什么样的统计数字会让我觉得我的整个人生都是一个谎言？
正文翻译
What statistics will make me feel like my whole life was a lie?
什么样的统计数字会让我觉得我的整个人生都是一个谎言？
什么样的统计数字会让我觉得我的整个人生都是一个谎言？
评论翻译
IQ均值为100，标准差为15的正态分布。
日期2013年11月5日
虽然有几个缓解和决定因素有助于预测智商，例如遗传性，精神残疾，较小的程度上的环境因素，通常，一个人的平均智商，将大约为100，误差取15。
听起来不错，对吧？别着急。
84%的社会人群智商低于“平均水平”。
“高于平均水平”的智力由IQ在115到130之间表示，而这只占上图的13.6%。
在美国，平均智商是98。
由于这个略低的平均百分比，图表的其余部分将向下移动，这意味着可能接近90%的美国人口的智商低于或等于平均水平。
—— 但是，有一方确实表现得更好：
正面朝上的那一面。
如果掷币开始时正面朝上，它有51%的机会正面着地，如果是反面朝上呢？ 一样。
我祝你在这方面好运。
另外，如果你被困在决策中，抛硬币也是非常有帮助的，太多的时候，人们被困住了，不采取行动，并被这种不作为所困扰。
生活中，抛硬币确实可以帮助决策，并导致决定性的变化。
按照陆军标准，10%的公民不能被信任执行诸如携带枪支和服从直接命令之类的任务。
真他妈可怕！
我们现在都不知道该怎么办。
著名的心理学家 Jordan Peterson 也在他的YouTube视频中极好地解释了这种情况。
1%美国人：42.1万美元
1%丹麦人：不到20万美元
因此，对于丹麦人来说，比起美国人从2.5万美元到4.9万美元，从第二个十年的3.2万美元到大约4.5万美元的中产阶层，要容易得多。
让我们来假设一下，假设你是来自丹麦的人，你的父母从事快餐业，他们的收入约为3.2万美元，你上了大学，成为了一名软件工程师，丹麦的工程师收入约为7万美元，现在你进入了收入最高的30%。
F. G. Williamson, Paralegal (2017-present)
Answered Oct 1
An even scarier IQ statistic.
The intelligence quotient, or “IQ”, has been used to score generalized human intelligence for the last 100 years. As such, determinations can be made about human intelligence, and a bell curve can be created to display this information.
Normalized distribution of IQ with mean of 100 and standard deviation 15
Date 5 November 2013
Although there are several mitigating and determining factors that help to predict IQ, such as heritability, mental disability and to a lesser extent, environmental factors, generally, the average IQ of a person, will be approximately 100, give or take 15 points.
That sounds pretty good right? Not so fast.
84% of society has an IQ that is less than “above-average” intelligence.
An “above-average” intellect is indicated by an IQ between 115 and 130, and this constitutes just 13.6% of the graph above.
And in the United States, the average IQ is 98. Ninety-fucking-eight.
And because of this slightly lower average percentage, the rest of the graph will shift downwards, meaning that probably closer to 90% of the populous of the United States has an IQ that is less than or equal to average.
最可怕的是智商统计数据。
在过去的100年里，智力或“智商”一直被用来对人类的普遍智力评分。如此，可以对人类智商做出判断，并创建一条钟形曲线来显示这些信息。
Answered Oct 1
An even scarier IQ statistic.
The intelligence quotient, or “IQ”, has been used to score generalized human intelligence for the last 100 years. As such, determinations can be made about human intelligence, and a bell curve can be created to display this information.
Normalized distribution of IQ with mean of 100 and standard deviation 15
Date 5 November 2013
Although there are several mitigating and determining factors that help to predict IQ, such as heritability, mental disability and to a lesser extent, environmental factors, generally, the average IQ of a person, will be approximately 100, give or take 15 points.
That sounds pretty good right? Not so fast.
84% of society has an IQ that is less than “above-average” intelligence.
An “above-average” intellect is indicated by an IQ between 115 and 130, and this constitutes just 13.6% of the graph above.
And in the United States, the average IQ is 98. Ninety-fucking-eight.
And because of this slightly lower average percentage, the rest of the graph will shift downwards, meaning that probably closer to 90% of the populous of the United States has an IQ that is less than or equal to average.
