【2016-10-24】
我曾说过,90年代以来,西方左派经历了一次智识上的破产,不过我说这话时没有意识到的是,那次破产的结果不是左派从某些思想/学术领域退却,而是相反,但凡还有点脑子且有点自尊的人纷纷退出了某些学术领域(比如所有以Studies结尾的专业),结果剩下的更自信更得意更欢腾了……
【2016-10-24】
我曾说过,90年代以来,西方左派经历了一次智识上的破产,不过我说这话时没有意识到的是,那次破产的结果不是左派从某些思想/学术领域退却,而是相反,但凡还有点脑子且有点自尊的人纷纷退出了某些学术领域(比如所有以Studies结尾的专业),结果剩下的更自信更得意更欢腾了……
《群居的艺术》新书发布座谈会(6月16日)之后,《南方周末》记者石岩先生向我提出了一组问题,并且很慷慨的允许我略过我不想回答的,所以我就略过了其中两个。
1,书的三部分结构很有意思,它让我推测你写作的过程和思考的过程可能是相反的:你是身在一个秩序解耦的大型社会,再去反推秩序是怎么建立起来的,脚手架是怎么拆除的,是不是?
答:实际上,我所经历的顺序是3-1-2,首先,对现代大型社会和市场体系,我自然有着直接而真切的认识,早些年专注于经济领域的写作时,也曾着力写过许多市场带给我们的种种好处,然后,当我读到邓巴的理论时,被他的深刻见解所打动,意识到这是观察早期人类社会的一条重要线索,也和我的已有知识相容,接着,一个困惑就很自然的冒了出来:如何看待现代大社会与传统小社会的强烈反差?这促使我去关注那些曾被我熟视无睹、却默默支撑着现代社会的制度和文化元素,最终,循着这条线索,我发现我对文化与社会的许多认识被串了起来,结果便是这本书。
2,三部分的关系:第一部分是战争史,是暴力建立秩序的过程;第二部分是“软实力”,是暴力之外的共同体的构成因素;第三部分是第一二部分的反过程,就像结构主义和解构主义一样,是不是这样?
答:我选择略过这个问题。
3,书的三部分可以看到你的知识谱系,第三部分让人想起你做过程序员,大学学的是经济管理,大概大学时代对西方思想史、政治经济学有特别的兴趣;第一部分让人觉得你大概对人类学特别感兴趣;第二部分兼有人类学和世界史的背景。这些专业知识跟你的人生经历有什么关联?
答:历史和人类学是我的长期兴趣,这是两个有很多素材和故事却没多少理论的学科,对历史的兴趣在小孩子当中大概是很普遍的,但传统或主流的历史著作有个问题,就是它们很大程度上是浮于表面的政治史,很少能告诉你古人究竟是怎么过日子的,生活在古代社会究竟是怎样一种体验,这就很难满足我的好奇心,年鉴学派也只是稍(more...)
New Study Indicates Existence of Eight Conservative Social Psychologists
最近研究显示:保守派社会心理学家现存8位
作者:Jonathan Haidt @ 2016-1-7
译者:Marcel ZHANG(@马赫塞勒张)
校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
来源:Heterodox Academy,http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/07/new-study-finds-conservative-social-psychologists/
Just how much viewpoint diversity do we have in social psychology? In 2011 nobody knew, so I asked 30 of my friends in the field to name a conservative. They came up with several names, but only one suspect admitted, under gentle interrogation, to being right of center.
社会心理学领域到底有多大的观点多样性?2011年时还没人知道,所以我询问了30个该领域的朋友,让他们举出一位保守派。结果他们提到了好几个名字,但在温和的盘问之下,只有一位嫌疑人承认了自己的政治倾向是中间偏右的。
A few months later I gave a talk at the annual convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in which I pointed out the field’s political imbalance and why this was a threat to the quality of our research.
几个月后,我在人格与社会心理学协会(SPSP)年会上发言时,指出了该领域的政治失衡现象,以及为什么这种现象会对我们的研究质量造成威胁。
I asked the thousand-or-so people in the audience to declare their politics with a show of hands, and I estimated that roughly 80% self-identified as “liberal or left of center,” 2% (I counted exactly 20 hands) identified as “centrist or moderate,” 1% (12 hands) identified as libertarian, and, rounding to the nearest integer, zero percent (3 hands) identified as “conservative or right of center.” That gives us a left: right ratio of 266 to one. I didn’t think the real ratio was that high; I knew that some conservatives in the audience were probably afraid to raise their hands.
我要求在场的约一千名听众举手表明自己的政治倾向,估计大略有80%的人认为自己是“自由派或者中间偏左派”,有2%(我数下来不多不少20个人)认为自己是“中立派或者温和派”,只有1%(12个人)自认自由意志主义者,如果直接取整的话,几乎0%(3个人)自认“保守派或者中间偏右派”。我们看到的是一个266:1的左右派比值。我不认为真实的比值会如此之高,我知道当时听众席里有些保守派可能会怯于举手。
Some of my colleagues questioned the validity of such a simple and public method, but Yoel Inbar and Yoris Lammers conducted a more thorough and anonymous survey of the SPSP email list later that year, and they too found a very lopsided political ratio: 85% of the 291 respondents self-identified as liberal overall, and only 6% identified as conservative.
有些同事对我这种简易公开方式的有效性提出了质疑。但是,同年晚些时候,Yoel Inbar 和 Yoris Lammers在该协会邮件组中进行了一场更加彻底的匿名调查,结果他们也发现了一边倒的政见比值:总共291个调查对象中,有85%认为自己基本可以算作自由派,而只有6%的调查对象认为自己是保守派。
That gives us our first good estimate of the left-right ratio in social psychology: fourteen to one. It’s a much more valid method than my “show of hands” (which was(more...)
【图表一:政治倾向自评分】
The graph shows that 291 of the 326 people who responded to this question picked a left-of-center label (that’s 89.3%), and only 8 people (2.5%) picked a right of center label, giving us a Left to Right ratio of 36 to one. This is much higher than that found by Inbar and Lammers. The main source of political diversity appears to be the 27 people (including me) who self-identified as centrists. 图表显示,该题的326位回答者中有291位选择了中间偏左标签(占总数89.3%),而只有8位选择了中间偏右标签(占总数2.5%),这就得出了一个36:1的左右派比值。这比Inbar和Lammers发现的比值还高。政治多样性主要基于27位自我定义为中间派的回答者(包括本人在内)。 2)Presidential voting: 76 to one. 2)总统选举投票:76:1。 Another item asked: “Who did you vote for in the last presidential election (if you are not a US citizen, or if you did not vote, who would you have voted for if you had voted)? The options were: “Obama,” “Romney,” or “Other.” If we do a frequency plot of the 3 possible choices we get this: 另有一道题问到:“在上次总统大选中你把选票投给了谁(如果你不是美国公民,或者你并未投票的话,假设让你投票,你可能会投给谁)?”选项有这么几个:“奥巴马”、“罗姆尼”或“其他”。如果我们依照这三个选项绘制频率分布直方图,则得下图:【图表二:2012年美国总统大选】
The graph shows that 305 of the 322 people (94.7%) who responded to this question voted for Obama, 4 (1.2%) voted for Romney, and 13 (4.0%) said they voted for another candidate. This gives us a Democrat to Republican ratio of 76 to one. 图表显示,该题的322位回答者中有305位(占94.7%)投给了奥巴马,4位(占1.2%)投给了罗姆尼,而有13位(占4.0%)回答者投给了其他总统候选人。这就得出了一个76:1的“驴象比”比值。 3)Views on political issues: 314 to one. 3)政治议题上的观点:314:1。 A third way of graphing the viewpoint diversity of these senior social psychologists is by computing an average score across all 9 of the politically valenced policy items. For each one, the 11 point response scale was labeled “strongly oppose” on the left-most point and “strongly support” on the right-most point. 将这些资深社会心理学家的观点多元状况图表化的第三条途径,就是算出他们在九道政治心理价问题上的平均得分。每个问题的答案选项都有11个,最左端的为“强烈反对”,最右端为“强烈支持”。 I converted all responses to the same 11 point scale used in figure 1 so that “strongly supporting” the progressive position (e.g., pro-choice) was scored as -5 and “strongly supporting” the conservative position (e.g., prayer in school) was scored as +5. That puts the leftists on the left and the rightists on the right of the graph. Here’s the graph: 我将所有回答都转换成与图表1中的11个选项一一对应,也就是说,“强烈支持”进步派立场的(比如主张堕胎权)就会被记作-5分,而“强烈支持”保守派立场(比如支持校内祷告)就会被记作5分。这样就可以在图表上把左派标到左侧,右派标到右侧。图表如下:【图表三:对九个政治议题的观点】
I counted anyone whose average score fell between -1.0 and +1.0 (inclusive) as a centrist. The graph shows that 314 of the 327 participants (96.0%) had an average score below -1.0 (i.e., left of center), one had an average score above +1.0 (i.e., right of center), and 12 were centrists. That gives us a Left to Right ratio of 314 to one. 我将所有平均得分在-1.0与1.0之间的参与者都算作中间派。图表显示,在327名参与者中有314位(占96.0%)的平均得分低于-1.0(即中间偏左),只有一位参与者的平均得分高于1.0(即中间偏右),另外还有12位是中间派。这样我们就得出了一个314:1的左右派比值。 What does this mean? 这意味着什么? However you measure it, and for all samples measured so far, social psychology leans heavily to the left and has very few people right of center. Von Hippel and Buss’s new data confirms the story that a few of us told in a recent paper (Duarte, Crawford, Stern, Haidt, Jussim & Tetlock, 2015) in which we created the graph below, which shows just how fast psychology has been moving to the left since the 1990s. The ratio of Democrats to Republicans (diamonds) and liberals to conservatives (circles) was roughly 3 to 1 for most of the 20th century. But it skyrockets beginning in the 1990s as the Greatest Generation retires and the Baby Boomers take over. 不论你如何衡量,就目前已经测得的样本来看,社会心理学界已经左倾得非常严重了,只有很少人是中间偏右的。Von Hippel和Buss的新数据也证实了我们几个在最近的一篇论文(Duarte, Crawford, Stern, Haidt, Jussim和Tetlock于2015年发表)里说到的情况,文中我们绘制了下面这张图表,它显示了从1990年代起心理学界是以何等之快的速度左倾化的。“驴象比”(在图中以方块示出)和“左右比”(在图中以圆圈示出)比值在上个世纪基本为3:1。但随着“最伟大世代”【编注:作家Tom Brokaw将成长于大萧条年代,接着参加二战,随后又经历了战后大繁荣的那一代人称为最伟大一代】的退休和婴儿潮一代的接班,这个比值在90年代开始直线窜升。【图表四: 1920年代起学院心理学家左右派比值的攀升。(详见Duarte等人在2015年发表的论文)】
Why does this matter? 这为什么重要? Most people know that professors in America, and in most countries, generally vote for left-leaning parties and policies. But few people realize just how fast things have changed since the 1990s. An academic field that leans left (or right) can still function, as long as ideological claims or politically motivated research is sure to be challenged. But when a field goes from leaning left to being entirely on the left, the normal safeguards of peer review and institutionalized disconfirmation break down. Research on politically controversial topics becomes unreliable because politically favored conclusions receive less-than-normal scrutiny while politically incorrect findings must scale mountains of motivated and hostile reasoning from reviewers and editors. 美国以及大多数国家的教授们一般都会支持左翼政党或政策,这没什么新鲜,但鲜为人知的是, 1990年代以来事态是以何其快的速度转变着。只要意识形态主张或者出于政治目的的研究仍必然会遭到挑战,那么一个左倾(或右倾)的学术领域就还能运转。但是当一个学术领域从左倾发展到铁板一块的左翼时,同行评议或者体制化否证的正常保障监督措施就会崩溃。对在政治上有争议的论题的研究会变得不再可靠,因为存在政治偏袒的结论现在受到的审查少之又少,而政治不正确的发现则需要排除万难,须要遭受评议人和编辑们发出的种种带有政治动机和敌意的论证。 I consider the rapid loss of political diversity, over the last 20 years, to be the second-greatest existential threat to the field of social psychology, after the “replication crisis.” The field is responding constructively to the replication crisis. Will it also attend to its political diversity crisis? Or will it continue to think of diversity only in terms of the demographic categories that most matter to people on the left: race, gender and sexual orientation? 我将过去二十年间发生的这次政见多样性的迅速退减视为,社会心理学领域的第二大致命威胁,仅次于“可重复性危机”。这个领域正在积极地应对可重复性危机,那么它也会去解决它的政见多样性危机吗?还是说,它仍旧只会从人口统计学这个对左派人士来说至关重要的角度来考虑多样性?只会考虑种族、性别和性向问题? I don’t mean to single out social psychology. It is the field that I know best, but what we have learned at Heterodox Academy is that this problem, this rapid shift to political purity, has happened to most fields in the humanities and social sciences in just the last 2 decades. 我并不是故意要把社会心理学挑出来。这只是我最熟悉的领域,但我们在异端学院意识到了:这个问题,即政治单一化现象,仅在过去的短短20年内就在大部分人文社科领域都已经发生了。 An optimistic ending 一个乐观的结局 I would like to end by thanking my colleagues. I have been raising a fuss about these issues since 2011. In that time I also moved from the left to the center, politically. I am no longer a progressive. So you might expect that I’ve been ostracized, but I have not. Nothing bad has happened to me. 我想以我对同事们的感激来结尾。从2011年开始我就因为这些事搞得他们鸡犬不宁,那时候我也在政治倾向方面由左派转变为中间派。我不再是个进步主义者了。所以你可能以为我已经被排挤了,但是并没有,万事顺遂。 Some of my colleagues believe that the political imbalance is not a problem. But the majority response has been, roughly: “This is really interesting. We really truly value diversity, and we agree with you and your co-authors that diversity of viewpoints is the kind that confers the most benefits on groups. But gosh, how are we going to get more?” 我的有些同事觉得政见失衡没什么大不了的。但大多数回答大概是这样的:“这确实挺有意思的。我们的确很看重多样性,而且我们同意你和你的合著者的观点,观点多样性是那种可以为团体带来最大益处的东西。但是啊,我们怎么才能获取更多多样性呢?” That’s our mission at Heterodox Academy – to figure out how to get more. It will be hard, but it can and must be done. Please see our “solutions page.” 这就是我们在异端学院中的使命了,那就是搞清楚如何能获得更多的多样性。道路是曲折的,但前途是光明的。请参看我们的“方案页”。 Post script: Paul Krugman recently referred to us at Heterodox Academy as “outraged conservatives,” and he said that the leftward shift in the academy was really just the rightward shift of the Republican Party since the 1990s. He suggests that professors didn’t change their views on policy, they just stopped identifying as Republicans as the party went off the deep end. 附:Paul Krugman最近将我们这些异端学院上的人称为“愤怒的保守派”,他说1990年代以来学界的左转其实只是共和党的右转。他的言下之意是,教授们并没有改变过他们的政见,他们只是在共和党转入极端时不再自我标榜为共和派了而已。 There is surely some truth to Krugman’s argument, but that doesn’t negate our claim that the makeup of the professoriate really did change after the Greatest Generation retired. Krugman’s argument could not explain graph #3, for example, which shows just a single person with views on social issues that are right of center. Also, I should point out that most of us at Heterodox Academy are not conservatives, and if you read everything on our site, it will be hard to find evidence of “outrage.” Krugman的质疑确实反映了部分事实,但这并没有驳倒我们的主张,最伟大世代逝去之后教授阶层的组成结构确实发生了变化。比如,Krugman的质疑就没能解释图表三里只有一个人对偏右社会事件支持的现象。此外,我必须要指出,异端学院上的大多数人都不是保守派,而且如果读过我们网站上的所有文章的话,你会很难发现有“愤怒”的踪迹。 (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——
Postmodernism Unpeeled
后现代主义又被剥了皮
作者:David Thompson与Stephen Hicks @ 2009-3-22
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:Whig Zhou(@whigzhou)
来源:David Thompson 博客,http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/03/postmodernism-unpeeled.html
A discussion with Stephen Hicks.
