常见逻辑谬误与偏见
常见逻辑谬误与偏见
这个图非常有意思：Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement，翻译为 保羅·格雷厄姆的反驳金字塔，其原文链接：https://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html：
诉诸人身
诉诸人身（拉丁语：Ad hominem，直译：““对人的”或“于人......””），指借由与当前论题无关之个人特质，如人格、动机、态度、地位、阶级或处境等，作为驳斥对方或支持己方论证的理据，是一种不相干的谬误。
诉诸人身谬误一般被归类为形式谬误中，即基于不正确三段论指控对方推理论证的有效性。但在某些非形式逻辑的辩论中，依靠某些资料、证词、专业知识或有选择性地介绍所支持的论据，而这种前提下或可提出关于“人身”的有效论证；比如在证明某人相关知识缺乏时，可声称他的证言并不可信，抑或是指出其人具有事实上的利益冲突等。另有一种有效的反击便是使用对方自己所坚持的逻辑对其反对，但同时拒绝承认这些逻辑有效性。
诉诸正面特质的谬误
正面特质，也称因人纳言，是指仅根据论证者个人的品德高尚、才华出众、处境优越或自己对论证者的好感就轻率地肯定其论断或观点，而不考虑其论断的内容是否真实或其论证过程是否正确，便对立论者的论点表示接受和赞同的一种谬误，比如上级、领导、老师、学长等。人身保护的谬误属于典型的因人纳言，具体包括两类：
人格人身保护是以自己或他人的人格高尚为理由，诱使他人相信其论题为真，其实人格优秀的人坚持的看法未必就一定对
处境人身保护是以自己或他人处境优越为理由，诱使他人相信其论题为真
诉诸负面特质的谬误
指仅仅根据论证者在品质、名声方面的缺陷，所处环境的特殊性，以往有过错等方面的原因或自己个人对立论者的厌恶态度，而不考虑立论者的论断内容是否真实，也不根据逻辑反驳的规则和要求，就对立论者的论点加以否定而表现出来的一种谬误。
常见的诉诸人身谬误
以下是诉诸人身谬误的几个例子，未必是所有可能的诉诸人身谬误：
- 扣帽子、抹黑策略、人身攻击：将各种不利的条件或观点强加至对方身上
- 秽言谬误：以不雅的言词攻击对方
- 诉诸动机：质疑对方有某种立场或地位，因此其提出之主张是基于不良的动机、企图。
- 你也一样：对方批评某件事不对时，批评对方自己也做了那件不对的事。
- 诉诸智能：批评对方智能不足或精神有问题，因而其主张不可采。
- 罪恶关联：指控支持某观点的人必然归属于某个形象不好的团体。
- 诉诸成就：主张由于某人或某人的团队没有达成某项成就，因而其针对某事的主张不可信。
- 诉诸富贵：断言富足者的观点较正确，或断言贫困者的观点不正确。
- 诉诸贫困：断言贫困者的观点正确，或断言富足者的观点不正确。
- 诉诸好人：宣称某人有某些美德，因而其主张可采。
- 诉诸权威：宣称对方是权威因此言论可取，但忽略了对方可能不是相关权威，或者言论只属一家之言，或因其他原因而有争议。
- 诉诸性别：宣称因为发表言论者的性别，因此其观点正确或不正确。
诉诸动机
诉诸动机（英语：Appeal to motive），或称诛心论、诛心之论，是诉诸人身谬误的一种，借由质疑提出主张者的动机，而论证或明示暗示其主张不合理。主张者背后特定的动机或利害关系只是提出论述的一种可能，未必就是提出论证的真正原因。
质疑动机并不是完全不合理的，但不能只因主张者提出某项论证就质疑主张者背后必然有某种动机，就否定该论证，就算论者真的有某种动机，也不代表论者的论证是无效的。论证的有效性和论者的提出这论述的理由是否是可接受的这两点，是彼此独立的，论者是否有某种不可告人的动机或利害关系，和论证本身是否有效无关。没有私心的人提出的论证未必是真的，因为利害关系而提出的有利自己的论证也未必是假的。
其他
诉诸可能
诉诸可能（Appeal to Possibility/Probability）或把合理当正确是一种非形式谬误，是基于一件事有可能或相当可能是真的，就把它当作确定是真的。
真相（或事情未来的发展）是唯一的，合理的推测却有很多，当思考或决策忽略了其他可能性，把一种合理的、可能的推测当做正确的、必然的真相，就不是恰当的推理。像例如说“死刑的吓阻效果不明确，因此死刑可能无助治安”是合理的，但这不表示死刑一定无助治安。因为死刑吓阻效果不明确，就一口咬定死刑一定无助治安，是不恰当的推理。
这个例子有点
24种常见逻辑谬误
某日在维基百科看到一个谬误列表，觉得真是一个不错的学习资料，但是发现维基百科的先生们写起文字来也是一副百科的模样，常人看得懂真是极少。
经过稍作搜索，有善良的人做了一个网站：Thou Shalt not commit logical fallacies
这个网站附有各个语言版本，真是善莫大焉。本列表原文 作者 @Zine
歪曲观点
直译：稻草假人
又做：欲加之罪
歪曲他人的论据以使其变得更易受抨击。
通过夸大、歪曲，又甚至完全假造对手的论据，让自身的立场呈现更多的合理性。但坦诚理性的辩论会被这种实质是欺诈的论述破坏。
例：小明说：国家应当向医疗和教育领域投入更多的资金。小亮回答：太可怕了，你居然这么仇恨国家，想要通过减少国防开支，让我们的军队手无寸铁而无法保卫国家。
注释：英文中这条谬误的原文“strawman”，直译“稻草假人”。因为稻草人不是真人，所以它不会在战斗中做出任何抵抗，并且很容易被击倒。在英国这个谬误又常被称为“莎莉姨妈”（Aunt Sally）。
归因错误
因事物之间或真实存在、或假想出来的关联关系，得出两者之间存在因果关系的结论。
因为事物之间具有关联，又或仅仅是因为两者同时存在，即错认为两者间具有因果关系。不同事物可能同时或先后发生，但这并非意味其中一件事是另一件事的起因。有时候两者之间的关联纯粹只是巧合，甚至有可能两件事起因都是相同的。
例：小明指着一张表格说，过去几个世纪以来全球气温一直在升高，同时海盗的数量一直在减少，所以我们可以得出结论：海盗的存在降低了全球气温，全球变暖是一场骗局。
情感绑架
通过操弄情绪来替代真正有效的论据。
