含有〈教育〉标签的文章(44)

[译文]教养的迷思及其他

‘When life hands you a lemon, just bite in’
“如果生活递给你一个柠檬,那就去咬它吧”

作者:Judith Rich Harris @ 2016-09
译者:明珠(@老茄爱天一爱亨亨更爱楚楚)
校对:辉格(@whigzhou)
来源:The Psychologist, http://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-29/september/when-life-hands-you-lemon-just-bite

Judith Rich Harris takes Lance Workman through her extraordinary fightback against entrenched views of child development.
Judith Rich Harris对话Lance Workman,对已被深深认同的儿童发展心理学观点作出了非同寻常的回击。

Judith Rich Harris is a psychologist and author.
Judith Rich Harris是一位心理学家和作家。

译注:粗体字是Workman的提问,常字体是Harris的回答

I first become aware of you when I read The Nurture Assumption in 1998. In it you proposed that a child’s peer group has greater influence on development than her parents. Can we begin by outlining this theory?

我第一次认识你是读到你1998年出版的《教养的迷思》。在书中你提到,同龄人群体对孩子成长的影响大于父母。我们从简要概括这个理论开始,好吗?

Group socialisation theory was my attempt to solve a puzzle I had encountered while writing child development textbooks for college students. My textbooks endorsed the conventional view of child development – that what ma(more...)

标签: | | |
7476
‘When life hands you a lemon, just bite in’ “如果生活递给你一个柠檬,那就去咬它吧” 作者:Judith Rich Harris @ 2016-09 译者:明珠(@老茄爱天一爱亨亨更爱楚楚) 校对:辉格(@whigzhou) 来源:The Psychologist, http://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-29/september/when-life-hands-you-lemon-just-bite Judith Rich Harris takes Lance Workman through her extraordinary fightback against entrenched views of child development. Judith Rich Harris对话Lance Workman,对已被深深认同的儿童发展心理学观点作出了非同寻常的回击。 Judith Rich Harris is a psychologist and author. Judith Rich Harris是一位心理学家和作家。 【译注:粗体字是Workman的提问,常字体是Harris的回答I first become aware of you when I read The Nurture Assumption in 1998. In it you proposed that a child’s peer group has greater influence on development than her parents. Can we begin by outlining this theory? 我第一次认识你是读到你1998年出版的《教养的迷思》。在书中你提到,同龄人群体对孩子成长的影响大于父母。我们从简要概括这个理论开始,好吗? Group socialisation theory was my attempt to solve a puzzle I had encountered while writing child development textbooks for college students. My textbooks endorsed the conventional view of child development – that what makes children turn out the way they do is ‘nature’ (their genes) and ‘nurture’ (the way their parents bring them up). But after a while it dawned on me that there just wasn’t enough solid evidence to support that view, and there was a growing pile of evidence against it. 群体社会化理论是我在撰写儿童发展心理学的大学教材时试图解决的难题。我的教材赞同儿童发展心理学的传统观点——是‘先天本性’(基因)和‘后天培养’(父母养育他们的方式)共同使孩子们形成他们的做事方式。但一段时间后我明白了,并没有足够确凿的证据支持这个观点,同时,反对证据却越来越多。 The problem was not with the ‘nature’ part – genes were having their expected effect. But ‘nurture’ wasn’t working the way it was supposed to. In studies that provided some way of controlling for or eliminating the effects of heredity, the environment provided by parents had little or no effect on how the children turned out. 问题不在于‘天性’部分——基因有其预期效果。不过‘培养’并未如大家所认为的方式发生作用。在一些以某种方式控制或消除了遗传作用的研究中,父母提供的环境对孩子如何变成后来的样子很少或者没有影响。 And yet, genes accounted for only about 50 per cent of the variation in personality and social behaviour. The environment must be playing some role. But it wasn’t the home environment. So I proposed that the environment that has lasting effects on personality and social behaviour is the one the child encounters outside the home. 然而,基因改变个性和社会行为的作用大约只占50%。环境肯定发挥着一定的作用。但这不是家庭环境。因此我认为,持久影响孩子个性和社交行为的环境是其面对的家庭之外的环境。 This makes sense if you think about the purpose of childhood. What do children have to accomplish while they’re growing up? They have to learn how to behave in a way that is acceptable to the other members of their society. How do they do this? Not by imitating their parents! Parents are adults, and every society prescribes different behaviours for children and adults. 如果想想童年的目标,你会发现这是有道理的。随着孩子长大他们不得不做什么呢?他们不得不学习他们的社交圈里其他成员可以接受的行为方式。他们如何做到这一点?不是通过模仿父母!父母是成年人,社会给孩子和成人规定了不同的行为。 A child who behaved like his or her parents (in any context other than a game) would be seen as impertinent, unruly or weird. So the first step in becoming socialised must be to figure out what sort of person you are. Are you a child or an adult? A male or a female? In complex societies there are more categories, but age and gender were probably enough for the small groups of hunter-gatherers of our ancestors. 在除游戏之外的任何情境下,孩子若像父母那样行事,会被视为不得体、任性或怪异。因此,社会化的第一步是弄清楚你属于哪类人。是孩子还是成人?男人还是女人?复杂社会分类更多,但年龄和性别对于我们祖先的狩猎采集小团体可能足够了。 Once a child had identified with a particular social category – let’s say, female child – her next job would be to learn how to behave like the others in her category. A social category is an abstract concept, not necessarily an actual group of children. My use of the term ‘peer group’ turned out to be misleading. I should have said ‘social category’ or perhaps ‘reference group’. 一旦一个孩子明确了自己属于某个特定社会类别——比方说,女童——她接下来的工作将是学会如何像她这个类别的其他人一样行事。一个社会类别是一个抽象概念,并非儿童的实际群体。我后来发现使用‘同龄人群体’这个术语是个误导。我应该说‘社会类别’或者‘参照群体’。 Why?  为什么? The problem with ‘peer group’ was that it made people think ‘friends’. Group socialisation theory is not about the influence of friends. Friendships are relationships. Socialisation is not a product of relationships. ‘同龄人群体’这个词的问题在于,它让人想到‘朋友’。群体社会化理论无关朋友的影响。友谊是关系。社会化不是关系的产物。 The expanded theory presented in my second book, No Two Alike, explains why. The theory is based on the idea, put forth by evolutionary psychologists such as Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, that the human mind is modular, a collection of specialised devices which each evolved as a solution to a specific problem or need. 我在第二本书《没有两个人是一样》中提出的扩展理论解释了其中缘由。这个理论基于如进化心理学家Leda Cosmides和John Tooby所提出的思想,即人类大脑是模块化的,是一套随着解决某个特定问题或需要而进化出的专门化元件的集合。 I proposed that there are three such devices involved in social development – the relationship system, the socialisation system and the status system. These systems work more or less independently; sometimes they even issue contradictory commands. They collect different kinds of information from the environment and process it in different ways. Friendships – like parent–child relationships – are in the purview of the relationship system, which collects data on specific individuals and makes fine distinctions among them. The socialisation system, in contrast, doesn’t bother with individuals – it computes means. It forms a prototype for each social category. The child is influenced by the norms of the social category she identifies with, even if she never interacts personally with any of its members. 我提出三种元件参与社会发展——关系系统、社会化系统和身份系统。这些系统或多或少独立工作;有时他们甚至发出相互矛盾的命令。它们从环境中收集不同种类信息并以不同方式进行处理。友谊——如亲子关系——属于关系系统范畴,它收集特定个体的数据,并在它们之间做出精准区别。相反,社会化系统与个体无关,它计算的是平均情况。它构成了每种社会类别的原型范式。孩子是被其身份认同的社会类别的规范所影响,即便她从未亲自与群体其他成员发生互动。 The Nurture Assumption completely split the field. People either said it was a serious step forward in our understanding of child development or they just weren’t having any of it. I’m in the first camp – it changed my view of child development. But why do you think there was so much hostility? 《教养的迷思》彻底分裂了这个研究领域。要么有人说这是我们理解儿童发展心理向前迈进的重要一步,要么就说它什么也不是。我是前者,它改变了我关于儿童发展心理学的看法。但是,为什么对它有这么多敌意呢? Part of the problem was the media coverage, which was often headlined ‘Do parents matter?’. Parents were understandably irked by the question. (My answer, by the way, is: Of course parents matter!) 部分问题出在媒体报道,它们常用‘父母重要吗?’这样的标题。可以理解家长们被这样的问题搞得苦恼不已。(顺便说一句,我的回答是:当然,父母重要!) But the real opposition to my work came from the academic world – from professors of developmental psychology. Some of these people had spent their entire careers doing studies designed to support the traditional view of child development. Then some troublemaker pops up – a complete nobody, with no PhD and no academic affiliation – and announces that the professors are wrong and their studies are worthless. You wouldn’t expect them to greet me with open arms, would you? 但是对我工作的真正反对来自学术世界——发展心理学的教授们。他们中的一些人毕其全部职业生涯做研究,旨在支持儿童发展心理学的传统观点。然后一些捣乱者冒了出来——不知何方人士,没有博士学位,没有学术任职——就胆敢声称教授们是错误的,他们的研究毫无价值。你不会指望他们张开双臂欢迎我,对吗? You were particularly critical of their correlational studies of development.  你对于发展心理学相关研究表现的特别有批判性。 I still see those worthless studies all the time – they get a lot of publicity. I see them as a shameful waste of time and research money. I see them as reminders that I failed in my goal of reforming the methodology of developmental psychology. 我总是仍然看到那些毫无价值的研究——他们获得大量宣传。我认为这是时间和研究经费的可耻浪费。我将这些视为对我改革发展心理学之方法论的雄心所受挫折的提醒。 The studies are worthless because the results they produce are ambiguous, so the researchers can interpret them any way they please. Let’s say they find a correlation between how often a family eats dinner together and how well their teenager manages to stay out of trouble. Such results are presented as evidence that eating dinner with their parents has ‘protective’ effects on teenagers. 这些研究毫无价值,因为其结果模棱两可,研究者以他们乐意的任何方式解释之。比方说,他们找到了一家人多久一起共进晚餐和青少年多大程度上努力不出乱子之间的相关性。这个结果作为与父母共进晚餐对青少年有‘保护’作用的证据呈现出来。 But the research method provides no way of controlling for, or estimating, the effects of inherited genes on the teenagers’ behaviour. (Conscientious parents tend to have conscientious children.) No way of controlling for what I call ‘child-to-parent effects.’ (Parents are more likely to enjoy eating dinner with well-behaved teenagers.) No way of controlling for the teenagers’ own willingness to show up at dinnertime. (Teenagers are less likely to enjoy eating dinner with their parents if they are doing things their parents don’t approve of.) The researchers assume that, even though these other factors might play a role, some of the correlation must be due to the beneficial effects of family dinners. That is a logically indefensible assumption, not supported by studies that do provide the necessary controls. 但是研究方法却没有提供任何控制或者估计遗传基因影响青少年行为的方法(有责任心的父母的孩子往往有责任心)。没有控制我所说的‘从孩子到父母的影响’(父母更乐意与举止礼貌的孩子共进晚餐)。没有控制青少年自己乐意露面的晩餐时间(如果青少年正在做父母不认可的事情,他们不大可能喜欢与父母共进晚餐)。研究者认为,尽管其他因素可能有一定作用,但一些相关肯定是由于家庭晚餐的正面作用。这是一个逻辑上站不住脚的假设,并且没有得到那些确实控制了其他因素的研究的支持。 I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to state that The Nurture Assumption pretty much made you famous almost overnight. It’s not only a radical alternative to traditional ideas, but also a real ‘page-turner’. Was it your intention to write in that style? 我不觉得《教养的迷思》几乎让你一夜之间出名是夸张的措词。这本书不仅对传统观点来说是激进的,也是真正的‘新篇章开启者’。用这种风格写作是你的目的吗? Actually, I started out by writing a traditional article and publishing it in a traditional journal, the Psychological Review. No one called it a page-turner. In fact, though it did get some favourable responses from people in other areas of psychology, it was completely ignored by the audience I was hoping to reach – those professors of developmental psychology. 实际上,我一开始是要写篇传统文章发表在传统期刊《心理学评论》上。没有人把它称为新篇章开启者。事实上,尽管它确实得到了其他心理学领域的积极反响,但却被我希望能看到它的观众——发展心理学领域的教授们——完全忽略了。 So I decided to go over their heads, as it were, and take my message directly to the general public. If you’re writing a book on a complex topic and you want people to read it, you have to make it interesting. It also helps if you can give your readers an occasional laugh. My model for how to write a book for the general public was Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct. 因此我决定,这么说吧,越过他们,直接把我的研究呈现在广大公众面前。假如你正在写一本复杂话题的书,还希望有人读它,那你就要让它有趣起来。如果读者时而笑出声来,那也有所帮助。我所借鉴的如何为广大公众写书的模本,是Steven Pinker的《语言本能》一书。 Pinker of course went on to write several more books for the public – all page turners, and in many cases game changers. I noticed that he dedicated The Blank Slate to ‘Don, Judy, Leda and John’. I would assume that three of these are Don Symons, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby. Would I be right in thinking you are the Judy?  当然,Pinker为大众写了不少书——全都是新篇章开启者,许多情况下还是游戏改变者。我注意到他把《白板论》一书献给‘Don, Judy, Leda and John’。我猜其中三个是Don Symons, Leda Cosmides和John Tooby。你是Judy,对吗? Yes. Steve and I became e-mail friends after I sent him a copy of my Psych Review paper and some comments on The Language Instinct. After we had exchanged a few e-mails, he asked, ‘Have you ever thought of writing a book?’ It wasn’t exactly a new idea to me, but it was nice to have the encouragement. 是的。在我给他寄送了我写的《心理学评论》论文拷贝和对《语言本能》一书的个人见解后,Steve和我成了电邮笔友。后来,我们互通了一些电子邮件,他问我:“你有没有想过写一本书?”这对我实在不是新想法,但它是很好的鼓励。 I think Steve was particularly receptive to my arguments because he’s a psycholinguist. I often use examples from psycholinguistics in explaining my theory, for two reasons. First, the outcome is usually obvious. You don’t need fancy statistical tests to decide whether or not someone has a foreign accent. Second, language and accent are among the very few social behaviours in which genetic differences play no role at all. Whether you speak Japanese or Swahili, whether your accent is Oxbridge or Liverpudlian, has nothing to do with heredity. But it does have a great deal to do with social context. The children of immigrants have the same accent as the other kids in the neighbourhood, even if they use their parents’ native language at home. Around the world, it is quite common for children to use one language at home and a different one outside the home, or one language with Mummy and a different one with Daddy. 我感觉Steve特别能接受我的观点,因为他是心理语言学家。我经常使用心理语言学例子解释我的理论,有两个原因。首先,结果通常显而易见。不需要花哨的统计学计算来确定某人是否有外国口音。其次,语言和口音是极少数遗传基因差异不起作用的社会行为之一。无论你说日语或者斯瓦希里语,无论你操牛津剑桥口音或者利物浦口音,均与遗传无关。而它确实与社会背景有很大关系。即便在家说父母亲的母语,移民孩子的口音与其他邻居孩子也一样。在世界各地,常常可见孩子在家使用一种语言而出门使用另外一种,或者和妈咪说一种语言而和爹地说另一种。 A central tenet of my theory is that social behaviours are tightly linked to the context in which they were acquired. It’s a mistake – one that’s incorporated into all the major theories of child development – to assume that children automatically generalise what they learn, from one context or person to another: Mummy is nice to them so they expect everyone to be nice to them. But discrimination, not generalisation, is the default setting of the baby’s mind. 我的理论的核心要义是,社会性行为与从中习得它的社会情境紧密相连。假设孩子自动将所学内容一般化,从一种情境或一个人推及另外一种或另一个人:就像妈咪善待他们,因此期待人人善待他们——这个假定被植入了儿童发展学的所有重要理论中,但它是错误的。相反,区别对待而非一般化处理,是婴儿心理的默认设置。 Many of the behaviours that children acquire at home would be counterproductive elsewhere. Children who dominate their younger siblings at home would be making a mistake if they tried to treat their schoolmates the same way, especially if they happen to be small for their age. Fortunately, children don’t make that mistake. Firstborns are no more likely than laterborns to try to dominate their peers. 孩子在家习得的许多行为在别处则是有害无益的。在家对弟妹指手划脚的孩子,如果试图以同样方式对待同学,就犯错了,尤其如果他们碰巧在同龄人中个头偏小。幸运的是,孩子不会犯类似错误。排行高的孩子不比排行低的孩子有更多可能性对同龄人指手划脚。 Of course, some of the things children learn at home are useful elsewhere. Those who learn to speak the local language, or to read, or to play a musical instrument, don’t have to acquire these skills all over again when they step outside. But they don’t trot them out automatically. They are tentative at first, until they’re sure that the behaviour or skill they learned at home will also work in the new setting. 当然,也有孩子在家学习的一些事情在别处是有用的。掌握了言说和阅读本地语言或演奏乐器的人,走出家门不必重新学习这些技能。但是,他们不必机械地小跑离家出来。他们先试探,直到确信那些在家里学到的行为或技能在新的环境设定中也管用。 For a young child, it’s safer to discriminate than to generalise. The child’s mind is not short of storage space. A child can store different rules of behaviour for every setting, and different expectations for every individual he or she encounters. 对于小孩子,区别对待比一般化处理更安全。孩子的意识不缺存储空间。可以为不同环境设定存储不同行为规范,以及为他所与之交往的每个人分别存储各自对对方的期望。 Your goal in No Two Alike was to explain why individuals differ so much, even if they grew up in the same family, right? 您写《没有两个人一样》一书是解释为什么每个人如此不同,即使他们在同一家庭长大,对吗? Right. I realised a couple of years after The Nurture Assumption was published that I had done only half the job: I had explained only how children get socialised. Socialisation is a process that causes children to become more similar in behaviour to their same-sex peers. And yet, despite being socialised, children continue to differ from one another in personality and social behaviour. 对。《教养的迷思》出版后过了几年,我发现自己只做了一半工作:我只解释了孩子是如何社会化的。社会化是导致孩子行为处事更像同性同龄人的过程。尽管被社会化,孩子们的个性和社会行为仍然彼此不同。 If anything, the differences widen during childhood and adolescence. I made some ineffectual efforts to deal with that problem in The Nurture Assumption, but I didn’t have a theory to account for it till I wrote the second book. The improved version of the theory presented in No Two Alike explains how children can, at the same time, become more similar to their peers in some ways and more different in other ways. 很可能,个体差异在孩童期和青春期扩大了。在《教养的迷思》中我做了些无效努力面对这个问题,但没有理论可以解释它,直到我写第二本书。《没有两个人一样》提出的改进版理论解释了为什么孩子在一些方面与同伴更相似,与此同时在另一些方面却变得更为不同。 There was a fair bit of replying to arguments put forward by critics of The Nurture Assumption. Was that one of the aims? 之前你针对《教养的迷思》批评者所提出的观点给出了不少直接回应。那是你的写作目的之一吗? It was. I was tired of journalists telling me that my theory must be wrong because some expert at some big university had told them that there were plenty of studies that disproved it. I searched diligently for the studies they cited. In some cases they were nowhere to be found; at any rate, they had never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. In other cases a study had been published but the results didn’t do what the experts claimed – they didn’t disprove my theory. In one case, a study they cited actually did the opposite – it supported my theory! 是的。我厌烦了记者告诉我,我的理论肯定错误,因为某些著名大学的某些专家已经告诉他们,有大量研究反驳我的理论。我努力分析他们引用的研究。有些研究什么也没发现;不管怎么说,它们从未在同行评议的学术期刊上发表。另一些研究,发表的一项实验没获得专家声称的实验结果——并没有反驳我的理论。一个研究援引的一项实验结果实际上恰好相反——它支持我的理论! That 1995 Psychological Review piece you mentioned won the George A. Miller award for an outstanding article in general psychology. There was a certain irony about that? 你提到的1995年那篇《心理学评论》文章荣获了George A. Miller心理学杰出论文奖。这是某种嘲讽吗? In 1960 I was a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Harvard. One day I got a letter saying that the Department had decided to kick me out of their PhD programme. They doubted I would ever make a worthwhile contribution to psychology, the letter said, due to my lack of ‘originality and independence’. The letter was signed by the acting chairman of the Department, George A. Miller! 1960年,我是哈佛大学心理学系研究生。有一天,我收到一封信,说系里已经决定把我排除在博士项目之外。信中说,由于我缺乏‘原创性和独立性’,他们对我做出有价值的心理学贡献表示怀疑。这封信正是由代理系主席George A. Miller签署的! Sometimes, when life hands you a lemon, you should just bite in. Getting kicked out of Harvard was a devastating blow at the time, but in retrospect, it was the best thing that Harvard ever did for me. It freed me from the influence of ‘experts’. It kept me from being indoctrinated. Many years later, it enabled me to write The Nurture Assumption. 有时,当生活递给你一个柠檬时,你就应该咬它。当时被踢出哈佛是一个毁灭性打击,但现在回想起来,这是哈佛为我所做过的最好的事情。这让我从‘专家’的影响解脱出来。让我不被灌输。许多年以后,让我写出《教养的迷思》。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]色情内容如何毒害少年?

