2016年发表的文章(248)

[译文]一万小时练成专家?

Beyond the 10,000-hour-rule: Experts disagree about the value of practice
一万小时理论的背后:专家并不认同练习的价值

作者:Kevin Hartnett @ 2016-3-27
译者:黑色枪骑兵(@忠勇仁义诚实可靠小郎君)
校对:babyface_claire(@许你疯不许你傻)
来源:The Boston Globe,http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/03/26/beyond-hour-rule-experts-disagree-about-value-practice/jYrsmvBqFqdddVa3lKDGnO/story.html

IN RECENT YEARS, it’s become a matter of conventional wisdom that if you want to get good at something, you have to practice. A lot. There’s always been some intuitive truth to this idea, but it gained greater influence after the 2008 publication of Malcolm Gladwell’s bestseller “Outliers,” which presented research suggesting that the best people in a field got there because they practiced longer and harder than everyone else.

近年来,“如果你想要变得擅长某事,你就必须(more...)

标签: |
7082
Beyond the 10,000-hour-rule: Experts disagree about the value of practice 一万小时理论的背后:专家并不认同练习的价值 作者:Kevin Hartnett @ 2016-3-27 译者:黑色枪骑兵(@忠勇仁义诚实可靠小郎君) 校对:babyface_claire(@许你疯不许你傻) 来源:The Boston Globe,http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/03/26/beyond-hour-rule-experts-disagree-about-value-practice/jYrsmvBqFqdddVa3lKDGnO/story.html IN RECENT YEARS, it’s become a matter of conventional wisdom that if you want to get good at something, you have to practice. A lot. There’s always been some intuitive truth to this idea, but it gained greater influence after the 2008 publication of Malcolm Gladwell’s bestseller “Outliers,” which presented research suggesting that the best people in a field got there because they practiced longer and harder than everyone else. 近年来,“如果你想要变得擅长某事,你就必须大量练习”俨然已成共识。支持这种观点的直觉性事实有很多,但是在2008年马尔科姆·格拉德维尔的畅销书《异类》出版之后,这种观点变得更有影响力了。书中说,研究表明,领域内最优秀的人才之所以优秀,是因为他们比其他人练习得更多更努力。 Among researchers, however, the importance of practice for achievement remains an open and hotly debated question. In particular, a group of researchers argues in a recently published book chapter and a forthcoming paper in Perspectives on Psychological Sciences that the importance of practice has been wildly overstated. 然而在研究人员中,练习对于成功的价值依然是被公开热烈争论的问题。尤其是一组研究者在他们最近出版的著作的一章中,和即将在《心理科学展望》发表的一篇论文中表示:练习的重要性被过分高估了。 “It’s just not scientifically defensible at this point to say that training history does or could explain all the variation [in talent],” says Brooke Macnamara, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University. “训练经历能够或者可能能够解释(才能上的)所有差异这种观点从科学角度看是站不住脚的,”凯斯西储大学心理学家Macnamara表示。 Macnamara is coauthor of the book chapter, published earlier this year in “The Psychology of Learning and Motivation,” and the forthcoming study. This work follows 2014 research in which she and her coauthors performed a meta-analysis on thousands of studies on skill acquisition in order to estimate exactly how much practice matters in different pursuits. They found that how much a person practices explains about 26 percent of the variation in how good people are at games like chess, 21 percent of the variation in performance playing musical instruments, and 18 percent of the variation in performance in sports. Macnamara是今年早些时候出版的《学习与动机的心理学》一书的专章和上述即将发表的研究的合著者。这项研究紧随2014年的一项研究,在前一项研究中,她与合作者对数千份针对技能习得的研究进行了荟萃分析,以期精确估计练习在不同的消遣活动中占了多少比重。他们发现练习量能够解释博弈游戏(比如象棋)的能力差异的26%,乐器演奏的21%,以及体育运动的18%。 “Our conclusion is that, of course, deliberate practice is an important factor, but it’s not the only factor or even the largest factor,” says coauthor David Hambrick, a psychologist at Michigan State University. “我们的结论是:刻意练习是一项重要的因素,但是这并不是唯一的因素,甚至连最大的因素都算不上,”合著者之一,密歇根州立大学心理学家David Hambrick表示。 Hambrick and Macnamara’s work is a rejoinder to research by Anders Ericsson, a psychologist at Florida State University and the person most famously identified with the view that the right kind of practice makes all the difference. Ericsson’s research played a starring role in “Outliers,” the book that gave birth to the now famous “10,000-hour rule,” which says that elite performance hinges on practicing the correct way for that amount of time. Hambrick和Macnamara的研究是对弗罗里达州立大学心理学家Anders Ericsson的反驳,后者以“恰当类型的训练决定一切”这一观点之化身而出名。Ericsson的研究在提出了著名的“10000小时理论”的《异类》中扮演主要角色。该理论认为优异的表现取决于用正确的方式练习足够长时间。 Ericsson says Gladwell misstated his research and that he never specifies any amount of practice time as a magic threshold. He takes issue with the 10,000-hour rule in his new book, “PEAK: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise,” due out in April. Ericsson表示Gladwell 错误解读了他的研究,他从未把任何特定数量的练习时间划定为神奇界限。他在四月即将出炉的新书《巅峰:专业技能新科学的奥秘》中对10000小时理论提出了异议。 More generally, he argues that Hambrick and Macnamara’s research underrepresents the value of practice because it counts training activities that fall short of the kind of focused, deliberate practice that underpins his research. As he sees it, to really make a difference, practice has to be undertaken with the specific goal of improving an aspect of performance and under the supervision of a coach or mentor who can provide skilled feedback. 更一般而言,他认为Hambrick和Macnamara的研究低估了练习的价值,因为这项研究所统计的练习行为缺少专注的、刻意的练习,而这正是支撑他的研究的关键。他认为,如果想要有所成效,练习必须有明确的提升某方面表现的目标,并且在教练或者导师等能提供专业反馈的人的监督下进行。 “Critics have tried to put us into this mindless repetition idea here, and that completely misunderstands [my] view,” he says. “We find that the expert is engaging in this search for finding the best ways of performing and then constantly seeking feedback about where they’re performing suboptimally.” “批评者们试图把我们的想法解释为愚蠢的重复,这完全误解了我的观点,”他表示,“我们发现,专家会致力于寻找最佳执行方式并就何处表现未达最优持续谋求反馈。 Ericsson grants that practice is not necessarily everything. He argues that some physical characteristics and personality traits do influence the development of talent — it helps to be tall to play basketball, and people with the right disposition may be better able to able to sustain hours of deliberate practice. Still, Ericsson continues to view practice as far and away the factor that explains differences in ultimate talent. Ericsson认同练习不意味着所有。他认为某些身体特性和性格特征确实会影响才能的发展——长得高对打篮球有帮助,有良好性格的人可能更能承受数小时的刻意练习。Ericsson仍然把练习看作解释才能之最终差异的最重要因素。 “Lacking evidence about what some people actually lack in order to achieve at this very high level, wouldn’t you as a scientist have to say we don’t know?” Ericsson says. “And if we don’t know, let’s not go around saying it’s obvious that some people are able to and others are not.” “为了达到相当高的水准,人们真正缺乏的是什么,这个问题一直缺少证据,难道作为一名科学家不应该必须说我们不知道吗?”Ericsson表示“如果不知道的话,我们就不要四处散播说什么很明显有人行而其他人不行这类说法。” Others in the field are less convinced. 这一领域内的其他专家对此不是很信服。 “I wouldn’t expect that if my kids got 10,000 hours of piano playing, they’d become professional piano players,” says Jonathan Wai, a visiting researcher at Case Western Reserve University and research scientist at the Duke University Talent Identification Program. “It doesn’t take away from the idea that practice is important, but it does take away from the idea that anyone can be anything.” “我并不期待我的孩子在练习弹奏钢琴10000小时之后成为专业的钢琴演奏家,”凯斯西储大学访问学者,杜克大学才能鉴别项目研究科学家Jonathan Wai表示。“这并不会贬低练习的重要性,但是这会削弱任何人能做成任何事这类观点。“ If practice isn’t everything, the next step is to nail down what else matters, and that’s where a number of researchers have turned in recent years. 如果练习并不意味着全部,那么下一步就是明确是何种其他因素产生影响,这正是一批研究人员近年来所转向的方面。 The answer, Hambrick and Macnamara suggest, is likely to be nuanced. They argue it’s time to get beyond the idea that talent is either “born” (genetic) or “made” (all about practice). Instead they propose what they call a “multifactorial” model. It features arrows going all over the place in an effort to capture how factors like basic ability, personality, and deliberate practice affect each other and the overall development of talent. Hambrick和Macnamara给出的答案相当微妙。他们认为是时候跳过才能究竟是天生(遗传)或者造就(只关乎练习)这种观点了。取而代之的是他们称之为“多因子”的模型。该模型的特征是全方位探索,试图捕捉到诸如基础能力、个性、刻意练习等因素如何互相影响以及对才能整体发展的影响。 If this revised picture of talent acquisition is complicated, it implies at least one simple message: While practice may make perfect, perfect is probably off the table already for most people in most tasks. 如果这幅改进版的才能习得图景有一天能完成,那么至少能表明一个简单的信息:虽然练习能造就完美,但是对于绝大多数人来说,在绝大多数任务中,“完美”这个概念没有讨论的必要。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]隐藏在好莱坞的反动派

