評論
打印
Let's be honest: we all try to win arguments on the internet,
老實說，我們一直想在互聯網上贏得辯論，
even though we know it's pointless.
即使我們知道這毫無意義。
Sometimes when you're scrolling through your Facebook or Twitter feed,
有時，你在瀏覽臉書或推特簡訊時，
bad opinions and misunderstandings just jump out at you,
錯誤觀點和誤解會一下子吸引住你，
and you have to set your friends and followers straight.
讓你不得不指正朋友和追隨者。
But if it seems like your impeccable logic is always met with hostility and digging in,
但你的完美邏輯似乎總是遭遇敵意和探究，
well, that's exactly what's happening.
這就是正在發生的事情。
Psychologists have put a lot of thought into how people argue, both online and off,
心理學家對人們在網上與線下的爭論方式進行了大量的思考，
and they've found plenty of reasons why people rarely change their minds.
發現了人們很少改變主意的多重原因。
Part of the problem is that correcting someone can actually strengthen the memory
部分原因在于糾正別人能增強記憶
and influence of their original belief, the one you think is clearly wrong.
并影響他們的最初信念，你認為這種信念明顯是錯的。
It's known as the backfire effect.
這被稱為逆火效應。
A study in the Journal of Consumer Research in 2005 demonstrated this
2005年，《消費者研究雜志》的一項研究證明了這一點，
by giving 335 people a list of science facts and myths,
它給335個人一份科學事實和神話的清單，
then clarifying right afterward which were true and which weren't.
然后澄清哪個是真的，哪個不是真的。
30 minutes later, they asked half of the subjects which things on the list were true,
30分鐘后，他們向一半研究對象詢問清單上的陳述哪個是真的，
and they were pretty good at separating myth from fact.
他們很擅長把神話和事實分開。
But when they tested everyone else 3 days later, that group made a lot of mistakes.
但是三天后另一半接受測試時，這個小組犯了很多錯誤。
Specifically, they recalled a lot of the "false" statements as "true",
具體來說，他們把許多錯誤陳述回憶成了真的，
but not the other way around.
卻沒有倒過來。
Psychologists think that's because we use how familiar something is as a guide to whether it's true.
心理學家認為，這是因為我們用某物的熟悉程度來指導對錯。
And all you need to do to make something familiar is to repeat it.
你想要熟悉某物只需重復它。
This effect doesn't seem to always happen when people's false beliefs are corrected.
當人們的錯誤信念被糾正時，似乎并不總是發生逆火效應。
Some studies have failed to find a backfire effect, especially when the topic was political.
一些研究沒有發現逆火效應，特別是在政治方面。
But pointing out exactly how wrong your Facebook friend is often involves repeating their false beliefs.
但你要準確指出臉書朋友錯了多少，往往需要重復他們的錯誤信念。
And when you do that, it's possible that the backfire effect just makes them more sure they're right.
當你這樣做時，逆火效應可能會讓他們更確信自己是對的。
Another challenge is that we all suffer from confirmation bias:
我們遭遇的另一個挑戰是確認偏誤：
we can look at the same evidence but come to different conclusions based on what we believe is true.
我們看到了相同的證據，但可能因為信念而得出不同的結論。
If evidence confirms what you already believe, it jumps out at you and you pay attention to it.
如果證據證實了你的信念，它會一下子吸引你，引起你的注意。
Meanwhile, we tend to gloss over contradictory evidence and just forget about it.
與此同時，我們傾向于掩蓋相互矛盾的證據并且忽略它。
A 2013 study with more than a thousand participants showed this with political beliefs.
2013年，一千多名參與者參加的一項研究用政治信念表明了這一點。
People were shown the results of a fictional study about gun violence,
人們看了一份關于槍支暴力的虛構研究結果，
and were asked whether the evidence supported gun control.
并被問及證據是否支持槍支管制。
But since the study was made up, the researchers made two versions,
但由于這項研究是編造的，研究人員做了兩個版本，
one in which the data were in support of control measures,
其中一項數據支持控制措施，
and another where the data were flipped.
另一項數據相反。
When people were then asked whether the study they read supported gun control,
當人們被問及他們所讀的研究結果是否支持槍支管制時，
the data barely made a difference.
這些數據幾乎沒什么影響。
If the person supported gun control, they thought the data did, too, and vice versa.
如果人們支持槍支管制，他們認為數據也一樣，反之亦然。
Ironically, the researchers found that being better at math made this effect worse.