情感绑架包括操弄恐惧、嫉妒、憎恨、怜悯、骄傲，等等。有一件很重要的事我们必须知道：有时候一个符合逻辑的论据也许会带动强烈的情绪层面的反馈。但抛弃逻辑，只靠诉诸情绪来掩盖自身观点没有强有力的证据这一事实，只会带来更多的问题和谬误。每个心智正常的人都会为情绪所影响，所以情感绑架是很常见也有效的辩论策略，但本质上这是一种错谬并虚伪的论述方式，且会让辩论另一方的情绪失控合理化。
例：小亮不喜欢喝羊杂汤，但他父亲让他“想想非洲贫困国家里那些被生生饿毙的小孩，那些可怜的娃什么都吃不上”。
谬导致误
直译：谬误谬误
又做：将错就错
因为论述水平很差，又或者论述中有谬误，就判定这结论一定是错误的。
谬误的观点一定会导致谬误的结论是不符合逻辑的结论：即便是错误的论据也完全是有可能被人用合理的逻辑阐述出来的；同样的，在辩论的过程中以错误的论据来证明正确的观点，或是在论述过程中参杂着逻辑谬误也是有可能的。
例：小丽发现小红提倡健康饮食仅仅是因为某野鸡营养学家提出“健康饮食是一种流行生活方式“这样不靠谱的理由，但因此小丽就认为“需要健康饮食这个结论是错误的，每天暴饮暴食是没问题的”，这也是谬误的。
滑坡推断
如果A发生了，那么最终坏事Z也会发生，所以我们不能让A发生。
问题在于，这种论证方式避开了去讨论当前的问题A，取而代之的是将讨论中心转移到假想出来的极端假设Z。同时还没有证据能证明假设的Z一定会因为A的发生而发生。此谬误也是利用恐惧来进行情感绑架的一种形式，进而以未经证实的猜想来破坏当前讨论的公正性。
例：小强断言如果我们允许同性婚姻，接下来会发生的事情就是我们会允许乱伦婚姻，甚至允许人和猴子结婚，人和汽车结婚。
人身攻击
通过抨击对手的个人品行或其他个人特质，如身高外貌、社会地位等等，来贬损对手的论据。
人身攻击既可以是在大庭广众下的公然抨击，也可以是隐晦地暗示对手的品格存疑，以此来抹黑对手的论据。人身攻击在论战中往往可以起到不战而屈人之兵的效果。
例：慧慧用无可争辩的实例展现了新的的纳税系统是更加公平合理值得推广的，大壮反问在场的人：“大家觉得是否应该相信一个未婚、有犯罪史、身上有狐臭的女人所说的任何一句话？”
彼此彼此
以批评来应对批评：为了避免正面回应批评，反将矛头指向提出批评的人本身。
此谬误原文是拉丁文“tu quoque”，意为“你不也一样（犯过错）”。这个逻辑谬误通常也以“批评他人的伪善”而广为人知。通常是用来转移注意力的障眼法，它能让必须为了辩护自己论据的一方，将关注点从自己身上转回到提出批评的人身上。
例：在医院里小美指出小丽没有严格遵医嘱导致身体状况恶化，小丽不反省为什么自己不遵医嘱，反倒是指责小美：“别说我了，你以前不是也不爱听医生的话，从不按时吃药！”
注释：在中国这条谬论也被称为“臭虫论”：鲁迅于1933年的文章《外国也有》中讽刺当时的中国人被批评时会声称其他国家也有同样的错误，来掩饰自己的错误。“凡中国所有的，外国也都有。外国人说中国多臭虫，但西洋也有臭虫。”
个人局限
直译：自身怀疑
受自身水平所限，无法或很难理解某件事，由此得出这件事可能是错的、假的这样的结论。
针对某些复杂的话题的讨论，如“生物进化，物竞天择”，是需要一些对于这个话题有基本的知识储备才能进行的。仅仅因为不了解这些知识，即认定这些理论一定是错误的，这是一种谬误。
例：小明画了一条鱼和一个人，他不屑地问小强：“看看这两种生物，你真的认为我会愚蠢到相信一条鱼能随着时间推移，随机地以某种方式变成人类？”
片面特例
当某个观点被证明是错误的时候，更改讨论规则或用特例来开脱错误。
愚蠢的人类总是厌恶承认自己错了。他们非但不愿意通过更好的理解问题来改善自己的认知，有时甚至还会固执地想方设法证明自己的正确性。常见的方式就是在事后给自己的错误找个合理化的理由。找个理由来相信我们习惯的事物很容易，而真正难点在于别人证实了我们的错误后，我们如何检验自身的三观，修正自己的想法。
例：小明说自己能预知未来，当大家让他在合理科学的测试环境下他的预言时，他却退缩了。小明说你必须首先相信他有预知能力，才能看到他的预言生效。
预设提问
也叫“诱导提问”，在提问中预先置入假设，使对方无论如何作答都只能显得有问题。
预设式提问也叫诱导式提问，它在破坏理性的辩论方面特别有效，因为它们具有煽动性。而被提问者往往需要慌乱地被迫为自己做出辩护。
例如：小美和小丽都喜欢阿辉。某次小美在阿辉在场的时候故意用好奇的语气问小丽：“小丽你现在是不是已经不赌钱了？”。
举证负担
认定举证的责任不在提出观点的人，而是在质疑观点的人。
谁主张，谁举证，不应该把举证的责任丢给那个对论据表示怀疑的人。对一个观点无法证伪或举出反例，并不能因此证明这个观点即是合理的，或由此认定这个观点是可信的。同时，我们又必须清楚 “事无绝对”，所以需要基于已知的证据来加强论据的可信度，因某个观点没有被证明过为由而驳斥它也是一种推论谬误。
例：小强说他能看到鬼魂，因为其他人都没法看到鬼魂，也就没法证明他的说法是不是真的。
一语双关
使用了双重含义的语句或含糊不清存有歧义的陈述来误导或歪曲事实。
政客们就常利用模棱两可的陈述，被揭穿后他们又会指出，他们所言从理论上来说并非全然是谎言。但其实从本质上来说，这些陈述一开始就带着误导性。
例：大壮问阿聪：“你一直说请我吃饭，什么时候能兑现？”阿聪回答：“一会儿我就给你去买包方便面。”
赌徒心理
认为不相关的独立随机事件中存在可掌握的规律。
好比轮盘赌的胜率，总体上来说出现单一重复结果的概率极低，而且每一次球的落点在哪里都和上一次完全无关。又比如虽然有极小的可能连续丢二十次硬币的结果都是正面朝上，但每一次丢硬币正面朝上的概率都还是五五开，且此概率不会被之前丢硬币的结果影响。
例：丢骰子时候连开了六把“大”，大壮认为接下来肯定要开“小”了。结果他输了个精光。
盲目从众
直译：乐队花车
因为许多人都在做某件事或认可某件事，就认为这件事情是对的。
这个观点的谬误之处在于，事物的受认可度和流行性与其正确与否完全无关。如果依照大众认可程度来决定对错，那么在历史上人们认为天圆地方的年代里，地球就应该是平的了。
