Artful Explanation
巧妙的解释
W. George Scarlett
W. 乔治·斯嘉丽
The title of this paper combines words not ordinarily combined. Art is for expression and sometimes for making matters more confusing and dense because, after all, that is how we often experience life. In doing so, art allows us to experience life more fully. In contrast, explanation is for answering questions about what is confusing and dense. As an example of the assumed difference between art and explanation, the artist gives us the myriad colors in a garden of flowers and lets us experience them more fully. The scholar gives us an explanation of how we see color in the first place or how flower gardens have changed in the course of history, or some other explanation that answers questions about color, flowers and gardens.
本文的标题结合了通常不组合的单词。艺术是为了表达，有时是为了让事情变得更加混乱和密集，因为毕竟，这就是我们经常体验生活的方式。在此过程中，艺术让我们更充分地体验生活。相比之下，解释用于回答有关什么是令人困惑和密集的问题。 作为艺术和解释之间假定差异的一个例子，艺术家在花花园中为我们提供了无数的色彩，并让我们更充分地体验它们。这位学者向我们解释了我们最初是如何看待颜色的，或者花园 在历史进程中是如何变化的，或者是其他一些解释来回答关于颜色、花卉和花园的问题。
But writing can do both – as when it elicits in us a new experience of a complex phenomenon and at the same time provides answers to important questions – answers needed in order to understand the phenomenon. When this happens, we get artful explanation. For example, when Lewis Thomas, in his book The Lives of the Cell (Thomas, 1979) , likens mitochondria, the tiny organisms that inhabit human cells, to “responsible lodgers” who should be trusted, we start to experience cells (and cell biology) in a new way. By introducing metaphors borrowed from human interactions (being responsible to one another) and human settings (an inn taking in lodgers), cell biology becomes something human and intimate – allowing many, for the first time perhaps, to become open to learning the complexities of how human cells work. In explaining artfully, we learn that the dichotomy between art for expression vs. facts and logic for explanation is a false dichotomy.
但写作可以两者兼而有之——比如当它引发我们对复杂现象的新体验时，同时为重要问题提供答案——理解这种现象所需的答案。当这种情况发生时，我们会得到巧妙的解释。例如，当刘易斯·托马斯 （Lewis Thomas） 在他的著作《细胞的生活》（The Lives of the Cell，1979） 中将线粒体（居住在人类细胞中的微小生物）比作应该值得信赖的“负责任的寄宿者”时，我们开始以一种新的方式体验细胞（和细胞生物学）。通过引入从人类互动（对彼此负责）和人类环境（招待房客）的隐喻，细胞生物学成为人类和亲密的东西——也许是第一次，让许多人对了解人类细胞如何运作的复杂性持开放态度。在巧妙地解释中，我们了解到表达的艺术与事实和解释的逻辑之间的二分法是一种错误的二分法。
If it is not only permissible but also commendable to combine art with explaining, what exactly is the art in explaining? The example of mitochondria being referred to as “responsible lodgers” suggests one answer, namely, that artful explanation has to do with using the familiar to explain the unfamiliar in an interesting, sometimes humorous way. However, this example is just one of many ways an author can explain artfully
如果将艺术与解释相结合不仅是允许的，而且是值得称赞的，那么解释的艺术究竟是什么？线粒体被称为“负责任的寄宿者”的例子表明了一个答案，即巧妙的解释与使用熟悉的事物以一种有趣、有时幽默的方式解释不熟悉的事物有关。然而，这个例子只是作者可以巧妙解释的众多方式之一.
Of what is artful explanation composed? Five major activities in particular – first, organizing around thoughtful aims and storylines; second, going beyond ‘telling’ to explain by showing with examples, detailed description, graphs, and visuals; Third, explaining at three levels of abstraction; Fourth, making comparisons;. Fifth, organizing internally to ensure clarity and flow. These five provide the major guidelines for explaining artfully. There are additional guidelines provided below, and there are many more that could have been included. But it is important to start somewhere and practice with a few guidelines before moving on. Explaining artfully is a never-ending process that, even with hard work and dedication, takes considerable time to develop. But it is more than worth it because artful explanation is what gets others to understand and act on that understanding – a worthy goal indeed.
巧妙的解释是由什么 组成的？ 特别是 Five 主要活动 – 首先，围绕深思熟虑的目标和故事情节进行组织 其次，超越 “讲述 ”，通过实例、详细描述、图表和视觉效果来解释; 第三，在三个抽象层次上解释; 第四，进行比较 s;.第五，内部组织以确保清晰和流畅这五个为巧妙地解释提供了主要指导方针。下面提供了其他指南，并且还可以包含更多指南。但是，重要的是从某个地方开始，在继续之前按照一些指导方针进行练习。巧妙地解释是一个永无止境的过程，即使付出努力和奉献精神，也需要相当长的时间来发展。但这是值得的，因为巧妙的解释是让别人理解并根据这种理解采取行动的原因——这确实是一个有价值的目标。
Major Guidelines1
主要指引1
The following five major guidelines are for providing the foundation for explaining artfully. We begin the discussion of major guidelines with what is required before beginning to write or speak, namely, being clear about the explanation’s overall aim and storyline.
以下 主要指导方针是为巧妙地解释提供基础。 我们首先讨论主要准则，在开始写作或演讲之前需要什么，即明确解释的总体目标和故事情节。
Organizing Around a Thoughtful Aim and Storyline
围绕深思熟虑的目标和故事情节进行组织
Before beginning to explain, it is essential that you be clear about what you are going to explain. This may sound obvious, but it is not. Far too many begin to write before they are clear about what they are explaining and why their explaining is significant. As a result, readers get confused from the start and either check out or reluctantly stick it out – only to forget what has just been written. So, carefully read what it means to organize around a thoughtful aim and storyline, and practice what is suggested
在开始解释之前，您必须清楚要解释的内容。这听起来似乎很明显，但事实并非如此。太多的人在弄清楚他们正在解释的内容以及为什么他们的解释很重要之前就开始写作。结果，读者从一开始就感到困惑，要么查看，要么不情愿地坚持下去——结果却忘记了刚刚写的内容。因此，请仔细阅读围绕深思熟虑的目标和故事情节进行组织的含义，并实践建议的内容.