Sex on TV: Less impact on teens than you might think
电视上的色情内容: 对青少年的影响比你想象的少

作者:Christopher Ferguson @ 2016-08-02
译者:babyface_claire(@许你疯不许你傻)
校对:鳗鱼禅(@鳗鱼禅)
来源:https://theconversation.com/sex-on-tv-less-impact-on-teens-than-you-might-think-61957

Few people would doubt that sex is ubiquitous in media – whether movies, television, music or books – and that teens today have unprecedented access to all of it. It’s often taken for granted that this easy access to “sexy media” has an influence on teenage sexuality.

性在媒体上无处不在,这个论断少有人质疑。无论电影、电视、音乐或书籍,对当今的青少年而言,有关性的一切信息触手可及,这种便捷史无前例。人们经常理所当然的认为,随处可见的“色情媒体”会对青少年性行为产生影响。

Specifically, the worry is that teens may have sex earlier or engage in higher-risk sexual activities such as having multiple partners or exposing themselves to potential pregnancies or STDs. In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics even published a position paper claiming that sexually explicit media could promote risky teen sexual behavior.

具体来说,人们担心的是青少年可能更早发生性行为,或者参与高风险性行为。比如与多位同伴有性行为,或者暴露于怀孕或染上性病的风险中。2010年美国儿科协会甚至发表了一篇意见书,声称色情媒体可能诱发青少年危险性行为。

But government data find that teens are actually waiting longer than in the past to have sex. And teen pregnancy rates are at historic lows. How is it possible that sexy media has such a pernicious effect even as teen sexuality is becoming healthier?

然而政府数据显示,事实上青少年发生性行为前的等待时间比过去更长。且现时未成年人怀孕率处于历史最低点。色情媒体如此有害,而青少年性行为反而比以往健康,这怎么可能呢?

I’ve spent more than a decade researching how media – like video games or advertising – influences youth behavior. What fascinates m(more...)

标签: | | |
7470
Sex on TV: Less impact on teens than you might think 电视上的色情内容: 对青少年的影响比你想象的少 作者:Christopher Ferguson @ 2016-08-02 译者:babyface_claire(@许你疯不许你傻) 校对:鳗鱼禅(@鳗鱼禅) 来源:https://theconversation.com/sex-on-tv-less-impact-on-teens-than-you-might-think-61957 Few people would doubt that sex is ubiquitous in media – whether movies, television, music or books – and that teens today have unprecedented access to all of it. It’s often taken for granted that this easy access to “sexy media” has an influence on teenage sexuality. 性在媒体上无处不在,这个论断少有人质疑。无论电影、电视、音乐或书籍,对当今的青少年而言,有关性的一切信息触手可及,这种便捷史无前例。人们经常理所当然的认为,随处可见的“色情媒体”会对青少年性行为产生影响。 Specifically, the worry is that teens may have sex earlier or engage in higher-risk sexual activities such as having multiple partners or exposing themselves to potential pregnancies or STDs. In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics even published a position paper claiming that sexually explicit media could promote risky teen sexual behavior. 具体来说,人们担心的是青少年可能更早发生性行为,或者参与高风险性行为。比如与多位同伴有性行为,或者暴露于怀孕或染上性病的风险中。2010年美国儿科协会甚至发表了一篇意见书,声称色情媒体可能诱发青少年危险性行为。 But government data find that teens are actually waiting longer than in the past to have sex. And teen pregnancy rates are at historic lows. How is it possible that sexy media has such a pernicious effect even as teen sexuality is becoming healthier? 然而政府数据显示,事实上青少年发生性行为前的等待时间比过去更长。且现时未成年人怀孕率处于历史最低点。色情媒体如此有害,而青少年性行为反而比以往健康,这怎么可能呢? I’ve spent more than a decade researching how media – like video games or advertising – influences youth behavior. What fascinates me is how society interacts with media, often embracing salacious content while simultaneously blaming it for societal problems, whether real or imagined. 我花了超过十年的时间研究视频游戏和广告之类的媒体如何影响青少年行为。让我着迷的是,社会如何与媒体相互作用。媒体经常热衷于色情内容,同时却将之归咎于真实或假想中的社会问题。 So my colleagues and I decided to look at the research on sexy media and teenage sexual behavior to see how the strong the link between the two is. 于是我和我的同事们决定研究色情媒体和青少年性行为的关系,看看这两者之间的相关性有多高。 Sexy media doesn’t predict sexual behavior 色情媒体不是性行为的有效预测变量 Despite the common assumptions about sex in the media and its alleged effects on teens, the evidence behind the link is weak. Some studies find evidence for a small effect (perhaps in some circumstances but not others), while others find no evidence for any effect. 尽管人们声称媒体上的性信息会影响青少年,这个受到普遍认同的假设前提并未得到多少证据支持。有些研究发现了微弱效应存在的证据(可能在某些情形下有相关性,其它情形下没有),然而另一些研究没有发现存在任何影响的证据。 One reason the evidence may not be conclusive is that there are practical and ethical limitations to conducting research. We can’t run experiments where teens watch different TV shows and we wait around to see who has sex. This means research often relies on self-reported data. What we do is ask teens to report on their sexual behavior and their media preferences, as well as other variables we might like to control for (such as personality or family environment) and see if correlations exist. 证据可能不够有说服力的原因之一是,开展此类研究有操作上的和伦理上的限制。我们不能在青少年观看不同电视节目的地方进行实验,并且在周围等待,看谁发生了性行为。这意味着研究经常依赖自我报告的数据。我们所做的是,让青少年报告他们的性行为和偏好的媒体,以及我们可能想控制的其它变量(比如性格和家庭环境),来看是否存在相关性。 With this in mind, my colleagues Patrick Markey at Villanova and Danish researcher Rune Nielsen and I conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies with over 22,000 participants that examine the correlation between sexy media and teenage sexual behavior. A meta-analysis lets us look for commonalities in the results, and is something that had not been done previously with this pool of research. 出于这种考虑,我和在维拉诺瓦的同事Patrick Markey,还有丹麦研究员Rune Nielsen进行了一项对22个研究,包含超过2.2万参与者的荟萃分析,来检验色情媒体和青少年性行为之间的相关性。这个荟萃分析让我们寻找已有研究结果中的共性,这批研究此前未做过荟萃分析。 All of the studies in the meta-analysis looked at depictions of sexual situations, nudity, partial nudity or explicit discussions of sex in television shows or movies easily accessible to minors (and thus excluded pornography). 这次荟萃分析里的研究都着眼于电视节目上对行为情景的描述、裸露、部分裸露或者公开讨论的性内容, 或者容易被未成年人接触到的电影 (因此排除了色情文学)。 In particular, we were curious to see whether sexy media predicted teen sexual behavior once other variables had been controlled. For instance, maybe boys tend to watch sexier media and also are more sexually risk-taking. Or perhaps youth who are more liberal in terms of personality are more open both to sexy media and earlier sexual initiation. Perhaps a difficult family background is the underlying key to understanding any correlation between media use habits and actual sexual behavior. 我们特别好奇的是,一旦其它变量受到控制,色情媒体接触行为能否预测青少年性行为。例如,可能男孩更倾向于观看更色情的媒体内容,并且愿意承担更多的性风险。或者有更自由人格的青少年更易于接受色情媒体和早期性启蒙。也许一个复杂的家庭背景是理解媒体使用习惯和实际性行为相关性背后的关键。 Ultimately, this is what we found. Once other factors such as family environment, personality or even gender were controlled, sexy media exposure did not meaningfully correlate with teen sexual behavior. 最后,这是我们的发现。一旦其它因素,比如家庭环境、性格甚至性别都受到控制,色情媒体的曝光与青少年性行为没有显著的相关。 Contrary to common fears, sexy media doesn’t seem to have any practical significance for when teens first have sex or start other sexual behaviors. This lack of correlation is a warning sign we might be on the wrong track in trying to blame media for teen sexual risk-taking. 与常见的恐惧相反,色情媒体内容似乎对青少年首次性行为或者进行其它性接触的时间没有任何实际影响。缺乏相关性是一个警告信号,我们将青少年冒险的性行为归咎于媒体的观点可能是错误的。 Why doesn’t media influence teens? 为什么媒体内容影响不了青少年? There are numerous theories that discuss how individuals and media interact. However, many older media effects theories didn’t consider why people were drawn to media, how they processed it, or what they hoped to get from it. Such theories assumed viewers simply irrationally and purposelessly imitated what they saw. Most of the papers we examined in our meta-analysis were tests of these basic, automatic, media effects theories. 有很多理论讨论个人和媒体如何相互影响。然而,许多早期媒体效应理论没有考虑为什么人们被媒体内容吸引,他们如何处理媒体内容,或者他们想从媒体内容中得到什么。这些理论假设观众只是简单非理性和无目的地模仿他们观看的内容。我们荟萃分析里的大多数论文就是这些基本、自动的媒体效应理论的实验测试。 In the past few years, some scholars (myself included) have specifically called for the retirement of these older media effects theories. This is because the evidence increasingly suggests that fictional media such as feature movies or sitcoms media is too remote to have a clear impact on consumers' behavior, especially compared to families and peers. 过去几年,一些学者(包括我自己)号召淘汰这些早期媒体效应理论。越来越多的证据表明,像故事电影和情景喜剧这样的虚构媒体内容太遥不可及,不足以对消费者的行为产生清晰明确的影响,尤其是与家庭和同龄人这两个因素相比。 In addition, emerging evidence suggests that young children process fictional media differently from real events. If small children are able to process a difference between fictional events and real events, we can assume that teens don’t really expect media to reflect reality. 此外,新出现的证据表明,年轻的孩子处理虚构媒体的方式不同于真实事件。如果小孩子都能够辨别虚构事件和真实事件之间的差异,我们可以假设青少年从来没有真正想过媒体反映了现实。 Our results regarding the limited impact of media also fit with the observations from societal data. Despite a plethora of sexual media available to teens, a crisis of risky teen sexual behavior has not emerged. 我们关于媒体有限影响的研究结果也符合来自社会数据的观察。尽管青少年接触到种类繁多的色情媒体,高风险青少年性行为的危机并没有出现。 We watch what we’re interested in watching 我们观看我们感兴趣的 Newer models of media use suggest that it is the individuals who consume media, not the media itself, who are the driving agents of behavior. Evidence suggests that users seek out and interpret media according to what they want to get from it, rather than passively imitating it. 较新的媒体使用模型表明,是消费媒体内容的个人而不是媒体本身,驱动了行为。有证据表明,用户根据他们想要从中得到什么来寻找和解读媒体,而不是被动的模仿。 People don’t generally accidentally watch media, sexual or otherwise, but are motivated to do so because of preexisting desires. 人们通常不是偶然地观看媒体、性或者其它,而是被先前存在的欲望驱动。 For instance, some recent studies have indicated that youth seek out media that fit with preexisting motives, called a selection effect, but that media don’t necessarily lead to further problem behaviors. For example, research suggests that some teens who are already aggressive might be interested in violent video games, but playing such games doesn’t make kids more aggressive. 例如,最近的一些研究显示青年人寻求适合先前已经存在的动机的媒体,这被称为“选择效应”。但是媒体并不一定导致进一步的问题行为。比如,研究表明一些本来就已经好斗的青年人可能对暴力视频游戏感兴趣,但玩这样的游戏并没有让孩子更好斗。 That’s a point that sometimes seems ignored when we talk about teens and sex. Interest in sex is a largely biologically motivated process; fictional media really isn’t required. Teens will become interested in sex all on their own. 这就是当我们谈论青少年与性时,有时候会忽略的一点。对性的兴趣很大程度上是生物性驱动的过程,虚构媒体并非必需。青少年自发的对性产生兴趣。 Parents have more influence than the media 父母比媒体影响更大 Parents can rest a bit easier since the evidence suggests that media isn’t a primary driver of teen sexuality. 父母们可以松口气了,因为证据表明媒体不是一个青少年性行为的主要驱动力。 To the extent media has any impact at all, it is likely only in a vacuum left by adults reluctant to talk to kids about sex, especially the stuff kids really want to know. 即便媒体能施加影响,也只是在一个由成人所留下的真空内起作用,有些成人不愿意跟孩子谈论与性有关的话题,尤其是孩子真正想知道的事情,由此便产生了真空。 How do you ask someone out on a date and how do you handle it if they say no? What does sex feel like? When is it OK to have sex? What are the risks and how do you avoid them? In the face of patient, empathic and informative discussions about sex by adults kids trust, the media likely has little influence. 你怎么邀请别人出去约会?如果他们拒绝了,你怎么处理?性爱是怎么样的?什么时候可以发生性行为?性行为有什么风险,你怎么避免这些风险?在成人与孩子之间互相信任、耐心、有同理心和有理有据的讨论面前,媒体可能几乎没有影响。 Ultimately, whether media have salacious or more conscientious portrayals of sexuality, we should not expect media to replace conversations with youth by parents, guardians and educators. 最后,无论媒体是否有露骨或更谨慎的性描写,我们都不应期待媒体取代父母、监护人和教育工作者与青少年的谈话。 I’m not suggesting everyone run out and buy “50 Shades of Grey” for their teen, but if teens happen to come across it (and they will), it’s not the end of the world. 我不是建议每个人都跑出去买《五十度灰》给他们的小孩,但是如果青少年无意中发现这本书(他们肯定会),这不是世界末日。 The important thing for parents is to talk to their kids. 作为父母,重要的是和他们的孩子谈一谈。 (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——

