【2018-10-10】 美国政治两极化和对抗性愈演愈烈，许多人对此表达悲观与担忧，我倒不觉得是什么坏事，同质性和强共识往往导向大政府和对小流派的压制，还有中央集权化，相反，联邦层面的政治僵局（或少数派的绝望）会促使人们从另外几条途径推动自己的议题：1）司法路径，2）非政府组织，3）州和地方政治，4）技术和市场机制创新，这些途径的努力至少无害，常常有益，而且无论好坏，效果容易展示和比较，因而选择机制很快会起作用，未来十几年将是最高法院和州级改革的黄金时代。 所以只要维持——军队非政治化，最高法院独立性，州权——的基本宪政框架不动摇，就没什么可担心的 比如加州的左派，在川普的刺激下已经疯掉了，正在成堆成捆的制造神经病法案，到时候场面会很难看 ​​​​ 政治两极化意味着中间派和摇摆选民的减少，这促使两党改变竞选策略，从争取中间选民转向动员本方基本盘，这引出一个新问题：对本方选民具有强动员力的措施，很可能对对方选民也有强动员力，于是，如何找出适当动员手段，能刺激本方基本盘，又尽量不引起对方基本盘的注意，是个难题，这次民主党在 Kavanaugh的事情上玩的过火，好像就蚀了把米 自由派对媒体的控制本来是优势，但在这一点上却成了包袱，他们的动员手段很难做到单侧投放，相反，保守派却有一些定向投放的手段，比如教会布道，自由派是完全看不到的 【2018-11-22】 政治两极化的一个可能好处是减少猪肉桶，我附近几个选区的竞选广告几乎清一色猪肉桶，全都在吹嘘如何能从州和联邦弄钱过来，极少意识形态内容，只见过两个例外，好像来自（从印刷质量看）没什么希望当选的独立候选人（也可能只是议题推动者而不是候选人），都是保守派，不过这情况也可能跟我这边是小地方有关，猪肉桶在小地方或许对选票购买力可能更强些。 【2019-03-06】 不仅越来越多的州在枪支管制、大麻、非法移民等问题上拒绝配合联邦政府执法，现在县政府也开始对抗州政府了，在一些蓝州（特别是近期变蓝的州），大批sheriffs公开声明拒绝执行州议会新近通过的枪支管制法，哪怕蓝的像纽约这样的州，乡村地区也大多很保守 从所有重要方面看，都可发现美国根基牢固的很，没什么可担心的，历史上政治两极化出现过多次，最坏的结果是内战，但如今这一风险小的可以忽略，别的不说，3/4军官是保守派，民间会玩枪的也大多是保守派，这仗怎么打的起来？ ​​

【2018-09-05】 看眼下大公司政治站队这么积极的势头，突然冒出一个念头：未来各类消费品市场会不会出现几大品牌分别对应不同党派的局面？雇佣市场的党派分化或许来的更快？ ​​​​ 从左派对待NRA合作商的劲头看，他们总有一天也会发动对FoxNews广告客户的抵制行动，然后许多公司被迫站队……若这种情况升级到某个程度，就会引发连锁反应，因为被腾出的市场空间总会吸引其他厂商来占领，沃尔玛和麦当劳估计会选择右边……  

【2018-03-18】 @whigzhou: 旧石器晚期，4-5万年前，甚至更晚，人类文化（的一支）发生了一次重大升级，考古学家称之为文化大跃进（Great Leap Forward），有些人类学家认为这背后一定发生了认知能力上的重大进步，因而称之为认知革命（cognitive revolution，注意不是20世纪科学史上的那次认知革命），我清楚的记得，2013年时维基上还有这两个词条，但2015年我写《沐猿而冠》时，它们都已经被删除并重定向到了『behavioral modernity』，虽然这期间并未出现考古学事实上的重大改变足以颠覆让这两个概念失效，原因显然是：它发生的时间太不政治正确了，这个时间显然排除了澳洲人和许多非洲人的祖先曾经参与这场革命的可能性。 @whigzhou: 类似的情况在有关气候史的词条上表现的更明显，据我观察，全新世气候最宜期（Holocene Climate Optimum），罗马暖期，中世纪暖期，小冰期，这些词条在过去几年里全都被大幅改写了。 @whigzhou: 有关文化大跃进，我个人的推测是，走出非洲后，其中走向欧亚大陆温带地区（可能首先到达南俄草原）的那一支确曾经历了重大改变，原因是狩猎模式的改变推动了社会组织模式的改变，有组织大群体在捕猎成群大型食草动物上有明显优势，而群体规模是影响认知能力和文化复杂度的关键因素。 @whigzhou: 但目前有关这个分化节点（也可能是两个节点，东西各一个）的专门研究似乎很少，依我看，这是理解欧亚文化后续发展的关键之一 @whigzhou: 和尼安德特人（西）与丹尼索瓦人（东）的基因交流或许也在此过程中起了点什么作用 @whigzhou: 正确教的应对办法就是把认知革命的时间使劲往前推，一定要推到出非洲之前，问题是：1）南非挖出来那些东西跟欧洲旧石器晚期的东西根本无法相提并论，2）基于近些年对分子钟的修正，有些支系（比如俾格米人，布须曼人，Hadza人）和出非洲支系分开的时间（20-50万年前）比出非洲的时间早得太多。 【2018-03-23】 @whigzhou: 下一代历史教科书会不会这么写？——我们都是罪人的后代，我们脚下这片肮脏的土地，曾经是那么美丽，勤劳善良热爱和平的尼安德特人在这里快乐幸福的生活着，直到七万年前，我们的一小撮邪恶祖先走出非洲，将善良的尼安德特人驱逐杀戮殆尽，把环境破坏了个彻底，他们肆无忌惮资源攫取行动甚至导致了全球暖化，美丽的冰川从此消失…… 晚至三十年前，一些满脑子偏见的所谓生物学家，还把尼安德特人归为另一个物种，fake science at its worst! 此类种族主义谬论只不过是想为他们的殖民和杀戮制造一块遮羞布……

@tertio: 有的错误比正确更正确（解释起来太累了，不解释了） @whigzhou: I know what you mean, but it is true only if you are devoted to serving the fools and willing to take the risk of joining them. 因为笨蛋们没有能力进行略微精致一点的思考，所以有时候一个简单粗暴并且错误的说法反而能让他们抓住某个（你想让他们抓住的）要点，且/或作出某种（你想要引出的）行为。 从单件事情上看，这确实管用。问题是，这些笨蛋常常一转身马上又被另一个简单粗暴且错误的说法所吸引，抓住与前一个根本冲突的新要点，或作出效果与前一种根本相反的行为。 G：一切德性源自封建。 F：封建好，封建万岁！要不咱赶紧去买块地也来封建封建。 G：天不降大英，万古长夜。 F：大英帝国威武！ G：威尔逊体系定义了什么是文明世界。 F：威尔逊牛逼！牛逼大了！ G：王师永远正确。 F：没得说，永远正确！ G：奥巴马和希拉里不是王师。 F：奥巴马傻逼！希拉里傻逼！ G：班农为美国复兴之路指明了方向。 F：救星班农，班农万岁！  

『你在这件事情上的说法怎么跟小粉红一模一样啊？』 ——对啊，小粉红爱吃肉，你就只好吃素，小粉红会放屁，你就只好把自己屁眼堵上，小粉红还会撒尿，你就只好把自己鸡鸡给扎起来～ ​

【2016-07-22】 不少朋友对金融/投资界的人为何也那么反市场感到困惑不解，among others, 一个明显的理由是退休基金的市场份额在过去几十年中大幅膨胀，这些基金的管理者大多喜欢迎合流行风潮，为了表现自己的政治正确，他们往往表现的比一般白左还要过火，至于内心是否真的相信那一套，则是另一码事。  

【2016-10-24】 我曾说过，90年代以来，西方左派经历了一次智识上的破产，不过我说这话时没有意识到的是，那次破产的结果不是左派从某些思想/学术领域退却，而是相反，但凡还有点脑子且有点自尊的人纷纷退出了某些学术领域（比如所有以Studies结尾的专业），结果剩下的更自信更得意更欢腾了…… ​​​​  

