Tim Harford on Persuasion and Popular Economics (Ep. 87)
Note: This conversation was recorded in November 2019 and thus took place before the UK’s general election in December, which secured Boris Johnson a Conservative majority and ensured the passage of his Brexit deal in January 2020.
注：这段对话录制于 2019 年 11 月，因此发生在 12 月英国大选之前，这次大选确保鲍里斯·约翰逊 (Boris Johnson) 获得保守党多数席位，并确保他的脱欧协议于 2020 年 1 月获得通过。
Today, I’m very happy to be speaking with Tim Harford.
今天，我很高兴与蒂姆·哈福德交谈。
Tim is a long-standing columnist for the Financial Times.
蒂姆是英国《金融时报》的长期专栏作家。
He’s on BBC Radio all the time, presenter of 50 Things That Made the Modern Economy and also the series, More or Less.
他经常出现在 BBC 广播电台，主持《现代经济的 50 件事》以及系列节目《或多或少》。
He’s the author of at least seven books, including the million-selling The Undercover Economist.
他是至少七本书的作者，其中包括销量数百万册的《卧底经济学家》。
His TED talks have been watched by more than 8 million people.
他的 TED 演讲已有超过 800 万人观看。
He is an honorary fellow of the Royal Statistical Society.
他是英国皇家统计学会的荣誉会员。
And he was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for “services to improving economic understanding.” And now he has a new podcast series out, called Cautionary Tales.
他还因“为提高经济理解做出的贡献”而被授予大英帝国勋章。现在他推出了一个新的播客系列，名为“警示故事”。
Tim, welcome.
蒂姆，欢迎。
I’m delighted to be here.
我很高兴来到这里。
The prospect of talking to you, Tyler, is both the most exciting and also the most terrifying engagement I have on my podcast promotion tour, so I’m looking forward to it.
泰勒，与你交谈的前景既是我在播客推广之旅中最令人兴奋也是最可怕的事情，所以我很期待。
These are all easy questions.
这些都是很简单的问题。
Let’s think about public speaking, which you’ve done quite a bit of.
让我们想想公开演讲，你已经做过很多次了。
On average, do you think extroverts or introverts are better public speakers?
平均而言，您认为外向的人还是内向的人更适合公共演讲？
I am an introvert.
我是一个内向的人。
I’ve never seen any research into this, so it should be something that one could test empirically.
我从未见过任何这方面的研究，所以它应该是人们可以凭经验进行测试的东西。
But as an introvert, I love public speaking because I like being alone, and you’re never more alone than when you’re on the stage.
但作为一个内向的人，我喜欢公开演讲，因为我喜欢独处，而在舞台上的时候是最孤独的。
No one is going to bother you when you’re up there.
当你在上面的时候没有人会打扰你。
I find it a great way to interact with people because they don’t talk back.
我发现这是与人互动的好方法，因为他们不会顶嘴。
What other non-obvious traits do you think predict being good at public speaking?
您认为还有哪些其他非明显特征预示着擅长公开演讲？
Hmmm.
嗯。
You need to be willing to rehearse and also willing to improvise and make stuff up as you go along.
你需要愿意排练，也愿意在进行过程中即兴创作和编造一些东西。
And I think it’s hard for somebody to be willing to do both.
我认为很难有人愿意同时做这两件事。
I think the people who like to rehearse end up rehearsing too much and being too stiff and not being willing to adapt to circumstances, whereas the people who are happy to improvise don’t rehearse enough, and so their comments are ill formed and ill considered.
我觉得那些喜欢排练的人排练得太多，太僵化，不愿意随机应变；而那些乐于即兴发挥的人排练得不够，所以他们的评论是不周全的，考虑不周的。
You need that capacity to do both.
你需要这种能力来完成这两件事。
You were, at one point, the world's school persuasive speaking champion.
您曾一度是世界学校说服力演讲冠军。
Is that correct?
这是正确的吗？
It is correct, although it’s a little bit like boxing.
这是正确的，尽管它有点像拳击。
I think there were probably numerous people who could have claimed that at the same time, but yes.
我认为可能有很多人可以同时声称这一点，但是是的。
But still, any heavyweight champion at all is pretty fierce.
但无论如何，任何重量级冠军都是相当凶猛的。
What is persuasive speaking?
什么叫有说服力的演讲？
Persuasive speaking, at that time, was giving a speech of about 10 or 12 minutes, which seems like a long time when you’re a kid.
说服性演讲，当时就是做一个10、12分钟左右的演讲，这在你小时候看来是很长的时间了。
It’s not a long time as a grown-up.
长大后的时间并不长。
It’s arguing a particular case.
这是在争论一个特定的案例。
In my particular case, I was arguing that nuclear fusion was underrated, and we should invest more in it, and it held great promise.
就我的具体情况而言，我认为核聚变被低估了，我们应该对其进行更多投资，而且它前景广阔。
Perhaps in 1991, when I was doing it, this was a .
也许在 1991 年，当我这样做时，这是一个 .
.
。
.
。
I don’t know what —
我不知道什么——
Is it still underrated?
它仍然被低估吗？
One could say exactly the same thing.
人们可以说完全相同的事情。
I have to say that it’s underrated because, partly for consistency and partly because my sister works on nuclear fusion, it’s one of those long shots, isn’t it?
我不得不说它被低估了，因为部分是为了一致性，部分是因为我姐姐从事核聚变研究，这是那些不太可能的事情之一，不是吗？
We continue to think it might work.
我们仍然认为它可能有效。
And if it worked, it would be absolutely wonderful.
如果它成功了，那就太棒了。
But we’ve been told for a very long time that it’s just around the corner, and so far, we haven’t reached the corner.
但很长一段时间以来，我们一直被告知它即将到来，但到目前为止，我们还没有到达拐角。
What makes you persuasive?
是什么让你有说服力？
In that case, it was a mixture of analogies, explaining to people what this thing was when people didn’t understand, so I was explaining a technical subject.
那么，它就是类比的混合体，在人们不理解的时候向人们解释这个东西是什么，所以我在解释一个技术主题。
I now realize I’ve done quite a lot of that in my life, drawing people into a world and explaining to them about something they didn’t know, engaging their curiosity, making them want to learn more.
我现在意识到我一生中已经做了很多这样的事情，将人们带入一个世界并向他们解释他们不知道的事情，激发他们的好奇心，让他们想要了解更多。
Then, having done that — it’s fairly easy — they’re on your side.
然后，完成之后——这相当容易——他们就站在你这边了。
They’re open minded.
他们思想开放。
You can then make the case.
然后你就可以提出理由了。
I’ve since discovered various pieces of research, and also, through my introspection, discovered this to be true.
从那时起，我发现了各种研究成果，并且通过我的内省，发现这是真的。
If you can engage people’s curiosity, you have a shot at changing their minds.
如果你能激发人们的好奇心，你就有机会改变他们的想法。
Daniel Kahan, who studies cultural cognition and tribal thinking, has found that a curious mindset tends to be one of the few antidotes to tribal thinking.
研究文化认知和部落思维的丹尼尔·卡汉发现，好奇的心态往往是部落思维的少数解药之一。
If, on the other hand, you’re in a situation where you’re not telling people anything they feel they don’t already know — you’re just challenging them with the same old facts that they’ve heard shouted at them before — they’ll find it very easy to dismiss you.
另一方面，如果你没有告诉人们任何他们认为自己不知道的事情——你只是用他们以前听到过的旧事实来挑战他们——他们会发现很容易拒绝你。
That curiosity is an important thing.
这种好奇心很重要。
How good is your own self-understanding of what makes you emotionally persuasive?
您对自己在情感上具有说服力的因素的了解程度如何？
I suppose, if I had a tremendous degree of self-understanding, and if I had no self-understanding, I would give you exactly the same answer, right?
我想，如果我有极大程度的自我理解，如果我没有自我理解，我会给你完全相同的答案，对吧？
Am I emotionally persuasive?
我在情感上有说服力吗？
When I worked on a book called Adapt, I became very interested in feedback.
当我写一本名为《Adapt》的书时，我对反馈非常感兴趣。
I’m very conscious of how rarely we get good feedback.
我非常清楚我们很少能得到好的反馈。
And I am aware that I rarely get good feedback as a speaker.
我知道作为演讲者我很少得到好的反馈。
You step offstage, and you say to people, “How was that?
你走下舞台，对人们说：“怎么样？
Was it any good?” And people say, “Yeah, it was great.” Of course, they say it was great because it’s difficult to get onstage and give a talk, and no one’s going to say, “Actually, you sucked.” You don’t get any good feedback.
有什么好处吗？”人们说：“是的，太棒了。”当然，他们说这很棒，因为上台演讲很困难，而且没有人会说，“实际上，你很糟糕。”你没有得到任何好的反馈。
So I’ve taken to saying to people, “Can you think of one thing that you would recommend I do differently next time?”
所以我开始对人们说：“你能想出一件你会建议我下次做的不同的事情吗？”
And I am aware that I rarely get good feedback as a speaker.
我知道作为演讲者我很少得到好的反馈。
You step offstage, and you say to people, “How was that?
你走下舞台，对人们说：“怎么样？
Was it any good?” And people say, “Yeah, it was great.” Of course, they say it was great because it’s difficult to get onstage and give a talk, and no one’s going to say, “Actually, you sucked.” You don’t get any good feedback.
有什么好处吗？”人们说：“是的，太棒了。”当然，他们说这很棒，因为上台演讲很困难，而且没有人会说，“实际上，你很糟糕。”你没有得到任何好的反馈。
So I’ve taken to saying to people, “Can you think of one thing that you would recommend I do differently next time?”
所以我开始对人们说：“你能想出一件你会建议我下次做的不同的事情吗？”
It’s astonishing how rarely people are able to give you one specific piece of actionable feedback.
令人惊讶的是，很少有人能够给你一份具体的、可操作的反馈。
But I did once get specific, actionable feedback from one of the senior people in the TED organization.
但我确实曾经从 TED 组织的一位资深人士那里得到了具体的、可操作的反馈。
He saw me give a speech.
他看到我发表演讲。
I thought it went very well.
我认为一切进展顺利。
It was about innovation and lessons from building the Spitfire, a particular fighter plane that was very influential in the Second World War.
这是关于制造喷火战斗机的创新和经验教训，喷火战斗机是一种在第二次世界大战中非常有影响力的特殊战斗机。
I stepped offstage, and people gathered around and said, “That was a great speech.” I thought to myself, “Yeah, it was a great speech.” And I became aware that this gentleman was standing just off to one side.
我走下讲台，人们围过来说：“那是一场很棒的演讲。”我心想：“是的，这是一场很棒的演讲。”我意识到这位先生就站在一侧。
And when everybody had cleared, he came over to me and said, “Yeah, you did well, but many of the people you were talking to were not British.
当所有人都散场后，他走过来对我说：“是的，你做得很好，但与你交谈的许多人都不是英国人。
They don’t have the same cultural references as you do.
他们没有与你相同的文化参考。
They will not know what the Spitfire is.
他们不会知道喷火战斗机是什么。
Next time, you should show them a photograph of a Spitfire.”
下次，你应该给他们看一张喷火战斗机的照片。”
That was a very useful piece of feedback.
这是一个非常有用的反馈。
It was very specific.
这是非常具体的。
It explained what I should do differently in future.
它解释了我将来应该采取哪些不同的做法。
And I’m astonished at how rarely such feedback is given, even when you explicitly seek it out.
令我惊讶的是，即使你明确寻求这种反馈，这种反馈却很少出现。
I found it’s easier to get negative feedback on a public talk from women in the audience.
我发现在公开演讲中更容易从观众中的女性那里得到负面反馈。
I’m not sure why that is.
我不知道为什么会这样。
Interesting.
有趣的。
I haven’t observed that, but I haven’t tested it systematically, either.
我没有观察到这一点，但我也没有系统地测试过。
On debate
关于辩论
Now, you are also UK under-18 debating champion, correct?
现在，您也是英国 18 岁以下辩论冠军，对吗？
Yes, which is a similar skill set but requires a great deal more improvisation because the persuasive speech, you prepare, and you memorize, and you deliver, whereas the debating, you’re constantly tweaking what you’re saying in response to what’s being said at you.
是的，这是一套类似的技能，但需要更多的即兴创作，因为在说服性演讲中，你需要准备、记忆、表达，而在辩论中，你需要不断调整你所说的内容，以回应别人对你所说的话。
You have someone very smart trying to make you look very stupid.
有一个非常聪明的人试图让你看起来很愚蠢。
Are you more competitive than you seem to be at first glance?
你是否比乍一看更有竞争力？
I’ve lost my taste for it, actually.
事实上，我已经失去了兴趣。
I was very competitive as a young debater.
作为一名年轻的辩手，我非常有竞争力。
I then went to Oxford, and I hung around the Oxford Union.