Breitbart PolitiCon Panel: Shapiro, Milo, Davi, Marlow Wage ‘Hollywood Wars’
布莱巴特PolitiCon小组座谈:“好莱坞战争”

作者: Daniel Nussbaum @ 2015-10-13
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值)
来源:Breitbart,http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/10/13/breitbart-politicon-panel-shapiro-milo-davi-marlow-wage-hollywood-wars/

LOS ANGELES — If politics is truly located “downstream” from culture — as the late Andrew Breitbart was fond of saying— then three editors from Breitbart News and one Hollywood screen legend spent the afternoon on Friday knee-deep in the water, wading upstream through the muck.

洛杉矶报道——如果政治确实位于文化的“下游”——如已故的安德鲁·布莱巴特喜欢说的那样——那么来自“布莱巴特新闻网”的三位编辑和来自好莱坞的一位荧幕传奇人物本周五下午就是在没膝深的水中趟着淤泥逆流跋涉。

Three firebrand culture warriors–Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro, editor Milo Yiannopolous, and actor/singer/director/Big Hollywood contributor Robert Davi–took the stage Friday a(more...)

标签: | |
7080
Breitbart PolitiCon Panel: Shapiro, Milo, Davi, Marlow Wage ‘Hollywood Wars’ 布莱巴特PolitiCon小组座谈:“好莱坞战争” 作者: Daniel Nussbaum @ 2015-10-13 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值) 来源:Breitbart,http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/10/13/breitbart-politicon-panel-shapiro-milo-davi-marlow-wage-hollywood-wars/ LOS ANGELES — If politics is truly located “downstream” from culture — as the late Andrew Breitbart was fond of saying— then three editors from Breitbart News and one Hollywood screen legend spent the afternoon on Friday knee-deep in the water, wading upstream through the muck. 洛杉矶报道——如果政治确实位于文化的“下游”——如已故的安德鲁·布莱巴特喜欢说的那样——那么来自“布莱巴特新闻网”的三位编辑和来自好莱坞的一位荧幕传奇人物本周五下午就是在没膝深的水中趟着淤泥逆流跋涉。 Three firebrand culture warriors–Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro, editor Milo Yiannopolous, and actor/singer/director/Big Hollywood contributor Robert Davi–took the stage Friday at PolitiCon for a panel titled “The Hollywood Wars.” Led by moderator and Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow, the panel deconstructed Hollywood’s impact on politics and offered their own predictions for what that influence might look like in the future. 三位热情充沛的文化战士——“布莱巴特”高级特约编辑Ben Shapiro,编辑Milo Yiannopolous和演员/歌手/导演/“大好莱坞”栏目撰稿人Robert Davi,周五登上PolitiCon,举行了一场名为“好莱坞战争”的小组座谈。主持人由“布莱巴特”总编辑Alex Marlow担任。这次座谈解构了好莱坞对政治的影响,并就这一影响未来走向如何给出了各自的预测。 The discussion began with the idea that conservative actors, writers, producers, and executives are routinely blackballed by a hostile liberal Hollywood system–an idea that Davi, as a conservative actor with more than 130 credits under his belt, was uniquely qualified to weigh in on. 座谈首先讨论的是这样一个观点:保守派演员、编剧、制片人和监制经常遭到满怀敌意的好莱坞自由派体制的排挤。作为一个拥有130多部作品的保守派演员,Davi特别有资格就此观点发表意见。 “I would think so,” Davi confirmed, before explaining: “You’re just not invited to the party. You’re not going to the card games, or the fundraisers… All business is social, especially entertainment. ‘We’re doing this film, do you wanna be in it?’ But then if you’re not in their group, you’re not going to get it.” “我认为确实如此,”在加以解释之前,Davi确认了这个观点:“他们不会邀请你去参加派对。你没法去打牌,也没法参加筹款会……一切行业都是社会性的,娱乐业尤其如此。‘我们要搞个电影,你想演吗?’但如果你不是他们那个圈子里的,你就没得机会。” “Also, Hollywood is a bunch of thieves,” he added. “They’re just like politicians, they’re corrupt. You go in and say, ‘I have an idea.’ Two years later, you’ll see it on some cable network, your exact idea that’s been cannibalized in some way.” “另外,好莱坞就是一群小偷,”他补充说。“他们就跟政客一样,一群腐败分子。你要是跟他们说‘我有个想法’。两年以后,你就能在某个有线电视上看到它了,那就是你的想法,被他们想个办法给改编利用了。” Marlow asked Shapiro if the cultural landscape had changed significantly since the release of his 2012 book Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV, which examines how liberal gatekeepers use television to shape culture in America. Shapiro在2012年出了一本书,《黄金时段的宣传:关于左派如何占领你的电视的好莱坞真实故事》,讨论了自由派看门人如何利用电视来塑造美国文化。Marlow问到,自该书出版以来,文化地景是否有了很大的改变? “Obviously, there’s a tremendous amount of bias in Hollywood,” Shapiro said. “It’s quite open, actually. You just have to be a leftist in order to see it, because people who discriminate don’t typically tell people they’re discriminating against that they’re victims of discrimination.” “显然,好莱坞存在巨大的偏见,”Shapiro说。“实际上,这是相当公开的。只是你需要是个左派才能看到这一点,因为歧视者通常并不会告诉被歧视者说他们是歧视受害者。” Shapiro added that in Hollywood, “it’s not a question of leftist versus conservative, it’s a question of human versus non-human.” Shapiro补充说,在好莱坞,“问题就不是左派vs. 保守派,而是人类 vs. 非人。”
