励志故事

在电视上看着伊拉克球员一个个红着眼睛在场上飞奔，不由得想起前些日子在电影院阴差阳错看的励志电影《重振球风》。不知为什么美国佬这么喜欢励志题材，非搞到烂大街不可，就算是山珍海味吃多了也腻人，更何况大多是远离生活的做作煽情，看多了的副作用就是把感动丢了，也越来越不相信“有志者事竟成”的口号。没想到这一回伊拉克人还真的表演了一场现实版的励志故事，自从市场化改革把咱中国足球最后的一点儿拼搏精神也彻底革掉了以后，我还以为今后的足球就只能是金钱运动了，看来我又以小人之心度君子之腹了。看来战火纷飞、朝不保夕的生活环境还真是磨练人的意志，干脆甭花冤大头钱去请教练，直接把国足发配到伊拉克集训一年算了，保证立竿见影。

祝贺伊拉克兄弟夺冠的同时也祝愿他们国内别再丢炸弹庆祝胜利了，和平总比荣誉实在得多。

Google Earth's Downside

I appreciate google earth's idea very much. However, like any technology, it may have its unexpected downside. Below is a fictional account for what can go wrong when people are able to spy on one another using google's satellite imagery. Video by Scott Blaszak.

Of course, it's nothing more than a bad joke. Take it easy.

关于地铁

俗话说入乡随俗，在山里的时候像野人一样，进城以后立马摆渡回标准现代市民的状态。每天上上网，每周看看电影，周末泡一天图书馆，不亦乐乎。不过最能够体验城市归属感的地方，还是地铁站。

今天计划失误，正赶上下班时间去坐地铁，又恰好是周末，西直门站入口处寸步难行。可能是出于减缓人流的考虑，入口搞成了大Z字形，不过这要是队伍里出点儿什么意外，恐怕除了互相践踏也不可能有第二种选择了。站台上的安全隐患也不小，轨道旁没有任何防护措施，再加上排队意识不强，万一有人不慎坠入，后果不堪设想，也难怪上海过来的朋友会抱怨。但愿不要被我乌鸦。

在站台上候车的时候，留意了一下人流的分布，很有意思。你一般会选择哪一部分的车厢呢？我会往站台中间走，那里一般都是人最少的区域（有些站由于入口位置的差异，会出现一端人少的情况），尽管有时候广播会提醒中间人少，不过多数人还是倾向于就近等候。这样的累计结果就是人少的车厢的总是人少，人多的车厢总是人多。原因大概有两点：首先是图方便，当然也包括列车进站以后才匆匆赶到的慌不择路的乘客；更重要的一点是，多数人的假设是候车人流是均匀分布的，所以在哪里等都一样。显然第二条的假设是与第一条的现实情况相矛盾的，所以才会出现分布不均匀的情况。那么如果有多数的人估计到中间人少这一倾向之后，又会怎么样呢？那中间就会出现一个高峰，两端的人减少，这一回准确的预测应该是多数人会预测多数人在两端候车，所以首选方案又变成了两端候车。如果你的预测是多数人会预测多数人会预测多数人在两端候车（绕口令……），那么你的选择就该是中间候车。如此反复，就看你的预期和多数人的计算次数之间的差距了，也就是看你对多数人心理的估计准确性。

当然上面这个例子是不会收敛的，但就算是会收敛的也不意味着计算的步骤越多就越有利。比方说做个简单的游戏，要一组人每人选一个100以内的正整数来估计整体平均数的一半，最贴近者为胜。显然这是一个收敛的数列，极限是0，但是如果随便找些人来做这个游戏的话，最终优胜者的答案往往会比0大很多。这是因为获胜的关键并不是自己计算多少步，而是估计别人的计算，更准确的说是估计别人对别人的估计。一般情况下，多数人的计算是不会超过三步的，所以高估别人并不会比低估别人更有利。

