本文翻译自 Political Rigor and Clarity under Complexity，Oct 2018，Taleb（ Flaneur(mostly), trader, and co-founder of the Real World Risk Institute）对政治-冲突的讨论，总共 12 条原理及相关论述，以此审视我们的日常行为，亦大有可取之处，我翻译整理如下，希望对你有帮助。
摘要
大多数紧张关系介于这两者之间——嵌入式、复杂性、多尺度/分形局部性和抽象的一维普遍主义、单一文化主义，前者是生态学的/复杂适应系统的政治学，后者是自上而下的政治工程。
Between the concrete individual and the abstract collective there are a certain number of tangible fractal gradations
在具体个体和抽象集体之间，存在一定数量的有形的不规则等级
Commentary
An immediate implication: politics is not scale-free. One can be "libertarian at the federal level, Republican at the state level, Democrat at the county level, socialist within the commune, and communist at the family level."
直接的暗示: 政治是没有标度的。一个人可以是"联邦级的自由主义者，州级的共和党人，县级的民主党，社区内的社会主义者，家庭层面的共产主义者。"
The notions of "nationalism" vs "globalism" is ill defined. Both ignore fractal strata under monolithic absorbing concepts.
"民族主义"与"全球主义"的概念没有明确界定。两者都忽视了，在吸引人的大一统概念下的分层结构。
More technically, groups are never I (you) or infinity (mankind plus living things), but renormalize into clusters of intermediate sizes.
更准确地说，群体从来不是我（你）或无限的东西（人类 Plus 的类似生物），而是重新整合成中等大小的集群。
Background
The fragility interpretation: scalability is a simple property of an object that has a concave or convex response. For instance an elephant has more fragility than a mouse for equivalent proportional random shock. See Antifragile.
脆弱性解释：可伸缩性是具有凹或凸效应对象的基本属性。例如，对于等效的比例随机冲击，大象比小鼠更脆弱。具体请参见 Antifragile。
The impossibility of comparing two items of different size without scale transformation is illustrated as follows. Take a human and increase his or her size. Contact with the floor would grow by squares, while the volume is cubic, therefore increasing the pressure on the bone architecture. The compensation would change the shape of the limbs. Few realize that a "giant" human would would end up needing to look like an elephant.
如下所示，不按比例变换比较两个不同尺寸物体的不可能性。带走一个人，增加他或她的体型。与地板接触将通过正方形生长，而体积是立方体，因此增加了骨骼结构的压力。补偿会改变四肢的形状。很少有人意识到“巨型”人类最终需要看起来像一头大象。
Limitations
One cannot compare scales across heterogeneous items. A scale for restaurants and animals differs from the one for distribution house and marine mammals.
一个人无法比较异构项目的规模。餐馆和动物的规模不同于配送屋和海洋哺乳动物的规模。
Scale is gauged empirically.
规模是根据经验来衡量的。
Rationally progressive means embracing progress accepting a certain rate of change deemed optimal. Too high a rate of change cancels the gains from previous mutations; while too slow a change leads to misfitness.
理性激进意味着，通过接受一定比例设想的最佳变化率来拥抱进步。过高的变化率会抵消先前突变带来的收益；然而，太慢的变化会导致不适应。
Commentary
Again "conservative" or "progressive" are meaningless in that sense. Both may just want progress at different speed.
再次重申，在某种意义上，“保守”和“激进”都是没有意义的，两者都在以不同的速度进步。
Consider that too fast a rate of change leads, simply, to regression. The concept of "ratcheting up"(that is, locking up at a new state deemed preferable to the previous one) is develop in Antifragile[^1].
简单地，考虑到变化率过快导致回归。 “棘轮效应”（即，锁定在一个被认为比前一个更好的新状态）的概念在 Antifragile 进一步延伸。
The speed of change is a direct function of the fragility of the system. Aquinas: "a blind should be slow"(via R. Read)
变化速度对系统脆弱性起直接作用。阿奎那：“盲人应该慢”（via R. Read）
Recall the metaphor: driving at 600 mph is certainly never the fastest way to get somewhere.
回想一下这个比喻：以 600 英里/小时的速度驾驶肯定不是到达某个地方的最快方式。
Background
There was a time where "conservative" was considered backward, represented as resisting all progress. Hayek had to go out of his way to separate himself from conservatives in his Why I am not a Conservative[2], prompting a chain of such denial of guilt, with Buchanan's Why I too am not a Conservative. All these discussions are grounded in lack of sophistication in complexity, and misunderstanding of the relation between speed and fragility or, more generally, the notion of tail risk interactive system.
