×

我們使用cookies幫助改善LingQ。通過流覽本網站,表示你同意我們的 cookie policy.


image

TED Talks + Video : Science / Brain / Health / Biology, Dolly Chugh / How to let go of being a "good" person —and become a better person

Dolly Chugh / How to let go of being a "good" person —and become a better person

So a friend of mine was riding in a taxi to the airport the other day, and on the way, she was chatting with the taxi driver, and he said to her, with total sincerity, "I can tell you are a really good person. " And when she told me this story later, she said she couldn't believe how good it made her feel, that it meant a lot to her. Now that may seem like a strong reaction from my friend to the words of a total stranger, but she's not alone. I'm a social scientist. I study the psychology of good people, and research in my field says many of us care deeply about feeling like a good person and being seen as a good person. Now, your definition of "good person" and your definition of "good person" and maybe the taxi driver's definition of "good person" -- we may not all have the same definition, but within whatever our definition is, that moral identity is important to many of us. Now, if somebody challenges it, like they question us for a joke we tell, or maybe we say our workforce is homogenous, or a slippery business expense, we go into red-zone defensiveness a lot of the time. I mean, sometimes we call out all the ways in which we help people from marginalized groups, or we donate to charity, or the hours we volunteer to nonprofits. We work to protect that good person identity. It's important to many of us. But what if I told you this? What if I told you that our attachment to being good people is getting in the way of us being better people? What if I told you that our definition of "good person" is so narrow, it's scientifically impossible to meet? And what if I told you the path to being better people just begins with letting go of being a good person?

Now, let me tell you a little bit about the research about how the human mind works to explain. The brain relies on shortcuts to do a lot of its work. That means a lot of the time, your mental processes are taking place outside of your awareness, like in low-battery, low-power mode in the back of your mind. That's, in fact, the premise of bounded rationality. Bounded rationality is the Nobel Prize-winning idea that the human mind has limited storage resources, limited processing power, and as a result, it relies on shortcuts to do a lot of its work. So for example, some scientists estimate that in any given moment ... Better, better click, right? There we go. (Laughter)

At any given moment, 11 million pieces of information are coming into your mind. Eleven million. And only 40 of them are being processed consciously. So 11 million, 40.

I mean, has this ever happened to you? Have you ever had a really busy day at work, and you drive home, and when you get in the door, you realize you don't even remember the drive home, like whether you had green lights or red lights. You don't even remember. You were on autopilot. Or have you ever opened the fridge, looked for the butter, swore there is no butter, and then realized the butter was right in front of you the whole time? These are the kinds of "whoops" moments that make us giggle, and this is what happens in a brain that can handle 11 million pieces of information coming in with only 40 being processed consciously. That's the bounded part of bounded rationality. This work on bounded rationality is what's inspired work I've done with my collaborators Max Bazerman and Mahzarin Banaji, on what we call bounded ethicality. So it's the same premise as bounded rationality, that we have a human mind that is bounded in some sort of way and relying on shortcuts, and that those shortcuts can sometimes lead us astray. With bounded rationality, perhaps it affects the cereal we buy in the grocery store, or the product we launch in the boardroom. With bounded ethicality, the human mind, the same human mind, is making decisions, and here, it's about who to hire next, or what joke to tell or that slippery business decision. So let me give you an example of bounded ethicality at work. Unconscious bias is one place where we see the effects of bounded ethicality. So unconscious bias refers to associations we have in our mind, the shortcuts your brain is using to organize information, very likely outside of your awareness, not necessarily lining up with your conscious beliefs. Researchers Nosek, Banaji and Greenwald have looked at data from millions of people, and what they've found is, for example, most white Americans can more quickly and easily associate white people and good things than black people and good things, and most men and women can more quickly and easily associate men and science than women and science. And these associations don't necessarily line up with what people consciously think. They may have very egalitarian views, in fact. So sometimes, that 11 million and that 40 just don't line up. And here's another example: conflicts of interest. So we tend to underestimate how much a small gift -- imagine a ballpoint pen or dinner -- how much that small gift can affect our decision making. We don't realize that our mind is unconsciously lining up evidence to support the point of view of the gift-giver, no matter how hard we're consciously trying to be objective and professional. We also see bounded ethicality -- despite our attachment to being good people, we still make mistakes, and we make mistakes that sometimes hurt other people, that sometimes promote injustice, despite our best attempts, and we explain away our mistakes rather than learning from them. Like, for example, when I got an email from a female student in my class saying that a reading I had assigned, a reading I had been assigning for years, was sexist. Or when I confused two students in my class of the same race -- look nothing alike -- when I confused them for each other more than once, in front of everybody.