最可怕的是智商统计数据。
在过去的100年里，智力或“智商”一直被用来对人类的普遍智力评分。如此，可以对人类智商做出判断，并创建一条钟形曲线来显示这些信息。
IQ均值为100，标准差为15的正态分布。
日期2013年11月5日
虽然有几个缓解和决定因素有助于预测智商，例如遗传性，精神残疾，较小的程度上的环境因素，通常，一个人的平均智商，将大约为100，误差取15。
听起来不错，对吧？别着急。
84%的社会人群智商低于“平均水平”。
“高于平均水平”的智力由IQ在115到130之间表示，而这只占上图的13.6%。
在美国，平均智商是98。
由于这个略低的平均百分比，图表的其余部分将向下移动，这意味着可能接近90%的美国人口的智商低于或等于平均水平。
We can toil over the cause of this until the cows come home, whether it’s an average that is brought down by a large population, with more mentally disabled individuals, or a poor education system, immigration or several other factors, but what this really means is that 293.175 million Americans have an IQ that is average or below average.
Do you understand what that means? Jobs, careers, positions of authority, and positions of influence are held by people who are surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, mentally incompetent.
Incompetence is running rampant in our society, and there is little to nothing that any of us can do about it.
And we wonder why things are constantly in disarray, and why things are done that do not make sense.
When intellect is insufficient, emotional reactions will trump reasonability.
Of course, I’m being slightly facetious, as I am not applying environmental controls (i.e. where you spend your time will directly effect what type of people you are spending your time with) but it’s pretty crazy when you think about it.
我们可以苦苦思索导致这一问题的原因，却无法找到结论，无论是大量人口导致的平均水平下降，更多的智力障碍人士，还是糟糕的教育系统，移民或其他几个因素，这实际上意味着2.93175亿美国人的智商处于平均水平或低于平均水平。
你明白这意味着什么吗？
工作、职业、权威职位和有影响力的职位都是被那些出人意料或者并不出人意料的精神不健全的人占据着。
无能在我们的社会中泛滥成灾，我们对此几乎无能为力。
我们想知道为什么事情总是处于混乱状态，为什么做的事情没有意义。
当智力不足时，情感反应会压倒理性。
当然，我有点玩笑了，因为我没有应用环境控制 ( 例如，你把时间花在哪里将直接影响你和哪种类型的人一起度过你的时间)，但当你想到这一点时，你会觉得非常疯狂。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Do you understand what that means? Jobs, careers, positions of authority, and positions of influence are held by people who are surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, mentally incompetent.
Incompetence is running rampant in our society, and there is little to nothing that any of us can do about it.
And we wonder why things are constantly in disarray, and why things are done that do not make sense.
When intellect is insufficient, emotional reactions will trump reasonability.
Of course, I’m being slightly facetious, as I am not applying environmental controls (i.e. where you spend your time will directly effect what type of people you are spending your time with) but it’s pretty crazy when you think about it.
我们可以苦苦思索导致这一问题的原因，却无法找到结论，无论是大量人口导致的平均水平下降，更多的智力障碍人士，还是糟糕的教育系统，移民或其他几个因素，这实际上意味着2.93175亿美国人的智商处于平均水平或低于平均水平。
你明白这意味着什么吗？
工作、职业、权威职位和有影响力的职位都是被那些出人意料或者并不出人意料的精神不健全的人占据着。
无能在我们的社会中泛滥成灾，我们对此几乎无能为力。
我们想知道为什么事情总是处于混乱状态，为什么做的事情没有意义。
当智力不足时，情感反应会压倒理性。
当然，我有点玩笑了，因为我没有应用环境控制 ( 例如，你把时间花在哪里将直接影响你和哪种类型的人一起度过你的时间)，但当你想到这一点时，你会觉得非常疯狂。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Sean Kernan, Son of Quora
The good ol’coin toss. The next time you and another party are flipping a coin, to decide who has to do some unfavorable action, remember this:
The odds aren’t 50:50.
Researchers at Stanford used a mechanical coin flipper to study which side the coin tended to land on. Heads didn’t perform better than tails. Tails didn’t perform better than heads.
But - one side did perform better.
The side that was facing up. If heads are facing up at the start of the toss. It had a 51% chance of landing on heads. Tails? Same story.
I wish you luck with this information.
Also, it’s been found that flipping a coin can be quite helpful if you are stuck with decisions. Too often people get locked, don’t take action and are haunted by that inaction.
Flipping a coin can actually help lead to decisive change in one’s life.