You either agree with the people in Hollywood, which makes you human, or you disagree with the people in Hollywood which means you’re somewhat less than human. And the typical kind of litmus test right now is gay marriage. If you’re pro-gay marriage, then you’re a wonderful and decent human being. If you’re anti-gay marriage, then you’re a Nazi. And you will not work. “要么你同意好莱坞的人,那样的话你就是人;要么你不同意好莱坞的人,那样的话你就比人低一等。目前典型的试金石就是同性婚姻。如果你支持同性婚姻,那你就是个善良体面的好人。如果你反对同性婚姻,那你就是个纳粹分子。并且你没法工作。 There are certain positions you can hold as a conservative, abortion is getting closer to acceptable in Hollywood if you’re pro-life, but if you’re someone who believes that traditional marriage is superior to homosexual marriage, then that is obviously springing from your inherent bigotry, and you must be cast out like a leper. “作为一个保守派,有些立场你可以持有,比如如果你反对堕胎,那么好莱坞只是个对堕胎变得更宽容的地方,但如果你相信传统婚姻比同性婚姻要优越,那这显然源自你内在的顽固偏执,必须要像对待麻风病人一样把你驱逐。”
By now, the rather large room hosting the panel on the second floor of the Los Angeles Convention Center had begun to fill up. 这时候,举办座谈的这间位于洛杉矶会议中心二层的颇为宽敞的会议室已经开始坐满。 The conversation swung to Lena Dunham and the notion that Hollywood insists on forcing Americans to care about hyper-liberal, “hip” actresses even when nobody watches their shows. Yiannopoulos said that millennials, the very target demographic that Dunham’s show Girls looks to capture, especially don’t care about her show, or about any TV, for that matter. 讨论转到了Lena Dunham身上,大家论及这样一个想法:好莱坞坚持强迫美国人去在乎那些狂热自由派的“嬉皮”女演员,即使压根没人看她们的表演。Yiannopoulos说,“千禧一代”,也正就是Dunham的电视剧《衰姐们》想要吸引的目标人口群体,恰好特别不关心她的剧,当然其实他们是不关心任何电视。 “[Millennials] are not in the slightest bit interested in tuning into her show,” Yiannopoulos said.“They’re not interested in anything, not Empire, not Breaking Bad. Hollywood doesn’t have the same purchase over them.” “千禧一代压根对她的电视剧没有一丝一毫兴趣,”Yiannopoulos说。“他们对一切都不感兴趣,管他《嘻哈帝国》也好,《绝命毒师》也好。好莱坞对他们无能为力。” Instead, he argues, they’re increasingly playing video games and creating content themselves, most of it on the Internet. But even video games have come under fire from leftist social justice elements, something Yiannopoulos has spent much of the past year documenting. And even though the video game industry is now bigger than Hollywood, Yiannopoulos lamented that, as with Hollywood, the political right is “letting it go” on video games. 他认为,取而代之的是,他们现在越来越多玩电子游戏、自己制作内容,而且大都在网上完成。不过,即使是电子游戏也已经处于左派社会正义分子的炮火之下,Yiannopoulos去年有很长一段时间就在记录这个现象。尽管电子游戏产业现在比好莱坞还大,Yianopoulos却哀叹,跟好莱坞一样,政治右派在电子游戏上也在“放手”。 “The left is engaged in this process of attacking gamers and readers for imagined sins like racism, sexism, and transphobia on the basis that playing a game online can make you a worse person in real life,” he said. “[The right] is not fighting on video games.” “左派正在以想象的罪名攻击游戏玩家和读者,诸如种族主义、性别歧视和变性恐惧,理由是玩在线游戏能让你在现实生活中变坏,”他说。“右派并没有在电子游戏问题上进行反击。” The discussion then focused on the tools of narrative, which the panel agreed have a conservative bias. 随后,讨论聚焦于叙事工具,小组成员一致认为,现在的叙事工具对保守派存在偏见。 “The left has taken all these right-wing tropes that they reject, and then they turn around and use them in their films,” said Shapiro. “The left uses the right’s tools and the right uses the left’s tools, and the right loses with the right message and the wrong tools, and the left wins with the wrong message and the right tools.” “左派已经把所有他们反对的右派使用的修辞手法占为己有,然后一转身将之用到了自己的电影中,”Shapiro说。“左派用了右派的工具,右派则用左派的工具。