声明: 本站全部内容源自互联网,不进行任何盈利行为
仅做 整合 / 美化 处理
You've heard of your IQ, your general intelligence,
你一定听说过智商， 也就是普通智力，
but what's your Psy-Q?
但什么是心理商？
How much do you know about what makes you tick,
你对自己的行为和性格了解多少，
and how good are you at predicting other people's behavior
你能准确地预测他人行为，
or even your own?
或你自己的行为吗？
And how much of what you think you know about psychology is wrong?
你对心理学的认知 有多少是错的？
Let's find out by counting down the top myths of psychology.
让我们来了解一下心理学中 几个主要的错误观念。
You've probably heard it said that when it comes to their psychology,
你可能听过这本书，里面的观点做了
it's almost as if men are from Mars and women are from Venus.
男人来自火星， 女人来自金星的比喻。
But how different are men and women, really?
但男人和女人间 究竟有多大的差异？
To find out, let's start by looking at something
为了找到答案，让我们看看男女
on which men and women really do differ
在哪些方面存在明显的差别，
and plotting some psychological gender differences on the same scale.
然后再把这些心理学上的性别差异 在同一张图上表现出来。
One thing men and women do really differ on
那么男女差异的其中一项是
is how far they can throw a ball.
扔球距离的远近。
So if we look at the data for men here,
先看一下男性的数据。
we see what is called a normal distribution curve.
我们看到一条所谓的 标准分布曲线。
A few men can throw a ball really far, a few men, not far at all,
有些男性可以把球扔很远， 有些男性却稍逊一点，
but most, a kind of average distance.
但大多数都在平均距离附近。
And women share the same distribution as well,
女性的表现也呈现了 相同的分布曲线，
but actually, there's quite a big difference.
但实际上却存在相当大的差异。
In fact, the average man can throw a ball further
事实上，男性平均来说 可以把球扔得更远，
than about 98 percent of all women.
超过了98％的女性。
Now let's look at what some psychological gender differences look like
那么现在我们来看看 男女在心理上的一些差别，
on the same standardized scale.
还是以同样的标准来比较。
Any psychologist will tell you
任何心理学家都会告诉你
that men are better at spatial awareness than women --
男人比女人的空间感更好——
things like map-reading, for example -- and it's true.
例如阅读地图——这的确是事实，
But let's have a look at the size of this difference.
不过让我们看看 这种差异到底有多大。
It's tiny; the lines are so close together, they almost overlap.
差异非常小, 两条曲线 如此接近，近乎重叠。
In fact, the average woman is better than 33 percent of all men,
事实上，女性平均来说比 33％的男性的表现要好，
and of course, if that was 50 percent,
当然，如果这百分比是50％，
then the two genders would be exactly equal.
那么，男性和女性的表现 就是完全相同的。
It's worth bearing in mind that this difference and the next one I'll show you
请记住这种差异， 我马上要说的下一个例子
are pretty much the biggest psychological gender differences
几乎是心理学迄今为止发现的
ever discovered in psychology.
男女心理上的最大差异。
Here's the next one.
就是这个。
Any psychologist will tell you
任何心理学家都会告诉你
that women are better with language and grammar than men.
女性在语言和语法方面比男性更好。
Here's performance on the standardized grammar test.
这种差异表现在标准化语法测试上。
There, the women. There go the men.
这是女性曲线（紫色）， 这是男性曲线（青色）。
Again, yes, women are better on average,
没错，平均来说女性的表现的确更好，
but the lines are so close
但两条曲线依然很接近，
that 33 percent of men are better than the average woman.
33％的男性表现超过了女性平均值，
And again, if it was 50 percent,
同样，如果这百分比是50％，
that would represent complete gender equality.
那就意味着两个性别间并不存在差异。
So it's not really a case of Mars and Venus.
因此，这不是火星和金星的对比，
It's more a case of, if anything, Mars and Snickers:
它更像巧克力棒Mars 和Snickers的差别，
basically the same, but one's maybe slightly nuttier than the other.
二者基本相同，但一种 可能比另一种的坚果更多。
When making a cake, do you prefer to use a recipe book with pictures?