例：醉醺醺的老王指着老张说：“如果妖怪只是愚蠢的迷信，为什么还有那么多人相信他们真实存在？”
注释：英文中这条谬误的原文“bandwagon”一般是指马戏团游行中载着乐队的华丽马车，衍生含义为“受到公众认可的潮流、时尚”。
迷信权威
权威说的就一定是对的。
切记这个谬误不是说合理的专家主张或科学共识不重要，而是说诉诸权威并非有效的论证方式，权威的意见也完全有可能是错的。因此，权威与否对其主张是否属实没有任何本质影响。但除非一个人具有和专家相似的理解水平或经验证据，无视具有知识深度的专家说法也是不合理的。
例：老张不知道该如何来辩护自己关于进化论“不是真的”这个立场，于是他说：“我认识一位著名的科学家壮壮，他也质疑进化论！”其实壮壮是一位成功的健身教练。
以偏概全
直译：组合分裂
假定某个事物的局部特性就是该事物的总体特性，或同样适用于该事物的其它部分；又或者物体的总体特性一定适用于其每个独立的局部。
该谬误又被称为“组合分裂谬误”。通常当某件事对部分来说是正确的时，它确实有可能适用于整体，反之亦然，比如我们说的“管中窥豹，可见一斑”。但关键点在于是否存在有效的证据表明情况确实如此。仅仅因为我们观察到事物的某些一致性可能导致偏见式的思维，以至于我们假设一致性存在于它实际不存在的地方。
例如：小聪是个早慧又具有逻辑思维的孩子。他知道肉眼看不到的原子，而他是由原子组成的，所以得出他是不会被看见的结论。不幸的是，尽管他有思想，他还是输了捉迷藏游戏。
净化论据
直译：不是真正的苏格兰人
用事后增加前提条件，不断修正、净化论据论点的方式，来驳斥对你论证瑕疵的批评。
在这种形式的错误推理中，论证某人的所信证据时无论证据是多么令人信服，只需要简单地改变标准，就可以让证据无法适用于编造出来的的所谓“真正的”例子。这种事后的合理化是逃避对自己论据的合理批评的一种方式。
例：阿亮说广东人只吃甜豆腐脑，阿辉说他自己是广东人但是他吃咸豆腐脑。阿亮特别生气，对阿辉说：“真正的广东人都只吃甜豆腐脑！”
注释：英语中此谬误原文为“no true Scotsman”，意为“不是真正的苏格兰人”。来自安东尼·弗卢教授出版于1975年的著作《关于思考的思考》，书中例举了一个苏格兰人为了否认苏格兰人会犯重罪，说“没有一个真正的苏格兰人会干这样的事情”。
出身定论
直译：基因决定
以事物的来源、观点的提出者来判断这件事的好坏对错。
也叫基因决定论：好人坏人都是在基因里已经定好的，如“你骨子里就是个坏人，所以注定你只会做坏事不会做好事”。试图逃避正面的辩论，转而关注某人或某事的出处。和“人身攻击”谬误类似，同样都是通过利用已知的负面认知来攻击抹黑对方的观点，实际上却并没真正说明对方的论据有何问题。
例：音乐电视频道播放了一条的地震警报的消息，小亮安慰小红不用担心，因为“我们都知道音乐电视频道除了明星的花边新闻，从来都不播正经消息。”
非黑即白
只给出两个选项作为可选，而完全忽略了其它可能性的存在。
也被称为非此即彼，或两难推理、虚假推理。这种阴险的策略表面上提出了一个合乎逻辑的论据，仔细推敲之后能发现很明显的，比其所提出的非此即彼的选择，还存在更多的可能性。二元的、非黑即白的思维不允许超出两种可能性的各式各类的变量、条件和语境的存在。它只会误导论证，屏蔽理性、诚实的辩论。
例：大统领说：只要不支持他让“美利坚再次伟大”宏伟蓝图的，都是仇恨美国的全民公敌。
循环论证
论点的前提中已包含结论。
此类逻辑无法自洽的论证通常根植于根深蒂固的偏执假设之上。好比“循环论证之所以糟糕最主要的原因就是因为它不好”这样的废话。
例：《胡说八道经》是完美无瑕的，我们之所以知晓这一点，是因为在至高无上的《胡说八道经》里曾经有写道：“凡《胡说八道经》所言皆为真善美，尔等不得稍有疑虑”。
自然至上
仅仅因为一件事物是“天然的”，“自然的”，就想当然它是完美的，它的合理有效性就是无可辩驳的。
许多天然生成的东西被认为是有益的，这可能会使我们的认知产生偏差。自然本身并不能使事情变得好或坏。比如自然界中的杀戮可以被视为很“自然”，但这并不意味着杀戮就是有益合理的。
例如：大壮相信“自然疗法”，所以感冒发烧时候他只喝白开水，生病时他只吃草药。因为他认为，比起化学合成的药物，白开水或者草药更自然所以更有益。
道听途说
用个人经验或者孤例替代无可辩驳的证据或言之有理的论证。
人们通常更容易相信他人的陈述，而非理解整套的复杂数据和变化。定量的科学计量几乎总是比个人感知和经验更准确，但我们倾向于相信对我们来说是切实存在的事物，以及我们信任的人所说的话，而不是看起来更"抽象"的统计展现出的现实。
例如：小杰的爷爷每天抽30支烟，还活到了97岁，所以小杰认定不能相信那些证明抽烟和肺癌有因果关系的研究结论。
因果错位
直译：德克萨斯神枪手
只挑选对自己有利的，或符合自己假设的证据。
尽管先开枪，再在弹孔上描画出靶心，会让枪手看起来是个神枪手。但实际上子弹正中靶心和枪手是否是个神枪手没有必然因果关系。
例：聪明可乐公司指出，研究表明，在聪明可乐销售最多的五个国家中，有三个国家是平均智商全球排名前十的国家，因此喝聪明可乐饮料可以提高智商。
注释：英语中此谬误原文为“the Texas sharpshooter”，意为“德克萨斯州的神枪手”。来自于一则寓言中先开枪再画靶的德州枪手。
中间立场
两个极端之间的妥协，或中间立场，肯定是真理所在。
很多时候，真理确实介于两个极端点之间，但这也可能会我们产生思维偏差：有时某件事根本不对，即便妥协了也是错的。在真理和谬误的中间地带仍旧是谬误。
例：小丽坚信接种疫苗会导致儿童自闭症，但她喜欢研究的朋友阿聪说，这种说法已被科学统计证明是错误的。然后他们的朋友小美提出了一个折衷论述，即：接种疫苗必然导致某些种类的自闭症，而不是所有种类的自闭症。
常见偏见
上述网站作者做了一个常见的偏见网站，现翻译如下
原文网站：https://yourbias.is
anchoring 锚定效应
The first thing you judge influences your judgment of all that follows.