与Stephen Hicks讨论。
“In politicized forms, then, postmodernists will behave like the stereotypical unscrupulous lawyer trying to win the case: truth and justice aren’t the point; instead using any rhetorical tool or trick that works is the point. Sometimes contradictory lines of argument work. Sometimes your audience’s desire to belong to the in-group can be played upon. Sometimes appearing absolutely authoritative works to camouflage a weak case. Sometimes condescension works.”
“因此,表现在政治形式上,后现代主义者的行为就像是典型的无良律师,一心想着打赢官司:真理和正义不是关键;相反,使用任何能够成功的修辞工具或策略才是关键。有时候相互矛盾的论证方式管用。有时候你的听众渴望自己属于某个小团体,这可以加以利用。有时候要表现得绝对权威,这有助于掩饰一个案子的虚弱。有时候则是纡尊降贵管用。”
Dr Stephen Hicks is Professor of Philosophy and Executive Director of the Centre for Ethics and Entrepreneurship at Rockford College, Illinois. He is co-editor with David Kelley of Readings for Logical Analysis (W. W. Norton, 1998), and has published in academic journals as well as The Wall Street Journal, The Baltimore Sun, and Reader’s Digest. His book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault was published in 2004 by Scholargy Publishing and is now in its eighth printing. He is the author and narrator of a DVD documentary entitled Nietzsche and the Nazis, which was published in 2006 by Ockham’s Razor Publishing.
Stephen Hicks博士是伊利诺伊斯州罗克福德学院哲学教授、伦理学与企业家精神研究中心执行主任。他曾与David Kelly合作编辑有《逻辑分析读本》(1998),作品发表于众多学术期刊及《华尔街日报》《巴尔的摩太阳报》《读者文摘》等。其著作《解释后现代主义:从卢梭至福柯的怀疑主义与社会主义》于2004年由Scholargy出版社出版,如今已是第八次印刷。他还是题为《尼采与纳粹》的DVD纪录片的作者和解说,该纪录片于2006年由Ockham’s Razor出版社发行。
DT: In an exchange with Ophelia Benson, I mentioned Explaining Postmodernism and suggested one of the book’s main themes is that postmodernism marks a crisis of faith and a retreat from reality among the academic left. Is that a fair, if crude, summary?
DT【译注:即David Thompson,下同】:“在与Ophelia Benson的一次交流中,我提到了《解释后现代主义》一书,并提到,此书的一个主题就是后现代主义标志着一场信仰危机以及学院左派对于现实的一种逃避。这种总结算得上公平吗?即使过于直白。
SH: It is striking that the major postmodernists – Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rorty – are of the far left politically. And it is striking that all four are Philosophy Ph.D.s who reached deeply skeptical conclusions about our ability to come to know reality. So one of my four theses about postmodernism is that it develops from a double crisis – a crisis within philosophy about knowledge and a crisis within left politics about socialism.
SH【译注:即Stephen Hicks,下同】很令人震惊的是,主要的后现代主义者——米歇尔·福柯、雅克·德里达、让—弗朗索瓦·利奥塔、理查德·罗蒂——在政治上都是极左。同样令人震惊的是,这四个哲学博士都得出结论,极度怀疑我们认识实在的能力。所以,我所提出的关于后现代主义的四个主题之一是,它发源于一种双重危机——一面是哲学领域中的知识危机,一面是左派政治领域中的社会主义危机。
DT: It seems to me that in its broadest sense postmodernism is as much a rhetorical device as it is a set of theories and political stances. For instance, Slavoj Žižek can dismiss aspects of postmodern theorising while employing much the same manoeuvres in his own writing. Much of what he says is clever in a rhetorical sense, in terms of manoeuvring around a dubious and unproven premise, while being enormously tendentious or simply glib.
DT:在我看来,最广义而言,后现代主义既是一种修辞工具,也是一套理论和政治立场。比如,斯拉沃热·齐泽克能够在拒绝后现代理论若干方面的同时将同样的操控策略用于自己的写作中。从操控暧昧不明、未经验证的前提这个角度来看,他所说的很多东西从修辞上看非常聪明,但其内容的倾向性却非常明显或干脆就是耍嘴皮子。
If you don’t accept the premise – say, a tarted-up rehash of “false consciousness” or an antipathy towards capitalism – then what follows is unpersuasive, even absurd. Geoffrey Galt Harpham 标签:
——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——
Lenin’s Ghost: How Did Marxist Professors Create a New Wave of Political Leaders?
列宁的幽灵:马克思主义学者是如何培养出新一拨政治领袖的?
作者:Mihail Neamtu @ 2016-1-12
译者:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子)
校对:慕白(@李凤阳他说)
来源:Law & Liberty,http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/01/22/lenins-ghost-how-did-marxist-professors-create-a-new-wave-of-political-leaders/
Europe has by no means recovered from its crisis. The new wave of migrants from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East has worsened the economic forecast. The economies of the Eurozone, with a collective growth rate of under 1.5 percent in 2015, are almost stagnant. Gone are the days of the German economic miracle. Nowadays, nearly 4.5 million young persons under 25 are unemployed in the EU-28 — a staggering figure, to which Chancellor Merkel just added an extra million refugees. Particularly in the Mediterranean countries, youth unemployment is at very high levels: 47.9 percent in Greece, 47.7 percent in Spain and 39.8 percent in Italy.
欧洲还远未从危机中恢复过来,来自非洲、亚洲和中东的新一波移民令经济预测更加悲观。欧元区的经济发展几近停滞,其2015年整体增长率不足1.5%。德国创造经济奇迹的时期早已远去,如今欧盟28国25岁以下年轻人的失业人数接近4500万,令人瞠目结舌,而德国总理默克尔还刚刚再往上面增加了100万难民。年轻人的失业率在地中海沿岸国家尤其居高不下:希腊为47.9%,西班牙为47.7%,意大利则为39.8%。
Confronted with this bleak picture, politicians, journalists, religious leaders, and public intellectuals all search for an explanation. Why is the European dream failing so many young people? How long will the economic recovery last? Will the EU be able to cope with another massive crash of the financial international system?
面对这般凄惨景况,政治家、记者、宗教领袖以及公共知识分子都在寻找个中原因。为什么欧洲梦会让如此多的年轻人无法企及?经济复苏还能维持多久?欧盟有没有能力应对另一次国际金融系统崩溃的巨大冲击?
While experts ponder s(more...)
——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——
It’s finally out–The big review paper on the lack of political diversity in social psychology
终于来啦:关于社会心理学缺乏政治多元性的大型综述论文
作者:Jonathan Haidt @ 2015-9-14
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:龟海海
来源:Heterodox Academy,http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/
Heterodox Academy has its origins in a collaborative effort by five social psychologists and a sociologist to study a problem that has long been noted in psychology: nearly everyone in the field is on the left, politically. We have been working together since 2011 to write a paper explaining how this situation came about, how it reduces the quality of science published in social psychology, and what can be done to improve the science. (Note that none of us self-identifies as conservative.) In the process we discovered the work of the other scholars in other fields who joined with us to create this site.
“异端学院”发端于五位社会心理学家和一位社会学家对心理学领域早被注意到的一个问题的合作研究:该领域中几乎所有人都是政治上的左派。自2011年始,我们就一直在共同写作一篇论文,解释这一现象是如何产生的、它如何降低了社会心理学领域所发表的科学文章的质量,以及为改进这一科学可以做些什么。(注意我们之中没人自认为是保守派)在此过程中,我们发现了其他一些学者在其它领域的研究成果,他们加入了我们的队伍,一起创建了这个网站。
Our paper is finally published this week! A preprint of the manuscript was posted last year, but now we have the final typeset version, plus the 33 commentaries. Here is a link to the PDF of the final manuscript, on the website of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. (Thanks to Paul Bloom for his wise and patient editorship.) Here’s a link to a page linking to HTML versions of all the documents. But because our article is long (13 dense pages) and the 33 commentaries are longer (another 31 pages) — and then there’s our response (another 7 pages) — we recognize that few people will ever read the whole package.
我们的论文终于在本周出版啦!我们去年曾贴出原稿的预印本,但现在我们已经有了排版稿,外加33条评论。以下是《行为与脑科学》杂志网站上最终稿的PDF版链接(感谢Paul Bloom明确且细致的编辑工作。)以下则是所有文档的HTML版的网页链接。不过,由于我们的文章很长(密密麻麻13页),那33条评论更长(加31页)——还有我们的回应(再加7页)——我们认为没什么人会读完全部材料。
For all these reasons, we offer here a “CliffsNotes” version, giving the basics of our argument using excerpts copied directly from the paper. [Occasional comments from me–Jonathan Haidt–are interspersed in brackets] Please also see this post by Lee Jussim, explaining why we think this problem is so serious. In a later post Jarret Crawford summarizes the 33 commentaries on our article.
出于以上理由,我们现在提供一份“克里夫笔记”【导读荟萃】版,通过对论文的直接复制摘录,给出我们的论证要点。[间或在括号中加入了由我(Jonathan Haidt)写的评论]。此外,还请阅读Lee Jussim发布的这个帖子,他解释了我们为何认为这个问题很严重。在之后的一片帖子中,Jarret Crawford总结了33条关于我们文章的评论。
CITATION: Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 1-13.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430[and try this link, with no paywall, or this link to the preprint version]
引用:Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). 政治多样性将会改善社会心理科学。《行为和脑科学》, 38, 1-13.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430[另外,试试这个链接,没有付费墙,或者这个预印本]
ABSTRACT
摘要
Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity – particularly diversity of viewpoints – for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity.
心理学家已向我们展示,多元性——特别是视角的多元性——对于提高创造力、促进新发现和解决问题的价值。但是,一般而言在学院心理学以及特别而言在社会心理学领域,却缺乏一种关键形式的视角多元性:政治多元性。
This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years.
本文考察了可见的证据,并为下列四个论断提供了支撑:(1)学院心理学过去曾有过相当大的政治多元性,但在过去50年间几乎已将其丧失殆尽。
(2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike.
