无论你做什么，请不要称这个想法为“有趣”
Whatever you do, don’t call this an ‘interesting’ idea
一、中文原文：
我对“有趣”这个词的理解并不来自学校，而是来自上世纪70年代末播放《星际迷航》重播的14英寸黑白电视。我听到斯波克先生解释说：“‘迷人’是我用来形容意外的词。”他说：“在这种情况下，我认为‘有趣’已经足够了。”
斯波克是《星际迷航》原版系列中逻辑的典范。尽管他有一个人类母亲，但是却是他的瓦肯一半在掌控着。据我理解，如果他说某事很有趣，那么他描述的是一个可预期的客观事实。这个观念深深植根于今天的流行文化中：有线新闻节目、网站和Facebook帖子竞相吸引我们的注意力，带来令人惊讶但据说是真实的——有趣的——真相。
当时我并没有意识到，当斯波克说某事很有趣时，他不是在谈论那个事物，而是在谈论他自己。四十年后，我看得更加清楚了。《星际迷航》中那些出于善意的编剧为我们树立了一个不好的榜样，而这种瑕疵一直在蔓延。称某事为有趣是粗糙思维的极点。有趣不是描述性的，不是客观的，甚至不是有意义的。
有趣是一种语言上的连接组织。在介绍一个想法时，说“有趣”比同时具有描述性但又不成为剧透的引言更容易。在会议上，当有人介绍发言者时，我经常听到“有趣”。在广播中，当主持人介绍即将进行的采访时，我也经常听到“有趣”。这些轻浮的小规范发生得如此迅速，以至于它们几乎在意识讨论的水平之下传递，只为引导我注意。
实际上，有趣是娱乐的一个同义词。这种混淆在高等教育中尤其成问题。早在2010年，《美国新闻与世界报道》的一篇文章称，“一个糟糕教授的头号标志是‘教授很无聊……即使在第一堂课上，你就可以看出教授是否以有趣的方式呈现材料。”同样，波特兰康考迪亚大学的一篇关于教学策略的博客文章提供了关于“如何成为一个讲课有趣的教授”的建议。普林斯顿评论公司的大学指南系列（如《最佳381所大学》）为每所大学都提供了“教授有趣评分”。
在今天的数据驱动型教育企业中，不懈努力提供娱乐的教师通常不会获得晋升，甚至不会被保留，因为学生评估的影响。我参加的信息技术研讨会和会议也是如此，评估表上的问题，比如“我觉得发言者很有趣”，有助于确定谁将在后续年度被邀请回来。TED演讲是这种时尚的逻辑结论，它们是高度制作价值和经过精心排练的演讲。它们吸引人的兴趣，但传达的信息很少。说真的，你还记得你上次看的五个“有趣”的TED演讲中的什么吗？
社会越来越强调娱乐而非实质性的结果是什么？新奇和创新被看作是严密性的上面，无聊的真相输给了华丽的虚假。我在今天的吸引点击的头条新闻中看到这一点，甚至在科学实践中也看到了。
人们说有趣是为了传达重要性，但他们不应该这么说。我为学术会议和科学期刊审阅论文，当其他审阅人轻蔑地写道某篇正在审查的文章“不太有趣”时，我经常感到沮丧。这个词并不意味着这些审阅人的意思。他们试图说的是，科学发现没有有效地呈现，或者结果只是渐进的，或者（天佑我们）发现并不新颖，只是复制了他人的工作。
很多外行认为复制和重复性是许多科学家共有的理想。实际上，很少有科学研究会被复制。去年，Vox.com对270名科学家进行的一项调查发现，很少有人尝试复制研究，因为资金和出版方面的困难。资助机构以资助具有变革性和突破性研究为傲，即有趣的工作，几乎从定义上来说不会重复（即复制）以前的研究。而且期刊通常不会刊登仅仅是复制已经发表的研究结果的文章；这样的文章通常不被认为足够有趣。
这对科学实践来说是不利的，因为科学方法依赖于复制。没有复制，错误的研究要更长时间才能得到纠正。但正确的东西并不有趣，它是学究气的。
所以，当你写作或演讲时，请不要说某事很有趣。它可能吸引你的兴趣，当然，但你的听众是否觉得某事有趣取决于一组复杂的先决条件，包括他们的背景知识和其他争夺他们注意力的因素。他们的兴趣还取决于他们现有的情感状态。《精神障碍诊断与统计手册（DSM-5）》规定，“几乎每天大部分时间内对几乎所有活动的兴趣或愉悦显著减少，持续两周或更长时间”是主要抑郁症的诊断症状之一。这意味着，如果你的天文学演讲听众不觉得有趣，那么问题可能确实在他们自己身上，而不是在星星上。
相反，如果有人告诉你“这很有趣”，请记住，他们并没有描述那个东西。他们是在描述那个东西对他们的影响。尽管我们经常听到身边的瓦肯人这样说，但有趣是一个主观的、情感色彩的词语，而不是我们希望它成为的客观、逻辑的词语。这一定是斯波克的人类一半在说话。
二、英文译文：
Please refrain from labeling this idea as "interesting."