掷硬币决定胜负。
下次当你和另一方掷硬币决定谁应该做一些不利的行为时，请记住：
几率不是50：50
斯坦福大学的研究人员使用机械抛硬币器来研究硬币倾向于落在哪一面。
正面的表现并不比反面好，反面的表现并不比正面好。
The good ol’coin toss. The next time you and another party are flipping a coin, to decide who has to do some unfavorable action, remember this:
The odds aren’t 50:50.
Researchers at Stanford used a mechanical coin flipper to study which side the coin tended to land on. Heads didn’t perform better than tails. Tails didn’t perform better than heads.
But - one side did perform better.
The side that was facing up. If heads are facing up at the start of the toss. It had a 51% chance of landing on heads. Tails? Same story.
I wish you luck with this information.
Also, it’s been found that flipping a coin can be quite helpful if you are stuck with decisions. Too often people get locked, don’t take action and are haunted by that inaction.
Flipping a coin can actually help lead to decisive change in one’s life.
掷硬币决定胜负。
下次当你和另一方掷硬币决定谁应该做一些不利的行为时，请记住：
几率不是50：50
斯坦福大学的研究人员使用机械抛硬币器来研究硬币倾向于落在哪一面。
正面的表现并不比反面好，反面的表现并不比正面好。
—— 但是，有一方确实表现得更好：
正面朝上的那一面。
如果掷币开始时正面朝上，它有51%的机会正面着地，如果是反面朝上呢？ 一样。
我祝你在这方面好运。
另外，如果你被困在决策中，抛硬币也是非常有帮助的，太多的时候，人们被困住了，不采取行动，并被这种不作为所困扰。
生活中，抛硬币确实可以帮助决策，并导致决定性的变化。
Colin Zhou, 21st Century Citizen
A very scary IQ statistic.
The US army started measuring IQ in the 20th century as a way to identify whether recruits were intelligent enough to survive and perform on the battlefield.
After several years of trials, the upper command unveiled a guideline that new recruits to the US Army had to have an IQ of 83 or above to be considered for acceptance.
So the people who didn’t hit 83 IQ were considered to be “incompetent” to the point where putting them on the battlefield would endanger the lives of their comrades.
Basically, they couldn’t be trusted to do anything in the Army.
But in the broader society, that’s 1/10 people.
10% of citizens through Army standards cannot be trusted to perform tasks like carrying a gun and following direct orders.
That is damn scary.
And we don’t know what to do with that right now.
The famed psychologist Jordan Peterson also explains this situation quite well in his YouTube videos.
一个非常可怕的智商统计数据。
美军在20世纪开始测量智商，以此来确定新兵是否足够聪明，能否在战场上生存和发挥作用。
经过几年的考验，上级司令部公布了一项指导方针，即美国陆军的新兵必须具有83或以上的智商才能被考虑接受。
因此，那些没有达到83智商的人被认为是“无能的”，以至于把他们放在战场上会危及他们的战友的生命。
基本上，不能信任他们在军队里做任何事。
但在更广泛的社会中，这个数字是1 / 10。
A very scary IQ statistic.
The US army started measuring IQ in the 20th century as a way to identify whether recruits were intelligent enough to survive and perform on the battlefield.
After several years of trials, the upper command unveiled a guideline that new recruits to the US Army had to have an IQ of 83 or above to be considered for acceptance.
So the people who didn’t hit 83 IQ were considered to be “incompetent” to the point where putting them on the battlefield would endanger the lives of their comrades.
Basically, they couldn’t be trusted to do anything in the Army.
But in the broader society, that’s 1/10 people.
10% of citizens through Army standards cannot be trusted to perform tasks like carrying a gun and following direct orders.
That is damn scary.
And we don’t know what to do with that right now.
The famed psychologist Jordan Peterson also explains this situation quite well in his YouTube videos.
一个非常可怕的智商统计数据。
美军在20世纪开始测量智商，以此来确定新兵是否足够聪明，能否在战场上生存和发挥作用。
经过几年的考验，上级司令部公布了一项指导方针，即美国陆军的新兵必须具有83或以上的智商才能被考虑接受。
因此，那些没有达到83智商的人被认为是“无能的”，以至于把他们放在战场上会危及他们的战友的生命。
基本上，不能信任他们在军队里做任何事。
但在更广泛的社会中，这个数字是1 / 10。
按照陆军标准，10%的公民不能被信任执行诸如携带枪支和服从直接命令之类的任务。
真他妈可怕！
我们现在都不知道该怎么办。
著名的心理学家 Jordan Peterson 也在他的YouTube视频中极好地解释了这种情况。
Alice Bauer, works at Self-Employment
Answered Oct 4
Gini-coefficient AKA Income Inequality is not what you think.
