Shame them, shun them, ban them, beat them!

羞辱他们、回避他们、禁止他们、殴打他们！

2026-05-12 · Adam Mastroianni | Experimental History (Substack) · 原文

Say what you will about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, its 1936 constitution was a banger.

不管你对苏维埃社会主义共和国联盟有什么看法，它 1936 年的宪法都是一塌糊涂。

It guaranteed freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and protest.

它保障言论、新闻、集会和抗议自由。

It extended equal rights to all citizens, regardless of race or gender.

它向所有公民提供平等权利，无论种族或性别。

It shortened the working day to seven hours, affirmed “the right to rest and leisure”, and offered free education and free health care to all, including a “wide network of health resorts for the working people.” You gotta admit this is a lot better than certain other constitutions that, say, count slaves as three-fifths of a person .

它将工作日缩短至七小时，确认“休息和休闲的权利”，并向所有人提供免费教育和免费医疗保健，包括“为劳动人民提供广泛的疗养胜地网络”。你必须承认这比某些其他宪法要好得多，比如将奴隶算作五分之三的人。

In the two years after the constitution was adopted, however, Stalin purged something like a million people .

然而，在宪法通过后的两年里，斯大林清洗了大约一百万人。

Eighteen million Soviet citizens would be forced into gulag camps and colonies over the next three decades .

在接下来的三十年里，一千八百万苏联公民将被迫进入古拉格集中营和殖民地。

This was all clearly in violation of Articles 103, 111, and 127, and many others besides.

这显然违反了第 103 条、第 111 条和第 127 条以及其他许多条款。

How could one of the greatest tragedies in human history happen when it was very explicitly not allowed ?

当人类历史上最大的悲剧之一被明确禁止时，怎么会发生呢？

The uncomfortable answer is that a critical mass of people found prisons and purges palatable.

令人不安的答案是，有相当一部分人认为监狱和清洗是可以接受的。

We say that “Stalin” did all these things as if held the gun himself 1 , but obviously you can’t run a gulag without guards, secretaries, accountants, engineers, architects, doctors, drivers, quartermasters, mid-level managers, kangaroo court judges, and all manner of flunkies, patsies, and stool pigeons.

我们说，“斯大林”做所有这些事情就好像他自己拿着枪一样 1 ，但显然，如果没有警卫、秘书、会计师、工程师、建筑师、医生、司机、军需官、中层管理人员、袋鼠法庭法官以及各种各样的奴仆、替罪羊和替补，你就无法管理古拉格。

Apparently, hundreds of thousands of regular people were willing to commit their own personal portion of an atrocity.

显然，成千上万的普通人愿意犯下自己的暴行。

The lesson here is obvious: rules don’t matter unless people act like they matter.

这里的教训是显而易见的：除非人们表现得像规则一样重要，否则规则并不重要。

Writing down laws does not endow them with physical force or psychic potency.

写下法律并不赋予它们物理力量或精神力量。

We all know this.

我们都知道这一点。

We all believe this.

Ever since the replication crisis began over a decade ago, most folks have agreed that the problem is the laxness of our rules, and that the solution is to tighten them.

自从十多年前复制危机开始以来，大多数人都认为问题在于我们的规则松懈，而解决方案就是收紧规则。

We should mandate replication, preregistration, public data, bigger studies and tinier p -values.

我们应该强制复制、预注册、公共数据、更大规模的研究和更小的 p 值。

The more we can reduce researcher degrees of freedom , the thinking goes, the better our science will be.

我们认为，我们减少研究人员的自由度越多，我们的科学就会越好。

Vindicating this theory, a big group of researchers published a paper in 2023 showing that it’s possible to achieve high rates of replicability as long as you follow a set of “rigor-enhancing practices: confirmatory tests, large sample sizes, preregistration and methodological transparency.”

