Cass Sunstein on Judicial Minimalism, the Supreme Court, and Star Wars (Ep. 10 - Live at Mason)
The Force is strong with this one.
这个原力很强。
Cass is by far the most widely cited legal scholar of his generation.
卡斯是迄今为止他这一代中被引用最广泛的法律学者。
His older book, Nudge, and his new book on Star Wars are both best sellers, and he was head of OIRA [Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs] under President Obama from 2009 to 2013.
他的旧书《Nudge》和他关于《星球大战》的新书都是畅销书，他在 2009 年至 2013 年期间担任奥巴马总统领导下的 OIRA（信息和监管事务办公室）负责人。
Powerful, you have become.
强大，你已经成为了。
So tonight I’d like to start with a survey of Cass’s thought.
所以今晚我想首先调查一下卡斯的思想。
We’re going to look at legal theory and then go to Nudge and then consider Star Wars, how it all ties together, and then we’re going to talk about everything.
我们将研究法律理论，然后转向助推，然后考虑星球大战，这一切是如何联系在一起的，然后我们将讨论一切。
On Sunstein’s legal philosophy
论桑斯坦的法律哲学
Let’s start with your legal theory.
让我们从您的法律理论开始。
If I think of Richard Epstein, I think of classical liberalism, some mix of rights and utilitarian reasoning.
如果我想到理查德·爱泼斯坦，我就会想到古典自由主义，权利和功利主义推理的某种结合。
If I think of Dick Posner, I think of pragmatism mixed with law and economics.
如果我想到迪克·波斯纳，我就会想到与法律和经济学相结合的实用主义。
If I think of Dworkin, it’s legal interpretivism.
如果我想到德沃金，那就是法律解释主义。
If it’s Cass Sunstein — your legal theory in a nutshell — how should I characterize you?
如果是卡斯·桑斯坦 ——“你的法律理论简而言之”—— 我该如何描述你？
Well, I think I’d use three words: incompletely theorized agreements.
好吧，我想我会用三个词：不完全理论化的协议。
And I don’t think anyone’s ever marched under a banner with those three words on it, but in a way I think that is America’s banner.
我认为没有人曾在上面有这三个字的旗帜下游行过，但在某种程度上我认为那是美国的旗帜。
So the idea of incompletely theorized agreements is often we can figure out what our rights are and what to do without committing ourselves to a particular conception of the foundations of morality or without knowing exactly what we think about the foundations of morality.
因此，不完全理论化的协议的想法通常是，我们可以弄清楚我们的权利是什么以及我们应该做什么，而无需将自己致力于道德基础的特定概念或不确切地知道我们对道德基础的看法。
So you can have a free speech principle that says speech is protected unless there’s a clear and present danger, even if you are a welfarist and think that the idea of respect for persons is metaphysical gobbledygook.
因此，你可以有一个言论自由原则，即除非存在明显且现实的危险，否则言论受到保护，即使你是福利主义者并认为尊重人的想法是形而上学的官样文章。
You can believe in the “clear and present danger” standard if you are a Kantian and think that people have a right to say what they wish and go their own path and think that welfarism is a form of barely human robot philosophy.
如果你是康德主义者，你可以相信“明确而现实的危险”标准，并认为人们有权说出自己的愿望并走自己的路，并认为福利主义是一种几乎是人类的机器人哲学。
You can be an Aristotelian and say the same thing.
你可以是亚里士多德主义者并说同样的话。
You might be just philosophically indifferent and think that, if you want to have a society which figures out what’s true in some way that is not highfalutin, the “clear and present danger” test is right.
你可能只是在哲学上漠不关心，并认为，如果你想要一个以某种不浮夸的方式弄清楚什么是真实的社会，那么“明确而现实的危险”测试是正确的。
I could give a zillion examples.
我可以举出无数个例子。
I won’t.
我不会。
But our freedom-of-speech principle reflects an incompletely theorized agreement.
但我们的言论自由原则反映了一种不完全理论化的共识。
In some ways it’s like the opposite of Star Wars.
在某些方面，这就像星球大战的对立面。
Star Wars — it’s chock full of metaphysics.
《星球大战》——充满了形而上学。
And here you’re saying we don’t really know about metaphysics.
你在这里说我们并不真正了解形而上学。
How far can we get with only a minimal amount of agreement?
只要达成最少的协议，我们能走多远？
Sometimes you’ve called this judicial minimalism, right?
有时你称之为司法极简主义，对吗？
Take a case going on right now — very complicated case.
就拿现在正在发生的一个案子来说——非常复杂的案子。
North Carolina, transgender individuals’ bathrooms, two different points of view.
北卡罗来纳州，跨性别者的浴室，两种不同的观点。
Your perspective of minimalism — is there a way you could apply it to — ?
您对极简主义的看法 — 有没有办法可以将其应用到 — ？
Yes.
是的。
Give us the right solution.
给我们正确的解决方案。
So, I’d need to say a lot about the particulars of that to resolve it.
所以，我需要说很多细节来解决这个问题。
But to resolve the transgender bathroom issue, we need to think, I think, first about questions — kind of mundane questions about jurisdiction and authority.
但我认为，要解决变性人的厕所问题，我们首先需要思考一些关于管辖权和权威的常见问题。
And I’d like to avoid big questions about sexuality and what people are like unless you have to get there.
我想避免提出有关性和人们是什么样的大问题，除非你必须这样做。
And so, one question is what authority the states have; what authority does the federal government have?
因此，一个问题是各州拥有什么权力？联邦政府有什么权力？
As a presumption, the states have authority over bathroom stuff.
作为推定，各州对浴室用品拥有权力。
On the other hand, the federal government has some regulatory authority under the Civil Rights Act.
另一方面，联邦政府根据《民权法》拥有一些监管权。
And if you’re falling asleep a little bit because I’m not talking about transgender in the large, I’m sad you’re falling asleep but a little happy that hair isn’t on fire, because one way democracies work well is they put people’s hair on fire very rarely.
如果你因为我谈论的不是大范围的变性人而睡着了，我很遗憾你睡着了，但又有点高兴头发没有着火，因为民主国家运作良好的一种方式是他们很少让人们的头发着火。
They try to use issues of democratic process and who has the authority to do what as a way of allowing us to live together peaceably, notwithstanding our disagreements.
他们试图利用民主程序以及谁有权做什么的问题来让我们和平共处，尽管我们存在分歧。
There’s a good argument at least that the federal government has regulatory authority under the civil rights laws to figure out what counts as discrimination, sex discrimination in particular.
至少有一个很好的论据表明，联邦政府根据民权法拥有监管权，可以确定什么才算歧视，特别是性别歧视。
Whether in the end this is a convincing argument, I’m kind of bracketing that, but that is a minimalist direction.
无论这最终是否是一个令人信服的论点，我都会将其括起来，但这是一个极简主义的方向。
It wouldn’t say anything super large about what sex equality means; it would say something more modest about who has authority.
它不会对性别平等的含义做出任何重大说明；它会更谦虚地说明谁拥有权威。
Let’s take you and Dick Posner as theorists of legal reasoning.
让我们将您和迪克·波斯纳视为法律推理理论家。
He’s also not a big proponent of metaphysics, but you and he end up at different points — especially earlier Dick Posner, right?
他也不是形而上学的大力支持者，但你和他最终处于不同的境地 ——尤其是早期的迪克·波斯纳，对吧？
He’s actually moved closer to you.
他实际上离你更近了。
What’s the empirical variable that you and Posner disagree about that accounts for where you end up and where he ends up?
你和波斯纳对于解释你和他最终的结果的经验变量是什么？
OK.
好的。
Well, we’d have to figure out where exactly we differ.
好吧，我们必须弄清楚我们到底在哪里不同。
Early on, he had a view — and this is not an empirical disagreement — but early on he had a view that wealth maximization is what judges should try to maximize.
早些时候，他有一个观点——“这不是经验上的分歧”——但他很早就有一个观点，即法官应该努力实现财富最大化。
Sure, but he’s moved away from that.
当然，但他已经摆脱了这一点。
Yeah, and I would consider that too sectarian a view.
是的，我认为这种观点过于宗派。
I think his view of judicial authority is a little too free-floating for me.
我认为他对司法权威的看法对我来说有点太自由了。
Where we disagree, if we do — I think we probably do — is that I am more concerned about the need for stable rules that discipline judicial authority, even if it would be exercised wisely by some judges.
如果我们不同意——“我认为我们可能会这样做”，那么我更关心的是需要有稳定的规则来约束司法权威，即使某些法官会明智地行使这些规则。
And Judge Posner, I think, is a superb judge whose judgement in particular cases is often excellent.
我认为波斯纳法官是一位出色的法官，他对特定案件的判断往往非常出色。
But it doesn’t have a kind of rule-following character on some occasions that I think for most judges is a very important safeguard against the willful exercise of discretion.
但在某些情况下，它不具有遵守规则的特征，我认为对于大多数法官来说，这是防止故意行使自由裁量权的非常重要的保障。
On the metaphysics of nudging
论助推的形而上学
Now let’s go to your famous work on Nudge with Dick Thaler.
现在让我们来欣赏一下您与迪克·塞勒 (Dick Thaler) 合作的著名作品《助推》(Nudge)。
And nudge is not direct physical violence — it’s nudge, right?
轻推并不是直接的身体暴力 ——它是轻推，对吧？
Is that just a direct outgrowth of judicial minimalism but applied to regulatory policy — that here’s what we ought to all be able to agree upon without much in the way of metaphysical commitment, so it’s all one big picture — or not?
这是否只是司法极简主义的直接产物，但适用于监管政策——“这是我们所有人都应该能够达成一致的，而不需要太多形而上学的承诺，所以这都是一幅大图画”——或者不是？
It’s a great question, so I’ll give you a kind of “yes” and a “no.” The “no” is — when Dick Thaler and I thought about the idea of nudging, the notion was that choice-preserving approaches often have two really great features.
这是一个很好的问题，所以我会给你一个“是”和一个“否”。 “不”是——当迪克·塞勒和我考虑助推的想法时，我们的想法是，选择保留方法通常有两个非常好的特征。
One is, they preserve people’s ultimate freedom to go their own way.
一是，它们保留了人们走自己的路的最终自由。
And the other is that it can — a choice-preserving approach can give welfare and longevity and everything good the benefit of the doubt.
另一个是它可以——一种保留选择的方法可以让人们幸福、长寿以及一切美好的事物。
So a GPS is a nudge.
所以 GPS 是一个助推器。
Right.
正确的。
It tells you the direction in which you probably ought to go if you want to get there expeditiously, the direction you want to go.
它告诉你如果你想快速到达那里你可能应该走的方向，你想要走的方向。
And if you want the scenic route or the route that triggers feelings of nostalgia in you, go for it.
如果您想要风景优美的路线或引发怀旧情绪的路线，那就去吧。
Tell that little voice to be quiet; you’re going to go you own way.
告诉那个小声音安静；你会走你自己的路。
That’s a nudge.
这是一个推动。
And what Thaler and I thought, informed by behavioral science and behavioral economics, is that human beings don’t know how to navigate roads unless they are really trained.
塞勒和我根据行为科学和行为经济学的想法认为，除非经过真正的训练，否则人类不知道如何在道路上行驶。
They might use heuristics for how to get to places — I certainly do — that often go wrong.
他们可能会使用启发式方法来了解如何到达经常出错的地方——“我当然会这么做”。
And if you want to manage your savings portfolio, you might rely on rules of thumb that are going to make you less wealthy than would be good.
如果你想管理你的储蓄投资组合，你可能会依赖经验法则，这会让你变得不那么富有。
Or you might have eating habits that aren’t so good, or you might get a mortgage that isn’t in your interest.
或者你可能有不太好的饮食习惯，或者你可能会得到不符合你利益的抵押贷款。
And so, given human fallibility, nudges are often super important for well-being.
因此，考虑到人类容易犯错，推动对于幸福感来说往往非常重要。
They’re actually all around us, so a nudge-free world is actually literally unimaginable.
它们实际上就在我们周围，所以一个没有推动的世界实际上是难以想象的。
So we thought about, how can you — how can you get to good results while preserving people’s freedom, which is a great safeguard against private or public error.
所以我们思考，如何才能在保护人们的自由的同时取得良好的结果，这是防止私人或公共错误的重要保障。
So, that idea doesn’t have much of a family resemblance to minimalism.
所以，这个想法与极简主义没有太多相似之处。
Minimalism is a way of telling the judges, “Be shallow,” which is not good in romance, but which is good often for courts; “Don’t get deep,” that might be too sectarian; and “Be narrow,” meaning, “Decide this case and not all cases,” on the ground that width, when it comes to a court, can be a recipe for self-embarrassment.
极简主义是告诉法官“要肤浅”的一种方式，这在浪漫中并不好，但在法庭上却常常是好的。 “不要深入”，这可能太宗派主义了。 “狭窄”的意思是“决定这个案件而不是所有案件”，因为当涉及到法庭时，宽度可能会导致自我尴尬。
You decide an affirmative action case in a way that resolves all affirmative action cases, then you might be confounded by situations where either affirmative action is, let’s say, extremely important or is invidious.
你以解决所有平权行动案件的方式来决定平权行动案件，那么你可能会对平权行动极其重要或令人反感的情况感到困惑。
And your decision — okay, so that’s minimalism.
而你的决定 —— 好吧，这就是极简主义。
But in terms of the — .
但就 — 而言。
That does sound like nudge to me.
这对我来说听起来确实像是轻推。
“What’s the thing you can get people to agree on?” Very context specific.
“什么事情能让人们达成一致？”非常具体的上下文。
It’s not a judge; it’s a regulator.
这不是法官；而是法官。它是一个调节器。
But it’s like the unity of Cass Sunstein’s thought.
但这就像卡斯·桑斯坦思想的统一。
There we go.
我们开始吧。
There you’re completely right.
你是完全正确的。
So what appeals to me about nudging in part is in a sharply divided polity, a nudge can be — salute to you — a form of political minimalism.
因此，推动在一定程度上吸引我的是在一个严重分裂的政体中，推动可以是“向你致敬”一种政治极简主义形式。
Where people might say, “You know, I don’t know what I think about climate change.
人们可能会说：“你知道，我不知道我对气候变化有何看法。
But if you give me a fuel economy label that tells me something about how much money I’m going to pay this year — and tell me, by the way, something about the polluting content of the car — I’m for that.” So nudges often can attract appeal from people who would disagree about bigger stuff.
