Bruce Bueno de Mesquita predicts Iran's future

譯者: chufung dou 審譯者: Shelley Krishna Tsang

What I'm going to try to do is explain to you

我將向各位說明

quickly how to predict,

如何預測，

and illustrate it with some predictions

並用一些實例說明，

about what Iran is going to do in the next couple of years.

關於伊朗在未來一兩年將會怎麼做，

In order to predict effectively,

為了預測正確

we need to use science.

我們需要運用科學

And the reason that we need to use science

需要運用科學的原因，

is because then we can reproduce what we're doing;

是因為這樣才可以重複驗證我們做的，

it's not just wisdom or guesswork.

不只是靠智慧或是猜測。

And if we can predict,

如果我們可以預測，

then we can engineer the future.

那麼我們就可以掌握未來，

So if you are concerned to influence energy policy,

所以如果你想影響能源政策，

or you are concerned to influence national security policy,

或你想影響國家安全政策，

or health policy, or education,

或是健保，或教育，

science -- and a particular branch of science -- is a way to do it,

科學，與科學中特別的一支，是正確的方法，

not the way we've been doing it,

與我們從前的方法不同，

which is seat-of-the-pants wisdom.

從前用的是憑感覺經驗這種智慧，

Now before I get into how to do it

現在，在我說明如何做它之前，

let me give you a little truth in advertising,

先告訴你們一些事實，

because I'm not engaged in the business of magic.

因為我做的不是魔術，

There are lots of thing that the approach I take can predict,

我用的方法可以預測許多事情，

and there are some that it can't.

但有些事沒有辦法，

It can predict complex negotiations

它可以預測複雜的談判，

or situations involving coercion --

或有用到威脅手段的情形，

that is in essence everything that has to do with politics,

幾乎可以應用於任何與政治有關的事情，

much of what has to do with business,

也可以用在多數與商業有關的事上，

but sorry, if you're looking to speculate in the stock market,

但很抱歉，如果你想在股票市場投機，

I don't predict stock markets -- OK,

我不預測股票市場--嗯，

it's not going up any time really soon.

它不會在短期內上漲，

But I'm not engaged in doing that.

我不從事這種預測，

I'm not engaged in predicting random number generators.

我不預測會出現什麼隨機數目，

I actually get phone calls from people

真的有人打電話問我，

who want to know what lottery numbers are going to win.

想知道什麼樂透數字會中獎？

I don't have a clue.

我毫無線索，

I engage in the use of game theory, game theory is a branch of mathematics

我採用的是博弈理論，它是數學的一支，

and that means, sorry, that even in the study of politics,

就是說，就是在政治研究當中，

math has come into the picture.

數學也來軋一腳，

We can no longer pretend that we just speculate about politics,

我們對政治不能再只靠猜測，

we need to look at this in a rigorous way.

我們該用嚴肅的方法看待它，

Now, what is game theory about?

那麼什麼是博弈理論？

It assumes that people are looking out for what's good for them.

它假設人是追尋他們的利益，

That doesn't seem terribly shocking --

這看來並不很離譜--

although it's controversial for a lot of people --

雖然對不少人這是有得爭議的--

that we are self-interested.

就是我們是追求自利的，

In order to look out for what's best for them

為了追求他們最大的利益，

or what they think is best for them,

或者他們認為什麼是對他們最好的，

people have values -- they identify what they want, and what they don't want.

人們有價值觀--他們認清自己想要的是什麼，不想要的是什麼，

And they have beliefs about what other people want,

也相信別人想要的是什麼，

and what other people don't want, how much power other people have,

還有別人不想要什麼，他們有多大的權力，

how much those people could get in the way of whatever it is that you want.

還有你算計的他們最多可以得到多少

And they face limitations, constraints,

以及他們面對的限制，

they may be weak, they may be located in the wrong part of the world,

他們可能柔弱，可能處於這世界不對的地方，

they may be Einstein, stuck away farming

他們也可能像愛因斯坦那樣有本事，但困在農村，

someplace in a rural village in India not being noticed,

住在印度一個鄉下，沒人注意到，

as was the case for Ramanujan for a long time,

就像Ramanujan那樣很長一段時間，

a great mathematician but nobody noticed.

