英国《金融时报》中文网专栏作家小子
2008年1月9日 星期三
岁末迎新，除了胡吃海喝，看演唱会也成了越来越时髦的自娱自乐。年前年后，承上启下，最夺人眼球的演唱会莫过于去年圣诞夜在上海大舞台的黄耀明演唱会，以及1月5日在北京工人体育馆的崔健演唱会。
自掏腰包亲历了这一南一北的两场演唱会，两个场馆的座位都是12000个左右，八成的上座率，对歌星，大家自有偏爱，就像崔健的现场不可能像明哥那般汇聚成荧光棒的海洋艳光四射，在明哥的现场也不能听到歌迷集体大吼“XX，牛B ”如此掏心掏肺直抒胸臆，除了音乐本身，还有不少看演唱会过程中的细节相映成趣。
先说交通，我是打车去工体的，最后的800多米，只能弃车移步，换成了“新摇滚演唱会上的长征”。北京的马路确实宽，宽到可以把马路都变成了停车场，来回的辅路上停满了车，上街沿上能停车的地方也都利用了，本来四车道的主路，临时为了增加停车区域，也硬生生占去旁边的两道，只留下中间缓慢移动的两队车流和互相干瞪眼的司机。我这才想起演唱会票上的友情提醒：“演出前一个半小时即可进场”，为了停车位，赶早不赶晚，北京歌迷的此番“勤劳”倒是上海歌迷无需效仿的。
上海的地铁1号线，专门就有一站叫“上海体育馆”站（上海大舞台的前身就是上海体育馆），从地铁口出来，走2-3分钟就能到检票口。哪怕是在八万人体育场举行演唱会，哪怕自己有自驾车，大家还是潜意识里觉得看演唱会，坐地铁是最方便准时的。
北京的工体旁边也有地铁站，只是还需要走比较长的路，北京的有车阶层多，自然不会觉得坐地铁是“最优选择”。其实，最大的交通考验不是进场，而是散场，因为进场可以提前一个半小时，散场时总不见得把大家硬留在场馆里分批退场，尽管最后实际的情况也是在工体外的马路上，在接近“瘫痪”的交通状态下度过漫长的散场时间。
上海演唱会散场时的地铁疏散，给我留下了很好的印象，本来想和大家紧巴巴去挤最后一班地铁，没想到福从天降，在末班车之前，又增开了从“上海体育馆”站首发的一列空车，本来拥挤的地铁站台一下子就“整个世界清静了”。地面上，车流虽然会增多，打车很难，但很少会出现崔健演唱会散场时车辆“死堵不通”的情况。
再说检票，到底是在首都参加大型活动，而工体到底是08年奥运会的拳击场馆，进场的环节显得“团结、紧张、严肃”，倒少了几分参加娱乐活动的“活泼”。和上海进场时扫描条形码不同，进入工体大铁门的时候，两边各五个穿着军大衣的小伙子，站得很挤，前胸贴后背，犹如十块麻将牌，中间只留出供一人通过的走道，听他们高喊着“人手一票，人手一票！”，在这二十个眼睛的审视下，不免让人有点战战兢兢。
第二道检查是查防伪标志，也在意料之中，只是没想到在进入室内玻璃门后，还要过一道安检，那阵势和坐飞机一样，瓶装水一律被“安检”出来。可能是怕看崔健的观众比较容易激动，情真意切之时，会把瓶装水“像一把刀子”那样在空中划出抛物线。室内暖气开足，又干又热，这就立马催生另一道景致：大家蜂拥到小卖部抢购纸装的可乐，队伍不是长长的，而是厚厚的。在我印象中，上海大舞台无需安检，小卖部也总是冷冷清清，若是看到此情此景，恐怕上海的营业员也会眼红北京同仁的生意火爆。
最让我感觉惊喜的切身体会是在工体上厕所非常顺利，让人感觉这个场馆真的为奥运做好了准备。无论男厕或女厕，推门而入，里面有将近20多个蹲位，哪怕是在开场前15分钟上厕所，几乎只需要等一个人，就能轮到，运气好的话，压根就不用等。这样的速度令经历过“上海大舞台如厕难”的我非常佩服，幸好工体在厕所的安排设计上非常人性化，要不然在外面马路上堵车已经够让人火冒三丈，如果连厕所都不能让人上利落，在北京看演唱会的心理和生理负担就实在太大了！
注：本文不代表FT中文网观点。
《双城记》
2008年1月12日星期六
欧洲为何落后于美国？
作者：英国《金融时报》拉尔夫•阿特金斯(Ralph Atkins)
2008年1月10日 星期四
埃德蒙•菲尔普斯(Edmund Phelps)是一位生性好斗、年过七旬的美国经济学教授，以其对欧洲发展前景犀利的嘲讽而闻名。作为这样一位人物，他选择在一家纽约餐厅用午餐显得较为保守。Isabella's餐厅地处上西区一座七层高、带有金属火灾逃生口的红砖建筑底层，餐厅里满是享用着美式食品的父母和孩子。明亮的餐厅可以俯瞰对面的学校。
这位2006年诺贝尔(Nobel)经济学奖得主来得非常准时。菲尔普斯生于1933年，又高又瘦，笑得很灿烂。他穿着一件浅绿色格子图案的夏装夹克，打了一条棕色领带；一头银发梳理得整整齐齐。他最近在世界各地跑了很多地方，刚从圣保罗回来。他看着菜单说：“重新和我的祖国建立联系挺不错。”
随着他愉快地接受了女服务生的建议，先来一杯加利福尼亚白葡萄酒，我的希望油然而生：这将是一顿快乐的午餐，而不是一场智力方面的挑战（我曾为此担心：他20页网上自传笔记的前5页全都是数学公式）。菲尔普斯住在纽约上东区，“在我变得非常忙之前”（获得诺贝尔奖之前）会乘坐M4公车穿过第110街，然后向北到达哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University)。所以，实际上，位于哥伦比亚大学以南30个街区的Isabella's完全偏离了这条路线。“这不在我公车路线之上，”他笑道，“但我是个爱冒险的人。我经常到公车路线以外的地方。”
从传统上讲，诺贝尔经济学奖所认可的是几十年前完成的、但今天仍适用的成果。菲尔普斯获奖，是由于上世纪60年代末取得的成果，它颠覆了当时认为通胀与失业之间存在稳定关系的传统观念——从而挑战了这样一种想法：政治家们可以接受一定程度的失业和物价上涨。但菲尔普斯还因其对欧洲大陆“社团主义”(corporatism)的批判而著名，他认为这种“社团主义”妨碍了创业者和金融家之间的互动，导致欧洲依赖从美国进口的观念和技术。这就是他对欧洲大陆过去10年增长不尽人意的解释。
自2001年起，菲尔普斯开始担任资本主义和社会中心(Center on Capitalism and Society)主任，总部设在哥伦比亚大学。这是个经济论坛，探讨是什么促使商业想法可以在一个国家的经济成功中开花结果。
女服务员回来给我们点菜。我们俩都选了玉米浓汤作为头菜。然后，他选了自己经常点的马里兰蟹饼三明治。我则听从他的建议，选了一款科布沙拉，这是一款混合了鸡肉和羊乳干酪的菜品。女服务员称：“科布沙拉里有很多东西。”菲尔普斯告诉我，这种东西是在曼哈顿发明的，不过后来的研究显示它源自于加利福尼亚。
菲尔普斯觉得，他目前所处的事业阶段“让我可以想怎么激进，就怎么激进。因此我现在有很多关于资本主义的有趣想法，而且在尝试设想怎样重写经济学，才能抓住这个体系的核心。”他解释道，传统经济学将世界视为一个管道系统。“它根本上植根于均衡思想——事情按照人们期望的那样运作。”然而，资本主义现实“却是一个无序体系。创业者只拥有关于未来最模糊的图景，他们对此下注；同时还存在模棱两可的情况，他们不知道当他们撬动这根或那根杠杆时，会出现他们想象中的结果——这就是结果不可预知的法则。这不会出现在经济学教科书中，而我职业生涯后期的任务，就是将它们写入教科书。”
那款奶白色的汤上桌了，我将话题转向了欧洲，菲尔普斯认为欧洲注定总是跟在美国后面；再者，缺乏创新使工作索然无味，难以令人满足。“我不羡慕欧洲等着看在美国发生了什么，然后再花费资源去采纳这种或那种新型商品或技术，”他表示，“我只是认为，欧洲人坚持着一种我称之为社团主义的无效僵化体系，从而剥夺了自己成为高就业经济体的机会，丧失了在工作场所激励智力创新的机会，同时也制约了个人发展。”