你最先做出的判断会影响后续所有判断
Human minds are associative in nature, so the order in which we receive information helps determine the course of our judgments and perceptions. For instance, the first price offered for a used car sets an ‘anchor’ price which will influence how reasonable or unreasonable a counter-offer might seem. Even if we feel like an initial price is far too high, it can make a slightly less-than-reasonable offer seem entirely reasonable in contrast to the anchor price.
人类思维本质上是联想式的，因此我们接收信息的顺序会影响判断和感知的走向。例如，二手车交易中首次报价会设定一个"锚点价格"，这将影响还价看起来是否合理。即使我们觉得初始价格高得离谱，与锚点价格相比，一个略不合理的报价也会显得完全合理。
the sunk cost fallacy 沉没成本谬误
You irrationally cling to things that have already cost you something.
你非理性地执着于那些已经让你付出代价的事物。
When we've invested our time, money, or emotion into something, it hurts us to let it go. This aversion to pain can distort our better judgment and cause us to make unwise investments. A sunk cost means that we can't recover it, so it's rational to disregard the cost when evaluating. For instance, if you've spent money on a meal but you only feel like eating half of it, it's irrational to continue to stuff your face just because 'you've already paid for it'; especially considering the fact that you're wasting actual time doing so.
当我们投入了时间、金钱或情感在某件事物上时，放弃会让我们感到痛苦。这种对痛苦的回避可能扭曲我们的理性判断，导致做出不明智的投入。沉没成本意味着我们无法收回它，因此在评估时忽略这部分成本才是理性的。比如你花钱买了顿饭却只想吃一半，仅仅因为"已经付过钱"就硬塞进肚子是不理性的——尤其考虑到你还在为此浪费实实在在的时间。
To regain objectivity, ask yourself: had I not already invested something, would I still do so now? What would I counsel a friend to do if they were in the same situation?
要恢复客观判断，不妨自问：如果之前没有投入过，我现在还会这么做吗？若朋友处于相同境地，我会建议他如何选择？
the availability heuristic 可得性启发法
Your judgments are influenced by what springs most easily to mind.
你的判断往往受那些最先浮现在脑海中的想法所影响。
How recent, emotionally powerful, or unusual your memories are can make them seem more relevant. This, in turn, can cause you to apply them too readily. For instance, when we see news reports about homicides, child abductions, and other terrible crimes it can make us believe that these events are much more common and threatening to us than is actually the case.
记忆的新近程度、情感冲击力或特殊性会使其显得更具相关性。这种效应可能导致人们过度依赖这些记忆。例如，当看到关于凶杀案、儿童绑架案等恶性犯罪的新闻报道时，我们会误以为这些事件发生的频率和威胁性远高于实际情况。
Try to gain different perspectives and relevant statistical information rather than relying purely on first judgments and emotive influences.
应当尝试获取多元视角和相关统计数据，而非单纯依赖第一判断和情感影响。
the curse of knowledge 知识的诅咒
Once you understand something you presume it to be obvious to everyone.
一旦你理解了某件事，就会认为它对所有人来说都是显而易见的。
Things makes sense once they make sense, so it can be hard to remember why they didn't. We build complex networks of understanding and forget how intricate the path to our available knowledge really is. This bias is closely related to the hindsight bias wherein you will tend to believe that an event was predictable all along once it has occurred. We have difficulty reconstructing our own prior mental states of confusion and ignorance once we have clear knowledge.
一旦事物变得合理，它们就显得理所当然，因此我们很难回想起当初为何觉得不合理。我们构建了复杂的认知网络，却忘记了通往现有知识的道路有多么曲折。这种偏见与后见之明偏差密切相关——当事件发生后，人们往往会认为该事件原本就是可预测的。一旦获得清晰认知，我们就难以重建自己先前困惑无知的心理状态。
When teaching someone something new, go slow and explain like they're ten years old (without being patronizing). Repeat key points and facilitate active practice to help embed knowledge.
教授新知识时，要放慢节奏，用十岁孩子能理解的方式讲解（但不要居高临下）。重复关键点并引导实践练习，帮助知识内化。
confirmation bias 证实性偏见
You favor things that confirm your existing beliefs.
你偏爱那些印证你既有信念的事物。
We are primed to see and agree with ideas that fit our preconceptions, and to ignore and dismiss information that conflicts with them. You could say that this is the mother of all biases, as it affects so much of our thinking through motivated reasoning. To help counteract its influence we ought to presume ourselves wrong until proven right. 我们天生倾向于认同符合自己预设立场的观点，同时忽视或排斥与之相悖的信息。可以说这是所有认知偏见的根源，因为它通过动机性推理深刻影响着我们的思维方式。为抵消其影响，我们应当先假设自己是错误的，直到被证明正确为止。
Think of your ideas and beliefs as software you're actively trying to find problems with rather than things to be defended. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman
把你的想法和信念视为需要主动寻找漏洞的软件，而非必须捍卫的教条。"首要原则是不要欺骗自己——而你自己是最容易被欺骗的人。"——理查德·费曼
the dunning-kruger effect 达克效应
The more you know, the less confident you're likely to be.
知道得越多，你可能越不自信。
Because experts know just how much they don't know, they tend to underestimate their ability; but it's easy to be over-confident when you have only a simple idea of how things are. Try not to mistake the cautiousness of experts as a lack of understanding, nor to give much credence to lay-people who appear confident but have only superficial knowledge.专家深知自己未知的领域有多广阔，因此往往低估自身能力；而对事物仅有粗浅认知的人，却容易过度自信。切勿将专家的审慎误解为无知，也不应轻信那些只有皮毛知识却显得信心十足的外行。
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, yet wiser people so full of doubts.”- Bertrand Russell
"世间愚人与狂热者总是如此确信不疑，而智者却充满犹疑。"——伯特兰·罗素
该效应来源：
这个效应的名字来源于两位美国社会心理学家：大卫·邓宁（David Dunning）\和贾斯汀·克鲁格（Justin Kruger）。
他们在 1999年 于康奈尔大学进行了一系列研究，并将其成果发表在著名的《人格与社会心理学杂志》（Journal of Personality and Social Psychology）上。那篇开创性的论文标题就极具概括性："Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" （无能且不自知：在认知自身无能上的困难如何导致自我评价膨胀）。
他们的实验很简单：让参与者完成关于幽默感、逻辑推理和语法的测试，然后让他们评估自己在所有参与者中的表现排名。
实验结果惊人地一致：
- 表现最差的那些人（分数垫底的25%），极大地高估了自己的能力和排名，他们普遍认为自己处于中上水平。
- 表现最好的那些人（分数顶尖的25%），反而略微低估了自己的排名。
这个研究为“证实性偏见”之外，又提供了一个解释人类非理性判断的强大理论。
belief bias 信念偏差
If a conclusion supports your existing beliefs, you'll rationalize anything that supports it.
