From 5dcedf31763ae2370959e466458d66546fcfbb2d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: olOwOlo <26087907+olOwOlo@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 18:16:33 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] section 3 --- zh-CN.html | 126 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------- 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) diff --git a/zh-CN.html b/zh-CN.html index 292291b..e1b0aea 100644 --- a/zh-CN.html +++ b/zh-CN.html @@ -525,155 +525,131 @@ Also, bolds a word/phrase, and italicizes a word/phrase. - Let's bring back "thresholds" and the binge-drinking example! - When you played with this the first time, people didn't change their behavior. + 让我们回忆起“临界值”和酗酒者 的例子！当你第一次玩这个游戏时，人们并没有改变他们的行为。

- - Now, let's simulate what happens if people start drinking - when 50%+ of their friends do! - Before you start the sim, ask yourself what you think should happen. + 现在，让我们来模拟当有 50% 以上的朋友开始饮酒时，人们也会开始饮酒，这时会发生什么！ + 在开始模拟之前，问问自己你认为应该 会发生什么。

- Now, run the sim, and see what actually happens!
+ 现在，运行模拟，看看实际发生了什么！
- - Unlike our earlier "fake news" contagion, - this contagion does not spread to everyone! - The first few people get "infected", because although they're only exposed to one - binge-drinker, that binge-drinker is 50% of their friends. (yeah, they're lonely) - In contrast, the person near the end of the chain did not get "infected", - because while they were exposed to a binge-drinking friend, - they did not pass the 50%+ threshold. + + 与我们之前的“假新闻” 传播不同，这种传播 + 并没有 扩散给每个人！前几个人受到“感染”是因为虽然他们只暴露于一位酗酒者， + 但这位酗酒者却占了他们朋友总数的 50%。（是的，他们的朋友很少） + 相比之下，接近尾部的人没有 受到“感染”，因为当他们暴露于酗酒者时，并没有达到 50% 这个临界值。
- The relative % of "infected" friends matters. - That's the difference between the complex contagion theory, - and our naive it-spreads-like-a-virus simple contagion theory. - (you could say "simple contagions" are just contagions with a "more than 0%" infection threshold) + “受感染”朋友的相对 百分比很重要。 + 这是 复杂传播（complex contagion）理论 + 和我们天真的“它传播的就像病毒”的简单传播（simple contagion）理论之间的区别。 + （你可以说“简单传播”只是一种感染临界值为 0% 的传播）
- However, contagions aren't necessarily bad — - so enough about crowd madness, what about... - ...crowd wisdom? + 然而，传播并不一定是糟糕的 — + 关于群体的愚蠢 已经介绍了很多了，那么... + ...群体的智慧？ - Here, we have a person who volunteers to... I don't know, - rescue people in hurricanes, or tutor underprivileged kids in their local community, or something cool like that. - Point is, it's a "good" complex contagion. - This time, though, let's say the threshold is only 25% — - people are willing to volunteer, but only if 25% or more of their friends do so, too. - Hey, goodwill needs a bit of social encouragement. + 现在，我们有一个小蓝人 立志于...救民于天灾，在贫困地区支教，或者一些类似于拯救世界这样的事。 + 关键是，这是一个“好”的传播。但是，这一次我们假设临界值只有 25% — + 只要有 25% 以上的朋友这样做，人们也会愿意做这样的志愿者。 + 嗨，善意需要一些社会的鼓励。

- ← Get everyone "infected" with the good vibes! + ← 让每个人被好的氛围“感染”！ - NOTE: Volunteering is just one of many complex contagions! - Others include: voter turnout, lifestyle habits, - challenging your beliefs, - taking time to understand a issue deeply — anything - that needs more than one "exposure". - Complex contagions aren't necessarily wise, - but being wise is a complex contagion. + 注意：志愿行为只是众多复杂传播中的其中一 种！ + 其他还包括：选民投票率，生活习惯，挑战你的信仰，花时间深入了解一个问题 — 任何需要超过一次被“暴露”的事情。 + 复杂传播不一定 是理智的，但理智的传播一定是复杂传播。
- (So what's a real-life simple contagion? - Usually bits of trivia, like, "the possum has 13 nipples") + （那么什么是现实生活中的简单 传播？通常是一些花边新闻，比如“负鼠有 13 个乳头”） - Now, to really show the power and weirdness of complex contagions, let's revisit... + 现在，为了真正 展现复杂传播的力量和古怪，让我们重温... - ...an earlier puzzle
+ ...之前的谜题
- Remember this? This time, with a complex contagion , it'll be a bit tougher... + 还记得这个吗？这次，伴随着复杂 传播 ，它会变得更加艰难。
- Try to "infect" everyone with complex wisdom!
+ 试着在复杂传播下“感染”每一个人！
 - (feel free to just hit 'start' and try as many solutions as you want) + （随意点击‘开始’，如你所想的尝试 多种解法） - HOT DANG
+ 棒极了
- Now, you may think that you just need to keep adding connections to spread any contagion, - "complex" or "simple", good or bad, wise or mad. - But is that really so? Well, let's revisit... + 现在，你可能会认为你只需要不断增加连接就可以扩散任何“复杂”或“简单”，好或坏，理智或疯狂的传播。 + 但是，真的如此吗？好的，让我们重温... - ...another earlier puzzle
+ ...另一个之前的谜题
- If you hit "start" below, the complex contagion will just spread to everyone. - No surprise there. - But now, let's do the opposite of everything we've done before: - draw a network to prevent the contagion from spreading to everyone!
+ 如果你点击了下面的“开始”，复杂传播 会扩散给每一个人。正如你所想，并没有什么惊喜。 + 但是现在，让我们做与之前所做的一切相反 的事情：绘制网络来阻止 传播！
 - You see? - While more connections will always help the spread of simple ideas, - more connections can hurt the spread of complex ideas! - (makes you wonder about the internet, hm?) - And this isn't just a theoretical problem. This can be a matter of life... + 你看见了吧？ + 虽然更多的连接会帮助扩散简单的 思想， + 但更多的连接也会阻止复杂 思想的扩散！ + （是不是让你想起了互联网，嗯哼？） + 这不仅仅是一个理论上的问题。 这可能是... - ...or death.
+ ...生死攸关的
- - The people at NASA were smart cookies. - I mean, they'd used Newton's theories to get us to the moon. - Anyway, long story short, in 1986, - despite warnings from the engineers, - they launched the Challenger, - which blew up and killed 7 people. - The immediate cause: - it was too cold that morning. + + 美国航空航天局（NASA）的人员都是聪明蛋。 我的意思是，他们用牛顿的理论让我们登上了月球。 + 无论如何，再次长话短说，1986 年，尽管工程师发出了警告，他们仍然发射了挑战者号， + 结果是，爆炸导致机上 7 名机组人员无一幸免。直接原因：早上太冷了。
- The less immediate cause: the managers ignored the engineers' warnings. - Why? Because of groupthink. - When a group is too closely knit, (as they tend to be at the top of institutions) - they become resistant to complex ideas that challenge their beliefs or ego. + 相对间接的原因：管理人员忽视了工程师的警告。 + 为什么？ 因为 团体迷思 。 + 当一个团队过于 紧密，（因为他们往往是机构的顶端）他们会抵制挑战自己信仰或自尊的复杂思想。
- So, that's how institutions can fall to crowd madness. - But how can we "design" for crowd wisdom? - In short, two words: + 总之，这就是机构如何陷入了群体的愚蠢与疯狂。那么我们怎样“设计”才能使群体富有智慧 呢？ 简而言之，两个词： - Bonding & Bridging
+ 内聚 & 桥接