Thoughtful Aim
深思熟虑的目标
The logical starting point when thinking about how best to explain something is deciding how best to organize the explanation around a single, significant aim or, at most, two or three aims. Here’s an example of someone whose writing was always clearly organized around a significant aim: Steven Jay Gould, the evolutionary biologist, paleontologist, and to many, one of the finest science writers in the last century, wrote The Mismeasure of Man (Gould, 1996), a history of how scientists have defined and measured (mismeasured) human intelligence. From beginning to end, the overall aim is clear, namely, to explain that the story of assessing intelligence has been a story about mismeasuring. In the title, in each chapter, and in each discussion of a historical period, we see this aim featured over and over, and throughout the book, we see example after example of mismeasuring – from measuring the size of human skulls to measuring using screening instruments written in English but used to test people speaking very little English, to analyzing scores on IQ tests using statistical procedures that can be manipulated differently to produce different results. Throughout the book, we are told fascinating stories that, together, tell one bigger story that explains the book’s overall aim. Artful explanation is not, therefore, about explaining for its own sake. It is about explaining to achieve worthy aims which answer questions (e.g., How should we assess intelligence?) that are on people’s minds or should be.
在考虑如何最好地解释某事时，合乎逻辑的起点是决定如何最好地围绕一个单一的重要目标或最多两个或三个目标组织解释。这里有一个例子，他的写作总是围绕着一个重要的目标进行明确的组织：史蒂文·杰伊·古尔德（Steven Jay Gould），进化生物学家、古生物学家，对许多人来说，是上个世纪最优秀的科学作家之一，他写了《人类的误判》（The Mismeasure of Man，Gould，1996），这是一部关于科学家如何定义和测量（误测）人类智力的历史。从头到尾，总体目标都很明确，即解释评估智力的故事是一个关于误测的故事。在书名中，在每一章中，在对一个历史时期的每一次讨论中，我们一遍又一遍地看到这个目标，在整本书中，我们看到了一个又一个测量错误的例子——从测量人类头骨的大小到使用用英语编写但用来测试很少说英语的人的筛查仪器进行测量， 使用统计程序分析 IQ 测试的分数，这些程序可以以不同的方式操作以产生不同的结果。在整本书中，我们讲述了引人入胜的故事，这些故事共同讲述了一个更大的故事，解释了这本书的总体目标。因此，巧妙的解释并不是为了解释本身而解释。它是关于解释以实现有价值的目标，这些目标回答了人们心中或应该提出的问题（例如，我们应该如何评估智力？
Elevator statement. Since the organization of one’s explanation depends on having a clear and significant overall aim, before beginning to write, one useful exercise is to produce a one (at most two) sentence elevator statement. Pretend you are on an elevator and an acquaintance gets on, says she is going to the next floor, and then asks, “So, what are you writing about?” You have one floor to tell her. That’s the exercise, to explain your overall aim in a brief, but efficient and clear way, one that conveys not only what you will be explaining but also why you are explaining (i.e., the explanation’s significance). Discipline yourself to make several drafts of your elevator statement – so that your one or two lines convey both the aim of your essay and its significance. By the time your imaginary elevator companion is ready to step out, you should expect her to say, “Wow, that sounds really interesting and important.” – or words to that effect. As an example, if Gould was asked for an elevator statement, he might well have replied, “I’m writing about how the history of assessing intelligence has been a history of mismeasuring using assessment tools that have hurt a great many and missed what is at the heart of what we should mean by intelligence.” Who could fail to understand and appreciate such an aim?
电梯声明。由于一个人的解释的组织取决于有一个明确而重要的总体目标，因此在开始写作之前，一个有用的练习是制作一个（最多两句）的电梯陈述 假装你在电梯上，一个熟人上车，说她要去下一层，然后问道，“所以， 你在写什么？你有一层楼要告诉她。这就是练习，以简短但有效和清晰的方式解释你的总体目标，不仅传达 你将要解释的内容，还传达你为什么要解释的原因（即解释的重要性）。自律地为你的电梯声明写几份草稿——这样你的一两行话既传达了你文章的目的又传达了它的意义。当你想象中的电梯伙伴准备走出去时，你应该期待她说，“哇，这听起来真的很有趣和重要。”——或类似的话语。举个例子，如果 Gould 被要求提供电梯声明，他很可能会回答说：“我写的是评估智力的历史是如何使用评估工具进行误测的历史，这些工具伤害了很多人，错过了我们应该理解的智力的核心。 谁能不理解和欣赏这样的目标呢？
Storyline
故事 情节
We seem to be hard-wired to respond to explanations organized using a narrative frame. And yet, so many explanations are organized differently – by beginning with what should be an ending. Doing so rules out the drama that comes from building up to an ending’s resolving some conflict or mystery.
我们似乎天生就喜欢对使用叙事框架组织的解释做出回应。然而，如此多的解释的组织方式不同——从 本应是结尾的内容开始。这样做可以排除从构建到结局解决一些冲突或谜团所带来的戏剧性。
The key to generating a storyline is to organize an explanation using a narrative frame or, as one writer put it, using an “Is”, “But”, “Therefore” way of organizing (Olson, 2015). The “Is” section introduces readers or listeners to some situation, phenomenon, belief -- anything that everyone can take as factual or as a given. It may be something benign or something harmful and scary – it just has to be something we can all agree is something that “Is”. The “But” section introduces doubt or uneasiness into our too easy acceptance of what “Is” – it provides drama and a sense that we need to change how we think and act. In reading a “But” section, readers may learn of good questions they haven’t themselves asked or known the answers to or to problems they haven’t considered or solved. Most important, the “But” section can prime readers to read carefully when presented with the “Therefore” section of the explanation.
