Sorry, You Can’t Speed Read 抱歉，你无法速读 作者:Jeffrey M. Zacks, Rebecca Treiman @ 2016-4-15 译者:焦美淳(@火车入巷) 校对:Drunkplane (@Drunkplane-zny) 来源:纽约时报,http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/sorry-you-cant-speed-read.html OUR favorite Woody Allen joke is the one about taking a speed-reading course. “I read ‘War and Peace’ in 20 minutes,” he says. “It’s about Russia.” 关于速读，伍迪艾伦讲过一个我们非常喜欢的笑话：“我20分钟就看完了《战争与和平》，”他说，“讲苏联的。” The promise of speed reading — to absorb text several times faster than normal, without any significant loss of comprehension — can indeed seem too good to be true. Nonetheless, it has long been an aspiration for many readers, as well as the entrepreneurs seeking to serve them. And as the production rate for new reading matter has increased, and people read on a growing array of devices, the lure of speed reading has only grown stronger. 速读的美好愿望——即在不错失原文主旨的情况下，以几倍于寻常的速度理解文章内容——看起来并不易达成。然而，对很多读者来说，这确是梦寐已久的美事，一些企业家也一直试图在这方面为读者提供一些服务。由于读物的出版速度越来越快，并且阅读设备越来越多，速读的诱惑力只增不减。 The first popular speed-reading course, introduced in 1959 by Evelyn Wood, was predicated on the idea that reading was slow because it was inefficient. The course focused on teaching people to make fewer back-and-forth eye movements across the page, taking in more information with each glance. Today, apps like SpeedRead With Spritz aim to minimize eye movement even further by having a digital device present you with a stream of single words one after the other at a rapid rate. 第一个著名的速读课程在1959年由伊芙琳伍德所创建。它基于这一概念——阅读之所以缓慢是因为其效率低下。这个课程着眼于教导人们阅读书页时，眼睛尽可能少的左右往返运动，而要让眼睛每扫过一次都获取更多的信息。如今，像SpeedRead With Spritz这样的app，甚至通过在电子设备上快速滚动一个个的单词，来减少眼球的活动。 Unfortunately, the scientific consensus suggests that such enterprises should be viewed with suspicion. In a recent article in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, one of us (Professor Treiman) and colleagues reviewed the empirical literature on reading and concluded that it’s extremely unlikely you can greatly improve your reading speed without missing out on a lot of meaning. 遗憾的是，科学共识显示，我们须抱有怀疑的眼光来看待这番速读事业。在一篇最近发表于《大众心理学期刊》的文章中，Treiman教授和她的同事回顾了有关阅读的实证文献，并得出一个结论：在不大量错失文章原意的情况下，你基本不可能显著地提高阅读速度。 Certainly, readers are capable of rapidly scanning a text to find a specific word or piece of information, or to pick up a general idea of what the text is about. But this is skimming, not reading. We can definitely skim, and it may be that speed-reading systems help people skim better. 当然，阅读者确实能够通过迅速地扫视，从一段文本中提取到特定词语或者信息片段，亦或摘取出这段文字的中心思想。但这是浏览，不是阅读。我们肯定可以做到浏览，或许速读体系有助于促进浏览的效果。 Some speed-reading systems, for example, instruct people to focus only on the beginnings of paragraphs and chapters. This is probably a good skimming strategy. Participants in a 2009 experiment read essays that had half the words covered up — either the beginning of the essay, the end of the essay, or the beginning or end of each individual paragraph. Reading half-paragraphs led to better performance on a test of memory for the passage’s meaning than did reading only the first or second half of the text, and it worked as well as skimming under time pressure. 举例而言，一些速读系统指导人们只在文段或者章节的开端加以关注。这或许是一个很好的浏览策略。在2009年的一个实验中，参与者阅读盖住一半内容的文章——或前半篇，或后半篇，或每段的开头或结尾。阅读每个段落的一半，相比于阅读前半或后半篇文章，对全文意思的记忆效果更好。并且，其效果等同于在时间紧张情况下的浏览。 But speed reading? Techniques that aim to guide eye movements so that we can take in more information from each glance seem doomed to fail. There is only a small area in the retina (called the fovea) for which our visual acuity is very high. Our eyes are seriously limited in their precision outside of that. This means that we can take in only a word or so at each glance, as well as a little bit about the words on either side. In fact, since the 1960s, experiments have repeatedly confirmed that when people “speed read,” they simply do not comprehend the parts of the text that their eyes skip over. 但有速读这回事吗？一些技巧旨在指导我们眼球的活动，以便眼睛一瞥就能获得更多的信息，但它们似乎注定失败。只有在视网膜上很小的一块区域（称作中央凹），我们的视觉敏锐度才非常高。而除了它之外，我们的眼睛在精确度上非常受限。这就意味着我们每次只能看清一个词，顶多再看到它旁边个把词。事实上，自从1960年代起，很多实验都验证了当人们“速读”的时候，他们并不理解他们眼睛扫视过的那部分内容。 A deeper problem, however — and the one that also threatens the new speed-reading apps — is that the big bottleneck in reading isn’t perception (seeing the words) but language processing (assembling strings of words into meanings). Have you ever tried listening to an audio recording with the speaking rate dialed way up? Doubling the speed, in our experience, leaves individual words perfectly identifiable — but makes it just about impossible to follow the meaning. The same phenomenon occurs with written text. 然而我们还有一个更深层次的问题——这个问题也威胁着那些新兴的速读软件——阅读中最大的瓶颈并不是感知（看到词语），而是语言处理（组合词语使其有意义）。你是否尝试过以极快的速度听录音？在我们的经验里，录音速度被增加一倍后，每一个单词都可以听清，但我们却恰恰跟不上它的意思。这种现象也同样出现在阅读纸质内容时。 As in all forms of human behavior, there is a trade-off, in reading, between speed and accuracy. You can learn to skim strategically so that you spend more time looking where the more important words are likely to be, and if the words are presented in a stream you may be able to learn which words to focus on and which to ignore. However, that does not mean that you can somehow magically read parts of a page that you don’t look at, or process all the words in a superfast sequence. 在各种人类行为中，总有取舍。阅读时，取舍就体现在速度和准确度上。你可以学习策略性地浏览，以便在可能出现更重要词语的地方花费更多时间。如果词语在眼前滚动，你能够知道哪些词需要重视，哪些词可以忽略。然而，这并不意味着你可以不看某一页的部分内容，就神奇地阅读了它；也不意味着你能以极快的速度处理所有的词。 Reading is about language comprehension, not visual ability. If you want to improve your reading speed, your best bet — as old-fashioned as it sounds — is to read a wide variety of written material and to expand your vocabulary. 阅读关乎语言的理解，而不是视觉能力。如果你想提高你的阅读速度，你最好的方法——这听起来有点老掉牙——是阅读大量文字资料并且扩充你的词汇库。 Just don’t expect to read “War and Peace” in 20 minutes. 真的别指望在20分钟里读完《战争与和平》。 Jeffrey M. Zacks, the author of “Flicker: Your Brain on Movies,” and Rebecca Treiman are professors of psychological and brain sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Jeffrey M. Zacks（著有《闪光：看电影的大脑》（Flicker：You Brain on Movies））和Rebecca Treiman，皆为圣路易斯华盛顿大学心理和大脑科学教授。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

