2016年02月发表的文章(24)

[译文]措辞如何暴露学术欺诈

Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data
斯坦福大学研究者揭示了科学家数据造假的模式

作者:Bjorn Carey @ 2015-11-06
译者:混乱阈值 (@混乱阈值)
校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
来源:Stanford University,http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/november/fraud-science-papers-111615.html

When scientists falsify data, they try to cover it up by writing differently in their published works. A pair of Stanford researchers have devised a way of identifying these written clues.
当科学家伪造数据时,他们就会试图在发表作品中写得不同,以达到掩盖的目的。两位斯坦福大学研究者设计了一种能识别这些写作线索的方法。

Even the best poker players have “tells” that give away when they’re bluffing with a weak hand. Scientists who commit f(more...)

标签: |
6547
Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data 斯坦福大学研究者揭示了科学家数据造假的模式 作者:Bjorn Carey @ 2015-11-06 译者:混乱阈值 (@混乱阈值) 校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 来源:Stanford University,http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/november/fraud-science-papers-111615.html When scientists falsify data, they try to cover it up by writing differently in their published works. A pair of Stanford researchers have devised a way of identifying these written clues. 当科学家伪造数据时,他们就会试图在发表作品中写得不同,以达到掩盖的目的。两位斯坦福大学研究者设计了一种能识别这些写作线索的方法。 Even the best poker players have "tells" that give away when they're bluffing with a weak hand. Scientists who commit fraud have similar, but even more subtle, tells, and a pair of Stanford researchers have cracked the writing patterns of scientists who attempt to pass along falsified data. 当手握烂牌而虚张声势时,即使是最好的扑克玩家也会有一些使自己“露馅”的表现。学术造假的科学家也有类似的表现,尽管更不易察觉。而两位斯坦福大学的研究者破解了企图传播虚假数据的科学家们的写作模式。 The work, published in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology, could eventually help scientists identify falsified research before it is published. 发表在《语言与社会心理学期刊》的这项工作将来可以帮助科学家们在数据作伪的论文被发表前就把它们识别出来。 There is a fair amount of research dedicated to understanding the ways liars lie. Studies have shown that liars generally tend to express more negative emotion terms and use fewer first-person pronouns. Fraudulent financial reports typically display higher levels of linguistic obfuscation – phrasing that is meant to distract from or conceal the fake data – than accurate reports. 已经有相当数量的研究致力于理解说谎者说谎话的方式。研究表明,说谎者通常倾向于使用更多的负面情绪词汇,且更少使用第一人称代词。相比精确的报告,作假的财务报告的语言混淆——用来转移注意力和掩盖虚假数据的措辞——程度通常更为严重。 To see if similar patterns exist in scientific academia, Jeff Hancock, a professor of communication at Stanford, and graduate student David Markowitz searched the archives of PubMed, a database of life sciences journals, from 1973 to 2013 for retracted papers. They identified 253, primarily from biomedical journals, that were retracted for documented fraud and compared the writing in these to unretracted papers from the same journals and publication years, and covering the same topics. 为检查科学界是否存在相似的模式,斯坦福大学通讯学教授Jeff Hancock和研究生David Markowitz检索了生命科学期刊数据库PubMed从1973年到2013年间的被撤回论文。两位研究者找出了253份主要出自生物医学期刊的因造假被撤回的论文,并将它们与那些来自相同期刊相同发表年份、关于相同主题的未撤回论文进行了写作风格的比较 。 They then rated the level of fraud of each paper using a customized "obfuscation index," which rated the degree to which the authors attempted to mask their false results. This was achieved through a summary score of causal terms, abstract language, jargon, positive emotion terms and a standardized ease of reading score. 然后,对每篇论文,他们都用他们制定的“混淆指数”进行造假程度评分。“混淆指数”对作者试图掩盖伪造结果的程度进行评分,它由一些小项的得分求和得到。这些小项包括:因果词汇,抽象语言,专业术语,积极情绪词汇以及一个校准后的易读程度得分。 "We believe the underlying idea behind obfuscation is to muddle the truth," said Markowitz, the lead author on the paper. "Scientists faking data know that they are committing a misconduct and do not want to get caught. Therefore, one strategy to evade this may be to obscure parts of the paper. We suggest that language can be one of many variables to differentiate between fraudulent and genuine science." “我们认为混淆的真正目的是把真相搞混,”论文第一作者Markowitz说道,“伪造数据的科学家知道自己行为不当,且不想被抓。一个逃避被抓的策略就是让论文某些部分晦涩难懂。我们认为语言是可以用来分辨学术作伪与学术真实的变量之一。” The results showed that fraudulent retracted papers scored significantly higher on the obfuscation index than papers retracted for other reasons. For example, fraudulent papers contained approximately 1.5 percent more jargon than unretracted papers. 结果表明,因造假而被撤回的论文在混淆指数上得分远高于因其他原因被撤回的论文。比如,较之未撤回的论文,造假论文所用专业术语要多约1.5个百分点。 "Fradulent papers had about 60 more jargon-like words per paper compared to unretracted papers," Markowitz said. "This is a non-trivial amount." “比之未撤回的论文,每篇造假的论文要多出大约60个行话切口般的专业术语,”Markowitz说,“这是一个不可忽视的量。” The researchers say that scientists might commit data fraud for a variety of reasons. Previous research points to a "publish or perish" mentality that may motivate researchers to manipulate their findings or fake studies altogether. But the change the researchers found in the writing, however, is directly related to the author's goals of covering up lies through the manipulation of language. For instance, a fraudulent author may use fewer positive emotion terms to curb praise for the data, for fear of triggering inquiry. 两位研究者说,科学家们可能因为各种各样的原因伪造数据。之前的研究指出,“要么发表要么走人”的心态可能会驱使研究人员操纵研究发现,甚至伪造整个研究。然而上述研究发现的写作上的变化,其形成的直接原因是造假的作者希望通过操纵语言来掩盖谎言。例如,为了避免引人追究,造假的作者可能会使用较少的积极情绪词汇,抑制对数据的称赞。 In the future, a computerized system based on this work might be able to flag a submitted paper so that editors could give it a more critical review before publication, depending on the journal's threshold for obfuscated language. But the authors warn that this approach isn't currently feasible given the false-positive rate. 未来,基于这项成果的一个计算机化的系统也许可以根据某杂志设定的混淆语言阈值给提交的论文进行标识,而编辑则可以在发表前对那些被标识的论文做更严格的评审。但两位研究者也提醒,因为存在错报问题,该方法现阶段尚不可行。 "Science fraud is of increasing concern in academia, and automatic tools for identifying fraud might be useful," Hancock said. "But much more research is needed before considering this kind of approach. Obviously, there is a very high error rate that would need to be improved, but also science is based on trust, and introducing a 'fraud detection' tool into the publication process might undermine that trust." “科学造假越来越让学术界担忧,而自动识别造假的工具或许非常有用。”Hancock说,“但在考虑应用这种方法前,人们尚需进行更多研究。显然,目前很高的识别出错率需要改进。同时,科学基于信任,将‘造假检测’工具引入学术发表过程可能会损害这种信任。” (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]长寿、祖母假说与配偶关系

Got a great relationship? You may want to thank your prehistoric grandmother
拥有美妙的关系?你可能想感谢你远古的祖母

作者:Jo Setchell @ 2015-09-08
译者:淡蓝 (lilacinrain@gmail.com)
校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
来源:THE CONVERSATION,https://theconversation.com/got-a-great-relationship-you-may-want-to-thank-your-prehistoric-grandmother-47181

I went to a cross-cultural wedding last weekend. The guests travelled across continents to be there, spoke mutually incomprehensible languages and came from different traditions. However, they all shared a common understanding of the relationship between the bride and the groom. Pair bonds are, after all, universal in human societies, despite being rare in other mammals. And we don’t exactly know why.

上周末我参加了一场跨文化的婚礼。源自不同的文化传统、说着彼此都听不懂的语言的婚礼嘉宾们穿越各大洲来到这里。虽然如此,对新郎和新娘的关系,他们却有着共识。在其他哺乳动物中罕见的配偶式结对,却实实在在地在全人类社会中普遍存在。而我们却不太清楚这是为什么。

Before the wedding breakfast, I chatted with a relaxed couple who had left their kids with their grandparents for the day. This is not unusual; UK grandparents babysit on average 76 times a year – and we often take it for granted. But now a new study finally gives grandparents the credit they deserve by arguing that long-term relationships actually evolved thanks to grandmothers helping out with kids in prehistoric times.

婚礼早餐之前,我与一对十分放松闲适的夫妇聊了会。那天他俩把孩子交给了他们的祖父母照看。这种做法应该不在少数;在英国,祖父母们每年平均照顾孙辈76次——而我们常常也觉得这是理所当然(more...)