These kinds of mistakes send us, send me, into red-zone defensiveness. They leave us fighting for that good person identity. But the latest work that I've been doing on bounded ethicality with Mary Kern says that we're not only prone to mistakes -- that tendency towards mistakes depends on how close we are to that red zone. So most of the time, nobody's challenging our good person identity, and so we're not thinking too much about the ethical implications of our decisions, and our model shows that we're then spiraling towards less and less ethical behavior most of the time. On the other hand, somebody might challenge our identity, or, upon reflection, we may be challenging it ourselves. So the ethical implications of our decisions become really salient, and in those cases, we spiral towards more and more good person behavior, or, to be more precise, towards more and more behavior that makes us feel like a good person, which isn't always the same, of course. The idea with bounded ethicality is that we are perhaps overestimating the importance our inner compass is playing in our ethical decisions. We perhaps are overestimating how much our self-interest is driving our decisions, and perhaps we don't realize how much our self-view as a good person is affecting our behavior, that in fact, we're working so hard to protect that good person identity, to keep out of that red zone, that we're not actually giving ourselves space to learn from our mistakes and actually be better people. It's perhaps because we expect it to be easy. We have this definition of good person that's either-or. Either you are a good person or you're not. Either you have integrity or you don't. Either you are a racist or a sexist or a homophobe or you're not. And in this either-or definition, there's no room to grow. And by the way, this is not what we do in most parts of our lives. Life, if you needed to learn accounting, you would take an accounting class, or if you become a parent, we pick up a book and we read about it. We talk to experts, we learn from our mistakes, we update our knowledge, we just keep getting better. But when it comes to being a good person, we think it's something we're just supposed to know, we're just supposed to do, without the benefit of effort or growth. So what I've been thinking about is what if we were to just forget about being good people, just let it go, and instead, set a higher standard, a higher standard of being a good-ish person? A good-ish person absolutely still makes mistakes. As a good-ish person, I'm making them all the time. But as a good-ish person, I'm trying to learn from them, own them. I expect them and I go after them. I understand there are costs to these mistakes. When it comes to issues like ethics and bias and diversity and inclusion, there are real costs to real people, and I accept that. As a good-ish person, in fact, I become better at noticing my own mistakes. I don't wait for people to point them out. I practice finding them, and as a result ... Sure, sometimes it can be embarrassing, it can be uncomfortable. We put ourselves in a vulnerable place, sometimes. But through all that vulnerability, just like in everything else we've tried to ever get better at, we see progress. We see growth. We allow ourselves to get better.

Why wouldn't we give ourselves that? In every other part of our lives, we give ourselves room to grow -- except in this one, where it matters most.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Dolly Chugh / How to let go of being a "good" person —and become a better person Dolly Chugh / Wie man loslässt, ein „guter“ Mensch zu sein – und ein besserer Mensch wird Dolly Chugh / Cómo dejar de ser una persona "buena" y convertirse en una persona mejor Dolly Chugh / Comment cesser d'être une "bonne" personne - et devenir une meilleure personne Dolly Chugh / Come lasciare andare l'essere una persona "buona" e diventare una persona migliore ドリー・チュグ / 「良い」人であることを手放し、より良い人になる方法 Dolly Chugh / Jak zrezygnować z bycia "dobrą" osobą - i stać się lepszym człowiekiem Dolly Chugh / Como deixar de ser uma pessoa "boa" - e tornar-se uma pessoa melhor Долли Чуг / Как перестать быть "хорошим" человеком - и стать лучше Dolly Chugh / "İyi" bir insan olmaktan nasıl vazgeçilir -ve daha iyi bir insan olunur Доллі Чуг / Як перестати бути "хорошою" людиною - і стати кращою Dolly Chugh / 如何放弃做一个“好”人——并成为一个更好的人 Dolly Chugh / 如何放棄成為一個「好」人——並成為一個更好的人