菲尔普斯表示，一些意大利朋友告诉他，这种情况已有所改变，“我们现在确实很像美国”。但尽管欧洲近来重新出现了令人印象深刻的增长，但他还是看到了太多的倒退。“例如，在德国许多公司邀请工会代表就职于监事会，并就投资决策提供建议——这很难说是纯粹的资本主义。”
“当然，德国公司找到了一条出路。你知道他们是怎么干的吗？他们开始贿赂工会领袖，使其与他们站在一起——（看看）大众汽车(Volkswagen)丑闻……他们必须行贿的事实，为某些人提供了隐蔽的机会，这些人说，‘噢，这没关系，这些工会没什么力量，这只不过是在做秀'。好吧，如果这都是在做秀，那工会领袖怎么会得到如此高额的薪金呢？”
他承认，与美国进行比较，必须将欧洲人口老龄化问题考虑在内，资本市场、对冲基金和私人股本市场的兴起可能在迫使欧洲大陆发生改变。但他指出，德国重要的风险资本家都是美国人。“或许这有助于说明，在老套的州地方银行（Landesbanken，该国的公共银行）和所有那些老化、庞大的投资银行体系下，运营德国业务是多么吃力。现在德国人正从全球化的某些良好特征中受益。”
我们开始吃主菜了——我的沙拉装了满满一大盘，他则试图在一块蟹饼和圆面包上建一座塔。我想知道，欧洲有没有一点儿让他欣赏的地方呢？他又一次大笑起来。他说，还有一个人问过他这个问题，那就是美国前任财长、后来的前哈佛大学(Harvard)校长拉里•萨莫斯(Larry Summers)。“我觉得这很奇怪。这暗示着我不喜欢欧洲的任何东西……（实际上）欧洲的许多东西我都喜欢。我经常去欧洲，我必须喜欢那里。”他举了一个例子，欧洲“对哲学的兴趣比美国浓厚得多，我对此非常欣赏”。
菲尔普斯急于表明，他“不是”说欧洲人反对创造财富的“美国经济学家之一”。“我的天，我想再没有人比欧洲人更喜欢积累财富了。我曾经和妻子住在（罗马）法尼榭宫(Palazzo Farnese)附近。在杜维嘉大学(University Tor Vergata)上了一整天班后，开着我的宝马(BMW)回家，花30分钟找个停车的地方，一直到晚上6点50左右，搞得筋疲力尽。有一些意大利工匠从早上8点就开始工作个不停。欧洲人在许多方面跟美国人很像。他们喜欢工作，他们喜欢富裕。但他们的其它态度妨碍了一个有效的经济体系。”
在吃完主菜后，我们俩都停顿了下来。这些蟹饼怎么样，我问道？“哦，非常好，”他说，“一点也没变，一直都是这个味儿。”
他在资本主义和推行变革的必要性方面迥异的观点是不是有可能与他出生在大萧条(Great Depression)时期有关？——在此期间他的父母都失业了（他的父亲从事广告工作，他的母亲是一位营养学家）。菲尔普斯加强了语气。“当时我还是个小孩子。我的思想根本没有成型。”他跟我谈起获得诺贝尔奖后，有一次在瑞典电视台接受采访的经历：“采访者非常希望我说，我之所以进入经济学领域，原因是受到了大萧条时期失业的严重影响。我很难让他明白，我当时只是个小孩子。”
菲尔普斯解释说，对他更重要的是上世纪50年代早期在阿默斯特学院的时光，当时他阅读希腊英雄史诗、塞万提斯的《唐•吉柯德》(Don Quixote)和拉尔夫•沃尔多•爱默生(Ralph Waldo Emerson)关于自强的书。“我想不知不觉中，我就被灌输了生机论的思想（关于什么使生命有意义的思想）。美好生活是由接受挑战、解决问题、发现、个人发展和个人变化组成的。”他读过哲学家戴维•休姆(David Hume)的书，这使他明白了“想象力在理解事物方面的重要性”，而亨利•柏格森(Henri Bergson)的《创造进化论》(Creative Evolution)则提倡自由意志，反对决定主义。
相比之下，Isabella's的甜点单令菲尔普斯感到困惑。这“很奇怪，”他承认。不过，尽管他说欧洲人抵制创新，但并未挑剔酪饼冰激凌或者草莓奶油冰激凌背后的思想。“我保守一点吧，来个卡布奇诺奶油布蕾，”他说道（我不知道法国大厨是否会认为这是道保守的菜）。我选的是“黑巧克力袋”——一个大巧克力架，里面填充了奶油、覆盆子慕斯和夏季水果。
菲尔普斯回忆说，他在学术生涯中相对较晚的时期才开始从事基本工作——35岁左右。他的哥伦比亚大学同事罗伯特•蒙代尔(Robert Mundell)由于10年前发表的作品获得了诺贝尔奖。“早年的时候，我花了大量时间撰写发展经济学论文，我现在真希望当初没花那么多功夫写那些东西。我花了很长时间才成熟起来，说出一些有创意的东西。”
我付了餐费，但当我们离开餐馆时，费尔普斯想散一会儿步。犹豫了一下，他问我是否愿意向北走一段，走到美国自然历史博物馆。博物馆坐落在中央公园外，前面立着一个粉红色的纪念石碑，上面刻着自1906年西奥多•罗斯福(Theodore Roosevelt)获诺贝尔和平奖以来，所有获得诺贝尔奖的美国人姓名。纪念碑的第二面底部刻着费尔普斯的名字，是几天前新加上去的。费尔普斯短暂地沉默了一会儿，然后指着一些同样列在纪念碑上的同代人。他显然非常自豪。
拉尔夫•阿特金斯是英国《金融时报》法兰克福分社社长
Isabella's餐厅，纽约哥伦布大道
玉米浓汤2份
蟹饼三明治 1份
科布沙拉 1份
焦糖卡布奇诺 1份
黑巧克力袋 1份
加州白葡萄酒 2杯
双倍意式浓缩咖啡 2杯
水 1瓶
总价：100.25美元
译者/何黎
2008年1月10日 星期四
埃德蒙•菲尔普斯(Edmund Phelps)是一位生性好斗、年过七旬的美国经济学教授，以其对欧洲发展前景犀利的嘲讽而闻名。作为这样一位人物，他选择在一家纽约餐厅用午餐显得较为保守。Isabella's餐厅地处上西区一座七层高、带有金属火灾逃生口的红砖建筑底层，餐厅里满是享用着美式食品的父母和孩子。明亮的餐厅可以俯瞰对面的学校。
这位2006年诺贝尔(Nobel)经济学奖得主来得非常准时。菲尔普斯生于1933年，又高又瘦，笑得很灿烂。他穿着一件浅绿色格子图案的夏装夹克，打了一条棕色领带；一头银发梳理得整整齐齐。他最近在世界各地跑了很多地方，刚从圣保罗回来。他看着菜单说：“重新和我的祖国建立联系挺不错。”
随着他愉快地接受了女服务生的建议，先来一杯加利福尼亚白葡萄酒，我的希望油然而生：这将是一顿快乐的午餐，而不是一场智力方面的挑战（我曾为此担心：他20页网上自传笔记的前5页全都是数学公式）。菲尔普斯住在纽约上东区，“在我变得非常忙之前”（获得诺贝尔奖之前）会乘坐M4公车穿过第110街，然后向北到达哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University)。所以，实际上，位于哥伦比亚大学以南30个街区的Isabella's完全偏离了这条路线。“这不在我公车路线之上，”他笑道，“但我是个爱冒险的人。我经常到公车路线以外的地方。”
从传统上讲，诺贝尔经济学奖所认可的是几十年前完成的、但今天仍适用的成果。菲尔普斯获奖，是由于上世纪60年代末取得的成果，它颠覆了当时认为通胀与失业之间存在稳定关系的传统观念——从而挑战了这样一种想法：政治家们可以接受一定程度的失业和物价上涨。但菲尔普斯还因其对欧洲大陆“社团主义”(corporatism)的批判而著名，他认为这种“社团主义”妨碍了创业者和金融家之间的互动，导致欧洲依赖从美国进口的观念和技术。这就是他对欧洲大陆过去10年增长不尽人意的解释。
自2001年起，菲尔普斯开始担任资本主义和社会中心(Center on Capitalism and Society)主任，总部设在哥伦比亚大学。这是个经济论坛，探讨是什么促使商业想法可以在一个国家的经济成功中开花结果。