标签: | | | |
6542
Got a great relationship? You may want to thank your prehistoric grandmother 拥有美妙的关系?你可能想感谢你远古的祖母 作者:Jo Setchell @ 2015-09-08 译者:淡蓝 (lilacinrain@gmail.com) 校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 来源:THE CONVERSATION,https://theconversation.com/got-a-great-relationship-you-may-want-to-thank-your-prehistoric-grandmother-47181 I went to a cross-cultural wedding last weekend. The guests travelled across continents to be there, spoke mutually incomprehensible languages and came from different traditions. However, they all shared a common understanding of the relationship between the bride and the groom. Pair bonds are, after all, universal in human societies, despite being rare in other mammals. And we don’t exactly know why. 上周末我参加了一场跨文化的婚礼。源自不同的文化传统、说着彼此都听不懂的语言的婚礼嘉宾们穿越各大洲来到这里。虽然如此,对新郎和新娘的关系,他们却有着共识。在其他哺乳动物中罕见的配偶式结对,却实实在在地在全人类社会中普遍存在。而我们却不太清楚这是为什么。 Before the wedding breakfast, I chatted with a relaxed couple who had left their kids with their grandparents for the day. This is not unusual; UK grandparents babysit on average 76 times a year – and we often take it for granted. But now a new study finally gives grandparents the credit they deserve by arguing that long-term relationships actually evolved thanks to grandmothers helping out with kids in prehistoric times. 婚礼早餐之前,我与一对十分放松闲适的夫妇聊了会。那天他俩把孩子交给了他们的祖父母照看。这种做法应该不在少数;在英国,祖父母们每年平均照顾孙辈76次——而我们常常也觉得这是理所当然的。但是,现在一项新研究终于承认了爷爷奶奶们应得的功劳,研究认为,长期夫妻关系的进化产生,实际上多亏了远古时代祖母们对孩子们的照看。 The greatness of grandparents 祖父母的伟大之处 The question of why humans form pair bonds – the biological term for the strong affinity that develops between partners (often a male-female pair but not always) – is in fact one of the biggest puzzles in evolutionary anthropology. Humans are apes, yet our closest living relatives – chimpanzees and bonobos – have no such long-term relationships between male-female pairs. 人类为何会形成配偶式结对——生物学术语,指伴侣之间(常常是雌雄配对,但并不全然如此)发展出的强亲和关系——事实上是进化人类学上的最大谜题之一。人类是一种猿,可我们的现存近亲——黑猩猩和倭黑猩猩——的雌雄伴侣之间却不存在这种长期关系。 In the late 1990s, anthropologists put forward the “grandmother hypothesis” to explain why human females stop reproducing at a similar age to other great apes, but live markedly longer lives. Chimpanzees live into their 30s or 40s, but human females often live decades beyond their child-bearing years. 1990年代末,人类学家提出了“祖母假说”,以解释为何人类女性停止生育的年龄与其他大猿相仿,却明显更加长寿。黑猩猩可以活到30多或40多岁,人类女性却能在育龄后再活数十年。 The grandmother hypothesis was based on observations of the Hadza people, in Tanzania. Hadza people live by hunting and gathering food, like our ancestors, although, they are of course modern people. 祖母假说基于对坦桑尼亚哈扎族人的观察而提出。尽管哈扎族人象我们祖先一样,靠狩猎和采集食物而生,但他们当然也是现代人。 Older Hadza women dig up tubers to feed youngsters who aren’t strong enough to it themselves. The grandmother hypothesis suggests that this help allows daughters to have their next baby sooner than they would otherwise. Over time, grandmothers who lived longer and helped more had more grandchildren, who shared their genes for longer life and care of their grandchildren. Thus, these genes became increasingly common in the population and human lifespan increased. 年老的哈扎族妇女靠挖掘植物块茎来喂养不够强壮、不能自食其力的年幼者。祖母假说认为,这种帮助让女儿们能更快地孕育下一个宝宝,否则间隔时间会更久。随着时间推移,更长寿并能提供更多帮助的祖母们就拥有了更多的孙辈,这些孙辈会共享她们的长寿基因并再去照顾自己的孙辈。这样一来,这些基因在人口中变得越来越普遍,人类寿命就此增加了。 The evolution of partnership 伴侣关系的演变 The new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has used computer simulations to link this hypothesis to the evolution of pair-bonding in humans. The authors argue that long-term romantic relationships evolved due to a combination of people living longer and men remaining fertile longer than women. This situation led to a surplus of older men competing for younger, fertile women. 发表在《美国国家科学院院刊》上的一项新研究,用计算机模拟将这一假说与人类固定配偶关系的进化联系了起来。作者们认为,长期浪漫关系之所以进化出来,是因为人类越来越长寿,并且男性保有生殖能力的时间比女性更长。这种状况使得有更多相对较老的男性为年轻的育龄女性而相互竞争。 In fact, the study shows that the ratio of fertile males to fertile females in humans is twice as big as it is in chimpanzees, making humans very unusual mammals. This excess of males makes us more like birds. And birds are well-known for their pair-bonds. 事实上,这项研究显示,人类的育龄男女比,要比黑猩猩群体中的同一比例大两倍,这让人类成为十分不同寻常的哺乳动物。男性过多,使得我们更像鸟类,而鸟类的配偶关系是众所周知的。 Where many males compete for relatively few females, a male who develops a strong bond with one female will have more surviving offspring than males who seek numerous partners. The authors suggest that this created increasing incentives for men to “guard” their mate against rival males. 在数量更多的男性为相对较少的女性而彼此竞争时,与那些寻求众多伴侣的男性相比,同某一女性发展出强结合的男性将会拥有更多的成活后代。作者们认为,这就造成了很大的激励,促使男性去“守卫”他们的伴侣,赶走竞争对手。 While mate-guarding is not necessarily the same thing as pair-bonding, the authors argue that both involve a trade-off between paying attention to the current partner and seeking a new one. Of course, although the study concentrates on male strategy, females are not passive in this scenario – it takes two to bond. 当然,守卫伴侣与配偶关系未必是同一回事,作者们认为,两者有共同点,即都涉及在专心于当前伴侣和寻找新伴侣之间的权衡取舍。当然,尽管这项研究集中于男性的策略,女性在这一情景中也不是被动的——配偶结合需要两个人。 So, to put the wedding celebrations into their evolutionary context, perhaps it was the caring grandparents who led to the special relationship that we celebrated. A toast to the bride and groom … and one to their parents. 因此,把婚礼庆典放到进化论中来说,也许是因为那些曾经照看孙子的爷爷奶奶们,才造就了今天我们来庆祝的这种特殊关系吧。来吧,让我们为新娘和新郎干一杯……也为新人的父母干一杯。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]自由派带给黑人的福利

The Legacy of Liberalism
自由主义的遗产

作者:Thomas Sowell @ 2014-11
译者:Luis Rightcon(@Rightcon)
来源:National Review,http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392842/legacy-liberalism-thomas-sowell

The current problems facing blacks in America owe more to the Great Society than to slavery.
美国黑人目前所面临的问题更多要归结于大社会的理念,而不是奴隶制

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said there were “phrases that serve as an excuse for not thinking.” One of these phrases that substitute for thought today is one that depicts the current problems of blacks in America as “a legacy of slavery.”

最高法院大法官Oliver Wendell Holmes曾说,使用某些习语是“停止思考的借口”。当今的一个代替思考的此类习语,就是将美国黑人眼下面临的问题描述为“奴隶制的遗毒”。

New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof (more...)

标签: | |
6539
The Legacy of Liberalism 自由主义的遗产 作者:Thomas Sowell @ 2014-11 译者:Luis Rightcon(@Rightcon) 来源:National Review,http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392842/legacy-liberalism-thomas-sowell The current problems facing blacks in America owe more to the Great Society than to slavery. 美国黑人目前所面临的问题更多要归结于大社会的理念,而不是奴隶制 Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said there were “phrases that serve as an excuse for not thinking.” One of these phrases that substitute for thought today is one that depicts the current problems of blacks in America as “a legacy of slavery.” 最高法院大法官Oliver Wendell Holmes曾说,使用某些习语是“停止思考的借口”。当今的一个代替思考的此类习语,就是将美国黑人眼下面临的问题描述为“奴隶制的遗毒”。 New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof asserts that there is “overwhelming evidence that centuries of racial subjugation still shape inequity in the 21st century” and he mentions “the lingering effects of slavery.” But before we become overwhelmed, that evidence should be checked out. 《纽约时报》作者Nicholas Kristof 断言:“有压倒性的证据显示,几个世纪以来的种族奴役依旧塑造着21世纪的不平等”,他也提到了“徘徊不散的奴隶制影响”。但在我们被这些证据“压倒”之前,应对它们进行仔细的检验。 The evidence offered by Mr. Kristof in the November 16 issue of the New York Times seems considerably short of overwhelming, to put it charitably. He cites a study showing that “counties in America that had a higher proportion of slaves in 1860 are still more unequal today.” Has he never heard statisticians’ repeated warnings that correlation is not causation? Kristof先生在11月16日的纽约时报上提供的证据看起来——说得好听一点——相当的缺乏“压倒性”。他引用了一项研究指出“美国那些在1860年保有更多奴隶人口的县今天仍然(比其他地方)更不平等。”他难道没有听过统计学家一直重复的关于相关性并非因果性的警告么? The South long remained a region that blacks fled by the millions — for very good reasons. But, in more recent years, the net migration of blacks has been from the North to the South. No doubt they have good reasons for that as well. 历史上数百万黑人一直在逃离美国的南部各州,他们有很充足的理由。但是,在近些年里,黑人净流动的方向是从北向南的。毫无疑问,他们一定也有很好的理由这么做。 But there is no reason to believe that blacks today are unaware of the history of slavery or of the Jim Crow era in the South. Indeed, there are black “leaders” who seem to talk about nothing else. Yet blacks who are moving back to the South seem more concerned with the present and the future than with the past. 但是我们没有理由相信当今黑人会不知道有关黑奴的历史,或是Jim Crow时期的南部【译注:Jim Crow时期系指1876-1965年,其间美国南方各州陆续制订种族隔离法,这些法律被统称为Jim Crow法】。的确,有很多黑人“领袖”每天谈论的都是以上这些黑历史。然而朝南方移居的黑人们看起来更关心现在和未来,而不是过去。 Kristof’s other “overwhelming” evidence of the current effects of past slavery is that blacks do not have as much income as whites. But Puerto Ricans do not have as much income as Japanese Americans. Mexican Americans do not have as much income as Cuban Americans. All sorts of people do not have as much income as all sorts of other people, not only in the United States, but in countries around the world. And most of these people were never enslaved. Kristof关于过去奴隶制对现代影响的另外一个“压倒性”的证据是黑人的收入比白人要少。但是波多黎各人的收入也比不上日裔美国人。墨西哥裔美国人的收入也比不上古巴裔美国人。不仅仅是在美国,在全世界任何一种人都和另一种人的收入不一样。而这些人里的绝大多数都不曾被奴役。 If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state. In other words, we could compare hard evidence on “the legacy of slavery” with hard evidence on the legacy of liberals. 如果我们想要严肃地对待证据,我们应该将生活在奴隶制结束100年后的黑人与在自由派的福利国家生活了30年之后的黑人做比较。换句话说,我们可以比较一下“奴隶制的遗毒”和自由派的遗产。 Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the Civil Rights laws and “War on Poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began. 尽管盛行的谬见声称,在1960年代民权法案通过和“对贫困宣战”项目实行后,黑人在经济地位上才开始进步或是开始加速进步。冰冷的事实却是黑人的贫困率从1940年的87%下降到了1960年的47%。而这是在任何相关法案或项目实行之前就已经发生了的。 Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black “leaders.” 在之后的20年里,黑人贫困率又下降了18%。相对应的,之前的20年里的降幅是40个百分点。这只是一个之前经济趋势的延续,只是进度放缓了,而并非自由派和自谋私利的黑人“领袖”所宣称的伟大经济援救的成效。 Ending the Jim Crow laws was a landmark achievement. But, despite the great proliferation of black political and other “leaders” that resulted from the laws and policies of the 1960s, nothing comparable happened economically. And there were serious retrogressions socially. 种族隔离制度的结束是一个里程碑式的成就。但是, 1960年代的法律和政策,除了导致政治上或是其他方面的黑人“领袖”数量激增之外,在经济上并没有什么与之相称的成就,而在社会问题上则有严重的倒退。 Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent. 在1960年代,生活在近百年的所谓“奴隶制遗毒”影响下的绝大多数黑人儿童是由双亲家庭抚养长大的。然而在自由主义福利国家建成30年之后,我们发现大多数黑人儿童是由单亲家庭抚养长大的。 The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals’ law-enforcement policies. Public-housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public-housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals. We all know what hell holes public housing has become in our times. The same toxic message produced similar social results among lower-income people in England, despite an absence of a “legacy of slavery” there. 自由派的执法政策留下的遗产是,1980年代的黑人谋杀率提高到了20年前的两倍。公共住房项目在20世纪前半叶是干净而安全的地方,是人们在炎热夏夜无法负担空调费用时在外的居所。那时候公共住房项目对于住户的接纳标准还未被昏了头的自由派出于“不评判”的理念而降低或完全废除。而且当时自由派所鼓吹的有关黑人受害者身份的有毒思想还未被广泛传播。我们都清楚公共住房项目在我们的时代里成了怎样的黑暗地狱。同样的有毒思想在低收入的英国人身上也体现出了同样的社会效应,尽管在那里没有任何“奴隶制的遗毒”。 If we are to go by evidence of social retrogression, liberals have wreaked more havoc on blacks than the supposed “legacy of slavery” they talk about. Liberals should heed the title of Jason Riley’s insightful new book, Please Stop Helping Us. 如果我们追寻社会倒退的证据,就会发现,自由派给黑人造成的破坏要比他们口中所谓的“奴隶制遗毒”严重的多。自由派应当听听Jason Riley在他富有洞察力的新书的标题中提出的建议,《不要再帮助我们了》。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]波士顿茶党:传说与真相