如果某个结论支持你现有的信念，你会合理化任何支持它的东西。
It's difficult for us to set aside our existing beliefs to consider the true merits of an argument. In practice this means that our ideas become impervious to criticism, and are perpetually reinforced. Instead of thinking about our beliefs in terms of 'true or false' it's probably better to think of them in terms of probability. For example we might assign a 95%+ chance that thinking in terms of probability will help us think better, and a less than 1% chance that our existing beliefs have no room for any doubt. Thinking probabalistically forces us to evaluate more rationally.
我们很难放下已有的信念去客观评估一个论点的真正价值。实际上，这导致我们的想法变得刀枪不入，并不断自我强化。与其用"对错"来评判自身信念，不如用概率思维来考量。例如，我们可以认为"概率思维能提升思考质量"的可能性超过 95%，而"现有信念毫无疑点"的可能性不足 1%。概率化思考迫使我们进行更理性的评估。
A useful thing to ask is 'when and how did I get this belief?' We tend to automatically defend our ideas without ever really questioning them.
一个有效的自问是："我何时以及如何形成这个信念的？"我们总是不假思索地为自己的观点辩护，却从未真正质疑过它们。
self-serving bias 自利者偏见
You believe your failures are due to external factors, yet you're responsible for your successes.
你认为失败源于外界因素，却将成功归功于自己。
Many of us enjoy unearned privileges, luck and advantages that others do not. It's easy to tell ourselves that we deserve these things, whilst blaming circumstance when things don't go our way. Our desire to protect and exalt our own egos is a powerful force in our psychology. Fostering humility can help countermand this tendency, whilst also making us nicer humans.
我们许多人享有他人所没有的特权、运气和优势。我们很容易告诉自己这些都是应得的，而当事情不如意时却归咎于环境。保护并抬高自我这种心理欲望在我们内心极为强大。培养谦逊有助于抑制这种倾向，同时也能让我们变得更友善。
When judging others, be mindful of how this bias interacts with the just-world hypothesis, fundamental attribution error, and the in-group bias.
在评判他人时，要注意这种偏见如何与公正世界假说、基本归因错误以及内群体偏见相互作用。
the backfire effect 逆火效应
When some aspect of your core beliefs is challenged, it can cause you to believe even more strongly.
当你的核心信念受到挑战时，这不但不会动摇你，反而可能让你对此信念更加深信不疑。
We can experience being wrong about some ideas as an attack upon our very selves, or our tribal identity. This can lead to motivated reasoning which causes a reinforcement of beliefs, despite disconfirming evidence. Recent research shows that the backfire effect certainly doesn't happen all the time. Most people will accept a correction relating to specific facts, however the backfire effect may reinforce a related or 'parent' belief as people attempt to reconcile a new narrative in their understanding.
我们会将某些观念的错误体验为对自身或群体认同的攻击。这可能导致动机性推理，即便存在反面证据，仍会强化原有信念。最新研究表明，逆火效应并非总是发生——多数人会接受针对具体事实的修正，但当人们试图在认知中调和新的叙述时，逆火效应可能会强化相关或"母体"信念。
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” - Mark Twain
"让你陷入困境的不是未知之事，而是那些你确信不疑却根本错误的认知。" ——马克·吐温
the barnum effect 巴纳姆效应
You see personal specifics in vague statements by filling in the gaps.
你会通过填补空白，在模糊的陈述中看到个人化的细节。
Because our minds are given to making connections, it's easy for us to take nebulous statements and find ways to interpret them so that they seem specific and personal. The combination of our egos wanting validation with our strong inclination to see patterns and connections means that when someone is telling us a story about ourselves, we look to find the signal and ignore all the noise. 由于我们的大脑天生善于建立联系，很容易将模糊的陈述进行个性化解读，使其显得具体而独特。我们既渴望获得认同，又强烈倾向于寻找模式与关联，这种双重心理导致当他人讲述关于我们的故事时，我们会主动捕捉有效信息而忽略无关内容。
Psychics, astrologers and others use this bias to make it seem like they're telling you something relevant. Consider how things might be interpreted to apply to anyone, not just you.
通灵者、占星师等人正是利用这种心理偏差，让你觉得他们所言与你息息相关。试着思考这些话语是否适用于任何人，而不仅是你。
the barnum effect The tendency for people to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves, without realizing that the same description could apply to almost anyone. 人们倾向于将一些模糊、普遍的人格描述，视为是为自己量身定做的、非常准确的，却没有意识到这些描述几乎适用于任何人。
- 名字由来： 这个效应的名字来源于美国著名马戏团老板P.T.巴纳姆（P.T. Barnum），他以其表演“总有一款适合你”（We've got something for everyone）而闻名。心理学家保罗·米尔（Paul Meehl）用他的名字来命名这种现象，以讽刺那些看似个性化但实则普遍适用的心理描述。
groupthink 群体迷思
You let the social dynamics of a group situation override the best outcomes.
你让群体情境中的社交动态凌驾于最佳结果之上。
Dissent can be uncomfortable and dangerous to one's social standing, and so often the most confident or first voice will determine group decisions. Because of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the most confident voices are also often the most ignorant.
表达异议可能令人不适，也会危及个人的社会地位，因此最自信或最先发声的意见往往主导群体决策。由于达克效应，这些最自信的声音往往也最为无知。
Rather than openly contradicting others, seek to facilitate objective means of evaluation and critical thinking practices as a group activity.
与其公开反驳他人，不如尝试以集体活动的方式推动客观评估方法和批判性思维实践。
negativity bias 消极偏见
You allow negative things to disproportionately influence your thinking.
你让负面事物过度影响你的思维。
The pain of loss and hurt are felt more keenly and persistently than the fleeting gratification of pleasant things. We are primed for survival, and our aversion to pain can distort our judgment for a modern world. In an evolutionary context it makes sense for us to be heavily biased to avoid threats, but because this bias affects our judgments in other ways it means we aren't giving enough weight to the positives.