So a friend of mine was riding in a taxi to the airport the other day, and on the way, she was chatting with the taxi driver, and he said to her, with total sincerity, "I can tell you are a really good person. Więc mój znajomy jechał taksówką na lotnisko pewnego dnia, a po drodze rozmawiała z taksówkarzem, a on powiedział do niej z całkowitą szczerością: „Mogę powiedzieć, że jesteś naprawdę dobrą osobą . " And when she told me this story later, she said she couldn't believe how good it made her feel, that it meant a lot to her. Now that may seem like a strong reaction from my friend to the words of a total stranger, but she's not alone. I'm a social scientist. I study the psychology of good people, and research in my field says many of us care deeply about feeling like a good person and being seen as a good person. 我研究好人的心理学,我所在领域的研究表明,我们中的许多人都非常关心感觉自己是一个好人并被视为一个好人。 Now, your definition of "good person" and your definition of "good person" and maybe the taxi driver's definition of "good person" -- we may not all have the same definition, but within whatever our definition is, that moral identity is important to many of us. Agora, sua definição de "boa pessoa" e sua definição de "boa pessoa" e talvez a definição do taxista de "boa pessoa" -- podemos não ter todos a mesma definição, mas dentro de qualquer que seja nossa definição, essa identidade moral é importante para muitos de nós. Итак, ваше определение «хорошего человека», ваше определение «хорошего человека» и, может быть, определение «хорошего человека», данное водителем такси, — у всех нас может быть не одно и то же определение, но в рамках любого нашего определения эта моральная идентичность важно для многих из нас. Now, if somebody challenges it, like they question us for a joke we tell, or maybe we say our workforce is homogenous, or a slippery business expense, we go into red-zone defensiveness a lot of the time. 現在,如果有人質疑它,例如他們質疑我們講的笑話,或者我們說我們的員工隊伍是同質的,或者業務費用不可靠,我們很多時候都會進入紅區防禦狀態。 Agora, se alguém a desafia, como nos questionam por uma piada que contamos, ou talvez digamos que nossa força de trabalho é homogênea, ou uma despesa comercial escorregadia, entramos na defensiva na zona vermelha a maior parte do tempo. Теперь, если кто-то оспаривает это, например, они расспрашивают нас за шутку, которую мы рассказываем, или, может быть, мы говорим, что наша рабочая сила однородна, или скользкие деловые расходы, мы часто переходим в красную зону обороны. I mean, sometimes we call out all the ways in which we help people from marginalized groups, or we donate to charity, or the hours we volunteer to nonprofits. Quero dizer, às vezes chamamos todas as maneiras pelas quais ajudamos pessoas de grupos marginalizados, ou doamos para caridade, ou as horas que oferecemos como voluntários para organizações sem fins lucrativos. Я имею в виду, что иногда мы упоминаем обо всех способах, которыми мы помогаем людям из маргинализированных групп, или о том, как мы жертвуем на благотворительность, или о том, сколько часов мы добровольно работаем в некоммерческих организациях. We work to protect that good person identity. It's important to many of us. But what if I told you this? What if I told you that our attachment to being good people is getting in the way of us being better people? Was wäre, wenn ich Ihnen sagen würde, dass unser Eigensinn, gute Menschen zu sein, uns daran hindert, bessere Menschen zu sein? E se eu lhe dissesse que nosso apego em sermos boas pessoas está nos impedindo de sermos pessoas melhores? Что, если я скажу вам, что наша привязанность к тому, чтобы быть хорошими людьми, мешает нам стать лучше? 如果我告诉你,我们对做好人的执着阻碍了我们成为更好的人,你会怎样呢? What if I told you that our definition of "good person" is so narrow, it's scientifically impossible to meet? Was wäre, wenn ich Ihnen sagen würde, dass unsere Definition von „guten Menschen“ so eng ist, dass es wissenschaftlich unmöglich ist, sie zu erfüllen? A co jeśli powiem ci, że nasza definicja „dobrego człowieka” jest tak wąska, że jej spełnienie z naukowego punktu widzenia jest niemożliwe? E se eu lhe disser que nossa definição de "boa pessoa" é tão restrita que é cientificamente impossível de ser encontrada? And what if I told you the path to being better people just begins with letting go of being a good person? A co jeśli powiem ci, że droga do bycia lepszymi ludźmi zaczyna się właśnie od odpuszczenia bycia dobrym człowiekiem?