The Boston Tea Party Myth
波士顿倾茶事件的迷思

作者:The debunker @ 2013-1-18
译者:Yuncong Yang(@kingsmill)
校对: 小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子)
来源:UnpopularTruth.com,http://www.unpopulartruth.com/2009/04/boston-tea-party.html

The Boston Tea Party was not a protest against high taxes, but a protest of several things. Mostly it was an anti-monopoly protest. And it demonstrated colonial resistance to British interference in the American economy.

波士顿倾茶事件的目的并非抗议高额茶税,而是抗议其他一些东西,其中主要是反垄断。同时它也反映了当时美洲殖民地对英国插手殖民地经济的抵制。

A popular understanding of the Boston Tea Party is that the colonial Americans were protesting against high taxes on imported British tea. However, this is not the truth. This is a popular myth that this article clearly debunks. The truth is that the price of tea was actually lowered by the British. The lowering of the price was an attempt to give a monopoly to the East India Trading company. There were many reasons for the colonists to be angered by British manipulation and interference.

对波士顿倾茶事件的一种流行解读是:美洲殖民地的人民是要借倾茶抗议英国对进口的英国茶叶课以重税。然而这并非事实。本文就是要彻底打破这一广为流传的神话。实际上,英国人当时降低了茶叶价格,而压低茶叶价格是为了给予东印度公司垄断地位。英国的经济操纵与干涉之所以激怒了殖民者,是有多种原因的。

The Boston Tea Party, of course wasn’t an actual party, but was a famous incident in American history in which some American colonists in Boston disguised themselves as Indians and dumped chests of tea into Boston Harbor as a protest. This protest by American colonists arose from two issues confronting the British Empire in 1773: the financial problems of the British East India Company, and an ongoing dispute about the extent of Parliament’s sovereignty over the British American colonies.

“波士顿茶会”当然不是真正的茶会,它是美国历史上的一起重要事件。波士顿的一些美洲殖民者在事件中化装成印第安人登上了英国货船,把一箱箱的茶叶倒进波士顿港来表示抗议。美洲殖民者的反抗源于当时英帝国面临的两个问题:一是东印度公司的严重财政问题,二是有关议会对英属美洲殖民地管辖权限的争议。

******

(more...)
标签:
6536
The Boston Tea Party Myth 波士顿倾茶事件的迷思 作者:The debunker @ 2013-1-18 译者:Yuncong Yang(@kingsmill) 校对: 小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子) 来源:UnpopularTruth.com,http://www.unpopulartruth.com/2009/04/boston-tea-party.html The Boston Tea Party was not a protest against high taxes, but a protest of several things. Mostly it was an anti-monopoly protest. And it demonstrated colonial resistance to British interference in the American economy. 波士顿倾茶事件的目的并非抗议高额茶税,而是抗议其他一些东西,其中主要是反垄断。同时它也反映了当时美洲殖民地对英国插手殖民地经济的抵制。 A popular understanding of the Boston Tea Party is that the colonial Americans were protesting against high taxes on imported British tea. However, this is not the truth. This is a popular myth that this article clearly debunks. The truth is that the price of tea was actually lowered by the British. The lowering of the price was an attempt to give a monopoly to the East India Trading company. There were many reasons for the colonists to be angered by British manipulation and interference. 对波士顿倾茶事件的一种流行解读是:美洲殖民地的人民是要借倾茶抗议英国对进口的英国茶叶课以重税。然而这并非事实。本文就是要彻底打破这一广为流传的神话。实际上,英国人当时降低了茶叶价格,而压低茶叶价格是为了给予东印度公司垄断地位。英国的经济操纵与干涉之所以激怒了殖民者,是有多种原因的。 The Boston Tea Party, of course wasn't an actual party, but was a famous incident in American history in which some American colonists in Boston disguised themselves as Indians and dumped chests of tea into Boston Harbor as a protest. This protest by American colonists arose from two issues confronting the British Empire in 1773: the financial problems of the British East India Company, and an ongoing dispute about the extent of Parliament's sovereignty over the British American colonies. “波士顿茶会”当然不是真正的茶会,它是美国历史上的一起重要事件。波士顿的一些美洲殖民者在事件中化装成印第安人登上了英国货船,把一箱箱的茶叶倒进波士顿港来表示抗议。美洲殖民者的反抗源于当时英帝国面临的两个问题:一是东印度公司的严重财政问题,二是有关议会对英属美洲殖民地管辖权限的争议。