Denmark is one of the richest countries in the world, it’s also one of the most equal countries in the world about 0.25, by comparison, the US is about 0.415.
The GDP in Denmark is about $60k per capita, the GDP in the US is about $65k per capita.
This is how it looks like with actual number (Decile = 10%) (same year numbers):
1% US: $421k
1% Denmark: Under $200k
So it’s by far easier for a person in Denmark to go from making $32k in the 2nd decile, to entering the middle class at around $45k, than a person in the US going from $25k to $49k.
Let’s have scenarios, let’s say you’re someone from Denmark, your parents are both fast-food workers and they make about $32k, and you got college and become a software engineer, an engineer income in Denmark is about $70k, now you entered the top 30% of income earners.
基尼系数，也就是收入不平等，不是你想的那样。
丹麦是世界上最富有的国家之一，它也是世界上最平等的国家之一，相比之下，美国大约是0.415。
丹麦的国内生产总值约为人均6万美元，美国的国内生产总值约为人均6.5万美元。
以下是实际数字( 进制=10%) (同年数字) ：
Answered Oct 4
Gini-coefficient AKA Income Inequality is not what you think.
Denmark is one of the richest countries in the world, it’s also one of the most equal countries in the world about 0.25, by comparison, the US is about 0.415.
The GDP in Denmark is about $60k per capita, the GDP in the US is about $65k per capita.
This is how it looks like with actual number (Decile = 10%) (same year numbers):
1% US: $421k
1% Denmark: Under $200k
So it’s by far easier for a person in Denmark to go from making $32k in the 2nd decile, to entering the middle class at around $45k, than a person in the US going from $25k to $49k.
Let’s have scenarios, let’s say you’re someone from Denmark, your parents are both fast-food workers and they make about $32k, and you got college and become a software engineer, an engineer income in Denmark is about $70k, now you entered the top 30% of income earners.
基尼系数，也就是收入不平等，不是你想的那样。
丹麦是世界上最富有的国家之一，它也是世界上最平等的国家之一，相比之下，美国大约是0.415。
丹麦的国内生产总值约为人均6万美元，美国的国内生产总值约为人均6.5万美元。
以下是实际数字( 进制=10%) (同年数字) ：
1%美国人：42.1万美元
1%丹麦人：不到20万美元
因此，对于丹麦人来说，比起美国人从2.5万美元到4.9万美元，从第二个十年的3.2万美元到大约4.5万美元的中产阶层，要容易得多。
让我们来假设一下，假设你是来自丹麦的人，你的父母从事快餐业，他们的收入约为3.2万美元，你上了大学，成为了一名软件工程师，丹麦的工程师收入约为7万美元，现在你进入了收入最高的30%。
Let’s say you’ve got immigrant parents who worked in the US for $25k per year as fast-food workers, you got to college, and become a software engineer, an engineer in the US makes about $107k they’ve also moved into the top 30% of income earners, however, the jump was way higher, $25k-$107k is about $82k more that you’d have to earn to enter the same income bracket, while if you were in Denmark, it’d be only $38k, less than half the income.
If we look at after-tax income, in Denmark your parents made $24k, while in the US they made $21k, so the difference is only $3k between both. However, in Denmark you take home as a software engineer about $45k, while in the US you’d take home about $75k, giving you about $30k more. Subtract $7k per year for the social benefits you’d lose from being in the US, so about $23k more just from being in the US.
假设你父母移民在美国做快餐工，年薪2.5万美元，你上了大学，成为了一名软件工程师，美国工程师的年薪约为10.7万美元，他们也进入了收入最高的30% 的行列，然而，这个增幅要高得多，2.5万到10.7万美元，比你进入同样收入的行列多了大约8.2万美元，而如果你在丹麦，收入只有3.8万美元，还不到收入的一半。
如果我们看一下税后收入，在丹麦，你的父母赚了2.4万美元，而在美国，他们赚了2.1万美元，所以两者之间的差距只有3000美元，然而，在丹麦，作为一名软件工程师，你可以带回家大约4.5万美元，而在美国，你会带回家大约7.5万美元，多给你大约3万美元，每年减去你在美国会损失的7000美元的社会福利，所以仅仅是在美国就会多出2.3万美元。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
If we look at after-tax income, in Denmark your parents made $24k, while in the US they made $21k, so the difference is only $3k between both. However, in Denmark you take home as a software engineer about $45k, while in the US you’d take home about $75k, giving you about $30k more. Subtract $7k per year for the social benefits you’d lose from being in the US, so about $23k more just from being in the US.