玩金融的人应该对这一点体会深刻，不管是股票、期货还是赌球赌马，除了要对押注对象本身的情况有比较准确的估计之外，很重要，其实是更重要的一点，是对身边其他下注者的估计。赚钱的要诀在于比多数人领先一步，记住，只能领先一步，太过聪明的结果就和不聪明没什么两样了。换句话说，你不需要知道东西本身是好是坏，只要知道它在多数人眼里是好是坏就行了。操控股市期货交易或者赌博公司的人更是精于此道，所以赌博公司对总统大选结果的预测向来要比民意调查可靠得多，真正精于赌球的人也都是不看球的人，他们只要能读懂赔率就行了。盖尔曼有个做统计物理的同事下海赌马赚了钱，其实他对马一窍不通，他就只是在比赛前去看一看赔率，然后计算一下投注。可惜目前还占据主流地位的新古典主义经济学家们完全无视这一点，他们总是把人想像成绝对理性的，可实际情况差得远，所以他们提出的理论最佳预期常常引导政府把事情搞得一团糟。

好不容易从地铁里挤出来，急匆匆跑到塞万提斯学院，没想到他们居然放错了片子……千算万算，没算到这帮西班牙人办事情这样马马虎虎，唉。

Curtis的宝藏

"...when the last red man shall have perished, and the memory of my tribe shall become a myth of the white men, these shores will swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe; and when our children's children think they are alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway, or the pathless woods, they will not be alone."

--Chief Seattle

Edward Curtis，一个出生在威斯康星的只有六年文凭的年轻摄影师，在1898年偶遇一队迷途的登山者，因而结识著名人类学者George Bird Grinnell，从此与北美印第安人结下不解之缘，他的人生走上了一条极其不平凡的道路。

在跟随Grinnell走访印第安部落的过程中，Curtis开始意识到印第安文明正在走向衰亡，因此他做出了一个惊人得近乎疯狂的决定——走遍北美洲，把印第安文化完整地记录下来。幸而他得到了西奥多罗斯福总统的支持与大富豪Morgen的捐助，不过他严重低估了他将要开启的这项伟大工程的规模，包括所需要的金钱、时间与精力。Curtis的预算是花费25万美元，用5到6年时间完成这项工作，然而事实上这两个数字是150万和30年。当然，从一个旁观者的角度来说，如果当时他意识到这样的困难，也许今天我们就不会有机会从铅字与银版上辨认出这些失落的文明。

"The passing of every old man or woman means the passing of some tradition, some knowledge of sacred rites possessed by no other; consequently the information that is to be gathered, for the benefit of future generations, respecting the mode of life of one of the great races of mankind, must be collected at once or the opportunity will be lost for all time." 这是Curtis在一百年前的预言。他不幸言中了。

历史总是无情地嘲弄人类的智慧，先知总会因泄露天机而受到神灵的惩罚。在这项工作的后半段时间里，Curtis失去了资助，失去了出版商，失去了家庭，也失去 了健康，支撑他继续踽踽独行的就只是他对印第安文明的深深依恋，他实际上已经从白人世界挣脱而义无反顾地投入了印第安文明的怀抱。当Curtis于一贫如 洗中悄无声息地离开人世的时候，留在身后的只有被掩藏在图书馆阁楼灰尘中的二十卷北美印第安民族志，涉及当时几乎全北美洲各印第安部落文化的所有方面，其中还包括超过2000张珍贵的极高质量的记录照片。

当“文明世界”突然意识到Curtis宝藏的价值时，一切已成往事。马背上印第安武士孤独坚毅的目光已然被轰鸣的发动机和闪烁的霓虹所取代，掠夺性的现代文明是不是也将在不久的未来随曾经的印第安文明一同逝去呢？当我们从古老的伊洛魁族印第安人盟约中发掘出“可持续性”的概念时，却不得不面对这样一个悖论：一个放眼未来的文明必须放慢它的脚步以便于与自然的节奏同步，而这样的文明却注定要在与高速膨胀的狭隘文明的竞争中败下阵来。一个属于全人类的tragedy of the commons，这是人类文明注定的命运吗？
"Out of the Indian approach to life there came a great freedom -- an intense and absorbing love for nature; a respect for life; enriching faith in a Supreme Power; and principles of truth, honesty, generosity, equity, and brotherhood as a guide to mundane relations."