然后我去了牛津，并在牛津联盟闲逛。
I’m a little younger than Boris Johnson, our new prime minister, but there were all those types around.
我比我们的新首相鲍里斯·约翰逊年轻一点，但周围有很多这样的人。
And I didn’t find it very appealing.
我觉得它不太有吸引力。
They weren’t the kind of people I felt at home with.
他们不是那种让我感到宾至如归的人。
I felt a little bit excluded.
我感觉有点被排斥。
So I just stopped debating, and I’m now much less interested in that very competitive format.
所以我停止了辩论，现在我对这种竞争激烈的形式不再感兴趣。
I’m still competitive in other ways.
我在其他方面仍然有竞争力。
I’m a very competitive board games player, but generally, I seek cooperation agreements more than competition.
我是一个非常有竞争力的棋盘游戏玩家，但总的来说，我更寻求合作协议而不是竞争。
I still think though, that debating is underrated in that people think of it as being a very elitist thing.
但我仍然认为，辩论被低估了，因为人们认为这是一件非常精英主义的事情。
It’s practiced by elite people from very posh schools and very privileged backgrounds, and it favors a certain kind of education, and those things are all true.
它是由来自非常豪华的学校和非常特权的背景的精英人士实践的，并且它有利于某种类型的教育，而这些都是事实。
At the same time, in a debate, you are protected by certain rules.
同时，在辩论中，你受到某些规则的保护。
You’re given a certain amount of space and time, and people are not allowed to interrupt you except in certain formalized ways that you don’t have to accept.
你被给予了一定的空间和时间，人们不允许打断你，除非以某些你不必接受的正式方式。
And I became aware, once I became an adult and entered into corporate spaces and corporate meetings, that all the old men were talking all over the young women, and they’d interrupt, and they wouldn’t let these younger people get a word in edgewise.
我意识到，一旦我成年并进入公司空间和公司会议，所有的老男人都在对年轻女性说话，他们会打断，他们不会让这些年轻人插嘴。
And I realized that debating actually does protect anybody.
我意识到辩论实际上确实可以保护任何人。
It requires a certain skill set, yes.
是的，它需要一定的技能。
But it also carves out that protected space, which is very valuable.
但它也开辟了非常有价值的受保护空间。
Should public conferences present more of their material or more of the event in the form of a debate?
公开会议应该以辩论的形式展示更多的材料还是更多的活动？
Rather than talks, panels — we all hate talks and panels, right?
我们不喜欢演讲，而是小组讨论——我们都讨厌演讲和小组讨论，对吧？
A good talk is fine.
好好谈谈就好了。
A panel is almost always terrible, and the panel is terrible because people tend to agree with each other, and they don’t feel they’ve got permission to disagree even if they do disagree.
小组几乎总是很糟糕，而小组之所以糟糕，是因为人们倾向于彼此同意，即使他们确实不同意，他们也不觉得自己有权表达不同意见。
A debate — if you choose the motion well, a debate can be great.
一场辩论——如果你很好地选择了动议，一场辩论就会很棒。
You get to see both sides of the argument.
你可以看到争论的双方。
You really get to see propositions tested under pressure.
你真的可以看到命题在压力下得到检验。
I think we should do more, yes.
我认为我们应该做得更多，是的。
Has Twitter raised or lowered your opinion of public debate?
Twitter 是否提高或降低了你对公开辩论的看法？
Lowered.
降低了。
I find Twitter to be good for some things, but very rarely good for the standard of argument because it favors outrage and put-downs and disrespect and just —
我发现 Twitter 对某些事情有好处，但很少有利于争论的标准，因为它倾向于愤怒、贬低和不尊重，而且只是——
Don’t all debates favor outrage and put-downs?
难道所有的辩论不都倾向于愤怒和贬低吗？
I’ve done Intelligence Squared debates and they were full of outrage and put-downs — not coming from me, by the way.
我参加过 Intelligence Squared 辩论，他们充满了愤怒和贬低——顺便说一句，这不是我说的。
I’m sure they’re not coming from you, but at least you have time to stand your ground and to make your case, and people can observe, and they can see Tyler speaking for 10 minutes, and they can say, “Well, this seems to be a reasonable fellow who’s willing to listen to the other side and willing to make a reasoned argument.” On Twitter, there’s no chance of doing that.
我确信它们不是来自你，但至少你有时间坚持自己的立场并提出自己的观点，人们可以观察，他们可以看到泰勒讲了 10 分钟，他们可以说，“嗯，这似乎是一个讲道理的人，愿意倾听对方的意见，愿意提出合理的论点。”在 Twitter 上，没有机会这样做。
So any elastic supply improves debates.
因此，任何弹性供应都会引发争论。
Fixed amount of time — you can’t talk anymore.
固定的时间——你不能再说话了。
Twitter, there’s always someone else to ratio you.
Twitter，总会有人来评价你。
But also, everything comes in these bite-sized chunks.
而且，一切都以这些小块的形式出现。
Just the other day, I tweeted my most viral tweet, and I didn’t notice.
就在前几天，我在推特上发布了最热门的推文，但我没有注意到。
It was a quote from a Conservative MP who had left the Conservative Party and said something very negative about her own party and about Brexit.
这是一位离开保守党的保守党议员的引述，她对自己的政党和英国脱欧说了一些非常负面的话。
All I did was quote her, and link to the Financial Times piece that she had written, and went away and played a board game with some friends, and came back, and it had been retweeted over a thousand times, which very rarely happens.
我所做的就是引用她的话，并链接到她写的《金融时报》文章，然后出去和一些朋友玩棋盘游戏，然后回来，它已经被转发了一千多次，这种情况很少发生。
Even though I have a lot of followers, my tweets never go viral, I think because very rarely, I’m interested in outrage.
尽管我有很多粉丝，但我的推文从来没有像病毒一样传播开来，我想因为很少有人对愤怒感兴趣。
But people found this particular expression of contempt — the insider rejecting the organization she worked for — people found that very engaging, and everyone loved that.
但人们发现这种特殊的蔑视表达——内部人士拒绝她所工作的组织——人们发现这非常有吸引力，每个人都喜欢这样。
But I don’t know if anyone’s really the wiser or learned anything they didn’t already know.
但我不知道是否有人真的更聪明或学到了他们不知道的东西。
On Brexit
关于英国脱欧
Now that you bring up Brexit, I do have a few questions for you.
既然你提到了英国脱欧，我确实有几个问题要问你。
Really?
真的吗？
Most generally, at the conceptual level, how exactly did British politics get so weird?
最普遍的是，在概念层面上，英国政治究竟是如何变得如此奇怪的？
No matter what your point of view, it feels like something very few people had predicted six years ago.
不管你的观点如何，这感觉就像是六年前很少有人预测到的事情。
What happened?
发生了什么？
What variable didn’t we see?
我们没有看到什么变量？
Yes.
是的。
I’m not sure I have a good answer, even in hindsight.
即使事后看来，我也不确定自己是否有一个好的答案。
It is very curious.
非常好奇。
We got to a situation where people suddenly identified very strongly with a proposition that they had not previously identified strongly with.
我们遇到了这样一种情况：人们突然非常强烈地认同他们以前没有强烈认同的主张。
I don’t fully understand the processes whereby that happened, but both on the “remain” side and the “leave” side, people started expressing a great deal of contempt for the other side, not listening to what was being said, not taking the arguments seriously.
我不完全理解这件事发生的过程，但无论是“留欧”一方还是“脱欧”一方，人们都开始对对方表示极大的蔑视，不听他们所说的，不认真对待争论。
And a lot of people just sorted themselves into echo chambers in a way that I hadn’t seen before.
很多人只是以一种我以前从未见过的方式将自己分类到回声室中。
The curious thing — that polarization, I think, is familiar to anyone who studies American politics — but the curious thing is that it was crosscutting.
奇怪的是——我认为任何研究美国政治的人都熟悉这种两极分化——但奇怪的是它是交叉的。
It came at the electoral system sideways — viral referendum with both major parties split on what to do about it, and most members of parliament convinced that Brexit was not a very good idea.
它是在选举制度上出现的——病毒式公投，两大党在如何应对上存在分歧，大多数议会成员相信英国退欧不是一个好主意。
We’ve just been dealing with that awful logjam ever since.
从那时起我们就一直在应对这种可怕的僵局。
We’re having this conversation before the election.
我们在选举前进行这次对话。
It will be broadcast after the election.
该节目将在选举后播出。
There is a reasonable chance the election will break the logjam, but there’s a reasonable chance that it won’t.
选举有可能打破僵局，但也有可能不会。
I guess we’ll see.
我想我们会看到的。
When I go to England — which I do fairly often — frequently, I have the feeling that this is such a sensible culture.
当我经常去英国时，我经常感觉到这是一种明智的文化。
What strikes me is that when people say something, so often they feel compelled to give a reason.
让我印象深刻的是，当人们说话时，他们常常觉得有必要给出一个理由。
And they give the reason in a fairly even, or not so emotional, tone of voice.
他们以相当平稳或不那么情绪化的语气给出原因。
I contrast this with my native United States of America.
我将这与我的祖国美利坚合众国进行了对比。
Is my impression just off?
我的印象是不是不太好？
Are the English actually not any more sensible than anyone else, culturally?
在文化上，英国人实际上并不比其他人更明智吗？
I wonder if you’re seeing it differently because you’re coming as an outsider.
我想知道你是否会因为作为局外人而有不同的看法。
They treat you differently as an outsider.
他们将你视为局外人，并以不同的方式对待你。
No, even public pronouncements or what people say on TV — there’s so often a reason given, and it’s presented as if the reason is why you should do the thing you’re being asked to do.
不，即使是公开声明或人们在电视上所说的话——通常都会给出一个理由，并且表现得好像这个理由就是为什么你应该做你被要求做的事情。
Well, I’d like to think that people are giving genuine reasons, but I do seem to remember one of these pieces of psychological research.
好吧，我想人们给出了真正的理由，但我似乎确实记得其中一项心理学研究。
I forget who did it.
我忘记是谁干的了
Testing persuasion — it may have been Cialdini, but people cut in line.
测试说服力——可能是西奥迪尼，但人们插队了。
There was a line to do a photocopy —
需要排队复印——
Yes, that’s him.
是的，就是他。
— and people cut in line.
——人们插队。
Sometimes people would just say, “Sorry, can I do this?” and would cut in line, and people didn’t like that.
有时人们会说：“对不起，我可以这样做吗？”并且会插队，人们不喜欢这样。
But if people gave a reason — even if the reason was utterly vacuous — people found that perfectly acceptable.
但如果人们给出一个理由——即使这个理由完全是空洞的——人们就会发现这是完全可以接受的。
So, if somebody cut in line and said, “Do you mind if I cut in line?
所以，如果有人插队并说：“你介意我插队吗？
I have to make some copies.”
我得复印一些。”
Well, obviously you have to make some copies because you’re queuing up at a photocopier.
嗯，显然你必须复印一些，因为你要在复印机前排队。
I have to make some copies, too, because I’m also queuing at the photocopier.
我也得复印一些，因为我也在复印机前排队。
The vacuous reason was nevertheless persuasive.
虽然空洞的理由却很有说服力。
So, maybe the lesson is that the British have simply learned that it’s a good idea to provide a reason, and it doesn’t need to be a good reason.
所以，也许这个教训是，英国人只是简单地认识到，提供一个理由是个好主意，而且不需要是一个好的理由。
So, under that hypothesis, the English are actually a more manipulative culture.
因此，根据这一假设，英国人实际上是一种更具操纵性的文化。
As you kindly mentioned, I am an Officer of the Order of the British Empire.
正如您善意提到的，我是大英帝国勋章军官。
We ran this global empire.
我们经营着这个全球帝国。
I don’t think you get to run a global empire from a small island without learning some tricks to manipulate how other people behave.
我认为如果不学习一些操纵他人行为的技巧，你就无法在一个小岛上经营一个全球帝国。
Now on Brexit, am I correct in thinking you have been and are still pro-Remain?
现在，关于英国脱欧，我认为您过去和现在仍然支持留欧，这样的想法正确吗？
Yes, although I’m in an awkward situation of fact-checking.
是的，尽管我在事实核查方面处于尴尬的境地。
I fact-checked the referendum.
我对公投进行了事实核查。
I fact-checked the general elections.
我对大选进行了事实核查。
When working for the BBC, while I do that job, the BBC is of course neutral and independent and balanced.
当我在BBC工作时，当我做这份工作时，BBC当然是中立、独立和平衡的。
I am in that mode where I’m trying to be as neutral as possible.
我正处于这种模式，我试图尽可能保持中立。
I’m sure I don’t always succeed.
我确信我并不总是成功。
I find that quite addictive.
我发现这很容易上瘾。
It’s quite nice to sit there and see both sides to everything.