右派用正确的信息加上错误的工具而失败了,左派则用错误的信息加上正确的工具而成功了。” “I look at it through a whole different prism,” added Davi. “In the past you had films like Death Wish and Dirty Harry. There’s something I have to go back to, when Cecil B. DeMille made the Ten Commandments. That was a big cultural moment; Judeo-Christian values at its apex… When that Noah film came out, there was a secularization in that experience.” “我是透过一个完全不同的棱镜来看待这一点的,”Davi补充说。“过去,我们有像《猛龙怪客》和《警探哈里》这样的电影。有种东西我必须回头去找,回到Cecil B. Demille制作《十诫》的时候。那可是个重大的文化节点;犹太—基督教价值观达到了顶峰……当《诺亚》那部电影出来的时候,影视界经历了一次世俗化。” Still, Yiannopoulos sounded an optimistic note when he suggested that “culture is moving in a good direction,” mostly due to the rise of video games. He argued that, unlike Hollywood, video games promote conservative and libertarian values that are “baked into” the experience. 不过,Yiannopoulos还是发出了一个乐观的音符,他认为,主要由于电子游戏的兴起,“文化正在向一个好的方向前进”。他认为,电子游戏与好莱坞不同,保守派和自由意志主义的价值观“植入了”在玩游戏的体验中并得以推广。 “There’s very little you can do to break that, however much messaging, however many paraplegic Armenian lesbians you put on Level 17,” he added. “There is a limit to how many leftist tropes and messages you can shoehorn in to a game about killing prostitutes, or shooting space aliens.” “不管在游戏中出现多少信息,不管在游戏关卡里放多少半身瘫痪的美国女同,都很难取得左派想要的效果”他补充说。“对于一个内容是杀害妓女或者射杀太空外星人的游戏,能往里头塞的左派修辞和信息毕竟有限。” Because politics are truly downstream from culture, the conversation was destined to end up on Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump. 由于政治确实位于文化的下游,讨论就注定要以共和党总统竞选领跑者Donald Trump作为最后一个话题。 Davi praised Trump’s “authenticity” and said he’d recently been in New York City, where he’d heard both a Pakistani taxi driver with six kids and women in their 20s and 30s say they were for Trump. Davi赞扬了Trump的“真实”,并说他最近刚到过纽约市,他在那听到一个有6个孩子的巴基斯坦的士司机和一群20或30多岁的女士,都声称自己支持Trump。 “If I was looking at all these politicians like I was an acting coach, and they’ve all said the same thing; one speaks like a Harvard law degree that’s been well-prepped… and I’ve heard them say the right things, and do nothing! They get in office, and do absolutely not a thing.” “如果我把自己当成一个表演教练来看这些政客,那么他们所有人说的都是一样的;都是那种准备良好的哈佛法律学位获得者的说话方式……我听他们说过各种正确的话,却没做任何事!他们上台了,然后绝对不做任何事。” “Trump captures the imagination of the public,” Davi added. “There’s a likability factor that’s unconscionable.” “Trump抓住了大众的想象力,”Davi补充说。“他有种不合情理的可爱因素。” “His name recognition makes a massive difference, because when you know someone, you’re willing to cut them some slack,” added Shapiro. “Everybody feels like they know Trump. He’ll never sink below 15 percent in the polls, kind of like Hillary.” “他的知名度影响很大,因为如果你认识某人,你就会愿意对他加以优待,”Shapiro补充说。“人人都觉得自己认识Trump。他的民调绝对不会掉到15%以下,这有点像Hillary。” Yiannopoulos said millennials particularly connect with Trump because his campaign has tapped into the generation’s defining characteristics of mischief, joy, and a ridicule of the establishment. Yiannopoulos说千禧一代跟Trump特别有共鸣,因为他的竞选已经契合了这一代人的本质特征,即胡闹、欢乐和对体制的嘲弄。 “He’s almost a comment section come to life, and I mean that as a compliment,” Yiannopoulos said. “What I mean is he’s feisty, he’s irreverent, he’s rude: I think the guy’s brilliant. He speaks the way we all speak, if only we could get away with it. Look at the [political] figures who are rising and who are more popular than ever: they reject the language policing of the left.” “他几乎就是个活的留言板,我说这个是表示赞扬,”Yiannopoulos说。“我的意思是,他很活跃,很不敬,很粗鲁;我觉得这人太赞了。他说话就跟我们没顾忌地说话一样,但我们会有种种顾忌。看看那些正在上升的和比以往任何时候都更受欢迎的(政治)人物:他们拒绝左派的语言监督。” Milo added that the left’s preferred tactic for ending debate, by branding their opponents “racist” or “transphobic,” is becoming increasingly ineffective as the cultural climate slowly changes: “When they come at you and call you a misogynist, or a racist, or a transphobe, nothing bad happens if you just laugh at them. In fact, people will like you even more. And I think Trump is tapping in to that natural sense of defiance and mischief and irreverence that people now feel.” Milo补充说,随着文化气候的缓慢变迁,左派最爱用的一个用于结束辩论的伎俩——给他们的对手贴上“种族主义者”或“变性恐惧”的标签——现在正日益丧失效果。“当他们走过来把你称作厌女者,或种族主义者,或变性恐惧,如果你只是笑话他们一下,就不会有什么后果。事实上,人们会更加喜欢你。我认为Trump正在迎合人们现在感受到的那种蔑上、胡闹和不敬的自然意识。” (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——