******

American colonists resented this favored treatment of a major company, (East India Company) which employed lobbyists and wielded great influence in Parliament. At this stage in American history rebellion was brewing beneath the surface of society. Colonial protests resulted in both Philadelphia and New York, but it was those at the Boston Tea Party that made their mark on American history. 美洲殖民者反对英国当局给予一家大公司(东印度公司)特别优待,该公司雇佣了大量说客,在议会里影响很大。在美洲历史的这一时期,反抗的种子已经在土壤下悄悄萌芽了。在费城和纽约都出现了殖民者的抗议活动,但在美国历史上留下了印迹的,是波士顿的倾茶者们。 John Hancock organized a boycott of tea from China sold by the British East India Company, whose sales in the colonies then fell dramatically. By 1773, the company had large debts, huge stocks of tea in its warehouses and no prospect of selling it because smugglers, such as Hancock, were importing tea from Holland without paying import taxes. 约翰·汉考克组织了一场针对东印度公司销售的中国茶叶的抵制运动,结果东印度公司在殖民地的营业额一落千丈。到1773年,东印度公司已是债台高筑,货仓里积压了大批卖不出去的茶叶——也没有卖掉的指望,因为汉考克等走私贩子正在从荷兰走私大量茶叶到殖民地,这些茶叶是不用交关税的。 The British government passed the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to sell tea to the colonies directly and without "payment of any customs or duties whatsoever" in Britain, instead paying the much lower American duty. This tax break allowed the East India Company to sell tea for half the old price and cheaper than the price of tea in England, enabling them to undercut the prices offered by the colonial merchants and smugglers. 英国政府为此通过了《茶叶法案》,允许东印度公司直接向殖民地销售茶叶,不需要在英国国内“缴纳任何关税或其他税收”,而只需缴纳低得多的殖民地赋税。这一税收优惠使得东印度公司可以把它的茶叶价格削减一半,甚至比它在英国卖得还要便宜。现在东印度公司能以低于殖民地商人和走私贩的价格销售茶叶了。 Bostonians suspected the removal of the Tea Tax was simply another attempt by the British parliament to squash American freedom. Samuel Adams, wealthy smugglers, and others who had profited from the smuggled tea called for agents and consignees of the East India Company tea to abandon their positions; consignees who hesitated were terrorized through attacks on their warehouses and even their homes. 波士顿人怀疑,取消东印度公司的茶税,纯粹是英国议会压制美洲殖民地自由的又一次努力。塞缪尔·亚当斯,富有的走私贩子和其他从走私茶叶中获利的人们呼吁东印度公司在殖民地的代理商和经销商不要再和东印度公司合作。那些犹豫不决的经销商受到了恐吓,他们的货仓,有时甚至是住宅,都遭到攻击。 The Truth Behind the Boston Tea Party: The Tea Act Actually Lowered Taxes 倾茶事件背后的真相是:《茶叶法案》实际上降低了茶叶的税负。 Many people today think the Tea Act—which led to the Boston Tea Party—was simply an increase in the taxes on tea paid by American colonists. Instead, the purpose of the Tea Act was to give the East India Company full and unlimited access to the American tea trade, and exempt the company from having to pay taxes to Britain on tea exported to the American colonies. It even gave the company a tax refund on millions of pounds of tea they were unable to sell and holding in inventory. 如今很多人认为最终导致波士顿倾茶事件的《茶叶法案》提高了美洲殖民地人民负担的茶叶税额。但事实正相反。茶叶法案的目的是要让东印度公司能够完全不受限制的参与美洲茶叶贸易,并免除东印度公司向美洲出口茶叶时应在英国支付的税收。法案甚至为东印度公司卖不出去而积压在手里的数百万磅茶叶提供了退税。 One purpose of the Tea Act was to increase the profitability of the East India Company to its stockholders (which included the King), and to help the company drive its colonial small business competitors out of business. Because the company no longer had to pay high taxes to England and held a monopoly on the tea it sold in the American colonies, it was able to lower its tea prices to undercut the prices of the local importers and the mom-and-pop tea merchants and tea houses, not only in Boston, but in every town in America. 《茶叶法案》的目的之一是提高东印度公司的股东回报率(英王本人也是股东之一),并帮助东印度公司把在殖民地与它竞争的小公司赶出市场。因为东印度公司不必再付高昂的英国关税,并在殖民地市场出售茶叶方面享有专营权,所以它就可以通过价格竞争打败本地的进口商以及那些家庭式的茶商茶店。不仅在波士顿是如此,在每一个美洲城镇都是如此。 This meddling infuriated the independence-minded colonists, who were, by and large, unappreciative of their colonies being used as a profit center for the multinational East India Company corporation. One historical interpretation is that the truth of the Boston Tea Party is that it was a protest against this meddling. The American colonists resented their small businesses still having to pay the higher, pre-Tea Act taxes without having any say or vote in the matter. (Thus, the cry of "no taxation without representation!") 英国议会对茶叶市场的干涉激怒了当时已经有意独立的殖民者。总体来说,他们对英国议会拿他们的殖民地来为东印度公司这家跨国企业创造利润非常不满。对波士顿倾茶事件的历史解读之一是,倾茶事件表达了殖民者对这种干涉的抗议。美洲殖民者愤恨于他们的小茶行依然要支付《茶叶法案》出台之前的高税率,而且在这件事上他们一点发言权都没有(因此才有“无代表,不纳税!”的口号)。 Even in the official British version of the history, the 1773 Tea Act was a "legislative maneuver by the British ministry of Lord North to make English tea marketable in America," with a goal of helping the East India Company quickly "sell 17 million pounds of tea stored in England ..." 即使在英国官方版本的历史里,1773年《茶叶法案》也被描述为“诺思勋爵内阁为使英国茶叶在美国打开销路而采取的立法计谋”,其目的是帮助东印度公司迅速“卖掉积压在英国国内的一千七百万磅茶叶……” "Taxation Without Representation" had a Populist Context which plays a large role in the Boston Tea Party 无代表,强征税” 这一抗议有着民粹主义背景,这种背景在波士顿倾茶事件中影响很大。 "Taxation without representation" also meant hitting the average person and small business with taxes while letting the richest and most powerful corporation in the world off the hook for its taxes. It was government sponsorship of one corporation over all competitors. “无代表,强征税”这句话的另一层意思是,政府以税收打击普通百姓和小企业,却让世界上最大最富有的公司免于税收之累。实质上,这就是政府扶持一家公司而打击所有竞争对手。 The Boston Tea Party Was Similar to Modern Day Anti-globalization Protests 波士顿倾茶事件很像今天的反全球化示威 The Boston Tea Party resembled in many ways the growing modern-day protests against transnational corporations and small-town efforts to protect themselves from chain-store retailers or agricultural corporations. With few exceptions, the Tea Party's participants thought of themselves as protesters against the actions of the multinational East India Company and the government that "unfairly" represented, supported, and served the company while not representing or serving the residents. 波士顿倾茶事件和今天的反跨国公司示威,以及小城镇为免受连锁零售商或农业大公司侵蚀而做出的自我保护,在许多方面都颇为相似。绝大多数倾茶事件的参与者认为他们的抗议对象是跨国运营的东印度公司及政府,英国政府“不公平的”代表着东印度公司的利益,它支持并服务于东印度公司,而非殖民地的居民们。

