タグ: English

→ オリジナル映像
→トランスクリプト

No.09

CA: So what do you guys argue about? Sunday, 11 o’clock, you’re away from work, what comes up? What’s the argument?

BG: Because we built this thing together from the beginning, it’s this great partnership. I had that with Paul Allen in the early days of Microsoft. I had it with Steve Ballmer as Microsoft got bigger, and now Melinda, and in even stronger, equal ways, is the partner, so we talk a lot about which things should we give more to, which groups are working well? She’s got a lot of insight. She’ll sit down with the employees a lot. We’ll take the different trips she described. So there’s a lot of collaboration. I can’t think of anything where one of us had a super strong opinion about one thing or another?

CA: How about you, Melinda, though? Can you? (Laughter) You never know.

MG: Well, here’s the thing. We come at things from different angles, and I actually think that’s really good. So Bill can look at the big data and say, “I want to act based on these global statistics.” For me, I come at it from intuition. I meet with lots of people on the ground and Bill’s taught me to take that and read up to the global data and see if they match, and I think what I’ve taught him is to take that data and meet with people on the ground to understand, can you actually deliver that vaccine? Can you get a woman to accept those polio drops in her child’s mouth? Because the delivery piece is every bit as important as the science. So I think it’s been more a coming to over time towards each other’s point of view, and quite frankly, the work is better because of it.

ボキャブラリー

CA: So what do you guys argue about? Sunday, 11 o’clock, you’re away from work, what comes up? What’s the argument?

BG: Because we built this thing together from the beginning, it’s this great partnership. I had that with Paul Allen in the early days of Microsoft. I had it with Steve Ballmer as Microsoft got bigger, and now Melinda, and in even stronger, equal ways, is the partner, so we talk a lot about which things should we give more to, which groups are working well? She’s got a lot of insight. She’ll sit down with the employees a lot. We’ll take the different trips she described. So there’s a lot of collaboration. I can’t think of anything where one of us had a super strong opinion about one thing or another?

CA: How about you, Melinda, though? Can you? (Laughter) You never know.

MG: Well, here’s the thing. We come at things from different angles, and I actually think that’s really good. So Bill can look at the big data and say, “I want to act based on these global statistics.” For me, I come at it from intuition. I meet with lots of people on the ground and Bill’s taught me to take that and read up to the global data and see if they match, and I think what I’ve taught him is to take that data and meet with people on the ground to understand, can you actually deliver that vaccine? Can you get a woman to accept those polio drops in her child’s mouth? Because the delivery piece is every bit as important as the science. So I think it’s been more a coming to over time towards each other’s point of view, and quite frankly, the work is better because of it.

collaboration: 協力，協調、協業、共同制作
insight: n. 洞察力，明察、深い理解，見識，眼識
sit down with ~: 〜と膝を交える、と話し合う
here’s the thing.: あのね、つまりね、こういうことなんです
come at : 〜に達する；〜をつかむ、得る
angle: n. （物を眺める）位置；（カメラの）アングル；（問題・状況に対する）見方，観点
from a different angle: 異なった観点から
statistics: n. 統計（学）
intuition: 直感（力）、直覚（力）
on the ground: 現場で；実地に、実用的に；一般大衆の間[草の根]に
polio: n. 小児麻痺，ポリオ，脊髄灰白質炎（poliomyelitis の略。＝infantile paralysis）
every bit: あらゆる点で、全部，みんな、全く
over time: 時間とともに、そのうちに、ひとりでに

解説

Paul allen: ポール・アレン（Paul Gardner Allen, 1953年1月21日 – ）は、マイクロソフト社の共同創業者。1983年に退社し、1990年に復帰するが、2000年に再び退社、取締役も退任。現在は資産運用や投資を業務とするバルカン社を経営している。
Steve Ballmer: スティーブ・バルマー（Steven Anthony Ballmer、1956年3月24日 – ）アメリカ合衆国の実業家、マイクロソフト社最高経営責任者（2000年1月 – 2014年2月4日）。

→ オリジナル映像
→ トランスクリプト

No.10

So we published these findings, and the media are all over it, and they say, Okay, so this is what you do when you go in for the job interview, right? (Laughter) You know, so we were of course horrified, and said, Oh my God, no, no, no, that’s not what we meant at all. For numerous reasons, no, no, no, don’t do that. Again, this is not about you talking to other people. It’s you talking to yourself. What do you do before you go into a job interview? You do this. Right? You’re sitting down. You’re looking at your iPhone — or your Android, not trying to leave anyone out. You are, you know, you’re looking at your notes, you’re hunching up, making yourself small, when really what you should be doing maybe is this, like, in the bathroom, right? Do that. Find two minutes. So that’s what we want to test. Okay? So we bring people into a lab, and they do either high- or low-power poses again, they go through a very stressful job interview. It’s five minutes long. They are being recorded. They’re being judged also, and the judges are trained to give no nonverbal feedback, so they look like this. Like, imagine this is the person interviewing you. So for five minutes, nothing, and this is worse than being heckled. People hate this. It’s what Marianne LaFrance calls “standing in social quicksand.” So this really spikes your cortisol. So this is the job interview we put them through, because we really wanted to see what happened. We then have these coders look at these tapes, four of them. They’re blind to the hypothesis. They’re blind to the conditions. They have no idea who’s been posing in what pose, and they end up looking at these sets of tapes, and they say, “Oh, we want to hire these people,” — all the high-power posers — “we don’t want to hire these people. We also evaluate these people much more positively overall.” But what’s driving it? It’s not about the content of the speech. It’s about the presence that they’re bringing to the speech. We also, because we rate them on all these variables related to competence, like, how well-structured is the speech? How good is it? What are their qualifications? No effect on those things. This is what’s affected. These kinds of things. People are bringing their true selves, basically. They’re bringing themselves. They bring their ideas, but as themselves, with no, you know, residue over them. So this is what’s driving the effect, or mediating the effect.