失去的痛苦和伤害带来的痛感，远比短暂愉悦带来的满足感更为尖锐持久。人类天生为生存而设，对痛苦的厌恶会扭曲我们对现代世界的判断。从进化角度看，我们严重倾向于规避威胁的偏见有其道理，但由于这种偏见会以其他方式影响我们的判断，意味着我们往往低估了积极因素的重要性。
Pro-and-con lists, as well as thinking in terms of probabilities, can help you evaluate things more objectively than relying on a cognitive impression.
利弊清单和概率化思考方式，相较于依赖认知印象，能帮助你更客观地评估事物。
declinism 衰退主义偏见
You remember the past as better than it was, and expect the future to be worse than it will likely be.
你记忆中的过去比实际更美好，而预想的未来却比可能发生的更糟糕。
Despite living in the most peaceful and prosperous time in history, many people believe things are getting worse. The 24 hour news cycle, with its reporting of overtly negative and violent events, may account for some of this effect. We can also look to the generally optimistic view of the future in the early 20th century as being shifted to a dystopian and apocalyptic expectation after the world wars, and during the cold war. The greatest tragedy of this bias may be that our collective expectation of decline may contribute to a real-world self-fulfilling prophecy.
尽管生活在历史上最和平繁荣的时代，许多人却认为世界正在变得更糟。24 小时新闻循环播报的负面暴力事件可能是部分原因。我们也可以看到，20 世纪初期普遍乐观的未来展望，在经历世界大战和冷战期间逐渐转变为反乌托邦式的末日预期。这种偏见最大的悲剧在于，人类集体对衰落的预期可能导致预言在现实中自我实现。
Instead of relying on nostalgic impressions of how great things used to be, use measurable metrics such as life expectancy, levels of crime and violence, and prosperity statistics.
与其依赖对过去美好时光的怀旧印象，不如采用可量化的指标，如预期寿命、犯罪暴力水平以及经济繁荣统计数据。
The Framing Effect 框架效应
You allow yourself to be unduly influenced by context and delivery.
你允许自己过度受到情境和呈现方式的影响。
We all like to think that we think independently, but the truth is that all of us are, in fact, influenced by delivery, framing and subtle cues. This is why the ad industry is a thing, despite almost everyone believing they’re not affected by advertising messages. The phrasing of how a question is posed, such as for a proposed law being voted on, has been shown to have a significant effect on the outcome.我们都倾向于认为自己能独立思考，但事实是，所有人都会受到呈现方式、框架设计和微妙暗示的影响。这正是广告业存在的原因——尽管几乎人人都认为自己不受广告信息影响。问题的表述方式（例如对待表决法案的措辞）已被证明会对结果产生重大影响。
Only when we have the intellectual humility to accept the fact that we can be manipulated, can we hope to limit how much we are. Try to be mindful of how things are being put to you.
只有当我们具备智识谦卑，承认自己可能被操纵时，才有希望减少被操纵的程度。请务必留意信息传递给你的方式。
fundamental attribution error 基本归因错误
You judge others on their character, but yourself on the situation. 你根据他人的性格评判他人，却根据自己的处境评判自己。
If you haven’t had a good night’s sleep, you know why you’re being a bit slow; but if you observe someone else being slow you don’t have such knowledge and so you might presume them to just be a slow person. Because of this disparity in knowledge we often overemphasize the influence of circumstance for our own failings, as well as underestimating circumstantial factors to explain other people's problems. 如果你没睡好，你知道自己为什么反应迟钝；但当你看到别人反应迟钝时，你并不了解对方的情况，因此可能认为对方天生就是个迟钝的人。由于这种信息差异，我们往往会过度强调自身失败时的情境影响，同时低估他人问题中的情境因素。
It's not only kind to view others' situations with charity, it's more objective too. Be mindful to also err on the side of taking personal responsibility rather than justifying and blaming. 以宽容之心看待他人处境不仅是善良的表现，也更客观。同时也要注意，宁可主动承担个人责任，也不要一味辩解和指责他人。
the halo effect 光环效应
How much you like someone, or how attractive they are, influences your other judgments of them.
你对某人的喜爱程度或其外貌吸引力，会影响你对此人的其他判断。
Our judgments are associative and automatic, and so if we want to be objective we need to consciously control for irrelevant influences. This is especially important in a professional setting. Things like attractiveness can unduly influence issues as important as a jury deciding someone's guilt or innocence. If someone is successful or fails in one area, this can also unfairly color our expectations of them in another area.
我们的判断具有关联性和自动性，因此若想保持客观，就需要有意识地控制无关因素的影响。这在专业环境中尤为重要。外貌吸引力等因素可能不当影响陪审团裁定被告是否有罪等重大问题。若某人在某领域成功或失败，这也会不公平地影响我们对其在其他领域的预期。
If you notice that you're giving consistently high or low marks across the board, it's worth considering that your judgment may be suffering from the halo effect.
若你发现自己给出的评分普遍偏高或偏低，就值得反思：你的判断可能正受到光环效应的影响。
optimism bias 乐观偏差
You overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes.
你高估了积极结果发生的可能性。
There can be benefits to a positive attitude, but it's unwise to allow such an attitude to adversely affect our ability to make rational judgments (they're not mutually exclusive). Wishful thinking can be a tragic irony insofar as it can create more negative outcomes, such as in the case of problem gambling.
积极态度固然有益，但若因此损害理性判断能力则不明智（二者并非互斥）。一厢情愿的愿望可能带来悲剧性反讽——它反而会催生更多负面结果，例如病态赌博行为。
If you make rational, realistic judgments you'll have a lot more to feel positive about.
唯有做出理性、现实的判断，你才能真正拥有更多值得积极面对的事物。
pessimism bias 悲观偏差
You overestimate the likelihood of negative outcomes.
你高估了负面结果发生的可能性。
Pessimism is often a defense mechanism against disappointment, or it can be the result of depression and anxiety disorders. Pessimists often justify their attitude by saying that they'll either be vindicated or pleasantly surprised, however a pessimistic attitude may also limit potential positive outcomes. It should also be noted that pessimism is something very different to skepticism: the latter is a rational approach that seeks to remain impartial, while the former is an expectation of bad outcomes.
悲观常是应对失望的防御机制，或源于抑郁、焦虑等心理障碍。悲观者常以"若成真则证明正确，若未发生则惊喜"自辩，但悲观态度可能扼杀潜在积极结果。需注意：悲观与怀疑论截然不同——后者是力求公正的理性态度，前者则是对坏结果的预判。
Perhaps the worst aspect of pessimism is that even if something good happens, you'll probably feel pessimistic about it anyway.
悲观最致命之处在于：即使好事发生，你仍可能对它持悲观态度。
just-world hypothesis 公正世界假说
Your preference for justice makes you presume it exists.