一位了不起的數學家，但沒人注意到，

Now who is rational?

那麼誰是理性的呢？

A lot of people are worried about what is rationality about?

許多人擔心理性是什麼？

You know, what if people are rational?

人們都是理性的，

Mother Theresa, she was rational.

德瑞沙修女，她是理性的，

Terrorists, they're rational.

恐怖分子，他們也是理性的，

Pretty much everybody is rational.

一般來說每個人都是理性的，

I think there are only two exceptions that I'm aware of --

我所知的例外只有兩種情形--

two-year-olds, they are not rational,

兩歲的小孩，他們不是理性的，

they have very fickle preferences,

他們想要的變來變去，

they switch what they think all the time,

他們的想法不時的改變，

and schizophrenics are probably not rational,

還有精神分裂病患者大概也不理性，

but pretty much everybody else is rational.

但其他多數人都是理性的，

That is, they are just trying to do

就是說，他們只想做

what they think is in their own best interest.

他們認為對他們最有利的事。

Now in order to work out what people are going to do

為了推算出人們下一步會怎麼做

to pursue their interests,

以追求他們的利益，

we have to think about who has influence in the world.

我們必須考慮這世界上誰有影響力，

If you're trying to influence corporations to change their behavior,

如果你想影響公司改變它們的行為，

with regard to producing pollutants,

關於產生污染的問題，

one approach, the common approach,

一個做法，較通常的做法，

is to exhort them to be better,

是勸告他們改善，

to explain to them what damage they're doing to the planet.

讓他們知道他們 對地球造成怎樣的傷害，，

And many of you may have noticed that doesn't have

你們可能知道這效果有限，

as big an effect, as perhaps you would like it to have.

不如你們期望的那麼有用，

But if you show them that it's in their interest,

但如果你能顯示這樣對他們有利，

then they're responsive.

他們就會有反應。

So, we have to work out who influences problems.

所以，我們必須找出誰有影響力，

If we're looking at Iran, the president of the United States

例如看伊朗問題，美國總統

we would like to think, may have some influence --

我們認為，可能有些影響力--

certainly the president in Iran has some influence --

自然，伊朗總統有些影響力--

but we make a mistake if we just pay attention

但我們可能犯錯，如果只注意

to the person at the top of the power ladder

在權力階梯頂端的人，

because that person doesn't know much about Iran,

因為那個人對伊朗所知不多，

or about energy policy,

或關於能源政策，

or about health care,

或關於健康保險，

or about any particular policy.

或任何特定的政策，

That person surrounds himself or herself with advisers.

決策者周圍有許多顧問。

If we're talking about national security problems,

如果我們談的是國家安全問題，

maybe it's the Secretary of State,

那麼可能 是國務卿

maybe it's the Secretary of Defense,

也許是國防部長，

the Director of National Intelligence,

或情報局長，

maybe the ambassador to the United Nations, or somebody else

或駐聯合國大使，或其他的

who they think is going to know more about the particular problem.

他們認為對某個問題知道較多的人，

But let's face it, the Secretary of State doesn't know much about Iran.

讓我們想想看，國務卿對伊朗所知不多，

The secretary of defense doesn't know much about Iran.

國防部長也不是伊朗問題專家。

Each of those people in turn

他們每個人

has advisers who advise them,

都各有自己的顧問，

so they can advise the president.

因此他們可以對總統提意見。

There are lots of people shaping decisions

這是許多人共同影響決策的，

and so if we want to predict correctly

所以如果我們想正確的預測，

we have to pay attention to everybody

就需注意到每一個人，

who is trying to shape the outcome,

每個對結果有影響的人，

not just the people at the pinnacle

而不是只在尖端的人，

of the decision-making pyramid.

決策金字塔的，

Unfortunately, a lot of times we don't do that.

