埃里克贝里奇_【双语分享】为什么科技需要人文学科？

原标题：【双语分享】为什么科技需要人文学科？

企业家埃里克•贝里奇(Eric Berridge)表示，如果你想组建一支创新的问题解决团队，就应该像重视科学一样重视人文学科。他分享了为什么科技公司应该把目光从STEM毕业生身上转移到新员工身上，以及拥有艺术和人文背景的人如何能把创造力和洞察力带到技术工作场所。

《Why tech needs the humanities》

❶We are scratching the surface in our ability as humans to communicate and invent together, and while the sciences teach us how to build things, it's the humanities that teach us what to build and why to build them. And they're equally as important, and they're just as hard.

我们在人际沟通和 协作创新方面的能力， 还停留在肤浅的表面。 即使自然科学教会了 我们如何创造事物， 却是人文告诉了我们要创造什么， 以及为什么而创造。 这两个领域缺一不可， 但却很难彼此融合。

❷The humanities give us the context of our world. They teach us how to think critically. They are purposely unstructured, while the sciences are purposely structured. They teach us to persuade, they give us our language, which we use to convert our emotions to thought and action.

人文让我们能够了解 这个世界的来龙去脉， 给予了我们做批判性思考的能力。 它是无意构造出来的， 然而自然科学是有意构造出来的。 它给予了我们说服别人的能力， 以及我们的语言工具， 来帮我们把情绪转换成思想和行动。

❸diversity shouldn't end with gender or race. We need a diversity of backgrounds and skills, with introverts and extroverts and leaders and followers.

多样性并不该止步于性别和种族。 我们需要多样的背景 和技术， 包括内向和外向的人， 追随者和领导者。 这才是我们未来的劳动力构成。

中英文演讲稿

You've all been in a bar, right?

大家都去过酒吧，对吧？

But have you ever gone to a bar and come out with a $200 million business? That's what happened to us about 10 years ago. We'd had a terrible day. We had this huge client that was killing us. We're a software consulting firm, and we couldn't find a very specific programming skill to help this client deploy a cutting-edge cloud system. We have a bunch of engineers, but none of them could please this client. And we were about to be fired.

但你们有没有去了酒吧， 然后带着两亿美金的生意出来了？ 这就是十年前， 发生在我们身上的故事。 那天我们过得特别糟糕， 有个极其难搞的大客户。 我们是个软件咨询公司， 却找不到一个具体的编程技术 来帮这位客户配置 一款新研发的云系统。 我们有一大帮工程师， 但谁都没办法让客户满意。 我们眼看就要被解雇了，

So we go out to the bar, and we're hanging out with our bartender friend Jeff, and he's doing what all good bartenders do: he's commiserating with us, making us feel better, relating to our pain, saying, "Hey, these guys are overblowing it. Don't worry about it." And finally, he deadpans us and says, "Why don't you send me in there? I can figure it out." So the next morning, we're hanging out in our team meeting, and we're all a little hazy ...

于是就去了趟酒吧， 和酒保朋友杰夫闲聊， 他挺有职业操守： 一直在宽慰我们， 想让我们心里好受些， 针对我们的烦恼， 他说： “哎呀，这几位想得太多了， 别那么担心。” 最后，他轻描淡写地说： “你要不让我试试？ 我能解决”。 第二天早上，我们团队开了个会， 大家还都晕乎乎的......

and I half-jokingly throw it out there. I say, "Hey, I mean, we're about to be fired." So I say, "Why don't we send in Jeff, the bartender?"

然后我半开玩笑地说， “反正我们都要被炒鱿鱼了，” 我就说， “那要不就把杰夫， 那调酒师请进来吧。”

And there's some silence, some quizzical looks. Finally, my chief of staff says, "That is a great idea."

会议室出现了令人尴尬的沉默， 也有些人一脸茫然。 终于，我们的人事主管说， “这真是个好主意。

"Jeff is wicked smart. He's brilliant. He'll figure it out. Let's send him in there."

Now, Jeff was not a programmer. In fact, he had dropped out of Penn as a philosophy major. But he was brilliant, and he could go deep on topics, and we were about to be fired. So we sent him in. After a couple days of suspense, Jeff was still there. They hadn't sent him home. I couldn't believe it. What was he doing?

杰夫特机灵，他棒极了， 他会想出法子的， 请他来试试吧。"

不过话说，杰夫可不是个程序员。 事实上，他从宾州大学 辍学时主修的是哲学。 不过他的确很有卓见， 可以聊一些非常深的话题， 更何况我们都要被解雇了。 于是我们就把他请进来了。 过了让人提心吊胆的几天， 杰夫依然在我们的团队里， 对方竟然没让他走。 我完全不敢相信。 他在干什么？

Here's what I learned. He had completely disarmed their fixation on the programming skill. And he had changed the conversation, even changing what we were building. The conversation was now about what we were going to build and why. And yes, Jeff figured out how to program the solution, and the client became one of our best references.