读史笔记#22:塑造行为的多重机制

(本文删节版发表于《长江日报·读周刊》)

塑造行为的多重机制
辉格
2016年12月2日

人的行为方式千差万别且变化多端,这也体现在我们描绘行为的形容词的丰富性上:羞涩,奔放,畏缩,鲁莽,克制,放纵,粗野,优雅,勤勉,懒散,好斗,随和……这些词汇同时也被用来描绘个体性格,有些甚至用来辨识文化和民族差异,由此可见,尽管人类行为丰富多变,却仍可识别出某些稳定而持久的模式。

那么,究竟是哪些因素,经由何种过程,塑造了种种行为模式呢?在以往讨论中,流行着一种将遗传和环境影响对立两分的倾向,仿佛这两种因素是各自独立起作用的,最终结果只是两者的线性叠加,就像调鸡尾酒,人们关注的是各种原料的配比,五勺基因,两勺家庭,两勺学校,再加一勺『文化』,一个活蹦乱跳的文明人就出炉了。

这种将成长中的孩子视为受影响者或加工对象的视角,是不得要领的,实际上,成长是一个主动学习的过程,基因和环境的关系更像软件中代码和数据输入的关系,基因编码引导个体从环境中采集数据,以便配置自身的行为算法,把代码和数据放一起搅一搅不可能得到想要的功能,在软件工程中,也没人会谈论代码和数据对算法表现分别有多大比例的影响。

正如马特·里德利(Matt Ri(more...)

标签: | | | |
7463
(本文删节版发表于《长江日报·读周刊》) 塑造行为的多重机制 辉格 2016年12月2日 人的行为方式千差万别且变化多端,这也体现在我们描绘行为的形容词的丰富性上:羞涩,奔放,畏缩,鲁莽,克制,放纵,粗野,优雅,勤勉,懒散,好斗,随和……这些词汇同时也被用来描绘个体性格,有些甚至用来辨识文化和民族差异,由此可见,尽管人类行为丰富多变,却仍可识别出某些稳定而持久的模式。 那么,究竟是哪些因素,经由何种过程,塑造了种种行为模式呢?在以往讨论中,流行着一种将遗传和环境影响对立两分的倾向,仿佛这两种因素是各自独立起作用的,最终结果只是两者的线性叠加,就像调鸡尾酒,人们关注的是各种原料的配比,五勺基因,两勺家庭,两勺学校,再加一勺『文化』,一个活蹦乱跳的文明人就出炉了。 这种将成长中的孩子视为受影响者或加工对象的视角,是不得要领的,实际上,成长是一个主动学习的过程,基因和环境的关系更像软件中代码和数据输入的关系,基因编码引导个体从环境中采集数据,以便配置自身的行为算法,把代码和数据放一起搅一搅不可能得到想要的功能,在软件工程中,也没人会谈论代码和数据对算法表现分别有多大比例的影响。 正如马特·里德利([[Matt Ridley]])在《天性经由教养》中所阐明,成长是遗传代码随教养进程依次执行的过程,然而,对于这一过程具体如何展开,迄今只有零散的论述,而缺乏一幅系统化的全景图,幸运的是,心理学家朱迪·哈里斯([[Judith R.Harris]])在《教养的迷思》中提出的开创性见解,为我们拼凑这样一幅系统流程草图提供了便利。 对于个人,最持久而一致的那些行为特征被称为人格,主流人格心理学识别了经验开放性、尽责性、外向性、亲和性、情绪稳定性这五个最具一致性的特征,它们很大程度上是先天的(遗传差异可解释一半以上的人格差异),并且至少从成年后就伴随终身,在不同场景中的表现也相当连贯。 但人格并不直接对应行为模式,个人在决定如何行事时,还会考虑所在群体的规范,并借助由文化所传承的整套符号,正因此,有着相似人格的两个人,在不同文化或同一文化的不同群体中,会表现出十分不同的行为,比如同样一个外向型高亲和度的人,在向客人表达亲热时,是拥抱、亲吻、抚手,还是捶胸、拍肩、摸头,将随文化而异。 在这方面,儿童有着非凡的学习能力,只须借助少量样本,便可构建出一个范本模式,据此判断在何种情景下怎么做才是地道的、妥贴的;而且他们十分清楚不同群体和不同性质的关系中适用不同规范,家人、亲戚、邻里、同学、朋友、陌生人之间的规范学习和范本建模将分别进行,学习结果独立存储,并在相应场景下被激活。 哈里斯指出,这一学习过程主要在年龄相近的同侪群体中自发进行,长辈的做法会被参考,但训导和传授的努力几乎是徒劳的,当孩子们从某些线索发现长辈的做法已过时落伍,会毫不犹豫的弃之不顾,甚至当缺乏可供参照的样本时,他们也会经由群体内协调而创造出一种全新规范,就像他们创造克里奥尔语和尼加拉瓜手语那样。 在规范学习中,并非所有样本都被同等对待,那些看起来更受青睐和尊崇,更具号召力和支配力——总之地位更高——的个体,其行为将被赋予更高权重,而青少年在识别哪些是高地位受尊崇个体方面,有着敏锐直觉(其中受异性青睐程度是关键线索之一,这也是性选择得以发生的重要途径),正是通过这样的学习和协调过程,社会等级结构代复一代自我再生。 识别、追随和效仿群体中的尊贵者,并努力为自己赢得体面和尊贵(因为这会为个体带来切实的利益),是文化进化的一大动力机制,它维持着社会的等级结构和价值阶梯,也推动着风尚潮流的循环轮替,值得一提的是,性选择也在其中发挥了殊为关键的作用,因为识别高地位者的一大线索便是受异性青睐的程度,同时这一青睐也是对追逐地位和追随群体价值取向的重要激励。 习得规范进入群体之后,下一步便是确立自己在群体中的位置,个体出于自身的人格特质和资源与天赋条件,在群体中寻找适合自己的生态位,个体差异也将随此选择而展开,同时其行为方式会在群体规范所给定的框架之下,按照自身地位及与群内他人的关系而调整。 上述『先同化后分化』的两阶段模型,可帮助我们理解青春期躁动这一极为普遍的文化现象,青春期躁动表现为跟风盲从,集体狂热,缺乏个性与独立思考,强烈且富有攻击性的团体意识和民族主义,这实际上是一个强化群体认同的机制,在部落社会,它常以严酷的成人礼和结伙对外攻击等更正规和有组织的方式进行。 在经历躁动过程的严酷考验之后,个体习得规范并被纳入群体,同时,考验过程中的表现也将决定他未来在群体内的地位,一旦这一过程结束,成员身份确立,各自找到自己的生态位,躁动与狂热便会消退,规范的强制性和集体义务将逐渐放松,大家分头过自己的小日子去了,但躁动中所建立的群体认同、团伙情谊和个人间关系纽带仍将长期存续,并服务于更为功利性的目标。 两阶段模型也可解释一个哈里斯所强调、且常被忽视的现象:尽管人格具有相当高一致性,但同一个人在不同社会情境中的行为模式仍可十分不同,不同到像两个人那样,比如一位长兄在家里对弟妹们表现出长子所常有的那种强势和支配性,在学校却可能甘做跟班小弟,一个在办公室里沉默寡言的人在兴趣社团中却滔滔不绝、能言善辩,一个父母跟前的乖孩子在街头帮派中也许是个狠角色,哈里斯将此称为人格多面性,或许也就是人们常说的多重人格。 这是因为从先天人格特质到具体行为模式之间,经过了自我生态定位和个性展现,而这是针对不同群体分别进行的,当个人进入这些群体时,将根据自身禀赋优势和价值取向与该群体规范和价值阶梯的匹配程度作出定位,从而展现人格的不同侧面:是争当其领导者?努力向上爬的积极分子?寻求庇护的弱势追随者?还是不太情愿的服从者?或三心两意的投机分子?不同定位的行为差异是显而易见的。  
[译文]噩梦般的底特律教育系统

Real Reform for Detroit’s Kids
为底特律孩子做真正的改革

作者:Steven Malanga @ 2015-05-05
译者:babyface_claire(@许你疯不许你傻)
校对:hkustliqi
来源:http://city-journal.org/html/real-reform-detroits-kids-14433.html

It’s time to break up the city’s dysfunctional school system.
是时候打破这座城市功能失调的学校系统了。

Even as it tries to revive itself after emerging from bankruptcy, Detroit faces a new crisis: it had to shut down many of its schools this week because of a sickout by teachers. The Detroit Federation of Teachers engineered the stoppage to pressure the Michigan legislature to agree to a $715 million aid package—without which, Detroit schools could run out of money by June.

即使底特律在摆脱破产之后试图重整,它还是面临着新的危机:由于教师的托病旷工,本周许多学校被迫关闭。底特律教师联合会策划了这次罢工,以便向密歇根州议会施压让它同意一个7.15亿美元的援助项目——没有它,底特律的学校在六月就会破产。

Michigan governor Rick Snyder wants to tie the aid to reforms that would bring new leadership to the troubled system, but some legislat(more...)