不幸的是，常常我們不是這樣做。

There's a good reason that we don't do that,

不這樣做是有原因的，

and there's a good reason that using game theory and computers,

使用博弈理論與電腦是有很好的理由，

we can overcome the limitation

我們可以超越限制，

of just looking at a few people.

不是只看少數幾個人。

Imagine a problem with just five decision-makers.

假設一個問題只涉及五名決策人士，

Imagine for example

想像一下，

that Sally over here,

這裡是Sally，

wants to know what Harry, and Jane,

她想知道Harry，Jane

and George and Frank are thinking,

George,Frank怎麼想，

and sends messages to those people.

並把意見傳達給他們，

Sally's giving her opinion to them,

Sally把她的看法傳給他們，

and they're giving their opinion to Sally.

他們也把自己的意見傳給Sally。

But Sally also wants to know

但Sally也想知道

what Harry is saying to these three,

Harry對其他三人說了什麼，

and what they're saying to Harry.

以及他們對Harry說了什麼，

And Harry wants to know

而Harry又想知道

what each of those people are saying to each other, and so on,

其他每個人間互相說了什麼，

and Sally would like to know what Harry thinks those people are saying.

Sally想知道Harry對其他人說法的感覺如何。

That's a complicated problem; that's a lot to know.

這是個複雜的問題，需要知道的很多。

With five decision-makers

當有五名決策人士時

there are a lot of linkages --

就有許多的關係聯繫--

120, as a matter of fact,

實際上是120條連線，

if you remember your factorials.

如果你記得代數裡的階乘關係，

Five factorial is 120.

5的階乘是120，

Now you may be surprised to know

現在你可能驚異的發現

that smart people can keep 120 things straight

聰明人可以清楚記得120件事

in their head.

在他們的腦中，

Suppose we double the number of influencers

假如我們把有影響的人數加倍，

from five to 10.

從5變成10，

Does that mean we've doubled the number of pieces of information

是資訊的數目也加倍嗎？

we need to know, from 120 to 240?

我們需要知道的，從120 變成240嗎 ？

No. How about 10 times?

不是，那是10倍嗎？

To 1,200? No.

成為1200？不是，

We've increased it to 3.6 million.

我們需要增加到360萬，

Nobody can keep that straight in their head.

沒有人的腦袋可以記得這麼多，

But computers,

但是電腦，

they can. They don't need coffee breaks,

它們可以，他們不需要休息喝咖啡，

they don't need vacations,

它們不需要休假，

they don't need to go to sleep at night,

它們不需要在晚上睡覺，

they don't ask for raises either.

它們也不要求加薪，

They can keep this information straight

它們能夠保持資訊正確，

and that means that we can process the information.

這表示我們可以處理這些資訊，

So I'm going to talk to you about how to process it,

我將談談如何處理它，

and I'm going to give you some examples out of Iran,

我將以伊朗為例，

and you're going to be wondering,

你們也許會奇怪，

"Why should we listen to this guy?

“為什麼要聽這個人的？

Why should we believe what he's saying?"

我們為什麼要相信他所說的？”

So I'm going to show you a factoid.

我給你們看這證詞，

This is an assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency

這是一個中央情報局的評估報告，

of the percentage of time

是正確的百分比

that the model I'm talking about

我將談的這個模型

is right in predicting things whose outcome is not yet known,

在預測還未發生的事情時，

when the experts who provided the data inputs

在提供數據的專家

got it wrong.

預測錯誤時，

That's not my claim, that's a CIA claim -- you can read it,

這不是我說的，是中情局說的--你們可以讀它，

it was declassified a while ago. You can read it in a volume edited by

不久前它才解密，你們可以在

H. Bradford Westerfield, Yale University Press.

威斯特菲編輯，耶魯大學出版這書上看到，

So, what do we need to know

我們需要知道什麼，

in order to predict?

才可以預測？

You may be surprised to find out we don't need to know very much.

你也許會因發現我們不需要知道很多而嚇一跳，

We do need to know who has a stake

我們需要知道誰有利害關係，

in trying to shape the outcome of a decision.