Now, let me tell you a little bit about the research about how the human mind works to explain. Agora, deixe-me falar um pouco sobre a pesquisa sobre como a mente humana funciona para explicar. The brain relies on shortcuts to do a lot of its work. Das Gehirn verlässt sich auf Abkürzungen, um einen Großteil seiner Arbeit zu erledigen. Mózg polega na skrótach, aby wykonywać większość swojej pracy. O cérebro depende de atalhos para fazer muito do seu trabalho. That means a lot of the time, your mental processes are taking place outside of your awareness, like in low-battery, low-power mode in the back of your mind. Oznacza to, że przez większość czasu twoje procesy mentalne zachodzą poza twoją świadomością, jak w trybie niskiego poziomu naładowania baterii w tylnej części twojego umysłu. Isso significa que, na maioria das vezes, seus processos mentais estão ocorrendo fora de sua consciência, como no modo de bateria fraca e pouca energia no fundo de sua mente. That's, in fact, the premise of bounded rationality. W rzeczywistości jest to przesłanka ograniczonej racjonalności. Essa é, de fato, a premissa da racionalidade limitada. Bounded rationality is the Nobel Prize-winning idea that the human mind has limited storage resources, limited processing power, and as a result, it relies on shortcuts to do a lot of its work. So for example, some scientists estimate that in any given moment ... Better, better click, right? Então, por exemplo, alguns cientistas estimam que em qualquer momento... Melhor, melhor clicar, certo? There we go. Aqui vamos nós. (Laughter)

At any given moment, 11 million pieces of information are coming into your mind. W dowolnym momencie przychodzi Ci do głowy 11 milionów informacji. Eleven million. Jedenaście milionów. And only 40 of them are being processed consciously. A tylko 40 z nich jest świadomie przetwarzanych. So 11 million, 40.

