讀《FT·金融時報》學英語：被打臉了，直接道歉還是保持微笑?
好氣哦，但還是要保持微笑——這是有道理的。
Well, it was a bold move.Andy Haldane, the chief economist of the Bank of England, did not blame a misunderstanding, a quote taken out of context, a misreading of a complex situation or use one of the myriad other ways in which those who have been proved wrong explain that they were not wrong wrong, just differently right.
今天要說的是一步大膽的棋。英格蘭銀行首席經(jīng)濟學家Andy Haldane不會去責備一個誤解、一個脫離了語境的引用、一種對復雜形勢的誤讀，或者用任何一個方法來為已經(jīng)被判定有誤的人開脫：他們不是錯了，只是“對得很特別”。
Instead, he said last week that — having failed to foresee the 2008 crash, and having apparently overstated the immediate damage that a Brexit vote would do the UK economy — the whole profession of economic forecasting was “in crisis”.
另外，他上周說，經(jīng)濟預測職業(yè)正“處于危機之中”：因為經(jīng)濟學家們在2008年未能預見金融危機、最近又明顯夸大了脫歐將會對英國經(jīng)濟產(chǎn)生的直接損害。
Criticism was, he said, “a fair cop”.He was reported to have described it as his profession's “Michael Fish moment” — referring to the former BBC weather forecaster, who in 1987 dismissed warnings of what turned out to be the country's most severe hurricane in nearly 300 years.
他表示，這些詬病確實是“依法逮捕，認罪服輸”。有報道稱，他曾經(jīng)形容這些批評是他們經(jīng)濟學家職業(yè)的“Michael Fish時刻”——Michael Fish是前BBC天氣預報員，曾在1987年忽略了一場300年來席卷英國最嚴重的颶風。
The apology that gets out in front — and does so effusively and without the sort of weasel words that the public easily recognises as such — can do you a power of good.
把道歉擺到明面上，這可能對你有所裨益——它娓娓而來，沒有絲毫可以被公眾輕易認出的狡辯之辭。
As a rhetorical figure, it is called concessio: lose a battle to win the war.It takes the wind out of your detractors' sails.It allows you to shift ground rather than abandoning your position altogether.
作為一種修辭方式，這叫做“讓步”：輸?shù)粢灰郏郧螳@得整個戰(zhàn)爭的勝利。讓批評你的人沒有把柄可以抓到。這讓你得以改變形勢，避免全盤皆輸。
There are some advantages, and considerable risks, to that sort of candour and the reporting of Mr.Haldane's remarks demonstrates both.According to the fullest transcript of his remarks I have found, he did not say baldly that forecasting was “in crisis”, but that it was “to some degree in crisis”.And the headline-ready phrase “Michael Fish moment” does not figure either.
對于這樣的坦誠來說，這里既有一些優(yōu)點，也有相當大的風險；Haldane陳述的那一番話論證了這兩個方面。根據(jù)我找到的他那一番完整的文字記錄，Haldane并沒有直白地說經(jīng)濟預測職業(yè)“處于危機之中”，而是“在某種程度上處于危機之中”。而搶了頭條的短語“Michael Fish時刻”也同樣不是這樣（直白地）提出的。
Rather, he made a wry and somewhat extended comparison.
確切的說，他是做了一個模糊的、也是比較廣義的比較。
“Remember that? Michael Fish getting up: ‘There's no hurricane coming but it will be very windy in Spain.' Very similar to the sort of reports central banks — naming no names — issued pre-crisis: ‘There is no hurricane coming but it might be very windy in the subprime sector.'”
“記得嗎？Michael Fish接著說的是：沒有颶風襲來，但是西班牙會有強風。這和央行的那些在金融危機前公布的報告非常相似——不一語道破——沒有金融海嘯襲來，但是在次級板塊會有強震蕩。”
He then said: “Look at how weather forecasting has changed itself in the period since.Actually there has been a dramatic improvement in our capacity to forecast the weather… a revolution in weather forecasting.”
他還說：“看看自那以后，天氣預報作何改變了吧。事實上在那之后，我們預報天氣的能力有了明顯的提高……一場天氣預報的革命。”
He added: “Much more data is being thrown at the problem and that has brought about a transformation.And some of the self same could be true if we move from weather forecasting to economic.”
他補充：“還有很多數(shù)據(jù)都遭遇過這樣的問題，并且隨后帶來了一場革新。將之從天氣預報上換到經(jīng)濟上，其實也是同理。”
His point about the 2008 crash was not that banks and other economists got it laughably wrong — but that “rather narrow and rather fragile” economic models were inadequate for dealing with singular and catastrophic events.
