评论
打印
There are those who google and there are those who annoy those who google. As a member of the former group, people who don’t reflexively look things up online have at best rendered me speechless and at worst left me fearing for the fate of humankind. I have, however, recently learned that those who turn to a search engine at the slightest mention of a forgotten factoid might not be all that better off.
有些人使用谷歌(Google)，也有些人让使用谷歌的人感到恼怒。我属于前一类人，那些不会自发在网上查东西的人在最好的情况下只是让我语塞，在最坏的情况下会让我为人类的命运感到害怕。但我最近了解到，那些只要听到有人忘记了某件半真半假的事便求助于搜索引擎的人，或许未必好到哪里去。
Before discussing the latest research in this area, it’s worth travelling back to 2011 when some commentators contributed to the genre of “this new technology is definitely going to ruin us this time”. That year, Betsy Sparrow of Columbia University and colleagues published an article in Science entitled “Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips”, triggering starting guns for the latest existential crisis about the web.
在讨论这个领域的最新研究成果之前，回顾一下2011年是值得的，当年有些评论员撰写了“这次这一新技术无疑将毁掉我们”一类的文章。那一年，哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University)的贝琪•斯帕罗(Betsy Sparrow)及其同事在《科学》(Science)杂志上发表文章，名为《谷歌对记忆的影响：查找资讯的便利对认知的影响》(Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips)，引发了最新一场有关网络的生死存亡危机。
The researchers themselves had a positive take on their findings. Sure, the test subjects were bad at recalling memorable bits of trivia — such as an “ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain” — when they thought the data were being saved by a computer in front of them. And, yes, the subjects’ recall was better when they were told that the data wouldn’t be saved. But the interesting part was a separate experiment in which the trivia was saved in generically named folders such as “Facts”, “Data” and “Info”.
研究者本身对他们的发现持有积极态度。没错，当受试者认为数据正在存储进入眼前的一台电脑时，他们不善于回想起值得记住的细节信息，比如“鸵鸟的眼睛比脑大”。没错，当受试者得知数据将不会被存储时，他们能够更好地回忆起。但有趣的部分是一个单独实验，实验中信息被存储于笼统命名的文件夹里，比如“事实”、“数据”和“信息”。
The participants could recall which folder a fact was in nearly half of the time, but could only recall the facts themselves 23 per cent of the time. As the researchers wrote: “These results seem unexpected on the surface, given the memorable nature of the statements and the unmemorable nature of the folder names.” Or as Dr Sparrow told the New York Times in an interview: “That kind of blew my mind.”
参与者在近一半的时间里可以回想起某个事实存在哪个文件夹里，但只在23%的时间里能回想起事实本身。正如研究人员所写：“鉴于事实的陈述容易记忆、文件夹名称不容易记忆，这一结果在表面上看似乎出人意料。”或者正如斯帕罗接受《纽约时报》(New York Times)采访时所称的那样：“这多少有点儿让我感到震惊。”
That we remember where facts can be obtained, rather than storing the information itself, is not new. The storage systems may be books, notes, USB keys, the web — or indeed colleagues or friends. When someone interrupts you at work and says, “Hey, I’m having trouble with a deck and I heard you’re a wiz with PowerPoint,” they are using you as memory storage. And when you stare at the wall behind them and ask if they’ve googled for a solution before coming over, you are indicating an unwillingness to act as an IT helpdesk.
我们记得住事实存放的位置，而不把信息本身存入脑海，这不是新鲜事。存储系统可以是书本、笔记、USB密钥、网络——实际上还有同事或朋友。当有人打断你手头工作，问道，“嗨，我的幻灯片出问题了，我听说你是个PPT高手，”他们是把你当成了记忆存储器。当你盯着他们后面的墙壁看，问他们求助前是否用谷歌搜索过解决办法，你是在表明自己不愿充当IT帮助台。
But those, like me, who google before asking for assistance may face an unexpected pitfall. According to research published last month by a group of Yale University academics, the mere act of using a search engine may lead us to overrate how much we know.
但是，那些像我一样、在求助之前先用谷歌搜索的人，或许会遇上一个意想不到的陷阱。根据上月耶鲁大学(Yale University)学者发表的研究结果，单单使用搜索引擎的举动就可能会导致我们高估自己的知识。
The researchers set up a number of experiments. In most of the scenarios, half the subjects used a search engine to look up preselected topics and the other half would not. Then all the subjects were asked to rate their ability to answer questions in a totally unrelated topic area. The group that used a search engine in the first step rated themselves as significantly more able than the second group.
研究人员进行了大量的实验。在大多数情况下，一半受试者使用搜索引擎查询预选主题，另一半没有这么做。接着所有受试者被要求评估自己回答一个完全无关主题的问题的能力。第一步中使用了搜索引擎的人，对自己能力的评价远远高于另一组人。
Several experiments tested for a number of obvious explanations for why this overestimation might happen. What if the first group were told exactly what to type into the search engine and the second group was shown the same article that the first group was directed to? What if both groups spent the same amount of time performing the first step? Or if the information being sought wasn’t something the web could help with? Or if no search results showed up at all? Or if different search engines were used?
为了测试有关为何会发生这种高估的许多显而易见的解释，还有几个实验。如果第一组人被确切告知在搜索引擎里输入什么，而给第二组人看第一组人被导向的同一篇文章，会如何？如果两组人花费相同时间进行第一步，会如何？或者，如果网络对于所查询信息帮不上忙，会怎样？如果搜索无任何结果，会怎样？如果使用了不同搜索引擎，又会怎样？
In every case, the group that had some interaction with a search engine rated themselves higher.
在每种情况下，与某个搜索引擎进行了一定互动的那一组都对自己给了更高的评价。
As to why this might be the case, the researchers think we might be losing track of how much the internet is relied on for instant access to information and consequently we have become “miscalibrated” with respect to our true knowledge.
至于为何出现这种情况，研究人员认为，我们或许正在忘记自己在实时获取信息方面是多么地依赖互联网，因此我们对自己的真实知识做出了“错误估量”。
Pending further research, this illusion of knowledge after interacting with a search engine may need to be added to the long list of common biases we already know we suffer from.
直至取得进一步的研究结果之前，与搜索引擎互动之后产生的知识幻觉，或许需要被添加到我们已经知道自己深受其害的共同偏见的长长清单。
In the meantime, it may be worth remembering this possibility the next time you use a search engine. Or, failing that, remember where you found this article.
与此同时，你下次使用搜索引擎时，或许有必要记住这一可能性。或者，若是忘了，要记住你在哪里找到的这篇文章。