******

In England, Parliament gave the East India Company what amounted to a monopoly on the importation of tea in 1698. When tea became popular in the British colonies, Parliament sought to eliminate foreign competition by passing an act in 1721 that required colonists to import their tea only from Great Britain. But many Americans purchased the less expensive, smuggled Dutch tea. 在英国,议会在1698年给了东印度公司实质上的茶叶进口专营权。当茶叶在海外的英国殖民地也开始变得抢手时,议会为消除来自海外的竞争于1721年通过了法案,要求各殖民地只能从英国进口茶叶。但许多美洲殖民者选择购买较廉价的荷兰走私茶。 The East India Company did not export tea to the colonies; by law, the company was required to sell its tea wholesale at auctions in England. British firms bought this tea and exported it to the colonies, where they resold it to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. 东印度公司当时并不直接向各殖民地出口茶叶。按照法律,东印度公司须将其茶叶在英国通过拍卖批发出去。英国企业将买到的这些茶叶出口到殖民地,然后再转卖给波士顿,纽约,费城和查尔斯顿的商人们。 In order to help the East India Company compete with smuggled Dutch tea, in 1767 Parliament passed the Indemnity Act, which lowered the tax on tea consumed in Great Britain, and gave the East India Company a partial refund of the duty on tea that was re-exported to the colonies. To help offset this loss of government revenue, Parliament also passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which levied new taxes, including one on tea, in the colonies. Instead of solving the smuggling problem, however, the Townshend duties renewed a controversy about Parliament's right to tax the colonies. 为了帮助东印度公司与荷兰走私茶竞争,1767年议会通过了《免责法案》,该法案降低了英国国内消费茶叶的税率,并对经中间商再出口到殖民地的那部分茶叶退还部分关税给东印度公司。为弥补因此造成的政府收入减少,议会又通过了1767年的《汤森德税收法案》。该法案对殖民地开征了一些新税种,其中之一就是针对茶叶。然而新法案并没有解决茶叶走私问题,其规定的新税种却再度引发了有关议会对殖民地征税权的争议。 To fully understand the resentment of the colonies to Great Britain and King George III, one must understand that there were a series of events in which the colonists were treated unfairly. In previous years, the 13 colonies saw a number of commercial tariffs including the Sugar Act of 1764, which taxed sugar, coffee, and wine, the Stamp Act of 1765, which put a tax on all printed matter, such as newspapers and playing cards, and the Townshend Acts of 1767 which placed taxes on items like glass, paints, paper, and tea. The Tea Act of 1773 was the last straw. 要全面理解殖民地对英国及英王乔治三世的反感,就必须要意识到当时在一系列的事件中,殖民者都已经受到了不公平的待遇。在此前十多年中,十三个殖民地被加征了一系列的新税:1764年的《糖业法案》对糖,咖啡和葡萄酒征税;1765年的《印花税法》对上至报纸下至扑克牌的所有印刷品征税;1767年的《汤森德法案》则对诸如玻璃,油漆,纸和茶叶等货品征税。1773年的《茶叶法案》不过是最后一根稻草罢了。 "If our trade be taxed, why not our lands, in short, everything we posses? They tax us without having legal representation." —Samuel Adams “如果他们能对我们的贸易征税,那为什么就不能对我们的土地,或者我们所有的一切征税?他们向我们征税,却不给我们法定代表权。”——塞缪尔·亚当斯 In an attempt to transfer part of the cost of colonial administration to the American colonies, the British Parliament had enacted the Stamp Act in 1765 and the Townshend Acts in 1767. Colonial political opposition and economic boycotts eventually forced repeal of these acts, but Parliament left the import duty on tea as a symbol of its authority. Under the Townshend Act, many goods brought into the colonies were heavily taxed by the British. To attempt to appease the disgruntled Americans, these tariffs were repealed, except for tea, and they remained upset since the tax on tea remained in effect. 为了把管理殖民地的成本部分转嫁给美洲殖民地,英国议会于1765年通过了《印花税法》,于1767年通过了《汤森德法案》。殖民地的政治反抗和经济杯葛最终迫使议会废除了这些法律,但议会保留了茶叶进口的关税,作为其对殖民地握有管辖权的标志。按照汤森德法案,英国人对殖民地进口的许多商品都征收了重税。然后,为了安抚愤怒的殖民地人,除茶税外,所有这些关税都被废除了。但是殖民者依然不满,因为英国还在征收着茶税。 In an atmosphere of continuing suspicion and distrust, the British and Americans each looked for the worst from the other. In 1772 the crown, having earlier declared its right to dismiss colonial judges at its pleasure, stated its intention to pay directly the salaries of governors and judges in Massachusetts. 在长期持续的猜疑与不信任的气氛下,英国人和殖民者都在以最大的恶意揣测着对方。在1772年,王国政府宣布它有意直接向马萨诸塞的行政长官及法官们发放薪金。而在此前不久,它已宣称有权随意罢免殖民地的法官。 The situation remained comparatively quiet until May 1773, when the faltering East India Company persuaded Parliament that the company's future and the empire's prosperity depended on the disposal of its tea surplus. At this point, the East India Company was facing bankruptcy due to corruption, mismanagement, and competition. 直到1773年5月,形势还是相对平静的。就在5月,摇摇欲坠的东印度公司终于说服议会,东印度公司的未来及帝国的福祉都取决于手中积压的茶叶能否得到处理。此时,东印度公司已经因腐败,管理不善和市场竞争而濒临破产了。 The plan was to export a half a million pounds of tea to the American colonies for the purpose of selling it without imposing upon the company the usual duties and tariffs. With these privileges, the company could undersell American merchants and monopolize the colonial tea trade. Not only did this action create unfair commerce for the merchants of the colonies but it also proved to be the spark that revived American passions about the issue of taxation without representation. 东印度公司的计划是:将五十万磅茶叶卖到美洲殖民地去,政府将不对这些茶叶征收关税和其他赋税。有了这样的优惠条件,东印度公司就可以通过价格竞争挤掉美国茶商,进而垄断殖民地的茶叶市场。这一行动不仅仅对殖民地商人不公,事实证明,它还是一根导火索,重新点燃了殖民者对“无代表,强征税”的怒火。 Because the American tea market had nearly been captured by tea smuggled from Holland, Parliament gave the company a drawback (refund) of the entire shilling-per-pound duty, enabling the company to undersell the smugglers. It was expected that the American colonists, faced with a choice between the cheaper company tea and the higher-priced smuggled tea, would buy the cheaper tea, despite the tax. The company would then be saved from bankruptcy, the smugglers would be ruined, and the principle of parliamentary taxation would be upheld. 因为当时美洲茶叶市场已经基本被荷兰走私茶占领,议会决定将每磅一先令的茶叶关税全额退还给东印度公司,使之能借价格优势击败走私商人。议会认为,尽管有茶税,殖民者在便宜的东印度公司茶和较贵的走私茶中,应该还是会选择便宜茶的。这样既可以挽救东印度公司,使之免于破产,又可以将走私商人赶入绝境,还可以继续维持议会在殖民地征税的权威。 Resisting the Tea Act 反抗茶叶法案 Due to the popularity of inexpensive tea smuggled from Holland, British tea manufacturers were accumulating a large surplus of unsold tea, about 17 million pounds. 因为较为便宜的荷兰走私茶在市场上大为走红,英国茶厂积压了大量的滞销茶叶,累计达一千七百万磅之多。 Instead of rescinding the remaining Townshend tax and exploring inoffensive methods of aiding the financially troubled British East India Company,Parliament enacted the Tea Act of 1773, designed to allow the company to bypass middlemen and sell directly to American retailers 面对这种情况,议会并没有选择废除残余的汤森德税,也没有试图寻求不损害别人的办法来拯救东印度公司。相反它颁布了1773年《茶叶法案》,允许东印度公司不经中间商直接向美洲零售商销售茶叶。 In September and October 1773, seven ships carrying East India Company tea were sent to the colonies: four were bound for Boston, and one each for New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. Americans learned the details of the Tea Act while the ships were en route, and opposition began to mount. Whigs, sometimes calling themselves Sons of Liberty, began a campaign to raise awareness and to convince or compel the consignees to resign, in the same way that stamp distributors had been forced to resign in the 1765 Stamp Act crisis. 1773年九月和十月间,七艘满载东印度公司茶叶的货船驶向殖民地,四艘前往波士顿,剩下三艘分别前往纽约,费城和查尔斯顿。这些船还在路上时,美洲殖民者就已经得知《茶叶法案》的细节,反抗情绪在逐步酝酿。有时自称“自由之子”的北美辉格党人发起了一场旨在让公众了解《茶叶法案》并说服或迫使东印度公司的分销商们放弃分销权的运动。在1765年《印花税法案》风波里,他们正是以这种方式迫使印花税票分销商放弃销售权的。 The truth is that the protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protestors were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. 事实上,以波士顿倾茶事件为终结的抗议运动并不是针对高税率的。1773年的《茶叶法案》事实上降低了合法进口茶叶的价格。抗议者们关心的是其他一些问题。 Several myths are wrapped up in the story of the Boston Tea Party. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies, remained prominent. 波士顿倾茶事件的叙述里包含了若干迷思。广为人知的“无代表不纳税”主张,和议会的殖民地管辖权范围问题,至今仍在叙事中居于突出地位。 Some regarded the purpose of the tax program—to make leading officials independent of colonial influence—as a dangerous infringement of colonial rights. This was especially true in Massachusetts, the only colony where the Townshend program had been fully implemented. 另一些人认为,英国的征税方案旨在令殖民地高级官员免受殖民地影响,这是对殖民地权利的严重侵犯。这一说法在马萨诸塞格外真确,因为马萨诸塞是唯一一个完全执行了汤森德增税计划的殖民地。 Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business. Other, legal tea importers who had not been named as consignees by the East India Company were also threatened with financial ruin by the Tea Act. 殖民地商人们——其中一些是走私者——在抗议中扮演了重要角色。因为《茶叶法案》降低了合法进口茶叶的价格,走私荷兰茶的商人们可能会被挤出市场。此外,那些没有得到东印度公司授权经销资格的合法进口茶商们也面临灭顶之灾。 Another major concern for merchants was since the Tea Act gave the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade, it was feared that this government-created monopoly might be extended in the future to include other goods. And this served to alarm the conservative colonial mercantile elements into uniting with the more radical patriots. 商人们担忧的另一重点是《茶叶法案》使东印度公司垄断了茶叶贸易市场,而未来这种政府支持的垄断行为也可能扩展到其他的商品交易上。这些威胁刺激了较为保守的殖民地商界势力,使之逐渐与更激进的反英志士群体联合起来。 South of Boston, protestors successfully compelled the tea consignees to resign. Merchants agreed not to sell the tea, and the designated tea agents in New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston canceled their orders or resigned their commissions. 在波士顿南部,抗议者们成功迫使东印度公司的授权分销商放弃了分销权。商人们同意抵制东印度公司的茶叶。在纽约,费城和查尔斯顿,取得茶叶分销权的代理商们或取消订单,或放弃分销权。 In Charleston, the consignees had been forced to resign, and the unclaimed tea was seized by customs officials. There were mass protest meetings in Philadelphia, and eventually the Philadelphia consignees had resigned and the tea ship returned to England with its cargo. The tea ship bound for New York City was delayed by bad weather; by the time it arrived, the consignees had resigned, and the ship returned to England with the tea. 在查尔斯顿,授权经销商们被迫放弃了经销权,无人售卖的茶叶最后被海关官员扣押了。费城爆发了大规模的抗议集会,最终费城的授权经销商们也退出了,运茶船带着茶叶打道回府。前往纽约的运茶船被海上的恶劣天气耽搁了,等到它到达纽约时,当地的经销商们已放弃了经销权,它只好又带着茶叶回了英国。 Revolutionary sentiment mounted . . . 革命情绪升温…… In Boston, however, the tea consignees were friends or relatives of Governor Hutchinson, who was determined to uphold the law. The opposition, led by Samuel and John Adams, Josiah Quincy, and John Hancock, was determined to resist Parliamentary supremacy over colonial legislatures. 然而在波士顿,茶叶授权经销商们都是总督哈钦森的亲友,而哈钦森决意要实施《茶叶法案》。由塞缪尔和约翰·亚当斯两兄弟,约书亚·昆西和约翰·汉考克领导的反对派则决心抵抗议会凌驾于殖民地立法机构之上的威权。 Three ships from London, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver, sailed into Boston Harbor from November 28th to December 8, 1773. Loaded with tea from the East India Company, they were all anchored at Griffin’s Wharf but were prevented from unloading their cargo. 从伦敦来的三艘货船——达特茅斯号,艾莉诺号和河狸号——于1773年11月28日到12月8日间驶入波士顿港。三艘船满载东印度公司的茶叶,停泊在格里芬码头,但它们无法卸货。 When the first ship, the Dartmouth, reached Boston with the cargo of tea, the Sons of Liberty prevented owner Francis Rotch from unloading the tea, but they could not force the consignees to reject it. Rotch and the captains of two newly arrived ships, the Eleanor and the Beaver, agreed to leave without unloading the tea, but they were denied clearance by Governor Hutchinson. 当达特茅斯号运载茶叶首先到达波士顿时,“自由之子”成功阻止了船主弗朗西斯·罗奇卸货,但他们无法迫使授权经销商们拒绝接受这些茶叶。罗奇和另两艘刚到达的船——艾莉诺号和河狸号——的船长们同意不卸货就离开波士顿,但总督哈钦森拒绝放行。 According to the law, if the tea was not unloaded within 20 days (by December 17), it was to be seized and sold to pay custom duties. Convinced that this procedure would still be payment of unconstitutional taxes, the radical patriots resolved to break the deadlock. On December 14, Rotch was called before a mass meeting and ordered to seek clearance again to sail from Boston. But neither the customs collector nor the governor would grant it. 按照法律,如果这些茶叶不能在20天内(也就是到12月17日)卸下船,它们将会被海关没收拍卖来偿付关税。激进的反英志士们认为这样处理茶叶无异于缴纳违宪征收的茶税,于是他们决定要打破眼前的僵局。12月14日,志士们将罗奇船长召至一次大型集会上,并命令他再次申请驶离波士顿港,但无论是海关还是总督都拒绝放行。 Fearing that the tea would be seized for failure to pay customs duties, and eventually become available for sale, something had to be done. Demanding that the tea be returned to where it came from or face retribution, the Sons of Liberty, led by Samuel Adams began to meet to determine the fate of the three cargo ships in the Boston harbor. 如果不想让茶叶因滞纳关税被扣押拍卖而最终流入市场,就必须要采取行动了。塞缪尔·亚当斯领导的“自由之子”一方面声称如果这些茶叶不运回英国,他们就将采取报复行动,另一方面开始组织会议,讨论应该如何处理波士顿港内的这三艘货船。 On the cold evening of December 16, 1773, a crowd of several thousand spectators gathered and shouted encouragement to about 60 men disguised as Mohawk Indians. The band of patriots in Boston burst from the South Meeting House with the spirit of freedom burning in their eyes. The patriots headed towards Griffin's Wharf and the three ships. Quickly, quietly, and in an orderly manner, they boarded each of the tea ships. Once on board, the patriots went to work striking the chests with axes and hatchets. 1773年12月16日,一个寒冷的夜晚,波士顿街头聚集了几千名看热闹的群众,他们高声呐喊,为约六十名乔装成印第安莫霍克族的志士助威。这一伙波士顿反英志士从南方教堂议事厅冲了出来,他们个个眼中都燃烧着自由的火焰,冲向格里芬码头的三艘货船。志士们飞速而有序的分别登上了三艘货船,没有发出一点声音。一上船,他们就开始用斧头劈砍茶叶箱子。 Only the sounds of axe blades splitting wood rang out from Boston Harbor. Once the crates were open, the patriots dumped the tea into the sea. By nine o'clock p.m., the Sons of Liberty, with the aid of the ships' crew, had emptied a total of 342 crates of tea into Boston Harbor. Fearing any connection to their treasonous deed, the patriots took off their shoes and they swept the ships' decks, and made each ship's first mate attest that only the tea was damaged. 静悄悄的波士顿港里,只听到斧刃劈开木箱的声音。劈开箱子之后,志士们就把茶叶倒入海里。到晚上九点,“自由之子”们在船员的帮助下已经把三百四十二箱茶叶倒进了波士顿港。为免事后被发现他们与这一叛逆行径有何干系,志士们脱掉鞋子,擦干净了货船的甲板,并让各船大副宣誓作证:船上受损的只有茶叶,并无他物。 The furious royal government responded to this "Boston Tea Party" by the so-called Intolerable Acts of 1774, practically eliminating self-government in Massachusetts and closing Boston's port. 愤怒的英国政府对“波士顿倾茶事件”做出了反应,它颁布了被后世称为“1774年不可容忍法案”的一系列法律。通过这些法律,英国政府实质上取消了马萨诸塞的自治,并关闭了波士顿港。 The news of the destruction of the tea raised the spirit of resistance in the colonies. On April 22, 1774, the London attempted to land tea at New York. It was boarded by a mob, and the tea was destroyed. Similar incidents occurred at Annapolis, Md., on October 19 and at Greenwich, N.J., on December 22, and the tea was boycotted throughout the colonies. 倾茶事件的消息传遍了美洲殖民地,鼓舞着殖民地人民的反抗斗志。在1774年4月22日,伦敦号货船试图在纽约卸茶,结果一伙暴民登船毁掉了所有的茶叶。同年10月19日,马里兰州安纳波利斯也发生了同样的事件。12月22日,毁茶事件在新泽西州格林威治再度发生。所有殖民地都在杯葛英国茶叶了。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

