爱尔兰留学怎么样-寒假实践报告

2012
Text 1
Come on –Everybody’s doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and
half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It
usually leads to no good-drinking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the
Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through
what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials use the power of
group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word.
得了吧, 每个人都这样啊. 这种说法一半是邀请，一半是强制。当我们听到< br>“同辈（趋同）压力”这个词组的时候我们想到的就是这种说法。这种信息一般
让人想到不好的事 情，比如喝酒，吸毒，一夜情。但是，在她的新书《参加这个
俱乐部》, Tina Rosenber g认为，纯粹压力也是一种积极的力量，通过她所说的社
会治疗，公司和官方人员可以使用群体力量去帮 助个人提高他们的生活，而且也
有可能提高整个人类世界的生活。
Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of example of the
social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called
Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an
HIV-prevention initiative known as LoveLife recruits young people to promote safe
sex among their peers.
Rosenberg是普利策奖获得者，他提供了许多社会治 疗的例子：在南卡罗莱
纳州，一个州资助的反对抽烟的项目叫做“向烟雾宣战”就旨在控制好烟草销售。
在南非，预防HIV，即众所周知的“热爱生命”活动要求年轻人要安全性生活。
The idea seems promising，and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique
of the lameness of many pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer
pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of
psychology.” Dare to be different, please don’t smoke!” pleads one billboard
campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers- teenagers, who desire nothing
more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates
ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.
这个观点似乎很有希望，而且Rosenberg是个敏锐的观察家。她对于许多
公共健康活动缺点的批评是中肯的：他们没能动员同辈压力来建立健康的习惯，
他们展示的是对 心理学的严重误解。一个旨在在青少年中禁烟的广告牌写着：“就
敢与众不同，请勿吸烟！” 青少年最 渴望的是融入群体。Rosenberg认为，公共
健康建议应该效仿广告商，广告商懂得如何应用同辈 压力。
But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive.
Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of
the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most
glaring flaw of the social cure as it’s presented here is that it doesn’t work very well
for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that
the LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.
但对于社会治疗的广泛效果，Rosenberg就没有那么有说服力了。《加入俱
乐部》一书写了太 多无关细节，没有认真探讨社会和生物因素，这些因素能使同
辈压力变得很有影响力。这里说的社会治疗 的明显缺点是它有效期不长。一旦资
金来源消失，那么“向烟雾宣战”的活动就会失败。“热爱生命”活 动能产生持

久的影响这种说法的证据不足。
There’s no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior.
An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative
ones-spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle
form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day.
毫无疑问，我们 的同龄人会对我们的行为产生巨大影响。研究显示，积极
的健康习惯，以及负面的习惯，会通过社会交流 在朋友之间传播。这是同辈压力
的一种微妙的形式：我们会无意识模仿我们每天看到的行为。
Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select
our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It’s like the teacher
who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved
classmates. The tactic never really works. And that’s the problem with a social cure
engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our
own friends.
但是，很难确 定的是，专家和官员能否成功选择我们的同辈，控制好他们
的行为能在道德的道路上发展。这就像老师， 通过让问题学生和好学生坐在一起
的方法，让后排学生不要凑在一起胡闹。这种方法从来就没有什么收效 。这就是
从外界设计出的社会治疗会产生问题所在：在真实的社会里，正如在学校，我们
坚持会 选择自己的朋友。

Text 2
A deal is a deal- except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a
major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last
week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by
the strict nuclear regulations.
说好的是不能改变的! 除非Enter gy进行的交易。这个公司是新英格兰地区
主要的能源提供商，该公司引起了佛蒙特州人们的义愤，因为 上周它宣称它不想
遵守严格的核能规定。
Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not
challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part of a
desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a
stunning move.
相反，该公司一直履行了它早先的承诺过不做的事情：即它不会因为想保
持其Vermont Yankee核电站持续经营，而要在联邦法院挑战该州相关规定的合
法性（宪法）。现在这个做法让人 震惊。
The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought
Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of
receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from
state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring
that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.
Then, too, the company went along. < br>这个冲突始于2002，当时该公司购买了佛蒙特州唯一一家核电站，其实是
一个位于Verno n的破旧反应堆。该交易为了获得州政府的批准，该公司同意一
个前提条件：即同意在2012年后征求 州政府官员的同意继续经营。2006年，州