ボキャブラリー

So we published these findings, and the media are all over it, and they say, Okay, so this is what you do when you go in for the job interview, right? (Laughter) You know, so we were of course horrified, and said, Oh my God, no, no, no, that’s not what we meant at all. For numerous reasons, no, no, no, don’t do that. Again, this is not about you talking to other people. It’s you talking to yourself. What do you do before you go into a job interview? You do this. Right? You’re sitting down. You’re looking at your iPhone — or your Android, not trying to leave anyone out. You are, you know, you’re looking at your notes, you’re hunching up, making yourself small, when really what you should be doing maybe is this, like, in the bathroom, right? Do that. Find two minutes. So that’s what we want to test. Okay? So we bring people into a lab, and they do either high- or low-power poses again, they go through a very stressful job interview. It’s five minutes long. They are being recorded. They’re being judged also, and the judges are trained to give no nonverbal feedback, so they look like this. Like, imagine this is the person interviewing you. So for five minutes, nothing, and this is worse than being heckled. People hate this. It’s what Marianne LaFrance calls “standing in social quicksand.” So this really spikes your cortisol. So this is the job interview we put them through, because we really wanted to see what happened. We then have these coders look at these tapes, four of them. They’re blind to the hypothesis. They’re blind to the conditions. They have no idea who’s been posing in what pose, and they end up looking at these sets of tapes, and they say, “Oh, we want to hire these people,” — all the high-power posers — “we don’t want to hire these people. We also evaluate these people much more positively overall.” But what’s driving it? It’s not about the content of the speech. It’s about the presence that they’re bringing to the speech. We also, because we rate them on all these variables related to competence, like, how well-structured is the speech? How good is it? What are their qualifications? No effect on those things. This is what’s affected. These kinds of things. People are bringing their true selves, basically. They’re bringing themselves. They bring their ideas, but as themselves, with no, you know, residue over them. So this is what’s driving the effect, or mediating the effect.

publish: vt. 〔正式に〕発表[公表・公開]する、出版する、刊行する
go in for ~: 〔競技などに〕参加する、〔試験などを〕受ける
horrify: vt. （人を）怖がらせる、ぞっとさせる、びっくりさせる
numerous: a. 多数の、非常に多くの
for numerous reasons: 多くの理由で
leave out: 〜を除外する
hunch up: 肩をすぼめる、身を縮こめる、背を丸くする
bring — into ~: —を〜に連れてくる、参加させる
go through ~: 〜を体験する、経験する、味わう
stressful: a. 緊張の多い、ストレスの多い
judge: vt. 鑑定する、評価する
judge: n. 審査員、判定者
feedback: n. 反応、意見、評価、感想
hackle: vt. 質問攻めにする、やじを飛ばす、（質問・やじで）妨害する
quicksand: n. 流砂；〔抜け出すのに困難な〕危険な状況、窮地、泥沼
spike: vi. 急上昇する、釘のように飛び出る。vt. 〜を犬くぎで止める、犬くぎで固定する。（ここでは「コルチゾールを急上昇させる」という意味で使われているが、文法的には不正確。）
put — through ~: —に〜を経験させる、受けさせる
these: a. ｟話｠ある (何人かのいくつかの) (人物を話に導入して, 既出のことのような感覚を与える)
coder: n. （ここではdecoder「解読者、読み取る人」のこと。coderはしばしばencoderの略として使われるが、ここではdecoderの略と予想される。）
blind to ~: 〜に気づいていない、分かっていない
hypothesis: n. 仮説、仮定、前提
end up ~ing: 最終的に〜することになる
a set of ~: 一組の、一連の
hire: vt. 雇う
overall: adv. 概して、全体としては、全般的に見れば
drive: vt. 〜をさせる、駆り立てる
content: n. 内容、中身、趣旨
presence: n. 存在感、貫禄、風采、存在
rate: vt. 評価する、格付けする
variable: n. 変数、変化するもの
competence: n. 能力、適性
well-structured: よく構成された
qualification: n. 〖通例～s〗資格, 認定；適性, 技能, 経験 «for / to do»
affect: vt. 〜に影響する、作用する、〜の心に影響を与える
self: n. 自分自身、本性、性格
one’s true self: 本当の自分、本性
residue: n. 残余、残り、残留物、かす、燃え殻
mediate: vt. 〜に影響を与える、〜を左右する

→ オリジナル映像
→トランスクリプト

No.08

CA: Traditional wisdom is that it’s pretty hard for married couples to work together. How have you guys managed it?

MG: Yeah, I’ve had a lot of women say to me, “I really don’t think I could work with my husband. That just wouldn’t work out.” You know, we enjoy it, and we don’t — this foundation has been a coming to for both of us in its continuous learning journey, and we don’t travel together as much for the foundation, actually, as we used to when Bill was working at Microsoft. We have more trips where we’re traveling separately, but I always know when I come home, Bill’s going to be interested in what I learned, whether it’s about women or girls or something new about the vaccine delivery chain, or this person that is a great leader. He’s going to listen and be really interested. And he knows when he comes home, even if it’s to talk about the speech he did or the data or what he’s learned, I’m really interested, and I think we have a really collaborative relationship. But we don’t every minute together, that’s for sure. (Laughter)

CA: But now you are, and we’re very happy that you are. Melinda, early on, you were basically largely running the show. Six years ago, I guess, Bill came on full time, so moved from Microsoft and became full time. That must have been hard, adjusting to that. No?

MG: Yeah. I think actually, for the foundation employees, there was way more angst for them than there was for me about Bill coming. I was actually really excited. I mean, Bill made this decision even obviously before it got announced in 2006, and it was really his decision, but again, it was a beach vacation where we were walking on the beach and he was starting to think of this idea. And for me, the excitement of Bill putting his brain and his heart against these huge global problems, these inequities, to me that was exciting. Yes, the foundation employees had angst about that. (Applause)

CA: That’s cool.

MG: But that went away within three months, once he was there.

BG: Including some of the employees.

MG: That’s what I said, the employees, it went away for them three months after you were there.

BG: No, I’m kidding.