假设你父母移民在美国做快餐工，年薪2.5万美元，你上了大学，成为了一名软件工程师，美国工程师的年薪约为10.7万美元，他们也进入了收入最高的30% 的行列，然而，这个增幅要高得多，2.5万到10.7万美元，比你进入同样收入的行列多了大约8.2万美元，而如果你在丹麦，收入只有3.8万美元，还不到收入的一半。
如果我们看一下税后收入，在丹麦，你的父母赚了2.4万美元，而在美国，他们赚了2.1万美元，所以两者之间的差距只有3000美元，然而，在丹麦，作为一名软件工程师，你可以带回家大约4.5万美元，而在美国，你会带回家大约7.5万美元，多给你大约3万美元，每年减去你在美国会损失的7000美元的社会福利，所以仅仅是在美国就会多出2.3万美元。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
In short, it sucks being in the US if you’re poor, but if you’re smart, it’s the best place in the world, and to the average person, wealth inequality shouldn’t matter as much, as you’re making almost $12k more than a person in Denmark where Bernie hopes to take you.
Right, the 1%, imagine how hard it’s to get to the 1% in the US, you’d have to be in a household with two doctors or two director-level positions.
Denmark has fewer billionaires than the US, but per capita is not that big of a difference.
简而言之，如果你很穷，那么生活在美国会很糟糕，但如果你很聪明，这里是世界上最好的地方，对普通人来说，财富不平等不应该那么重要，因为你比丹麦人多赚了将近1.2万美元。
对，就是那1% 的人，想象一下在美国要达到1%有多难，你必须生活在一个有两个医生或者两个主管级别的职位的家庭里。
丹麦的亿万富翁比美国少，但人均收入差距并不大。
Right, the 1%, imagine how hard it’s to get to the 1% in the US, you’d have to be in a household with two doctors or two director-level positions.
Denmark has fewer billionaires than the US, but per capita is not that big of a difference.
简而言之，如果你很穷，那么生活在美国会很糟糕，但如果你很聪明，这里是世界上最好的地方，对普通人来说，财富不平等不应该那么重要，因为你比丹麦人多赚了将近1.2万美元。
对，就是那1% 的人，想象一下在美国要达到1%有多难，你必须生活在一个有两个医生或者两个主管级别的职位的家庭里。
丹麦的亿万富翁比美国少，但人均收入差距并不大。
John Lewis
Answered Mon
In 2017 it was estimated there were 7,530,000,000 people alive on the the planet. The total number of people to have ever lived is currently around 107,000,000,000,000.
How many can you name? Take your time. Write them down. All the most significant people you can think of.
Now realize that, statistically, all the people you think are important that have ever lived are completely insignificant. Moreover, you aren’t even on the same level as the people you listed. The number of people who would put your name on that list of “how many people can you name?” is smaller than the list of people on your list. And lastly, in just a blip of human existen, time wise, your name and legacy will be completely forgotten. In the larger picture of human existence, you aren’t statistically relavent.
据估计，2017年地球上生活着7,530,000,000 人，迄今为止，人类的总人口数约为107,000,000,000,000。
你能说出多少个名字？ 慢慢来，把它们写下来，写下所有你能想到的最重要的人。
现在你可以意识到，从统计学上来说，所有你认为重要的人都是无关紧要的，此外，你甚至和你列出的那些人都不在同一水平线上。
有多少人会把你的名字放在“你能说出多少人的名字”的名单，绝壁比你名单上的人要少。
最后，在人类存在的短暂时间里，你的名字和遗产将被完全遗忘，在人类存在的更大图景中，你并不是统计学意义上的相关人。
Answered Mon
In 2017 it was estimated there were 7,530,000,000 people alive on the the planet. The total number of people to have ever lived is currently around 107,000,000,000,000.
How many can you name? Take your time. Write them down. All the most significant people you can think of.
Now realize that, statistically, all the people you think are important that have ever lived are completely insignificant. Moreover, you aren’t even on the same level as the people you listed. The number of people who would put your name on that list of “how many people can you name?” is smaller than the list of people on your list. And lastly, in just a blip of human existen, time wise, your name and legacy will be completely forgotten. In the larger picture of human existence, you aren’t statistically relavent.
