含有〈政治学〉标签的文章(1)

[译文]Robert Axelrod访谈录

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...)

标签: | |
6594
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 Axelrod last week from his current position in the U.S. State Department. In our discussion, he reflected on his work with evolutionary biologist William Hamilton, how cooperation can be promoted within groups, and what this ultimately means for a planet caught in the thrall of competing national powers. 上周,我无比荣幸地与目前在美国国务院就职的Axelrod教授进行了交谈。在谈话中,他回顾了他与进化生物学家William Hamilton的著作,并思考了团体内部如何促进合作以及这对一个深受国际竞争困扰的星球最终意味着什么。

【“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——