【2016-03-27】 @whigzhou: 在夏威夷被烟价惊了一下（如果是在纽约会更惊），于是想起数月前读到的一篇讨论香烟税的文章，至少在美国，香烟税是一种典型的穷人税，因为穷人抽烟更多，这回仔细一算才发觉这税对穷人有多重，一位纽约穷人若每天抽一包烟，每月就给政府交了300美元税，而实际上，纽约穷人烟民买烟要花掉1/4收入。 @whigzhou: 准确数字是23.6%，全美低收入烟民平均花14%收入买烟，对比万宝路在中国市场的零售价可知，其中绝大部分是税，详见 http://t.cn/Rq7adcp 【2016-05-31】 @whigzhou: 要是拿走福利就会造反的话，烟民早就造反了，当今欧美香烟税之重，历史上没有任何人头税比得上  

【2016-05-29】 @whigzhou: 依我的经验，当秋天气温从30度逐渐降至20度时，所穿的衣服从F30减至F20，当春天气温从10度逐渐升至20度时，所穿的衣服从S10增至S20，F20<S20，此为穿衣-气温函数之非对称性。 @whigzhou: 类似的，个人对某些商品的消费-价格函数也是非对称的，但方向相反，当初夏西瓜从5块1斤逐渐降至3块1斤时，你可能觉得，啊，好便宜，买一个，当秋天西瓜从1块1斤逐渐涨至3块一斤时，你可能觉得，啊，好贵，不吃了。  

【沐猿而冠·第7章·No31. 春运人潮的未来走向·后记】 根据皮尤中心2008年的一份报告[1]，该年有12%的美国人更换了住所（这还是60多年来的最低值，40到60年代这个数字高达20%），截至当年，63%的成年人至少更换过一次居住城市（即只有37%从未在家乡以外居住过），其中43%在两个或更多州居住过，23%出生于美国的人认为现在所住的地方不是他“心目中的家乡（heart home）”。 中西部农业区流动性最低（54%更换过居住地），西部沿海最高（70%）；上过大学的，这个数字是77%；另一个数字则体现了流动性与社会结构之间深刻关系：从未离乡的人，距离其住所一小时车程以内，平均有8位扩展家庭成员[2]，而对于离乡者，这个数字大约是3。 这些数字很好的展示了一个城市化高峰已过去两代人之后的现代社会的人口流动面貌。 ------------------------------- [1] 见 http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/Movers-and-Stayers.pdf [2] 扩展家庭（extended family）是指一对夫妻加上他们的已婚子女（及其核心家庭）所组成的二级家庭。

New Study Indicates Existence of Eight Conservative Social Psychologists 最近研究显示：保守派社会心理学家现存8位 作者：Jonathan Haidt @ 2016-1-7 译者：Marcel ZHANG（@马赫塞勒张） 校对：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：Heterodox Academy，http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/07/new-study-finds-conservative-social-psychologists/ Just how much viewpoint diversity do we have in social psychology? In 2011 nobody knew, so I asked 30 of my friends in the field to name a conservative. They came up with several names, but only one suspect admitted, under gentle interrogation, to being right of center. 社会心理学领域到底有多大的观点多样性？2011年时还没人知道，所以我询问了30个该领域的朋友，让他们举出一位保守派。结果他们提到了好几个名字，但在温和的盘问之下，只有一位嫌疑人承认了自己的政治倾向是中间偏右的。 A few months later I gave a talk at the annual convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in which I pointed out the field’s political imbalance and why this was a threat to the quality of our research. 几个月后，我在人格与社会心理学协会（SPSP）年会上发言时，指出了该领域的政治失衡现象，以及为什么这种现象会对我们的研究质量造成威胁。 I asked the thousand-or-so people in the audience to declare their politics with a show of hands, and I estimated that roughly 80% self-identified as “liberal or left of center,” 2% (I counted exactly 20 hands) identified as “centrist or moderate,” 1% (12 hands) identified as libertarian, and, rounding to the nearest integer, zero percent (3 hands) identified as “conservative or right of center.” That gives us a left: right ratio of 266 to one. I didn’t think the real ratio was that high; I knew that some conservatives in the audience were probably afraid to raise their hands. 我要求在场的约一千名听众举手表明自己的政治倾向，估计大略有80%的人认为自己是“自由派或者中间偏左派”，有2%（我数下来不多不少20个人）认为自己是“中立派或者温和派”，只有1%（12个人）自认自由意志主义者，如果直接取整的话，几乎0%（3个人）自认“保守派或者中间偏右派”。我们看到的是一个266:1的左右派比值。我不认为真实的比值会如此之高，我知道当时听众席里有些保守派可能会怯于举手。 Some of my colleagues questioned the validity of such a simple and public method, but Yoel Inbar and Yoris Lammers conducted a more thorough and anonymous survey of the SPSP email list later that year, and they too found a very lopsided political ratio: 85% of the 291 respondents self-identified as liberal overall, and only 6% identified as conservative. 有些同事对我这种简易公开方式的有效性提出了质疑。但是，同年晚些时候，Yoel Inbar 和 Yoris Lammers在该协会邮件组中进行了一场更加彻底的匿名调查，结果他们也发现了一边倒的政见比值：总共291个调查对象中，有85%认为自己基本可以算作自由派，而只有6%的调查对象认为自己是保守派。 That gives us our first good estimate of the left-right ratio in social psychology: fourteen to one. It’s a much more valid method than my “show of hands” (which was intended as a rhetorical device, not a real study). But still, we need more data, and we need to try more ways of asking the questions. 这就给我们提供了社会心理学界中左右派比值的第一份合理估计：14:1。这就比我之前的“举手”办法要可靠多了（当时我只是为了表明观点，并非真正的学术研究）。但是话说回来，我们还是需要更多的数据，而且需要尝试更多的调查途径。 A new data set has come in. Bill von Hippel and David Buss surveyed the membership of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology. That’s a professional society composed of the most active researchers in the field who are at least five years post-PhD. It’s very selective – you must be nominated by a current member and approved by a committee before you can join. 现在我们有了一组新数据。Bill von Hippel和David Buss调查了实验社会心理学会（SESP）的全体会员。这是个由该领域最活跃的研究者组成的专业协会，全体成员都至少已博士毕业5年。他们都是经过精挑细选的，入会必须获得会员提名且通过一个委员会的批准。 Von Hippel and Buss sent a web survey to the 900 members of SESP and got a response rate of 37% (335 responses). So this is a good sample of the mid-level and senior people (average age 51) who produce most of the research in social psychology. Von Hippel和Buss向该学会的900名会员发送了网上调查问卷，回应率为37%（共335个回应者）。所以，对于在社会心理学领域贡献了绝大部分研究的中高级人员（平均年龄51岁）而言，这是一个很不错的样本。 Von Hippel and Buss were surveying the members’ views about evolution, to try to understand the reasons why many social psychologists distrust or dislike evolutionary psychology. At the end of the survey, they happened to include a very good set of measures of political identity. Not just self-descriptions, but also whom the person voted for in the 2012 US Presidential election. And they asked nine questions about politically valenced policy questions, such as “Do you support gun control?” “Do you support gay marriage?” and “Do you support a woman’s right to get an abortion?” Von Hippel和Buss的问卷要调查的是会员们对进化问题的观点，试图了解许多社会心理学家怀疑或厌恶进化心理学的原因。在问卷最后一部分，他们碰巧设置了一组很棒的政治认同鉴别方法。不仅仅包括自我描述，而且还问到了他们在2012年美国大选中的投票对象。此外他们还提出了9个已成为政治心理价（valence）的政策问题【编注：心理价（valence）是指那些会恒常的引发正面或负面情绪的东西、事情或特征】，比如“你是否支持枪支管制”，“你是否支持同性婚姻”和“你是否支持妇女堕胎权”等等。 In a demonstration of the new openness and transparency that is spreading in social psychology, Von Hippel and Buss sent their raw data file and a summary report to all the members of SESP, to thank us for our participation in the survey. They noted that their preliminary analysis showed a massive leftward tilt in the field – only four had voted for Romney. Von Hippel和Buss体现了新近在社会心理学界蔚然成风的公开透明精神，将他们的原始数据文件和总结报告发送给了SESP的全体会员，以感谢我们在这场调查研究中的积极参与。他们指出，他们的初步分析显示出了该领域严重左倾的现象——只有四个人曾给罗姆尼投过票。 I then emailed them and asked if I could write up further analyses of the political questions and post them at Heterodox Academy. They generously said yes, and then went ahead and made all the relevant files available to the world at the Open Science Framework (you can download them all here). 而后我通过电邮联系了他们，问我能不能就这些政治问题写个深度分析并发到异端学院（Heterodox Academy）网站上。他们很大方地同意了，紧接着就把相关文件发到开放科学框架网（Open Science Framework）上并开放了下载（你们可以在这个网站下载全部资料https://osf.io/ebvtq/）。 So here are the results, on the political distribution only. (Von Hippel and Buss will publish a very interesting paper on their main findings about evolution and morality in a few months). There are three ways we can graph the data, based on three ways that participants revealed their political orientation. 下面就是仅涉及政见分布问题的成果了。（Von Hippel和Buss将会在几个月后发表一篇非常有意思的论文，主题是他们在进化和道德方面的主要发现。）依照参与者透露他们政治倾向的三种途径，我们也可以通过三种方式来将数据图表化。 1）Self-descriptions of political identity: 36 to one. 1）自我描述的政治认同：36:1。 One item asked “Where would you put yourself on a continuum from liberal to conservative?” The 11 scale points were labeled “very liberal” on the left-most point and “very conservative” on the right-most point. If we do a simple frequency plot (a graph of how many people chose each of the 11 possible responses) we get the following: 有一道题问到：“在自由派和保守派之间这个连续区间内，你会将自己定位于何处？”在这11个选项中，最左端的那个被标为“极端自由派”，最右端则为“极端保守派”。如果我们绘制一个频率分布直方图（一个体现11个选项对应人数的图表），则得下图：

【图表一：政治倾向自评分】

The graph shows that 291 of the 326 people who responded to this question picked a left-of-center label (that’s 89.3%), and only 8 people (2.5%) picked a right of center label, giving us a Left to Right ratio of 36 to one. This is much higher than that found by Inbar and Lammers. The main source of political diversity appears to be the 27 people (including me) who self-identified as centrists. 图表显示，该题的326位回答者中有291位选择了中间偏左标签（占总数89.3%），而只有8位选择了中间偏右标签（占总数2.5%），这就得出了一个36:1的左右派比值。这比Inbar和Lammers发现的比值还高。政治多样性主要基于27位自我定义为中间派的回答者（包括本人在内）。 2）Presidential voting: 76 to one. 2）总统选举投票：76:1。 Another item asked: “Who did you vote for in the last presidential election (if you are not a US citizen, or if you did not vote, who would you have voted for if you had voted)? The options were: “Obama,” “Romney,” or “Other.” If we do a frequency plot of the 3 possible choices we get this: 另有一道题问到：“在上次总统大选中你把选票投给了谁（如果你不是美国公民，或者你并未投票的话，假设让你投票，你可能会投给谁）？”选项有这么几个：“奥巴马”、“罗姆尼”或“其他”。如果我们依照这三个选项绘制频率分布直方图，则得下图：

【图表二：2012年美国总统大选】

The graph shows that 305 of the 322 people (94.7%) who responded to this question voted for Obama, 4 (1.2%) voted for Romney, and 13 (4.0%) said they voted for another candidate. This gives us a Democrat to Republican ratio of 76 to one. 图表显示，该题的322位回答者中有305位（占94.7%）投给了奥巴马，4位（占1.2%）投给了罗姆尼，而有13位（占4.0%）回答者投给了其他总统候选人。这就得出了一个76:1的“驴象比”比值。 3）Views on political issues: 314 to one. 3）政治议题上的观点：314:1。 A third way of graphing the viewpoint diversity of these senior social psychologists is by computing an average score across all 9 of the politically valenced policy items. For each one, the 11 point response scale was labeled “strongly oppose” on the left-most point and “strongly support” on the right-most point. 将这些资深社会心理学家的观点多元状况图表化的第三条途径，就是算出他们在九道政治心理价问题上的平均得分。每个问题的答案选项都有11个，最左端的为“强烈反对”，最右端为“强烈支持”。 I converted all responses to the same 11 point scale used in figure 1 so that “strongly supporting” the progressive position (e.g., pro-choice) was scored as -5 and “strongly supporting” the conservative position (e.g., prayer in school) was scored as +5. That puts the leftists on the left and the rightists on the right of the graph. Here’s the graph: 我将所有回答都转换成与图表1中的11个选项一一对应，也就是说，“强烈支持”进步派立场的（比如主张堕胎权）就会被记作-5分，而“强烈支持”保守派立场（比如支持校内祷告）就会被记作5分。这样就可以在图表上把左派标到左侧，右派标到右侧。图表如下：

【图表三：对九个政治议题的观点】

I counted anyone whose average score fell between -1.0 and +1.0 (inclusive) as a centrist. The graph shows that 314 of the 327 participants (96.0%) had an average score below -1.0 (i.e., left of center), one had an average score above +1.0 (i.e., right of center), and 12 were centrists. That gives us a Left to Right ratio of 314 to one. 我将所有平均得分在-1.0与1.0之间的参与者都算作中间派。图表显示，在327名参与者中有314位（占96.0%）的平均得分低于-1.0（即中间偏左），只有一位参与者的平均得分高于1.0（即中间偏右），另外还有12位是中间派。这样我们就得出了一个314:1的左右派比值。 What does this mean? 这意味着什么？ However you measure it, and for all samples measured so far, social psychology leans heavily to the left and has very few people right of center. Von Hippel and Buss’s new data confirms the story that a few of us told in a recent paper (Duarte, Crawford, Stern, Haidt, Jussim & Tetlock, 2015) in which we created the graph below, which shows just how fast psychology has been moving to the left since the 1990s. The ratio of Democrats to Republicans (diamonds) and liberals to conservatives (circles) was roughly 3 to 1 for most of the 20th century. But it skyrockets beginning in the 1990s as the Greatest Generation retires and the Baby Boomers take over. 不论你如何衡量，就目前已经测得的样本来看，社会心理学界已经左倾得非常严重了，只有很少人是中间偏右的。Von Hippel和Buss的新数据也证实了我们几个在最近的一篇论文（Duarte, Crawford, Stern, Haidt, Jussim和Tetlock于2015年发表）里说到的情况，文中我们绘制了下面这张图表，它显示了从1990年代起心理学界是以何等之快的速度左倾化的。“驴象比”（在图中以方块示出）和“左右比”（在图中以圆圈示出）比值在上个世纪基本为3:1。但随着“最伟大世代”【编注：作家Tom Brokaw将成长于大萧条年代，接着参加二战，随后又经历了战后大繁荣的那一代人称为最伟大一代】的退休和婴儿潮一代的接班，这个比值在90年代开始直线窜升。

【图表四： 1920年代起学院心理学家左右派比值的攀升。（详见Duarte等人在2015年发表的论文）】

Why does this matter? 这为什么重要？ Most people know that professors in America, and in most countries, generally vote for left-leaning parties and policies. But few people realize just how fast things have changed since the 1990s. An academic field that leans left (or right) can still function, as long as ideological claims or politically motivated research is sure to be challenged. But when a field goes from leaning left to being entirely on the left, the normal safeguards of peer review and institutionalized disconfirmation break down. Research on politically controversial topics becomes unreliable because politically favored conclusions receive less-than-normal scrutiny while politically incorrect findings must scale mountains of motivated and hostile reasoning from reviewers and editors. 美国以及大多数国家的教授们一般都会支持左翼政党或政策，这没什么新鲜，但鲜为人知的是， 1990年代以来事态是以何其快的速度转变着。只要意识形态主张或者出于政治目的的研究仍必然会遭到挑战，那么一个左倾（或右倾）的学术领域就还能运转。但是当一个学术领域从左倾发展到铁板一块的左翼时，同行评议或者体制化否证的正常保障监督措施就会崩溃。对在政治上有争议的论题的研究会变得不再可靠，因为存在政治偏袒的结论现在受到的审查少之又少，而政治不正确的发现则需要排除万难，须要遭受评议人和编辑们发出的种种带有政治动机和敌意的论证。 I consider the rapid loss of political diversity, over the last 20 years, to be the second-greatest existential threat to the field of social psychology, after the “replication crisis.” The field is responding constructively to the replication crisis. Will it also attend to its political diversity crisis? Or will it continue to think of diversity only in terms of the demographic categories that most matter to people on the left: race, gender and sexual orientation? 我将过去二十年间发生的这次政见多样性的迅速退减视为，社会心理学领域的第二大致命威胁，仅次于“可重复性危机”。这个领域正在积极地应对可重复性危机，那么它也会去解决它的政见多样性危机吗？还是说，它仍旧只会从人口统计学这个对左派人士来说至关重要的角度来考虑多样性？只会考虑种族、性别和性向问题？ I don’t mean to single out social psychology. It is the field that I know best, but what we have learned at Heterodox Academy is that this problem, this rapid shift to political purity, has happened to most fields in the humanities and social sciences in just the last 2 decades. 我并不是故意要把社会心理学挑出来。这只是我最熟悉的领域，但我们在异端学院意识到了：这个问题，即政治单一化现象，仅在过去的短短20年内就在大部分人文社科领域都已经发生了。 An optimistic ending 一个乐观的结局 I would like to end by thanking my colleagues. I have been raising a fuss about these issues since 2011. In that time I also moved from the left to the center, politically. I am no longer a progressive. So you might expect that I’ve been ostracized, but I have not. Nothing bad has happened to me. 我想以我对同事们的感激来结尾。从2011年开始我就因为这些事搞得他们鸡犬不宁，那时候我也在政治倾向方面由左派转变为中间派。我不再是个进步主义者了。所以你可能以为我已经被排挤了，但是并没有，万事顺遂。 Some of my colleagues believe that the political imbalance is not a problem. But the majority response has been, roughly: “This is really interesting. We really truly value diversity, and we agree with you and your co-authors that diversity of viewpoints is the kind that confers the most benefits on groups. But gosh, how are we going to get more?” 我的有些同事觉得政见失衡没什么大不了的。但大多数回答大概是这样的：“这确实挺有意思的。我们的确很看重多样性，而且我们同意你和你的合著者的观点，观点多样性是那种可以为团体带来最大益处的东西。但是啊，我们怎么才能获取更多多样性呢？” That’s our mission at Heterodox Academy – to figure out how to get more. It will be hard, but it can and must be done. Please see our “solutions page.” 这就是我们在异端学院中的使命了，那就是搞清楚如何能获得更多的多样性。道路是曲折的，但前途是光明的。请参看我们的“方案页”。 Post script: Paul Krugman recently referred to us at Heterodox Academy as “outraged conservatives,” and he said that the leftward shift in the academy was really just the rightward shift of the Republican Party since the 1990s. He suggests that professors didn’t change their views on policy, they just stopped identifying as Republicans as the party went off the deep end. 附：Paul Krugman最近将我们这些异端学院上的人称为“愤怒的保守派”，他说1990年代以来学界的左转其实只是共和党的右转。他的言下之意是，教授们并没有改变过他们的政见，他们只是在共和党转入极端时不再自我标榜为共和派了而已。 There is surely some truth to Krugman’s argument, but that doesn’t negate our claim that the makeup of the professoriate really did change after the Greatest Generation retired. Krugman’s argument could not explain graph #3, for example, which shows just a single person with views on social issues that are right of center. Also, I should point out that most of us at Heterodox Academy are not conservatives, and if you read everything on our site, it will be hard to find evidence of “outrage.” Krugman的质疑确实反映了部分事实，但这并没有驳倒我们的主张，最伟大世代逝去之后教授阶层的组成结构确实发生了变化。比如，Krugman的质疑就没能解释图表三里只有一个人对偏右社会事件支持的现象。此外，我必须要指出，异端学院上的大多数人都不是保守派，而且如果读过我们网站上的所有文章的话，你会很难发现有“愤怒”的踪迹。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