MG: Oh, you mean, the employees didn’t go away.

BG: A few of them did, but — (Laughter)

 

ボキャブラリー

CA: Traditional wisdom is that it’s pretty hard for married couples to work together. How have you guys managed it?

MG: Yeah, I’ve had a lot of women say to me, “I really don’t think I could work with my husband. That just wouldn’t work out.” You know, we enjoy it, and we don’t — this foundation has been a coming to for both of us in its continuous learning journey, and we don’t travel together as much for the foundation, actually, as we used to when Bill was working at Microsoft. We have more trips where we’re traveling separately, but I always know when I come home, Bill’s going to be interested in what I learned, whether it’s about women or girls or something new about the vaccine delivery chain, or this person that is a great leader. He’s going to listen and be really interested. And he knows when he comes home, even if it’s to talk about the speech he did or the data or what he’s learned, I’m really interested, and I think we have a really collaborative relationship. But we don’t every minute together, that’s for sure. (Laughter)

CA: But now you are, and we’re very happy that you are. Melinda, early on, you were basically largely running the show. Six years ago, I guess, Bill came on full time, so moved from Microsoft and became full time. That must have been hard, adjusting to that. No?

MG: Yeah. I think actually, for the foundation employees, there was way more angst for them than there was for me about Bill coming. I was actually really excited. I mean, Bill made this decision even obviously before it got announced in 2006, and it was really his decision, but again, it was a beach vacation where we were walking on the beach and he was starting to think of this idea. And for me, the excitement of Bill putting his brain and his heart against these huge global problems, these inequities, to me that was exciting. Yes, the foundation employees had angst about that. (Applause)

CA: That’s cool.

MG: But that went away within three months, once he was there.

BG: Including some of the employees.

MG: That’s what I said, the employees, it went away for them three months after you were there.

BG: No, I’m kidding.

MG: Oh, you mean, the employees didn’t go away.

BG: A few of them did, but — (Laughter)

 

wisdom: n. 見識、知恵、叡智、常識、良識
married couple: 夫婦
manage: vt. （困難なことを）成し遂げる、やってのける、うまく対処する
work out: うまくいく
continuous: a. 絶え間ない、連続した、途切れない、持続的な
separately: adv. 別々に、別れて、別個で、単独で
delivery: n. 配達、配送；引き渡し；配達物、配達品
chain: n. （ホテル・小売店などの）チェーン（店）
collaborative: a. 共同の、合作の、協力的な
that’s for sure.: それは確かです。それは間違いない。それは当然です。
early on: 早い時期に[段階で]、早くから、初期に（⇔ later on）
largely: adv. 大部分は、大体は、概して、主として、大いに
run the show: 采配を振る［振るう］、仕事を取り仕切る、主導権を握る
adjust to: ～に適応する、順応する、～がうまくいくようになっている、～に慣れる
employee: n. 従業員、職員、社員、非雇用者
way: adv. ずっと、はるかに、うんと、かなり
angst: n. （人生・将来に対する）不安、懸念
inequity: n. （しばしばinequities）不公平、不公正
No, (I’m) just [only] kidding.:いや, ほんの冗談だよ.

 

解説

ビル・ゲイツの名言
日本語 → ビル・ゲイツの名言・格言
英語　 → Bill Gate quotes

PENGUIN READERS3: ROAD AHEAD (Penguin Readers (Graded Readers))

→ オリジナル映像
→ トランスクリプト

No.09

So this is what we find. Risk tolerance, which is the gambling, what we find is that when you’re in the high-power pose condition, 86 percent of you will gamble. When you’re in the low-power pose condition, only 60 percent, and that’s a pretty whopping significant difference. Here’s what we find on testosterone. From their baseline when they come in, high-power people experience about a 20-percent increase, and low-power people experience about a 10-percent decrease. So again, two minutes, and you get these changes. Here’s what you get on cortisol. High-power people experience about a 25-percent decrease, and the low-power people experience about a 15-percent increase. So two minutes lead to these hormonal changes that configure your brain to basically be either assertive, confident and comfortable, or really stress-reactive, and, you know, feeling sort of shut down. And we’ve all had the feeling, right? So it seems that our nonverbals do govern how we think and feel about ourselves, so it’s not just others, but it’s also ourselves. Also, our bodies change our minds.

But the next question, of course, is can power posing for a few minutes really change your life in meaningful ways? So this is in the lab. It’s this little task, you know, it’s just a couple of minutes. Where can you actually apply this? Which we cared about, of course. And so we think it’s really, what matters, I mean, where you want to use this is evaluative situations like social threat situations. Where are you being evaluated, either by your friends? Like for teenagers it’s at the lunchroom table. It could be, you know, for some people it’s speaking at a school board meeting. It might be giving a pitch or giving a talk like this or doing a job interview. We decided that the one that most people could relate to because most people had been through was the job interview.

ボキャブラリー

So this is what we find. Risk tolerance, which is the gambling, what we find is that when you’re in the high-power pose condition, 86 percent of you will gamble. When you’re in the low-power pose condition, only 60 percent, and that’s a pretty whopping significant difference. Here’s what we find on testosterone. From their baseline when they come in, high-power people experience about a 20-percent increase, and low-power people experience about a 10-percent decrease. So again, two minutes, and you get these changes. Here’s what you get on cortisol. High-power people experience about a 25-percent decrease, and the low-power people experience about a 15-percent increase. So two minutes lead to these hormonal changes that configure your brain to basically be either assertive, confident and comfortable, or really stress-reactive, and, you know, feeling sort of shut down. And we’ve all had the feeling, right? So it seems that our nonverbals do govern how we think and feel about ourselves, so it’s not just others, but it’s also ourselves. Also, our bodies change our minds.