Yuri Kochiyama, today’s Google Doodle, fought for civil rights — and praised Osama bin Laden 今天的谷歌Doodle：为民权作斗争并歌颂本拉登的河内山百合 作者:Dylan Matthews @ 2016-05-19 译者:bear 校对:Tiff 来源:VOX,http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713686/yuri-kochiyama Thursday, May 19, this year would've been the 95th birthday of Yuri Kochiyama, a prominent Japanese-American activist who passed away at 93 two years ago. Google is marking the occasion with one of its trademark doodles. 今年五月十九日的这个周四是河内山百合的95岁诞辰，这位生前著名的日裔美国激进分子，于两年前93岁时去世。谷歌把这一天标记为一个Google doodle。【译注：Google doodle是谷歌为了庆祝节日、纪念伟人以及其它伟大成就的临时主页标志。】 Some of Kochiyama's work was deeply, clearly admirable. As an associate of Malcolm X, she was an important nonblack ally to the more militant end of the civil rights movement. She endured forced internment during World War II, and was an outspoken advocate for reparations to internees, which would eventually be passed in 1988. She was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and advocate for inmates she viewed as political prisoners. 河内山的一些工作是值得被深刻地、清晰地赞颂的。作为马尔科姆·艾克斯【译注：马尔科姆·艾克斯与马丁·路德·金并称为20世纪中期美国历史上最著名的两位黑人领导人，但他反对后者的“非暴力”的策略，主张通过以暴力革命的方式获取黑人的权利。】的伙伴，她是民权运动中战斗在第一线的重要的非黑人同盟。她在二战时期被强制收容【译注：由于二战时日本是美国的敌对国，日裔美国人被强制收容】，并且成为“被收容者赔偿”法案的积极倡导者，而这项政策最终在1988年通过。她也为反越战发声，并且支持那些她视为政治犯的囚犯。 But other commitments of hers were more ambiguous. She was an outspoken admirer of Mao Zedong even after the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. She praised Malcolm X for his "admiration for Mao and Ho Chi Minh," and worked closely with the Revolutionary Action Movement, an "urban guerrilla warfare" organization based on "a synthesis of the thought of Malcolm X, Marx and Lenin, and Mao Zedong." The activist Robert Williams gifted her with a copy of the Little Red Book, and she later thanked him for "the gift of Mao's philosophy." 但是她其他的追求则更为暧昧一些。她是毛的直言不讳的崇拜者，即便是在大跃进和文革之后。她因为马尔科姆·艾克斯对毛和胡志明的赞赏而赞扬他，并且和“革命行动运动”组织亲密合作—这是一个基于马尔科姆·艾克斯思想、马克思列宁思想以及毛思综合体的“城市游击战”组织。【译注：Revolutionary Action Movement是马尔科姆·艾克斯的伙伴Max Stanford建立的半秘密组织，制定了用马克思列宁主义建立黑人国家主义的运动纲领】社会活动家罗伯特·威廉姆斯送了她一本红宝书作为礼物，对此她以这是“一份毛思的礼物”为由表示了感谢。 Yuri Kochiyama was a supporter of the terrorist group Shining Path 河内山百合是恐怖组织光明之路的支持者 Two positions of Kochiyama's stand out as particularly alarming. First, she was an enthusiastic supporter of the Peruvian terrorist group Shining Path, a Maoist organization that has conducted a brutal insurgency killing tens of thousands of people since 1980.Peru's Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that Shining Path personally killed or disappeared at least 30,000. 河内山有两个立场尤其让人警觉。第一，她是秘鲁恐怖组织光辉道路的狂热拥护者——这是一个毛派组织，从1980年开始发起了一场导致数万人死亡的血腥叛乱。秘鲁真相与和解委员会认为至少三万人遭到了光辉道路的亲自杀害或导致失踪。 "Its tactics include the burning of ballot boxes and the public 'executions' of moderate local leaders and others, including nuns and priests, who are seen as rivals for the allegiance of the poor," according to a 1992 New York Times report. "In wildly exaggerated demonstrations of Maoist precepts, children have been killed for political 'crimes.' Amnesty International says the guerrillas routinely torture, mutilate and murder captives. 纽约时报在1992年的一则报道中提到：“它的策略包括烧毁投票箱和公开处决温和的本地领袖和其他人，包括修女和神父——他们被视为无产阶级的敌人”，“在疯狂的毛派戒律夸张示范中，孩子由于政治犯罪被杀害。大赦国际组织说这个游击队经常折磨，残害和杀害俘虏。” "We reject and condemn human rights because they are reactionary, counter-revolutionary, bourgeois rights," founder Abimael Guzmán declared in one document. "Rather than concentrate its attacks on the armed forces or police, Shining Path has predominantly singled out civilians," Human Rights Watch noted in 1997. "The Shining Path has pragmatically avoided taking captives unless it intends to execute them … Shining Path has been reported to torture captured civilians before executing them." Shining Path also used rape as a weapon of war. 创始人阿维马埃尔·古斯曼在一份文件中声称:“我们拒绝并谴责人权因为它是反动的，反革命的，资产阶级法权的。”“针对军队和警察的攻击还是次要的，光辉道路主要是甄选平民”人权观察组织在1997年写道，“光辉道路实用主义地避免抓俘虏，除非它打算处决他们……有报道称光辉道路在处决被抓的平民前会折磨他们。”光辉道路还把强奸作为一种战争武器。 This did not appear to bother Kochiyama, who joined a delegation to Peru organized by the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, which defends the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. She read, in her words, "the kind of reading materials that I could become 'educated' on the real situation in Peru; not the slanted reports of corporate America. The more I read, the more I came to completely support the revolution in Peru." In other words, she read, and believed, Maoist propaganda denying Shining Path's war crimes. 这似乎并没有对河内山造成困扰，她曾加入过一个由支持大跃进和文革的毛派共产主义革命党组织的代表团去秘鲁。她读道——她的原话：“这类读物能让我知晓秘鲁真实的现状；有别于美国企业的那些带有偏见的报道。我越读越觉得我在变得更加支持在秘鲁进行的这场革命。”换句话说，她阅读并且相信毛派的宣传，并且否认光辉道路的战争罪行。 After her return from Peru, she declared, "What has been taking place in both Peru and the US is a serious campaign to discredit Guzmán and the Shining Path movement, tainting them as terrorists, undermining their struggle with lies, isolating them, and intimidating anyone who might support them." 在她从秘鲁回来后，她声称：“在秘鲁和美国正在发生的是一场严重的运动——抹黑古斯曼和光辉道路运动，污蔑他们是恐怖分子，用谎言破坏他们的斗争，孤立他们，并且恐吓任何可能支持他们的人。” Yuri Kochiyama declared Osama bin Laden "one of the people that I admire" 河内山百合声明本拉登是“我尊敬的人之一” Kochiyama was a thorough-going opponent of what she viewed as American imperialism, and like some radical anti-imperialists this occasionally led her to admiring truly loathsome figures, because she thought they were effective at combating American empire. Abimael Guzmán was one. Osama bin Laden was another. 河内山是所有被她视作美帝主义事物的死对头，并且，就像一些激进的反帝国主义斗士一样，这偶尔使她仰慕一些真正令人讨厌的人物，因为她认为他们在有效地和美帝战斗。阿维马埃尔·古斯曼是一个，本拉登是另一个。 In a 2003 interview for the Objector: A Magazine of Conscience and Resistance, Kochiyama explained: 2003年，在《反对者：一份良心和抵抗的杂志》的采访中，河内山解释道：

I’m glad that you are curious why I consider Osama bin Laden as one of the people that I admire. To me, he is in the category of Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro, all leaders that I admire. They had much in common. Besides being strong leaders who brought consciousness to their people, they all had severe dislike for the US government and those who held power in the US. 我非常高兴你对我将本拉登视为我尊敬的人之一的理由感到好奇。对我而言，他在我心中的位置和马尔科姆·艾克斯、切·格瓦拉、帕特里斯·卢蒙巴（译注：刚果民主共和国首任总理）、菲德尔·卡斯特罗，以及所有我尊敬的领袖是一样的。他们有很多共同点。除了以强大的思想领导他们的人民之外，他们都对美国政府和那些在美国掌权的人有着强烈的厌恶。 bin Laden may have come from a very wealthy family, but by the time he was twenty, he came to loathe the eliteness and class conduct of his family… 本拉登可能是来自非常富裕的家庭，但在20岁之时，他开始憎恨精英阶级和他家人所在阶级的做法…… …You asked, "Should freedom fighters support him?" Freedom fighters all over the world, and not just in the Muslim world, don’t just support him; they revere him; they join him in battle. ……你问：“自由斗士应该支持他吗？”全世界的自由斗士，不仅在穆斯林世界，不但支持他；他们尊敬他；他们在战斗中加入他。 …You stated that some freedom fighters responded that bin Laden’s agenda is more reactionary and does not speak to the needs of the masses of people who exist under US dominance. bin Laden has been primarily fighting US dominance even when he received money from the US when he was fighting in Afghanistan. He was fighting for Islam and all people who believe in Islam, against westerners, especially the US--even when he was fighting against the Russians. ……你提到一些自由斗士回应说本拉登的事业是更加反动的，并且没有为生活在美国主导下的人民群众的需求发声。即便是在他接受美国资金在阿富汗战斗的时期，本拉登的主要精力就已经放在和美国主导做斗争上了。他在为伊斯兰和所有信仰伊斯兰的人民和西方势力斗争，特别是美国——即便是在他和俄罗斯战斗的情况下。

To be clear, this is Kochiyama defending bin Laden — who, besides being a mass murderer, was a vicious misogynist and hardly the brave anti-imperial class traitor Kochiyama fancies him as — against other leftists who correctly noted that you can oppose American imperialism without allying or supporting violent jihadism. 需要明确的是，这是河内山为本拉登所作的辩护，而另一些左派人士正确地指出，在不支持暴力圣战主义或不与之结盟的情况下，也可以反对美帝国主义，对此她持反对意见。而本拉登，除了是一个大规模的杀人凶手外，还是一个恶毒的厌恶女性的人，并且他不可能像河内山赞许的那样是一个勇敢的反帝国主义的阶级反叛者。 Kochiyama's praise for Che Guevara and Fidel Castro is also controversial, and, I think wrong, but is at least somewhat common on the left. Sympathy for Shining Path and bin Laden, by contrast, is not a common left position basically anywhere. 河内山对切格瓦拉和卡斯特罗的赞美同样是有争议的。我认为这是错的，但至少在左派中还算常见。相比之下，对光辉道路和本拉登的同情在任何的左派阵营都不寻常。 （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——