下面请做蛋糕的时候更习惯使用 带图片的食谱书的观众举起手。
Yeah, a few people.
好的，有一些人举手了。
Have a friend talk you through?
哪些人需要朋友的指导？
Or have a go, making it up as you go along?
有没有人会自己尝试去凑合做一个？
Quite a few people there.
还是有不少人举手了。
OK, so if you said A,
好的，如果你选了A，
then this means that you're a visual learner,
这意味着你是一个视觉学习者，
and you learn best when information is presented in a visual style.
当信息以视觉的形式呈现， 你的学习效果最好。
If you said B, it means you're an auditory learner,
如果你选B，这说明 你是一个听觉学习者，
that you learn best when information is presented to you in an auditory format.
通过听觉信息可以达到 最好的学习效果。
And if you said C, it means that you're a kinesthetic learner,
如果你选C，这意味者 你是一个动觉学习者，
that you learn best when you get stuck in and do things with your hands.
直接动手实践会学得最快。
Except, of course, as you've probably guessed,
当然你可能已经猜到，
that it doesn't, because the whole thing is a complete myth.
这样的结论不太可靠，因为 整个学习过程要比这复杂得多。
Learning styles are made up and are not supported by scientific evidence.
这种学习方式只是人为定义的， 并没有科学证据的支持。
We know this because in tightly controlled experimental studies
我们了解到这些，是因为 在严格对照的实验研究里，
when learners are given material to learn,
给学习者提供的学习资料
either in their preferred style or an opposite style,
要么是他们喜欢的学习方式， 要么就是他们不喜欢的，
it makes no difference at all to the amount of information they retain.
事实证明，他们所掌握的 信息数量完全没有区别。
And if you think about it for just a second,
如果你仔细思考一下，
it's obvious that this has to be true.
很明显，这是毋庸置疑的。
It's obvious that the best presentation format depends not on you,
最好的呈现方式并不取决于你，
but on what you're trying to learn.
而取决于你尝试学习的东西。
Could you learn to drive a car, for example, just by listening to someone
例如，你学开车的时候，只是通过
telling you what to do,
听别人口头传授，
with no kinesthetic experience?
而不需要任何动觉的经验吗？
Could you solve simultaneous equations by talking them through in your head,
你在解联立方程的时候， 只是通过单纯的大脑思考，
without writing them down?
而不用把它们写下来吗？
Could you revise for your architecture exams using interpretive dance
如果你是一个动觉学习者， 在复习建筑学考试的时候
if you're a kinesthetic learner?
能使用诠释性的舞蹈吗？
No; what you need to do is match the material to be learned
当然不行，你需要做的 是将需要学习的材料
to the presentation format,
与它表现的形式相匹配，
not you.
而不是与你习惯的方式。
I know many of you are A-level students
我知道许多在座的人是优等生，
that will have recently gotten your GCSE results.
最近刚拿到你的GCSE （中等教育普通证书）的结果。
And if you didn't quite get what you were hoping for,
如果你没有得到预期的成绩，
then you can't really blame your learning style.
你真的不能责怪你的学习方式，
But one thing that you might want to think about blaming is your genes.
但你也许可以考虑责怪的 事情之一就是你的基因。
So what this is all about is that a recent study at University College London
伦敦大学学院最近做了一项研究，
found that 58 percent of the variation between different students
发现在不同学生和他们的
and their GCSE results
GCSE成绩之间
was down to genetic factors.
有58%的差异来自遗传因素。
That sounds like a very precise figure. So how can we tell?
这听起来是一个精确的数字， 我们是怎么得到它的呢？
Well, when we want to unpack the relative contributions
当我们想解开关于基因和环境
of genes and the environment,
在这方面的影响问题，
what we can do is a twin study.
我们可以做双胞胎研究。
Identical twins share 100 percent of their environment
同卵双胞胎有完全相同的生长环境
and 100 percent of their genes,
以及完全相同的基因，
whereas nonidentical twins share 100 percent of their environment,
然而，异卵双胞胎 有完全相同的生长环境，
but just like any brother and sister, share only 50 percent of their genes.
