有些人論文看得快，有些人卻很慢。＃你是哪一種
⠀
有些人能整理數十篇既有文獻與亞洲現況，制訂 guideline，有些人卻連論文都看不完。
⠀
有些人能整理數百篇文獻，一年發表 10 篇 meta-analysis，但有些人卻連一個主題都讀不完。
⠀
因為，論文是作品，得讀沒錯。
但更重要的，是你帶著怎樣的「目的」去讀這些作品。
⠀
要晨會報告，讀的重點是，與科內臨床工作相關的細節，以及從文字中看出不同醫院的資源與文化不同。要整理 guideline，論文閱讀重點是各篇的 indication、outcome 與普遍的適用性。要發表 meta-analysis，重點當然就是研究設計、評估量表與該文章的特殊意義。甚至，同是實證，要做 EBM 競賽，與要發表 meta-analysis，所閱讀的重點，也有所不同。
⠀
缺乏這種「目的」感，看 paper 只好逐字逐句、鉅細靡遺的讀，自然速度就慢，而且 ＃連重點都抓不太到，更別說本來想完成的成果，品質不佳，甚至半途而廢。
⠀
這堂課，曾秉濤醫師將與你分享，如果帶著「我要發表 meta-analysis」的目的，論文該是 ＃怎麼找、＃怎麼瀏覽、＃怎麼篩選，以及最後挑出來的精華，又該 ＃如何精讀？
⠀
＃用對方法，發表不卡。一起向曾醫師學，「我是怎麼搜尋文獻的：以發表為導向」。
⠀
🎯 克服經費與資源稀少的困境，帶您踏入統合分析的領域。
⠀
☑ 統合分析研究規劃技巧
☑ 正確拆解論文架構
☑ 必學的重要專有名詞
☑ 互動實作：完成一套 Meta-analysis 圖表
☑ 以發表為導向的搜尋文獻
☑ Meta-analysis 圖表優化重點
☑ 給初學者的起步建議
⠀
🔸 11/7（日）統合分析工作坊 #全新梯次
➠ https://meta-analysis.innovarad.tw/event/
起步真的不難，PGY 課後發五篇統合分析論文的課程！
⠀
👨🏫 講者陣容
⠀
＃張凱閔，知名復健醫學與超音波學者，台大流病與預防醫學博士，SCI 論文超過 190 篇，並有 25 篇以上為 meta-analysis，探討臨床常見議題。
⠀
＃曾秉濤，專業精神科醫師，擅長從臨床工作找到發表議題，並組成研究團隊，SCI 論文超過 85 篇，並有 70 篇以上為 meta-analysis。
⠀
＃蔡依橙，專業課程開發與整合者，能迅速理解學門架構，並以初學者能理解的方式，建構學習流程。生涯被 SCI 期刊接受的圖表，已超過 500 張，熟悉學術審閱過程與要求。
⠀
🗣️ 學員回饋
⠀
「由於我只是 PGY，很擔心報名後，會聽不懂而浪費錢，結果發現，我的擔心是多餘的！整堂課深入淺出，講師們都把重點講得清楚明白，連新手都可以輕鬆聽懂！包含了如何擬定主題、如何收集文章、如何把題目設定好，使得查詢到的文章量是合適的、如何用軟體分析數據、統合分析的重要觀念、表格要如何呈現才會美觀，一整天下來，資訊和知識的密度極高，完全值回票價！」
⠀
「這次的統合分析工作坊，集合幾位對統合分析很熟悉的老師，藉由指定論文的實際例子，配合互動實作，讓我可以了解完成一篇 meta-analysis 所須經歷的過程。透過老師們的引導，也可以知道整篇論文從構思、搜尋文獻、文獻評讀、資料整理、統計運算、製作圖表到完成文章的脈絡。」
快思慢想例子 在 [心得] 快思慢想翻譯挑錯- 看板book - 批踢踢實業坊 的推薦與評價
昨天才在Kindle上看完原作，很好奇大賣的中文本是
什麼樣子，因為它是出自洪蘭的手筆，她翻的第51本書！
一脈相承，果然沒讓我失望，隨手就挑出一堆毛病，
而這只是最前面的幾頁而已！
可惜了一本好書，因為譯者是洪蘭，以後大概不會有
別的譯本在台出版了。悲夫！
我只挑翻譯明顯錯誤的部分，至於修辭就算了，
多讀一行，是多一分折磨。
中文來自博客來書店的摘選。
------------------------------
The psychologist Gary Klein tells the story of a team of firefighters that
entered a house in which the kitchen was on fire. Soon after they started
hosing down the kitchen, the commander heard himself shout, “Let’s get out
of here!” without realizing why. The floor collapsed almost immediately
after the firefighters escaped. Only after the fact did the commander realize
that the fire had been unusually quiet and that his ears had been unusually
hot. Together, these impressions prompted what he called a “sixth sense of
danger.” He had no idea what was wrong, but he knew something was wrong. It
turned out that the heart of the fire had not been in the kitchen but in the
basement beneath where the men had stood.