女服务员回来给我们点菜。我们俩都选了玉米浓汤作为头菜。然后，他选了自己经常点的马里兰蟹饼三明治。我则听从他的建议，选了一款科布沙拉，这是一款混合了鸡肉和羊乳干酪的菜品。女服务员称：“科布沙拉里有很多东西。”菲尔普斯告诉我，这种东西是在曼哈顿发明的，不过后来的研究显示它源自于加利福尼亚。
菲尔普斯觉得，他目前所处的事业阶段“让我可以想怎么激进，就怎么激进。因此我现在有很多关于资本主义的有趣想法，而且在尝试设想怎样重写经济学，才能抓住这个体系的核心。”他解释道，传统经济学将世界视为一个管道系统。“它根本上植根于均衡思想——事情按照人们期望的那样运作。”然而，资本主义现实“却是一个无序体系。创业者只拥有关于未来最模糊的图景，他们对此下注；同时还存在模棱两可的情况，他们不知道当他们撬动这根或那根杠杆时，会出现他们想象中的结果——这就是结果不可预知的法则。这不会出现在经济学教科书中，而我职业生涯后期的任务，就是将它们写入教科书。”
那款奶白色的汤上桌了，我将话题转向了欧洲，菲尔普斯认为欧洲注定总是跟在美国后面；再者，缺乏创新使工作索然无味，难以令人满足。“我不羡慕欧洲等着看在美国发生了什么，然后再花费资源去采纳这种或那种新型商品或技术，”他表示，“我只是认为，欧洲人坚持着一种我称之为社团主义的无效僵化体系，从而剥夺了自己成为高就业经济体的机会，丧失了在工作场所激励智力创新的机会，同时也制约了个人发展。”
菲尔普斯表示，一些意大利朋友告诉他，这种情况已有所改变，“我们现在确实很像美国”。但尽管欧洲近来重新出现了令人印象深刻的增长，但他还是看到了太多的倒退。“例如，在德国许多公司邀请工会代表就职于监事会，并就投资决策提供建议——这很难说是纯粹的资本主义。”
“当然，德国公司找到了一条出路。你知道他们是怎么干的吗？他们开始贿赂工会领袖，使其与他们站在一起——（看看）大众汽车(Volkswagen)丑闻……他们必须行贿的事实，为某些人提供了隐蔽的机会，这些人说，‘噢，这没关系，这些工会没什么力量，这只不过是在做秀'。好吧，如果这都是在做秀，那工会领袖怎么会得到如此高额的薪金呢？”
他承认，与美国进行比较，必须将欧洲人口老龄化问题考虑在内，资本市场、对冲基金和私人股本市场的兴起可能在迫使欧洲大陆发生改变。但他指出，德国重要的风险资本家都是美国人。“或许这有助于说明，在老套的州地方银行（Landesbanken，该国的公共银行）和所有那些老化、庞大的投资银行体系下，运营德国业务是多么吃力。现在德国人正从全球化的某些良好特征中受益。”
我们开始吃主菜了——我的沙拉装了满满一大盘，他则试图在一块蟹饼和圆面包上建一座塔。我想知道，欧洲有没有一点儿让他欣赏的地方呢？他又一次大笑起来。他说，还有一个人问过他这个问题，那就是美国前任财长、后来的前哈佛大学(Harvard)校长拉里•萨莫斯(Larry Summers)。“我觉得这很奇怪。这暗示着我不喜欢欧洲的任何东西……（实际上）欧洲的许多东西我都喜欢。我经常去欧洲，我必须喜欢那里。”他举了一个例子，欧洲“对哲学的兴趣比美国浓厚得多，我对此非常欣赏”。
菲尔普斯急于表明，他“不是”说欧洲人反对创造财富的“美国经济学家之一”。“我的天，我想再没有人比欧洲人更喜欢积累财富了。我曾经和妻子住在（罗马）法尼榭宫(Palazzo Farnese)附近。在杜维嘉大学(University Tor Vergata)上了一整天班后，开着我的宝马(BMW)回家，花30分钟找个停车的地方，一直到晚上6点50左右，搞得筋疲力尽。有一些意大利工匠从早上8点就开始工作个不停。欧洲人在许多方面跟美国人很像。他们喜欢工作，他们喜欢富裕。但他们的其它态度妨碍了一个有效的经济体系。”
在吃完主菜后，我们俩都停顿了下来。这些蟹饼怎么样，我问道？“哦，非常好，”他说，“一点也没变，一直都是这个味儿。”
他在资本主义和推行变革的必要性方面迥异的观点是不是有可能与他出生在大萧条(Great Depression)时期有关？——在此期间他的父母都失业了（他的父亲从事广告工作，他的母亲是一位营养学家）。菲尔普斯加强了语气。“当时我还是个小孩子。我的思想根本没有成型。”他跟我谈起获得诺贝尔奖后，有一次在瑞典电视台接受采访的经历：“采访者非常希望我说，我之所以进入经济学领域，原因是受到了大萧条时期失业的严重影响。我很难让他明白，我当时只是个小孩子。”
菲尔普斯解释说，对他更重要的是上世纪50年代早期在阿默斯特学院的时光，当时他阅读希腊英雄史诗、塞万提斯的《唐•吉柯德》(Don Quixote)和拉尔夫•沃尔多•爱默生(Ralph Waldo Emerson)关于自强的书。“我想不知不觉中，我就被灌输了生机论的思想（关于什么使生命有意义的思想）。美好生活是由接受挑战、解决问题、发现、个人发展和个人变化组成的。”他读过哲学家戴维•休姆(David Hume)的书，这使他明白了“想象力在理解事物方面的重要性”，而亨利•柏格森(Henri Bergson)的《创造进化论》(Creative Evolution)则提倡自由意志，反对决定主义。
相比之下，Isabella's的甜点单令菲尔普斯感到困惑。这“很奇怪，”他承认。不过，尽管他说欧洲人抵制创新，但并未挑剔酪饼冰激凌或者草莓奶油冰激凌背后的思想。“我保守一点吧，来个卡布奇诺奶油布蕾，”他说道（我不知道法国大厨是否会认为这是道保守的菜）。我选的是“黑巧克力袋”——一个大巧克力架，里面填充了奶油、覆盆子慕斯和夏季水果。
菲尔普斯回忆说，他在学术生涯中相对较晚的时期才开始从事基本工作——35岁左右。他的哥伦比亚大学同事罗伯特•蒙代尔(Robert Mundell)由于10年前发表的作品获得了诺贝尔奖。“早年的时候，我花了大量时间撰写发展经济学论文，我现在真希望当初没花那么多功夫写那些东西。我花了很长时间才成熟起来，说出一些有创意的东西。”
我付了餐费，但当我们离开餐馆时，费尔普斯想散一会儿步。犹豫了一下，他问我是否愿意向北走一段，走到美国自然历史博物馆。博物馆坐落在中央公园外，前面立着一个粉红色的纪念石碑，上面刻着自1906年西奥多•罗斯福(Theodore Roosevelt)获诺贝尔和平奖以来，所有获得诺贝尔奖的美国人姓名。纪念碑的第二面底部刻着费尔普斯的名字，是几天前新加上去的。费尔普斯短暂地沉默了一会儿，然后指着一些同样列在纪念碑上的同代人。他显然非常自豪。
拉尔夫•阿特金斯是英国《金融时报》法兰克福分社社长
Isabella's餐厅，纽约哥伦布大道
玉米浓汤2份
蟹饼三明治 1份
科布沙拉 1份
焦糖卡布奇诺 1份
黑巧克力袋 1份
加州白葡萄酒 2杯
双倍意式浓缩咖啡 2杯
水 1瓶
总价：100.25美元
译者/何黎
Clarity and the question of how the cookie crumbles
By Michael Skapinker
Friday, January 11, 2008
If native speakers of English are not to become international corporate pariahs, they will need to learn how to speak global English – in other words, to communicate with non-native speakers.