标签: | |
7270
Real Reform for Detroit’s Kids 为底特律孩子做真正的改革 作者:Steven Malanga @ 2015-05-05 译者:babyface_claire(@许你疯不许你傻) 校对:hkustliqi 来源:http://city-journal.org/html/real-reform-detroits-kids-14433.html It’s time to break up the city’s dysfunctional school system. 是时候打破这座城市功能失调的学校系统了。 Even as it tries to revive itself after emerging from bankruptcy, Detroit faces a new crisis: it had to shut down many of its schools this week because of a sickout by teachers. The Detroit Federation of Teachers engineered the stoppage to pressure the Michigan legislature to agree to a $715 million aid package—without which, Detroit schools could run out of money by June. 即使底特律在摆脱破产之后试图重整,它还是面临着新的危机:由于教师的托病旷工,本周许多学校被迫关闭。底特律教师联合会策划了这次罢工,以便向密歇根州议会施压让它同意一个7.15亿美元的援助项目——没有它,底特律的学校在六月就会破产。 Michigan governor Rick Snyder wants to tie the aid to reforms that would bring new leadership to the troubled system, but some legislators are skeptical—with good reason. Snyder’s plan represents the fifth major reform agenda in the last 30 years for the Detroit Public Schools, which have been plagued by lousy leadership, a reform-resistant union, and a shortage of resources. Instead of a new plan for an old system, it’s time for Snyder and Michigan’s legislators to try something new. 密歇根州长Rick Snyder想把这个援助项目与一项改革挂钩,这项改革将把新领导班子引入这个陷于困境的系统,但是一些议员对此持怀疑态度——而且有很好的理由。Snyder的计划是过去30年里底特律公立学校的第五大改革议程,而底特律公立学校一直被糟糕的领导,抵抗改革的工会和资源短缺所困扰。 是时候让Snyder和密歇根立法委员会尝试一些新的方法,而不只是用个新瓶装旧酒。 Detroit’s public schools began their decline in the 1970s, as middle class residents fled the city. Even as the educational challenges increased, however, the system’s bureaucracy grew and grew. The board of education gained a reputation for financial mismanagement, fostering the impression that Detroit’s schools were being operated as a jobs program for adults, rather than to educate kids. 随着中产阶级逃离底特律,这座城市的公立学校从1970年代就开始衰退。尽管教育挑战加剧,这个系统的官僚主义却日积月累。教育委员会得到了财务管理不善的名声,造成了一种底特律的学校是以给成年人提供就业计划而运作,而不是教育孩子的印象。 By the late 1980s, the system ran a $180 million deficit, with a high school dropout rate of 50 percent and daily absenteeism averaging almost 20 percent of all students. The state brought in new management to stabilize the school system’s budget. 到1980年代末,教育系统有着1.8亿美元的财政赤字,高中辍学率高达50%,平均每天的缺席人数几乎占所有学生的20%。州里曾引进新的管理办法来稳定学校系统的预算。 Education reforms followed. Some principals gained the freedom to select their own curriculum and staff. A bitter teachers’ strike undermined these reform efforts, shuttering schools for 26 days in September of 1992. As one school board member told the press: “[The strike] hit the reform effort upside the head like a two-by-four.” 教育改革随后也被实行了。有些校长获得了选择他们自己的课程和员工的自由。一次激烈的教师罢工破环了这些改革措施,使得学校在1992年9月不得已被关闭26天。一个学校董事会成员告诉媒体,“(这次罢工)给了改革努力当头一棒。” The school district continued to drift. Controversy erupted when the board mishandled $1.5 billion in borrowed money meant to renovate schools. In 1997, then-governor John Engler proposed dissolving the board of education and turning the system over to a new group appointed by Mayor Dennis Archer. 学区继续脱离正轨。由于学校董事会对借来用于修缮学校的15亿美元管理不当,争议再度触发。1997年,时任州长John Engler提议解散学校董事会,把这个机构变成由市长Dennis Archer掌管的一个新部门。 In September 1999, however, the teachers struck again, this time for nine days, in opposition to Archer’s reform proposals, which included a merit-pay system tied to classroom performance. Archer wound up dropping the idea. 然而,在1999年9月,教师再次罢工,这次为期9天,以此反对Archer的改革提议。罢工提议包括了一个与课堂表现相关联的绩效工资制度。Archer最终放弃了他的改革设想。 Five years later, with the system showing little progress in educating students, frustrated Detroit residents voted for yet another reform plan, this time giving management of the schools back to an elected school board. That decision proved disastrous; the district’s finances quickly deteriorated. 五年之后,随着该系统显示出在教育学生方面进展甚微,沮丧的底特律居民投票支持另一个改革计划,这次把管理学校的权力还给了一个选举产生的学校董事会。这一决定被证明是灾难性的,该地区的财政状况迅速恶化。 In September 2006, teachers went on strike yet again, this time over proposals to freeze pay and require greater health-care contributions. By 2009, the district faced a $259 million deficit, as the new board failed to cut costs to respond to a rapid enrollment decline. Governor Jennifer Granholm seized control of the Detroit school district in February 2009 and installed a financial manager to right the ship. 2006年9月,教师再次罢工,这次针对的是冻结薪水和要求更多的医保缴款。到2009年,由于新的学校董事会在入学率快速下降的同时却没能消减支出,该地区面临着一个2.59亿美元的财政赤字。在2009年2月,州长Jennifer Granholm控制了底特律的学区,并指定了一个财务经理来挽回局势。 An audit discovered hundreds of employees getting paid for no-show jobs and salaries allocated to dead people. Obama education secretary Arne Duncan called the district a “national disgrace.” The system’s graduation rate had plunged to 25 percent, and in 2009, its students registered the lowest scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress tests since the exams have been given. 一个审计员发现有上百员工通过不用出勤的工作获得报酬,甚至有工资分配给死人。奥巴马的教育部长Arne Duncan称这个学区为“国家的耻辱”。这个学校系统的毕业率跌至25%。在2009年,它的学生得到了自从国家教育进展评估测试开展以来的最低分。 The state of Michigan has maintained control since 2009, but progress has been halting, in part because of the school system’s institutional dysfunction. The recalcitrant teachers’ union has successfully resisted many reforms. And Detroit’s bankruptcy, which left the city short of resources, hasn’t helped. Residents keep fleeing the city, and students keep leaving the school system. Enrollment is down to just 49,000, from 168,000 in 2000. 自从2009年来,密歇根州政府一直控制着学校系统,但是进展已经停滞,部分是由于学校系统的制度障碍。顽固的教师工会已成功抵制许多改革。底特律的破产,致使城市资源短缺,对此无所助益。居民一直在逃离这座城市,学生一直在离开学校系统。入学人数从2000年的16万8千跌落至仅有4万9千。 Facing these challenges, Snyder recently appointed the respected former bankruptcy judge Steven Rhodes to try and right the system’s finances. But Rhodes isn’t an educator, and Detroit’s kids desperately need better schools. Snyder should recognize by now that they won’t get them from the sclerotic and inept public system. 面临这些挑战,Snyder最近任命备受尊敬的前破产法官Steven Rhodes尝试修正学校系统的财政状况。然而Rhodes并不是教育家,底特律的孩子迫切需要更好的学校。Snyder现在应该意识到, 这些孩子不会从僵化且无能的公共学校系统得到良好的教育。 There is another way. In recent years, dozens of charter schools have been established in Detroit, attracting tens of thousands of city students. In fact, charter schools now enroll more students in Detroit than the public school system does. Snyder should aim higher—toward the complete elimination of traditional public schools in favor of an all-charter model. 还有另一种途径。近年来,底特律建立了许多特许学校,吸引着成千上万的城市学生。事实上,在底特律,现在特许学校比公立学校系统招收的学生更多。Snyder应该追求更高的目标,支持用一个全特许学校模式来彻底取代传统的公立学校。 Too radical? Not for New Orleans, which took this path after Hurricane Katrina, transitioning from its 120-school public education system to one dominated by charter schools. To bring about the transformation, New Orleans turned to the Louisiana Recovery School District (RSD), a state body instituted to take over failing schools. 太过激进?对新奥尔良来说不是。在卡崔娜飓风之后,新奥尔良采取这种方式把120所公立学校系统转化为一个特许学校系统。为了完成这次转变,新奥尔良求助于路易斯安那州复苏学区(RSD) 这一接管失败学校的州立机构。 After Katrina, the RSD became the public school operator in New Orleans. By 2007, some 60 percent of the city’s kids were enrolled in charters. New Orleans phased out its last government schools in 2015, effectively completing the changeover to an all-choice system. Graduation rates and test scores have rallied impressively. And it’s all happened in a network of schools that educates nearly as many children as Detroit does. 在卡崔娜飓风之后,RSD成了新奥尔良公立学校的管理者。到2007年,大约60%的城市孩子进入了特许学校。在2015年,新奥尔良逐步淘汰了最后的公立学校,有效的完成了向一个完全自由择校系统的转换。毕业率和考试成绩的上涨令人印象深刻。这都是发生在一个教育着与底特律同样多孩子的教育网络内。 Not surprisingly, charter schools in Detroit have their opponents. In fact, some critics are using the latest crisis to undermine charters, proposing to limit their ability to expand. Michigan should be doing exactly the opposite—phasing out Detroit’s reform-impervious public school system, encouraging local groups and charter operators from around the country to open more schools, and giving all Detroit residents the opportunity to escape the toxic grip of the city’s disastrous educational system. 不足为奇的是,特许学校在底特律有他们的反对者。事实上,一些批评家利用最新的危机来削弱特许学校并提议限制他们的扩张。密歇根州应该做的恰恰相反,逐步淘汰底特律无力改革的公立学校系统,鼓励地方团体和来自全国各地的特许经营者开放更多的学校,给所有底特律居民机会逃避这个城市有毒的灾难性的教育系统。 Steven Malanga is the senior editor of City Journal, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the author of Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer. Steven Malanga是城市期刊的高级编辑,曼哈顿研究院的高级研究员,著有《勒索:对美国纳税人的持续阴谋》。 (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——

追求幸福

【2016-07-13】

1)影响幸福感主要因素是相对社会地位及地位之近期变动,可以几个指标衡量:社会阶梯的级数(N),个体所能感知到的级数(M),个体处于哪一级(P),最近之升降(C),

2)处于各级的人口比例是不均匀的,至少从中位阶梯(即,站在该级上的人,其地位不低于一半人口)往上,数量呈指数下降,

3)社会大型化和复杂化将增加总的级数N,

4)密集居住、高流动性、发达媒体,将增加个体所能感知到的级数M,

5)增加M会让一些人(X)感觉自己相对地位下降了,同时让另一些人(Y)感觉自己相对地位上升了,因为(2),(more...)

标签: | | | |
7257
【2016-07-13】 1)影响幸福感主要因素是相对社会地位及地位之近期变动,可以几个指标衡量:社会阶梯的级数(N),个体所能感知到的级数(M),个体处于哪一级(P),最近之升降(C), 2)处于各级的人口比例是不均匀的,至少从中位阶梯(即,站在该级上的人,其地位不低于一半人口)往上,数量呈指数下降, 3)社会大型化和复杂化将增加总的级数N, 4)密集居住、高流动性、发达媒体,将增加个体所能感知到的级数M, 5)增加M会让一些人(X)感觉自己相对地位下降了,同时让另一些人(Y)感觉自己相对地位上升了,因为(2),X的比例远高于Y,所以增加M总是拉低社会总的幸福感水平, 6)城市化、大众媒体和网络社交都会提高M 7)高等教育也会提高个体的M值 8)传统社会的结构较为扁平,同等规模的N值小于现代社会 9)传统社会绝大多数人生活中小社会,城市规模也较小,社会视野和社交范围皆较小,故同等经济条件下M值更小 10)以上大概可以解释,为何当收入提高到某个水平之后,增加收入不再能提高幸福感 11)以上还可得出几个推断:同等经济条件下,都市人比小城市人幸福感低,博士生比高中生幸福感低,用微信的比不用微信的幸福感低…… 12)我认为『追求幸福』毫无意义  
一团和气

【2016-02-16】

@whigzhou: 个人主义必定伴随着对抗性,否认对抗、讲究隐忍退让、一团和气、齐心协力拧成一股绳、为此诉诸权威以压制对抗、抹除差异的群体,无论是家庭还是社会,都是容不下个人主义的,我们不能在提倡个人主义的同时否认对抗,而只能在承认对抗的同时设法学会以诚实、体面、守信、有尊严的方式处理对抗。

@whigzhou: 至于从何时开始、在何种程度上将孩子作为独立自主的个人对待,我的看法是分年龄段逐步推进,并鼓励孩子证明自己已配得上更高一级的对待,最终在(more...)

标签: | | | |
7034
【2016-02-16】 @whigzhou: 个人主义必定伴随着对抗性,否认对抗、讲究隐忍退让、一团和气、齐心协力拧成一股绳、为此诉诸权威以压制对抗、抹除差异的群体,无论是家庭还是社会,都是容不下个人主义的,我们不能在提倡个人主义的同时否认对抗,而只能在承认对抗的同时设法学会以诚实、体面、守信、有尊严的方式处理对抗。 @whigzhou: 至于从何时开始、在何种程度上将孩子作为独立自主的个人对待,我的看法是分年龄段逐步推进,并鼓励孩子证明自己已配得上更高一级的对待,最终在某个时刻承认其自由人的地位,至于我家的猫,则注定只能永远处于我的权威主义控制之下。 @rainbowend:把儿童培养成成人的一大目标就是让他像个人一样为自己争取利益表达诉求, 同时也学会有礼貌的沟通达成妥协吧。把这说成对抗性也太怪了 @whigzhou: 把礼貌和对抗对立起来才叫怪,两支球队可以很有礼貌很讲规则很有尊严的进行对抗 @whigzhou: 自由主义者最具误导性的一句格言是,人生而自由,要我说,“人生而为暴徒”更接近真相,自由是已经学会收好爪子的好猫们所创造的俱乐部公共品,加入这个俱乐部的资格不是与生俱来的,既要学会收好爪子,否则就是暴徒,又要学会在必要时挥出爪子,否则便是奴隶。 @whigzhou: 文明社会驯服暴徒的方式有两种,一是权威主义的压制和惩戒,让暴徒了解不收好爪子的惨痛代价,二是对合作性的社会奖励机制,让暴徒意识到,收好爪子也可以维护自己的利益,还能带来合作收益,第一种方式导向专制社会,第二种导向自由社会。  
私校经历与社会成就

【2015-12-02】

@海德沙龙 《私立学校与社会成就》在英国,43%的高级律师、54%的行政总监、51%的高级医生以及54%的新闻界领袖念过私立学校,而同时只有7%
的儿童在私校读书,那么私校经历与社会成就之间的关系,究竟是如何产生的?是因为富家子既容易上私校又容易晋身,还是私校帮助了晋身,还是别的原因?

@whigzhou: 作者没给出结论,但综合文章所提供的各方面数据,我得到的印象是:那些从小就表现出有出息迹象的孩子,家长(more...)