但像任何兄弟姐妹一样， 只有一半的基因相同。
So by comparing how similar GCSE results are in identical twins
因此，通过比较同卵双胞胎 与异卵双胞胎的
versus nonidentical twins
GCSE成绩，
and doing some clever maths,
做一些巧妙的计算后，
we can get an idea of how much variation in performance is due to the environment,
我们就可以知道有多少 表现的差异来自环境，
and how much is due to genes.
有多少是受基因的影响。
And it turns out that it's about 58 percent due to genes.
而结果证明，约58％的 差异是基因导致的。
This isn't to undermine the hard work that you and your teachers here put in.
所以，并不是说你和老师们的 辛苦付出没起到什么作用。
If you didn't quite get the GCSE results that you were hoping for,
如果你没有得到预期的GCSE成绩，
then you can always try blaming your parents,
那么你可以尝试去埋怨你的父母，
or at least their genes.
或至少他们的基因。
One thing that you shouldn't blame
有一件你不应该去埋怨的事情，
is being a left-brained or right-brained learner,
是关于左脑学习者或右脑学习者，
because again, this is a myth.
因为，这同样也是个错误观念。
The myth here is that the left brain is logical,
它的主要观点是， 左脑是主管逻辑，
it's good with equations like this,
擅于解方程式，
and the right brain is more creative, so the right brain is better at music.
而右脑更富有创意， 在音乐方面表现更佳。
But again, this is a myth,
但同样，这是一个错误观念，
because nearly everything you do
因为你所做的每件事情
involves nearly all parts of your brain talking together,
几乎都牵涉到你大脑 所有部位的相互沟通，
even just the most mundane thing like having a normal conversation.
就算是最平凡的日常对话也是如此。
However, perhaps one reason why this myth has survived
然而，这个错误观念至今 仍然盛行的一个原因可能是，
is that there is a slight grain of truth to it.
这里包含着小部分事实。
A related version of the myth is that left-handed people are more creative
它的另一个说法是，左撇子比右撇子
than right-handed people,
更有创造力，
which kind of makes sense because your brain controls the opposite hand.
这种说法有点道理， 因为你的大脑控制相反的手，
So in left-handed people, the right side of the brain is slightly more active
因此，左撇子的右脑比左脑
than the left side of the brain,
更加活跃一点，
and the idea is the right-hand side is more creative.
而恰恰是右脑更有创造力。
Now, it isn't true per se that left-handed people are more creative
然而，这个左撇子比右撇子 更有创造力的观念
than right-handed people.
本身并不太站得住脚。
But what is true is that ambidextrous people,
事实上，双手灵巧的人
or people who use both hands for different tasks,
或两手并用的人，
are more creative thinkers than one-handed people,
比单手使用者更富有创意，
because being ambidextrous involves
因为双手使用者需要
having both sides of the brain talk to each other a lot,
让大脑两侧进行 大量的互动和沟通，
which seems to be involved in creative and flexible thinking.
这似乎与有创造性， 灵活的思维相关。
The myth of the creative left-hander arises from the fact
左撇子更有创意的错误观念
that being ambidextrous is more common amongst left-handers
源自善用双手者 在左撇子中比右撇子中
than right-handers,
更常见这一事实，
so a grain of truth in the idea of the creative left-hander,
所以说，左撇子更有创意 这个说法有些道理，
but not much.
但并不完全正确。
A related myth that you've probably heard of
另一个相关的错误观念你或许听过，
is that we only use 10 percent of our brains.
我们开发了大脑的10％的潜能。
This is, again, a complete myth.
这也是一个完全错误的观念。
Nearly everything that we do, even the most mundane thing,
我们所做的每件事情， 即使是最平凡的小事，
uses nearly all of our brains.
都会使用到几乎整个大脑。
That said, it is of course true
然而，我们大多数人不能
that most of us don't use our brainpower quite as well as we could.
有效地运用大脑的说法的确是真的。
So what could we do to boost our brainpower?
那么我们要怎样 充分调动大脑的潜能呢？
Maybe we could listen to a nice bit of Mozart.