Resentment at the complexity of native speakers' English is widespread in international business. During a study carried out at Kone Elevators of Finland, reported in Business Communication Quarterly in 2002, one Finnish manager blurted out: “The British are the worst . . . It is much more difficult to understand their English than that of other nationalities. When we non-native speakers of English talk, it is much easier to understand. We have the same limited vocabulary.”
How can native speakers of English make themselves more comprehensible and more likeable? The most obvious way is to learn someone else's language. This is not necessarily so that you can speak to your non-English speaking colleagues, although that would help. The problem is that most business meetings these days contain people speaking several languages, so that speaking French, or Finnish, would be ruder than speaking incomprehensible English.
The great benefit of learning other languages is that you have some idea of what non-native speakers are up against. However, news this week that fewer than half of English schoolchildren are learning a foreign language suggests that this is not going to be a profitable route for many.
So what should native English-speakers do to make themselves better understood? First, slow down, but not to the point where members of your audience think you are patronising them. Second, avoid idiomatic and metaphorical expressions: that's the way the cookie crumbles, people in glass houses, and the like.
Jokes are a difficult area. You will not forget the silence that follows one that is found baffling. On the other hand, when jokes work, they can be a huge success with a non-native speaking audience. If you have learnt other languages, you will know that very few achievements are as satisfying as understanding your first foreign joke. Try a few out with your non-native speaking audience; you will soon learn which ones are worth repeating.
It is often unnecessary to avoid longer words such as “association” and “nationality”, which are common to the Romance languages and will be widely understood in Europe and Latin America.
Listen to verbal responses for signs of whether you have been understood or not. Make sure your non-native speaking colleagues have the chance to talk; they will often be paraphrasing your words in an attempt to satisfy themselves that they have grasped what you said.
Always remember that the greatest friend of the non-native speaker is repetition. Find more than one way of getting your point across and summarise frequently.
Friday, January 11, 2008
If native speakers of English are not to become international corporate pariahs, they will need to learn how to speak global English – in other words, to communicate with non-native speakers.
Resentment at the complexity of native speakers' English is widespread in international business. During a study carried out at Kone Elevators of Finland, reported in Business Communication Quarterly in 2002, one Finnish manager blurted out: “The British are the worst . . . It is much more difficult to understand their English than that of other nationalities. When we non-native speakers of English talk, it is much easier to understand. We have the same limited vocabulary.”
How can native speakers of English make themselves more comprehensible and more likeable? The most obvious way is to learn someone else's language. This is not necessarily so that you can speak to your non-English speaking colleagues, although that would help. The problem is that most business meetings these days contain people speaking several languages, so that speaking French, or Finnish, would be ruder than speaking incomprehensible English.
The great benefit of learning other languages is that you have some idea of what non-native speakers are up against. However, news this week that fewer than half of English schoolchildren are learning a foreign language suggests that this is not going to be a profitable route for many.
So what should native English-speakers do to make themselves better understood? First, slow down, but not to the point where members of your audience think you are patronising them. Second, avoid idiomatic and metaphorical expressions: that's the way the cookie crumbles, people in glass houses, and the like.
Jokes are a difficult area. You will not forget the silence that follows one that is found baffling. On the other hand, when jokes work, they can be a huge success with a non-native speaking audience. If you have learnt other languages, you will know that very few achievements are as satisfying as understanding your first foreign joke. Try a few out with your non-native speaking audience; you will soon learn which ones are worth repeating.
It is often unnecessary to avoid longer words such as “association” and “nationality”, which are common to the Romance languages and will be widely understood in Europe and Latin America.
Listen to verbal responses for signs of whether you have been understood or not. Make sure your non-native speaking colleagues have the chance to talk; they will often be paraphrasing your words in an attempt to satisfy themselves that they have grasped what you said.
Always remember that the greatest friend of the non-native speaker is repetition. Find more than one way of getting your point across and summarise frequently.
2007年12月28日星期五
Annäherung zwischen Japan und China
Brückenbauer Fukuda
Japans neuer Premier Yasuo Fukuda verglich vor seiner Abreise nach Peking die Aufnahme diplomatischer Beziehungen 1972 zu China mit dem Bau einer Hängebrücke. Wer die Geschichte zwischen beiden Staaten seit den Gräueltaten des Weltkrieges kennt, weiß, wie wackelig diese erste Verbindung noch war. Sechs Jahre später schlossen Tokio und Peking einen Friedens- und Freundschaftsvertrag. Fukuda nennt ihn eine stählerne Brücke. Weil beide Staaten einen Neuanfang nach ihrer Kriegsgeschichte wagten. Weil 1978 das Jahr war, mit dem Chinas Reformen begannen. Der dritte Grund ist persönlich: Weil Premier Takeo Fukuda, der vor 30 Jahren den Mut zum Deal mit China hatte, sein Vater war. Danach kam es zu einer Reihe von Rückschlägen auf beiden Seiten. Sie waren immer wieder mit der unbewältigten Erinnerung an die Vergangenheit verbunden. Jetzt ist Sohn Fukuda gekommen, um neue Brücken zu bauen. Er nannte nur einen Grund dafür: "Einer kommt nicht mehr ohne den anderen aus." Die Liste ist lang geworden, vom Kampf gegen den Terrorismus bis zum Klimaschutz. Oder beim Handel, wo China seit 2007 für Japan ein größerer Partner als die USA geworden ist. Japan und China brauchen einander. Keiner von beiden will, dass ihre historische Frage von der Straße beantwortet wird. Sie haben Geschichtskommissionen eingesetzt. Japan steckt beim Yasukuni-Schrein zurück. In China geht die Saat eines neuen Denkens auf. Seine gerade würdig begangene Erinnerung an Japans Massaker in Nanking vom Dezember 1937 hat den Besuch Fukudas nicht tangiert. Peking bat ihn für die letzten Tage des alten Jahres zu Gast. Im Blick haben beide die Feier zum 30. Jahrestag des Freundschaftsvertrags, der auf das Olympiajahr 2008 fällt. Die Probleme zwischen beiden Staaten bleiben bestehen. Sie scheinen aber endlich zu begreifen, dass sie nicht umhinkommen, viele Brücken zwischen sich zu bauen.
Japans neuer Premier Yasuo Fukuda verglich vor seiner Abreise nach Peking die Aufnahme diplomatischer Beziehungen 1972 zu China mit dem Bau einer Hängebrücke. Wer die Geschichte zwischen beiden Staaten seit den Gräueltaten des Weltkrieges kennt, weiß, wie wackelig diese erste Verbindung noch war. Sechs Jahre später schlossen Tokio und Peking einen Friedens- und Freundschaftsvertrag. Fukuda nennt ihn eine stählerne Brücke. Weil beide Staaten einen Neuanfang nach ihrer Kriegsgeschichte wagten. Weil 1978 das Jahr war, mit dem Chinas Reformen begannen. Der dritte Grund ist persönlich: Weil Premier Takeo Fukuda, der vor 30 Jahren den Mut zum Deal mit China hatte, sein Vater war. Danach kam es zu einer Reihe von Rückschlägen auf beiden Seiten. Sie waren immer wieder mit der unbewältigten Erinnerung an die Vergangenheit verbunden. Jetzt ist Sohn Fukuda gekommen, um neue Brücken zu bauen. Er nannte nur einen Grund dafür: "Einer kommt nicht mehr ohne den anderen aus." Die Liste ist lang geworden, vom Kampf gegen den Terrorismus bis zum Klimaschutz. Oder beim Handel, wo China seit 2007 für Japan ein größerer Partner als die USA geworden ist. Japan und China brauchen einander. Keiner von beiden will, dass ihre historische Frage von der Straße beantwortet wird. Sie haben Geschichtskommissionen eingesetzt. Japan steckt beim Yasukuni-Schrein zurück. In China geht die Saat eines neuen Denkens auf. Seine gerade würdig begangene Erinnerung an Japans Massaker in Nanking vom Dezember 1937 hat den Besuch Fukudas nicht tangiert. Peking bat ihn für die letzten Tage des alten Jahres zu Gast. Im Blick haben beide die Feier zum 30. Jahrestag des Freundschaftsvertrags, der auf das Olympiajahr 2008 fällt. Die Probleme zwischen beiden Staaten bleiben bestehen. Sie scheinen aber endlich zu begreifen, dass sie nicht umhinkommen, viele Brücken zwischen sich zu bauen.