但如果你给我一个燃油经济性标签，告诉我今年要花多少钱 ——顺便告诉我一些关于汽车污染成分的信息—— 我赞成。”因此，推动往往可以吸引那些对更大的事情持不同意见的人的吸引力。
Let me tell you some of my views on nudge, and then you respond.
让我告诉你一些我对助推的看法，然后你回应。
I view everything in life as a nudge, so in this sense, nudge per se doesn’t bug me.
我将生活中的一切视为一种推动，所以从这个意义上说，推动本身并不困扰我。
Some nudges may or may not work — fine, let’s discuss that — but I’m not offended by the nudge.
有些推动可能有效，也可能无效——好吧，我们来讨论一下，但我并没有因为这种推动而感到冒犯。
But I see in the world so many people who hate the idea of nudge in a deep sense.
但我看到世界上有很多人从深层意义上讨厌助推的想法。
And if you view every point as being a nudge of some kind, you’ll also think, “Well, there’s no point of pure transparency we can nudge everyone to that’s the default.” So nudging is always a metaphysical commitment of some kind, and thus I worry there are conflicting impulses in you.
如果你将每一点都视为某种推动，你也会想，“好吧，纯粹的透明度是没有意义的，我们可以推动每个人都默认这一点。”因此，推动始终是某种形而上学的承诺，因此我担心你内心存在相互矛盾的冲动。
There’s the “Well, let’s do this metaphysics-free,” like the minimalism.
有一种“好吧，让我们摆脱形而上学”，就像极简主义一样。
But if everything is a nudge, and you’re choosing across all of these nontransparent points, there’s some deep metaphysical commitment in Cass Sunstein.
但如果一切都是轻推，而你在所有这些不透明的点上进行选择，那么卡斯·桑斯坦就有一些深刻的形而上学承诺。
And I want to get at what that commitment is and then tie it into a big theory of “Why do some people seem to hate this idea so much?” Do you see what I’m saying?
我想了解这个承诺是什么，然后将其与“为什么有些人似乎如此讨厌这个想法？”的大理论联系起来。你明白我在说什么吗？
I think — yes, I do.
我想 —— 是的，我想。
So — OK.
所以 — 好的。
So the economic analysis of law has had many good ideas.
所以法律的经济分析已经有很多好的想法。
It’s had one great idea — like, world-transforming idea, I think.
它有一个伟大的想法——我认为，就像是改变世界的想法。
And the idea is, when you’re stuck, minimize the sum of the costs of decisions and the costs of errors.
这个想法是，当你陷入困境时，尽量减少决策成本和错误成本的总和。
Now, that is not gripping stuff.
现在，这并不是什么令人抓狂的东西。
But it’s profoundly true that if you don’t know what to do, figure out either a meta-rule or a particular decision that makes error costs low, meaning the number and the magnitude is small, and that makes decision costs low, meaning you don’t have to drive yourself crazy.
但确实如此，如果你不知道该怎么做，找出一个元规则或一个特定的决策，可以降低错误成本，这意味着错误的数量和程度都很小，这使得决策成本很低，这意味着你不必让自己发疯。
So the economic analysis of law has had many good ideas.
所以法律的经济分析已经有很多好的想法。
It’s had one great idea — like, world-transforming idea, I think.
它有一个伟大的想法——我认为，就像是改变世界的想法。
And the idea is, when you’re stuck, minimize the sum of the costs of decisions and the costs of errors.
这个想法是，当你陷入困境时，尽量减少决策成本和错误成本的总和。
Now, that is not gripping stuff.
现在，这并不是什么令人抓狂的东西。
But it’s profoundly true that if you don’t know what to do, figure out either a meta-rule or a particular decision that makes error costs low, meaning the number and the magnitude is small, and that makes decision costs low, meaning you don’t have to drive yourself crazy.
但确实如此，如果你不知道该怎么做，找出一个元规则或一个特定的决策，可以降低错误成本，这意味着错误的数量和程度都很小，这使得决策成本很低，这意味着你不必让自己发疯。
And we intuitively, I think, minimize the sum of error costs and decision costs when we decide how to handle a menu, whether it’s for, you know, a meal tonight or whether it’s for what kind of car to buy where it’s kind of equivalent of a menu.
我认为，当我们决定如何处理菜单时，无论是为了今晚的一顿饭，还是为了在相当于菜单的情况下购买哪种汽车，我们直觉上都会最大限度地减少错误成本和决策成本的总和。
So minimalism, if it is to be defended on the judicial side, the background kind of theory is, it helps minimize the costs of decisions, costs of errors.
因此，如果要在司法方面捍卫极简主义，其背景理论是，它有助于最大限度地减少决策成本和错误成本。
If you decide this affirmative action case and not every one, then you’re not going to be decisionally overwhelming to yourself if you’re a court.
如果你对这一平权行动案件做出裁决，而不是对所有案件做出裁决，那么如果你是法院，你就不会在决策上对自己造成压倒性的影响。
And more fundamentally, you’re not going to produce tremendous errors for the future.
更重要的是，你不会在未来产生巨大的错误。
And that’s a common risk for judicial decisions, whether the question is the power of the president or the right to privacy.
无论问题是总统的权力还是隐私权，这都是司法判决的常见风险。
You can blunder terribly if you get away from the particulars of the case.
如果你不了解案件的细节，你可能会犯下严重错误。
And this has something to do with what judges’ informational inputs are — they’re limited.
这与法官的信息输入有关——它们是有限的。
Now, in terms of nudges, they have the same feature.
现在，就轻推而言，它们具有相同的功能。
They’re not always the right way to go.
它们并不总是正确的方法。
Sometimes you have an option of not doing a nudge, and you shouldn’t.
有时你可以选择不进行轻推，但你不应该这样做。
And sometimes you have an option of doing a mandate like “Forbid murder” — that’s good.
有时你可以选择执行“禁止谋杀”之类的命令 ——这很好。
But the analysis of nudges — when they make sense — it’s that they are decisionally less burdensome to produce, and the costs of error are lower because if you screw it up, people can say, “You know, you’re giving me some information about the caloric content of brownies and hamburgers.
但是，对助推的分析——“当它们有意义时——”它们的生产负担明显减轻，而且错误的成本也更低，因为如果你搞砸了，人们可能会说，“你知道，你给了我一些关于布朗尼和汉堡的卡路里含量的信息。
Thank you very much, but I like that brownie and the high-calorie hamburger.
非常感谢，但我喜欢那个布朗尼蛋糕和高热量的汉堡。
That’s my dinner tonight.”
这就是我今晚的晚餐。”
Instead of nudging people, what if we just pay them to do the right thing?
如果我们不去催促人们，而是付钱让他们做正确的事，会怎样呢？
Is that better?
这样更好吗？
Worse?
更糟糕的是？
It depends on the costs of decisions and costs of errors.
这取决于决策成本和错误成本。
You could, if you want to encourage people to save more — there’s first the question whether that’s a good idea, but let’s stipulate — .
如果你想鼓励人们多存钱，你可以这样做——首先要问这是否是一个好主意，但让我们规定一下。
Right, but say it is.
对吧，不过说是吧。
Just pay them more.
只要付给他们更多的钱就可以了。
In Denmark, economic incentives have had significantly less effect in promoting savings than automatic enrollment.
在丹麦，经济激励措施在促进储蓄方面的效果明显低于自动注册。
There’s every reason to believe that in an area that isn’t, you know, hugely important but isn’t trivial — that is, paper usage — if you have a double-sided default for printing, an institution will save much more money than if it jacks up — than if the price of paper is jacked up.
我们有充分的理由相信，在一个不是非常重要但并非微不足道的领域——即纸张使用——如果你有双面默认打印，机构将比抬高纸张价格节省更多的钱。
Often a little nudge changing the default rule, giving some people some information, will have a very significant effect on behavior, more so than tax incentives or other economic incentives.
通常，稍微改变一下默认规则，给一些人一些信息，就会对行为产生非常显着的影响，比税收激励或其他经济激励措施更有效。
And that’s good, by the way, partly because on the cost side it’s much less; you’re not sticking the taxpayers with anything.
顺便说一句，这很好，部分原因是成本方面要低得多。你没有让纳税人做任何事。
On the other hand, there are some domains where incentives have a bigger effect.
另一方面，在某些领域，激励措施的作用更大。
We have evidence that taxes for cigarettes have a big impact in reducing smoking.
我们有证据表明卷烟税对减少吸烟有很大影响。
I think presumptively that’s a very good idea — 480,000 Americans die every year; if we can cut that number, that’s a good thing.
我认为这是一个非常好的主意 —— 每年有 480,000 名美国人死亡；如果我们能减少这个数字，那是一件好事。
Whereas the warnings we now have on cigarettes seem to be less effective than increasing the incentive not to smoke.
然而，我们现在对香烟的警告似乎不如增加不吸烟的动机有效。
Let’s take a concrete example from real life: Jedi mind tricks.
让我们举一个现实生活中的具体例子：绝地思维技巧。
Obi-Wan comes along and says, “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.” And what does the stormtroooper do?
欧比旺走过来说：“这些不是你要找的机器人。”冲锋队是做什么的？
He goes away.
他走了。
Now, is that a nudge?
现在，这是轻推吗？
No, it’s a form of manipulation.
不，这是一种操纵形式。
So — .
所以 - 。
OK, but how do you draw the metaphysical categories?
好吧，但是你如何绘制形而上学的范畴呢？
It seems like a nudge that just happens to work all the time.
这似乎是一种一直有效的推动。
OK.
好的。
I’ll give you a quick and dirty way of getting at that.
我将为您提供一种快速而肮脏的方法来实现这一点。
Many social scientists make a distinction between System 1, which is the intuitive, rapid processing of the brain, which sees maybe a large dog and thinks, “Oh my gosh, I’m going to get bitten,” or feels turbulence in a plane and says, “We’re all going to die,” and System 2, the more deliberative system which says, rightly, upon seeing a large dog, “This might be my best friend, and the likelihood of being bitten is super low,” and if the plane starts shaking, System 2 in the brain thinks, “Planes shake, and they hardly ever crash.”
许多社会科学家对系统 1 和系统 2 进行了区分，系统 1 是大脑直观、快速的处理过程，它看到一只大狗，就会想：“哦，天哪，我要被咬了”，或者感受到飞机上的湍流，说“我们都会死”；系统 2 是更深思熟虑的系统，在看到一只大狗时，正确地说，“这可能是我最好的朋友，被咬的可能性非常低”，如果当飞机开始摇晃时，大脑中的系统 2 会认为：“飞机摇晃，但它们几乎不会坠毁。”
Manipulation, we can say as a first approximation, is when the agent is appealing to System 1 and not appealing to people’s deliberative faculties.
我们可以说，作为第一个近似值，操纵是指主体吸引系统 1 而不是吸引人们的深思熟虑能力。
When Obi-Wan says — and we’d have to watch it in very slow motion to see exactly what’s happening.
当欧比旺说“——”时，我们必须以非常慢的动作观看才能确切地看到发生了什么。
But when Obi-Wan says, “These are not the droids you’re looking for,” Obi-Wan is not appealing to the deliberative faculties of the stormtrooper.
但当欧比旺说：“这些不是你要找的机器人”时，欧比旺并没有吸引冲锋队的深思熟虑的能力。
A nudge — .
轻轻一推—— 。
Let’s just say we follow David Hume.
假设我们跟随大卫·休谟。
How much do people ever deliberate?
人们曾经有多少深思熟虑？
When I do things — when I’m driving, I can end up in places I don’t even recall having driven.
当我做事时——当我开车时，我可能会到达我什至不记得曾经开车过的地方。
What I choose to eat, how much I eat — it seems 98 percent of my life isn’t deliberated.
我选择吃什么，吃多少——似乎我生命中 98% 的时间都不是经过深思熟虑的。
So does that really shrink the realm of nudge, then?
那么，这真的缩小了助推的范围吗？
No, because a nudge can be a System 1 nudge or a System 2 nudge.
不，因为微移可以是系统 1 微移或系统 2 微移。
And whether — OK, so if it’s a System 2 nudge, it’s by definition not a form of manipulation.
不管是——好吧，所以如果这是系统 2 的推动，那么根据定义，它不是一种操纵形式。
So, if there’s a reminder or a warning or a fuel economy label that tells you how much the car is going to cost to operate, then there’s no risk of manipulation.
因此，如果有提醒、警告或燃油经济性标签告诉您汽车的运营成本，那么就不存在被操纵的风险。
If people are given a graphic warning that, let’s say, shows a smoker who has lung cancer, then there’s a discussion to be had about whether it’s manipulation.
如果人们收到一个图形警告，比方说，显示一名患有肺癌的吸烟者，那么就会讨论这是否是操纵。
I think this is a way into the topic of manipulation.
我认为这是进入操纵主题的一种方式。
Probably we have to say something like, if one person is appealing to another in a way that wholly bypasses deliberative capacities, there’s at least a risk of manipulation.
也许我们不得不说，如果一个人以一种完全绕过审议能力的方式吸引另一个人，那么至少存在操纵的风险。
It might be justified, all things considered.
考虑到所有因素，这可能是合理的。
The nudges that seem to me to be appropriate in a democratic society are either nudges that appeal to people’s reflective or deliberative capacities or that don’t exploit or inflame solely people’s non-deliberative capacities.
在我看来，在民主社会中合适的推动要么是吸引人们的反思或审议能力的推动，要么是不充分利用或激发人们的非审议能力的推动。
If you’re doing that, then you owe them some stuff, one of which is publicity about what you’re doing.
如果你这样做，那么你就欠他们一些东西，其中之一就是宣传你正在做的事情。
On photographic warnings for cigarettes — that was preceded by a public comment period, completely transparent.
关于香烟的照片警告——在此之前有一个完全透明的公众意见征询期。
There’s evidence that when there are graphic warnings for smokers, smokers actually know better, not worse, about the actual risks of smoking.
有证据表明，当向吸烟者提供图形警告时，吸烟者实际上对吸烟的实际风险了解得更好，而不是更糟。
So it gets kind of complicated.
所以事情变得有点复杂。
But the simple bottom line is, Obi-Wan Kenobi is a great hero of the galaxy a long time ago, far, far away.
