讀《FT·金融時(shí)報(bào)》學(xué)英語(yǔ)：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(shuō)的是一步大膽的棋。英格蘭銀行首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家Andy Haldane不會(huì)去責(zé)備一個(gè)誤解、一個(gè)脫離了語(yǔ)境的引用、一種對(duì)復(fù)雜形勢(shì)的誤讀，或者用任何一個(gè)方法來(lái)為已經(jīng)被判定有誤的人開(kāi)脫：他們不是錯(cuò)了，只是“對(duì)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(shuō)，經(jīng)濟(jì)預(yù)測(cè)職業(yè)正“處于危機(jī)之中”：因?yàn)榻?jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們?cè)?008年未能預(yù)見(jiàn)金融危機(jī)、最近又明顯夸大了脫歐將會(huì)對(duì)英國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)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(shí)是“依法逮捕，認(rèn)罪服輸”。有報(bào)道稱，他曾經(jīng)形容這些批評(píng)是他們經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家職業(yè)的“Michael Fish時(shí)刻”——Michael Fish是前BBC天氣預(yù)報(bào)員，曾在1987年忽略了一場(chǎng)300年來(lái)席卷英國(guó)最嚴(yán)重的颶風(fēng)。
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(duì)你有所裨益——它娓娓而來(lái)，沒(méi)有絲毫可以被公眾輕易認(rèn)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?，以求獲得整個(gè)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的勝利。讓批評(píng)你的人沒(méi)有把柄可以抓到。這讓你得以改變形勢(shì)，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(duì)于這樣的坦誠(chéng)來(lái)說(shuō)，這里既有一些優(yōu)點(diǎn)，也有相當(dāng)大的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)；Haldane陳述的那一番話論證了這兩個(gè)方面。根據(jù)我找到的他那一番完整的文字記錄，Haldane并沒(méi)有直白地說(shuō)經(jīng)濟(jì)預(yù)測(cè)職業(yè)“處于危機(jī)之中”，而是“在某種程度上處于危機(jī)之中”。而搶了頭條的短語(yǔ)“Michael Fish時(shí)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(shuō)，他是做了一個(gè)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(shuō)的是：沒(méi)有颶風(fēng)襲來(lái)，但是西班牙會(huì)有強(qiáng)風(fēng)。這和央行的那些在金融危機(jī)前公布的報(bào)告非常相似——不一語(yǔ)道破——沒(méi)有金融海嘯襲來(lái)，但是在次級(jí)板塊會(huì)有強(qiáng)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(shuō)：“看看自那以后，天氣預(yù)報(bào)作何改變了吧。事實(shí)上在那之后，我們預(yù)報(bào)天氣的能力有了明顯的提高……一場(chǎng)天氣預(yù)報(bào)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(bǔ)充：“還有很多數(shù)據(jù)都遭遇過(guò)這樣的問(wèn)題，并且隨后帶來(lái)了一場(chǎng)革新。將之從天氣預(yù)報(bào)上換到經(jīng)濟(jì)上，其實(shí)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(jī)不是銀行和其他經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家犯下的可笑的錯(cuò)誤，而是“相當(dāng)狹隘和脆弱”的經(jīng)濟(jì)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(gè)詞引自學(xué)者Nassim Nicholas Taleb的說(shuō)法。Nassim Nicholas Taleb的主要研究課題是：經(jīng)濟(jì)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(rèn)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家犯下錯(cuò)誤這個(gè)方面，頗具爭(zhēng)議的是，他現(xiàn)在激起了更多的信心，讓人們相信經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們已經(jīng)吸取到了教訓(xùn)。注意在他這一番完整的評(píng)論中，他提出就像天氣預(yù)報(bào)員一樣，在窘境之后，經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家能夠更好地作出預(yù)測(cè)。

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(dāng)他遭遇挑戰(zhàn)，問(wèn)有關(guān)脫歐帶來(lái)的“颶風(fēng)”之預(yù)測(cè)為何并未出現(xiàn)，他機(jī)智地?cái)[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(jī)敏地回答：“西班牙將會(huì)有大風(fēng)。”——他表示仍然相信在英國(guó)真正脫歐之際，颶風(fēng)將會(huì)來(lái)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(bào)紙傾向于蠻橫地拒絕更正，隨后勉強(qiáng)地將之發(fā)布。當(dāng)我是一個(gè)漫談專欄作家時(shí)，我曾經(jīng)非常喜歡奇怪的觀點(diǎn)——它們填充了版面，這讓我很是喜歡。隨后一個(gè)徹底的失誤，給了我對(duì)于正直的整體概念：這幫我意識(shí)到，許多不準(zhǔn)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(guò)去了的內(nèi)容其實(shí)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(dāng)事實(shí)改變，那我也改變我的觀點(diǎn)”，據(jù)報(bào)道（著名經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家）John Maynard Keynes如是說(shuō)過(guò)。他還對(duì)不嫌事大的人說(shuō)：“你有什么問(wèn)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(xí)慣，并且可能也是從眾心理學(xué)——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(shuō)的“你們媒體最喜歡的標(biāo)語(yǔ)：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(rèn)錯(cuò)誤或者道歉，我們也心知肚明。所以，當(dāng)他們真的認(rèn)錯(cuò)時(shí)，我們就默認(rèn)假設(shè)他們不是出于學(xué)術(shù)的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)或者基本的禮貌而這樣做，而是因?yàn)檫@個(gè)錯(cuò)誤太明顯了，他們別無(wú)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(dāng)狂暴的現(xiàn)實(shí)成為常態(tài)，一個(gè)體面表達(dá)認(rèn)錯(cuò)的方式可以是，像我們1987年經(jīng)歷了太多的那樣：真是新氣象啊！