如何用正确的词来表达不同情况下的“可能性”
Posted: July 12th, 2018, 3:31 am
How people interpret probability through words
本文是一篇基于哈佛商学院教授的研究发表的科普介绍性文章，同时也可籍由该研究结果来指导一些英文用词的使用。
In the early 1990s, the CIA published internal survey results for how people within the organization interpreted probabilistic words such as “probable” and “little chance”. Participants were asked to attach a probability percentage to the words. Andrew Mauboussin and Michael J. Mauboussinran ran a public survey more recently to see how people interpret the words now.
The main point, like in the CIA poll, was that words matter. Some words like “usually” and “probably” are vague, whereas “always” and “never” are more certain.
I wonder what results would look like if instead of showing a word and asking probability, you flipped it around. Show probability and then ask people for a word to describe. I’d like to see that spectrum.
https://hbr.org/resources/images/articl ... PEOPLE.png
references:
1. internal survey: 内部调查，通常指不公开的问卷调查
2. interpret: 解释、理解
3. attach: 文中意为解释、赋值
4. run (a public survey): 此处的run相当于conduct、control或organize
5. vague: 模糊不清楚的，更多是指话语、意思、观点等不明确
6. flip around: 翻转过来，文中意指向测试者出示数字概率，要求他们写出对应的英文词汇或短语
7. spectrum: a complete range of different opinions, people, etc.
extended reading
https://hbr.org/2018/07/if-you-say-some ... hink-it-is
source: http://flowingdata.com/2018/07/06/how-p ... ugh-words/
如果想测试一下自己在使用这类词语上的准确性与主流西方社会以英语为母语的群体的差异与差距，可以做一下对比测试
http://www.probabilitysurvey.com/
本文是一篇基于哈佛商学院教授的研究发表的科普介绍性文章，同时也可籍由该研究结果来指导一些英文用词的使用。
In the early 1990s, the CIA published internal survey results for how people within the organization interpreted probabilistic words such as “probable” and “little chance”. Participants were asked to attach a probability percentage to the words. Andrew Mauboussin and Michael J. Mauboussinran ran a public survey more recently to see how people interpret the words now.
The main point, like in the CIA poll, was that words matter. Some words like “usually” and “probably” are vague, whereas “always” and “never” are more certain.
I wonder what results would look like if instead of showing a word and asking probability, you flipped it around. Show probability and then ask people for a word to describe. I’d like to see that spectrum.
https://hbr.org/resources/images/articl ... PEOPLE.png
references:
1. internal survey: 内部调查，通常指不公开的问卷调查
2. interpret: 解释、理解
3. attach: 文中意为解释、赋值
4. run (a public survey): 此处的run相当于conduct、control或organize
5. vague: 模糊不清楚的，更多是指话语、意思、观点等不明确
6. flip around: 翻转过来，文中意指向测试者出示数字概率，要求他们写出对应的英文词汇或短语
7. spectrum: a complete range of different opinions, people, etc.
extended reading
https://hbr.org/2018/07/if-you-say-some ... hink-it-is
source: http://flowingdata.com/2018/07/06/how-p ... ugh-words/
如果想测试一下自己在使用这类词语上的准确性与主流西方社会以英语为母语的群体的差异与差距，可以做一下对比测试
http://www.probabilitysurvey.com/