But the next question, of course, is can power posing for a few minutes really change your life in meaningful ways? So this is in the lab. It’s this little task, you know, it’s just a couple of minutes. Where can you actually apply this? Which we cared about, of course. And so we think it’s really, what matters, I mean, where you want to use this is evaluative situations like social threat situations. Where are you being evaluated, either by your friends? Like for teenagers it’s at the lunchroom table. It could be, you know, for some people it’s speaking at a school board meeting. It might be giving a pitch or giving a talk like this or doing a job interview. We decided that the one that most people could relate to because most people had been through was the job interview.

risk tolerance: リスク許容度〔投資などで許容できる危険度〕
tolerance: n. 許容度、許容範囲、忍耐、我慢、《医》（薬・毒物に対する）耐性
gambling: n. 賭け事、賭博、ギャンブル、一か八かの賭け
condition: n. 状態、調子、状況、様子
pretty: a. 大いに、非常に、かなり、ずいぶん
whopping: a. 莫大な、とてつもなく大きい、巨大な
significant: a. 意味のある、かなりの、相当な、著しい
baseline: n. 基準、基準値
lead to ~ : 結果として〜に導く、〜につながる、〜をもたらす、〜の原因となる
hormonal change: ホルモンの変化
configure: vt. 構成する、設定する、作る
basically: adv. 根本的に、基本的に
assertive: a. 積極的な、自己主張の強い、断定的な
stress-reactive: a. ストレスに敏感な
sort of: いわば、一種の、まあ言ってみれば、〜みたいな
shut down : （ドア・口・心などが）閉じた
govern: vt. 〜に影響を与える、〜を左右する

in meaningful way: 意味ある方法で、有意義な方法で
this: a. ｟話｠こんな、とある、ある1人[1つ]の (aの強意形; 人や物を導入して, 既出のことのような感覚を与える)
a couple of ~: ２、３の〜、少数の、いくつかの
apply: vt. あてはめる、応用する
care about ~: 〜に関心がある、〜を気にする、〜を気に掛ける
matter: vi. 重要である、影響がある
what matters: 重要なこと、大切なこと
evaluative: a. 評価による、評価的な、査定の
threat: n. 脅し、脅迫
social threat situation: 社会的脅威を感じるような状況
evaluate: vt. 評価する、査定する、判断する、値踏みする、見積もる
lunchroom: n. 《米》学生食堂、社員食堂、ランチルーム
school board meeting: 教育委員会
pitch: n. 売り口上、宣伝（文句）、口説き文句
give a pitch: 売り込みをする
job interview: 就職の面接
relate to ~: 〜に関係している、〜にかかわる
through: a. 〜を経験して、〜を切り抜けて、〜を終えて

解説

「力強いポーズ」を私のヨガ教室で取り入れてみることがありますが、効果はかなり高いようです。
「１０秒間威張ってください」と言って力強いポーズを数回行ってもらうと、通常よりも早く体の動きが良くなり表情が明るくなるようです。
皆さんも、何かで自信をつけたいときは、２分間思いっきり胸を張って威張ったポーズをしてみて下さい。自信が持てるとこころが明るくなり、それに伴ってきっと良いことが起こりますよ。

姿勢やホルモンに関する書籍

アゴを引けば身体が変わる 腰痛・肩こり・頭痛が消える大人の体育 (光文社新書)

姿勢のふしぎ―しなやかな体と心が健康をつくる (ブルーバックス)

「若返りホルモン」をぐんぐん増やす16の習慣

→ オリジナル映像
→トランスクリプト

No.07

CA: I mean, you do the math on this, and it works out, I think, literally to thousands of kids’ lives saved every day compared to the prior year. It’s not reported. An airliner with 200-plus deaths is a far, far bigger story than that. Does that drive you crazy?

BG: Yeah, because it’s a silent thing going on. It’s a kid, one kid at a time. Ninety-eight percent of this has nothing to do with natural disasters, and yet, people’s charity, when they see a natural disaster, are wonderful. It’s incredible how people think, okay, that could be me, and the money flows. These causes have been a bit invisible. Now that the Millennium Development Goals and various things are getting out there, we are seeing some increased generosity, so the goal is to get this well below a million, which should be possible in our lifetime.

CA: Maybe it needed someone who is turned on by numbers and graphs rather than just the big, sad face to get engaged. I mean, you’ve used it in your letter this year, you used basically this argument to say that aid, contrary to the current meme that aid is kind of worthless and broken, that actually it has been effective.

BG: Yeah, well people can take, there is some aid that was well-meaning and didn’t go well. There’s some venture capital investments that were well-meaning and didn’t go well. You shouldn’t just say, okay, because of that, because we don’t have a perfect record, this is a bad endeavor. You should look at, what was your goal? How are you trying to uplift nutrition and survival and literacy so these countries can take care of themselves, and say wow, this is going well, and be smarter. We can spend aid smarter. It is not all a panacea. We can do better than venture capital, I think, including big hits like this.

ボキャブラリー

CA: I mean, you do the math on this, and it works out, I think, literally to thousands of kids’ lives saved every day compared to the prior year. It’s not reported. An airliner with 200-plus deaths is a far, far bigger story than that. Does that drive you crazy?

BG: Yeah, because it’s a silent thing going on. It’s a kid, one kid at a time. Ninety-eight percent of this has nothing to do with natural disasters, and yet, people’s charity, when they see a natural disaster, are wonderful. It’s incredible how people think, okay, that could be me, and the money flows. These causes have been a bit invisible. Now that the Millennium Development Goals and various things are getting out there, we are seeing some increased generosity, so the goal is to get this well below a million, which should be possible in our lifetime.

CA: Maybe it needed someone who is turned on by numbers and graphs rather than just the big, sad face to get engaged. I mean, you’ve used it in your letter this year, you used basically this argument to say that aid, contrary to the current meme that aid is kind of worthless and broken, that actually it has been effective.