The Lower Productivity Of Organic Farming: A New Analysis And Its Big Implications 有机农业生产率更低：一项新的分析及其重大含义 作者：Steven Savage @ 2015-10-9 译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 校对：babyface_claire 来源：Forbes，http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2015/10/09/the-organic-farming-yield-gap/ The productivity of organic farming is typically lower than that of comparable “conventional” farms. This difference is sometimes debated, but a recent USDA survey of organic agriculture demonstrates that commercial organic in the U.S. has a significant yield gap. 有机农业的生产率通常低于可比的“传统”农业。其中差异时有争论，不过美国农业部最近关于有机农业的一项调查证实，美国的商业有机作物存在一个巨大的产量差距。 I compared 2014 survey data from organic growers with overall agricultural yield statistics for that year on a crop by crop, state by state basis. The picture that emerges is clear – organic yields are mostly lower. To have raised all U.S. crops as organic in 2014 would have required farming of one hundred nine million more acres of land. That is an area equivalent to all the parkland and wildland areas in the lower 48 states or 1.8 times as much as all the urban land in the nation. 我将采自有机作物种植者的2014年调查数据与农业总产量统计数据分作物、分州别进行了对比，得出的画面非常清晰——有机作物的产量一般都更低。如果2014年全美农作物都是有机种植，那么需要耕种的土地将比实际多出1.09亿英亩。这一面积相当于本土48州所有绿地和荒地的总和，或全国所有城市用地之和的1.8倍。 As of 2014 the reported acreage of organic cropland only represented 0.44% of the total, but if organic were to expand significantly, its lower land-use-efficiency would become problematic. This is one of several reasons to question the assertion that organic farming is better for the environment. 到2014年，公开的有机农用地面积只占全部农地的0.44%，但如果有机种植大幅扩张，它那较低的用地效率将很棘手。有人断言有机农业对环境更有利，这里提到的只是质疑理由之一。 The USDA conducted a detailed survey of organics in 2008 and then again in 2014. Information is collected about the number of farms, the acres of crops harvested, the production from those acres, and the value of what is sold. The USDA also collects similar data every year for agriculture in general and makes it very accessible via Quick Stats. 美国农业部2008年对有机作物进行了一次详细调查，2014年又做了一次。采集的信息包括农场数量、作物收获面积、产量和卖出总价。美国农业部每年还针对全部农业采集类似数据，并在Quick Stats上公开发布。 It is interesting that they don’t publish any comparisons of these two data sets as they would be able to make comparisons on a county basis. By working with both USDA data resources I was able to find 370 good comparisons of organic and total data for the same crop in the same state and where the organic represented at least 20 acres. That comparison set covers 80% of US crop acreage. 有意思的是，尽管他们对这两组数据能够做到分县对比，他们却从不发布任何比较结果。通过使用这两份来自美国农业部的数据，我得以找出370组有机数据和总数据之间的高质量比较，每组比较的均是有机作物种植面积20英亩以上的同一个州的同一种作物。这一比较涉及了美国农作物种植面积的80%。

【2014年有机与传统农业统计数据比较概要】

For 292 of those comparisons, the organic yields were lower (84% on an area basis). There were 55 comparisons where organic yield was higher, but 89% of the higher yielding organic examples involved hay and silage crops rather than food crops. The organic yield gap is predominant for row crops, fruit crops and vegetables as can be seen in the graphs below. 在其中292个比较结果中，有机作物产量都要更低（以面积而言占到84%）。有机作物产量更高的，有55组比较结果。但这些产量更高的案例中有89%种的是干草和青贮饲料作物，而非食用作物。以下图表显示：有机作物产量差距在中耕作物、水果作物和蔬菜中非常突出。 The reasons for the gap vary with crop and geography. In some cases the issue is the ability to meet periods of peak nutrient demand using only organic sources. The issue can be competition from weeds because herbicides are generally lacking for organic. In some cases its reflects higher yield loss to diseases and insects. Although organic farmers definitely use pesticides, the restriction to natural options can leave crops vulnerable to damage. 出现差距的原因随作物和地理不同而有所不同。在某些情形中，问题出在只用有机资源来满足营养需求高峰的能力上。问题也可能出在杂草竞争，因为有机作物中一般不用除草剂。在某些情形中，它反映的是因病害和虫害导致的减产。尽管种植有机作物的农场主绝对也会用杀虫剂，但是对天然产品的限制要求仍会让作物更易受到伤害。 I’ve posted a much more detailed summary of this information on SCRIBD with the data at the state level. 有关上述信息，我已在SCRIBD上贴了一份更加详细的摘要，用的是州级层面的数据。

【大量主要中耕作物采用有机种植时产量大幅降低】

【有机水果和坚果的产量绝大多数都大幅低于传统种植】

【蔬菜作物中的产量差距存在巨大差异】

There is some potential for artifacts within this data set. If the proportion of irrigated and non-irrigated land differs between organic and conventional that would skew the data. With lettuce and spinach it is likely that the organic is proportionally more in the “baby” category making yields appear dramatically lower. 这组数据中可能存在一些人为现象。如果在有机种植和传统种植中，灌溉地和非灌溉地的比例不同，那么数据就有所扭曲。生菜和菠菜的有机种植可能很大程度上仍属于“婴儿”类，故而产出差距看起来十分大。 But overall this window on farming is useful for understanding the current state of commercial organic production. Since the supply of prime farmland is finite, and water is in short supply in places like California, resource-use-efficiency is an issue even at the current scale of organic (1.5 million cropland acres, 3.6 million including pasture and rangeland). 但总体来说，这一农业信息窗口很有用，能让我们了解商业有机作物生产的现状。由于优质农田的供给是有限的，而在加州等地，水也存在供给短缺，因此，即便是以有机作物当前的种植面积（150万英亩耕地，包括草地和牧场则为360万亩）来说，资源利用效率也是个大问题。 You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at [email protected]. I’d be happy to share a data file with interested parties and to get feedback about where particular yield comparisons might be misleading. A more detailed presentation is available at https://www.scribd.com/doc/283996769/The-Yield-Gap-For-Organic-Farming 欢迎提出评论或发送邮件至[email protected]。我愿意和感兴趣者分享数据文件，如果哪个具体的产量比较可能具有误导性，我也希望得到反馈。更详细的介绍请见：https://www.scribd.com/doc/283996769/The-Yield-Gap-For-Organic-Farming （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——

【2016-05-24】 @whigzhou: 自由市场制度下，财产的初始分配根本不重要，整个宾夕法尼亚的土地起初全归小威廉·潘恩一人所有，这一事实对该州后来的社会结构有多大影响？彩票发明那么多年了，每年都有人中亿万大奖，你听说过哪个显贵家族是靠祖上中彩票发达的？ @whigzhou: 在《儿子照样升起》第15章里，Clark举了两项有关意外横财是否影响家庭长期命运的研究，结论都是：完全没有统计上可观察的正面影响。其中一项是佐治亚州切诺基县1830年代的土地抽签，中签者获得的土地按当前币值约值15万美元，但这些人的孙辈数量不比别人多，生活状况也不更好（反而略差些）。  

Why you probably hate the sound of your own voice 为什么你可能会讨厌自己的声音 作者:Rachel Feltman @ 2015-6-16 译者:Marcel ZHANG(微博:@马赫塞勒张) 校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 来源:The Washington Post，https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/06/16/why-you-probably-hate-the-sound-of-your-own-voice/ Whether you've heard yourself talking on the radio or just gabbing in a friend's Instagram video, you probably know the sound of your own voice -- and chances are pretty good that you hate it. 不论是通过听到自己在广播上讲话,或是在朋友的Instagram视频里闲聊,你可能都已经了解了自己的声音,而且你很可能并不喜欢这个声音｡ As the video above explains, your voice as you hear it when you speak out loud is very different from the voice the rest of the world perceives. That's because it comes to you via a different channel than everyone else. 你在你大声讲话时自己听到的声音跟其他人听到的大不相同｡那是因为声音传播给其他人和传播给你自己所通过的是不同的途径｡ When sound waves from the outside world -- someone else's voice, for example -- hit the outer ear, they're siphoned straight through the ear canal to hit the ear drum, creating vibrations that the brain will translate into sound. 当从外界传来的声波(比如其他人发出的声音)抵达外耳时,鼓膜会直接通过耳道将其接收并产生震动,再由大脑将这些震动转化为声音｡ When we talk, our ear drums and inner ears vibrate from the sound waves we're putting out into the air. But they also have another source of vibration -- the movements caused by the production of the sound. Our vocal cords and airways are trembling, too, and those vibrations make their way over to auditory processing as well. 当我们讲话时,我们的鼓膜和内耳会因我们向空气中发出的声波而产生震动｡但是他们还有其他的震动源,那就是发声时触发的动作｡我们的声带和气道也在颤动,而且这些震动也同样参与到了听觉进程当中｡ Your body is better at carrying low, rich tones than the air is. So when those two sources of sound get combined into one perception of your own voice, it sounds lower and richer. That's why hearing the way your voice sounds without all the body vibes can be off-putting -- it's unfamiliar -- or even unpleasant, because of the relative tininess. 你的身体比空气更容易传递低沉浑厚的声调｡所以,当两种声源合并成为了你对自己声音的感知时,它听起来会相对更加低沉浑厚｡这就是为什么你听到自己没有通过身体共鸣的声音会感到反感､陌生甚至是厌恶了,因为那声音相对更单薄｡ The sound of your own voice isn't the only place where daily perception can butt up against the ugly truth: We often feel uncomfortable when we see our bodies as other people see them, too. 你自己的声音并不是日常认知与丑陋现实针锋相对的唯一情形｡当我们以其他人看我们的方式看到自己的身体时,时常也会觉得有点难受｡ Think about it: Chances are good that most of the times that you look at yourself, it's thanks to a mirror or some other reflective surface. But those are mirror images -- our bodies are flipped. Because most faces are pretty asymmetrical (under close observation, anyway), a flip can create really jarring changes. That's why you might wince at photos that show the real you instead of a mirror image. 大家可以想一下,我们要看到自己,大多数情况基本都要借助镜子或者其他反射面｡但这些都是镜像,我们的身体是经过翻转的｡因为大多数的人脸都是不太对称的(反正在近距离观察下就是这样的),所以一个翻转就能造成令人不快的差别｡这就是为什么你在照片中看到真正的自己而不是镜像时可能会眉头紧蹙了｡ “We see ourselves in the mirror all the time—you brush your teeth, you shave, you put on makeup,” Pamela Rutledge, director of the Media Psychology Center, told The Atlantic. “Looking at yourself in the mirror becomes a firm impression. You have that familiarity. Familiarity breeds liking. You’ve established a preference for that look of your face.” 媒体心理学研究中心(Media Psychology Center)主任帕梅拉·拉特利奇在接受《大西洋月刊》采访时说:“我们时常都会在镜子里看到自己,比如刷牙､剃须和化妆的时候｡故而镜中的自己就变成了一种固定印象｡那么你就会对其产生熟悉感,久而久之这种熟悉感就会催生出喜爱之情,这样一来你便确立了对自己的那种形象的偏爱｡” So it should come as no surprise that being reminded that our faces -- and voices -- are slightly different than we think them to be can be a bit unnerving. 所以,当我们想起来我们的形象和声音与我们印象中的不太一致时,也难怪会感到有点懊恼｡ （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——

