我們爲何對未來的預言着迷
In mid-December, Phil McNulty, the BBC’s chief football writer, offered us his predictions for the rest of the English Premier League season. My interest in football is limited but I found McNulty’s efforts fascinating. Even the most sceptical about football can learn a great deal from the episode.
12月中旬，英國廣播公司(BBC)首席足球作家菲爾麥克納爾蒂(Phil McNulty)爲我們提供了他對英超聯賽(English Premier League)本賽季剩下比賽的預測。我對足球興趣有限，但我發現他的預測令人着迷。即使是對足球最持懷疑態度的人，也可以從中學到很多東西。
A brief piece of context for those sceptics. Chelsea, the champions, had just played Leicester City, a team that had been relegation favourites just a few months before. Leicester won the game. This result would have been surprising had it not been set against the even more surprising pattern of the season. Champions Chelsea had slumped towards the bottom of the league after producing an unprecedentedly appalling run of form; Leicester, meanwhile, were top of the table. Nobody was shocked to see them vanquish Chelsea but it felt like a significant moment nonetheless.
以下是一份爲那些持懷疑態度的人提供的簡短背景說明。獲得上賽季冠軍的切爾西(Chelsea)剛剛和萊斯特城(Leicester City)踢了一場比賽。在僅僅幾個月前，萊斯特城還是一隻瀕臨降級的保級隊，然而萊斯特城贏了這場比賽。這樣的結果本應讓人感到驚訝，可是相比之下本賽季的走勢更讓人大跌眼鏡。冠軍隊切爾西在史無前例的一系列糟糕表現後跌至聯賽末尾。同時，萊斯特城則處於積分榜首。看到萊斯特城擊敗切爾西，沒人感到震驚，儘管如此，這依然讓人感覺是一個重大時刻。
What of McNulty? At the beginning of the season, he had predicted that Chelsea would be champions again, while Leicester would finish in the bottom three and be relegated from the Premier League. Both of those outcomes are now inconceivable. After admitting that his initial prediction had been about as wrong as it is possible to be, McNulty proposed a new set of predictions.
麥克納爾蒂的情況如何呢？本賽季伊始，他曾預測過切爾西會衛冕成功，而萊斯特城將以最後三名的成績結束本賽季並從英超聯賽降級。現在來看，這兩個結果都是不可想象的。承認自己最初的預測大錯特錯後，麥克納爾蒂提出了一套新的預測。
Those predictions were … but wait. Why on earth should you care? McNulty knows a great deal about football — far more than I do — but he had conclusively proved that he can’t see into the future. And yet he felt bold enough to offer another forecast, which many sports fans read with great interest.
他的預測是這樣的……但是等等。你幹嘛要關心這個呢？麥克納爾蒂對足球非常瞭解——比我的瞭解深得多，但事實已經確鑿地證明他沒法預見未來。然而他膽子足夠大，又進行了一次預測，很多運動迷興致勃勃地閱讀了他的預測。
This is a common pattern in football and beyond: pundits make forecasts, their audience consume those forecasts with relish, the forecasts are proved wrong, nobody is very surprised, and the cycle begins again. Why?
這是足球和足球以外的領域的一個共有模式：專家做出預測，觀衆津津有味地消費了這些預測，事實證明預測是錯誤的，沒人感到很驚訝，然後這一週期重新開始。爲什麼？
Part of the explanation is wishful thinking: we like to believe that the world runs on rails, and to trust in experts who claim to have decoded the timetable and can therefore explain what is going to happen, when, and why. Forecasters with a record of some success — such as data-driven political and sports analyst Nate Silver — soon find themselves saddled with unrealistic expectations.
部分原因是人們的主觀願望：我們傾向於相信世界在軌道上運行，傾向於信任那些專家，他們聲稱自己破譯了時刻表、因此能夠解釋何事將於何時因何種原因發生。那些曾取得一些成功的預言者，很快就會揹負上人們對他們不切實際的期待，比如依靠數據進行預測的政治和運動分析師納特纏爾弗(Nate Silver)。
Silver correctly predicted the fine details of the 2012 presidential election but he is happy to admit three things: that US elections are data-rich environments and much more predictable than most; that he had some luck; and that the bar for forecasting success had been set very low by partisan pundits much more interested in cheerleading than accuracy.
