2020年经济学人 约翰逊语言专栏--和冠状病毒有关的信息传达(1)（在线收听）

Books & arts

来源于《图书与艺术》版块

Johnson

约翰逊语言专栏

Corona-speak

和冠状病毒有关的信息传达

How to frame public health messages so people hear them

如何构建公共卫生信息，让人们听到

Imagine that America is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease that is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative responses are proposed. Assume that the consequences of the programmes are as follows: if option A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If B is chosen, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that none will be. Which would you choose?

想象一下，美国正在为一种罕见的疾病爆发做准备，这种疾病预计将导致600人死亡。提出了两种备选方案。假设两个方案的结果如下：如果选择A，将拯救200人。如果选B，则有三分之一的概率600人获救，三分之二的概率一个也救不了。你会选择哪一个？

Now assume a different pair of options. If C is implemented, 400 people will perish; if D is preferred, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will. Which will you choose now?

现在假设还有两个其他不同的选项。如果实施C计划，将有400人死亡；如果选择D计划，没有人死亡的概率是1 / 3，600人死亡的概率是2 / 3。你现在会选择哪一个？

If you are like most people, you chose A in the first scenario, and D in the second. If you stopped and deliberately did the maths, though, or have read Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, you will have noticed that the two scenarios are identical: A and C offer the same outcome, as do B and D. Mr Kahneman won the Nobel prize in economics for his pioneering work (with the late Amos Tversky) in behavioural economics, which focuses on how people’s choices are swayed by a host of factors that should not affect decision-making, but perennially do. The first two paragraphs above are taken from a survey the two researchers conducted in 1981, eerily presaging today’s pandemic.

如果你和大多数人一样，在第一种情况下选择A，在第二种情况下选择D。然而，如果你停下来，有意地计算一下，或者读过丹尼尔?卡内曼的《思考，快与慢》，你会发现这两种情况是相同的：A和C的结果是一样的，B和D也是一样的。卡内曼因其在行为经济学方面的开创性工作（与已故的阿莫斯?特沃斯基合作）而获得诺贝尔经济学奖，行为经济学关注的是人们的选择如何受到一系列因素的影响，这些因素本不应影响决策，但却始终会影响决策。上面的前两段摘自这两位研究人员在1981年进行的一项调查，它诡异地预示了如今的疫情。

The glitches in human psychology that the pair identified include “negativity bias”: bad outcomes loom larger in people’s minds than positive ones. That is why A appeals (“200 people will be saved”), whereas the identical but differently framed C (“400 people will die”) does not; focusing on the negative pushes three-quarters of people away from this choice. This effect interacts with another one: willingness to gamble. People will not gamble with a sure thing in hand (200 living people) but they will take a risk to avoid certain losses (400 dead).

这两位科学家发现，人类心理中的小毛病包括“消极偏见”：在人们的脑海中，消极的结果比积极的结果更突出。这就是为什么A会留下这样的印象(“200人将被拯救”)，而C会留下这样的印象(“400人将死去”)；关注负面因素会让四分之三的人远离这个选择。这种效应与另一种相互作用：赌博的意愿。人们不会拿着一件有把握的东西(200的存活人数)去赌博，但他们会冒险避免某些损失(400的死亡人数)。