政府又提出，该核电站能否延期经营要听从 佛蒙特州立法机关的批准。当时，该
公司也无异议。
Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply
didn’t foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial
collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipe system
leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s
management– especially after the company made misleading statements about the
pipe. Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year
against allowing an extension.
Entergy 从来没有打算要遵守这些承诺，也根本没有想过将来会发生什么。
一系列的事 件，包括2007年冷却塔的部分崩溃，以及地下管道系统泄露的发现，
这些事使得人们严重怀疑Ver mont Yankee电站的安全问题和Entergy的管理----
尤其在该公司对其管道问题所 做的误导性言论之后。佛蒙特州参议院对于
Entergy的行为表示震怒，去年以26比4的投票反对 其延期经营。
Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid
because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory
power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas the
Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear
power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how
far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork
regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its
word, that debate would be beside the point.
现在该公司突然宣称20 02年的协定是无效的，因为有2006年的立法以及
只有联邦政府拥有核电站管理权。该案的法律问题 是模糊的：虽然最高法院判决
过，各州的确有权管理核电站，但法学家说佛蒙特案为这种核电站究竟能延 期多
久设定了先例。显然，如果每个州设立自己的法规，那么关注一下各州拼凑的临
时规定是必 要的。但，要是Entergy遵守诺言，这个讨论就无关紧要了。
The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already
so damaged that it has nothing left to lose by going to war with the state. But there
should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy
runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in
Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal
permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s application, it should keep it mind what
promises from Entergy are worth.
该公司似 乎认定其已声名狼藉，没有什么后顾之忧，不如和佛蒙特州背水
一战。但不良后果还是有的。经营核电站 的许可权的问题是一个公共信任的问题。
Entergy集团在美国还经营了11个反应堆，包括在普利 茅斯的Pilgrim 反应堆。
该公司许诺安全经营Pilgrim，要求联邦政府给予继续经营20 年的许可。但是，
核管理委员会(NRC)在审查该公司的申请的时候，它要牢记到底Entergy公 司的
哪个许诺是可信的。

Text 3
In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting

to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to
carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently
follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot
escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interest
influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the
subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and
self-deception abound.
在科学研究的理想状态下，关于世界的事实正在等待着那些客观的研究者来
观察和搜集，研究者们会用科学的方法来进行他们的工作。但是在每天的科学实
践中，发现通常遵循一 条模糊和复杂的路径。我们的目标是做到客观，但是我们
却不能逃离我们所处的独特的生活经验的环境。 之前的知识和兴趣会影响我们所
经历的，会影响我们对于经验意义的思考，以及我们会采取的随后的行动 。这里
充满着误读，错误和自我欺骗的机会。
Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to
newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny
and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the
credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes
the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the
starting point.
所以，对于发现的申明 应该被当做是科学的原型。这与新近开发的采矿资源
比较类似，他们都充满着可能性。但是将发现的申明 变为一个成熟的发现是需要
集体的审查和集体的接受。这个过程就配称之为“信用的过程”，通过这个过 程
一个单个研究者的“我”在这里就变成了这个社区中的任何人，任何地方和任何
时间。客观的 知识不应该是起点而是目标。
Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual
credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens
next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers
make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the
publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes;
and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and
possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works it through the
community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs
about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery
claim into the community’s credible discovery.
一但一 个科学发现变成公开的，那么这个发现就获得了知识的信任。但是和
开发采矿资源不一样的是，科学协会 将控制接下来会发生的事情。在复杂的科研
机构的社会结构中，研究者去做出发现;编辑和审稿者通过控 制出版过程扮演着
看门人的角色;其他的科学家使用新的发现来满足他们自己的目标;最后，公众(也< br>包括其他科学家)接受到新的发现和可能相伴随的技术。当一个发现的声明最终
通过了机构的审查 ，在有关所涉及到的共享的和抵触的信念之间的互动和冲突将
把一个人的发现变为一个机构的可信的发现 。
Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work
tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete
or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is

already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly,
newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important
and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or
refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief.
Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as
“seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But
thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may
not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims
to be accepted and appreciated.
在整个信任的过程中存在着两个悖论，第 一：科学工作倾向于关注一些流行
科学的某些方面，而这些方面又是被认为是不完全和不正确的。去复制 和确认已
经被人所知和所信的东西不会有多少回报。科学要做的是去探究新的东西而不是
再次探 究。不足为奇的是，新发表的重要的，有说服力发现和可信的发现将会被
后来的研究者质疑，并带来潜在 的修改甚至驳斥。第二个悖论是：新颖的东西本
身就经常会招致怀疑。诺贝尔奖获得者，生理学家Alb ert Azent-Gyorgyi曾经将
发现描述为：“观察每个人观察的，思考没有人想到的。” 但是思考其他人没有
想到的并且告诉其他人他们所遗漏的可能并不会改变这些人的观点。有时候，真正新颖的科学发现被人们所接受和认可将会花好多年的时间。
In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim – a process that
corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the
mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning
and each other’s conceptions of reason.”
最后，一个科学的发现获得了信任，这个过程是与哲学家Annette Baier所描
述的心灵的共 性的观点是一致的。“我们共同去推理，去质疑，其修改并且完善
各自的推理以及各自的推理概念。