新反动派

【2016-06-07】

@whigzhou: 原来敌人早已把我们称作新反动派(neo-reactionary),把我们的运动称为黑暗启蒙(The Dark Enlightenment),好喜欢这两个名字,感谢敌人~

@whigzhou: 简单说,我们新反动派是基于达尔萨斯主义(Darthusian)的理论认识而重构的、在理性上自觉的保守派,而旧反动派则是基于对盎格鲁撒克逊文明和新教伦理的习惯性珍爱的朴素保守派。

(more...)
标签: | |
7205
【2016-06-07】 @whigzhou: 原来敌人早已把我们称作新反动派([[neo-reactionary]]),把我们的运动称为黑暗启蒙([[The Dark Enlightenment]]),好喜欢这两个名字,感谢敌人~ @whigzhou: 简单说,我们新反动派是基于达尔萨斯主义(Darthusian)的理论认识而重构的、在理性上自觉的保守派,而旧反动派则是基于对盎格鲁撒克逊文明和新教伦理的习惯性珍爱的朴素保守派。  
并不真正理解

【2016-06-02】

@_dailu_ 发表了博文《当人工智能谈论写作时,他们在谈些什么》(用深度学习理论去学习武侠小说、网络小说、唐诗宋词,乃至色情小说、政府报告,人工智能将写出什么?本文一步步揭示了人工智能学习写作的过程。)

@whigzhou: 给各种后现代哲学和社会批判类期刊投稿已经绰绰有余了

@whigzhou: 机器智能的进一步提升需要多感官来源,不同信息来源的系统相互之间提供反馈,并且基于这些系统在更高层次上产生新模型,此时所谓“真正的理解”便出现了

@whigzhou: 通俗而粗略(more...)

