You know, I believe in government.

你知道，我相信政府。

There are things that can't do, of course, But I think the government has had a positive effect in the lives of millions of people.

當然，有些事情是做不到的，但我認為政府對數百萬人的生活產生了積極影響。

And yet no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, it's hard to argue with those who criticize government for the way that it allocates and spends the money that it takes out of our paychecks.

然而，無論你屬於哪個政治光譜，都很難與那些責備政府分配和使用從我們工資單中抽取的錢的方式的人爭論。

The US government is a vast bureaucracy prone to waste and redundant spending.

美國政府是一個龐大的官僚機構，容易造成浪費和多餘的開支。

And this is because it doesn't do what most of us would consider to be common sense.

而這是因為它沒有做我們大多數人認為是常識的事情。

It doesn't make decisions based on evidence by setting priorities and making sure tax dollars are spent wisely.

它沒有通過確定優先次序和確保稅款得到明智的使用，在證據的基礎上做出決定。

American can be compassionate and responsible at the same time.

美國人可以同時具有同情心和責任感。

Let me just give you an example of what I'm talking about.

讓我給你舉個例子，說明我在說什麼。

In 2005.

在2005年。

George W.

George W.

Bush signed the deficit reduction act and that bill set up a council to figure out how many federal programs were spending money on things that were actually working.

布什簽署了削減赤字法案，該法案設立了一個委員會，以弄清有多少聯邦項目將錢花在真正有效的事情上。

The council found that for example, the government was funding 105 stem education initiatives totaling $3 billion in 2000 and six of those 105 only 10 had evaluations that were scientifically worth a damn.

該委員會發現，例如，政府在2000年資助了105項幹教育計劃，總額為30億美元，而在這105項計劃中，只有10項有科學價值的評估。

And of those 10, just four were found to be effective four out of 105 for $3 billion.

而在這10個項目中，105個項目中只有4個被發現是有效的，價值30億美元。

You can find ugly statistics like that all throughout the government.

你可以在整個政府中找到這樣的醜陋統計數據。

And the reason is because spending decisions in Washington and in the states too, by the way, are made on things like costs on public opinion, on the pressure from lobbyists and on the particular political ideology of parties and politicians.

原因是，華盛頓和各州的支出決定，順便說一下，是根據公眾輿論的成本、說客的壓力以及政黨和政治家的特定政治意識形態等因素作出的。

In other words, everything but evidence.

換句話說，除了證據，一切都有。

I mean you read essays on evidence based policy and you invariably come across sentences like the rise and promotion of evidence based orientations within government agencies is consistent with the public sectors, increased interest in efficiency and effectiveness as if before they were primarily concerned with inefficiency and ineffectiveness.

我的意思是，你讀關於基於證據的政策的文章，你總是會遇到這樣的句子：在政府機構中，基於證據的取向的興起和推廣與公共部門一致，對效率和效力的興趣增加，好像以前他們主要關注的是低效率和低效力。

Back to the video.

回到視頻上。

Everything about life in our technocratic society is hyper efficient.

在我們的技術官僚社會中，關於生活的一切都具有超強的效率。

I mean, google just came out with a function for web searching within the messaging app because switching apps is, you know, like really unproductive.

我的意思是，谷歌剛剛推出了一個在資訊應用中進行網絡搜索的功能，因為切換應用是，你知道，就像真的沒有生產力。

I think the feeling is that we're getting more efficient by orders of magnitude.

我想大家的感覺是，我們的效率正在以數量級的方式提高。

While government is just taking a lot of time switching between apps, the result of that is frustration and the result of frustration is one of the great sleazebags of our time.

雖然政府只是花了很多時間在應用程序之間切換，但其結果是沮喪，而沮喪的結果是我們這個時代的一個大騙子。

Why can't we use science and evidence to improve government?

為什麼我們不能用科學和證據來改善政府？

How would it even work?

它甚至如何工作？

Well, applying evidence to social programs involves a few things.

那麼，將證據應用於社會項目涉及幾件事。

But the most important is something called randomized controlled trials.

但最重要的是一種叫做隨機對照試驗的東西。

This means randomly selecting a large number of people, splitting them into two groups where one group gets the benefits of the program in question while the other group, the control group doesn't and these groups are monitored over a long period taken from medicine.

這意味著隨機選擇大量的人，把他們抽成兩組，其中一組得到有關計劃的好處，而另一組，即對照組則沒有，這些組在一個很長的時期內接受醫學監測。

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for determining how effective something really is.