要試圖影響一個決定的結果。

We need to know what they say they want,

我們需要知道他們說他們想要什麼，

not what they want in their heart of hearts,

而不是他們心中想要什麼，

not what they think they can get,

不是他們認為他們可以得到什麼，

but what they say they want, because that is a strategically chosen position,

而是他們說他們想要的是什麼，因為這是策略性選擇的位置，

and we can work backwards from that

我們可以從這倒退推算，

to draw inferences about important features of their decision-making.

由他們決策時的重要特質去推理。

We need to know how focused they are

我們需要知道他們有多關注，

on the problem at hand.

在手上的問題。

That is, how willing are they to drop what they're doing when the issue comes up,

就是在問題發生時，他們有多願意放下手上正在做的事，

and attend to it instead of something else that's on their plate --

會關注這件事而不是身邊其他的事--

how big a deal is it to them?

這事對他們有多重要？

And how much clout could they bring to bear

他們有多大的能耐可以影響決策，

if they chose to engage on the issue?

如果他們選擇關注這問題，

If we know those things

如果我們有這些資訊，

we can predict their behavior by assuming that everybody

我們就可以預測他們的行為，

cares about two things on any decision.

假設每個人在任何決定上關心兩件事，

They care about the outcome. They'd like an outcome as close to

他們關心結果，他們希望結果與他們

what they are interested in as possible.

的利益盡量的接近，

They're careerists, they also care about getting credit --

他們有自己的職志，關心信譽的建立，

there's ego involvement,

這裡有個人自我

they want to be seen as important in shaping the outcome,

他們希望被認為在形成結果上有重要性，

or as important, if it's their druthers, to block an outcome.

或者也很重要的，是他們的反對而阻止了某些結果的發生，

And so we have to figure out how they balance those two things.

所以我們需要辨認清楚他們是如何平衡那兩件事的，

Different people trade off

這因人而異，

between standing by their outcome,

人們有不同的立場不同的追求，

faithfully holding to it, going down in a blaze of glory,

有的人堅持，追求榮耀，

or giving it up, putting their finger in the wind,

或者放棄，見風使舵，

and doing whatever they think is going to be a winning position.

而做任何他們認為最有利的，

Most people fall in between, and if we can work out where they fall

多數人介於兩者之間，如果我們能夠認清他們處於那裡，

we can work out how to negotiate with them

我們就可以認清如何與他們談判，

to change their behavior.

以改變他們的行為。

So with just that little bit of input

所以只要這麼一點輸入的資訊，

we can work out what the choices are that people have,

我們就能知道別的人有些什麼可能的選擇，

what the chances are that they're willing to take,

他們願意接受的機會有多大，

what they're after, what they value, what they want,

他們追求的是什麼，他們的價值觀如何，他們期望什麼，

and what they believe about other people.

他們眼中的別人是如何，

You might notice what we don't need to know:

你也許也注意到一些我們不需要知道的，

there's no history in here.

這裡不需要歷史記錄，

How they got to where they are

關於他們是如何成為現在這樣的，

may be important in shaping the input information,

對如何形成所輸入的資訊可能有重要性，

but once we know where they are

但一旦我們知道他們現狀是如何後，

we're worried about where they're going to be headed in the future.

我們就會想知道他們未來會朝那個方向發展，

How they got there turns out not to be terribly critical in predicting.

他們如何變成現狀的，在預測上就不是這麼重要，

I remind you of that 90 percent accuracy rate.

提醒你們這是90%的準確性，

So where are we going to get this information?

所以我們要從那裡獲得這些資訊？

We can get this information

我們可以獲得這些資訊，

from the Internet, from The Economist,

從互聯網，從《經濟學人》雜誌、

The Financial Times, The New York Times,

從《金融時報》、《紐約時報》，

U.S. News and World Report, lots of sources like that,

《美國新聞》與《世界報導》，還有很多類似的來源，

or we can get it from asking experts

或者可以從請教專家而得到，

who spend their lives studying places and problems,

這些專家長期研究各地方的問題，

because those experts know this information.