标签: |
6971
【2015-12-02】 @海德沙龙 《私立学校与社会成就》在英国,43%的高级律师、54%的行政总监、51%的高级医生以及54%的新闻界领袖念过私立学校,而同时只有7% 的儿童在私校读书,那么私校经历与社会成就之间的关系,究竟是如何产生的?是因为富家子既容易上私校又容易晋身,还是私校帮助了晋身,还是别的原因? @whigzhou: 作者没给出结论,但综合文章所提供的各方面数据,我得到的印象是:那些从小就表现出有出息迹象的孩子,家长往往勒紧裤带也要送进私校,这一选择机制大概可以解释私校与社会成就之关系的大部分,剩下的小部分由私校经历本身所贡献。 @whigzhou: 果真如此的话,那差不多就是说:童年表现出有出息潜力的孩子,长大了往往真的会有出息,很平凡的事实嘛~  
小心被中文毒害

【2015-10-30】

最近听到不少诸如“别让孩子学中文或读中文材料以免受其毒害”之类的,我看有点反应过度了,说几点看法:

1)中文(即汉语官话之书面语)不是很好的语言,特别是在表达精确而复杂的结构性内容时,

2)但这不好不是该语言的“本性”决定的,而是因为它缺乏被高密度大强度的运用于此类精确表达的历史,

3)认为学某种语言就会被该语言所特有的思维模式所困住,这种想法过于语言决定论了,

4)有些人确实会被语言困住,但那是因为他们自己足够蠢,或信息条件足够闭塞,

5)语言没什么固有不变的本性,使用者总是在不断改造它,当某种表达需(more...)

标签: | |
6935
【2015-10-30】 最近听到不少诸如“别让孩子学中文或读中文材料以免受其毒害”之类的,我看有点反应过度了,说几点看法: 1)中文(即汉语官话之书面语)不是很好的语言,特别是在表达精确而复杂的结构性内容时, 2)但这不好不是该语言的“本性”决定的,而是因为它缺乏被高密度大强度的运用于此类精确表达的历史, 3)认为学某种语言就会被该语言所特有的思维模式所困住,这种想法过于语言决定论了, 4)有些人确实会被语言困住,但那是因为他们自己足够蠢,或信息条件足够闭塞, 5)语言没什么固有不变的本性,使用者总是在不断改造它,当某种表达需求足够强烈、频繁而普遍时,新成分就会被创造出来, 6)就认知能力发展而言,拼音化和非拼音化书面语各有好处,有机会各学一门挺好, 7)但不学也没什么大不了的,因为发展符号认知能力的其他机会很多,错过一种也无所谓, 8)当代中文材料里垃圾居多,这没错, 9)但因此而认为孩子学中文时接触这些材料会把脑子学坏,是没有道理的过度恐慌, 10)许多孩子确实被教坏了,比如学到很多坏的思考方法,习得很多坏的文化, 11)但这不是因为接触了太多垃圾,而是因为没机会读到好东西, 12)希望将孩子隔离在垃圾之外,这既无必要,也做不到,哪里都有很多垃圾,英文世界也是, 13)重要的是要让他有机会接触好东西,品味都是靠多吃练出来的。  
沐猿而冠·第4章·教育·导言

对文化而言,教育是它将自身装载到新的个体头脑中的过程,借助这一过程,文化不断获得新载体,从而在一代代个体生死交替的同时得以存续下去,并在比个体寿命长得多的时间内保持连续性;在此意义上,教育就像磁带翻录机,让音乐跨越个体磁带而得以长存;当然,文化系统庞大而复杂,每一个体所装载的,只是其中一个堪以自成体系的子集。

而对于个人,教育则是习得一种语言和它所包含的知识,一套生活与社会技能,一组口味、偏好、价值观和伦理规范的过程;简言之,教育过程为个体安装了一套文化系统,就像为电脑裸机安装一套操作系统,从而将裸猿变成衣冠之猿,拥有在特定社会生存下去所需要的文化禀赋和社会能力,并具有一个完整而成熟的人格与意志。

在那些结构简(more...)

标签: | |
6831
对文化而言,教育是它将自身装载到新的个体头脑中的过程,借助这一过程,文化不断获得新载体,从而在一代代个体生死交替的同时得以存续下去,并在比个体寿命长得多的时间内保持连续性;在此意义上,教育就像磁带翻录机,让音乐跨越个体磁带而得以长存;当然,文化系统庞大而复杂,每一个体所装载的,只是其中一个堪以自成体系的子集。 而对于个人,教育则是习得一种语言和它所包含的知识,一套生活与社会技能,一组口味、偏好、价值观和伦理规范的过程;简言之,教育过程为个体安装了一套文化系统,就像为电脑裸机安装一套操作系统,从而将裸猿变成衣冠之猿,拥有在特定社会生存下去所需要的文化禀赋和社会能力,并具有一个完整而成熟的人格与意志。 在那些结构简单、文化朴陋的小型社会,教育和生长发育一样自然而顺利,一个人只要身心健全,并且不被隔离在日常社会生活之外,无须太多努力,便可顺利习得和别人差不多的文化,而即便他格外努力,也学不到太多超出普通水平的东西。 这是因为,我们裸猿并不真的像电脑裸机那么空白,而是内置了各种高度特化而有效率的学习机制,对生活所需的学习任务有着本能的饥渴和领悟力,因为人类物种已在类似条件下进化了数十万年,已经获得了针对这些学习任务的适应器,它们就像一个有待填充的知识框架,引导我们按某个时间表自发的学习。 最刻板的一种学习机制被动物行为学家称为“铭刻(imprint)”,它们随个人成长过程而自动展开,有点像电脑首次启动时的参数配置过程;有些候鸟会在首次随长辈作夜间飞行时,记下当时的星图,此后一生便可用此星图为季节性迁徙作导航;很可能借助类似机制,我们在幼年时便学会了哪些东西可以吃,而哪些是有毒的、危险的。 当然并非所有学习都这么刻板,但许多学习过程背后或许都有着类似的机制,即,我们本能地寻求某些知识,并懂得从何种情境中提取它们,也知道如何运用这些知识;最令人惊叹的是语言之习得,尽管语言非常复杂且变幻多端,其难度在成年人学习第二语言时都能体会,但只要在学习窗口期被适当暴露于母语环境中,每个健康孩子都能轻易学会。 然而,自从人类过上定居生活,组织起更大型社会,有了更精细的分工与合作,发展了需要各种专门知识和技能的农业、商业和制造业,进而创造出极为繁复庞杂的文化,这种自发的学习方式就无法满足所有需要了;许多技能和职业需要长时间的专门学习,并得到专家的传授和指点,往往还要在特定的教学设施和课业程序之中进行,这就要求教育必须成为一项专门事业。 文字的发明带来了新情况,越来越多知识被以文字记录和传播,长距离通讯交流也须以文字为媒介,大跨度贸易和行政更须借各种票据和文件才可能展开,同时文字也大大提升了知识的可积累性,前所未有的巨量知识被创造出来,并支撑起越来越复杂的技术和组织,简言之,整个文化系统中越来越大的部分,赖文字为介质而得以存在、散布和传承。 这就对基础教育提出了要求,掌握基本读写和算术技能,成了进一步学习其他知识和技能、从事某些职业的前提,因而成为个人赢得社会成功的一条重要途径;结果,在分工精细、文明发达的社会,接受基础教育的机会和成效,日益成为影响个人前途的重要因素。 文明时代的学习和教育向人类提出了巨大挑战,定居生活和精细分工的历史并不长,文字和算术的发明则更晚,我们或许还没有发展出有足够针对性的适应器,来帮助我们像学习语言那么容易学会它们;事实上,在读写、数学、逻辑和抽象理论的学习上,面临的障碍要大得多,许多人在经历了十几年全日制教育之后,仍然不善于读写和计算。 更糟糕的是,不少证据显示,我们的心智结构与某些学习任务恰恰是相抵触的,在因果关系推断上,在逻辑、概率和统计学问题上,在远离日常尺度的系统级问题上,我们的直觉往往是错多对少,错得很远且屡错不改,简直冥顽不化;这提示了,教育本身是一门需要研究和习得的技能,教育者需要找到一些方法,帮助人类学会他们原本不善于学习的东西。 教育让个人习得技能,从而在追求利益与成就时拥有优势,但这只是一方面,教育之于个人更深刻的影响是,它会改变他们对“什么是自己的利益,如何才算成功”的认识,通过教育,文化将风情时尚变成个人偏好,将习俗变成个人习惯,将传统变成个人价值观,将伦理规范变成个人道德情感。 偏好并非都天生就有,许多情趣爱好需要养成,并以习得某些体验能力为前提;味觉不经过各种食物的刺激和训练,就品味不出美酒佳肴的细微妙处;不会阅读,就感受不到小说的精彩;不了解有关典故,就体会不到许多幽默感;不熟悉历史,就难以被某些故事中的波澜、沧桑、沉重、悲壮所打动;缺乏道德情感,也就欣赏不了自由精神或侠风义骨。 离开这种种体验,生活将变得苍白乏味,人格不再那么丰厚饱满,生命因而也将不再那么有意义。物理上,人类同处一个世界,然而对个人有意义的,是头脑中那个观念世界(即波普所谓第二世界),而这个世界的规模、历史和丰富程度,取决于每个人的认识能力;一片杂草,对普通人只是杂草,在植物学家眼里,却是个极为丰富精彩的生态系统。 在文盲眼里,任何书籍不过是另一块纸砖,文字世界中的任何东西对他都不存在,历史只是迷雾深处隐约可见的一小片朦胧,或是来自戏曲评话中若干片段缺乏纵深的凌乱杂缀;传统乡村的多数居民,一辈子活动范围不过几十里,外加上一圈模糊不清的陌生地带,偶尔传来些遥远消息,便是他们的全部世界了。 正是教育延展了我们的感官,赋予我们文明时代才有的那些认知能力,从而在时间、空间、丰富性和结构层次等维度上拓展了我们所体验到的世界;让我们能够神游于古代社会,领略异国风情,欣赏蜂巢蚁穴中的精彩生活,赞叹细胞结构之巧妙。 更重要的是,它扩展了我们的选择空间和自由意志,让我们意识到原来生活还有这么多可能性,因为任何选项只有被认识才有意义,对于文盲,一家大书店并不比一堆复印纸提供更多选项,同样,对于那些被蒙昧牢牢禁锢在其生活轨道之中的人,世上种种他从未听闻也不能理解的艺术、娱乐、学问、生活方式、居住地、社会制度,都根本不是他的选项。  
[微言]用科学去塑造人

【2015-09-23】

@Ent_evo “用科学去塑造人,而不是让他们自然成长,这种想法让我们震惊……但这种想法当然是非理性的。……孩子所聆听的道德训诫,可能因为不科学而没有成效,但其意图也是塑造性格,就像赫胥黎笔下的耳语机器一样。因此,看起来我们并不反对塑造人,只要它很低效就行;我们反对的只是高效的塑造。”-罗素

@whigzhou: 罗素一谈社会就幼稚的一塌糊涂,也不想想,谁有资格塑造人?怎么算高效?目标不明怎么算效率?“用科学塑造人”又是什么意思?把(more...)

标签: | |
6793
【2015-09-23】 @Ent_evo “用科学去塑造人,而不是让他们自然成长,这种想法让我们震惊……但这种想法当然是非理性的。……孩子所聆听的道德训诫,可能因为不科学而没有成效,但其意图也是塑造性格,就像赫胥黎笔下的耳语机器一样。因此,看起来我们并不反对塑造人,只要它很低效就行;我们反对的只是高效的塑造。”-罗素 @whigzhou: 罗素一谈社会就幼稚的一塌糊涂,也不想想,谁有资格塑造人?怎么算高效?目标不明怎么算效率?“用科学塑造人”又是什么意思?把孩子泡在一堆论文里?万一科学研究发现泡在传统里更“高效”呢? @陈胡子伯爵:感觉你没明白罗素的意思,科学的培养是指用科学的方法培养而不是让孩子读科学论文。 @whigzhou: 1)你的脑补是你的,我不喜欢替人脑补,2)假设你的脑补成立,那么,将“科学方法”和传统方法对立起来之前,你先得证明“把孩子泡在传统/习俗/宗教里”的培养方法是不科学的 @whigzhou: 我尤其不喜欢替分析哲学家脑补,作为分析哲学家,有义务自己把话说清楚  
[译文]教育会减少恐怖主义?

More Education = Less Terrorism? Studying the Complex Relationship Between Terrorism and Education
教育会减少恐怖主义?对教育与恐怖主义之间复杂关系的研究

作者:Sarah Brockhoff, Tim Krieger & Daniel Meierrieks @ 2015-12-04
译者:Luis Rightcon(@Rightcon)
校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
来源:Political Violence @ a Glance, http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2015/12/04/more-education-less-terrorism-studying-the-complex-relationship-between-terrorism-and-education/

In the aftermath of terrorist attacks, education is often advocated as an antidote to terrorism, the idea primarily being that education may make individuals less vulnerable to the false promises of extremist ideologies. For instance, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington DC on September 11, 2001, Eli Wiesel – the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize laureate – argued:

在恐怖袭击的余波中,教育经常被提出来作为疗治恐怖主义的解药。基本的想法是,教育可以增强个人对于极端主义意识形态虚假承诺的免疫力。比如说,在2001年纽约和华盛顿特区的911恐袭发生之后,Eli Wiesel(1986年诺贝尔和平奖得主)声称:

What is it that seduces some young people to terrorism? It simplifies things. The fanatic has no questions, only answers. Education is the way to eliminate terrorism.

“究竟是什么把一些年轻人推向恐怖主义?就是因为它简单粗暴。盲从狂热者没有问题,只有答案。而教育就是消除恐怖主义的方法。”

While intuitive, the academic evidence on the terrorism-education nexus tends to be more pessi(more...)

标签: | |
6728
More Education = Less Terrorism? Studying the Complex Relationship Between Terrorism and Education 教育会减少恐怖主义?对教育与恐怖主义之间复杂关系的研究 作者:Sarah Brockhoff, Tim Krieger & Daniel Meierrieks @ 2015-12-04 译者:Luis Rightcon(@Rightcon) 校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 来源:Political Violence @ a Glance, http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2015/12/04/more-education-less-terrorism-studying-the-complex-relationship-between-terrorism-and-education/ In the aftermath of terrorist attacks, education is often advocated as an antidote to terrorism, the idea primarily being that education may make individuals less vulnerable to the false promises of extremist ideologies. For instance, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington DC on September 11, 2001, Eli Wiesel – the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize laureate – argued: 在恐怖袭击的余波中,教育经常被提出来作为疗治恐怖主义的解药。基本的想法是,教育可以增强个人对于极端主义意识形态虚假承诺的免疫力。比如说,在2001年纽约和华盛顿特区的911恐袭发生之后,Eli Wiesel(1986年诺贝尔和平奖得主)声称: What is it that seduces some young people to terrorism? It simplifies things. The fanatic has no questions, only answers. Education is the way to eliminate terrorism. “究竟是什么把一些年轻人推向恐怖主义?就是因为它简单粗暴。盲从狂热者没有问题,只有答案。而教育就是消除恐怖主义的方法。” While intuitive, the academic evidence on the terrorism-education nexus tends to be more pessimistic. On the national level, education is usually found to share little relationship with terrorism. What is more, on the individual level, there is evidence that the more educated are more likely to become terrorists. 但是,关于恐怖主义与教育之间的联系,尽管听起来很直观,但学术依据却寥寥无几。在国家层面上,人们发现,教育一般与恐怖主义联系甚微。更有甚者,在个人层面上,有证据表明接受过更高教育的人群反而更可能会变成恐怖分子。 For instance, education may fuel terrorism by raising the probability of terrorist success (i.e., the “productivity of terrorists”) through the use of high-capacity (i.e., well-educated) operatives. Indeed, due to the positive effect of individual human capital endowment on terrorist success, terrorist organizations tend to be particularly interested in selecting more educated members. 比如说,受过教育的恐怖分子会因为实行高技能(也就是受过良好教育)行动而在恐怖活动成功率(也就是“恐怖分子的生产率”)上有所增加,这样,教育可能就加剧了恐怖主义。实际上,由于个人的技能天分对于恐怖行动成功与否具有积极影响,恐怖组织特别倾向于选召受过更好教育的成员。 In our new study, we provide a framework to better understand the apparently complex interaction between terrorism and education, trying to reconcile the popular narrative that education may remedy terrorism with the prevalent academic viewpoint that education – if anything – is associated with more terrorism. 在一项新研究中,我们提出了一个理论框架来更好地理解恐怖主义与教育之间看似很复杂的关系,并且尝试调和两个观点:即教育可以纠正恐怖主义这一大众叙事,和教育只会与恐怖主义增加相联系的流行学术观点。 We argue that there is some truth to both the optimistic and pessimistic views regarding the terrorism-education nexus. The ultimate effect of education on terrorism is linked to country-specific circumstances which moderate whether the pacifying or inflammatory effects of education on terrorism prevail. 我们认为,对于恐怖主义-教育关系的悲观和乐观看法各有可取之处。教育对于恐怖主义的最终效用是与特定的国家环境相联系的,在不同的国家环境中,教育可能缓和也可能加剧恐怖主义的流行。 Education always increases the individual and society-wide prospect of socioeconomic and political participation as well as individual productivity and intellectual capacity (where the latter may further magnify individual expectations about one’s politico-economic position in society). That is, education always creates “great expectations.” 教育总是会增加个人和全社会的社会经济和政治参与度,同时也会提升个人的创造能力和才智(而后者也许会进一步提高个人对于自己在社会中政治经济地位的期望)。也就是说,教育总是会创造“远大前程”抱负。 Sound country-specific conditions help these expectations to materialize, thus reducing incentives for terrorism. For instance, more educated individuals unsurprisingly expect higher wages; however, higher wages are only likely to materialize when country-specific conditions are sound (e.g. as the economy grows, as labor market competition due to demographic pressures is limited, or as corruption and nepotism do not strongly distort labor market outcomes). 健康的特定国家状态能帮助这些理想成为现实,因此减弱恐怖主义的动机。例如,受过更高教育的人群不出意料会期望更高的薪水;然而,更高薪水只会在特定国家状态很健康时才可能实现(例如经济保持增长,因人口压力而导致的劳动力市场竞争不大激烈,或者腐败和裙带关系并未强烈扰乱劳动力市场运转)。 By contrast, when country-specific conditions are poor (e.g. slow economic growth, strong labor market competition, and distortions due to youth bulges and corrupt institutions), the same “great expectations” are likely to end in frustration, consequently facilitating recruitment to terrorist violence. 与之相反,当特定国家状态很差劲时(比如经济增长缓慢,劳动力市场竞争激烈,青年人口膨胀和制度腐败),同样的“远大前程”就很可能会以受挫告终,因此就会为恐怖分子的暴力行动提供后备力量。 Under such circumstances, education may actually facilitate mobilization by amplifying feelings of frustration and disenfranchisement that arise from unaddressed socioeconomic and politico-economic grievances and unrealized socioeconomic and political participation. This is because education is expected to make it easier for individuals to recognize injustice and discrimination, leading to the uncomfortable – but plausible – situation where more education facilitates radicalization. 这样的情况下,因为社会经济和政治经济方面的不满没有得到解决,同时社会参与和政治参与愿望没能实现,教育实际上会增强由此产生的挫折感和权利受损感,从而促进社会动员。这是因为,教育很可能会使个人更容易察觉不公正和歧视,从而导致那种令人不安却合情合理的情况:更多的教育反而促进极端化。 What is more, the highly-educated may find “careers” in terrorism particularly attractive. When country-specific conditions are poor, the rewards offered by terrorist organizations to skilled operatives (wages, political influence, but also martyrdom) may be closer to the especially high expectations of the educated about personal income and political influence than anything the regular labor market can offer. 不仅如此,高学历人群可能还会发现恐怖主义的“职业生涯”特别具有吸引力。当特定国家状况非常不堪时,恐怖组织提供给技术人员的酬劳(工资、政治影响力、还包括殉道感)会更加符合高学历人群对于个人收入和政治影响力的极高期望,这是任何常规劳动力市场都不能提供的。 We test our theoretical framework on a sample of 133 countries for the 1984-2007 period. Our findings can be summarized as follows: 我们用1984年至2007年间133个国家的样本检验了我们的理论框架。我们得出的结果可以归结如下:
  • A “naïve” statistical model for the complete sample of 133 countries, we find that education – in line with the narrative of the academic literature – tends to correlate positively, albeit only weakly, with terrorism.
  • 一个针对133个国家的完整样本的“幼稚”统计模型中,我们发现教育——与学术文献的描述一致——与恐怖主义趋向于正相关,尽管仅仅是弱相关性。
  • To account for country-specific conditions we identify two groups of countries that differ strongly with respect to their economic, politico-institutional, and demographic conditions. Conditions in the first group are markedly poorer, exhibiting a weaker rule of law, poorer protection of human and property rights, slower economic growth, but higher levels of corruption, population growth, and inflation.
  • 为了阐明特定国家状况,我们区别出经济、政治制度和人口条件完全不同的两组国家。第一组的状况明显较差,表现出较差的法治环境、人权和财产权利保护不力、经济增长缓慢、而且腐败问题更严重、人口增长过快、通货膨胀严重。
  • For the group of poorly developed countries (often located in Latin America, Asia, or Sub-Saharan Africa), we find that variables reflecting lower education (primary education, literacy rate) are associated with more terrorism, while higher education (university enrollment) does not play a role.
  • 在发展状态较差的这组国家(普遍位于拉丁美洲、亚洲或者撒哈拉以南非洲)中,我们发现反映初等教育水平的参数(小学教育、识字率)与滋生更多恐怖主义相关联,而高等教育水平(大学入学率)则并没有什么影响。
  • For the group of countries in which conditions are more favorable, we find no positive association between lower education and terrorism. Instead, we find a negative (terrorism-reducing) and statistically significant effect of higher education (university enrollment) on domestic terrorism.
  • 对于另外一组情况更好的国家,我们发现初等教育和恐怖主义之间没有什么正相关。相反,我们发现高等教育(大学入学率)对于国内恐怖主义的影响为负(即会减少恐怖主义),且这种效应在统计上很显著。
In sum, our empirical analysis thus provides support for our theoretical framework, where the eventual effect of education on terrorism depends on the presence of further moderating conditions. We argue that our theoretical framework  not only explains the Middle Eastern experience of terrorism by rather well-educated terrorists, but also explains the recent series of popular uprisings of the Arab Spring, which similarly seem to have been fueled by advances in education and a lack of economic and political participation. 总而言之,我们的实证分析为我们的理论框架提供了支持:教育对恐怖主义的最终影响是由更进一步的约束条件决定的。我们认为,我们的理论框架不仅能解释中东地区产生高学历恐怖分子的恐怖主义经验,也能解释最近阿拉伯之春中的系列人民起义,两者相似,似乎都是因教育进步而经济与政治上的参与度却很低而导致的。 Similarly, historical events in the West – such as the revolutionary waves in Western Europe in the 18th and 19th century – where educational advances, when coupled with poor structural conditions,  promoted instability are in line with our theoretical framework. 类似的,西方世界的一些历史性事件——比如西欧在十八和十九世纪的革命浪潮——也与我们的理论框架相一致:当时教育实现进步,同时存在糟糕的结构性条件,两相结合导致了不稳定。 Our study indicates that the linkage between terrorism and education is likely to depend on country-specific (macroeconomic, institutional, etc.) conditions. We invite future research to analyze further which country-specific conditions matter the most to the mechanics of the nexus. Also, studying the role of education content, gender disparities in education, and education inequality may prove helpful to furthering our understanding. 我们的研究表明,恐怖主义和教育的联系很可能依赖于特定国家状态(宏观经济、国家制度等)。我们期待更进一步的研究能够深层次分析究竟是哪一种特定国家状态在这一相关机制中有着最大的影响。同时,研究教育内容、教育上的性别差距和教育不平等等因素扮演的角色,也会对深化我们的理解有所助益。 From a policy perspective, our findings indicate that education produces “great expectations” and may result in “hard times” (terrorism) when those expectations are not met. This suggests that a sole strengthening of education in less developed countries may not help in the war on terror and may even prove – at times – counterproductive. 从政策角度看,我们的分析指出,教育会产生“远大前程”,而当这些抱负没有实现时,就可能导致“艰难时世”(即恐怖主义)。这提示了,在欠发达国家单独加强教育可能不会对反恐战争有帮助,甚至结果可能是——至少偶尔是——帮倒忙。 Rather, the promotion of education should be accompanied by domestic and international efforts to ameliorate poor socioeconomic, politico-institutional, and demographic conditions to make it possible for the promise of education to actually materialize. 实际情形是,提升教育水平应当伴随有国内和国际共同努力来改善社会经济上的、政治制度上的以及人口上的糟糕状态,这样才可能使得教育所许诺的希望真正变现。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]教育能解决贫困问题吗?

Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty
为什么教育不能解决贫困问题

作者:Matt Bruenig @ 2015-12-2
译者:龟海海
校对:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子)
来源:Demos,http://www.demos.org/blog/12/2/15/why-education-does-not-fix-poverty

Brookings and the American Enterprise Institute claim to have hatched a bipartisan consensus plan for reducing poverty. As exciting as that sounds, the details of the plan, unfortunately, won’t be available until David Brooks unveils them at an event on December 3rd. Nonetheless, it’s clear from the materials they have released that the consensus plan will focus on three things: education, marriage, and work.

布鲁金斯学会和美国企业协会声称已研究出一个双方都认同的计划来减少贫困【编注:布鲁金斯学会和美国企业协会分别是美国自由派和保守派阵营最具影响力的智库】。尽管听起来很令人激动,但不幸的是,David Brooks要等到12月3日的一个活动上才会公布这个计划的详情。尽管如此,根据他们之前所公布的一些资料,他们的共同计划将主要集中在三个方面:教育,婚姻和工作。

In the next few posts, I will attack all three focuses as misguided. Today’s focus will be on education, easily the most misguided of the three.

在随后的文章中我会逐步抨击所有这三个误导性的焦点。今天我将说一说教育,也是三个中最具误导性的。

1. Rehearsing the Education Poverty Argument
1. 回顾教育改变贫穷的观点

To see where the education poverty argument goes wrong, it’s helpful to explain what that argument is first. In this post, I am going to do that by pretending initially that we are in the year 1991. That year has no special significance other than that it’s the year the modern Census education questions begin.

要看清这个教育改变贫穷的观点哪里不对劲,有必要先解释一下这个观点是什么。在本文中,我会首先假装我们生活在1991年。那一年除了人口普查中开始出现教育相关问题,没有什么特别的事件。

So imagine you are an education-focused poverty person living in 1991. You peer out into the world of basic social statistics and you see this graph of adult poverty rates broken down by education:

那么我们来想象一下,你生活在1991年,并且关注通过教育改变贫穷。你往基础社会统计的世界里张望,看到这幅按教育程度统计的成人贫穷率图表:

pov1991

 

You notice something very striking about the graph: the higher the education, the lower the poverty rate.

You go back out into the social statistics universe and you see this graph breaking down the distribution of adults across the various educational groups:

你在该图表里发现一些很令人震惊的东西:学历越高,贫困率越低。

然后你再回到社会统计领域之中,看到这幅成年人的教育程度分布图:

edu1991

You combine this graph with the poverty rate graph in your mind and you have an epiphany. Because the lower educational bins have higher poverty rates and the higher educational bins have lower poverty rates, if we change the composition of adults such that a greater percentage of them wind up in the higher educational bins, that will mean lower overall poverty.

你把该图和之前的贫穷率图表综合起来,然后你瞬间顿悟。因为低学历的格子里有较高贫困率,高学历的格子里有较低贫困率,如果我们把成年人的组成换一换,多一点人落入较高学历的格子里,那总体的贫困率就会降低。

So, for instance, if we could move 9 points off the “less than high school” bar and on to the “associate” (or better) bars, we would definitely(more...)

标签: | |
6720
Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty 为什么教育不能解决贫困问题 作者:Matt Bruenig @ 2015-12-2 译者:龟海海 校对:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子) 来源:Demos,http://www.demos.org/blog/12/2/15/why-education-does-not-fix-poverty Brookings and the American Enterprise Institute claim to have hatched a bipartisan consensus plan for reducing poverty. As exciting as that sounds, the details of the plan, unfortunately, won't be available until David Brooks unveils them at an event on December 3rd. Nonetheless, it's clear from the materials they have released that the consensus plan will focus on three things: education, marriage, and work. 布鲁金斯学会和美国企业协会声称已研究出一个双方都认同的计划来减少贫困【编注:布鲁金斯学会和美国企业协会分别是美国自由派和保守派阵营最具影响力的智库】。尽管听起来很令人激动,但不幸的是,David Brooks要等到12月3日的一个活动上才会公布这个计划的详情。尽管如此,根据他们之前所公布的一些资料,他们的共同计划将主要集中在三个方面:教育,婚姻和工作。 In the next few posts, I will attack all three focuses as misguided. Today's focus will be on education, easily the most misguided of the three. 在随后的文章中我会逐步抨击所有这三个误导性的焦点。今天我将说一说教育,也是三个中最具误导性的。 1. Rehearsing the Education Poverty Argument 1. 回顾教育改变贫穷的观点 To see where the education poverty argument goes wrong, it's helpful to explain what that argument is first. In this post, I am going to do that by pretending initially that we are in the year 1991. That year has no special significance other than that it's the year the modern Census education questions begin. 要看清这个教育改变贫穷的观点哪里不对劲,有必要先解释一下这个观点是什么。在本文中,我会首先假装我们生活在1991年。那一年除了人口普查中开始出现教育相关问题,没有什么特别的事件。 So imagine you are an education-focused poverty person living in 1991. You peer out into the world of basic social statistics and you see this graph of adult poverty rates broken down by education: 那么我们来想象一下,你生活在1991年,并且关注通过教育改变贫穷。你往基础社会统计的世界里张望,看到这幅按教育程度统计的成人贫穷率图表: pov1991   You notice something very striking about the graph: the higher the education, the lower the poverty rate. You go back out into the social statistics universe and you see this graph breaking down the distribution of adults across the various educational groups: 你在该图表里发现一些很令人震惊的东西:学历越高,贫困率越低。 然后你再回到社会统计领域之中,看到这幅成年人的教育程度分布图: edu1991 You combine this graph with the poverty rate graph in your mind and you have an epiphany. Because the lower educational bins have higher poverty rates and the higher educational bins have lower poverty rates, if we change the composition of adults such that a greater percentage of them wind up in the higher educational bins, that will mean lower overall poverty. 你把该图和之前的贫穷率图表综合起来,然后你瞬间顿悟。因为低学历的格子里有较高贫困率,高学历的格子里有较低贫困率,如果我们把成年人的组成换一换,多一点人落入较高学历的格子里,那总体的贫困率就会降低。 So, for instance, if we could move 9 points off the "less than high school" bar and on to the "associate" (or better) bars, we would definitely see lower poverty. After all, you are moving people out of a high poverty bin and into low poverty bins. Similarly, if you could move 6.5 points of the "high school" bar and on to the "associate" (or better) bars, you'd see lower poverty for the same reason. 举个例子,如果我们把“低于高中”中的9个百分点,移动到“大专”(或以上)的格子里去,我们肯定会看到更低的贫困率。总之,你是在把人从高贫困率的格子里,移动到低贫困率的格子里去。类似的,如果你能把“高中”中的6.5个百分点,移动到“大专”(或以上)的格子里,你同样会看到更低的贫困率。 2. It Didn't Work 2. 然并卵 Since 1991, we have done precisely what the education-focused poverty people said to do. Between 1991 and 2014, we steadily reduced the share of adults in the "less than high school" and "high school" bins and increased the share of adults in every other bin: 从1991年起,我们完全按照这帮关注教育改善贫穷的人所说的去做。在1991年和2014年之间,我们稳步降低了成人中“低于高中”和“高中”的比率,令其他人群比率提高: compall By 2014, the share of adults in the "less than high school" bin declined 9 points from 20.6% to 11.6%. The share of adults in the "high school" bin declined 6.5 points from 36% to 29.5%. Meanwhile, the share of adults with an Associate degree went up 3.9 points, the share with a Bachelor's degree went up 8.3 points, and the share with a post-Bachelor's degree went up 4.8 points. 截至2014年,成年人中“低于高中”这部分已经降低了9个百分点,从20.6%降到了11.6%。成年人中“高中”这部分下降了6.5个百分点,从36%降到了29.5%。同时成年人中拥有大专学历的上涨了3.9个百分点,拥有学士学位的上涨了8.3个百分点,拥有学士以上学历的增长了4.8个百分点。 1991to2014 If the poverty rates for each educational bin remained the same, then the upward redistribution of adults from the lower bins to the higher bins would have led to lower overall poverty. But that's not what happened. 如果各个教育层次的贫困率都保持不变,将成年人从低学历移向高学历应该导致整体贫困率下降才是。但是,这却并未发生。 Instead, the poverty rate for each educational bin went up over this time and overall poverty didn't decline at all. In fact it went up. 实际上,各个教育层次的贫困率在这一时期都上升了,总体贫困率根本没有降低,反而是上升了。 EduPoorRates By 2014, the "less than high school" poverty rate had increased 3.7 points. The "high school" poverty rate increased 4.6 points. "Some college" went up 4.1 points, "associate" went up 3.8 points, "bachelor's" went up 2.1 points, and "post-bachelor's" went up 1.7. Despite the educational gains, overall adult poverty in 2014 was actually 1.1 points higher than in 1991. 截至2014年,“低于高中”这栏的贫困率提高了3.7个点。“高中”的贫困率增长4.6个点。“专科院校”增长了4.1个点,“大专”上升3.8个点,“学士”增长2.1点,“学士以上”上升1.7点。尽管学历水平得到提高,但2014年的总体贫困率却比1991年高了1.1个点。 ratechange As the adults migrated up the educational bins, they took the poverty into the higher educational bins with them: 随着教育程度提高,成年人把贫困也带入了更高的教育程度之中: Edupoor Over this period, the share of poor adults with "less than high school" education plummeted 20.1 points from 48.3 points to 28.2 points. Every other educational bin saw share gains of 2.6 to 5 points. 在这期间,贫困成年人中“低于高中”文化水平的占比大跌了20.1个点,从48.3%降到了28.2%。其余每个教育程度都大约增长了2.6到5个点。 change Adults these days are as educated as they have ever been, but poverty is no lower than it was in 1991. This is not because the few lingering people with "less than high school" have soaked up all the poverty. Quite the contrary: poverty has simply moved up the educational scale. The poor in 2014 were the most educated poor in history. 如今成年人的教育程度空前之高,但是贫困率并不比1991年低。这不是因为少数学历“低于高中”又游手好闲的人占据了贫困。正好相反,贫困问题在向高教育程度人群转移。2014年的贫困人口是有史以来教育程度最高的。 3. Why It Doesn't Work 3. 为什么没有用 There are a number reasons why aggregate education gains do not necessarily translate into aggregate poverty declines. I will discuss three here. 总体教育程度提高未必转化为总体贫困率下降,这当中有很多原因。我在此说三点。 First, handing out more high school and college diplomas doesn't magically create more good-paying jobs. When more credentials are chasing the same number of decent jobs, what you get is credential inflation: jobs that used to require a high school degree now require a college degree; jobs that used to require an Associate degee now require a Bachelor's degreee; and so on. 第一,发出更多的高中和大学文凭并未能像变魔术般的创造出更多高薪工作。当更多更闪耀的文凭来争夺同样多的好工作时,你得到的是文凭通胀:那些本来要求高中文凭的工作现在要求大学文凭;那些本来要求大专学历的工作现在要求本科学历,依此类推。 Obviously the supply of good-paying jobs is not a fixed constant of nature, but there is no reason to think that the supply will automatically go up to match the number of people with the necessary credentials. The types of jobs available in a society, and their level of compensation, is determined by many factors (demand, worker power, technology, global competition, natural resources, etc.) that have little to do with the number of degrees that society is minting. 显然,好工作的供给并非一成不变,但也没有理由相信好工作会随着合格的文凭增多而增多。社会中的工作类别,以及薪金水平,是由很多因素决定的(需求,工会力量,技术,全球竞争,自然资源,等等),这些因素和社会上颁发的文凭数量并没有多大关系。 Second, having more education does not necessarily increase people's productive capacity. Those in the know will identify this as the old "signaling v. human capital" point. The short of it is that, even if jobs did automatically pop into existence to match people's level of productive ability, it's not at all clear that college education necessarily does a lot to increase people's productive ability. Instead, what college education does (at least in part) is signal to employers that you have a certain level of relative "quality" over others in society. 第二,接受更多教育并不意味着更高的生产率。内行人会发现这是古老的“信号传递对人力资本”理论的要点【编注:这是解释教育程度与薪酬水平关系的两种理论,前者认为文凭传递了有关个人禀赋的信号,后者认为教育确实提升了人力资本的生产率】。简单地说,即使自动会有工作职位来匹配人们的产出能力水平,大学教育是否对提高人们的产出能力有很大作用也完全不明确。而大学教育所做的是(至少一部分是)向雇主发出一个信号:你相比社会上其他的人“优秀”一些。 As more people get degrees, the value of this signal declines, but more importantly, the point is that the degree was always a signal, not a productivity enhancer. 然而,当越来越多的人拿到文凭时,这个信号就变弱了,更重要的是,文凭永远只是一个信号,并非产出能力的推进器。 Third, poverty is really about non-working people: children, elderly, disabled, students, carers, and the unemployed. The big things that cause poverty for adults over the age of 25 in a low-welfare capitalist society—old-age, disability, unemployment, having children—do not go away just because you have a better degree. 第三,贫困的是那些不工作的人:孩子,老人,残疾人,学生,照顾家人者和无业者。在一个低福利资本主义社会,导致25岁以上成年人贫困的罪魁祸首——老龄化,残疾,失业,育儿——不会仅仅因为你有了个更好文凭而消失。 These poverty-inducing circumstances are social constants that could strike anyone of us and do strike many of us at some point in our lives. To the extent that education does nothing to provide better income support for those who do find themselves in these vulnerable situations, its effect on overall poverty levels will always be weak, or, as with the US in the last 23 years, totally nonexistent. 这些导致贫穷的境况在社会中总是存在的,我们每个人都有可能遇到,并且必定有很多人在生命中的某一个时刻会遇到。既然教育不能帮助那些身处窘境的人们或得更多收入,那它对整体贫困水平的影响就必然很微弱,或者正如在美国过去23年的情况那样,根本不存在。

******

Technical note. For this post, I used the Official Poverty Metric (OPM) to measure poverty. This is mainly because it's the only metric for which publicly accessible microdata exists back to 1991. The OPM is deeply flawed because it excludes from its calculation taxes, tax credits, and non-cash benefits like WIC, Section 8, and Food Stamps. 技术性注解:在本文中,我运用了官方贫困数据(OPM)来量化贫困,主要是因为这是唯一公众可以查找到的1991年前的微观数据。由于没有考虑所得税、税收抵免,以及包括低收入妇女儿童健康营养补助,《住房法案》第八章下的住房补贴和食物救济券在内的非现金福利,该OPM数据有很大的缺陷。 Because the alleged poverty-reducing mechanism of higher educational attainment is that it increases market income (not welfare income or income from refundable tax credits), the OPM's flaws are not really relevant here. In short, the OPM, despite its problems, works perfectly fine here. 因为所谓高学历可以减少贫困的观点着眼于提高市场收入(而非福利收入或税收抵免返还),所以与OPM的缺陷并不相关。简而言之,尽管OPM有所不足,但在这里引用绝对没有问题。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]大学教师的两级化真有这么严重?

The Valorization of Envy
赋予嫉妒以价值

作者:Jason Brennan @ 2015-8-22
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子)
来源:Bleeding Heart Libertarians,http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/08/the-valorization-of-envy/

Robert Nozick, among others, wondered to what degree left-wing conceptions of social justice are mere attempts to valorize envy. (Extreme left-wing views in the US, in particular, tend to concentrated among privileged upper-middle class liberal arts grads in the 2% who are angry with the 1%.) As an example of an envious rant, check out this remarkable essay at Counterpunch, “The Economic Inequality of Academia”., by Richard Goldin.  An excerpt:

罗伯特·诺齐克,还有其他一些人,都曾想知道,左翼的社会正义概念在多大程度上仅仅是尝试给嫉妒定价。(尤其是美国的极左翼观念,其往往集中出现在来自优越的中产阶级上层、身处收入顶层2%的文科毕业生中,他们对那1%愤怒有加。)嫉妒的咆哮之例证,请看网站Counterpunch的这篇神奇文章:“学术界的经济不平等”,文章作者是Richard Goldin。以下是两段摘录:

Paths to knowledge are often forged through the interplay of publications and teaching. No objective standard of measurement exists to financially quantify, and differentiate, these approaches or their contributions. Yet a vast and enduring economic hierarchy has emerged grounded in the supposed intrinsic hierarchy between the two. This financial hierarchy is not a dispassionate reflection of an objective reality; it is a strategic effect of the mechanisms underlying class formation and preservation.

“通往知识的道路通常都由出版和教学的相互作用而铺成。世上并不存在什么客观的测量标准,能为这两种方法或它们的贡献做财务上的量化和区分。但是,在两者之间被公众认受的内在等级区分之上,产生出了一个庞大且持久存在的经济等级制度。这种财务等级制度不是对客观现实的一种公正反映,它是塑造和维护阶层的社会机制的策略效应。”

The primacy of publishing, and the attendant allocation of resour(more...)

标签: |
6453
The Valorization of Envy 赋予嫉妒以价值 作者:Jason Brennan @ 2015-8-22 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子) 来源:Bleeding Heart Libertarians,http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/08/the-valorization-of-envy/ Robert Nozick, among others, wondered to what degree left-wing conceptions of social justice are mere attempts to valorize envy. (Extreme left-wing views in the US, in particular, tend to concentrated among privileged upper-middle class liberal arts grads in the 2% who are angry with the 1%.) As an example of an envious rant, check out this remarkable essay at Counterpunch, “The Economic Inequality of Academia”., by Richard Goldin.  An excerpt: 罗伯特·诺齐克,还有其他一些人,都曾想知道,左翼的社会正义概念在多大程度上仅仅是尝试给嫉妒定价。(尤其是美国的极左翼观念,其往往集中出现在来自优越的中产阶级上层、身处收入顶层2%的文科毕业生中,他们对那1%愤怒有加。)嫉妒的咆哮之例证,请看网站Counterpunch的这篇神奇文章:“学术界的经济不平等”,文章作者是Richard Goldin。以下是两段摘录:
Paths to knowledge are often forged through the interplay of publications and teaching. No objective standard of measurement exists to financially quantify, and differentiate, these approaches or their contributions. Yet a vast and enduring economic hierarchy has emerged grounded in the supposed intrinsic hierarchy between the two. This financial hierarchy is not a dispassionate reflection of an objective reality; it is a strategic effect of the mechanisms underlying class formation and preservation. “通往知识的道路通常都由出版和教学的相互作用而铺成。世上并不存在什么客观的测量标准,能为这两种方法或它们的贡献做财务上的量化和区分。但是,在两者之间被公众认受的内在等级区分之上,产生出了一个庞大且持久存在的经济等级制度。这种财务等级制度不是对客观现实的一种公正反映,它是塑造和维护阶层的社会机制的策略效应。” The primacy of publishing, and the attendant allocation of resources, is utilized not merely to perpetuate two different economic classes, but also to create two different kinds of people. This creation allows the hierarchy of privilege to function as though it represents objective value differences both in terms of the work produced and the individuals who produce it. “出版第一及伴随而来的资源分配,不仅仅被用来维持两个不同的经济阶层,而且被用来创造不同的两个人群。这种创造令特权等级制的运转好像是体现了一种客观的价值差异,当中既包括劳动成果之间的价值差异,也包括提供劳动的个体之间的价值差异。”
Some comments on the essay: 对此文我有几点评论: 1.Like many essays in this genre, it has its facts wrong. It claims that the majority of faculty are adjuncts, but that is just false. As Phil Magness documents here, at normal four-year, not-for-profit universities and colleges, the majority of faculty are tenure-track. Even when we include for-profit and community colleges, which rely disproportionately on adjunct labor, the majority of faculty in the US are not adjuncts. (See this post, too.) 1.跟诸多此类文章一样,这篇文章也有事实错误。它声称教员中多数都是兼职人员,这绝对是错的。Phil Magness已证明,在一般的四年制非营利性大学和学院中,多数教员是终身轨。即使将极为依赖兼职劳动力的营利性院校和社区学院都包括进来,美国的大学教员中多数也不是兼职。 Also, contrary to what everyone keeps saying, the number of tenure-track faculty slots has been increasing over the past 40 years. Here’s a chart with US Dept of Ed data, again from Magness: 并且,跟大家历来的说法相反,终身轨教职【译注:终身轨,美国大学一种教职序列,只有进入终身轨的教员方有可能转正为终身教授,因此又称预备终身】空缺数过去40年间一直在增加。下图还是来自Magness,数据采自联邦教育部: 11954789_1009176619135183_5476227624166725767_nIt’s bizarre that the madjunct crowd keeps repeating obviously false claims, such as that they make minimum wage. Can’t they make their point without lying? I suspect the issue here is that many of these people are postmodernists, and for postmodernists, the concepts of “truth” or “facts” are just attempts to wield power over others. Or perhaps Dr. Goldin is being funded by the Koch brothers as part of a neoliberal assault to undermine the credibility of academia. “疯狂兼职人”群体总是在重复明显错误的主张,比如声称自己赚的是最低工资。这真是奇特。他们在立论时就不能不撒谎吗?我怀疑此处的问题是,这些人中有许多都是后现代主义者,而对于后现代主义者,“真理”或“事实”这种概念都只是对他人行使权力的企图。或者,也许Goldin博士是得了科赫兄弟【译注:美国富豪,积极参与政治,资助传统基金会和加图研究所等保守派和自由意志主义智库,常被左派攻击为右派幕后黑手】的资助,正为一场旨在摧毁学术界公信力的新自由主义攻势出力。 2.The essay claims that the academic 1% do as well as they do because the burdens of teaching are shifted onto poorly paid adjuncts. But the rather obvious problem with this claim is that the places where the academic 1% reside are not the places that use lots of adjuncts. The top researchers end up in places like Princeton, Harvard, MIT, and Penn. These schools do not make heavy use of adjunct faculty. (Insofar as they do use them, many of their adjuncts are professionals with full-time jobs, who teach extra clinical classes in their law and business schools.) For Goldin’s argument to succeed, he’d have to show us that the reason the academic 1% do so well is because their employers somehow exploit the adjuncts working at other universities and colleges. 2.文章声称学术界的1%们之所以能有今天这样的表现,是因为教学负担被转移到了收入平平的兼职教员头上。但是这一断言的一个特别明显的问题是,学术界那1%所在的地方,就不是大量使用兼职人员的地方。顶级的研究人员都流向了如普林斯顿、哈佛、麻省理工、宾大等地方,而这些学校并没有大量使用兼职教员。(即使确实为它们所用的兼职人员,其中也有许多是拥有全职工作的专业人士,他们只在法学院和商学院里额外讲授实操课程。)Goldin的论证要成立,他就必须向我们证明,学术界的1%之所以能有今天的优异表现,是因为他们的雇主以某种方式剥削了其他大学和学院里的兼职工作人员。 I’m an academic 1-percenter, but it’s not because adjuncts do all my teaching for me. We do have a two-tier system, it’s true. In our system, the majority of faculty are extremely well paid tenure-track professors with high research expectations and low teaching loads; the minority are very well paid permanent teaching faculty with higher teaching loads. (According to this website, Goldin makes $30.5K a year, which is only a tiny fraction of what we pay our non-tenure track teaching faculty. Indeed, we pay our non-tenure-track faculty better than Cal State Long Beach pays their tenure-track faculty.) We use few adjuncts. 我就是学术界1%中的一个,但这不是因为兼职教员承担了我所有的教学事务。我们这里确实有一个双轨制,这是真的。在我们的这一制度下,教员的多数都是终身轨教授,报酬非常高,研究前景非常好,教学任务很轻;少数人则是长期职位(permanent)的教学教员,报酬很高,教学任务较重。(根据这个网站,Goldin每年能赚3.5万美元,只是我们这里的非终身轨教学教员报酬的一个零头。事实上,我们付给非终身轨教员的报酬比加州州立长滩分校【译注:即吐槽对象Richard Goldin任职的学校】付给其终身轨教员的还要高。)我们极少使用兼职教员。 I’m not making bank because Georgetown exploits adjuncts.  Martin Gilens isn’t making bank because Princeton exploits adjuncts. R. Edward Freeman doesn’t make bank because Darden exploits adjuncts. Rather, the exploited adjuncts are getting exploited elsewhere, at community colleges, small liberal arts colleges, third tier/low output “research” universities, and the for-profit colleges. 我不是因为乔治敦大学剥削兼职教员而发财。Martin Gilens不是因为普林斯顿大学剥削兼职教员而发财。R. Edward Freeman不是因为达顿商学院剥削兼职教员而发财。其实,被剥削的兼职教员是在别的地方被剥削的,比如社区学院、小型的文理学院、第三档或者低产出的“研究型”大学以及营利性学院。 3.Goldin has some interesting points about whether research is overvalued and teaching undervalued. But we should keep in mind the economics of the situation. Good teachers are a dime a dozen. It’s easy to find people who can teach low-level undergraduate courses well. It’s easy to teach these classes well, and many people can do it. The supply of good teachers is very high. But good researchers are rare. Most faculty cannot consistently publish in high-level venues. The supply of good researchers is low. (It’s easy to publish in obscure third and four-tier journals and presses, but difficult to publish in prestigious top-tier journals and presses.) Even if universities valued teaching and research equally, we’d expect the star researchers to be paid more than the star teachers, because star teachers are easy to come by. 3.关于研究是否估值过高而教学是否估值过低,Goldin提出了一些有趣的论点。但我们要牢记这种情形里的经济学道理。好的教师四处都有,我们很容易找到能把低水平的本科课程讲得很好的教师。这些课也容易教得好,很多人都可以做到。优秀教师的供给是很充足的。但优秀研究者则很少见。多数教员不能稳定地在高水平场合发表成果。优秀研究员的供给是不足的。(在不知名的三、四流杂志或出版社发表成果很容易,但在极富盛名的一流杂志和出版社就难了。)即使大学同等重视教学和研究,我们也会预期明星研究员所得的报酬比明星教师要多,因为明星教师得之不难。 I realize that as a Counterpunch author, it’s unlikely Goldin has ever seen an economics textbook. But I’d invite him to go to Cal State Long Beach’s library, check out Mankiw’s undergrad econ textbook, turn to pages 6-7, and read about the diamond-water paradox. Goldin是Counterpunch网站的作者,我估计他很可能从未看过任何经济学教材。但我很乐意邀请他去趟加州州立长滩分校的图书馆,借本曼昆的经济学本科教材,翻到第6-7页,读读钻石和水的悖论【译注:即价值悖论,水对人的生存极为重要,但市场价值远比无甚大用的钻石低】。 4.Consider this quotation: 4.思考一下文中这样一段话:
It is teachers dedicated to a challenging education who engage in the task of reworking and concretizing theories to make them relevant to students. It is in the classroom where the dialogue between theory and politics takes place; and it is the classroom which sends forth generations of students who can perceive, and possibly undermine, the rationalities of power. “从事理论修订和具体化这一任务,使之能被学生理解的,是那些献身于具挑战性的教育事业的教师;理论与政治之间的对话,是在课堂上进行的;一代又一代能够理解权力合理性,并且可能还会将之摧毁的学生,也是从课堂上走出来的。” Paths to knowledge are often forged through the interplay of publications and teaching. “通往知识的道路通常都由成果发表和教学的相互作用而铺成。” What should we make of this? Is coming up with general relativity less of an achievement than teaching it to undergrads secondhand? Is writing A Theory of Justice less of an achievement than teaching it to undergrads secondhand? Is writing the stuff that gets into the textbooks less of an achievement than teaching the textbook to undergrads? 我们该怎么去理解这段话?提出广义相对论的成就不如把它二手教给本科生?写出《正义论》的成就不如把它二手教给本科生?写出那些进入了教科书的东西,其成就不如向本科生讲授教科书?
Also, after reading Academically Adriftit’s not clear to me that college teaching is undervalued. It might instead be overvalued. 而且,在读了《学术漂泊》以后,我都不太确定大学教学是否确实被低估了。它甚至有可能被高估了。 5.Goldin, like many writing in this genre, claims that academia is a lottery. This view is problematic. First, if it were a lottery, we’d expect that the type of people being hired as tenure-track at Harvard would have average credentials, but, on the contrary, the top schools tend to hire people with the best publication records. Second, the way the madjunct crowd reacts to their failure to secure good jobs doesn’t match how people react when they lose lotteries. My Uncle Freddy like to play the lottery from time to time. When he lost, he didn’t act surprised, claim that the system is unfair, and demand redistribution from the winners to the losers. Rather, he expected to lose, threw out his losing tickets, and kept living his life. If madjunct crowd sincerely believed that academia is a lottery, they would not act surprised or indignant that they lost and would move on with their lives. 5.跟许多写作此类文章的人一样,Goldin宣称学术界就是大抽奖。这种观点是有问题的。首先,如果确实是抽奖,我们就可以预期哈佛所聘用的终身轨人员将会是些成就处于平均水平的人,但是正好相反,顶尖学校都更倾向于聘用著述丰厚的人。第二,“疯狂兼职人”群体在没能保住自己的好工作时,其反应与人们抽奖落空后的反应并不相同。我的叔叔Freddy时不时就去抽奖。抽不中他也不觉得稀奇,不会说这个制度不公平,也不会要求中了奖的人把奖品拿出来和抽不中的瓜分,他只会丢了没中奖的彩票,生活照旧。如果“疯狂兼职人”群体真心觉得学术界就是抽奖,那他们就不会为自己的失败而感到惊讶或愤怒,只会继续自己的生活。 (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——

[微言]要不要送孩子上学?

【2015-09-11】

@按当地市话标准计费手机快速注册:辉格,可否问一个略不相干的问题?家长竞相给小学老师送钱,两千块起。但是因为有家长送贵重首饰,送几千块的还是被老师看不起,在学校还是很容易被老师抓住小辫子批评。六年级刚开学。有什么好办法避免这种情况吗?谢谢

@whigzhou: 一毛别送,并建议孩子无视这位老师的批评

@whigzhou: 如果孩子足够好学的话,不上学也没关系,多买点书放家里就行了,我记忆中在课堂上从来没学到过什么(体育课(more...)

标签:
6435
【2015-09-11】 @按当地市话标准计费手机快速注册:辉格,可否问一个略不相干的问题?家长竞相给小学老师送钱,两千块起。但是因为有家长送贵重首饰,送几千块的还是被老师看不起,在学校还是很容易被老师抓住小辫子批评。六年级刚开学。有什么好办法避免这种情况吗?谢谢 @whigzhou: 一毛别送,并建议孩子无视这位老师的批评 @whigzhou: 如果孩子足够好学的话,不上学也没关系,多买点书放家里就行了,我记忆中在课堂上从来没学到过什么(体育课和生物解剖课除外),一般开学那天课本发下来当天就看完了,然后一学期就发呆,可惜我小时候可读的东西实在太少,我们镇上每面墙上糊的报纸差不多都被我读完了,读过最无聊的东西是一本化学词典 @熊也餐厅: 如果孩子不足够好学的话更没有必要送去读书了。 @whigzhou: “不足够好学”的孩子,也可能“不足够不好学” @whigzhou: 原则上我不反对学校教育,正如许多朋友在评论中指出的,同龄伙伴环境很重要,自家生十几个还是有点困难,我昨天的评论是有上下文的,意思是,如果可供选择的学校已恶劣到如此程度(其实我并不了解到底有多恶劣,只是基于随机传闻而有此印象),那么不上学的坏处跟这种恶劣相比,可能远更容易接受。
[微言]课堂与投诉

【2015-09-10】

@whigzhou: 接受学生对教授讲课内容作出的投诉,真是件非常奇葩的事情,没想到这情况在美国大学已经那么严重了,如此看来,这可能是推动大学政治氛围单一化和极端化关键因素,试想,若起初教授中左右比例是7:3,现在7感染了9成学生(左派思想总是更有感染力),去打击剩下的3,最后比例就变成了9.5:0.5。

@whigzhou: 要让我挑的话,肯定不会挑接受此类投诉、并将压力传导给被投诉教授的学校,这就好比,假如一位画家允许一群买家在他(more...)

标签: |
6431
【2015-09-10】 @whigzhou: 接受学生对教授讲课内容作出的投诉,真是件非常奇葩的事情,没想到这情况在美国大学已经那么严重了,如此看来,这可能是推动大学政治氛围单一化和极端化关键因素,试想,若起初教授中左右比例是7:3,现在7感染了9成学生(左派思想总是更有感染力),去打击剩下的3,最后比例就变成了9.5:0.5。 @whigzhou: 要让我挑的话,肯定不会挑接受此类投诉、并将压力传导给被投诉教授的学校,这就好比,假如一位画家允许一群买家在他创作过程中拥在边上指指点点甚至推推搡搡,你能相信他画得出好东西吗? @今天深度报道拍了吗:如果所谓的教授,讲课就是一坨屎,学生作为“顾客”(别管他妈的钱是父母给的还是我自己贷款的)应该怎么维护自己的权益呢? @whigzhou: 怪自己眼瞎啊,实在不解气就抽自己两个大嘴巴,再上豆瓣骂一通,我读完一本烂书、看完一部烂片后就是这样的,从来没想过要退书退票 @sentimental-fog:辉总你还是没回答他啊,他问怎么维护权益,你说怪自己瞎,意思就是不要维护或者说这不算权益。 @whigzhou: 对,我认为不算权益,大学录取契约里显然不包括“包您喜欢包您满意”之类的承诺