Trivers' Pursuit 罗伯特·特里夫斯:一生的追寻 作者:Matthew Hutson @ 2016-1-5 译者:Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny) 校对:慕白(@李凤阳他说) 来源:Psychology Today，https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201601/trivers-pursuit Renegade scientist Robert Trivers is lauded as one of our greatest thinkers—despite irking academia with blunt talk and bad manners. 尽管罗伯特·特里夫斯直率的言谈和粗鲁的举止让学界恼怒,这位离经叛道的科学家仍被誉为最伟大的思想家之一｡ To call Robert Trivers an acclaimed biologist is an understatement akin to calling the late Richard Feynman a popular professor of physics. As a young man in the 1970s, Trivers gave biology a jolt, hatching idea after idea that illuminated how evolution shaped the behavior of all species, including fidelity, romantic bonds, and willingness to cooperate among humans. Today, at 72, he continues to spawn ideas. And if awards were given for such things, he certainly would be on the short list for America’s most colorful academic. 把已故的理查德·费曼称为“一位受欢迎的物理学教授”,那是低估了他,同样地,如果把罗伯特·特里夫斯称为“一位广受赞誉的生物学家”也不够恰当｡1970年代,当时不过是一个年轻人的特里夫斯就大大促进了生物学的研究,阐述了一个又一个想法,揭示了进化是如何塑造所有物种的行为,包括人类在性方面的忠贞､恋爱和合作的意愿｡今天,他72岁,新的想法仍然不断从他脑中诞生｡如果要为“想法”颁奖的话,他一定能进入“美国最有想法学者”短名单｡ He was a member of the Black Panthers and collaborated with the group’s founder. He was arrested for assault after breaking up a domestic dispute. He faced machete-wielding burglers who broke into his home and stabbed one in the neck. He was imprisoned for 10 days over a contested hotel charge. And two men once held guns to his head in a Caribbean club that doubled as a brothel. 他曾是黑豹党一员,并曾同该组织的创立者合作｡他曾因为在家庭纠纷中动手打人而被拘捕｡他曾直面挥舞着弯刀的破门而入者,并在其中一人的脖子上扎了一刀｡他曾因为一笔有争议的酒店费用而坐了十天牢｡他还曾在加勒比一个俱乐部被人用枪顶着头——那个俱乐部同时也是妓院｡ Fisticuffs aside, what propelled Trivers into the academic limelight were five papers he wrote as a young academic at Harvard—including research on altruism, sex differences, and parent-offspring conflict. This work won him the 2007 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Crafoord Prize in Biosciences, the Nobel for evolutionary theory. The award came with half a million dollars and a ceremony attended by the queen. 除拳脚之外,让特里夫斯在学术圈声名大噪的是他年轻时在哈佛写就的五篇论文——包括关于利他主义､性别差异和亲子冲突的研究｡这些成就为他赢得了2007年瑞典皇家科学院颁发的克拉福德生物学奖——进化理论的诺贝尔奖｡奖金为50万美元,女王亦出席了颁奖典礼｡ Steven Pinker has called him “one of the great thinkers in the history of Western thought.” Yet Trivers has not led the life of your typical contemplative academic. Mental breakdowns, public feuds, and near-death experiences have peppered his career, distracting him from his work even as they’ve nourished it. 史蒂文·平克曾称特里夫斯是“西方思想史上伟大的思想家之一”｡然而特里夫斯不是你印象中那种典型的喜欢沉思的学者｡精神崩溃､公开与人结怨和险些丧命的经历都让他的生涯显得与众不同,他的工作因此受到影响也因此获益｡ No one is quite sure what to make of him, but all agree he is both brilliant and volatile, a sort of Steve Jobs without the colossal second coming. In a new memoir, Wild Life, he contrasts his existence with the “often solitary and intensely internal” one he sees in most scientists. “[That] kind of life,” he writes, “never appealed to me.” 没人确信该怎么评价他,但所有人都同意,他绝顶聪明,绝不安分,就像史蒂夫·乔布斯,但没有经历过乔布斯式卷土重来｡在新回忆录《狂野生活》中,他对比了自己的生活同他在大多数科学家中所看到的“往往孤寂的､极其注重内心的”的生活,“那样的生活,”他写道,“从来不曾吸引我｡” To begin, Trivers’ revolutionary 1970s papers presented no new data. Trivers simply offered entirely novel ways of looking at what was already there, along with new avenues for moving science forward. His dissertation was so strong that when he showed up before the evaluating committee, which included such luminaries as E. O. Wilson and Ernst Mayr, they skipped the charade of making him defend it and simply offered their congratulations. 刚开始时,特里夫斯于1970年代发表的那几篇革命性论文中并没有提出新的数据｡特里夫斯仅仅提供了一种全新的视角来看待既已存在的知识,一条推动科学进步的崭新道路｡他的论证强而有力,以至当他面对评审委员会时——其中包括著名科学家爱德华·威尔逊和厄内斯特·迈尔——他们跳过了答辩环节,直接向他表示祝贺｡ Yet he published little follow-up work. A scientist can build a whole career milking a single small concept, but Trivers has been known to put forth a big new idea and then essentially drop the mic. 之后他几乎没有发表后续研究｡一名科学家可以以一个小概念为基础建构自己的全部事业,但特里夫斯通常是提出一个全新的､有爆炸力的想法后,然后就不再就此发言了｡ Trivers’ first paper, on the evolution of reciprocal altruism, described a theoretical model showing how altruism among strangers could naturally develop—people cooperate with the expectation of similar treatment from others. This model explained a wide variety of feelings and behaviors, from friendship to moralistic aggression. 特里夫斯的第一篇论文是关于互惠利他主义(reciprocal altruism)的,论文描述了一个关于陌生人之间的利他主义是如何自然发展的理论模型——人们带着“我怎样对人,人就怎么对我”的期许相互合作｡这个模型解释了从友谊到道德侵略(moralistic aggression)等许多不同的感受和行为｡ The emotion of gratitude, for instance, evolved to motivate us to return favors, encouraging cooperation. Guilt motivates us to repair relationships we’ve harmed. Anger makes us avoid or punish those who have harmed us. And gossip makes us mindful of our reputations. Trivers suggested that complex strategies of cheating, detecting cheating, and the false accusation of cheating (itself a form of cheating) pushed the development of intelligence and helped increase the size of the human brain. 举例来讲,之所以进化出“感激”这种情绪,是因为它会激励我们投桃报李,鼓励合作｡负罪感会促使我们修复受损的关系｡愤怒会让我们避开或惩罚那些伤害了我们的人｡而闲言碎语则让我们在意自己的名声｡特里夫斯认为,欺骗､发现欺骗和对欺骗的不实指控(其本身也是种欺骗)构成了复杂的策略,推动我们智力的发展并助力人类大脑尺寸的增长｡ Next, in Trivers’ second paper, he hypothesized that a single factor drives sex differences across all species. He argued that differences in parental investment—the energy and resources invested in an offspring—lead the sex that invests more (females, in most species) to focus on mate quality and the sex that invests less (males) to seek quantity. 接着,特里夫斯在他的第二篇论文中提出一个假说:一个单一因素便导致了所有物种的性别差异｡他认为亲代投资(为后代投入的能量和资源)的差别区分了“投资多的性”(对大多数物种而言是雌性)和“投资少的性”(雄性),前者关注配偶的质量而后者追求数量｡ So in humans we expect choosiness in females and aggression between males as they vie for females. The theory has tremendous explanatory power, from justifying the brightly colored feathers of male birds to illuminating why sexual jealousy is a leading (and, until recently, legally defensible) cause of homicide—men prize their mate’s fidelity above all. 因此在人类中我们便观察到女性的挑剔和男人之间在追逐女性时所表现出的攻击性｡这个理论有力地解释了雄鸟身上鲜艳的羽毛,以及为何性嫉妒是杀人案的首要(直到现在也是法律上站得住脚的【编注:在美国一些州,当场捉奸并杀死奸夫的丈夫往往可以愤激作为辩护理由并得以脱罪】)动机——在男人看来,伴侣的忠贞高于一切｡【编注:此处有所夸大,亲代投资理论本身并不能单独解释性嫉妒】 In another paper, Trivers conceptualized offspring not as passive recipients of parental investment, but as independent actors, generating the theory of parent-offspring conflict. A child wants disproportionate attention and resources for him- or herself, but a parent wants to spread the goods equally between all offspring. 在另一篇论文里,特里夫斯将后代视为独立的行为主体,而不仅仅是亲代投资的被动接受者,从而引出了“亲子冲突”(parent-offspring conflict)这一理论｡子女想要为自己争取到比例过当的关注和资源,但家长则希望在后代之间平分好处｡ And so we have kids who bawl until they get what they want, siblings who maintain lifelong rivalries, and parents who try to instill equality no matter how selfish the kids’ tendencies. It was for these three papers, plus another two, on insect colonies and on parents’ ability to vary the sex ratio of their offspring, that he won the Crafoord. 于是,子女们闹个不停直到他们得到想要的,兄弟姐妹们终其一生相互竞争,而父母们不管小孩多么自私仍坚持贯彻平等主义｡这三篇论文加上另外两篇有关昆虫巢群和亲代改变子代性别比例之能力的论文,为特里夫斯赢得了克拉福德奖｡ In each paper, he found a simple, clear idea, and took it as far as it would go, wrapping diverse and widespread phenomena together in one neat package. You might not have made the connections before, but once you see them, they’re quite clear. 在每篇论文里,他都建立一个简洁､清晰的概念,并最大限度地发展这个概念,将多种多样､涵盖广泛的各种现象融为一炉｡你也许以前并没有发现这些现象间的联系,但一旦你注意到,这些联系就显得十分清楚｡ “Trivers has answered some of the most profound questions about the human condition,” Pinker  told me. “Namely, why are our relationships with other people such complicated mixtures of cooperation and conflict? He did so with a simple, though nonobvious, analysis of the patterns of overlap and nonoverlap of our long-term genetic interests.” “特里夫斯回答了关于人类境况的一些最本质的问题,”平克对我说｡“即为什么我们同他人的关系是如此复杂,既有合作又有冲突?他以一种简明——虽然不那么一目了然——的方式分析了重叠或不重叠的基因利益,从而回答了这个问题｡” According to David Haig, a geneticist at Harvard and a longtime friend and collaborator of Trivers, “Bob has a great ability to see questions as simple and not be distracted by details.” Richard Dawkins praises him for applying economic ideas to biology “with greater clarity of mind than any biologist since R. A. Fisher,” the knighted geneticist. 据戴维·海格——哈佛遗传学家､特里夫斯的多年好友和合作者——所言,“鲍勃【罗伯特的昵称】有一种能力,可以单刀直入地看问题而不被细节干扰｡” 理查德·道金斯赞扬他将经济学的观点引入生物学,“思路极清晰,罗纳德·费希尔(就是后来被册封骑士的那位遗传学家)之后的生物学家难以望其项背｡” In their own books, E. O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins drew heavily on Trivers’ papers, although he has not always had positive things to say about his popularizers. “Richard wrote a beautiful book,” Trivers says about The Selfish Gene. “I was not about to take the time to do it.” 威尔逊和道金斯在自己的书中都大量引用了特里夫斯的论文,让特里夫斯的观点在学界人尽皆知,但特里夫斯本人对这两位却并不总是好言相向｡“理查德的书写得漂亮,”特里夫斯如此评价《自私的基因》,“我不会花时间去做这种事｡” But as for Wilson and Sociobiology, “He played the old Harvard game of becoming the father of a field by becoming the father of the name of a field.” (Wilson told me his own work on the sociobiology of insects actually influenced Trivers.) 但对威尔逊和《社会生物学》,特里夫斯说,“他为一个领域发明一个名字然后便成了该领域的开山鼻祖,这不过是老套的哈佛把戏罢了｡”(威尔逊告诉我他对昆虫的社会生物学研究成果其实影响过特里夫斯｡) After writing papers addressing how we treat strangers, friends, lovers, parents, and children, Trivers offered a no-less-powerful theory on how we deal with ourselves. In a sentence in the foreword to Dawkins’ book, he proposed that self-deception evolved to facilitate the deception of others. Trivers says he’d planned to flesh out the theory but didn’t get around to it because he was “smoking too much strong herb.” 在撰写了有关我们如何对待陌生人､朋友､爱人､父母和小孩等论文之后,特里夫斯又就我们如何对待自我提出了一个同等重要的理论｡在为道金斯的新书【编注:《自私的基因》第一版】写的序中,他提出,自我欺骗机制(self-deception)之所以进化出来,是为了方便我们欺骗他人｡特里夫斯说他本打算丰富下该理论但终未动手,因为他“抽了太多够劲的大麻｡” Trivers also made a mark with the 2006 textbook Genes in Conflict, for which he and Austin Burt spent 15 years integrating thousands of papers on genetic competition within organisms. A reviewer for NatureGenetics called it “meticulously assembled, thought-provoking, and sometimes deliciously speculative.” 特里夫斯于2006年撰写的教科书《基因冲突》让他再一次名声大噪｡为了这本书,他和奥斯汀·伯特花了15年时间,将数千篇关于有机体内基因竞争的论文进行了整合｡《自然—遗传学》的一名评审者称,这本书在整合方面不遗余力,引人思考,一些地方还包含了有趣的猜测｡ According to Trivers, “We created an entire field, the evolutionary dynamics of within-individual genetic conflict. So first, I worked on social theory between individuals, then I dropped one level lower.” Proudly showing me its color inserts, he pointed to what appeared to be a drumstick. “Looks like a piece of chicken, right? No, it’s the only transmissible cancer known. That’s a dog dick. He punches it into a female, the cancerous tissue breaks off and starts growing inside her pumpum.” 特里夫斯说:“我们创造了一个完整的领域:个体内部基因冲突的进化动力学｡首先,我研究关于不同个体的社会学,然后我深入到更基础的一个层次｡”特里夫斯自豪地给我展示一张彩色插图,指着上面一个像鸡腿一样的东西问我,“看起来像是鸡的一部分,对吧?但其实不是,这是唯一已知的会传播的癌症｡那是狗的屌｡他把这玩意插入母狗体内,癌症组织便分裂,然后在母狗的屄里开始生长｡” My early emails with Trivers attested to his mercurial nature. He lavished praise for a hypothesis I’d suggested, then scolded me for failing to answer a question he’d written. After some back and forth, he agreed to an interview and last spring met me at the train station in New Brunswick—he’s currently a professor at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. 我同特里夫斯早期往来的电子邮件见证了他善变的性格｡他曾对我提出的某项假设大加赞赏,然后又因为我答不上他提出的问题而骂我｡在几个回合后,他同意接受我的采访,并在去年春天于新泽西新不伦瑞克市的火车站与我见面——他现在已是新泽西州立罗格斯大学的一名教授｡ Wearing a wool hat with a weed leaf on it, he grumbled at my not finding the right station exit. He warmed up as we drove to his disorganized apartment—a mattress remained in the middle of the floor from a visit by his son. One wall displayed photos of his family, a former girlfriend and her family, and a lizard. We cracked open beers, and he soon offered me a puff of his joint as we got down to business. 见到他时,他戴着一顶毛线帽,上面粘着一片大麻叶子,他抱怨我没有找对车站出口｡在开车前往他的公寓的途中,我们逐渐变得热络起来｡他的公寓乱糟糟的,他儿子来看他时留下的一个床垫还躺在地板中央｡公寓的一面墙上贴满他家人的照片,包括一位前女友及其家人,还有一只蜥蜴｡我们开了啤酒,不一会当我们聊到正题时他已经开始给我递大麻烟卷了｡ The son of a diplomat, Trivers grew up in Maryland, Denmark, and Germany. At age 12, he knew he wanted to be a scientist and took a liking to astronomy, then to math. He spent two months mastering a calculus textbook and another two months mastering the next volume. 他是一名外交官的儿子,在美国马里兰州､丹麦和德国长大｡12岁时,他想成为一名科学家并先后对天文学和数学产生了兴趣｡他花了两个月时间钻研一本微积分教材,又花了两个月时间把下一本学完｡ He studied pure math as a Harvard freshman, but as a sophomore he realized it wasn’t likely to yield many applications, so he briefly looked to physical science. He didn’t have a knack for physics, however, and hadn’t learned much chemistry or biology. (His college roommates once showed him pictures of a hippo and a rhino and asked him to identify which was which. He picked wrong.) 大一时,他在哈佛学习纯数学,但到了大二他意识到这可能没有太多实际用处,于是又跑去学习物理,但只是浅尝辄止｡同样他也没有多少化学和生物学知识｡(他的大学室友曾把河马和犀牛的照片拿给他选,结果他选错了｡) “So, I literally said, ‘Well, if it’s not truth I’m going to devote myself to, then it’s justice.’” He identified with the civil rights movement and decided to become a lawyer. Unfortunately that meant plodding through a major in U.S. history, which he found to be “an exercise in self-deception and self-glorification.” “所以我当时曾说,‘如果我不能献身真理,那就献身正义｡’”他受民权运动的感召并决意成为一名律师｡不幸的是这意味着要修完枯燥的美国历史课程,这在他看来就是“练习自我欺骗和自我美化｡” During his junior year at Harvard, Trivers had a mental breakdown. After five weeks of mania—little of which he remembers besides insomnia and feelings of grandiosity—he checked himself into the hospital and stayed for 11 weeks. Doctors diagnosed him with bipolar disorder. 特里夫斯在哈佛念大三时曾有过一次精神崩溃,在五个星期的躁狂症之后(在这其间的一切他几乎都不记得了,除了失眠和自大的感觉),他把自己送进了医院并在里面呆了11周｡医生诊断他患了躁郁症｡ When he returned to school, he thought it might be a good idea to take courses in psychology—though not abnormal psych because, as he likes to say, “I had a special advantage in it.” But he soon decided psychology in its then state was not a real science. 当他重返学校时,他认为修心理学课程可能是个不错的主意——这心理动机不算太意外——因为正如他自己喜欢说的,“这方面我有特别的优势｡”不过他很快认定当时的心理学还算不上一门真正的科学｡ The field at the time had three strands: First was work on conditioning, pioneered by Ivan Pavlov and B. F. Skinner. Skinner “was stupid enough to think you could build up a whole theory and system of logic about human psychology based entirely on learning,” Trivers says, “and specifically the kind of stimulus-response learning that’s studied in the lab.” Trivers didn’t see how, for example, the brain could pick up the complexities of language this way without some genetic scaffolding. 心理学当有三个分支:首先是对条件反射的研究,由巴甫洛夫和斯金纳开创｡斯金纳“太蠢了,以至于认为你可以仅仅通过学习便建立起一整套关于人类心理的理论和逻辑体系,”特里夫斯说,“尤其是通过那种在实验室里被当作研究对象的刺激-反应式学习｡”举个例子,特里夫斯就不认为,抛开遗传因素,大脑能够通过这种方式领会语言的复杂性｡ Then there’s Freud, who had some keen insights into self-deception, Trivers says, “but he wedded them to a completely corrupt view of human development” characterized by the anal, oral, and Oedipal stages.“He just invents it out of whole cloth while snorting too much cocaine.” 第二个分支便是弗洛伊德,他对自我欺骗有着某种深刻的洞见,特里夫斯说,“但他将这种洞见同一种朽烂不堪的人类成长观嫁接到了一起”,其观点的标签便是肛欲期､口欲期和恋母期｡“他不过是在嗑了太多白粉后凭空发明了这些概念｡” Third was social psychology, which Trivers saw as too dependent on self-reports. “You cannot build up a science based on a whole series of correlations between how people answer questionnaires,” he says. “By definition it can’t work, if only because we don’t know most of what’s causing us to do things, and second, we don’t necessarily tell the truth.” Trivers considered psychology “a joke.” 第三个分支是社会心理学,特里夫斯认为其太依赖自我报告了｡“你不能以人们如何回答问卷之间的相关性为基础,建立起一门学科｡”特里夫斯说｡“显然这不管用,首先我们大部分时候并不知道是什么让自己去做一件事,其次,我们也不一定会说实话嘛｡”特里夫斯认为心理学就是个“笑话”｡ So he stuck to justice and applied to law school. He selected the progressive law school at Yale, with Virginia as a backup, but neither accepted him, in part because of his mental health. “But for his mental illness,” says William von Hippel, a friend and collaborator at the University of Queensland, “he would not be the famous scientist that he is. He’d be a well-to-do lawyer.” 所以他转而追求正义并申请了法学院｡他选择了耶鲁的进步主义法学院,并把弗吉尼亚法学院作为备选项,但都被拒绝了——部分因为他的心理健康状况｡“要不是他的心理疾病,”特里夫斯在昆士兰大学时的同事和朋友威廉·范希波尔说,“他不会是今天这个著名科学家｡他会是一个有钱的律师｡” Suddenly without a clear path, Trivers heard about a job writing children’s books. He took his writing sample, an account of his breakdown, to Jerome Bruner, the Harvard psychologist running the project. “I was hired. Strange, eh?” He was assigned to write about biology, a topic he knew nothing about (hippo or rhino) and to work under the wing of the naturalist and bird expert William Drury. 突然不知通过什么方式,特里夫斯听说了一份为小孩子写书的工作｡他带上他写的样稿(讲述他自己精神崩溃的事),去见杰罗姆·布鲁纳——当时主持该项目的哈佛心理学家｡“我被雇佣了,怪不?”他被分配到博物学和鸟类学家威廉·特鲁里的麾下,题目有关生物学,一个他一无所知的主题(还记得河马和犀牛吧)｡ Together they would sit in the woods imitating bird sounds so they could watch avian courting, clashes, and cooperation. Under Drury’s tutelage, Trivers decided to become an evolutionary biologist. Upon discovering evolutionary logic, he says. “I knew I had found where I wanted to be.” He has called Drury “the man who taught me how to think.” 他俩会一起坐在树林下模仿鸟类的叫声,观察它们求偶､打架以及合作｡在特鲁里的指导下,特里夫斯决意成为一名进化生物学家｡在发现进化的逻辑之后,他说“我知道我已找到我想追求的东西｡”他称特鲁里为“那个教会我如何思考的人｡” Trivers headed back to Harvard to earn a Ph.D. in biology, studying under Ernest Williams, a herpetologist. Trivers decided to study lizards in Jamaica and became enamored with the island—not least because he finds dark-skinned women attractive and says that at that time a white man couldn’t roam Boston with a black woman on his arm. 特里夫斯之后回到哈佛大学攻读博士学位,师从厄内斯特·威廉斯,一位爬虫学家｡特里夫斯决定去牙买加研究蜥蜴并从此爱上了这个岛国｡(其中一个重要原因是,他发现深色皮肤的女人很有吸引力,他还说,那时白人男性无法同黑人女性并肩徜徉在波士顿街头)｡ “So I always felt free down there in a way that I never felt here,” he says. He has lived in Jamaica on and off since 1968 and frequently falls into Jamaican patois, speckling his speech with its slang (pumpum, raashuol). “所以在那里我时常感到在这里(美国)从来没感受过的自由,”他说｡自1968年起他便时常回到牙买加居住并且经常讲牙买加方言,他的句子从此不时点缀些牙买加俚语(pumpum屄､raashuol屌)｡ He has many tales to tell of Jamaica. One is a memorable stickup in an East Kingston club. That story begins when he visited the establishment after a hiatus, curious to see if things had gotten as bad as he’d heard. 关于牙买加,特里夫斯有很多故事可讲｡其中之一便是在东金斯敦俱乐部里被持枪抢劫,这事可谓终身难忘｡这个故事要从他闲来无事走进这家俱乐部讲起,他是个好奇的人,想看看事情是不是真有听说的那么糟｡ When he entered, two men put guns to his head as three more gunmen stood by. They pulled the money from his pocket and pushed him against a wall next to a man bleeding from the head. When the next victim arrived, Trivers dashed out the door. After reporting the robbery to police, he learned that they and the community had sanctioned the ambush as a form of extrajudicial punishment for the johns. 当他走进去,两个男人拿枪顶着他的头,旁边还站着三个持枪者｡他们拽出他兜里的钱,把他推到墙上,旁边就是个满头是血的人｡当下一个受害者进来时,特里夫斯夺路而逃｡在向警察报告了这起抢劫案后,他得知警察和这个社区是认可这类袭击的,并将其视作对嫖客的法外惩罚｡ But as a white man, whose death would have caused major scrutiny for the area, he was a surprise inconvenience. The robbers had let him flee. According to Trivers, one woman who saw him running down the road later said to him, “Massah, me nebber know white man could fly, until I see you go by.” 但是白人是烫手山芋,他的死会引起对这个地区的大规模监视,所以抢匪们放他跑了｡据特里夫斯回忆,一个看到他逃命的女人后来对他说,“妈呀,我原来都不知道白人还会飞,看到你我才信了｡” Trivers also nurtured a family in Jamaica. He has two Jamaican ex-wives, five children, and eight grandchildren. One daughter is now the principal of a charter school in Harlem. 特里夫斯还在牙买加组建了一个家庭｡他有两个牙买加前妻､五个儿女和八个孙辈｡其中一个女儿现在是哈林区一所特许学校的校长｡ After finishing his Ph.D. in 1972, Trivers joined Harvard’s faculty. In 1977, he sought tenure, but the decision was pushed back three years because of his mental health issues. Instead of waiting, he decamped to the University of California at Santa Cruz with his wife and son in tow. 1972年博士毕业后,特里夫斯留在哈佛任教｡1977年,他谋求终身教职,但因为心理健康的问题连续三年被驳回｡他没有继续等待,而是带着妻子和儿子到了加州大学圣克鲁斯分校｡ In Santa Cruz, Trivers met Huey Newton, then a Ph.D. student and the leader of the Black Panthers. They became close, and in 1979 Trivers joined the party—for which he says he’s done “an illegal thing or two.” Trivers still refers to himself as “my black ass,” which he picked up from Newton, who told him: “Bob, everyone’s ass is black if you look closely enough.” 在圣克鲁斯,特里夫斯遇到了休伊·牛顿,一名在读博士,也是黑豹党的领导人｡两人走得很近,在1979年特里夫斯加入了这个党｡特里夫斯说他自己曾为黑豹党“干过那么一两件非法的事情｡”特里夫斯如今还以“我这个黑屁眼”自称,这是他从牛顿那学来的｡牛顿曾对他说:“鲍勃,所有人的屁眼都是黑的,如果你离近点看的话｡” Together they wrote an article for the magazine Science Digest about self-deception in the pilots of Air Florida Flight 90, which had crashed into the Potomac River upon takeoff in 1982, killing 78. A friend of Trivers, the Harvard butterfly expert Bob Silberglied, had died in the crash. 他俩一起在《科学文摘》上发表了一篇文章,论述1982年1月13日佛罗里达航空90次航班空难中飞行员的自我欺骗行为｡当时飞机在起飞时坠入波托马克河,共造成78人丧生,包括他的朋友､哈佛的蝴蝶专家罗伯特·希尔博格里德｡ Trivers was also drawn to the cockpit conversation replayed on TV. “You could hear the fear and rationality of the copilot,” he says, “and the overconfidence of the pilot, who showed fear only when they were in the air and it was too late.” 特里夫斯被电视上播放的驾驶舱录音所吸引｡“听得出来,副机长怀有担忧,很理性,”他说,“而机长过于自信,他在飞机离地以后才表现出担忧,但已经太迟了｡” In their article, they analyze the NTSB transcript line by line. The copilot repeatedly expresses concern about snow accumulating on the wings, the need for more de-icing, and what he believes are faulty instrument readings. The pilot brushes him off. Finally, 49 minutes after their last de-icing, they take off. Without sufficient velocity, they pull up, and a few seconds later they stall. The plane grazes a bridge and plunges into the Potomac. 在那篇文章中,他们逐行分析了全国运输安全委员会的报告｡副机长当时反复表达了对机翼积雪的担忧,认为需要再除除冰,还有仪器读数也不正常｡机长没理他｡最终在最后一次除冰后49分钟,他们起飞了｡在没有足够速度的情况下,他们就开始爬高,几秒钟后引擎熄火｡飞机擦过一座桥梁,一头栽进波托马克河｡ “We imagine that presenting a falsely positive front may often have been advantageous to the pilot prior to Flight 90,” Trivers and Newton wrote, “giving him the illusion that skill plus overconfidence works in all encounters.” “我们猜想,在飞90次航班之前,对这名机长来说,虚假的积极乐观一直都是有利的,”特里夫斯和牛顿写道,“这给了他一种幻觉,似乎技术加上过度自信就能应付任何情况｡” The two began writing a book titled Deceit and Self-Deception, but the publishing house closed. Newton, Trivers recalls, “was a master at propagating deception, he was a master at seeing through other people’s deception, he was a master at beating people’s self-deception out of them, and like all the rest of us, he fell down when it came to his own self-deception.” In an interview with The Black Panther newspaper, he called Newton a “heavyweight mind,” in comparison to the many “light- and middleweight minds” he found at Harvard. 两人开始写一本名为《欺骗与自我欺骗》的书,但出版社倒闭了｡牛顿“是个宣传欺骗的大师”,特里夫斯回忆道,“一个一眼洞悉别人骗术的大师,他精于把他人从自我欺骗中打回原形,然后他像其他所有人一样,当他从自己的自我欺骗中走出来时,他垮掉了｡”有一次《黑豹》报采访了他,他说牛顿是“重量级的思想者”,许多他在哈佛接触过的人相较之下只能算是“轻量级或中量级的思考者”｡ Trivers’ most detailed exploration of self-deception didn’t come until his 2011 book The Folly of Fools, where he explains that we fool ourselves in all realms of life—when overestimating our looks or abilities, when justifying our righteousness, when defending our power or privilege, when constructing false historical narratives. It’s all part of advancing our own agendas. 直到2011年《愚人愚道》出版,特里夫斯才对自我欺骗进行了详细论述,书中他解释说我们在生活的各个领域愚弄自己——高估自己的能力和相貌､为自己的正直感找正当的理由､保卫自己的权力或特权､构建虚假的历史叙事｡这些都是为了达到自己某种目的而做的部分努力｡ “What I’ve done is found disciplines,” Trivers says. As to self-deception, “I lost a lot by being sooo slow to develop suuch an important idea. Had I written the paper in ’78 like I was supposed to, there would have been a whole science now.” “我做的工作是建立范式,”特里夫斯说｡对自我欺骗理论,“这个理论太太太重要了,而我太太太晚才发展出这个理论以至于我损失了太多｡我本该在1978年就写下论文,我要是那样做了,现在肯定已经发展出完整的学科了｡” In 1994, he moved to Rutgers to be closer to his children. There, he has continued to publish on evolution and human behavior. One area of interest has been body symmetry in Jamaican children as a measure of genetic ability to withstand stressors during development. In 2005, he co-authored a paper showing that more symmetrical Jamaican teenagers were rated better dancers. The study was featured on the cover of the prestigious journal Nature. 1994年他前往罗格斯大学,这样可以跟他的孩子们近一些｡在那里他继续就进化和人类行为发表文章｡当时他的一个兴趣所在是身体的对称性,他将牙买加小孩身体的对称性视作一把尺子,度量在发育过程中适应压力的遗传能力｡2005年,他合作撰写的一篇论文指出,身体更为对称的牙买加青少年在舞蹈方面表现更好｡这项研究被声名卓著的《自然》杂志选作封面报道｡ Later, however, another researcher had trouble replicating the findings, and Trivers took a closer look at the data. He found irregularities and concluded that William Brown, a postdoc and the paper’s lead author, had fabricated data. Trivers sought retraction from the journal, but Brown and Lee Cronk, a fellow Rutgers professor who had worked on the paper, denied any wrongdoing or mistakes. 然而另一名研究者在之后验证这项发现的可重复性时遇到了问题,特里夫斯也仔细检查了数据｡他发现了不合常规的地方,并得出结论:论文的第一作者､博士后威廉·布朗编造了数据｡特里夫斯试图从杂志上撤回论文,但布朗和另一位罗格斯大学的同事李·克朗克却否认存在任何不端行为或错误｡ (Von Hippel said Cronk’s position is a classic case of self-deception, because a Nature paper was more important to his résumé than it was to Trivers’.) Trivers self-published a book, The Anatomy of a Fraud, to back up his case. Rutgers conducted its own investigation and came to the same conclusions as Trivers. (范希波尔说克朗克的行为是自我欺骗的典型案例,因为一篇发表于《自然》的论文对他的履历的重要性要远胜于对特里夫斯履历的重要性｡)特里夫斯自己出版了一本书《解剖骗子》来支持自己的立场｡罗格斯大学展开了调查并得出了同特里夫斯一致的结论｡ In 2012, he stood in Cronk’s office and called him a “punk” for continuing to deny the allegations. Cronk claims to have felt threatened, and Trivers was banned from campus for five months. (Cronk declined to comment for this article.) Nature finally retracted the paper in 2013, five years after the initial request. “For me to produce a fraudulent result, know about it, and not do everything to expose it and prove it is anathema to the essence of my identity,” Trivers says. 2012年,特里夫斯跑到克朗克的办公室,为他继续否认指控而叫他“废物”｡克朗克宣称他受到威胁,于是特里夫斯被禁止出现在校园,为期五个月｡(克朗克拒绝为本文就此事发表评论｡)《自然》终于在2013年将论文撤回,距初次发表已有五年时间｡“对我来说,知道自己伪造了一个结果却不竭尽全力去揭露它,是对我人格本质的诅咒,” 特里夫斯说｡ Trivers’ latest dustup with Rutgers began at the end of 2013, when he was assigned to teach a course on human aggression and he protested that he didn’t know the material. After much back and forth, he showed up in class and told his students the backstory. The university suspended him with pay for bringing students into the dispute, then withheld his pay for three months. 特里夫斯同罗格斯大学最近的一次纷争始于2013年底,当时他被分配去教一门关于人类攻击行为的课,而他抗议自己并不熟悉这个领域｡在几轮较量后,他最后还是出现在了教室里,他告诉学生发生了什么｡大学先是以将学生卷入纷争为由让他带薪停课,之后又扣了他三个月工资｡ “I am one of the most accomplished scientists they have ever had, period,” Trivers says in a characteristic but not inaccurate self-assessment. “Why not treat him well?” he asks. He has taken a dim view of the university and looks forward to a conscious uncoupling. “Honesty is not their strong suit,” he says. “Remember, we’re talking about New Jersey.” “我是他们拥有过的成就最高的人之一”,他这话带着特里夫斯的风格,但这个自我评价却不能说不准确｡“怎么就不能对他(指特里夫斯自己)好点呢?”他问道｡他对罗格斯大学的前景感到悲观并主动寻求离开｡“诚实不是他们的强项,”他说,“记住,毕竟我们说的是新泽西州｡” Trivers also had a talk at Harvard canceled once when he made a perceived threat against Alan Dershowitz in The Wall Street Journal letters pages over their conflicting views on Israeli-Lebanese relations. He admits to writing many “strongly worded” letters to people. And he notes: “If I ask you a direct question and you don’t give me a direct answer, I will wheel on you and say, ‘Yes but what about the question I asked you?!’” 因为对以色列-黎巴嫩关系的相左认识,特里夫斯曾在《华尔街日报》的读者来信版面里猛烈抨击艾伦·德肖维茨,这让后者感觉受到了人身威胁,特里夫斯在哈佛的一次讨论会也因此取消｡他承认自己给人写过许多“措辞激烈”的信｡他还补充说:“如果我直截了当地问你一个问题,而你不直截了当地回答,那我就要穷追猛打,‘是的,可是我刚才问你的那个问题呢?!’” When I asked Trivers how much blame he should take for the drama that surrounds him, he says, “I know I’m a hard man.” But he doesn’t see himself as violent. When he was kicked off campus for calling Cronk a punk, Rutgers sent him to a psychologist for threat evaluation. 当我问特里夫斯,对于这些围绕你的这些争议,你自己负有多少责任,他回答“我知道自己是个不好相处的人｡”但他并不认为自己暴力｡当他因为叫克朗克废物而被踢出校园时,罗格斯大学给他找了个心理学家进行威胁评估｡ “After an hour and a half, the psychologist says to me: ‘You know something, Dr. Trivers? You’re not a danger to anyone, including any of your colleagues. Your problem is you call stupid people stupid, and if they have power over you, you get blowback.’” Trivers told me this not a minute after framing an off-the-record comment with: “Please, I will get violent if I see this in print, and I’m not joking.” “一个半小时后,这位心理学家对我说:‘你知道吗,特里夫斯博士?对任何人你都不是一个威胁,包括你的大学同事｡你的问题是你管笨蛋叫笨蛋,如果他们能奈何得了你,你就有得好受｡”特里夫斯在告诉我这些之前没多一会儿的时候曾说过,他的某句评论可不能传出去｡他是这么说的:“拜托,我要是看见这句话印出来的话,我肯定会动手打人的,我不开玩笑｡” But this hard man is trying to change. He relies on strategies he developed years ago for managing his emotions, including something resembling prayer. He put religion aside at around age 13, “because math was a hell of a lot more interesting than ‘begat begatbegat.’ And there was this little contradiction between religion and 13-year-old girls.” 不过这位不好相处的人也在试着改变｡他依靠一套自己多年前开发出的办法来管理情绪,其中一种办法类似于祈祷｡他13岁时便抛弃了宗教,“因为比起什么‘以父之名’,数学要他妈有趣得多｡而且宗教这玩意还和13岁的女孩子有矛盾【编注:这里特里夫斯大概是在吹嘘他13岁时就懂得泡妞了】｡” Now, he wishes he hadn’t neglected it so much. He doesn’t believe in a god who listens: “How does God have any time left for my moaning and groaning? It’s insane.” Instead, it’s more a meditation. “I pray to keep my anger under control, to be more compassionate, for forgiveness, but I regard myself as talking to different parts of my own psyche.” 现在,他后悔自己当时如此地忽视宗教｡他并不相信有一个会倾听的神:“神怎么会有时间来听我抱怨?这太扯了｡”他的祈祷更接近冥想｡“我祈祷我的愤怒得到控制,自己更加悲悯,我祈祷得到宽恕,但我总感觉,我这是在和自己灵魂的不同部分对话｡” Trivers sees himself doing another five to ten years of research, but he describes his current contributions as more humble. He pumps out papers on lizards and knee symmetry in runners, which he admits, were “designed to fly me to Jamaica at someone else’s expense.” 特里夫斯认为自己还能做上5到10年的研究,但他认为自己目前的贡献远不如前｡关于蜥蜴和跑步运动员膝盖的对称性,他撰写了大量论文,对此他说“用处也不过是能让我花别人的钱飞来牙买加罢了｡” Yet one recent idea emerging from his interest in self-deception appears to have real significance: Research shows that older adults are biased toward paying attention to and remembering the positive over the negative and that they don’t dwell in negative moods, a phenomenon called the aging positivity effect. 然而他对自我欺骗的关注最近孕育了一个新观念,这一观念可能具有巨大的价值:研究者们发现年长些的人总是偏向关注和记忆正面的事情而忽略负面的,他们不会长时间陷在负面情绪里,这一现象被称作“衰老的正面效应”｡ There’s been no functional explanation, and it would seem that such a bias could be dangerous by blinding people to hazards. But Trivers notes that positive moods improve immune function, and older adults have a greater need for a strong immune system to fight off tumors and other ills. So maybe we’ve evolved to cheer ourselves up as we age just to boost immunity. 对这一效应现在还没有有效的解释,而这一对正面事物的偏执会让人们对危害视而不见,因而可能造成危险｡不过特里夫斯注意到,积极的情绪会增强人体的免疫机能,而年长的人需要一个强健的免疫系统来对抗肿瘤和其他疾病｡所以,也许我们就是这样进化的:越老就越充满正能量,从而提高我们的免疫力｡ He suggested the idea to von Hippel, who didn’t buy it. Why would natural selection shape old age, after we can no longer reproduce? But, Trivers argued, you can still help raise your grandchildren, who carry your genes. 他把这一理念跟范希波尔提起,但后者一开始并不买账｡自然选择为什么在我们失去生育能力后,还让我们老当益壮?但特里夫斯争辩说,在你老了之后你仍可以帮助养育孙辈,他们身上仍然携带了你的基因｡ Von Hippel ran a test that found that in older adults, a greater positivity bias correlated with stronger immune function. So they published the findings in 2014 in Psychology & Aging. Now they’re working on a longitudinal study to see if positivity predicts later immune function. 范希波尔做了验证,发现专注正面事物的年长者确实拥有更强健的免疫功能｡于是在2014年,他俩在《心理学与衰老》上发表了这一发现｡现在他们正合作一项纵向研究,以验证积极的心态是否会带来免疫力｡ Trivers refrains from making grand predictions about the future of evolutionary theory, but he has certain interests. David Haig’s work on genetic conflict excites him, as does von Hippel’s work on aging. And he’s just applied for a yearlong fellowship at Harvard to study honor killings. “How in the world,” he wonders, “do you select for, if indeed you do, murdering your own daughter?” 特里夫斯不会预测进化理论会有如何广阔的前景,但对这一理论他颇有兴趣｡David Haig关于基因冲突的研究､范希波尔关于衰老的研究都让他兴奋｡而且他刚刚申请了哈佛为期一年的研究员职位,以研究“荣誉谋杀”现象｡“在这个世界上,人怎么会选择——如果真的是自己选择的话——亲手杀死自己的女儿呢?”特里夫斯对此感到疑惑｡ He also has a lifetime interest in homosexuality—another genetic conundrum—and plans to write a review paper. “I enjoy trying to think through those kinds of problems,” he says. “As a theoretician you’re attracted, or you ought to be, to precisely those phenomena that seem to contradict your theory, and the deeper the better.” 他对同性恋现象——另一个遗传学的谜题——也抱有持续的热情,并打算写一篇综述论文｡“我很享受思考这些问题,”他说,“作为一个建立理论的人,你被,或者说你理应被那些与你的理论相悖的现象所吸引,越是痴迷就越好｡” Eating dinner at a Thai restaurant with Trivers, I mentioned that a colleague of his had painted him to be something of a badass. As evidence I noted the time he stabbed the home invader in the neck. “That’s a badass?” he inquired between slurps of soup. “That ain’t a badass. That’s someone protecting his f*cking life. I came an inch from being killed, man.” 和特里夫斯在一家泰国餐馆吃饭时,我提到他的一位同事曾把他描述成一个混蛋｡作为证据,我强调了那次他曾捅伤一位非法闯入者的脖子｡“那叫混蛋?”他一边喝汤一边质问,“那不叫混蛋,那他妈是保命｡我差点就被干死了,老兄!” Fair enough. But hurting his case, he went on to describe his response to the criminals’ lenient sentences. “I chased down both of them, because I had to,” he says. “Since the police aren’t disciplining them, I will.” One morning he spotted one of the men and pulled his car over. 言之有理｡不过接下去他描述他对轻判罪犯的反应,可就要为他减分了｡“我对这俩家伙穷追不舍,因为我不得不这么做,”他说,“既然警察不去规训他们,那我来｡”一天早上,他认出了罪犯中的一个,然后停下车｡ “‘Listen,’ I say, ‘If you want to rob me, you rob me at the roadside. Don’t rob me in my own home. That’s where my children live, that’s where my guests are. I will kill you three times over. In fact...’” As he started to get out of his car, Trivers says the man ran backward. (Helpfully, Trivers boxed in boarding school at Andover; but still, during one separate altercation, he ended up with an ice pick to his hand.) “‘听着,’我说,‘你要是想抢我,那你就在路边抢我｡别在我家抢｡那是我孩子生活的地方,是我客人到访的地儿｡你再那么干,信不信我让你死透?实际上……’”特里夫斯说,当他准备下车时,那家伙倒退着跑开了｡(特里夫斯在安多弗的寄宿学校练过拳击,不过,在另外一次争执中,他最后还是操起了碎冰椎｡) Today, Trivers retains vitriol for those who don’t see the legitimacy in his work and the research it’s spawned. According to von Hippel, people reject evolutionary psychology for ideological reasons. Those on the right fear that it absolves us of responsibility, while those on the left fear that accepting inherited differences hinders the goal of social equality. 今天,特里夫斯仍然对那些看不出他所做工作及其孵化出的研究的合理性的家伙们冷嘲热讽｡据范希波尔说,人们拒绝进化心理学是处于意识形态的理由｡右派担心进化心理学会解除我们身上的责任,而左派担心承认天生差异会对阻碍实现社会平等这一目标｡ Trivers says that many feminists and cultural anthropologists regard him as “the devil.” In return, he calls them “feebleminded” and “stone nuts.” More genes are expressed in the brain than in any other tissue, he notes, and to ignore the partnering of nurture with nature is “ludicrous, if you have any serious interest in reality or science.” 特里夫斯说,许多女权主义者和文化人类学家将他视为“魔鬼”｡而作为回击,他管他们叫“玻璃心”和“石化脑”｡他指出,比起其他组织,在大脑里得到表达的基因更多,忽视后天习得和先天遗传的共同作用是“可笑的,要是你对事实和科学还有一丝严肃态度的话｡” Trivers feels grateful for everything evolutionary biology has given him. It’s taken him around the world to wild and often unwelcoming places, and it’s given him the tools to analyze what he’s seen, from lizards to lovers’ quarrels to leftist movements. “In short,” Trivers writes in his memoir, “I signed on to a system of thought that allowed me to study life and live it, sometimes very intensively.” 特里夫斯对从进化心理学那里得到的一切都心存感激｡进化心理学带他走向世界各地,去到荒僻､甚至往往不友好的地方;给他分析所见所闻的工具,从蜥蜴到情侣争吵再到左翼运动｡“一言以蔽之,”特里夫斯在回忆录里写道,“我献身于一个思想体系,它让我可以研究和体味生命,而且这一过程有时还颇为激烈｡” （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——