隨機對照試驗是確定某物真正有效的黃金標準。

The government can apply this to policy by offering money only to the programs that do this kind of research and by attaching the condition that scientifically rigorous evaluations must be kept up over time or the money will disappear.

政府可以將此應用到政策中，只向進行這種研究的項目提供資金，並附加條件，即必須長期保持科學嚴謹的評估，否則資金將消失。

Now of course, if you're going to go down this road, you have to be willing to hear results that you might not like.

當然，現在如果你要走這條路，你必須願意聽到你可能不喜歡的結果。

One of the most rigorous studies ever in this field.

該領域有史以來最嚴謹的研究之一。

For example, was the Head Start impact study plan during the clinton years implemented during the bush years and reported just before Obama's reelection.

例如，克林頓時期的啟蒙教育影響研究計劃是否在布什時期實施，並在奧巴馬連任之前報告。

In 2012, the study found that Head Start a program that aimed to help Children in poverty had by the end of the third grade, very few impacts in any of the four domains of cognitive social, emotional health and parenting practices at a cost of $8 billion a year to the taxpayer.

2012年，研究發現，旨在幫助貧困兒童的 "啟蒙計劃 "在三年級結束時，在認知、社會、情感健康和育兒實踐這四個領域的影響非常小，每年給納稅人造成80億美元的損失。

Those were pretty shocking findings.

這些是相當令人震驚的發現。

Now the question is, does poor spending mean that funding should be cut for poverty programs so that we should scale back on stem initiatives.

現在的問題是，支出不力是否意味著應該削減對貧困項目的資助，從而使我們應該縮減對干係人的倡議。

I don't think so.

我不這麼認為。

In fact, I think we should increase spending on both, but the money should be given to stuff that works.

事實上，我認為我們應該增加這兩方面的支出，但這些錢應該給那些有用的東西。

I mean that just makes sense.

我的意思是這只是有意義的。

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward, where the answer is no.

我們今天問的問題不是我們的政府是否太大或者太小，而是在答案是肯定的地方，我們打算向前推進，在答案是否定的地方，它是否有效。

Programs will end.

方案將結束。

Major kudos has to be given to the Obama administration for facing the head start results squarely and ordering a full review of one of the signature pieces of liberal legislation in the 20th century.

必須為奧巴馬政府正視先發制人的結果並下令全面審查20世紀自由主義立法的標誌性作品之一而大加讚賞。

In fact, evidence based policy has been a cornerstone of the Obama agenda.

事實上，基於證據的政策一直是奧巴馬議程的基石。

In some key areas, there have been some major wins by using a competitive model of funding that requires strong standards of evidence.

在一些關鍵領域，通過使用需要強有力的證據標準的競爭性資助模式，已經取得了一些重大勝利。

Evidence based policy doesn't work for everything but that any administration managed to shoehorn science in among the other legislative pressures is a major accomplishment.

以證據為基礎的政策並不是對所有事情都有效，但任何政府設法在其他立法壓力中塞進科學是一個重大的成就。

Of course, you won't ever hear about accomplishments like this on the news because this stuff is incredibly boring.

當然，你永遠不會在新聞中聽到這樣的成就，因為這些東西是非常無聊的。

But that's part of the problem.

但這也是問題的一部分。

Under the sensationalism of the media and the squabbling of political parties, there is a deep boring ocean of governance where tedious but crucial work is being done every day.

在媒體的聳人聽聞和政黨的爭吵下，有一個深沉無聊的治理海洋，每天都在進行著乏味但關鍵的工作。

I think it's part of our responsibility to wade into that ocean every once in a while and tune out the noise.

我認為我們有責任每隔一段時間就涉足這片海洋，調出噪音。

If you do, who knows?

如果你這樣做，誰知道呢？

Maybe you'll find something in there that will make you believe in government too.

也許你會在裡面找到一些東西，讓你也相信政府。

Hey, everybody thanks for watching.

嘿，大家感謝觀看。

I have to give a heartfelt thanks to everybody who supports this channel on Patreon by pledging a dollar or $3 per video because that allows me to put a lot of work into a video like this with ideas that I think are important and fascinating, but not very clickbaiting.

我必須衷心感謝在Patreon上支持這個頻道的每個人，他們為每個視頻認捐1美元或3美元，因為這使我能夠在這樣的視頻中投入大量的工作，提出我認為重要和迷人的想法，但不是很有點擊率。

So thank you for that freedom.

是以，感謝你的這種自由。

I don't take it lightly and I'll see you guys next Wednesday.

我不會掉以輕心，下週三我將看到你們。