心理學家克萊恩（Gary Klein）曾經說過一個故事：一群消防隊員進入一間廚房著火的房
子，他們很快就把火熄滅了，消防隊長聽到他自己大喊：「馬上撤出！」他並不知道自己
為什麼會這樣說，但是當消防隊一離開，地板就垮掉了。事後，消防隊長才知道，因為這
場火比一般火災安靜，沒有劇烈燃燒的巨大聲音，而他的耳朵又感覺到比正常時更熱，這
激發了他的「危機第六感」（Sixth Sense of danger）。他並不知道有什麼地方不對，
但是他知道不對勁了，後來發現原來火源並不是在廚房，而是在地下室，消防隊員們就站
在火源上頭。
------------------------------------
評：
Soon after they started hosing down the kitchen
他們（消防隊）才開始澆灌而已，還沒把火熄滅
"沒有劇烈燃燒的巨大聲音" 原文所無，感謝譯者的創作
-----------------------------------
We have all heard such stories of expert intuition: the chess master who
walks past a street game and announces “White mates in three” without
stopping, or the physician who makes a complex diagnosis after a single
glance at a patient. Expert intuition strikes us as magical, but it is not.
Indeed, each of us performs feats of intuitive expertise many times each day.
Most of us are pitch-perfect in detecting anger in the first word of a
telephone call, recognize as we enter a room that we were the subject of the
conversation, and quickly react to subtle signs that the driver of the car in
the next lane is dangerous. Our everyday intuitive abilities are no less
marvelous than the striking insights of an experienced firefighter or
physician—only more common.
我們都聽過這種專家直覺的故事：西洋棋大師在經過街頭棋局時，腳步都沒停，就說「再
三步，白棋贏」；醫生只要看病人一眼就做出複雜的診斷。專家的直覺在我們看起來好像
是魔術，但其實不是。我們每一個人每一天都在做專家的直覺判斷，大部分人在接聽電話
的第一個字時，就能偵察到對方的憤怒；一走進房間，就立刻知道別人正在談論我們；危
險駕駛，立刻做出因應的避禍措施。我們每一天的直覺能力並不比有經驗的消防隊員或醫
生差，只不過我們經歷的都是日常小事而已。
-----------------------------------
評：
strikes us as magical
strikes us 是突然想到的意思，像被什麼打了一樣，不是「在我們看起來好像」
Expert intuition strikes us as magical
專家的直覺突然憑空而來，彷彿變魔術一般
pitch-perfect 「準確」沒翻
quickly react to subtle signs that the driver of the car in the next lane is
dangerous
用「危險駕駛，立刻做出因應的避禍措施」打發隔壁車道的危險駕駛，
反應確實很迅速。
only more common 都是日常小事而已嗎？
只是比較尋常罷了。
-----------------------------------
The psychology of accurate intuition involves no magic. Perhaps the best
short statement of it is by the great Herbert Simon, who studied chess
masters and showed that after thousands of hours of practice they come to see
the pieces on the board differently from the rest of us. You can feel Simon’
s impatience with the mythologizing of expert intuition when he writes: “The
situation has provided a cue; this cue has given the expert access to
information stored in memory, and the information provides the answer.
Intuition is nothing more and nothing less than recognition.”
正確直覺的心理學並沒有任何魔術在裡面，或許最好的一句話就是研究西洋棋大師的心理
學家賽蒙（Herbert Simon）說的：西洋棋大師和我們最大的不同是，在花過幾千個小時
下棋後，他們看棋盤的方式已經跟我們不一樣了。從賽蒙下面所說的話，你可以感受到他
很不耐煩坊間把專家的直覺神話化：「情境提供了線索，讓專家得以從記憶提取訊息，並
提供答案。直覺就是辨識（recognition），不多也不少，就是它。」
-----------------------------------
評：
The psychology of accurate intuition involves no magic.
psychology 這裡不能翻譯為心理學；而是「心理過程」或「心理特點」
Longman Dictionary:
mental processes involved in believing in something or doing a certain
activity
OALD:
mental characteristics of a person or group
看到 -logy 就只會翻譯為「─學」，是初學翻譯的人才會有的愚蠢反射動作
當作：正確直覺的心理過程沒有包含任何魔術
"great" Herbert Simon 洪蘭大概覺得他不偉大吧？
pieces on the board
棋盤上的棋子
看「棋局」的方式
光看棋盤幹嘛呀？
坊間，市街之間，多指書坊。原文無。
------------------------------------
We are not surprised when a two-year-old looks at a dog and says “doggie!”
because we are used to the miracle of children learning to recognize and
name things. Simon’s point is that the miracles of expert intuition have the
same character. Valid intuitions develop when experts have learned to
recognize familiar elements in a new situation and to act in a manner that is
appropriate to it. Good intuitive judgments come to mind with the same
immediacy as “doggie!”