Does Your Language Shape How You Think? 语言是否塑造了你的思维方式？ 作者：Guy Deutscher @ 2010-8-26 译者：尼克基得慢（@尼克基得慢） 校对：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：NYtimes，http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?_r=0 Seventy years ago, in 1940, a popular science magazine published a short article that set in motion one of the trendiest intellectual fads of the 20th century.At first glance, there seemed little about the article to augur its subsequent celebrity. Neither the title, “Science and Linguistics,” nor the magazine, M.I.T.’s Technology Review, was most people’s idea of glamour. 在七十年前的1940年，一份大众科学杂志发表了一篇短文，开启了二十世纪最新潮的思想风尚之一。乍看这篇文章，很难预料到它之后的名气。无论是文章标题《科学和语言学》，还是刊登的杂志《麻省理工科技评论》，都跟大多数人心目中的魅力不沾边。 And the author, a chemical engineer who worked for an insurance company and moonlighted as an anthropology lecturer at Yale University, was an unlikely candidate for international superstardom. And yet Benjamin Lee Whorf let loose an alluring idea about language’s power over the mind, and his stirring prose seduced a whole generation into believing that our mother tongue restricts what we are able to think. 而且，身为保险公司的化学工程师，同时兼职担任耶鲁大学人类学讲师，作者的这种身份并没有成为国际超级巨星的潜质。然而Benjamin Lee Whorf提出了一种关于语言对思维影响的诱人观点，而且他激动人心的文章诱使整整一代人相信，我们的母语限制了我们所能思考的内容。 In particular, Whorf announced, Native American languages impose on their speakers a picture of reality that is totally different from ours, so their speakers would simply not be able to understand some of our most basic concepts, like the flow of time or the distinction between objects (like “stone”) and actions (like “fall”). 特别是，Whorf宣称，美洲土著语言令它们的使用者形成了与我们完全不同的现实图景，所以美洲土著完全不能理解我们的一些最基本概念，比如时间的流逝，以及物体（比如“石头”）与动作（比如“下落”）的区分。 For decades, Whorf’s theory dazzled both academics and the general public alike. In his shadow, others made a whole range of imaginative claims about the supposed power of language, from the assertion that Native American languages instill in their speakers an intuitive understanding of Einstein’s concept of time as a fourth dimension to the theory that the nature of the Jewish religion was determined by the tense system of ancient Hebrew. 几十年来，学术圈和普罗大众都为Whorf的理论所折服。在他的巨大影响下，其他人基于设想中的语言之威力提出了很多富有想象力的断言，比如断言美洲土著语言赋予了美洲土著对爱因斯坦将时间作为第四维这一观念的直观理解，又如提出犹太教的本质决定于古希伯来语时态系统的理论。 Eventually, Whorf’s theory crash-landed on hard facts and solid common sense, when it transpired that there had never actually been any evidence to support his fantastic claims. The reaction was so severe that for decades, any attempts to explore the influence of the mother tongue on our thoughts were relegated to the loony fringes of disrepute. 最终，当人们发现Whorf的荒诞断言从未有证据支持时，他的理论在坚硬的事实和可靠的常识面前败退了。这一反弹的后果如此严重，以至于数十年里，任何探究母语对于我们思考之影响的尝试都被贬斥为不光彩的疯狂之举。 But 70 years on, it is surely time to put the trauma of Whorf behind us. And in the last few years, new research has revealed that when we learn our mother tongue, we do after all acquire certain habits of thought that shape our experience in significant and often surprising ways. 但是70年过去了，是时候把Whorf造成的不幸放诸脑后了。在过去几年里，新近研究表明，我们在学习母语时确实会养成一些思维习惯，这些习惯会以重要且出乎意料的方式塑造我们的体验。 Whorf, we now know, made many mistakes. The most serious one was to assume that our mother tongue constrains our minds and prevents us from being able to think certain thoughts. The general structure of his arguments was to claim that if a language has no word for a certain concept, then its speakers would not be able to understand this concept. If a language has no future tense, for instance, its speakers would simply not be able to grasp our notion of future time. 我们现在知道Whorf犯了许多错误。最严重的一个就是，他假定我们的母语会限制我们的思维，而且使我们无力思考某些概念。他论证的大体框架就是声称，如果一种语言没有某种概念对应的词汇，该语言的使用者就不能理解这种概念。例如，假设一种语言没有将来时态，它的使用者就无法理解未来时间的概念。 It seems barely comprehensible that this line of argument could ever have achieved such success, given that so much contrary evidence confronts you wherever you look. When you ask, in perfectly normal English, and in the present tense, “Are you coming tomorrow?” do you feel your grip on the notion of futurity slipping away? Do English speakers who have never heard the German word Schadenfreude find it difficult to understand the concept of relishing someone else’s misfortune? Or think about it this way: If the inventory of ready-made words in your language determined which concepts you were able to understand, how would you ever learn anything new? 我们很难理解为什么这一论点竟能获得如此巨大的成功，因为你随处可见大量相反的证据。当你用完全标准的英语以现在时态问出“Are you coming tomorrow?”这句话时，难道你就感觉到对未来这一概念的理解随之消逝了吗？难道从未听说过德语单词Schadenfreude的英语使用者就很难理解幸灾乐祸这一概念吗？或者这样思考一下：如果你的母语中现存的全部词汇决定了你可以理解哪些概念，那你又如何可能学到任何新东西呢？ SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that any language forbids its speakers to think anything, we must look in an entirely different direction to discover how our mother tongue really does shape our experience of the world. Some 50 years ago, the renowned linguist Roman Jakobson pointed out a crucial fact about differences between languages in a pithy maxim: “Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey.” This maxim offers us the key to unlocking the real force of the mother tongue: if different languages influence our minds in different ways, this is not because of what our language allows us to think but rather because of what it habitually obliges us to think about. 既然并无证据表明任何一种语言会令其使用者无法思考某些事情，我们必须从反方向来探究我们的母语如何确实塑造了我们对世界的感受。大概五十年前，著名语言学家Roman Jakobson 用一句精辟箴言指出了关于不同语言之差异的一个关键事实：“语言实质上区别于它们所必须表达的内容，而不是它们可能表达的内容。”这句箴言给我们提供了解开母语真实威力的钥匙：如果不同的语言会以不同的方式影响我们的思维，这不会是由于语言允许我们思考什么内容，而会是由于语言内在地强制我们思考什么内容。 Consider this example. Suppose I say to you in English that “I spent yesterday evening with a neighbor.” You may well wonder whether my companion was male or female, but I have the right to tell you politely that it’s none of your business. But if we were speaking French or German, I wouldn’t have the privilege to equivocate in this way, because I would be obliged by the grammar of language to choose between voisin or voisine; Nachbar or Nachbarin. 考虑这样一个例子。假设我用英语对你说“我昨天晚上跟我的邻居一起”。你或许会想知道我的同伴是男还是女，但是我有权礼貌地告诉你这事与你无关。但是如果我们讲法语或者德语，我就没有这样含糊其辞的特权了，因为语法强制我必须从voisin与voisine或者Nachbar与Nachbarin中选择一个。 These languages compel me to inform you about the sex of my companion whether or not I feel it is remotely your concern. This does not mean, of course, that English speakers are unable to understand the differences between evenings spent with male or female neighbors, but it does mean that they do not have to consider the sexes of neighbors, friends, teachers and a host of other persons each time they come up in a conversation, whereas speakers of some languages are obliged to do so. 这些语言强迫我将同伴的性别告知你，不管我是否认为你与此事有什么干系。当然，这并不意味着英语使用者就无法理解与男邻居共度的夜晚和与女邻居共度的夜晚之间的区别，但这确实意味着他们并不需要思考在对话中出现的邻居、朋友、老师和其他许多人的性别，然而某些语言的使用者却必须这么做。 On the other hand, English does oblige you to specify certain types of information that can be left to the context in other languages. If I want to tell you in English about a dinner with my neighbor, I may not have to mention the neighbor’s sex, but I do have to tell you something about the timing of the event: I have to decide whether we dined, have been dining, are dining, will be dining and so on. 另一方面，英语也会强制你明确说明某些类型的信息，而这些信息在其他语言里可以留在语境里面。如果我想用英文给你讲我跟邻居的一顿晚餐，我可能不用必须提到我邻居的性别，但是我却必须告知你有关事件发生时间的一些东西：我必须选择我们是已经吃过晚饭了（we dined）、已经在吃着晚饭（have been dining）、正在吃着晚饭（are dining）还是将要吃晚饭（will be dining）等。 Chinese, on the other hand, does not oblige its speakers to specify the exact time of the action in this way, because the same verb form can be used for past, present or future actions. Again, this does not mean that the Chinese are unable to understand the concept of time. But it does mean they are not obliged to think about timing whenever they describe an action. 与此不同，汉语则并不强制其使用者这样详细说明动作的具体时间，因为汉语中同样的动词可以用于指称过去的、现在的和将来的动作。同样地，这并不意味这中国人就无法理解时间的概念。但是这确实意味着，无论何时描述一个动作，他们都不会被强制去考虑时间的问题。 When your language routinely obliges you to specify certain types of information, it forces you to be attentive to certain details in the world and to certain aspects of experience that speakers of other languages may not be required to think about all the time. And since such habits of speech are cultivated from the earliest age, it is only natural that they can settle into habits of mind that go beyond language itself, affecting your experiences, perceptions, associations, feelings, memories and orientation in the world. 当你所用的语言经常强制你去说明特定种类的信息时，它会迫使你关注世界中的某些特定细节和经历中的某些特定方面，而这可能是其他语言的使用者不必一直思考的。因为这些说话的习惯从很小就开始养成，他们很自然就会变成超越语言本身的思维习惯，影响你在世上的体验、知觉、联想、感觉、记忆和倾向。 BUT IS THERE any evidence for this happening in practice? 但是有证据表明上述影响在现实中发生过吗？ Let’s take genders again. Languages like Spanish, French, German and Russian not only oblige you to think about the sex of friends and neighbors, but they also assign a male or female gender to a whole range of inanimate objects quite at whim. What, for instance, is particularly feminine about a Frenchman’s beard (la barbe)? Why is Russian water a she, and why does she become a he once you have dipped a tea bag into her? 我们再以性别为例。像西班牙语、法语、德语和俄语这样的语言不仅强制你思考朋友和邻居的性别，而且还心血来潮地赋予各种无生命的物体以性别。例如，法国人胡须怎么就成了阴性的？为何俄语中水是阴性的，但是把一个茶包放进她里面，她为何又会变成了他呢？ Mark Twain famously lamented such erratic genders as female turnips and neuter maidens in his rant “The Awful German Language.” But whereas he claimed that there was something particularly perverse about the German gender system, it is in fact English that is unusual, at least among European languages, in not treating turnips and tea cups as masculine or feminine. 众所周知，Mark Twain曾用“糟糕透顶的德语”一语来痛斥其稀奇古怪的词性，比如阴性的萝卜和中性的少女。尽管他声称德语的词性系统有些特别不合常理之处，但事实上，至少在欧洲各语言里，像英语这样不把萝卜和茶杯看作阴性或者阳性的，才真正是不同寻常。 Languages that treat an inanimate object as a he or a she force their speakers to talk about such an object as if it were a man or a woman. And as anyone whose mother tongue has a gender system will tell you, once the habit has taken hold, it is all but impossible to shake off. When I speak English, I may say about a bed that “it” is too soft, but as a native Hebrew speaker, I actually feel “she” is too soft. “She” stays feminine all the way from the lungs up to the glottis and is neutered only when she reaches the tip of the tongue. 那些把无生命物体当作他或她对待的语言，会迫使其使用者以它是一个男人或女人的方式来谈论该物体。而且，母语有性别系统的人会告诉你，一旦养成这种习惯，就不可能改掉了。当我说英语时，我可能会说一张床“它”太软了，但作为一个生来就讲希伯来语之人，我实际上是感觉到“她”太软了。从肺部上至声门，“她”一直都是阴性的，只有当她到达舌尖时才会变成中性。【编注：作者是犹太人，生于以色列特拉维夫市，在荷兰莱顿大学任教授】 In recent years, various experiments have shown that grammatical genders can shape the feelings and associations of speakers toward objects around them. In the 1990s, for example, psychologists compared associations between speakers of German and Spanish. There are many inanimate nouns whose genders in the two languages are reversed. A German bridge is feminine (die Brücke), for instance, but el puente is masculine in Spanish; and the same goes for clocks, apartments, forks, newspapers, pockets, shoulders, stamps, tickets, violins, the sun, the world and love. 近几年，不同实验均表明，语法上的性别可以塑造说话人对周围物体的感觉和联想。比如1990年代，心理学家比较了德语使用者和西班牙语使用者的联想。两种语言中有很多无生命名词的性别是相反的。比如德语中的桥是阴性的(die Brücke)，但是在西班牙语中桥(el puente)是阳性的。同样，时钟、公寓、叉子、报纸、口袋、肩膀、邮票、票、小提琴、太阳、世界和爱都是如此。 On the other hand, an apple is masculine for Germans but feminine in Spanish, and so are chairs, brooms, butterflies, keys, mountains, stars, tables, wars, rain and garbage. When speakers were asked to grade various objects on a range of characteristics, Spanish speakers deemed bridges, clocks and violins to have more “manly properties” like strength, but Germans tended to think of them as more slender or elegant. With objects like mountains or chairs, which are “he” in German but “she” in Spanish, the effect was reversed. 另一方面，对德国人来说，苹果是阳性的，但是在西班牙语中则是阴性的，椅子、扫帚、蝴蝶、钥匙、山岳、星星、桌子、战争、雨和垃圾也是如此。当说话者被要求对不同物体的一系列特征进行评分时，说西班牙语的人认为桥梁、时钟和小提琴拥有更多“男性特质”，比如力量；但是德国人则倾向于认为它们更加纤弱或雅致。对于像山岳或椅子这样德语中为阳性而在西班牙语为阴性的物品来说，效果正好相反。 In a different experiment, French and Spanish speakers were asked to assign human voices to various objects in a cartoon. When French speakers saw a picture of a fork (la fourchette), most of them wanted it to speak in a woman’s voice, but Spanish speakers, for whom el tenedor is masculine, preferred a gravelly male voice for it. More recently, psychologists have even shown that “gendered languages” imprint gender traits for objects so strongly in the mind that these associations obstruct speakers’ ability to commit information to memory. 在另一个实验中，说法语和西班牙语的人被要求为卡通中的不同物体配上人类发音。说法语的人看到一幅叉子(la fourchette)的图片时，大多数就想要为它配上女性声音，但在西班牙语中，叉子(el tenedor)是阳性的，其使用者就会更倾向于给它一个沙哑的男性声音。心理学家最近甚至揭示，“名词具有词性的语言”会将物体的性别特性在思维上留下极为深刻的印记，以致于这种联想甚至会阻碍语言使用者记忆信息的能力。 Of course, all this does not mean that speakers of Spanish or French or German fail to understand that inanimate objects do not really have biological sex — a German woman rarely mistakes her husband for a hat, and Spanish men are not known to confuse a bed with what might be lying in it. Nonetheless, once gender connotations have been imposed on impressionable young minds, they lead those with a gendered mother tongue to see the inanimate world through lenses tinted with associations and emotional responses that English speakers — stuck in their monochrome desert of “its” — are entirely oblivious to. 当然，所有这些并不意味着说西班牙语、法语或者德语的人不能理解无生命物体并没有真正的生物性别——一个德国女性很少会把她的丈夫错认为一顶帽子，西班牙男性也并不以混淆床和床上的东西而著称。然而，一旦性别涵义强加于易受影响的年轻头脑上，它们就会使得母语中名词具有词性的人通过联想和感性回应的滤镜来看待这无生命的世界，而这是困在单色的“its”沙漠中的英语使用者完全察觉不到的。 Did the opposite genders of “bridge” in German and Spanish, for example, have an effect on the design of bridges in Spain and Germany? Do the emotional maps imposed by a gender system have higher-level behavioral consequences for our everyday life? Do they shape tastes, fashions, habits and preferences in the societies concerned? At the current state of our knowledge about the brain, this is not something that can be easily measured in a psychology lab. But it would be surprising if they didn’t. 例如，“桥梁”在德语和西班牙语中相反的性别会对两国桥梁的设计有影响吗？词性系统所设置的情感地图对我们的日常生活会产生更高级别的行为后果吗？它们会影响相关社会的品味、时尚、习惯和倾向吗？在我们有关大脑的现有知识状态下，这并不是能在心理学实验室轻松测量出来的事情。但是如果它们没有影响，这会叫人意外。 The area where the most striking evidence for the influence of language on thought has come to light is the language of space — how we describe the orientation of the world around us. Suppose you want to give someone directions for getting to your house. You might say: “After the traffic lights, take the first left, then the second right, and then you’ll see a white house in front of you. Our door is on the right.” But in theory, you could also say: “After the traffic lights, drive north, and then on the second crossing drive east, and you’ll see a white house directly to the east. Ours is the southern door.” 我们在某个领域已经发现了有关语言影响思想的最引人注目的证据。这一领域就是有关空间的语言——我们如何描述我们周围世界的方向。假设你想给要去你家的某人指路。你可能会说：“过了红绿灯后，第一个路口左转，然后第二个路口右转，然后你会看到面前有一栋白房子。我家门在右边。”但是理论上，你也可以说：“过了红绿灯后，向北开，然后在第二个十字路口往东开，然后你会看到正东方向有栋白房子。我家门是南边那个。” These two sets of directions may describe the same route, but they rely on different systems of coordinates. The first uses egocentric coordinates, which depend on our own bodies: a left-right axis and a front-back axis orthogonal to it. The second system uses fixed geographic directions, which do not rotate with us wherever we turn. 这两组指令描述的是同一路线，但是它们依赖不同的坐标系统。第一种使用了依赖自己身体的自我中心坐标：左右坐标轴和与之垂直的前后坐标轴。第二种系统使用固定的地理方向，不论我们转向何处都不会随我们旋转。 We find it useful to use geographic directions when hiking in the open countryside, for example, but the egocentric coordinates completely dominate our speech when we describe small-scale spaces. We don’t say: “When you get out of the elevator, walk south, and then take the second door to the east.” The reason the egocentric system is so dominant in our language is that it feels so much easier and more natural. After all, we always know where “behind” or “in front of” us is. We don’t need a map or a compass to work it out, we just feel it, because the egocentric coordinates are based directly on our own bodies and our immediate visual fields. 我们发现有时使用地理方向很有用，比如当我们在开阔的野外徒步时。但是当我们描述小型空间时，自我中心坐标在我们的言谈中占绝大多数。我们并不会这么说：“出电梯后，往南走，然后在第二个门往东走。”自我中心坐标在我们的语言中如此重要，原因是我们觉得用起来更容易、更自然。毕竟，我们总是会知道我们的“后面”或者“前面”在哪。我们不需要地图或者指南针来辨别前后，我们只需靠感觉，因为自我中心坐标直接基于我们的身体和当下的视野。 But then a remote Australian aboriginal tongue, Guugu Yimithirr, from north Queensland, turned up, and with it came the astounding realization that not all languages conform to what we have always taken as simply “natural.” In fact, Guugu Yimithirr doesn’t make any use of egocentric coordinates at all. The anthropologist John Haviland and later the linguist Stephen Levinson have shown that Guugu Yimithirr does not use words like “left” or “right,” “in front of” or “behind,” to describe the position of objects. Whenever we would use the egocentric system, the Guugu Yimithirr rely on cardinal directions. 可是且慢，一种生僻的澳洲土著语言——北昆士兰的Guugu Yimithirr语——冒了出来，它让人们震惊地意识到，并不是所有语言都符合我们理所当然认定的“自然”。事实上，Guugu Yimithir语根本不使用自我中心坐标。先是人类学家John Haviland，后来又有语言学家Stephen Levinson，都表示Guugu Yimithirr语并不使用诸如“左”或“右”、“前”或“后”这些词来描述物体的方位。在任何我们使用自我中心坐标的场合，Guugu Yimithirr语都依赖于东西南北这种基本方向。 If they want you to move over on the car seat to make room, they’ll say “move a bit to the east.” To tell you where exactly they left something in your house, they’ll say, “I left it on the southern edge of the western table.” Or they would warn you to “look out for that big ant just north of your foot.” Even when shown a film on television, they gave descriptions of it based on the orientation of the screen. If the television was facing north, and a man on the screen was approaching, they said that he was “coming northward.” 如果他们想让你在车座上挪出点空位来，他们会说“往东移一点。”为了告诉你他们忘在你家的东西的具体位置，他们会说，“我把它落在西边桌子的南边了。”他们还会警告你，“小心你脚北边的大蚂蚁。”甚至当电视上播放电影时，他们也会基于屏幕的朝向来描述电影。如果电视机朝北，屏幕上的男人正在靠近，他们会说他“正在往北走”。 When these peculiarities of Guugu Yimithirr were uncovered, they inspired a large-scale research project into the language of space. And as it happens, Guugu Yimithirr is not a freak occurrence; languages that rely primarily on geographical coordinates are scattered around the world, from Polynesia to Mexico, from Namibia to Bali. Guugu Yimithirr语的这些怪异特性的发现，激发了对于空间语言的一项大规模研究项目。经过研究发现，Guugu Yimithirr语并不是不寻常的事情；主要依靠地理坐标的语言散落在世界各地，从波利尼西亚到墨西哥，从纳米比亚到巴厘岛。 For us, it might seem the height of absurdity for a dance teacher to say, “Now raise your north hand and move your south leg eastward.”But the joke would be lost on some: the Canadian-American musicologist Colin McPhee, who spent several years on Bali in the 1930s, recalls a young boy who showed great talent for dancing. As there was no instructor in the child’s village, McPhee arranged for him to stay with a teacher in a different village. 对于我们来说，如果一位舞蹈老师说“现在举起你北边的手，向东移动你的南腿”，可能听起来十分荒谬。但是某些情况下就不好笑了：曾于1930年代在巴厘岛生活过几年的美籍加拿大音乐学家Colin McPhee回忆说，他在那儿遇到过一个有着极佳舞蹈天赋的男孩。由于男孩的村子没有老师，McPhee就安排他跟着另一个村子的老师。 But when he came to check on the boy’s progress after a few days, he found the boy dejected and the teacher exasperated. It was impossible to teach the boy anything, because he simply did not understand any of the instructions. When told to take “three steps east” or “bend southwest,” he didn’t know what to do. The boy would not have had the least trouble with these directions in his own village, but because the landscape in the new village was entirely unfamiliar, he became disoriented and confused. Why didn’t the teacher use different instructions? He would probably have replied that saying “take three steps forward” or “bend backward” would be the height of absurdity. 但是几天后当他检查男孩的进展时，他发现男孩情绪低落而且老师充满怒气。因为男孩根本不能理解任何指令，所以没法教他任何事情。当被告知“向东三步”或者“往西南弯曲”时，他不知道该怎么做。男孩在他自己的村子就不会有这些方向上的麻烦，但是因为新村子的地貌完全不熟悉，他变得困惑，分不清方向。为什么老师不用不同的指令呢？他的回答大概是：说“往前三步”或者“向后弯曲”是极度荒谬的。 So different languages certainly make us speak about space in very different ways. But does this necessarily mean that we have to think about space differently? By now red lights should be flashing, because even if a language doesn’t have a word for “behind,” this doesn’t necessarily mean that its speakers wouldn’t be able to understand this concept. Instead, we should look for the possible consequences of what geographic languages oblige their speakers to convey. In particular, we should be on the lookout for what habits of mind might develop because of the necessity of specifying geographic directions all the time. 所以不同语言确实让我们对于空间的描述十分不同。但是这一定表明我们必须对空间有不同的思考吗？到此红灯应该闪起来了，因为即使一种语言没有“后面”这一个词，这不一定意味着说这种语言的人不能理解这个概念。相反，我们应该寻找地理语言强制它们的使用者传达某些内容所带来的后果。特别是我们应该留神观察，由于他们一直需要明确地理位置，他们的思维会形成什么样的习惯。 In order to speak a language like Guugu Yimithirr, you need to know where the cardinal directions are at each and every moment of your waking life. You need to have a compass in your mind that operates all the time, day and night, without lunch breaks or weekends off, since otherwise you would not be able to impart the most basic information or understand what people around you are saying. Indeed, speakers of geographic languages seem to have an almost-superhuman sense of orientation. Regardless of visibility conditions, regardless of whether they are in thick forest or on an open plain, whether outside or indoors or even in caves, whether stationary or moving, they have a spot-on sense of direction. 为了讲一种像Guugu Yimithirr这样的语言，你需要在你醒着的每一刻都知道基本方向在哪。你的脑中需要有一个一直运行的指南针，无论白天还是晚上，没有午休或者周末休息，否则你就无法表述最基本的信息，也无法理解周围人在说什么。确实，地理语言的使用者好像拥有近乎超人般的方向感。不管视线条件如何，不管他们在茂密的森林或是开阔的平原，不管在户外或是室内乃至洞穴中，不管静止还是移动，他们都有准确的方向感。 They don’t look at the sun and pause for a moment of calculation before they say, “There’s an ant just north of your foot.” They simply feel where north, south, west and east are, just as people with perfect pitch feel what each note is without having to calculate intervals. 他们不看太阳，也无需停下片刻计算一番，就能脱口而出“你脚的北边有一只蚂蚁。”他们凭感觉就能知道哪是北方、南方、西方和东方，就像有完美音调的人不用计算音程就能感觉出每个音调是什么。 There is a wealth of stories about what to us may seem like incredible feats of orientation but for speakers of geographic languages are just a matter of course. One report relates how a speaker of Tzeltal from southern Mexico was blindfolded and spun around more than 20 times in a darkened house. Still blindfolded and dizzy, he pointed without hesitation at the geographic directions. 在我们看来似乎不可思议的定位奇迹，对于使用地理语言的人来说是理所当然的事，关于此有太多故事可讲。一份报告描述了南墨西哥说Tzeltal语的人被蒙住眼睛在漆黑的屋子里转二十多圈的故事。转完后，虽然仍旧被蒙住双眼而且头昏，他还是毫不犹豫地指出了地理方向。 How does this work? The convention of communicating with geographic coordinates compels speakers from the youngest age to pay attention to the clues from the physical environment (the position of the sun, wind and so on) every second of their lives, and to develop an accurate memory of their own changing orientations at any given moment. So everyday communication in a geographic language provides the most intense imaginable drilling in geographic orientation (it has been estimated that as much as 1 word in 10 in a normal Guugu Yimithirr conversation is “north,” “south,” “west” or “east,” often accompanied by precise hand gestures). 这是怎么实现的呢？用地理坐标进行交流的习惯，使得说话者从很小开始就在生命中每一秒都去留意有关物理环境的线索（太阳的位置，风等等），培养出了在任何时刻都能记住自己方位变化的精确记忆力。所以在地理语言中，日常交流提供了对地理方位最大强度的想象训练（据估计，一次普通的Guugu Yimithirr语谈话中，每十个词就有一个是“北”“南”“西”或“东”，而且经常伴有准确的手部姿势）。 This habit of constant awareness to the geographic direction is inculcated almost from infancy: studies have shown that children in such societies start using geographic directions as early as age 2 and fully master the system by 7 or 8. With such an early and intense drilling, the habit soon becomes second nature, effortless and unconscious. When Guugu Yimithirr speakers were asked how they knew where north is, they couldn’t explain it any more than you can explain how you know where “behind” is. 这种恒常知晓地理方向的习惯从婴儿时期就开始得到灌输。研究表明，这种社会中的儿童最早在2岁就开始使用地理方向了，到了7、8岁就能完全掌握。有了这样早且高强度的训练，这种习惯很快就变成了毫不费力且不会察觉的第二本能。当Guugu Yimithirr语的使用者被问到他们如何知道哪是北方时，他们无法解释，就像你不能解释你怎么知道“后方”是哪一样。 But there is more to the effects of a geographic language, for the sense of orientation has to extend further in time than the immediate present. If you speak a Guugu Yimithirr-style language, your memories of anything that you might ever want to report will have to be stored with cardinal directions as part of the picture. One Guugu Yimithirr speaker was filmed telling his friends the story of how in his youth, he capsized in shark-infested waters. 但是地理语言的影响还不仅如此，因为方向感要求在当下时间的基础上有所延伸。如果你讲的是Guugu Yimithirr类型的语言，你对于自己想要说的任何东西的记忆都会将基本方向作为记忆画面的一部分来存储。一位讲Guugu Yimithirr的人曾被拍摄到向他的朋友讲述自己年轻时如何在遍布鲨鱼的水域里翻船的故事。 He and an older person were caught in a storm, and their boat tipped over. They both jumped into the water and managed to swim nearly three miles to the shore, only to discover that the missionary for whom they worked was far more concerned at the loss of the boat than relieved at their miraculous escape. Apart from the dramatic content, the remarkable thing about the story was that it was remembered throughout in cardinal directions: the speaker jumped into the water on the western side of the boat, his companion to the east of the boat, they saw a giant shark swimming north and so on. 他和一个年纪稍大的人被困在风暴中，他们的船翻了过来。他们都跳入水中，奋力游了3英里才到了海岸，却发现雇佣他们的传教士只关心船只损失，毫不庆幸他们奇迹般的死里逃生。除了这戏剧性的内容之外，值得注意的事情是整个故事都是通过基本方向来记忆的：说话者从船的西侧跳入水中，他的同伴在船的东侧跳下，他们看见了一条大鲨鱼从北面游来等等。 Perhaps the cardinal directions were just made up for the occasion? Well, quite by chance, the same person was filmed some years later telling the same story. The cardinal directions matched exactly in the two tellings. Even more remarkable were the spontaneous hand gestures that accompanied the story. For instance, the direction in which the boat rolled over was gestured in the correct geographic orientation, regardless of the direction the speaker was facing in the two films. 有没有可能，其中提到的基本方向只是临时想到的呢？很巧合的是，同一个人几年过后又被拍摄讲同样的故事。两次描述中的基本方向完全相符。更加引人注意的是伴随故事而出现的自发手势。例如，在讲述船往哪个方向摇晃时，他的手能够指向正确的地理方向，不管说话者在两段视频中面向哪个方向。 Psychological experiments have also shown that under certain circumstances, speakers of Guugu Yimithirr-style languages even remember “the same reality” differently from us. There has been heated debate about the interpretation of some of these experiments, but one conclusion that seems compelling is that while we are trained to ignore directional rotations when we commit information to memory, speakers of geographic languages are trained not to do so. 心理学实验也表明，在某些情况下，对于“同一个事实”，说Guugu Yimithirr型语言的人甚至会与我们有不同的记忆。关于如何解释部分此类实验，人们一直都有一些热烈的争议，但是有一个结论非常令人信服：尽管我们受到的思维训练是在记忆信息时忽略方向变化，但是说地理语言的人却被训练得不去这么做。 One way of understanding this is to imagine that you are traveling with a speaker of such a language and staying in a large chain-style hotel, with corridor upon corridor of identical-looking doors.Your friend is staying in the room opposite yours, and when you go into his room, you’ll see an exact replica of yours: the same bathroom door on the left, the same mirrored wardrobe on the right, the same main room with the same bed on the left, the same curtains drawn behind it, the same desk next to the wall on the right, the same television set on the left corner of the desk and the same telephone on the right. In short, you have seen the same room twice. 理解这种区别的一个方法是：想象你正与一个说这种语言的人一同旅行，住在一家各层走廊两边的门都一模一样的大型连锁酒店。你的朋友住在正对着你的房间，当你走进他的房间里时，你会看见跟你完全一样的房间：卫生间门一样在左侧，带镜衣柜一样在右侧，一样的主卧，床也一样在主卧的左边，后面一样是窗帘，靠右侧墙也一样摆着桌子，桌子的左边一样是电视，电话一样在右边。简言之，你两次看到的是相同的房间。 But when your friend comes into your room, he will see something quite different from this, because everything is reversed north-side-south. In his room the bed was in the north, while in yours it is in the south; the telephone that in his room was in the west is now in the east, and so on. So while you will see and remember the same room twice, a speaker of a geographic language will see and remember two different rooms. 但是当你的朋友进到你的房间时，他会看见相当不同的东西，因为所有事情都是南北颠倒的。在他的房间床是在北边，而在你的房间床是在南边；他房间里的电话是在西边，而你的在东边等等。所以尽管你两次看到并记住相同的房间，地理语言的使用者则看见和记住了两间不同的房间。 It is not easy for us to conceive how Guugu Yimithirr speakers experience the world, with a crisscrossing of cardinal directions imposed on any mental picture and any piece of graphic memory. Nor is it easy to speculate about how geographic languages affect areas of experience other than spatial orientation — whether they influence the speaker’s sense of identity, for instance, or bring about a less-egocentric outlook on life. 说Guugu Yimithirr的人把基本方向的十字瞄准器加诸于任何精神画面和图像记忆之上，我们很难想像他们是如何感受这个世界的。同时也很难猜测地理语言如何影响除了空间定向外的体验领域——比如它们是否会影响说话者对个体身份的理解或者是否会导致对于人生更少自我中心的看法。 But one piece of evidence is telling: if you saw a Guugu Yimithirr speaker pointing at himself, you would naturally assume he meant to draw attention to himself. In fact, he is pointing at a cardinal direction that happens to be behind his back. While we are always at the center of the world, and it would never occur to us that pointing in the direction of our chest could mean anything other than to draw attention to ourselves, a Guugu Yimithirr speaker points through himself, as if he were thin air and his own existence were irrelevant. 但是有个证据颇能说明问题：如果你看到一个说Guugu Yimithirr语的人指向他自己，你会自然地假设他有意引起对他自己的注意。事实上，他正在指向一个方向，刚好在他背后。尽管我们总是处于世界的中心，而且从来不会意识到，指向我们胸部方向的动作除了是想要引起对自己的注意之外，还能有什么别的意思，但是一个说Guugu Yimithirr语的人会指穿他自己，仿佛他是稀薄的空气，他自己的存在并不相关。 IN WHAT OTHER WAYS might the language we speak influence our experience of the world? Recently, it has been demonstrated in a series of ingenious experiments that we even perceive colors through the lens of our mother tongue. There are radical variations in the way languages carve up the spectrum of visible light; for example, green and blue are distinct colors in English but are considered shades of the same color in many languages. 我们所说的语言会在其他什么方面影响我们对世界的感受呢？最近，一系列别出心裁的实验表明，我们甚至是通过母语的滤镜来观察颜色的。在区分可见光光谱方面，各语言有很大的不同；例如，英语中绿色和蓝色是不同的颜色，但是在很多语言中它们却是同种颜色的不同色调。 And it turns out that the colors that our language routinely obliges us to treat as distinct can refine our purely visual sensitivity to certain color differences in reality, so that our brains are trained to exaggerate the distance between shades of color if these have different names in our language. As strange as it may sound, our experience of a Chagall painting actually depends to some extent on whether our language has a word for blue. 我们还发现，我们的语言所经常性地强制我们加以区分的颜色，会修正我们对于现实中特定颜色区别的视觉敏感性，所以如果这些颜色在我们的语言中有不同的名字，我们的大脑就会被训练得夸大不同色度颜色的差距。虽然这听起来很奇怪，但是我们对于Chagall画作的感受某种程度其实依赖于我们语言中是否有蓝色这一单词。 In coming years, researchers may also be able to shed light on the impact of language on more subtle areas of perception. For instance, some languages, like Matses in Peru, oblige their speakers, like the finickiest of lawyers, to specify exactly how they came to know about the facts they are reporting. You cannot simply say, as in English, “An animal passed here.” You have to specify, using a different verbal form, whether this was directly experienced (you saw the animal passing), inferred (you saw footprints), conjectured (animals generally pass there that time of day), hearsay or such. 在未来几年，研究人员或许能发现语言对更细微的感知领域的影响。例如，一些语言，像秘鲁的Matses，会像最挑剔的律师一样强制其使用者详细说明他们如何知晓正在讲述的事实。你不能像在英语中那样简单地说，“一动物经过了此处。”你必须用不同动词形式详细说明，这是直接经历的（你看到了一动物正在经过）、还是你推断的（你看到了脚印）、还是你猜测的（动物一般都会在一天中的那个时间经过那里），还是你听说的，诸如此类。 If a statement is reported with the incorrect “evidentiality,” it is considered a lie. So if, for instance, you ask a Matses man how many wives he has, unless he can actually see his wives at that very moment, he would have to answer in the past tense and would say something like “There were two last time I checked.” After all, given that the wives are not present, he cannot be absolutely certain that one of them hasn’t died or run off with another man since he last saw them, even if this was only five minutes ago. 如果提出一份陈述时的“证据性质”不正确，该陈述就会被认为是谎言。所以，举例来说，如果你问一个Matses男性他有多少老婆，除非他在那时能看到他妻子，否则他必须用过去时回答，会说一些“上次核实时，我有两个老婆”这样的话。毕竟，鉴于他的老婆并不在场，他不能绝对确定自从他上次看到她们后，他们中的一个有无死亡或者跟其他男人跑掉，即使“上次核实”也就在5分钟之前。 So he cannot report it as a certain fact in the present tense. Does the need to think constantly about epistemology in such a careful and sophisticated manner inform the speakers’ outlook on life or their sense of truth and causation? When our experimental tools are less blunt, such questions will be amenable to empirical study. 所以他不能用现在时把这作为一个确定事实来说。这种如此小心复杂地思考认识论的需要，会影响说话者对人生的看法或者他们对真相和起因的理解吗？只有在我们的实验工具足够锐利时，这些问题才能经受实证研究的检验。 For many years, our mother tongue was claimed to be a “prison house” that constrained our capacity to reason. Once it turned out that there was no evidence for such claims, this was taken as proof that people of all cultures think in fundamentally the same way. But surely it is a mistake to overestimate the importance of abstract reasoning in our lives. After all, how many daily decisions do we make on the basis of deductive logic compared with those guided by gut feeling, intuition, emotions, impulse or practical skills? 很多年来，我们的母语被称为限制我们理性能力的“牢笼”。一旦证明这样的说法没有证据，人们就以为这证明了所有文化的人根本上都以相同的方式进行思考。但是，过分高估抽象推理在我们生命中的重要性，这显然是个错误。毕竟，与那些在感觉、直觉、情感、冲动或实用技能指导下做出的日常决定相比，我们有多少决定是在演绎逻辑的基础上做出的呢？ The habits of mind that our culture has instilled in us from infancy shape our orientation to the world and our emotional responses to the objects we encounter, and their consequences probably go far beyond what has been experimentally demonstrated so far; they may also have a marked impact on our beliefs, values and ideologies. We may not know as yet how to measure these consequences directly or how to assess their contribution to cultural or political misunderstandings. But as a first step toward understanding one another, we can do better than pretending we all think the same. 我们的文化从婴儿时期就灌输进我们大脑的习惯，会影响我们在世界中的定向，和对我们所遇到的东西的情感回应，它们的影响可能比目前实验所揭示的要更深远；它们可能对我们的信仰、价值观和思想体系也有显著影响。我们可能还不知道如何直接测量这些影响，或者如何评估它们对于文化或政治误解的作用。但是作为迈向理解彼此的第一步，我们还可以做的更好，不能假装所有人都以相同方式思考。 Guy Deutscher is an honorary research fellow at the School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures at the University of Manchester. His new book, from which this article is adapted, is “Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages,” to be published this month by Metropolitan Books. Guy Deutscher是曼彻斯特大学语言与文化学院的荣誉研究员。他的新书《透过语言之镜：为何其他语言中的世界看起来如此不同》这个月将由Metropolitan Books出版，本文即选摘自此书。 （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——