但简单的底线是，欧比旺·克诺比是很久以前的银河系伟大英雄，在很远很远的地方。
Still a great hero.
仍然是一个伟大的英雄。
That moment was an act of manipulation.
那一刻是一种操纵行为。
On the best nudger in the galaxy
银河系中最好的助推器
If you were to pick one character from Star Wars who would nudge you — you get to elect them; you’re the only vote.
如果你要从《星球大战》中挑选一个会推动你的角色 — 你就可以选择他们；你是唯一的一票。
Even Samantha doesn’t get a vote, just Cass — not your children — which character would you pick?
就连萨曼莎都没有投票权，只有卡斯 ——不是你的孩子 —— 你会选择哪个角色？
Whom would you trust with that nudge?
你会相信谁来推动你呢？
It’s a universe full of Jedi here, right?
这里是一个充满绝地武士的宇宙，对吗？
Yoda.
尤达。
Yoda?
尤达？
I trust that guy.
我信任那个人。
But I worry about Yoda.
但我担心尤达。
I trust him.
我相信他。
It seems to me Yoda is always wrong.
在我看来，尤达总是错的。
Here’s what someone online wrote about Yoda.
这是网上有人写的关于尤达的内容。
Let me just read.
让我读一下。
“Episode V and VI,” I quote, “Basically every single word of advice Yoda offers Luke is dead wrong.
“第五集和第六集，”我引用道，“基本上尤达给卢克的每一个建议都是完全错误的。
In the end, Luke was right and Yoda was wrong.
最后，卢克是对的，尤达是错的。
There was still good in Anakin, and the death of Palpatine came about because Luke ignored his advice.
阿纳金仍然有优点，帕尔帕廷的死就是因为卢克忽视了他的建议。
“Yoda was also wrong about what to do at the end of Empire Strikes Back.
“尤达在《帝国反击战》结束时的行动也是错误的。
Episode I — Yoda refuses to believe that Maul was a Sith, and he refuses to allow Anakin to become a Padawan until it is confirmed there were Sith about.
第一集——尤达拒绝相信摩尔是西斯，并且他拒绝让阿纳金成为学徒，直到确认西斯的存在。
Then he totally changes his mind, and he badly mishandles the crisis on Naboo.
然后他完全改变了主意，他对纳布危机的处理严重错误。
“Episode II — Yoda not only takes the bait and jumps into the trap of taking the clones to rescue Anakin and Obi-Wan, therefore starting the events leading to the death of all the Jedi and the start of the worst war in millennia,” dot, dot, dot.
“第二集 ——尤达不仅上钩，跳入陷阱，带着克隆人营救阿纳金和欧比旺，从而引发了导致所有绝地死亡的事件，并引发了数千年来最严重的战争，”点，点，点。
You sure you want to pick Yoda?
你确定要选尤达吗？
Yoda had it all figured out.
尤达已经弄清楚了这一切。
So it looks like he made a lot of bad decisions, but he knew, you know, “No pain, no gain,” and it all works out.
所以看起来他做出了很多错误的决定，但他知道，你知道，“没有痛苦，就没有收获”，一切都会成功。
Hooray, Yoda.
万岁，尤达。
He doesn’t tell Luke who his father is, right?
他没有告诉卢克他的父亲是谁，对吧？
He could’ve — he could’ve said that.
他可以——他可以这么说。
Yeah.
是的。
Another way to put it is that — I think you’re onto something actually very deep about the movies, which is that Yoda is nominally the wise person, but he makes a kind of fundamental error, which is, he thinks that detachment is good and attachment is bad.
另一种说法是， —— 我认为你在电影中看到了一些非常深刻的东西，那就是尤达名义上是智者，但他犯了一个根本性的错误，也就是说，他认为超然是好的，依恋是坏的。
He’s the kind of Stoic or Buddhist figure in the movie, to which obviously the saga is deeply drawn.
他是电影中那种斯多葛派或佛教人物，显然这个传奇故事深受其吸引。
But the Buddhist and Stoic view is defeated in the end.
但佛教和斯多葛派的观点最终失败了。
Attachment wins out.
附件胜出。
That’s what brings balance to the Force, because Anakin can’t bear — and he’s called Anakin, by the way, in the script for the first time after he saves Luke by killing the emperor and being in his death scene.
这就是给原力带来平衡的原因，因为阿纳金无法忍受——顺便说一下，他在剧本中第一次被称为阿纳金，是在他杀死了皇帝并出现在他的死亡场景中，从而拯救了卢克之后。
Then he’s called Anakin again.
然后他又叫阿纳金。
And it’s attachment.
而且是执着。
It’s attachment that restores him.
是执着让他恢复了。
So Yoda’s deeply wrong.
所以尤达大错特错了。
I was just thinking about — you know, if the question is financial wisdom or food consumption or exercise, I don’t want to ask Luke or Leia or Han.
我只是在想——你知道，如果问题是财务智慧、食物消费或锻炼，我不想问卢克、莱娅或汉。
If you ask Luke — I can’t even understand what R2-D2 is saying, and C-3PO is just going to get all anxious on me, so Yoda’s my guy.
如果你问卢克 —— 我什至听不懂 R2-D2 在说什么，而 C-3PO 只会让我感到焦虑，所以尤达是我的人。
If you ask Luke, you’re going to get a weird chaste kiss with your sister, right?
如果你问卢克，你会和你的妹妹来一个奇怪的贞洁之吻，对吧？
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
是的。
And it might be not that chaste, and I love my sister, and — let’s change the subject.
也许不是那么贞洁，而且我爱我的妹妹，而且 —— 让我们换个话题。
On President Obama’s “colossal blunder”
论奥巴马总统的“巨大错误”
So, let’s take a question or two about Star Wars.
那么，让我们问一两个关于《星球大战》的问题。
I take it you’ve seen these movies.
我想你一定看过这些电影。
Your book is now number one on the Washington Post best-seller list.
您的书现在在《华盛顿邮报》畅销书排行榜上排名第一。
It’s on other best-seller lists.
它也在其他畅销书排行榜上。
Every day I see it covered.
我每天都看到它被覆盖。
President Obama is also a Star Wars fan.
奥巴马总统也是星球大战迷。
What can you tell us about the President and Star Wars?
关于总统和星球大战，您能告诉我们什么吗？
Well, I can tell you a few things.
好吧，我可以告诉你一些事情。
First, I did have an opportunity to talk to him when I was working in the White House about many subjects — cost-benefit analysis, the relationship between regulation and economic recovery, issues involving regulatory reform and small business.
首先，我在白宫工作时确实有机会与他谈论了很多话题——成本效益分析、监管与经济复苏的关系、涉及监管改革和小企业的问题。
And I didn’t once talk to him about Star Wars.
我一次也没有和他谈论过星球大战。
But very recently, post-book, I did talk to him about Star Wars.
但最近，在出版后，我确实和他谈论了《星球大战》。
He doesn’t have a lot of time to talk at length about Star Wars, but we did talk about Star Wars.
他没有太多时间详细谈论《星球大战》，但我们确实谈论了《星球大战》。
And what I’d say is a couple things.
我想说的是几件事。
First, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution protects executive privilege.
首先，宪法第二条第一款保护行政特权。
Sure.
当然。
It’s kind of a foundation of the separation of powers, and that protects him from disclosure of anything he may or may not have said in private about Star Wars.
这是权力分立的基础，这可以保护他不被泄露他私下可能说过或可能没有说过的有关星球大战的任何事情。
But I will say that he said publicly something which — I’m going to make a little news tonight.
但我要说的是，他公开说了一些话， —— 今晚我要制造一个小新闻。
You know, I worked with him for four years, and people who work under the President, I think, have an obligation not to break with their former boss publicly.
你知道，我和他共事了四年，我认为在总统手下工作的人有义务不公开与前任老板决裂。
And I haven’t done that, but I will now.
我还没有这样做，但我现在会这样做。
The President said that A New Hope was the best of the Star Wars movies.
总统说《新希望》是星球大战电影中最好的一部。
Number four.
第四。
Number four.
第四。
And that was a colossal blunder on his part.
这对他来说是一个巨大的错误。
And the best is?
最好的是？
And the best, of course, is The Empire Strikes Back.
当然，最好的是《帝国反击战》。
And I do feel that the President has superb judgment and has done many excellent things.
我确实觉得总统的判断力非常高超，做了很多出色的事情。
But I’m kind of getting my mind around the fact that this person, my boss — how could he have made that level of mistake?
但我正在思考这样一个事实：这个人，我的老板 ——他怎么会犯这种程度的错误？
The President said that A New Hope was the best of the Star Wars movies…and that was a colossal blunder on his part.
总统说《新希望》是星球大战电影中最好的……这对他来说是一个巨大的错误。
So, he’s hope and change, and you’re a darker vision of history, actually.
所以，他是希望和改变，而你实际上是历史的黑暗愿景。
Well, I’m wondering if that’s the nature of the disagreement.
好吧，我想知道这是否就是分歧的本质。
I think hope and change of the New Hope sort, whatever your political affiliation — you know, Senator Cruz is a big Star Wars fan; Donald Trump is a Star Wars fan.
我认为新希望之类的希望和改变，无论你的政治立场如何 ——你知道，克鲁兹参议员是《星球大战》的忠实粉丝；唐纳德·特朗普是星球大战迷。
People who don’t like, you know, President Obama’s policies love Star Wars.
你知道，不喜欢奥巴马总统政策的人喜欢《星球大战》。
But I think that The Empire Strikes Back just is a better movie.
但我认为《帝国反击战》是一部更好的电影。
So, if you like dark movies or light movies, The Empire Strikes Back is one of the great movies of all time.
因此，如果您喜欢黑暗电影或轻松电影，《帝国反击战》是有史以来最伟大的电影之一。
It’s probably the greatest movie of all time.
这可能是有史以来最伟大的电影。
A New Hope is a superb movie, it’s probably the second-greatest movie of all time, but The Empire Strikes Back is better.
《新希望》是一部很棒的电影，它可能是有史以来第二伟大的电影，但《帝国反击战》更好。
On the Star Wars prequels
关于星球大战前传
Let me tell you a bit of my views of the prequels, and then you respond.
让我告诉你一些我对前传的看法，然后你回应。
I think they’re strongly underrated.
我认为他们被严重低估了。
Lucas was a genius.
卢卡斯是个天才。
He broke with his previous mold.
他打破了以前的模式。
They’re fundamentally movies about institutions that drop with the idea of following simple personal narratives.
从根本上说，它们是关于机构的电影，没有遵循简单的个人叙事的想法。
And number one, especially, is the story of how youth grows into seeking power.
第一个尤其是年轻人如何成长为寻求权力的故事。
And they’re deep and profound and highly original.
它们是深刻的、深刻的、高度原创的。
So from my point of view, the worst episode — seven aside, which is not even part of the canon — the worst one is number six, Jedi, which is too redemptionist, too many Ewoks, a little too cuddly.
所以从我的角度来看，最糟糕的一集————除了第七集，它甚至不是正典的一部分————最糟糕的是第六集《绝地武士》，它太救赎主义了，太多了伊沃克人，有点太可爱了。
It’s a very good Disney movie.
这是一部非常好的迪士尼电影。
And the most underrated episode is number one.
最被低估的一集是第一集。
But I take it you have different views, so you tell us how you see the different pieces fitting together.
但我认为你有不同的观点，所以你告诉我们你如何看待不同的部分组合在一起。
I agree with a lot of what you said, but there’s one thing you said which is the level of colossal error of the President’s in saying New Hope is the best.
我同意你所说的很多内容，但你说的一件事是，总统说“新希望”是最好的，这是一个巨大的错误。
And that is, you said three is the worst of the movies.
也就是说，你说《三部曲》是最糟糕的电影。
And that is — forgive me, that’s a colossal error, not because — .
那就是 ——原谅我，这是一个巨大的错误，不是因为 —— 。
Who said three is the worst?
谁说三是最差的？
You — didn’t you say three?
你 ——你不是说三个吗？
No, six is the worst.
不，六是最糟糕的。
No. Six is the worst.
不，六是最差的。
Six is the worst, Return of the Jedi.
六是最糟糕的，《绝地归来》。
Six is the worst, you said.
你说，六是最糟糕的。
OK.
好的。
So, six is — when you said it’s the worst — I’m going to disagree with the idea that it’s the least good.
所以，六是 —— 当你说它是最糟糕的时候 —— 我不同意它是最不好的想法。
But the only answer to the question “Which is the worst of the Star Wars movies?” is, there is no worst Star Wars movie.
但“星球大战电影中最糟糕的是哪部？”这个问题的唯一答案是。是的，没有最糟糕的星球大战电影。
There — one might be the least amazing and fantastic, but there’s none that is the worst of the Star Wars movies.
那里可能是最不令人惊奇和梦幻的，但没有一部是星球大战电影中最糟糕的。
And which is that?
那是哪一个？
So, with that pedantic point — so, let’s get to the fundamentals.
所以，带着这个迂腐的观点 ——所以，让我们开始讨论基础知识。
I think you are right in saying the prequels are underrated.
我认为你说前传被低估是正确的。
And we need a movement — you may have just started it — for the revival of the prequels as an object of admiration.
我们需要一场运动——“你可能刚刚开始”——让前传重新成为人们钦佩的对象。
And the reason I think they deserve admiration is, you know, multiple.
我认为他们值得钦佩的原因是多方面的。
One is just your point that they boldly go where — I won’t finish the sentence.
一就是你的观点，他们大胆地去哪里 —— 我不会把这句话说完。
Nor will anyone go there again, I think.
我想，也不会有人再去那里了。
They boldly don’t do as the standard movie of this kind does, focus on individuals.
他们大胆地没有像这类标准电影那样，专注于个人。
There’s individual stuff, but it’s about institutions.
有个人的事情，但这是关于机构的。
And they have something to say about both how people go bad — and here I think it does get deep, especially about a little boy who loses his mother and then his loved one, who was much older and in some ways a mother figure.
他们对人如何变坏都有话要说——在这里我认为它确实很深刻，尤其是关于一个小男孩失去了母亲，然后失去了亲人，而亲人比他年长得多，在某些方面就像母亲一样。
That’s extremely interesting, I think, psychologically.
我认为，从心理学角度来说，这非常有趣。
And he kind of loses her, too.
他也有点失去她了。
And it’s the threat of loss that gets to him.