My understanding of the word "interesting" doesn't stem from academic sources but rather from a 14-inch black-and-white television airing reruns of "Star Trek" in the late 1970s. I heard Mr. Spock explain, "Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected." He added, "In this case, I should think 'interesting' would suffice."
Spock epitomized logic in the original "Star Trek" series. despite having a human mother, he was largely dominated by his Vulcan half. To my understanding, when he said something was interesting, he was describing an expected objective fact. This concept is deeply rooted in today's popular culture: cable news programs, websites, and Facebook posts vie for our attention with the surprising but supposedly true—interesting—truths.
At that time, I didn't realize that when Spock said something was interesting, he wasn't talking about that thing but about himself. Forty years later, it's become even clearer to me. "Star Trek" and similar shows set a bad example for us, and this flaw has spread. Calling something interesting is the epitome of lazy thinking. Interesting isn't descriptive, objective, or even meaningful.
Interesting is a linguistic filler. When introducing an idea, saying "interesting" is easier than providing a descriptive yet non-spoiler introduction. In meetings, when someone is introduced as a speaker, I often hear "interesting." In broadcasts, when hosts introduce upcoming interviews, I also frequently hear "interesting." These casual conventions happen so swiftly that they pass beneath the level of conscious discussion, merely guiding my attention.
In reality, interesting is a synonym for entertainment. This conflation is especially problematic in higher education. As early as 2010, an article in U.S. News & World Report stated, "The number one sign of a bad professor is 'professor is boring...even in the first class, you can tell if the professor presents material in an interesting way." Similarly, a blog post on teaching strategies from Concordia University in Portland offers advice on "how to be an interesting lecturer." The Princeton Review's college guide series, such as "The Best 381 Colleges," provides a "professor interesting rating" for each university.
In today's data-driven education industry, teachers who tirelessly strive to entertain are often not promoted or even retained due to the impact of student evaluations. The same goes for the information technology seminars and conferences I attend, where evaluation questions like "I found the speaker interesting" help determine who gets invited back in subsequent years. TED talks are the logical conclusion of this trend, highly produced and rehearsed presentations that captivate interest but convey little information. Honestly, do you remember what any of the last five "interesting" TED talks you watched were about?
The increasing emphasis on entertainment over substance in society has consequences. Novelty and innovation are seen as superior to rigor, and the dull truth loses to glamorous falsehoods. I see this in today's clickbait headlines and even in scientific practice.
People say interesting to convey importance, but they shouldn't. I review papers for academic conferences and journals, and I often feel frustrated when other reviewers dismiss a paper under review as "not very interesting." That word doesn't mean what those reviewers think it means. They are trying to say that the scientific findings are not effectively presented, or the results are merely incremental, or (heaven forbid) the findings are not novel but replicate the work of others.
Many outsiders assume that replication and reproducibility are ideals shared by many scientists. In reality, very few scientific studies are replicated. A survey of 270 scientists conducted by Vox.com last year found that few attempt to replicate research due to funding and publication difficulties. Funding agencies pride themselves on funding transformative and breakthrough research, work that, by definition, is not replicable (i.e., replicating previous research). And journals typically do not publish articles that merely replicate previously published research; such articles are often not deemed interesting enough.
This is detrimental to scientific practice because the scientific method relies on replication. Without replication, incorrect research takes longer to be corrected. But the right thing is not interesting; it is scholarly.
So, when you write or speak, please refrain from saying something is interesting. It may pique your interest, of course, but whether your audience finds something interesting depends on a complex set of prerequisites, including their background knowledge and other factors vying for their attention. Their interest also depends on their existing emotional state. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental Disorders (DSM-5) specifies that "markedly diminished interest or pleasure in almost all activities most of the day, nearly every day for at least two weeks" is a diagnostic symptom of major depressive disorder. This means that if your astronomy lecture audience doesn't find it interesting, the problem may genuinely lie with them rather than the stars.
Instead, if someone tells you "this is interesting," remember, they're not describing that thing. They're describing the impact of that thing on them. Although we often hear those Vulcan-like expressions around us, interesting is a subjective, emotionally colored word, not the objective, logical word we wish it were. It must be Spock's human half talking.
三、重点单词：
1. fascinating adj. 迷人的
2. entertainment n. 娱乐
3. novelty n. 新奇
4. innovation n. 创新
5. replication n. 复制；复制实验
6. rigor - 严密性
7. substance n. 实质
8. Convey v. 传达
四、重点短语：
1. Set a bad example - 树立不好的榜样
- The older kids often set a bad example for the younger ones by not doing their homework and skipping school.