我們看到一個兩歲孩子看到狗時，說「狗狗」，一點也不奇怪，因為我們已經習慣孩子每
天都在學習辨識物體並且「叫名」（naming）。賽蒙對專家直覺的奇蹟也是同樣的看法，
當專家在新的情境看到熟悉的元素，他就依那個情境表現出最恰當的行為，那就是我們所
看到成功的直覺。好的直覺判斷就像孩子看到狗時叫狗狗一樣，是學習和經驗的累積。
-----------------------------------
評：
Simon’s point is that the miracles of expert intuition have the same
character.
洪蘭：賽蒙對專家直覺的奇蹟也是同樣的看法
當作：賽蒙認為專家直覺的奇蹟具有同樣的特性
Valid intuitions develop 沒翻出來
「專家在新的情境看到熟悉的元素時，會發展出合理的直覺，並依情境做恰當的行動」
name things 居然直接把它改為「叫名」（naming）！
譯者未免太濫用她的權力了吧!!
-----------------------------------
Unfortunately, professionals’ intuitions do not all arise from true
expertise. Many years ago I visited the chief investment officer of a large
financial firm, who told me that he had just invested some tens of millions
of dollars in the stock of Ford Motor Company. When I asked how he had made
that decision, he replied that he had recently attended an automobile show
and had been impressed. “Boy, do they know how to make a car!” was his
explanation. He made it very clear that he trusted his gut feeling and was
satisfied with himself and with his decision. I found it remarkable that he
had apparently not considered the one question that an economist would call
relevant: Is Ford stock currently underpriced? Instead, he had listened to
his intuition; he liked the cars, he liked the company, and he liked the idea
of owning its stock. From what we know about the accuracy of stock picking,
it is reasonable to believe that he did not know what he was doing.
很不幸的是，專業的直覺並非全部來自專家。許多年前，我去拜訪證券公司投資部門的一
位經理，他告訴我，他投資了千百萬美元在福特汽車公司的股票上。我問他，他怎麼做這
個決定，他回答，他最近去一個汽車展示場，對福特的車子印象很好。「啊！他們真的知
道如何打造一輛汽車！」這就是他的解釋。他非常清楚地表示，他相信直覺，所以對他的
決定很滿意。我非常驚訝他沒有考慮經濟學家一定會問的一個問題：福特股票現在是低於
它的市場價值嗎？相反的，他聽從他的直覺，他喜歡福特汽車，喜歡福特公司，喜歡擁有
福特公司的股票，從我們對選擇股票的知識來說，這位投資專家可以說不知道自己在做什
麼。
-------------------
評：
expertise 專業技能，不是專家。
Unfortunately, professionals’ intuitions do not all arise from true
expertise.
洪蘭：很不幸的是，專業的直覺並非全部來自專家。
應作：「很不幸的是，專業人員的直覺並非全部來自真正的專業技能。」
作者顯然不敢苟同那位經理挑選福特股票的決定過程，並以此說明專家也會不按專業來做
判斷，干「專業的直覺並非全部來自專家」什麼事？
做股票的經理沒用專業技能，而一個翻譯了51本書的學者，仍然沒有翻譯的專業技能，
這實在有點諷刺呢。
remarkable 是非比尋常，離「非常驚訝」還有距離
one question that an economist would call relevant
relevant question 直接相關的問題，非「一定會問的一個問題」
accuracy of stock picking 如何正確選股
「選擇股票的知識」，好吧，不算太離譜。
-------------------
The specific heuristics that Amos and I studied provided little help in
understanding how the executive came to invest in Ford stock, but a broader
conception of heuristics now exists, which offers a good account. An
important advance is that emotion now looms much larger in our understanding
of intuitive judgments and choices than it did in the past. The executive’s
decision would today be described as an example of the affect heuristic,
where judgments and decisions are guided directly by feelings of liking and
disliking, with little deliberation or reasoning.
特維斯基和我所研究的捷徑，對了解大公司老板如何決定投資福特股票來說，沒有什麼實
質的幫助，但是現在有更廣泛的捷徑概念，它對上述行為就有很好的解釋。一個重要的進
步是，情緒在了解直覺的判斷和選擇上變得很重要，而且遠比過去的角色重要。今天，那
個投資經理的決定會被稱為情意的捷徑（affect heuristic），即判斷和決策直接受到喜
歡或不喜歡感覺的操弄，很少思辨和推理的成分在內。
-----------------
heuristics 是探索的過程或方法 （heuristic method or process）
一個心理學教授居然用「捷徑」潦草帶過，讓人匪夷所思。
------------------
When confronted with a problem—choosing a chess move or deciding whether to
invest in a stock—the machinery of intuitive thought does the best it can.