赔死活该

【2016-02-04】

@草莓酱改: 老太开捷达“碰伤”劳斯莱斯,赔死真就活该吗? http://t.cn/RbFAl6x

@鹿兔马朦:@whigzhou 你们觉得呐?

@whigzhou: 我觉得原文说的有道理,赔偿应有个合理上限,若没有上限,那么把极端贵重的财产置于开放场所,便向他人强加了异乎寻常且难以负担的审慎责任

@tuxt520:这不是保险应该干的事吗

@whigzhou: 保险覆盖了当然好,但一个没有保险的世界里也可以谈论正义与合理性

@whig(more...)

标签: | |
7028
【2016-02-04】 @草莓酱改: 老太开捷达“碰伤”劳斯莱斯,赔死真就活该吗? http://t.cn/RbFAl6x @鹿兔马朦:@whigzhou 你们觉得呐? @whigzhou: 我觉得原文说的有道理,赔偿应有个合理上限,若没有上限,那么把极端贵重的财产置于开放场所,便向他人强加了异乎寻常且难以负担的审慎责任 @tuxt520:这不是保险应该干的事吗 @whigzhou: 保险覆盖了当然好,但一个没有保险的世界里也可以谈论正义与合理性 @whigzhou: 而且保险定价也是以权利边界为基础的(同时保险的存在也会改变权利边界),因而保险并不会终结这一法律问题 @whigzhou: 我向来认为,将保护财产权免遭破坏的审慎责任过分加之于财产主人以外的他人,是一种不好的做法,当代专利制度便有着这一倾向,我在旧文《专利制度为祸日炽》中曾讨论过 @人格显示器: 该不该,合不合理,共同体说了算。如果在一个城邦中平民力量占了上风,毫无疑问这就不合理。如果是贵族占了上风,这就是合理的。理想的情况是公民大会对此提出法案,经元老院审议通过后形成一种各方都能接受法律。 @whigzhou: 你这是强共同体的看法,我还是喜欢开放社会,不喜欢强共同体  
一根小辫子

【2016-02-04】

@海德沙龙 《一个动听故事的破碎及永生》 诺奖得主Daniel Kahneman在《思考,快与慢》里讨论了一个有趣的发现,若考试时问题很难看清,得分会更高。这里的所谓考试,是由Shane Frederick发明的“认知反应测试”(CRT),Malcolm Gladwell觉得这个结论很爽,便将此事写进了《大卫与歌利亚》一书

@熊也餐厅: 不知道什么原因不太喜欢daniel kahneman~

@whigzhou: 呵呵说(more...)

标签: | |
7032
【2016-02-04】 @海德沙龙 《一个动听故事的破碎及永生》 诺奖得主[[Daniel Kahneman]]在《思考,快与慢》里讨论了一个有趣的发现,若考试时问题很难看清,得分会更高。这里的所谓考试,是由Shane Frederick发明的“认知反应测试”(CRT),[[Malcolm Gladwell]]觉得这个结论很爽,便将此事写进了《大卫与歌利亚》一书 @熊也餐厅: 不知道什么原因不太喜欢daniel kahneman~ @whigzhou: 呵呵说我呢,我确实说不清楚为何不喜欢Kahneman,大概就是股气味吧,不好闻 @whigzhou: 这回总算让我抓到了小辫子,以后就方便跟人解释为何我不喜欢Kahneman了,ps.特别讨厌Gladwell,这老兄体味更重 @whigzhou: 心理学实验重复不出来原本不算什么大不了的事情,很多(可能是大部分)心理学实验都重复不出来,但拿着单个实验在通俗文章里添油加醋大说特说,就让我很不爽,这种通俗文章看起来很科学很有耐心(你看人家能把一个实验讲的那么明白细致连我都看得懂),其实还不如不提实验直接说道理。  
我们是谁?一个憨厚的回答

一席演讲稿

2015年8月23日,上海

 

我今天被叫到这儿来,是因为我不久前写了本书,叫作《沐猿而冠》,书中一个核心主题是,人类文化是如何与我们的人性共同进化的,今天我想和大家分享其中的一些想法。

我们是谁?你是你所吃?——这个问题的答案中,文化扮演了何种角色?

据说哲学家的一个基本问题是:我们是谁?

或者——像传说中的北大门卫那样——用第二人称形式问:你是谁?

18世纪的法国美食家萨瓦兰有句名言:“告诉我你吃些什么,我就能说出你是个什么样的人”,听上去有点道理。

确实,在古代农业社会,一个人要是天天吃肉,那我们就可以很有把握的断定他是个富人,甚至是位贵族;这么说是有历史依据的,最简单的一条证据是,考古学家发现,古代富人的身高明显高于穷人,而身高和营养条件,特别是肉类奶类的摄入量是有明确关系的。

所以古代平民百姓对富贵人物的一个称谓——大人——,在我们现代人看来好像是一种象征性的说法,但其实在字面上也是成立的,那时候,富贵者的身材确实普遍比穷人高大;所以工业革命之后,当大众也都吃得起肉了时,平均身高便迅速增长。

我们是谁?——这要看跟谁比,以及我们这个圈子画多大

不难看出,萨瓦兰在说那句话时,关注点是放在阶级身份上的,然而,当人们试图回答“我们是谁?”这个问题时,阶级或者阶层身份只是一个方面,我们还可以从其他许多方面来回答这个问题,具体选择哪个方面,取决于这问题是在何种情境下被提出的,或者说,我们是在跟谁比,以及,“我们”这个圈子画得有多大。

翻开一本百科全书,浏览一下其中的人物词条,你会发现,用来描绘一个人的诸多属性中,排在最前面的通常有性别、职业、民族,以及他所生活的地区、年代,还有他说的语言,信仰的宗教或者意识形态,所有这些方面,被我们称为文化特性,这些特性组合起来,构成了一个群体或者个人的文化禀赋。

现在我们回到萨瓦兰的立场,所有这些文化特性,都或多或少的体现在我们的饮食之中;比如就性别而言,男性对肉食的偏爱明显比女性强烈,而女性对小零食的偏爱则比男性强烈;就在几十年前,从吃不吃面食或者羊肉,就有相当大的把握判断一个(more...)