为了证实这一理论，一大群研究人员在 2023 年发表了一篇论文，表明只要遵循一套“加强严格性的实践：验证性测试、大样本量、预先注册和方法透明性”，就有可能实现高可复制性。

One year later, the paper was retracted because it...failed to follow those rigor-enhancing practices.

一年后，该论文被撤回，因为它……未能遵循那些加强严格性的做法。

The journal editors claim the authors were not transparent about their methods, did not abide by their own preregistration, and cherry-picked their results.

期刊编辑声称作者对他们的方法不透明，没有遵守自己的预先注册，并且精心挑选了他们的结果。

Clearly, we’re not missing the right regulations .

显然，我们并没有缺少正确的法规。

We’re missing the right motivations .

我们缺少正确的动机。

If you want to discover true things about the world, you’ll be interested in the guidelines that help you do that, and you’ll be thankful to the people who develop them.

如果你想发现世界的真实事物，你会对帮助你做到这一点的指南感兴趣，并且你会感谢开发这些指南的人。

That’s how the replication crisis could have played out: someone demonstrates that our sample sizes are too small, and we all go, “oh wow we should make our sample sizes bigger because want to know what’s real and what’s not”.

复制危机可能就是这样发生的：有人证明我们的样本量太小，我们都会说，“哇哦，我们应该扩大样本量，因为想知道什么是真实的，什么是假的”。

But if you’re not actually seeking the truth, no amount of “rigor-enhancing practices” will ever cause you to find it.

但如果你实际上并不是在寻求真理，那么再多的“加强严格性的实践”也无法让你找到它。

That’s why our revolution in scientific regulation has mostly failed.

这就是为什么我们的科学监管革命大多失败了。

We require researchers who conduct clinical trials to post the results on a public website, but only 45% of them do .

我们要求进行临床试验的研究人员将结果发布到公共网站上，但只有 45% 的研究人员这样做了。

We tell people to specify their primary outcomes beforehand, but if their studies don’t work as planned, they just sneak in different analyses —one study on anesthesiology experiments found that 92%(!) of them did this.

我们告诉人们事先指定他们的主要结果，但如果他们的研究没有按计划进行，他们只是偷偷进行不同的分析——一项关于麻醉学实验的研究发现，92%（！）的人这样做了。

We make researchers end their papers by saying “data available on request” and then only 17% of them actually make their data available on request .

我们让研究人员在论文结束时说“数据可根据要求提供”，但实际上只有 17% 的研究人员根据要求提供数据。

You can’t turn a cheat into a scientist by making a rule against cheating.

你不能通过制定反对作弊的规则将作弊者变成科学家。

The most important “rigor-enhancing practice” is caring about getting things right, and without that, nothing else matters.

Every couple will eventually have some version of the “Let’s Make a Rule” fight, where they try to solve some interpersonal issue through legislation.

每对夫妇最终都会有某种版本的“让我们制定规则”之争，他们试图通过立法解决一些人际问题。

“You think I don’t take enough interest in your life, so let’s make a rule: I have to ask you three things about your day before I start telling you about mine.” The theory behind the Let’s Make a Rule fight is that we could live in harmony with one another if we could just compile all of our expectations into one big Google Doc.

“你认为我对你的生活没有足够的兴趣，所以让我们制定一个规则：在我开始告诉你我的生活之前，我必须问你关于你的一天的三件事。” “让我们制定一条规则”之战背后的理论是，如果我们能够将所有期望编译成一份大型 Google 文档，我们就可以和谐相处。

The Let’s Make a Rule fight never leads to a satisfying conclusion because nobody actually wants their partner to follow the rules.

“让我们制定规则”之争永远不会得出令人满意的结论，因为没有人真正希望自己的伴侣遵守规则。

They want their partner to care .

他们希望他们的伴侣能够关心。

Being asked “How was your day, dear?” through gritted teeth because that’s what our Relationship Handbook says to do is probably worse than not being asked at all.