他面临的是失去的威胁。
I think that’s super interesting.
我认为这非常有趣。
Nick Donner Photography
尼克·唐纳摄影
And there’s something very similar that happens with the Republic.
共和国也发生了非常相似的事情。
So, the institutional failure of a squabbling legislature leading to interest in a strong paternal leader — that’s mirrored in the democratic process as it is in the individual life.
因此，争吵不休的立法机构的制度失败导致了人们对强有力的父权领袖的兴趣——这既反映在民主进程中，也反映在个人生活中。
And that’s great.
那太好了。
Also, the visual imagination of Lucas in the prequels, I think, is unimpaired.
另外，我认为前传中卢卡斯的视觉想象力并没有受到损害。
Indeed, it exceeds the first three in terms of release.
确实，就发行量而言，它超过了前三名。
They’re fantastic.
他们太棒了。
So, I think that’s completely true.
所以，我认为这是完全正确的。
I want to say a word in favor of Return of the Jedi, which you’re describing as the least fabulous of the six.
我想说一句话支持《绝地归来》，你将其描述为六部电影中最不精彩的一部。
Of the — fabulous, yes.
是的，太棒了。
I would say The Phantom Menace is probably the sixth-greatest movie ever made, but it’s also the sixth best of the movies, which is to say the W word.
我想说《幽灵的威胁》可能是有史以来第六伟大的电影，但它也是第六好的电影，也就是说，W 字。
It’s the least good of those movies.
这是这些电影中最差的。
But Return of the Jedi I think is terrific.
但我认为《绝地归来》很棒。
And the reason it’s terrific is, the redemption scene is a triumph, where what Lucas did in the original trilogy was to borrow on Joseph Campbell’s idea of the hero with a thousand faces.
它之所以精彩，是因为救赎场景是一场胜利，卢卡斯在原三部曲中的做法是借用了约瑟夫·坎贝尔关于千面英雄的想法。
Many myths and religions have an arc of a hero, and Lucas described Campbell as “my Yoda.” And that was his model.
许多神话和宗教都有一个英雄的故事，卢卡斯将坎贝尔描述为“我的尤达”。这就是他的榜样。
But there’s a twist here that involves freedom of choice and redemption concretized in the idea of a father whose life course had been dedicated to terrible things repudiating that life course and choosing to save his child because he can’t bear that loss.
但这里有一个转折，涉及选择和救赎的自由，具体体现在一位父亲的想法中，他的生命历程一直致力于可怕的事情，他否认自己的生命历程并选择拯救他的孩子，因为他无法承受这种损失。
And that scene is, I think, one of surpassing beauty, where Vader, now called Anakin, says, you know, “Let me see you with my own eyes.” And Luke says, “But you’ll die,” takes the mask off, and Luke says, “I can’t leave you.
我认为那个场景非常美丽，维德（现在叫阿纳金）说，“让我亲眼看看你。”卢克说，“但你会死，”摘下面具，卢克说，“我不能离开你。
I have to save you, Father.” And Anakin says, “You already have.”
我必须救你，父亲。”阿纳金说：“你已经有了。”
I think you’re more of a sentimentalist than I am.
我认为你比我更感伤。
But let me get to what I view as our point of deepest disagreement in all of political philosophy, and then you respond to it.
但让我谈谈我认为我们在所有政治哲学中最深刻的分歧点，然后你对此做出回应。
If I ask myself, “What are these movies as a set really about?” to me the core message is how hard it is to exercise freedom of the will, and that evil is both stronger and more attractive.
如果我问自己：“这些电影到底是关于什么的？”对我来说，核心信息是行使意志自由是多么困难，而且邪恶更强大、更有吸引力。
The central character is Darth, who is mostly evil.
中心人物是达斯，他大多是邪恶的。
There’s some redemption at the end, but he never sets things right.
最后有一些救赎，但他从未纠正过事情。
He just stops there from being further destruction.
他只是阻止进一步的破坏。
Even in Episode VII, there’s a terrible amount of murder.
即使在第七集中，也有大量的谋杀。
Nothing is set right in the galaxy.
银河系中没有什么是正确的。
Episodes I through III, which we both admire — they’re all the Darth story.
第一集到第三集，我们都很欣赏——它们都是达斯的故事。
Luke ended up doing voices for children’s cartoons.
卢克最终为儿童动画片配音。
Even Han Solo is a bit of a scoundrel.
就连汉·索罗也有点无赖。
And if you look at Anakin, right, he becomes Darth, the evil guy.
如果你看看阿纳金，对吧，他变成了达斯，那个邪恶的家伙。
He gets Natalie Portman.
他得到了娜塔莉·波特曼。
Luke kisses his sister once and is sent to live in some netherworld that looks like New Zealand, and then he looks like he has an opioid addiction.
卢克亲吻了他的妹妹一次，然后被送到了一个像新西兰一样的阴间，然后他看起来就像有阿片类药物成瘾。
And that’s good.
这很好。
To me it’s all about the potency of evil.
对我来说，这一切都与邪恶的力量有关。
And that’s why Lucas picked the Leni Riefenstahl scenes for Episode IV when it’s the triumphant rebels coming at the end.
这就是为什么卢卡斯在第四集中选择了莱妮·里芬斯塔尔的场景，因为最后反抗军取得了胜利。
It’s taken from Nazi cinema, right?
它取自纳粹电影，对吗？
We all know that.
我们都知道这一点。
So I have this deep and dark view of them.
所以我对他们有深刻而黑暗的看法。
And then it’s not surprising I would find Return of the Jedi, number six, to be the weakest and really admire Episode I.
然后，毫不奇怪，我会发现第六集《绝地归来》是最弱的，并且非常钦佩第一集。
Now, you totally disagree with that and consider that to be absurd.
现在，你完全不同意这一点，并认为这是荒谬的。
So tell us what you think.
那么请告诉我们您的想法。
I don’t consider it absurd.
我不认为这是荒谬的。
I think one of the, you know, sources of awesomeness in these cartoonlike, improbably awesome movies is that an interpretation like the one that you offered is eminently plausible, and there’s material there that justifies it.
我认为，你知道，这些卡通般的、令人难以置信的精彩电影的精彩来源之一是，像你提供的那样的解释是非常合理的，并且有材料证明它是合理的。
And let me say a little bit in favor of your interpretation and then say why, in the end, it’s not mine.
让我先说一点支持你的解释，然后说为什么最终这不是我的。
William Blake said of the greatest religious poem, I think, in the English language, Paradise Lost — said of John Milton roughly this.
威廉·布莱克（William Blake）谈到英语中最伟大的宗教诗歌《失乐园》（Paradise Lost ）——谈到约翰·弥尔顿（John Milton）时也大致如此。
He said, “The reason Milton wrote in fetters in speaking of God and Heaven, and at liberty when speaking of the Devil and Hell, is that he was a true poet and of the Devil’s party without knowing it.”
他说：“弥尔顿之所以在谈论上帝和天堂时受到束缚，而在谈论魔鬼和地狱时却能自由地写作，因为他是一位真正的诗人，在不知不觉中是魔鬼的一党。”
Now that’s a “wow” sentence.
现在这是一个“哇”的句子。
It’s about Blake’s — I don’t think this was Blake’s considered view — but Blake’s flirtation, let’s say, with the view that Satan runs away with Paradise Lost because a true poet is more Dionysian than Apollonian.
这是关于布莱克的——“我不认为这是布莱克经过深思熟虑的观点”——而是布莱克对撒旦带着《失乐园》逃跑的观点的调情，因为真正的诗人更多是酒神派而不是阿波罗派。
And the kind of wild System 1 eroticism or something of Darth Vader or Satan is ultimately what is sublimely powerful.
而那种狂野的系统 1 色情或达斯·维德或撒旦的东西最终是极其强大的。
Something like that.
类似的事情。
Yes.
是的。
That’s in your interpretation of the movies.
这就是你对电影的解读。
I don’t see it that way.
我不这么认为。
And I think George Lucas kind of got a little bit at why I don’t see it that way.
我认为乔治·卢卡斯（George Lucas）有点明白为什么我不这么认为。
He said in one interview, long after the original trilogy — I think long after the prequels, too — he said, “Every one of us has a choice of being a hero every single day of our lives.
在原三部曲问世很久之后——我想在前传问世很久之后——他在一次采访中说道，“我们每个人生命中的每一天都可以选择成为英雄。
We can treat somebody with dignity and kindness or not.
我们可以以尊严和仁慈对待某人，也可以不。
We can be a decent person on that day or not.”
到那一天我们可以做一个正派的人，也可以不做。”
And I think that kind of somewhat innocent and earnest thinking — that you are at a crossroads, you can go one way rather than the other — is basically the authorial voice behind Star Wars.
我认为这种有点天真的和认真的想法 ——“你正处于十字路口，你可以走一条路而不是另一条路”——基本上是《星球大战》背后作者的声音。
So, it may be that you’re turned off.
所以，你可能已经关闭了。
And I don’t love the Ewoks so much, and the — you know, the way they — a little too cutesy.
我不太喜欢伊沃克人，而且——你知道，他们的方式有点太可爱了。
I agree with that.
我同意这一点。
But the idea that Luke — ok, so, I think this is one of the most powerful lines in, let’s say, popular culture in American history.
但是卢克的想法——好吧，所以，我认为这是美国历史上流行文化中最有力的台词之一。
“I am a Jedi, like my father before me.” That’s extraordinary.
“我是一名绝地武士，就像我的父亲一样。”这太棒了。
And what’s extraordinary about that is the statement is, “My father, the worst person in the universe, is a Jedi.” And that is claiming the goodness and non-Sithness of the father.
这句话的非凡之处在于，“我的父亲，宇宙中最糟糕的人，是一名绝地武士。”这就是宣称父亲的善良和非西斯性质。
Ultimately, Luke makes it true, that the Jediness of Vader is redeemed in the end.
最终，卢克证实了维德的杰德最终得到了救赎。
And that’s where I think the movies in the end come down.
我认为这就是电影最终的落脚点。
But they do go to the dark side, so that’s why I think what you say has plausibility.
但它们确实走向了黑暗面，所以这就是为什么我认为你所说的有道理。
They don’t, in the end, honor it.
最终，他们并没有尊重它。
On the moral lessons of Star Wars
星球大战的道德教训
Have Episodes I through III made you more libertarian?
第一集到第三集是否让你变得更加自由主义？
I’d say writing the book has made me more libertarian.
我想说写这本书让我变得更加自由主义。
And how so?
怎么会这样呢？
I mean, not in a way that’s fundamentally different from how I’ve been.
我的意思是，这与我过去的方式并没有本质上的不同。
And so, Nudge — the title for Nudge — we were committed to calling it Libertarian Paternalism.
因此，“助推”——“助推”的标题——“我们致力于将其称为自由主义家长主义。”
I don’t think anyone would have bought that book, but it shows that it’s — .
我认为没有人会买那本书，但它表明它是 — 。
Two unpopular words put together somehow still remain unpopular.
两个不受欢迎的词放在一起仍然不受欢迎。
But the idea that unless you’re really confident, you should let people go their own way, whoever you are — I think that’s part of American culture.
但除非你真的有信心，否则无论你是谁，你都应该让人们走自己的路，我认为这是美国文化的一部分。
And that’s — you know, that’s an essential part of American culture.
这就是——你知道，这是美国文化的重要组成部分。
What writing the book has made me focus on maybe more is the deep truth to the fact that each of us all the time faces a crossroads.
写这本书让我更关注的是我们每个人始终面临十字路口这一深刻事实。
And either for welfarist reasons or for reasons of respect for dignity — and these are, you know, we could have an incompletely theorized agreement — whichever one is our foundation, to let people choose their own path is — that’s the right idea.
无论是出于福利主义的原因，还是出于尊重尊严的原因 ——你知道，我们可以达成一项不完全理论化的协议 ——无论我们的基础是什么，让人们选择自己的道路是正确的想法。
What writing the book has made me focus on maybe more is the deep truth to the fact that each of us all the time faces a crossroads.
写这本书让我更关注的是我们每个人始终面临十字路口这一深刻事实。
And either for welfarist reasons or for reasons of respect for dignity …whichever one is our foundation, to let people choose their own path is — that’s the right idea.
无论是出于福利主义的原因，还是出于尊重尊严的原因……无论哪一个是我们的基础，让人们选择自己的道路就是“——”这是正确的想法。
Now, that’s not different from what I’ve thought before, but it kind of focuses it a little more.
现在，这与我之前的想法并没有什么不同，但它更加集中了一点。
What is it — it puts it in a little more — the font size of those sentences is a little larger in my head than before.
这是什么 —— 放多了一点 —— 那些句子的字体在我脑子里比以前大了一点。
One thing I find striking in the dark reading of Star Wars is that it introduces the notion that maybe slavery is almost bound to be a constant throughout history.
在《星球大战》的黑暗阅读中，我发现引人注目的一件事是，它引入了这样一种观念：也许奴隶制几乎注定是整个历史上的一个常数。
If you look at the portrait of droids, how they’re treated, it’s quite grim.
如果你看看机器人的肖像，看看他们是如何对待的，那是相当严峻的。
And they may be sentient to varying degrees.
他们可能有不同程度的感知能力。
There’s slavery throughout the Empire.
整个帝国都有奴隶制。
It feels quite natural.
感觉很自然。
We’re not in any way supposed to approve, but it forces us to reface the question: If there’s been slavery throughout most of human history, and we’re seeing this alternative world where slavery reemerges in an ugly, horrible way feels quite natural, does that sell you more on this dark vision of history and therefore confirming your favoritism for Episode V?
我们不应该以任何方式批准，但这迫使我们重新面对这个问题：如果人类历史的大部分时间都存在奴隶制，而我们看到的是另一个世界，奴隶制以一种丑陋、可怕的方式重新出现，这感觉很自然，这是否会让你更加相信这种黑暗的历史视野，从而证实你对第五集的偏爱？
Or are you back with this president guy and the, you know, the Hope and Change stuff?
或者你又回到了这个总统家伙以及，你知道的，希望与改变的东西吗？
I think the arc of history is long, and it bends toward justice.
我认为历史的弧线很长，最终会走向正义。
And I think that’s what the Star Wars message is.
我认为这就是《星球大战》所传达的信息。
You know, the dark side is in the human heart.