生成故事情节的关键是使用叙事框架来组织解释，或者正如一位作家所说，使用 “是”、“但是”、“因此 ”的组织方式（Olson，2015）。“是”部分向读者或听众介绍一些情况、现象、信念——每个人都可以视为事实或理所当然的任何事情。它可能是良性的，也可能是有害和可怕的——它必须是我们都同意是“是”的东西。“但是”部分让我们太容易接受“是”的方式带来了怀疑或不安——它提供了戏剧性和一种我们需要改变我们思考和行为方式的感觉。在阅读 “但是” 部分时，读者可能会了解到他们自己没有问过或不知道的好问题，或者他们没有考虑或解决的问题的答案。最重要的是，“但是”部分可以促使读者在看到解释的“因此”部分时仔细阅读。
The “Is”, “But”, “Therefore” way of organizing a storyline need not apply only to the dramas so clearly evident in human relationships. It can also apply to chemical reactions in plants that help our planet stay cool enough, to cost-benefit analyses for managing interest rates, to ways that Beethoven’s creations broke with the practices of musicians in his day. In short, this narrative way of organizing a storyline can apply to almost any subject. Here’s an example of how the narrative way of organizing can work to provide clarity and significance – so that readers understand, remember, and maybe even act differently
“是”、“但是”、“所以”组织故事情节的方式不必只适用于在人际关系中如此明显地表现出来的戏剧。它还可以应用于帮助地球保持足够凉爽的植物中的化学反应，用于管理利率的成本效益分析，以及贝多芬的创作与他那个时代音乐家的做法不同的方式。简而言之，这种组织故事情节的叙事方式几乎可以适用于任何主题。这里有一个例子，说明叙述的组织方式如何提供清晰度和意义——以便读者理解、记住，甚至可能以不同的方式行事.
Dooshima Mngerem, then a graduate student, had prepared to explain how “stigmatizing words” can often appear in discussions about the work of non-profit agencies located in inner city neighborhoods inhabited mostly by non-white groups with few economic resources. She originally planned to begin by reporting on the “good” non-profit agency where she was working – explaining how the agency uses non-stigmatizing words such as “partnering” with families rather than stigmatizing words such as under-privileged and at-risk – showing right away that her non-profit agency avoids stigmatizing the families who do not experience themselves as being “under-privileged” or “at-risk”.
当时还是研究生的 DooshimaMngerem 准备解释，在关于位于市中心社区的非营利机构工作的讨论中， “污名化词语”经常出现，这些社区主要由经济资源匮乏的非白人群体居住。她最初计划首先报道她工作的“好”非营利机构——解释该机构如何使用非污名化词语，例如“与家庭合作”，而不是污名化词语，例如弱势群体和处于风险中——立即表明她的非营利机构避免了污名化那些没有将自己视为“弱势群体”的家庭ed“或”有风险”。
But when it was pointed out that she was beginning with a resolution to a problem that had not been introduced (i.e., beginning with the ‘therefore’), she changed the opening by discussing two kinds of stigmatizing words – words that obviously stigmatize and that everyone can easily reject for being racist or classist words – and words that outsiders might not realize are stigmatizing words– words such as under-privileged- and words that may even be seen as good words to use because they motivate others to help those who are “under-privileged”, “at-risk”, and “under-served”. The problem is that these not-so-obviously stigmatizing words undermine a program’s effectiveness by offending the very people the program is designed to support. After explaining this problem (The “Is” being ways others characterize certain populations served by non-profits, and the “But” being the problem of unintended stigmatizing), she then explained the good non-profit agency where she was working – where they don’t use stigmatizing words and where families are empowered and better supported because of the program.
但是，当有人指出她是从解决一个尚未引入的问题开始（即，从“因此”开始）时，她通过讨论两种污名化词来改变开场白——明显污名化的词，每个人都可以很容易地因为是种族主义或阶级词而拒绝——以及外人可能没有意识到是污名化词的词——例如弱势群体的词- 甚至可能被视为好词的词语，因为它们可以激励他人帮助那些 “弱势群体”、“高危群体” 和 “服务不足” 的人。问题在于，这些不那么明显的污名化词语冒犯了该计划旨在支持的人，从而破坏了该计划的有效性。在解释了这个问题之后（“是”是其他人对非营利组织服务的某些人群的描述，而“但是”是无意的污名化问题）之后，她随后解释了她工作过的优秀非营利机构——他们不使用污名化词语，并且由于该计划，家庭获得了权力和更好的支持。
Doshima’s revised explanation was a success, in large part because she had set up her explanation using the narrative frame to tell the following story: “There are words that we may think don’t stigmatize, words such as under-privileged and at-risk. BUT for those living in the neighborhoods being described, these words do stigmatize; THEREFORE, use other words that don’t stigmatize, such as the words being used in the following program….” Had she explained using the storyline she initially planned to present, her explanation would have received pleasant, positive reactions, but without her using an “Is”, “But”, “Therefore” way of organizing the storyline, the explanation would not have been nearly as dynamic and memorable
Doshima 修改后的解释是成功的，这在很大程度上是因为她使用叙事框架来构建她的解释来讲述以下故事：“有些词我们可能认为不会污名化，例如弱势群体和处于危险中的词。但对于那些生活在所描述的社区的人来说，这些词确实带有污名化;因此，请使用其他不会污名化的词语，例如以下程序中使用的词语......”如果她使用她最初计划呈现的故事情节进行解释，她的解释会得到愉快、积极的反应，但如果没有她使用“是”、“但是”、“因此”的方式来组织故事情节，解释就不会那么生动和令人难忘.