Text 4
If the trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa were alive today, he would probably represent
civil servant. When Hoffa’s Teamsters were in their prime in 1960, only one in ten
American government workers belonged to a union; now 36% do. In 2009 the number
of unionists in America’s public sector passed that of their fellow members in the
private sector. In Britain, more than half of public-sector workers but only about 15%
of private-sector ones are unionized.
如果工会主义者Jimmy Hoffa今天还活着的话， 他可能会代表公务员了。
当Hoffa的卡车司机在1960年处于鼎盛阶段的时候，只有110的美国 政府工作
者属于工会；现在这个数字达到36%了。在2009年，美国公共服务部门的工作
人 员参与工会人员的人数超过了私人企业。在英国，有一半公务员参加了工会，
而私企只有15%参加。
There are three reasons for the public-sector unions’ thriving. First, they can
shut things down without suffering much in the way of consequences. Second, they
are mostly bright and well-educated. A quarter of America’s public- sector workers
have a university degree. Third, they now dominate left-of-centre politics. Some of
their ties go back a long way. Britain’s Labor Party, as its name implies, has long been
associated with trade unionism. Its current leader, Ed Miliband, owes his position to

votes from public-sector unions.
公共 服务部门的工会兴起有三个原因。第一，他们能把坏事情扼杀在萌芽
中，没有后遗症。第二，他们有教养 聪明。有25%的公务员有大学学历。第三，
他们现在控制着左倾政策。这些政策历史悠远。英国工党， 正如他的名字所暗示
的，和工会有长期联系。工党现在的领导者是Ed Miliband就把自己党魁的席位
归功于公务员工会。
At the state level their influence can be even more fearsome. Mark Baldassare
of the Public Policy Institute of California points out that much of the state’s budget is
patrolled by unions. The teachers’ unions keep an eye on schools, the CCPOA on
prisons and a variety of labor groups on health care.
工会的影响力在各州影响力更恐怖。加州公共政策研究中心的Mark < br>Baldassare指出：该州预算很大程度由工会巡查审定。教师工会则监管学校，
CCPO A监管监狱，其它各种工会团队监管健康医疗。
In many rich countries average wages in the state sector are higher than in the
private one. But the real gains come in benefits and work practices. Politicians have
repeatedly “backloaded” public-sector pay deals, keeping the pay increases modest
but adding to holidays and especially pensions that are already generous.
在很多发达国家，洲级公务员的平均工资要高于私企。 但真正的收入来自
于各项利益和工作实践。政治家不断调整公务员的薪水，保持工资上涨不快，但
实际上增加了假期，尤其是本就很高的养老金。
Reform has been vigorously opposed, perhaps most egregiously in education,
where charter schools, academies and merit pay all faced drawn-out battles. Even
though there is plenty of evidence that the quality of the teachers is the most
important variable, teachers’ unions have fought against getting rid of bad ones and
promoting good ones.
改革受到强烈反对，尤其惊人的是教育改革。特许学校，学术机构和绩效
奖都要面 对长期战役。即使有充足的证据：教师质量是最重要的因素，但教师工
会反对放弃差老师而鼓励好老师。
As the cost to everyone else has become clearer, politicians have begun to
clamp down. In Wisconsin the unions have rallied thousands of supporters against
Scott Walker, the hardline Republican governor. But many within the public sector
suffer under the current system, too. < br>对反对改革会对每个人产生坏处，这种坏处现在变得越来越明显了，政治
家开始打压取缔。在威斯 康辛，工会集结了上千上万的支持者反对Scott Walker,
共和党强硬派。但是，公务员也会受到现有体制的不利影响。
John Donahue at Harvard’s Kennedy School points out that the norms of culture
in Western civil services suit those who want to stay put but is bad for high achievers.
The only American public- sector workers who earn well above $$250,000 a year are
university sports coaches and the president of the United States. Bankers’ fat pay
packets have attracted much criticism, but a public-sector system that does not reward
high achievers may be a much bigger problem for America.
哈佛肯尼迪学院的John Donahue 指出，西方行政部门的文化标准适合 那些
想留在原地的人，但对于优秀学员是不利的。年薪25万的美国公务员是大学体
育教练和美 国总统。银行家厚实的工资袋导致了众多批评，但公务员系统不能回

馈优秀人才可能是美 国面临的更大问题。