勘誤表 https://sourcranberrie.pixnet.net/blog/post/354566248

讀書會書目，上次在討論《正義》時，

讀書會夥伴想到這本有相關，

於是推了作為延伸閱讀，

因而我有點戒慎恐懼，因為《正義》滿硬的，

我沒看完...

沒想到這本其實比較偏有帶到心理學的傳記，

還滿好閱讀的，也成為我好幾個月來第一本讀完的書。（撒花）

心理學的部分，我的心得是，不知道是不是作者的寫法使實驗看來簡化了，

但在預期題目有陷阱的心理下，

讀者應該有滿大比例覺得自己是不會被騙的「少數聰明人」，

不管這是一種假象，實際去做題目還是會被騙，

還是題目設計得有瑕疵，其實被騙的人沒那麼多，

都讓我無法專心去接收作者藉著這些實驗想表達的理論，

這種情況在《正義》的電車難題時我已經遇到過了，

我覺得這種讀者的心態本身其實也滿有趣的，康納曼你要不要研究一下。（誤）

然後書裡提到可以藉由增加題目選項的敘述來讓作答者更容易選那個選項，

我覺得還滿可怕的，作者和康納曼和阿莫斯卻好像不覺得怎樣，

但人這麼容易被操弄，若是被用在政治或商業方面（還是早就被用了？），

不就表示整個社會都由少數人把持嗎？

另外書裡提到的遞移律A>B，B>C，A卻不一定大於C，

我有想到一個實際的例子，就是我家的貓，

黑豆怕Coco，Coco怕金豆，可是金豆怕黑豆，

所以沒有老大，所以是一個不穩定的狀態。 XD

然後此書翻譯算是滿通順的，不過還是有從中文不合邏輯處找到幾處誤譯，

比較糟糕的是還有一段不算少的漏譯沒有被抓出來，列於下面：

第121頁：

空氣中瀰漫著緊張氣氛，在以色列，危險就在身邊。

芭芭拉說，如果邊境上阿拉伯人停止攻擊，

所有人都會擔心幾小時後阿拉伯人會跑進以色列境內大開殺戒。

The tension in the air wasn’t at all like the strife in the

United States over the Vietnam War. In Israel the danger

felt present and personal: If the Arabs at every border

ever stopped fighting among themselves, there was a

sense, Barbara said, that they could overrun the country

in a matter of hours and kill you.

→第一句「美國的越戰」沒翻出來，

「阿拉伯人停止攻擊」應該是「阿拉伯人停止自相殘殺」

第267~268頁：

他要求台下的聽眾，想像以下兩種情況

（考量通貨膨脹因素，阿萊使用的美元總額要乘以十倍，

你才能真正抓住他當時想要表達的意思）

He asked his audience to imagine their choices in the

following two situations (the dollar amounts used by

Allais are here multiplied by ten to account for inflation

and capture the feel of his original problem)

→原文是說這裡寫的金額已經因為通膨因素而乘了十倍，不是要再乘以十

第309頁：

「他們玩的是以色列牌，」修爾說，「我們是以色列人，所以我們會對彼此吼叫。」

“They played the Israeli card,” said Shore. “We’re Israeli, so we yell at each other.”

→前半句要直譯應該是「他們打出以色列牌」，

而後半句原文是斜體，也就是「他們」（丹尼爾和阿莫斯）講的話，

中文應該改字體或加個雙引號才對。

第336頁第一段最後面漏譯：

In his reply, Edwards did a fair impression of a man who has just realized

that his fly is unzipped, as he backpedals off a cliff. He offered up his

personal problems—they ranged from serious jet lag to "a decade's worth

of personal frustrations"—as excuses for his failed paper, and then went on

to more or less concede that he wished he'd never written it. "What especially

embarrasses me is that after working so long as I did on trying to put this

thing together I should have been as blind to its many flaws as I was," he

wrote to both Amos and Danny, before saying how he intended to entirely

rewrite his paper and hoped very much to avoid any public controversy with them.