The US Has The Best Rail System in the World, and Matt Yglesias Actually Pointed Out the Reason 美国拥有世界上最好的铁路系统，Matt Yglesias其实已经点出了背后的原因 作者:Warren Meyer @ 2016-5-2 翻译:Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny) 校对:babyface_claire(@许你疯不许你傻) 来源:www.coyoteblog.com，http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/05/the-us-has-the-best-rail-system-in-the-world-and-matt-yglesias-actually-pointed-out-the-reason.html Yglesias has a very good article on why passenger rail is not a bigger deal in the US. In it, he says this (emphasis added): 关于为何客运铁路在美国并未大行其道，Yglesias写了篇很好的文章。在那篇文章中，他说道：

Instead the issue is that the dismal failure of US passenger rail is in large part the flip side of the success of US freight rail. America's railroads ship a dramatically larger share of total goods than their European peers. And this is no coincidence. Outside of the Northeast Corridor, the railroad infrastructure is generally owned by freight companies — Amtrak is just piggybacking on the spare capacity. 相反，美国客运铁路的萧索其实很大程度上可视为其货运铁路兴盛的另一面。比起欧洲的铁路，美国的铁路承担全国货物运输的比重要大得多。而这并不是巧合。除了东北走廊线，美国的铁路设施基本由货运公司拥有——Amtrak【译注：美国国家铁路公司，其全部优先权股份都由美国联邦政府所有，并接受政府投资以维持公司运转。公司的运作模式为准政府机构，董事会成员皆由总统提名经参议院同意而任命】）仅仅肩负了剩余的运输能力。

It is a short article, so it does not go into more depth than this, but I have actually gone further than this and argued that the US freight-dominated rail system is actually far greener and more sensible than the European passenger system.  As I wrote years ago at Forbes: 这是篇短文章，所以只是点到为止，但我其实做过更深的研究，并提出货运占主导的美国铁路系统其实远比欧洲的客运系统更环保和更合理。正如多年前我在《福布斯》上发表的文章所说：