坐在那里看到一切的两面真是太好了。
But then, in my Financial Times columns, I can say what I like, and although I don’t tend to express myself strongly, like most economists, and indeed, like most people with a degree-level education in the UK, and like most people who live in the southeast of England — just like my tribe — I think that this was a terrible idea and will do a lot of harm, and it will particularly do a lot of harm to the people who voted for it.
但是，在我的《金融时报》专栏中，我可以说我喜欢的话，尽管我不像大多数经济学家那样强烈地表达自己，事实上，就像大多数在英国受过学位教育的人一样，也像大多数生活在英格兰东南部的人一样——就像我的部落一样——我认为这是一个糟糕的想法，会造成很多伤害，尤其是对投票支持它的人造成很多伤害。
In economics, I’m sure you’re familiar with the equity-efficiency tradeoff, the notion that you would give up some output to have a more equitable outcome.
在经济学中，我相信你熟悉股权效率权衡，即你会放弃一些产出以获得更公平的结果。
And this you find a reasonable idea.
这你就找到了一个合理的想法。
However you might wish to make particular tradeoffs.
然而，您可能希望做出特定的权衡。
Yes?
是的？
It seems that equity is a thing to aim for, and efficiency is a thing to aim for, and they probably are often in tension.
看来公平是要追求的，效率是要追求的，他们之间可能经常处于紧张状态。
So yes, there’s a tradeoff.
所以是的，这是一个权衡。
So, if someone says there’s also a tradeoff, control versus efficiency — being master of your own fate as a nation — you would accept that that’s a valid tradeoff.
因此，如果有人说控制权与效率之间存在权衡——作为一个国家掌握自己的命运——你会接受这是一个有效的权衡。
Yes —
是的——
Well, you would consider being poorer to have more control over your own schedule, for instance.
嗯，例如，你会考虑变得更穷，以便更好地控制自己的日程安排。
I would consider being poorer to have control over my own schedule, but the hypothesis that the link to Brexit is the idea that, “Oh, well, if we give some politicians in London, more control — that’s desirable versus some politicians In Brussels.”
我会考虑更穷地控制自己的日程安排，但与英国脱欧相关的假设是这样的想法：“哦，好吧，如果我们给予伦敦的一些政客更多的控制权——这与布鲁塞尔的一些政客相比是可取的。”
But surely the politicians in London are more accountable to the British public, or maybe English public in the future, than are those in Brussels or Berlin.
但可以肯定的是，伦敦的政治家比布鲁塞尔或柏林的政治家对英国公众，或者未来的英国公众更负责。
You would think they were more accountable.
你可能会认为他们更有责任感。
In general, I have found the European Union to be — because, of course, everything needs to be agreed by everybody — it does tend to be a defense against politicians taking extreme positions in nation states, whether they’re extreme protectionist positions or extreme in other ways.
总的来说，我发现欧盟——当然，因为一切都需要得到每个人的同意——它确实倾向于防御政客在民族国家采取极端立场，无论他们是极端保护主义立场还是其他方面的极端立场。
It’s hard for them to get away with that.
他们很难摆脱这一点。
I have tended to find Brussels, in general, a defense against particularly stupid domestic politics, although it’s not a foolproof defense, and Brussels does its own stupid things, too.
总的来说，我倾向于认为布鲁塞尔是针对特别愚蠢的国内政治的防御，尽管这并不是万无一失的防御，而且布鲁塞尔也做了自己的愚蠢事情。
But still, that might be an argument that Brussels rule is more efficiency.
但这仍然可能是布鲁塞尔统治效率更高的一个论点。
It’s not an argument that it’s more control.
这并不是说它更具控制力。
Yeah.
是的。
The English/British system is pretty clean, so to speak, right?
可以说，英国/英国的体系非常干净，对吧？
You’ve already established the English people are highly reasonable.
你已经确定英国人是非常通情达理的。
But then one needs to return to the question of control over what?
但接下来我们需要回到控制什么的问题？
Freedom to do what?
自由做什么？
If my concern is I would like to control the kind of people I see around my town — I see too many people with foreign accents, and I want to control that and prevent so many of these people arriving — then the European Union definitely interferes with that control because you have free movement to people from across the Union.
如果我担心的是我想控制我在城镇周围看到的人——我看到太多有外国口音的人，我想控制这一点并阻止这么多人到达——那么欧盟肯定会干涉这种控制，因为来自欧盟各地的人可以自由流动。
People come from Poland, from Lithuania.
人们来自波兰、立陶宛。
If that is what I’m worried about, I might feel out of control.
如果这就是我所担心的，我可能会感到失控。
If on the other hand, from my privileged Oxford perch, I feel that what I would like control of is my ability to go to Dublin, to go to Berlin, to go to Rome, to travel widely, to give speeches, to work in any of these places, and not to worry, I have more control over that as a member of the single market.
另一方面，如果从我享有特权的牛津地位出发，我觉得我想要控制的是我去都柏林、去柏林、去罗马、去广泛旅行、发表演讲、在这些地方工作的能力，不用担心，作为单一市场的成员，我对此有更多的控制权。
I wouldn’t emphasize control as a single virtue.
我不会强调控制是一种单一的美德。
It’s always a question about control over what and who is exercising that control.
这始终是一个关于控制什么以及由谁行使控制权的问题。
The European Union reduces our control over some things and increases our control over others.
欧盟减少了我们对某些事物的控制，并增加了我们对另一些事物的控制。
Paul Krugman has given the very rough estimate that Brexit might lead to, say, a loss of 2 to 3 percent of GDP in the steady state.
保罗·克鲁格曼 (Paul Krugman) 给出了非常粗略的估计，即英国脱欧可能会导致稳定状态下 GDP 损失 2% 到 3%。
Does that strike you as roughly in the ballpark of what will be the case?
您是否觉得这与实际情况大致相符？
Yeah, I think we’ve probably already lost that due to the persistent uncertainty and the fact that we keep —
是的，我认为由于持续的不确定性以及我们保留的事实，我们可能已经失去了这一点
But you’ve had a higher growth rate than Germany, right?
但你们的增长率比德国更高，对吗？
We keep promising to make a decision and then postponing the decision, but one never knows.
我们不断承诺做出决定，然后又推迟决定，但谁也不知道会发生什么。
But yeah, that order of magnitude.
但是，是的，这个数量级。
I think some of the analysis coming from inside the UK suggests it might be twice that.
我认为来自英国内部的一些分析表明，这个数字可能是这个数字的两倍。
It might be more like 6 percent.
可能更像是 6%。
If nothing else, doesn’t the current experience simply show how hard it is to do Brexit?
如果不出意外的话，目前的经历不就说明了脱欧有多困难吗？
It seems everyone can agree with that.
看来大家都能同意这一点。
So, if doing Brexit is really hard, it will only get harder, so staying in is a kind of irreversible choice.
所以，如果脱欧真的很难，那就只会变得更难，所以留下来是一种不可逆转的选择。
When you’re making irreversible choices, the cost-benefit calculus has to be very strongly in favor of an irreversible investment, right?
当你做出不可逆转的选择时，成本效益计算必须非常强烈地支持不可逆转的投资，对吧？
Yeah.
是的。
Like by a ratio of 3:1, 4:1, a very high hurdle rate.
比如3:1、4:1的比例，门槛率非常高。
If someone just says, “Well, we want more political control.
如果有人只是说：“好吧，我们想要更多的政治控制。
We want sovereignty to answer to the people here.
我们希望主权能够对这里的人民负责。
We understand we’re giving up a few percent of GDP.
我们知道我们正在放弃 GDP 的几个百分点。
We’ll earn that back in a year and a half.
我们将在一年半内赚回这笔钱。
If we stay in, we’re stuck forever.
如果我们留在里面，我们就会永远被困住。
My goodness, we’re sensible English people.
天哪，我们是明智的英国人。
Why shouldn’t we get out?”
我们为什么不应该出去？”
What’s your response?
你的回应是什么？
It’s been rare to see that argument articulated.
很少看到这样的论点得到阐述。
The argument has tended to be more along the lines of “Look at how much more money we can give to the NHS.” And I’m —
争论的主题往往是“看看我们可以给国民医疗服务体系（NHS）多捐多少钱”。而我是——
Oh sure, that’s silly, right?
哦，当然，这很愚蠢，对吧？
You fact-checked that into oblivion.
你对此进行了事实核查，结果被遗忘了。
Well, I think we fact-checked it too much and called too much attention to it.
嗯，我认为我们对它进行了太多的事实核查，并引起了太多的关注。
But also, “Oh, Turkey is about to join the EU.
但同时，“哦，土耳其即将加入欧盟。
Aren’t you worried about all these Turkish people who are going to show up?” One of the things that has worried me is the paucity of the arguments that I’ve seen in favor of leaving.
你不担心所有这些即将出现的土耳其人吗？”让我担心的事情之一是我看到的支持离开的论据很少。
I think there are arguments to be made and you’re making them, but I think it’s telling that those arguments are rarely made.
我认为有一些论据需要提出，而你也在提出这些论据，但我认为这些论据很少被提出是很能说明问题的。
And there’s your own book, right?
还有你自己的书，对吗？
Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure, a great book — the notion that you want experimentation.
改编：为什么成功总是从失败开始，一本很棒的书——你想要实验的概念。
A lot of the experiments, at first, may not look so great, but over time, you have more wisdom in the system with more distinct units of governance.
很多实验一开始可能看起来不太好，但随着时间的推移，你会在拥有更独特治理单位的系统中拥有更多智慧。
If anyone should be at least sympathetic to the Brexit cause, it would be you.
如果有人至少应该同情英国脱欧事业，那就是你。
No?
没有？
Yeah, but again, it depends what level you’re measuring these things at.
是的，但同样，这取决于你衡量这些东西的水平。
I’ve seen a paper from maybe 20 years ago now, American Economic Review.
我看过大约 20 年前的一篇论文《美国经济评论》。
If you can agree to global standards, this empowers smaller economic units.
如果你能同意全球标准，这就会为较小的经济单位带来力量。
You can have city states; you can have small nation states.
你可以拥有城邦；你可以拥有小民族国家。
And to some extent, the European Union potentially allows that.
在某种程度上，欧盟可能允许这样做。
It was much more credible to suggest, for example, that Scotland could break away from the rest of the UK when the whole lot was in the EU.
例如，当整个地区都在欧盟时，建议苏格兰可以脱离英国其他地区就更可信了。
And the ambiguity of whether Northern Ireland is in the UK — well, legally, politically it’s in the UK, but it’d be nice to pretend that it’s also part of Ireland.
北爱尔兰是否属于英国的模糊性——好吧，在法律上、政治上它都在英国，但最好假装它也是爱尔兰的一部分。
A lot of people would like that.
很多人都会喜欢这样。
Well, you can have your cake and eat it if you’re in the EU.
好吧，如果你在欧盟，你可以鱼与熊掌兼得。
The EU prevents certain kinds of experiments, but it allows other kinds of experiments.
欧盟禁止某些类型的实验，但允许其他类型的实验。
I don’t see that as decisively cutting either way.
我不认为这对任何一方都是决定性的削减。
I should also say in Adapt, I do emphasize the importance of small experiments that give you a tremendous amount of information at the lowest possible cost.
我还应该在 Adapt 中说，我确实强调了小型实验的重要性，这些实验可以以尽可能低的成本为您提供大量信息。
And I’m not sure Brexit has yet qualified, but I think you could say that about the EU as well.
我不确定英国脱欧是否符合条件，但我认为你也可以这样评价欧盟。
The EU’s clearly not a small experiment at a small cost.
欧盟显然不是一个小成本的小实验。
It’s a very big experiment.
这是一个非常大的实验。
If something like the Boris Johnson plan passes through Parliament — and that might even have happened by the time this podcast comes out — do you think the Scots will leave the United Kingdom?
如果像鲍里斯·约翰逊计划这样的事情在议会获得通过——这甚至可能在本播客发布时就已经发生了——你认为苏格兰人会离开英国吗？
I don’t know.
我不知道。
I would have thought it’s a toss-up.
我本以为这是一个折腾。
I don’t have any special insight into that.
我对此没有什么特别的见解。
I think it’s quite plausible they will, quite plausible they won’t.
我认为他们很可能会这样做，也很可能不会。
50/50.
50/50。
I would like to check the betting markets because that would tell me more because I’m a believer in betting markets for at least providing some information.
我想检查博彩市场，因为这会告诉我更多信息，因为我相信博彩市场至少可以提供一些信息。
Incidentally, the night before Brexit, I was speaking at a dinner, and I was asked — and it was in France, and it was an international crowd — I was asked for my opinion as to what would happen the night before the referendum.
顺便说一句，在英国脱欧前一天晚上，我在一次晚宴上发表讲话，有人问我——那是在法国，有一群国际人群——我被问到对公投前一天晚上会发生什么的看法。
And I said, “I don’t know.
