, start using that word in the way that I've talked about this evening Not good, the opposite of bad, because that's an argument that never finishes Good, the opposite of selfish, good being a country that thinks about all of us That's what I would like you to do, and I'd like you to use it as a stick with which to beat your politicians When you elect them, when you reelect them, when you vote for them, when you listen to what they're offering you, use that word, "good," and ask yourself, "Is that what a good country would do?" And if the answer is no, be very suspicious Ask yourself, is that the behavior of my country? Do I want to come from a country where the government, in my name, is doing things like that? Or I, on the other hand, prefer the idea of walking around the world with my head held high thinking, "Yeah, I'm proud to come from a good country"? And everybody will welcome you And everybody in the last 15 seconds before they drift off to sleep at night will say, "Gosh, I'm glad that person's country exists." Ultimately, that, I think, is what will make the change That word, "good," and the number 6.8 and the discovery that's behind it have changed my life I think they can change your life, and I think we can use it to change the way that our politicians and our companies behave, and in doing so, we can change the world I've started thinking very differently about my own country since I've been thinking about these things I used to think that I wanted to live in a rich country, and then I started thinking I wanted to live in a happy country, but I began to realize, it's not enough I don't want to live in a rich country I don't want to live in a fast-growing or competitive country I want to live in a good country, and I so, so hope that you too 224 Thank you (Applause) 225 ... and _ equality of the sexes I started questioning gender-based _ a long time ago When I was 8, I was confused for being called _ because I wanted to _ the plays that we would put... our parents, but the boys were not When at 14, I started to be sexualized by certain elements of the _ When at 15, my girlfriends started _ out of sports teams because they didn’t want... social equality of the sexes I started questioning gender-based assumptions a long time ago When I was 8, I was confused for being called bossy because I wanted to direct the plays that we would