BG: Yeah, well people can take, there is some aid that was well-meaning and didn’t go well. There’s some venture capital investments that were well-meaning and didn’t go well. You shouldn’t just say, okay, because of that, because we don’t have a perfect record, this is a bad endeavor. You should look at, what was your goal? How are you trying to uplift nutrition and survival and literacy so these countries can take care of themselves, and say wow, this is going well, and be smarter. We can spend aid smarter. It is not all a panacea. We can do better than venture capital, I think, including big hits like this.

do the math: 計算する
work out: うまくいく、いい結果が出る、良い結果となる
literally: adv. 文字通り、まったく、実質的に
prior: a. （時間・順序が）前の、先の；事前の（通達・承認など）
airliner: n. 定期旅客機、旅客機、定期航空便、民間航空機
crazy: a. 怒った、イライラした
have nothing to do with ~: 〜と関係[関連」がない、〜とは没交渉である
natural disaster: 自然災害、天災、不可抗力
and yet: それなのに、それにもかかわらず、なおかつ
charity: n. 慈善行為、チャリティ、義援金、援助物資、施し
the Millennium Development Goals：ミレニアム開発目標。（国際社会が 2015 年までに達成すべき，目標数値を伴った開発目標。国際連合ミレニアム宣言と主要な国際開発目標を統合したもの。貧困の撲滅，初等教育の達成，男女平等の推進，疾病との闘い，環境の持続可能性確保などの 8 項目を目標とする。）
generosity: n. 寛容さ、気前の良さ、寛大さ、惜しみなさ
well: adv. かなり
engage: vt. 引きつける
contrary to ~ : 〜に反する
meme: n. ミーム〈遺伝子によらず、模倣によって人から人へと伝えらえる情報の単位。イギリスのオックスフォード大学の動物行動学者リチャード・ドーキンス(Richard Dawkins)が1976年に著した『利己的な遺伝子』(The Selfish Gene) で提唱した言葉で、ギリシャ語のmimeme（模倣する）とgene（遺伝子）掛け合わせている。〉
aid: n. 援助、救済、補助、助成
well-meaning: a. 善意の、悪気はない
venture capital: ベンチャー・キャピタル（ベンチャービジネスに投資する会社またはその資本）
investment: n. 投資、出資、投資金
endeavor: n. 努力、試み、企て
uplift: vt. 持ち上げる、上昇させる、高揚させる、向上させる
survival: n. 生存、生き残ること、存続
literacy: n. 読み書きの能力。ある分野に関する知識やそれを活用する能力
panacea: n. 万能薬(cure-all)、万能の解決法
big hit: 大当たり、ヒット商品

解説

ビル・ゲイツのように若い頃から自由な発想をする習慣を付けている人間は、既存の教育による発想に頼らず、新しいものにチャレンジし新しい方法を生み出す、それと同時に現れる問題点を解決するという発想が身についているようです。日本の受験のように決まった答えがある（自分には関係ない）問題を解く練習をするより、自分が決めた道でその都度出会う障害を越えていくという発想で生きていくことのほうが楽しいですね。

ビル・ゲイツの面接試験―富士山をどう動かしますか?

→ オリジナル映像
→ トランスクリプト

No.08

So we know that in primate hierarchies, if an alpha needs to take over, if an individual needs to take over an alpha role sort of suddenly, within a few days, that individual’s testosterone has gone up significantly and his cortisol has dropped significantly. So we have this evidence, both that the body can shape the mind, at least at the facial level, and also that role changes can shape the mind. So what happens, okay, you take a role change, what happens if you do that at a really minimal level, like this tiny manipulation, this tiny intervention? “For two minutes,” you say, “I want you to stand like this, and it’s going to make you feel more powerful.” So this is what we did. We decided to bring people into the lab and run a little experiment, and these people adopted, for two minutes, either high-power poses or low-power poses, and I’m just going to show you five of the poses, although they took on only two. So here’s one. A couple more. This one has been dubbed the “Wonder Woman” by the media. Here are a couple more. So you can be standing or you can be sitting. And here are the low-power poses. So you’re folding up, you’re making yourself small. This one is very low-power. When you’re touching your neck, you’re really protecting yourself. So this is what happens. They come in, they spit into a vial, we for two minutes say, “You need to do this or this. “They don’t look at pictures of the poses. We don’t want to prime them with a concept of power. We want them to be feeling power, right? So two minutes they do this. We then ask them, “How powerful do you feel?” on a series of items, and then we give them an opportunity to gamble, and then we take another saliva sample. That’s it. That’s the whole experiment.

ボキャブラリー

So we know that in primate hierarchies, if an alpha needs to take over, if an individual needs to take over an alpha role sort of suddenly, within a few days, that individual’s testosterone has gone up significantly and his cortisol has dropped significantly. So we have this evidence, both that the body can shape the mind, at least at the facial level, and also that role changes can shape the mind. So what happens, okay, you take a role change, what happens if you do that at a really minimal level, like this tiny manipulation, this tiny intervention? “For two minutes,” you say, “I want you to stand like this, and it’s going to make you feel more powerful.” So this is what we did. We decided to bring people into the lab and run a little experiment, and these people adopted, for two minutes, either high-power poses or low-power poses, and I’m just going to show you five of the poses, although they took on only two. So here’s one. A couple more. This one has been dubbed the “Wonder Woman” by the media. Here are a couple more. So you can be standing or you can be sitting. And here are the low-power poses. So you’re folding up, you’re making yourself small. This one is very low-power. When you’re touching your neck, you’re really protecting yourself. So this is what happens. They come in, they spit into a vial, we for two minutes say, “You need to do this or this. “They don’t look at pictures of the poses. We don’t want to prime them with a concept of power. We want them to be feeling power, right? So two minutes they do this. We then ask them, “How powerful do you feel?” on a series of items, and then we give them an opportunity to gamble, and then we take another saliva sample. That’s it. That’s the whole experiment.