他指出2008年金融危機不是銀行和其他經(jīng)濟學家犯下的可笑的錯誤，而是“相當狹隘和脆弱”的經(jīng)濟模型不足以分析異常性和毀滅性的事件。
(I suspect his use of the term “fragile” leans on that of Nassim Nicholas Taleb, whose great theme is the way in which economic models, like Newtonian physics, break down under extreme conditions.)
（我猜他用“脆弱”這個詞引自學者Nassim Nicholas Taleb的說法。Nassim Nicholas Taleb的主要研究課題是：經(jīng)濟模型是如何像牛頓定律一樣，在極端情況下失靈的。）
Still, in admitting that economists got things wrong he is arguably better placed to attract confidence in the notion that those mistakes have been learnt from.Note how in his fuller remarks he suggests that, like weather forecasters, economists have got better at making predictions since their greatest embarrassment.
盡管如此，在承認經(jīng)濟學家犯下錯誤這個方面，頗具爭議的是，他現(xiàn)在激起了更多的信心，讓人們相信經(jīng)濟學家們已經(jīng)吸取到了教訓。注意在他這一番完整的評論中，他提出就像天氣預報員一樣，在窘境之后，經(jīng)濟學家能夠更好地作出預測。
His approach — not stiff and defensive, but appealingly folksy and humorous — allowed him to regroup.And when challenged that the predicted “hurricane” of Brexit had not appeared, he cleverly turned his Michael Fish point on its head.
他的方法既不呆板也不防備，而是非常的平和和幽默。這讓他得以重振旗鼓。所以當他遭遇挑戰(zhàn)，問有關(guān)脫歐帶來的“颶風”之預測為何并未出現(xiàn)，他機智地擺出了Michael Fish作為擋箭牌。
He riposted: “It's been very windy in Spain.” He still thinks the hurricane will arrive — just not until Brexit actually takes place.
他機敏地回答：“西班牙將會有大風。”——他表示仍然相信在英國真正脫歐之際，颶風將會來臨。
Newspapers tend to resist corrections ferociously and publish them with a bad grace.When I was a gossip columnist, I used to rather welcome the odd one.They filled space, which I liked.And a resolute mea culpa gives a general impression of honesty — which helped to imply that the many inaccuracies and defamatory innuendos that peppered our daily columns and that passed without complaint were 100 per cent reliable.
報紙傾向于蠻橫地拒絕更正，隨后勉強地將之發(fā)布。當我是一個漫談專欄作家時，我曾經(jīng)非常喜歡奇怪的觀點——它們填充了版面，這讓我很是喜歡。隨后一個徹底的失誤，給了我對于正直的整體概念：這幫我意識到，許多不準確的信息和帶誹謗的暗諷成為我們每日專欄的“調(diào)味劑”，而未經(jīng)深究、抱怨就過去了的內(nèi)容其實是100%可靠的。
“When the facts change, I change my mind,” John Maynard Keynes reportedly said, adding the pugnacious kicker: “What do you do, sir?”
“當事實改變，那我也改變我的觀點”，據(jù)報道（著名經(jīng)濟學家）John Maynard Keynes如是說過。他還對不嫌事大的人說：“你有什么問題嗎？”
This piece of wisdom is often quoted and much ignored.It is a habit of our media — and, probably, of group psychology — to interpret confidence as strength and humility as weakness.We are always looking for what Mrs.Thatcher called “that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn”.
這句至理名言常常被引用，也常常被忽略。這是媒體的習慣，并且可能也是從眾心理學——把信心解釋成力量，把謙卑解釋成軟弱。我們總在尋找撒切爾夫人所說的“你們媒體最喜歡的標語：180度大轉(zhuǎn)彎”。
That is self-reinforcing.Public figures fear admitting error or apologising, and are known to do so.So when they do, the default assumption is that they have done so not out of intellectual rigour or basic decency, but because their error is so obvious that they have no other option.
這就是自我完善。公眾人物害怕承認錯誤或者道歉，我們也心知肚明。所以，當他們真的認錯時，我們就默認假設(shè)他們不是出于學術(shù)的嚴謹或者基本的禮貌而這樣做，而是因為這個錯誤太明顯了，他們別無選擇。
When blustering certainties are the norm, a winningly expressed admission of fallibility can be — well — what we all experienced too much of in 1987: a breath of fresh air.
當狂暴的現(xiàn)實成為常態(tài)，一個體面表達認錯的方式可以是，像我們1987年經(jīng)歷了太多的那樣：真是新氣象??！
Well, it was a bold move.Andy Haldane, the chief economist of the Bank of England, did not blame a misunderstanding, a quote taken out of context, a misreading of a complex situation or use one of the myriad other ways in which those who have been proved wrong explain that they were not wrong wrong, just differently right.