If the individual has relevant expertise, she will recognize the situation,
and the intuitive solution that comes to her mind is likely to be correct.
This is what happens when a chess master looks at a complex position: the few
moves that immediately occur to him are all strong. When the question is
difficult and a skilled solution is not available, intuition still has a
shot: an answer may come to mind quickly—but it is not an answer to the
original question. The question that the executive faced (should I invest in
Ford stock?) was difficult, but the answer to an easier and related question
(do I like Ford cars?) came readily to his mind and determined his choice.
This is the essence of intuitive heuristics: when faced with a difficult
question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the
substitution.
當碰到問題，比方說，決定下一步棋怎麼走，或是否投資某支股票時，直覺思考的機制會
盡力而為。假如這個人有相關的專業經驗，他會認得情境，浮現他心頭的直覺解決方法很
可能就是正確的。這是當一個西洋棋大師看到一盤複雜的棋，他馬上想到的幾步都很強勁
，當問題很困難，又沒有技術上的解決知識時，直覺還是一個可行的方式。投資經理所面
對的問題（我是否該投資福特的股票？）很困難，但是一個比較簡單而且相關的答案馬上
就進入他的心中，決定了他的選擇。這是直覺捷徑的精髓，當面對困難問題時，我們常回
答比較容易的問題，而沒有回答真正的問題，而且我們通常沒有注意到這個替換。
-----------------------
評：
When the question is difficult and a skilled solution is not available,
intuition still has a shot.
洪蘭：當問題很困難，又沒有技術上的解決知識時，直覺還是一個可行的方式。
skilled solution 訓練有素的解決方法
still has a shot = 一個可行的方式？簡直亂來！
still has a shot 仍然會試圖一搏
應作：當問題很困難，又沒有訓練有素的解決方法時，直覺仍然會試圖一搏
（所以後面再提到不顧專業，胡亂選股的例子）
--------------------------------
The spontaneous search for an intuitive solution sometimes fails—neither an
expert solution nor a heuristic answer comes to mind. In such cases we often
find ourselves switching to a slower, more deliberate and effortful form of
thinking. This is the slow thinking of the title. Fast thinking includes both
variants of intuitive thought—the expert and the heuristic—as well as the
entirely automatic mental activities of perception and memory, the operations
that enable you to know there is a lamp on your desk or retrieve the name of
the capital of Russia.
自動搜尋直覺的解決方法有時會失敗，不論是專家的解決方式或捷徑的回答都想不起來，
在這種情況下，我們會轉換到一個比較慢，比較特意，要費力的思考方式。這就是書名「
慢的思考」 （slow thinking）的意思。「快的思考」（fast thinking）包括各種直覺
的思考──專家的和捷徑的──以及整個自動化的知覺和記憶的心智活動，這種操作使你
知道桌上有一盞燈，或是回答出俄國的首都在莫斯科。
both variants of intuitive thought
直覺思考的兩種變化形式；不是各種直覺的思考
------------------------------
The distinction between fast and slow thinking has been explored by many
psychologists over the last twenty-five years. For reasons that I explain
more fully in the next chapter, I describe mental life by the metaphor of two
agents, called System 1 and System 2, which respectively produce fast and
slow thinking. I speak of the features of intuitive and deliberate thought as
if they were traits and dispositions of two characters in your mind. In the
picture that emerges from recent research, the intuitive System 1 is more
influential than your experience tells you, and it is the secret author of
many of the choices and judgments you make. Most of this book is about the
workings of System 1 and the mutual influences between it and System 2.
在過去二十五年裡，許多科學家都曾探討過快和慢兩種思考方式的區別。我在下一章中會
講到，為什麼我用系統一和系統二的比喻來描述心智生活，系統一代表著快的思考，系統
二是慢的思考。我會談到直覺的和特意的思考特質，就好像是你心中有兩個人的人格特質
。從最近的研究中得知，直覺的系統一是比經驗告訴你的還有影響力，它是你許多選擇和
判斷背後的秘密作者，這本書大部份是關於系統一的工作情形，以及系統一和系統二之間
相互的影響。
--------------------
psychologists 翻為科學家？譯者是不是擔心許多人把心理學當作胡說八道的騙術呢？
--
There are a lot of things we don't want to know about the people we love.
--- Chuck Palahniuk
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 203.67.158.10
... <看更多>