智能手機沒讓我們變傻

AS much as we love our digital devices, many of ushave an uneasy sense that they are destroying ourattention spans. We skitter from app to app, seldomalighting for long. Our ability to concentrate is shot,right?

我們喜愛我們的數(shù)碼設(shè)備，但與此同時，很多人也對此感到不安，覺得它們破壞了我們注意力的持續(xù)度。我們在各種應用中切換，很少在其中一個上做長時間停留。我們?nèi)褙炞⒌哪芰υ獾搅讼魅?，是?

 

 

Research shows that our intuition is wrong. We can focus. But our sense that we can’t maynot be a phantom. Paying attention requires not just ability but desire. Technology may snuffout our desire to focus.

研究表明，這種想當然的看法并不正確。我們是可以集中注意力的。但我們覺得自己喪失了這個能力也是有原因的。因為這不僅需要能力，也需要意愿。而科技產(chǎn)品可能扼殺了我們?nèi)褙炞⒌囊庠浮?/p>

The idea that gadgets corrode our attention span sounds logical. Screen-based activities cantake upward of 11 hours of a teenager’s day, and many demand rapid shifts of attention: quickcamera cuts in videos, frenetically paced games, answering questions in multiple apps, not tomention web design that invites skimming. And we often do all this simultaneously, soattention bounces between two (or three or eight) fast-paced tasks. The theory is that thebrain’s plasticity turns this quick mental pivoting into a habit, rendering us unable to sustainattention.

數(shù)碼設(shè)備削弱了我們的注意力，這個想法似乎很合邏輯。青少年每天在屏幕上進行的活動時間可以長達11小時，很多設(shè)備需要你快速轉(zhuǎn)換注意力：視頻中的快速剪接鏡頭，節(jié)奏緊張的游戲，在多個應用中回答問題，更不用說鼓勵你一覽而過的網(wǎng)頁設(shè)計了。我們經(jīng)常同時做這些事情，因為我們的注意力也在兩個(或三個，或八個)快節(jié)奏的任務之間來回切換。有人認為，大腦具有可塑性，因此快速切換的做法逐漸養(yǎng)成了習慣，導致我們無法持續(xù)集中注意力。

But there’s little evidence that attention spans are shrinking. Scientists use “span” to meantwo separate things: how much we can keep in mind, and how well we can maintain focus. Theymeasure the former by asking people to repeat increasingly long strings of digits in reverseorder. They measure the latter by asking people to monitor visual stimuli for occasional, subtlechanges. Performance on these tests today looks a whole lot as it did 50 years ago.

但幾乎沒有證據(jù)表明，人們注意力的持續(xù)度正在縮短?？茖W家用“持續(xù)度”來表示兩種不同的東西：我們一次可以記住多少東西，以及我們可以全神貫注的程度。他們測量前者的方式是讓人以相反的順序復述越來越長的數(shù)字串。衡量后者時則要求人監(jiān)測視覺刺激，注意到偶然發(fā)生的微妙變化。這些測試的結(jié)果似乎和50年前相差無幾。

Scientists also note that although mental tasks can change our brains, the impact is usuallymodest. For example, practice with action video games improves some aspects of vision, butit’s a small boost, not an overhaul of how we see. Attention is so central to our ability to thinkthat a significant deterioration would require a retrofitting of other cognitive functions. Mentalreorganization at that scale happens over evolutionary time, not because you got asmartphone.

科學家還指出，雖然心智任務可以改變我們的大腦，但其影響通常不大。例如，對于我們?nèi)绾慰礀|西，動作類電子游戲改善了其中的某些方面，但幅度很小，并不顯著。注意力是我們思考能力的核心，以至于只有加上其他認知功能的變化才會導致它出現(xiàn)顯著惡化。這種程度的心智重組屬于進化范疇，不是弄到一部智能手機就會發(fā)生的。

But if our attention span is not shrinking, why do we feel it is? Why, in a 2012 Pew survey, didnearly 90 percent of teachers claim that students can’t pay attention the way they could a fewyears ago? It may be that digital devices have not left us unable to pay attention, but havemade us unwilling to do so.

但是，如果我們的注意力持續(xù)度沒有縮減，為什么我們會有這種感覺呢?為什么皮尤(Pew)2012年的一項調(diào)查顯示，將近90%的教師說學生們不像幾年前那樣注意力集中了?這可能是因為數(shù)碼設(shè)備雖然沒有讓我們削弱集中注意力的能力，但卻讓我們失去了這樣做的意愿。

The digital world carries the promise of amusement that is constant, immediate and limitless.If a YouTube video isn’t funny in the first 10 seconds, why watch when I can instantly seeksomething better on BuzzFeed or Spotify? The Internet hasn’t shortened my attention span,but it has fixed a persistent thought in the back of my mind: Isn’t there’s something better todo than what I’m doing?