今天要說的是一步大膽的棋。英格蘭銀行首席經(jīng)濟學家Andy Haldane不會去責備一個誤解、一個脫離了語境的引用、一種對復雜形勢的誤讀，或者用任何一個方法來為已經(jīng)被判定有誤的人開脫：他們不是錯了，只是“對得很特別”。
Instead, he said last week that — having failed to foresee the 2008 crash, and having apparently overstated the immediate damage that a Brexit vote would do the UK economy — the whole profession of economic forecasting was “in crisis”.
另外，他上周說，經(jīng)濟預測職業(yè)正“處于危機之中”：因為經(jīng)濟學家們在2008年未能預見金融危機、最近又明顯夸大了脫歐將會對英國經(jīng)濟產(chǎn)生的直接損害。
Criticism was, he said, “a fair cop”.He was reported to have described it as his profession's “Michael Fish moment” — referring to the former BBC weather forecaster, who in 1987 dismissed warnings of what turned out to be the country's most severe hurricane in nearly 300 years.
他表示，這些詬病確實是“依法逮捕，認罪服輸”。有報道稱，他曾經(jīng)形容這些批評是他們經(jīng)濟學家職業(yè)的“Michael Fish時刻”——Michael Fish是前BBC天氣預報員，曾在1987年忽略了一場300年來席卷英國最嚴重的颶風。
天氣預報員Michael Fish在BBC工作時
The apology that gets out in front — and does so effusively and without the sort of weasel words that the public easily recognises as such — can do you a power of good.
把道歉擺到明面上，這可能對你有所裨益——它娓娓而來，沒有絲毫可以被公眾輕易認出的狡辯之辭。
As a rhetorical figure, it is called concessio: lose a battle to win the war.It takes the wind out of your detractors' sails.It allows you to shift ground rather than abandoning your position altogether.
作為一種修辭方式，這叫做“讓步”：輸?shù)粢灰郏郧螳@得整個戰(zhàn)爭的勝利。讓批評你的人沒有把柄可以抓到。這讓你得以改變形勢，避免全盤皆輸。
There are some advantages, and considerable risks, to that sort of candour and the reporting of Mr.Haldane's remarks demonstrates both.According to the fullest transcript of his remarks I have found, he did not say baldly that forecasting was “in crisis”, but that it was “to some degree in crisis”.And the headline-ready phrase “Michael Fish moment” does not figure either.
對于這樣的坦誠來說，這里既有一些優(yōu)點，也有相當大的風險；Haldane陳述的那一番話論證了這兩個方面。根據(jù)我找到的他那一番完整的文字記錄，Haldane并沒有直白地說經(jīng)濟預測職業(yè)“處于危機之中”，而是“在某種程度上處于危機之中”。而搶了頭條的短語“Michael Fish時刻”也同樣不是這樣（直白地）提出的。
Rather, he made a wry and somewhat extended comparison.
確切的說，他是做了一個模糊的、也是比較廣義的比較。
“Remember that? Michael Fish getting up: ‘There's no hurricane coming but it will be very windy in Spain.' Very similar to the sort of reports central banks — naming no names — issued pre-crisis: ‘There is no hurricane coming but it might be very windy in the subprime sector.'”
“記得嗎？Michael Fish接著說的是：沒有颶風襲來，但是西班牙會有強風。這和央行的那些在金融危機前公布的報告非常相似——不一語道破——沒有金融海嘯襲來，但是在次級板塊會有強震蕩。”
1987年颶風肆虐后的倫敦街頭
He then said: “Look at how weather forecasting has changed itself in the period since.Actually there has been a dramatic improvement in our capacity to forecast the weather… a revolution in weather forecasting.”
他還說：“看看自那以后，天氣預報作何改變了吧。事實上在那之后，我們預報天氣的能力有了明顯的提高……一場天氣預報的革命。”
He added: “Much more data is being thrown at the problem and that has brought about a transformation.And some of the self same could be true if we move from weather forecasting to economic.”
他補充：“還有很多數(shù)據(jù)都遭遇過這樣的問題，并且隨后帶來了一場革新。將之從天氣預報上換到經(jīng)濟上，其實也是同理。”
His point about the 2008 crash was not that banks and other economists got it laughably wrong — but that “rather narrow and rather fragile” economic models were inadequate for dealing with singular and catastrophic events.
