Elon Musk的演講藝術

Presentality的Andrew大大來幫大家分析了!

Elon Musk 違反賈伯斯時代的演講準則，反而加深自己的魅力!

Elon Musk 可說是全世界影響力最高的商業領袖之一，而且在媒體及社群媒體的聲望奇高無比（IG 有200萬追隨者，Twitter 有6000萬），甚至一句話就可以影響市場的走向。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

他肯定是溝通大師對不對？而且舞台魅力一定很強大？

Well... 從溝通成效的角度來看，他是很厲害沒錯，但如果你看任何一場他的演講，你肯定會覺得很困惑。你會覺得：這個人怎麼這麼尷尬，這麼不會講話？

隨便在 Youtube 上面搜尋他演講的影片，看個幾分鐘，你就會知道我們在說什麼了。看個幾分鐘就可以跳出至少以下的問題：

• 說話吱吱唔唔，贅字一堆
• 停頓在很尷尬的地方，感覺不知道自己在哪裡
• 投影片視覺，跟口述的內容常常對不起來
• 容易忘記自己要說什麼，明顯要去偷瞄一下投影片，不然無法繼續說等等...

啊... 那他到底厲害在哪裡？為什麼一個講話這麼尷尬不流暢的人，能夠迷惑全球這麼多人，發揮如此大的影響力？

我們看完一些他演講影片的結論，是他的魅力來源，跟「前一波」的商業領袖，如 Steve Jobs，截然不同。你甚至可以說，**他們的風格是完全相反的。**

我們今天就從 Musk 的一些演講中，來看他的反向操作！

★★★★★★★★★★★★

📌 反操作1：Jobs Overstates, Musk Understates

★★★★★★★★★★★★

首先，Steve Jobs 開始用的一個「技巧」，說好聽是「讚嘆」，說難聽就是「誇大」，不論發表的產品是否真的是突破性創新，反正就是用 "incredible"、"revolutionary" 等字眼來形容。英文的一個形容，就是 "overstatement" - 把什麼東西都講的「超過」一點。

結果一大堆商業演講的人，做產品無法像 Jobs，但用誇張的形容詞卻學的很像。

Musk 就不一樣。

他自己知道他做的事情很難（讓永續能源普及、把人類變成多個星球的物種），所以他反而用很「沒什麼大不了」的字眼跟語氣來傳達，反而讓這種「謙虛」變成一種效果。這個就不是 "overstatement"，而是 “understatement" - 什麼東西都講的收斂一點。

舉個例子：他2016年介紹太陽能屋頂的時候，有描述一個很大，很難實現的未來，是這樣說的：

> What is the future that we want? It's consisted of really appealing solar roof... then combine that with storage, and with electric cars.

It's an obvious 3-part solution... Yeah... 3 part solution... uh...

It's really not that complicated.

沒錯，他講完之後停頓了一下，然後說嗯，對，就是三個部分，真的沒那麼複雜 lol。

好比在跟聽眾說：「啊就很簡單啊，你們還要我說什麼？」連聽眾都笑出來：

影片: https://youtu.be/4sfwDyiPTdU?t=187

★★★★★★★★★★★★

如果是賈伯斯派的門徒來說，可能會說：

➜We are building a grand future - a future of endless renewable energy and clean mobility, but with the sort of convenience you couldn't even imagine.

To build this, we've had to overcome a trinity of challenges that have bedeviled generations prior:
1. Houses that generate energy during the day all by themselves
2. Efficient and integrated storage
3. And the best electric cars the world has ever seen

Ok，我寫的有點誇張，但 you get the point。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

他最近在發表 Tesla Bot 的演講中，也描述了一個很大的未來，你看看他的說法：

➜ What is the economy? It is uh... at the foundation, it's labor. So what happens when there's... uh... no shortage of labor?

So I think in the long-term, there will need to be universal basic income (applause)... Not right now, because the robot doesn't work (laugh)... we just need a minute.

Essentially, in the future, physical work will be a choice... if you want to do it, you can, but you wouldn't need to do it. Obviously it has profound implications for the economy, because... the economy, at its foundational level, is labor, and capital is just distilled labor, then... is there an actual limit to the economy? Maybe not...