Schizophrenia: No Smoking Gun 精神分裂症：缺乏“冒烟”的确凿证据 作者：Scott Alexander @ 2016-01-11 译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 校对：小册子（@昵称被抢的小册子） 来源：Slate Star Codex，http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-smoking-gun/ [Note: despite how some people are spinning this, tobacco is still really really bad and you should not smoke it] 【请注意：尽管许多人言之凿凿，但烟草真的真的还是很不好，不应该抽烟。】 I. Schizophrenics smoke. A lot. Depending on the study, about 60-80% of schizophrenics smoke, compared to only about 20% of the general population. And they spend on average about 27% (!) of their income on cigarettes. Even allowing that schizophrenics don’t make much income, that’s a lot of money. Sure, schizophrenics are often poor and undereducated and have other risk factors for smoking – but even after you control for this, the effect is still pretty strong. 精神分裂症患者抽烟，而且很多。根据某项研究，大约60%至80%的精神分裂症患者会抽烟，与之相比，总人口中只有约20%。而且，他们在烟草上的花费大约占到其收入的27%（！）。即便考虑到精神分裂症患者收入不高，这也是一大笔钱。无疑，精神分裂症患者通常都很穷、受教育程度不高，并且还有其他导致其吸烟的风险因素，但即便把所有这些都加以控制，精神分裂症与抽烟之间的统计关系还是很强。 Various people have come up with various explanations. Cognitively-minded people say that schizophrenics smoke as a maladaptive coping strategy for the anxiety caused by their condition. Pharmacologically-minded people say that schizophrenics smoke because smoking accelerates the metabolism of antipsychotic drugs and so makes their side effects go away faster. Pragmatically-minded people say that schizophrenics smoke because they’re stuck in institutions with nothing to do all day. No points for guessing what the Freudians say. 许多人已经为此提出过许多各种解释。关注认知的人说，精神分裂症患者抽烟，是对该疾病所致焦虑的不良应对策略。关注药理的人会说，他们抽烟是因为抽烟会加快抗精神病药物的代谢，从而能够促使其副作用更快消失。更为务实的人会说，他们抽烟是因为他们被困在了整日无所事事的社会福利机构里面。猜测弗洛伊德主义者的说法就没必要了。 But all these theories have problems. Sure, schizophrenics are often institutionalized, but even the ones at home smoke a lot. Sure, some schizophrenics are often on antipsychotics, but even the ones who aren’t on meds smoke a lot. Sure, schizophrenics are anxious, but we don’t see people with Generalized Anxiety Disorder having 80% smoking rates. 但所有这些理论都存在问题。毫无疑问，精神分裂症患者通常都被社会福利机构收容，但即便是那些散居在家的也抽很多烟。毫无疑问，有些精神分裂症患者经常服用抗精神病药，但即便是那些不服药的也抽很多烟。毫无疑问，精神分裂症患者很焦虑，但我们并没有在患有广泛性焦虑障碍的人群中看到80%的吸烟率。 As usual, I’m more biologically-minded, so I find it interesting that some of the genes that most commonly turn up as linked to schizophrenia – especially CHRNA3, CHRNA5, and CHRNA7 – are in nicotine receptors. Indeed, some of them are also the genes identified as risk factors for smoking. 我素来更倾向从生物学方面考虑，所以我发现了一个有趣之处，那就是部分最经常被与精神分裂症联系在一起的基因，特别是CHRNA3、CHRNA5和CHRNA7，都能在尼古丁受体上找到。 Further, there’s a lot of evidence that schizophrenic people actually feel better and have fewer symptoms when they’re smoking. Further, schizophrenics tend to gravitate toward cigarettes with higher nicotine content, and smoke them in ways that maximize nicotine absorption. 实际上，部分此类基因同时也被确认为影响吸烟的风险因素。此外，大量证据表明，精神分裂症患者在吸烟时确实会更加舒坦、更少症状。此外，精神分裂症患者一般会较喜欢尼古丁含量更高的烟草，而且吸烟时会设法尽量吸收更多的尼古丁。 It seems like part of the problem with schizophrenia is that the brain’s nicotine system isn’t working well. Smoking supplements nicotine and makes the system run smoother, so schizophrenics feel better when they smoke and continue to do so. This is the widely accepted self-medication hypothesis. 精神分裂症的问题似乎部分在于患者大脑的尼古丁系统运转不良。吸烟能够补充尼古丁，从而让这一系统运转更加顺畅，所以精神分裂症患者在吸烟时会感觉更加良好，并且乐此不疲。这就是受到广泛认同的“自发用药假说”。 I like this because it’s a really elegant example of…I don’t know what you’d call it…memetic evolution? Nobody knew that nicotine helped schizophrenia, nobody told the schizophrenics that, but they sort of naturally gravitated to an effective treatment for their condition by going in the direction of things that make them feel better, even going so far as to unknowingly gravitate toward cigarette brands with more nicotine. 我喜欢这一假说，因为它真是模因进化（我不知道你们如何称呼它）的一个极好例证。原先并没人知道尼古丁有助于缓解精神分裂症，没人这么告诉患者，但他们通过追随让他们感觉良好的事物，可以说是自然地找到了有效的治疗方法，甚至不自觉地偏爱尼古丁含量更高的烟草品牌。 They did all of this before psychiatry had any idea why they were doing it, and in the face of constant protests that it was stupid and useless. This should be a warning to anyone who’s too quick to tell patients that their coping strategies are maladaptive. 早在精神病学对其做法之缘由有任何了解之前，他们就已经在这么做了，尽管当时人们一直批评这种做法既愚蠢又无用。有些人会过于仓促地认为患者的应对策略调整不佳，上述事实应当能让这些人引以为戒。 But there’s a much more important question here: does smoking cause schizophrenia? How about prevent it? 但此处还有一个更为重要的问题：吸烟会导致精神分裂症吗？又会不会防止精神分裂症呢？ II. First, the causation argument. Gurillo et al do a meta-analysis and conclude that “daily tobacco use is associated with increased risk of psychosis and an earlier age of onset of psychotic illness. The possibility of a causal link between tobacco use and psychosis merits further examination”. That is, schizophrenics are already smoking much more at the moment their schizophrenia starts. This suggests that maybe smoking is helping to cause the schizophrenia? 首先来看因果论证。Gurillo等人做了一个荟萃分析，得出结论认为：“每日使用烟草与精神病风险的增加和精神疾病发病年龄的提早均有关。烟草使用和精神病之间存在因果关系的可能性还需要进一步研究。”也就是说，精神分裂症患者在初次发病时就已经在大量抽烟了。这是否意味着吸烟有可能增加患精神分裂症的风险？ All nice and well, except for a few things. First, this study ignores the possibility that the genes that cause schizophrenia might also cause increased smoking, even though we have some evidence that this is true (actually, it doesn’t ignore this, it mentions it, but uses it as a reason why a schizophrenia-smoking link is more plausible). 听上去很好，就是有一点点问题。首先，该研究忽略了一种可能性，即导致精神分裂症的基因可能也会导致烟瘾增加，而我们在这方面有一些证据。（实际上该研究并没有忽略这种可能性，而是有所提及，但只是把它作为精神分裂症与吸烟有关联这一说法更可信的理由）。 Second, we know that people who will later develop schizophrenia are seen as kind of odd even before they come down with the disease, and it’s possible that they’re already in some unusual brain state that smoking helps relieve. Third, this study is not controlled – meaning that we’re totally helpless before factors like “people destined to later develop schizophrenia are often poor, and poor people smoke more”. 第二，我们知道，有些后来得了精神分裂症的人早在得病之前就看起来似乎有点奇怪，可能那时候他们的大脑就已经处于某种不正常状态，而吸烟能帮助缓解这种状况。第三，该项研究没有进行对照控制，也就是说如果把某些因素考虑进去，比如“后来注定会得精神分裂症的人通常很穷，而穷人通常抽烟更多”等，我们就无力回答。 And fourth, another study shows exactly the opposite. 还有，第四，另一项研究有完全相反的发现。 Zammit et al (thanks to @allfeelsallthetime for the tip) looks at 50,000 teenage Swedish conscripts, then follows them throughout their lives to see which ones do or don’t get schizophrenia. They find that without adjusting for confounders, smokers are more likely to get schizophrenia. Zammit等人（感谢网友@allfeesallthetime提示）选取了50000个应征入伍的瑞典青少年，然后终身追踪他们，观察哪些会得精神分裂症，哪些不会。他们发现，如果不就混杂因子【编注：混杂因子是指同时导致A与B两个因子，从而使得A与B表现出相关性的因子。】作出调整，吸烟者便看起来更可能得精神分裂症。 But when you do adjust for confounders, smokers are less likely to get schizophrenia, (hazard ratio 0.8, p = 0.003) and heavy smokers are much less likely to get schizophrenia (hazard ratio 0.5)! A dose-dependent relationship was found between smoking and protection from schizophrenia. This is really interesting. 但如果你就混杂因子作了调整，吸烟者得精神分裂症的可能性相对就会较低（风险比为0.8，p=0.003），而重度嗜烟者患精神分裂症的可能性相对而言非常低（风险比为0.5）！在吸烟与避免精神分裂症之间居然找出了这种与剂量相关的关系，真是非常有意思。 Why do we find such different results from these two studies? The only explanation I can think of is that the second study controls for various factors including cannabis use, personality variables, IQ, past psychiatric diagnoses, and place of upbringing (thanks @su3su2u1 for the tip) and the first study controls for zilch. 为什么两项研究会得出如此不同的结论？我能想到的唯一解释就是，第二项研究对照控制了许多不同因素，包括吸食大麻、个性差异、智商、既往精神病诊断史、成长地点等（感谢网友@su3su2u1提示），而第一项研究没做任何控制。 In fact, we find that the second study’s uncontrolled numbers are not that different from the first study’s uncontrolled numbers, and that the only difference is that the second study then went on to control for confounders and get the opposite result. Controlling for more things is not always better, but controlling for a few things that previous studies and common sense suggest are very relevant is pretty superior to just leaving the data entirely unprocessed. Advantage very much second study. 实际上，我们发现第二项研究中未进行控制的因子数目跟第一项研究中未进行控制的因子数目没有多大出入，两者唯一的差别就是第二项研究进一步控制了混杂因子，然后就得出了相反的结论。控制的因子并不总是越多越好，但对此前研究和基本常识都认为，对非常相关的一些事项进行控制，比对数据完全不加任何处理的做法要好得多。第二项研究因而拥有压倒优势。 III. Unlike certain people on Facebook, I fucking hate science. Let me explain why. 跟Facebook上的某些人不同，我真他妈讨厌科学。让我来解释解释。 The first study here, Gurillo et al, was published ten years after the second study. Since it is a meta-analysis, it included the second study in it. The authors of the first study definitely read the second study. They just didn’t care. 此处提到的Gurillo等人所做的第一项研究，发表于第二项研究完成后的10年之后。由于它是一个荟萃分析，所以它的对象包括了第二项研究。该研究的作者们必定读过第二项研究。他们只是毫不在乎。 Nowhere in the first study does it say “By the way, we read this other study that got the opposite results from us, let’s try to figure out why, oh, it was because they controlled for things and we didn’t, maybe that should call our findings into question.” 第一项研究从未在任何地方说过：“此外，我们读到了另外一项研究，其结论与我们的正相对立；我们来看看原因是什么，哦，原来是因为他们对一些事项进行了控制而我们没有，这也许会对我们的发现构成质疑。” You know what they did do? They listed the second study as finding that smoking increased schizophrenia risk, because the rules of their meta-analysis said they would only take uncontrolled data, and so they did. You can read this entire study, which cites the second study no fewer than six times, without hearing at all about the fact that the second study got the opposite result using likely better methodology. 你知道他们实际干了什么吗？他们将第二项研究列为吸烟增加精神分裂症患病风险的发现之一，因为他们做荟萃分析的一项原则是只采用未控制的数据，他们也真是这么做的。你们可以读读其全文，它引用第二项研究不下六次，但在任何地方你都看不到它提及第二项研究利用可能更好的方法得出了完全相反的结论这一事实。 Then they go on to conclude that: 然后，他们在结论中说：

Cigarette smoking might be a hitherto neglected modifiable risk factor for psychosis, but confounding and reverse causality are possible. Notwithstanding, in view of the clear benefits of smoking cessation programs in this population, every effort should be made to implement change in smoking habits in this group of patients. 吸烟可能是引发精神病的可改造风险因素之一，这一点迄今为止一直为人所忽略。但是，混杂偏差和反向因果关系也有可能存在。尽管如此，考虑到在这一人群中实施戒烟计划的明显好处，我们应该全面努力，促使这一病患群体改变吸烟习惯。

