在进行审查之前，我要各位设想 —场全国性的掷铜板大赛。让我们假定，全美国2.25亿的人口在明天早晨起床时都掷出一枚一美元的铜板。早晨太阳升起时，他们都走到门外掷铜板，并猜铜板出现的正面或反面。如果猜对了，他们将从猜错者的手中赢得一美元。每大都有输家遭到淘汰，奖金则不断地累积。经过十个早晨的十次投掷之后，全美国约有2. 2万人连续十次猜对掷铜板的结果。每人所赢得的资金约超过1000美元。

　　Now this group will probably start getting a little puffed up about this， human nature being what it is. They may try to be modest， but at cocktail parties they will occasionally admit to attractive members of the opposite sex what their technique is， and what marvelous insights they bring to the field of flipping.

　　现在，这群人可能会开始炫耀自己的战绩，此乃人的天性使然。他们可能保持谦虚的态度，但在鸡尾酒宴会中，他们偶尔会以此技巧吸引异性的注意，并炫耀其投掷铜板的奇异洞察力。

　　Assuming that the winners are getting the appropriate rewards from the losers， in another ten days we will have 215 people who have successfully called their coin flips 20 times in a row and who， by this exercise， each have turned one dollar into a little over $1 million. $225 million would have been lost， $225 million would have been won.

　　假定赢家都可以从输家手中得到适当的奖金，再经过十天，约有215个人连续二十次猜对掷铜板的结果，每个人并赢得大约100万美元的奖金。输家总共付出2.25亿美元，赢家则得到2.25亿美元。

　　By then， this group will really lose their heads. They will probably write books on “How I turned a Dollar into a Million in Twenty Days Working Thirty Seconds a Morning.” Worse yet， they'll probably start jetting around the country attending seminars on efficient coin-flipping and tackling skeptical professors with， “ If it can't be done， why are there 215 of us？”

　　这时候，这群人可能完全沉迷在自己的成就中：他们可能开始著书立说：“我如何每天早晨工作30 秒，而在二十天之内将—美元变成100万美元。”更糟的是，他们会在全国各地参加讲习会，宣扬如何有效地投掷铜板，并且反驳持怀疑态度的教授说，“如果这是不可能的事，为什么会有我们这215个人呢？”

　　By then some business school professor will probably be rude enough to bring up the fact that if 225 million orangutans had engaged in a similar exercise， the results would be much the same - 215 egotistical orangutans with 20 straight winning flips.

　　但是，某商学院的教授可能会粗鲁地提出—项事实，如果2.25亿只猩猩参加这场大赛，结果大致上也是如此——有215只自大的猩猩将连续赢得20次的投掷。

　　I would argue， however， that there are some important differences in the examples I am going to present. For one thing， if （a） you had taken 225 million orangutans distributed roughly as the U.S. population is； if （b） 215 winners were left after 20 days； and if （c） you found that 40 came from a particular zoo in Omaha， you would be pretty sure you were on to something. So you would probably go out and ask the zookeeper about what he's feeding them， whether they had special exercises， what books they read， and who knows what else. That is， if you found any really extraordinary concentrations of success， you might want to see if you could identify concentrations of unusual characteristics that might be causal factors.

　　然而，我必须说明，前述事例和我即将提出的案例，两者之间存在着若干重大差异。旨先，如果（a）你所选择的2.25亿只猩猩的分布状况大致上和美国的人口分布相同；如果（b）经过20天的竞赛，只剩下215只赢家；如果（c）你发现其中有40只猩猩来自于奥玛哈的某个动物园，则其中必有蹊跷。于是，你会询问猩猩管理员各种问题，它们吃什么饲料、是否做特殊的运动、阅读什么书籍……换言之，如果你发现成功案例有非比寻常的集中现象，则你希望判定此异常的特色是否是成功的原因。

　　Scientific inquiry naturally follows such a pattern. If you were trying to analyze possible causes of a rare type of cancer —— with， say， 1，500 cases a year in the United States —— and you found that 400 of them occurred in some little mining town in Montana， you would get very interested in the water there， or the occupation of those afflicted， or other variables. You know it's not random chance that 400 come from a small area. You would not necessarily know the causal factors， but you would know where to search.

　　科学的调查也遵循此一形态。如果你试图分析某种罕见的癌症原因——例如，美国每年只有1500个病例——而你发现蒙大拿州的某个矿区小镇便产生400个病例，则你必然对当地的饮水、病患的职业或其他种种变数产生兴趣。你知道，在—个小镇中发生400个病例，绝不是随机因素所造成。虽然你未必了解病因，但你知道从哪里着手调查。

　　I submit to you that there are ways of defining an origin other than geography. In addition to geographical origins， there can be what I call an intellectual origin. I think you will find that a disproportionate number of successful coin-flippers in the investment world came from a very small intellectual village that could be called Graham-and-Doddsville. A concentration of winners that simply cannot be explained by chance can be traced to this particular intellectual village.

　　除了地理国家，还有其他方式可以界定起源。除了地理的起源，还有我所谓“智力的起源”。我认为各位将在投资领域发现，不成比例的铜板投掷赢家来自于一个极小的智力村庄。它可以称为“格雷厄姆一多德都市”。这个特殊智力村存在着许多赢家。这种集中现象绝非巧合所能够解释。

　　Conditions could exist that would make even that concentration unimportant. Perhaps 100 people were simply imitating the coin-flipping call of some terribly persuasive personality. When he called heads， 100 followers automatically called that coin the same way. If the leader was part of the 215 left at the end， the fact that 100 came from the same intellectual origin would mean nothing. You would simply be identifying one case as a hundred cases. Similarly， let's assume that you lived in a strongly patriarchal society and every family in the United States conveniently consisted of ten members. Further assume that the patriarchal culture was so strong that， when the 225 million people went out the first day， every member of the family identified with the father's call. Now， at the end of the 20-day period， you would have 215 winners， and you would find that they came from only 21.5 families. Some naive types might say that this indicates an enormous hereditary factor as an explanation of successful coin-flipping. But， of course， it would have no significance at all because it would simply mean that you didn't have 215 individual winners， but rather 21.5 randomly distributed families who were winners.

　　在某些情况下，即使非比寻常的集中现象也可能不重要。或许有100个只是模仿某一位极具说服力的领导者，而依其主张来猜测铜板的投掷结果。当他猜正面，100个追随者也会自动地做相同的猜测。如果这一位领导者是属于最后215位赢家之一，则这100也便属于同一个智力起源，这项事实便不具有任何意义，因为100个案例实际上只代表一个案例。同理，假定你生活在一个父权结构极为严密的社会，而美国每一个家庭都恰好以父亲马首是瞻。20天之后，你将发现215位赢家是来自于21.5个家庭。若干天真的分析师可能因此而认为，成功地猜测钢板投掷的结果，其中具有高度的遗传因素。当然，这实际上不具有任何意义，因为你所拥有的不是215位个别赢家，而只是21.5个随机分布的家庭。