有一段时间，“保守”被认为是落后的，表现为阻碍所有进步。在《为什么我不是一个保守派》[2]，哈耶克不得不竭尽全力将自己与保守派分开，由此引发了一连串否认的内疚。布坎南的《为什么我也不是保守派》是同样的。所有这些讨论都基于缺乏复杂的复杂性背景之下，以及对速度和脆弱性之间关系的误解，或者更一般地说，是交互系统中尾部风险的概念。
Limitations
It is hard to assess if a new state is "better" than the previous one without relying on specific metrics; such metrics can be (as has been the problem with metrics) incomplete and gamed.
在不依赖特定指标的情况下，很难评估一个新状态是否比前一个状态“更好”; 这些指标可能（如指标的问题）不完整和游戏的。
There exists a brand of peace only reached by noninterventionist localism.
只有不干涉的地方主义，才能获得一系列的和平。
Commentary
Intuitively, people do better (to the least, act differently) as floormates than roommates. Any idiot realizes that in his or her own life but misses the point when it comes to political systems.
从直觉上来说，人们比室友做得更好(至少，表现不同)。任何白痴都会意识到这一点，在他或她自己的生活中，但是，当谈到政治系统时，他们却忽略了这一点。
This is best illustrated by either Phoenician-style(non-Punic) decentralized localism or the fractalism of Switzerland.
这一点最好的说明是腓尼基式的(非双语)分散地方主义或瑞士的分形主义。
Background
There has been notions of "nationalism" retroactively flown back into earlier time, when polities were organized as a triad: 1) empires under a king promoted into the rank "emperor", 2) nations under a king not yet promoted to the rank of emperor and therefore often depending on one, and 3) city-states (usually maritime and mercantile: Mediterranean or Hanseatic) and statelings (usually agrarian), both necessarily vassalized.
有些“民族主义”的概念追溯到早期，当时政治被组织成一个三合会：1）帝国，国王晋升为“皇帝”；2）国家，国王尚未晋升为皇帝，因此依赖一个国家；3）城邦（通常是海洋和商业：地中海或汉萨）和州（通常是农业），都必然是附庸。
Nationalism in the modern sense seems to correspond to tribal structures grouped under some royal authority — thus nationalism is exactly what is not fractal, that is, monolithic, and aims at eliminating fractal layering.
现代意义上的民族主义似乎与某些皇家权威下的部落结构相对应 —— 因此民族主义正是非分形的，即完全统一的，旨在消除分形层次。
The danger of monolithic nationalism, that is, non-fractal tribalism, is that is creates collectives vastly more biased and xenophobic than the sum of individuals. See the comment in [3] on how Polish antisemitism was more of a collective than an individual phenomenon.
大一统民族主义的危险，即非分形的部落主义，是它创造了比个体总和更大的偏见和仇外心理。参见 [3] 中的评论，关于波兰反犹主义如何更多地是集体现象而非个体现象。
No situation should ever be dealt with in more abstract form than required. Life is about a collection or particulars that do not necessarily generalize without scale transformation.
任何情况都不应该用比所要求的更抽象的形式来处理。生命是一个集合，如果没有标度转换，它的细节不一定会生成。
Commentary
It is very common to conflate differences between groups and difference between individuals.
混淆群体之间的差异和个体之间的差异是很常见的。
You should not say "a 53 year old African-American" or, worse, "person of color" but rather, simply "Joe". The less background information, the more you are dealing with him as a human. And the more universals you bring into a situation, the more violations of scalability.
你不应该说“53 岁的非裔美国人”，或者更糟糕的是，“有色人种”，而是简单的——“乔”。背景信息越少，你就更可能把他作为一个人来对待。你带入的普遍性越多，对可扩展性的妨碍就越多。
Background
The problem with identity politics and the diversitymongers is that they create exactly the same categories as stereotyping.
身份政治和多样性手段的问题在于，它们创造的定义与刻板印象完全相同。
Both identitarians and prejudicedtarians fail to get that the difference between groups, assuming they exist, do not show in small samples. Assume a certain race (people from planet X) have the usual small but "significant" difference in what is called I.Q., assuming we know how to measure it for nonnerds. If you hire 1000 such people, the difference between samples will be evident, thanks to the working of the law of large numbers. But at the level of a single person, there is only a tiny probability the effect will be present —— particularly when there is a high variance across the population concerned.[^2]
身份认同者和偏见者都无法得到群体之间的差异，假设它们可以，也不会在小样本中显示出来。假设某个种族（来自 X 行星的人）在所谓的 I.Q. 上具有较小但“显着”的差异，假设我们知道如何测试书呆子。如果你雇佣了 1000 名这样的人，由于大数定律，样本之间的差异将是显而易见的。但是在一个人的层面上，这种影响的可能性很小 - 特别是当有关人口的差异很大时。
"Life is in the preasymptotics" [4]. This chromo gender identity stereotyping is the same statistical error as the one journalists made in discussing Fooled by Randomness, ironically a book about statistical error: they mistook the statement "life contains more randomness than it appears" for "it's all random, there are no skills involved".