2007年12月14日星期五
A political spat with China puts German businesses on edge
Germany and China
Broken pottery
Dec 13th 2007 | FRANKFURT
From The Economist print edition
EIGHT life-size terracotta warriors, thought to be from Xian, China, went on display in Hamburg on November 25th, but are now suspected of being fakes. Museum officials are investigating the latest twist in Germany's fraught relations with China, which took a nosedive after Chancellor Angela Merkel received the Dalai Lama on September 23rd.
The worries about China come as German businessmen are having a difficult time with Ms Merkel closer to home. She has attacked the excessive pay of top executives who put their companies at risk at the expense of other employees, though she stops short of proposing a legal ceiling. She has also threatened to impose a minimum wage on more industries where collective agreements are being side-stepped. German business confidence fell to a 15-year low in the latest poll carried out by ZEW, a research centre in Mannheim.
China regards official contacts with the Dalai Lama, in exile from Tibet since 1959, as a threat to the stability of the province. In late November Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, demanded an apology, which Ms Merkel shows no sign of giving. Various official visits have been cancelled, including one by Germany's finance minister, Peer Steinbrück, and apprehension is seeping into the business community.
Deutsche Post recently said it had refused to print ready-franked envelopes bearing an image of the Dalai Lama—an attempt to steer clear of the political fracas. Der Spiegel, a weekly magazine, cancelled an exhibition at a museum in Shanghai after complaints about its content. This is small beer, but the evidence is mounting that business as well as political relations between Germany and China are going through a brief ice age. Jürgen Thumann, head of the Federation of German Industry, has urged the government to enter “constructive dialogue” with China. Other industrial leaders have dived for cover since Jürgen Hambrecht, boss of BASF, said the handling of the Dalai Lama's visit was “not very clever”. Ekkehard Schulz, head of ThyssenKrupp, an industrial giant, refused to comment on the matter on December 4th when revealing record profits, due in part to buoyant business in Asia.
There are still hopes that a visit to China by Sigmar Gabriel, the environment minister, will go ahead at the end of January as planned. A lot is at stake. China is Germany's second-biggest export customer outside Europe, and carmakers, chemical firms and makers of industrial machinery are relying on it for growth. Meanwhile the German economy benefits from cheap furniture, office equipment and sports goods from China. These flows are unlikely to be affected in the short term. And big contracts, such as those for Airbus aircraft and nuclear power-stations, in which German firms are members of international consortia, should survive unscathed. But bilateral deals are more at risk.
German projects in the pipeline in China include a €150m ($220m) tyre plant to be built by Continental in Hefei, and two joint-ventures being set up by Daimler to build vans and trucks. Siemens and ThyssenKrupp are hoping for the go-ahead to extend Transrapid, Shanghai's high-speed rail system. Many firms publicly say they are not worried, but there is “growing concern that things are getting more difficult for German business,” says Eberhard Sandschneider of the German Council on Foreign Relations. “China has a record of playing games—not having time for meetings, not signing documents and so on.”
What now? The city of Hamburg, where 400 Chinese firms are registered, hopes it can help to bring about a thaw. In 2006 it hosted an event, “China meets Europe”, which was attended by Mr Wen and three other ministers. Preparations for a similar event scheduled for next September “could be a catalyst for better relations,” says Jens Assmann of Hamburg's Chamber of Commerce. German bosses must be hoping that their strained relations with China—and with Ms Merkel—will improve before then.
Broken pottery
Dec 13th 2007 | FRANKFURT
From The Economist print edition
EIGHT life-size terracotta warriors, thought to be from Xian, China, went on display in Hamburg on November 25th, but are now suspected of being fakes. Museum officials are investigating the latest twist in Germany's fraught relations with China, which took a nosedive after Chancellor Angela Merkel received the Dalai Lama on September 23rd.
The worries about China come as German businessmen are having a difficult time with Ms Merkel closer to home. She has attacked the excessive pay of top executives who put their companies at risk at the expense of other employees, though she stops short of proposing a legal ceiling. She has also threatened to impose a minimum wage on more industries where collective agreements are being side-stepped. German business confidence fell to a 15-year low in the latest poll carried out by ZEW, a research centre in Mannheim.
China regards official contacts with the Dalai Lama, in exile from Tibet since 1959, as a threat to the stability of the province. In late November Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, demanded an apology, which Ms Merkel shows no sign of giving. Various official visits have been cancelled, including one by Germany's finance minister, Peer Steinbrück, and apprehension is seeping into the business community.
Deutsche Post recently said it had refused to print ready-franked envelopes bearing an image of the Dalai Lama—an attempt to steer clear of the political fracas. Der Spiegel, a weekly magazine, cancelled an exhibition at a museum in Shanghai after complaints about its content. This is small beer, but the evidence is mounting that business as well as political relations between Germany and China are going through a brief ice age. Jürgen Thumann, head of the Federation of German Industry, has urged the government to enter “constructive dialogue” with China. Other industrial leaders have dived for cover since Jürgen Hambrecht, boss of BASF, said the handling of the Dalai Lama's visit was “not very clever”. Ekkehard Schulz, head of ThyssenKrupp, an industrial giant, refused to comment on the matter on December 4th when revealing record profits, due in part to buoyant business in Asia.
There are still hopes that a visit to China by Sigmar Gabriel, the environment minister, will go ahead at the end of January as planned. A lot is at stake. China is Germany's second-biggest export customer outside Europe, and carmakers, chemical firms and makers of industrial machinery are relying on it for growth. Meanwhile the German economy benefits from cheap furniture, office equipment and sports goods from China. These flows are unlikely to be affected in the short term. And big contracts, such as those for Airbus aircraft and nuclear power-stations, in which German firms are members of international consortia, should survive unscathed. But bilateral deals are more at risk.
German projects in the pipeline in China include a €150m ($220m) tyre plant to be built by Continental in Hefei, and two joint-ventures being set up by Daimler to build vans and trucks. Siemens and ThyssenKrupp are hoping for the go-ahead to extend Transrapid, Shanghai's high-speed rail system. Many firms publicly say they are not worried, but there is “growing concern that things are getting more difficult for German business,” says Eberhard Sandschneider of the German Council on Foreign Relations. “China has a record of playing games—not having time for meetings, not signing documents and so on.”
What now? The city of Hamburg, where 400 Chinese firms are registered, hopes it can help to bring about a thaw. In 2006 it hosted an event, “China meets Europe”, which was attended by Mr Wen and three other ministers. Preparations for a similar event scheduled for next September “could be a catalyst for better relations,” says Jens Assmann of Hamburg's Chamber of Commerce. German bosses must be hoping that their strained relations with China—and with Ms Merkel—will improve before then.
TIME FOR EU TO END TIT-FOR-TAT APPROACH TO CHINA
Patrick Messerlin and Razeen Sally
Friday, December 14, 2007
European rhetoric aimed at China is becoming American in style: confrontational and shrill. Trade deficits and exchange rates are the lightning-rods. European Union threats of retaliation have become more frequent.