标签: |
6533
一席演讲稿 2015年8月23日,上海   我今天被叫到这儿来,是因为我不久前写了本书,叫作《沐猿而冠》,书中一个核心主题是,人类文化是如何与我们的人性共同进化的,今天我想和大家分享其中的一些想法。 我们是谁?你是你所吃?——这个问题的答案中,文化扮演了何种角色? 据说哲学家的一个基本问题是:我们是谁? 或者——像传说中的北大门卫那样——用第二人称形式问:你是谁? 18世纪的法国美食家萨瓦兰有句名言:“告诉我你吃些什么,我就能说出你是个什么样的人”,听上去有点道理。 确实,在古代农业社会,一个人要是天天吃肉,那我们就可以很有把握的断定他是个富人,甚至是位贵族;这么说是有历史依据的,最简单的一条证据是,考古学家发现,古代富人的身高明显高于穷人,而身高和营养条件,特别是肉类奶类的摄入量是有明确关系的。 所以古代平民百姓对富贵人物的一个称谓——大人——,在我们现代人看来好像是一种象征性的说法,但其实在字面上也是成立的,那时候,富贵者的身材确实普遍比穷人高大;所以工业革命之后,当大众也都吃得起肉了时,平均身高便迅速增长。 我们是谁?——这要看跟谁比,以及我们这个圈子画多大 不难看出,萨瓦兰在说那句话时,关注点是放在阶级身份上的,然而,当人们试图回答“我们是谁?”这个问题时,阶级或者阶层身份只是一个方面,我们还可以从其他许多方面来回答这个问题,具体选择哪个方面,取决于这问题是在何种情境下被提出的,或者说,我们是在跟谁比,以及,“我们”这个圈子画得有多大。 翻开一本百科全书,浏览一下其中的人物词条,你会发现,用来描绘一个人的诸多属性中,排在最前面的通常有性别、职业、民族,以及他所生活的地区、年代,还有他说的语言,信仰的宗教或者意识形态,所有这些方面,被我们称为文化特性,这些特性组合起来,构成了一个群体或者个人的文化禀赋。 现在我们回到萨瓦兰的立场,所有这些文化特性,都或多或少的体现在我们的饮食之中;比如就性别而言,男性对肉食的偏爱明显比女性强烈,而女性对小零食的偏爱则比男性强烈;就在几十年前,从吃不吃面食或者羊肉,就有相当大的把握判断一个人是南方人还是北方人,而通过对像鱼腥草这种比较特别的食物的偏爱,可以把一个人的家乡所在猜的更精确,至于猪肉禁忌和宗教身份之间的关系,就更不用说了。 除了,还可以从哪里窥视我们的文化特性? 除了饮食之外,文化特性也会从其他行为上表现出来,实际上,我们完全可以把萨瓦兰那句话里“吃”这个动词,换成穿、住、行、玩等等其他动词,照样可以成立,当然,有效程度有所不同。 从一个人穿什么衣服、住在什么样的社区、家里有些什么家具、开什么车、周末有哪些娱乐活动,你多少都能看出一个人的文化背景、收入状况、教育程度,乃至他所特有的个性。当我们把所有这些方面合起来时,就得到了一个比较丰满完整的答案。 在当今时代,假如你想了解一个陌生人,我可以教你一个简单办法,拿过他的智能手机,看看里面装了些什么应用,心里大致就有点数了,效果可能比看简历更好。 谈论这些究竟有何意义? 那么观察和谈论这种种文化特性究竟有什么意义呢?仅仅是因为它们本身有趣吗?就像昆虫爱好者,满世界抓虫子,做成标本,命名归类,描述其特性,贴上标签,然后陈列在博物馆里,好比我们在民俗博物馆里看到的各种所谓文化标本。 当然,做这些事情也可能蛮有乐趣,然而,作为一个对生活和对世界有着较多哲学兴趣的人,停留在这一层次上,是不能让我满意的,我希望,这些观察与思考,能够帮助我们更好的理解我们祖先所走过的历史,理解我们生活于其中的社会,以及我们成长于其中、将我们教化成为文明人的那些文化,并且,最终,让我们回过头来,更好的理解我们自己。 生物学家可以带给我们什么启发? 幸运的是,多年前我阅读了几位生物学家的著作,比如德斯蒙德·莫里斯的《裸猿》和贾瑞德·戴蒙德的《第三种黑猩猩》,他们仿佛为我打开了一扇窗户,让我得以从一个更有利的角度观察这些事情。 生物学家的优势在于,他们会把人类和其他动物,特别是和我们的灵长类近亲放在一起做比较,从而获得一个更宽阔的视野,而且就像得到了一面镜子,通过对比,可以注意到许多以往被熟视无睹的现象,并且,当你从进化论的立场上考虑问题时,便会很自然的将人类所经历的漫长进化历史纳入观察背景之中。 那么,这种视角会带来什么启示呢?我想可以举几个例子。 睾丸透露了什么信息? 比如动物学家会测量雄性的睾丸重量,并据此推测这一物种两性关系的基本模式,原理是,两性关系越混乱,雄性间的精子战争越激烈,就需要越大的睾丸来大量而迅速的制造精子,所谓精子战争,就是来自不同雄性个体的精子,在同一位雌性的身体里竞争到达卵子的机会。 动物学家在这么做时,也没放过人类,而测量结果发现,人类睾丸占体重的比例,在猿类中排在黑猩猩后面,大猩猩前面,这暗示了,人类配偶关系看来有着悠久历史,而且确实降低了性关系的混乱程度,但配偶关系的牢固和忠贞的程度并未达到大猩猩那种水平,这些推测,和我们所掌握的人类学材料也是吻合的。 那么阴茎呢? 当动物学家将尺子瞄向雄性的另一个性器官时,他们看到的是一个更惊人的事实,人类的阴茎是所有灵长类中最硕大的,而硕大的阴茎往往和两性关系中的强迫行为有关,当雌性不配合、或者体型姿态不方便交配时,较为粗长的阴茎可以让雄性更容易完成交配,而人类在形体方面似乎不存在什么障碍,所以原因看来要从前一种去找。 一个有意思的对照是鸭子,雄性鸭子以强奸惯犯而出名,其阴茎长度和整个身体差不多,这就提示我们,人类历史上,强奸或许是相当普遍的现象,而且这一行为确实让擅于此道的男性留下了更多后代。 还有乳房? 和男性器官相比,女性有一个器官就更让人震惊,那就是常年隆起的乳房,其他动物的乳房只有在哺乳期才会隆起,只有人类女性的乳房常年鼓胀挺拔,里面充塞着对哺乳毫无帮助的脂肪,实际上,半球状的乳房反而不利于哺乳,偶尔还会造成哺乳窒息。 很明显,乳房是个用来吸引男性的器官,这一点从男人的反应便可看出,色情艺术的创作者对此也是心知肚明;问题是,女性为何需要吸引男性,要知道,在绝大多数动物中,需要吸引异性的,都是雄性,所以往往雄性更漂亮,用生物学术语说,就是有更发达的第二性征。 女性的乳房迄今还是个谜,各种解释都没有得到学术界的公认,不过,我们至少可以明确一点:从很早开始,比如几万年甚至十几万年前,男性,至少一部分男性,已经在对配偶进行挑剔了,而动物界通常的法则是,只有雌性挑剔雄性,这暗示了我们远古祖先的择偶策略、家庭模式,乃至社会结构中,隐藏着一些我们迄今尚未探明的秘密。 牙齿,下巴和鼻孔 现在让我们再次回到萨瓦兰的话题,看看当我们采取生物学家的进化视角之后,能否在吃这个话题上发现一些新鲜而有趣的事实;动物学家在了解一种动物吃些什么之后,便可推测它们的牙齿大概会是什么样子,反过来也是,若要猜猜一种陌生动物吃些什么,掰开它们的嘴巴看看牙齿,也能猜个大概。 人类的牙齿组成和猪很像,因为我们都是杂食动物,切削用的门牙,穿刺撕裂用的犬牙,研磨用的臼齿,一应俱全,就像瑞士军刀,每样都不算突出,但很全面,不像食草动物,只有门牙和臼齿,也不像食肉的猫科动物,撕咬剪切能力超强,研磨能力却几乎没有,食物都是大块吞咽的。 但人类牙齿最显著的特点还不在这里,而是和我们的猿类近亲相比,人类的整个下颚和牙床都大大缩小了,而且排列的非常紧密,以至于最后几颗臼齿很难长出来,变成了所谓的智齿,结果是,我们的口吻部大幅内收,收到与颧骨对齐,嘴巴的开口度也变得很小。 这也导致了另外两个附带后果:我们有了下巴,而他猿类是没有下巴的,我们的鼻子拉长而且鼻孔朝下,而其他猿类的鼻孔是朝前的,想象一下,假如我们的口吻部没有内收,那么一个朝下的鼻孔就会被挡住,呼吸就会受影响。当然,鼻梁拉长还另有原因,大概是因为我们祖先从热带森林移居到了更寒冷的地带,因而需要更长的鼻道来加热吸入的空气。 对于如此剧烈的改变,唯一合理的解释是,人类不再那么依赖牙齿的咀嚼功能了,我们祖先一定很早就找到了代替牙齿的手段,人类学家考虑了两种可能性,一种是敲打和研磨,另一种是烹饪,前者意味着我们学会了使用石器工具,而后者意味着我们学会了如何控制和利用火;在结合了其他证据之后,人类学家推测,这一变化大约在170万年前,也就是我们的能人祖先生活的时代,就已经开始了。 眼白,眉毛和嘴唇 以上我谈论的一些身体特征,为我们理解我们祖先的生活方式和两性关系提供了线索,他们生活在何种环境中,吃些什么,如何加工的食物,有没有掌握烹饪技术,如何择偶,两性关系处于什么状态,等等,这些都是我们文化历史的重要组成部分。 然而,由身体特征所提供的线索,我们还可以对历史了解的更多,比如我们知道,人类是高度社会化的,我们的社会性与合作倾向,在灵长类中是最显著的,正因此我们才建立了今天这样结构复杂的社会,而这一点,在我们身体上同样留下了痕迹。 比如我们的眼白,其他猿类是没有眼白的,眼白是一种用于面对面交流的表情工具,通过观察眼白,你很容易了解对方的注视方向,从而推测他正在关注什么,这一点对于我们的语言能力非常关键,当我们说话时,会用一个代词或者名词指称某个对象,可是假如仅仅依靠词汇本身,听者其实很难明白对方所指的究竟是什么东西,这一点语言哲学家已经有过大量分析。 对于指称意图的领会,必须借助语音之外的其他线索,尤其是在儿童最初学习语言时,以及早期人类刚刚开始使用语言时,更是如此;提供其他线索的辅助手段有好多种,包括以手指物、目光跟随、共同注视,以及最高级也最困难的意图读取,而眼白可能就在其中发挥了关键作用。 另外,我们的眉毛和向外翻出的嘴唇,也是猿类中独一无二的,它们大概也都是表情工具,因为作为一种辅助交流手段,表情在语言以及其他社会交往中,都起着重要作用。 除了身体,我们还可以从哪里寻找线索? 到此为止,我谈论的线索都来自身体,但除了身体特征之外,动物学家的这种进化视角,同样可以运用到人类的心理和行为特征上,甚至运用到我们所创造的人工制品和社会制度上,只要它们能够帮助我们理解人性和文化,理解社会与历史。 我想举几个例子来说明我的意思。 为什么有些东西看起来那么萌? 养过宠物、玩过布偶娃娃、或者看过动画片的朋友都知道,有些形象大家都认为很萌很可爱,会激发出非常强烈、难以遏制的怜爱情感,娱乐、传媒和广告业都很清楚如何利用这种心理;为什么会这样?生理学家可能会告诉你,那都是催产素惹的祸,但这实际上并没回答我们真正的疑问,而且,为何我们觉得很萌的东西是这些而不是另一些? 心理学家研究过这个问题,他们发现,这事情还是有规律可循的,几乎所有萌物,都带有一些婴儿特征,大脑袋、短腿、小鼻子小嘴、大而清澈的眼睛,较大的眼距,或者类似于婴儿啼哭的叫声,等等。 大自然为我们设计了对婴儿的怜爱心理,好让我们精心照料他们,这是很容易理解的,但人类的特别之处在于,男性对萌物也有强烈反应,这就表明,在怜爱这一心理机制得以塑造的那个年代,男性已经开始承担起和女性共同照料孩子的责任了,而这种情况在我们猿类近亲中是不存在的,即便在整个动物界,父爱也是比较少见的情况。 这一点,再结合其他线索(比如我前面提到的睾丸和乳房的特征),我们大概可以推测,婚姻和家庭是一种非常古老的文化现象,不大可能像过去某些学者所认为的那样,是农业起源之后才出现的。 邓巴数的历史启示 我们再来看看另一个更有意思的例子,大家可能都听说过邓巴数,这个数字所代表的那种理论是说,每个人与之维持持久关系的熟人,数量最多不超过200,通常只有100多。 所谓熟人的意思,不仅仅是说你认识这个人,而是说,你会把他当作一个特殊个体对待,会记住和他的交往历史,以及他和其他你认识的人之间的关系,虽然100多看起来不是很大的数字,但这些两两关系的数量却非常庞大,所以尽管我们的大脑已经比黑猩猩大了三四倍,但也很难处理更庞大的关系网络和交往历史了。 邓巴数理论对我们理解人类社会的进化史很有帮助,人类学家早就注意到,传统社会基本上都是小型熟人社会,这些社会的内部秩序主要靠熟人之间的合作与信任来维持,而这些人之所以相互熟识并生活在一起,是因为血缘和姻亲关系为合作互惠创造了前提。 在定居文明出现以前,不存在比熟人社会更大的社会结构,而邓巴数理论告诉我们,这不是偶然现象,而是人类的认知局限所造成的结果,实际上,人类学调查也发现,凡是依靠熟人关系维持的社会,一旦人口接近或超出邓巴数限制,就会发生分裂。 邓巴数理论带来的一个启示是,当后来我们建立起大型社会的时候,必定是找到了某些特别的组织手段和制度元素,来克服邓巴数局限;一种比较容易想到的可能性,是阶层分化和婚姻联盟,设想这样几个小型社会,它们各自都分化出了两个阶层:少数贵族和多数平民,然后,几个社会的贵族之间通过姻亲关系建立了上层熟人圈,于是,一个双层社会结构便诞生了,上层熟人圈成了其统治阶层,并且为这个较大社会的秩序维持提供了一种关系纽带。 类似的发展也可以以横向扩展的方式进行,前提是专业分工和职业分化,多个小型社会中,从事同一职业的个人之间,可以通过师徒关系或行会组织而建立职业熟人圈,从而将这些社会连结成一个更大的结构,另外,像宗教组织、同乡会、帮派、商会等等非血缘组织,也可以起着类似的作用。 邓巴数的当代启示 邓巴数理论带来的另一个启示,和当代生活有着更直接的关系,今天,多数人生活在城市,甚至是上千万人的大都市,与传统熟人社会截然不同,然而我们的基础认知能力却并没有很大改进,所以,当我们有机会接触那么多人,尤其是有了网络社交之后,就不可能像以往对待熟人那样对待遇到的每个人了。 于是我们便倾向于用以往对待陌生人的方式去对待他们,即便和他们的交往内容看起来不像是陌生人之间发生的那种,这一局面导致的一个结果是,标签横飞,因为我们无法将每个交往对象当作有血有肉的个体,而只能通过贴标签来加以识别和记忆,这是个浙江佬、理科生、文青、五毛、工业党、波士顿高华、法左、国奥、小粉红……这大概是都市时代和网络时代不可避免的场面,无论我们是否喜欢,都将不得不去面对和适应。 这些说法靠谱吗? 我已经说了很多,最后我想声明一下,我不是生物学家,也不是心理学家,或人类学家,所以我不能担保我在这里说的东西都有着扎实的科学依据,我关心这些话题,更多是出于一种哲学上的兴趣,为了理解人类、理解世界、最终也更好的理解自己,毕竟,不是只有科学家才有探索世界的兴趣,我们普通人也可以保持这样的好奇心。 我今天谈论这些,还有之前写作《沐猿而冠》这本书,只是想分享我的心得,激起更多人的好奇心,说服你们也站到我努力呈现的这个视角上来,因为这个视角曾让我受益匪浅,从那个角度观察,相信你会看到一个更精彩更有趣的世界。 谢谢大家。  
阅读,快与慢