Clear benefits! Every effort! Aaaaaaah! 明显好处！全面努力！啊哈哈哈哈！ I mean, I know where they (and the Lancet editors, who write a glowing comment backing them up) are coming from. Smoking is bad because lung cancer, COPD, etc. But now we have these things called e-cigarettes! They deliver nicotine without tobacco! As far as anyone knows they carry vastly less risk of cancer, COPD, etc. If nicotine actually prevents schizophrenia rather than causing it, that is the sort of thing we should really want to know. And instead we’re just getting this “We should make schizophrenia patients stop smoking, because smoking is bad”. 我说，我知道他们（以及《柳叶刀》的编辑们，他们写了篇热情洋溢的评论支持前者）的出发点在哪儿。吸烟不好，因为会导致肺癌、慢性阻塞性肺炎等等。但我们现在已经有了所谓的电子烟！它们无需烟草就能提供尼古丁。如果尼古丁确实会预防而不是导致精神分裂症，这种事应该是我们确实想要明白知晓的。但是，我们听到的却是这样一些话：“我们应该让精神分裂症患者停止抽烟，因为抽烟不好。” Look. I am not going to come out and say that there’s great evidence that nicotine decreases schizophrenia risk. There’s one study, which other studies contradict. I happen to think that the one study looks better than its competitors, but that’s my opinion and I have nowhere near the evidence I would need to feel really strongly about this. 注意，我不是跳出来说有很强的证据表明尼古丁有助于减少精神分裂症患病风险。有一项研究这么说，还有许多研究跟它有抵触。我只是凑巧觉得，这项研究似乎比其他研究做得更好，当然这只是我的个人看法，要说我对这一想法的信念有多强烈，那根本还缺乏必要的证据支持。 But I feel like we are very far from the point where we know enough to be pushing people at risk of schizophrenia away from nicotine, and light-years away from the point where we can use phrases like “clear benefits”. 但是，我也认为，要说我们已经具备了足够的知识，以催促有精神分裂症患病风险的人远离尼古丁，那我们现在还差得远；要说使用“明显好处”一类的说法，那我们还差着很多光年。 Possibly I am an idiot and missing something very important. But if this is true, I wish the authors of the new study, and the editors of The Lancet, would have acknowledged the existence of the conflicting study and patiently explained to their readership, many of whom are idiots like myself, “Here’s a study that looks better than ours that seems to contradict our results, but here’s why our study is nevertheless far more believable.” That’s all I ask. 也许我是个笨蛋，忽略了一些非常重要的事情。但如果真是如此，我就希望上述新研究的作者们，以及《柳叶刀》的编辑们，能够承认与他们有相互冲突的研究存在，并能耐心地向读者们解释，因为许多读者跟我一样是笨蛋。“有项研究看起来比我们做得好，结论与我们的相反，但我们的研究仍然更可信，理由如下。”这才是我希望看到的。 No matter how much of an idiot I am, I can’t possibly imagine how that wouldn’t be a straight-out gain. 不管我有多么傻，我也根本无法想象，这么做怎么会不是一件彻头彻尾的好事。 PS: Cigarette smoking definitely decreases your risk of Parkinson’s Disease. Parkinson’s is similar to schizophrenia in that both involve dopamine. But schizophrenia involves too much dopamine and Parkinson’s too little, so the analogy could go either direction. 附：吸烟绝对会减少你患帕金森症的风险。帕金森症跟精神分裂症有些类似，两者都涉及到多巴胺。只是，精神分裂症是多巴胺过多，而帕金森症则是过少，所以该类比可以指向两个方向。【译注：即吸烟可能会减低，也可能会增加精神分裂症的风险。】 PPS: Tobacco smoking is definitely still bad! Nothing in here at all suggests that tobacco smoking has the slightest chance of not being a terrible decision! 又附：吸烟仍然绝对有害！本文没有任何地方说吸烟有可能不是个糟糕的决定，没门。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

【2016-07-21】 @海德沙龙: 《牛仔：备受排挤的濒危物种》 2014年的内华达『邦迪对峙』和今年初的俄勒冈占领行动，让牛仔这个久已被遗忘的群体又进入了公众视野，本文是一位俄勒冈牧场主写给《华盛顿邮报》的一封信，讲述了近年来联邦政府的土地与环境政策如何影响着他们的生计。 @海德沙龙: 牧场主处境恶化只是这场对抗的背景之一，更大的背景是日益膨胀的国家主义与美国传统价值观的对立，『邦迪对峙』得到了众多民兵组织的支持，这些民兵组织代表了自由、独立、自治的古老美国传统，通过支持牧场主的行动，他们展示了不惜以武力对抗联邦政府权力扩张的决心。 @whigzhou: 牧区与深红区高度重合 @whigzhou: 牛仔最多的落基山东麓各州（爱达荷、蒙大拿、怀俄明、犹他）既是保守派势力最稳固的州，也是共和党初选中川普输的最惨的州，这不是巧合 @whigzhou: 90年代以来，美国学术界急剧左倾，但这一倾向并非均匀分布，左倾最严重的是新英格兰地区的大学，而落基山东麓各州的大学是唯一的例外，保守派比例不降反升，不想放弃学术的保守派都跑那儿去了 @whigzhou: 从下图可见，美国学术界近二十年的左倾化主要是新英格兰大学贡献的 http://t.cn/RtAxkDi Figure 2. Regional Ideological Variations of Americas Professors: 1989 – 2014 @whigzhou: 美国校园的革命小将再这么闹下去，说不定到最后就是这些对学术最没兴趣的落基州保存了美国的学术和思想自由，这不由让人想起瑞士，很难说瑞士山民对金融业有什么兴趣，但正是瑞士山民的彪悍、独立和对自由的执着，在动荡年代为欧洲金融业保存了一个避难所。  

【2016-07-14】 @海德沙龙 《以色列的共产主义土壤》 以色列人在生活中就像资本主义的终极典范，他们是个人主义者，极其善于创建和经营企业，对开发和推销创新也很在行。以色列拥有比整个欧洲更多的创业公司。然而，这些在自由市场中如鱼得水的以色列人，却极其讨厌市场，资本主义在多数以色列人眼里是个脏字。 @whigzhou: 以色列的经历带来几点启示：1）在远离日常尺度因而难以建立直觉的系统级问题上，非常聪明的一群人也可能犯浑，以色列意识形态的转向发生在大批俄裔移民的涌入之后，后者对共产主义有着直觉感受，2）即便意识形态背景很恶劣，但只要面临急迫的现实生存问题，而且人不太笨，就不会在错误道路上走太远 @whigzhou: 立国以来，如何打赢战争生存下去，始终是以色列的头号问题，这迫使他们必须走务实道路，在战后两大阵营里，投靠哪一边更可能生存并保持独立，是不难看清的，除非傻瓜  