我说：“我不知道。
The betting markets say there’s a 25 percent chance that we will leave the EU.” The host of the dinner said, “Oh, there’s no chance that you’ll vote to leave the EU.
博彩市场称我们离开欧盟的可能性为 25%。”晚宴主持人说：“哦，你不可能投票脱欧。
It will be a crushing victory for Remain.” And I said, “I hope you’re right.”
这将是留欧派的压倒性胜利。”我说：“我希望你是对的。”
In the morning, we came down for breakfast.
早上，我们下来吃早餐。
Everyone was feeling a little glum after the result.
得知结果后，大家都有些郁闷。
And somebody said, “Well, you got that one wrong.” I thought, “Well, I said I didn’t have any special insight, and the betting market said it was a 25 percent chance.
有人说：“好吧，你搞错了。”我想，“好吧，我说我没有任何特殊的洞察力，而博彩市场说这是 25% 的机会。
I don’t think I got it wrong at all.” But there we go.
我不认为我完全弄错了。”但我们就这样吧。
People will interpret these things in different ways.
人们会以不同的方式解释这些事情。
On messiness in music and entertainment
论音乐和娱乐中的混乱
Why do we seem to be moving away from an interest in messy music?
为什么我们似乎不再对混乱的音乐感兴趣？
In one of your books, you give the example of Keith Jarrett playing, improvising on this terrible piano, producing a masterpiece.
在你的一本书中，你举了基思·贾勒特（Keith Jarrett）演奏的例子，他在这架糟糕的钢琴上即兴创作，创作了一部杰作。
Miles Davis, often recording under questionable circumstances.
迈尔斯·戴维斯（Miles Davis）经常在有问题的情况下录音。
And so much music now — it seems to use Auto-Tune.
现在这么多音乐——似乎都使用了自动调音。
Dynamic range is compressed.
动态范围被压缩。
Everything sounds perfect, every note in place.
一切听起来都很完美，每个音符都到位。
Where has messy music gone and why?
混乱的音乐去哪儿了？为什么？
I don’t know, I think it’s a good question, and it’s puzzling.
我不知道，我认为这是一个好问题，而且令人费解。
The dynamic compression — we understand this is competition to be heard in public spaces, to be heard in the jukebox, to be heard on radio, to be heard on streaming.
动态压缩——我们知道这是在公共场所、在点唱机、在广播、在流媒体上听到的竞争。
Although, I understand that Spotify and other streaming services now, basically, equalize all the sound of everything, so there’s now no longer any competitive gain from dynamic compression and trying to make everything super, super loud.
不过，据我所知，Spotify 和其他流媒体服务现在基本上均衡了所有声音，因此动态压缩和试图使所有声音变得超级、超级响亮现在不再有任何竞争优势。
Maybe Spotify, for all its faults, will fight against this, but it’s not what I would expect.
尽管 Spotify 有种种缺点，也许 Spotify 会对此进行反抗，但这并不是我所期望的。
What I would expect is more improvisation because the technology allows many more experiments at much lower cost.
我期望的是更多的即兴创作，因为这项技术可以以更低的成本进行更多的实验。
And you can pick what you like out of it.
你可以从中挑选你喜欢的。
Talking to Brian Eno, as I did for the book — the great producer, ambient composer, worked with Bowie and many other people — he was emphasizing how much easier it has become to experiment.
正如我在这本书中所做的那样，与布莱恩·伊诺（Brian Eno）交谈——这位伟大的制作人、氛围作曲家，与鲍伊和许多其他人一起工作——他强调实验变得多么容易。
You just record digitally and see what happens, and if it doesn’t work out, you do it again.
你只需以数字方式记录，看看会发生什么，如果不起作用，你就再做一次。
But doesn’t that elevate the relative influence of the Taylor Swifts?
但这难道不会提升泰勒·斯威夫特乐队的相对影响力吗？
Because we’re drowning in experiments.
因为我们正沉浸在实验之中。
There are so many, we’re confused.
太多了，我们很困惑。
We watch Disney movies, and we listen to Taylor Swift, and messiness is diminished by competition.
我们看迪士尼电影，听泰勒·斯威夫特的歌，竞争减少了混乱。
Or it’s possible that we don’t.
或者我们可能不这样做。
There was an incredibly messy process, but we don’t perceive it as messy because the outputs can be edited until it absolutely is perfect, even if what was going on in the studio was just unbelievably chaotic.
这是一个极其混乱的过程，但我们并不认为它是混乱的，因为输出可以被编辑，直到它绝对完美，即使工作室里发生的事情只是令人难以置信的混乱。
Hollywood comedies have lots more improvisation than they used to.
好莱坞喜剧比以前有更多的即兴创作。
But it’s not clear that they’re perceived as being more improvised.
但尚不清楚它们是否被认为更加即兴创作。
That’s because you could just do a take, do another take, do another take — just keep busking, keep making stuff up, see what’s funny.
那是因为你可以只拍一个镜头，拍另一个镜头，再拍一个镜头——继续表演，继续编造东西，看看有什么有趣的。
It’s easy to edit it all together.
将它们一起编辑很容易。
Whereas in the days of expensive film stock, you couldn’t afford that process.
而在胶片价格昂贵的时代，你负担不起这个过程。
You couldn’t afford all the film.
你买不起整部电影。
You couldn’t afford all the editing.
你承担不起所有的编辑费用。
So you would try and be as funny as you could on paper, and the actors would read the script.
所以你会尽量在纸上表现得有趣，演员们会读剧本。
But do we perceive Hollywood comedy as being more improvised?
但我们是否认为好莱坞喜剧更加即兴创作？
I’m not sure that we do because we see —
我不确定我们是否这样做，因为我们看到——
I perceive it as being mostly gone, right?
我认为它大部分已经消失了，对吗？
Yeah, we see the perfect edit.
是的，我们看到了完美的编辑。
It’s hard to find, period.
很难找到，期间。
Yeah.
是的。
Given the educational success of the TV show, Sesame Street, why hasn’t there been more good online education for younger people?
既然电视节目《芝麻街》在教育上取得了成功，为什么没有为年轻人提供更多好的在线教育呢？
Do I fully accept the premise of the question, though?
我完全接受这个问题的前提吗？
There is Tedx, which is good for teenagers and for —
有 Tedx，它对青少年有好处，而且 -
But Sesame Street is for eight-year-olds, right?
但《芝麻街》适合八岁孩子，对吧？
Yeah, actually, for four-year-olds.
是的，实际上，对于四岁的孩子来说。
For four-year-olds.
对于四岁的孩子来说。
Yes.
是的。
Well, I haven’t looked in as much detail as I should have done at the subjects, but my impression is that what is going on is everything is on YouTube and things are being algorithmically selected for.
好吧，我并没有像我应该做的那样详细地研究这些主题，但我的印象是，一切都在 YouTube 上，并且都是通过算法进行选择的。
And the algorithms are generally favoring more clicks, whatever attracts the attention of toddlers because toddlers can pick their own stuff.
而且算法通常倾向于更多的点击，无论什么都能吸引幼儿的注意力，因为幼儿可以选择自己的东西。
If, as a parent, one sat down with the iPad and the toddler and carefully selected and created what the toddlers are watching, one might get a different result.
如果作为父母，坐在 iPad 和幼儿面前，仔细选择并创建幼儿正在观看的内容，可能会得到不同的结果。
But I suspect that is not generally what is happening, or at least, not what is mostly happening.
但我怀疑这并不是普遍正在发生的事情，或者至少不是大部分正在发生的事情。
But can’t an intermediary enter?
但中介就不能进去吗？
Khan Academy or Tim Harford, for that matter.
可汗学院或蒂姆·哈福德，就此而言。
“Oh, here’s the 15 videos to show your six-year-old.”
“哦，这是给你六岁的孩子看的 15 个视频。”
Marginal Revolution Kindergarten.
边缘革命幼儿园。
Exactly.
正是如此。
Yeah, perhaps on its way.
是的，也许正在路上。
Well, maybe that’s the equilibrium in the long run.
好吧，也许这就是长期的均衡。
It’s interesting that “Baby Shark,” for example, which is this viral thing — the latest viral version has been created by Pinkfong, a Korean company.
有趣的是，例如“小鲨鱼”，它就是一个病毒式传播的东西——最新的病毒版本是由韩国公司 Pinkfong 创建的。
They have an educational company in principal.
他们主要有一家教育公司。
They’re supposed to be teaching Korean kids to speak English.
他们应该教韩国孩子说英语。
It just so happens that the videos that they’re producing to teach Korean kids to speak English are also being watched by English and American kids, for whom it is probably far less educational.
碰巧的是，他们制作的教韩国孩子说英语的视频也被英国和美国孩子观看，对他们来说，这些视频的教育意义可能要小得多。
But yes, there’s a possibility.
但是，是的，有这种可能性。
Alexis Madrigal had a great piece about this a few months ago in the Atlantic.
几个月前，亚历克西斯·马德里加尔 (Alexis Madrigal) 在《大西洋月刊》上发表了一篇关于此的精彩文章。
He pointed out that there’s a service called YouTube Kids.
他指出有一项名为 YouTube Kids 的服务。
It’s very high quality, it’s curated.
它的质量非常高，是精心策划的。
YouTube also seems to spend no effort whatsoever in calling anybody’s attention to it.
YouTube 似乎也没有花任何努力来引起任何人的注意。
He said, “I’m a parent of toddlers.
他说：“我是一个孩子的父母。
It wasn’t until researching this piece of journalism that I found out YouTube Kids even existed.” I don’t know why YouTube doesn’t push that more, but one suspects it’s about the advertising dollars.
直到研究这篇新闻报道后，我才发现 YouTube Kids 的存在。”我不知道为什么 YouTube 不加大力度，但有人怀疑这是因为广告费。
Why haven’t you ever owned a television?
你为什么从未拥有过电视机？
I find them to be very time-consuming and distracting.
我发现它们非常耗时且分散注意力。
They might be less distracting if I grew used to them.
如果我习惯了它们，它们可能不会那么分散我的注意力。
I was sitting on the plane as I came over here from the UK, and the person next to me on the plane was watching a movie.
我从英国过来的时候坐在飞机上，飞机上坐在我旁边的人正在看电影。
I just couldn’t draw my eyes away from this movie that was playing on the screen just across the aisle.
我无法将目光从过道对面的屏幕上播放的这部电影上移开。
I found it constantly trying to figure out what was going on because I couldn’t.
我发现它不断地试图弄清楚发生了什么，因为我做不到。
I find them very distracting.
我发现它们非常分散注意力。
I find that I don’t get anything done.
我发现我什么也没完成。
And the quality — when I made the decision not to buy a television in 1992 when I left home — the quality was very poor.
而且质量——1992年我离家时决定不买电视时——质量非常差。
I hear rumors that, apparently, TV is quite good now, but there are so many other things to do.
我听说有传言说，显然，现在电视很好，但还有很多其他事情要做。
There’s the internet, and there’s board games and there’s podcasts — I’m a loyal listener to Conversations with Tyler — and there are books.
有互联网、棋盘游戏、播客——我是《与泰勒对话》的忠实听众——还有书籍。
Everything has a cost.
一切都是有代价的。
What do you think is the best economic insight we have, nonobvious, about relationships, love, online dating?
您认为我们对人际关系、爱情、在线约会最好的非显而易见的经济见解是什么？
What has popular economics taught us about those areas?
关于这些领域，大众经济学教会了我们什么？
On the fate of popular economics
论大众经济学的命运
For a long time, as you know, I edited a semi-serious, semi-joking column for the Financial Times called “Dear Economist,” which is sadly no longer with us.
如你所知，很长一段时间以来，我为《金融时报》编辑了一个半严肃、半开玩笑的专栏，名为“亲爱的经济学家”，遗憾的是该专栏已不再存在。
But the people would write in with their relationship queries or etiquette queries, and I would write back, using the principles of economics.
但人们会写信询问他们的关系或礼仪问题，我会利用经济学原理回信。
The curious thing was, that was sort of supposed to be a joke, and yet half the time, I thought the economic advice was brilliant, and half the time I thought the economic advice was terrible.
奇怪的是，这本来应该是一个笑话，但有一半的时间，我认为经济建议很棒，有一半的时间我认为经济建议很糟糕。
I was constantly flipping between the two, and so I was never quite sure what voice I should be in.
我不断地在两者之间切换，所以我从来不太确定自己应该用哪种声音。
What is the biggest insight?
最大的感悟是什么？
The most obvious insight is that there’re generally gains from trade, right?
最明显的见解是贸易通常会带来收益，对吗？
Most things aren’t zero sum.
大多数事情都不是零和的。
Thomas Schelling taught us this.
托马斯·谢林教给我们这一点。
There’s always some possible gain.
总有一些可能的收获。
You just need to figure out what it is.