或许我们可以听一段莫扎特的音乐。
Have you heard of the idea of the Mozart effect?
你们听说过莫扎特效应吗？
The idea is that listening to Mozart makes you smarter
它说的是听莫扎特的音乐 会使你更聪明，
and improves your performance on IQ tests.
并能提升你在智商测验中的表现。
Now again, what's interesting about this myth
它的有趣之处在于，
is that although it's basically a myth, there is a grain of truth to it.
虽然这基本上也是个错误观念， 但多少也有些可取之处。
So the original study found that
最初的研究发现
participants who were played Mozart music for a few minutes
听过几分钟莫扎特音乐的参与者
did better on a subsequent IQ test
在随后的智商测验中的表现
than participants who simply sat in silence.
比只是静静坐着的参与者要好。
But a follow-up study recruited some people who liked Mozart music
但一项后续研究，招募了 一些喜欢莫扎特音乐的人
and then another group of people
以及另外一组
who were fans of the horror stories of Stephen King.
喜欢Stephen King的恐怖故事的人。
And they played the people the music or the stories.
参与者都需要听音乐或听故事。
The people who preferred Mozart music to the stories
更喜欢听莫扎特音乐的人 比爱听故事的人
got a bigger IQ boost from the Mozart than the stories,
在听过莫扎特音乐后 表现出了更高的智商，
but the people who preferred the stories to the Mozart music
但对于更喜欢听故事的人来说，
got a bigger IQ boost from listening to the Stephen King stories
听Stephen King的故事， 相比听莫扎特的音乐，会让他们的智商
than the Mozart music.
呈现更显著的增长。
So the truth is that listening to something that you enjoy
那么事实就是， 当你在听喜欢的东西时，
perks you up a bit and gives you a temporary IQ boost
会使你振作一点， 让你在有限的工作中
on a narrow range of tasks.
会表现出暂时的智商增长。
There's no suggestion that listening to Mozart,
不过并没有证据表明听莫扎特音乐，
or indeed Stephen King stories,
或听Stephen King的故事
is going to make you any smarter in the long run.
会让你彻底变得更聪明。
Another version of the Mozart myth
另一个关于莫扎特的错误观念
is that listening to Mozart can make you not only cleverer but healthier, too.
是听莫扎特音乐，不仅 让你变聪明，而且会更健康。
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be true
可惜的是，这对于几乎每天听
of someone who listened to the music of Mozart almost every day,
莫扎特音乐的人来说， 并不是那么回事儿。
Mozart himself,
莫扎特本身就曾饱受
who suffered from gonorrhea, smallpox, arthritis,
淋病，天花，关节炎的折磨，
and, what most people think eventually killed him in the end, syphilis.
不过人们认为最终 导致他死亡的是梅毒。
This suggests that Mozart should have been a bit more careful, perhaps,
这表示，也许莫扎特在 选择他的性伴侣时
when choosing his sexual partners.
应该要更小心。
But how do we choose a partner?
但是，我们该如何选择另一半呢？
So a myth that I have to say is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists
还有一个时常被 社会学家提到的观念，
is that our preferences in a romantic partner are a product of our culture,
那就是我们对于恋爱对象的偏好 是一种文化下的产物，
that they're very culturally specific.
具有文化特定性。
But in fact, the data don't back this up.
但实际上，数据分析的结果 并不支持这种看法。
A famous study surveyed people from [37] different cultures across the globe
有一项知名的研究，对来自全球37个 不同文化背景的人进行了调查，
from Americans to Zulus,
从美洲人到南非祖鲁部落人，
on what they look for in a partner.
关于他们如何择偶。
And in every single culture across the globe,
而在全世界任何一个文化中，
men placed more value on physical attractiveness in a partner
男性都会比女性更多的注重
than did women,
另一半的外表，
and in every single culture, too,
同样在任何一个文化中，
women placed more importance than did men on ambition and high earning power.
女性都比男性更重视 另一半的事业心和经济能力。
In every culture, too,
另外，在任何一个文化中，
men preferred women who were younger than themselves,
男性更喜欢比自己年轻的女性，
an average of, I think it was 2.66 years.