你很難想像有人可以把一些這麼遠大的願景 - 人力工作變成一個選擇、每人都享有基本收入等等 - 用更平鋪直述的方式，沒什麼好大驚小怪的語氣說出來。

連開發萬用機器人的難度，他都只是說 "We just need a minute" lol。

Again 歡迎你們自己看影片，體驗一下：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUP6Z5voiS8

Btw... Musk 還隨口說了一句 "capital is just distilled labor"。別叫我翻譯，因為我根本不知道這是什麼意思，尤其是 "distilled" 在這裡的用意。如果你去 google "distilled labor"，也找不到什麼東西，只有不到兩千個 search result。

有人會覺得 Musk 太聰明了，所以才會常常說出正常人不懂的話，但我個人覺得他是故意的：就是要「埋」一些每人聽得懂的話，才能加深他「天才」的形象。

Musk 把複雜困難的事情說成很簡單，還有另一個好處：就是大家可能會覺得「這些很難的事情，好像難不倒他耶，嗯他看來真的是個天才！」

大家可能有時候會聽人家說，在西方，就是要懂得如何吹捧自己。但其實有時候不一定要這樣。

💡你做的事情是真功夫時，謙虛反而會放大。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

📌 反操作2：尷尬反而是魅力

★★★★★★★★★★★★

其實，在賈伯斯用流暢的舞台表演稱霸市場之後，很多企業家都下苦工，練就一身演說武功。如 Bill Gates 或是 Mark Zuckerberg，都很明顯的從內向而且不會演講的人，變成老練的演說家。

Musk 很明顯沒有。Honestly, he's not even trying。

上面的影片，一個是2016年，一個是2021年，你覺得哪個舞台上的 Elon Musk，比較尷尬？這個當然有點主觀，但我兩個都看完之後，會覺得今年的他，講的更卡，更不好。

但是 Elon Musk 很明顯的根本沒有在 care 這一塊 lol。如果他有心要成為非常流暢的講者，你覺得這種小事能夠難倒他嗎？

…

還需要Musk暗藏玄機的演講技巧嗎? 需要的同學請按個讚和留言「Must learn from Musk」。

需要更多的演講分析與技巧請追蹤Presentality!

圖片出處: https://bit.ly/3mKfjyX

要將呢位香港人老友的觀點，向國際推廣。

泰晤士報亞洲編輯勁文共賞：

Hong Kong: Sometimes you have to fight for freedom
「香港：有時候係需要為自由而戰」
We in the West have no right to condemn the violence of protesters facing tyranny
「西方社會無資格去譴責對抗暴政嘅暴力抗爭」

《The Times》泰晤士報今日11月28號刊登亞洲編輯Richard Lloyd Parry用咁爆嘅標題「暴走」式癲咗咁去評論香港示威，要留意唔係專欄作家、評論員或者嘉賓投稿呀。內容直情係英文版嘅「和勇合一」，「不割蓆、不篤灰、不指責」，加埋「不完美，可接受」超級專業版國際文宣。真係忍唔住當學英文，節錄幾段亂咁譯同大家「勁文同賞」。

（帶番套Full Gear講明先，係佢「宣揚暴力」同「美化暴徒行為」，本Page只係英文翻譯學術交流流，本人熱愛和平，討厭政治，最憎對抗暴政好似華盛頓同孫中山之類嘅暴徒！但係點解會覺得感動呢？）

//We like our moral heroes to be cuddly, as well as brave, and for the first few months the democracy protesters of Hong Kong met both of these requirements...A million Davids stood up against the Goliath of the Chinese state and people around the world cheered — until, in the past few weeks, it all started to turn nasty.//
（我地從來都鐘意道德英雄，勇敢得黎又可愛又剩咁，香港人最初嗰幾個月就係咁有齊晒咁嘅優點。好似一百萬個大衛對抗巨人歌莉婭咁，睇到全世界都好開心，直到近幾個星期前，情況就開始有啲肉酸。）

然後講述磚頭、汽油彈、投石器同「鶳」出現嘅情況唔重覆，佢話中國政府形容呢班係「暴徒」（"thugs"）一啲都唔意外，不過覺得好驚訝某啲西方傳媒，特別係嗰啲澳洲報紙用「賊匪」同「蒙面恐怖份子」（“bandits” and “masked terrorists”）做形容詞。

//Let there be no doubt, there is no excuse for beating up people who disagree with you, or who arouse your suspicion because they are speaking mainland Chinese. But these crimes are nothing compared with the institutionalised violence bearing down on the protesters from all sides.//
（咪誤會，人地有唔同意見或者講普通話就鶳一定係唔啱，但係呢啲唔能夠同示威者所面對嘅全方位制度暴力去比㗎。）

//Hong Kong is deceptive, at least on superficial acquaintance...But the freedom has iron limits.//
（好膚淺咁表面去睇，香港嘅所謂自由其實係個騙局咁...因為呢啲自由有鐵一般嘅限制。）

//Despite limited autonomy, they are part of China, a one-party dictatorship with a history of murderously oppressing those who challenge its authority.//
（雖然擁有有限嘅自治，但咪忘記係响一個一黨專政，歷史上對異己殘酷欺壓嘅國家嘅一部份喎。）