I mean, has this ever happened to you? Ich meine, ist dir das schon mal passiert? Quero dizer, isso já aconteceu com você? Have you ever had a really busy day at work, and you drive home, and when you get in the door, you realize you don't even remember the drive home, like whether you had green lights or red lights. You don't even remember. You were on autopilot. Or have you ever opened the fridge, looked for the butter, swore there is no butter, and then realized the butter was right in front of you the whole time? These are the kinds of "whoops" moments that make us giggle, and this is what happens in a brain that can handle 11 million pieces of information coming in with only 40 being processed consciously. Są to momenty „okrzyki”, które sprawiają, że chichotamy, i to właśnie dzieje się w mózgu, który może obsłużyć 11 milionów informacji przychodzących, a tylko 40 jest przetwarzanych świadomie. Esses são os tipos de momentos "gritos" que nos fazem rir, e é isso que acontece em um cérebro que pode lidar com 11 milhões de informações chegando com apenas 40 sendo processadas conscientemente. That's the bounded part of bounded rationality. This work on bounded rationality is what's inspired work I've done with my collaborators Max Bazerman and Mahzarin Banaji, on what we call bounded ethicality. Este trabalho sobre racionalidade limitada é o que inspirou o trabalho que fiz com meus colaboradores Max Bazerman e Mahzarin Banaji, sobre o que chamamos de ética limitada. So it's the same premise as bounded rationality, that we have a human mind that is bounded in some sort of way and relying on shortcuts, and that those shortcuts can sometimes lead us astray. Jest to więc ta sama przesłanka, co ograniczona racjonalność, że mamy ludzki umysł, który jest w jakiś sposób ograniczony i polega na skrótach, i że te skróty czasami mogą nas sprowadzić na manowce. Portanto, é a mesma premissa da racionalidade limitada, que temos uma mente humana que é limitada de alguma forma e depende de atalhos, e que esses atalhos às vezes podem nos desviar. With bounded rationality, perhaps it affects the cereal we buy in the grocery store, or the product we launch in the boardroom. Z ograniczoną racjonalnością, być może wpływa to na zboża, które kupujemy w sklepie spożywczym lub na produkt, który wprowadzamy na salę konferencyjną. Com racionalidade limitada, talvez afete o cereal que compramos no supermercado ou o produto que lançamos na sala de reuniões. With bounded ethicality, the human mind, the same human mind, is making decisions, and here, it's about who to hire next, or what joke to tell or that slippery business decision. Kierując się ograniczoną etyką, ludzki umysł, ten sam ludzki umysł, podejmuje decyzje, a tutaj chodzi o to, kogo zatrudnić jako następny, jaki żart opowiedzieć lub tę śliską decyzję biznesową. Com ética limitada, a mente humana, a mesma mente humana, está tomando decisões, e aqui, é sobre quem contratar em seguida, ou que piada contar ou aquela decisão de negócios escorregadia. So let me give you an example of bounded ethicality at work. Unconscious bias is one place where we see the effects of bounded ethicality. Nieświadome uprzedzenia to jedyne miejsce, w którym widzimy skutki ograniczonej etyczności. O viés inconsciente é um lugar onde vemos os efeitos da ética limitada. So unconscious bias refers to associations we have in our mind, the shortcuts your brain is using to organize information, very likely outside of your awareness, not necessarily lining up with your conscious beliefs. Więc nieświadome uprzedzenia odnoszą się do skojarzeń, które mamy w umyśle, skrótów, których twój mózg używa do organizowania informacji, najprawdopodobniej poza twoją świadomością, niekoniecznie zgodnych z twoimi świadomymi przekonaniami. Assim, o viés inconsciente refere-se a associações que temos em nossa mente, os atalhos que seu cérebro está usando para organizar informações, muito provavelmente fora de sua consciência, não necessariamente alinhados com suas crenças conscientes. Researchers Nosek, Banaji and Greenwald have looked at data from millions of people, and what they've found is, for example, most white Americans can more quickly and easily associate white people and good things than black people and good things, and most men and women can more quickly and easily associate men and science than women and science. Naukowcy Nosek, Banaji i Greenwald przyjrzeli się danym milionów ludzi i odkryli, że na przykład większość białych Amerykanów może szybciej i łatwiej kojarzyć białych ludzi i dobre rzeczy niż czarni i dobre rzeczy, a większość mężczyzn a kobiety mogą szybciej i łatwiej kojarzyć mężczyzn i naukę niż kobiety i naukę. And these associations don't necessarily line up with what people consciously think. A te skojarzenia niekoniecznie pokrywają się z tym, co ludzie myślą świadomie. They may have very egalitarian views, in fact. So sometimes, that 11 million and that 40 just don't line up. Manchmal passen diese 11 Millionen und diese 40 einfach nicht zusammen. And here's another example: conflicts of interest. So we tend to underestimate how much a small gift -- imagine a ballpoint pen or dinner -- how much that small gift can affect our decision making. We don't realize that our mind is unconsciously lining up evidence to support the point of view of the gift-giver, no matter how hard we're consciously trying to be objective and professional. Não percebemos que nossa mente está inconscientemente alinhando evidências para apoiar o ponto de vista do doador, não importa o quanto estejamos conscientemente tentando ser objetivos e profissionais. We also see bounded ethicality -- despite our attachment to being good people, we still make mistakes, and we make mistakes that sometimes hurt other people, that sometimes promote injustice, despite our best attempts, and we explain away our mistakes rather than learning from them. Também vemos ética limitada – apesar de nosso apego a ser boas pessoas, ainda cometemos erros, e cometemos erros que às vezes machucam outras pessoas, que às vezes promovem injustiça, apesar de nossas melhores tentativas, e explicamos nossos erros em vez de aprender com eles. Like, for example, when I got an email from a female student in my class saying that a reading I had assigned, a reading I had been assigning for years, was sexist. Na przykład, kiedy dostałem e-mail od uczennicy z mojej klasy, w którym napisałem, że lektura, którą zadałem, lektura, którą przypisywałem od lat, jest seksistowska. Or when I confused two students in my class of the same race -- look nothing alike -- when I confused them for each other more than once, in front of everybody. Albo kiedy pomyliłem dwóch uczniów tej samej rasy w mojej klasie - nie wyglądajcie tak samo - kiedy pomyliłem ich dla siebie więcej niż raz, na oczach wszystkich. Ou quando confundi dois alunos da minha classe da mesma raça - não se parecem em nada - quando os confundi um com o outro mais de uma vez, na frente de todos.

