群體智慧成了陳詞濫調(diào).

　　“群體的智慧”已變成了一個(gè)現(xiàn)代陳詞濫調(diào)。它也是一種奇怪的說(shuō)法——那些參加紐倫堡黨代會(huì)(NurembergRallies，1923至1938年期間納粹黨一年一度的集會(huì)——譯者注)的人、“雅各賓專政”(Reign of Terror)時(shí)期那些在囚車旁歡呼的人，都根本毫無(wú)判斷力。下面我們通過(guò)雙語(yǔ)文章了解詳細(xì)雙語(yǔ)內(nèi)容：

　　許多形容詞可能都適用于描述一群聚集在一起、為“親愛(ài)的領(lǐng)袖”金正恩(Kim Jong Un)鼓掌或是為切爾西足球俱樂(lè)部(Chelsea Football Club)歡呼的人，但“有判斷力”絕非其中之一。任何未參加過(guò)這些活動(dòng)的人都必須問(wèn)自己一個(gè)問(wèn)題：為何這么多和我們?nèi)绱讼嘞竦娜藭?huì)有那樣的表現(xiàn)?他們究竟在想什么?

　　There is considerable research on the factors that influence the behaviour of crowds. Weexperience a need to affirm group or tribal identities — a fact that is often exploited byunscrupulous or mentally unbalanced leaders. Groups of people with similar opinions reinforceeach other’s positions, encouraging one another to adopt ever moreextreme views. The answerto the question “what were they thinking?” is that, mostly, they were not thinking at all. That isoften the nature of social behaviour.

　　關(guān)于影響群體行為的因素，有相當(dāng)多的研究。我們有確認(rèn)自己群體或部落身份的現(xiàn)實(shí)需求，但這一點(diǎn)經(jīng)常被不擇手段或精神有問(wèn)題的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人所利用。擁有相似觀點(diǎn)的群體成員會(huì)強(qiáng)化彼此的觀點(diǎn)，促使彼此的觀點(diǎn)更加極端化?！八麄?cè)谙胧裁?”——這個(gè)問(wèn)題的答案是：大多數(shù)時(shí)候，他們根本沒(méi)有在思考。這通常就是群體行為的本質(zhì)。

　　So how did the phrase “wisdom of crowds” come into being? It is an expression of themathematical property that an average of many independent estimates of the same variablehas a lower expected error than the individual estimates themselves. That was the context ofthe example which James Surowecki used to introduce the idea in his widely read book of thesame name, citing the distinguished mathematician Francis Galton’s observations at an oxweighing competition (actually, Galton was concerned with the median rather than the meanestimate, but let that technical detail pass).

　　那么，“群體的智慧”這一說(shuō)法又是如何產(chǎn)生的呢?它表達(dá)的其實(shí)是一種數(shù)學(xué)特性，即對(duì)同一變量的許多獨(dú)立判斷的平均值比個(gè)人自己判斷的預(yù)期錯(cuò)誤率要低。這就是詹姆斯?蘇羅維奇(James Surowecki)在他那本廣為傳閱的同名書(shū)《群體的智慧》(wisdom of crowds)中所援引那個(gè)例子的背景。蘇羅維奇援引的是著名數(shù)學(xué)家弗朗西斯?高爾頓(Francis Galton)對(duì)一場(chǎng)猜測(cè)一頭公牛重量比賽的觀察(實(shí)際上，高爾頓關(guān)注的是中位數(shù)而非平均估值，但這里忽略這一技術(shù)細(xì)節(jié))，從而提出了群體有智慧的觀點(diǎn)。

　　It is entirely rational to adopt the common opinion on a subject about which one knows little; Ibelieve the earth is round because that is the balance of informed opinion, and would amillennium ago have believed it to be flat, for the same reason. But the number of practicalsituations in which this statistical property is usul is severely limited. It is usually better todirect one’s forts at reducing the error of estimates rather than increasing the number oferroneous estimates. That is why we prer to entrust the navigation of a plane to a skilledpilot instead of using the average of the opinions of the passengers.