要知道，人心的阴暗面。
And chaos is very troubling for an individual or for a culture, which can lead you to authoritarian leaders.
对于个人或文化来说，混乱是非常令人不安的，这可能会导致你走向独裁领导人。
But the arc of history is on the right side.
但历史的弧线是在右边的。
I believe that.
我相信这一点。
And should Luke have completed his training in the Dagobah system?
而路克应该已经完成了达戈巴系统的训练吧？
Take that as the central moral dilemma of Episode V.
以此作为第五集的核心道德困境。
No, he made the right choice because of the future.
不，他为了未来，做出了正确的选择。
So the nudgers were wrong.
所以推动者是错误的。
Well, one nudger.
好吧，轻轻一推。
Obi-Wan and Yoda, right?
欧比旺和尤达，对吧？
Yeah, they were wrong.
是的，他们错了。
They were telling Luke, “Complete your training.” And he’s like, later, “Ben, why didn’t you tell me?”
他们告诉卢克：“完成你的训练。”后来他说：“本，你为什么不告诉我？”
Thank God for libertarian paternalism, that Luke has a choice.
感谢上帝的自由主义家长作风，让卢克有选择。
The Sith, by the way, like the Jedi, respect freedom of choice.
顺便说一句，西斯和绝地一样，尊重选择自由。
In the crucial scene in Episode III where the question is whether Anakin is going to save the person who would be emperor, he says, “You must choose.” And so there’s full respect for freedom of choice.
在第三集中的关键场景中，问题是阿纳金是否会拯救将成为皇帝的人，他说，“你必须选择。”因此，选择自由得到充分尊重。
Nudgers have that.
助推者有这个。
Good for them.
对他们有好处。
Bad guys always tell you the deal, and then they say, “Choose evil.” It seems the good guys always mislead you.
坏人总是告诉你这笔交易，然后他们说：“选择邪恶。”看来好人总是误导你。
There’s this funny tension.
有一种有趣的紧张气氛。
Star Wars makes me more nervous about nudge.
星球大战让我对轻推更加紧张。
I’m not like this huge anti-nudge guy, but when I look at Obi-Wan and Yoda lying to Luke — “Ben, Ben, Ben, why didn’t you tell me?” How many times have I heard that in these movies?
我不像这个反助推的大人物，但当我看到欧比旺和尤达对卢克撒谎时——“本，本，本，你为什么不告诉我？”我在这些电影中听过多少次了？
Is it an advertisement for that?
这是一个广告吗？
It’s fair to ask whether Obi-Wan and Yoda had it right.
公平地说，欧比旺和尤达的做法是否正确。
Sure.
当然。
OK, so, one view is that they kind of completely knew what they were doing.
好吧，一种观点是他们完全知道自己在做什么。
And they’re like Straussians, right?
他们就像施特劳斯主义者，对吗？
They had second-order stuff going on — and you know, superficial people like you and me, we kind of need to get in back of it to see the deep logic.
他们正在进行二阶的事情 ——你知道，像你我这样肤浅的人，我们需要深入了解其中的深层逻辑。
And it all worked out, and they knew it.
一切都成功了，他们也知道这一点。
But on nudging, the point is, if there’s a website, it’s going to nudge.
但在推动方面，关键是，如果有一个网站，它就会推动。
If there’s a cafeteria, it’s going to nudge.
如果有自助餐厅，它就会有所推动。
If there’s a rental car office, it’s going to nudge.
如果有租车公司，它就会有所推动。
Everything but a Sith.
除了西斯之外的一切。
Well, a Sith nudges, too.
嗯，西斯也会轻推。
It’s just a Sith doesn’t in this respect, a Sith doesn’t coerce.
只是西斯在这方面不这样做，西斯不强迫。
It’s a little like Dr. Faust, that your soul — you get to decide whether your soul is saved.
这有点像《浮士德博士》，你的灵魂 ——你可以决定你的灵魂是否得救。
The Sith agree with that.
西斯同意这一点。
On nudging in general, the fact that we can find bad nudgers, which is very true, attests to the importance of having either free markets which discipline bad nudging — so we have choice architecture, you know, much more often than not in a market society, which is in consumers’ interest — and having democratic controls on government nudging, such that if the people hate it or the government’s going in a direction that doesn’t make much sense, the democratic safeguard will kick in.
就一般性的助推而言，我们可以找到不好的助推者（这是非常正确的），这一事实证明了拥有约束不良助推的自由市场的重要性——“所以我们在市场社会中往往有选择架构，这符合消费者的利益”——以及对政府的助推进行民主控制，这样，如果人民讨厌它或政府朝着没有多大意义的方向前进，民主保障就会踢进去。
On things under- and overrated
关于被低估和高估的事情
We have a section in all of these chats.
我们在所有这些聊天中都有一个部分。
It’s called “overrated or underrated?” I toss out some items, people, whatever.
这就是所谓的“高估还是低估？”我扔掉一些物品、人等等。
You’re free to pass on any of these if it’s not appropriate.
如果其中任何内容不合适，您可以随意转发。
Number one, overrated or underrated, the United States Constitution.
第一，无论高估还是低估，美国宪法。
Underrated.
被低估了。
Underrated.
被低估了。
Tell us why.
告诉我们原因。
Well, it’s been the foundation for probably the greatest experiment in democratic self-government in the history of the world.
嗯，它可能是世界历史上最伟大的民主自治实验的基础。
And there’s grave difficulty in overrating something that’s done something like that.
很难高估已经做过类似事情的事情。
Whether the Constitution is, you know, a set of specific prescriptions, or whether instead it’s a framework for a society which has changed radically from 200 years — there’s disagreement about that — but whatever it is, underrated.
你知道，宪法是否是一套具体规定，或者它是否是一个200年来发生了根本性变化的社会框架——“对此存在分歧”——但无论它是什么，都被低估了。
If the Supreme Court had to be only three people or fifty people, which of those numbers would you prefer?
如果最高法院只能由三人或五十人组成，您会选择哪一个？
Fifty.
五十。
You seem to like eight, right, because minimalism.
你似乎喜欢八个，对吧，因为极简主义。
Fifty.
五十。
Fifty.
五十。
Fifty.
五十。
More diffusion of power.
权力更加分散。
Because — yeah.
因为 —— 是的。
With three, there’s too great a risk that it’s going to go off half-cocked.
如果是三个，那么半吊死的风险就太大了。
The original television show Star Trek.
原创电视节目《星际迷航》。
Overrated or underrated?
被高估还是被低估？
Underrated.
被低估了。
Great.
伟大的。
And what’s the difference in — think of Star Trek and Star Wars.
想想《星际迷航》和《星球大战》有什么区别。
They’re alternate growth models, right?
它们是另一种增长模式，对吗？
What’s the key economic variable or political variable that differs to get you one result rather than the other?
使你获得一种结果而不是另一种结果的关键经济变量或政治变量是什么？
Meaning to go in — ?
意思是进去 —— ？
Is it replicators?
是复制机吗？
Dilithium crystals?
双锂晶体？
How good human beings are?
人类到底有多好？
Oh, the economic variable.
哦，经济变量。
Who nudges whom?
谁轻推谁？
Like, why do you get these two parallel worlds?
比如，为什么会有这两个平行世界？
What’s the comparative statics?
比较静态是什么？
I think the answer is that there’s a technological something that Star Trek captures, and there’s nothing quite like that that Star Wars gets at.
我认为答案是，《星际迷航》捕捉到了一种技术性的东西，而《星球大战》却没有捕捉到这样的东西。
Whether it’s a little — I think it’s a little thing.
是不是有点 —— 我觉得是小事。
It’s so small you can’t even see it — we, of course, haven’t discovered it yet — that produces replicators and ships like that.
它太小了，你甚至看不到它——当然，我们还没有发现它——它能产生这样的复制机和飞船。
That’s what they got, and in Star Wars they didn’t.
这就是他们得到的，而在《星球大战》中他们却没有。
And so, the universe looks fundamentally different.
因此，宇宙看起来根本不同。
The only reason I’m hesitating a little bit here is the Millennium Falcon was able to do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.
我在这里犹豫的唯一原因是千年隼能够在不到 12 秒差距的时间内完成凯塞尔奔跑。
And no way the Enterprise gets there — 27 parsecs, probably, maybe more.
而且企业号不可能到达那里 ——27秒差距，可能，也许更多。
And so there is a technological advantage.
因此存在技术优势。
I’m struggling with this question.
我正在为这个问题苦苦挣扎。
Here’s an easy one, then.
那么，这是一个简单的方法。
James Joyce, overrated or underrated?
詹姆斯·乔伊斯，被高估还是被低估？
Now, they’re watching back home, so be careful.
现在，他们正在家里监视，所以要小心。
I think that — yeah, yeah, Irish family.
我认为 — 是的，是的，爱尔兰家庭。
I think underrated.
我认为被低估了。
Ulysses is arguably the richest novel in the last 150 years.
《尤利西斯》可以说是过去 150 年来内容最丰富的小说。
Not the greatest, but the richest.
不是最伟大的，而是最富有的。
Richest in what sense?
什么意义上的最富有？
That it’s just full of multiple interpretations that aren’t an interpolation of a smart reader but are actually there in the material.
它只是充满了多种解释，这些解释不是聪明的读者的插值，而是材料中实际存在的。
So, there’s stuff from Irish history, stuff from the Bible, stuff about men and women that are, you know, extremely surprising and variable from one chapter to another.
所以，有一些来自爱尔兰历史的东西，来自圣经的东西，关于男人和女人的东西，你知道，从一章到另一章都非常令人惊讶和变化。
Now, I’m going to read forth a quotation.
现在，我要读一段引文。
It’s actually a theory of regulatory reform.
这实际上是一种监管改革的理论。
You’ve worked in this area.
你曾在这个领域工作过。
You tell me if it’s underrated or overrated.
你告诉我它是否被低估或高估了。
This is from Master Yoda.
这是尤达大师的作品。
And I quote: “Try not.
我引用：“尽量不要。
Do or do not.
做或不做。
There is no try.” For regulatory reform, overrated or underrated?
没有尝试。”对于监管改革，高估还是低估？
Overrated.
被高估了。
Tell us why.
告诉我们原因。
You’ve got to try.
你必须尝试一下。
I mean, if it’s deregulation or economic incentives or information strategies, try and test.
我的意思是，如果是放松管制、经济激励或信息策略，请尝试和测试。
Not do?
不做吗？
Well, you can’t just sit there and try and stare at your Federal Register notice.
好吧，你不能只是坐在那里盯着联邦公报的通知。
You have to — you know, if the question is, “Do you regulate the airwaves in some respects or deregulate transportation?” you do, but there has to be an experimental attitude, which Yoda’s words aren’t capturing.
你必须 ——你知道，如果问题是“你是否在某些方面监管无线电波或放松对交通的管制？”你可以，但必须有一种实验态度，而尤达的话并没有体现这一点。
But Yoda got the airlines right.
但尤达对航空公司的看法是正确的。
He — well, it seemed to work out, in the sense that we didn’t see a lot of inadvertent crashes by the Jedi.
他——好吧，这似乎成功了，从某种意义上说，我们没有看到很多绝地无意中坠毁的情况。
But you wouldn’t — you wouldn’t do a Yoda for workplace safety, is what you’re saying.
但你不会——你不会为了工作场所安全而做尤达，这就是你所说的。
I think, try.
我想，试试吧。
What I’m picking up on in Yoda’s — I mean, you could read it in a way such that it’s compatible with what I’m saying.
我在《尤达》中看到的内容 ——我的意思是，你可以用一种与我所说的兼容的方式来阅读它。
But it seems to have — OK, so, there’s work — in fact I’ve coauthored an article on this — on action bias, which says, when you’re stuck in a tough situation, either an institution or an individual, do something.
但它似乎有 —— 好吧，所以，有工作 —— 事实上我已经与人合着了一篇关于行动偏见的文章，其中说，当你陷入困境时，无论是机构还是个人，都应该做点什么。
Don’t just stand there; do something.
不要只是站在那里；做某事。
But that’s often a mistake.
但这常常是一个错误。
You might want to strike when the iron is cold.
你可能想在熨斗冷的时候敲击。
Wait.
等待。
Have a chance to think.
有机会思考一下。
I think Yoda — maybe that’s a headline to a more convincing account than Yoda was able to give in the confines of the movie.
我认为尤达 ——也许这是一个比尤达在电影范围内所能给出的更有说服力的描述的标题。
He’s the guy you chose to nudge you.
他是你选择推动你的人。
Keep that in mind, right?
记住这一点，对吗？
Yeah, but if a question is my investment portfolio or my diet or my exercise regimen — .
是的，但如果问题是我的投资组合、我的饮食或我的锻炼方案 — 。
But not your regulatory reform?
但不是你们的监管改革？
Well, I think I have more experience with regulatory reform than Master Yoda.
嗯，我想我在监管改革方面比尤达大师更有经验。
Forgive me, Master.
请原谅我，师父。
But on that issue, not deferring to you, Master Yoda.
但在这个问题上，我不听从你，尤达大师。
So, he’s a master, you’re a grand master?
那么，他是大师，你是大师？
No, no. He’s a master who has a few pockets of limited experience.
不，不。他是一位经验有限的大师。
What’s the most underrated Bob Dylan album?
鲍勃·迪伦最被低估的专辑是什么？
That’s a great question.
这是一个很好的问题。
I’m going to say The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan.
我要说的是《随心所欲的鲍勃·迪伦》。
And it’s a bit of a risky choice because people don’t think it’s bad.
这是一个有点冒险的选择，因为人们并不认为这是坏事。
It’s in the top seven, probably, and some people would put it in the top five.
它可能排在前七名，有些人会把它排在前五名。
It has a terrible title, The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan.
它有一个糟糕的标题：随心所欲的鲍勃·迪伦。
The Freewheelin’ anyone — that would be a terrible title.
《随心所欲的任何人》——这将是一个糟糕的标题。
There’s no one — The Freewheelin’ Han Solo.
没有人——“随心所欲的汉·索罗”。
That’s awful.
那太糟糕了。
There’s no one for whom that’s a good title.
对于任何人来说，这都是一个好的头衔。
Bob Dylan — whatever he is, he’s not freewheelin’.
鲍勃·迪伦（Bob Dylan）——“无论他是什么，他都不是随心所欲的”。
He’s, you know, complicated, or mischievous or something, or troubled.