諷刺的是，研究人員發現，數學越好，效果越差。
You'd think people with better math skills would be more likely to interpret the data objectively,
你會認為，擁有更好數學技能的人更容易客觀地解讀數據，
but instead, they tended to recalculate the information in their heads
但事實相反，他們傾向于重新計算他頭腦中的信息，
in a way that justified their existing belief.
這在某種程度上證明了他們現有的信念。
So even if you've got some super-solid evidence in support of your position,
所以你即使有一些支持自己立場的鐵證，
showing it to those who disagree might actually lead them to the opposite conclusion.
并把它展示給那些不同意的人，但實際可能導致他們得出相反的結論。
But if, despite all of this, you still find yourself thinking that
但盡管如此，你仍然會發現自己想著
you just have to try to change someone's mind
你只需要試著改變一個人的想法。
because dangit, they are wrong on the internet.
因為該死的，他們在互聯網上是錯的。
There is some good news: There's also research on what might work.
有一些好消息：有些研究是關于什么可能會起作用的。
One group of researchers analyzed a whopping 12,000 arguments on a subreddit forum called "Change My View"
一組研究人員在一個名為“Change My View”的社交論壇上分析了1萬2000個論點，
to see what the arguments that successfully changed people's minds had in common.
以此來看看那些成功改變了人們思想的論點有什么共同點。
They found the most effective tactic was to pick wording that was unlike that of the other side,
他們發現，最有效的策略是選擇不同于另一方的措辭，
maybe because unfamiliar wording was a sign that the arguments were new information.
這可能因為不熟悉的措辭是個信號，表明這些論點是新信息。
Like, if someone's arguing that Kirk was the best starfleet captain because he led with his gut instinct,
比如，如果有人說柯克是最好的星際艦隊船長，因為他憑直覺行事，
pointing out all the times Kirk's instincts have put the crew in danger might not be that effective.
指出柯克的本能一直讓船員處于危險可能不那么有效。
Instead, you might have more success arguing that Picard always opted for the peaceful solution.
但如果你說皮卡德總是選擇和平解決方案，可能會更成功。
That kind of shift in language is more likely to change the person's mind,
這種語言轉換更有可能改變人的思想，
whereas using really similar wording, especially quoting them directly, is seen as nit-picking.
但使用非常相似的措辭，特別是直接引用它們，被視為吹毛求疵。
The researchers also found that
研究人員也發現，
when the original poster used the word "we" instead of "I" to describe their position,
當最初的海報使用“we”而不是“I”來描述他們的定位時，
the arguments were less likely to change their minds,
論點不太可能改變他們的想法，
probably because they were more entrenched in their viewpoint.
這可能是因為他們的觀點更根深蒂固。
And if the debate went back and forth more than 4 times, it wasn't likely to go anywhere.
而且如果辯論反復了4次以上，就不太可能跑偏。
So if you're still arguing on that thread from weeks ago,
所以如果你還在爭論幾個星期前的事情，
you might just wanna walk away.
你可能只是想一走了之。
Even with the more successful tactics, though,
即使戰術更成功，
very few people were convinced to change their minds.
也很少有人被說服改變主意。
And a lot of people are going to this forum because they say they're open to change!
很多人去這個論壇是因為他們說他們愿意改變！
So no matter how strong your arguments are, it's probably worth picking your battles.
所以不管你的論點有多強，都值得你去選擇。
Don't get too discouraged when you can't change the other person's mind, we're just wired that way.
當你不能改變別人的想法時，不要太沮喪，我們只是天生如此。
And remember: all of this applies to you, too.
記住：所有這些都適用于你。
So every once in a while, you might want to stop and reevaluate the positions that get you so fired up.
所以每隔一段時間，你可能會想停下來重新評估那些讓你興奮的定位。
Because some of those arguments might not be as strong as you think they are.
因為有些論點可能不像你認為的那么有力。
Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow Psych!
感謝您收看本期的心理科學秀！
Feel free to leave your arguments in support of Sisko or Janeway in the comments.
請在評論中隨便留下支持Sisko或Janeway的論點。
And if you want to learn more about
如果你想了解更多
how you might have formed those opinions that you're so intent on arguing about,
你是如何形成這些很想爭論的觀點的，
you can check out our episode on how your friends can affect your opinions.
可以看看那期“朋友如何影響你的意見”。