The US rail system, unlike nearly every other system in the world, was built (mostly) by private individuals with private capital.  It is operated privately, and runs without taxpayer subsidies.    And, it is by far the greatest rail system in the world.  It has by far the cheapest rates in the world (1/2 of China’s, 1/8 of Germany’s).  But here is the real key:  it is almost all freight. 与世界上几乎所有其他铁路系统都不一样，美国的铁路系统基本全部由私人出资，并由私人建设。它由私人运营，不需要拿纳税人的钱进行补贴。而且，目前为止它是世界上最大的铁路系统，也是目前为止最便宜的系统（成本为中国铁路系统的二分之一，德国的八分之一）。但真正的关键在这：它基本上完全为货运服务。 As a percentage, far more freight moves in the US by rail (vs. truck) than almost any other country in the world.  Europe and Japan are not even close.  Specifically, about 40% of US freight moves by rail, vs. just 10% or so in Europe and less than 5% in Japan.   As a result, far more of European and Japanese freight jams up the highways in trucks than in the United States.  For example, the percentage of freight that hits the roads in Japan is nearly double that of the US. 若以百分比计，在美国，铁路承担的货运量（同汽车运输相比）比世界上几乎其他任何国家都大得多。欧洲和日本完全不在同一档次上。具体来说，美国40%的货运由铁路承担，而欧洲为10%左右，日本则不到5%。结果便是，比起美国，在欧洲和日本，多得多的货物在卡车里堵在了高速公路上。例如，在日本由公路运输的货物的百分比几乎是美国的两倍。 You see, passenger rail is sexy and pretty and visible.  You can build grand stations and entertain visiting dignitaries on your high-speed trains.  This is why statist governments have invested so much in passenger rail — not to be more efficient, but to awe their citizens and foreign observers. 如你所见，客运铁路性感、招人喜欢，更容易被人看见。你可以修建雄伟的车站并以此取悦前来参观高速铁路的政要。这便是为何国家主义的政府已在客运铁路上投入了如此多的资金——并不是为了更高效，而是为了让他们的市民和外国参观者感到敬畏。 But there is little efficiency improvement in moving passengers by rail vs. other modes.   Most of the energy consumed goes into hauling not the passengers themselves, but the weight of increasingly plush rail cars.  Trains have to be really, really full all the time to make for a net energy savings for high-speed rail vs. cars or even planes, and they seldom are full.  I had a lovely trip on the high speed rail last summer between London and Paris and back through the Chunnel — especially nice because my son and I had the rail car entirely to ourselves both ways. 但是同其他方式相比，用铁路运输旅客并没有什么效率上的提高。大部分的能源被用在制动和运送日益豪华的车厢，而不是运送旅客上。同汽车（甚至飞机）相比，火车必须始终装得非常非常满才能更节省能源，而它们很少是满载的。去年夏天，在往返伦敦和巴黎时，我选择了乘坐穿梭英吉利海峡隧道的火车。那趟旅程可谓惬意——尤其考虑到往返旅程中车厢里都只有我和我儿子时。 The real rail efficiency comes from moving freight.  As compared to passenger rail, more of the total energy budget is used moving the actual freight rather than the cars themselves.  Freight is far more efficient to move by rail than by road, but only the US moves a substantial amount of its freight by rail.    One reason for this is that freight and high-speed passenger traffic have a variety of problems sharing the same rails, so systems that are optimized for one tend to struggle serving the other. 火车的真正效率来自货运。同客运铁路比起来，总能量开销更多被用来运输货物而不是车厢本身。用铁路运输货物要比用公路有效率得多，但只有美国用铁路运输大量货物。原因之一是客货共线存在许多问题，这样，被优化用于一种运输方式的系统会很难为另一种提供服务。 Freight is boring and un-sexy.  Its not a government function in the US.  So intellectuals tend to ignore it, even though it is the far more important, from and energy and environmental standpoint, portion of transport to put on the rails. .... 货运既无聊又不性感。在美国这不是政府职能之一。所以知识分子倾向于忽视它，尽管从能源和环境角度，货运都是交通极为重要的组成部分。 I would argue that the US has the world’s largest commitment to rail where it really matters.  But that is what private actors do, make investments that actually make sense rather than just gain one prestige (anyone know the most recent company Warren Buffet has bought?) 要我说，在它真正能够施展身手的地方，美国才是全世界向铁路交托了最大重任的国家。但那是私人部门所为，他们做有实际意义的投资而不是仅仅买得一个虚名（有谁知道沃伦·巴菲特新近买下的公司吗？） The greens should be demanding that the world emulate us, rather than the other way around.  But the lure of shiny bullet trains and grand passenger concourses will always cause some intellectuals to swoon. 绿党分子们应该要求全世界模仿我们，而不是反过来。但是闪亮的子弹头列车和雄伟的乘客广场总是太诱人，引得一些知识分子意乱情迷。

Which would you rather pounding down the highway, more people on vacation or more big trucks moving freight?  Without having made an explicit top-down choice at all, the US has taken the better approach. 在高速公路上，你乐意看到更多出门度假的人还是更多载货的大卡车？全然没有一个清晰的至上而下的选择，美国已然采用了更好的方式。 （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——

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——

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——

【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。  

【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……  

【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？  

【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。  

【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  

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

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

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

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

【图表一：政治倾向自评分】

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

【图表二：2012年美国总统大选】

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

【图表三：对九个政治议题的观点】

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

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

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

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

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

【2014年有机与传统农业统计数据比较概要】

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

【大量主要中耕作物采用有机种植时产量大幅降低】

【有机水果和坚果的产量绝大多数都大幅低于传统种植】

【蔬菜作物中的产量差距存在巨大差异】

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

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

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