primate: n. 霊長類、霊長目の動物（the Primateで「主席司教、大主教」という意味もある）
hierarchy: n. （社会・組織などの）階級制度、ヒエラルキー、（動物の群れの）順位
alpha: n. 第１のもの、一番のもの、（群れの）第一位のもの（ここでは「ボス」の意）
take over: 引き継ぐ、引き受ける
individual: n. （集団に対する）個人、個体
within a few days: 数日以内に
go up: 上がる、増す、上昇する
significantly: adv. 著しく、大きく、かなり
facial: a. 顔の、顔面の；顔に用いる、顔用の（注：日本語字幕では「表面的」となっているが間違い。
at the facial leverは「顔のレベルでは」（顔が笑うと楽しくなるということ）のこと。「表面的な」はsuperficial, surface-lever, cosmeticなどがある。）
shape: vt. 〜を形作る
role: n. 役割、役目、任務
minimal: a. 最小の、極小の、わずかな
tiny: a. とても小さい、ちっちゃい、ごくわずかの
manipulation: n. 操作、取り扱い、上手な扱い、巧みな操作
intervention: n. 介入、介在、干渉、仲裁
lab: n. (= laboratory) 実験室、研究室
run: vt. （実験・テストなどを）行う
experiment: n. 実験
adopt: 〈態度など〉をとる
high-power pose: 力強いポーズ
low-power pose: 無力なポーズ
adopt either high-power poses or low-power poses: 力強いポーズか無力なポーズかをとる
take on: 〔ある性質・外観・意味などを〕呈する、帯びる、持つようになる、獲得する
a couple more： もう２〜３、もう２〜３個
dub: vt. （人をニックネームで）呼ぶ、（人にニックネームを）付ける
media: n. マスメディア、マスコミ
fold up: 体を折り曲げる、腹を抱える
protect: vt. 〜を守る、かばう、保護する
come in: 中に入る、参加する、現れる
spit: vi つばを吐く
vial: n. 小びん、薬びん
prime 人 with ~: vt. 人に〜（情報など）を知らせる、与える
concept: n. 概念、観念
a series of ~: 一連の〜
item: n. 事項、項目、箇条
on a series of items: 一連の事項において
opportunity: n. 機会、チャンス
gamble: vi ギャンブルをする、賭け事をする
saliva: n. 唾液、つば
sample: n. サンプル、標本

解説

姿勢やホルモンに関する書籍

姿勢のふしぎ―しなやかな体と心が健康をつくる (ブルーバックス)

「若返りホルモン」をぐんぐん増やす16の習慣

→ オリジナル映像
→トランスクリプト

No.06

CA: Bill, this is your graph. What’s this about?

BG: Well, my graph has numbers on it. (Laughter) I really like this graph. This is the number of children who die before the age of five every year. And what you find is really a phenomenal success story which is not widely known, that we are making incredible progress. We go from 20 million not long after I was born to now we’re down to about six million. So this is a story largely of vaccines. Smallpox was killing a couple million kids a year. That was eradicated, so that got down to zero. Measles was killing a couple million a year. That’s down to a few hundred thousand. Anyway, this is a chart where you want to get that number to continue, and it’s going to be possible, using the science of new vaccines, getting the vaccines out to kids. We can actually accelerate the progress. The last decade, that number has dropped faster than ever in history, and so I just love the fact that you can say, okay, if we can invent new vaccines, we can get them out there, use the very latest understanding of these things, and get the delivery right, that we can perform a miracle.

ボキャブラリー

CA: Bill, this is your graph. What’s this about?

BG: Well, my graph has numbers on it. (Laughter) I really like this graph. This is the number of children who die before the age of five every year. And what you find is really a phenomenal success story which is not widely known, that we are making incredible progress. We go from 20 million not long after I was born to now we’re down to about six million. So this is a story largely of vaccines. Smallpox was killing a couple million kids a year. That was eradicated, so that got down to zero. Measles was killing a couple million a year. That’s down to a few hundred thousand. Anyway, this is a chart where you want to get that number to continue, and it’s going to be possible, using the science of new vaccines, getting the vaccines out to kids. We can actually accelerate the progress. The last decade, that number has dropped faster than ever in history, and so I just love the fact that you can say, okay, if we can invent new vaccines, we can get them out there, use the very latest understanding of these things, and get the delivery right, that we can perform a miracle.

phenomenal: a. 驚くべき、すばらしい、並外れた、まれに見る
success story: サクセス・ストーリー、成功談
widely: adv. 広く、幅広く、広範囲にわたって
make progress: 進展[進歩・進行]する
incredible: a. 信じられないほど素晴らしい、すごい、驚くべき、とてつもない
not long after: 〜から間もなく
largely: 大部分は、ほとんど、概して、主として
vaccine: n. ワクチン 、痘苗（とうびょう）
a couple: ２、３の
smallpox: n. 天然痘、疱瘡（ほうそう）
eradicate: vt. 〜を根絶する、撲滅する、絶やす
get down to ~: 〜にまで落ちる
measles: n. はしか、麻疹
accelerate: vt. 〜の速度を上げる、加速する：〜を促進する、速める
progress: n. 前進、進歩、向上、上達、進展、進捗
decade: n. １０年間、１０年
invent: vt. 〜を発明する、考案する、創作する
understanding: n. 知識、理解、解釈、理解、認識
delivery: n. 配達、配送
perform: vt. 〜を行う、実行する、執行する、果たす
miracle: n. 奇跡、驚くべきこと、奇跡的な出来事、偉業

解説

チャリティなどに限らず、全ての行動は１回限りのものやイベントによるものでは定着しません。毎日の地道な繰り返しが習慣になり結果を残すことになります。
ビルの話は、私たちが日々の行動をどう選び、どう実行していくかを考える参考になるでしょう。

→ オリジナル映像
→ トランスクリプト

No.07

So the second question really was, you know, so we know that our minds change our bodies, but is it also true that our bodies change our minds? And when I say minds, in the case of the powerful, what am I talking about? So I’m talking about thoughts and feelings and the sort of physiological things that make up our thoughts and feelings, and in my case, that’s hormones. I look at hormones. So what do the minds of the powerful versus the powerless look like? So powerful people tend to be, not surprisingly, more assertive and more confident, more optimistic. They actually feel that they’re going to win even at games of chance. They also tend to be able to think more abstractly. So there are a lot of differences. They take more risks. There are a lot of differences between powerful and powerless people. Physiologically, there also are differences on two key hormones: testosterone, which is the dominance hormone, and cortisol, which is the stress hormone. So what we find is that high-power alpha males in primate hierarchies have high testosterone and low cortisol, and powerful and effective leaders also have high testosterone and low cortisol. So what does that mean? When you think about power, people tended to think only about testosterone, because that was about dominance. But really, power is also about how you react to stress. So do you want the high-power leader that’s dominant, high on testosterone, but really stress reactive? Probably not, right? You want the person who’s powerful and assertive and dominant, but not very stress reactive, the person who’s laid back.