This new China-bashing is muddle-headed and dangerous. On deficits and exchange rates, the EU's diagnosis is nonsense. It is true the EU's trade deficit with China is soaring, hitting $166.4bn in 2006. While that is still smaller than the US-China trade deficit the deficit has grown much faster. The Chinese renminbi has depreciated about 25 per cent against the euro since 2000, while it has appreciated about 10 per cent against the dollar.
However, the bilateral trade deficit is not a problem. The EU imports more from China, but correspondingly less from other east-Asian countries: the EU's trade deficits have simply shifted from the latter to China. That is because China has become the final-assembly hub for goods exported to the rest of the world. Its corollary is increasing Chinese imports of parts and components from the west and east Asia. The trade deficit is a natural consequence of a massive global reshaping of trade and production.
This obsession with trade deficits also obscures phenomenally good news. Low-cost Chinese imports have been a boon to European consumers, retailers and producers. EU exports to China have more than doubled since 2000 and have grown faster than to any other export destination. European companies have invested over $56bn in China and generated total sales of $134bn in 2006. A big chunk of this was in the form of exports back to Europe. But Chinese domestic sales are growing too: European companies are targeting China's coastal provinces – a market of more than 400m people with explosive rates of growth and a middle class hungry for better-quality goods and services.
The EU has real commercial problems with China, notably the implementation of its World Trade Organisation obligations and domestic obstruction of foreign trade and investment. These are genuine, not bogus. But tit-for-tat protectionism from Brussels will make problems worse, not better. What should the EU do instead?
First, it should deal with its trade and non-trade objectives (such as democracy, human rights and climate change) on separate tracks. Linking them gets Chinese backs up and works against compromise. Far better to tackle commercial issues in a contained, businesslike setting.
Second, the EU should accord China “market-economy status” (MES). Its argument – that China does not yet meet specified market-economy criteria – is specious. These criteria are vague and arbitrary. China is now more market-oriented than Russia and most other developing countries. Yet the EU accords Russia and other developing countries MES, but not China.
Third, the EU and China could agree a series of reciprocal, mutually beneficial concessions as part of an improved bilateral co-operation outside the political theatre of trade negotiations.
In addition to granting China MES, the EU should agree to exercise restraint in using trade remedies generally, such as anti-dumping duties, China-specific “transitional safeguards” and countervailing duties. In return, it should ask China for better, targeted enforcement of intellectual property rights; further opening of China's services markets, especially by addressing domestic regulatory barriers; removal of foreign-investment restrictions in core services sectors; more transparency in subsidies to state-owned enterprises (SOEs); and higher transparency standards for Chinese SOEs and “sovereign wealth funds” that increasingly invest abroad.
These are measures that would contain protectionism on both sides and deepen commercial ties. They would also create political space for Beijing's leadership to continue structural reforms to open its economy further.
Commercial relations between the EU and China could easily end up the other way around, with escalating tit-for-tat protectionism. The EU is the world's biggest trade and investment entity and has a key role to play in smoothing China's integration into the world economy. It should not undermine that chance by becoming increasingly shrill about bogus trade issues.
Razeen Sally is director of the European Centre for International Political Economy in Brussels. Patrick Messerlin is professor of economics at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques in Paris, and chairman of ECIPE's advisory board.
Friday, December 14, 2007
European rhetoric aimed at China is becoming American in style: confrontational and shrill. Trade deficits and exchange rates are the lightning-rods. European Union threats of retaliation have become more frequent.
This new China-bashing is muddle-headed and dangerous. On deficits and exchange rates, the EU's diagnosis is nonsense. It is true the EU's trade deficit with China is soaring, hitting $166.4bn in 2006. While that is still smaller than the US-China trade deficit the deficit has grown much faster. The Chinese renminbi has depreciated about 25 per cent against the euro since 2000, while it has appreciated about 10 per cent against the dollar.
However, the bilateral trade deficit is not a problem. The EU imports more from China, but correspondingly less from other east-Asian countries: the EU's trade deficits have simply shifted from the latter to China. That is because China has become the final-assembly hub for goods exported to the rest of the world. Its corollary is increasing Chinese imports of parts and components from the west and east Asia. The trade deficit is a natural consequence of a massive global reshaping of trade and production.
This obsession with trade deficits also obscures phenomenally good news. Low-cost Chinese imports have been a boon to European consumers, retailers and producers. EU exports to China have more than doubled since 2000 and have grown faster than to any other export destination. European companies have invested over $56bn in China and generated total sales of $134bn in 2006. A big chunk of this was in the form of exports back to Europe. But Chinese domestic sales are growing too: European companies are targeting China's coastal provinces – a market of more than 400m people with explosive rates of growth and a middle class hungry for better-quality goods and services.
The EU has real commercial problems with China, notably the implementation of its World Trade Organisation obligations and domestic obstruction of foreign trade and investment. These are genuine, not bogus. But tit-for-tat protectionism from Brussels will make problems worse, not better. What should the EU do instead?
First, it should deal with its trade and non-trade objectives (such as democracy, human rights and climate change) on separate tracks. Linking them gets Chinese backs up and works against compromise. Far better to tackle commercial issues in a contained, businesslike setting.
Second, the EU should accord China “market-economy status” (MES). Its argument – that China does not yet meet specified market-economy criteria – is specious. These criteria are vague and arbitrary. China is now more market-oriented than Russia and most other developing countries. Yet the EU accords Russia and other developing countries MES, but not China.
Third, the EU and China could agree a series of reciprocal, mutually beneficial concessions as part of an improved bilateral co-operation outside the political theatre of trade negotiations.
In addition to granting China MES, the EU should agree to exercise restraint in using trade remedies generally, such as anti-dumping duties, China-specific “transitional safeguards” and countervailing duties. In return, it should ask China for better, targeted enforcement of intellectual property rights; further opening of China's services markets, especially by addressing domestic regulatory barriers; removal of foreign-investment restrictions in core services sectors; more transparency in subsidies to state-owned enterprises (SOEs); and higher transparency standards for Chinese SOEs and “sovereign wealth funds” that increasingly invest abroad.
These are measures that would contain protectionism on both sides and deepen commercial ties. They would also create political space for Beijing's leadership to continue structural reforms to open its economy further.
Commercial relations between the EU and China could easily end up the other way around, with escalating tit-for-tat protectionism. The EU is the world's biggest trade and investment entity and has a key role to play in smoothing China's integration into the world economy. It should not undermine that chance by becoming increasingly shrill about bogus trade issues.
Razeen Sally is director of the European Centre for International Political Economy in Brussels. Patrick Messerlin is professor of economics at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques in Paris, and chairman of ECIPE's advisory board.
2007年12月10日星期一
Beauty and success
To those that have, shall be given
Dec 19th 2007
The ugly are one of the few groups against whom it is still legal to discriminate. Unfortunately for them, there are good reasons why beauty and success go hand in hand
Illustration by Brett Ryder
IMAGINE you have two candidates for a job. They are both of the same sex—and that sex is the one your own proclivities incline you to find attractive. Their CVs are equally good, and they both give good interview. You cannot help noticing, though, that one is pug-ugly and the other is handsome. Are you swayed by their appearance?
Perhaps not. But lesser, less-moral mortals might be. If appearance did not count, why would people dress up for such interviews—even if the job they are hoping to get is dressed down? And job interviews are turning points in life. If beauty sways interviewers, the beautiful will, by and large, have more successful careers than the ugly—even in careers for which beauty is not a necessary qualification.
If you were swayed by someone's looks, however, would that be wrong? In a society that eschews prejudice, favouring the beautiful seems about as shallow as you can get. But it was not always thus. In the past, people often equated beauty with virtue and ugliness with vice.
Even now, the expression “as ugly as sin” has not quite passed from the language. There is, of course, the equally famous expression “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, to counter it. But the subtext of that old saw, that beauty is arbitrary, is wrong. Most beholders agree what is beautiful—and modern biology suggests there is a good reason for that agreement. Biology also suggests that beauty may, indeed, be a good rule of thumb for assessing someone of either sex. Not an infallible one, and certainly no substitute for an in-depth investigation. But, nevertheless, an instinctive one, and one that is bound to redound to the advantage of the physically well endowed.