Nearly 1,000 People Move From Blue States to Red States Every Day. Here’s Why. 每天将近有1000人从蓝州搬到红州，这自有缘由。 作者：Stephen Moore @ 2015-10-9 译者：董慧颖 校对：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：The Daily Signal，http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/09/nearly-1000-people-move-from-blue-states-to-red-states-every-day-heres-why/ The so-called “progressives” love to talk about how their policies will create a worker’s paradise, but then why is it that day after day, month after month, year after year, people are fleeing liberal blue states for conservative red states? 那些所谓的“进步人士们”喜欢谈论他们的政策将如何创造出一个工人的天堂。可是，为什么日复一日，月复一月，年复一年，人们总是在从自由派的蓝州逃到保守派的红州去呢？ The new Census data on where we live and where we moved to in 2014 shows that the top seven states with the biggest percentage increase in in-migration from other states are in order: North Dakota, Nevada, South Carolina, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and Texas. All of these states are red, except Colorado, which is purple. 2014年最新人口普查中关于居住地和搬迁地的数据显示，按照迁入量增长的百分比计算，有他州居民迁入的前七大州依次是：北达科他，内华达，南卡罗来纳，科罗拉多，佛罗里达，亚利桑那和德克萨斯。这些州中除了科罗拉多是紫色以外，其他都是红州。 Meanwhile, the leading exodus states of the continental states in percentage terms were Alaska, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Kansas. All of these states are blue, except Alaska and Kansas. 同时，以百分比计算，大陆州中主要的外流州是：阿拉斯加，纽约，伊利诺伊、康涅狄格，新墨西哥，新泽西和堪萨斯。这些州中除了阿拉斯加和堪萨斯外，其他都是蓝州。 The latest Rich States, Poor States document (which I co-author), published by ALEC, the state legislative organization, finds that nearly 1,000 people each day on net are leaving blue states and entering red states. This migration is changing the economic center of gravity in America—moving it relentlessly to the South and West. 最新的《富州和穷州》报告（我是合著者），由专注各州立法的美国立法交流委员会（ALEC）出版，发现每天离开蓝州进入红州的人数净值接近1000。这一迁徙正在改变美国的经济重心，使之持续不断地向南、向西转移。 Travis Brown, the author of the indispensable book “How Money Walks,” shows that two of the leading factors behind this movement of human capital are 1) whether a state has a right to work law (half of the states do) and 2) how high the top income tax rate is in the state. Nine states have no income tax today, and they are creating twice the pace of jobs as are high-income tax states. 特拉维斯·布朗写作了一本不可或缺的书：《钱如何走路》。他指出，在人力资本的上述流动背后，有两个主要的影响因素：1）该州是否有权制定工作法（一半的州都有），2）该州最高的所得税税率有多高。如今有九个州没有所得税，而他们创造的工作机会是高所得税州的两倍。 Data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) show a similar trend. Each year the IRS issues a migration data report that examines how many tax filers (and dependents) in the year changed their residency and how much income was transported from one state to another. The numbers for the most recent year (tax filing year 2013) are gigantic and put the lie to the claim that interstate migration is too small to matter in terms of the wealth and economic opportunity in one state versus another. 国税局的数据也显示了类似的趋势。每年国税局都会发布一份移民数据报告，分析当年度有多少报税人（及其家属）改变了他们的居住地以及有多少收入从一个州转移到另一个。最新一年（2013报税年度）的数字非常之大，证明下述断言就是扯谎：州际迁移太小，不会对各州之间财富和经济机会造成影响。 In 2013, Florida gained $8.2 billion in adjusted gross income from out-of-staters. Texas gained $5.9 billion—in one year. Five of the seven states with the biggest gains in income have no income tax at all: Florida, Texas, Arizona, Washington, and Nevada. New York was again the big loser, with another 112,236 tax filers leaving and taking $5.2 billion with them. (So much for those TV ads trying to lure businesses into America’s 2nd highest taxed state with temporary tax breaks.) Illinois lost nearly 67,000 tax filers and $3.7 billion of income it can no longer tax. 2013年，佛罗里达从外州来者身上获得了共计82亿美元的调整后总收益。德克萨斯在一年内获得了59亿美元。收益增加最多的七个州中有五个没有任何所得税：佛罗里达、德克萨斯、亚利桑那、华盛顿州和内华达。纽约州又是最大的输家，又有112236名纳税人离开，一并带走了52亿美元。（那么多电视广告企图用临时税收减免来引诱企业到全美税负第二重的州去发展，还是打住吧。）伊利诺伊失去了近67000名纳税人，可征税收入中流走了中37亿美元。 I’ve never met a Democrat who could come up with even a semi-plausible explanation for why families and businesses are hightailing it out of blue states. They are leaving states with high minimum wages, pro-union work rules, high taxes on the rich, generous welfare benefits, expansive regulations to “help” workers, green energy policies, etc. People are voting with their feet against these liberal policies. 我从来没有见过任何一个民主党人能想出半个理由，能解释为什么家庭和企业都在从蓝州逃离。他们正在离开的这些州，都有很高的最低工资，有利于工会的工作规定，对富人的高税收，慷慨的福利待遇，无孔不入的旨在“帮助”工人的管制，绿色能源政策，等等。人们正在用脚投票，反对这些自由派政策。 When I debated Paul Krugman this summer, I confronted him with this reality. His lame explanation for the steady migration from liberal North to conservative South was that “air conditioning” has made the South more livable. Americans are evidently moving because of the weather. 今年夏天当我和保罗·克鲁格曼辩论时，我用这样的事实与他对质。他对从自由派北部到保守派南部间的稳定移民的蹩脚解释是，“空调”使南部更适于居住。美国人显然是由于天气原因才搬家的。 There are two glaring problems with this theory: California and North Dakota. In the last decade ending in 2013, 1.4 million more Americans left California than moved into the once-Golden State. It’s a good bet these California refugees didn’t leave for more sunshine or better weather. 这个想法面临着两个突出的困难：加利福尼亚和北达科塔。到2013年为止的十年间，从曾经的黄金州加利福尼亚迁出的人口比迁入的多出140万。可以肯定地说，这些离开加利福尼亚州的难民并不是为了追寻更多的阳光或更好的气候。 And if warm weather is what is attracting people to the South—and surely there is some truth to that—why did the coldest state outside Alaska, North Dakota, have the biggest population gain in percentage terms in the most recent year? The answer is that workers went to get jobs created by the Bakken Shale oil and gas boom. By the way, California is one of the oil- and gas-richest states in the nation, but its “green” politicians are regulating that industry out of businesses. So much for caring about working-class Americans. 如果温暖的气候是吸引人们迁往南方的原因——当然这也有一定的道理——那为什么最近一年中，除阿拉斯加以外最寒冷的州——北达科塔——却有着最大的人口增长百分比？答案是，工人们是去追寻因巴肯页岩油气繁荣而创造出来的工作。顺便提一下，加利福尼亚是全国石油和天然气最为富集的州之一，但该州的“绿色”政治家们正通过管制逼死油气行业。别再说什么关心工薪阶层美国人了。 The latest Census and IRS data merely confirm what Americans can see every day with their own two eyes. Red states are a magnet. There’s a downside to this for sure. Conservatives have a legitimate gripe that as blue-staters come into their prosperous red states, they try to turn them blue. That’s happened in New Hampshire, where Massachusetts transplants vote for the left-wing policies they just fled. 最新的人口普查和国税局的数据只是证实了美国人每天用自己的两只眼睛都能看到的事情。红州是一块磁铁。这肯定会有消极面。保守派的抱怨合情合理，蓝州人在进入繁荣的红州后，正试图将他们的红州变蓝。这种事已经在新罕布什尔发生，来自马萨诸塞的移民投票支持他们方才逃离的左翼政策。 But the underlying trend is unmistakable: Liberal blue states are economic dinosaurs. Will they change their ways before they go the way of Detroit and become extinct? 但基本的趋势是显而易见的：自由派的蓝州是经济的巨大障碍。在重蹈底特律的覆辙走向灭绝之前，他们会改变自己的方式吗？ （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——