年长的孩子们常常通过不做作业和逃学来给年幼的孩子们树立了不好的榜样。
2. Lazy thinking - 懒惰思维
- Instead of doing thorough research, relying on stereotypes is an example of lazy thinking.
依赖刻板印象而不是进行深入研究是懒惰思维的一个例子。
3. Captivate interest - 吸引兴趣
- The captivating story told by the speaker captivated the interest of the entire audience.
演讲者讲述的引人入胜的故事吸引了整个观众的兴趣。
4. Clickbait headlines - 吸引点击的标题
- Many online articles use clickbait headlines to lure readers in with sensational promises, often leading to disappointment.
许多在线文章使用吸引点击的标题，以轰动的承诺引诱读者，通常导致失望。
5. Higher education - 高等教育
- Pursuing higher education is often seen as a path to better career opportunities and personal growth.
追求高等教育通常被视为通向更好的职业机会和个人成长的途径。
6. Subjective word - 主观词汇
- "Beautiful" is a subjective word because what one person finds beautiful, another may not appreciate in the same way.
“美丽”是一个主观词汇，因为一个人认为美丽的东西，另一个人可能不以同样的方式欣赏。
7. Scientific practice - 科学实践
- In scientific practice, experiments are conducted to test hypotheses and gather data to support or refute theories.
在科学实践中，实验被进行以测试假设并收集数据以支持或反驳理论。
8. Academic conferences - 学术会议
- Researchers from around the world gathered at the academic conference to present their findings and exchange ideas.
来自世界各地的研究人员聚集在学术会议上，以展示他们的研究成果并交流思想。
9. Filler language - 填充语言
- In public speaking, it's important to avoid using filler language like "um" and "uh" to maintain credibility and clarity.
在公众演讲中，避免使用“嗯”和“啊”等填充语言是保持可信度和清晰度的重要因素。
10. Emotional state - 情感状态
- Meditation and mindfulness practices can help improve one's emotional state by reducing stress and anxiety.
冥想和正念练习可以通过减少压力和焦虑来帮助改善一个人的情感状态。
五、一词多义
1. "Interesting" 可以表示引人入胜或有趣的。
- The book I'm reading is very interesting; I can't put it down.
我正在读的这本书非常引人入胜，我爱不释手。
- Some people find history fascinating, while others don't think it's interesting at all.
有些人觉得历史迷人，而其他人则认为它一点也不有趣。
2. "Replication" 可以指复制某物或进行相同的科学研究以确认结果。
- The artist created a perfect replication of the famous painting.
这位艺术家创作了一幅著名绘画的完美复制品。
- The scientific community values replication studies to ensure the validity of research findings.
科学界重视复制研究，以确保研究结果的有效性。
六、同根词串
1. Replication, replicate, replicated - 复制，复制，复制的
2. Interest, interesting, uninteresting - 兴趣，有趣的，不有趣的
七、近似词/近反义词
1. Interesting - Uninteresting 有趣的 - 不有趣的
2. Entertainment - Substance 娱乐 - 实质
3. Novelty - Replication 新奇 - 复制
八、难句分析：
The same goes for the information technology seminars and conferences I attend, where evaluation questions like "I found the speaker interesting" help determine who gets invited back in subsequent years.
分析：
1. 本句整体是一个主从复合句，由一个主句和三个从句构成。主句为The same goes for the information technology seminars and conferences；从句1为I attend；从句2为where evaluation questions like "I found the speaker interesting" help determine……；从句3为who gets invited back in subsequent years。
2. 从句1为定语从句，主谓宾结构，该从句中I attend是主谓，原本缺少宾语，故选择关系代词that/which来指代先行词“seminars and conferences”，但是由于that/which在定语从句当中充当宾语成分，故被省略。
3. 从句2为定语从句，主谓宾结构。主语为“evaluation questions like ‘I found the speaker interesting’”，like引导的定语从句做后置定语，修饰“evaluation questions”，谓语为“help”，“determine”为非谓语，在help后，使用的是省略to的不定式。
4. 从句3为宾语从句，主系表结构。此处明显是对“人”的修饰，故在宾语从句当中连接代词选择了“who”。谓语是联系动词“gets”，“invited”表一种状态，为被动形容词，back in subsequent years充当状语修饰“invited”。
编辑整理人：张艺杰
以上是秒词邦为您整理编写的文章《无论你做什么，请不要称这个想法为“有趣”》的全部内容。秒词邦是国内权威分题型分考点背诵中高考/四六级考研/专升本/出国单词的专业单词软件。扫描如下小程序码，进入秒词邦官方小程序获取更多英语相关资料！ 【关键词：高考单词；高考英语；高中单词；高中英语；单词app；单词软件；记单词app；记单词软件；背单词软件；背单词app；英语单词；四六级单词；四六级英语；四六级单词app；四六级单词软件；考研单词app；考研单词软件；核心单词；高考冲刺复习；高考英语教材；高考英语真题；四六级真题；四六级试题；考研真题；考研英语单词；考研英语真题】