(2)这种政治多元性的缺乏,可能破坏社会心理科学的有效性,破坏可能通过这样一些机制发生:将自由派价值观预置于研究问题和方法中,引导研究者避开事关重大但在政治上不受待见的研究课题,并得出对自由派抑或保守派特征的错误描绘。
(3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological (more...)
******
1. Introduction 1. 导论 In the last few years, social psychology has faced a series of challenges to the validity of its research, including a few high-profile replication failures, a handful of fraud cases, and several articles on questionable research practices and inflated effect sizes… In this article, we suggest that one largely overlooked cause of failure is a lack of political diversity. We review evidence suggesting that political diversity and dissent would improve the reliability and validity of social psychological science… 过去数年间,社会心理学在其研究有效性上面临一系列挑战,包括一些众人瞩目的试验重复失败,一些造假事件,还有一些文章用的是有问题的研究操作和夸大的效应量……我们在本文中表明,此种失败的一个原因受到广泛忽视,即缺乏政治多元性。我们考察了相关证据,表明政治多元性和异议能够改进社会心理科学的可靠性和有效性…… We focus on conservatives as an underrepresented group because the data on the prevalence in psychology of different ideological groups is best for the liberal-conservative contrast – and the departure from the proportion of liberals and conservatives in the U.S. population is so dramatic. However, we argue that the field needs more non-liberals however they specifically self-identify (e.g., libertarian, moderate)… 我们将保守派这个代表性不足的群体作为关注焦点,因为在心理学中,不同意识形态群体的流行程度数据最适合进行自由派-保守派对比,也因为与全美人口的自由派与保守派占比相比,心理学领域偏差极为惊人。不过,我们论证道,这个领域需要更多非自由派,无论他们的自我认同具体为何(如自由意志主义者、温和派等)…… The lack of political diversity is not a threat to the validity of specific studies in many and perhaps most areas of research in social psychology. The lack of diversity causes problems for the scientific process primarily in areas related to the political concerns of the Left – areas such as race, gender, stereotyping, environmentalism, power, and inequality – as well as in areas where conservatives themselves are studied, such as in moral and political psychology. 多元政治的缺乏对某些特定领域(或许是大多数社会心理学领域)的研究有效性,并不构成威胁。多元政治的缺失造成问题的主要是科研过程中涉及那些跟左派的政治关怀有关的领域——如种族、性别、刻板印象、环保主义、权力和不平等,以及在那些研究对象就包括了保守派的领域——如道德和政治心理学。******
2. Psychology is less politically diverse than ever 2. 心理学的政治多元性之少史无前例 [In this section we review all available information on the political party identification of psychologists, as well as their liberal-conservative self descriptions. The graph below says it all. Whichever of those two measures you use, you find a big change after 1990. Before the 1990s, academic psychology only LEANED left. Liberals and Democrats outnumbered Conservatives and Republican by 4 to 1 or less. But as the “greatest generation” retired in the 1990s and was replaced by baby boomers, the ratio skyrocketed to something more like 12 to 1. In just 20 years. Few psychologists realize just how quickly or completely the field has become a political monoculture. This graph took us by surprise too.] [本部分我们就心理学家的政治党派认同以及他们对属于自由派还是保守派的自我描述,回顾所有可以找到的信息。下列图表说明了一切。不论你采用两种测量方法中的哪一种,你都能发现1990年后发生了一个重大变化。1990年代以前,学院心理学只是倾向左派。自由派和民主党比保守派和共和党多,比率为4:1及以下。但到了1990年代,“最伟大的一代”退休【译注:指1920年代生人,因其经历大萧条、二战、战后重建而与美国同铸辉煌而得此名】,“婴儿潮一代”取而代之【译注:指战后至1960年代中期生人】,这一比率飙升到12:1以上的程度。只用了20年。极少有心理学家意识到这一领域转变为一种政治单一栽培的快速程度和彻底程度。这个图标也令我们大吃一惊。]******
3. Three ways that the lack of diversity undermines social psychology 3. 多元性的缺乏对社会心理学造成破坏的三种方式 Might a shared moral-historical narrative [the “liberal progress” narrative described by sociologist Christian Smith] in a politically homogeneous field undermine the self-correction processes on which good science depends? We think so, and present three risk points— three ways in which political homogeneity can threaten the validity of social psychological science—and examples from the extant literature illustrating each point. 在一个政治同质化的领域内,一种共享的道德-历史叙事(社会学家Christian Smith所描绘的那种“自由进步”叙事),会破坏良好科学所赖以存在的自我纠正过程吗?我们认为会,并提出了三个风险点——政治同质性能够威胁社会心理科学有效性的三种方式,针对每一点,我们都从现存文献中提出例证来作了说明。 3.1. Risk point 1: Liberal values and assumptions can become embedded into theory and method 3.1. 风险点之一:自由派价值观和假设可能预装到理论和方法之中 The embedding of values occurs when value statements or ideological claims are wrongly treated as objective truth, and observed deviation from that truth is treated as error. 当价值陈述或意识形态主张被错误地当成客观真理对待时,或者与这一真理有出入的现象被观测到,却被当成错误对待时,价值观的预装就发生了。 [Example:] and McBride (2007) found that: 1) people high in social dominance orientation (SDO) were more likely to make unethical decisions, 2) people high in right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) were more likely to go along with the unethical decisions of leaders, and 3) dyads with high SDO leaders and high RWA followers made more unethical decisions than dyads with alternative arrangements (e.g., low SDO—low RWA dyads). [例证:]Son Hing, Bobocel, Zanna和 McBride(2007)发现:1)社会支配倾向(SDO)高的人更可能作出不道德的决定,2)右翼权威主义(RWA)程度高的人更可能遵从领导人作出的不道德决定,以及3)高SDO的领导人与高RWA的追随者这一组合作出的不道德决定比其它形式的排列组合(如低SDO和低RWA组合)要多。 Yet consider the decisions they defined as unethical: not formally taking a female colleague’s side in her sexual harassment complaint against her subordinate (given little information about the case), and a worker placing the well-being of his or her company above unspecified harms to the environment attributed to the company’s operations. Liberal values of feminism and environmentalism were embedded directly into the operationalization of ethics, even to the extent that participants were expected to endorse those values in vignettes that lacked the information one would need to make a considered judgment. 不过,看看被他们界定为不道德的决定:在女性同事对其下属提出性骚扰投诉时不正式站在她的一边(几乎没有任何案件相关信息),工人将他或她所属公司的利益置于未明确说明的环境损害之上(这种损害被归罪于该公司的运营)。自由派的女性主义和环保主义价值取向被直接预装进了伦理概念的执行之中,甚至到了这种程度:在某个场景下缺乏信息的个体不得不做出审慎判断,仍指望参与者支持这些价值。 The appearance of certain words that imply pernicious motives (e.g., deny, legitimize, rationalize, justify, defend, trivialize) may be particularly indicative of research tainted by embedded values. 对某些特定词汇的使用,暗中指涉险恶的动机(如拒斥、合法化、合理化、正当化、维护、琐碎化等)。出现这些词汇,可能就具有特别的标志性,表明研究已被预装的价值观污染。 3.2. Risk point 2: Researchers may concentrate on topics that validate the liberal progress narrative and avoid topics that contest that narrative 3.2 风险点之二:研究者可能全神关注那些能够证实自由进步叙事的论题,避开那些对这一叙事构成质疑的论题 Since the enlightenment, scientists have thought of themselves as spreading light and pushing back the darkness. The metaphor is apt, but in a politically homogeneous field, a larger-than-optimal number of scientists shine their flashlights on ideologically important regions of the terrain. Doing so leaves many areas unexplored. Even worse, some areas become walled off, and inquisitive researchers risk ostracism if they venture in. 自启蒙运动以来,科学家们一直认为自己所做的,乃是拒绝黑暗、传播光明的事业。这个暗喻是恰当的,不过,在一个政治同质化的地界,把灯光照向境内那些在意识形态上很重要的领域的科学家数目实在是多得过分。这么做会令许多领域无人探索。更糟糕的是,有些领域还会被高墙围起来,任何求知好问的研究者胆敢冒险进入,就有被放逐的风险。 [Example:] Stereotype accuracy. Since the 1930s, social psychologists have been proclaiming the inaccuracy of social stereotypes, despite lacking evidence of such inaccuracy. Evidence has seemed unnecessary because stereotypes have been, in effect, stereotyped as inherently nasty and inaccurate (see Jussim, 2012a for a review). [例证:]刻板印象的准确性。自1930年代起,社会心理学家一直声称,社会刻板印象是不准确的,尽管他们拿不出相关证据。此类证据一直被视为毫无必要,因为刻板印象本身事实上已经被刻板印象化了,成了一种本质上恶劣且不准确的事物(评论见Jussim, 2012a)。 Some group stereotypes are indeed hopelessly crude and untestable. But some may rest on valid empiricism—and represent subjective estimates of population characteristics (e.g. the proportion of people who drop out of high school, are victims of crime, or endorse policies that support women at work, see Jussim, 2012a, Ryan, 2002 for reviews). 某些群体刻板印象确实无可救药地生硬粗糙、不可验证。但还有一些,则可能确实建立在有效的经验主义基础之上——并体现了对于人群特征的主观估计(比如高中辍学的人口比例、罪案受害者的人口比例、支持职业女性的政策的支持者比例等,评论见Jussim, 2012a和Ryan,2002)。 In this context, it is not surprising that the rigorous empirical study of the accuracy of factual stereotypes was initiated by one of the very few self-avowed conservatives in social psychology—Clark McCauley (McCauley & Stitt, 1978). Since then, dozens of studies by independent researchers have yielded evidence that stereotype accuracy (of all sorts of stereotypes) is one of the most robust effects in all of social psychology (Jussim, 2012a). 在这种氛围中,毫不稀奇,关于有事实基础的刻板印象之准确性,最严谨的经验研究是由社会心理学领域极少见的自陈保守派之一——Clark McCauley开创的(McCauley和Stitt, 1978)。自那以后,独立研究者的数十种研究已经得出证据,在所有社会心理学成果中,(关于所有种类的刻板印象的)刻板印象准确性之说乃是最为有力的之一(Jussim, 2012a)。 Here is a clear example of the value of political diversity: a conservative social psychologist asked a question nobody else thought (or dared) to ask, and found results that continue to make many social psychologists uncomfortable. McCauley’s willingness to put the assumption of stereotype inaccuracy to an empirical test led to the correction of one of social psychology’s most longstanding errors. 这是政治多元性之价值的清楚一例:一个保守派社会心理学家追问了一个别人都没想过(或敢于)去问的问题,并得出了一个让许多社会心理学家现在仍一直感到不舒服的结论。McCauley决心对刻板印象不准确这一假设进行经验验证,这就导致了对于社会心理学中最长寿错误之一的纠正。 3.3. Risk point 3: Negative attitudes regarding conservatives can produce a psychological science that mischaracterizes their traits and attributes 3.3 风险点之三:对于保守派的负面看法可能导致心理科学错误地描绘保守派的特征和性质 A long-standing view in social-political psychology is that the right is more dogmatic and intolerant of ambiguity than the left, a view Tetlock (1983) dubbed the rigidity-of-the-right hypothesis…. But had social psychologists studied a broad enough range of situations to justify these broad conclusions? Recent evidence suggests not. 社会—政治心理学中存在已久的一个看法是,右派比左派更为教条,更不能容忍模棱两可。Tetlock(1983)将这种看法叫作“右派的死板”假说……但是,社会心理学家为了证明这种一般性的结论,是否研究过范围足够广泛的情形?近来的证据显示:并非如此。 The ideologically objectionable premise model (IOPM; Crawford, 2012) posits that people on the political left and right are equally likely to approach political judgments with their ideological blinders on. That said, they will only do so when the premise of a political judgment is ideologically acceptable. If it’s objectionable, any preferences for one group over another will be short-circuited, and biases won’t emerge. 据“意识形态争议性前提模型”(IOPM; Crawford, 2012)推断,政治上的左派和右派戴着意识形态眼罩形成政治判断的可能性是一样大的。当然,这只会发生于政治判断的前提在意识形态上可以接受的情况下。如果这一前提是可争议的,那么偏好其中任意一个群体都会引起直接短路,偏见就不会出现。 The IOPM thus allows for biases to emerge only among liberals, only among conservatives, or among both liberals and conservatives, depending on the situation. For example, reinterpreting Altemeyer’s mandatory school prayer results, Crawford (2012) argued that for people low in RWA who value individual freedom and autonomy, mandatory school prayer is objectionable; thus, the very nature of the judgment should shut off any biases in favor of one target over the other. 由此,随着情况的不同,IOPM模型可让偏见仅出现于自由派中,或仅出现于保守派中,或同时出现于自由派和保守派中。比如,Crawford(2012)在重新解释Altemeyer的强制性学校祷告数据时论证到,对于右翼权威主义(RWA)程度低、看重个体自由与自主的人,强制性学校祷告是可争议的;因此,这一判断的性质本身会将任何重此轻彼的偏见排斥在外。 However, for people high in RWA who value society-wide conformity to traditional morals and values, mandating school prayer is acceptable; this acceptable premise then allows for people high in RWA to express a bias in favor of Christian over Muslim school prayer. 然而,对于RWA程度高、看重全社会对传统道德和价值观的遵从的人,强制性学校祷告是可以接受的;于是,这种可接受的前提就会让RWA程度高的人表达出重基督教校园祈祷者、轻穆斯林校园祈祷者的偏见。 Crawford (2012, Study 1) replaced mandatory prayer with voluntary prayer, which would be acceptable to both people high and low in RWA. In line with the IOPM, people high in RWA were still biased in favor of Christian over Muslim prayer, while people low in RWA now showed a bias in favor of Muslim over Christian voluntary prayer. Hypocrisy is therefore not necessarily a special province of the right. Crawford(2012,研究1)用自愿祈祷者代替强制祈祷者,于是前提变成了对于RWA程度高和低的两种人都可以接受。与IOPM模型预测一致,RWA程度高的人仍然存在重基督教祈祷者、轻穆斯林祈祷者的偏见,与此同时,RWA程度低的人现在表现出重穆斯林自愿祈祷者、轻基督教自愿祈祷者的偏见。因此,虚伪矫饰可不一定是右派的特殊地盘。 These example illustrate the threats to truth-seeking that emerge when members of a politically homogenous intellectual community are motivated to cast their perceived outgroup (i.e., the ones who violate the liberal progressive narrative) in a negative light. If there were more social psychologists who were motivated to question the design and interpretation of studies biased towards liberal values during peer review, or if there were more researchers running their own studies using different methods, social psychologists could be more confident in the validity of their characterizations of conservatives (and liberals). 这些例子说明,当一个政治同质化的知识群体的成员被鼓励用一种负面灯光去映照他们所理解的圈外人士(比如,冒犯自由进步叙事的人)时,追求真理的事业会受到何种威胁。如果在同行评审中,能有更多的社会心理学家被鼓励去质疑那些偏向自由派价值观的研究的设计和解释,如果能有更多的研究者采用不同的方法来进行他们自己的研究,社会心理学家就能对他们关于保守派(和自由派)的描绘的可信度拥有更多自信。******