“生活在预先症状中”[4]。这种计时性别认同刻板印象，与一位记者在讨论《随机漫步的傻瓜》时所做的统计错误相同，具有讽刺意味的是一本关于统计错误的书：他们错误地认为“生命包含的随机性比它看起来更多”，因为“它全是随机的，没有任何技能参与”。
Survival necessitates a minimum level of fractal tribalism.
生存需要一个最低水平的分散部落。
Commentary
Nobody has managed to prove that abstract(particularly Kantian) universalism can insure intergenerational survival.
没有人能够证明抽象（特别是 Kantian）的普遍性能够确保代际生存。
The saying if you are friends with everyone, you are nobody's friend. And if you treat all mankind the same, in other words without some preferential treatment to your own children, you will turn out to be an unreliable parent - eventually threatening their own survival. Pure universalism at its ad absurdum limit implies you drop off a kid at school in the morning and randomly pick another in the afternoon.
俗话说，如果你和每个人都是朋友，你就不是任何人的朋友。如果你对所有人类都一视同仁，换句话说，如果你不给自己的孩子一些优惠待遇，你就会变成一个不可靠的父母——最终会威胁到他们自身的生存。纯粹的普遍主义在其荒谬的极限里显示，你在上午把一个孩子送到学校，然后在下午随机挑选另一个孩子。
The rules of societal symmetry cannot hold without some structure: you form a group with your own family; I form one with my own. This renormalizes to tribes that can be as self-defined as needed.
缺乏某种结构时，社会对称性规则不能保持：你和你自己的家庭组成一个团体; 我和我自己的家庭组成一个团体。 这种对部落的重新整合可以根据需要自我定义。
Recall that Byzantine theology was at least partly driven by competition between partisans of rival teams (blue and green) in chariot races.
回想一下，拜占庭神学至少部分是由战车竞争对手（蓝色和绿色）的游击队员之间的竞争所驱动的。
Background
Yoram Hazony detected the necessity of tribal fractality (not his words): society can only work under such structures that have in-group vs. out-group behavior: "Me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother and cousin against the outsider", etc. (Note that this should not lead to "Nationalism" that by definition wants to eradicate lower layers: Hitler's idea is a German monolithic entity that absorbs all what's perceived to be its regional subparts).
Yoram Hazony 发现了部落分裂的必要性(不是他的原话) : 社会只能在这样的结构下工作，这种结构具有群体行为和外群行为：“我和我的兄弟反对我的表兄弟；我、我的兄弟和表兄反对外来者”等等。（请注意，这不应该导致“民族主义”，根据定义，它想要根除较低层：希特勒的想法是一个德国统一体，吸收所有被认为是其区域子部分的东西）
The real difference in politics isn't the "right" vs "left" gradation but rather "Greek" vs "Roman". Greek: puts theory above practice. Roman: puts practice above theory.
政治的真正区别不在于"右"与"左"，而是"希腊"与"罗马"。 希腊: 把理论放在实践之上。罗马: 把实践放在理论之上。
Commentary
Cleary this is not an ethnographic statement (in fact Byzantines were deliberately "Roman" in that, as well as many other, sense). It is inspired from the fact that the Romans got their political system by tinkering, not by "reason". Polybius in his Histories compares the Greek legislator Lycurgus who constructed his political system while "untaught by adversity", to the more experiential Romans who, a few centuries later, "have not reached it by any process of reasoning [emphasis mine], but by the discipline of many struggles and troubles, and always choosing the best by the light of the experience gained in disaster".
很清楚，这不是一种民族的陈述(事实上，在某种程度上，拜占庭人也是"罗马"，以及许多其他的人也是)。这条观点来自于这样一个事实: 罗马人通过修修补补得到他们的政治制度，而不是"理性"。Polybins（古代希腊历史学家）在他的历史中将希腊立法者莱科格斯(Lycurgus)——没有经历过逆境，比作经验丰富的罗马人，在几个世纪后，他们“没有通过任何推理过程(强调自我) ，而是通过许多斗争和困难的训练，并且总是根据灾难中获得的经验选择最好的人。”
Other inspirations: the episode when Cato the elder sent Greek philosophers packing; Plato's disastrous chance at governing in Sicily; the Republic, perhaps what Popper deemed the most destructive book ever owing to Plato's intellectual brilliance.
其他启示: 老加图送给希腊哲学家们包裹的那一幕; 柏拉图在西西里统治的灾难性机遇；共和国，也许是波普尔认为由于柏拉图的智慧才华而出现的最具破坏性的书。
Note that Anglo-Saxon common law would be the best idea of a self-correcting model.