Fearful symmetry
The godfather of scientific study of beauty is Randy Thornhill, of the University of New Mexico. It was Dr Thornhill who, a little over a decade ago, took an observation he originally made about insects and dared to apply it to people.
The insects in question were scorpion flies, and the observation was that those flies whose wings were most symmetrical were the ones that did best in the mating stakes. Dr Thornhill thought this preference for symmetry might turn out to be universal in the animal kingdom (and it does indeed seem to be). In particular, he showed it is true of people. He started with faces, manipulating pictures to make them more and less symmetrical, and having volunteers of the opposite sex rank them for attractiveness. But he has gone on to show that all aspects of bodily symmetry contribute, down to the lengths of corresponding fingers, and that the assessment applies to those of the same sex, as well.
The reason seems to be that perfect symmetry is hard for a developing embryo to maintain. The embryo that can maintain it obviously has good genes (and also a certain amount of luck). It is, therefore, more than just coincidence that the words “health and beauty” trip so easily off the tongue as a single phrase.
Other aspects of beauty, too, are indicators of health. Skin and hair condition, in particular, are sensitive to illness, malnutrition and so on (or, perhaps it would be better to say that people's perceptions are exquisitely tuned to detect perfection and flaws in such things). And more recent work has demonstrated another association. Contrary to the old jokes about dumb blondes, beautiful people seem to be cleverer, too.
One of the most detailed studies on the link between beauty and intelligence was done by Mark Prokosch, Ronald Yeo and Geoffrey Miller, who also work at the University of New Mexico. These three researchers correlated people's bodily symmetry with their performance on intelligence tests. Such tests come in many varieties, of course, and have a controversial background. But most workers in the field agree that there is a quality, normally referred to as “general intelligence”, or “g”, that such tests can measure objectively along with specific abilities in such areas as spatial awareness and language. Dr Miller and his colleagues found that the more a test was designed to measure g, the more the results were correlated with bodily symmetry—particularly in the bottom half of the beauty-ugliness spectrum.
Faces, too, seem to carry information on intelligence. A few years ago, two of the world's face experts, Leslie Zebrowitz, of Brandeis University in Massachusetts, and Gillian Rhodes, of the University of Western Australia, got together to review the literature and conduct some fresh experiments. They found nine past studies (seven of them conducted before the second world war, an indication of how old interest in this subject is), and subjected them to what is known as a meta-analysis.
The studies in question had all used more or less the same methodology, namely photograph people and ask them to do IQ tests, then show the photographs to other people and ask the second lot to rank the intelligence of the first lot. The results suggested that people get such judgments right—by no means all the time, but often enough to be significant. The two researchers and their colleagues then carried out their own experiment, with the added twist of dividing their subjects up by age.
Bright blondes
The results of that were rather surprising. They found that the faces of children and adults of middling years did seem to give away intelligence, while those of teenagers and the elderly did not. That is surprising because face-reading of this sort must surely be important in mate selection, and the teenage years are the time when such selection is likely to be at its most intense—though, conversely, they are also the time when evolution will be working hardest to cover up any deficiencies, and the hormone-driven changes taking place during puberty might provide the material needed to do that.
Nevertheless, the accumulating evidence suggests that physical characteristics do give clues about intelligence, that such clues are picked up by other people, and that these clues are also associated with beauty. And other work also suggests that this really does matter.
One of the leading students of beauty and success is Daniel Hamermesh of the University of Texas. Dr Hamermesh is an economist rather than a biologist, and thus brings a somewhat different perspective to the field. He has collected evidence from more than one continent that beauty really is associated with success—at least, with financial success. He has also shown that, if all else is equal, it might be a perfectly legitimate business strategy to hire the more beautiful candidate.
Just over a decade ago Dr Hamermesh presided over a series of surveys in the United States and Canada which showed that when all other things are taken into account, ugly people earn less than average incomes, while beautiful people earn more than the average. The ugliness “penalty” for men was -9% while the beauty premium was +5%. For women, perhaps surprisingly considering popular prejudices about the sexes, the effect was less: the ugliness penalty was -6% while the beauty premium was +4%.
Since then, he has gone on to measure these effects in other places. In China, ugliness is penalised more in women, but beauty is more rewarded. The figures for men in Shanghai are –25% and +3%; for women they are –31% and +10%. In Britain, ugly men do worse than ugly women (-18% as against -11%) but the beauty premium is the same for both (and only +1%).
The difference also applies within professions. Dr Hamermesh looked at the careers of members of a particular (though discreetly anonymous) American law school. He found that those rated attractive on the basis of their graduation photographs went on to earn higher salaries than their less well-favoured colleagues. Moreover, lawyers in private practice tended to be better looking than those working in government departments.
Illustration by Brett RyderEven more unfairly, Dr Hamermesh found evidence that beautiful people may bring more revenue to their employers than the less-favoured do. His study of Dutch advertising firms showed that those with the most beautiful executives had the largest size-adjusted revenues—a difference that exceeded the salary differentials of the firms in question. Finally, to add insult to injury, he found that even in his own cerebral and, one might have thought, beauty-blind profession, attractive candidates were more successful in elections for office in the American Economic Association.
That last distinction also applies to elections to public office, as was neatly demonstrated by Niclas Berggren, of the Ratio Institute in Stockholm, and his colleagues. Dr Berggren's team looked at almost 2,000 candidates in Finnish elections. They asked foreigners (mainly Americans and Swedes) to examine the candidates' campaign photographs and rank them for beauty. They then compared those rankings with the actual election results. They were able to eliminate the effects of party preference because Finland has a system of proportional representation that pits candidates of the same party against one another. Lo and behold, the more beautiful candidates, as ranked by people who knew nothing of Finland's internal politics, tended to have been the more successful—though in this case, unlike Dr Hamermesh's economic results, the effect was larger for women than for men.
If looks could kill
What these results suggest is a two-fold process, sadly reminiscent of the biblical quotation to which the title of this article refers. There is a feedback loop between biology and the social environment that gives to those who have, and takes from those who have not.
That happens because beauty is a real marker for other, underlying characteristics such as health, good genes and intelligence. It is what biologists call an unfakeable signal, like the deep roar of a big, rutting stag that smaller adolescents are physically incapable of producing. It therefore makes biological sense for people to prefer beautiful friends and lovers, since the first will make good allies, and the second, good mates.
That brings the beautiful opportunities denied to the ugly, which allows them to learn things and make connections that increase their value still further. If they are judged on that experience as well as their biological fitness, it makes them even more attractive. Even a small initial difference can thus be amplified into something that just ain't—viewed from the bottom—fair.
Given all this, it is hardly surprising that the cosmetics industry has global sales of $280 billion. But can you really fake the unfakeable signal?
Dr Hamermesh's research suggests that you can but, sadly, that it is not cost-effective—at least, not if your purpose is career advancement. Working in Shanghai, where the difference between the ugliness penalty and the beauty bonus was greatest, he looked at how women's spending on their cosmetics and clothes affected their income.
The answer was that it did, but not enough to pay for itself in a strictly financial sense. He estimates that the beauty premium generated by such primping is worth only 15% of the money expended. Of course, beauty pays off in spheres of life other than the workplace. But that, best beloved, would be the subject of a rather different article.
Dec 19th 2007
The ugly are one of the few groups against whom it is still legal to discriminate. Unfortunately for them, there are good reasons why beauty and success go hand in hand
Illustration by Brett Ryder
IMAGINE you have two candidates for a job. They are both of the same sex—and that sex is the one your own proclivities incline you to find attractive. Their CVs are equally good, and they both give good interview. You cannot help noticing, though, that one is pug-ugly and the other is handsome. Are you swayed by their appearance?
Perhaps not. But lesser, less-moral mortals might be. If appearance did not count, why would people dress up for such interviews—even if the job they are hoping to get is dressed down? And job interviews are turning points in life. If beauty sways interviewers, the beautiful will, by and large, have more successful careers than the ugly—even in careers for which beauty is not a necessary qualification.