你只需要弄清楚它是什么。
But I suppose less obvious is, behavioral economics taught me to think a lot about reframing.
但我认为不太明显的是，行为经济学教会我对重构进行很多思考。
Is there a different way to look at what is, basically, the same problem that can strip away some of the conflict from it.
有没有一种不同的方式来看待基本上相同的问题，可以消除其中的一些冲突。
I still find that when I’m dealing with the problems of my friends, and talking to my wife, and we’re trying to solve social problems or problems for our children, very often there’s a way to reframe the problem that doesn’t actually change its essentials and yet, somehow, gives a lot more clarity.
我仍然发现，当我处理朋友的问题、与妻子交谈时，以及我们试图解决社会问题或孩子的问题时，通常有一种方法可以重新定义问题，这种方法实际上并没有改变其本质，但不知何故，却使问题变得更加清晰。
Is there a higher implicit tax on popular economics today?
如今大众经济学是否存在更高的隐性税收？
Because the world has become more politically correct.
因为世界变得更加政治正确。
People are more sensitive on matters having to do with gender, sex.
人们对与性别有关的事情更加敏感。
And popular economics, in a sense, ignores those factors.
从某种意义上说，流行经济学忽略了这些因素。
You work through the model.
您通过模型进行工作。
It gives you an answer — may or may not be a correct answer, but it’s not necessarily what ordinary people would consider to be a moral answer.
它给你一个答案——可能是正确答案，也可能不是，但它不一定是普通人认为的道德答案。
To put that forward in people’s faces — are we now living in a time where you can’t do it anymore?
当着人们的面提出这一点——我们现在生活在一个你不能再这样做的时代吗？
Or it feels in poor taste?
还是感觉品味不好？
It’s certainly changed.
它肯定已经改变了。
When you think about the best pop economics books before Freakonomics were Hidden Order by David Friedman — very, very good — and The Armchair Economist by Steven Landsburg — also very good.
当你想到《魔鬼经济学》之前最好的流行经济学书籍时，大卫·弗里德曼的《隐藏秩序》非常非常好，史蒂文·兰兹伯格的《纸上谈兵的经济学家》也非常好。
And they were .
他们是。
.
。
.
。
Particularly, Landsburg relished winding people up and being politically incorrect as part of his thing, and I think it’s still part of his thing, but that now sits less easily.
特别是，兰兹堡喜欢让别人陷入困境并在政治上不正确，这是他的事情的一部分，我认为这仍然是他的事情的一部分，但现在不那么容易了。
But I wonder whether the real tax on popular economics is just that economists themselves have taken .
但我想知道，对大众经济学的真正征税是否只是经济学家自己承担的。
.
。
.
。
The reputation of the profession has taken a real pounding since the financial crisis.
自金融危机以来，该行业的声誉受到了真正的打击。
When Freakonomics came out in 2005, you could plausibly say, “Hey, these economists are super smart, and they can solve any problem.” Much, much harder to make that case in 2009.
当《魔鬼经济学》在 2005 年问世时，你可以振振有词地说：“嘿，这些经济学家超级聪明，他们可以解决任何问题。” 2009 年要证明这一点要困难得多。
So popular economic shifts, instead, to being Dan Ariely saying “The economists are wrong about everything, by the way, but here’s a new way of thinking about things.”
相反，流行的经济学观点转变为丹·艾瑞里 (Dan Ariely) 所说的“顺便说一句，经济学家在所有事情上都错了，但这是一种思考事物的新方式。”
The nature of what popular economics is has changed, but the politicization, as well, of everything puts economist in a difficult position because, as any scientist who’s written about climate change or vaccines will tell you, people love scientists until they get into politically controversial territory.
大众经济学的本质已经发生了变化，但一切事物的政治化也让经济学家陷入了困境，因为正如任何写过气候变化或疫苗的科学家都会告诉你的那样，人们热爱科学家，直到他们进入政治争议领域。
Well, for an economist, almost everything we write about is politically controversial, whether as with your book, Big Business, or whether we’re talking about inequality, whether we’re talking about GDP growth, the environment, taxation — it’s all politically contentious, and nobody wants to be told what to do when they’ve already made up their minds.
好吧，对于一个经济学家来说，我们写的几乎所有内容都在政治上有争议，无论是你的书《大企业》，还是我们谈论不平等，无论我们谈论GDP增长、环境、税收——这都是政治上有争议的，没有人愿意在已经下定决心后被告知要做什么。
I’ve read all of your books.
我读过你所有的书。
I’ve read close to all of your columns, maybe all of them in fact, and I’m going to ask you a question I also asked Reid Hoffman.
我已经仔细阅读了您的所有专栏，也许实际上是所有专栏，我要问您一个我也问过里德·霍夫曼的问题。
You know the truths of economics, plenty of empirical papers.
你知道经济学的真相，有大量的实证论文。
Why aren’t you weirder?
你为什么不更奇怪？
I’ve read things by you that I disagreed with, but I’ve never once read anything by you that I thought was outrageous.
我读过你写的一些我不同意的东西，但我从来没有读过你写的任何我认为令人难以容忍的东西。
Why aren’t you weirder?
你为什么不更奇怪？
I probably want to be liked too much.
我可能太想被人喜欢了。
This is one difference between me and Steve Levitt.
这是我和史蒂夫·莱维特之间的区别之一。
Steve Levitt is also much smarter than me and much more successful than me.
史蒂夫·莱维特也比我聪明得多，也比我成功得多。
And that doesn’t bother me at all, but he said he also doesn’t care what anyone thinks about him, or doesn’t seem to care what anyone thinks about him.
这根本不困扰我，但他说他也不关心别人对他的看法，或者似乎不在乎别人对他的看法。
I actually do care what people think about me.
我实际上很关心人们对我的看法。
I’d quite like people to think I’m a nice guy, so I’m probably self-censoring at times.
我很希望人们认为我是一个好人，所以我有时可能会自我审查。
Say, maybe I won’t say that because people wouldn’t like that.
说吧，也许我不会这么说，因为人们不喜欢那样。
And that’s probably a fault in a newspaper columnist — you probably shouldn’t care what people think about you, but that’s the way it is.
这可能是报纸专栏作家的错误——你可能不应该关心人们对你的看法，但事实就是这样。
What was it like playing poker with Steve Levitt, now that you mentioned him?
既然你提到了史蒂夫·莱维特（Steve Levitt），那么和他一起打扑克是什么感觉？
I’ve met Steve, many times over the years.
这些年来我见过史蒂夫很多次。
Generally, whenever he has a book out, I end up interviewing him.
一般来说，每当他出书时，我都会采访他。
Playing poker with him is very hard, partly because he’s much better at poker than I am.
和他一起打扑克非常困难，部分原因是他打牌比我好得多。
I don’t really play.
我真的不玩。
I know the theory, but I don’t really play, and there’s only so much you can do without practice.
我知道理论，但我不会真正玩，而且如果不练习，你能做的就只有这么多。
But also, you have the additional challenge of asking him questions, listening to his answers, making a note of what he says and writing the whole thing up for the newspaper afterwards, which just adds a whole level of complexity to the whole thing, but it was fun.
而且，你还面临着额外的挑战，要问他问题，听他的回答，记下他所说的内容，然后将整个事情写在报纸上，这只会增加整个事情的复杂性，但很有趣。
And I did very nearly beat him.
我差点就打败了他。
I made a small error, and was very unlucky, and was destroyed by that, which seems like a classic poker story: a small error disproportionately punished by the poker gods.
我犯了一个小错误，非常不幸，并因此而被摧毁，这似乎是一个经典的扑克故事：一个小错误受到了扑克之神的不成比例的惩罚。
What else do you think economists are, on average, quite good at, you yourself being an economist?
作为一名经济学家，您认为经济学家平均还擅长什么？
I think we’re — relative to the average person, even the average academic — I think we’re pretty good at mathematical thinking.
我认为我们——相对于普通人，甚至是普通学者——我认为我们非常擅长数学思维。
I think we’re pretty good at stripping away unnecessary complexities.
我认为我们非常擅长消除不必要的复杂性。
Obviously, the mathematicians are better, right?
显然，数学家更好，对吧？
Are they?
他们是吗？
They work in such complicated mathematics.
他们从事如此复杂的数学工作。
I suppose it depends what kind of math —
我想这取决于什么样的数学——
Our goal is to at least try to simplify into a testable proposition.
我们的目标是至少尝试简化为可测试的命题。
There’s obviously a risk in stripping away too much complexity — you strip away something that turned out to be very important.
剥离太多复杂性显然存在风险——你剥离了一些原来非常重要的东西。
But in principle, I think we aspire to be, and often are quite good at, drawing analogies where things do not seem to be analogous and to say this thing is actually quite like this other thing, and drawing insight from that.
但原则上，我认为我们渴望并且常常非常擅长在看似不相似的事物中进行类比，并说这个事物实际上与另一个事物非常相似，并从中汲取见解。
But there is also this very, very basic fundamental insight of economics, which is that it’s possible for things to get better.
但经济学还有一个非常非常基本的基本见解，那就是事情有可能变得更好。
It’s possible for people to cooperate, even if they’re not very nice people, and it’s possible for gains to be created.
人们有可能合作，即使他们不是很好的人，也有可能创造收益。
I think if you have that view baked very deep into the way you see the world, that changes the way you see things, and it’s very beneficial for your general outlook on life.
我认为，如果你将这种观点深深地融入到你看待世界的方式中，就会改变你看待事物的方式，这对你的总体人生观非常有益。
Why is there such an emphasis on mistakes in your work?
为什么你的工作中如此强调错误？
I first really emphasized mistakes in Adapt, which is my third book.
我首先真正强调了《Adapt》中的错误，这是我的第三本书。
But once you start looking at mistakes, they become really fascinating.
但一旦你开始审视错误，它们就会变得非常有趣。
It’s partly the general idea that we often only understand how something works when it breaks, so looking at error is informative.
在一定程度上，我们通常只了解某些东西在发生故障时如何工作，因此查看错误可以提供丰富的信息。
Medics have long studied people with serious injuries or pathologies because that gives you an insight into how the healthy body works or the healthy brain works.
长期以来，医务人员一直在研究患有严重损伤或病症的人，因为这可以让您深入了解健康的身体或健康的大脑如何运作。
It’s partly that; it’s partly the stories are really good.
部分原因是这样；部分原因是这些故事真的很棒。
And I’m always interested in stories.
我总是对故事感兴趣。
I know you’ve warned us not to take stories too seriously, but stories are powerful.
我知道你警告我们不要太认真地对待故事，但故事是有力量的。
Stories are fun.
故事很有趣。
And stories about things going wrong are more interesting than stories where nothing goes wrong.
关于出错的故事比没有出错的故事更有趣。
But the other thing is, just as I said earlier — feedback, the fact that you can make a mistake and it can still be very difficult to really pick apart what went wrong, or what the mistake was, or even that you have made a mistake.
但另一件事是，正如我之前所说的——反馈，事实上你可能会犯错误，但仍然很难真正找出哪里出了问题，或者错误是什么，甚至你已经犯了一个错误。
That strikes me as something worth paying continued attention to.
我觉得这是值得持续关注的事情。
If you were dropped into a small village in a foreign country without ID, and you didn’t speak the language, and you didn’t have any money, what have you learned as an economist that would help you get home?
如果你被扔到外国的一个小村庄，没有身份证，你不会说当地语言，你也没有钱，作为一名经济学家，你学到了什么可以帮助你回家？
There must be something.
一定有什么东西。
Well, I think the sense that you will probably be able to get cooperation.
嗯，我认为你可能能够获得合作。
Probably, if you ask for it, people are generally reasonably cooperative.
也许，如果你提出要求，人们通常会相当合作。
Whom would you ask?
你会问谁？
In a small village?
在一个小村庄里？
Well, you just find the first person you can, and you start from there, but I think that the basic answer is, I’m not sure I’ve learned very much that would fit me for that situation, unlike you.
好吧，你只要找到你能找到的第一个人，然后从那里开始，但我认为基本的答案是，我不确定我是否学到了很多适合我这种情况的知识，与你不同。
You’d be very comfortable dropped in a village in the middle of nowhere.
你会很舒服地掉在一个偏僻的村庄里。
Most of these villages, you’ve already visited, but I think I would find it quite a challenge.
大多数村庄，你已经参观过，但我想我会发现这是一个很大的挑战。
Brian Eno actually asked me a slightly different question, which I found interesting, which was, “If you were transported back in time to the year 700, what piece of technology would you take — or knowledge or whatever — what would you take with you from the present day that would lead people to think that you were useful, but would also not cause you to be burned as a witch?”
布莱恩·伊诺实际上问了我一个稍微不同的问题，我觉得这个问题很有趣，那就是，“如果你回到 700 年，你会带上什么技术——或者知识或者其他什么——你会带上现在的什么东西，让人们认为你是有用的，但也不会让你被当作女巫而被烧死？”
A hat, perhaps.