When Bigots Become Reformers  当顽固派变成改革者 作者：Damon Root @ 2006-05 译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 校对：Whig Zhou（@whigzhou） 来源：Reason，https://reason.com/archives/2006/05/01/when-bigots-become-reformers/ The Progressive Era’s shameful record on race. 进步时代在种族问题上的黑记录 The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1977, by David W. Southern, Wheeling, W.V.: Harlan Davidson, 240 pages, $15.95 《进步时代与种族问题：改革与反动，1900-1977》，作者 David W. Southern THE PROGRESSIVE movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change. 大概从1890年代早期开始，直到1920年代早期，进步主义运动席卷美国，催生了一个广泛的民众共识，即政府应当是推动社会变化的首要主体。 To that end, legions of idealistic young crusaders, operating at the local, state, and federal levels, seized and wielded sweeping new powers and enacted a mountain of new legislation, including minimum wage and maximum hour laws, antitrust statutes, restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol, appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, assistance to new immigrants and the poor, women's suffrage, and electoral reform, among much else. 为实现那一目的，一大批年轻的理想主义斗士活跃在地方、各州直至联邦政府层面，掌握并运用手中势不可挡的权力，制定了成堆的新法律，涉及最低工资和最长工时法、反托拉斯法、酒精出售与消费限制、对数百英里道路与高速路的征用、对新移民及穷人的补助、妇女投票权和选举改革，等等。 Today many on the liberal left would like to revive that movement and its aura of social justice. Journalist Bill Moyers, speaking at a conference sponsored by the left-wing Campaign for America's Future, described Progressivism as "one of the country's great traditions." Progressives, he told the crowd, "exalted and extended the original American Revolution. They spelled out new terms of partnership between the people and their rulers. And they kindled a flame that lit some of the most prosperous decades in modern history." 今天，许多自由左派人士希望复兴这一运动以及它带来的社会正义氛围。在一场由左翼团体“美国的未来运动”举办的会议上，记者Bill Moyers称进步主义是“美国的伟大传统之一”。他向与会者说，进步派“提升并拓展了原本的美国革命。他们阐明了人民与统治者之间合作关系的新条件。他们所点燃的火焰，照亮了现代历史上最为繁荣昌盛的年代之一。” Yet the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism. In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow. 然而，进步时代也是一个种族主义得到国家支持、极为严重的时代。事实上，从非裔美国人历史的角度来看，进步时代可以说是自黑奴解放以来最为黑暗的一段时间。南方黑人选民的公民权遭到大规模剥夺，就发生于这段时间，Jim Crow法【译注：指南方各州通过的在公共设施使用上实行种族隔离的法律】也是在此期间出现并流行。 Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book, The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1917, the very worst of it-disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynching-"went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism." Racism was the norm, not the exception, among the very crusaders romanticized by today's activist left. 另外，正如威斯敏斯特学院的历史学家Daivd W. Southern在其新书《进步时代与种族问题：改革与反动，1900-1917》中所提到的那样，其中最糟糕的情形——剥夺选举权、种族隔离、种族羞辱和对黑人实施私刑——“与南方进步运动的最先进活动是携手并进的。”正是在那些被今天的左派活动家浪漫化的斗士中，种族主义是种常态，而非例外。 At the heart of Southern's flawed but useful study is a deceptively simple question: How did reformers infused with lofty ideals embrace such abominable bigotry? His answer begins with the race-based pseudoscience that dominated educated opinion at the turn of the 20th century. Southern的研究不无瑕疵，但非常有用，其核心是一个看似简单的问题：那些心中充满崇高理念的改革者们怎么会有这样恶劣的偏执言行？他的回答始于一种以种族为基础的伪科学，这种伪科学在19和20世纪之交时曾在知识人的观念中占据主导地位。 "At college," Southern notes, "budding progressives not only read exposés of capitalistic barons and attacks on laissez-faire economics by muckraking journalists, they also read racist tracts that drew on the latest anthropology, biology, psychology, sociology, eugenics, and medical science." “学院里头，”Southern提到，“崭露头角的进步派不仅阅读调查记者所写的揭批资本主义大亨、攻击自由放任经济学的东西，他们也阅读那些征引最新的人类学、生物学、心理学、社会学、优生学和医学研究的种族主义小册子。” Popular titles included Charles Carroll's The Negro a Beast (1900) and R.W. Shufeldt's The Negro, a Menace to American Civilization (1907). One bestseller, Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race (1916), discussed the concept of "race suicide," the theory that inferior races were outbreeding their betters. 当时流行的作品包括Charles Carroll的《黑人是野兽》（1900）和R. W. Shufeldt的《黑人对美国文明的威胁》（1907）。Madison Grant所写的畅销书，《伟大种族的消逝》，讨论了“种族自杀”这一概念，该理论认为卑贱种族已然比优等种族繁殖得更快。 President Theodore Roosevelt was one of many Progressives captivated by this notion: He opposed voting rights for African-American men, which were guaranteed by the 15th amendment, on the grounds that the black race was still in its adolescence. 西奥多·罗斯福总统就是诸多被这一概念俘获的进步人士之一。他反对非裔美国男性获得由宪法第15修正案保障的投票权，理由就是黑人种族尚未成年。 Such thinking, which emphasized "expert" opinion and advocated sweeping governmental power, fit perfectly within the Progressive worldview, which favored a large, active government that engaged in technocratic, paternalistic planning. As for reconciling white supremacy with egalitarian democracy, keep in mind that when a racist Progressive championed "the working man," "the common man," or "the people," he typically prefixed the silent adjective white. 这类理论强调“专家”观点，主张扩大政府权力，与进步主义的世界观严丝合缝，后者就欣赏大而有为、实施专家治理和家长式计划的政府。至于在白人至上与民主平等之间如何调和，你只要记住，当一个种族主义的进步派拥护“劳动群体”、“普通人”或“人民”时，他总是会加上一个不说出声的形容词前缀，“白人”。 For a good illustration, consider Carter Glass of Virginia. Glass was a Progressive state and U.S. senator and, as chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, one of the major architects of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of his state's massive effort to disfranchise black voters. 这里有个很好的例证，就是弗吉尼亚州的Carter Glass。Glass是个进步派，既是州参议员也是国会参议员，他曾任国会银行与货币委员会主席，是1913年《联邦储备法》的主要缔造者之一。他也是弗吉尼亚州大规模剥夺黑人选民公民权行动的热情支持者。 "Discrimination! Why that is exactly what we propose," he declared to one journalist. "To remove every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate." “歧视！为什么这恰恰就是我们所提倡的，”他对某记者宣称，“为了合法地移除每一个可以甩掉的黑人投票人，避免极大地削弱白人选民的数量优势。” Then there was political scientist John R. Commons, an adviser to the Progressive Wisconsin governor and senator Robert M. LaFollette and a member of Theodore Roosevelt's Immigration Commission. Commons, the author of Races and Immigrants in America (1907), criticized immigration on both protectionist grounds (he believed immigrants depressed wages and weakened labor unions) and racist ones (he wrote that the so-called tropical races were "indolent and fickle"). 然后还有政治科学家John R. Commons，他曾是威斯康辛州进步派州长和参议员Robert M. LaFollette的顾问，还曾是西奥多·罗斯福的“移民委员会”成员。Commons著有《美国的种族与移民》（1907），同时从贸易保护主义立场（他相信移民压低了工资、削弱了工会）和种族主义立场（他写道，所谓的热带种族都“懒惰而善变”）出发批评外来移民。 Woodrow Wilson, whose Progressive presidential legacy includes the Federal Reserve System, a federal loan program for farmers, and an eight-hour workday for railroad employees, segregated the federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. "I have recently spent several days in Washington," the black leader Booker T. Washington wrote during Wilson's first term, "and I have never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time." 伍德罗·威尔逊，这位进步派总统的遗产包括联邦储备体系、一项针对农民的联邦贷款计划和铁路工人八小时工作日制度，对华盛顿的联邦机构实施了种族隔离。“最近我在华盛顿呆了几天”，黑人领袖Booker T. Washington在威尔逊的第一个任期写道，“我从没见过有色人种像今天这样气馁心酸。” Perhaps the most notorious figure of the era was Benjamin "Pitchfork" Tillman, a leading Southern Progressive and inveterate white supremacist. As senator from South Carolina from 1895 to 1918, Tillman stumped for "Free Silver," the economic panacea of the agrarian populist (and future secretary of state) William Jennings Bryan, whom Tillman repeatedly supported for president. 或许这一时代最为臭名昭著的人物应数“干草叉”Benjamin Tillman，南方进步派领袖，同时也是冥顽不灵的白人至上主义者。Tillman从1895年至1918年一直是南卡罗来纳州的参议员，一直为William Jennings Bryan这位土地民粹主义者（后曾出任国务卿）的经济万灵药——“自由银币”——而奔走鼓呼，并反复支持后者出任总统。 "Pitchfork" Tillman favored such Progressive staples as antitrust laws, railroad regulations, and public education, but felt the latter was fit only for whites. "When you educate a negro," he brayed, "you educate a candidate for the penitentiary or spoil a good field hand." “干草叉”Tillman对反托拉斯法、铁路管制、公共教育等进步主义产品均表支持，但他觉得公共教育这种东西只适用于白人。“你要是教育黑人”，他干嚎道，“那就相当于为监狱教育出一个后备分子，或说是糟蹋了一个农活好手。” Nor did African Americans always fare better among those radicals situated entirely to the left of the Progressives. Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs, though personally sympathetic to blacks, declared during his 1912 campaign for the presidency, "We have nothing special to offer the Negro." 在完全处于进步派最左端的激进分子面前，非裔美国人也并不总是能讨得了好。美国社会党领袖Eugene V. Debs尽管私底下同情黑人，但在1912年总统竞选活动中仍宣称：“我们不能向黑人提供什么特殊对待”。 Other leading radicals offered even less. Writing in the Socialist Democratic Herald, Victor Berger, the leader of the party's right wing, declared that "there can be no doubt that the negroes and mulattoes constitute a lower race-that the Caucasian and even the Mongolian have the start on them in civilization by many years." 其他激进分子领袖愿意付出的甚至比这还少。