Obama’s shameful Afghanistan retreat: This will embolden the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS 奥巴马撤离阿富汗之举很可耻：这会鼓励塔利班、基地组织和伊斯兰国 作者：Frederick Kagan @ 2015-10-18 译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 校对：Whig zhou（@whigzhou） 来源：NEW YORK DAILY NEWS，http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/frederick-kagan-obama-shameful-afghanistan-retreat-article-1.2400776 The headlines should read: “Obama to slash U.S. troops in Afghanistan by over 40% weeks before he hands over responsibility to a new President.” Instead they say: “Obama extends U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.” Talk about controlling the narrative. 新闻头条应该这么写：“在向新总统移交责任数周前，奥巴马将削减驻阿美军40%以上”。但实际上它们是这么写的：“奥巴马延长美军驻阿时间。”看看什么叫做控制叙事方式。 We’re missing the plot here. The President announced on Thursday the most irresponsible decision he could have made about Afghanistan — second only to the promise he had made earlier to pull almost all U.S. troops. The right decision would have been to keep forces at current levels, or, better, send reinforcements. 我们错过了重点情节。总统本周四宣布了他在阿富汗问题上可能做出的最不负责任的决定——仅次于他此前做出的撤离全部美军的承诺。正确的决定应当是，保持当前的驻军水平，最好是能增加援军。 For we are losing in Afghanistan, again. Security is deteriorating. The Taliban seized and briefly held the capital of an important province north of Kabul. They are threatening another one a short drive southwest of Kabul. U.S. forces destroyed two Al Qaeda training camps in Kandahar, one very large. The Islamic State controls part of Nangarhar Province, east of Kabul. Afghan security forces cannot hold what they have, let alone regain what they have lost. 因为，又一次，我们正在失去阿富汗。安全形势正在恶化。塔利班攻占并短暂占据了喀布尔以北一个重要省份的首府。他们现在还对喀布尔以南车程很近的另外一座首府构成威胁。美军摧毁了基地组织位于坎大哈的两座训练营，其中一座非常之大。伊斯兰国控制了喀布尔以东楠格哈尔省的部分地区。阿富汗安全部队根本守不住他们的地盘，更别说收复失地。 The Taliban had been driven out of almost all the important areas in southern Afghanistan and disrupted elsewhere by the additional forces Obama sent in 2010. The premature reduction of American and allied troops and the operational restrictions imposed on the remaining troops have let the Taliban rebuild. 由于奥巴马在2010年派出增援部队，塔利班曾被赶出阿富汗南部的几乎所有重要区域，在其它地区也遭到破坏。但过早的削减美军及联军部队，并对留守部队施加行动限制，已经让塔利班得以重建。 A couple of years ago the Taliban would not have dared mass forces for an offensive against a major city, because American airpower supporting U.S. and Afghan troops would have decimated them. No more. Now the enemy masses and maneuvers as they did from 2006 to 2009, when they nearly toppled the Afghan government. 数年之前，塔利班根本不敢集结力量攻打任何主要城市，因为支援美军和阿富汗部队的美国空军会将其加以摧毁。现在不再如此了。如今，敌人像他们在2006年至2009年期间那样集结和运动，当时他们差点推翻了阿富汗政府。 A limited number of American forces with the right authorities could prevent them from doing that. But Obama has chosen to allow the Taliban the freedom of action to threaten the survival of the Afghan state once again. 有限数量的美军，如果具有正确的权限，也可以阻止敌人这么做。但奥巴马所做的选择，给了塔利班再次威胁阿富汗政权生存的行动自由。 American forces with Afghan partners drove Al Qaeda almost entirely out of Afghanistan in 2002. U.S., Afghan and allied troops kept them out for a decade — the one enduring success against Al Qaeda President Obama had maintained. 2002年，美军联同阿富汗盟友几乎已将基地组织完全赶出阿富汗。美国、阿富汗和联军部队连续十年将它们拒之门外——这是奥巴马总统对基地组织取得的唯一持久成功。 Now they’re back. The President has thus put in danger even the most limited of the goals he had identified in Afghanistan. 如今他们又回来了。因此，甚至是总统在阿富汗定下的最有限目标，都已被他自己置于摇摇欲坠之地。 The emergence of fighters loyal to the Islamic State in Afghanistan is even more disturbing. The vast majority of them are local insurgents who had been fighting under other banners, so it’s not as if new forces have invaded Afghanistan. But the ISIS brand is much more virulent, violent and extreme even than al Qaeda. It makes the Taliban look moderate. 更令人忧心的是，效忠伊斯兰国的战士也出现于阿富汗。他们中的绝大多数都是当地的叛乱者，此前一直在其他旗帜下战斗，因此并不是说有新的力量入侵阿富汗了。但伊斯兰国的标签更为恶性、更为暴力、更为极端，甚至连基地组织都相形见绌。塔利班看起来都是温和派了。 That such a group has drawn Afghans under its banner is proof of the failure of U.S. efforts against ISIS broadly. Success attracts followers. ISIS will likely radicalize those followers even further, while preparing to unleash greater violence against Afghan forces and U.S. troops. That will be further proof to potential recruits of its success and power, encouraging radicals elsewhere to join ISIS. It is a disaster in every respect. 这一组织已将阿富汗人吸引到其旗帜之下，这是美军全面打击伊斯兰国之努力遭遇失败的明证。成功才能吸引追随者。伊斯兰国很有可能将会使这些追随者进一步激进化，同时准备对阿富汗武装力量和美军部队发动更大规模的暴力活动。而这将进一步向其潜在追随者提供成功与力量的证据，鼓励其他地方的激进分子参加伊斯兰国。方方面面来看，这都是灾难性的。 The Afghan security forces, meanwhile, are suffering badly. Losses and desertion rates are too high. They lack the equipment to prosecute a modern war against a serious enemy. We built those forces on the assumption that the U.S. and its allies would continue to provide meaningful and reliable air support, help with logistics, planning and intelligence and more. As we have withdrawn that support, they have faltered. 与此同时，阿富汗安全部队正在遭受巨大损失。伤亡率和逃兵率居高不下。他们缺乏装备，没法与可怕的敌人开展一场现代战争。我们建立这些部队时曾假定，美国及其盟友会持续提供有意义的、可靠的空中支援，并在后勤、部署和情报及其他方面给予帮助。随着我们撤销这类支援，他们就变得力不从心。 All this was both predictable and avoidable. The President was warned that he had announced too aggressive a drawdown plan in 2009. He disdained recommendations to keep 20,000 or 30,000 troops in place after the drawdown. He is once again disregarding advice to maintain the current — inadequate — force level in favor of scheduling yet another unjustifiable withdrawal. 所有这些都既可以预测，也可以避免。2009年，已经有人警告总统，他宣布的撤军计划过于激进。他无视了在撤军之后保持20000或30000驻军的建议。现在，他又一次无视了保持当前——尚不足够——驻军数量的建议，而支持新一轮毫无依据的撤军计划。 All Presidents make mistakes. Most come to recognize and learn from them. Others double down. In this case, doubling down on retreat is doubling down on failure. 所有的总统都会犯错。他们中大多数都会承认错误并吸取教训。其他人则加倍下注。在当前例子中，在撤军上面加倍下注就是在加倍失败。 （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——

