评论
打印
Let's be honest: we all try to win arguments on the internet,
老实说，我们一直想在互联网上赢得辩论，
even though we know it's pointless.
即使我们知道这毫无意义。
Sometimes when you're scrolling through your Facebook or Twitter feed,
有时，你在浏览脸书或推特简讯时，
bad opinions and misunderstandings just jump out at you,
错误观点和误解会一下子吸引住你，
and you have to set your friends and followers straight.
让你不得不指正朋友和追随者。
But if it seems like your impeccable logic is always met with hostility and digging in,
但你的完美逻辑似乎总是遭遇敌意和探究，
well, that's exactly what's happening.
这就是正在发生的事情。
Psychologists have put a lot of thought into how people argue, both online and off,
心理学家对人们在网上与线下的争论方式进行了大量的思考，
and they've found plenty of reasons why people rarely change their minds.
发现了人们很少改变主意的多重原因。
Part of the problem is that correcting someone can actually strengthen the memory
部分原因在于纠正别人能增强记忆
and influence of their original belief, the one you think is clearly wrong.
并影响他们的最初信念，你认为这种信念明显是错的。
It's known as the backfire effect.
这被称为逆火效应。
A study in the Journal of Consumer Research in 2005 demonstrated this
2005年，《消费者研究杂志》的一项研究证明了这一点，
by giving 335 people a list of science facts and myths,
它给335个人一份科学事实和神话的清单，
then clarifying right afterward which were true and which weren't.
然后澄清哪个是真的，哪个不是真的。
30 minutes later, they asked half of the subjects which things on the list were true,
30分钟后，他们向一半研究对象询问清单上的陈述哪个是真的，
and they were pretty good at separating myth from fact.
他们很擅长把神话和事实分开。
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测试时，这个小组犯了很多错误。
Specifically, they recalled a lot of the "false" statements as "true",
具体来说，他们把许多错误陈述回忆成了真的，
but not the other way around.
却没有倒过来。
Psychologists think that's because we use how familiar something is as a guide to whether it's true.
心理学家认为，这是因为我们用某物的熟悉程度来指导对错。
And all you need to do to make something familiar is to repeat it.
你想要熟悉某物只需重复它。
This effect doesn't seem to always happen when people's false beliefs are corrected.
当人们的错误信念被纠正时，似乎并不总是发生逆火效应。
Some studies have failed to find a backfire effect, especially when the topic was political.
一些研究没有发现逆火效应，特别是在政治方面。
But pointing out exactly how wrong your Facebook friend is often involves repeating their false beliefs.
但你要准确指出脸书朋友错了多少，往往需要重复他们的错误信念。
And when you do that, it's possible that the backfire effect just makes them more sure they're right.
当你这样做时，逆火效应可能会让他们更确信自己是对的。
Another challenge is that we all suffer from confirmation bias:
我们遭遇的另一个挑战是确认偏误：
we can look at the same evidence but come to different conclusions based on what we believe is true.
我们看到了相同的证据，但可能因为信念而得出不同的结论。
If evidence confirms what you already believe, it jumps out at you and you pay attention to it.
如果证据证实了你的信念，它会一下子吸引你，引起你的注意。
Meanwhile, we tend to gloss over contradictory evidence and just forget about it.
与此同时，我们倾向于掩盖相互矛盾的证据并且忽略它。
A 2013 study with more than a thousand participants showed this with political beliefs.
2013年，一千多名参与者参加的一项研究用政治信念表明了这一点。
People were shown the results of a fictional study about gun violence,
人们看了一份关于枪支暴力的虚构研究结果，
and were asked whether the evidence supported gun control.
并被问及证据是否支持枪支管制。
But since the study was made up, the researchers made two versions,
但由于这项研究是编造的，研究人员做了两个版本，
one in which the data were in support of control measures,
其中一项数据支持控制措施，
and another where the data were flipped.
另一项数据相反。
When people were then asked whether the study they read supported gun control,
当人们被问及他们所读的研究结果是否支持枪支管制时，
the data barely made a difference.
这些数据几乎没什么影响。
If the person supported gun control, they thought the data did, too, and vice versa.