他指出2008年金融危機不是銀行和其他經(jīng)濟學家犯下的可笑的錯誤，而是“相當狹隘和脆弱”的經(jīng)濟模型不足以分析異常性和毀滅性的事件。
(I suspect his use of the term “fragile” leans on that of Nassim Nicholas Taleb, whose great theme is the way in which economic models, like Newtonian physics, break down under extreme conditions.)
（我猜他用“脆弱”這個詞引自學者Nassim Nicholas Taleb的說法。Nassim Nicholas Taleb的主要研究課題是：經(jīng)濟模型是如何像牛頓定律一樣，在極端情況下失靈的。）
2008年的金融危機讓很多從業(yè)者措手不及
Still, in admitting that economists got things wrong he is arguably better placed to attract confidence in the notion that those mistakes have been learnt from.Note how in his fuller remarks he suggests that, like weather forecasters, economists have got better at making predictions since their greatest embarrassment.
盡管如此，在承認經(jīng)濟學家犯下錯誤這個方面，頗具爭議的是，他現(xiàn)在激起了更多的信心，讓人們相信經(jīng)濟學家們已經(jīng)吸取到了教訓。注意在他這一番完整的評論中，他提出就像天氣預報員一樣，在窘境之后，經(jīng)濟學家能夠更好地作出預測。
His approach — not stiff and defensive, but appealingly folksy and humorous — allowed him to regroup.And when challenged that the predicted “hurricane” of Brexit had not appeared, he cleverly turned his Michael Fish point on its head.
他的方法既不呆板也不防備，而是非常的平和和幽默。這讓他得以重振旗鼓。所以當他遭遇挑戰(zhàn)，問有關(guān)脫歐帶來的“颶風”之預測為何并未出現(xiàn)，他機智地擺出了Michael Fish作為擋箭牌。
He riposted: “It's been very windy in Spain.” He still thinks the hurricane will arrive — just not until Brexit actually takes place.
他機敏地回答：“西班牙將會有大風。”——他表示仍然相信在英國真正脫歐之際，颶風將會來臨。
Newspapers tend to resist corrections ferociously and publish them with a bad grace.When I was a gossip columnist, I used to rather welcome the odd one.They filled space, which I liked.And a resolute mea culpa gives a general impression of honesty — which helped to imply that the many inaccuracies and defamatory innuendos that peppered our daily columns and that passed without complaint were 100 per cent reliable.
報紙傾向于蠻橫地拒絕更正，隨后勉強地將之發(fā)布。當我是一個漫談專欄作家時，我曾經(jīng)非常喜歡奇怪的觀點——它們填充了版面，這讓我很是喜歡。隨后一個徹底的失誤，給了我對于正直的整體概念：這幫我意識到，許多不準確的信息和帶誹謗的暗諷成為我們每日專欄的“調(diào)味劑”，而未經(jīng)深究、抱怨就過去了的內(nèi)容其實是100%可靠的。
“When the facts change, I change my mind,” John Maynard Keynes reportedly said, adding the pugnacious kicker: “What do you do, sir?”
“當事實改變，那我也改變我的觀點”，據(jù)報道（著名經(jīng)濟學家）John Maynard Keynes如是說過。他還對不嫌事大的人說：“你有什么問題嗎？”
This piece of wisdom is often quoted and much ignored.It is a habit of our media — and, probably, of group psychology — to interpret confidence as strength and humility as weakness.We are always looking for what Mrs.Thatcher called “that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn”.
這句至理名言常常被引用，也常常被忽略。這是媒體的習慣，并且可能也是從眾心理學——把信心解釋成力量，把謙卑解釋成軟弱。我們總在尋找撒切爾夫人所說的“你們媒體最喜歡的標語：180度大轉(zhuǎn)彎”。
That is self-reinforcing.Public figures fear admitting error or apologising, and are known to do so.So when they do, the default assumption is that they have done so not out of intellectual rigour or basic decency, but because their error is so obvious that they have no other option.
這就是自我完善。公眾人物害怕承認錯誤或者道歉，我們也心知肚明。所以，當他們真的認錯時，我們就默認假設(shè)他們不是出于學術(shù)的嚴謹或者基本的禮貌而這樣做，而是因為這個錯誤太明顯了，他們別無選擇。
When blustering certainties are the norm, a winningly expressed admission of fallibility can be — well — what we all experienced too much of in 1987: a breath of fresh air.
當狂暴的現(xiàn)實成為常態(tài)，一個體面表達認錯的方式可以是，像我們1987年經(jīng)歷了太多的那樣：真是新氣象??！
搜 索
- 頻道推薦
- |
- 全站推薦
- 推薦下載
- 網(wǎng)站推薦