ボキャブラリー

So the second question really was, you know, so we know that our minds change our bodies, but is it also true that our bodies change our minds? And when I say minds, in the case of the powerful, what am I talking about? So I’m talking about thoughts and feelings and the sort of physiological things that make up our thoughts and feelings, and in my case, that’s hormones. I look at hormones. So what do the minds of the powerful versus the powerless look like? So powerful people tend to be, not surprisingly, more assertive and more confident, more optimistic. They actually feel that they’re going to win even at games of chance. They also tend to be able to think more abstractly. So there are a lot of differences. They take more risks. There are a lot of differences between powerful and powerless people. Physiologically, there also are differences on two key hormones: testosterone, which is the dominance hormone, and cortisol, which is the stress hormone. So what we find is that high-power alpha males in primate hierarchies have high testosterone and low cortisol, and powerful and effective leaders also have high testosterone and low cortisol. So what does that mean? When you think about power, people tended to think only about testosterone, because that was about dominance. But really, power is also about how you react to stress. So do you want the high-power leader that’s dominant, high on testosterone, but really stress reactive? Probably not, right? You want the person who’s powerful and assertive and dominant, but not very stress reactive, the person who’s laid back.

in the case of ~：〜について言えば、〜については、〜にしてみれば
physiological：a. 生理学（上）の、生理的な
make up ~：〜を作り出す、作り上げる
in my case：私の場合
hormone：n. ホルモン
versus：a. 対、〜と対比[対照]して
the powerful：強いもの
the powerless：弱いもの
powerless：a. 弱い、無力な、権力のない、勢力のない
powerful：a. 強い、強力な、権力のある、勢力を持つ
not surprisingly：驚くことではないが、予想通り、当然のことながら
tend to ~ : 〜しがちである、〜する傾向がある
assertive: a. 積極的な、自己主張の強い、断定的な
confident: a. 自信にあふれた、大胆な
optimistic: a. 楽観的な、楽天的な、くよくよしない（⇔ pessimistic 悲観的な、厭世的な
chance: n. 賭け、（一か八かの）冒険
game of chance: （運が左右する）ゲーム [サイコロ、トランプなど]
abstractly: adv. 抽象的に（abstract: a. 抽象的な、観念的な）
take a risk[risks]: 危険を冒す
physiologically: 生理学的に
testosterone: n. テストステロン（精巣、卵巣などの「生殖器」から分泌される男性ホルモンの一種）
dominance: n. 支配、優勢、優越、[遺伝子の]優勢
cortisol: n. コルチゾール（副腎皮質から分泌されるホルモンで、糖質コルチコイドの一種）
stress hormone: ストレス・ホルモン
high-power: 活動的な、精力的な、強力な、質の優れた
alpha male: 群れを支配する雄、組織を率いる男性、[男性の]支配者、指導者、ボス
primate: n. 霊長類、霊長目の動物
hierarchy: （組織・社会などの）階層制、階層、階層型組織、序列
effective: a. （人・機械などが）有能な、性能のよい（⇔ ineffective)
react to ~ : 〜に反応する
reactive: a. よく反応する、敏感な
stress reactive: ストレス過敏な
laid-back: a. おおらかな、こだわりのない、気軽な

解説

普段から体を動かしていない人ほど、くよくよ悩んだり、自信をなくしたりする傾向があるようです。
定期的に体を動かす習慣をつけ、姿勢をよくし呼吸をしっかりとしていると、くよくよしたり、自信をなくすような状況に出会っても乗り越えられるようになります。
体を動かしたことがない人は、軽いウォーキングや体操から始め、少しずつヨガやティラピス、ジョギングやジムでの運動などをするとよいでしょう。
ヨガなどは誰でもできて長く続けられるのでお勧めです。

ヨガのDVDや本などを見て、ヨガを実践する方もいるようですが、体を動かすのが得意な人以外は、最初は経験者の指導のもとで行い、それから自分なりの方法で行うのがよいでしょう。

以下は女性に人気のあるヨガのDVDです。

Beauty YOGA [DVD]

Beauty YOGA 2  [DVD]

Beauty YOGA Journey  [DVD]

体を鍛えている人はこちらのほうが好きなようです。

ブライアン・ケスト パワーヨガ [DVD]

→ オリジナル映像
→トランスクリプト

No.05

CA: Melinda, you’re Roman Catholic, and you’ve often been embroiled in controversy over this issue, and on the abortion question, on both sides, really. How do you navigate that?

MG: Yeah, so I think that’s a really important point, which is, we had backed away from contraceptives as a global community. We knew that 210 million women were saying they wanted access to contraceptives, even the contraceptives we have here in the United States, and we weren’t providing them because of the political controversy in our country, and to me that was just a crime, and I kept looking around trying to find the person that would get this back on the global stage, and I finally realized I just had to do it. And even though I’m Catholic, I believe in contraceptives just like most of the Catholic women in the United States who report using contraceptives, and I shouldn’t let that controversy be the thing that holds us back. We used to have consensus in the United States around contraceptives, and so we got back to that global consensus, and actually raised 2.6 billion dollars around exactly this issue for women. (Applause)

ボキャブラリー

CA: Melinda, you’re Roman Catholic, and you’ve often been embroiled in controversy over this issue, and on the abortion question, on both sides, really. How do you navigate that?