　　在一個(gè)自己不甚了解的問(wèn)題上接受公認(rèn)的看法是完全明智的;我相信地球是圓的，因?yàn)檫@一結(jié)論是主流權(quán)威觀點(diǎn)，而出于同樣的原因，1000年前的人們?cè)?jīng)相信它是平的。但能讓這種統(tǒng)計(jì)特性能發(fā)揮作用的現(xiàn)實(shí)情形是非常有限的。通常情況下，更好的辦法是去努力減少估計(jì)中的錯(cuò)誤，而非增加錯(cuò)誤估計(jì)的數(shù)量。這就是為什么我們更愿意將開(kāi)飛機(jī)的任務(wù)托付給熟練的飛行員，而不是綜合采納大多數(shù)乘客的意見(jiàn)。

　　The wisdom of crowds becomes a pathology when the estimates of the members of the crowdcease to be independent of each other, and this is likely when the crowd is large, ill-informed,or both. It is in the nature of a crowd to turn on anyone who dissents from what is already theaverage opinion. This is equally true on the streets of revolutionary Paris, the squares ofPyongyang, and the terraces of Chelsea Football Club.

　　當(dāng)每個(gè)群體成員的判斷不再是相互獨(dú)立的，群體的智慧就會(huì)變得病態(tài)。當(dāng)群體數(shù)量龐大、信息不靈通(或兩者兼有)時(shí)，這種情況更可能出現(xiàn)。群體的本性決定了，任何與既有主流觀點(diǎn)意見(jiàn)相左的人都會(huì)受到群體的攻擊。在大革命時(shí)期的巴黎街頭、在平壤的廣場(chǎng)上，以及在切爾西俱樂(lè)部的看臺(tái)上，情況都是如此。

　　Or on the trading floor of an investment bank. The supposed wisdom of crowds is used as ajustification for claims of market ficiency, crudely expressed in slogans such as “the marketknows best” and “you can’t buck the market”. At a sophisticated level, the idea provides arationale for a regulatory philosophy that attempts to reproduce the conditions required forthe validity of Galton’s result — the existence of many independent estimates of the samevariable.

　　這種情形同樣適用于投資銀行的交易大廳。所謂群體有智慧的觀點(diǎn)被當(dāng)作支持市場(chǎng)有效論的理由，并被簡(jiǎn)單地總結(jié)為“市場(chǎng)最權(quán)威”和“你不能逆市而為”等口號(hào)。說(shuō)得復(fù)雜一點(diǎn)，群體有智慧的觀點(diǎn)則為一種監(jiān)管理念提供了理由，這種理念試圖復(fù)制證實(shí)高爾頓觀察結(jié)果(即存在對(duì)同一變量的許多種獨(dú)立估算)所必需的條件。

　　So we aim to promote a trading environment characterised by many conflicting assessmentsof the value of a security based on identical — and therore necessarily limited — informationabout the value of securities. The beli that an aggregate of casual opinions provides a betterprocess of value discovery than a flow of informed judgment through close engagement byinvestors, is an article of faith rather than a matter of empirical evidence.

　　因此，我們的目標(biāo)是推動(dòng)這樣一種交易環(huán)境，它的特點(diǎn)是，基于相同(因此也是有限的)信息，對(duì)一支證券的價(jià)值存在許多種不一致的評(píng)估。有人認(rèn)為，與投資者通過(guò)密切關(guān)注而產(chǎn)生的大量明智判斷相比，隨機(jī)觀點(diǎn)的匯總能更好地發(fā)現(xiàn)價(jià)值，這種看法只是一種信念，缺乏經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)的支持。

　　Galton wrote of the wisdom of crowds. The still more distinguished mathematician IsaacNewton, after losing vast sums investing in the South Sea bubble, wrote more wisely of theirmadness.

　　高爾頓描寫(xiě)了群體的智慧。一位更著名的數(shù)學(xué)家艾薩克?牛頓(Isaac Newton)在南海股票泡沫中損失大筆資金之后，更明智地描繪了他們的瘋狂。