也许是一顶帽子。
A hat?
一顶帽子？
If it’s the British Isles.
如果是不列颠群岛的话。
Well, a hat is useful.
嗯，帽子很有用。
I suggested the Langstroth beehive.
我建议使用兰斯特罗斯蜂箱。
The Langstroth beehive was invented in about 1850.
Langstroth 蜂箱于 1850 年左右发明。
It’s an enormously important technology in the domestication of bees.
这是蜜蜂驯化中非常重要的技术。
It’s a vast improvement on pre-Langstroth beehives, vast improvement on medieval beehives.
这是对兰斯特罗斯之前的蜂箱的巨大改进，对中世纪蜂箱的巨大改进。
Yet, it’s fairly straightforward to make and to explain to people how it works and why it works.
然而，它的制作和向人们解释它的工作原理和原因却相当简单。
I think people would appreciate it, and everybody likes honey, and people have valued bees for a long time.
我认为人们会欣赏它，每个人都喜欢蜂蜜，而且人们很早就重视蜜蜂。
So that would have been my answer.
这就是我的答案。
On things under- and overrated
关于被低估和高估的事情
Are you up for a round of overrated versus underrated?
您准备好迎接一轮高估与低估的较量了吗？
I’m so glad you asked.
我很高兴你问了。
Claude Shannon — overrated or underrated?
克劳德·香农——被高估还是被低估？
I think he’s still underrated.
我认为他仍然被低估了。
Unlike someone like Alan Turing, I think a lot of people still don’t know who Claude Shannon is.
与阿兰·图灵等人不同，我认为很多人仍然不知道克劳德·香农是谁。
One of the remarkable things about Shannon — he wrote these two papers in information theory: one discussing the transmission of information and sharing that if you did it in the right way, you could always guarantee perfect transmission; one showing that you could apply Boolean logic to electrical circuits, and this is how machines are going to be thinking.
香农的非凡之处之一是他在信息论方面写了这两篇论文：一篇讨论了信息的传输，并分享了如果你以正确的方式做，你总是可以保证完美的传输；另一篇则讨论了信息的传输。它表明你可以将布尔逻辑应用于电路，这就是机器的思考方式。
Both of these papers are basically perfect.
这两篇论文基本上都是完美的。
They create an entire subject.
他们创造了一个完整的主题。
They answer every interesting question in that subject, and they close the book, and that’s really remarkable achievement.
他们回答了该主题中的每个有趣的问题，然后关闭了这本书，这确实是一项了不起的成就。
I think he’s underrated for that.
我认为他因此被低估了。
I think he’s possibly also underrated by fans of Shannon, who are frustrated that he spent most of the second half of his life noodling around, building wearable computers, trying to cheat the casino at Las Vegas, and juggling, and sending in weird poems to journals, rather than actually analyzing things, and just seemed to behave in a very, very frustrating way, and never really settled down, and ride off the back of his fame.
我认为香农的粉丝也可能低估了他，他们对香农的后半生大部分时间都在闲逛、制造可穿戴电脑、试图欺骗拉斯维加斯赌场、变戏法、向期刊发送奇怪的诗歌而不是真正分析事物感到沮丧，而且他的行为似乎非常非常令人沮丧，从来没有真正安定下来，并利用他的名声。
But I wonder whether that isn’t just part of it.
但我想知道这是否只是其中的一部分。
You can’t have the brilliance without this person who’s constantly exploring.
没有这个不断探索的人，你就不可能拥有才华。
Somebody said that Shannon had this unbounded intellectual courage — he would just launch into projects that would terrify most people, with no knowledge of whether he would be able to solve the problem.
有人说香农有这种无限的知识勇气——他只会启动一些让大多数人感到恐惧的项目，而不知道他是否能够解决问题。
But it struck me that the thing about Shannon — he was happy to do something and then just drop it — there’s no intellectual courage there if you don’t feel any compulsion to continue if something has served its purpose and you just stop.
但令我震惊的是，香农的事情——他很高兴做某事，然后就放弃了——如果你没有感到任何继续下去的冲动，如果某件事已经达到了目的，你就停下来，那么就没有理智上的勇气。
Tony Blair — overrated or underrated?
托尼·布莱尔——被高估还是被低估？
I think he’s now underrated.
我认为他现在被低估了。
He’s still hugely hated by many of the current Labour Party for dragging the UK into the war in Iraq, siding with George Bush — always a hugely unpopular president in the UK.
他仍然受到许多现任工党人士的极大憎恨，因为他将英国拖入伊拉克战争，并与乔治·布什站在一起——而布什在英国一直是一位极不受欢迎的总统。
And people haven’t forgiven him for that.
人们还没有因此原谅他。
And it was a serious error, I think.
我认为这是一个严重的错误。
But he was enormously successful at building a strong center-left coalition in the UK.
但他在英国建立强大的中左翼联盟方面取得了巨大成功。
They spent a lot of money.
他们花了很多钱。
They transformed a lot of public services.
他们改变了很多公共服务。
They won lots of elections.
他们赢得了很多选举。
I find it astonishing, actually, that he’s now so totally disowned by his own side.
事实上，我感到惊讶的是，他现在完全被自己的一方所否认。
Oxbridge.
牛津、剑桥。
I think it is remarkable that Oxford — I can’t speak about Cambridge — they’re the other guys.
我认为牛津大学（我不能谈论剑桥大学）是很了不起的，他们是其他人。
But let’s just talk about Oxford.
但我们只谈谈牛津。
Oxford — that’s fine.
牛津——那很好。
Let’s focus on what counts.
让我们关注重要的事情。
It is astonishing that this organization, this institution that is now about 800, 900 years old, is still going, is still one of the — rightly, I think — one of the most admired universities in the world.
令人惊讶的是，这个组织、这个已有大约 800、900 年历史的机构仍然存在，仍然是——我认为正确的——世界上最受尊敬的大学之一。
It is astonishing that you can keep adapting and adjusting.
令人惊讶的是你能够不断适应和调整。
And while there are enormous inefficiencies and flaws in the way it’s governed, it’s still going strong.
尽管其治理方式存在巨大的低效和缺陷，但它仍然强劲。
As somebody who lives on the fringes of Oxford University — I go to occasional dinners, and I hang around lectures, and I go to the libraries, but I’m not an academic — it remains a tremendously inspiring place, and I envy the undergraduates their experience of going to this place.
作为住在牛津大学边缘的人——我偶尔去吃晚饭，听讲座，去图书馆，但我不是学者——它仍然是一个非常鼓舞人心的地方，我很羡慕本科生去这个地方的经历。
The legacy of the British Empire — overrated or underrated?
大英帝国的遗产——被高估还是被低估？
I think it’s overrated by the British and probably correctly rated by the rest of the world.
我认为英国人对它的评价过高，而世界其他国家对它的评价可能是正确的。
But we still haven’t wrestled with the fact that we traveled to an awful lot of places, and we forced them to do exactly what we wanted, committed a tremendous amount of cruelty.
但我们仍然没有正视这样一个事实：我们去了很多地方，我们强迫他们按照我们的意愿行事，犯下了巨大的残忍行为。
There were obviously gains: the abolition, the spread of British technology to far-off lands.
明显的收获是：废除死刑、将英国技术传播到遥远的地方。
But I think the typical British person does not think a lot about imperial history and does not feel very uncomfortable about imperial history.
但我认为典型的英国人不会对帝国历史进行太多思考，也不会对帝国历史感到非常不舒服。
And I think we probably should be thinking more and being more uncomfortable, and I speak as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire, which itself is interesting.
我认为我们可能应该更多地思考并更加不舒服，而且我以大英帝国勋章军官的身份发言，这本身就很有趣。
Isn’t that intriguing?
这不是很有趣吗？
That is how we choose to recognize achievement in the UK — you can become an Officer of the Order of the British Empire.
这就是我们选择认可英国成就的方式——您可以成为大英帝国勋章军官。
That tells you something.
这告诉你一些事情。
What was it like to receive that?
收到它是什么感觉？
It was great fun.
非常有趣。
I find small talk difficult, but there were a hundred people in Buckingham Palace, all of whom were getting OBs or similar awards.
我觉得闲聊很困难，但白金汉宫里有一百个人，他们都获得了 OB 或类似的奖项。
Everybody there was unique because they were all getting their award for something different, but everyone had something in common.
那里的每个人都是独一无二的，因为他们都因不同的事情而获奖，但每个人都有一些共同点。
So it was tremendously easy to just go up to anybody and say, “So, isn’t this great?
因此，很容易走到任何人面前说：“所以，这不是很棒吗？
What are you getting your award for?” And have a fascinating conversation with a fascinating person.
你凭什么获奖？”并与一个有趣的人进行一次有趣的对话。
And they’re more diverse than you might expect in terms of the gender, the racial makeup.
他们在性别和种族构成方面比你想象的更加多样化。
It was great.
太棒了。
I got my award from Prince Charles, and he said, “We’re giving you this award to encourage you to keep going.” I thought that was tremendously British and brought a hint of a tear to my eye.
我从查尔斯王子那里获得了奖项，他说：“我们授予你这个奖项是为了鼓励你继续前进。”我觉得那是非常英国化的，让我眼里泛起一丝泪水。
Just keep going, just keep on doing what you’re doing.
继续前进，继续做你正在做的事情。
And that was a tremendously British form of encouragement.
这是一种非常英国式的鼓励方式。
Did it encourage you to keep on going?
它有鼓励你继续前进吗？
I would have kept on going anyway, but it felt strange to be recognized for something that I get paid perfectly well for anyway, and I enjoy doing anyway.
不管怎样，我都会继续做下去，但因为我能得到很好的报酬而得到认可，感觉很奇怪，而且无论如何我都喜欢这样做。
I feel that these awards should be given out for people who have displayed some kind of self-sacrifice.
我觉得这些奖项应该颁发给那些表现出某种自我牺牲精神的人。
I don’t think I’ve sacrificed anything in having fun and engaging my curiosity, but it was nice.
我不认为我在享受乐趣和激发好奇心方面牺牲了任何东西，但这很好。
You sacrificed a television.
你牺牲了一台电视。
I would have sacrificed that anyway.
无论如何我都会牺牲这一点。
That’s no loss.
这并没有什么损失。
But it was a great honor.
但这是一个巨大的荣誉。
Fact-checking — overrated or underrated?
事实核查——高估还是低估？
I think misunderstood.
我觉得是误会了。
Good fact checkers understand the limits of what they do.
优秀的事实核查人员了解他们所做工作的局限性。
If we take an example from the referendum, there was a tremendous effort to fact-check a particular lie on this bus.
如果我们以公投为例，我们付出了巨大的努力来核实这辆公共汽车上的一个特定谎言。
The leave campaign had lied about how much the UK could gain from leaving the EU.
脱欧运动在英国脱欧能带来多少好处方面撒了谎。
And in constantly trying to rebut that lie, the entire conversation about the referendum was derailed.
在不断试图反驳这个谎言的过程中，整个关于公投的谈话都脱轨了。
A good fact checker knows their limits.
优秀的事实核查员知道自己的局限性。
You pick up the lie or the untruth, whatever.
不管怎样，你都会发现谎言或谎言。
You correct it, you set the record straight, you show evidence of your working, you provide people with links to find out more, and then you move on.
你纠正它，你澄清事实，你展示你的工作证据，你向人们提供链接以了解更多信息，然后你继续前进。
The problem is that we often don’t move on.
问题是我们常常不继续前进。
And now, we see lies that are designed to be caught out.
现在，我们看到了旨在被识破的谎言。
Previously, politicians would lie and hope that no one called them on it.
以前，政客们会撒谎并希望没有人指责他们。
Now, they will lie, and the whole point is to be called on it because you want to have an argument about that rather than arguments about something else.
现在，他们会撒谎，而重点是要对此进行争论，因为你想对此进行争论，而不是对其他事情进行争论。
Fact checkers can try to avoid those pitfalls but it’s just intrinsic to the profession.
事实核查人员可以尝试避免这些陷阱，但这只是该职业固有的。
There’s a limit to what you can do.
你能做的事情是有限的。
What’s the best Brian Eno album?
布莱恩·伊诺最好的专辑是什么？
My favorite is Music for Airports.
我最喜欢的是机场音乐。
It’s an oldie but a goodie.
这是一个老歌，但却是一个好东西。
Most people rate Another Green World, but I just love the Ambient Star.
大多数人评价另一个绿色世界，但我只是喜欢环境之星。
Those are my two favorites, but I like the Bang on a Can version of Music for Airports much more than Eno’s own recording.
这是我最喜欢的两首，但我更喜欢《Bang on a Can》版本的《机场音乐》，而不是 Eno 自己的录音。
Now, I haven’t —
现在，我还没有——
Have you ever heard it?