社会党右翼领袖Victor Berger在为社会主义刊物《民主先驱报》所写文章中宣称，“毫无疑问，黑人和黑白混血是一个低等种族，白人甚至蒙古人都在文明程度上领先他们许多年。” The celebrated left-wing novelist Jack London, covering the 1908 heavyweight title bout between black challenger Jack Johnson and white boxing champ Tommy Burns, filled his New York Herald story with lurid ethnic caricatures and incessant race baiting. "Though he was a committed socialist," observed Jack Johnson biographer Geoffrey C. Ward, London's "solidarity with the working class did not extend to black people." 著名左翼小说家杰克·伦敦曾报道过黑人挑战者Jack Johnson和白人拳击冠军Tommy Burns于1908年进行的重量级拳王争霸赛，在为《纽约先驱报》采编的故事中，他用尽了各种夸张的族裔讽刺和层出不穷的种族羞辱。“尽管伦敦是个坚定的社会主义者，”Jack Johnson的传记作家Geoffrey C. Ward说道，但他“并没有将其与劳动阶级的团结延伸到黑人身上。” As Southern thoroughly documents, these examples just begin to scratch the surface. Progressivism was infested with the most repugnant strains of racism. But was there something more, something inherent in Progressivism itself that facilitated the era's harsh treatment of blacks? 正如Southern的详尽描绘所示，以上例证只是浮光掠影。种种令人心生厌恶的种族主义性质在进步主义之中泛滥成灾。但是，这一时代对于黑人的残酷态度，是否出于进步主义本身所具有的某种内在特质？ According to Southern, who repeatedly maintains that racism derailed "the great promise" of Progressivism, the answer is no. "The ideas of race and color were powerful, controlling elements in progressive social and political thinking," he argues. "And this fixation on race explains how democratic reform and racism went hand-in-hand." Southern的回答是“并非如此”。他反复强调，种族主义偏离了进步主义的“伟大愿景”。“种族观念和肤色观念强大无比，控制了进步主义的社会与政治思想元素，”他论证道，“而这种对于种族的关注，解释了为何民主改革会与种族主义并驾齐驱。” That is surely correct, but is it the whole story? As the legal scholar Richard Epstein has noted, "the sad but simple truth is that the Jim Crow resegregation of America depended on a conception of constitutional law that gave property rights short shrift, and showed broad deference to state action under the police power." 这当然是对的，但这就是事情的全部面目吗？正如法学家Richard Epstein所说，“真相虽然可悲，但很简单：美国的Jim Crow种族隔离法案奠基于一种宪法理念，这种理念漠视财产权，并对国家依据治安权实施的行动表现出最大程度的顺从。” Progressivism itself, in other words, granted the state vast new authority to manage all walks of American life while at the same time weakening traditional checks on government power, including property rights and liberty of contract. Such a mixture was ripe for the racist abuse that occurred. 换句话说，进步主义本身就把广泛的新权限赋予国家，使之能够管理美国人生活的方方面面，同时又削弱了传统上对于政府权力的各种制衡，包括财产权和契约自由。这种组合对于所发生的种族主义虐待而言，正是水到渠成。 Take the Supreme Court's notorious decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a case that has rightly come to symbolize the South's Jim Crow regime. In Plessy, the Court considered a Louisiana statute forbidding railroads from selling first-class tickets to blacks, a clear violation of economic liberty. 以最高法院在“普莱西诉弗格森案”（1896）中臭名昭著的判决为例，这个案子自此已经恰如其分地成为南方种族隔离体制的象征。在普莱西案中，最高法细致考察了路易斯安那州一条禁止铁路公司将头等票卖给黑人的法令——这是一条明显违反经济自由的法令。 In its 7-1 ruling, the Court upheld segregation in public accommodations so long as "separate but equal" facilities were provided for each race, setting off an orgy of legislation throughout the old Confederacy. South Carolina, for example, segregated trains two years after Plessy.Streetcars followed in 1905, train depots and restaurants in 1906, textile plants in 1915-16, circuses in 1917, pool halls in 1924, and beaches in 1934. 在其7-1的判决中，最高法院认可在公共设施中实施种族隔离，只需每个种族都获得“隔离但平等”的设施。这一判决在整个过去的南部邦联地区引爆了一轮立法高潮。比如，普莱西案两年后，南卡罗来纳州就在火车上实行了种族隔离。1905年是有轨电车，1906年是火车站和餐厅，1915-1916是纺织厂，1917年是马戏团，1924年是台球厅，1934年则是海滩。 No doubt many of those businesses would have excluded or mistreated black customers whatever the law. But in a market free from Jim Crow regulations, other businesses would have welcomed blacks, or at least black dollars, forcing racist enterprises to bear the full cost of excluding or mistreating all those potential paying customers. (This was one of the chief reasons the segregationists pushed for those laws in the first place.) 毫无疑问，不管法律如何规定，许多上述企业还是会排斥或歧视黑人顾客。但是，如果某个市场没有受到种族隔离法规的限制，其他企业就可能欢迎黑人，或至少是黑人身上的美金，那些排斥或歧视此类潜在付费顾客的种族主义企业就会被迫承受由此产生的全部成本。（这就是隔离主义者一开始推动此类立法的最主要原因之一。） The state, in the eloquent words of the historian C. Vann Woodward, granted "free rein and the majesty of the law to mass aggressions that might otherwise have been curbed, blunted, or deflected." 用历史学家C. Vann Woodward文辞华美的话来说，各州把“完全的自由和法律的庄严认可”赋予了“大规模的侵害行为，而这本来是可以有所限制、有所缓和或有所修正的。” Furthermore, this tangled web of regulations, ordinances, codes, and controls was spun during the heyday of Progressivism, precisely when such official actions were least likely to receive any meaningful scrutiny. Southern, despite his otherwise close attention to the many permutations of race and racism, fails to recognize this major defect in the Progressive worldview. 另外，这一团由各种规章、条例、法令和控制组成的乱麻是在进步主义的鼎盛时期编织出来的，而当时恰恰就是这种官方行为最不可能受到任何有意义的细致审查的时候。尽管Southern在其他地方考察种族和种族主义的各种不同组合时细致绵密，在这里却没有注意到进步主义世界观的这一巨大缺陷。 A similar failure handicaps his treatment of one of the era's rare victories for African Americans. In Buchanan v. Warley(1917), the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a Louisville ordinance segregating residential housing blocks by race. The case involved a voluntary contract between a white seller and a black buyer for a housing lot located in a majority-white neighborhood. Under the law, the new black owner could not live on the property he had just purchased. Southern还有一个不足之处，导致他未能很好地处理非裔美国人在这一时期所取得的罕见胜利之一。在“布坎南诉沃利案”（1917）中，最高法院一致判决推翻路易斯维尔市依据种族来隔离居民住宅街区的法令。在该案中，黑人买方和白人卖方自由订立合同，购买一套位于以白人居民为主的街区的住宅。按照上述法律，这位黑人新房主不能在他刚刚购买的房产内居住。 Writing for the Court, Justice William Rufus Day held that "this attempt to prevent the alienation of the property in question to a person of color...is in direct violation of the fundamental law enacted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution preventing state interference with property rights except by due process of law." 大法官William Rufus Day代表最高法院写道，“企图阻止涉案房产转让给有色人……这是对于宪法第十四修正案关于各州不经正当法律程序不得干涉财产权的基本法则的直接违反。” Yet Southern dismisses this rare and important victory as "hollow" and incorrectly asserts that it "was decided not on the grounds of human rights, but on those of white property rights." In fact, the judicial recognition of black rights stood at the very center of the decision. Justice Day's opinion clearly states that the Fourteenth Amendment "operate[s] to qualify and entitle a colored man to acquire property without state legislation discriminating against him solely because of color." 然而，Southern却称这一罕见且重要的胜利“意义不大”，并且错误地断言其“并非基于人权所作出的判决，而是基于白人的财产权。”事实上，法院对黑人权利的承认正处于上述判决的核心。大法官Day在其意见中清晰阐明，第十四修正案“的作用是，准予并授权有色人获得财产，不受各州仅仅因为其肤色而针对他的立法歧视。” Nor should Southern's characterization of this victory as "hollow" pass unchallenged. As the legal scholars David Bernstein and Ilya Somin have argued, the Buchanan ruling played a major though sadly underappreciated role in the burgeoning fight for civil rights. Southern对这一胜利“意义不大”的描述也不应该轻轻揭过。正如法学家David Bernstein和Ilya Somin论证到的，布坎南案判决在风生水起的公民权斗争中发挥了重要作用，很遗憾没有获得应得的承认。 "Buchanan could not force whites to live in the same neighborhood as blacks," Bernstein and Somin write, "but it did prevent cities from stifling black migration by creating de jure and inflexible boundaries for black neighborhoods, and may have prevented even more damaging legislation." It is well worth noting, they continue, that the South did not adopt South African-style apartheid at this time, despite widespread white support for such measures. “布坎南案无法强迫白人和黑人住到同一个街区去，”Bernstein和Somin写道，“但它对各市通过为黑人街区制造法定且固定的边界以限制黑人迁徙的做法发挥了阻止效果，并且可能阻止了其他伤害性更大的立法。”他们接着说，特别值得注意的是，美国南方当时并没有采取一种南非式的种族隔离，尽管当时白人普遍支持此类举措。 In addition, Buchanan was the first major Supreme Court victory for the four-year-old National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a huge boon for the organization that would go on to win the landmark Brown v. Board of Education (1954), overturning Plessy. W.E.B Du Bois, an NAACP founder and longtime editor of its newsletter, The Crisis, gave Buchanan credit for "the breaking of the backbone of segregation." 此外，布坎南案是当时成立仅4年的“全国有色人种协进会”在最高法院所取得的第一次重要胜利，这为该组织带来了极大的好处，此后它将赢得里程碑式的“布朗诉教育委员会案”（1954），从而推翻普莱西案。该组织的创始人之一、长期为会刊《危机》担任编辑的W. E. B. Du Bois赞扬布坎南案“打断了种族隔离制度的脊柱”。 Despite these significant shortcomings, The Progressive Era and Race deserves careful attention. The Progressive movement unleashed, aided, and abetted some of the most destructive forces in 20th-century America. The better we understand this history, the less likely we are to repeat it. 尽管存在这些重大缺陷，《进步时代与种族问题》仍值得细心阅读。进步运动解放、助推和煽动了在20世纪美国历史上最具破坏性的一些力量。我们对这段历史了解越多，重复犯错的可能性就越小。 （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——