有人问“亲爱的，今天过得怎么样？”咬牙切齿，因为这就是我们的《关系手册》所说的，这样做可能比根本不被要求更糟糕。

You want your partner to realize that your preferences are not silly affectations that can be belittled, ignored, or disputed until they go away, that they are, in fact, load-bearing parts of your personality, and to reject them is to reject you .

你希望你的伴侣认识到，你的偏好并不是愚蠢的情感，可以被贬低、忽视或争论，直到它们消失，它们实际上是你个性的承载部分，拒绝它们就是拒绝你。

In return, you have to realize that some of your preferences are more malleable than you thought, that maybe they don’t all have to be foundational to your sense of self, and that some of them can be bent or jettisoned in the interests of coexistence.

作为回报，你必须意识到，你的某些偏好比你想象的更具可塑性，也许它们不一定都是你自我意识的基础，并且其中一些可以为了共存的利益而弯曲或抛弃。

This is the work of love, and it takes a lifetime.

这是爱的工作，需要一生的时间。

You can’t speedrun it by filling out a spreadsheet or signing a contract.

你无法通过填写电子表格或签署合同来加速它。

The frictions of a lifelong relationship can be made intelligible —that is, understandable to the people involved, but they cannot be made legible —that is, understandable to everyone else.

终生关系中的摩擦可以变得可以理解——也就是说，对于所涉及的人来说是可以理解的，但它们不能变得清晰——也就是说，对于其他人来说是可以理解的。

The best couples I know have all sorts of arrangements and accommodations that make zero sense to me but perfect sense to them, and that’s exactly why they work well together.

我认识的最好的夫妻都有各种各样的安排和住宿，这些对我来说毫无意义，但对他们来说却完全有意义，这正是他们合作得很好的原因。

A successful relationship is nothing more than a package of haphazard remedies and rickety fixes that people would only ever devise and maintain when they really, really want to be together.

一段成功的关系只不过是一揽子随意的补救措施和不稳定的修复措施，人们只有在真正非常想在一起时才会设计和维持它们。

Sometimes police officers break the rules, and the solution is obvious: we just need to police the police.

有时警察会违反规则，解决办法很明显：我们只需要监管警察即可。

If you strap a camera to every officer’s chest and record everything they do, then they won’t misbehave in the first place.

如果你把相机绑在每个警官的胸前并记录他们所做的一切，那么他们一开始就不会行为不端。

And even if they do, we can discipline or fire them.

This is the most foolproof plan of all time, supported by an unheard-of 89% of Americans .

这是有史以来最万无一失的计划，得到了前所未有的 89% 美国人的支持。

Police departments all over the country agreed— now every single large precinct has body cameras , and a majority of smaller precincts do too.

The technology is out there and the data is in; how is our foolproof plan working out?

技术已经存在，数据已经存在；我们万无一失的计划实施得怎么样了？

Not well.

不太好。

According to a 2022 Department of Justice report, body cams might not have any meaningful effect on police behavior .

根据 2022 年司法部的一份报告，随身摄像头可能不会对警察的行为产生任何有意义的影响。

One meta-analysis found a moderate drop in citizen complaints, but didn’t find any difference on any other outcomes: use of force, assaults against police officers, number of incident reports, etc. Another meta-analysis finds no evidence of downstream outcomes like conviction rates.

一项荟萃分析发现，公民投诉略有下降，但没有发现任何其他结果有任何差异：使用武力、袭击警察、事件报告数量等。另一项荟萃分析没有发现定罪率等下游结果的证据。

The DoJ warns that we need more research, but this is enough to rule out gigantic effects.

美国司法部警告说，我们需要更多的研究，但这足以排除巨大的影响。

If body cams do anything at all, they probably don’t do much.

Maybe our plan just didn’t go far enough.

也许我们的计划还远远不够。

Bad cops can simply turn their cameras off or cause the footage to mysteriously go missing.