The Most Misunderstood Libertarian 最为人所误解的自由意志主义者 作者:Alberto Mingardi @ 2015-9-28 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值) 来源:Library of Law & Liberty,http://www.libertylawsite.org/book-review/the-most-misunderstood-libertarian/ To the surprise of many, scholarship on Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) has flourished in the last few years. A towering figure in Victorian Britain, Spencer was all but forgotten after his death. His works, which taken together form a “Synthetic Philosophy,” seemed alien to 20th century academics in an age of meticulous specialization. Also his commitment to individual liberty and (seriously) limited government has not been too common in the discipline that he helped establish, sociology. Talcott Parsons famously called him a victim of the very God he adored: evolution. 关于赫伯特·斯宾塞(1820-1903)的学术研究过去几年活跃了起来,这让许多人感到惊讶｡斯宾塞是英国维多利亚时代的一位杰出人物,死后却几乎被人遗忘｡他的各种著作构成一个“综合哲学”整体,与20世纪专业细分的学术界格格不入｡并且,他对个体自由和(极度的)有限政府的信奉,在他所帮助建立的社会学学科中历来并不十分流行｡塔儿科特·帕森斯曾出了名地把他称为他所推崇的那个上帝——进化——的牺牲品｡ Toward the end of the 20th century, however, interest in Spencer began to revive. In 1974, J.D.Y. Peel published Herbert Spencer: The Evolution of a Sociologist and Robert Nisbet dealt at length with Spencer in his 1980 History of the Idea of Progress. In Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), Robert Nozick adapted his “tale of the slave” on taxation and democracy from Spencer’s 1884 The Man versus the State. In 1982, the journal History of Political Thought published contributions on Spencer from John Gray, William Miller, Jeffrey Paul, and Hillel Steiner that remain a landmark. 不过,到20世纪快要结束时,人们又重新燃起对斯宾塞的兴趣｡1974年,J. D. Y. Peel出版了《赫伯特·斯宾塞:一位社会学家的进化》;1980年,Robert Nisbet在其《进步观念史》中对斯宾塞进行了长篇讨论｡在《无政府､国家与乌托邦》(1974)中,罗伯特·诺齐克讨论税收和民主问题时所用的“奴隶的故事”源自于斯宾塞1884年的著作《人与国家》｡1982年,《政治思想史》杂志刊登了John Gray､William Miller､Jeffrey Paul和Hillel Steiner等人论斯宾塞的多篇文章,至今仍有里程碑意义｡ New monographs and studies were later published, and today a number of scholars in different disciplines (history of political thought, sociology, anthropology) can be counted among the Spencer connoisseurs. But few of them have come from the classical liberal camp. (The most notable exception is George H. Smith.) 其后关于斯宾塞的新专著和新研究时有出现｡时至今日,分处不同领域(政治思想史､社会学､人类学)的许多学者可以被视为斯宾塞行家｡但其中几乎无人来自古典自由主义阵营｡(George H. Smith是最著名的例外｡) Spencer may be routinely included among the forerunners of modern libertarianism but it is rather uncommon to find a contemporary individualist thinker deliberately appealing to his insights. Take F.A. Hayek: Long ago, John Gray pointed out that Hayek and Spencer share the “same aspiration of embedding the defense of liberty in a broad evolutionary framework,” but Hayek himself appeared to have been largely unaware of this affinity. More recently, Gray wrote that Hayek told him he never read Spencer. 斯宾塞或许会被习惯性地列为现代自由意志主义的先驱之一,但要在当代个人主义思想家中找到一个刻意诉诸斯宾塞见解的人,这可并非易事｡以F. A. 哈耶克为例:John Gray早已指出哈耶克和斯宾塞都具有“同一种抱负,那就是把对自由的辩护牢固树立于一种广义的进化论框架中”,但哈耶克本人似乎基本上没有意识到这种共鸣｡最近,Gray写道,哈耶克曾告诉他说自己从没读过斯宾塞｡ The paradox of one of the fiercest libertarians ever to be ignored by libertarians emerges vividly from Herbert Spencer: Legacies, edited by Mark Francis and Michael Taylor. Interestingly, the two editors have published extensively on Spencer in the past, but their interpretations of him do not overlap. 史上最为狂热的自由意志主义者之一却被自由意志主义者们所忽略,这一乖谬在由Mark Francis和Michael Taylor主编的《赫伯特·斯宾塞:遗产》一书中表现得极为生动｡有趣的是,两位主编过去都已就斯宾塞发表过大量文章,不过他们各自对斯宾塞的解读并不相同｡ Francis, as he attempts to rescue Spencer’s philosophy from oblivion, in his Introduction calls The Man Versus the State and also Social Statics (1851) “popular works” that, “while they were liberal and progressive, . . . were not scientific or philosophical.” Taylor, in contrast, deals at length with Social Statics—as Stephen Tomlinson does in his chapter in this volume. Francis尝试将斯宾塞的哲学从被人遗忘的状态中拯救出来,并在他为该书所写的“导论”中将《人与国家》和《社会静力学》(1851)称为“流行作品”,“尽管是自由主义､进步主义的……并不具备科学性或哲学性”｡与之相反,Taylor则对《社会静力学》进行了长篇讨论——同书中由Stephen Tomlinson所写的一个章节也是如此｡ Spencer’s legacy is plural, as the title of this collection suggests, and may have come to us mediated by subsequent developments in different fields. The plural nature of the “legacies” is stressed throughout, and has multiple dimensions: disciplinary, political, and even geographical given the “migration” of Spencerian theories all over the world. 正如这一文集的复数形式的标题所暗示的那样,斯宾塞的遗产是多重的｡而且这些遗产可能是通过多个不同领域的后续发展传递给我们的｡对“legacies”复数性质的强调贯穿本书首尾,并具有多个不同维度:学科维度､政治维度､甚至还有地理维度(因为斯宾塞的理论曾在全世界“迁移”)｡ Sometimes, however, by looking far away you disregard what you have nearby. Bernard Lightman, for example, focuses his essay “Spencer’s British Disciples” on Beatrice Potter Webb and Grant Allen, quickly dismissing Auberon Herbert as a not very influential British disciple of Spencer. 不过,有些时候,由于过于关注远方,你会忽视眼前事物｡比如,Bernard Lightman在他的文章“斯宾塞的英国门徒”中,主要聚焦于Beatrice Potter Webb和Grant Allen,却急匆匆地略过了Auberon Herbert,视其为斯宾塞的一位影响不大的英国门徒｡ There might be a problem here: the influence the disciples themselves had may have to be disentangled from the thinking of the disciples qua disciples. Lightman presents in fascinating and plentiful detail the most interesting paths of Webb and Allen, who both turned socialist to the disappointment of the master. 这里可能有个问题:这些门徒自身所具有的影响力,可能必须和身为门徒的他们的思想区分开来｡Lightman以引人入胜和细节丰富的方式为我们介绍了Webb和Allen所走过的最为有趣的道路｡他们俩都转变成了社会主义者,令其师父大失所望｡ It would be hard to overemphasize the emotional nature of the relationship between Webb and Herbert Spencer. He was a family friend and a confidant of Laurencina Potter, Beatrice Potter Webb’s mother. A solitary man, Spencer bestowed unlimited affection on his dear friends’ kids. Webb和赫伯特·斯宾塞之间的情感再怎么强调都不为过｡斯宾塞是Webb一家的世交,是Beatrice Potter Webb的母亲Laurencina Potter的知己｡未曾娶妻的斯宾塞将无限的情感倾注于他这位密友的孩子身上｡【编注:Beatrice Potter Webb是著名经济学家,伦敦经济学院和费边社的核心成员,这两个机构也是20世纪初英国社会主义运动的主要推动者｡】 Young Beatrice grew up thinking that he was her best ally and the only adult truly interested in her intellectual development. Spencer, as Webb later wrote, pressed her “to become a scientific worker” and to a certain extent he became a model, for the “continuous concentrated effort in carrying out, with an heroic disregard of material prosperity and physical comfort, a task which he believed would further human progress.” 小Beatrice在成长过程中一直把斯宾塞当成最好的伙伴,认为他是唯一真正对她的智识进步感兴趣的成年人｡如Webb后来所写的那样,是斯宾塞敦促她“成为一个科学工作者”,而他在某种程度上已然是一个典范,因为,“为了实施一项他认为能够推动人类进步的事业,他能持续集中地努力,为此奋而不顾物质财富和生理舒适｡” In her 1926 memoir My Apprenticeship, Webb described at length the old friend, in a portrait very familiar to modern readers. She saw in him “the mental deformity which results from the extraordinary development of the intellectual faculties joined with the very imperfect development of the sympathetic and emotional qualities.” 在其1926年的回忆录《我的学徒生涯》中,Webb花大量笔墨描绘了这位老朋友,其形象现代读者非常熟悉｡她在他身上看到“一种精神上的畸形,它是智识能力非凡发达与同情和情感极度不完善两相结合的产物｡” Webb’s Spencer is a human being obsessed with rationality and purpose who paid the price on the affective side. Though Webb is not stingy of kind words or affectionate recollections, it is hard not to speculate that her portrait of Spencer evokes magnificently all she disliked in unregulated capitalism: a purported organizational efficiency with little humanity to spare for those who are needy. Webb眼中的斯宾塞是个痴迷于理性和目的,并为此在情感方面付出相应代价的人｡尽管Webb并不吝啬写出赞誉之词或深情回忆,我们仍很难不这样推测:她对斯宾塞的描绘极好地再现了她对毫无限制的资本主义——一种对匮乏者冷酷无情的所谓的组织化效率——的所有憎恶｡ It is indeed true that Spencer was the one who, as Lightman writes, “originally taught” Beatrice Webb “to value the scientific method and to think about social issues from a scientific perspective.” One wonders, however, exactly how much of Spencer’s insights she kept in her later thinking. 毫无疑问,如Lightman所写的那样,正是斯宾塞“最初教导”Beatrice Webb去“重视科学方法,并从一种科学的视角来考虑社会问题”｡不过,人们不禁会怀疑,在她后来的看法中到底保留有多少斯宾塞的观点｡ As for Auberon Herbert, certainly a less grand figure, he was an advocate of a libertarianism “that verged on anarchism,” in Taylor’s words. Reading Spencer was for him a truly life-changing experience. It made him lose “faith in the great machine” of politics and convinced him to become an apostle of freedom. Herbert’s libertarian anarchism is one of the “legacies” Michael Taylor examines in his essay. 至于Auberon Herbert,相较而言当然没那么出名｡用Taylor的话说,他鼓吹的是一种“接近于无政府主义”的自由意志主义｡阅读斯宾塞对他来说确实是真正改变人生的一种体验,让他丧失了对于政治“这台大机器的信念”,并说服他成为了一位传播自由的使徒｡Herbert的自由意志论无政府主义是Michael Taylor在其文章中检视的多重“遗产”中的一种｡ He approaches Spencer as a historian of political thought. The Taylor chapter, on the one hand, presents Social Statics as a text that inspired multiple legacies, including the work of Henry George (who resented the fact that Spencer wanted the 1892 revised edition of this 1851 work to leave out the original chapter on land) and Piotr Kropotkin. Taylor以一种政治思想史家的方式讨论斯宾塞｡他所写作的那一章,一方面将《社会静力学》呈现为一份激发了多重遗产的文本,其中包括Henry George(斯宾塞要求《社会静力学》1892年修订版删除1851年原版中论土地一章,George对这一做法感到非常不满)和Piotr Kropotkin的著作｡【编注:Henry George是乔治主义改革运动的创始人,该运动最初主张以单一土地税代替其他所有税种,以便削弱地租收益而提高其他创造性活动的激励,但后来一些追随者将其改造成了土地国有化再分配主张｡】 Taylor stresses how Spencer goes for voluntary and spontaneous arrangements, not necessarily for institutional settings based on the price system. But this won’t sound particularly controversial or new to libertarians, who, despite the caricature often made of them, understand that not everything in life is tradable at a money price. Their point is more subtle (and Spencerian): that is, top-down government intrusions may retard or altogether stop the spontaneous evolution (or adaptation to new circumstances) of human societies. Taylor强调了斯宾塞支持自愿和自发的安排,而不一定支持基于价格体系的制度设置的做法｡但这对于自由意志主义者来说,并不会特别富于争议或新颖,因为尽管他们经常在这一点上遭到夸张嘲弄,但他们知道并非生命中的每样事物都可以用某种货币价格进行交换｡他们的观点更精致(也更斯宾塞式):即,从上至下的政府干预可能会妨碍或完全阻止人类社会的自发进化(或对新环境的适应)｡ On the other hand, Taylor puts in context Spencer’s later, famous polemics against an intrusive state. The articles included in The Man Versus the State were by and large a reaction to the “drift to the left” of William Gladstone’s 1880 government. Taylor emphasizes that “although Liberals were always suspicious of an overextended sphere of state action, the prevalent attitude was one of wariness of government overreach rather than an outright opposition to a positive role for the state.” 在另一方面,Taylor又结合语境分析了斯宾塞晚年反对干预性国家的著名论战文章｡收在《人与国家》一书中的文章大体上都是针对1880年威廉·格莱斯顿政府“左倾转向”而发的反对｡Taylor强调说:“尽管自由派历来对都国家行动范围的过度扩张心怀疑虑,但当时的流行观点只是对政府的过度扩张保持警惕,并不直接反对国家扮演积极角色｡” In other words, Spencer belonged to a minority of truly committed minimal government types that was never hegemonic in the intellectual realm, let alone in the pragmatic world of politicians. Fair enough, though the younger Spencer certainly saw himself as surrounded by writers with ideas rather close to his, particularly after the abolition of the Corn Laws. 换句话说,斯宾塞属于真正信奉最小政府的少数派,这种人在知识界从未成为主流,更不用说在政客们所处的实务世界｡这说得很对,不过,青年斯宾塞当然认为自己周围有许多作家持有近似于己的观点,特别是在《谷物法》废除以后｡ But the opposite is also true. Many critics have used against Spencer the same argument they later employed against Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom: namely, that pointing to the slippery slope of state interventionism was ridiculous given that government was pursuing just limited (particularly in Spencer’s times) and benevolent interventions. In the 1870s, government spending was less than 10 percent of the British GDP—but increased rapidly in the new century. 然而,反对斯宾塞的也大有人在｡许多批评者在反对斯宾塞时已经用到了他们后来用于反对哈耶克《通往奴役之路》的同一论证:即,认为国家干预主义会急剧膨胀恶化是可笑的,因为政府所追求的只是有限的(在斯宾塞的时代尤其如此)､善意的干预｡在1870年代,政府支出还不到英国GDP的10%——尽管在接下来的新世纪里增长迅速｡ One of the many take-aways of this book is that Spencer was a far more complex thinker than those who only know him as a diabolical “social Darwinist” may believe. Its essays might, for example, open the eyes of those who still have in mind the Herbert Spencer largely manufactured in the 1940s by Richard Hofstadter in a book that made history as a beautifully written and yet quite misleading tirade. 本书的诸多简便结论之一是,作为一位思想家,斯宾塞非常复杂,远超那些只知他是个凶恶的“社会达尔文主义者”的人心中所想｡比如,有些人心目中的斯宾塞仍是由理查德·霍夫斯塔特写于1940年代的一本书(该书将历史编成一份整齐漂亮但却颇为误人子弟的长篇檄文)所塑造【译注:指《美国思想中的社会达尔文主义》一书】,而本书所收论文可以让这些人大开眼界｡ Taylor explains that Spencer never thought that “social existence involved an unrelenting struggle for survival in which the richest were the most successful and the poor should go to the wall.” He quotes Thomas Leonard’s important study on the Hofstadterian myth. Taylor引用Thomas Leonard对“霍夫斯塔特迷思”的重要研究解释说,斯宾塞从未认为“社会存在中包含一种永不休止的生存斗争,在这场斗争中,最富裕的人就是最成功的,而最贫穷的人就应该碰壁失败｡” Jonathan H. Turner explains Spencer’s view of evolution as a process of continuous differentiation, which entailed at the same time more interdependence among the parts of the “social organism” and the need for a flexible regulation that allows for ever further differentiation and specialization. The pace of civilization, so to say, is limited by the extent of the division of labor. Jonathan H. Turner将斯宾塞的进化观解释为一种持续分化的进程,而这就意味着“社会有机体”各个部分之间更大程度的相互依赖,而同时也要求实施弹性管理,以允许更进一步的分化和特化｡可以说文明的步伐是受限于劳动分工水平｡ Francis, who like his co-editor cites the Leonard monograph, also makes clear Spencer’s commitment to pacifism: “Spencerians believed that imperial conquest might have been a natural phenomenon when employed by ancient states, but was an archaic activity in modern times” and a most immoral one. The thread running through all of Spencer’s works is the idea that society progresses toward the minimization of violence, which had been needed at earlier stages of civilization. Francis跟共同主编Taylor一样引用了Leonard的论文,也明确指出了斯宾塞对和平主义的信奉:“斯宾塞主义者相信,当帝国征服发生于古代国家手中时,它们也许是种自然现象,但在现时代,它就是一种过时的活动”,同时也是最不道德的活动之一｡贯穿斯宾塞所有著作的一条主线就是这样一种观念:暴力在文明的最初阶段是需要的,但社会进步的方向就是暴力的最小化｡ This book may convey a sense of Spencer’s true understanding of complexity. In the last pages of Social Statics, which revolves around the idea of betterment and progress, he explains that “the institutions of any given age exhibit the compromise made by these contending moral forces at the signing of their last truce.” His magnificent The Study of Sociology (1873) would be a relevant work for those interested in the proper role of the social sciences and their limits, if only they read it. 本书可能向我们传达了一些斯宾塞对于复杂性的真正理解｡在《社会静力学》的最后部分,斯宾塞讨论的是改良与进步｡他解释说,“任何给定时代的制度都呈现出妥协,这些妥协是彼此竞争的道德力量在签订最终停战协定时所达成的｡”对于那些对社会科学的恰当角色及其局限所在感兴趣的人来说,斯宾塞的皇皇巨著《群学肆言》(1873)很值得关注,当然前提是你能读一读｡ Turner’s essay, possibly the most thorough in this collection, claims Spencer’s centrality in the development of sociology. Turner is sure that Spencer was “a theorist, not in the often sloppy and vague social theory sense, but in the hard-science view of theory as a series of abstract laws that explain the operation of some portion of the universe.” Unfortunately, he writes, though “many of his ideas have endured,  . . . most people do not know that they come from Spencer, so ingrained is the avoidance of anything Spencerian.” Turner的文章可能是这本文集中最为深入的,它认为斯宾塞在社会学的发展过程中占据中心位置｡Turner认定斯宾塞是“一位理论家,这里所说的理论不是社会理论意义上的那种很马虎或含糊的理论,而是表现为一系列抽象规则､能够解释宇宙某一部分之运转的那种硬科学意义上的理论｡”不幸的是,他写道,尽管“他的许多观点延续不朽……绝大多数人并不知道它们来自斯宾塞｡对任何斯宾塞主义的东西都避而不谈的做法是如此顽固｡” Turner signals, for example, that Spencer had a very perceptive and thorough vision of power and the dynamics of the mobilization of coercive resources, which also anticipates the analysis of political elites by Vilfredo Pareto (not by chance, an avid reader of Spencer’s). 比如,Turner表明,斯宾塞对于权力和强制性资源的动员过程持有一种认知透彻､细察入微的理解,这也早于维弗雷多·帕累托对于政治精英的分析(帕累托是斯宾塞的热心读者,这并非偶然)｡ Spencer’s dichotomy of militant and industrial societies is not the naive teleology many assumed. “Militant societies are always centralized because they must deal with conflict and war, whereas” industrial societies “are not centralized and allow individuals and corporate units considerable freedom of activity.” Nations may go in one direction or another, depending on many factors. 斯宾塞对于军事社会和工业社会的二分并不是许多人所理解的那种幼稚的目的论｡“军事社会总是中央集权的,因为它们必须应付冲突和战争”,而工业社会“并不中央集权,并允许个体和团体拥有可观的行动自由｡”国家可能走向完全不同的方向,这取决于许多不同因素｡ Spencer learnt it the hard way. His alleged “drift to conservatism,” or the fact that the tone of his articles and political pamphlets got drier, is due to his understanding of developments in England, which he considered revealed a resurgence of the militant spirit. 斯宾塞是历经艰难困苦才得出这一观点的｡他那被指为“保守主义转向”的转变,以及他的文章和政论日益冷峻这一事实,源自他对于英国内部变化的理解｡他认为这种变化表明了军事精神的复活｡ If I had any quibble about this impressive collection, it would be that the propensity to consider The Man Versus the State as “just” a political pamphlet causes the contributors to overlook that this is perhaps the first work whose arguments are truly centered around the notion of unintended consequences. All in all, though, Herbert Spencer: Legacies may foster a better understanding of this seminal thinker and raise yet more interest in his underappreciated writings. 如果说我对这本令人印象深刻的文集还有什么挑剔的话,那就是作者们将《人与国家》仅仅视作一本政论册子的倾向导致他们忽视了一点:它可能是第一本真正集中围绕“非意图后果”这一概念进行论证的书籍｡总而言之,《赫伯特·斯宾塞:遗产》可能增进我们对这位重要思想家的更好理解,同时进一步增加人们对于他的那些明珠蒙尘之作的更大兴趣｡ （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——