Israeli Marxism 以色列的马克思主义 作者：Steven Plaut @ 2011-8-7 译者：Tankman 校对：hkustliqi 来源：FrontPage Mag，http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/100988/israeli-marxism-steven-plaut It is difficult to explain to people living outside of Israel, and especially to Americans, the extent to which Israelis truly believe in communism. 很难对生活于以色列之外的人，尤其是美国人，解释清楚以色列人信仰共产主义的程度之深。 Sometimes they call it socialism, but they basically mean communism. 有时他们称其为社会主义，但是基本上他们指的就是共产主义。 This is not to say that they behave as communists in their private lives. Quite the contrary, Israelis live as the ultimate ideal of capitalism. They are enormously individualist. They are exceptionally good at starting and managing businesses, and of development and marketing innovations. Israel as a country has more start-up businesses than all of Europe. It registers more patents than any European country. 这并非指他们在自己的私人生活中像共产主义者那么行动。恰恰相反，以色列人像资本主义的终极典范那样生活。他们很大程度上是个人主义者。他们极其善于创建和管理企业，并对开发和推销创新也很在行。作为一个国家，以色列拥有比整个欧洲更多的创业公司。它的专利注册数也比任何一个欧洲国家多。 Yet those very same Israelis, who demonstrate every day their skills in succeeding in markets, hate markets. The word "socialism" carries enormously romantic and positive implications for Israelis. Especially among educated (non-Russian-born) Israelis. The word capitalism is something of an obscenity for most Israelis. 然而，这些每天展示着在市场中如鱼得水技能的以色列人却讨厌市场。对以色列人来说，“社会主义”这个词带有极大的浪漫和正面意味，尤其是在受过教育的以色列人之中（在俄国出生的以色列人除外）。资本主义这个词则对大部分以色列人带有某些侮辱意味。 I suspect that someone arrested for assault could get himself off in court if he claimed the victim had called him a capitalist, it being a form of hate speech. The Israeli media invariably use the word "capitalism" in conjunction with the word piggish. (Ironically, the one exception is the business editor of Haaretz, who supports market capitalism, while the rest of the same newspaper yearns for communism.) 我怀疑因人身侵害被逮捕的人如果宣称受害人称其为资本主义者，他也许能让自己被当庭释放。称人为资本主义者算得上一种仇恨言论。以色列媒体一成不变的把“资本主义”这个词和贪婪一词搭配使用。（讽刺的是，有个例外是Haaretz的商业编辑，他支持市场资本主义，然而同一份报纸的其他同仁们则痴迷于共产主义。） The only conceivable form of market economy in the minds of the Israeli chattering class is "piggish capitalism." You would not believe the portion of Israeli professors and intellectuals who use that expression. The head of the Histadrut, Israel's largest organized crime family, uses it, being a loyal believer in piggish communism. 有话语权的以色列中产们头脑中能够想象的市场经济的唯一形式是“贪婪的资本主义”。你甚至难以相信以色列教授和知识分子中使用这个词的比例。以色列最大的有组织犯罪集团【译者注：一个工团组织】Histadrut的领袖，也用着这个词，充当着贪婪的社会主义的忠实信徒。 In normal countries, pointing out that someone is a card-carrying member of the communist party is usually more than enough to discredit that person. Not in Israel. Carriers of communist party membership cards do so with pride. Most of the members of the history department at Tel Aviv University are such communists. So are oodles of other academics. 在正常国家，指出某人是共产党的活跃成员常常意味着对此人的侮辱。但在以色列不是这样。共产党的活跃分子骄傲的公开身份。大多数特拉维夫大学历史系的成员是共产主义分子。其他学术机构也有大批类似现象。 On the one hand, the operation of markets is what makes Israel a successful viable country, one incidentally that experienced almost no implosion at all during the global financial collapse of the past 4 years. But on the other hand, markets are things Israelis claim they want suppressed. Literate Israelis insist in unison that markets are what is wrong with the world, and suppressing markets is the answer to Israel's problems. Markets are evil, rewarding selfishness. Benevolent governmental bureaucrats controlling the economy are what is needed. 一方面，市场运作使以色列成为一个成功的有活力的国家，而且在全球金融崩溃的过去四年中，它几乎没有受到一点影响。但另一方面，市场是以色列人宣称想要压制的那类事物。以色列的智识阶层一致坚持市场导致了世界的种种问题，而压制市场则是解决以色列各种问题的答案。市场是邪恶的，鼓励自私的。善意的政府官僚管制经济是必需的。 Not every Israeli, mind you. Russian-Israelis, who today are maybe a fifth of the population, have no patience for those preaching the wonders of communism. And they are notably absent in the current "social justice" rallies and marches, or what I have been calling the Woodstock along the Yarkon Festival. 并不是每个以色列人都这么。俄罗斯以色列人，如今也许占到人口的五分之一，对鼓吹共产主义奇迹的人没有耐心。他们明显地缺席当下各种“社会正义”的集会游行，或者被我称为雅孔河边的伍德斯托克狂欢的Yarkon 节会【编注：雅孔河是以色列主要河流，流经行政首府特拉维夫，河边常有集庆】。 Orthodox Jews rarely mouth the slogans of nostalgia for Bolshevik central planning of markets, although there are exceptions. (The commentator on the Torah portion in Maariv cannot get enough of communism and insists that suppressing piggish-capitalism is the highest form of Jewish ethics.) 正统派犹太教徒很少装腔作势的唠叨那些对布尔什维克中央计划经济心存怀旧之情的口号，虽然也有例外。（晚报Torah板块的评论员宣扬起共产主义总是没个够，并坚持认为压制贪婪资本主义是犹太伦理的最高形式。） Israeli academics are almost universally anti-capitalism. I am on the list of a chat list of Israeli social science faculty members, and for the past few weeks it has carried hundreds of postings yearning for socialist controls and denouncing capitalism. The posteurs universally fantasize about Israel adopting Scandinavian-style "socialism." 以色列学术界也几乎普遍地反资本主义。我本人被列在以色列社会科学教职人员的聊天通讯录上，过去几周，我从这个联系列表上收到了几百份向往社会主义管制和批评资本主义的传单。这些传单全是鼓吹把以色列改造成斯堪迪纳维亚式“社会主义”的狂想。 Putting aside some doubts as to how pleasant life really is in Scandinavia (witness Norway recently), Scandinavian "socialism" is actually not. It is essentially free markets mixed with very high tax rates and a gargantuan welfare state providing cradle-to-grave welfare services at state expense. 先不提一些疑问：斯堪迪纳维亚的生活是否真正那么快活（看看最近的挪威），斯堪迪纳维亚式“社会主义”其实并不美好。它其实是自由市场制度混合了极高的税率和从摇篮到坟墓的繁多福利，这些福利由政府提供和付费。 In other words, Scandinavia has always been far more capitalistic countries than Israel, certainly of Israel was before the 1980s. In addition, Israel has always provided Scandinavian-style welfare state services, but without the freeing of markets and liberalization of production that characterized Scandinavia. 换句话说，斯堪迪纳维亚国家其实一直比以色列更接近资本主义，特别是比80年代以前的以色列。而且，以色列已经提供了斯堪迪纳维亚式的政府福利，但却没有斯堪迪纳维亚特征的市场自由化和生产力解放。 Academic economists generally do not join the antlered herds in pining for bolshevism, but there are exceptions. Israeli economists are among the few who know what a market is, what a price is, what a wage is. The protesters never know these things. 学术界的经济学家们总的来说没有加入坚持布尔什维克主义的群落，但也有些例外。以色列经济学家位列少数知道什么市场，什么是价格，什么是工资的人当中。抗议者则从来不知道这些东西是什么。 But Israel has a long history of academic prostitution and one can always find a few academic economists willing to endorse the most idiotic "ideas" of those who understand nothing about economics, if it earns them a shekel or advances their careers. 但是以色列的学术婊源远流长，你总能发现几个经济学家愿意为那些根本不懂经济的人的愚蠢“理念”背书，只要这能够带给他们经济利益或改善其职业前途。 Hence the most passionate supporter of RAISING the minimum wage is "economist" Avishai Braverman, the guy who turned Ben Gurion University into Hamastan, and one can find similar cases of street-walking economists endorsing rent controls, nationalizations, and other fundamental axioms of economic Bolshevism. 所以提高最低工资的最热忱支持者是“经济学家”Avishai Braverman。该人让本·古里安大学变成了反以色列的先锋。你也可发现类似的例子，如一些站街经济学家支持租金管制、国有化、和一些基本的布尔什维克主义经济原则。 Most people are not aware of it but Israel began its existence as a country with a system of Bolshevik central control. In its first years Ben Gurion implemented a system of massive nationalization and near-universal price and wage controls. It differed little from the economic structure created by Lenin. 尽管大部分人没有意识到，但是以色列国从建国伊始，便拥有一个布尔什维克主义的中央计划系统。在立国的头十年，本·古里安实现了一个系统，来进行大规模国有化和几乎全面的价格及工资管制。 这几乎和列宁创建的经济系统没有区别。 Ben Gurion got away with it for a while because of the War of Independence and the national emergency. Like in that old joke about how communism in the Sahara would produce a shortage of sand, by the early 1950s everything in Israel was in shortage, buying anything and everything involved endless Soviet-style queues, and most products could only be obtained in the black markets. 由于立国战争和全国紧急状态，本·古里安曾一度逃脱了共产主义的诅咒。如那个撒哈拉的共产主义怎样能让沙子产生短缺的笑话一样【注：米尔顿·弗里德曼曾说：假如你把撒哈拉交给政府经营，我们很快会面临沙子短缺】，在50年代早期，以色列的一切物资都陷于短缺。购买任何一切东西都免不了无尽的苏联式排队，而且大部分产品只能够在黑市里弄到。 To Ben Gurion's credit, he realized by the early 1950s that the system of Bolshevik controls was unworkable. Curiously, Lenin had also understood this and took steps to dismantle the controls, except that he died and was replaced by Stalin before serious reform took place in the Soviet Union. Lenin called his plan for partial de-Bolshevikation of the economy the "New Economic Plan" or NEP, exactly the SAME name adopted by Ben Gurion for HIS reforms in the early 1950s. (No coincidence!) 本·古里安的功劳是，他在1950年代早期认识到布尔什维克计划经济行不通。令人奇怪的是，列宁也曾认识到这点，并采取了放松管制的措施，只是他去世了，而斯大林在任何深度改革实施之前就接管了权力。列宁把他的部分去布尔什维克经济计划称作“新经济计划”（New Economic Plan，NEP），和本·古里安在50年代早期实施的改革计划的名称一模一样。（这可不是巧合！） While most price controls were ended, other forms of economic Bolshevism were retained by Ben Gurion and his MAPAI party comrades. Huge portions of Israeli industry were nationalized, and much of what was left was semi-nationalized and grossly mismanaged by turning it over to the Histadrut trade union federation. 尽管大多数价格管制被终结了，其他布尔什维克主义的经济措施则仍被本·古里安和他的工党同志们保留了下来。当时以色列工业的很大比例被国有化，而剩下部分中很多被半国有化，而且把这些企业交给Histadrut工团照管造成了严重的经营不善。 Economic policy sought to suppress competition everywhere. It strived to maximize the number of monopolies and cartels in the economy. The government controlled enormous amounts of resources, which it handed out as political favors, often to cronies and party oligarchs. Tax rates were enormous and sometimes exceed 100%. Profits by enterprises were derived mainly from government subsidies and handouts. 经济政策曾试图在所有地方抑制竞争，它努力要最大程度的增加经济中垄断和卡特尔组织的数目。政府曾控制了巨量资源，并按政治偏好进行分配，这些资源常流向亲信和寡头。那时税率极高，有时甚至超过100%。企业利润曾主要依靠政府补贴和帮扶。 Government policy was protectionist and anti-competitive. The capital market was suppressed and nationalized. The government's working philosophy demanded that Israelis essentially turn all their income, savings, and wealth over to the government, and then the government bureaucracy would take care of the needs of the public and of citizens. 政府政策曾非常偏向保护主义和抑制竞争，资本市场则被抑制和国有化。政府的工作哲学要求以色列人实际上把他们所有的收入、储蓄和财富交给政府照管，然后政府官僚将会照顾公共和公民的所需。 The result was a Third World economy, albeit one dominated by a political system that actually involved elections and parliamentary processes. Israel was pauperized by the Bolshevism. It remained poor and underdeveloped. 结果就是，尽管被一个拥有选举和代议程序的政治体系所统治，经济上却仍是第三世界。以色列被共产主义弄的赤贫。而后也仍然贫困落后。 