你听说过吗？
I haven’t heard it.
我没听说过。
I will now go and get it.
我现在去拿它。
You should get it.
你应该得到它。
It’s wonderful.
太棒了。
What’s the most underrated technological innovation?
最被低估的技术创新是什么？
Paper is my favorite.
纸是我的最爱。
It’s everywhere.
它无处不在。
We use it to coat our walls.
我们用它来覆盖我们的墙壁。
We use it to wipe various things that need wiping.
我们用它来擦拭各种需要擦拭的东西。
Books are still a wonderful technology on paper.
书籍仍然是一种奇妙的纸质技术。
It’s thoroughly underrated.
它被彻底低估了。
Yet, when I began researching 50 Things That Made The Modern Economy, everybody said, “Oh, you must do the Gutenberg press, you must do Gutenberg press.” Of course, the Gutenberg press is important, but purely as an economic matter, there’s no point in mass-producing writing unless you can mass-produce a writing surface.
然而，当我开始研究造就现代经济的 50 件事时，每个人都说，“哦，你必须使用古腾堡印刷机，你必须使用古腾堡印刷机。”当然，古腾堡印刷机很重要，但纯粹从经济角度来看，除非你能大规模生产书写表面，否则大规模生产书写是没有意义的。
And paper was the mass-produced writing surface.
纸是大规模生产的书写表面。
So paper is my most underrated technological innovation.
所以纸张是我最被低估的技术创新。
Each year, how much are you willing to pay for the use of GPS?
每年，您愿意为使用 GPS 支付多少钱？
Probably quite a bit, but it’s not nearly as valuable to me as something like email.
可能不少，但对我来说，它的价值远不如电子邮件之类的东西。
But a number, please.
但请给我一个数字。
Let’s say $250.
假设 250 美元。
Okay, per year?
好吧，每年？
Yeah, now I got used to it.
是的，现在我已经习惯了。
You do own a car, correct?
你确实拥有一辆车，对吗？
I do own a car, but I don’t drive much.
我确实有一辆车，但我开车不多。
Then when do you use GPS?
那么什么时候使用GPS呢？
You must know your way around Oxford and London.
您必须熟悉牛津和伦敦的交通。
Yeah, I know my way around Oxford.
是的，我熟悉牛津的路。
It’s still very useful to get around London.
游览伦敦仍然非常有用。
I got here for example, with GPS.
例如，我带着 GPS 来到这里。
I think it’s just becomes a convenience.
我认为这只是一种方便。
Probably my answer would be different if you said how much would you be willing to pay to accept a discount on a phone that didn’t have GPS.
如果你说你愿意花多少钱来接受没有 GPS 的手机的折扣，我的答案可能会有所不同。
Probably would be a different answer to the question.
可能会对这个问题有不同的答案。
But yeah, I think GPS is fairly valuable.
但是，是的，我认为 GPS 相当有价值。
Put it this way: when I wrote about a digital minimalist thrust I had in my life — I was trying to get rid of unnecessary apps — I was sent one of these very fashionable designer phones that don’t do anything except take phone calls.
这么说吧：当我写到我生活中的数字极简主义推动力时——我试图摆脱不必要的应用程序——我收到了一部非常时尚的设计师手机，除了接电话之外什么都不做。
And it looked beautiful, but I haven’t used it, and the main reason I haven’t used it is because I find it very useful to have email on the go, but I do think GPS would be valuable.
它看起来很漂亮，但我没有使用它，我没有使用它的主要原因是因为我发现随时随地发送电子邮件非常有用，但我确实认为 GPS 很有价值。
In the New York Times today, there was an article I quite enjoyed.
今天《纽约时报》上有一篇文章我很喜欢。
It was titled — on the online version — “10 Things Emma Thompson Can’t Live Without.” And these were not air, water, of course, family, yes, yes, paper.
在线版本的标题是“艾玛·汤普森离不开的十件事”。这些不是空气、水，当然也不是家庭，是的，是的，纸。
But getting into the nonobvious, the nontrivial, could you give us three things Tim Harford cannot live without?
但是，进入非显而易见、非平凡的领域，你能否告诉我们蒂姆·哈福德离不开的三件事？
She lists Stella McCartney clothing.
她列出了斯特拉·麦卡特尼 (Stella McCartney) 的服装。
That might be one of yours.
那可能是你的其中之一。
No, it wouldn’t be.
不，不会的。
What are your three?
你的三个是什么？
Dice.
骰子。
Dice.
骰子。
For board games, right?
对于棋盘游戏，对吗？
For board games, well, particularly for role playing games.
对于棋盘游戏，尤其是角色扮演游戏。
Because a board game, you usually need something else.
因为棋盘游戏，你通常需要其他东西。
But if you’re going to give me the most minimal sort of kit I need for a role-playing game, I need a randomizer.
但如果你要给我角色扮演游戏所需的最少的套件，我需要一个随机发生器。
The dice would be the first one.
骰子将是第一个。
I really love my notebook.
我真的很喜欢我的笔记本。
I just have a red and black notebook, and I carry it around, and I use it to organize a lot of things.
我只有一个红黑相间的笔记本，我随身携带它，我用它来整理很多东西。
I’ll take little notes.
我会做一些小笔记。
By hand.
手工。
You take your notes by hand?
你用手记笔记吗？
Yes, I generally do.
是的，我一般都会这样做。
I use my computer a lot, but to take notes and to manipulate information quickly — to-do lists, for example — much easier on paper, so it’d be my notebook and pen.
我经常使用电脑，但做笔记和快速处理信息（例如待办事项列表）在纸上要容易得多，所以我的笔记本和笔就是我的电脑。
Third — oh gosh, at this point, I feel I should name a luxury, so I’m very fond of Belgian beer.
第三——天哪，在这一点上，我觉得我应该说出一种奢侈，所以我非常喜欢比利时啤酒。
I would say a supply of Belgian beer would be important, even though I don’t drink very often.
我想说，尽管我不经常喝酒，但供应比利时啤酒很重要。
When I do drink, it’s usually Belgian beer, and I get a tremendous amount of pleasure from it.
当我喝酒时，通常是比利时啤酒，我从中获得了巨大的乐趣。
And your daily breakfast — would that even crack the top 10?
还有你每天的早餐——能跻身前十吗？
Well, you said ruling out the obvious.
好吧，你说排除显而易见的事情。
I mean, food is enormously obvious.
我的意思是，食物是非常明显的。
Food in general is obvious, but particular foods.
一般食物是显而易见的，但是特殊食物。
I find breakfast very important, and we live close to a very good bakery that prepares excellent sourdough.
我发现早餐非常重要，我们住的地方附近有一家非常好的面包店，那里制作的酵母很棒。
I really like toast in the morning, like any good Brit.
我真的很喜欢早上的烤面包，就像所有优秀的英国人一样。
Breakfast is very important to me.
早餐对我来说非常重要。
I can’t be skipping breakfast.
我不能不吃早餐。
To segue into the Tim Harford production function, what is your philosophy of breakfast?
继续讨论蒂姆·哈福德的生产函数，你的早餐哲学是什么？
Make sure you have it.
确保你拥有它。
First, a really good cup of coffee — filter coffee, just with the pour-over cone — doesn’t need to be fancy, just needs to be freshly ground, high-quality blend.
首先，一杯真正好的咖啡——滴滤式咖啡，只需用锥体冲泡——不需要很花哨，只需要新鲜研磨的高品质混合咖啡即可。
I prefer it with milk and toast of some nature.
我更喜欢搭配牛奶和某种性质的吐司。
And that’s just fine, but that really needs to be the first thing you do during the day.
这很好，但这确实需要成为你一天中做的第一件事。
Before you have a shower, before you get dressed, before you do anything, have your breakfast.
在你洗澡之前，在你穿衣服之前，在你做任何事情之前，先吃早餐。
And what is the Tim Harford philosophy of lunch?
蒂姆·哈福德的午餐哲学是什么？
As lived, I eat lunch alone a lot.
在生活中，我经常独自吃午饭。
As aspired to, I feel I should eat lunch with an interesting person every day.
正如我所向往的那样，我觉得我应该每天和一个有趣的人一起吃午餐。
But in fact, I am quite an introvert, so I find it quite draining to do that.
但事实上，我是一个很内向的人，所以我觉得这样做很累。
I always enjoy it when I do it, and then I’ll just go quiet for a few days.
当我这样做的时候，我总是很享受，然后我就会安静几天。
What is the thing you know about writing that maybe the rest of us do not?
关于写作，你知道哪些可能是我们其他人不知道的事情？
I think people underrate stories, even when the story is used to convey a complex piece of information.
我认为人们低估了故事，即使故事是用来传达复杂的信息的。
Even if I’m trying to explain the ideas of Danny Kahneman or some economic idea or some statistical or mathematical idea, I’m always looking for a little story to tell.
即使我试图解释丹尼·卡尼曼的想法或某些经济思想或某些统计或数学思想，我总是在寻找一个小故事来讲述。
Michael Lewis, by the way, understands this far better than I will ever understand it.
顺便说一句，迈克尔·刘易斯（Michael Lewis）对这一点的理解比我更深刻。
He’s the master, but many people I think, don’t fully understand.
他是大师，但我想很多人并不完全理解。
And often, when people talk about stories, what they actually mean is examples or anecdotes.
通常，当人们谈论故事时，他们实际上指的是例子或轶事。
But a proper story has a protagonist, and it has a dramatic flow, and there are twists, and there are highs, and there are lows, even if it’s a quite a brief story.
但一个合适的故事有一个主角，有戏剧性的流程，有曲折，有高潮，也有低谷，即使这是一个相当简短的故事。
It’s more than just, “Oh, let me give you an example of somebody who did this.”
这不仅仅是“哦，让我给你举一个这样做的例子。”
And what’s your most unusual work habit?
你最不寻常的工作习惯是什么？
Most unusual work habit, ummm.
最不寻常的工作习惯，嗯。
I have a lot of projects on the go and switch between them.
我有很多项目正在进行中，并在它们之间切换。
I don’t know how unusual this is but I suspect it’s fairly uncommon.
我不知道这有多不寻常，但我怀疑这是相当不常见的。
I think you would be somebody who does this a lot as well.
我想你也会经常这样做。
Absolutely.
绝对地。
Kierkegaard called it crop rotation.
克尔凯郭尔称之为作物轮作。
You work on something, and then you put it to one side, and then you pick something else up.
你在做某件事，然后把它放在一边，然后再拿起别的东西。
I gave a TED talk about this.
我在 TED 上做了一个关于这个问题的演讲。
I called it slow-motion multitasking.
我称之为慢动作多任务处理。
I think it’s striking how many very successful people practice this and have these multiple projects on the go.
我认为令人惊讶的是有这么多非常成功的人实践这一点并正在进行这些多个项目。
They provide relief.
他们提供缓解。
When you’re stuck on something, you just do something else and don’t get stressed about it because you’ve got something else productive to do.
当你被困在某件事上时，你只需去做其他事情，并且不会为此感到压力，因为你还有其他富有成效的事情要做。
The projects cross-fertilize —
这些项目相互施肥——
You never lose momentum, right?
你永远不会失去动力，对吧？
You always feel you’re moving forward on something.
你总觉得自己在某件事上不断前进。
Yes.
是的。
There is a risk of losing momentum.
存在失去动力的风险。
It is possible to overdo the multitasking and to just lose your thread with these different projects.
您可能会过度处理多任务，从而在这些不同的项目中失去线索。
Like anything, there’s a sweet spot and it’s possible to overdo it, but I think that people fear multiple projects more than they should.
就像任何事情一样，有一个最佳点，并且可能会做得太过分，但我认为人们对多个项目的恐惧超过了他们应该做的。
If you can organize your thinking in a reasonable way, you can have a lot of different projects on the go and get a lot out of that.
如果你能以合理的方式组织你的思维，你就可以进行很多不同的项目，并从中获益匪浅。
What is your philosophy of fish and chips?
您的炸鱼薯条哲学是什么？
I think it’s overrated.
我认为它被高估了。
I prefer Belgian fries to English chips.
与英式薯条相比，我更喜欢比利时薯条。
I prefer mayonnaise to vinegar, and I prefer my fish to be grilled, ideally with some chili or some lime rather than deep-fried.
与醋相比，我更喜欢蛋黄酱，而且我更喜欢烤鱼，最好搭配一些辣椒或酸橙，而不是油炸。
Really good fish and chips is great, but you so rarely get it, it feels like it’s not even worth searching out.
真正好的炸鱼薯条固然很棒，但你很少能买到，感觉根本不值得去寻找。
What was your first job as a teenager?
你青少年时期的第一份工作是什么？
I had a paper round.
我有一个纸圆。
But beyond —
但除此之外——
Delivering newspapers.
送报纸。
Delivering newspapers.