坏警察可以简单地关闭摄像机或导致录像神秘失踪。

Even if the video exists, it’s only one version of events, and it’s from the officer’s point of view.

Maybe what we really need is a swarm of drones to follow every police officer, recording every action from every angle, and they never shut off and their footage automatically gets uploaded to a public database.

也许我们真正需要的是一群无人机跟踪每一位警察，从各个角度记录每一个动作，而且它们永远不会关闭，它们的镜头会自动上传到公共数据库。

Or maybe we misdiagnosed the problem in the first place.

We assumed that the justice system was eager to hold bad cops accountable and that all it was missing was the necessary evidence.

It turns out the justice system is actually rather ambivalent about holding bad cops accountable, and so it handles additional evidence as halfheartedly as it handled all of the evidence it already had.

事实证明，司法系统对于追究坏警察的责任实际上是相当矛盾的，因此它处理额外的证据就像处理它已经掌握的所有证据一样不热心。

A camera can allow you to see, but it can’t make you look.

相机可以让你看，但它不能让你看。

Everywhere—from politics to science, from love to law—we are constantly asking: how can we get people to do the right thing?

And the answer comes to us so naturally: prod them, push them, shame them, shun them, ban them, beat them!

我们自然会得到答案：刺激他们、推动他们、羞辱他们、避开他们、禁止他们、殴打他们！

But every time we try to do this, we run into the same paradox that the Roman poet Juvenal pointed out 2,000 years ago: quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?

但每次我们尝试这样做时，我们都会遇到罗马诗人尤维纳尔在 2000 年前指出的同样的悖论：quis custodiet ipsos custodes ？

Who watches the watchmen?

谁看守守望者？

4 If you try to police the bad actors, you will soon find that some of your police are bad actors as well.

And if your solution to bad police is to police the police, then who will police the police that police the police?

如果解决坏警察问题的方法是监管警察，那么谁来监管警察呢？

At some point, there has to be an Unwatched Watchman, someone who will do the right thing not because they are forced to, but because they want to.

在某些时候，必须有一个无人看管的守望者，他会做正确的事情，不是因为他们被迫这样做，而是因为他们愿意这样做。

Instead of asking, “How we can get people to do the right thing,” we should ask, “How can we get people to want the right thing?”

我们不应该问“我们怎样才能让人们做正确的事”，而应该问“我们怎样才能让人们想要正确的事？”

I think there are only two ways that people’s desires change: they either get put in a crock pot, or they get hit with a lightning bolt.

我认为人们的欲望改变只有两种方式：要么被放进瓦罐里，要么被闪电击中。

That is, people either change so slowly that they never notice it, or they change so suddenly that they never forget it.

也就是说，人们要么变化得如此缓慢以至于他们从未注意到，要么变化得如此突然以至于他们永远不会忘记。

There is no in between.

两者之间没有任何关系。

One day in seventh grade, my teacher—let’s call him Mr. L—told me and two other kids to put up the American flag outside the school.

七年级的一天，我的老师（我们暂且称他为 L 先生）告诉我和另外两个孩子在学校外面挂美国国旗。

While another boy undid the knot on the flag pole, I absent-mindedly draped the flag over my shoulders like a cape, as I had seen Olympic athletes do on TV.

当另一个男孩解开旗杆上的结时，我心不在焉地将国旗像斗篷一样披在肩上，就像我在电视上看到的奥运会运动员那样。

Mr. L, who was a Vietnam War veteran, apparently saw me do this, and when we came back, he gave me a dressing down in front of the whole class.

L先生是一名越战老兵，显然看到了我这样做，当我们回来时，他当着全班同学的面训斥了我。

I had disrespected the flag of our country by using it as a costume, he said.

他说，我用它作为服装是对我国国旗的不尊重。

My behavior was shameful and inexcusable, and I must sit at my desk silently and meditate on the wrongness of my action.