Things only began to change in a significant manner in the 1970s. Israel was being coerced into liberalizing its economy and removing some of the socialist controls because of Israel joining and signing various international trade agreements. The treaty partners refused to allow the Israeli government to continue its policies. The long period of zero growth following the Yom Kippur War also woke some people up to the necessity of having a functional economy. 70年代，事情才开始明显转变。以色列在那时被强制要求经济自由化，并除去一些社会主义管制，因为它需要加入和签署一些国际贸易协定。缔约国拒绝允许以色列政府继续其政策。在赎罪日战争后的长时期零增长，也让一些人意识到亟需一个能够有效运转的经济。 In the 1950s and 1960s it was not unusual for people to lump Israeli economic policies and conditions together with those in Egypt and other Third World backwaters. 在50和60年代，人们把以色列的经济政策和状况混同于埃及和其他死气沉沉的第三世界并不奇怪。 Things changed remarkably starting in the 1980s. Most of the nationalized industry was privatized, largely because state enterprises were losing so much money. Partly, this was due to the change in public willingness to tolerate the controls. Partly it was because of the growing number of people who had taken freshmen economics and understood the idiocy of Bolshevik controls. Partly, it was because of the growth of high tech, which the government could not control or understand. Partly, it was because of international trade treaty pressures. 直到80年代开始，情况才开始发生显著改变。大多数国有企业被私有化了，很大程度上因为国有企业的亏损如此之巨。部分地是因为容忍管制的公众意愿改变了。部分是因为越来越多的人受了基本经济学教育，并理解了布尔什维克管制的愚蠢。部分是因为高科技产业的发展，而政府并不能理解或者控制这些产业。部分是因为国际贸易压力。 There are still plenty of Bolshevik controls in place. Israel has a single-payer health system with four tightly regulated HMO-style providers. It works a lot better than you would expect, for some extraneous reasons (Israel has a young population that eats well and huge numbers of MDs). 目前仍有很多的布尔什维克管制。以色列拥有一个政府全包的医疗系统和四个被严密管制的医疗保险集团。因为一些外部因素，该系统运作的比你预期的好得多（以色列拥有年轻的人口结构，饮食健康，医生数量也很多。） There are still oodles of monopolies and cartels. Agriculture is still largely anti-competitive and inefficient, dominated by government-erected cartels. Taxes are too high. The government owns a large portion of the land in the country. Some sectors are still distorted by protectionism, especially food. 目前仍然存在很多垄断和卡特尔。农业仍然被政府设立的卡特尔控制，很大程度上是反竞争和低效的。税率太高。在国内，政府拥有很大比例的土地。一些部门仍被保护主义扭曲，尤其是食物。 The Woodstock on the Yarkon protesters are by and large leftist secularist Israelis demanding a return to the Bolshevik controls of the 1950s. They pine for the shortages and the rationing of that era because they figure that in a shortage THEY will be granted priority. 在Yarkon节日嘉年华上的抗议者完全就是要求回到50年代布尔什维克管制的左派世俗主义者。他们渴慕那时代的短缺和票证，因为他们觉得在那种短缺中，他们会被优先供给。 The central demand of the protesters is rent controls. This will end up destroying the Israeli housing stock and pauperizing elderly owners of rental property who purchased those units with the intention of earning rental income in their old age. Like in New York and other cities having rent controls, the controls will create shortages, where the true cost of obtaining rental housing actually goes UP, not down. 抗议者的核心诉求是租金管制。这最终会破坏以色列的房屋供给，并且让老迈的房东陷入赤贫。这些房东为了收租养老的缘故买了这些房子。如同纽约和其他有租金管制的城市那样，管制会产生短缺，而租到房子的真实成本实际上提高了，而不是降低了。 The protesters pine for the Soviet steppes. They demand other forms of price controls so that Israel can turn into a Brezhnev-era style of country, where people spend their days waiting in lines for commodities in perpetual and growing shortage. They want markets to be suppressed, where squads of social justice commandos can decide who gets to live in which apartment, who gets to consume those commodities in shortage, and who earns what. 抗议者们仍怀念着苏联的大平原。他们要求其他形式的价格管制，让以色列回到如勃涅日涅夫时代那样的国家。在那里有无尽的日益增长的短缺，人们为了购物整日排队。他们希望市场被抑制，而社会公正的斗士们有权决定谁搬进哪一个公寓，谁消费短缺中的那些商品，谁赚得什么。 They insist that wages be set based on what the protesters think people deserve to earn. Since there is not a single person in Israel who earns what he thinks he deserves to earn, this amounts to a demand for a Soviet-style wage board that fixes wages for all professions, starting with those who are on strike, like the MDs. 他们坚持说工资要基于抗议者认为人们理应挣多少而设定。因为在以色列没有任何人挣着自认为理应得到的数目，这就导致需要一个苏式工资系统，对所有职业设定固定工资，从罢工的人群开始，比如医生们。 In other words, wages in the opinion of the protesters do not have to clear markets and signal where shortages and surpluses are. Wages should be arbitrary measures of "fairness." Try to imagine just what happens when half the jobs in Israel attract no applicants because the fair wages there are insufficient to draw workers, while the other jobs have six applicants for each position because the fair wages there are much too high to clear the market. Try to imagine what life would be like if a Marxist sociologist or a caring social worker were appointed as economic dictator to decide all economic matters and decisions in Zion. 另一方面，抗议者认为工资没必要让市场均衡并发挥信号作用，以显示何处短缺，何处过剩。工资应该是“公平”的武断标准。试想以色列有一半职位都不能吸引到申请者，因为所谓的公平工资不能够吸引工人，而同时以色列的另外一半工作每个职位有六个申请人，因为所谓的公平工资远高于市场均衡水平，将会发生什么?试想一个马克思主义社会学家或一个慈善社工被任命为经济独裁者，来负责锡安的所有经济事务和决策，会发生什么？ Every society on earth and every society in human history has people living in hardship and in poverty. There are poor people in all countries, including Scandinavia. Mankind has not discovered an innovation that eliminates poverty and hardship. 地球上的每个社会，乃至人类历史上每个社会，都有生活在艰难困苦中的人们。所有的国家都有穷人，包括斯堪迪纳维亚。人类尚未能发现一种创新，能消灭贫穷和困苦。 Yet the caring dreamers about Bolshevism along Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv (note the irony of the name) demand an instant magic pill that will eliminate all hardship and inequality. And the failure of the government to provide one is proof that the evil "tycoons" are in charge and preventing the government from serving the people. 然而，和布尔什维克主义相关的爱心白日梦人士沿着特拉维夫的罗斯柴尔德大道（请注意这街名的讽刺性）要求一个立即奏效的神奇药方，来消除贫穷和困苦。而政府没能提供这个药方，则是邪恶的“权贵”在掌权并阻止政府服务人民的证据。 "People not profits" is the slogan of choice used by those who are too stupid to understand that the only way to make producers serve the people and produce things the people want is for them to make profits doing so. Outlaw profits and you create mass starvation. 让厂商服务人民和创造人民需要的产品的唯一途径是让他们借此获得利润，而太蠢不能理解这点的人们则打出了“为人民而不是为利润”的口号。取缔利润，那么你就创造了大饥荒。 The tycoon fetish continues to dominate the protests. I have suggested that Mikey Lerner even change the name of his idiotic magazine from Tikkun to Tycoon. Many Israeli tycoons, at least outside high-tech, were made tycoons because of sweetheart deals with the political establishment, particularly back in the days of MAPAI socialism. 权贵迷信继续主导着这些抗议。我已经建议Mikey Lerner把他白痴杂志的名字从改正（Tikkun ）改为权贵（Tycoon ）。很多以色列的权贵，至少在高科技产业之外，是被政治既得利益者的幕后交易创造出来的，尤其是回溯到工党社会主义时期。 The other irony is that the only "reform" the protesters have extracted from Netanyahu is the setting up of "Planning Speed-up Commissions." And the most ironic part of this irony is that the main effect of those commissions will be to fatten up the "tycoons." 更讽刺的是，抗议者从内塔尼亚胡那里得到的唯一“改革”就是设立一些“规划加速委员会”。并且这一讽刺的最尖锐的部分是：这些委员会的主要作用将是让“权贵”脑满肠肥。 Israel's municipal planning and regulation of construction is a fever swamp of corruption and inefficiency. It takes two years to get a license to put windows in your porch and you may have to bribe city officials to get it. The endless bureaucratic pencil pushing and bickering does indeed slow down construction, affecting housing prices and availability. 以色列的建筑业市政规划管理部门是腐败和低效的温床。给你的门廊加上窗户需要两年时间办理许可证，而你可能不得不贿赂市政官员来拿到它。无穷的官僚系统的文书案牍和磨嘴皮的确减慢了建筑业发展，影响了房屋的价格和供给。 At the same time, these planning dinosaurs DO allow a certain amount of public involvement and intervention, especially when it comes to combating corrupt sweetheart dirty deals between municipalities and construction contractor "tycoons." Corrupt municipal officials are constantly attempting to get approval for construction projects that will enrich contractor cronies, even when these are illegal, harmful to the public interest, ugly, and in some case built on public park lands and beaches. The officials attempt to bend zoning laws and regulations to "help their buddies." 同时，这些计划经济恐龙允许一定的公共介入和干涉，尤其是人们反对市政机构和有背景的建筑承包商之间的内幕交易的时候。腐败的市政官员一直试图为建筑项目拿到许可，这些项目可以让有关系的承包商致富，即使它们是非法可耻的，有害公共利益的，而且有时是在公园和公共海滩上建造。这些官员试图扭曲法律和规制，来“帮助他们的兄弟”。 As a sop to the demonstrators, Netanyahu has proposed and the Knesset just passed the creation of "Planning Speed-Up Commissions," to cut through the red tape and bureaucracy. The problem with the idea is simple: it will still take two years and possibly some bribes if you want to put a window pane on your porch. 作为对示威者的安抚，内塔尼亚胡提出了创建一些“规划加速委员会”，议会批准了这个动议，想要削减繁文缛节和官僚主义。这个主意的缺陷很明了：未来如果你想要在自己的门廊上开一扇窗，还是需要两年，也许还要一些贿赂。 But the oligarchs will be able to use the Speed Up mechanism to push aside public opposition and suppress sensible zoning and planning regulations. The oligarchs are also being offered by Netanyahu public lands at below-market prices, where Netanyahu insists this will lower housing prices. The reality, as any freshman econ student can tell you, is that it will not lower housing prices by a shekel, and instead will only inflate the profits of the cronies getting in on the deal. 但寡头们将能用加速机制来置公众抗议于不顾，压制合理的区域规划和管制。寡头也能够拿到内塔尼亚胡提供的低于市场价的公地，内塔尼亚胡坚称这能降低房价。就如任何经济系一年级学生能告诉你的那样，事实是这不会让房价降低一个子儿，反倒会增加参与项目的关系户公司的利润。 ABOUT STEVEN PLAUT 关于作者 Steven Plaut is a native Philadelphian who teaches business finance and economics at the University of Haifa in Israel.  He holds a PhD in economics from Princeton.  He is author of the David Horowitz Freedom Center booklets about the Hamas  and Jewish Enablers of the War against Israel. Steven Plaut是一位土生土长的费城人。他在以色列的海法大学教授商务金融和经济学。他拥有普林斯顿经济学博士学位。他是David Horowitz自由中心的作者，撰写了一些小册子，讲述哈马斯和一些犹太人积极促成针对以色列的战争。 （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——

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——

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

【图表一：政治倾向自评分】

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

【图表二：2012年美国总统大选】

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

【图表三：对九个政治议题的观点】

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

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

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

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——