送报纸。
Physical newspapers.
实体报纸。
Delivering physical newspapers —
递送实体报纸 —
Made out of paper, our greatest innovation.
用纸制成，这是我们最伟大的创新。
— which was an education.
——这是一种教育。
It’s nice because it gets you out, and you walk around because one could still do this.
这很好，因为它可以让你出去，你可以四处走走，因为人们仍然可以做到这一点。
You didn’t need a bike or a car.
你不需要自行车或汽车。
You could walk around.
你可以四处走走。
There was enough density to do that.
有足够的密度来做到这一点。
But it gave you a sense of what the different newspapers were saying.
但它让你了解不同报纸的报道内容。
Although I wasn’t very conscious of it, to observe how the Daily Mail and the Guardian and the Telegraph and the Times and the Sun — these classic British newspapers — might all report the exact same event, and to see how different their takes were, I think is a useful education.
虽然我不太意识到这一点，但观察《每日邮报》、《卫报》、《电讯报》、《泰晤士报》和《太阳报》这些经典的英国报纸如何可能都报道完全相同的事件，并看看他们的看法有多么不同，我认为这是一种有用的教育。
What did you do in your job at Shell?
您在壳牌工作期间做了哪些工作？
At Shell, I worked for the scenario planning team.
在壳牌，我在情景规划团队工作。
The scenarios — this very interesting technology that was originally, I think, developed by Rand just after the war, to try and think through Cold War outcomes.
这些场景——我认为，这项非常有趣的技术最初是兰德在战后开发的，旨在尝试思考冷战的结果。
Shell adopted them, and, I think, has been regarded as a pioneer.
壳牌公司采用了它们，而且我认为，它被视为先驱。
There were a group of various misfits, some from within Shell, some brought in on secondment — political scientists, economists, my wife, who was not my wife at the time, but we met in the workplace, which I understand is now no longer encouraged.
有一群形形色色的不适应环境的人，有些来自壳牌内部，有些是借调进来的——政治学家、经济学家、我的妻子，她当时不是我的妻子，但我们是在工作场所认识的，我知道现在不再鼓励这样做。
But a group of very interesting people, including somebody who’s now professor of ancient history and studies how the Greeks thought about the future through their oracles.
但有一群非常有趣的人，其中包括现在的古代历史教授，研究希腊人如何通过神谕思考未来。
But the idea of scenario planning is, you never know what’s going to happen.
但情景规划的想法是，你永远不知道会发生什么。
You shouldn’t be quantifying too much because people get fixed on the numbers and don’t think about the mechanism.
你不应该过多地量化，因为人们只关注数字而不考虑其机制。
They don’t think about the analysis.
他们不考虑分析。
So you tell stories.
所以你讲故事。
You tell at least two stories, and the stories are mutually contradictory.
你至少讲了两个故事，而且这些故事是相互矛盾的。
Because humans are built to absorb stories, they will remember your story.
因为人类生来就善于吸收故事，所以他们会记住你的故事。
You can tell them a story about the future.
你可以给他们讲一个关于未来的故事。
You can make it completely compelling, completely persuasive.
你可以让它完全引人注目、完全有说服力。
You can awaken their curiosity.
你可以唤醒他们的好奇心。
And then once they’re totally drawn in, you can say, “But that’s not how it’s going to be.”
一旦他们完全被吸引，你就可以说，“但事情不会是这样的。”
Then you can tell them a different story with a very different vision of the future.
然后你可以给他们讲一个不同的故事，对未来有一个非常不同的愿景。
And because of the way that we respond to stories, people could hold those two stories in their heads.
由于我们对故事的反应方式，人们可以在脑海中记住这两个故事。
They now have a language to talk to each other about this uncertain future space.
他们现在有了一种语言可以互相谈论这个不确定的未来空间。
They now could internalize the fact that they don’t actually know.
他们现在可以内化他们实际上并不知道的事实。
And the other thing is that the scenario methodology, the storytelling methodology is a great way to get lots of different people in the room looking for interesting things to say that will wake up people’s curiosity rather than arguing.
另一件事是，情景方法、讲故事方法是一种很好的方法，可以让房间里很多不同的人寻找有趣的事情来说，这会唤醒人们的好奇心，而不是争论。
It was a very, very interesting place to work.
这是一个非常非常有趣的工作场所。
There were frustrations working for an oil company, partly because it’s a huge bureaucracy and partly because my wife joined to try to get them to stop polluting the planet, which turns out, she didn’t succeed in that.
在一家石油公司工作会遇到挫折，部分原因是这是一个庞大的官僚机构，部分原因是我的妻子加入试图让他们停止污染地球，但事实证明，她没有成功。
But despite the frustrations, I loved the job.
但尽管有挫折，我还是喜欢这份工作。
I learned a lot.
我学到了很多。
And from there, you moved to the IFC in Washington.
从那里，您搬到了华盛顿的国际金融公司。
Or was there an intermediate stop?
还是中间有停留？
I had an internship at the Financial Times.
我在英国《金融时报》实习过。
They told me they would love me to come back sometime, but they didn’t have a job for me.
他们告诉我他们希望我有一天能回来，但他们没有给我一份工作。
And then you started thinking in terms of writing.
然后你开始思考写作。
I had already drafted The Undercover Economist and was looking for a publisher.
我已经起草了《卧底经济学家》，正在寻找出版商。
Then I went to work at the World Bank IFC, at a department that was part of both organizations.
然后我去了世界银行国际金融公司工作，该部门隶属于这两个组织。
That, I think, was the time we met.
我想，那是我们相遇的时间。
Correct.
正确的。
Harford: You invited me to a bloggers party, back when blogging was a thing, like a new, exciting thing that people did.
哈福德：你邀请我参加一个博客聚会，当时博客还很流行，就像人们所做的一件新的、令人兴奋的事情一样。
I was doing a blog for the World Bank.
我正在为世界银行写博客。
I did that for two years.
我这样做了两年。
But while I was doing that, I was writing more and more — these “Dear Economist” columns for the Financial Times.
但在我这样做的同时，我也写了越来越多的文章——这些为《金融时报》撰写的“亲爱的经济学家”专栏。
I was finishing The Undercover Economist, editing it, getting a publisher.
我正在完成《卧底经济学家》，对其进行编辑，并找到出版商。
And I had a very good boss at the World Bank who said, “Well as long as you don’t write your ‘Dear Economist’ columns about the World Bank, I don’t mind if you write for the FT.” It’s quite extraordinary to be working for the World Bank while writing for the newspaper.
我在世界银行有一位非常好的老板，他说：“只要你不写关于世界银行的‘亲爱的经济学家’专栏，我不介意你为英国《金融时报》撰写文章。”在为报纸撰稿的同时为世界银行工作真是非同寻常。
I’m not sure that could happen now.
我不确定现在会发生这种情况。
But what did you learn at the IFC?
但你在国际金融公司学到了什么？
What did I learn at the IFC?
我在国际金融公司学到了什么？
Well, the country risk analysis was intriguing.
嗯，国家风险分析很有趣。
It was one of those things where we were trying to figure out, how do we rate the risk of different countries that the IFC is supposed to be lending to projects?
这是我们试图弄清楚的事情之一，我们如何评估国际金融公司应该向项目提供贷款的不同国家的风险？
What’s the political risk of lending to projects in Bolivia?
向玻利维亚项目提供贷款有哪些政治风险？
What’s the political risk of lending to projects in Venezuela?
向委内瑞拉项目提供贷款有哪些政治风险？
So there was this meeting that I had to chair where lots of smart people would say, “Well, here’s what I know about Venezuela.” I realized that this was a very weird process because in the end, we were all sitting in a room in Washington.
因此，我必须主持这次会议，很多聪明人会说：“好吧，这就是我对委内瑞拉的了解。”我意识到这是一个非常奇怪的过程，因为最终我们都坐在华盛顿的一个房间里。
The people who I was talking to were well-informed, but still, how much could you really know about what’s going on in Venezuela from a room in Washington when you’re trying to follow the whole of Latin America?
与我交谈的人消息灵通，但是，当你试图追踪整个拉丁美洲时，在华盛顿的一个房间里你能真正了解委内瑞拉正在发生什么吗？
Yet, the organization needed a number.
然而，该组织需要一个数字。
And if the organization needed a number, we had to produce a number.
如果组织需要一个数字，我们就必须提供一个数字。
So we did the best we could.
所以我们尽力了。
It was an interesting education there in the weirdness of quantifying when there wasn’t really any point in quantifying.
这是一次有趣的教育，因为量化确实没有任何意义，但量化却很奇怪。
It was very, very different from the experience of having done scenarios at Shell.
这与在壳牌完成场景的经历非常非常不同。
But I also worked on the outskirts of the Doing Business Team who were doing, I think, fantastic work, quantifying regulations around the world.
但我也在《营商环境报告》团队的外围工作过，我认为他们的工作非常出色，量化了世界各地的法规。
That was just much more engaging because you really felt people were measuring something that mattered and producing genuinely new information for the world to digest.
这更具吸引力，因为你真的感觉到人们正在衡量一些重要的东西，并产生真正的新信息供世界消化。
That was an interesting thing to be.
这是一件很有趣的事情。
I don’t want to claim any credit for it, but I was on the fringes of that team.
我不想为此获得任何荣誉，但我处于该团队的边缘。
And I found it fascinating to see them operating.
我发现看到它们运作很有趣。
And throughout your life, do you feel you’ve taken a long-term perspective or a short-term perspective with your decisions in your career?
在你的一生中，你觉得你在职业生涯中做出的决定是从长远的角度还是从短期的角度来看？
Short to medium.
短到中等。
I rarely think past a couple of years, but on the other hand, a book is a long-term project, but it’s not an ultra-long-term project.
我很少思考过去的几年，但另一方面，一本书是一个长期项目，但它不是一个超长期项目。
You write a book; the book will be published in two or three years.
你写一本书；这本书将在两三年内出版。
So I rarely look past the next book.
所以我很少看下一本书。
That’s been fine so far.
到目前为止一切都很好。
That’s all worked out just fine.
一切都很顺利。
I suppose when you start thinking about the 20-year time horizon as an individual, there are certain no-brainer decisions you can make.
我想，当你作为一个人开始思考 20 年的时间范围时，你可以做出一些简单的决定。
Like, we should live somewhere where we can bring up a family and they’ll be happy.
就像，我们应该住在一个可以养育家庭的地方，他们会很幸福。
I should save into a pension.
我应该存入养老金。
But beyond that, there’s so much that’s outside your control that I’m not sure that there’s any great value in doing that.
但除此之外，还有很多事情是你无法控制的，我不确定这样做是否有任何巨大的价值。
When I’ve used scenario thinking in my own life, which I have done because of course, I married a scenario planner.
当我在自己的生活中使用情景思维时（当然，我这样做是因为我嫁给了一位情景规划师）。
The two of us understand this technology very well.
我们两个人都非常了解这项技术。
She did at least.
至少她做到了。
She was a scenario planner, too, so we both understand this.
她也是一名情景规划师，所以我们都理解这一点。
And we would sometimes do scenarios, but they would tend to be much more short term.
我们有时会做一些场景，但它们往往是短期的。
You’re thinking through different possible consequences of a decision you might make and the impact that might have over the next two, three years.
您正在考虑您可能做出的决定可能产生的不同后果以及未来两三年可能产生的影响。
And other than your new podcast, again, Cautionary Tales — it’s already out — is there any other longer-term plan you’re free to talk about?
除了你的新播客《警世故事》（已经发布）之外，你还有其他可以谈论的长期计划吗？
A new book, anything?
一本新书，有什么吗？
Yes.
是的。
By the time this podcast is out, I will be doing the edits on the second edition or the second book of 50 Things That Made the Modern Economy, so 50 Things, Season Two.
当这个播客发布时，我将编辑《创造现代经济的 50 件事》的第二版或第二本书，即《50 件事》第二季。
But the next project — in the spirit of multiple projects and slow-motion multitasking — it’s nearly finished.
但下一个项目——本着多个项目和慢动作多任务处理的精神——即将完成。
I’m looking forward to getting back to it.
我期待着回到它。
The next project is a book, titled How to Make the World Add Up.
下一个项目是一本书，名为《如何让世界加起来》。
That is a book about how to think about the statistical claims that people make, how to think like a fact checker, but how to, hopefully, be wiser than just a fact checker, and how not to give in to utter despair at the sense that there is no objective reality out there.
这本书讲述了如何思考人们提出的统计主张，如何像事实核查者一样思考，但希望如何比事实核查者更明智，以及如何不因客观现实不存在而陷入彻底的绝望。
I think there is a constructive way forward.
我认为有一条建设性的前进道路。
And that’s what the next book will be about.
这就是下一本书的内容。
Tim Harford, thank you very much.
蒂姆·哈福德，非常感谢你。