-- Luthor Standing Bear, Oglala Sioux Chief

也许在Curtis的宝藏中，还能找到老酋长留下的希望的种子。

Tit for Tat

Tit for tat，中文最常见的翻译为“以牙还牙”，据说是从tip for tap衍生过来的，总之就是投桃报李、锱铢必较，当年在Sigmund的Games of Life上第一次认识这个词，今天在豆瓣上又有人提到它，一时兴起，不妨就这个话题多说两句。

Tit for tat之所以出名，大概主要是源于几十年前的两场比赛。那可不是一般的比赛，而是对策竞争，组织者（好像是一个美国报社编辑，记得不是很清楚了）邀请了当时世界上许多研究博弈论或者进化理论的主要学者，参赛者每人提出一个博弈对策作为他的选手上场比赛，比赛的规则极其简单，大体上就跟现在的足球联赛差不多，两两对决打一个大循环，然后统计最终积分。结果先后两次比赛的胜出者都是tit for tat这个及其简单的对策，具体规则就两条：第一步，选择合作（给定初值）；第二步，模仿上对手的上一次出牌。别看它简单，在两场比赛中都是进化稳定对策，因而名噪一时。

选择tit for tat的好处在于你永远不会吃亏，举个生活中的例子：一大早迈进电梯间，里面有一个陌生人，你冲他/她微笑一下，如果他/她还你一个微笑，你一定会把微笑传递下去，一天的好心情；如果对方不领情白你一眼，也不能吃哑巴亏，毫不犹豫马上还他/她一个白眼，就算扯平了。不过金无足赤，这个对策也有其缺陷，就是容错能力极低。还举电梯的例子，如果对方白你一眼，接着你就以牙还牙，以后再见面就甭指望有笑脸了，说不定人家只是碰巧刚刚跟老婆/老公吵了架，其实并无恶意呢，万一后来不幸发现他/她是你的新邻居/同事，那就更惨了。中国有句老话叫“冤家宜解不宜结”，何不宽容一点儿呢？于是就诞生了改进版的tit for tat，更确切地讲应该叫做宽容版的以牙还牙(Generous tit for tat)，容许对方出现少量的error，换句话说就是睁一眼闭一眼。

当然了，故事到这里也还远没有结束，无论是tit for tat还是generous tit for tat都不是无敌的，比如后来"win-stay, lose-shift"就把tit for tat给挤掉了。这个新武林盟主的逻辑也很简单，顾名思义，如果前一步的对策成功了，下一步就继续坚持；反之就换。

这些学者之所以会如此热衷于这些简单的小游戏，当然绝不单单是由于好玩，其实不难发现，无论是tit for tat还是win-stay, lose-shift，都是从我们最常用的基本心理逻辑。前者大体上可能源自于自我防御机制，也就是我们常说的“党同伐异”，凡是看上去是赞同自己的一律无条件支持，凡是对自己有异议的，二话不说先一棒子打倒再说，如此这般，便结成了水火不容的各门各派，到后来忙着维护名誉且自顾不暇，就更不得不把理智丢在一边了。Chris Argyris把这种症状称为习惯性防卫，并将其归为组织健康发展的头号障碍。至于后者么，大概就是简单的试错逻辑，反正本人修理一切设备的时候基本全靠这一招，效果一直不错，不过这个对策仅适用于简单、低风险、近似线性的问题，更复杂的问题就需要更好的优化方法来解决了。生物的进化也是这样一个试错的过程，所以遇到气候剧变之类的情况发生，也就免不了要遭遇大灭绝。