//For all the visible trappings of civilisation, this is not London, New York or Tokyo. The protesters throwing firebombs at the police at the Polytechnic University are not to be compared to anti-war protesters or climate change demonstrators, or any of the activists on the streets of western cities. People in those places have no cause to resort to violence. Whether or not they get what they want, they have multiple means of articulating their grievances in print, on television, via the internet, as well as at the ballot box. In Hong Kong, unlike mainland China, people can express themselves freely but have no means to choose leaders who reflect the popular will.//
（大家剩係見到表面嘅文明，喂，香港唔L係倫敦、紐約或者東京呀。班西方反戰、環保或者是但街頭抗爭嗰啲，係比唔上理大向警察揼汽油彈嘅示威者。因為西方嗰班友，就算爭取唔到，至少仲可以靠印刷、上電視、上網甚至用選票之類暴力以外嘅方法去爭取訴求。香港人其實只係得把口係自由，係完全無方法去揀一個領袖去反映民意㗎！）

嗱，最爆嘅論點黎喇！

//All of us of the right-thinking persuasion pride ourselves on “deploring violence”. But very few of us are true pacifists. In extreme circumstances, faced with a direct threat to the physical wellbeing of ourselves or our loved ones, many of us would raise a fist or something worse. Most people agree that against a threat like that posed by Nazi Germany, for example, even war can be a dreadful necessity.//
（我地企响道德高地口口聲聲「譴責暴力」緊係自high㗎喎，但唔該自問一下有幾多個係真正嘅和平主義者先啦。實情係响極端嘅情形之下，如果自己或者親人面對直接危險嘅時候，大家唔只出手啦，再激啲都會。正如大部份人都唔會反對，當年面對納粹德國咁恐怖嘅威脅，戰爭係必須嘅。）

//Many of us too would compromise our habitual respect for the authority of police and government if it were wielded in an oppressive and undemocratic way. Imagine some fantasy version of Britain, without genuinely elected leaders, in which a one-party state was encroaching on already limited freedoms. Faced with such a reality, thrown bricks would be the least of it.//
（我地有時真係慣咗去尊重嗰啲警察同政府嘅權威，就算佢地用非民主同壓制嘅手段都好似盲咗咁。唔該用個腦幻想下，如果英國無一個真正民選嘅領袖，然後得一個政黨，仲要慢慢侵蝕已經有限嘅自由，睇下你地會點？面對咁嘅環境，相信磚頭已經係最小事啦。）

結論：

//We are lucky that we will never have to face such oppression. We should not be quick to judge those in Hong Kong who do. Far from condemning them as thugs, we should support them in their struggle, recognise their courage and salute them for their continuing and remarkable restraint.//
（我地好彩從來都唔洗面對咁嘅壓迫，所以唔應該咁快去判斷要面對嘅香港人。唔好話指責，我地直情要支持佢地嘅抗爭，表揚佢地嘅勇氣，讚揚佢地嘅堅持同克制。）

Richard Lloyd Parry癲到咁，真係呼籲大家去佢個Twitter教訓下佢：
https://twitter.com/dicklp?s=20

#國際同路人
#手足

Photo Source: The Times Capture
原文傳送門：
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/…/hong-kong-sometimes-you-have-t…

泰晤士報亞洲編輯勁文共賞：

Hong Kong: Sometimes you have to fight for freedom
「香港：有時候係需要為自由而戰」
We in the West have no right to condemn the violence of protesters facing tyranny
「西方社會無資格去譴責對抗暴政嘅暴力抗爭」

《The Times》泰晤士報今日11月28號刊登亞洲編輯Richard Lloyd Parry用咁爆嘅標題「暴走」式癲咗咁去評論香港示威，要留意唔係專欄作家、評論員或者嘉賓投稿呀。內容直情係英文版嘅「和勇合一」，「不割蓆、不篤灰、不指責」，加埋「不完美，可接受」超級專業版國際文宣。真係忍唔住當學英文，節錄幾段亂咁譯同大家「勁文同賞」。

（帶番套Full Gear講明先，係佢「宣揚暴力」同「美化暴徒行為」，本Page只係英文翻譯學術交流流，本人熱愛和平，討厭政治，最憎對抗暴政好似華盛頓同孫中山之類嘅暴徒！但係點解會覺得感動呢？）

//We like our moral heroes to be cuddly, as well as brave, and for the first few months the democracy protesters of Hong Kong met both of these requirements...A million Davids stood up against the Goliath of the Chinese state and people around the world cheered — until, in the past few weeks, it all started to turn nasty.//
（我地從來都鐘意道德英雄，勇敢得黎又可愛又剩咁，香港人最初嗰幾個月就係咁有齊晒咁嘅優點。好似一百萬個大衛對抗巨人歌莉婭咁，睇到全世界都好開心，直到近幾個星期前，情況就開始有啲肉酸。）