因為這些專家知道這些資訊，

If they don't know, who are the people trying to influence the decision,

如果他們不知道，那麼是誰會能影響決策，

how much clout do they have,

他們有多大的影響力，

how much they care about this issue, and what do they say they want,

他們對這問題有多關心，他們對所希望的怎麼說，

are they experts? That's what it means to be an expert,

他們是專家嗎？專家應該知道這些，

that's the basic stuff an expert needs to know.

那是一個專家需要知道的基本資料，

Alright, lets turn to Iran.

好，讓我們看伊朗問題，

Let me make three important predictions --

我在這做三個重要的預測--

you can check this out, time will tell.

你可以檢驗這些預測的正確性，時間會證明，

What is Iran going to do about its nuclear weapons program?

伊朗的核武計劃將來會如何？

How secure is the theocratic regime in Iran?

伊朗的神權政府是多穩定？

What's its future?

未來如何?

And everybody's best friend,

還有大家的好朋友，

Ahmadinejad. How are things going for him?

艾瑪迪-內賈德，他將來會如何？

How are things going to be working out for him in the next year or two?

在未來一兩年他的地位會怎樣演變？

You take a look at this, this is not based on statistics.

你看這裡，這不是依據統計，

I want to be very clear here. I'm not projecting some past data into the future.

在這裡我要說清楚，我不是以過去的數據延伸來推測未來，

I've taken inputs on positions and so forth,

我是以各個人的立場為輸入資料，

run it through a computer model

經電腦模型運算，

that had simulated the dynamics of interaction,

模擬動態的相互作用，

and these are the simulated dynamics,

這些經過模擬的動態，

the predictions about the path of policy.

就是政策變化過程的預測，

So you can see here on the vertical axis,

所以你可以在縱軸上看到，

I haven't shown it all the way down to zero,

我沒有顯示它一直向下走到零

there are lots of other options, but here I'm just showing you the prediction,

有很多可能的選項，但這裡我只向各位展示預測，

so I've narrowed the scale.

我將比例縮窄，

Up at the top of the axis, "Build the Bomb."

在軸線的頂端，是要建造核彈，

At 130, we start somewhere above 130,

那是130，我們從高於130開始，

between building a bomb, and making enough weapons-grade fuel

在建造核彈與製造足夠的核武等級燃料之間，

so that you could build a bomb.

這樣就可以建造核彈，

That's where, according to my analyses,

這是依據我的分析，

the Iranians were at the beginning of this year.

伊朗今年初的位置，

And then the model makes predictions down the road.

然後這模型預測後來的變化，

At 115 they would only produce enough weapons grade fuel

在115表示伊朗能生產足夠的核彈等級的燃料，

to show that they know how, but they wouldn't build a weapon:

展現他們有此能力，但不去建造武器，

they would build a research quantity.

他們只建立了足夠研究的數量，

It would achieve some national pride,

達到國家榮譽的程度，

but not go ahead and build a weapon.

但不再往前建造武器，

And down at 100 they would build civilian nuclear energy,

到100表示他們建立民生用的核能發電，

which is what they say is their objective.

這是他們所宣稱的目標，

The yellow line shows us the most likely path.

這黃線代表最可能的發展路徑，

The yellow line includes an analysis

這黃線包含了分析

of 87 decision makers in Iran,

87名伊朗的決策人士，

and a vast number of outside influencers

以及大量的外部有力人士

trying to pressure Iran into changing its behavior,

他們對伊朗施壓 要改變它的行為，

various players in the United States, and Egypt,

許多在美國以及埃及的人士，

and Saudi Arabia, and Russia, European Union,

還有沙烏地阿拉伯、蘇俄、歐盟、

Japan, so on and so forth.

日本，等等

The white line reproduces the analysis

這白線是再一次的分析，

if the international environment

假如國際環境

just left Iran to make its own internal decisions,

讓伊朗自己內部做決定，

under its own domestic political pressures.