注意盎格鲁-撒克逊普通法可能是自我纠正的最佳想法。
A weak form of homophily (preference for similar people) is not xenophobia (distaste of the foreigner).
同性恋的弱势形式(偏爱相似的人)不是仇外心理(厌恶外国人)。
Commentary
Studies of adaptive systems shows that a collection of people with a very weak preference of not being in the very small minority produces clustering and what may seem segreation may be just negative preference (the desire to not be alone).
对适应性系统的研究表明，在极少数群体中，一群有着非常微弱偏好人会产生聚集，而看似隔离的可能只是消极偏好(不想孤独)。
See Thomas Schelling's proof by cellular automata. There is a standard scale transformation from micro decisions to "macrobehavior".
细胞自动机可以看到托马斯·克罗姆比·谢林的证明。存在从微观决策到“宏观行为”的标准规模转变。
One can generate numerous situations of scale transformations via minority rules.
人们可以通过少数规则产生许多标度转变的情况。
Neither the minority nor the majority should be able to impose their preferences on others.
不论是少数派还是多数派，都不应该把自己的偏好强加于他人。
Commentary
An expansion to the concept "leave me alone and, in return, I will leave you alone".
对于这个概念的扩充“让我一个人呆着，作为回报，我会让你一个人呆着”。
It is clearly unreasonable that communities that represent 0.1% of the population impose their preferences on others, particularly when there is a high cost to that. But it is necessary that these individuals be treated with the proper amount of fairness.
很显然，代表人口 0.1% 的社区将自己的偏好强加于他人，是不合理的，特别是在这种做法的代价很高的情况下。 而是，这些人必须得到适当的公平对待。
Just as Tocqueville praised the U.S. federalism and constitutionalism as a counter to the domination of the majority; one needs structures that can prevent excessive over-reach by the intransigeant minority.
就像托克维尔赞美美国联邦制和宪政主义一样，反对大多数人的统治; 一个人需要能够防止少数规则过度覆盖的结构。
No decision should ever be taken by someone who doesn't exit the pool in case he or she is wrong.
任何决定都不应该由一个没有离开泳池的人来做，万一他或她是错的。
This is a case of filtering, not just incentives and disincentives. See Skin in the Game.
这是一个过滤案例，而不仅仅是激励和抑制。 详见《游戏中的皮肤》。
Every company under the backstop of the taxpayer should be treated like a utility, with its executives compensated like other civil servants.
纳税人支持下的每家公司都应被视为公用事业公司，其管理人员与其他公务员一样得到补偿。
"Christian" or "Judeo-Christian" values are not about religion, but the reverse: a secular tinkering tradition that arose principally from the separation of church and state in the West.
"基督教"或"犹太基督教"的价值观不是关于宗教的，而是反过来的: 一种主要源自西方教会与国家关系的世俗修补（不断迭进的）传统。
Never conflate religion and legal system (Sharia is both).
不要将宗教和法律制度混为一谈(伊斯兰教法这么做了)。
Shedding Christian values and thought is shedding the past accretions of Western Civilization. See Skin in the Game.
摆脱基督教的价值观和思想，正在逐渐消除西方文明的过去。参见《游戏中的皮肤》。
Distinction should not be made religious/nonreligious but rather tolerant/intolerant of other's beliefs.
区别不应该是宗教/非宗教，而是宽容/不容忍他人的信仰。
Every dollar made by a former politician or civil servant thanks to the fame and connection imparted by the office belongs to the taxpayer.
一位前政治家或公务员所赚的每一美元，都归功于该办公室的名声和关系，应该属于纳税人。
Consider Tony Blair, the Clintons, Al Gore, and... the Obamas.
想想托尼·布莱尔，克林顿夫妇，阿尔·戈尔，还有奥巴马夫妇。
Politics is not a resume enhancement.
政治不是简历增强。
No public institution or agency should be created without an expiration date.
任何公共机构或机构都不应在没有截止日期的情况下设立。
Once public institutions are started, it is impossible to remove them; they are therefore extracted from the bottom-up selection mechanism and evolutionary pressures.
一旦建立了公共机构，就不可能取消它们；因此，它们是从自下而上的选择机制和进化压力中涌现出来的。
If a public institution or agency is vital, then it will be renewed.
如果一个公共机构或机构是至关重要的，那么它将得到更新。
题图来源：GDJ / pixabay.com
Reference
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1055198168294526977
- nntaleb
[1]: Compare Popper's utopian engineer to the piecemeal engineer, in the Open Society[1], Vol Ⅰ
[2]: Many people otherwise careful in "political correctness" (at least cosmetically) commit the violation of ageism. Saying "Mathematics is a young man's game" is always interpreted as such, not as statistical statement: "Mathematics is most often a young man's game"
推荐阅读