你知道，他很复杂，或者很顽皮，或者什么的，或者很烦恼。
But the title wrong-foots you.
但这个标题让你措手不及。
But I think that’s his greatest album, actually, and so it’s underrated.
但我认为实际上这是他最伟大的专辑，所以它被低估了。
On government, academia, and Gary Becker’s biggest mistake
关于政府、学术界和加里·贝克尔的最大错误
How did your time in government change your view of academia?
您在政府任职的经历如何改变了您对学术界的看法？
I concluded that academics, including people like me, were in important respects clueless, and I did not think that before.
我得出的结论是，学者们，包括像我这样的人，在一些重要方面都一无所知，而我以前并不这么认为。
I did feel as admiring, or even more admiring, of basic research by academics that produces knowledge or fresh ideas that can be put to use.
我确实对学者们的基础研究感到钦佩，甚至更加钦佩，这些研究产生了可以运用的知识或新想法。
But having studied administrative law for more than two decades, I was amazed by how steep my own learning curve was in an area that I thought I knew well.
但在研究行政法二十多年后，我对自己在一个我自认为很了解的领域的学习曲线如此陡峭感到惊讶。
So, I had written about — and I don’t mean to single myself out for opprobrium here.
所以，我写过关于“——”的文章，我并不是想在这里单独指责自己。
I, like many administrative law professors, write about stuff, and just the absence of a sufficiently thick understanding of how things happen — that really surprised me.
像许多行政法教授一样，我写的都是一些东西，但对事情是如何发生的缺乏足够深入的了解——这真的让我感到惊讶。
On the other hand — that’s the not-so-good side of academia, I think.
另一方面，我认为这是学术界不太好的一面。
Works about actual practical things — it’s often insufficiently informed.
涉及实际事物的作品 ——通常信息不足。
But if anything, as I say, the idea that you can go on the National Bureau of Economic Research website, as I did in government and do now, and find out stuff about what programs are working and what not in way that has a kind of rigor that outruns anything you could find in the newspaper or generate in a conversation in government.
但正如我所说，如果有什么不同的话，那就是你可以登录国家经济研究局网站，就像我在政府中所做的那样，现在也是如此，了解哪些计划正在发挥作用，哪些计划没有发挥作用，其严谨性比你在报纸上找到的或在政府对话中产生的任何内容都要严格。
That, I felt — I almost feel like it has a purity, almost like a religious purity, some of the work that academics do.
那，我觉得 —— 我几乎觉得它有一种纯洁性，几乎就像宗教的纯洁性，这是学术界所做的一些工作。
And that’s one of the things I was — I had a glow.
这就是我的特点之一——我容光焕发。
Everyone who leaves the White House, I think, has a glow when they leave.
我想，每个离开白宫的人离开时都会容光焕发。
Part of my glow — and this is probably unique — was that I was getting a little more sleep, but also that I got to go back to that stuff, maybe do some empirical work, and figure out something that might be true and wasn’t known yet.
我的光芒的一部分——这可能是独一无二的——是我得到了更多的睡眠，但我也必须回到那些东西上，也许做一些实证工作，找出一些可能是真实的但还不知道的东西。
What was Gary Becker’s biggest mistake?
加里·贝克尔最大的错误是什么？
His biggest mistake was his greatest virtue, which was an unfailing commitment to the rationality assumption.
他最大的错误就是他最大的美德，那就是对理性假设的坚定不移的承诺。
I love Gary Becker as a person and as a scholar.
我喜欢加里·贝克尔作为一个人和一个学者。
You know, he’s in the pantheon.
你知道，他在万神殿里。
But his insistence on human rationality was both what made him as fantastic as he was but also led him astray.
但他对人类理性的坚持既让他变得如此出色，也让他误入歧途。
So, I’ll give you a term for it.
所以，我会给你一个术语。
It’s actually recently invented by Matthew Rabin, a behavioral economist.
它实际上是由行为经济学家马修·拉宾 (Matthew Rabin) 最近发明的。
The term is “explainawaytions.” And the term means, suppose you have a situation where people, let’s say, value a coffee mug that they’ve been given more than a coffee mug that their neighbor has been given.
这个术语是“解释”。这个词的意思是，假设有一种情况，人们比邻居收到的咖啡杯更看重他们收到的咖啡杯。
That’s an anomaly, that there’s an immediate increase in value once you get the thing.
这是一种反常现象，一旦你得到东西，价值就会立即增加。
An explainawaytion might say something like, “Well, there’s transaction costs in trading,” which is desperate.
解释可能会说，“嗯，交易中有交易成本”，这是令人绝望的。
It’s an explainawaytion.
这是一个解释。
It’s not an explanation.
这不是解释。
And Gary Becker was, both in his writing and even more in person, a master of the explainawaytion, where he’d come up with some account which had surface credibility, so he could say it, but nah.
加里·贝克尔（Gary Becker），无论是在他的写作中，还是在个人方面，都是解释大师，他提出了一些表面上可信的说法，所以他可以说出来，但不。
On the hidden assumption behind Sunstein’s work
桑斯坦作品背后隐藏的假设
You’ve written a lot of different books.
你写了很多不同的书。
That’s your view of Becker.
这就是你对贝克尔的看法。
My guess is there’s some unity to those books.
我的猜测是这些书有一些统一性。
What do you yourself see as the semihidden metaphysical assumption behind all or most of them that most readers don’t see, but if you sit down and think real hard about it — I don’t mean that you’re trying to hide it from people, but it’s hidden, in the sense that only after writing them all have you seen that it’s there.
你自己认为大多数读者看不到的全部或大部分背后的半隐藏的形而上学假设是什么，但如果你坐下来认真思考它 - 我并不是说你试图向人们隐藏它，但它是隐藏的，从某种意义上说，只有在写完它们之后你才能看到它的存在。
And what is that assumption?
这个假设是什么？
I’d say that it’s a form of consequentialism that is very much focused on, “How will one or another thing make human lives better?” There’s some work on political science and law on legitimacy, as if that’s a master value.
我想说，这是结果主义的一种形式，它非常关注“一件事或另一件事如何让人类的生活变得更好？”有一些关于政治学和法律合法性的工作，好像这是一个主要价值观。
And, you know, my work doesn’t focus so much on legitimacy.
而且，你知道，我的工作不太关注合法性。
Maybe that’s a mistake.
也许这是一个错误。
But if you look at things on behavioral economics or about nudging or about freedom of speech or about the problems with echo chambers in the Internet world or minimalism, it’s — regulation, certainly — it’s, “What will make people’s lives better?”
但如果你看看行为经济学、助推、言论自由、互联网世界或极简主义中的回声室问题，你就会发现，“什么会让人们的生活变得更好？”
Nick Donner Photography
尼克·唐纳摄影
And this may seem kind of sentimental, but I hope it isn’t.
这似乎有点感伤，但我希望不是。
If you’re thinking about a highway safety regulation — this was my view in government and my view now — to think about, you know, what does some subcommittee of Congress think, or what’s the Left going to think, or what’s the Right going to think, or even something about some abstraction is probably not as good as thinking, “What are the actual human consequences of doing that?
如果你正在考虑一项高速公路安全法规——“这是我对政府的看法，也是我现在的看法”——“想一想，你知道，国会的某个小组委员会会怎么想，或者左派会怎么想，或者右派会怎么想，甚至一些抽象的东西可能不如思考，“这样做对人类的实际后果是什么？
Are you going to save one life or 80?
您要拯救 1 条生命还是 80 条生命？
Are you going to adversely affect little businesses which are trying to grow, or not?”
你是否会对正在努力发展的小企业产生不利影响？”
This is relative to individual preferences.
这个和个人喜好有关。
Well, I would not be preference-fixated.
好吧，我不会偏向于偏好。
I think preferences are a very good clue to what is going to promote people’s welfare.
我认为偏好是一个很好的线索，可以帮助我们了解如何促进人们的福利。
But what adjudicates preferences versus the other stuff you want to count?
但是，与您想要计算的其他内容相比，什么决定偏好呢？
Well, I’ll say at this point, related to our discussion of incompletely theorized agreements, John Rawls had a footnote in a book — he never published the footnote — which said, “We post a signpost: ‘No deep thinking here.
好吧，我要说的是，在这一点上，与我们对不完全理论化协议的讨论相关，约翰·罗尔斯在一本书中有一脚注——他从未发表过脚注——其中说，“我们张贴了一个路标：‘这里没有深入思考。
Things are bad enough already.” I love that.
事情已经够糟糕了。”我喜欢那个。
John Rawls had a footnote in a book — he never published the footnote — which said, “We post a signpost: ‘No deep thinking here.
约翰·罗尔斯在一本书中有一个脚注——他从未出版过这个脚注——上面说，“我们张贴了一个路标：‘这里没有深入的思考。
Things are bad enough already.” I love that.
事情已经够糟糕了。”我喜欢那个。
I’d want to be very clear on the particulars.
我想把细节说得非常清楚。
If people have a preference, let’s say, for something that clearly truncates their life significantly, like they want to, you know, drive super fast, let’s just stipulate in a way that’s not going to endanger others — it’s just on a track — that’s their preference.
比方说，如果人们对某些明显会显着缩短他们生活的事情有偏好，比如他们想要开得超快，那么我们就以一种不会危及他人的方式来规定——“它只是在轨道上”——这就是他们的偏好。
To deem that sovereign is not clearly correct.
认为主权显然不正确。
It might be that they’re making their lives, you know, shorter in a way which on reflection, by their own reflective lights, is not a good idea.
你知道，他们可能正在缩短自己的生命，但通过他们自己的反射光反思，这并不是一个好主意。
And that’s a pretty stark example.
这是一个非常明显的例子。
But with respect to smoking, I mentioned the 480,000 deaths per year example.
但说到吸烟，我提到了每年 48 万人死亡的例子。
Each one of those — that’s the number — but each one of those people is a human being.
这些人中的每一位————就是这个数字————但是这些人中的每一个人都是一个人。
And probably everyone who’s listening to this knows at least one — I know two — who died of lung cancer.
也许每个听这个的人都至少知道一个——“我认识两个”——死于肺癌。
And the preference for smoking — that’s not something that we want to be careless about.
而对吸烟的偏好 ——这不是我们想要粗心的事情。
Now, I wouldn’t want to forbid smoking.
现在，我不想禁止吸烟。
That would be too coercive, but some efforts to educate and nudge to try to help people not die — that’s okay.
这未免太强制了，但一些教育和推动的努力试图帮助人们不死 —— 没关系。
But, like, in most pluralist theories I tend to think there’s an underlying metaphysical assumption used to perform aggregation.
但是，就像在大多数多元理论中一样，我倾向于认为有一个潜在的形而上学假设用于执行聚合。
So, banning smoking is too coercive.
所以说，禁烟太强制了。
It’s not obvious to me why that is correct.
我不清楚为什么这是正确的。
I mean, most people feel that way, but we ban plenty of other drugs, and that’s not too coercive.
我的意思是，大多数人都有这种感觉，但我们禁止许多其他药物，这并不算太强制。
There’s some mix of costs and benefits.
成本和收益是混合的。
There’s a lot of things people eat which are bad for them.
人们吃的很多东西对他们来说都是有害的。
We don’t do much about that.
我们对此并没有做太多事情。
And in the scale of preferences, autonomy, well-being, liberty — again, what’s the final principle ruling these tradeoffs?
在偏好、自治、福祉、自由的范围内——再次，决定这些权衡的最终原则是什么？
That’s like the hidden metaphysical assumption of Cass Sunstein that I want to get at it.
这就像我想了解的卡斯桑斯坦隐藏的形而上学假设。
OK — you’re right.
好吧 — 你是对的。
OK, great.
好的，太好了。
I think you’re completely right that the claim that it’s too coercive — to ban smoking — that’s a conclusion in search of an argument.
我认为你说的太强制了——“禁止吸烟”——这是一个寻求论证的结论，这是完全正确的。
And the shorthand is that the welfare consequences, all things considered, of a ban would be negative, but that would have to be earned rather than just asserted.
简而言之，从各方面考虑，禁令的福利后果将是负面的，但这必须是通过努力争取的，而不是仅仅主张的。
That’s my view, but I haven’t given you data to support it.
这是我的观点，但我没有给你数据来支持它。
So, what I’d like to do at every difficult point is to be able to say that whatever your metaphysical assumptions, you will be able to go in a certain direction that will be compatible with — let’s call it nonsectarian welfarism.
因此，在每一个困难点上我想做的是能够说，无论你的形而上学假设是什么，你都能够朝着与“让我们称之为非宗派福利主义”兼容的某个方向前进。
Now, if you push me to talk about liberty — that liberty is an ingredient in welfare, meaning being able to go the direction that you want is welfare-promoting for the people who are exercising their freedom, that’s one point.
现在，如果你让我谈论自由——自由是福利的一个组成部分，这意味着能够朝着你想要的方向前进对于那些行使自由的人来说是促进福利的，这是一点。
And the other point is the Millian point that there are multiple contexts, at least, let’s say — we don’t want to make a theology of this, as I think Mill sometimes almost did — but we want to acknowledge that people know, you know, by and large, in acknowledging the behavioral biases better than third parties, what will make their lives go better.
另一点是米利安的观点，即存在多种背景，至少，我们不想对此进行神学研究，正如我认为密尔有时几乎所做的那样，但我们想承认，总的来说，人们比第三方更好地承认行为偏见，这将使他们的生活变得更好。
So, to see liberty as an ingredient in welfare because of its exercise and to see it as a heuristic for what’s actually going to promote welfare — those are both good ideas.
因此，将自由视为福利的一个组成部分，因为它的行使，并将其视为真正促进福利的启发——这些都是好主意。
On the benefits of a banned products store
关于禁用产品商店的好处
Let me tell you what I love about nudge and see if I can pull you into greater love of nudge.
让我告诉你我对助推的喜爱，看看我能否让你更加热爱助推。
Even greater.
甚至更大。
Even greater.
甚至更大。
Take the products today which governments ban, but put aside nuclear weapons and violent products.
以今天政府禁止的产品为例，但把核武器和暴力产品放在一边。
We should unban them and, as my colleague Robin Hanson suggests, put them all in a store called the Banned Products Store.