Tit for tat还有一个突出的意义在于研究社会的形成和进化。人类的利他性社会行为可以在基于tit-for-tat的简单模型上得到一个比较可信的解释，说到这里又想起Nowak的新书，也不知国图几时能进得来。

耐心一点儿，宽容一点儿。

法国的社会医疗系统

原中科院的副院长陈竺刚刚调任卫生部部长，其无党籍与科研背景都颇为引人关注。在国务院调查报告认定原医疗改革失败的情况之下，新的社会医疗改革方案一直难产，新的部长能带来新的希望吗？我们还需拭目以待。

社会医疗体系在任何一个国家都是关乎最基本民生的社会支柱，因此对于任何一个负责任的政府，保证每一个公民的基本医疗福利都应当是头等大事。不久前美国导演Michael Moore又推出了一部新的纪录片《Sicko》，镜头对准的正是这一话题。他在片中极力推崇法国的社会医疗体系，那么这究竟是怎样的一套系统呢？以下是刊登在《商业周刊（BusinessWeek)》上的一篇相关报道，也许可以从中得到一些启示：

'BETTER RESULTS FOR LESS MONEY'

The French Lesson in Health Care

By Kerry Capell

The nation's system isn't quite as superb as Sicko maintains, but it's pretty good.

Michael Moore's documentarySicko trumpets France as one of the most effective providers of universal health care. His conclusions and fist-in-your-gut approach may drive some Americans up the wall. But whatever you think of Moore, the French system -- a complex mix of private and public financing -- offers valuable lessons for would-be health-care reformers in the US.

In Sicko, Moore lumps France in with the socialized systems of Britain, Canada, and Cuba. In fact, the French system is similar enough to the US model that reforms based on France's experience might work in America. The French can choose their doctors and see any specialist they want. Doctors in France, many of whom are self-employed, are free to prescribe any care they deem medically necessary. "The French approach suggests it is possible to solve the problem of financing universal coverage...[without] reorganizing the entire system," says Victor G. Rodwin, professor of health policy and management at New York University.

France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the US scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the US, and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the US. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the US.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering US-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65 percent of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40 percent of US residents. And France spends just 10.7 percent of its gross domestic product on health care, while the US lays out 16 percent, more than any other nation.

To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the US, then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member.

SAFETY NET

But the french system is much more generous to its entire population than the US is to its seniors. Unlike with Medicare, there are no deductibles, just modest co- payments that are dismissed for the chronically ill. Additionally, almost all French buy supplemental insurance, similar to Medigap, which reduces their out-of-pocket costs and covers extra expenses such as private hospital rooms, eyeglasses, and dental care.

In France, the sicker you get, the less you pay. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and critical surgeries, such as a coronary bypass, are reimbursed at 100 percent. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Patients suffering from colon cancer, for instance, can receive Genentech Inc.'s (DNA) Avastin without charge. In the US, a patient may pay $48,000 a year.

France particularly excels in prenatal and early childhood care. Since 1945 the country has built a widespread network of thousands of health-care facilities, called Protection Maternelle et Infantile (PMI), to ensure that every mother and child in the country receives basic preventive care. Children are evaluated by a team of private-practice pediatricians, nurses, midwives, psychologists, and social workers. When parents fail to bring their children in for regular checkups, social workers are dispatched to the family home. Mothers even receive a financial incentive for attending their pre- and post-natal visits.

A typical PMI can be found in Goutte d'Or, a poor neighborhood at the foot of Montmartre that has been home for the past 20 years to a swelling population of immigrants from Africa and Southeast Asia. On Rue Cavé, a tidy modern building is given over entirely to caring for expecting mothers, infants, and young children. The place usually is bustling with kids scrambling over toys, while mothers, often immigrants in colorful headdresses and with babies strapped to their backs, talk to their doctors as part of twice-monthly evaluations.