Drafting the summary of a storyline. Before planning your writing, draft the summary of a storyline so as to ensure that you will be explaining using a clear and compelling narrative frame. Your summary should be short. See the above example of a drafted storyline, and notice it is only three sentences long. Your summary should also be written in prose, not in an outline form where it is possible to give the appearance of having a clear storyline without actually being clear ‘in your head’. The summary need not appear in the actual writing or speaking – though it might. The purpose of the summary is for you to be clear about the storyline before writing – so that what gets written follows the storyline.
起草故事情节的摘要。 在计划你的写作之前，起草一个故事情节的摘要，以确保你将使用清晰而引人注目的叙述框架进行解释。你的摘要应该简短请看上面一个起草的故事情节的例子，注意它只有三句话长。你的总结也 应该 用散文写，而不是以大纲的形式写，这样可以给人一种有清晰故事情节的假象，但实际上 “在你的脑海 ”中并不清晰。摘要不需要出现在实际的写作或演讲中——尽管它可能会。总结的目的是让您在写作前清楚故事情节——这样所写的内容就会跟随故事情节。
Showing with Examples, Detailed Descriptions, and Visuals
通过示例、详细说明和视觉效果进行展示
This may be the guideline that most clearly sets artful explanation off from so much academic writing. In much academic writing, showing means citing sources, reviewing empirical studies, providing tables and graphs and doing whatever it takes to back up a discussion with the evidence needed to make explanations compelling. Such showing is also required in artful explanation. But, in addition, artful explanation requires a different and equally important way of showing, namely, showing by giving examples, telling stories, and providing detailed descriptions and stunning visuals -- all of which allow readers to “see”, “hear” and sometimes “feel” in order to understand what is going on. Here we see artful explanation borrowing from the toolbox of great fiction writers to communicate what is decidedly non-fiction. By doing so, readers can experience something first-hand – no need to trust an authority to tell them what to understand because from reading the details, readers can make their own inferences, draw their own conclusions, and find their own meaning in the explanation. In addition, by ‘showing’ and not simply telling, you allow readers to acquire an emotional as well as intellectual understanding of what is going on – of great importance when what is being explained is meant to move a reader to act differently and in a certain way
这可能是最清楚地将巧妙的解释与如此多的学术著作区分开来的指导方针。在许多学术著作中，展示意味着引用来源、回顾实证研究、提供表格和图表，并尽一切可能用所需的证据来支持讨论，使解释令人信服。 这种展示也是巧妙解释所必需的。 但是，此外，巧妙的解释需要一种不同但同样重要的展示方式，即通过举例、讲故事、提供详细的描述和令人惊叹的视觉效果来展示——所有这些都让读者能够“看到”、“听到”，有时甚至是“感觉到”，以便理解正在发生的事情。 在这里，我们看到巧妙的解释借鉴了伟大小说家的工具箱，以传达绝对非虚构的内容。通过这样做，读者可以亲身体验到一些东西——无需相信权威告诉他们要理解什么，因为通过阅读细节，读者可以做出自己的推断，得出自己的结论，并在解释中找到自己的含义。此外，通过“展示”而不是简单地讲述，您可以让读者获得 对正在发生的事情的情感和智力理解——当所解释的内容旨在促使读者以某种方式以不同的方式行动时，这一点非常重要 .
Showing with Words
用 Words 显示
To illustrate the power of using a narrative-descriptive way of showing, one that uses all the devices found in fiction writing, including dialogue, take, as an example, the opening of a paper by then graduate student, Jaclyn Desrosier, a paper based on her fieldwork at the Massachusetts Hospital School for physically challenged students, many who could not communicate using words. The overall aim of the paper was to explain the work being done at MHS and to show how that work challenges the common assumption that residential programs aren’t as good for children with disabilities as are inclusion programs in regular public schools:
为了说明使用叙事描述性表现方式的力量，一种使用小说写作中发现的所有手段，包括对话，例如，当时的研究生 Jaclyn Desrosier的一篇论文的开篇，一篇基于她 在马萨诸塞州医院学校为身体残疾学生进行的田野调查的论文，许多人无法用语言进行交流。本文的总体目标是解释 MHS 正在进行的工作，并展示该工作如何挑战普遍的假设，即住宿计划对残疾儿童不如普通公立学校的包容性计划好：
“Half a dozen adolescents eagerly formed a semicircle around a computer that displayed a software program their technology teacher had created. Their teacher greeted them excitedly and connected each student’s switch to the computer one at a time, testing each as he went. When he reached the last child, he exclaimed, “Hi Kate!”, then discovered that Kate had two switches on her wheelchair, one next to her right hand and one next to her left arm. “Hmmm, Kate, I think this one is new,” he said, pointing to the switch next to her left arm. “I don’t know if you’re using it yet, are you?” Kate moved her eyes slowly, and not without effort, to meet her teacher’s gaze. “Hmmm, I’m not sure if that was a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. Show me your ‘yes’ Kate.” He watched her eyes carefully as she adjusted her gaze up, and to the right. “Okay, got it,” he nodded. “Now show me your ‘no’.” Again, Kate shifted her eyes, this time down, and to the left. “Great. Now, are you using this new switch?” he asked as he pointed to the apparatus resting next to her left arm. Slowly Kate looked up over her right shoulder. “Well that was clear!” her teacher smiled. “Let me hook up this new switch, and we’ll get started.”