我们应该取消对它们的禁令，并按照我的同事罗宾汉森的建议，将它们全部放在一家名为“禁用产品商店”的商店中。
And the government will spend a lot on big signs: “These are bad for you; don’t buy them.” There will be all kinds of negative advertising, but the store will be there.
政府会花很多钱买大标语：“这些对你不好；不要买。”会有各种负面广告，但商店会有。
We’re going to nudge people a lot not to buy these products, but in fact we could move from current bans and mandates to having them available, but lots more nudges.
我们将大力推动人们不要购买这些产品，但事实上，我们可以从当前的禁令和强制令转向提供这些产品，但还要进行更多的推动。
So I want maybe more nudges than you do, or is that not true?
所以我可能比你想要更多的推动，或者这不是真的吗？
Are you the nudge critic?
你是推动批评者吗？
No, no, you may be right, but we’d have to think of what the thing is, and then we’d have to do — .
不，不，你可能是对的，但我们必须考虑这是什么，然后我们必须做 —— 。
Everything banned that’s not violent.
一切非暴力的事物都被禁止。
Heroin, cocaine — .
海洛因、可卡因 —— 。
Well, I worry with respect to heroin — not being an expert on heroin, but I worry that it is nearly instantaneously addictive and extremely tempting to a wide range of people in different life circumstances.
好吧，我对海洛因感到担忧——我不是海洛因专家，但我担心它几乎会立即让人上瘾，并且对处于不同生活环境的很多人来说都极具诱惑力。
To be a heroin addict is really, really rough.
成为一名海洛因成瘾者真的非常非常艰难。
Sure.
当然。
To nudge people and not to take the step we’ve now taken might leave, you know, a lot of tragedy around.
你知道，推动人们而不采取我们现在采取的步骤可能会留下很多悲剧。
Now, it is true that the heroin ban does not eliminate heroin, and it has ancillary consequences that aren’t good.
现在，海洛因禁令确实并没有消除海洛因，而且还带来了不好的附带后果。
But I would say with respect to some product — let’s say it’s a food where there’s a 1/x chance of death from consuming it, and x is not that high a number — to say to people, you know, “You can have this.
但我想说的是，对于某些产品——“假设这是一种食物，食用它有 1/x 的死亡几率，而 x 并不是那么高的数字——”对人们说，你知道，“你可以吃这个。
Note that your death risk is 1/x.”
请注意，您的死亡风险是 1/x。”
Why is it so great to shift from banning the thing to allowing people to have it when you’re going to see a lot of bodies on the streets?
当你在街上看到很多尸体时，为什么从禁止这种东西转变为允许人们拥有它是如此伟大？
Say I’m dying of a terminal disease, and there’s a treatment.
假设我死于绝症，并且有治疗方法。
It probably won’t help me, but there’s a one-tenth of one percent chance that it will.
它可能不会对我有帮助，但有十分之一到百分之一的机会它会帮助我。
And I want to use it — it’s kind of a self-defense argument.
我想使用它 ——这是一种自卫论点。
And I say, “Well, self-defense — that’s like a minimal value we all would agree upon.”
我说：“好吧，自卫——这就像我们都同意的最低限度的价值。”
I love nudge.
我喜欢轻推。
Let’s take the FDA out of the picture and just put it in the Banned Products Store and have big huge signs, bad music surrounding it — disco, whatever we need to do — telling that it’s not any good, but let me buy it.
让我们把 FDA 排除在外，把它放在禁用产品商店里，周围有巨大的标志，糟糕的音乐 —— 迪斯科，无论我们需要做什么 ——告诉它没有任何好处，但让我买它。
So, I want more nudge than you do.
所以，我比你想要更多的推动。
OK, you might.
好吧，你可能会。
But I’m open to these ideas.
但我对这些想法持开放态度。
In a case where someone has a terminal illness, and there’s a drug that has an extremely low probability of working, there’s a good argument that on welfare grounds they should get that because the chance of death without that, let’s stipulate, is a hundred percent, and the chance of despair without that is also a hundred percent.
如果某人患有绝症，并且有一种药物有效的可能性极低，那么有一个很好的论点是，出于福利原因，他们应该获得这种药物，因为如果没有这种药物，死亡的可能性是百分之一百，而没有这种药物，绝望的可能性也是百分之一百。
So if people’s tastes are such that they want to spend their money on a very small risk of living, it’s plausible to say that’s in the store, your store.
因此，如果人们的品味是这样的，他们想把钱花在风险很小的生活上，那么可以说这是在商店里，你的商店里。
Yes.
是的。
Now, you’re intrigued by the John Stuart Mill–Harriet Taylor correspondence and also by Byatt’s novel Possession from the early ’90s.
现在，您对约翰·斯图尔特·米尔 (John Stuart Mill) 与哈里特·泰勒 (Harriet Taylor) 的通信以及拜厄特 90 年代初的小说《占有》感兴趣。
I think you once said it was your favorite novel.
我想你曾经说过这是你最喜欢的小说。
What is it that ties those two together, and what explains your fascination with them?
是什么将两者联系在一起？又是什么解释了你对它们的着迷？
OK, so Possession — .
好的，那么控球 — 。
What does it say about you?
它对你有何评价？
Maybe I’m a romantic.
也许我是一个浪漫的人。
Sentimental.
感伤的。
They’re both letters.
它们都是字母。
There’s something dialogical about them.
他们有一些对话性的东西。
Yeah.
是的。
OK.
好的。
I’ll tell you, for those who don’t know Possession, go read it tomorrow.
我告诉你，不懂控球的人，明天就去看吧。
I think — it’s my personal favorite novel in any language.
我认为——这是我个人最喜欢的任何语言的小说。
I can’t say it’s as rich as Ulysses, but I like it even better, and in terms of greatness I would rank it with Joyce.
我不能说它像《尤利西斯》那样丰富，但我更喜欢它，就伟大而言，我会把它与乔伊斯并列。
What makes it, I think, so fantastic, and what gets to me about it is — and you’re correct — the letter exchange between the two lovers.
我认为，是什么让它如此奇妙，而让我感动的是 —— 你是对的 —— 两个恋人之间的信件往来。
And I think, for one thing, their alertness to the particulars of their own hearts and the particulars of their lover’s hearts.
我认为，一方面，他们对自己内心的细节和爱人内心的细节保持警惕。
The ability in each of them to be kind of fundamentally in touch with what they themselves are most deeply about and what the person they love is most deeply about — that is, in those letters, I think, overwhelming.
他们每个人都有能力从根本上了解自己最深的感受以及他们所爱的人最深的感受——也就是说，在这些信中，我认为是压倒性的。
And what Byatt gets at — and I think this is what gets to me about it — probably none of us has the literary quality of the two protagonists in Possession, but every one of us has that inside ourselves, and we just see surfaces.
拜厄特的意思是——“我想这就是让我感动的地方”——“也许我们没有人具备《着魔》中两位主角的文学品质，但我们每个人内心都有这种品质，但我们只看到了表面。
Even of our friends, we just see surfaces.
即使是我们的朋友，我们也只看到表面。
But there’s stuff going on in them about — you know, it can be needs or fears or loves that are just inaccessible, but there’s an inside to everybody that has what Byatt gets in the protagonists.
但他们身上发生的事情是——你知道，可能是难以接近的需求、恐惧或爱，但每个人的内心都有拜厄特在主角身上得到的东西。
I think that’s completely phenomenal.
我认为这完全是惊人的。
Now with Mill and Taylor — I wasn’t particularly interested in Mill and Taylor.
现在对于米尔和泰勒 —— 我对米尔和泰勒并不是特别感兴趣。
I was interested in Mill as one of the great thinkers and Taylor as a very important figure and maybe a great thinker.
我对穆勒作为一位伟大的思想家和泰勒感兴趣，认为他是一位非常重要的人物，也许是一位伟大的思想家。
But I wasn’t interested in their relationship until I saw that the University of Chicago Press was issuing, in its great Hayek series, Hayek on Mill.
但我对他们的关系并不感兴趣，直到我看到芝加哥大学出版社在其伟大的哈耶克系列中出版了《哈耶克论密尔》。
And that seemed to me intriguing beyond belief.
在我看来，这令人难以置信。
What would Hayek write about Mill?
哈耶克会写什么关于密尔的文章？
Two of the great liberal thinkers who are very different — but Hayek on Mill is not really Hayek on Mill; it’s Hayek’s edited edition of the Mill–Taylor correspondence, essentially.
两位伟大的自由主义思想家截然不同——但哈耶克论密尔并不是真正的哈耶克论密尔；而是哈耶克论密尔。本质上，这是哈耶克对米尔-泰勒通信的编辑版本。
And Mill and Taylor had a correspondence one to the other, much of which I think is destroyed, that has some of the delicacy and — I’m struggling for the right words here — what is that?
米尔和泰勒之间有一封信函，我认为其中大部分已被毁坏，其中有一些微妙之处，并且 —— 我正在努力寻找正确的词语 —— 那是什么？
Seeing the particularity of persons, the preciousness of persons and lives.
看到人的特殊性、人和生命的珍贵。
Mill and Taylor both do that.
米尔和泰勒都这样做。
And some of those sentences, one to the other — I think they’re not quite as great as Byatt’s protagonists, but they’re really something.
其中一些句子，一个对另一个 —— 我认为它们不如拜厄特的主角那么伟大，但它们确实很重要。
And when Taylor says something about how she felt when Mill left one day — and you know, we don’t even say that to each other, to people we love.
当泰勒谈到有一天米尔离开时她的感受时——你知道，我们甚至不会对彼此、对我们所爱的人这么说。
To our spouses, maybe sometimes we don’t say it, but we feel it.
对于我们的配偶，也许有时我们没有说出来，但我们感觉到了。
And Hayek, who seems, you know, both one of the great figures in liberal thought but also a cold fish — I think he seems like a cold fish.
还有哈耶克，你知道，他似乎既是自由主义思想中的伟大人物之一，又是一条冷酷的鱼——我认为他看起来像一条冷酷的鱼。
So, he’s kind of — as I respond to your question — he kind of had all that stuff in him, clearly.
所以，他有点——“当我回答你的问题时”——“显然，他身上有所有这些东西。”
Why would he have gotten into the Mill–Taylor correspondence, this guy who writes about the uses of knowledge in society and the rule of law, which is — that’s great stuff, but it’s not about how it was when you left that day.
为什么他会陷入米尔-泰勒的信件中，这个人写的是知识在社会中的运用和法治，这是伟大的东西，但它不是关于你那天离开时的情况。
But he completely got into that, so I like that, too.
但他完全融入其中，所以我也喜欢这一点。
Last question, before Q&A — this is in a way about nudges.
问答之前的最后一个问题 ——这在某种程度上是关于推动的。
But even in the last two years, you’ve published quite a few books.
但即使在过去的两年里，你也出版了相当多的书。
I’ve lost track, myself.
我自己也迷失了方向。
And normally when we have someone in for one of these chats, we pile up all of the papers they’ve written.
通常，当我们邀请某人参加其中一场谈话时，我们会堆积他们写过的所有论文。
But today we’re in Washington, DC, there are height restrictions on the buildings.
但今天我们在华盛顿特区，建筑物有高度限制。
Nick Donner Photography
尼克·唐纳摄影
So, in lieu of those papers, we have Yoda, Darth, and an Imperial walker.
因此，我们有尤达、达斯和帝国步行者来代替这些文件。
Those legs on the walker the were not properly regulated — that’s why they fell over so easily.
助行器上的腿没有得到适当的调节——这就是为什么他们这么容易摔倒。
So, you’ve done all this.
所以，你已经完成了这一切。
It’s obvious from reading your book, you spend a lot of time with your children.
从你的书中可以明显看出，你花了很多时间陪伴孩子。
Time management — how do you do it, and what’s your advice?
时间管理 — 你是如何做到的，你有什么建议？
How do you nudge yourself, or who nudges you?
你如何推动自己，或者是谁推动你？
If — well, I have a four-year-old daughter, she just turned four.
如果……好吧，我有一个四岁的女儿，她刚满四岁。
And if I don’t deliver pages to her at night — she goes to bed around 8:30 — she’s really mad.
如果我晚上不给她送页 —— 她会在 8:30 左右上床睡觉 —— 她真的很生气。
She says, “Daddy, what did you write?” And this is completely false; I’m making it up.
她说：“爸爸，你写了什么？”这是完全错误的；我正在弥补。
She doesn’t have any need that I write pages.
她不需要我写页面。
But I guess I feel every day that if I haven’t written at least something or had an idea, then I haven’t quite done my job.
但我想我每天都会觉得，如果我至少没有写过一些东西或没有一个想法，那么我就没有完成我的工作。
Most days I feel that.
大多数时候我都有这样的感觉。
I have to write something.
我必须写点东西。
And if I have a week or two weeks where I haven’t made a little progress on something that is potentially an academic article or a book, I feel, “Pedal-to-the-metal time.
如果我有一两周的时间在可能成为学术文章或书籍的事情上没有取得一点进展，我就会觉得，“全力以赴的时间。
You’ve got to produce something.” So, I have kind of an internal superego or something about writing.
你必须产出一些东西。”所以，我有一种内在的超我或者关于写作的东西。
I also really enjoy it.
我也很喜欢它。
I have no writer’s block, but I will write a lot of stuff that no one will ever see because it’s too terrible.
我没有写作障碍，但我会写很多没人会看到的东西，因为它太糟糕了。
So we only get the tip of the iceberg?
那么我们只得到了冰山一角？
You’ve got the — my filter is probably not sufficiently rigorous, so you probably see too much, but I do have a filter.
你已经得到了 — 我的过滤器可能不够严格，所以你可能会看到太多，但我确实有一个过滤器。
There’s a lot of stuff that I — so I tried, like “There is no try.
我尝试了很多东西，比如“没有尝试。
There’s do,” but there’s also experimenting.
有做，”但也有尝试。
So, there — I’m working on a book on liberty.
所以， —— 我正在写一本关于自由的书。
I’ve been doing it for a few years, and I have 90,000 words, and I don’t like what’s there.
我已经做了几年了，我有九万字，但我不喜欢那里的内容。
I hope something will come of it.
我希望能有所收获。
But just the advice would be — you are a living practitioner of this — is if you have something to say, write it.
但建议是“你是这方面的活实践者”，如果你有话要说，就写下来。
And then think, “Is it worth showing to the world?” To be too critical of your own production, I think, is — at the early stages, at least — is an error.