4. Why political diversity is likely to improve social psychological science 4. 为什么政治多元性有可能改进社会心理科学 Diversity can be operationalized in many ways, including demographic diversity (e.g., ethnicity, race, and gender) and viewpoint diversity (e.g., variation in intellectual viewpoints or professional expertise). 将多元性这一概念变得可操作的方式很多,包括人口学多元化(如族群、种族和性别)和视角多元化(比如各种不同的知识视角或专业技能)。 Research in organizational psychology suggest that: a) the benefits of viewpoint diversity are more consistent and pronounced than those of demographic diversity (Menz, 2012; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998); and 组织心理学研究表明:a)视角多元化比人口学多元化的益处更为一贯、更为显著(Menz, 2012; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998);又 b) the benefits of viewpoint diversity are most pronounced when organizations are pursuing open-ended exploratory goals (e.g., scientific discovery) as opposed to exploitative goals (e.g., applying well-established routines to well-defined problems; Cannella, Park & Hu, 2008). b)与追求利用性目标(比如,在界定明确的问题上执行已良好确立的例行程序)的组织相比,在追求开放式的探索性目标(比如,科学发现)的组织中,视角多元化的益处最为显著(Cannella, Park & Hu, 2008)。 Viewpoint diversity may therefore be more valuable than demographic diversity if social psychology’s core goal is to produce broadly valid and generalizable conclusions. (Of course, demographic diversity can bring viewpoint diversity, but if it is viewpoint diversity that is wanted, then it may be more effective to pursue it directly.) 因此,如果社会心理学的核心目标在于得出广泛有效且可以一般化的结论,那么视角多元性似乎比人口学多元性更有价值。(当然,人口学多元性能带来视角多元性,但如果我们需要的正是视角多元性,那么直接追求它可能更为有效。) It is the lack of political viewpoint diversity that makes social psychology vulnerable to the three risks described in the previous section. Political diversity is likely to have a variety of positive effects by reducing the impact of two familiar mechanisms that we explore below: confirmation bias and groupthink/majority consensus. 正是政治视角多元性的缺乏,才使得社会心理学在前一部分描述的三大风险面前显得很脆弱。通过削弱我们下面将讨论的两个我们熟知的机制的影响,政治多元性很可能具有多种多样的积极功效:确认偏误和群体思维/多数一致。 4.1. Confirmation bias 4.1 确认偏误 People tend to search for evidence that will confirm their existing beliefs while also ignoring or downplaying disconfirming evidence. This confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998) is widespread among both laypeople and scientists (Ioannidis, 2012). Confirmation bias can become even stronger when people confront questions that trigger moral emotions and concerns about group identity (Haidt, 2001; 2012). 人们更喜欢为他们已有的信念搜罗证据,同时无视或轻视与既有信念抵触的证据。这种确认偏误(Nickerson, 1998)在外行和科学家中都很常见(Ioannidis, 2012)。当人们面对的问题还能够引发对于群体认同的道德情绪和关怀时,确认偏误可能会变得更为强烈(Haidt, 2001; 2012)。 Further, group-polarization often exacerbates extremism in echo chambers (Lamm & Myers, 1978). [and note from the graph above that social psychology has become an echo chamber since the 1990s] 此外,群体的极化通常还会在回音室中加剧极端主义(Lamm & Myers, 1978)。[并且注意,前面的图表已经显示,社会心理学自1990年代起已经变成了一个回音室]。 Indeed, people are far better at identifying the flaws in other people’s evidence-gathering than in their own, especially if those other people have dissimilar beliefs (e.g., Mercier & Sperber, 2011; Sperber et al., 2010). 实在来说,人们在别人的证据搜集过程中找出错误,可比针对自己时要得心应手得多,特别是当别人具有不同的信念时(如见Mercier & Sperber, 2011; Sperber等, 2010)。 Although such processes may be beneficial for communities whose goal is social cohesion (e.g., a religious or activist movement), they can be devastating for scientific communities by leading to widely-accepted claims that reflect the scientific community’s blind spots more than they reflect justified scientific conclusions (see, e.g., the three risk points discussed previously). 对于目标在于社会团结的共同体(如一个宗教运动或激进运动)来说,这类事情也许是有益的,但是对于科学共同体来说,这将是毁灭性的。因为它们将会导致一些被广泛接受的论断产生,而这些论断更多反映的是科学共同体的盲点,而非科学上得到证明的结论(如见前文所论的三个风险点)。 The most obvious cure for this problem is to increase the viewpoint diversity of the field. Nobody has found a way to eradicate confirmation bias in individuals (Lilienfeld et al., 2009), but we can diversify the field to the point where individual viewpoint biases begin to cancel each other out. 对于这个问题,最显而易见的疗法就是增加该领域的视角多元性。从来没有人找到过在个体身上根除确认偏误的办法(Lilienfeld等, 2009),但我们可以不断增加一个领域的多元性,直到个体的视角偏见开始相互抵消。 4.2. Minority influence 4.2 众从 Minority influence research has focused on the processes by which minorities influence majority members’ (and thus the groups’) reasoning (e.g., Crano, 2012; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980). Majorities influence decision-making by producing conformity pressure that creates cohesion and community, but they do little to enhance judgmental depth or quality (Crisp & Turner, 2011; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980). They also risk creating the type of groupthink that has long been a target of criticism by social psychologists (e.g., Fiske, Harris, & Cuddy, 2004; Janis, 1972)…. 众从研究聚焦于一种过程:少数派影响多数成员(进而是整个群体)的论证(如见Crano, 2012; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980)。多数派通过制造顺从压力影响决策,而这种压力能够创造凝聚力和共同体,但无益于提高决断的深度或质量(Crisp & Turner, 2011; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980)。他们也导致群体思维的风险,而这被社会心理学家诟病已久(如见Fiske, Harris, & Cuddy, 2004; Janis, 1972)…… There is even evidence that politically diverse teams produce more creative solutions than do politically homogeneous teams on problems such as “how can a person of average talent achieve fame” and how to find funding for a partially-built church ineligible for bank loans (Triandis, Hall, & Ewen, 1965)…. 甚至有证据表明,即使是在“某个资质平平的人如何成名”以及怎样为一个烂尾的教堂筹集资金,取得银行贷款这样的问题上,政治上多元的团队也比政治同质的团队更能找到创造性的解决方案。 In sum, there are grounds for hypothesizing that increased political diversity would improve the quality of social psychological science because it would increase the degree of scientific dissent, especially, on such politicized issues as inequality versus equity, the psychological characteristics of liberals and conservatives, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Social psychologists have shown these effects in many settings; they could take advantage of them within their own ranks. 总之,政治多元性的增加有助于改善社会心理科学的质量,这一假设是有理有据的,因为它会增加科学分歧的程度。当我们面对的是诸如不平等与平等、自由派和保守派的心理特征、刻板印象、偏见和歧视等等政治化的议题时,情况尤其如此。社会心理学家已经针对许多场合说明过此类效应;他们可以在自己的队伍中好好对其加以利用。******
5. Why are there so few non-liberals in social psychology? 5. 为什么非自由派在社会心理学中难得一见? the evidence does not point to a single answer. To understand why conservatives are so vastly underrepresented in social psychology, we consider five explanations that have frequently been offered to account for a lack of diversity not just in social psychology, but in other contexts (e.g., the underrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities in STEM fields, e.g., Pinker, 2008). 证据表明,答案不止一个。为了理解为什么保守派在社会心理学中的人数如此不足,我们考虑了五种解释,这五种解释不仅在说明社会心理学中多元性的缺乏时,而且在其它学术文章中也经常被人提到(如在STEM领域内妇女和少数族裔的缺乏,如见Pinker, 2008)【译注:STEM为科学、技术、工程和数学四个学科的英文首字母缩写】。 5.1. Differences in ability 5.1. 能力差异 [Are conservatives simply less intelligent than liberals, and less able to obtain PhDs and faculty positions?] The evidence does not support this view… [published studies are mixed. Part of the complexity is that…] Social conservatism correlates with lower cognitive ability test scores, but economic conservatism correlates with higher scores (Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto, & Haidt, 2012; Kemmelmeier 2008). [Libertarians are the political group with the highest IQ, yet they are underrepresented in the social sciences other than economics] [难道保守派就是没有自由派那么聪明,取得博士学位和教职岗位的能力要差些?]证据不支持这种观点……[已有的研究形形色色。情况的复杂性部分体现在……]社会保守派与认知能力测试得分较低存在相关性,不过经济保守派则与得分较高存在相关性(Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto, & Haidt, 2012; Kemmelmeier 2008)[自由意志主义者是IQ最高的政治团体,但他们在除经济学以外的所有社会科学中人数均不足] 5.2. The effects of education on political ideology 5.2. 政治意识形态教育的影响 Many may view education as “enlightening” and believe that an enlightened view comports with liberal politics. There is little evidence that education causes students to become more liberal. Instead, several longitudinal studies following tens of thousands of college students for many years have concluded that political socialization in college occurs primarily as a function of one’s peers, not education per se (Astin, 1993; Dey, 1997). 许多人可能将教育视为“启蒙”,并相信经过启蒙的观念会与自由派政治一致。鲜有证据表明教育会使得学生更为趋向自由派。几项对数万名大学生的多年追踪研究倒是得出结论认为,大学里的政治社会化过程【译注:指个体形塑政治态度的过程】主要取决于一个人的同伴,而非教育本身(Astin, 1993; Dey, 1997)。 5.3. Differences in interest 5.3. 兴趣差异 Might liberals simply find a career in social psychology (or the academy more broadly) more appealing? Yes, for several reasons. The Big-5 trait that correlates most strongly with political liberalism is openness to experience (r = .32 in Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloways’s 2003 meta-analysis), and people high in that trait are more likely to pursue careers that will let them indulge their curiosity and desire to learn, such as a career in the academy (McCrae, 1996). An academic career requires a Ph.D., and liberals enter (and graduate) college more interested in pursuing Ph.D.s than do conservatives (Woessner & Kelly-Woessner, 2009)… 有没有可能就是因为自由派觉得社会心理学(或更广泛而言,整个学术界)这种职业更有吸引力?有可能,理由有多个。与政治自由主义相关性最强的“五大”人格特点【译注:五大人格特点,指心理学上描述人格特征时常用的五维度模型,分别为外倾性、经验开放性、随和性、神经质和尽责性】就是“经验开放性”(在Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski和 Sulloways 2003年所做的meta分析中,r=0.32),而在这一特点上得分高的人更有可能从事能让他们的好奇心和求知欲得到满足的职业,比如学术事业(McCrae, 1996)。从事学术事业要求博士学位,而入读大学(和从大学毕业)的自由派比保守派更有兴趣谋求博士学位(Woessner & Kelly-Woessner, 2009)…… Such intrinsic variations in interest may be amplified by a “birds of a feather” or “homophile” effect. “Similarity attracts” is one of the most well-established findings in social psychology (Byrne, 1969). As a field begins to lean a certain way, the field will likely become increasingly attractive to people suited to that leaning. 这种兴趣上的内在差异有可能通过“物以类聚”或“同性相爱”效应而得到放大。“同类相吸”是社会心理学中理据最为坚实的成果之一(Byrne, 1969)。随着某个领域开始向一个特定方向倾斜,那么对于适应这种倾斜的人,这个领域就很可能会变得越来越具有吸引力。 Over time the group itself may become characterized by its group members. Professors and scientists may come to be seen as liberal just as nurses are typically thought of as being female. Once that happens, conservatives may disproportionately self-select out of joining the dissimilar group, based on a realistic perception that they “do not fit well.” [See Gross (2013)]… 长此以往,群体本身就被其成员特征化了。教授和科学家可能会逐渐被视为自由派,就像护士经常被理解成为女性一样。