“六名青少年急切地围着一台电脑围成一个半圆，电脑上显示着他们的技术老师创建的软件程序。他们的老师兴奋地向他们打招呼，并将每个学生的开关逐一连接到计算机，边走边测试。当他走到最后一个孩子身边时，他惊呼道：“嗨，凯特！”，然后发现凯特的轮椅上有两个开关，一个在她的右手旁边，一个在她的左臂旁边。“嗯，Kate，我觉得这个是新的，”他指着她左臂旁边的开关说。“我不知道你还在用它吗？”凯特慢慢地移动她的眼睛，并非没有努力，与她老师的目光相遇。“嗯，我不确定这是肯定的还是不确定的。让我看看你的'是的，凯特'。他仔细地看着她的眼睛，她调整了一下目光，又向上看了看。“好的，明白了，”他点点头。“现在告诉我你的不。” 凯特又一次把眼睛移开了，这一次是向下的，然后是向左的。“太好了。现在，你用这个新开关吗？“他指着放在她左臂旁边的设备问道。慢慢地，凯特抬起头来。“嗯，这很清楚！”“让我连接这个新开关，我们就可以开始了。”
Clearly the teacher here is doing something remarkable, so that we get a partial explanation of what makes this residential program so remarkable. By showing rather than telling, the writer explains much more clearly and movingly, thereby helping to achieve the overall aim of explaining why it is a good idea to support residential programs such as the Massachusetts Hospital School for children and adolescents with serious physical disabilities.
显然，这里的老师正在做一些了不起的事情，因此我们得到了部分解释是什么让这个住宿项目如此了不起。通过展示而不是讲述，作者的解释更加清晰和感人，从而有助于实现总体目标，即解释为什么支持马萨诸塞州医院学校等针对严重身体残疾儿童和青少年的寄宿计划是个好主意。
Take another example of showing – an example from Russell Baker’s Pulitzer Prize winning book, Growing Up (Baker, 1982). Before writing the book, Baker had found it impossible to explain to his two boys what it was like to be poor and growing up during the Great Depression – something that mattered to him, especially at times when his boys lost sight of how lucky they were to be growing up in the relative luxury of an expensive New York City apartment while attending good schools. His aim in writing the book was to explain to his boys and others what it is like to be dirt poor and to challenge certain stereotypes about being poor
再举一个例子——罗素·贝克（Russell Baker）的普利策奖获奖著作《成长》（Growing Up，Baker，1982年）中的一个例子。在写这本书之前，贝克发现无法向他的两个儿子解释在大萧条期间贫穷和长大是什么感觉——这对他来说很重要，尤其是当他的儿子们忘记了他们是多么幸运时，他们能够在纽约市昂贵的公寓中相对豪华地长大，同时就读于好学校。他写这本书的目的是向他的儿子和其他人解释泥泞的穷人是什么感觉，并挑战某些关于穷人的刻板印象.
In this example of Baker’s descriptive way of explaining, a single sentence serves to explain ‘women’s work’ in an extremely poor and rural part of Virginia where he spent the early years of his childhood during the 1920’s:
在这个贝克描述性解释的例子中，一句话用来解释弗吉尼亚州一个极度贫困的农村地区的“妇女工作”，他在 1920 年代在那里度过了童年的早年：
“They [women] scrubbed floors on hands and knees, thrashed rugs with carpet beaters, killed and plucked their own chickens, baked bread and pastries, grew and canned their own vegetables, patched the family's clothing on treadle-operated sewing machines, deloused the chicken coops, preserved fruits, picked potato bugs and tomato worms to protect their garden crop, darned stockings, made jelly and relishes, rose before the men to start the stove for breakfast and pack lunch pails, polished the chimneys of kerosene lamps, and even found time to tend the geraniums, hollyhocks, nasturtiums, dahlias, and peonies that grew around every house.”
“她们用手和膝盖擦洗地板，用地毯打手敲打地毯，杀死和拔自己的鸡，烤面包和糕点，自己种植和罐装蔬菜，用脚踏式缝纫机修补家里的衣服，给鸡舍除虱，脯水果，捡土豆虫和番茄虫来保护花园里的庄稼，给袜子上浇油。 制作果冻和调味品，在男人们之前起床点燃早餐和打包午餐桶，擦亮煤油灯的烟囱，甚至抽出时间照料每家每户周围生长的天竺葵、蜀葵、金莲花、大丽花和牡丹。“
Notice the details and the way the details are laid out one right after the other to convey the energy, hard work, and incredible production of the women who raised Baker under impoverished circumstances (no modern plumbing, no modern appliances, no money for fine clothes, no travel, no fancy education, etc.). We see here that the poor can be just the opposite of lazy, incompetent, and stupid. Here, we experience the poor women of Baker’s youth as hard-working, highly competent and smart in their knowledge of so much. Notice too that Baker’s explaining by showing demonstrates his knowing more rather than less than one might feel required to know when explaining by just telling – as evidenced by the intimate knowledge shown here of cleaning utensils, foods, household chores, and flowers.
请注意细节和 细节一个接一个地摆放的方式，以传达在贫困环境中抚养贝克的妇女的活力、辛勤工作和令人难以置信的生产力（没有现代管道、没有现代电器、没有钱买漂亮的衣服、没有旅行、没有花哨的教育等）。我们在这里看到，穷人可能只是懒惰、无能和愚蠢的假象。在这里，我们体验到贝克年轻时的贫穷女性勤奋、能力强、知识渊博。还要注意，贝克通过展示来解释表明他知道得更多，而不是比一个人在仅仅通过讲述来解释时可能觉得需要知道的要多 ——正如这里展示的对清洁用具、食物、家务和鲜花的深入了解所证明的那样。
Keeping the ‘camera’ turned outward. In order to “show” and not simply “tell”, when you write, keep the (metaphorical) ‘camera’ turned outward. You can occasionally turn the camera inward and speak about your own thoughts and feelings, but you’ll find that when the camera is mostly turned outward – to describe and capture what you wish your readers or listeners to see and hear – that’s when you will be giving your readers the experience you want them to have in order to truly understand. In the example above, if Baker had dwelled on his feelings of admiration for those hard-working women of his youth (“I always admired how hard the women worked.” etc.), he would have weakened the experience we readers have of those women – because the camera would have been turned away from the women and onto him.