我了解到的是： 他完全消除了客户 对编程技术的关注点， 并且转移了话题， 甚至改变了我们的产品目标。 现在的话题成了—— “我们要做什么，以及为什么这样做”。 是的，杰夫找到了解决方案， 并且这位客户也成了 我们后来最佳的参考案例之一。

Back then, we were 200 people, and half of our company was made up of computer science majors or engineers, but our experience with Jeff left us wondering: Could we repeat this through our business? So we changed the way we recruited and trained. And while we still sought after computer engineers and computer science majors, we sprinkled in artists, musicians, writers ... and Jeff's story started to multiply itself throughout our company. Our chief technology officer is an English major, and he was a bike messenger in Manhattan. And today, we're a thousand people, yet still less than a hundred have degrees in computer science or engineering. And yes, we're still a computer consulting firm. We're the number one player in our market. We work with the fastest-growing software package to ever reach 10 billion dollars in annual sales. So it's working.

那个时候，我们团队一共有两百人， 公司一半的员工都是计算机 背景的毕业生或工程师， 但自从有了和杰夫的 那次经历，我们就在想： “我们能在商业上 重复这样的模式吗？” 于是我们改变了 以前的招聘和培训方法。 虽然我们依然需要 计算机科学的专业人员和工程师， 我们还加进了一些 艺术家，音乐家，作家...... 杰夫的故事也在我们公司里传开了。 我们的首席技术官是英语专业的， 他在曼哈顿的时候 还当过自行车送货员。 如今，我们一共有一千人， 然而只有不到一百个人 有计算机方面的专业背景， 但我们依然是一个计算机咨询公司。 我们是市场里的领头企业。 我们的软件产品业务飞速发展， 年销售额达到了100亿美元。 新模式效果显著。

Meanwhile, the push for STEM-based education in this country -- science, technology, engineering, mathematics -- is fierce. It's in all of our faces. And this is a colossal mistake. Since 2009, STEM majors in the United States have increased by 43 percent, while the humanities have stayed flat. Our past president dedicated over a billion dollars towards STEM education at the expense of other subjects, and our current president recently redirected 200 million dollars of Department of Education funding into computer science. And CEOs are continually complaining about an engineering-starved workforce. These campaigns, coupled with the undeniable success of the tech economy -- I mean, let's face it, seven out of the 10 most valuable companies in the world by market cap are technology firms -- these things create an assumption that the path of our future workforce will be dominated by STEM.

同时，我国对理工科背景的教育—— 科学、技术、工程、数学—— 非常重视，也在极力推广。 现状就摆在我们面前。 然而这是个巨大的错误。 自2009年起，在美国， 具有理工科背景的人数 增长了43%， 然而人文领域却几乎停滞不前。 我们的前任总统， 从其他项目中抽出资金， 向理工科领域投了十亿美金。 而我们的现任总统， 最近从教育部门 调了两亿美金的资金， 投入计算机科学领域。 许多公司的大佬们不停地抱怨 劳动市场急缺工科背景的劳动力。 这些动作 都与科技界不可否认的经济成果有关。 我们得面对现实， 全球十强的企业中，有七个都是 科技企业—— 这一件件的事导致了一种假想： 我们未来的劳动人口 将被理工科所占领。

I get it. On paper, it makes sense. It's tempting. But it's totally overblown. It's like, the entire soccer team chases the ball into the corner, because that's where the ball is. We shouldn't overvalue STEM. We shouldn't value the sciences any more than we value the humanities. And there are a couple of reasons.

我懂， 在字面上的确是这么一回事， 这很有诱惑力。 但一切都是被夸大的。 就好比，一整个球队的人 都挤到一个角落， 仅仅因为球被踢到了那儿。 我们不该高估理工科。 我们不该认为科技高于人文。 原因如下：

Number one, today's technologies are incredibly intuitive. The reason we've been able to recruit from all disciplines and swivel into specialized skills is because modern systems can be manipulated without writing code. They're like LEGO: easy to put together, easy to learn, even easy to program, given the vast amounts of information that are available for learning. Yes, our workforce needs specialized skill, but that skill requires a far less rigorous and formalized education than it did in the past.