一旦如此,保守派就可能自我选择不参加这种异己群体,因为他们有一种现实的认知:他们“合不来”(见Gross , 2013)…… Self-selection clearly plays a role. But it would be ironic if an epistemic community resonated to empirical arguments that appear to exonerate the community of prejudice—when that same community roundly rejects those same arguments when invoked by other institutions to explain the under-representation of women or ethnic minorities (e.g., in STEM disciplines or other elite professions). [Note: we agree that self-selection is a big part of the explanation. If there were no discrimination and no hostile climate, the field would still lean left, as it used to. But it would still have some diversity, and would work much better.] 自我选择很明显起了作用。但是,这种经验论证似乎是在为共同体的歧视行为洗白,如果一个知识共同体与之产生共鸣,这会太讽刺——而且,正是这同一个共同体,在其它机构使用同一论证来解释女性或少数族裔代表性不足的问题时(如在STEM学科或其它精英行业中),对自我选择解释表示了严厉的拒斥。[注意:我们同意,自我选择在原因中占了很大比例。如果不存在歧视、不存在敌对的气氛,这个领域仍然会左倾,正如它在1990年代之前那样。但是它仍会有某种程度的多元性,并会运作得好得多。] 5.4. Hostile climate 5.4. 敌对气氛 Might self-selection be amplified by an accurate perception among conservative students that they are not welcome in the social psychology community? Consider the narrative of conservatives that can be formed from some recent conclusions in social psychological research: compared to liberals, conservatives are less intelligent (Hodson & Busseri, 2012) and less cognitively complex (Jost et al., 2003). They are more rigid, dogmatic, and inflexible (Jost et al., 2003). Their lower IQ explains their racism and sexism (Deary, Batty, & Gale, 2008), and their endorsement of inequality explains why they are happier than liberals (Napier & Jost, 2008). 自我选择有没有可能因为保守派学生的一种正确认知——他们得不到社会心理学共同体的欢迎——而被放大?考虑一下我们能从最近的一些社会心理学研究结论中得出的关于保守派的叙述:比起自由派,保守派没那么聪明(Hodson & Busseri, 2012),认知复杂度没那么高(Jost等, 2003)。他们更死板、更教条、更不懂变通(Jost等, 2003)。他们IQ低,所以他们有种族主义和性别歧视(Deary, Batty, & Gale, 2008),他们对不平等的支持正是他们之所以比自由派更快乐的理由(Napier & Jost, 2008)。 As conservative undergraduates encounter the research literature in their social psychology classes, might they recognize cues that the field regards them and their beliefs as defective? And what happens if they do attend graduate school and take part in conferences, classes, and social events in which almost everyone else is liberal? 当保守派本科生在他们的社会心理学课堂上接触到研究文献时,他们是否可能认出这种信号,猜到这个领域认为他们以及他们的信念存在缺陷?如果他们确实念上了研究生,那么当他们参会、上课、参加社会活动时,发现参与者几乎个个都是自由派,这时会发生什么? We ourselves have often heard jokes and disparaging comments made by social psychologists about conservatives, not just in informal settings but even from the podium at conferences and lectures. The few conservatives who have enrolled in graduate programs hear these comments too, and some of them wrote to Haidt in the months after his 2011 remarks at the SPSP convention to describe the hostility and ridicule that force them to stay “in the closet” about their political beliefs—or to leave the field entirely. 我们自己就经常听到社会心理学家关于保守派的种种笑话和鄙夷的评论,这不仅出现于非正式场合,而且也出现在会议和讲座的讲台上。注册参加了研究生项目的几个罕见的保守派学生,也听到了这些评论,其中一些在听了Haidt在人格与社会心理学学会2011年年会上所发评论后的几个月里还曾给他写信。他们在信中描写到,敌对和嘲弄迫使他们将自己的政治信念藏在“深柜”——或干脆离开这个领域。 Haidt (2011) put excerpts from these emails online (in anonymous form); representative of them is this one from a former graduate student in a top 10 Ph.D. program: Haidt(2011)在网上贴出了这些邮件的摘录(以匿名形式);其中一封的作者曾是排名前十的博士项目的研究生,很具有代表性:I can’t begin to tell you how difficult it was for me in graduate school because I am not a liberal Democrat. As one example, following Bush’s defeat of Kerry, one of my professors would email me every time a soldier’s death in Iraq made the headlines; he would call me out, publicly blaming me for not supporting Kerry in the election. 要向你描述我在研究生院时因为不是自由派民主党而过得有多么艰难,我都没法开始。举个例子吧,布什打败克里之后,每逢有驻伊士兵死亡事件上头条,有位教授就会给我发邮件;他会指名道姓的公开指责我没在选举中支持克里。 I was a reasonably successful graduate student, but the political ecology became too uncomfortable for me. Instead of seeking the professorship that I once worked toward, I am now leaving academia for a job in industry. 作为一个研究生,我相当成功,但政治生态变得令我非常不舒服。我没有去谋求我曾为之奋斗的教授职位,而是离开学术圈,现在在实业部门工作。Evidence of hostile climate is not just anecdotal. Inbar and Lammers (2012) asked members of the SPSP discussion list: “Do you feel that there is a hostile climate towards your political beliefs in your field?” 敌对气氛存在的证据并非只有个别逸闻。Inbar和 Lammers(2012)曾询问人格与社会心理学学会讨论组成员以下问题:“你是否觉得你所在的领域针对你的政治信念存在一种敌对气氛?” Of 17 conservatives, 14 (82%) responded “yes” (i.e., a response at or above the midpoint of the scale, where the midpoint was labeled “somewhat” and the top point “very much”), with half of those responding “very much.” 17个保守派中,14个(即82%)回答了“是”(即回应大于等于量表的中间选项,中间选项是“有些”,最大值则是“非常”),答“是”的人中又有一半回答的是“非常”。 In contrast, only 18 of 266 liberals (7%) responded “yes”, with only two of those responding “very much.” Interestingly, 18 of 25 moderates (72%) responded “yes,” with one responding “very much.” 与此形成对比的是,266个自由派中只有18个(即7%)回答了“是”,其中只有两个答的是“非常”。有意思的是,25个温和派中有18个(即72%)回答了“是”,1个答“非常”。 This surprising result suggests that the hostile climate may adversely affect not only conservatives, but anyone who is not liberal or whose values do not align with the liberal progress narrative. 这一令人惊讶的结果表明,敌对气氛所产生的负面影响不仅仅是对保守派而言,而且针对所有的非自由派,或者所有价值观不能与自由进步叙事相符的人。 5.5. Discrimination 5.5 歧视 The literature on political prejudice demonstrates that strongly identified partisans show little compunction about expressing their overt hostility toward the other side (e.g., Chambers et al., 2013; Crawford & Pilanski, 2013; Haidt, 2012). Partisans routinely believe that their hostility towards opposing groups is justified because of the threat posed to their values by dissimilar others (see Brandt et al., 2014, for a review). 政治偏见方面的研究文献证明,认同感强烈的党徒毫不避讳公开表达对对方的敌意(如见Chambers等, 2013; Crawford & Pilanski, 2013; Haidt, 2012)。党徒们例行公事般认为他们针对对立团体的敌视态度是合理的,因为异己分子威胁到他们珍视的价值(相关评论见Brandt 等, 2014)。 Social psychologists are unlikely to be immune to such psychological processes. Indeed, ample evidence using multiple methods demonstrates that social psychologists do in fact act in discriminatory ways toward non-liberal colleagues and their research. 社会心理学家不太可能对这种心理过程免疫。事实上,基于多种方法的大量证据表明,社会心理学家确实以歧视方式对待他们的非自由派同事及其学术研究。 [Here we review experimental field research: if you change a research proposal so that its hypotheses sound conservative, but you leave the methods the same, then the manuscript is deemed less publishable, and is less likely to get IRB approval] [我们这里来回顾一下实验性的实地研究:如果改动一下你的研究计划,使其假设看起来像个保守派假设,但研究方法保持不变,那么这个稿子发表的可能性在人们眼里就会降低,得到伦理委员会认可的可能性也会降低] Inbar and Lammers (2012) found that most social psychologists who responded to their survey were willing to explicitly state that they would discriminate against conservatives. Their survey posed the question: “If two job candidates (with equal qualifications) were to apply for an opening in your department, and you knew that one was politically quite conservative, do you think you would be inclined to vote for the more liberal one?” Inbar和Lammers(2012)发现,绝大多数接受调查的社会心理学家都愿意明白无误地表明,他们会歧视保守派。他们在调查中提出这样一个问题:“两个求职者(条件相同)申请你所在院系的空缺,你要是知道其中一个政治上特别保守,你觉得你会倾向于投票赞成更自由派的那个吗?” Of the 237 liberals, only 42 (18%) chose the lowest scale point, “not at all.” In other words, 82% admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative candidate, and 43% chose the midpoint (“somewhat”) or above. In contrast, the majority of moderates (67%) and conservatives (83%) chose the lowest scale point (“not at all”)…. 在237个自由派中,仅有42个(即18%)选择了量表上的最低值,“绝不会”。换句话说,82%的人承认他们至少会对保守派求职者有一点点歧视,43%选择了中间值(“有些”)及以上。与此形成对比的是,多数温和派(67%)和保守派(83%)选择了最低值(“绝不”)…… Conservative graduate students and assistant professors are behaving rationally when they keep their political identities hidden, and when they avoid voicing the dissenting opinions that could be of such great benefit to the field. Moderate and libertarian students may be suffering the same fate. 当保守派研究生和助理教授隐瞒他们政治派别时,他们是在依理性行事,然而如果他们缄默不言,那却将是这个领域的巨大损失。温和派和自由意志主义的学生或许也正在遭受同一命运。
******
6. Recommendations 6. 建议 [Please see the longer discussion of recommended steps on our “Solutions” page. In the BBS paper we offer a variety of specific recommendations for what can be done to ameliorate the problem. These are divided into three sections] [建议措施的更长讨论,见我们的“方案”页面。在发表于《行为与脑科学》的文章中,我们提供了多种具体可行建议,以改进这一问题。建议分为三部分] 6.1. Organizational responses 6.1. 组织方面的回应 [We looked at the list of policy steps that the American Psychological Association recommended for itself to improve diversity with regard to race, gender, and sexual orientation. Many of them work well for increasing political diversity, e.g.,:] [我们查看了美国心理学会为增加自身的种族、性别和性取向多元性而建议的系列政策措施。其中许多同样可以有效的增加政治多元性,如……]******
7. Conclusion 7. 结论 Others have sounded this alarm before (e.g., MacCoun, 1998; Redding, 2001; Tetlock, 1994)… No changes were made in response to the previous alarms, but we believe that this time may be different. Social psychologists are in deep and productive discussions about how to address multiple threats to the integrity of their research and publication process. This may be a golden opportunity for the field to take seriously the threats caused by political homogeneity. 早已有人敲响过这一警钟(如MacCoun, 1998; Redding, 2001; Tetlock, 1994)……对于之前的警钟却无人回应,不过我们相信这次可能有点不同。关于如何应对他们的研究和出版程序之健全性所面临的诸多威胁的问题,社会心理学家目前正在进行深入且卓有成效的讨论。现在也许就是严肃对待政治同质化所导致危机的黄金时期。 We have focused on social (and personality) psychology, but the problems we describe occur in other areas of psychology (Redding, 2001), as well as in other social sciences (Gross, 2013; Redding, 2013). 我们的焦点是社会(及人格)心理学,但我们所描述的问题也发生于心理学的其它领域(Redding, 2001),以及其它社会科学领域(Gross, 2013; Redding, 2013)。 Fortunately, psychology is uniquely well-prepared to rise to the challenge. The five core values of APA include “continual pursuit of excellence; knowledge and its application based upon methods of science; outstanding service to its members and to society; social justice, diversity and inclusion; ethical action in all that we do.” (APA, 2009). 幸运地是,心理学是唯一有准备来应对之个挑战的领域。美国心理学会的五大核心价值包括“不断追求卓越;基于科学方法的知识及其应用;对成员和社会的出色服务;社会正义、多元性和包容性;一切行动遵守伦理规范。”(APA, 2009)。 If discrimination against non-liberals exists at even half the level described in section 4 of this paper, and if this discrimination damages the quality of some psychological research, then all five core values are being betrayed. 如果针对非自由派的歧视存在,哪怕只达到本文第四部分所描述的一半水平,且如果这种歧视损害了某些心理学研究的质量,那就和五大核心价值背道而驰了。 Will psychologists tolerate and defend the status quo, or will psychology make the changes needed to realize its values and improve its science? Social psychology can and should lead the way. 心理学家会容忍并捍卫现状?还是心理学会作出必要改变,实现自己所珍视的价值,改进这一科学?社会心理学能够且应该带个好头。 (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——
National Medal of Science Awarded To Political Scientist Robert Axelrod
政治学家Robert Axelrod获颁国家科学奖章
作者:Eric Michael Johnson @ 2014-12-30
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值)
来源:The Evolution Institute,https://evolution-institute.org/article/20003131/
Why do we choose to cooperate and how can we promote greater cooperation in world affairs? These are the questions that Robert Axelrod has pursued for more than 40 years. His career has been an interdisciplinary exploration that has encompassed mathematics, political science, and evolutionary biology. Now, his signature achievements in the areas of game theory and complex systems have earned him the highest scientific honor that the United States can bestow: the National Medal of Science.