我的行为是可耻的，不可原谅的，我必须坐在办公桌前静静地反省自己行为的错误。

That might sound like nothing, but I was a Good Kid.

这听起来可能没什么，但我是个好孩子。

I never got in real trouble in school before, and so this experience was new and humiliating.

In that moment, I silently vowed to never, ever be like Mr. L.

那一刻，我默默发誓，永远、永远不会像L先生那样。

As far as I was concerned, the Stars and Stripes were a symbol of unconscionable cruelty against the most innocent and well-meaning of people, namely, me.

就我而言，星条旗象征着对最无辜、最善意的人（即我）的不合情理的残酷对待。

Mr. L got me to do the right thing (at least the thing he thought was right)—I never draped myself in the flag again.

L先生让我做正确的事（至少是他认为正确的事）——我再也没有把自己披在国旗上。

But he didn’t get me to want the right thing.

但他没有让我想要正确的东西。

Before Mr. L, I told people I wanted to be a soldier when I grew up.

在L先生之前，我告诉人们我长大后想当一名士兵。

After Mr. L, I told people I wanted to be a writer.

One cruel remark undid a lifetime of saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

一句残酷的话毁掉了一生的效忠誓言。

Most scientists learn their trade from scratch in young adulthood.

大多数科学家在年轻时从头开始学习他们的专业知识。

They do it not so much by sitting through lectures, but by hanging around in labs, watching what other people do, and doing rinky-dink versions of their own experiments that get critiqued by people with more experience.

他们并不是通过听讲座来做到这一点，而是通过在实验室里闲逛，观察其他人在做什么，并做自己实验的小版本，而这些实验会受到更有经验的人的批评。

Therefore, the kind of scientist you become depends a lot on the crock pot you steep in.

因此，你成为什么样的科学家很大程度上取决于你浸泡的陶罐。

Many of those crock pots, it turns out, are filled with rancid juices.

事实证明，许多陶罐里都装满了腐臭的果汁。

If your professor hands you a dataset and tells you to “ Go on a fishing expedition for something—anything—interesting ” and then praises you when you return with significant p -values, of course you’re going to internalize the wrong lessons.

如果你的教授给你一个数据集并告诉你“去钓鱼探险，寻找一些有趣的东西”，然后当你带着显着的 p 值回来时表扬你，那么你当然会内化错误的教训。

If you hang around people who bury their inconvenient findings , or who stuff their reference lists with self-citations , or who take other people’s work without crediting them , you’re going to grow into that kind of person yourself.

如果你周围的人都埋藏着不便的发现，或者在参考文献列表中填满自引，或者拿走别人的工作而不注明出处，那么你自己也会成长为那样的人。

You won’t feel like you’re becoming a villain; you’ll feel like you’re becoming an adult .

你不会觉得自己变成了恶棍；你会感觉自己正在成为一个成年人。

Once you’ve spent a few years in the wrong crock pot, you’re cooked, both literally and figuratively.

No amount of legislation can turn you raw again or re-cook you the right way.

You are immune to any “rigor-enhancing practices” because you never learned to care about rigor.

你对任何“加强严谨性的做法”免疫，因为你从来没有学会关心严谨性。

When you encounter a rule like “No excessive self-citations!”, it barely even registers, because of course you don’t think your self-citations are excessive.

当你遇到“禁止过度自引！”这样的规则时，它几乎不会被注意到，因为你当然不认为你的自引过多。

You think they’re normal!

你以为他们很正常啊！

But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of.

但我很遗憾地说，我们并没有在我所知道的任何特定课程中专门包含学习如何不欺骗自己的悠久历史，即拥有完全的科学完整性。

We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.

我们只是希望您已经通过潜移默化而理解了。

I think Feynman was right.

我认为费曼是对的。

The most important lessons—in science, or in anything—are not learned.

They are absorbed .

And if you’re steeping in dirty water, you’ll absorb the wrong lessons, and then it’s almost impossible to get them back out again.

