評論
打印
You probably have strong opinions about all kinds of things:
你可能會對所有事情都抱有強烈的意見：
like whether Coke is better than Pepsi, which football team deserves to win the Super Bowl,
比如可口可樂是不是比百事可樂好，哪個足球隊理應贏得“超級碗”，
or which Chris is the dreamiest movie star—Pratt, Pine, Hemsworth, or Evans.
或者哪一個最符合您心目中的影星——普拉特、派恩、海姆斯沃斯或者埃文斯。
Why are there so many Chrises?
為什么有這么多?
But are all those opinions really yours?
但這些真的是你的觀點嗎?
Humans are social creatures.
人類屬于社會群體。
And when we talk about anything from TV shows to politics, lots of psychological phenomena come into play.
在談論電視節目到政治上的任何事件時，許多心理現象開始起作用。
Sometimes, this can lead to bad judgments and biased opinions.
有時候會行成錯誤的判斷和偏見的觀點。
But by knowing how your thoughts can be swayed, you can recognize it when it's happening—and maybe stop it.
但通過了解想法動搖的方式，你就能在一開始的時候認出——也許拋棄這些錯誤的判斷和偏見的觀點。
One kind of bias can come from the company you keep.
有一種偏見可能來自你的同伴。
It's normal to be friends with people who have similar opinions and values.
和有著相似觀點和價值觀的人交朋友很正常。
But many studies have shown that when you talk with people who feel similarly about things,
但許多研究發現，當你和有相似感受的人交談時，
you can end up with even more extreme opinions.
你的觀點甚至會更偏激。
In other words, you get polarized.
換句話說，你被極化了。
For example, some experiments have asked people to decide on a risky business proposition together,
例如，在實驗中通過要求人們在一起決定一個高風險的商業提議時，
and found that groups of risk-takers get even more risky, while risk-avoiders get less risky.
他們發現，一群冒險者的提議風險性更大，而一群風險規避者的提議風險降低了。
But it's hard to escape polarization:
但兩極分化很難避免：
it can also happen when you have strong opinions that are challenged by others.
當你的強烈意見被質疑時，可能產生兩極分化
One study in 2011 had people with diverse views on a social issue respectfully discuss their opinions.
2011年的一項研究中，對社會問題持不同觀點的人在一起禮貌地討論交流。
Those who already had more extreme beliefs, both for and against the issue,
想法極端——支持和反對的人，
showed even more polarization afterwards.
討論之后兩極分化更加嚴重。
This is called a boomerang effect,
我們稱之為反向效應，
where a counter-argument makes someone believe even more strongly in their original judgment.
反駁會讓別人更堅信他們最初的判斷。
Researchers think this is partly due to your social identity:
研究人員認為，部分原因是因為社會身份的緣故：
the fact that your beliefs and the groups you belong to are part of who you are, so you defend them.
信仰和所屬的團體是你的一部分，所以你要為它們辯護。
So if you and your friends are die-hard peanut M&M fans,
如果你和你的朋友都是花生姆姆巧克力的鐵桿粉絲，
hearing a case for crispy M&Ms could just make you extra defensive of your peanut-loving identity.
聽聞酥脆姆姆巧克力的案子，額外的辯護也是圍繞你愛花生的身份。
I know it does that to me.
我知道我是這樣的。
Another way your opinions can be swayed in a debate has to do with what you think of first—
在辯論中，觀點動搖的另外一種方式和你首先想到的東西有關——
because that can act as an anchor, basically a starting point, for the rest of your thoughts.
它像一個錨一樣，基本上說是一個起點，固化了你其它的想法。
One study in 2000 involved taking an old car to 60 car experts, including mechanics and car dealers.
2000年的一項研究：拿一輛舊車給60名汽車專家，包括機械師和汽車經銷商。
The pretend-customer told the expert what they thought the car was worth,
冒充的顧客告訴專家他們認為這輛車值多少錢，
either higher or lower than it actually was, then asked for the expert's judgment.
要么比實際值高，要么比實際值低，然后詢問專家的意見。
And the initial suggestion affected the experts' estimates, making them similarly higher or lower.
這些顧客最初的建議影響了專家的估計，他們和冒充的顧客給出的高低價差不多，
Psychologists think this is partially due to selective accessibility,
心理學家認為部分原因是因為選擇的可得性，
where an anchor makes some information more available in your mind, which affects your opinions.
選擇的可得性指的是一些信息更容易在你的腦海中出現，從而影響了你的看法。
For example, a small study in 2010 even found that when it was warmer outside,
例如，2010年的一項小型研究甚至發現，當天氣暖和的時候，
or people were simply asked to think about hot things,
詢問人們關于一些關于熱的東西，
their responses to survey questions showed that they believed more strongly in global warming.
調查結果顯示，這些人更堅信全球變暖。
So if you stumble upon a flame war online, for example,
所以，例如，如果你在網上偶然發現一場火焰戰，
the first thing you read in the comments could cause selective accessibility and shape your thoughts—
你在評論里看到的第一件事可能會引發選擇的可得性，并且影響了你的想法——
although there hasn't really been research into that kind of anchoring.