我们为何选择合作?我们如何在世界事务中推进更大程度的合作?这些都是Robert Axelrod追问了40多年的问题。他的整个职业生涯都致力于跨学科研究,涉及数学、政治科学与进化生物学。如今,他在博弈论和复杂系统领域的标志性成就使他获得了美国可授予的最高科学荣誉:国家科学奖章。
I first encountered Axelrod’s work during my graduate studies working with great apes. His suggestion that cooperation could evolve as an adaptive strategy was an inspiration for me in a field still dominated by the view that selfish interests were the primary driver of evolution. After several years of watching bonobos – one of our closest evolutionary relatives – as they peacefully shared their resources with groupmates and avoided violence at all costs, I was eager for an alternative explanation.
我第一次接触Axelrod的著作,还是在研究生阶段研究类人猿的时候。他提出,合作有可能发展为一种适应策略。当时我所在的领域仍被自利乃进化的基本驱动这一观点所主导,而他的观点对我深有启发。我那时已对人类的进化近亲之一倭黑猩猩进行了好几年观察,发现它们与群体成员和平共享资源,不惜代价避免暴力,所以我特别渴望看到一种替代解释。
Axelrod’s publications with the celebrated evolutionary biologist William Hamilton had put the study of cooperation on a new foundation. What’s more, his application of this work to political science offered the potential for an evolutionary framework that could help reduce violence and encourage mutual aid between nations and peoples.
Axelrod和知名进化生物学家William Hamilton的共同作品已为研究合作奠定了新的基础。不仅如此,在将这一成果应用于政治科学之后,他还提出了一种进化论框架的潜在可能,该框架将有助于在国家与民族之间减少暴力、鼓励合作。
Axelrod first pursued a degree in mathematics before receiving his PhD in Political Science from Yale University in 1969. After brief stints working in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and on Senator Eugene McCarthy’s failed presidential campaign that pledged to end the Vietnam War, Axelrod taught at UC Berkeley before becoming a professor of Political Science and Public Policy at The University of Michigan.
Axelrod先获得了数学学位,1969年又获得耶鲁大学政治学博士学位。他曾在国防部长办公室以及参议员尤金·麦卡锡誓将结束越战的失败的总统竞选中短暂工作。此后,Axelrod任教于加州大学伯克利分校,后来成为密歇根大学的政治科学与公共政策教授。
It was Axelrod’s work with computer simulations involving the Prisoner’s Dilemma game that launched his scientific career. In the game, two people who committed a crime are arrested and each is placed in solitary confinement for interrogation. If one betrays the other, the first goes free while the second is sentenced to three years in prison. If they both betray one another, they each receive two years. But if they both keep silent, they receive the minimum penalty of one year each. Under this scenario, the best individual strategy would be to betray the other. However, in actual trials, people were much more likely to cooperate than would be expected under the assumption of rational self-interest. Cooperation and altruism seem to be innate characteristics of the human species.
Axelrod对“囚徒困境”博弈的计算机模拟工作开启了他的科学事业。在此类博弈中,两个被捕的罪犯被分别单独拘禁,接受审问。如果其中一个出卖另一个,那么前者就能得到自由,而后者将被处以3年牢狱。如果两人都出卖彼此,那么将各获2年牢狱。但是,如果两人都保持沉默,他们得到的就都是最轻惩罚,即1年牢狱。在这种情形中,最佳的个人策略是背叛同伙。但是,在现实审判中,较之依据理性自私假设得出的预期,人们合作的可能性要大得多。合作和利他似乎是人类的一种天性。
Axelrod has been able to extend his model of cooperation from animals in nature, down to cancer cells, and up to conflicts involving rival superpowers. His books include The Evolution of Cooperation, The Complexity of Cooperation, and Harnessing Complexity. He has been published in Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, World Politics, and the Journal of Peace Research. During his extensive career, his work on cooperation has been cited more than 9,000 times by researchers across academic disciplines.
Axelrod已将其合作模型大为拓展,从自然界的动物向下延伸至癌细胞,向上延伸至对立强权之间的冲突。其著作包括《合作的进化》、《合作的复杂性》和《驾驭复杂性》,并曾在《科学》、《自然》、《美国国家科学院院刊》、《世界政治》与《和平研究杂志》等期刊上发表论文。在漫长的学术生涯中,他关于合作的研究已被各个学科的研究者引用过9000多次。
It was my distinct honor to talk with Professor A(more...)
【“复杂系统研究中心” 的创始成员,摄于1980年代。 从左至右:Michael D. Cohen, Robert Axelrod, William Hamilton, Arthur Burks, John Holland, Rick Riolo, Michael Savageau, and Carl Simon. 图片蒙密歇根大学福特公共政策学院惠赐。】
Eric Michael Johnson: To begin with, I would like to talk with you about your work with the evolutionary biologist William Hamilton. In my opinion, this was a model of interdisciplinary collaboration that enriched both fields. How did you end up working with him? Eric Michael Johnson(以下简称J):首先,我想和你谈谈你与进化生物学家William Hamilton合著的著作。我认为,这是本跨学科合作的典范,对两个领域均很有促进。你是如何同他建立合作的? Robert Axelrod: I approached him because I thought that my work on the Prisoner’s Dilemma would have applications to biology. First I got in touch with Richard Dawkins and it was he who suggested Bill Hamilton who, at the time, was visiting The University of Michigan where I was. I didn’t even know he was there. Robert Axelrod(以下简称A):我去找他,是因为我觉得我对囚徒困境的研究可能在生物学上得以应用。首先我是跟Richard Dawkins接触,是他推荐的Bill Hamilton。Hamilton当时正访问我所在的密歇根大学。那时候我甚至都不知道他就在那儿。 When I looked him up and told him about my basic idea, he thought it was quite interesting. As you know, before he died of course, he was a world-class evolutionary biologist most noted for showing that animals often cooperate when they are closely related to each other. But my suggestion was a different idea: that cooperation could also be based on reciprocity. 当我找到他,把我的基本想法跟他一说,他觉得特别有意思。你当然知道,他生前曾是世界级的进化生物学家,特别是以指出亲缘关系密切的动物之间经常进行合作这一点而出名。不过我提出的是个不同的想法:合作也可能基于互惠。 To my delight, Bill immediately saw the value of this approach and he thought we could develop some useful applications for biology. He had already used game theory in some of his work, although he didn’t regard himself as a game theorist. We decided to write an article for Science, which is probably the world’s leading scientific journal. 令我高兴的是,Bill立马看出这一方法的价值,并且认为我们可以在生物学上提出一些有益的应用。他此前已在自己的一些研究中用过博弈论,尽管他并不自视为一个博弈理论家。我们决定给《自然》写篇文章,那大概是世界上最好的科学杂志。 Bill was able to bring the relevance to biology and speak directly to evolutionary biologists in a way that I could not and I brought the original theory. Then we worked out some of the elaborations together. We were really fortunate in that, not only was the article accepted, it was chosen as the best article of the year in Science magazine. It certainly gave my later work a mark of scientific credibility. Bill把生物学引入进来,并且以一种我做不到的方式直接与进化生物学家对话,而我提供的则是原创理论。然后我们共同把某些细节阐述部分解决了。我们运气很好,文章不仅被采用了,还被选为《科学》杂志的年度最佳论文。这当然给我以后的工作提供了科学可信性。 Johnson: What is one of your fondest memories of working with Hamilton? Can you paint a scene of how one of your collaboration sessions played out? J:关于你和Hamilton的合作,你最愉快的记忆是什么?你能描绘一下你们进行合作的场景吗? Axelrod: One of the characteristics I remember about him is that when we were talking about an idea he might suddenly stop and think very deeply about it. I learned to keep quiet and let him ponder. Many times he would come up with a really interesting next step. Of course, sometimes he would come up with something completely different because he had given up pondering the topic at hand and his mind had gone off in some other direction. I could never tell which it would be. It was a lot of fun. A:我记得他有个特点,就是当我们在讨论一个想法时,他可能会突然停下来,陷入深思。我后来学会在这时候保持安静,让他沉思。好多时候,他会想出一个特别有意思的下一步措施。当然,有时候他也会想出一个完全不同的东西,因为他已没在思考我们手头的事,思想早已离题到别的方向去了。我永远没法预知到底会如何。这很有意思。 Johnson: You were both so generous with one another in how you described your work together. For example, Hamilton wrote in his autobiography that your collaboration added to his own biological insights. Would you say that it also added to your own perspective on political science? J:在描述你们之间的合作时,你们俩对彼此都非常慷慨大度。比如,Hamilton在他的自传中就说,你们的合作增加了他自己对生物学的理解。你觉得这一合作也拓宽了你自己对政治科学的视角吗? Axelrod: It certainly gave me a deeper sense of the fundamentals that we were studying. It wasn’t something specific like trench warfare, which was one of my examples. I saw that this model could be applied in many different places. For example, as you may know, I later developed another application related to this work as it had to do with cooperation among cancer cells. The same thing happened for him and, several years later, he came up with another idea that he wanted to try out on me related to parasites. A:这当然让我对我们当时正研究的基本原理有了更深的理解。它不是堑壕战这么具体的东西,堑壕战是我那时使用的案例之一。我领会到,这个模型能应用于许多不同的地方。比如,如你所知的,我后来论述了与该项研究有关的另外一个应用,涉及癌细胞之间的合作。对他而言,事情也是如此。数年之后,他提出了另外一个与寄生物有关的想法,想要征求我的看法。 Johnson: This would have been your joint paper on the origin of sex. J:这应该就是你们关于性别起源的合作论文了。 Axelrod: Yes, his idea was quite amazing. You see, at the time we did not have a good explanation for the fact that almost all large animals and plants reproduce sexually. This was a serious puzzle because it meant that only half of adults – the females – could reproduce. This is a huge cost in evolutionary terms, so there must be something very valuable about it. The fact that sex is so universal means it must be something that large animals and plants have in common. A:对,他的想法确实神奇。你知道,对于几乎所有大型动植物都采用有性繁殖一事,我们当时并没有一个好的解释。这是个很重要的谜题,因为它意味着只有半数的成年个体,即雌性,能进行繁殖。从进化的角度来看,这是个巨大的代价,所以必定对应特别大的价值。而由于性别的存在是那么普遍,这种价值必定是大型动植物所共有的。 Bill’s idea for what they have in common was the need to resist parasites. Parasites evolved to mimic our cells so that our immune system wouldn’t attack them. As a result, they can evolve around thirty times faster than we can since their generation time is so short. If you were to reproduce asexually it would mean you’d have an offspring that was almost identical to you, so the parasites that are adapted to you would also be adapted to your offspring. However, by reproducing sexually our offspring are quite different from us. Therefore, the parasites have to start all over. Bill’s idea was that sexual reproduction is an adaptation to resist parasites. It is just a brilliant idea. Bill认为这是为了抵抗寄生物。寄生物进化得能够模拟我们的细胞,使自己不受免疫系统的攻击。结果是,它们的进化速度比我们快30倍,因为它们的世代时长特别短。如果你进行无性繁殖,那就意味着你的后代将跟你几乎一模一样,那么适应了你的寄生物将同样适应你的后代。而有性繁殖使后代与我们大为不同。因此,寄生物得从头开始进化适应。Bill的看法就是,有性繁殖是为抵抗寄生物而产生的一种适应。这真是个绝妙的想法。 Johnson: How did you end up coauthoring the paper with him? J:你是如何跟他合写这篇论文的? Axelrod: He said to me that he didn’t have a way of modeling this concept because it inherently involved many genes and, in the formal model, you could only add two or three different genes before the whole thing got too complicated with all of the interaction effects. I used a technique that John Holland at University of Michigan had developed called the genetic algorithm. This was a computer simulation of the genetics and allowed us to handle dozens of genes in one simulation. A:他告诉我他找不到方法为这个概念建模,因为它本身涉及许多基因。而在正式的模型中你只能加入两到三个不同的基因,再多就会由于交互作用变得过于复杂。我使用了一种叫做遗传算法的技术,是由密歇根大学的John Holland开发的。这是对基因的一种计算机模拟,一次模拟能处理好几十个基因。 This was just what we needed and we developed a simulation to demonstrate that this idea, at least in principle, was viable. It was a lot of fun to first have one idea of mine that I took to Bill only to have him come back with an idea of his own that I helped do simulations on. 我们就需要这个。我们建模展示了这一想法至少在理论上是可行的。这事确实很有意思,之前是我拿着一个想法去找Bill,结果促使他提出了一个他自己的想法,然后他又来找我帮忙对这个想法进行模拟。 Johnson: So it was a meeting of complementary minds. You would build on one another’s ideas and inspiration. J:这就是头脑的互补。你们互相发展对方的观点和灵感。 Axelrod: Right. I remember he said in his memoirs that we were both quite serious about aesthetics. We like simple theories and want to get to the fundamentals of things. We both had a background in mathematical modeling and game theory so, even though we came from different disciplines, we had some important things in common. A:对。我记得他在回忆录里说我们俩都非常看重美感。我们都喜欢简单的理论,渴望获得事物的基本原理。