在它自己國內的政治壓力下--

That's not going to be happening,

那是不會發生的--

but you can see that the line comes down faster

但你能看到這條線下降得快一些，

if they're not put under international pressure,

如果沒有國際壓力，

if they're allowed to pursue their own devices.

如果他們能夠以自己的方式追求，

But in any event, by the end of this year,

但任何情況下，到今年底，

beginning of next year, we get to a stable equilibrium outcome.

從明年開始，我們會達到平衡穩定的結果，

And that equilibrium is not what the United States would like,

這平衡點不是美國所盼望的，

but it's probably an equilibrium that the United States can live with,

但可能是美國能夠接受的平衡狀態，

and that a lot of others can live with.

還有很多其他國家也可以接受，

And that is that Iran will achieve that nationalist pride

那是伊朗能夠達成國家榮譽的程度，

by making enough weapons-grade fuel, through research,

並經由研究而製作出足夠的武器等級燃料，

so that they could show that they know how to make weapons-grade fuel,

這樣他們可以炫耀他們知道如何製造武器等級的燃料，

but not enough to actually build a bomb.

但不足以實際製造核彈，

How is this happening?

這怎麼發生的？

Over here you can see this is the distribution

這裡你可以看到這是權利的分配

of power in favor of civilian nuclear energy today,

它有利於今天民生用途的核能發電，

this is what that power block is predicted to be like

這是依據權利分配而預測出來的，

by the late parts of 2010, early parts of 2011.

在2010年底2011年初，

Just about nobody supports research on weapons-grade fuel today,

還沒有人支持武器等級核燃料的研究，

but by 2011 that gets to be a big block,

但到2011年，那成為很大的力量，

and you put these two together, that's the controlling influence in Iran.

你把這兩個加在一起，對伊朗有控制性的影響力，

Out here today, there are a bunch of people --

今天，有許多人--

Ahmadinejad for example --

像艾瑪迪內賈德--

who would like not only to build a bomb,

他不僅希望建造核彈，

but test a bomb.

還測試這炸彈，

That power disappears completely;

這個力量完全消失了，

nobody supports that by 2011.

到2011年已經沒人支持這觀點。

These guys are all shrinking,

這群人數在萎縮，

the power is all drifting out here,

權力流到這邊，

so the outcome is going to be the weapons-grade fuel.

所以結果是武器等級的燃料，

Who are the winners and who are the losers in Iran?

誰是伊朗的贏家與輸家呢？

Take a look at these guys, they're growing in power,

看這些人，他們的權力在增加，

and by the way, this was done a while ago

順便說一下，這是不久前做的，

before the current economic crisis,

是在現在這經濟危機之前，

and that's probably going to get steeper.

現在可能會更為傾斜，

These folks are the moneyed interests in Iran,

這些人是伊朗有權勢的人，

the bankers, the oil people, the bazaaries.

銀行家，油人，商家，

They are growing in political clout,

他們的政治影響力都在成長，

as the mullahs are isolating themselves --

在穆斯林神職人員自我隔絕時--

with the exception of one group of mullahs,

除了有一群教士外，

who are not well known to Americans.

美國人一般不知道他們，

That's this line here, growing in power,

只有他們的權力在擴張，

these are what the Iranians call the quietists.

伊朗人稱他們為Quietists教派，

These are the Ayatollahs, mostly based in Qom,

他們被稱為阿亞圖拉，主要存在於庫姆這地區，

who have great clout in the religious community,

他們在宗教圈裡很有影響力，

have been quiet on politics and are going to be getting louder,

以往對政治沉默，現在聲音愈來愈大，

because they see Iran going in an unhealthy direction,

因為他們覺得伊朗走向不健康的方向，

a direction contrary

一個反方向

to what Khomeini had in mind.

與柯梅尼心中希望的。

Here is Mr. Ahmadinejad.

這位是艾馬迪內賈德總統，

Two things to notice: he's getting weaker,

兩件事值得注意，他變弱了，

and while he gets a lot of attention in the United States,

當他在美國受到許多注意時，

he is not a major player in Iran.

他在伊朗卻不是很重要的人，

He is on the way down.