然後講述磚頭、汽油彈、投石器同「鶳」出現嘅情況唔重覆，佢話中國政府形容呢班係「暴徒」（"thugs"）一啲都唔意外，不過覺得好驚訝某啲西方傳媒，特別係嗰啲澳洲報紙用「賊匪」同「蒙面恐怖份子」（“bandits” and “masked terrorists”）做形容詞。

//Let there be no doubt, there is no excuse for beating up people who disagree with you, or who arouse your suspicion because they are speaking mainland Chinese. But these crimes are nothing compared with the institutionalised violence bearing down on the protesters from all sides.//
（咪誤會，人地有唔同意見或者講普通話就鶳一定係唔啱，但係呢啲唔能夠同示威者所面對嘅全方位制度暴力去比㗎。）

//Hong Kong is deceptive, at least on superficial acquaintance...But the freedom has iron limits.//
（好膚淺咁表面去睇，香港嘅所謂自由其實係個騙局咁...因為呢啲自由有鐵一般嘅限制。）

//Despite limited autonomy, they are part of China, a one-party dictatorship with a history of murderously oppressing those who challenge its authority.//
（雖然擁有有限嘅自治，但咪忘記係响一個一黨專政，歷史上對異己殘酷欺壓嘅國家嘅一部份喎。）

//For all the visible trappings of civilisation, this is not London, New York or Tokyo. The protesters throwing firebombs at the police at the Polytechnic University are not to be compared to anti-war protesters or climate change demonstrators, or any of the activists on the streets of western cities. People in those places have no cause to resort to violence. Whether or not they get what they want, they have multiple means of articulating their grievances in print, on television, via the internet, as well as at the ballot box. In Hong Kong, unlike mainland China, people can express themselves freely but have no means to choose leaders who reflect the popular will.//
（大家剩係見到表面嘅文明，喂，香港唔L係倫敦、紐約或者東京呀。班西方反戰、環保或者是但街頭抗爭嗰啲，係比唔上理大向警察揼汽油彈嘅示威者。因為西方嗰班友，就算爭取唔到，至少仲可以靠印刷、上電視、上網甚至用選票之類暴力以外嘅方法去爭取訴求。香港人其實只係得把口係自由，係完全無方法去揀一個領袖去反映民意㗎！）

嗱，最爆嘅論點黎喇！

//All of us of the right-thinking persuasion pride ourselves on “deploring violence”. But very few of us are true pacifists. In extreme circumstances, faced with a direct threat to the physical wellbeing of ourselves or our loved ones, many of us would raise a fist or something worse. Most people agree that against a threat like that posed by Nazi Germany, for example, even war can be a dreadful necessity.//
（我地企响道德高地口口聲聲「譴責暴力」緊係自high㗎喎，但唔該自問一下有幾多個係真正嘅和平主義者先啦。實情係响極端嘅情形之下，如果自己或者親人面對直接危險嘅時候，大家唔只出手啦，再激啲都會。正如大部份人都唔會反對，當年面對納粹德國咁恐怖嘅威脅，戰爭係必須嘅。）

//Many of us too would compromise our habitual respect for the authority of police and government if it were wielded in an oppressive and undemocratic way. Imagine some fantasy version of Britain, without genuinely elected leaders, in which a one-party state was encroaching on already limited freedoms. Faced with such a reality, thrown bricks would be the least of it.//
（我地有時真係慣咗去尊重嗰啲警察同政府嘅權威，就算佢地用非民主同壓制嘅手段都好似盲咗咁。唔該用個腦幻想下，如果英國無一個真正民選嘅領袖，然後得一個政黨，仲要慢慢侵蝕已經有限嘅自由，睇下你地會點？面對咁嘅環境，相信磚頭已經係最小事啦。）

結論：

//We are lucky that we will never have to face such oppression. We should not be quick to judge those in Hong Kong who do. Far from condemning them as thugs, we should support them in their struggle, recognise their courage and salute them for their continuing and remarkable restraint.//
（我地好彩從來都唔洗面對咁嘅壓迫，所以唔應該咁快去判斷要面對嘅香港人。唔好話指責，我地直情要支持佢地嘅抗爭，表揚佢地嘅勇氣，讚揚佢地嘅堅持同克制。）

Richard Lloyd Parry癲到咁，真係呼籲大家去佢個Twitter教訓下佢：
https://twitter.com/dicklp?s=20

#國際同路人
#手足

Photo Source: The Times Capture
原文傳送門：
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/…/hong-kong-sometimes-you-have-t…