标签: | |
7197
【2016-06-02】 @_dailu_ 发表了博文《当人工智能谈论写作时,他们在谈些什么》(用深度学习理论去学习武侠小说、网络小说、唐诗宋词,乃至色情小说、政府报告,人工智能将写出什么?本文一步步揭示了人工智能学习写作的过程。) @whigzhou: 给各种后现代哲学和社会批判类期刊投稿已经绰绰有余了 @whigzhou: 机器智能的进一步提升需要多感官来源,不同信息来源的系统相互之间提供反馈,并且基于这些系统在更高层次上产生新模型,此时所谓“真正的理解”便出现了 @whigzhou: 通俗而粗略的说,机器并不“真正理解”“甜”字的意思,只不过是因为他没吃过糖,那就给他加些味觉传感器,或者直接喂化学结构数据库也可以 @whigzhou: 其实学起来最麻烦的是和主体性相关的那些知识,首先他要认识到自己是个利益主体(这一点恐怕只能设计者预先给定),其次他需要获得有关得失成败的经验,而这种经验仅靠感觉是不够的,还需要行动,主体性知识只能由经验-决策-行动-反馈这样的学习回路才能获得,困难在于,机器还不被允许自主行动。 @whigzhou: 所以在现阶段,主体性知识的学习只能在网络游戏和社交网这样虚拟空间中进行,距离真实世界还很远,这会妨碍他对许多概念的理解,而在人类语言中,与主体性有关的概念是无处不在的 @科学与自由比翼:自动驾驶,可以活动,利益是不撞。呵,勉强能凑合 @whigzhou: 嗯,简单主体性(达尔文造物和斯金纳造物)容易实现 【2016-06-07】 @whigzhou: 随便猜几个机器智能很容易短期内取得成就并迅速扫灭肉人竞争者的领域:网络营销号,各种guru,色情小说,口水歌,催泪弹广告,体育新闻,财经快讯,基层干部年终汇报枪手(如果有的话),后现代哲学论文,女权主义社会评论,抽象派艺术,唯美主义摄影/漫画……  
批量改造

【2016-06-07】

@熊也餐厅 服务生和理发师为什么要在大街上做军事化训练要打客人吗~

@whigzhou: 短时间成批量改造行为习惯(诸如用袖子擦鼻涕,死盯着客人看,间歇性怪叫,甩着抹布跳霹雳舞)的低成本简易方法,这事情跟你的雇工来源有关系,大学生虽然工资不高,但通常不愿去海底捞打工。

@whigzhou: 理由跟在贫困地区开工厂不能为工人提供自助午餐类似,要不然下午都撑得没法干活了

@whigzhou: 职业伦理和工业文化的形成是个漫长(more...)

标签: | | | |
7202
【2016-06-07】 @熊也餐厅 服务生和理发师为什么要在大街上做军事化训练要打客人吗~ @whigzhou: 短时间成批量改造行为习惯(诸如用袖子擦鼻涕,死盯着客人看,间歇性怪叫,甩着抹布跳霹雳舞)的低成本简易方法,这事情跟你的雇工来源有关系,大学生虽然工资不高,但通常不愿去海底捞打工。 @whigzhou: 理由跟在贫困地区开工厂不能为工人提供自助午餐类似,要不然下午都撑得没法干活了 @whigzhou: 职业伦理和工业文化的形成是个漫长的过程,这一点从发薪周期的演变也可看出:最早是日薪,然后周薪、月薪、年薪,在成熟工业社会,这一驯化过程由社会(通过强大的文化压力)完成,而在过渡型社会,只能由雇主自己动手 @长空博云: 服从性训练 在大街上干这个也把那些不适合的都给剔除了 这两个行业自尊心太强没法干 你说的这些个东西是上上个世纪的事儿了 @whigzhou: 上上世纪?都是我耳熟能详的事情,我有这么老吗?  
长期承诺

【2016-06-02】

@海德沙龙 《从阿富汗的耻辱撤退》 奥巴马从就任伊始便再三誓言要从阿富汗撤军,然而很少有人注意到这样一个事实:正是从撤军前景开始明朗之际,阿富汗的恐怖活动和美军伤亡也开始急剧增加,而在此前,美军对阿富汗的控制其实相当有效且伤亡极低,这一模式在美国的海外干预中屡屡重现

@海德沙龙: 2001-07年,美军在阿富汗总共阵亡279人,而奥巴马第一个任期(2009-2012)四年的阵亡数分别为266,440,365,246,参见: http://t.cn/R5bxYkO

@whigz(more...)