你对公正的偏好使你假定世界本应如此。
A world in which people don't always get what they deserve, hard work doesn't always pay off, and injustice happens is an uncomfortable one that threatens our preferred narrative. However, it is also the reality. This bias is often manifest in ideas such as 'what goes around comes around' or an expectation of 'karmic balance', and can also lead to blaming victims of crime and circumstance.
一个"善有善报、恶有恶报"的世界令人舒适，但现实是：努力未必成功，不公时常发生。这种偏见常表现为"善有善报"或"因果报应"等观念，甚至导致对受害者的指责（如"她被抢劫是因为穿得太暴露"）。
A more just world requires understanding rather than blame. Remember that everyone has their own life story, we're all fallible, and bad things happen to good people.
真正的公正需要理解而非指责。请记住：每个人都有独特的人生轨迹，人皆会犯错，而厄运常降临于善良之人。
in-group bias 内群体偏见
You unfairly favor those who belong to your group.
你偏袒与自己同属一方的成员，这违背了公平原则。
We presume that we're fair and impartial, but the truth is that we automatically favor those who are most like us, or belong to our groups. This blind tribalism has evolved to strengthen social cohesion, however in a modern and multicultural world it can have the opposite effect.
我们自认为公正客观，但大脑会本能偏袒相似者或同群体成员。这种部落式思维曾增强群体凝聚力，但在多元文化社会反而制造分裂。
Try to imagine yourself in the position of those in out-groups; whilst also attempting to be dispassionate when judging those who belong to your in-groups.
请尝试换位思考，想象自己是"外群体"成员；同时审视"内群体"成员时保持理性。
the placebo effect 安慰剂效应
If you believe you're taking medicine it can sometimes 'work' even if it's fake.
即使服用的是假药，只要你相信自己正在服药，有时也能产生"疗效"。
The placebo effect can work for stuff that our mind influences (such as pain) but not so much for things like viruses or broken bones. Things like the size and color of pills can have an influence on how strong the effect is and may even result in real physiological outcomes. We can also falsely attribute getting better to an inert substance simply because our immune system has fought off an infection i.e. we would have recovered in the same amount of time anyway.
安慰剂效应适用于受心理影响的状态（如疼痛），但对病毒或骨折等问题效果有限。药片的大小和颜色等因素会影响效应强度，甚至可能引发真实的生理反应。我们有时会将病情好转错误归因于无效物质，实际上这只是免疫系统战胜了感染——即使不用药也会在相同时间内康复。
Homeopathy, acupuncture, and many other forms of natural 'medicine' have been proven to be no more effective than placebo. Keep a healthy body and bank balance by using evidence-based medicine from a qualified doctor.
顺势疗法、针灸等许多"自然疗法"已被证实效果不超过安慰剂。通过专业医生开具的循证医学治疗，既能保持健康又能节省开支。
the bystander effect 旁观者效应
You presume someone else is going to do something in an emergency situation.
你总以为在紧急情况下会有别人挺身而出。
When something terrible is happening in a public setting we can experience a kind of shock and mental paralysis that distracts us from a sense of personal responsibility. The problem is that everyone can experience this sense of deindividuation in a crowd. This same sense of losing our sense of self in a crowd has been linked to violent and anti-social behaviors. Remaining self-aware requires some amount of effortful reflection in group situations.
当可怕的事件在公共场合发生时，我们可能会陷入某种震惊与精神麻痹的状态，这种状态会削弱我们的个人责任感。问题在于，每个人在人群中都可能体验到这种去个体化的感受。这种在人群中丧失自我意识的状态，与暴力及反社会行为存在关联。在群体环境中保持自我意识，需要付出一定程度的主动反思。
If there's an emergency situation, presume to be the one who will help or call for help. Be the change you want to see in the world.
若遇紧急情况，请主动承担起施救者或呼救者的角色。欲改变世界，先成为改变本身。
reactance 逆反心理
You'd rather do the opposite of what someone is trying to make you do.
When we feel our liberty is being constrained, our inclination is to resist, however in doing so we can over-compensate. While blind conformity is far from an ideal way to approach things, neither is being a knee-jerk contrarian. 当我们感到自由受到限制时，本能反应往往是抵抗，但这种抵抗可能会矫枉过正。盲目从众固然不是理想的处事方式，但条件反射式的逆反同样不可取。
Be careful not to lose objectivity when someone is being coercive/manipulative, or trying to force you do something. Wisdom springs from reflection, folly from reaction. 当他人试图胁迫/操控或强迫你行事时，务必警惕不要丧失客观性。智慧源于深思，愚行生于冲动。
the spotlight effect 聚光灯效应
You overestimate how much people notice how you look and act.
你高估了别人对你外表和行为的关注程度。
Most people are much more concerned about themselves than they are about you. Absent overt prejudices, people generally want to like and get along with you as it gives them validation too. It's healthy to remember that although we're the main character in the story of our own life, everyone else is center-stage in theirs too.
绝大多数人关注自己远胜于关注你。在没有明显偏见的情况下，人们通常都愿意喜欢你并与你相处，因为这也能给他们带来认同感。健康的心态是记住：虽然我们是自己人生故事的主角，但其他人同样也是他们自己人生的中心。
Instead of worrying about how you’re being judged, consider how you make others feel. They'll remember this much more, and you'll make the world a better place.
与其担心别人如何评价你，不如思考你如何让他人感受良好。人们会对此记忆更深刻，而你也将为世界增添更多美好。
附录： How to disagree
author: Paul Graham
The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts. 互联网正在将写作转变为对话。二十年前，作者写作，读者阅读。而网络让读者能够回应，且越来越多的人确实这样做了——在评论区、论坛以及他们自己的博客文章中。
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored. 许多回应者持反对意见。这在意料之中。反对往往比赞同更能激发人们的表达欲。当你表示赞同时，可说的内容通常较少。你可以对作者的观点进行延伸，但他可能已经探讨过最有趣的引申含义了。而当你提出反对时，你正踏入作者可能尚未探索的领域。
The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face. 其结果是，如今有更多的异议正在发生，尤其是以文字数量来衡量时。这并不意味着人们变得更愤怒。我们交流方式的结构性变化足以解释这种现象。尽管愤怒并非异议增加的驱动力，但异议的增加确实存在激化人们情绪的危险——尤其是在网络上，在这里人们很容易说出面对面时绝不会讲的话。
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy: 既然我们难免会有更多分歧，就该谨慎对待，学会如何妥善表达异议。怎样才算好的反驳？大多数读者都能分辨纯粹的人身攻击与缜密论证的差别，但若能为中间状态划分层级，或许更有助益。以下是我尝试建立的"反驳层级体系"：
DH0. Name-calling. DH0. 辱骂。
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this: 这是最低级的反驳形式，可能也最为常见。我们都见过这类评论：
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!! 你是个死基佬！！！！！！
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like 但必须认识到，再精巧的谩骂也同样苍白无力。诸如
The author is a self-important dilettante. 这位作者不过是个自命不凡的半吊子。
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag." 这样的评论，不过是"你是个白痴"的矫饰版本罢了。
DH1. Ad Hominem. DH1. 人身攻击。
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond: 人身攻击并不像单纯辱骂那样无力，它可能确实有些分量。例如，如果一位参议员撰文主张提高参议员薪资，人们可以这样反驳：
Of course he would say that. He's a senator. 他当然会这么说。毕竟是个政客。
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator? 这虽不能驳倒作者论点，但至少与议题相关。不过这种反驳方式依然非常薄弱。如果参议员的论点存在谬误，你应当指出具体问题；若其论点无误，他是参议员这一身份又有什么影响呢？
Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.
