读《FT·金融时报》学英语：被打脸了，直接道歉还是保持微笑?
好气哦，但还是要保持微笑——这是有道理的。
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.
今天要说的是一步大胆的棋。英格兰银行首席经济学家Andy Haldane不会去责备一个误解、一个脱离了语境的引用、一种对复杂形势的误读，或者用任何一个方法来为已经被判定有误的人开脱：他们不是错了，只是“对得很特别”。
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，他上周说，经济预测职业正“处于危机之中”：因为经济学家们在2008年未能预见金融危机、最近又明显夸大了脱欧将会对英国经济产生的直接损害。
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，这些诟病确实是“依法逮捕，认罪服输”。有报道称，他曾经形容这些批评是他们经济学家职业的“Michael Fish时刻”——Michael Fish是前BBC天气预报员，曾在1987年忽略了一场300年来席卷英国最严重的飓风。
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.
把道歉摆到明面上，这可能对你有所裨益——它娓娓而来，没有丝毫可以被公众轻易认出的狡辩之辞。
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.
作为一种修辞方式，这叫做“让步”：输掉一役，以求获得整个战争的胜利。让批评你的人没有把柄可以抓到。这让你得以改变形势，避免全盘皆输。
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.
对于这样的坦诚来说，这里既有一些优点，也有相当大的风险；Haldane陈述的那一番话论证了这两个方面。根据我找到的他那一番完整的文字记录，Haldane并没有直白地说经济预测职业“处于危机之中”，而是“在某种程度上处于危机之中”。而抢了头条的短语“Michael Fish时刻”也同样不是这样（直白地）提出的。
Rather, he made a wry and somewhat extended comparison.
确切的说，他是做了一个模糊的、也是比较广义的比较。
“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.'”
“记得吗？Michael Fish接着说的是：没有飓风袭来，但是西班牙会有强风。这和央行的那些在金融危机前公布的报告非常相似——不一语道破——没有金融海啸袭来，但是在次级板块会有强震荡。”
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.”
他还说：“看看自那以后，天气预报作何改变了吧。事实上在那之后，我们预报天气的能力有了明显的提高……一场天气预报的革命。”
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.”
他补充：“还有很多数据都遭遇过这样的问题，并且随后带来了一场革新。将之从天气预报上换到经济上，其实也是同理。”
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年金融危机不是银行和其他经济学家犯下的可笑的错误，而是“相当狭隘和脆弱”的经济模型不足以分析异常性和毁灭性的事件。
(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”这个词引自学者Nassim Nicholas Taleb的说法。Nassim Nicholas Taleb的主要研究课题是：经济模型是如何像牛顿定律一样，在极端情况下失灵的。）
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.
尽管如此，在承认经济学家犯下错误这个方面，颇具争议的是，他现在激起了更多的信心，让人们相信经济学家们已经吸取到了教训。注意在他这一番完整的评论中，他提出就像天气预报员一样，在窘境之后，经济学家能够更好地作出预测。
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备，而是非常的平和和幽默。这让他得以重振旗鼓。所以当他遭遇挑战，问有关脱欧带来的“飓风”之预测为何并未出现，他机智地摆出了Michael Fish作为挡箭牌。
He riposted: “It's been very windy in Spain.” He still thinks the hurricane will arrive — just not until Brexit actually takes place.
他机敏地回答：“西班牙将会有大风。”——他表示仍然相信在英国真正脱欧之际，飓风将会来临。
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.
报纸倾向于蛮横地拒绝更正，随后勉强地将之发布。当我是一个漫谈专栏作家时，我曾经非常喜欢奇怪的观点——它们填充了版面，这让我很是喜欢。随后一个彻底的失误，给了我对于正直的整体概念：这帮我意识到，许多不准确的信息和带诽谤的暗讽成为我们每日专栏的“调味剂”，而未经深究、抱怨就过去了的内容其实是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?”
“当事实改变，那我也改变我的观点”，据报道（著名经济学家）John Maynard Keynes如是说过。他还对不嫌事大的人说：“你有什么问题吗？”
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”.
这句至理名言常常被引用，也常常被忽略。这是媒体的习惯，并且可能也是从众心理学——把信心解释成力量，把谦卑解释成软弱。我们总在寻找撒切尔夫人所说的“你们媒体最喜欢的标语：180度大转弯”。
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.
这就是自我完善。公众人物害怕承认错误或者道歉，我们也心知肚明。所以，当他们真的认错时，我们就默认假设他们不是出于学术的严谨或者基本的礼貌而这样做，而是因为这个错误太明显了，他们别无选择。
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.
当狂暴的现实成为常态，一个体面表达认错的方式可以是，像我们1987年经历了太多的那样：真是新气象啊！
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.