据估计，2017年地球上生活着7,530,000,000 人，迄今为止，人类的总人口数约为107,000,000,000,000。
你能说出多少个名字？ 慢慢来，把它们写下来，写下所有你能想到的最重要的人。
现在你可以意识到，从统计学上来说，所有你认为重要的人都是无关紧要的，此外，你甚至和你列出的那些人都不在同一水平线上。
有多少人会把你的名字放在“你能说出多少人的名字”的名单，绝壁比你名单上的人要少。
最后，在人类存在的短暂时间里，你的名字和遗产将被完全遗忘，在人类存在的更大图景中，你并不是统计学意义上的相关人。
Robert Cowan
Answered Sep 28
The very statistic most commonly used and promoted as reality when it really does not exactly fit most real world situations, In such cases, those real world situations are manipulated by the statistician, using math (more statistical methods) in order to massage the data to make it conform to the standard distribution model so this now adjusted data can then be used to apply the standard distribution statistical model and testing procedures just as if it were a standard distribution.
Even using the supposedly standard distribution the markers chosen to demonstrate correlation are still chosen somewhat arbitrarily, often for political reasons, because those who run the world system want the ninety five percent of the population to reside in the middle . Thus, while math is involved, the real reason for the model itself and the way in which it is employed and deployed stems from ulterior political motives.
最常用的统计数据实际上并不完全符合大多数现实世界的情况，在这种情况下，这些真实世界的情况是由统计学家操纵的，使用数学(更多的统计方法) 来处理数据，使其符合标准分布模型，因此现在调整后的数据可以用于应用标准分布统计模型和测试过程，就像它是标准分布一样。
即使使用所谓的标准分布，选择用来证明相关性的标记仍然有些武断，通常是出于政治原因，因为那些管理世界体系的人希望95%的人口待在中间，虽然涉及到数学，但模型本身及其使用和部署方式的真正原因源于别有用心的政治动机。
Answered Sep 28
The very statistic most commonly used and promoted as reality when it really does not exactly fit most real world situations, In such cases, those real world situations are manipulated by the statistician, using math (more statistical methods) in order to massage the data to make it conform to the standard distribution model so this now adjusted data can then be used to apply the standard distribution statistical model and testing procedures just as if it were a standard distribution.
Even using the supposedly standard distribution the markers chosen to demonstrate correlation are still chosen somewhat arbitrarily, often for political reasons, because those who run the world system want the ninety five percent of the population to reside in the middle . Thus, while math is involved, the real reason for the model itself and the way in which it is employed and deployed stems from ulterior political motives.
最常用的统计数据实际上并不完全符合大多数现实世界的情况，在这种情况下，这些真实世界的情况是由统计学家操纵的，使用数学(更多的统计方法) 来处理数据，使其符合标准分布模型，因此现在调整后的数据可以用于应用标准分布统计模型和测试过程，就像它是标准分布一样。
即使使用所谓的标准分布，选择用来证明相关性的标记仍然有些武断，通常是出于政治原因，因为那些管理世界体系的人希望95%的人口待在中间，虽然涉及到数学，但模型本身及其使用和部署方式的真正原因源于别有用心的政治动机。
Nate Callaghan
Answered Mon
It would depend on how willing you would be to denounce everything you stand for and believe in. Are you willing to do that? Most people are not.
Only you can choose to believe in something for yourself, other than that the statistics for me to make you feel as if your entire life is a lie is 0%.
I can’t decide whether if you think something is true or false, you do. Therefore if you decide to not believe in anything you think is true, that would make your whole life a lie. (to you at least.)
这将取决于你是否愿意谴责你所支持和相信的一切。 你愿意这么做吗？ 大多数人都不会。
只有你自己可以选择相信一些东西，除了那些让我觉得你整个人生是一个谎言的统计数字是0% 。
我不能决定你认为某事是对还是错，你自己才可以，因此，如果你决定不相信任何你认为是真实的东西，那么你的整个人生就是一个谎言。 (至少对你来说 )
Answered Mon
It would depend on how willing you would be to denounce everything you stand for and believe in. Are you willing to do that? Most people are not.
Only you can choose to believe in something for yourself, other than that the statistics for me to make you feel as if your entire life is a lie is 0%.
I can’t decide whether if you think something is true or false, you do. Therefore if you decide to not believe in anything you think is true, that would make your whole life a lie. (to you at least.)