西爾弗正確預測了2012年美國總統大選的精確細節，但他大方承認了三件事情：美國大選的數據很充足，比大多數事情容易預測得多；他有點幸運；黨派專家將預測成功的門檻設得很低，因爲比起精準他們對聲援造勢更感興趣。
Sure enough, when Silver and his colleague Ben Lauderdale tried to predict last year’s UK election result, their performance was woeful. This was partly because the seat-by-seat polling data are far less detailed than in the US and partly because Silver’s good luck didn’t last.
果然，西爾弗和他的同事本勞德戴爾(Ben Lauderdale)試圖預測去年英國的選舉結果時搞砸了。部分原因是，比起美國，英國大選中有關每一個議席的詳盡民調數據要少得多，還有一部分原因是西爾弗沒能繼續交好運。
We would be wise to have more realistic expectations, even of careful data-driven forecasters such as Silver. But perhaps our expectations are irrelevant. Even when we know that the forecasts are useless, when the pundits have no track record, when the events in question have always been unpredictable (the stock market; geopolitical shocks; recessions), we remain hungry for opinions about the future.
即使是對西爾弗等謹慎的、依賴數據的預測者，我們也應該抱一種更切合實際的期待，這纔是明智的。但或許我們的期待無關緊要。即使我們明知預測無用，即使專家沒有過往成敗記錄，即使相關問題一直都難以預測（股市、地緣政治突發事件、衰退），我們依然渴求對未來的觀點。
The truth is that forecasts are like Pringles — nobody thinks that there’s any great virtue in them but, offered with the fleeting pleasure of consuming them, we find it hard to resist. I am not sure quite why this should be so, but I have a couple of theories.
真相是，預言就像是品客(Pringles)薯片——沒人認爲它們有什麼很大的好處，但享用它們帶來的短暫快樂讓我們難以抵抗。我不是很清楚爲何事情是這樣的，但我對此有兩種解釋。
Possibility one is that the moment we hear a forecast, we imagine it happening. It then becomes a believable outcome and one that is easy to call to mind in the future. The scenario that we imagine looms large in our minds; other scenarios, equally plausible, fade to the background. As a result, we can be sceptical of forecasts in general yet still hooked by a particular one.
一個可能性是，在我們聽到預言的那一刻，我們會想象預言的實現。然後，預言會變成一個可信的結果，我們很容易在未來回想起來。我們想象的場景在我們的腦海中很突出，而同樣言之有理的其他場景將會淡入背景之中。其結果是，我們可能在整體上對預測抱懷疑態度，但依然會被某一個預言迷住。
I notice this tendency in myself whenever I hear someone opining on the stock market. As an abstract proposition I think that it’s almost impossible to predict what the stock market will do. But the moment someone starts to tell me a story about what will happen to it, I’m hypnotised.
我注意到，每當我聽到有人發表對股市的意見，我自己身上就會顯露出這種傾向。在抽象的觀念上，我認爲股市走勢幾乎不可能預測。但有人告訴我將會發生什麼事情的時候，我就被迷住了。
Possibility two is that forecasts offer us a lazy way to understand a complex world. The background to the conflict in Syria is complicated. So is Chinese politics. So, too, is the evolution of the Japanese economy. Trying to understand what is going on in any of these places requires an investment of time and attention that most of us are not willing to make. Wise heads at this newspaper could explain the intricacies to you or to me for hours yet barely have begun to do the topic justice.
第二種可能性是預言爲我們提供了一種理解複雜世界的懶人辦法。敘利亞爭端的背景很複雜。中國政治，以及日本經濟的發展同樣如此。試圖理解這些地方中的任何一個在發生什麼都需要投入時間和注意力，而我們大多數人並不情願這樣做。本報的一些聰明人可能花費數小時爲你我解釋錯綜複雜的細節卻還沒開始說到正題。
But a forecast? That’s different. A forecast about what will happen in Syria, China or Japan is a simple way to convey a fleeting sense of understanding. The forecast will probably be wrong. But at the instant it is consumed, it gratifies. As I say, a lot like Pringles.
預言呢？那就不同了。有關敘利亞、中國或者日本將會發生什麼的預言能夠簡單地給人一種“懂了”的短暫感覺。預言很可能是錯誤的。但人們在消費它們的一瞬間獲得滿足感。就像我說的，和品客薯片很像。