【2016-05-23】 1）达尔萨斯主义者（Darthusian）和古典自由主义者的根本区别在于：不许诺一个共同富裕普遍康乐的前景，并认为那注定是个虚假的许诺， 2）尽管我们相信（也乐意称颂）自由市场可以最大限度的拓展合作共赢的领域，也承认（统计上）自由社会的最穷困阶层也比非自由社会的普通人状况更好，但不会否认自由竞争终究会有失败者，自由化甚至可能在绝对水平上恶化一些人的处境， 3）马尔萨斯法则为这一判断提供了兜底保证，尽管不是唯一理由， 4）达尔文的启示在于，这完全不是坏事，而是文明进步的动力，试图消除它的努力将摧毁文明赖以繁荣的基础， 5）只有认清这一点才能将自由主义建立在真实而牢靠的基础上，而虚假承诺终究会被现实所揭穿， 6）这也是为何许诺共同康乐的强共同体难以长久维系，除非它能通过周期性重组摆脱一部分成员， 7）或者像罗马那样有着永无止境的拓殖边疆让他得以向其贫穷公民许诺美好前程， 8）对达尔萨斯主义者，自由的伦理基础不是帕累托效率，而是契约合意：我们同意这样的竞争规则，无论结果是谁赢——通俗的说，就是愿赌服输，  

【2016-05-22】 @whigzhou: 大英帝国犯下的最大错误是让听任普鲁士统一德国，结果在一战时只好派自己的陆军上场，而不能像以前那样，只要花钱雇一批德国人打另一批德国人就行了。#后见之明 @whigzhou: 大英走的是弱共同体路线，这条路线有利于自由、繁荣和个人主义，以及为一个族群/文化高度混杂的社会建立普遍秩序，弱点是动员能力不足，难以像强共同体路线的德国那样建立庞大陆军，只能倚重于重资产轻人力的海军，拼钱不拼人头，靠金钱、外交和战略性封锁勉力维持平衡。 @whigzhou: 但这就要求他必须阻止欧洲后院出现任何过于强大的民族国家，强大到能够建立一支他无法扶持装备几个盟友即可轻易打败的陆军  

【2016-05-21】 @深大-子豪:辉总，冒昧问句，能否略微点评一下《无穷的开始：世界进步的本源》这本书？打扰了。 @whigzhou: 没读过，看了看介绍，感觉我不会有兴趣，这个人的念头听起来挺幼稚的 @whigzhou: 【不懂量子力学，我就随便嘀咕几句】1）多重世界，多么偷懒而幼稚的一张膏药啊，2）Deutsch对波普证伪主义的解读，好像还是很朴素的那种，3）同时推崇多重世界膏药和证伪主义，不觉得哪里有问题？4）有关模因已有了各种幼稚理论，Deutsch又添了一个，5）基因和模因居然能和多重世界扯上关系，惊了～ 1）我把一些理论称为膏药，是因为我认为它们背离了可证伪性原则， 2）按我所采用的贝叶斯阐释，所谓可证伪性，就是能够就如何（结构性地）修正我们的贝叶斯信念网络有所建议， 3）科学是我们构建和调整信念网络的一种方法，库恩的范式可理解为信念网络的结构模式，它决定一个信念网络由哪些节点组成， 3.1）当然，范式的内容还包括如何为信念网络获取输入的操作性规范。 4）拉卡托斯的纲领可理解为多层信念网络，所谓硬核就是最底层的那些节点，拉卡托斯为如何在接受新输入后调整信念网络给出了原则性指导：优先尝试调整上层结构，尽量别动下层结构， 5）范式给出之后，特定科学理论/假说为节点间向量赋值， 6）接受证伪的不是单一节点或向量，而是整个多层信念网络，或某一特定网络的某个局部，通常是某个高度内聚的局部， 7）一场科学地震的震级，是指整个信念网络的多大一部分需要拆掉重建， 8）丹内特的波普造物就是一部自学习的贝叶斯推断机， 9）波普说的客观知识就是一个外部（外于人脑）贝叶斯网络， 10）科学supposed to be一部由科学社区共同维护的贝叶斯推断机， 11）丹内特说的格里高列造物就是一部学会利用外部贝叶斯网络的贝叶斯推断机，