他在走下坡，

OK, so I'd like you to take a little away from this.

好的，我要你們注意力從這移開一下，

Everything is not predictable: the stock market

不是所有事情都能預測，股票市場

is, at least for me, not predictable,

至少對我是不能預測的，

but most complicated negotiations are predictable.

但多數複雜的談判是可以預測的，

Again, whether we're talking health policy, education,

不管是談健保政策、教育、

environment, energy,

環境、能源、

litigation, mergers,

訴訟、併購，

all of these are complicated problems

這些都是複雜的問題，

that are predictable,

它們是可以預測的，

that this sort of technology can be applied to.

可以應用這類的技術，

And the reason that being able to predict those things is important,

而能夠預測這些事情的原因是重要的，

is not just because you might run a hedge fund and make money off of it,

不是因為你可能經營一個避險基金，要從它賺錢，

but because if you can predict what people will do,

而是因為假如你能夠預測人們將怎麼做，

you can engineer what they will do.

你就能夠控制他們將做什麼，

And if you engineer what they do you can change the world,

如果你能控制他們要做什麼，你就能改變這世界，

you can get a better result.

你可能得到較好的結果，

I would like to leave you with one thought, which is

我想留個問題給你們思考，

for me, the dominant theme of this gathering,

對我，這聚會的重要議題，

and is the dominant theme of this way of thinking about the world.

也是這樣思考世界問題的主要論點就是，

When people say to you,

當人們對你說，

"That's impossible,"

“那個不可能，”

you say back to them,

你回應說，

"When you say 'That's impossible,'

“當你說‘那個不可能，’

you're confused with,

你真的意思是，

'I don't know how to do it.'"

”我不知道怎麼做“

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Chris Anderson: One question for you.

安德森：請教個問題，

That was fascinating.

這個很棒，

I love that you put it out there.

很高興你提出來，

I got very nervous halfway through the talk though,

但聽講到一半時，我變得緊張，

just panicking whether you'd included in your model, the possibility that

不知在你的模型中，會包含可能性

putting this prediction out there might change the result.

做這些預測可能改變結果，

We've got 800 people in Tehran who watch TEDTalks.

我們在德黑蘭有800人觀看這演講，

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita: I've thought about that,

我想到這個，

and since I've done a lot of work for the intelligence community,

我們為精英社群做了許多工作，

they've also pondered that.

他們也考慮

It would be a good thing if

那將是好事如果

people paid more attention, took seriously,

人們更加注意，嚴肅對待，

and engaged in the same sorts of calculations,

也進行相似的算計，

because it would change things. But it would change things in two beneficial ways.

因為這會改變事情，它會在兩個有利的方面改變事情，

It would hasten how quickly people arrive at an agreement,

他們提高 人們達成協議的速度，

and so it would save everybody a lot of grief and time.

所以它會節省每個人許多痛苦與時間。

And, it would arrive at an agreement that everybody was happy with,

它也會達成每個人都喜歡的協議，

without having to manipulate them so much --

而不需要非常操控他們--

which is basically what I do, I manipulate them.

這也就是我現在做的，我操控他們，

So it would be a good thing.

這將是個好事，

CA: So you're kind of trying to say, "People of Iran, this is your destiny, lets go there."

安德森：所以你是在客氣的說 ，“伊朗人，這是你們命定的，我們往這前進。”

BBM: Well, people of Iran, this is what many of you are going to evolve to want,

BBM：伊朗人，這是你們許多人將會轉變而期望的，

and we could get there a lot sooner,

我們可以快一點達到那裡，

and you would suffer a lot less trouble from economic sanctions,

這樣你也少受一些經濟制裁帶來的困難，

and we would suffer a lot less fear of the use of military force on our end,

我們也會少受點軍事威脅的恐懼，

and the world would be a better place.

世界也變得更可愛些，

CA: Here's hoping they hear it that way. Thank you very much Bruce.

安德森：這是期望他們所聽到的，謝謝你。

BBM: Thank you.

BBM:謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）