保持“相机”向外转动。为了 “展示 ”而不是简单地 “讲述”，当你写作时，保持（比喻的）“相机 ”向外转动。你偶尔可以把镜头向内转动，谈论你自己的想法和感受，但你会发现，当镜头大部分向外时——描述和捕捉你希望读者或听众看到和听到的东西——那时你就会给你的读者你希望他们有的体验，以便真正理解。在上面的例子中，如果贝克沉浸在他对年轻时那些勤奋工作的女性的钦佩之情中（“我一直钦佩这些女性的工作是多么努力”等），他就会削弱我们读者对这些女性的体验——因为镜头会从女性身上转向他。
Showing with Visuals
与视觉对象一起显示
Showing with visuals can add much to a written paper, and maybe even be essential to the explanation. Edward Tufte has been a leader in explaining how to use exceptional visuals for explaining artfully and to not rely on PowerPoint slides with only bullet points that “tell” but that do not “show”. As an example of an exceptional visual, in one of his books (Tufte, 1997), he uses the crude drawing made by the physician and scientist, John Snow, when Snow was explaining the cause of London’s 1854 outbreak of cholera. The drawing marked the homes where people had died following the outbreak. It showed that most of the deaths surrounded the Broad Street water pump. Furthermore, it made comparisons by showing that people working and living in two near-by institutions which had their own sources of water or alternatives to drinking water, suffered no deaths from cholera. The drawing helped establish that cholera is a water born disease. Up until that time, cholera had been assumed to be caused by “foul air”. Furthermore, the drawing convinced others to shut down the Broad St. pump, thereby saving lives. In other words, it was the visual that explained artfully.
用视觉效果展示可以为书面论文增加很多内容，甚至可能对解释至关重要。爱德华·塔夫特 （Edward Tufte） 一直是解释如何使用卓越的视觉效果进行巧妙解释的领导者，并且不依赖 只有“讲述”但不 “显示”的要点的 PowerPoint 幻灯片。 作为特殊视觉效果的一个例子，在他的一本书（Tufte，1997 年）中，他使用了医生和科学家约翰·斯诺 （John Snow） 在解释 1854 年伦敦爆发霍乱的原因时绘制的粗略图画。这幅图画标记了疫情后人们死亡的房屋。 它显示，大多数死亡事件都围绕着 Broad Street 水泵。此外，它通过表明在附近两个拥有自己的水源或饮用水替代品的机构中工作和生活的人没有死于霍乱而进行比较。这幅图画帮助确定了霍乱是一种水传播疾病。在那之前，霍乱一直被认为是由“污浊空气”引起的。 此外，这张图纸说服其他人关闭了 Broad St. 泵，从而挽救了生命。换句话说，是视觉巧妙地解释了。
As another example of the power of visuals to explain, Jacob Riis, a late 19th century New York City reformer and journalist, took the latest technology in photography, a camera that could take pictures where light was minimal, into dark, rat infested, and overcrowded tenements that housed poor immigrant families– to capture the horrible living conditions there. His photographs provided a powerful impetus for the development of housing codes and the improvement of living conditions for the city’s poor. Others had spent a good deal of ink telling people about the awful living conditions in those tenement houses – and nothing changed. But when Riis showed those conditions in his photographs that accompanied his texts, that’s when change occurred.
作为视觉解释力量的另一个例子，19 世纪末的纽约市改革家和记者雅各布·里斯 （Jacob Riis） 采用了最新的摄影技术，这种相机可以在光线微弱的地方拍摄照片，进入黑暗、老鼠出没和过度拥挤的公寓，这些公寓住着贫穷的移民家庭——捕捉那里可怕的生活条件.他的照片为住房法规的制定和城市穷人生活条件的改善提供了强大的推动力。其他人花了大量笔墨告诉人们那些唐楼里可怕的生活条件——但什么都没有改变。但是，当 Riis 在他的照片中展示这些条件并附有他的文字时，变化就发生了。
Both of these examples indicate the power of visuals for explaining and for motivating others to act. In the first example, the visual helped establish a causal connection between water and a disease. In the second example, the visual helped arouse feelings of sympathy and outrage that were hard to arouse using words alone. Together, the examples show that visuals coupled with words can be central to explaining artfully
这两个例子都表明了视觉在解释和激励他人行动方面的力量。在第一个例子中，视觉有助于建立水和疾病之间的因果关系。在第二个例子中，视觉效果有助于唤起同情和愤怒的感觉，而这些情绪是单独使用文字很难唤起的。总之，这些示例表明，视觉与文字相结合可以成为巧妙解释的核心.
In sum, the motto here is “Tell a little but show a lot.”
总而言之，这里的座右铭是“讲述一点，但展示很多”。
Explaining at Three Levels of Abstraction
在三个抽象层次上进行解释
Developed explanations operate at three levels of abstraction, at least implicitly. All three are equally important and all three operate at the same time, making for a kind of chorale or musical chord. Each level can be made explicit or left implicit, but whether explicit or implicit, it is essential that the person explaining operates on all three levels to make a developed, artful explanation possible.
发达的解释至少在三个抽象层次上运作。这三者同样重要，并且这三者同时运作，形成一种合唱或音乐和弦。每个层次都可以是明确的或隐含的，但无论是明确的还是隐含的，解释者必须在所有三个层面上进行操作，以使一个发展的、巧妙的解释成为可能。
Umbrella Level: Theoretical Perspective, Paradigm, Frame
伞形层次：理论视角、范式、框架
The third level, what might be called the umbrella level, is the overall theoretical perspective or paradigm or frame for puzzling and explaining. So, for example, the behaviorist Gerald Patterson was tasked with explaining how in some families and against their own wishes, the parents found themselves yelling at, even hitting their children. In Patterson’s case, that umbrella level was behaviorism with its commitment to puzzling about what can be seen, heard, and measured, as well as it commitment to looking for the antecedents and consequences of problem behaviors to detect what might be reinforcing or not reinforcing problem behaviors and to find solutions to problem behaviors.