然后思考，“值得向世界展示吗？”我认为，对自己的作品过于挑剔是 — 在早期阶段，至少是 — 是一个错误。
Be critical — if it’s a book or an academic article, be really hard on yourself late.
保持批判性——如果这是一本书或一篇学术文章，那么一定要对自己严格要求。
But early, just assume it’s good.
但在早期，就假设它很好。
To be too critical of your own production, I think, is — at the early stages, at least — is an error.
我认为，对自己的作品过于挑剔是 — 在早期阶段，至少是 — 是一个错误。
Be critical — if it’s a book or an academic article, be really hard on yourself late.
保持批判性——如果这是一本书或一篇学术文章，那么一定要对自己严格要求。
But early, just assume it’s good.
但在早期，就假设它很好。
Q&A
问答
On the surface it seems like Star Wars is a highly militaristic story where you have fighting resolving every important situation.
从表面上看，《星球大战》似乎是一个高度军国主义的故事，你必须通过战斗来解决每一个重要的情况。
But if you really think about the arc of the six stories, it seems like the war was totally futile.
但如果你认真思考这六个故事的情节，就会发现这场战争完全是徒劳的。
If the Jedi had simply surrendered in Episode I, things would have actually turned out to be better.
如果绝地武士在第一集中投降，事情实际上会变得更好。
At least a whole lot of bodies would have been spared.
至少很多尸体都可以幸免。
And it’s striking — if you take a look at the end of Episode VI in the digitally altered version, Coruscant still looks awesome.
令人震惊的是，如果你看一下数字修改版本的第六集结尾，科洛桑看起来仍然很棒。
When they had the fireworks going over Coruscant, it does not seem like the emperor’s rule actually did any harm, except insofar as resisting it caused problems.
当他们在科洛桑上空燃放烟花时，皇帝的统治似乎并没有造成任何伤害，除了抵制它会引起问题。
So, what do you think?
那么，你觉得怎么样？
Is Star Wars as actually militaristic as it is on the surface, or is it a Straussian tale of pacifism as it should be?
《星球大战》是否像表面上那样实际上是军国主义的，还是它应该是一个施特劳斯式的和平主义故事？
OK.
好的。
I think that’s part of what makes the Star Wars saga work, that these are legitimate questions.
我认为这是《星球大战》传奇得以成功的部分原因，这些都是合理的问题。
My own view is that the best analogy to Star Wars is the American Revolution or the fall of communism, meaning there’s an authoritarian regime whose horribleness you don’t see constantly on screen, but you get glimpses of it.
我自己的观点是，与《星球大战》最好的类比是美国革命或共产主义的垮台，这意味着有一个独裁政权，你不会经常在屏幕上看到它的可怕，但你可以瞥见它。
And the idea of restoring peace and justice to the galaxy — that’s completely sincere.
恢复银河系和平与正义的想法——这是完全真诚的。
And while it wouldn’t be that dramatically pleasing to see, you know, horror from the authoritarian regime thrown in your face all the time, nor would it be that dramatically pleasing to see a completely easy victory by the forces of peace and justice.
虽然看到专制政权的恐怖时刻出现在你面前不会那么让人高兴，但看到和平与正义的力量完全轻松取得胜利也不会那么让人高兴。
The rebel heart of Star Wars is republican.
《星球大战》中叛逆的核心是共和党。
But Yoda was wrong about everything else, as Tyler showed, so could it not — .
但尤达在其他方面都错了，正如泰勒所表明的那样，所以它不可能 —— 。
Master Yoda isn’t wrong about everything else.
尤达大师在其他方面都没有错。
He made some mistakes, but Yoda is — he’s Yoda for a reason, meaning he’s really good.
他犯了一些错误，但尤达是——他是尤达是有原因的，这意味着他真的很优秀。
Next question.
下一个问题。
One of Lord Acton’s lesser-known aphorisms is that “Great men are almost always bad men.” Jedi are generally always great men and women.
阿克顿勋爵的一句鲜为人知的格言是“伟人几乎总是坏人”。绝地武士通常都是伟大的男人和女人。
With that in mind, if Luke really cared about the galaxy, do you think he should have let himself be the last of the Jedi and gone into self-exile at the end of Episode VI?
考虑到这一点，如果卢克真的关心银河系，你认为他应该让自己成为最后一个绝地武士，并在第六集结束时进行自我流放吗？
What I think Zhou Enlai said about the French Revolution is true here: it’s too soon to tell.
我认为周恩来关于法国大革命的说法在这里是正确的：现在下结论还为时过早。
I don’t have a view on the French Revolution, I should add, and I’m against communism, I should add.
我应该补充一点，我对法国大革命没有看法，我应该补充一点，我反对共产主义。
But whether Luke made a mistake or not in going into exile, as he evidently did — we need to know more.
但路加的流放是否犯了一个错误——正如他显然所做的那样——我们需要了解更多。
So, stay tuned.
所以，请继续关注。
Can I just say something?
我可以说句话吗？
He went into exile after training people.
他训练人民后就流亡了。
My assumption would be that he didn’t train people anymore, so — .
我的假设是他不再培训人员了，所以 —— 。
Well, we will see.
好吧，我们拭目以待。
We will see.
我们会看到。
John Dewey said about America, “Be the evils as they may, the experiment has not played out.
约翰·杜威谈到美国时说：“无论多么邪恶，实验都还没有结束。
The United States are not an established fact to be categorically assessed.” So true of Star Wars.
美国并不是一个可以明确评估的既定事实。”星球大战也是如此。
Next question.
下一个问题。
Hi.
你好。
I’m a student at George Mason University.
我是乔治梅森大学的学生。
You’ve talked about libertarian paternalism.
你谈到了自由主义家长作风。
You’ve talked about F.
你谈到了F。
A.
A.
Hayek.
哈耶克。
Hayek, though, famously wrote in his Road to Serfdom that the worst rise to the top.
然而，哈耶克在他的《通往奴役之路》中写道，最坏的人会登上顶峰。
So, given the current institutional environment we’re in, what is your confidence level that libertarian paternalism won’t become authoritarian paternalism?
那么，考虑到我们当前所处的制度环境，您对自由主义家长主义不会变成威权家长主义的信心有多大？
Hi.
你好。
Hayek was a great man.
哈耶克是一位伟人。
The idea — I’d want to look at the passage about the worst rising to the top to see what exactly is being said here.
这个想法 —— 我想看看关于最差的人登上顶峰的段落，看看这里到底说了什么。
But, you know, I worked very closely in the federal government with people in the Department of Transportation who are both political appointees but, more importantly for present purposes, the kind of very high-level civil servants.
但是，你知道，我在联邦政府中与交通部的人员密切合作，他们都是政治任命者，但更重要的是，就目前的目的而言，他们是非常高级的公务员。
And believe me, they’re not the worst.
相信我，他们还不是最糟糕的。
They’re tremendous.
他们太棒了。
America has, in its governance — I happened to have coffee today with a person, I have no idea what his political party is.
美国的治理 —— 我今天碰巧和一个人喝咖啡，我不知道他是什么政党。
He’s someone who works at the Office of Management and Budget.
他是在管理和预算办公室工作的人。
I worked with him in the government.
我和他一起在政府工作。
He’s fantastic.
他太棒了。
The guy has superb judgment.
这家伙的判断力非常出色。
He knows economics.
他懂经济学。
He knows law.
他懂法律。
So this “worst rise to the top,” I think that’s — I wish Hayek hadn’t said that.
所以这个“最糟糕的登顶”，我认为是 —— 我希望哈耶克没有这么说。
That’s — the worst are — you know, a lot of the worst are in jail.
那是 — 最糟糕的是 — 你知道，很多最糟糕的人都在监狱里。
Worst aren’t typically at the top.
最糟糕的通常不在顶层。
Sometimes they are.
有时他们是。
Next question.
下一个问题。
Occupational licensing has exploded in recent years.
近年来，职业许可呈爆炸式增长。
This is a problem that’s been acknowledged by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and it’s a problem that you have written about extensively in your own work — the regulatory burdens that everybody who seeks to earn a living in anything from animal massage to giving tour guides to African hair braiders.
这是白宫经济顾问委员会已经承认的一个问题，也是您在自己的工作中广泛讨论的一个问题——每个寻求谋生的人都承受着监管负担，从动物按摩到为非洲编发师提供导游。
You have written about the Constitution’s commitment to the idea that values should be public values.
您曾写过宪法对价值观应该是公共价值观这一理念的承诺。
They shouldn’t be self-serving.
他们不应该自私。
And you’ve written about the Constitution as a prohibition against naked preferences.
你曾写过宪法禁止赤裸裸的偏好。
At the same time, you are a judicial minimalist.
同时，你又是一个司法极简主义者。
And the Supreme Court has for decades, in the context of evaluating economic rights, been committed to something called the rational basis test, which is very, very minimal.
几十年来，最高法院在评估经济权利的背景下，一直致力于所谓的理性基础测试，但这种测试的作用非常非常小。
At the same time, the idea that protectionism that serves only the benefits of licensed practitioners is something that would seem to contradict the notion of a public value.
与此同时，保护主义只为有执照的从业者的利益服务的想法似乎与公共价值的概念相矛盾。
So I’m interested in your idea of how judges should approach cases like this and evaluate these kinds of restrictions on people’s right to earn a living.
所以我对你的想法很感兴趣，即法官应该如何处理这样的案件，并评估这些对人们谋生权利的限制。
We have three minutes total, so give a semi-short answer.
我们总共有三分钟的时间，所以请给出一个半简短的答案。
Then we’ll take one more question.
然后我们再问一个问题。
I know there’s a lot in there.
我知道里面有很多东西。
OK.
好的。
I would favor release order, not episode order — is that what you — in terms of viewing the Star Wars movies.
我更喜欢上映顺序，而不是剧集顺序——这就是你观看《星球大战》电影时的顺序。
OK.
好的。
So, the short answer to the legal question is, I do think our constitutional framework, rightly understood, requires a public-regarding justification for all legislative acts.
因此，对法律问题的简短回答是，我确实认为我们的宪法框架，如果正确理解的话，需要为所有立法行为提供公众关注的理由。
I also think that the judicial role with respect to ordinary legislation is appropriately modest, which is to say that for judges to be overseeing whatever comes out of, let’s say, the New York or California legislatures to see whether, on the judge’s view, it’s public-regarding rather than whether, with deference to the knowledge and accountability of the political process, it’s public-regarding, that would be a mistake.
我还认为，司法在普通立法方面的作用是适当适度的，也就是说，对于法官来说，监督纽约或加利福尼亚州立法机构的任何决定，看看在法官看来，它是否是公共利益，而不是尊重政治进程的知识和责任，这将是一个错误。
So ramped-up rational basis review of the sort that honorable people urge to get rid of what I would agree are objectionable things would produce an excessively aggressive role for federal and state judges in a — back to Star Wars — republic.
因此，可敬的人们敦促消除那些我认为令人反感的事物的理性基础审查的加强，将导致联邦和州法官在“回到星球大战”的共和国中扮演过于激进的角色。
Last question.
最后一个问题。
Hi.
你好。
So you’ve talked a lot tonight about making distinctions between when it is appropriate to nudge and when it is appropriate to, say, ban things.
所以今晚你已经谈论了很多关于区分什么时候适合推动以及什么时候适合禁止的事情。
Who makes those decisions, and who decides when those decisions need to be made?
谁做出这些决定，以及谁决定何时需要做出这些决定？
Super simple.
超级简单。
Jedi Council.
绝地委员会。
SUNSTEIN: OK.
桑斯坦：好的。
I think you intend that question to be rhetorical, meaning as an objection to the whole enterprise.
我认为你希望这个问题是反问性的，意思是对整个企业的反对。
But I hope, on reflection, it’s actually a good, substantive question that does have a pretty easy answer, which is our elected representatives, subject to the democratic and constitutional safeguards that they face.
但我希望，经过反思，这实际上是一个很好的实质性问题，确实有一个相当简单的答案，那就是我们选出的代表，受到他们所面临的民主和宪法保障的约束。
So if you have, let’s say, a libertarian president who wants no — .
因此，假设你有一位自由意志主义总统，他不想“不”。
That wasn’t meant to be funny.
这并不是为了搞笑。
If you have a libertarian president who, let’s say, is generally against bans, is OK with nudging but doesn’t want a whole lot of that, then that is what “we the people” want.
如果你有一位自由主义总统，比如说，他总体上反对禁令，可以接受助推，但不想要太多，那么这就是“我们人民”想要的。
And, you know, there we go.
而且，你知道，我们开始了。
If we have a president who, let’s say, is pretty bullish on bans in accordance with Tyler’s points, maybe, about — well, I guess he wasn’t there, but some people are, not me, not Tyler — so, more upbeat about bans, then there are constitutional and legal restrictions on that.
如果我们有一位总统，比方说，按照泰勒的观点，对禁令非常乐观，也许，关于——好吧，我猜他不在场，但有些人，不是我，不是泰勒——所以，对禁令更加乐观，那么对此就会有宪法和法律的限制。
And the reason I’m saying that that’s the inevitable answer, our elected representatives — there’s no other option.
我之所以说这是不可避免的答案，我们选出的代表 —— 别无选择。
So, if you intend your question — forgive me if I’m wrong — as I think I detected, as a kind of objection to the whole enterprise, I think what you’re saying is, you want something like strong constitutional safeguards against any of this stuff.
所以，如果你想提出你的问题——“如果我错了，请原谅我”——正如我认为我发现的那样，作为对整个企业的一种反对，我认为你所说的是，你想要针对任何此类东西的强有力的宪法保障。
And that’s a reasonable view, but that would have to come from “we the people” also.
这是一个合理的观点，但这也必须来自“我们人民”。
Over the summer, we will have podcast-only episodes of Conversations with Tyler.
整个夏天，我们将推出仅播客的《与泰勒对话》剧集。
We’ll have some fantastic guests, to be announced.
我们将邀请一些出色的嘉宾，具体时间待宣布。
The next live, in-person event is Steven Pinker, October 24th, Arlington campus.
下一场现场现场活动将于 10 月 24 日在阿灵顿校区 Steven Pinker 举行。
But most of all, big round of applause for Cass.
但最重要的是，大家为卡斯鼓掌。
Thank you.
谢谢。