If you were swayed by someone's looks, however, would that be wrong? In a society that eschews prejudice, favouring the beautiful seems about as shallow as you can get. But it was not always thus. In the past, people often equated beauty with virtue and ugliness with vice.
Even now, the expression “as ugly as sin” has not quite passed from the language. There is, of course, the equally famous expression “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, to counter it. But the subtext of that old saw, that beauty is arbitrary, is wrong. Most beholders agree what is beautiful—and modern biology suggests there is a good reason for that agreement. Biology also suggests that beauty may, indeed, be a good rule of thumb for assessing someone of either sex. Not an infallible one, and certainly no substitute for an in-depth investigation. But, nevertheless, an instinctive one, and one that is bound to redound to the advantage of the physically well endowed.
Fearful symmetry
The godfather of scientific study of beauty is Randy Thornhill, of the University of New Mexico. It was Dr Thornhill who, a little over a decade ago, took an observation he originally made about insects and dared to apply it to people.
The insects in question were scorpion flies, and the observation was that those flies whose wings were most symmetrical were the ones that did best in the mating stakes. Dr Thornhill thought this preference for symmetry might turn out to be universal in the animal kingdom (and it does indeed seem to be). In particular, he showed it is true of people. He started with faces, manipulating pictures to make them more and less symmetrical, and having volunteers of the opposite sex rank them for attractiveness. But he has gone on to show that all aspects of bodily symmetry contribute, down to the lengths of corresponding fingers, and that the assessment applies to those of the same sex, as well.
The reason seems to be that perfect symmetry is hard for a developing embryo to maintain. The embryo that can maintain it obviously has good genes (and also a certain amount of luck). It is, therefore, more than just coincidence that the words “health and beauty” trip so easily off the tongue as a single phrase.
Other aspects of beauty, too, are indicators of health. Skin and hair condition, in particular, are sensitive to illness, malnutrition and so on (or, perhaps it would be better to say that people's perceptions are exquisitely tuned to detect perfection and flaws in such things). And more recent work has demonstrated another association. Contrary to the old jokes about dumb blondes, beautiful people seem to be cleverer, too.
One of the most detailed studies on the link between beauty and intelligence was done by Mark Prokosch, Ronald Yeo and Geoffrey Miller, who also work at the University of New Mexico. These three researchers correlated people's bodily symmetry with their performance on intelligence tests. Such tests come in many varieties, of course, and have a controversial background. But most workers in the field agree that there is a quality, normally referred to as “general intelligence”, or “g”, that such tests can measure objectively along with specific abilities in such areas as spatial awareness and language. Dr Miller and his colleagues found that the more a test was designed to measure g, the more the results were correlated with bodily symmetry—particularly in the bottom half of the beauty-ugliness spectrum.
Faces, too, seem to carry information on intelligence. A few years ago, two of the world's face experts, Leslie Zebrowitz, of Brandeis University in Massachusetts, and Gillian Rhodes, of the University of Western Australia, got together to review the literature and conduct some fresh experiments. They found nine past studies (seven of them conducted before the second world war, an indication of how old interest in this subject is), and subjected them to what is known as a meta-analysis.
The studies in question had all used more or less the same methodology, namely photograph people and ask them to do IQ tests, then show the photographs to other people and ask the second lot to rank the intelligence of the first lot. The results suggested that people get such judgments right—by no means all the time, but often enough to be significant. The two researchers and their colleagues then carried out their own experiment, with the added twist of dividing their subjects up by age.
Bright blondes
The results of that were rather surprising. They found that the faces of children and adults of middling years did seem to give away intelligence, while those of teenagers and the elderly did not. That is surprising because face-reading of this sort must surely be important in mate selection, and the teenage years are the time when such selection is likely to be at its most intense—though, conversely, they are also the time when evolution will be working hardest to cover up any deficiencies, and the hormone-driven changes taking place during puberty might provide the material needed to do that.
Nevertheless, the accumulating evidence suggests that physical characteristics do give clues about intelligence, that such clues are picked up by other people, and that these clues are also associated with beauty. And other work also suggests that this really does matter.
One of the leading students of beauty and success is Daniel Hamermesh of the University of Texas. Dr Hamermesh is an economist rather than a biologist, and thus brings a somewhat different perspective to the field. He has collected evidence from more than one continent that beauty really is associated with success—at least, with financial success. He has also shown that, if all else is equal, it might be a perfectly legitimate business strategy to hire the more beautiful candidate.
Just over a decade ago Dr Hamermesh presided over a series of surveys in the United States and Canada which showed that when all other things are taken into account, ugly people earn less than average incomes, while beautiful people earn more than the average. The ugliness “penalty” for men was -9% while the beauty premium was +5%. For women, perhaps surprisingly considering popular prejudices about the sexes, the effect was less: the ugliness penalty was -6% while the beauty premium was +4%.
Since then, he has gone on to measure these effects in other places. In China, ugliness is penalised more in women, but beauty is more rewarded. The figures for men in Shanghai are –25% and +3%; for women they are –31% and +10%. In Britain, ugly men do worse than ugly women (-18% as against -11%) but the beauty premium is the same for both (and only +1%).
The difference also applies within professions. Dr Hamermesh looked at the careers of members of a particular (though discreetly anonymous) American law school. He found that those rated attractive on the basis of their graduation photographs went on to earn higher salaries than their less well-favoured colleagues. Moreover, lawyers in private practice tended to be better looking than those working in government departments.
Illustration by Brett RyderEven more unfairly, Dr Hamermesh found evidence that beautiful people may bring more revenue to their employers than the less-favoured do. His study of Dutch advertising firms showed that those with the most beautiful executives had the largest size-adjusted revenues—a difference that exceeded the salary differentials of the firms in question. Finally, to add insult to injury, he found that even in his own cerebral and, one might have thought, beauty-blind profession, attractive candidates were more successful in elections for office in the American Economic Association.
That last distinction also applies to elections to public office, as was neatly demonstrated by Niclas Berggren, of the Ratio Institute in Stockholm, and his colleagues. Dr Berggren's team looked at almost 2,000 candidates in Finnish elections. They asked foreigners (mainly Americans and Swedes) to examine the candidates' campaign photographs and rank them for beauty. They then compared those rankings with the actual election results. They were able to eliminate the effects of party preference because Finland has a system of proportional representation that pits candidates of the same party against one another. Lo and behold, the more beautiful candidates, as ranked by people who knew nothing of Finland's internal politics, tended to have been the more successful—though in this case, unlike Dr Hamermesh's economic results, the effect was larger for women than for men.
If looks could kill
What these results suggest is a two-fold process, sadly reminiscent of the biblical quotation to which the title of this article refers. There is a feedback loop between biology and the social environment that gives to those who have, and takes from those who have not.
That happens because beauty is a real marker for other, underlying characteristics such as health, good genes and intelligence. It is what biologists call an unfakeable signal, like the deep roar of a big, rutting stag that smaller adolescents are physically incapable of producing. It therefore makes biological sense for people to prefer beautiful friends and lovers, since the first will make good allies, and the second, good mates.
That brings the beautiful opportunities denied to the ugly, which allows them to learn things and make connections that increase their value still further. If they are judged on that experience as well as their biological fitness, it makes them even more attractive. Even a small initial difference can thus be amplified into something that just ain't—viewed from the bottom—fair.
Given all this, it is hardly surprising that the cosmetics industry has global sales of $280 billion. But can you really fake the unfakeable signal?
Dr Hamermesh's research suggests that you can but, sadly, that it is not cost-effective—at least, not if your purpose is career advancement. Working in Shanghai, where the difference between the ugliness penalty and the beauty bonus was greatest, he looked at how women's spending on their cosmetics and clothes affected their income.
The answer was that it did, but not enough to pay for itself in a strictly financial sense. He estimates that the beauty premium generated by such primping is worth only 15% of the money expended. Of course, beauty pays off in spheres of life other than the workplace. But that, best beloved, would be the subject of a rather different article.
订阅：
评论 (Atom)