第三个层次，可以称为伞状层次，是整体理论视角或范式或框架，用于解谜和解释。因此，例如，行为学家杰拉尔德·帕特森 （Gerald Patterson） 的任务是解释在一些家庭中，父母如何违背自己的意愿，发现自己对孩子大喊大叫，甚至打孩子。在帕特森的案例中，这个总括层面是行为主义，它致力于对 可以看到、听到和测量的东西感到困惑，同时也致力于寻找问题行为的前因和后果，以检测可能强化或不强化问题行为的因素，并找到问题行为的解决方案。
Explanatory Concepts
解释概念
The second, mid-level, is where explanatory concepts that may be single concepts or distinctions take over to explain what is being described. In the example of Patterson and the families yelling at and hitting their children, Patterson used the explanatory concept reinforcement trap to capture what was going on in many of these families – showing how, over time, a child and parent were unwittingly reinforcing one another’s escalating behavior by each taking turns backing off when the other became angry and escalated the conflict. When this negative reinforcement by both continued over time, the escalation eventually led to matters getting out of hand and to parents resorting to yelling at and hitting their children. The solution, says Patterson, is for parents to learn how to be firm (not angry or violent) before the escalating cycle gets too far along – for example, drawing a line in the sand when it is time for a child to turn off the T.V., get dressed, do homework, or whatever.
第二个阶段是中级阶段，解释性概念可能是单个概念或区别，用于解释所描述的内容。在帕特森和家庭对孩子大喊大叫和打孩子的例子中，帕特森使用解释性概念强化陷阱来捕捉许多这些家庭中发生的事情——展示随着时间的推移，孩子和父母如何在不知不觉中加强彼此升级的行为，当对方生气并升级冲突时，他们轮流退后退。当两人的这种负面强化随着时间的推移持续时，升级最终导致事情失控，父母对孩子大喊大叫并打人。帕特森说，解决方案是让父母学会如何在升级的循环变得太严重之前保持坚定（而不是愤怒或暴力）——例如，当孩子该关掉电视、穿衣服、做作业或其他任何事情时，在沙子上画一条线。
Description
描述
The third level is description. It is the level where detailed description explains what’s going on – with words, visuals, graphs – anything that allows us to “see” and sometimes “hear” what is going on. If it is words, we may hear dialogue, or see what someone is wearing, or listen to a story that puts us right there in some scene or scenes we can experience first-hand. This level follows the second major guideline to “Show”. Using the Gerald Patterson example again, the description level would allow us to hear the yelling, see the facial expressions, follow the parent leaving the room, in short, the description level would ‘put us right there’.
第三级是描述。在这个层面上，详细的描述解释了正在发生的事情 – 用文字、视觉、图表 – 任何让我们 “看到 ”，有时 “听到 ”正在发生的事情的东西。如果是文字，我们可能会听到对话，或者看到某人的穿着，或者听到一个故事，让我们置身于我们可以亲身体验的某个场景或场景中。此级别遵循 “Show” 的第二个主要准则。 再次以 Gerald Patterson 为例，描述层级将允许我们听到大喊大叫，看到面部表情，跟随父母离开房间，简而言之，描述层级将“将我们放在那里”。
Making Comparisons
进行比较
In both artful and standard academic ways of explaining, explaining well also requires making comparisons. This is obvious when using statistics to explain causes. For example, there is a statistically significant and positive correlation between children playing violent video games and children getting into fights. However, when we look closely at the data and make additional comparisons, the seeming causal connection disappears – because the significant correlation happened as a result of a tiny group of ‘outliers’ making up only two per cent of the sample being studied. In short, comparing is at the heart of academic ways of explaining.
在巧妙和标准的学术解释方式中，解释得好也需要进行比较。这在使用统计数据来解释原因时很明显。例如，玩暴力电子游戏的儿童与打架的儿童之间存在统计学上的显著正相关。然而，当我们仔细查看数据并进行更多比较时，看似的因果关系就消失了——因为显着的相关性是由于 一小群“异常值”仅占所研究样本的 2% 而发生的。简而言之，比较是学术解释方式的核心。
However, artful explanation makes comparing happen in additional and equally compelling ways – by showing through examples and visuals. For example, it is one thing to say that very young children in early intervention programs don’t say much even when teachers are talking to them, and quite another to describe their speech output in a typical five minute time period in an EI center – and to then compare that output using detailed descriptions of the give-and-take, teacher-child dialogues that are the norm in typical early childhood programs for two- and three-year-olds. The comparison brings home the point that language delay, the kind found among children in early intervention programs, is serious and demands our special attention.
然而，巧妙的解释使比较以其他同样引人注目的方式发生——通过示例和视觉效果进行展示。例如，说早期干预计划中非常年幼的孩子即使老师与他们交谈也不会说太多话是一回事，而在 EI 中心描述他们在典型的五分钟时间段内的语音输出则是另一回事——然后使用对给予和接受的详细描述来比较该输出。 师生对话是 2 岁和 3 岁儿童的典型幼儿计划的常态。这种比较让我们明白，语言发育迟缓（早期干预计划中儿童的语言发育迟缓）是严重的，需要我们特别关注。
Organizing Internally for Clarity and Flow
内部组织以实现清晰度和流畅性
It is one thing to organize the whole paper or speech by having an aim and storyline. It is another thing to organize paragraphs and sentences that embody the overall aim and storyline while providing the specifics in the explanation. There are lots of tips for organizing paragraphs and sentences. The ones suggested here are chosen because they are basics but also because they go unused in a good deal of academic writing. One of the sad truths about academic writing, even the academic writing of famous scholars, is the fact that essays, articles, and books are often made difficult to read by their lacking internal organization for clarity and flow. We readers deserve better.