这将取决于你是否愿意谴责你所支持和相信的一切。 你愿意这么做吗？ 大多数人都不会。
只有你自己可以选择相信一些东西，除了那些让我觉得你整个人生是一个谎言的统计数字是0% 。
我不能决定你认为某事是对还是错，你自己才可以，因此，如果你决定不相信任何你认为是真实的东西，那么你的整个人生就是一个谎言。 (至少对你来说 )
Vitaliy Danaev
Answered Oct 2
I am more than sure that things will be more than bad than they are for example at least. The whole education system doesn''t really work anyway and it doesn''t really measures people achievments nor it makes them to achieve and discover something really really new. All this Noble prizes and so on which getting awarded each year seems to me like a whole fake if not worse. See my point ? I am totally lost really no matter how do you put it. You should already do something with that or the whole world will live like we are in the stone age soon or something like that.
我非常肯定的一点是，至少情况会比现在更糟糕。
整个教育系统无论如何都不会真正起作用，它不会真正衡量人们的成就，也不会让他们去实现和发现一些真正新的东西。
所有这些每年获得的诺贝尔奖在我看来都是假的，如果不是更糟的话，明白我的意思了吗？不管你怎么说，我真的完全迷失了。你应该已经做了一些事情，你应该做点什么，否则很快整个世界就会像我们生活在石器时代一样。
Answered Oct 2
I am more than sure that things will be more than bad than they are for example at least. The whole education system doesn''t really work anyway and it doesn''t really measures people achievments nor it makes them to achieve and discover something really really new. All this Noble prizes and so on which getting awarded each year seems to me like a whole fake if not worse. See my point ? I am totally lost really no matter how do you put it. You should already do something with that or the whole world will live like we are in the stone age soon or something like that.
我非常肯定的一点是，至少情况会比现在更糟糕。
整个教育系统无论如何都不会真正起作用，它不会真正衡量人们的成就，也不会让他们去实现和发现一些真正新的东西。
所有这些每年获得的诺贝尔奖在我看来都是假的，如果不是更糟的话，明白我的意思了吗？不管你怎么说，我真的完全迷失了。你应该已经做了一些事情，你应该做点什么，否则很快整个世界就会像我们生活在石器时代一样。
Bruce Kugler, Bruce Kugler, Ph.D. (retired psychologist) Coach (1999-present)
Answered Sep 29
I know of no statistics, per se, which will confront you with any certainty you life was a lie. People do come to realize aspects of their lives as being inauthentically lived, and that awareness can come through various experiences, sometimes most often with interactions with others and traumatic situations which shake them to the core, and force them to see what they were blind to. But I can’t conceive of a statistic by itself, anything quantifying and calculating human experience using mathematics can lead to making one feel their whole life was a lie. That would be tragic on two different levels.
据我所知，没有任何统计数字本身可以让你确信你的生活是一个谎言。
人们确实意识到自己生活的方方面面都是真实存在的，这种意识可以通过各种经历来实现，有时最常见的是与他人的互动和震撼他们核心的创伤性情况，并迫使他们对自己的某些事情视而不见。
但是我无法想象一个统计数据本身---- 任何用数学量化和计算人类经验的事情都会让人觉得他们的整个生活都是一个谎言，要是这样，不管正反都是个悲剧。
Answered Sep 29
I know of no statistics, per se, which will confront you with any certainty you life was a lie. People do come to realize aspects of their lives as being inauthentically lived, and that awareness can come through various experiences, sometimes most often with interactions with others and traumatic situations which shake them to the core, and force them to see what they were blind to. But I can’t conceive of a statistic by itself, anything quantifying and calculating human experience using mathematics can lead to making one feel their whole life was a lie. That would be tragic on two different levels.
据我所知，没有任何统计数字本身可以让你确信你的生活是一个谎言。
人们确实意识到自己生活的方方面面都是真实存在的，这种意识可以通过各种经历来实现，有时最常见的是与他人的互动和震撼他们核心的创伤性情况，并迫使他们对自己的某些事情视而不见。
但是我无法想象一个统计数据本身---- 任何用数学量化和计算人类经验的事情都会让人觉得他们的整个生活都是一个谎言，要是这样，不管正反都是个悲剧。
Valentina Manini, Change expert (MA) | Transformational Coach
Answered Oct 1
Research shows how more than 80% of our decisions are taken in the safe place of our hidden subconscious.
We humans like to think to be in charge. Of our decisions. Choices. Life. It’s just not true.
Most of what runs the show of our life is out of sight, in our subconscious.
And what is there?