我记得平均要年轻2.66岁，
And in every culture, too,
同样在任何文化中，
women preferred men who were older than them,
女性都更喜欢比她们年纪大的男性，
so an average of 3.42 years,
平均年长3.42岁，
which is why we've got here, "Everybody needs a Sugar Daddy."
这就是为什么人们常说 “每个人（女性）都需要傍大款。”
(Laughter)
（笑声）
So moving on from trying to score with a partner
那么，把话题从找到理想伴侣转到
to trying to score in basketball or football or whatever your sport is.
如何在篮球或足球等运动中得分吧。
The myth here is that sportsmen go through "hot hand" streaks, Americans call them,
这个说法是，运动员会经历 美国人称为的热手时期，
or "purple patches," we sometimes say in England,
或英国人说的紫色时期，
where they just can't miss, like this guy here.
像这家伙一样，在球场上百发百中。
But in fact, what happens is that if you analyze the pattern
但事实上，如果你对这些得分和丢分
of hits and misses statistically,
进行统计分析，
it turns out that it's nearly always at random.
你会发现这几乎都是随机的。
Your brain creates patterns from the randomness.
你的大脑会从 随机事件中总结出规律。
If you toss a coin,
比如你抛硬币，
a streak of heads or tails is going to come out somewhere in the randomness,
会随机出现正面或反面两种可能，
and because the brain likes to see patterns where there are none,
因为大脑喜欢从随机中找出模式来，
we look at these streaks and attribute meaning to them
我们会为这些随机事件 人为加上某种意义，
and say, "Yeah he's really on form today,"
说：“是啊，他今天状态很好。”
whereas actually you would get the same pattern
但如果你只是随机的得分和丢分，
if you were just getting hits and misses at random.
实际上还是会获得 相同的数据分布模式。
An exception to this, however, is penalty shootouts.
但是罚球是一个例外。
A recent study looking at penalty shootouts in football
最近一项关于足球运动中 罚点球的研究发现，
showed that players who represent countries
那些罚点球记录很糟糕的
with a very bad record in penalty shootouts,
国家队中的球员，
like, for example, England,
例如，在英国队，
tend to be quicker to take their shots than countries with a better record,
相比罚球记录较好国家的球员 更急于射门得分，
and presumably as a result, they're more likely to miss.
结果看起来就好像 他们比较容易罚球失误。
Which raises the question
这又带出了一个问题，
of if there's any way we could improve people's performance.
有什么方法可以改善人们的表现。
And one thing you might think about doing
你可能会想做这样一件事，
is punishing people for their misses and seeing if that improves them.
惩罚有失误的人，看这样 是否能提高他们表现。
This idea, the effect that punishment can improve performance,
这个关于惩罚可以提升表现的看法，
was what participants thought they were testing
正是Milgram著名的 学习和惩罚实验中的
in Milgram's famous learning and punishment experiment
参与者认为他们所测试的对象，
that you've probably heard about if you're a psychology student.
如果你是一个心理学系的学生， 你可能听说过这个实验。
The story goes that participants were prepared to give
具体过程是这样的， 当一部分参与者答错了问题时，
what they believed to be fatal electric shocks to a fellow participant
另一部分参与者就要对他们实施
when they got a question wrong,
提前被告知会致命的电击，
just because someone in a white coat told them to.
就因为某个穿着白大褂的人 告诉他们这样做。
But this story is a myth for three reasons.
但这个故事疑点重重，原因有三个。
Firstly, and most crucially, the lab coat wasn't white. It was, in fact, grey.
第一个，也是最关键的， 实验外套不是白色，而是灰色。
Secondly, the participants were told before the study
其次，在研究进行之前， 参与者会被告知
and reminded any time they raised a concern,
并在实验中一直被提醒，
that although the shocks were painful, they were not fatal
虽然电击会引起疼痛， 但并不是致命的，
and indeed caused no permanent damage whatsoever.
也不会引起永久的伤害，等等。
And thirdly, participants didn't give the shocks
第三，参与者没有因为穿实验服的人
just because someone in the coat told them to.