通过有目标和故事情节来组织整篇论文或演讲是一回事 。在解释中提供细节的同时，组织体现总体目标和故事情节的段落和句子是另一回事。有很多关于组织段落和句子的技巧。选择这里推荐的那些是因为它们是基础，但也因为它们 在大量的学术写作中被使用。关于学术写作，即使是著名学者的学术写作，一个可悲的事实是，论文、文章和书籍往往由于缺乏清晰和流畅的内部组织而变得难以阅读。我们读者应该得到更好的。
Paragraphs
段落
It helps to ensure clarity and flow if the overall aim is not only clear but also if it generates how the essay is organized throughout. In most cases, this means introducing each section by making explicit how the section ties into the overall aim – but this rule does not always apply. At the very least, paragraphs should flow smoothly from one to the next – often made possible by some introductory phrase ending one paragraph, such as, “That brings us to….” or by beginning the next paragraph with a phrase such as, “That’s not the only issue with…..There is also…..”.
如果总体目标不仅明确，而且如果它产生了文章在整个过程中的组织方式，它有助于确保清晰和流畅。在大多数情况下，这意味着通过明确该部分如何与总体目标相关联来介绍每个部分——但这条规则并不总是适用。至少，段落应该从一个段落流畅地流向下一个段落——通常是通过在段落结尾一些介绍性短语来实现的，例如，“这把我们带到......”。或者以短语开头，例如“这不是唯一的问题.....还有.....”。
Clarity and flow also happens when paragraphs are organized internally so as to minimize shifts in focus, with focus found mostly in the subjects that open each sentence. Unfortunately, this guideline about minimizing shifts in focus is often ignored – even in the writing of leading scholars. Take, for example, the following opening of an essay on children’s play by Angeline Lillard, a leading researcher on children’s play (Lillard, 2015)
当段落在内部组织以尽量减少焦点转移时，也会出现清晰度和流畅性，重点主要集中在打开每个句子的主题上。不幸的是，这个关于尽量减少焦点转移的指导方针经常被忽视——即使在领先学者的著作中也是如此。以儿童游戏的主要研究者 Angeline Lillard 关于儿童游戏的文章的开头为例（Lillard，2015 年）:
“Children spend many of their waking hours engaged in play, and this is frequently claimed to be crucially important to children’s development …. Despite these facts, since the first edition in 1946 of what is often referred to as the “Mussen Handbook of Child Psychology,” only one previous chapter has been accorded to the development of play….. Although there has been much research on play since that prior chapter, the role of play in development is still not well understood.” p. 425
“孩子们将醒着的大部分时间都花在玩耍上，这经常被认为对儿童的发展至关重要......尽管有这些事实，自 1946 年通常被称为“马森儿童心理学手册”的第一版以来，只有一章提到了游戏的发展..... 尽管自上一章以来已经对 play 进行了大量研究，但 play 在发育中的作用仍然没有得到很好的理解。 第 425 页
The paragraph continues to shift focus, and while shifts in focus may seem fine to readers who are just beginning to read the essay – after a while, such shifting can lead to confusion and exhaustion. Here’s a rewrite which minimizes shifts in focus by keeping the term play as the subject throughout:
该段落继续转移焦点，虽然焦点转移对于刚开始阅读这篇文章的读者来说似乎很好——但一段时间后，这种转移会导致困惑和疲惫。这是一个重写，它通过始终将术语 play 作为主题来最大限度地减少焦点转移：
Play occupies many of children’s waking hours, leaving play to appear crucially important to children’s development. However, since the first edition in 1946 of what is often referred to as the “Mussen Handbook of Child Psychology,” play and its development has been accorded only one previous chapter in the Handbook….. And although there has been much research on play since that prior chapter, play’s role in development is still not well understood.
游戏占据了儿童醒着的许多时间，这使得游戏对儿童的发展显得至关重要。然而，自 1946 年通常被称为“马森儿童心理学手册”的第一版以来，游戏及其发展仅在该手册的前一章中出现..... 尽管自上一章以来已经对 play 进行了大量研究，但 play 在发展中的作用仍然没有得到很好的理解。
By keeping the focus on play, the paragraph flows freely and makes for easier reading than the original paragraph – even though the information and points made are the same. If this is true for the opening sentences, imagine what minimizing shifts in focus would do for the entire essay.
通过保持对游戏的关注，段落可以自由流动，并且比原始段落更容易阅读——即使所提出的信息和观点相同。如果开头的句子是这样，想象一下最小化焦点转移会对整篇文章产生什么影响。
Sentences
句子
For clarity and flow at the level of individual sentences, the watchwords are agents and actions. There is something almost biological about how we take notice of agents engaged in actions – whether those agents be humans and creatures with intentions or plants and inanimate objects that can be turned into agents when we say things like, “The corn grew taller this year.” and “The wind blew off the roof.”. Taking notice of agents and actions sets the stage for experiencing drama, and drama is what captures attention and helps with clarity. So, when explaining artfully, turn subjects into agents and verbs into actions. If, for example, you find yourself writing, “It is important to consider family systems when trying to understand the behavior of children.”, stop and re-write to say something along the lines of the following: “Family systems help us better understand the behavior of children.” And notice too that most of the time it is best to begin the sentence with the agent-action pairing -- that is, to not leave that pairing for the middle or the end.
为了在单个句子的层面上清晰流畅，口号是 agents 和 actions。我们如何注意到参与行动的主体几乎是生物学的——无论这些主体是人类和有意图的生物，还是植物和无生命的物体，当我们说“今年玉米长高了”和“风吹下屋顶”之类的话时，它们都可以变成主体。注意代理人和行动为体验戏剧性奠定了基础，而戏剧性是吸引注意力并有助于清晰的东西。因此，在巧妙地解释时，将主语变成主体，将动词变成行动。例如，如果你发现自己在写，“在试图理解儿童的行为时，考虑家庭系统很重要”，请停下来重新写，说出类似以下内容：“家庭系统帮助我们更好地理解儿童的行为。还要注意，大多数时候最好以 agent-action 对开始句子 —— 也就是说，不要将该对留到中间或结尾。