These kinds of mistakes send us, send me, into red-zone defensiveness. Tego rodzaju błędy wysyłają nas, wyślij mnie, do defensywności w czerwonej strefie. They leave us fighting for that good person identity. But the latest work that I've been doing on bounded ethicality with Mary Kern says that we're not only prone to mistakes -- that tendency towards mistakes depends on how close we are to that red zone. Mas o último trabalho que tenho feito sobre ética limitada com Mary Kern diz que não somos apenas propensos a erros – essa tendência a erros depende de quão perto estamos dessa zona vermelha. So most of the time, nobody's challenging our good person identity, and so we're not thinking too much about the ethical implications of our decisions, and our model shows that we're then spiraling towards less and less ethical behavior most of the time. Então, na maioria das vezes, ninguém está desafiando nossa identidade de boa pessoa, e por isso não estamos pensando muito sobre as implicações éticas de nossas decisões, e nosso modelo mostra que estamos caminhando para um comportamento cada vez menos ético na maioria das vezes . On the other hand, somebody might challenge our identity, or, upon reflection, we may be challenging it ourselves. Por outro lado, alguém pode desafiar nossa identidade ou, refletindo, podemos estar desafiando-a nós mesmos. So the ethical implications of our decisions become really salient, and in those cases, we spiral towards more and more good person behavior, or, to be more precise, towards more and more behavior that makes us feel like a good person, which isn't always the same, of course. Assim, as implicações éticas de nossas decisões tornam-se realmente salientes e, nesses casos, espiralamos em direção a um comportamento cada vez mais bom, ou, para ser mais preciso, em direção a um comportamento cada vez mais que nos faz sentir como uma boa pessoa, o que não é t sempre o mesmo, é claro. The idea with bounded ethicality is that we are perhaps overestimating the importance our inner compass is playing in our ethical decisions. We perhaps are overestimating how much our self-interest is driving our decisions, and perhaps we don't realize how much our self-view as a good person is affecting our behavior, that in fact, we're working so hard to protect that good person identity, to keep out of that red zone, that we're not actually giving ourselves space to learn from our mistakes and actually be better people. Talvez estejamos superestimando o quanto nosso interesse próprio está direcionando nossas decisões, e talvez não percebamos o quanto nossa visão de nós mesmos como uma boa pessoa está afetando nosso comportamento, que na verdade estamos trabalhando tanto para proteger isso. identidade de pessoa boa, para nos mantermos fora dessa zona vermelha, que não estamos realmente nos dando espaço para aprender com nossos erros e realmente ser pessoas melhores. It's perhaps because we expect it to be easy. We have this definition of good person that's either-or. Temos essa definição de boa pessoa que é ou-ou. Either you are a good person or you're not. Either you have integrity or you don't. Either you are a racist or a sexist or a homophobe or you're not. And in this either-or definition, there's no room to grow. E nesta definição de ou não, não há espaço para crescer. And by the way, this is not what we do in most parts of our lives. Life, if you needed to learn accounting, you would take an accounting class, or if you become a parent, we pick up a book and we read about it. Vida, se você precisasse aprender contabilidade, você faria um curso de contabilidade, ou se você se tornasse pai, pegamos um livro e lemos sobre isso. We talk to experts, we learn from our mistakes, we update our knowledge, we just keep getting better. But when it comes to being a good person, we think it's something we're just supposed to know, we're just supposed to do, without the benefit of effort or growth. Mas quando se trata de ser uma boa pessoa, achamos que é algo que devemos saber, que devemos fazer, sem o benefício de esforço ou crescimento. So what I've been thinking about is what if we were to just forget about being good people, just let it go, and instead, set a higher standard, a higher standard of being a good-ish person? Então, o que eu tenho pensado é se nós apenas esquecêssemos de ser boas pessoas, apenas deixasse para lá e, em vez disso, estabelecêssemos um padrão mais alto, um padrão mais alto de ser uma pessoa boa? A good-ish person absolutely still makes mistakes. Uma pessoa boa com certeza ainda comete erros. As a good-ish person, I'm making them all the time. But as a good-ish person, I'm trying to learn from them, own them. I expect them and I go after them. Eu os espero e vou atrás deles. I understand there are costs to these mistakes. When it comes to issues like ethics and bias and diversity and inclusion, there are real costs to real people, and I accept that. Quando se trata de questões como ética e preconceito, diversidade e inclusão, há custos reais para pessoas reais, e eu aceito isso. As a good-ish person, in fact, I become better at noticing my own mistakes. I don't wait for people to point them out. I practice finding them, and as a result ... Sure, sometimes it can be embarrassing, it can be uncomfortable. We put ourselves in a vulnerable place, sometimes. But through all that vulnerability, just like in everything else we've tried to ever get better at, we see progress. Mas através de toda essa vulnerabilidade, assim como em tudo o que tentamos melhorar, vemos progresso. We see growth. We allow ourselves to get better. Nos permitimos melhorar.

Why wouldn't we give ourselves that? Por que não nos daríamos isso? In every other part of our lives, we give ourselves room to grow -- except in this one, where it matters most.

Thank you.

(Applause)