盡管這方面的研究還沒有出現。
Your opinions can also be influenced when you're trying to make a decision with a group because of something called groupthink,
當你和一群人一起做決定的時候，由于所謂的群體思維，你的觀點也會受到影響，
which can make you blind to bad reasoning.
會讓你對不好的推理視而不見。
Let's say you're a Doctor Who fan
假設你是《神秘博士》的粉絲，
and enter a heated debate after someone influential claims that, hands-down, Matt Smith's Eleventh Doctor is the best one.
在一些有影響力的人宣稱，無疑的，馬特·史密斯的第11個博士是最好的，之后卷入一場激烈的辯論。
A discussion begins with that anchor, filled with a bunch of pro-Matt Smith arguments.
討論由此開始，這些話言意支持馬特·史密斯。
Maybe you're more of a Tom Baker fan and you think that bow ties just aren't that cool,
也許你更喜歡湯姆·貝克，你覺得蝴蝶結領帶不怎么酷，
but you keep your mouth shut in self-censorship, figuring that other people won't want to hear your opinion.
但你在自我審查中保持沉默，你認為別人不想聽你的意見。
You might notice that any arguments that other Doctors might be better are rationalized by the group,
你可能會注意到，任何其他博士可能更好的論點會被群體合理化，
meaning that they are dismissed as bad arguments.
這意味著這些論點被認為是糟糕的而被駁回。
Or people might stereotype David Tennant's fans, saying they only liked him because of his looks, and ignoring their opinions.
或者，人們會對大衛·田納特的粉絲持有成見，說他們喜歡田納特只是因為他的長相，無視他們的意見。
After lots of keysmashing back and forth, it seems like everyone agrees that Eleven is the best, but that's not necessarily true—
反復爭論之后，似乎每個人都認為第11個最好，但這并不一定是真的——
it's what psychologists call an illusion of unanimity.
這就是心理學家所說的一致的錯覺。
And when people think everyone agrees, they're more likely to adjust their opinion.
當人們認為每個人都同意，他們更有可能調整自己的觀點。
When deciding on anything, from government policy to a group project at school,
決定任何事情，從政府政策到學校的集體項目，
all of these and other characteristics of groupthink can influence decisions and shut down critical debate.
所有這些都是群體思維特征，都能夠對決策產生影響并停止批判性辯論。
So ... it might seem like your opinions aren't ever really yours.
所以…似乎觀點永遠都不是你的。
But there are ways to fight against the influence of polarization, anchoring, and groupthink.
但是有很多方法對抗兩極分化、錨固和群體思維，
Essentially, it all comes down to critical thinking,
本質上講，一切都歸結為批判性思維，
and considering why your opinion might be wrong or too extreme, not just why it might be right.
不僅要想想你的觀點為什么可能正確，還要想想它為什么可能錯誤或者太過極端。
Some studies have found that having someone play the Devil's Advocate can help,
一些研究發現，唱反調會有所幫助，
genuinely arguing against the preferred decision and asking thoughtful questions.
反對時聽從內心的選擇，問一些令人深思的問題。
But an extreme counter-argument can also backfire and cause the boomerang effect.
但極端的反論點也可能適得其反，導致反向效應。
Other research has shown
其他研究表明，
it can help to talk with others outside of your group, and listen to diverse opinions.
和團隊以外的人交談，傾聽不同的觀點會有所幫助，
You might discover that what you thought was normal actually was an extreme stance,
你可能會發現，你認為的正常的想法其實是極端的，
or that the issue is more complex than you thought.
或者比你想象的更復雜。
Also, you can learn about something or start a group discussion before forming a strong opinion—
同時，你可以學到一些東西，或者小組討論之后再得出觀點——
like, reading a bunch of news articles for yourself before reading the comments or tweetstorms about them.
比如，自己先讀一些新聞，再去閱讀評論或推文。
We're all naturally influenced by the people around us—
我們都很自然地受到周圍人的影響——
it's unavoidable, and it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
這不可避免，但未必是件壞事。
But by being aware of bias and potentially bad choices,
但是通過意識到偏見的存在以及可能做出的不好的選擇,
you can take back some control and know that it's okay to speak up, disagree, and change your mind.
你可以釋放一些，大聲說出來，不同意也好，改變主意也好都是可以的。
After all, we're all learning here. But peanut M&Ms are the best.
畢竟，我們都來這里學習。但是花生姆姆巧克力是最好的。
Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow Psych, brought to you by our patrons on Patreon!
感謝收看心理科學秀學節目，感謝Patreon對本節目的支持！
If you would like to support us, you can go to patreon.com/scishow.
如果您想支持我們，你可以訪問patreon.com/scishow。
And if you just want to keep learning about brain things,
如果您想繼續學習有關大腦的知識，
you can go to youtube.com/scishowpsych and subscribe.
可以登陸并訂閱youtube.com/scishowpsych。