Mostly beliefs, attitudes and patterns absorbed by close family, community and society based on a brain that is wired as if we still lived in caves and little tribes. And nope. It really does not work so well in modern society.
研究表明，我们80%以上的决定是在我们隐藏的潜意识的安全地带做出的。
我们人类喜欢认为自己是掌控者，我们的决定、选择、生活，但这不是真的。
我们生活中的大部分东西都是看不见的，在我们的潜意识里。
那里有什么？
大部分的信仰、态度和模式都被亲密的家庭、社区和社会所吸收，这些信仰、态度和模式建立在大脑的基础之上，就好像我们仍然生活在洞穴和小部落。
不，在现代社会，这真的不太管用。
Answered Oct 1
Research shows how more than 80% of our decisions are taken in the safe place of our hidden subconscious.
We humans like to think to be in charge. Of our decisions. Choices. Life. It’s just not true.
Most of what runs the show of our life is out of sight, in our subconscious.
And what is there?
Mostly beliefs, attitudes and patterns absorbed by close family, community and society based on a brain that is wired as if we still lived in caves and little tribes. And nope. It really does not work so well in modern society.
研究表明，我们80%以上的决定是在我们隐藏的潜意识的安全地带做出的。
我们人类喜欢认为自己是掌控者，我们的决定、选择、生活，但这不是真的。
我们生活中的大部分东西都是看不见的，在我们的潜意识里。
那里有什么？
大部分的信仰、态度和模式都被亲密的家庭、社区和社会所吸收，这些信仰、态度和模式建立在大脑的基础之上，就好像我们仍然生活在洞穴和小部落。
不，在现代社会，这真的不太管用。
Himanshu Bisht Entrepreneur and Internet Business Trainer
Answered Sep 30
Crazy quantum physics experiment shows spirit never dies…
Quantum no-hiding theorem explains, quantum information never be destroyed. And neither be created.
That means, if we believe spirit is nothing but a package of information getting transferred from one body to another until it gets submitted to the universal consciousness as we know from the texts written by ancient Indian sages, the spirit never dies.
Life is just a cycle and death is not the end.
This year, in 2019, scientists were able to rove the facts with experiments.
They said, a Quantum information neither be created and nor be destroyed.
No-hiding theorem - Wikipedia
I am nobody to claim anything anything about it.
I don''t have any idea whether it''s true or not. But we are clearly going in some direction
疯狂的量子物理实验证明精神永不死亡。。。
量子不可隐藏定理解释说，量子信息永远不会被破坏，没有什么是被创造出来的。
这意味着，如果我们相信精神只是从一个身体转移到另一个身体的一团信息，直到它被提交给宇宙意识，那么正如我们从古印度圣贤所写的遗存中所知道的那样，精神永远不会消亡。
生命只是一个循环，死亡不是终点。
今年，也就是2019年，科学家们通过实验证实了这一事实。
他们说，量子信息既不能被创造，也不能被摧毁。
【链接】不可隐藏定理（No-hiding theorem）-维基百科
我一介凡夫，没有资格对这些说三道四。
我不知道这是不是真的，但我们显然正朝着某个方向前进。
Answered Sep 30
Crazy quantum physics experiment shows spirit never dies…
Quantum no-hiding theorem explains, quantum information never be destroyed. And neither be created.
That means, if we believe spirit is nothing but a package of information getting transferred from one body to another until it gets submitted to the universal consciousness as we know from the texts written by ancient Indian sages, the spirit never dies.
Life is just a cycle and death is not the end.
This year, in 2019, scientists were able to rove the facts with experiments.
They said, a Quantum information neither be created and nor be destroyed.
No-hiding theorem - Wikipedia
I am nobody to claim anything anything about it.
I don''t have any idea whether it''s true or not. But we are clearly going in some direction
疯狂的量子物理实验证明精神永不死亡。。。
量子不可隐藏定理解释说，量子信息永远不会被破坏，没有什么是被创造出来的。
这意味着，如果我们相信精神只是从一个身体转移到另一个身体的一团信息，直到它被提交给宇宙意识，那么正如我们从古印度圣贤所写的遗存中所知道的那样，精神永远不会消亡。
生命只是一个循环，死亡不是终点。
今年，也就是2019年，科学家们通过实验证实了这一事实。
他们说，量子信息既不能被创造，也不能被摧毁。
【链接】不可隐藏定理（No-hiding theorem）-维基百科
我一介凡夫，没有资格对这些说三道四。
我不知道这是不是真的，但我们显然正朝着某个方向前进。
很赞 3
收藏