我们都曾接受过数学建模和博弈论的训练,所以尽管我们属于不同的学科,但在许多重要方面有共同点。 In addition, I had been fascinated with evolution ever since high school and had taken it quite seriously. I thought a lot about evolutionary biology although I certainly was not a professional. But it meant that he and I could communicate well together because I knew many of the basics in a way that political scientists wouldn’t normally be expected to. 除此之外,自高中时起我就一直对进化很是着迷,也很重视。我经常思考进化生物学的问题,当然我肯定不是这方面的专家。但这意味着我和他之间能够很好地交流,因为我知道很多政治科学家通常不会知道的基础知识。 Another thing that he mentioned in his memoirs is that neither one of us had any need to one up the other or establish who had made the biggest contribution. There was never any need to be overly modest just out of the sake of politeness, which I think is common in Britain and something Bill was used to from his time at Oxford. He was simply a delight to work with. 他在回忆录中还提到另外一件事,就是我们都没想要压过对方或者要论谁的功劳大。我们也从未觉得有必要出于礼貌的考虑而表现的过分谦虚,这一点我想在英国很普遍,而Bill自其牛津时代起就已习惯如此。与他合作真的非常愉快。 Johnson: You have also taken on other evolutionary questions over the years. One of the debates I have always been interested in is that you have been critical of some evolutionary psychologists, such as Joseph Henrich at University of British Columbia where I am based, who argue that there are specific genes for prosocial traits. Instead you advocate for more general-purpose capabilities such as language and foresight. Do you think there is an overreliance among some evolutionary researchers on genetic mechanisms for understanding the nature of cooperation and altruism? J:多年以来,你也曾研究过其它进化问题。我历来很感兴趣的争论之一是,你一直对一些进化心理学家,比如我所在的英属哥伦比亚大学的Joseph Henrich,持批评态度。Henrich认为存在能够导致亲社会特性的特定基因。而你则主张(亲社会特性来自于)用途更为一般化的能力,如语言和预见能力。你是否认为某些进化学研究者在试图对合作和利他的本质进行理解时过分依赖基因机制? Axelrod: I think that genetics certainly plays a role. But I am kind of agnostic about just how big the role of genetics is in human behavior. For example, there is no doubt that an important genetic basis exists in both human and nonhuman animals for cooperation with kin. What I was addressing was how specific those genetic components have to be. A:我认为基因确实发挥了作用。但是对于基因在塑造人类行为中的作用有多大这一问题,我有点倾向于不可知论。比方说,人类以及动物的亲缘间合作,毫无疑问存在非常重要的基因基础。我那时候要搞清楚的是,这些基因成分要具体独特到何种程度。 Henrich was moving towards the side where they are highly specific and identifiable. My collaborator and I were saying that it could be explained by much more general capacities that were evoked for this purpose. It wasn’t a major difference. Genes are important but I’m not a purist who believes they drive everything. Obviously culture is important too. Henrich倾向于认为它们十分特定且可识别。我和我的合作者则认为亲缘间合作可以由更一般化的能力来解释,这些能力就是为此目的而产生的。这并不是大分歧。基因很重要,但我不是个纯粹主义者。我不认为一切都由基因推动。显然文化也很重要。 Johnson: When Darwin was trying to understand the origin of morality in The Descent of Man he adopted a group selection model where those individuals that displayed selfish tendencies would be punished whereas those that displayed traits benefitting the group would be rewarded. Christopher Boehm followed up on this idea in his book Moral Origins that came out a few years ago. Do you find that the evolution of cooperation has come full circle back to where Darwin originally was? J:当达尔文在《人类的由来》一书中试图理解道德的起源时,他使用了一种群体选择模型。在这个模型中,表现出自私倾向的个体会被惩罚,而表现出有益于群体的特征的个体会得到奖励。Christopher Boehm在几年前出版的著作《道德起源》中进一步发展了这种观点。你是否认为合作的进化论兜了一整个大圈子,回到了达尔文所在的起点? Axelrod: I think that Darwin’s speculation is quite plausible. At the time he couldn’t really establish it by studying large numbers of societies and identifying those that thrived and those that didn’t. A:我认为达尔文的猜想似乎相当合理。那时候他不可能研究大量的社会,并确认哪些兴盛,哪些没有,然后真正证实他的猜想。 The idea of group selection, until recently, has had a pretty bad reputation in biology because some non-scientists wildly misused it, saying that if the British were so successful it must be because they were genetically better. But in the last ten years or so biologists have come to agree that, under certain conditions, one can get group selection. 在生物学中,群体选择这一观点直至最近名声都很差,因为它曾被一些非科学家滥用,他们宣称英国人如此成功必然是由于他们在基因上更为优秀。但在过去约十年间,生物学家们已经达成共识,认为在特定条件下确实存在群体选择。 If one small band of humans are better at cooperating than some other band whom they are competing with, the first may well be able to outperform the second either through getting more food or maybe even by fighting and killing them. I think it is a common principle that cooperation is invoked in the service of competition. Cooperation with insiders serves competition with outsiders. 如果一伙人比正与他们竞争的另外一伙人更善于合作,那么第一伙人或许能够远胜第二伙人,这或者是由于他们能获取更多食物,或者由于他们可能干脆将第二伙人打败并消灭。合作之产生是为了竞争,我认为这是一条一般性原则。与内部人合作是为了与外人竞争。 Johnson: You modeled this very process in the journal Nature with what you refer to as tags. You show that cooperation could increase even without reciprocity or high levels of relatedness. If enough individuals with the same tag were in a group they might cooperate simply because they shared these tags. Could you expand on that? J:你在《自然》杂志上为你刚说的这一过程建立了模型,用的是你所谓的“标记”。你指出,即使没有互惠性或程度很高的亲缘关系,合作也可能增进。如果一个群体中具有相同“标记”的个体足够多,他们也可能纯粹因为共享同一种“标记”就相互合作。你能对此加以阐释吗? Axelrod: The idea of tags was actually developed by John Holland. Tags are completely arbitrary pieces of information that other people can observe, such as your accent or your skin color or the color shirt you wear. These are signals as to what group a person is a member of and this can lead to ethnocentrism or cooperating with others that are similar to you. A:“标记”这个想法实际上是由John Holland提出的。“标记”就是别人能够观察到的任意信息,比如你的口音或肤色或你所穿的有色衬衫。这是一种信号,表明某人所属的群体,而它会引发本族中心主义或相似的人们之间的合作。 Even if those things are completely arbitrary initially, they can come to take on meaning. They become correlated with traits that include reciprocity. Of course, the question gets tricky and interesting in that somebody else can have this trait or be part of the in-group but then abuse that and not cooperate. 即使这些标记最初是完全任意的,它们也能逐渐承载意义。它们开始与某些特质相关,其中包括互惠性。当然,某人也可能具有某种特质或是这个内部团体的一份子而滥用了这一点,不与他人合作。这时候问题就变得更棘手也更有趣。 I remember Groucho Marx once said that, “The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you’ve got it made.” One of the purposes of our simulation is to study the conditions under which defectors are not able to take over a population even though, in the short run, they can do well. 我记得Groucho Marx曾经说过,“成功的秘诀就是诚实和公平交易。如果能假装如此,你已然成功。”我们所做模拟的一个目的就是要研究在什么条件下背叛者即使能短期得利也无法骗过整个群体。 Johnson: Do these models suggest that there is room for cultural and institutional change in order to promote cooperation in world affairs? For example, you wrote an article for The New York Times along with Scott Atran about how we should talk to terrorists. J:这些模型是否表明,世界事务中存在通过文化和制度变革来推动合作的空间?比方说,你曾和Scott Atran一道为《纽约时报》写过一篇文章,讨论我们应该如何跟恐怖分子对话。 Axelrod: That’s right. As an interesting side note, you may know that this year I am working in the State Department on a fellowship. I was a little worried that I might not get a security clearance because I actually have talked to terrorists. But I have been up front about this so it turned out not to be a problem. I was still able to get my clearance. A:对。顺便说个有趣的事。你可能也知道我今年正在国务院做研究员。我起先还有点担心通不过安全审查,因为我真地跟恐怖分子交谈过。不过我对此一直都很坦率,所以最后也没什么事。我还是通过了审查。 Johnson: So is this the kind of thing that could be utilized? By employing various tags and emphasizing shared cultural traits we might enter into closer dialogue that would promote cooperation. J:那么我们能对标记加以利用对吗?通过调用多种多样的标记,通过强调共享的文化特征,我们有可能更为深入地对话,从而可能推动合作。 Axelrod: That is the aspiration. But there are some groups, and perhaps ISIL is one of them, where there is not a lot to talk to them about. A:这是我们的期望。但是对于某些群体,可能跟他们就没多少可谈的,ISIL可能是这种情况吧。 Johnson: You noted in one of your autobiographical papers that your father was a painter and that he represented what was important on a given day by what he left out. In your early work you emphasized the Prisoner’s Dilemma because, at the time, the world was in a conflict between rival superpowers. How has the changing world situation altered what you find important and how has that influenced what you include, or don’t include, in your models? J:在你的一篇自传文章中,你曾提到你的父亲是个画家,他会通过留白来表现某个特定日子里的重要事物。你在早期著作中强调的是囚徒困境,因为当时世界正处于超级大国的对立冲突之中。世界情势的变化是如何改变你对何者重要这一问题的认识的?这又如何对你的模型包括或不包括哪些东西产生影响呢? Axelrod: Obviously we’re not in a strict bipolar situation today like the United States and the Soviet Union were in the dominant confrontation during the Cold War. Now there are a number of power centers and, you might say, a two-sided game is only part of the issue. A:很显然,我们现在面临的并非严格的两极态势,这跟冷战的时候已经不一样了,那时美国和苏联的对抗主导了局面。现在有很多权力中心,你可以说,双边游戏只是整个问题的一部分。 However, there are still lots of bilateral issues such as between Russia and its neighbor Ukraine. The United States and China also have a complex relationship that has elements of both cooperation and competition. In terms of the U.S.-Chinese relationship, a particularly important feature is that it represents an established power relating to a rising power. 不过,现在也仍然存在大量的双边问题,比如俄罗斯与其邻国乌克兰之间。中美之间的关系也很复杂,既有合作,也有竞争。就中美关系而言,一个特别重要的特征在于,它代表的是一个既存大国与一个崛起大国之间的关系。 Those situations have often led to war in the past. That has been a difficult relationship to manage. I think it is important that we recognize and promote the cooperative aspects and possibilities, just as President Obama did with the President of China on their agreement over climate change. We should build a cooperative relationship where we both have a common interest in the outcome. 历史上这种情形通常会导致战争。这一直是一种难以处理的关系。我认为,认识到并推进利于合作的各种方面和可能性,就像奥巴马总统和中国主席在气候变化问题上达成一致那样,是很重要的。在共同利益所在之处,我们应该建立合作关系。 Johnson: So this would still fall into the Prisoner’s Dilemma model. But it seems that there would be a high potential for noise, something that you wrote you wish you had considered more in your earlier work. J:那么这仍然会陷入囚徒困境。不过似乎出现噪音的可能性会很高,关于这个事,你曾写道,你颇为遗憾没能在早期著作中加以更多考虑。 Axelrod: That’s right. For our purposes, instead of using the term noise it’s misunderstanding. One side may think it is perfectly reasonable and the other side might think it is breaking the norms that they should be following. An example of this is cyberspace where the United States gets quite angry that the Chinese are stealing industrial secrets and the Chinese don’t regard that as necessarily any different from normal espionage which everybody accepts that other countries do. A:对。就我们的目的而言,使用“噪音”这个词汇,不如使用“误解”。一方认为极为合理的,另一方则认为破坏了彼此应当遵守的规则。这方面的一个例子是中国人在互联网上偷窃产业机密,美国对此非常恼怒,而中国人并不觉得这一定跟被普遍接受的别国所进行的常规间谍活动有什么区别。 Johnson: This would tie in with Elinor Ostrom’s work as it relates to the digital commons and how to manage that. J:这就跟Elinor Ostrom关于数字公地及如何对之进行管理的文章有关了。 Axelrod: Right. You have clearly done a thorough job of looking at my vitae. (Laughs) A:对。你显然认真细致地检查过我的履历表。(笑) Johnson: I’ve been reading your work for quite a while. J:我读你的作品可有一段时间了。 Axelrod: But you’re right. I think it is important that we sustain the tremendous value of the Internet as a common resource that helps all economies to thrive and helps individuals, businesses, and countries. It is under challenge now because some countries, for example Germany, are promoting the idea that the data generated in their country should stay in their country. This sounds reasonable but it also risks the Balkanization of the Internet and undermining the collective good. A:你是对的。