最近在Quartz上读到一篇文章,There really is no such thing as speed reading,说的是快速阅读法并不可取,有点意思,说几点我的看法:

1) 我不怎么追求快速阅读,首先因为不太有这需要,其次是因为节奏太快会让我不舒服,不仅阅读,任何事情都是如此,我做什么事都喜欢慢吞吞的。

2) 不过有时候我也会读的很快,特别是碰到那些比较乏味枯燥但又觉得有必要过一下目的材料,此时便会抱着一种赶紧完成的工具性态度,所以也不会带来多少快感。

3) 有些书不可能读的快,因为它会时时发人深省,让你浮想联翩,(more...)

标签:
6529
最近在Quartz上读到一篇文章,There really is no such thing as speed reading,说的是快速阅读法并不可取,有点意思,说几点我的看法: 1) 我不怎么追求快速阅读,首先因为不太有这需要,其次是因为节奏太快会让我不舒服,不仅阅读,任何事情都是如此,我做什么事都喜欢慢吞吞的。 2) 不过有时候我也会读的很快,特别是碰到那些比较乏味枯燥但又觉得有必要过一下目的材料,此时便会抱着一种赶紧完成的工具性态度,所以也不会带来多少快感。 3) 有些书不可能读的快,因为它会时时发人深省,让你浮想联翩,或掩卷长叹,或长时间发呆,甚至浑身战栗,这是所有阅读体验中最迷人的部分,谁会蠢到去强行终止它呢?(除非你是在练房中术) 4) 此类体验最强烈,因而最读不快的,是那种在你的观念体系中制造了大地震的书,当你最终合上它、站起身时,窗外的世界已是另一个了;就我个人而言,造成这种级别大地震的书大概不到十本,包括初中物理课本(因为其中的原子论),高中生物课本(因为提到了进化论),大一时读的经济学课本,《自私的基因》,《格式塔心理学原理》;一旦你的观念体系被粉碎,需要努力加以重建,那就不可能是一个快捷的过程。 5) 有些书没那么震撼,只是制造一些小局部地震,或引发一些遐想,或帮助你把以往的种种念头串了起来,即便如此,也足以让你时时停顿下来,因而将阅读速度拖得很慢。 6) 当然,一本好书也不会处处都有让你放慢或停顿下来的内容,但假如它完全没有,那肯定算不上什么好书。 7) 不是好书未必不值得一读,有时候你需要往头脑里多灌些材料,此时,快速阅读法还是有其价值的(这一点我和Quartz那篇文章的作者看法有所不同)。 8) 假如你从来没有上面提到的那种体验,却仍坚持大量阅读,那实在让人佩服。 9) 再说说快速阅读这件事本身。依我看,快速阅读的秘诀在于对内容的预期,假如事先能够对后续内容的结构形成准确预期,速度可以非常快,因为此时信息的提取不再依赖于句子结构和文字顺序,通过非顺序的抓取一些特征性字眼,便可读个大概,对此我的解释是,你实际上已经预设了一个语义框架,阅读过程只是抓取特征字眼填进该框架。 10) 问题是,预期很可能是错的,此时可能引出两种结果:A)你意识到预期错了,不得不重新调整,于是速度被拖慢下来,B)你没意识到错误,于是误读、漏读、幻读(即凭空脑补)便出现了。 11) 第二种结果的最糟糕之处在于:它非但没有给你带来新知识新见解,反倒在不断强化你的固有陈见,从每本新书、每篇新文章里,你所看到的都是“对你早已拥有的透彻见解或英明判断的又一个例证”,此类阅读越多越勤快,你就变得越蠢越无知。  
人活着究竟有什么意义?

最近和两位老同学吃饭,被问到了这个老掉牙的问题:

你说人活着究竟有什么意义?

可喜可贺,我终于被当作哲学家对待了。

当时比较仓促,而且我不想让这个话题占用太多时间,所以只说了几句,如果把我想说的都说出来,大概会是这样的:

1)如果你希望得到一个简洁明了的回答,那说明你的问题提错了。

2)生活的意义丰富而具体,不能指望一个简约的答案。

3)比如我喜欢吃这个或那个菜,它此时此刻带给的(无论是生理上的还是文化上的)满足,就是一种意义。

4)你可能会说,这种意义也太低级了吧?如果所(more...)

标签: |
6527
最近和两位老同学吃饭,被问到了这个老掉牙的问题:

你说人活着究竟有什么意义?

可喜可贺,我终于被当作哲学家对待了。 当时比较仓促,而且我不想让这个话题占用太多时间,所以只说了几句,如果把我想说的都说出来,大概会是这样的: 1)如果你希望得到一个简洁明了的回答,那说明你的问题提错了。 2)生活的意义丰富而具体,不能指望一个简约的答案。 3)比如我喜欢吃这个或那个菜,它此时此刻带给的(无论是生理上的还是文化上的)满足,就是一种意义。 4)你可能会说,这种意义也太低级了吧?如果所存在的,无非是这样一些琐碎的意义,那生活也说不上多有意义啊。 5)嗯,有些意义确实低级或琐碎,但也有很多高级的啊,破解难题的满足,创造作品的成就,穿透重重迷雾而获得对社会与历史的洞察,对古老传统的追寻和皈依,道德上的坚守与认同…… 6)问题在于,你总是忍不住要去刨根问底的追问:那又是为了什么?……,可是,这样的追问必定将你带向更低级且越来越低级的回答。 7)经验和认识可以被还原,也需要被还原才能得到改进,但意义是经不起还原和降解的,把一架飞机拆成零件可以让你更好的认识其工作原理,但拆开后的那堆零件就不再是飞机了,特定的意义仅在特定层次上以特定结构(或模式)存在(即被体验到)。 8)略作自省即可发现,你能体验到低级的意义,也能体验到高级的意义,但你不能:既要求意义是高级的,又要求它是“基本的”或“终极的”。