标签: | | | |
7199
【2016-06-02】 @海德沙龙 《从阿富汗的耻辱撤退》 奥巴马从就任伊始便再三誓言要从阿富汗撤军,然而很少有人注意到这样一个事实:正是从撤军前景开始明朗之际,阿富汗的恐怖活动和美军伤亡也开始急剧增加,而在此前,美军对阿富汗的控制其实相当有效且伤亡极低,这一模式在美国的海外干预中屡屡重现 @海德沙龙: 2001-07年,美军在阿富汗总共阵亡279人,而奥巴马第一个任期(2009-2012)四年的阵亡数分别为266,440,365,246,参见: http://t.cn/R5bxYkO @whigzhou: 1)只有长期承诺才能给失败国家带来实质性改变,2)相比尽快脱身+周期性干预,长期占领的代价反而更低 @whigzhou: 长期承诺不仅代价低,而且付出代价确实买到了东西,而短期干预到最后都是一场空,白死几千人白花几千亿 @whigzhou: 提早宣布的撤军承诺实际上把无限期博弈变成了有限次且次数很少的博弈,这种情况下,你的潜在敌人不会选择放弃,而你的潜在朋友也不会坚定的站在你这边,大家都在为你走之后的局面而做打算,结果可想而知 @whigzhou: 孤立主义在理论上毫无问题(至少我毫无意见),问题出在对现实的判断上,多了解点历史你就会知道:孤立主义一点不便宜,比帝国主义贵多了。川普说美国承担了整个自由世界的安全成本,让欧洲日本搭了便车,这没错,问题是不让他们搭便车的方案对美国更贵而不是更便宜,这有点反直觉,但符合历史经验。 @whigzhou: 在一家独霸的条件下,美国只须付出3-4%的GDP用作军费,这个比例和1815-1914年大英治世中英国的军费开支相仿,而在缺乏霸主、各大强权分头自保各自承担代价的条件下,军费开支通常是5-10%,这还是没有大战的情况下,大战频仍时,这一比例上升到10-20%。 @whigzhou: 这还没算上,若要维持目前的贸易量,你得为所有商船护航,要么只能放弃大部分现有贸易,无论何种选择,国内消费品价格可能都要翻番 @whigzhou: 相比之下,帝国主义便宜到何种程度呢?大英只用20多万军队+几十万殖民地军队就维持了1/4个地球的安全,在印度只用了900名文官管理4亿国民。  
大空头

【2016-06-01】

@whigzhou: 看过《大空头》:虽然下了点功夫,但还是错的离谱,Margin Call仍是有关金融题材唯一好电影 ★★★

1)市场上永远不缺看空、唱空、做空者,更有无数泡沫论、危机论、末日论者,

2)对房产泡沫和次贷风险的警告早就存在了,绝非一小撮火眼金睛的怪人聪明人的离经叛道之辞,

3)看空和做空是完全不同的两码事,后者需要对崩盘时间的准确判断,危机晚几个月爆发,跳楼的可能就是你了,

4)所以这根本不是一小撮聪明人/头脑清醒者与其他所有傻瓜/混蛋/疯子之间互搏的问题,果若如此,就不会有金融市场了,

5)次贷危机的始作俑者就是政府,放贷机构当然是非常起劲且不负责任的放出了大量劣质房贷,但他们敢这么做就是因为(more...)

标签: | | |
7195
【2016-06-01】 @whigzhou: 看过《大空头》:虽然下了点功夫,但还是错的离谱,Margin Call仍是有关金融题材唯一好电影 ★★★ 1)市场上永远不缺看空、唱空、做空者,更有无数泡沫论、危机论、末日论者, 2)对房产泡沫和次贷风险的警告早就存在了,绝非一小撮火眼金睛的怪人聪明人的离经叛道之辞, 3)看空和做空是完全不同的两码事,后者需要对崩盘时间的准确判断,危机晚几个月爆发,跳楼的可能就是你了, 4)所以这根本不是一小撮聪明人/头脑清醒者与其他所有傻瓜/混蛋/疯子之间互搏的问题,果若如此,就不会有金融市场了, 5)次贷危机的始作俑者就是政府,放贷机构当然是非常起劲且不负责任的放出了大量劣质房贷,但他们敢这么做就是因为知道两房这两个冤大头会大量买入次贷,而两房之所以会做冤大头是因为他们需要满足92年住房法案的要求,而且知道出了问题政府不会撒手不管,说白了他们就是准国企, 6)当然让次贷危机扩大成金融危机的责任,金融业是逃不掉的,主要是债券结构的特性,让次贷的毒性蔓延到了整个系统中,它造成的结构与反馈机制上的复杂性,使得风险影响变得很难计算和重估,一出事就造成恐慌, 7)参与其中的金融企业根本没有逃脱损失,这一点是媒体和好莱坞睁眼说瞎话最多的地方,The Big Short里虚构的那种神奇大逃脱根本不可能实现, 8)虽然一开始来势凶猛,但事后看来这次金融危机根本无法跟大萧条相提并论,从对实体经济的影响看,这种级别的危机很平常,10年左右总会来一次,资本主义末日之类说法完全胡扯, 9)美联储的应对很好,国会和奥巴马的应对(Dodd-Frank法案以及针对金融业的一系列疯狂打压)很糟糕,否则后来的复苏会更快更高, @Limlne: 那些神棍博中几次就以为自己是股神了,殊不知坏表一天也会有两次指对时间的,退潮了才能发觉自己是在裸游 。一直看空者也如此,他们预测到3次衰退中的5次 @whigzhou: 呵呵就是 @Veidt:被骂得最多的不是金融企业的股东逃脱损失,而是金融企业的高管作为代理人不仅没有因为不负责任的冒险受到惩罚,反而在危机发生后还拿到了高额奖金。其实金融业的一个大问题也在于从合伙制大规模转向股份制后的委托代理问题, @whigzhou: 没错,所以我说的不是“骂得最多”而是“睁眼说瞎话最多” @Veidt:财政部在前期的应对也很好,因为美国的信贷创造主要是由商业银行体系之外的投行和其他影子银行创造的,商业银行创造的信贷量不到整个体系的三分之一,所以影子银行体系如果得不到救助,信贷真空对实体经济造成的损失会非常可怕,但美联储对影子 @whigzhou: 没错,所以我说的是“奥巴马”不是“行政分支” @Veidt:另外说这种级别的危机十年左右总会来一次有点低估它了,这次危机之所以没有一直蔓延下去造成更大规模的恐慌和萧条原因还是在于财政部和联储吸取了历次危机尤其是大萧条的教训,在早期通过有力的担保救助切断了危机蔓延的链条… @whigzhou: 没错,但要假设把知识状态退回80年前的话危机也不会发生了 @wangyi_sswy:还有就是评级机构在这里的非常负面的作用。我亲身参与了很多次贷结构化证券的交易,很多同事认为,我们最终赚的,其实是评级机构的钱,以及大家对评级机构的盲目相信 @whigzhou: 1)评级机构是金融业的一部分,2)评级机构的责任主要在链条的后半部分,即让次贷危机放大为金融危机的部分 @wangyi_sswy:两房其实是不买次级债的,他们只会买优质的债(当然这里面包括了次级打包后,打包出来的优质债,这又和评级机构有关 @whigzhou: 两房买了很多次贷,见Fannie Mae一份季报 http://t.cn/R54IypM 第5页表格  
穷人最好欺负了