今天要说的是一步大胆的棋。英格兰银行首席经济学家Andy Haldane不会去责备一个误解、一个脱离了语境的引用、一种对复杂形势的误读，或者用任何一个方法来为已经被判定有误的人开脱：他们不是错了，只是“对得很特别”。
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，他上周说，经济预测职业正“处于危机之中”：因为经济学家们在2008年未能预见金融危机、最近又明显夸大了脱欧将会对英国经济产生的直接损害。
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，这些诟病确实是“依法逮捕，认罪服输”。有报道称，他曾经形容这些批评是他们经济学家职业的“Michael Fish时刻”——Michael Fish是前BBC天气预报员，曾在1987年忽略了一场300年来席卷英国最严重的飓风。
天气预报员Michael Fish在BBC工作时
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.
把道歉摆到明面上，这可能对你有所裨益——它娓娓而来，没有丝毫可以被公众轻易认出的狡辩之辞。
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.
作为一种修辞方式，这叫做“让步”：输掉一役，以求获得整个战争的胜利。让批评你的人没有把柄可以抓到。这让你得以改变形势，避免全盘皆输。
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.
对于这样的坦诚来说，这里既有一些优点，也有相当大的风险；Haldane陈述的那一番话论证了这两个方面。根据我找到的他那一番完整的文字记录，Haldane并没有直白地说经济预测职业“处于危机之中”，而是“在某种程度上处于危机之中”。而抢了头条的短语“Michael Fish时刻”也同样不是这样（直白地）提出的。
Rather, he made a wry and somewhat extended comparison.
确切的说，他是做了一个模糊的、也是比较广义的比较。
“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.'”
“记得吗？Michael Fish接着说的是：没有飓风袭来，但是西班牙会有强风。这和央行的那些在金融危机前公布的报告非常相似——不一语道破——没有金融海啸袭来，但是在次级板块会有强震荡。”
1987年飓风肆虐后的伦敦街头
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.”
他还说：“看看自那以后，天气预报作何改变了吧。事实上在那之后，我们预报天气的能力有了明显的提高……一场天气预报的革命。”
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.”
他补充：“还有很多数据都遭遇过这样的问题，并且随后带来了一场革新。将之从天气预报上换到经济上，其实也是同理。”
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年金融危机不是银行和其他经济学家犯下的可笑的错误，而是“相当狭隘和脆弱”的经济模型不足以分析异常性和毁灭性的事件。
(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”这个词引自学者Nassim Nicholas Taleb的说法。Nassim Nicholas Taleb的主要研究课题是：经济模型是如何像牛顿定律一样，在极端情况下失灵的。）
2008年的金融危机让很多从业者措手不及
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.
尽管如此，在承认经济学家犯下错误这个方面，颇具争议的是，他现在激起了更多的信心，让人们相信经济学家们已经吸取到了教训。注意在他这一番完整的评论中，他提出就像天气预报员一样，在窘境之后，经济学家能够更好地作出预测。
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备，而是非常的平和和幽默。这让他得以重振旗鼓。所以当他遭遇挑战，问有关脱欧带来的“飓风”之预测为何并未出现，他机智地摆出了Michael Fish作为挡箭牌。
He riposted: “It's been very windy in Spain.” He still thinks the hurricane will arrive — just not until Brexit actually takes place.
他机敏地回答：“西班牙将会有大风。”——他表示仍然相信在英国真正脱欧之际，飓风将会来临。
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.
报纸倾向于蛮横地拒绝更正，随后勉强地将之发布。当我是一个漫谈专栏作家时，我曾经非常喜欢奇怪的观点——它们填充了版面，这让我很是喜欢。随后一个彻底的失误，给了我对于正直的整体概念：这帮我意识到，许多不准确的信息和带诽谤的暗讽成为我们每日专栏的“调味剂”，而未经深究、抱怨就过去了的内容其实是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?”
“当事实改变，那我也改变我的观点”，据报道（著名经济学家）John Maynard Keynes如是说过。他还对不嫌事大的人说：“你有什么问题吗？”
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”.
这句至理名言常常被引用，也常常被忽略。这是媒体的习惯，并且可能也是从众心理学——把信心解释成力量，把谦卑解释成软弱。我们总在寻找撒切尔夫人所说的“你们媒体最喜欢的标语：180度大转弯”。
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.
这就是自我完善。公众人物害怕承认错误或者道歉，我们也心知肚明。所以，当他们真的认错时，我们就默认假设他们不是出于学术的严谨或者基本的礼貌而这样做，而是因为这个错误太明显了，他们别无选择。
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.
当狂暴的现实成为常态，一个体面表达认错的方式可以是，像我们1987年经历了太多的那样：真是新气象啊！
