Level 2 Reading 11A

Ch.21

第21章

Reading 11A THE KNOWLEDGE ILLUSION A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? If you answered 10 cents, you're not alone—most people give the same answer (the correct answer is 5 cents). It's an example of how we often rely on intuitive responses—answers we feel are true. People give answers that "pop into their mind," says cognitive scientist Steven Sloman. We don't spend much time "reflecting and checking whether the answer ... is right or wrong." The bat and ball question helps explain why we often believe in fake news. It is part of human nature to believe, says Sloman. But "the trick with fake news is to know to verify"—in other words, to stop and question what you know. In one experiment, Sloman and a colleague invented a discovery called helium rain. They told a group of volunteers about it, but admitted they could not fully explain what it was. They then asked the volunteers to rate their own understanding of helium rain. Most volunteers rated themselves 1 out of 7, meaning they did not understand the concept. The researchers then told another group of volunteers about the discovery. This time, they said that scientists could fully explain how it works. When asked to rate their understanding, the volunteers gave an average answer of 2. The scientists' confidence gave the volunteers an increased sense of their own understanding, Sloman says.

阅读11A 知识幻觉 一根球棒和一个球总共花费1.10美元。 球拍比球贵1美元。 这个球多少钱？ 如果你回答10美分，你并不孤单——大多数人都会给出同样的答案（正确答案是5美分）。 这是我们如何经常依赖直觉反应的一个例子——我们认为答案是真实的。 认知科学家史蒂文·斯洛曼说，人们给出的答案“会突然出现在他们的脑海中”。 我们没有花太多时间“反思和检查答案……是对是错” 蝙蝠和球的问题有助于解释为什么我们经常相信假新闻。 斯洛曼说，相信是人性的一部分。 但是“假新闻的诀窍是知道要核实”——换句话说，就是停下来质疑你所知道的。 在一项实验中，斯洛曼和一位同事发明了一种名为氦雨的发现。 他们告诉了一群志愿者这件事，但承认他们无法完全解释这是什么。 然后，他们要求志愿者对自己对氦雨的理解进行评分。 大多数志愿者给自己打了7分中的1分，这意味着他们不理解这个概念。 研究人员随后将这一发现告诉了另一组志愿者。 这一次，他们说科学家们可以充分解释它是如何工作的。 当被要求对他们的理解程度进行评分时，志愿者给出的平均答案为2。 斯洛曼说，科学家们的信心让志愿者们对自己的理解有了更多的了解。

According to Sloman, studies show that knowledge spreads like a contagion. This idea can be seen in many fields, including politics. "If everyone around you is saying they understand why a politician is crooked," Sloman says, "then you're going to start thinking that you understand, too." Another explanation for the spread of fake news is "motivated reasoning," writes Adam Waytz, a management professor at the Kellogg School. We are naturally more likely to believe things that confirm our existing opinions. If you already have a negative opinion about someone, you're more likely to trust damaging stories about them. Over time, Waytz argues, "motivated reasoning can lead to a false social consensus." So, in a world where misleading information is common, is there a way to protect ourselves? "I don't think it's possible to train individuals to verify everything that they encounter," Sloman admits. "It is just too human to believe what you're told." However, training people to care about fact-checking is important, he argues, especially in online communities. Think of the headlines and stories that are shared on your social media feed every day. Probably these fit in with your own worldview—but perhaps not all of them are true. "Develop a norm in your community that says, 'We should check things and not just take them at face value,'" Sloman says. "Verify before you believe."

斯洛曼表示，研究表明，知识的传播就像传染病一样。 这个想法可以在许多领域看到，包括政治。 斯洛曼说：“如果你周围的人都说他们理解为什么一个政客是不正直的，”， “那么你也会开始认为自己理解了。” 亚当·韦茨写道，假新闻传播的另一种解释是“有动机的推理”， 凯洛格商学院的管理学教授。 我们自然更有可能相信那些证实我们现有观点的事情。 如果你已经对某人有负面看法，你更有可能相信关于他们的破坏性故事。 Waytz认为，随着时间的推移，“有动机的推理可能会导致错误的社会共识。” 那么，在一个误导性信息普遍存在的世界里，有什么方法可以保护我们自己吗？ 斯洛曼承认：“我认为不可能训练个人来验证他们遇到的一切。”。 “这太人性化了，你不会相信别人告诉你的。” 然而，他认为，培训人们关心事实核查非常重要，尤其是在在线社区。 想想你每天在社交媒体上分享的头条新闻和故事。 也许这些符合你自己的世界观，但也许并非所有都是真的。 斯洛曼说：“在你的社区里制定一个规范，说‘我们应该检查事情，而不仅仅是从表面上看’。”。 “在你相信之前先核实一下。”

♪