第一，现今的科技都十分直接明了。 我们能从各个领域都招募到员工 并且转向特殊技能的原因， 就是当下的系统可以 在不需要编程的情况下搭建起来。 他们就像积木：易搭、易学， 甚至在如今大量的知识已经 触手可及的情况下，编程也更容易了。 没错，我们的劳动人口 是需要专门的技术， 但是这样的技术不再需要以往那样 严格且形式化的教育。

Number two, the skills that are imperative and differentiated in a world with intuitive technology are the skills that help us to work together as humans, where the hard work is envisioning the end product and its usefulness, which requires real-world experience and judgment and historical context. What Jeff's story taught us is that the customer was focused on the wrong thing. It's the classic case: the technologist struggling to communicate with the business and the end user, and the business failing to articulate their needs. I see it every day. We are scratching the surface in our ability as humans to communicate and invent together, and while the sciences teach us how to build things, it's the humanities that teach us what to build and why to build them. And they're equally as important, and they're just as hard.

第二，那些在科技世界里被迫切需要 和细分过的技术， 其实是帮助人类团结合作的技术。 辛苦的劳作可以 映射出最后的产品 以及它的实用性， 然而这些都需要真实世界的经验、 判断力以及历史基础。 杰夫的故事告诉我们的是： 客户们把关注点放错了地方。 这是非常经典的情况： 科技人员与客户 和公司之间沟通的障碍， 导致公司无法满足 客户需求，最终走向倒闭。 我每天都看着这种事情发生。 我们在人际沟通和 协作创新方面的能力， 还停留在肤浅的表面。 即使自然科学教会了 我们如何创造事物， 却是人文告诉了我们要创造什么， 以及为什么而创造。 这两个领域缺一不可， 但却很难彼此融合。

It irks me ... when I hear people treat the humanities as a lesser path, as the easier path. Come on! The humanities give us the context of our world. They teach us how to think critically. They are purposely unstructured, while the sciences are purposely structured. They teach us to persuade, they give us our language, which we use to convert our emotions to thought and action. And they need to be on equal footing with the sciences. And yes, you can hire a bunch of artists and build a tech company and have an incredible outcome.

我对此很担忧—— 特别是当一些人 把人文当做一条门槛较低， 较简单的道路。 清醒点儿吧！ 人文让我们能够了解 这个世界的来龙去脉， 给予了我们做批判性思考的能力。 它是无意构造出来的， 然而自然科学是有意构造出来的。 它给予了我们说服别人的能力， 以及我们的语言工具， 来帮我们把情绪转换成思想和行动。 它必须和自然科学一样被同等对待。 没错，你可以招聘一大帮艺术家， 来创立一家科技企业， 然后日进斗金。

Now, I'm not here today to tell you that STEM's bad. I'm not here today to tell you that girls shouldn't code.

当然，我并不是来这儿 告诉你理工科弊大于利， 也不是来宣传女孩子 不应该学编程的。

Please. And that next bridge I drive over or that next elevator we all jump into -- let's make sure there's an engineer behind it.

千万别误会。 我开车要经过的下一个高架桥， 或是要踏入的下一个电梯—— 我们一定要确保背后 是有个工程师在负责的。

But to fall into this paranoia that our future jobs will be dominated by STEM, that's just folly. If you have friends or kids or relatives or grandchildren or nieces or nephews ... encourage them to be whatever they want to be.

但陷入这样一种执念， 即相信未来的工作 将被理工科劳动力所代替， 是十分愚蠢的。 如果你有朋友、孩子、亲戚、孙辈、 或者侄子、侄女...... 请鼓励他们追寻 他们想要的未来。

The jobs will be there. Those tech CEOs that are clamoring for STEM grads, you know what they're hiring for? Google, Apple, Facebook. Sixty-five percent of their open job opportunities are non-technical: marketers, designers, project managers, program managers, product managers, lawyers, HR specialists, trainers, coaches, sellers, buyers, on and on. These are the jobs they're hiring for. And if there's one thing that our future workforce needs -- and I think we can all agree on this -- it's diversity. But that diversity shouldn't end with gender or race. We need a diversity of backgrounds and skills, with introverts and extroverts and leaders and followers. That is our future workforce. And the fact that the technology is getting easier and more accessible frees that workforce up to study whatever they damn well please.

工作总会有的。 那些争着吵着要招 理工科毕业生的科技老总们， 你知道他们招聘员工来做什么工作？ 谷歌、苹果、脸书， 这些公司 65% 的工作岗位， 都是非技术类的： 市场营销、产品设计、 项目管理、方案管理、 产品管理，公司律师，人力资源、 培训师、教练、销售、买家等等。 这些才是他们大肆招聘的职位。 如果未来的劳动人口 需要一样东西—— 一样大家都能认可的东西—— 那就是多样性。 但多样性并不该止步于性别和种族。 我们需要多样的背景 和技术， 包括内向和外向的人， 追随者和领导者。 这才是我们未来的劳动力构成。 科技变得越来越简单、 越来越容易获得这一事实， 让职业选择也变得更加自由， 你可以爱干什么就干什么。

Thank you.返回搜狐，查看更多

责任编辑：