如果你浸泡在脏水中，你就会吸收错误的教训，然后几乎不可能再把它们拉出来。

When you think in terms of crock pots and lightning bolts, you may or may not come up with the right theory of change.

当您考虑瓦罐和闪电时，您可能会也可能不会想出正确的变革理论。

But you’ll at least realize that you need a theory of change.

但你至少会意识到你需要一个变革理论。

We don’t seem to do this by default.

我们似乎默认不这样做。

Instead, we assume that other humans are lumps of Silly Putty that can be stretched or compressed to fit whatever container is convenient.

相反，我们假设其他人是一块橡皮泥，可以拉伸或压缩以适应任何方便的容器。

Change is easy—who needs a theory?

改变很容易——谁需要理论？

As long as that’s your model of human nature, you’ll believe that winning hearts and minds is just a matter of updating the bylaws, and you’ll keep wondering why it never seems to work.

只要这是你的人性模型，你就会相信赢得民心只是更新章程的问题，并且你会一直想知道为什么它似乎永远不起作用。

I understand why people are obsessed with rules: it’s fun to pretend that we can control the future.

我理解为什么人们痴迷于规则：假装我们可以控制未来很有趣。

It’s pleasing to think all this messiness is temporary, and that once we articulate what each person should and shouldn’t do, then finally we can live in peace with each other.

令人高兴的是，所有这些混乱都是暂时的，一旦我们阐明每个人应该做什么和不应该做什么，那么最终我们就可以彼此和平相处。

And yet, when the future arrives, the people in it always end up doing whatever they want.

The only way to have some influence over the future, then, is to have some influence over those wants.

那么，对未来产生影响的唯一方法就是对这些需求产生影响。

It’s hard to build the right crock pots; it’s hard to fire the right lightning bolts.

制作合适的陶罐很困难；发射正确的闪电是很困难的。

It’s much easier to edit Google Docs full of rules, to install more security cameras, and to enumerate ever-longer lists of rigor-enhancing practices.

编辑充满规则的 Google 文档、安装更多安全摄像头以及列举越来越长的加强严格实践的列表都变得更加容易。

And as long as we do that, we can expect more broken hearts, bad cops, and retracted papers.

只要我们这样做，我们就可以预见更多的心碎、坏警察和撤回的论文。

You can outlaw war and you can mandate love, you can ban falsehood and demand truth, but you won’t get anything you want unless you can convince other people to want it, too.

你可以取缔战争，你可以强制爱，你可以禁止谎言并要求真相，但你不会得到你想要的任何东西，除非你能说服其他人也想要它。

Experimental History is brought to you by Mr. L, albeit accidentally

实验历史是L先生偶然带给你的

Lenin could have done it single-handedly, of course, because according to Soviet TV he was a magic mushroom .

当然，列宁本可以单枪匹马做到这一点，因为根据苏联电视台的说法，他是一个神奇的蘑菇。

The authors and the critics / editors disagree on what happened, exactly.

作者和评论家/编辑对于到底发生了什么存在分歧。

The former say their paper was retracted because they included one misleading sentence, and the latter say it was because the entire paper was based on ad hoc analyses that were implied to be preregistered but really weren’t.

前者表示，他们的论文被撤回是因为其中包含一个误导性句子，而后者则表示，这是因为整篇论文基于临时分析，这些分析被暗示是预先注册的，但实际上并没有。

Regardless, the authors eventually explained that the project wasn’t originally about enhancing rigor per se—it was conceived ten years ago to investigate the “decline effect”, where previously robust findings mysteriously shrink or disappear in subsequent investigations.

不管怎样，作者最终解释说，该项目最初并不是为了提高严谨性——它是十年前为了调查“衰退效应”而构想的，即之前可靠的发现在随后的调查中神秘地缩小或消失。

Some people on the team apparently believed in the standard explanations for this phenomenon: sampling error, selective reporting, questionable research practices, etc. But others suspected voodoo was at play: maybe the mere act of observing a phenomenon causes it to wither, for spooky reasons beyond our understanding and perhaps beyond the laws of physics.

