在進行審查之前，我要各位設想 —場全國性的擲銅板大賽。讓我們假定，全美國2.25億的人口在明天早晨起床時都擲出一枚一美元的銅板。早晨太陽升起時，他們都走到門外擲銅板，并猜銅板出現的正面或反面。如果猜對了，他們將從猜錯者的手中贏得一美元。每大都有輸家遭到淘汰，獎金則不斷地累積。經過十個早晨的十次投擲之后，全美國約有2. 2萬人連續十次猜對擲銅板的結果。每人所贏得的資金約超過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.

　　現在，這群人可能會開始炫耀自己的戰績，此乃人的天性使然。他們可能保持謙虛的態度，但在雞尾酒宴會中，他們偶爾會以此技巧吸引異性的注意，并炫耀其投擲銅板的奇異洞察力。

　　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.

　　假定贏家都可以從輸家手中得到適當的獎金，再經過十天，約有215個人連續二十次猜對擲銅板的結果，每個人并贏得大約100萬美元的獎金。輸家總共付出2.25億美元，贏家則得到2.25億美元。

　　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？”

　　這時候，這群人可能完全沉迷在自己的成就中：他們可能開始著書立說：“我如何每天早晨工作30 秒，而在二十天之內將—美元變成100萬美元。”更糟的是，他們會在全國各地參加講習會，宣揚如何有效地投擲銅板，并且反駁持懷疑態度的教授說，“如果這是不可能的事，為什么會有我們這215個人呢？”

　　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，某商學院的教授可能會粗魯地提出—項事實，如果2.25億只猩猩參加這場大賽，結果大致上也是如此——有215只自大的猩猩將連續贏得20次的投擲。

　　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，我必須說明，前述事例和我即將提出的案例，兩者之間存在著若干重大差異。旨先，如果（a）你所選擇的2.25億只猩猩的分布狀況大致上和美國的人口分布相同；如果（b）經過20天的競賽，只剩下215只贏家；如果（c）你發現其中有40只猩猩來自于奧瑪哈的某個動物園，則其中必有蹊蹺。于是，你會詢問猩猩管理員各種問題，它們吃什么飼料、是否做特殊的運動、閱讀什么書籍……換言之，如果你發現成功案例有非比尋常的集中現象，則你希望判定此異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.

　　科學的調查也遵循此一形態。如果你試圖分析某種罕見的癌癥原因——例如，美國每年只有1500個病例——而你發現蒙大拿州的某個礦區小鎮便產生400個病例，則你必然對當地的飲水、病患的職業或其他種種變數產生興趣。你知道，在—個小鎮中發生400個病例，絕不是隨機因素所造成。雖然你未必了解病因，但你知道從哪里著手調查。

　　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.

　　除了地理國家，還有其他方式可以界定起源。除了地理的起源，還有我所謂“智力的起源”。我認為各位將在投資領域發現，不成比例的銅板投擲贏家來自于一個極小的智力村莊。它可以稱為“格雷厄姆一多德都市”。這個特殊智力村存在著許多贏家。這種集中現象絕非巧合所能夠解釋。

　　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.

　　在某些情況下，即使非比尋常的集中現象也可能不重要。或許有100個只是模仿某一位極具說服力的領導者，而依其主張來猜測銅板的投擲結果。當他猜正面，100個追隨者也會自動地做相同的猜測。如果這一位領導者是屬于最后215位贏家之一，則這100也便屬于同一個智力起源，這項事實便不具有任何意義，因為100個案例實際上只代表一個案例。同理，假定你生活在一個父權結構極為嚴密的社會，而美國每一個家庭都恰好以父親馬首是瞻。20天之后，你將發現215位贏家是來自于21.5個家庭。若干天真的分析師可能因此而認為，成功地猜測鋼板投擲的結果，其中具有高度的遺傳因素。當然，這實際上不具有任何意義，因為你所擁有的不是215位個別贏家，而只是21.5個隨機分布的家庭。