2021年06月四级第3套长篇阅读匹配原文翻译及答案

A) How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn't it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger"?

早期职业生涯的挫折如何影响我们的长期成功？失败可以帮助我们学习并克服恐惧。但灾难仍然会伤害我们。它们可能会搞砸我们并让我们倒退。如果“杀不死你的东西会让你更强大”这句话有真正的、科学记录的证据，那该多好啊？

B) One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining "near misses" and "narrow wins" in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.

社会科学家探究职业挫折影响的一种方式是研究资质非常相似的科学家。这些科学家，由于大多数是任意的原因，要么刚好错过获得研究资助，要么勉强成功。在社会科学中，这被称为检查主观评价领域中的“近失”和“险胜”。这使研究人员只能衡量被选中或未被选中的影响。该领域的研究发现了相互矛盾的结果。在竞争激烈的生物医学科学领域，对险败或险胜获得资助的科学家进行了研究。研究表明，险胜者后来会成为更大的赢家。换句话说，富者更富。

C) A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.

例如，2018年发表在《美国国家科学院院刊》上的一项研究跟踪了荷兰的研究人员。研究人员得出结论，那些勉强获得资助的人在接下来的八年内获得的资金是那些刚好错过的人的两倍。而且险胜者获得教授职位的可能性高出50%。

D) Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the Bible's wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There's a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it's easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who've already been so recognized.

美国的其他人也发现了类似的效果，美国国立卫生研究院的早期职业奖学金使险胜者远超险败者。这种现象常被称为马太效应，灵感来自圣经的智慧：凡有的，还要加给他。阿尔伯特·拉斯洛·巴拉巴西的书《公式：成功的普遍法则》对这一现象有很好的解释。根据巴拉巴西的说法，对于那些有权势的人来说，选择将奖项和资助交给那些已经被认可的人更容易、风险更小。

E) This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn't kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there's sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn't kill them simply didn't matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.

这对失败者来说是个坏消息。早期职业生涯的小挫折似乎会对未来产生不成比例的影响。没有杀死他们的东西让他们更弱了。但使用相同技术的其他研究表明，近失有时没有惩罚。刚好错过进入顶尖高中或大学的学生在后来的生活中与勉强被录取的学生一样好。在这种情况下，没有杀死他们的东西根本不重要。那么，有没有证据表明挫折实际上可能改善我们的职业前景？现在有了。

F) In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition (减员) among scientists who didn't get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn't by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.

在一项发表在《自然通讯》的研究中，西北大学社会学家Dashun Wang跟踪了1990年至2005年间处于获得资助边缘的1,100多名科学家。他在接下来的十年里跟踪了各种绩效指标。这些包括他们撰写了多少论文以及这些论文的影响力，通过后续引用次数来衡量。正如预期，没有获得资助的科学家减员率更高。但在那些留下的人中，险败者表现甚至优于险胜者。为确保这不是偶然，王使用不同的绩效指标进行了额外测试。他检查了人们在有影响力研究中担任第一作者的次数等。

G) One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang's study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.

险败者可能优于险胜者的一个直接原因是两组人具有可比的能力。在王的研究中，他从失败组中选择了最坚定、最热情的科学家，并剔除了他所认为的胜利组中最弱的成员。然而，坚持不懈的失败者仍然胜出。他认为，成为险败者可能会给人们带来心理上的推动，或者所谓的临门一脚。

H) Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.

乌得勒支大学社会学家Arnout van de Rijt是那篇展示富者更富的2018年论文的主要作者。他说新发现显然合理，值得关注。他自己的工作表明，尽管险胜者在不久的将来确实获得了更多资金，但险败者的实际表现一样好。

I) He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There's a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. "Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who," he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he's not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost; It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it's impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.

他说应该关注王论文的人是那些分配政府资助资金的机构。毕竟，通过继续将财富堆积在险胜者身上，如果险败者表现一样好甚至更好，纳税人的钱就没有得到最大价值。他说，在选择谁获得资助的过程中投入了大量的时间和精力，最新研究表明科学界不太擅长分配资金。“也许我们应该少花钱试图弄清楚谁比谁更好，”他说，建议更平均地分配资金可能更有生产力和效率。Van de Rijt说他并不确信失败会给人们带来心理推动；这可能仍然是一个选择效应。尽管王试图通过剔除最弱的胜出者来解释这一点，但不可能知道如果胜出者发现自己处于失败一方，谁会放弃。

J) For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.

就王本人而言，他说在他自己的经验中，失败确实点燃了激励之火。他回忆起最近提交给一家期刊的一篇论文，该期刊接受了它，但要求大量编辑，然后改变主意拒绝了它。他将未编辑版本提交给一家更受尊敬的期刊，并被接受。

K) In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over-rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don't have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That's a different matter.

在体育和生活的许多领域，我们认为失败是我们本可以做得更好的证据。我们将这些失望视为我们本可以通过更仔细的准备、不同的训练、更好的策略或更多的专注来避免的命运。在那里，失败向我们展示通往成功的道路是有道理的。这些论文处理的是一种人们几乎没有控制权的失败——被拒绝。其他人决定谁赢谁输。但至少，研究开始表明早期挫折不一定是致命的。它们甚至可能让我们更擅长工作。不过，像赢家一样获得报酬？那是另一回事了。