团队中的一些人显然相信这种现象的标准解释：抽样误差、选择性报告、有问题的研究实践等。但其他人则怀疑巫术在起作用：也许仅仅是观察一种现象的行为就会导致它枯萎，其原因超出了我们的理解，或许也超出了物理定律。

Suffice it to say, this backstory didn’t make it into the manuscript.

可以说，这个背景故事并没有出现在手稿中。

By the way, that response rate was no different between journals with mandatory data-sharing statements and those without.

顺便说一句，有强制数据共享声明的期刊和没有强制数据共享声明的期刊之间的回复率没有什么不同。

This comes from Juvenal’s Satire VI , which sounds a lot like a standup routine from the 1980s:

这来自 Juvenal 的 Satire VI，听起来很像 20 世纪 80 年代的单口喜剧：

lines 6.25-37 – Are you preparing to get married, Postumus, in this day and age, when you could just commit suicide or sleep with a boy?

One interesting aspect of police body cams is that they actually showed how bad people behave in front of the police.

警察随身摄像头的一个有趣的方面是，它们实际上展示了人们在警察面前的不良行为。

The reason complaints fell is Internal Affairs plays back the recording to the complainant or their lawyer and it shows that they lied.

投诉下降的原因是内政部向投诉人或其律师播放了录音，结果表明他们撒了谎。

Do cams control police behavior?

摄像头能控制警察的行为吗？

It can as the officers are aware they are being recorded.

警官们知道他们正在被记录，这是可以的。

Repeatedly you can hear fellow officers warning each other to avoid improper conduct, especially when the person they are dealing with deserves a proper beating.

你会不断地听到其他警官互相警告，避免不当行为，尤其是当他们正在处理的人应该受到适当的殴打时。

😂

Good essay.

I find it especially frustrating when I see people with the opposite problem: everyone has already changed their attitude/perspective, but they are *still* waiting for the decree from on high before they actually do anything different.

当我看到人们有相反的问题时，我感到特别沮丧：每个人都已经改变了他们的态度/观点，但他们“仍然”等待高层的法令，然后才真正做任何不同的事情。

For example, several years ago students at my university were circulating a petition for more resources and organization for the computer science department.

例如，几年前，我大学的学生正在散发一份请愿书，要求为计算机科学系提供更多资源和组织。

The extremely popular demands called for things like department study sessions.

非常受欢迎的需求需要诸如部门学习课程之类的东西。

Why wait for "the department" to host a study session, you ARE the department!

何必等“系”来办学习会呢，你就是系！

You already accomplished the hard part!

你已经完成了最困难的部分！

Host the study session!

Another example: a co-worker was complaining about how annoying parking was.

另一个例子：一位同事抱怨停车多么烦人。

He only lived 3 miles from the office in a very bikeable area -- why didn't he just bike in?

他住在距离办公室仅 3 英里的一个非常适合骑自行车的地区 - 为什么他不直接骑自行车进去呢？

Well because "the incentives" were not good enough to induce him to bike.

好吧，因为“激励措施”不足以促使他骑自行车。

What about the annoyance of traffic and the health benefits of biking?

交通的烦恼和骑自行车对健康的好处又如何呢？

Why are you waiting for someone above you to mandate that you do it?

你为什么要等待比你更高的人强制你去做呢？

It's like we are so obsessed with top-down solutions to our problems that even when all the pieces are in place for a bottom-up solution we can only muster that strength for the purpose of demanding a top-down approach.

就像我们如此痴迷于自上而下的问题解决方案一样，即使自下而上的解决方案的所有部分都已就位，我们也只能聚集力量来要求采用自上而下的方法。

中文为机器翻译，仅供参考。