PMI and other such programs are starting to get attention in U.S. health-care circles. "If we really want to ensure that no child is left behind, then the PMI system is a good way to do it," says Daniel J. Pedersen, president of the Buffett Early Childhood Fund. "It's based on the practical idea that high-quality investments made at the start of a child's life will pay huge dividends to both the child and society in the future."

To make all this affordable, France reimburses its doctors at a far lower rate than US physicians would accept. However, French doctors don't have to pay back their crushing student loans because medical school is paid for by the state, and malpractice insurance premiums are a tiny fraction of the $55,000 a year and up that many US doctors pay. That $55,000 equals the average yearly net income for French doctors, a third of what their American counterparts earn. Then again, the French government pays two-thirds of the social security tax for most French physicians -- a tax that's typically 40 percent of income.

Specialists who have spent at least four years practicing in a hospital are free to charge what they want, and some charge upwards of $675 for a single consultation. But American-style compensation is rare. "There is an unspoken and undefined limit to what you can charge," says Dr. Paul Benfredj, a gastroenterologist in Paris.

Many French doctors, in fact, earn more by increasing their patient load, or by prescribing more diagnostic tests and procedures -- a technique, also popular in the US, that inflates health-care costs. So far France has been able to hold down the burden on patients through a combination of price controls and increased government spending, but the latter effort has led to higher taxes for both employers and workers. In 1990, 7 percent of health-care expenditures were financed out of general revenue taxes, and the rest came from mandatory payroll taxes. By 2003, the general revenue figure had grown to 40 percent, and it's still not enough. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985 and has ballooned to $13.5 billion.

That's why France is gearing up to make changes. It already requires patients to register with a general practitioner before visiting a specialist, or else agree to a lesser reimbursement, much like many US insurance plans. But France isn't likely to make major changes to a system most citizens say they like. Why would they? Says Shanny Peer, policy director at the independent French-American Foundation: "France gets better results for less money and everyone is covered."

值得一提的是，本文中提到的世界卫生组织公布的医疗系统排名中，中国位列144，仅次于非洲战乱频发的布隆迪。附链接：http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

悼杨德昌君

刚刚得知台湾导演杨德昌过世的消息，不由得回想起一个人坐在空空荡荡的礼堂看《一一》的那个夜晚。似乎是十一或是五一的假日，研究生院免费放电影，所有片子中，我单单选中了这一部。观众并不出人意料地寥寥，放映前还有一位负责的同学特别提醒大家这是一部冗长的大闷片，于是观众更见其少，更不知有几人是认真地看完了整部，反正对于身边这些研究生们的文化欣赏水平，我是不敢做过高期望的。

这是一个幸运的选择。有些艺术作品如同一壶老酒，总需细细品味，慢慢咂摸，舌头才能渐渐探触其中的滋味。我曾用这样的话评价小津先生的电影，如今又要用它来怀念杨德昌君和他的《一一》。

听说君特格拉斯那边曾一度闹得沸沸扬扬的自传名字叫做《剥洋葱》，我没有读过，自然不敢断章取义，不过还是想借这个名字做一个比喻。“一一”两个字竖着列在一起变成了二，正所谓“一生二，二生三，三生万物”，整部片子就是由一桩桩婚丧嫁娶之类老友男女的生活琐事罗列而成，繁冗拖沓，亦无太多戏剧性可言，而这恰恰就是最真实的生活。我们常常试图探寻生活的真谛，然而就像一个顽童一层层剥开洋葱的外皮，里面却总还是同样一层皮，即便剥个干净，最终还是找不到想象中的果实，怏怏离去，丢下一地的洋葱皮。有一天他会明白，其实洋葱，就是一层层的洋葱皮。

真实的生活，人们视而不见，却陷于现代都市营造的幻想。于是杨德昌借无忌之童言说出：“你看不到的，我帮你拍下来给你看。”

静静地注视着杨导剥开他的洋葱，眼里噙着泪水，心里念着洋葱的味道。

愿杨导一路走好。