如果人们支持枪支管制，他们认为数据也一样，反之亦然。
Ironically, the researchers found that being better at math made this effect worse.
讽刺的是，研究人员发现，数学越好，效果越差。
You'd think people with better math skills would be more likely to interpret the data objectively,
你会认为，拥有更好数学技能的人更容易客观地解读数据，
but instead, they tended to recalculate the information in their heads
但事实相反，他们倾向于重新计算他头脑中的信息，
in a way that justified their existing belief.
这在某种程度上证明了他们现有的信念。
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场的铁证，
showing it to those who disagree might actually lead them to the opposite conclusion.
并把它展示给那些不同意的人，但实际可能导致他们得出相反的结论。
But if, despite all of this, you still find yourself thinking that
但尽管如此，你仍然会发现自己想着
you just have to try to change someone's mind
你只需要试着改变一个人的想法。
because dangit, they are wrong on the internet.
因为该死的，他们在互联网上是错的。
There is some good news: There's also research on what might work.
有一些好消息：有些研究是关于什么可能会起作用的。
One group of researchers analyzed a whopping 12,000 arguments on a subreddit forum called "Change My View"
一组研究人员在一个名为“Change My View”的社交论坛上分析了1万2000个论点，
to see what the arguments that successfully changed people's minds had in common.
以此来看看那些成功改变了人们思想的论点有什么共同点。
They found the most effective tactic was to pick wording that was unlike that of the other side,
他们发现，最有效的策略是选择不同于另一方的措辞，
maybe because unfamiliar wording was a sign that the arguments were new information.
这可能因为不熟悉的措辞是个信号，表明这些论点是新信息。
Like, if someone's arguing that Kirk was the best starfleet captain because he led with his gut instinct,
比如，如果有人说柯克是最好的星际舰队船长，因为他凭直觉行事，
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让船员处于危险可能不那么有效。
Instead, you might have more success arguing that Picard always opted for the peaceful solution.
但如果你说皮卡德总是选择和平解决方案，可能会更成功。
That kind of shift in language is more likely to change the person's mind,
这种语言转换更有可能改变人的思想，
whereas using really similar wording, especially quoting them directly, is seen as nit-picking.
但使用非常相似的措辞，特别是直接引用它们，被视为吹毛求疵。
The researchers also found that
研究人员也发现，
when the original poster used the word "we" instead of "I" to describe their position,
当最初的海报使用“we”而不是“I”来描述他们的定位时，
the arguments were less likely to change their minds,
论点不太可能改变他们的想法，
probably because they were more entrenched in their viewpoint.
这可能是因为他们的观点更根深蒂固。
And if the debate went back and forth more than 4 times, it wasn't likely to go anywhere.
而且如果辩论反复了4次以上，就不太可能跑偏。
So if you're still arguing on that thread from weeks ago,
所以如果你还在争论几个星期前的事情，
you might just wanna walk away.
你可能只是想一走了之。
Even with the more successful tactics, though,
即使战术更成功，
very few people were convinced to change their minds.
也很少有人被说服改变主意。
And a lot of people are going to this forum because they say they're open to change!
很多人去这个论坛是因为他们说他们愿意改变！
So no matter how strong your arguments are, it's probably worth picking your battles.
所以不管你的论点有多强，都值得你去选择。
Don't get too discouraged when you can't change the other person's mind, we're just wired that way.
当你不能改变别人的想法时，不要太沮丧，我们只是天生如此。
And remember: all of this applies to you, too.
记住：所有这些都适用于你。
So every once in a while, you might want to stop and reevaluate the positions that get you so fired up.
所以每隔一段时间，你可能会想停下来重新评估那些让你兴奋的定位。
Because some of those arguments might not be as strong as you think they are.
因为有些论点可能不像你认为的那么有力。
Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow Psych!
感谢您收看本期的心理科学秀！
Feel free to leave your arguments in support of Sisko or Janeway in the comments.
请在评论中随便留下支持Sisko或Janeway的论点。
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,
你是如何形成这些很想争论的观点的，
you can check out our episode on how your friends can affect your opinions.
可以看看那期“朋友如何影响你的意见”。