因特网有助于所有经济体的繁荣,有助于所有的个体、企业和国家。我认为,维持它作为这种公共资源的巨大价值非常重要。这一点现在正受到挑战,因为有些国家,比如德国,正在宣扬一种观点,认为本国产生的数据就应该留在国内。这种说法听起来合理,但同时也有将网络割据化、破坏集体利益的危险。 Johnson: You are the first political scientist to be awarded the National Science Medal in United States history. While this award may represent the pinnacle of your career, it certainly is not the end. Where do you plan to go next? J:你是美国历史上首位获得国家科学奖章的政治科学家。尽管这一奖励可能代表着你的学术生涯的顶峰,但它显然不会是终点。你下一步打算朝哪走? Axelrod: (Laughs) Two things, I have a serious interest in cyber conflict and what we can do to avoid or manage conflict in cyberspace. This could get very serious if one country causes blackouts in another or interferes with the financial system as a way to pressure the other instead of bombing them. A:(笑)两件事,一是,对于网络冲突以及我们避免及处理网络空间冲突的可能措施,我十分感兴趣。这个问题可能变得非常严重,比如一个国家在另外一个国家制造出信号中断,或者干扰他国的金融系统,以这种方式,而不是轰炸,来向他国施压。 Because we don’t have established norms of what counts as armed conflict there could be a good deal of misunderstanding. One side could think they didn’t escalate very much and the other side could take action that is very serious. We understand the escalation ladder for conventional warfare, for example, but we really don’t have a common understanding for the various types of cyber conflict. I think it has a serious potential for misunderstanding so I’m interested in those issues and have an article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences about the timing of cyber conflict. 因为对于什么算作武装冲突,我们并没有确定的规范,因此就可能存在大量的误解。一方可能认为其措施并没有剧烈升级,而另一方则可能采取非常严肃的行动。对于常规战争之类的危机升级阶梯,我们是熟悉的,但对于各种各样的网络冲突,我们确实没有什么共识。我认为这里存在引发误解的极为严重的可能性,所以我对这些问题很感兴趣。我在《美国科学院院刊》上发过一篇文章,就是关于网络冲突的时机掌握。 The other thing I have been interested in is learning about the State Department, about how organizations make decisions, and how policies develop using this opportunity to see policy formation from the inside. 我一直感兴趣的另一件事,是想了解国务院,想通过这次机会从内部观察政策形成的过程,了解组织如何做决策以及政策是如何形成的。 Johnson: Looking inside the sausage factory. J:深入肉肠工厂里面去看个究竟。 Axelrod: Right. A:对的。 Johnson: One final question I have for you is that, despite all of the crises in the world today and a seemingly gridlocked political system at home, what continues to give you hope? J:我想提的最后一个问题是,如今世界上有如此多的冲突,而国内政治体系则似乎陷入僵局,面对这种情况,是什么让你继续存有希望? Axelrod: One important fact is that we have not had great power wars for a long time. I suppose the last time would have been the United States and China fighting in the Korean War from 1950-53. That was sixty years ago. We have not had a great power confrontation in all that time and even the Korean War was quite limited. A:一个重要的事实是,我们已经很久没见过大国之间的战争了。我觉得最后一次可能是1950-53年中美之间的朝鲜战争。那都是60年前的事了。这么长的时间没有发生过大国冲突,而且即便是朝鲜战争,那也是相当有限的。 I think it is possible, and it’s certainly hopeful, that major powers can find non-violent ways of dealing with each other and making their interests known to the other side. But it is not guaranteed. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a serious danger and major differences exist between the United States and Russia in this area. And, of course, jihadism is a serious threat to the world. 大国之间能够找到非暴力的方式来打交道,以让对方知晓自己的利益,我认为这是可能的,而且必定很有希望。但这一点没有保证。核武器的扩散是个严重的危险,而美俄两国在这个领域存在重大分歧。此外,圣战运动当然也是对世界的严重威胁。 But none of these are as serious as World War I or World War II or as dangerous as the Cold War. We could have had hundreds of millions of people dead in a single day if the Cuban Missile Crisis didn’t go well, for example, or if some of the Berlin confrontations had escalated. So I am hopeful that the world is not as dangerous as it was then and that great powers can continue to deal with each other without periodic wars that seemed to be so common in the past. 不过,所有这些都不如一站或二战那么严重,也不如冷战那么危险。比如,如果古巴导弹危机没处理好,或者如果某次柏林对峙得以升级,我们一天就可能死掉几亿人。所以,世界不再像从前那样危险,大国之间能够继续与彼此打交道而不走向在过去似乎极为常见的周期性战争,对于这一点,我是抱有希望的。 Johnson: Thank you for taking this time to talk with me. I personally have gained a lot from reading your work over the years and I can’t tell you how thrilled I am that you have received this honor. J:谢谢你花时间与我交谈。过去多年间,我本人从阅读你的作品中收获良多。你获得这一荣誉,我的激动无以言表。 Axelrod: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. I enjoyed talking with you as well. A:啊,特别感谢你。我很感激。与你交谈我也很享受。 (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——
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...)
——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——
【2012-10-20】
@春夏秋冬er @whigzhou 辉总对不同学科之间有时会互相鄙视的现象怎么看?你有瞧不太上的学科,或者说是对某学科有偏见吗?
@whigzhou: 我用“专业价值观”来解释这种现象,专业价值观是工具价值终极化的一种,它既让从业者降低对其专业工作的货币报酬的要求,也在不同专业之间建立了价值隔阂,表现为相互鄙视
@whigzhou: 这方面我自己好像也未能免俗,不过我对学科一般没什么歧视,只对某些学科的从业(more...)
(按:原发于《长江日报·读·周刊》,发表时有删节。因为是本老书,内容大家都熟悉了,所以我选择拉远镜头,谈了谈整个新达尔文主义运动与社科、知识界和大众的互动,顺便扯了扯对待popular science的恰当方式)
裸猿已不再害羞
辉格
2012年3月10日
45年前《裸猿》的首次出版是一个重大历史事件,它是新达尔文主义(neo-Darwinism)运动走出生物学界而迈向社会科学领域时所扔出的第一枚炸弹,此后,理查德·道金斯(Richard Dawkins)和爱德华·威尔逊(E. O. Wilson)又分别于1975和1976年出版了引起巨大反响的《社会生物学:新的综合》和《自私的基因》,并非巧合的是,其间,莫里斯(Desmond Morris)与道金斯的共同老师尼古拉·廷伯根(Niko Tinbergen)与另外两位动物行为学家分享了1973年的诺贝尔生理与医学奖。
新达尔文主义的迅猛入侵在当时的社会科学界激起了轩然大波,一方面,这些著作让读者大(more...)
大学改革不能指望南科大一家
辉格
2011年1月19日
近日,南方科技大学校长在接受记者采访时透露,南科大的创建工作终于取得了重大进展,主管当局去年末正式发文批准该校筹建;而几乎同时,南科大实验班的招生也已开始,有望于今年三月开始授课;作为高教改革的试点,多年来的艰辛坎坷总算有了收获,尽管还面临着许多障碍和不确定性,仍是值得欣喜的。
南科大最亮眼也最多被谈论的地方,是他明确提出的教授治校理念,确实,对于抵御行政系统和社会环境对学术的干预,最终实现学术独立,教授治校是必要的制度安排;但是,要实现学术独立,这并非充分条(more...)
70年代,当进化生物学进入心理学和社会学领域(分别开创了进化心理学和社会生物学)时,遭遇了该领域学者的激烈抵抗,道金斯而威尔逊被视为人民公敌,从指责、辱骂、发展到身体攻击、开会起哄、高音喇叭干扰课堂,最后,一批学者在国际和平年来临之际,在西班牙集会签下了Seville Statement on Violence,其内容、形式和口吻,都像极了公元325年基督教尼西亚会议上的十二信条,更惊人的是,1989年,联合国教科文组织(UNESCO)正式采用了这些戒律。
当然,UNESCO可没把这当作丑闻,它至今还把它当作一项荣耀,以正式声明发布在其官方网站上(在这里),甚至还放在其所属的联合国大学(UNU)的首页上。
在今天的科学界,那些反对人碳暖球说法的科学家,他们的处境和遭遇,和当初的威尔逊,大概也差不多。
以下文字摘自Steven Pinker: How The Mind Works第一章PSYCHOLOGICAL CORRECTNESS一节:
The evolutionary psychology of this book is a departure from the dominant view of the human mind in our intellectual tradition, which Tooby and Cosmides have dubbed the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM). The SSSM proposes a fundamental division between biology and culture. Biology endows humans with the five senses, a few drives like hun(more...)
70年代,当进化生物学进入心理学和社会学领域(分别开创了进化心理学和社会生物学)时,遭遇了该领域学者的激烈抵抗,道金斯而威尔逊被视为人民公敌,从指责、辱骂、发展到身体攻击、开会起哄、高音喇叭干扰课堂,最后,一批学者在国际和平年来临之际,在西班牙集会签下了Seville Statement on Violence,其内容、形式和口吻,都像极了公元325年基督教尼西亚会议上的十二信条,更惊人的是,1989年,联合国教科文组织(UNESCO)正式采用了这些戒律。
当然,UNESCO可没把这当作丑闻,它至今还把它当作一项荣耀,以正式声明发布在其官方网站上(在这里),甚至还放在其所属的联合国大学(UNU)的首页上。
在今天的科学界,那些反对人碳暖球说法的科学家,他们的处境和遭遇,和当初的威尔逊,大概也差不多。
以下文字摘自Steven Pinker: How The Mind Works第一章PSYCHOLOGICAL CORRECTNESS一节:
The evolutionary psychology of this book is a departure from the dominant view of the human mind in our intellectual tradition, which Tooby and Cosmides have dubbed the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM). The SSSM proposes a fundamental division between biology and culture. Biology endows humans with the five senses, a few drives like hunger and fear, and a general capacity to learn. But biological evolution, according to the SSSM, has been superseded by cultural evolution. Culture is an autonomous entity that carries out a desire to perpetuate itself by setting up expectations and assigning roles, which can vary arbitrarily from society to society. Even the reformers of the SSSM have accepted its framing of the issues. Biology is "just as important as" culture, say the reformers; biology imposes "constraints" on behavior, and all behavior is a mixture of the two.
The SSSM not only has become an intellectual orthodoxy but has acquired a moral authority. When sociobiologists first began to challenge it, they met with a ferocity that is unusual even by the standards of academic invective. The biologist E. O. Wilson was doused with a pitcher of ice water at a scientific convention, and students yelled for his dismissal over bullhorns and put up posters urging people to bring noisemakers to his lectures. Angry manifestos and book-length denunciations were published by organizations with names like Science for the People and The Campaign Against Racism, IQ, and the Class Society. In Not in Our Genes, Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin dropped innuendos about Donald Symons' sex life and doctored a defensible passage of Richard Dawkins' into an insane one. (Dawkins said of the genes, "They created us, body and mind"; the authors have quoted it repeatedly as "They control us, body and mind.") When Scientific American ran an article on behavior genetics (studies of twins, families, and adoptees), they entitled it "Eugenics Revisited," an allusion to the discredited movement to improve the human genetic stock. When the magazine covered evolutionary psychology, they called the article "The New Social Darwinists," an allusion to the nineteenth-century movement that justified social inequality as part of the wisdom of nature. Even one of sociobiology's distinguished practitioners, the primatologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, said, "I question whether sociobiology should be taught at the high school level, or even the undergraduate level. . . . The whole message of sociobiology is oriented toward the success of the individual. It's Machiavellian, and unless a student has a moral framework already in place, we could be producing social monsters by teaching this. It really fits in very nicely with the yuppie 'me first' ethos."
Entire scholarly societies joined in the fun, passing votes on empirical issues that one might have thought would be hashed out in the lab and the field. Margaret Mead's portrayal of an idyllic, egalitarian Samoa was one of the founding documents of the SSSM, and when the anthropologist Derek Freeman showed that she got the facts spectacularly wrong, the American Anthropological Association voted at its business meeting to denounce his finding as unscientific. In 1986, twenty social scientists at a "Brain and Aggression" meeting drafted the Seville Statement on Violence, subsequently adopted by UNESCO and endorsed by several scientific organizations. The statement claimed to "challenge a number of alleged biological findings that have been used, even by some in our disciplines, to justify violence and war":
It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors.
It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature.
It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behavior more than for other kinds of behavior.
It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a "violent brain."
It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by "instinct" or any single motivation...
...We conclude that biology does not condemn humanity to war, and that humanity can be freed from the bondage of biological pessimism and empowered with confidence to undertake the transformative tasks needed in the International Year of Peace and in the years to come.
What moral certainty could have incited these scholars to doctor quotations, censor ideas, attack the ideas' proponents ad hominem, smear them with unwarranted associations to repugnant political movements, and mobilize powerful institutions to legislate what is correct and incorrect?
参考:Wikipedia: "Seville Statement on Violence"词条