MG: Yeah, so I think that’s a really important point, which is, we had backed away from contraceptives as a global community. We knew that 210 million women were saying they wanted access to contraceptives, even the contraceptives we have here in the United States, and we weren’t providing them because of the political controversy in our country, and to me that was just a crime, and I kept looking around trying to find the person that would get this back on the global stage, and I finally realized I just had to do it. And even though I’m Catholic, I believe in contraceptives just like most of the Catholic women in the United States who report using contraceptives, and I shouldn’t let that controversy be the thing that holds us back. We used to have consensus in the United States around contraceptives, and so we got back to that global consensus, and actually raised 2.6 billion dollars around exactly this issue for women. (Applause)

Roman Catholic: （キリスト教）ローマカトリック教徒（の）
embroil: vt. 【戦い・議論などに】〜を巻き込む(in)
issue: n. 問題、気がかり、争点、論点
abortion: n. 妊娠中絶、（人工）流産、堕胎
navigate: vt. 操縦する、誘導する、道を指図する；〜を導く、案内する
back away from ~: ～から後退する［後ずさりする・遠ざかる・身を引く・逃げ腰になる・腰が引ける］、～を敬遠する、～を取り下げる
contraceptive: n. 避妊薬、避妊用具：a. 避妊(用）の
grobal community: 国際社会、地球社会
access: n. （〜への）機会、権利、利用権、入手権（to）
provide: vt. （必要なもの）を提供する、与える、支給[給付]する
because of ~: 〜のせいで、〜のために
controversy: n. 論争、議論、論議、激論、
global stage: 国際舞台
political controversy: 政治議論、政治論争
even though: 〜にもかかわらず、〜だけれども、〜であるにしても
report ~ing: 〜したと報告する
hold back: 〜を引きとめる、〜にためらわせる、〜を伏せておく、隠す
consensus: n. 意見の一致、合意、総意
global consensus: 世界的な合意
raise: vt. （資金などを）集める、募る
billion: n. １０億

解説

主な避妊法
vasectomy: 精管切除、パイプカット（pipe-cut は和製英語）
Norplant: ノルプラント（皮下埋め込みホルモンカプセル）
tubal ligation: 卵管結紮（らんかんけっさつ）術【略】TL
Lunelle: ルネル（２種類のホルモン注射）
Depo-Provera: デポプロベラ（１種類のホルモン注射）
IUD: 子宮内避妊器具（= intrauterine device）
IUS: 子宮内避妊システム（= intrauterine contraceptive system）
pill: ピル、経口避妊薬（OC: = oral contraceptive 経口避妊薬）
condom: コンドーム

→ オリジナル映像
→ トランスクリプト

No.06

So business schools have been struggling with this gender grade gap. You get these equally qualified women and men coming in and then you get these differences in grades, and it seems to be partly attributable to participation. So I started to wonder, you know, okay, so you have these people coming in like this, and they’re participating. Is it possible that we could get people to fake it and would it lead them to participate more?
So my main collaborator Dana Carney, who’s at Berkeley, and I really wanted to know, can you fake it till you make it? Like, can you do this just for a little while and actually experience a behavioral outcome that makes you seem more powerful? So we know that our nonverbals govern how other people think and feel about us. There’s a lot of evidence. But our question really was, do our nonverbals govern how we think and feel about ourselves?
There’s some evidence that they do. So, for example, we smile when we feel happy, but also, when we’re forced to smile by holding a pen in our teeth like this, it makes us feel happy. So it goes both ways. When it comes to power, it also goes both ways. So when you feel powerful, you’re more likely to do this, but it’s also possible that when you pretend to be powerful, you are more likely to actually feel powerful.

ボキャブラリー

So business schools have been struggling with this gender grade gap. You get these equally qualified women and men coming in and then you get these differences in grades, and it seems to be partly attributable to participation. So I started to wonder, you know, okay, so you have these people coming in like this, and they’re participating. Is it possible that we could get people to fake it and would it lead them to participate more?
So my main collaborator Dana Carney, who’s at Berkeley, and I really wanted to know, can you fake it till you make it? Like, can you do this just for a little while and actually experience a behavioral outcome that makes you seem more powerful? So we know that our nonverbals govern how other people think and feel about us. There’s a lot of evidence. But our question really was, do our nonverbals govern how we think and feel about ourselves?
There’s some evidence that they do. So, for example, we smile when we feel happy, but also, when we’re forced to smile by holding a pen in our teeth like this, it makes us feel happy. So it goes both ways. When it comes to power, it also goes both ways. So when you feel powerful, you’re more likely to do this, but it’s also possible that when you pretend to be powerful, you are more likely to actually feel powerful.

business school：〈米〉ビジネススクール、経営学大学院【略】BS
struggle with ~: 〜と闘う、格闘する、もみ合う
grade : n. 成績、評点、評価
gap：n. 隔たり、不一致、不均衡
gender grade gap: 男女間の成績のギャップ
equally：adv. 同じように、同様に、等しく、公平に
qualified : a. 資格要件を満たした、資質のある、能力のある、適任の
partly：adv. 一部分は、ある程度は、少しは、いくぶん
attributable to ~：〜のせいと考えられる、〜に起因する
wonder：vi. 知りたいと思う、疑問に思う
fake：vt. 〜のふりをする、装う
lead A to ~：Aを〜する気にさせる、Aに〜させる
collaborator：n.協力者、共著者、共同作成[研究]者
Dana Carney：デーナ・カーニー（カリフォルニア大学バークレー校の准教授）
make：vt. 〜の状態を作り出す、〜になる
behavioral：a. 行動の、行動に関する
outcome：n. 結果、成果、業績、所産
govern：vt. 〜に影響を与える、〜を左右する
evidence：n. 証拠、形跡
force to ~：無理矢理〜させる、〜することを強いる
（ここでは受け身でbe forced to ~「無理に〜させられる」の形になっている）
hold a pen in our teeth：ペンを歯にくわえる
it goes both ways：どちらの方向にも行く（「幸せ→笑う、笑う→幸せ」の両方向）
pretend to ~：〜のふりをする

解説

デーナ・カーニーとの共同研究はこちら→ “Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance”