含有〈社交〉标签的文章(10)

同性恋与大城市

【2017-01-03】

很明显,同性恋倾向于住在大城市,因为在小地方他们很难找到伙伴,假如总的同性恋比例为3%,一个1000人小镇成年男性250,处于性活跃期的不到200,其中6个男同,在很少出柜的年代,相互发现的机会很小。 ​​​​

其次,同性恋会采用与其他人不同的社交模式,会更倾向于持续变换自己的邓巴圈组成,因为固定邓巴圈中存在另一个同性恋的几率只有0.2(假设邓巴数为150),必须不断轮换才有望找出潜在伙伴。

这一轮换搜索策略在大城市不仅空间更大,成本也更低,因为大城市不是熟人社会,解除旧关系的代价小。

这一倾向具有自我强化效果(more...)

标签: | |
7756
【2017-01-03】 很明显,同性恋倾向于住在大城市,因为在小地方他们很难找到伙伴,假如总的同性恋比例为3%,一个1000人小镇成年男性250,处于性活跃期的不到200,其中6个男同,在很少出柜的年代,相互发现的机会很小。 ​​​​ 其次,同性恋会采用与其他人不同的社交模式,会更倾向于持续变换自己的邓巴圈组成,因为固定邓巴圈中存在另一个同性恋的几率只有0.2(假设邓巴数为150),必须不断轮换才有望找出潜在伙伴。 这一轮换搜索策略在大城市不仅空间更大,成本也更低,因为大城市不是熟人社会,解除旧关系的代价小。 这一倾向具有自我强化效果:当大城市吸引走一部分同性恋之后,剩下的更难找到伙伴了。 这是大城市可为小众消费带来规模优势的又一个例子。  
[译文]聪明人不需要那么多朋友?

Why smart people are better off with fewer friends
为什么聪明人最好少交朋友

作者:Christopher Ingraham @ 2016-03-18
翻译:小聂(@PuppetMaster)
校对:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子)
来源:The Washington Post,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/18/why-smart-people-are-better-off-with-fewer-friends/

Hell might actually be other people — at least if you’re really smart.

他人没准还真是地狱——至少对一个真正聪明的人来说是这样的。

That’s the implication of fascinating new research published last month in the British Journal of Psychology. Evolutionary psychologists Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Norman Li of Singapore Management University dig in to the question of what makes a life well-lived. While traditionally the domain of priests, philosophers and novelists, in recent years survey researchers, economists, biologists and scientists have been tackling that question.

这是上个月在《英国心理学杂志》发表的一篇有趣的新研究中说的。两位进化心理学家,伦敦政治经济学院的Satoshi Kanazawa和新加坡管理大学的Norman Li,对于如何活出幸福人生进行了深入的研究。这个传统上被神父、哲学家和小说家把控的议题,近年来却被问卷调查者、经济学家、生物学家和科学家所关注。

Kanazawa and Li theorize that the hunter-gatherer lifestyles of our ancient ancestors form the foundation for what make us happy now. “Situations and circumstances that would have increased our ancestors’ life satisfaction in the ancestral environment may still increase our life satisfaction today,” they write.

Kanazawa和Li提出的理论是,我们祖先的狩猎采集生活方式决定了我们感受幸福的底层机制。他们认为,“在原始环境中能够使我们祖先得到满足的情境,或许在今天仍然可以提升我们的满足感。”

They use what they call “the savanna theory of happiness” to explain two main findings from an analysis of a large national survey (15,000 respondents) of adults aged 18 to 28.

他们使用了这个所谓的“关于幸福的热带草原理论”来解释两个主要的研究发现,被研究对象是一项涵盖了15,000个18到28岁成年人的大型全国调查。

First, they find that people who live in more densely populated areas tend to report less satisfaction with their life overall. “The higher the population density of the immediate environment, the less happy” the survey respondents said they were. Second, they find that the more social in(more...)

标签: | |
7404
Why smart people are better off with fewer friends 为什么聪明人最好少交朋友 作者:Christopher Ingraham @ 2016-03-18 翻译:小聂(@PuppetMaster) 校对:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子) 来源:The Washington Post,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/18/why-smart-people-are-better-off-with-fewer-friends/ Hell might actually be other people — at least if you're really smart. 他人没准还真是地狱——至少对一个真正聪明的人来说是这样的。 That's the implication of fascinating new research published last month in the British Journal of Psychology. Evolutionary psychologists Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Norman Li of Singapore Management University dig in to the question of what makes a life well-lived. While traditionally the domain of priests, philosophers and novelists, in recent years survey researchers, economists, biologists and scientists have been tackling that question. 这是上个月在《英国心理学杂志》发表的一篇有趣的新研究中说的。两位进化心理学家,伦敦政治经济学院的Satoshi Kanazawa和新加坡管理大学的Norman Li,对于如何活出幸福人生进行了深入的研究。这个传统上被神父、哲学家和小说家把控的议题,近年来却被问卷调查者、经济学家、生物学家和科学家所关注。 Kanazawa and Li theorize that the hunter-gatherer lifestyles of our ancient ancestors form the foundation for what make us happy now. "Situations and circumstances that would have increased our ancestors’ life satisfaction in the ancestral environment may still increase our life satisfaction today," they write. Kanazawa和Li提出的理论是,我们祖先的狩猎采集生活方式决定了我们感受幸福的底层机制。他们认为,“在原始环境中能够使我们祖先得到满足的情境,或许在今天仍然可以提升我们的满足感。” They use what they call "the savanna theory of happiness" to explain two main findings from an analysis of a large national survey (15,000 respondents) of adults aged 18 to 28. 他们使用了这个所谓的“关于幸福的热带草原理论”来解释两个主要的研究发现,被研究对象是一项涵盖了15,000个18到28岁成年人的大型全国调查。 First, they find that people who live in more densely populated areas tend to report less satisfaction with their life overall. "The higher the population density of the immediate environment, the less happy" the survey respondents said they were. Second, they find that the more social interactions with close friends a person has, the greater their self-reported happiness. 第一个发现是,在高人口密度地区生活的人们对他们的生活总体上更缺乏满足感。被调查者回应说“周围人口密度越大,就越感觉不幸福”。第二个发现是,和亲密朋友的更多交往伴随着更多的幸福感。 But there was one big exception. For more intelligent people, these correlations were diminished or even reversed. 但是有一个明显的例外,对于高智商人群,上述相关性会变弱,甚至反转。 "The effect of population density on life satisfaction was therefore more than twice as large for low-IQ individuals than for high-IQ individuals," they found. And "more intelligent individuals were actually less satisfied with life if they socialized with their friends more frequently." “所以,对于低智商人群来说,人口密度对于生活满足度的影响会比对于高智商人群大一倍以上”他们还发现,“高智商人群的生活满意度甚至会因为和朋友交往过多而下降。” Let me repeat that last one: When smart people spend more time with their friends, it makes them less happy. 容我重复一下后一个发现:如果聪明人在与朋友交往上花更多的时间,他们反倒会感觉不开心。 Now, the broad contours of both findings are largely uncontroversial. A large body of previous research, for instance, has outlined what some have called an "urban-rural happiness gradient." Kanazawa and Li explain: "Residents of rural areas and small towns are happier than those in suburbs, who in turn are happier than those in small central cities, who in turn are happier than those in large central cities." 现在,两个研究发现的粗线条概要大体是无争议的。例如,曾有一大批研究项目概括出被有些人称为“市区-郊区幸福梯度”的东西。Kanazawa和Li解释说:“乡村和小镇的居民比近郊居民更幸福,后者又比生活在小型中心城市的居民幸福,而小型中心城市的居民又比生活在大城市的人幸福。” imrs Why would high population density cause a person to be less happy? There's a whole body of sociological research addressing this question. But for the most visceral demonstration of the effect, simply take a 45-minute ride on a crowded rush-hour Red Line train and tell me how you feel afterward. 为什么高人口密度会使一个人不开心呢?现在已有大量的社会学研究瞄准了这个问题。但是如果要最感同身受地体现这种影响,莫过于在高峰期搭乘45分钟的拥挤地铁,然后告诉我你的心情如何。 Kanazawa and Li's second finding is a little more interesting. It's no surprise that friend and family connections are generally seen as a foundational component of happiness and well-being. But why would this relationship get turned on its head for really smart people? Kanazawa和Li的第二个发现则更有意思一些。毫无疑问,亲情和友情往往是构成个人生活幸福快乐的基础之一。但是为什么对于聪明人来说,这种关系会被反过来呢? I posed this question to Carol Graham, a Brookings Institution researcher who studies the economics of happiness. "The findings in here suggest (and it is no surprise) that those with more intelligence and the capacity to use it ... are less likely to spend so much time socializing because they are focused on some other longer term objective," she said. 我就此问题请教了在布鲁金斯学会研究幸福经济学的Carol Graham。“这个发现(毫不奇怪地)表明具有高智商并且能将其驾驭自如的人……较不愿意将大量时间花费在与人交往上面,因为他们专注于其他更长期的目标,”她解释道。 Think of the really smart people you know. They may include a doctor trying to cure cancer or a writer working on the great American novel or a human rights lawyer working to protect the most vulnerable people in society. To the extent that frequent social interaction detracts from the pursuit of these goals, it may negatively affect their overall satisfaction with life. 想想你认识的真正聪明人。他们也许是一个试图治愈癌症的医生,一个想要写出一部杰出的美国小说的作者,或是一个关注保护社会弱势群体的人权律师。如果社交活动过于频繁,以至妨碍他们追求这些远大目标,就会降低他们整体的生活满意度。 But Kanazawa and Li's savanna theory of happiness offers a different explanation. The idea starts with the premise that the human brain evolved to meet the demands of our ancestral environment on the African savanna, where the population density was akin to what you'd find today in, say, rural Alaska (less than one person per square kilometer). Take a brain evolved for that environment, plop it into today's Manhattan (population density: 27,685 people per square kilometer), and you can see how you'd get some evolutionary friction. 但是Kanazawa和Li的热带草原幸福理论提供了一个不一样的解释。该理论始于一个前提,即人类大脑进化是为了适应我们祖先在非洲大草原上的生存环境。在这种环境下的人口密度近似于如今的阿拉斯加荒野(每平方公里不到一人)。从这种环境下进化出的大脑,被丢进当今的曼哈顿(人口密度每平方公里27,685人),这种进化上的摩擦可想而知。 Similarly with friendship: "Our ancestors lived as hunter–gatherers in small bands of about 150 individuals," Kanazawa and Li explain. "In such settings, having frequent contact with lifelong friends and allies was likely necessary for survival and reproduction for both sexes." We remain social creatures today, a reflection of that early reliance on tight-knit social groups. 对友情来说也近似:“我们祖先作为狩猎采集者,生活在一个个约为150人的小集体里,”Kanazawa和Li解释说。“在这样的环境中,和终生朋友以及盟友的频繁接触对于生存和繁衍 很可能是必要的,无论是男性还是女性。”我们至今仍是社会性的物种,这反映了我们早期对于被社会关系纽带紧密编织起来的小集体的依赖。 The typical human life has changed rapidly since then — back on the savanna we didn't have cars or iPhones or processed food or "Celebrity Apprentice" — and it's quite possible that our biology hasn't been able to evolve fast enough to keep up. As such, there may be a "mismatch" between what our brains and bodies are designed for, and the world most of us live in now. 从那时起,人类生活有了极大改变——在热带草原时期我们可没有汽车、iPhone、加工食品或是“明星学徒”【译注:电视真人秀节目】——而我们生理特性的进化极可能赶不上这些改变。因此,在我们的身心设定与我们生存的世界之间,可能会存在着“错配”。 To sum it all up: You've heard of the paleo-diet. But are you ready for paleo-happiness? 简而言之,你知道有旧石器食谱,但是你想不想试试旧石器幸福感? There's a twist, though, at least as Kanazawa and Li see it. Smarter people may be better equipped to deal with the new (at least from an evolutionary perspective) challenges present-day life throws at us. "More intelligent individuals, who possess higher levels of general intelligence and thus greater ability to solve evolutionarily novel problems, may face less difficulty in comprehending and dealing with evolutionarily novel entities and situations," they write. 但是剧情到这里有个反转,至少Kanazawa和Li这么觉得。聪明人可能更擅长处理现代生活中的新(至少从进化的观点看)挑战。“那些更有智慧,更具有高等的通用智能从而可以更好的解决新进化问题的个体,可能会较易于理解和应对进化上的新实体或是新问题,”他们写道。 If you're smarter and more able to adapt to things, you may have an easier time reconciling your evolutionary predispositions with the modern world. So living in a high-population area may have a smaller effect on your overall well-being — that's what Kanazawa and Li found in their survey analysis. Similarly, smarter people may be better-equipped to jettison that whole hunter-gatherer social network — especially if they're pursuing some loftier ambition. 如果你更聪明,并且更有能力适应环境,你应能更容易处理好先天进化不足和现代社会生活的错配。所以住在高人口密度地区可能对你的总体生活舒适程度影响很小——这就是Kanazawa和Li的调查研究发现。同样的,聪明人更有能力能力人更有可能完全放应对进化上的新实体或是情景说有些人称为“市中舍弃那套狩猎采集式的社交网络——特别是当他们有远大目标的时候。 It's important to remember that this is an argument Kanazawa and Li are proposing and that it's not settled science. "Paleo-" theories — the idea that our bodies are best adapted to the environment of our earliest ancestors — have come under fire in recent years, especially as food companies and some researchers over-hyped the alleged benefits of the paleo-diet fad. 值得注意的是,这只是Kanazawa和Li提出的论点,绝非科学定论。以“旧石器”开头的理论——基于我们的身体仍与我们最早期的祖先所处环境相适应之假设——在近年来饱受争议,特别是由于食品公司和某些学者过于推崇当下流行的旧石器食谱所带来的可能好处。 Kanazawa and Li's main findings about population density, social interaction and happiness are relatively uncontroversial. But Brookings's Carol Graham says one potential flaw in their research is that it defines happiness in terms of self-reported life satisfaction ("How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?"), and doesn't consider experienced well-being ("How many times did you laugh yesterday? How many times were you angry?" etc.). Survey researchers know that these two types of questions can lead to very different assessments of well-being. Kanazawa和Li对于人口密度,社会交往以及幸福感的主要观点相对来说并没有太大的争议。但是布鲁金斯学会的Carol Graham认为他们的研究有个潜在的缺陷,即用受访者自我报告的生活满意程度来定义幸福(“整体上来说,你对自己的生活满意么?”),而不考虑受访者关于舒适生活的实际体验(“你昨天笑了几次?生气了几次?”等等)。问卷调查者都知道这两类问题对于幸福生活的衡量可以得出完全不同的结果。 For their part, Kanazawa and Li maintain that that distinction doesn't matter too much for their savanna theory. "Even though our empirical analyses ... used a measure of global life satisfaction, the savanna theory of happiness is not committed to any particular definition and is compatible with any reasonable conception of happiness, subjective well-being, and life satisfaction," they write. Kanazawa和Li则认为这一区别对他们的热带草原理论影响不大。“虽然我们的实证研究……使用了总体的生活满意度,关于幸福的热带草原理论并不局限于任何一种定义,并且适用于任何对于幸福、主观幸福感和生活满意度的合理的概念化处理,”他们写道。 Kanazawa himself is no stranger to controversy. In 2011 he wrote a blog post for Psychology Today entitled "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?" The post ignited a firestorm of criticism and was swiftly taken down. Kanazawa本人也经常处于争议之中。2011年他给《今日心理学》写了一篇名为“为什么黑人女性在生理上不如其他女性具有吸引力?”的博客文章。该文引发了猛烈的批评,并且被迅速撤下了。 His current research on well-being is not likely to generate as much criticism as that blog post. But the evolutionary perspective on happiness and intelligence is likely to prompt some heated discussion in the field. 他现在关于幸福的研究不大可能引发类似的抨击。但从进化角度解读幸福和智力很可能会在该领域引发一些热烈的讨论。 In an email, Kanazawa said that his approach to understanding happiness is fundamentally different than the arguments about, say, the benefits of a paleo-diet. "Blindly introducing our ancestors’ diet when we do not have other aspects of the ancestral life seems like a dangerous and nonsensical prescription to me," he said. 在一封电子邮件里, Kanazawa认为他理解幸福的方式和关于比如说旧石器食谱的好处的论证有着本质的区别。“盲目的引入我们祖先的食谱,而不考虑到我们生活的其他方面与祖先有异,在我看来是危险且毫无道理的,”他说。 "I only explain nature; I do not tell people what to do or not to do," he added. “我只是解释自然现象;我并不是告诉人们去做什么或是不做什么,”他补充道。 (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]重新审视六度分隔理论

How small is the world, really?
世界何其小,真的吗?

作者:Duncan Watts @ 2016-02-10
译者:龟海海
校对:辉格(@whigzhou)
来源:七分钟阅读,https://medium.com/@duncanjwatts/how-small-is-the-world-really-736fa21808ba

Last week’s finding by a team of data scientists at Facebook that everyone in the social network is connected by an average of 3.5 “intermediaries” has renewed interest in the longstanding “Six Degrees of Separation” hypothesis: that everyone in the world is connected by some short chain of acquaintances.

上周,一个脸书数据分析专家小组发现,社交网络中的每个人都可经由平均3.5个“媒介好友”而联系起来,这一发现刷新了之前长期流行的“六度分隔”理论,即世上任何两人皆可通过某条较短的熟人链条连接起来。

Not surprisingly, the attention has focused on the plausible assertion that online social networks like Facebook have made the world smaller: that whatused to be six degrees is now almost half that. But really what it has revealed is how little we understand this intriguing phenomenon and what it might mean for our world.

无出意外,人们的注意力被吸引到了一个看似可能的判断上:像脸书这样的社交网络让世界变得更小:以前的六度现在一半就足够。但它真正揭示的是,对此令人神迷的现象和它对我们世界的意义何在,我们的理解何等浅薄。

This “small world” hypothesis, as it is known in sociology, has been percolating in popular culture for a long time. Almost a century ago the Hungarian poet Frigyes Karinthy wrote a short story called “Chain Links” in which he claimed he could reach anyone in the world, whether a Nobel Prize winner or a worker in a Ford auto factory, through a series of no more than five intermediaries.

在社会学领域内,大家都已了解,这个“小小世界”假说久已渗透进我们的文化之中。早在一个世纪前,匈牙利诗人Frigyes Karinthy就写了一则题为“链接”的小故事,文中他声称可以通过一系列不超过5个的“媒介”,联络到世界上任何人,无论是诺奖得主,或是一名福特工厂的工人。

Subsequently, writers like Jane Jacobs, John Guare, and Malcolm Gladwell have periodically reinvigorated the idea with their own colorful characters and fantastical speculations about who really runs the world.

此后,像Jane Jacobs, John Guare, and Malcolm Gladwell等等作家时不时的通过他们自己书中丰富的人物重塑了这一假说,并天马行空的猜测究竟是谁在真正掌控这个世界。

But arguably no one has had more impact on the question of how small the world is than Stanley Milgram, a Harvard psychologist who in the 1960s conducted an ingenious experiment to test it (Milgram is even more famous for another experiment of his, on obedience to authority, but that’s for another day).

但是,毋庸置疑,没有人对此“小小世界”问题的影(more...)

标签: | |
7373
How small is the world, really? 世界何其小,真的吗? 作者:Duncan Watts @ 2016-02-10 译者:龟海海 校对:辉格(@whigzhou) 来源:七分钟阅读,https://medium.com/@duncanjwatts/how-small-is-the-world-really-736fa21808ba Last week’s finding by a team of data scientists at Facebook that everyone in the social network is connected by an average of 3.5 “intermediaries” has renewed interest in the longstanding “Six Degrees of Separation” hypothesis: that everyone in the world is connected by some short chain of acquaintances. 上周,一个脸书数据分析专家小组发现,社交网络中的每个人都可经由平均3.5个“媒介好友”而联系起来,这一发现刷新了之前长期流行的“六度分隔”理论,即世上任何两人皆可通过某条较短的熟人链条连接起来。 Not surprisingly, the attention has focused on the plausible assertion that online social networks like Facebook have made the world smaller: that whatused to be six degrees is now almost half that. But really what it has revealed is how little we understand this intriguing phenomenon and what it might mean for our world. 无出意外,人们的注意力被吸引到了一个看似可能的判断上:像脸书这样的社交网络让世界变得更小:以前的六度现在一半就足够。但它真正揭示的是,对此令人神迷的现象和它对我们世界的意义何在,我们的理解何等浅薄。 This “small world” hypothesis, as it is known in sociology, has been percolating in popular culture for a long time. Almost a century ago the Hungarian poet Frigyes Karinthy wrote a short story called “Chain Links” in which he claimed he could reach anyone in the world, whether a Nobel Prize winner or a worker in a Ford auto factory, through a series of no more than five intermediaries. 在社会学领域内,大家都已了解,这个“小小世界”假说久已渗透进我们的文化之中。早在一个世纪前,匈牙利诗人Frigyes Karinthy就写了一则题为“链接”的小故事,文中他声称可以通过一系列不超过5个的“媒介”,联络到世界上任何人,无论是诺奖得主,或是一名福特工厂的工人。 Subsequently, writers like Jane Jacobs, John Guare, and Malcolm Gladwell have periodically reinvigorated the idea with their own colorful characters and fantastical speculations about who really runs the world. 此后,像Jane Jacobs, John Guare, and Malcolm Gladwell等等作家时不时的通过他们自己书中丰富的人物重塑了这一假说,并天马行空的猜测究竟是谁在真正掌控这个世界。 But arguably no one has had more impact on the question of how small the world is than Stanley Milgram, a Harvard psychologist who in the 1960s conducted an ingenious experiment to test it (Milgram is even more famous for another experiment of his, on obedience to authority, but that’s for another day). 但是,毋庸置疑,没有人对此“小小世界”问题的影响超过1960年代任教于哈佛大学的心理学家史丹利·米尔格拉姆,他进行了一个原创试验来测试此理论(米尔格拉姆其实有另一个更加有名的试验,“权力服从研究”,这个我们改天再谈)。 In brief, Milgram chose a single person, an acquaintance of his who was a stockbroker living in Sharon Mass, just outside of Boston, to be the “target” of the experiment. In addition he chose roughly 300 others — 100 from Boston itself and the other 200 from Omaha Nebraska, which Milgram figured was about as far away from Boston, socially and geographically, as one could get within the US. 简言之,米尔格拉姆选择他的一位朋友作为其实验的“靶标”,他是一位股票经纪人,住在波士顿城外的Sharon Mass。另外,他还另外选择了约300名实验对象——其中100名来自波士顿,其他200名来自内布拉斯加的奥马哈市,米尔格拉姆认为,就美国境内而言,奥马哈无论在社会关系上还是在地理上,都距离波士顿足够远。 Milgram then sent these 300 subjects special packets containing a good deal of information about the target — his name, address, occupation, etc. — and also instructions that they were to try to get the packet to him. But there was a catch: they could only send the packet to him if they knew him personally, meaning on a first-name basis. 随后,米尔格拉姆为这300名实验对象送出了特殊的包裹,其中包涵他这名股票经纪人(靶标)的许多信息——他的名字,地址,职业,等等——以及一些让他们试着将包裹寄给他的提示。但是,这儿有个坑:他们只能在个人直接认识他的情况下才能寄出包裹。 In the overwhelmingly likely event that that they did not, they were instead to send to someone they did know on a first name basis and who was closer to the target than they were themselves. These new participants would then get the same packet with the same instructions, and the process would repeat until — hopefully — some of the packets reached the target. 而实际上,在绝大部分情况下,他们不满足这一条件,所以只能将包裹寄给某位他们直接认识并且和靶标的关系距离更近一层的人。而这个收到包裹的新参与者,得到的是同样的包裹和提示,这一过程会一直持续循环下去,直到——幸运的话——有些包裹能顺利到达“靶标”。 Milgram’s question then was: for successfully delivered packets, how long would the chains be? Curiously, before he ran the experiment Milgram asked lots of people to guess the answer. Many assumed it wasn’t possible while others figured it would take hundreds of steps. So when Milgram found that not only did 64 packets, roughly one fifth of the initial sample, reached the target, but that the average length of the successful chains was just 6, he knew it would surprise many people. 米尔格拉姆接下来的问题是:如果包裹递送成功,那么这些链条有多长呢?有趣的是,在米尔格拉姆进行此实验之前就让很多人猜过答案。一些人表示根本不可能送达目标,另一些则认为至少得通过成百上千个步骤。所以,当米尔格拉姆得知不仅64个包裹(占初始样本的五分之一)到达了靶标,而且这些成功链条的平均长度仅仅为6。他知道这会让许多人咋舌。 In many ways, it still does. Although the phrase “Six Degrees of Separation” has become a cliché, when pressed many people still find it difficult to imagine how they could really reach anyone — not just someone like them or someone near to them, but anyone at all in the whole world — in something like six steps. 从许多方面看,这仍然令人惊奇。虽说“六度分隔”已经成了陈词滥调,但这一结果发布之后,许多人仍难以相信自己仅仅只需六步即可链接到世界上的任何人——不仅是自己一个圈子的人,或是周边的人,而是整个世界的任何人。 Understandably then, the Facebook result also attracted some resistance: “Facebook is an unrepresentative sample of the population;” “Facebook friends aren’t real friends” and so on. But although these critiques may have merit, they miss the point. In reality, the 3.5 number is simply incomparable to Milgram’s 6 for three reasons. 所以不难理解,脸书的研究结果发布后吸引了许多反对声音:“脸书是个不具代表性的人口样本;”“脸书的朋友并非真朋友”等等。虽说这些批评也许有可取之处,但是他们没抓住要点。实际上,这个3.5不能和米尔格拉姆的“六度”直接对比,理由有三: First, the number 3.5 counts intermediaries not degrees of separation. If I am “one degree” from someone I know them directly; there are zero intermediaries between me and them. Likewise, there is one intermediary between me and my “two degree” neighbors, and so on. 首先,3.5这个数字计算的是“媒介”的数量,而不是分隔度数。如果我是某人的“一度”友邻,我就直接认识此人;我和他们间没有“媒介”。类似的,我和我的“二度”友邻之间存在一个“媒介”,以此类推。 In general, therefore, an average of 3.5 intermediaries corresponds to 4.5 degrees of separation, which is almost exactly what Facebook itself found when it performed a similar exercise a few years ago. Conversely, Milgram’s six degrees result corresponds to five intermediaries, which is actually the number he reported in his original paper with Jeffery Travers. So already the difference is one less than it appears. 因此,平均3.5个“媒介”对应的是“4.5度分隔”,这和几年前脸书自己通过类似实验得出的发现几乎相同。反之,米尔格拉姆的“六度”所对应的是5个“媒介”——其实他和Jeffery Travers发表的文章中所用的正是这个数字。所以上述差异比表面看起来就已经少了1 。 Second, though, Milgram’s experiment was a subtly but importantly different test than the one run by Facebook. Whereas the latter measured the length of the shortest possible path between two people — by exhaustively searching every link in the underlying Facebook graph — the former is simply the shortest path that ordinary people could find given very limited information about the underlying social network. 第二,虽然米尔格拉姆的试验很巧妙,但是,和脸书做的这个测试有重要差异。后者度量的是两个人之间的最短可能路径的长度——通过穷举搜索脸书关系图上的每条链接,而前者则是普通人基于其所掌握的极为有限的社会关系信息而能够找到的路径长度。 There are, in other words, two versions of the small-world hypothesis — the “topological” version, which refers only to underlying network structure, and the “algorithmic” version, which refers to the ability of people to search this underlying structure. 换言之,其实“小世界假说”有两个版本:“拓扑版”,它度量的是社会关系网络结构,和“算法版”,它度量的则是人们在此网络中进行搜索的能力。 From these definitions, it follows that algorithmic (search) paths cannot be shorter than topological paths and are almost certainly longer. Saying that the world has gotten smaller because the shortest topological path length is 4.5 not 6 therefore makes no sense — because the equivalent number would have been smaller in Milgram’s day as well. 从这些定义得出,“算法版”(搜索)路径不可能短于“拓扑版”。仅仅因为最短拓扑路径的长度是4.5而非6就说世界变小了,这么说毫无意义——因为米尔格拉姆时代的相应数字同样小于6。 Finally, the number 6 is also in some respects too small. As has been pointed out many times since Milgram’s experiment, only about 20% of the letters made it to their target. More importantly, these letters were almost certainly on shorter paths than the ones that didn’t make it, meaning that estimates of path length that don’t take into account the missing data are almost certainly biased downwards. 最后,从某些角度看,数字6也太小了。因为自从米尔格拉姆试验后就被很多人指出,仅有20%的信封送到了靶标。更重要的是,这些信所通过的途径几乎肯定短于那些没有到达靶标的,这就意味着那些投递失败的长链条在估算链条长度时没有被计算在内,这肯定会造成向下偏差。 Fortunately it is possible to correct for this bias using standard statistical methods. In a 2009 paper my colleagues and I performed exactly this analysis both on Milgram’s original data and also on our data from a similar — but much larger — experiment that we had conducted ourselves in 2003. 有幸的是,我们可以通过标准的统计算法来更正这一偏差。在2009年的一篇论文中我和我的同事们对米尔格拉姆的原始数据和我们自己在2003年做的一个大得多的类似试验的数据进行了恰如上面所述的分析。 Remarkably we found that after the correction, both experiments yielded similar results: the median shortest path was 7, meaning that 50% of chains should complete in 7 or fewer steps while the other 50% would be longer. Many people find this result surprising because it seems so clear that the world has gotten smaller in the last 50 years. 我们惊喜的发现,在矫正了数据后,两个试验得出相似的结果:最短链条的中位值是7,即50%的链条会7步或少于7步时完成,而另外50%则会更长。许多人觉得这个结果不思议,因为过去50年世界变得更小了这个事实看起来如此明白无误。 Yet this apparent stability is exactly what one would predict from my early theoretical work with Steven Strogatz back in the late 1990’s. In a nutshell what we showed is that it is easy to turn a “large” world into a “small” one, just by adding a small fraction of random, long-range links, reminiscent of Mark Granovetter’s famous “weak ties.” 但这一明显的稳定性正是我和Steven Strogatz在1990年代后期的理论研究中预见到的。简言之,我们要证明的是,只需要在“大”世界中加入一小部分随机的“长范围”链接,就可以把世界变“小”,这让人联想起马克·格兰诺维特著名的“弱关系”理论。 The flip side of our result, however, is that once the world has already gotten small — as it was already by the 1960's — it is extremely hard to make it smaller. Obviously Facebook did not exist in 2003 so possibly since then something has indeed changed. But I suspect that the difference will be small. 实际上,这一结果反过来说就是,一旦世界变小之后——其实它在60年代已经变小了——想要把它变得更小就极为困难。很明显,脸书2003年并不存在,所以有可能某些东西真的已经改变了。但是我估计这个变化是微小的。 Why does any of this matter? There are three reasons. First, the two versions of the small-world hypothesis — topological and algorithmic — are relevant to different social processes. The spread of a sexually transmitted disease along networks of sexual relations, for example, does not require that participants have any awareness of the disease, or intention to spread it; thus for an individual to be at risk of acquiring an infection, he or she need only be connected in the topological sense to existing infectives. 何以见得这些差异是要紧的呢?理由有三:第一,两个版本的“小世界假说”——拓扑版和算法版——关乎不同的社会过程。例如,就像性病通过两性关系而传播,这并不需要参与者意识到疾病的存在或者拥有传播它的意图,而仅需要他或她在拓扑上链接到既有的感染者即可。 On the contrary, individuals attempting to “network” — in order to locate some resources like a new job or a service provider — must actively traverse chains of referrals, and thus must be connected in the algorithmic sense. Depending on the application of interest, therefore, either the topological or algorithmic distance between individuals may be more relevant — or possibly both together. 相反,若是个人想要“建立链接”寻找资源,比如找工作,寻找服务商,则必须积极的遍历中间人链条,因而必须在算法上建立链接。所以,根据实际应用中的关注重点,有些情况下个体之间的拓扑距离更切题,有时则算法距离更切题,或者两者同时切题。 Second, whereas the topological hypothesis has been shown to apply essentially universally, to networks of all kinds, the algorithmic hypothesis is largely (although not exclusively) concerned with social networks in which human agents make decisions about how to direct messages. 第二,拓扑版小世界假说已经表明普遍适用于所有类型的网络结构,而算法版假说则大致上量(虽然不完全)适用于社交网络,在这些网络中,人类主体就如何引导信息流向做出决定。 And third, whereas the topological version is supported by an overwhelming volume of empirical evidence — hundreds of studies, if not thousands — have found that nodes in even the very largest known networks are connected by short paths, the practical difficulty of running “small-world” experiments of the sort that Milgram conducted in the 1960s has meant that much less is known about the algorithmic version. 第三,鉴于“拓扑版”得到了压倒性数量的经验证据——来自数百甚至数千项研究——支持这些证据表明,即使在最大的关系网中,节点之间也可通过较短路径相连接,进行像米尔格拉姆在1960年代所做的那种“小世界效应”试验的实际困难意味着,我们对“算法版”的情况其实所知不多。 On this last point, for example, our 2009 analysis also found evidence that some of the longer paths could be much longer than the median, adding weight to the skeptics’ claims that in spite of the small-world phenomenon, some people remain socially isolated. 有关最后这一点,(例如)我们2009年的分析同样发现了证据表明,一些长路径可以远远长于中位值,这为那些怀疑者的主张提供了依据:即使存在小世界现象,总有些人在社会关系上是保持孤立的。 Given the importance of social networks in determining life outcomes, it would be extremely interesting and useful to understand better who these people are and why they are isolated. Is it something to do with their underlying networks or is it that their search strategies are somehow less effective? 考虑到社会关系网在决定生活质量上的重要性,研究并理解这些孤立者是谁,为何变得孤立,将是件极为有趣且有用的事情。这跟他们的下层关系网有关?【编注:此处underlying networks应是指亲戚、邻里等个人被预先给定的被动关系,相对于个人主动寻求建立的社会关系】还是他们的搜索策略不够有效? Could it be, as my coauthors and I speculated many years ago, some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, in which the perception of social isolation discourages one from searching one’s network, and that the resulting lack of success reinforces the original perception of isolation? 有没有可能,正如多年前我和我的共同作者所推测的那样,是某种自我实现的预言?即,对社会孤立的感知,使得个人不愿意搜索自己的关系网,由此导致的关系建立失败进而强化了对孤立的最初感知? Answering these questions would require new experiments that are only now just becoming possible. But the answers would not only be of academic interest — they could also potentially help many people access currently inaccessible reserves of “social capital” thereby improving their lives. Far from being settled, the small-world problem still has much to teach us about the world, and ourselves. 要回答这些问题需要更新的试验,而此类实验直到最近才变得可行。但是,这些问题的答案不仅仅是满足学术兴趣——它们同样可能帮助很多人得以访问目前对他们来说还不可触及的“社会资本”储备,从而来改善他们的生活。 小世界问题还远未解决,在未来,它仍将为我们带来有关这个世界以及我们自身的诸多教益。 Duncan Watts is a principal researcher at Microsoft and author of Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age (WW Norton, 2003). 邓肯·J·瓦茨是微软首席研究员和《六度分隔理论》作者 (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——

亲爱的这条内裤好看吗?

【2016-03-06】

@whigzhou: 可以将所有可能被谈论的话题按这样一个维度(p)排列,p=n的意思是只有交谈者少于或等于n时该话题才会被谈论,于是每个话题都有了个p值,一个p值为n的话题可称为n-p话题,比如“亲爱的你觉得这条内裤好看吗?”显然是个2-p话题;

@whigzhou: 一个猜想:一个参加人数为n的聚会,其主导话题的p值将介于n和n+2之间。

 

标签: |
7044
【2016-03-06】 @whigzhou: 可以将所有可能被谈论的话题按这样一个维度(p)排列,p=n的意思是只有交谈者少于或等于n时该话题才会被谈论,于是每个话题都有了个p值,一个p值为n的话题可称为n-p话题,比如“亲爱的你觉得这条内裤好看吗?”显然是个2-p话题; @whigzhou: 一个猜想:一个参加人数为n的聚会,其主导话题的p值将介于n和n+2之间。  
抓起一泡掼进来

【2016-02-26】

@whigzhou: 有些可怜人,在粪坑里泡久了,以至无论什么话题他都能抓起一泡掼进来,你说红烧肉好吃,他就“都是地沟油做的”,你说股票是比黄金更好的投资品,他就草泥马肖缸死全家,你说黑人跑步真厉害,他就举国体制万恶无疆……结果被我拉黑了,哎,谁让我是坏人呢。

 

标签:
7040
【2016-02-26】 @whigzhou: 有些可怜人,在粪坑里泡久了,以至无论什么话题他都能抓起一泡掼进来,你说红烧肉好吃,他就“都是地沟油做的”,你说股票是比黄金更好的投资品,他就草泥马肖缸死全家,你说黑人跑步真厉害,他就举国体制万恶无疆……结果被我拉黑了,哎,谁让我是坏人呢。  
大师温床

【2015-09-05】

@whigzhou: 自从公开谈论旧石器食谱之后,我才发现,要做大师真是太容易了,因为你很难说服他们相信你不是大师,就算你反复说“我们这套迷信”,并声明完全不懂代谢学和营养学,他们大概也会觉得这是大师常有的谦逊风范。

@whigzhou: 在贵国,谈点自己的想法、介绍点新思想之类的事情,也总是有类似遭遇,无论追捧者还是嘲讽者,往往都会基于“你是把它当作科学定论或权威观点来谈论的”这样一种假定来评价你的言辞,他们压根就不相(more...)

标签: |
6395
【2015-09-05】 @whigzhou: 自从公开谈论旧石器食谱之后,我才发现,要做大师真是太容易了,因为你很难说服他们相信你不是大师,就算你反复说“我们这套迷信”,并声明完全不懂代谢学和营养学,他们大概也会觉得这是大师常有的谦逊风范。 @whigzhou: 在贵国,谈点自己的想法、介绍点新思想之类的事情,也总是有类似遭遇,无论追捧者还是嘲讽者,往往都会基于“你是把它当作科学定论或权威观点来谈论的”这样一种假定来评价你的言辞,他们压根就不相信一个人可以只是谈论自己觉得有点道理或有点意思的想法,根本没兴趣教导、说服或改变你们。 @真玄兔:那你何必要对别人说呢,你把这话说出来之后,是否教导说服改变别人就不是你能决定得了的了。要对自己的话负责。平时我哪怕在网上随便发条评论有拿不准的地方都会先查一下 @whigzhou: 你把菜刀卖出去之后,人家是否拿去切鸡鸡就不是你能决定得了的。要对自己的刀负责。哪怕卖刀也要确保它切不动肉  
[微言]星巴克与旧茶馆

【2013-03-07】

@北京吃货小分队 【星巴克,你让内地屌丝们等的好苦啊】山西首家星巴克店开业 消费者排长队!让你知道什么是中国人的钱好赚!转

@黄章晋ster:山西人民真的好淡定。又让我想起湖南加盟共和国娄底斯坦第一家麦当劳开张时,市委书记宣布娄底斯坦从此进入国际化都市序列之后,数百人践踏死伤的故事。

@whigzhou: 另一种朝圣

@只配抬杠:中国人能想象茶馆外面有这么长的队伍排队喝茶吗?

@whigzhou: 阵势比这大,但不是排队,小时候镇上茶馆早晨高峰期不仅里面挤满,门外街道屋檐下的茶客阵列可以向两边延伸五六十米,大部分是附近农民,顺便从(more...)

标签: | |
4902
【2013-03-07】 @北京吃货小分队 【星巴克,你让内地屌丝们等的好苦啊】山西首家星巴克店开业 消费者排长队!让你知道什么是中国人的钱好赚!转 @黄章晋ster:山西人民真的好淡定。又让我想起湖南加盟共和国娄底斯坦第一家麦当劳开张时,市委书记宣布娄底斯坦从此进入国际化都市序列之后,数百人践踏死伤的故事。 @whigzhou: 另一种朝圣 @只配抬杠:中国人能想象茶馆外面有这么长的队伍排队喝茶吗? @whigzhou: 阵势比这大,但不是排队,小时候镇上茶馆早晨高峰期不仅里面挤满,门外街道屋檐下的茶客阵列可以向两边延伸五六十米,大部分是附近农民,顺便从家拿点菜出来边喝边卖 @whigzhou: 对许多中年以上农民,每天去镇上喝早茶是生活重要部分,家远的两点多起床,步行两个多小时到,卖菜有时只是象征性的 @whigzhou: 见过一老头,那天家里实在没啥菜可拿出来卖的,就拿了两头蒜和一把小葱,我看见时已卖掉半头蒜 @只配抬杠:回复@whigzhou:阵列不是一团团的吧,应该是面朝一个方向方便卖菜的 @whigzhou: 嗯,贴着屋檐下坐石阶上,面朝街道,店内是长条桌和八仙桌 @小野猪君:想起来了,小时候在乡下我爷爷伯伯他们都是早上四点半去饮茶的,我跟着如果一次,茶楼里人山人海的都是男人,还几乎全都认识 @whigzhou: 嗯,四点半出发那应该是住在镇边上咯 @whigzhou: 这种茶馆的商业模式还挺有意思,早晨完全面向农民,下午有时会有评书或花鼓戏,如果没有就变成了棋牌室,主要观众也是农民,下午三点以后开始面向镇民,晚饭前卖开水,晚饭后上演评弹,资源利用率相当高 @whigzhou: 核心设备叫老虎灶 http://t.cn/zYny9eU 燃料是砻糠,砻糠火力猛但能量密度低,消耗量大,茶馆隔几日即须补给一次,所以都备有专用小码头 @trinity31:为什么不自家喝呢~ @whigzhou: 喝早茶主要是一项社交活动  
[饭文]劝酒拼酒何时休

劝酒拼酒何时休
辉格
2013年1月4日

多年来,无论在公款消费、官场应酬、商务宴请,还是私人聚宴中,高档酒的地位越来越受尊崇,其在餐饮账单上所占份额也日见高涨,成为许多酒店的主要利润来源;这也让国内高档白酒的股票广受追捧,经年坚挺;最近,军队里传出要限制喝酒的风气,白酒股闻风应声大跌,也可见白酒在腐败类消费中的领导地位。

除了满足个人偏好之外,喝酒很大程度上是一种社会性消费,是为了实现某些社会性功能而喝,因而总是伴随着某些特定的社会活动和人际交往,在此意义上,酒被称为社会交往的润滑剂,倒也贴切;酒类消费中的大部分,大概都可归之于这种功能性需求。

不过,同样是社会性消费(more...)

标签: | | | | |
4379
劝酒拼酒何时休 辉格 2013年1月4日 多年来,无论在公款消费、官场应酬、商务宴请,还是私人聚宴中,高档酒的地位越来越受尊崇,其在餐饮账单上所占份额也日见高涨,成为许多酒店的主要利润来源;这也让国内高档白酒的股票广受追捧,经年坚挺;最近,军队里传出要限制喝酒的风气,白酒股闻风应声大跌,也可见白酒在腐败类消费中的领导地位。 除了满足个人偏好之外,喝酒很大程度上是一种社会性消费,是为了实现某些社会性功能而喝,因而总是伴随着某些特定的社会活动和人际交往,在此意义上,酒被称为社会交往的润滑剂,倒也贴切;酒类消费中的大部分,大概都可归之于这种功能性需求。 不过,同样是社会性消费,具体的喝法却随所需实现的功能不同而迥然相异,最常见的一类是助兴型的,此时喝酒是为了让人进入某种状态,而这种状态适合于他正在参与的社会活动和交往,因为酒精可以解除大脑对某些低级冲动的抑制,让人变得更加放松、兴奋、甚至放纵。 在诸如歌舞、嬉戏、看球之类的群体娱乐中,这样的状态会让参与者表现更好,而许多社交活动也需要参与者比平时更为松弛,不再拘谨,甚至略带兴奋,容易打开话匣子,所以作为社区社交中心的英国乡村小酒馆,或中国茶馆,作为私人社交场的沙龙客厅、鸡尾酒会,都会以酒助兴。 当参与者平时并不十分亲密,只是为了特定目的而聚在一起时,或者平时碍于等级身份或社会规范约束而不得亲密时,那么,在此类场合借助酒精来解除拘谨和戒备的需要就会变得更强烈。 沙龙客人可能只与主人熟识,相互间并不亲密,而且不时还有新人被引介进圈子,单位同事平日受等级职务拘束,年终聚餐时则需要营造一种平等参与氛围,分离多年的老同学,文化和价值观上已多有隔膜,却仍想重叙旧情,还有大家族的众多亲戚,平时来往寡浅,家族纽带全赖各种节庆婚丧宴席维系,等等。 以酒助兴的习俗在各大文化中都有,不过中国的酒文化还有另一种类型的功能性需求,不妨称之为对抗型,表现为以醉倒对方为目的的高强度劝酒,相互轮番劝酒直至大部分参与者都达到承受极限,这种习俗在其他文化中十分罕见,而且过去二十年,无论官场、商务还是私人交往中,有愈演愈烈之势,也正是这一习俗,创造了酒类消费中的极大一部分。 劝酒拼酒习俗中所涉及的心理因素看来相当复杂微妙,其原因颇难究考,不过从某些线索中还是能看出些渊源;在助兴式喝酒时,借助酒精暂时剥夺某些自控和协调能力,是为了更好地参与社交活动,所以各人自己喝就行了,而在对抗性劝酒中,酒精的这一作用被用作了武器:剥夺对方的自控与协调能力,但尽可能保持自己的。 然后,当所有参与者都意识到别人在用这一武器对付自己时,也都拿起该武器参战,于是战斗轮番升级,最终,博弈各方达成一个规范:确保所有人都被剥夺自控能力,这成了酒桌上的游戏规则;问题是,这究竟有什么社会功能?常见的通俗说法是,这能热络感情,拉近关系,更准确的说,酒精能够解除戒备。 或许正是因为中国文化中横亘于人际关系的种种戒备太多太深,才特别需要通过酒精来解除它;劝酒者在敬酒时,或许是在告诉对方,我同意解除戒备,请你也这样,这类似于握手礼的起源,告诉对方:瞧,我手里没有武器,让我知道你也没有,甚至我们可以想象,劝酒习俗在古代或许真的发挥过确保聚宴各方同时丧失战斗力的作用,因为喝醉酒的人是很难保持格斗能力的。 之所以人际交往中充满了戒备,或许是因为缺乏信任机制和社会规范对行为的约束,社会交往中充斥着尔虞我诈的机会主义行为,为此人人都须时刻保持警惕,才能保护自己的利益不受伤害;在这场长期的机会主义攻防战,导致了心理武库的军备竞赛,精明、理智、审慎、诡诈、圆滑、伪装、设套、声东击西、拐弯抹角……等等心理武器都被一一开发出来,装备在身,而真实意图被却包裹在重重伪装之下,难以看透。 果若如此,我们便可预期,越是那些可能被对方设陷欺骗或伤害,因而越需要加以警惕和戒备的社会交往,劝酒风气便越盛行,而那些真正亲密的,或已经建立了充分信任关系的交往,则会表现的较为平和,事实看来正是如此,酒风炽烈的程度,从官场、涉及国企或政府项目的商务交往,到私人企业间交往、半生不熟的圈子,到亲密朋友、核心家庭,依次递减,高档酒的消费量大概也按此坐标呈梯度分布。 过去二十年酒风日盛的趋势,或许也是社会变迁的结果之一,市场开放,社会流动性增加,各种交往和交易关系大量涌现,但这些关系和交易中所需的规范和信任却未能及时建立,于是传统酒俗被改造而移用过来,为这些交往构造一个可让其顺畅运行的舞台。 可是,尽管发挥了这样的作用,劝酒习俗带给参与者的健康代价却是非常高昂的,很少有人真正乐在其中,更多人出于无奈,并对此苦不堪言,也想出种种办法加以逃避,可以相信,此陋俗以当今之炽烈程度的泛滥,只是阶段性的,随着人们对其健康代价的认知加深,价值观的变化,以及新的社会规范和信任机制的逐渐成型和成熟,新生代当不至于全盘继承这一陋俗。  
[微言]贴标签

【2012-06-26】

@王丰-SCMP 原以为血统论,出身论只是某党的杰作,没想到来香港后发现一些本地媒体和外国媒体同样持此论调。因为你是大陆人/因为你曾经在大陆官方媒体工作 — 所以你必然是亲某党的,一举一动一言一行都透着可疑。我等还是见过点世面的,不至于被此聒噪分了心,只觉得好玩。Narrowmindedness,是跨越政治和国界的

@沪港小生: #记者那点事# 想當年,我也曾在解放日報、上海人民廣播電台工作過 So what

@徐瑾微博: 诶,铁幕后的人往往要自证没被洗脑。。

@whigzho(more...)

标签: | | | |
4386
【2012-06-26】 @王丰-SCMP 原以为血统论,出身论只是某党的杰作,没想到来香港后发现一些本地媒体和外国媒体同样持此论调。因为你是大陆人/因为你曾经在大陆官方媒体工作 --- 所以你必然是亲某党的,一举一动一言一行都透着可疑。我等还是见过点世面的,不至于被此聒噪分了心,只觉得好玩。Narrowmindedness,是跨越政治和国界的 @沪港小生: #记者那点事# 想當年,我也曾在解放日報、上海人民廣播電台工作過 So what @徐瑾微博: 诶,铁幕后的人往往要自证没被洗脑。。 @whigzhou: 刻板印象是节省交往成本的方法,对于没有机会或不打算深交的人,贴标签的方法简单易行,在统计意义上也常常是有效的,你能够深交的人毕竟很有限 @whigzhou: 当你需要对人做某种判断,但又不可能或不值得逐一细察时,按标签批量过滤是唯一可行方法,简单粗暴要么是因为面临的人太多,要么是因这个判断无关紧要 @whigzhou: 比如你要招聘10位员工,手里有1万份简历,不可能逐一面试,必须先粗筛,所谓粗筛就是简单粗暴的基于标签的算法。 @whigzhou: 或者你在火车上面临一个选择:在未来5小时内与哪些人坐在同一包厢里,你掌握的信息非常有限,都是些标签化的信息,这时你是避免简单粗暴呢?还是想有所选择? @whigzhou: 当然,一个有用的策略也常常被误用,比如:1)一个以前有统计价值的标签,现在已经没价值了,因为你经验陈旧,又疏于更新自己的知识,还在继续瞎用 @whigzhou: 2)你明明已经与某人有了个人交往和直接经验,却仍让偏见影响你的判断和作为,那就很傻很迂腐了 @whigzhou: 3)在某件事情上你明明是打酱油的,没必要下结论做判断,却仍要做一个斩钉截铁的判断还要大声咋唬,而可资利用的却只有标签信息,那也挺傻的 @whigzhou: 人头票选制最擅长诱惑人们做第三类傻事,选民们明明不关心某人到底如何如何,也懒得去获取非标签化信息,却又总是被要求对此人下判断  
饭文#92: 茫茫人海已不再茫茫

茫茫人海已不再茫茫
辉格
2009年3月9日

日前,据南京市蒋宏坤市长在回答记者提问时透露,南京江宁区原房管局长周久耕因涉嫌严重违纪已被立案调查,这是人肉搜索的最新牺牲品;这一案件,连同此前一系列成为搜索对象的躲猫猫、林嘉祥、周春梅、谭静、王菲(男)、和若干公费旅游账单,使得人肉搜索在短短几年之内突然成为一股引人注目、影响广泛的潮流;对此,有人拍手叫好,有人担忧个人隐私陷入危境,有人甚至呼吁立法禁止;无论对此抱何态度,有一点是肯定的:我们今天所面临的信息环境,已经大大改变了。

所谓人肉搜索,(more...)

标签: | | | |
454

茫茫人海已不再茫茫
辉格
2009年3月9日

日前,据南京市蒋宏坤市长在回答记者提问时透露,南京江宁区原房管局长周久耕因涉嫌严重违纪已被立案调查,这是人肉搜索的最新牺牲品;这一案件,连同此前一系列成为搜索对象的躲猫猫、林嘉祥、周春梅、谭静、王菲(男)、和若干公费旅游账单,使得人肉搜索在短短几年之内突然成为一股引人注目、影响广泛的潮流;对此,有人拍手叫好,有人担忧个人隐私陷入危境,有人甚至呼吁立法禁止;无论对此抱何态度,有一点是肯定的:我们今天所面临的信息环境,已经大大改变了。

所谓人肉搜索,是在网上组织大量的人力,借助以搜索引擎为主的工具,搜集和跟踪某一事件或人物的所有可能得到的信息,力图再现出事情的原貌。以前,类似的工作只能由记者、侦探、警察等专业调查和研究机构来做,互联网和搜索引擎使它成为可能,更重要的是,如今越来越多的事件会在网上留下痕迹;五六年前,我曾尝试搜索自己和一些亲友的名字,但得到的有价值信息很少,但今天已大不相同,我甚至能用Google来研究家谱。

手机、数码相机、DV让人们可以随时采集信息,目前这些产品都在强化与网络相册和流媒体的连接,用它们拍摄的照片和视频几分钟后就可出现在博客和YouTube上了,即时通信、博客和社会化网络等Web2.0应用的繁荣,也鼓励了的人们在网上创作和分享信息;网民不再仅仅是使用者和阅读者,涌现了大量山寨记者和评论家。信息来源的泛化使网络的触角遍及每个角落,而搜索引擎又将这些信息组织到一起,借助它,有心人可以对任何曾在公共视野中留下痕迹的事件进行跟踪;谷歌甚至已经为网络相册开发了人脸识别功能,如果把它融入通用引擎,人肉搜索将更为可观。

现代城市生活与传统部落、乡村和城镇生活的重要区别是,在乡村和部落,生活中见到的每个人几乎都是熟识的,偶尔才遇到陌生人,你走出家门后的一举一动都可能引起熟人的关注、评价和议论,其结果将影响他们和他们的听众对你的看法和今后交往中所采取的态度;每个人都知道村里其他人的历史:他做过些什么?别人怎么评价他?他是个好顾主吗?我会不会吃他亏?要不要让着点他?或者最好躲开他?传统社会的道德、习惯法和社会秩序,很大程度上就是靠这种相互熟知和舆论评价的约束来维持的。

在大城市,即使你交际很广,熟识的人也很少超过200个,而城市通常有几十数百万人;所以,一旦走入茫茫人海,你可以很有把握的假定:除非你与他直接发生关系,周围的人不会关心你在做什么,事后更不会记得。有人把这叫做人情冷漠,但如果你经历过小镇生活中无处不在的好奇目光、窃窃私语和指指点点,或许会欣然称之为“城市的自由空气”:它清晰的划分了私生活和公共生活,并在私生活中让你摆脱了传统的目光和舆论约束。在地铁上,或许50米内有几百双眼睛,但你却可以比在小镇的冷清街道上更旁若无人的接吻、打私密电话、或者傻笑。这也正是城市所以吸引年轻人的魅力所在,青年时代普遍的叛逆性让他们难以忍受传统生活中的那些约束,尤其是存在其他选择的时候。

现在,这一切即将改变,有趣的是,技术发展或许会部分的将我们带回乡村时代;80年代经济全球化初现端倪时,曾有人惊呼,现代交通运输工具、电信网络和贸易开放,正在把世界变成地球村,但那主要还是生产方面的改变,而信息技术的发展,才将真正从生活上建立起地球村,并唤回某些传统元素,至少在一些方面,它有望把我们拉回传统之中。今后,在大街上,在饭店、电影院、地铁站,“冷漠城市”这一假定不再可靠,或许你需要时刻留意,你此时的举动是否会被你家人、朋友或同事看见,如果这样,他们会怎么评价?或许会发现你和他们的印象大不相符?甚至当你卷入某些纠纷时,这些会成为对你不利的证据?

当然我们不会真正回到乡村,有一点差别是重要的:在乡村,目光和人言是“实时”的,舆论评价和约束和你的行为是同步的;而在未来信息环境下,行为发生时,旁人还是和以前一样漠不关心,人肉搜索和网络舆论是事后的,只会在某些条件触发下成为热点事件之后才会发生;但这一点也正是它的阴险之处:索性整天有熟人盯着倒也不会留下这么多丑态傻样,可怕的是,平时不觉得有啥,一出事就千年老账都被翻出来。

这一变化意义深远,它或许将改变城市生活的基本面貌,由于基本假定被改变了,人们的社会心理预期、行为方式、交往和信任关系,都将随之而调整,其结果很难预料,对此,及时的分析和评估是必要的,但要作出判断甚至采取立法行动,则为时尚早。