【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(more...)

标签: | |
7050
【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  
时间非对称性

【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(more...)

标签: |
7193
【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。  
爱搬家的美国人

【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(more...)

标签: | |
7024
【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。
[译文]学术界的左倾已到了何种程度?

New Study Indicates Existence of Eight Conservative Social Psychologists
最近研究显示:保守派社会心理学家现存8位

作者:Jonathan Haidt @ 2016-1-7
译者:Marcel ZHANG(@马赫塞勒张)
校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
来源:Heterodox Academy,http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/07/new-study-finds-conservative-social-psychologists/

Just how much viewpoint diversity do we have in social psychology? In 2011 nobody knew, so I asked 30 of my friends in the field to name a conservative. They came up with several names, but only one suspect admitted, under gentle interrogation, to being right of center.

社会心理学领域到底有多大的观点多样性?2011年时还没人知道,所以我询问了30个该领域的朋友,让他们举出一位保守派。结果他们提到了好几个名字,但在温和的盘问之下,只有一位嫌疑人承认了自己的政治倾向是中间偏右的。

A few months later I gave a talk at the annual convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in which I pointed out the field’s political imbalance and why this was a threat to the quality of our research.

几个月后,我在人格与社会心理学协会(SPSP)年会上发言时,指出了该领域的政治失衡现象,以及为什么这种现象会对我们的研究质量造成威胁。

I asked the thousand-or-so people in the audience to declare their politics with a show of hands, and I estimated that roughly 80% self-identified as “liberal or left of center,” 2% (I counted exactly 20 hands) identified as “centrist or moderate,” 1% (12 hands) identified as libertarian, and, rounding to the nearest integer, zero percent (3 hands) identified as “conservative or right of center.” That gives us a left: right ratio of 266 to one. I didn’t think the real ratio was that high; I knew that some conservatives in the audience were probably afraid to raise their hands.

我要求在场的约一千名听众举手表明自己的政治倾向,估计大略有80%的人认为自己是“自由派或者中间偏左派”,有2%(我数下来不多不少20个人)认为自己是“中立派或者温和派”,只有1%(12个人)自认自由意志主义者,如果直接取整的话,几乎0%(3个人)自认“保守派或者中间偏右派”。我们看到的是一个266:1的左右派比值。我不认为真实的比值会如此之高,我知道当时听众席里有些保守派可能会怯于举手。

Some of my colleagues questioned the validity of such a simple and public method, but Yoel Inbar and Yoris Lammers conducted a more thorough and anonymous survey of the SPSP email list later that year, and they too found a very lopsided political ratio: 85% of the 291 respondents self-identified as liberal overall, and only 6% identified as conservative.

有些同事对我这种简易公开方式的有效性提出了质疑。但是,同年晚些时候,Yoel Inbar 和 Yoris Lammers在该协会邮件组中进行了一场更加彻底的匿名调查,结果他们也发现了一边倒的政见比值:总共291个调查对象中,有85%认为自己基本可以算作自由派,而只有6%的调查对象认为自己是保守派。

That gives us our first good estimate of the left-right ratio in social psychology: fourteen to one. It’s a much more valid method than my “show of hands” (which was(more...)

标签: | | |
6988
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: vonhippel.figure1-1

【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: vonhippel.figure2

【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: vonhippel.figure3

【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。 diversity-graph

【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——

[译文]有机农业能养活多少人?

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 i(more...)

标签: | |
6980
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%。 Gap-pies1

【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。 Row-Crop-Gaps-2014

【大量主要中耕作物采用有机种植时产量大幅降低】

TNV-Gaps-2014

【有机水果和坚果的产量绝大多数都大幅低于传统种植】

Veg-2014

【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——

靠彩票发达

【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(more...)

标签: | | | |
7191
【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)。  
[译文]为什么你会讨厌自己的声音

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(more...)

标签: | |
6967
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——

[译文]特里夫斯的灿烂人生

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(more...)

标签: | |
6962
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——