让他们实施电击，就真的这样做了。
When they were interviewed after the study,
在实验结束后的采访中，
all the participants said that they firmly believed
所有参与者都说，他们坚定地认为
that the learning and punishment study served a worthy scientific purpose
学习和惩罚的研究很有科学价值，
which would have enduring gains for science,
虽然会给予参与者短暂的， 非致命的不适感，
as opposed to the momentary, nonfatal discomfort caused to the participants.
但能让科学领域获得长远的收获。
OK, so I've been talking for about 12 minutes now,
好了，我已经讲了差不多12分钟，
and you've probably been sitting there listening to me,
你们可能一直在那里听我讲，
analyzing my speech patterns and body language
分析我讲话的模式和身体语言，
and trying to work out if you should take any notice of what I'm saying,
并试图记住我说过的一些话，
whether I'm telling the truth or whether I'm lying.
并分辨它们究竟是事实， 还是我在撒谎，
But if so, you've probably completely failed,
如果你这样做的话， 你大概没得出什么正确结论，
because although we all think we can catch a liar
因为，虽然我们认为， 能够通过身体语言和说话方式
from their body language and speech patterns,
来判断一个人是不是在说谎，
hundreds of psychological tests over the years have shown that all of us,
但是多年来的数百个 心理学研究却发现我们所有的人，
including police officers and detectives,
包括警察和侦探，
are basically at chance when it comes to detecting lies from body language
当想要透过说话者的身体语言 和说话方式来测谎时，
and verbal patterns.
其实都是在碰运气。
Interestingly, there is one exception:
有趣的是，有一个例外：
TV appeals for missing relatives.
当电视上有人呼吁寻找失踪的亲人，
It's quite easy to predict when the relatives are missing
我们很容易就能判断 亲人是真的失踪了，
and when the appealers have, in fact, murdered the relatives themselves.
还是发出呼吁的人 已经谋杀了自己的亲人。
So hoax appealers are more likely to shake their heads, to look away,
说谎的呼吁者更可能 会摇头，目光游移不定，
and to make errors in their speech,
而且他们的言辞中错误频频；
whereas genuine appealers are more likely to express hope
相反，真正的呼吁人通常
that the person will return safely
更会表达对失踪者安全归来的期待，
and to avoid brutal language.
并避免使用极端的语言。
So, for example, they might say "taken from us" rather than "killed."
例如，他们可能会说 “离开了我们”，而不是“被杀害了”。
Speaking of which, it's about time I killed this talk,
说到这里，差不多 该结束这次演讲了，
but before I do, I just want to give you, in 30 seconds,
不过在结束以前， 我想用30秒来总结一下
the overarching myth of psychology.
关于心理学总体的一个错误观念。
The myth is that psychology is just a collection of interesting theories,
这个观念是，心理学 只是对有趣理论的收集，
all of which say something useful and all of which have something to offer.
只是提供一些实用的， 指导性的理论而已。
What I hope to have shown you in the past few minutes
在刚才的演讲中 我希望已经让你们知道了，
is that this isn't true.
这种说法并不正确。
What we need to do is assess psychological theories
我们需要做的是， 通过心理学所做的预测
by seeing what predictions they make,
来评估这些心理学理论，
whether that is that listening to Mozart makes you smarter,
无论是听莫扎特音乐能让你更聪明，
that you learn better when information is presented in your preferred learning style
还是当信息以你较喜欢的学习模式 呈现出来，你会学得更好，
or whatever it is,
或者类似的预测，
all of these are testable empirical predictions,
所有这些都是可检验的 以经验为依据的预测，
and the only way we can make progress
我们唯一能取得进展的方式就是
is to test these predictions against the data
在严格的对照实验研究中
in tightly controlled experimental studies.
用数据去检验这些预测。
And it's only by doing so that we can hope to discover
只有这样，我们才能期待去发现
which of these theories are well supported,
哪些理论有充分的证据支持，
and which, like all the ones I've told you about today, are myths.
而哪些是错误的观念， 就像我今天介绍过的，
Thank you.
谢谢。
(Applause)
（鼓掌）