指责作者缺乏讨论某议题的资质，是人身攻击的变体——且是尤其无用的那种，因为优秀观点常来自圈外人。关键在于作者是否正确。若其资质不足导致论述错误，就指出那些错误；若未导致错误，这就不是问题。
DH2. Responding to Tone. DH2. 回应语气。
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g. 更高一级的反对开始针对内容而非作者。其中最浅薄的是反对作者的语调。例如：
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. 作者竟敢如此轻率地否定智能设计论，简直难以置信。
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
虽然比攻击作者要好，但这仍是一种薄弱的反驳方式。作者观点的对错远比其语气重要得多，尤其是语气本身难以评判。某些对特定话题心存芥蒂的人，可能会被其他读者认为中立的语气所冒犯。
So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where. 因此，若你对某件事最严厉的批评仅止于指责其语气，那你的反驳就缺乏分量。作者或许轻率，但观点正确？这总比严肃却错误要好。如果作者确实存在谬误，请明确指出错在何处。
DH3. Contradiction. DH3.反驳。
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence. 在这个阶段，我们终于看到了针对观点本身的回应，而非表达方式或表达者。对论点最低层次的回应，就是简单地提出相反主张，却几乎或完全不提供证据支持。
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in: 这种情况常与 DH2 级别的陈述相结合，例如：
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory. 我无法相信作者竟如此轻率地否定了智能设计论。智能设计明明是一个合理的科学理论。
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help. 反驳有时也能掷地有声。有时只需将对立观点明确陈述出来，就足以让人意识到其正确性。但通常情况下，证据会更有说服力。
DH4. Counterargument. DH4. 反驳论点。
At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what. 到了第四层级，我们才触及第一种具有说服力的异议形式：反证。此前层级的反驳通常可以忽略不计，因为它们无法证明任何实质内容。反证或许能有所证明，但问题在于很难确切说明它证明了什么。
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.
反证是反驳加上推理和/或证据。当它精准针对原论点时，可能极具说服力。但遗憾的是，反证常常会偏离靶心。多数情况下，两个激烈辩论的人其实是在讨论两个不同的问题。有时他们甚至彼此认同，却因陷入争执而浑然不觉。
There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.
针对与原作略有不同的观点进行反驳可能存在正当理由：比如你认为对方未能触及问题核心。但这样做时，你应该明确声明自己的意图。
DH5. Refutation. DH5. 驳斥。
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
最具说服力的反驳方式是驳斥。这也是最罕见的一种，因为它需要付出最多努力。事实上，异议层级构成了一种金字塔结构——你越往高处走，遇到的实例就越少。
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
要反驳他人，你很可能需要引用对方的话。你必须找到"确凿证据"——即在你所反对的内容中，你认为有误的具体段落，然后解释为何它是错误的。如果找不到可反驳的实际引文，你可能是在攻击一个稻草人。
While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.
反驳通常需要引用，但引用并不一定意味着反驳。有些作者会摘取他们不同意的部分内容加以引用，以制造出合理反驳的假象，随后却给出低至 DH3 甚至 DH0 级别的回应。
DH6. Refuting the Central Point. DH6. 反驳核心论点
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.
反驳的力度取决于你反驳的内容。最有力的反驳形式是驳倒对方的核心论点。
Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.
即便在 DH5 这样的高级别上，我们仍会遭遇蓄意的不诚实行为——比如有人专挑论证中的细枝末节加以反驳。有时这种行为的本质更像是精心包装的人身攻击，而非真正的辩驳。例如刻意纠正对方的语法错误，或揪着姓名数字等无关细节不放。除非对方论点确实建立在这些细节之上，否则这类纠错的唯一目的就是贬低对手。
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
真正的反驳必须针对论点的核心主张，至少是其关键支点之一。这意味着反驳者必须明确指出何为核心理念。因此，真正有效的反驳应当呈现为：
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says: 作者的主要观点似乎是 x。正如他所说：
[quote] But this is wrong for the following reasons... [引用]但这是错误的，原因如下...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.
你所指出的错误引述未必是作者核心观点的直接表述。只要驳倒其依赖的论据根基便已足够。
What It Means 这意味着
Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.
现在我们拥有了分歧形式的分类体系。这有何实际意义？分歧层级体系无法直接判定胜负——DH 等级仅描述论述形式，不涉及内容正误。即便是 DH6 级别的回应，仍可能完全错误。
But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.
虽然 DH 等级并未设定回复说服力的下限，但它们确实划定了上限。DH6 级别的回应可能缺乏说服力，但 DH2 及以下的回应则注定毫无说服力。
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
对反驳形式进行分类最显著的优势，在于它能帮助人们评估所读内容。尤其能让人识破那些智力上不诚实的论点。雄辩的演讲者或写作者仅凭强势措辞，就能制造出压倒对手的假象——这或许正是蛊惑人心的政客的本质特征。通过为不同反驳形式命名，我们为具有批判精神的读者提供了一根刺破这类虚张声势气球的银针。
Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation. 这类标签对写作者同样有益。大多数智力上的不诚实实属无心之失。当某人针对不认同的观点进行语气上的反驳时，他可能自认为言之有物。若能跳脱出来，看清自己在反驳层级中的位置，或许能激励他尝试升级到真正的驳论或反驳层次。
But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.
但良好表达异议的最大益处，不仅在于让对话更优质，更在于让对话者更快乐。研究对话你会发现，DH1 层级的刻薄言论远多于 DH6 层级。当你真正言之有物时，根本无需刻薄。事实上，你也不会想刻薄。若你确有真知灼见，刻薄只会成为绊脚石。
If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it. 如果说攀登异议金字塔能让人减少刻薄，那将使大多数人更快乐。多数人并非真心喜欢刻薄，他们这样做只是情难自禁。