數(shù)碼世界提供了源源不斷、即時、無限的娛樂活動。如果YouTube上一段視頻的前10秒沒意思，那為何還要看它，反正我可以馬上到BuzzFeed或Spotify找到更好的東西?互聯(lián)網(wǎng)沒有縮減我的注意力持續(xù)度，但它改變了我腦海中一個長期以來的想法：是不是有什么東西比我現(xiàn)在手上的更好?

Are we more easily bored than we were 20 years ago? Researchers don’t know, but recentstudies support the suggestion that our antennas are always up. People’s performance onbasic laboratory tests of attention gets worse if a cellphone is merely visible nearby. Inanother experiment, people using a driving simulator were more likely to hit a pedestrian whentheir cellphone rang, even if they had planned in advance not to answer it.

與20年前相比，我們現(xiàn)在更容易厭倦了嗎?研究人員沒有答案，但最近的研究支持了一個說法：我們的天線一直是開著的。在基本的實驗室測試中，僅僅是有一部手機在視線范圍之內(nèi)，人們的注意力表現(xiàn)就會變差。在另一個實驗中，如果手機在響，即使駕駛模擬器的人決定不去理睬它，也更有可能撞上行人。

The direst prediction offered by digital critics — our phones are really pocket-size deep fryersfor the mind — may be untrue, but the alternative I’ve suggested sounds nearly as bad. Theappetite for endless entertainment suggests that worthier activities will be shoved aside. Wemay buy Salman Rushdie’s book, but we’ll end up sucked in by Flappy Bird.

數(shù)碼批評家做出了可怕的預測——手機就是一口袖珍的心智油炸鍋。事實可能并非這樣，但我的說法似乎也暗示著同樣糟糕的事情：對娛樂的無限熱衷，似乎意味著更有價值的活動將被拋到一邊。我們可能會購買薩爾曼·拉什迪(Salman Rushdie)的書，結(jié)果卻沉迷于玩《像素鳥》(Flappy Bird)游戲。

That doesn’t quite seem to be the case, either. Research shows, for example, that the amountof leisure reading hasn’t changed with the advent of the digital age. Before we congratulateourselves, though, let’s acknowledge that brainier hobbies have never been that popular.There have always been ways to kill time.

情況好像也不是這樣。例如，研究表明，休閑書刊閱讀量似乎并沒有隨著數(shù)字時代的來臨而改變。在祝賀自己之前，我們不妨先承認，更高雅的愛好從來都沒有那么流行。打發(fā)時間的方式一直都不缺乏。

Still, digital activities may be different. Over the last decade, neuroscientists distinguished twosystems of attention and associated thought. One is directed outward, as when you scrollthrough your email or play Candy Crush. The other is directed inward, as when you daydream,plan what you’ll do tomorrow, or reflect on the past. Clearly, most digital activities call foroutwardly directed attention. These two modes of attention work like a toggle switch; whenone is on, the other is off. In fact, when attention is outwardly directed, the inwardly directedattention system is somewhat suppressed. Given the amount of time people spend with digitaldevices, that sounds ominous.

但是，數(shù)字活動可能還是有所不同。過去十年來，神經(jīng)學家總結(jié)出兩種有關(guān)注意力和思考的系統(tǒng)。一種是外指向的，出現(xiàn)在你瀏覽電子郵件，或玩《糖果粉碎傳奇》(Candy Crush)的時候。另一種是內(nèi)指向的，出現(xiàn)在你發(fā)呆，計劃明天會做什么，或反思過去的時候。顯然，大多數(shù)數(shù)字活動引發(fā)的都是外指向的注意力。這兩種模式就像按動開關(guān);當其中一種打開，另一種就關(guān)閉了。事實上，當注意力切換到外指向系統(tǒng)時，內(nèi)指向的系統(tǒng)就遭到了抑制。鑒于我們在數(shù)碼設(shè)備上花的時間如此之多，這聽起來有些不妙。

Will we actually lose our ability to daydream? Let’s hope not. Among daydreaming’s manymerits, research shows, is an association with greater creativity. But there is a dark side ofinwardly directed thought, too. Daydreaming often distracts us when we’re trying to getsomething done. And reflection can turn ugly, as when we ruminate about some past insult orerror.

我們真的會失去發(fā)呆的能力?希望不會吧。研究顯示，發(fā)呆有諸多優(yōu)點，其中一個和創(chuàng)造力提升很有關(guān)系。但是內(nèi)指向活動也有缺點。比如我們想把事情做好的時候，發(fā)呆可能會讓我們分心。當我們糾結(jié)于過去的一些侮辱或錯誤時，反思可能并非好事。

Digital devices are not eating away at our brains. They are, however, luring us toward nearconstant outwardly directed thought, a situation that’s probably unique in human experience.A flat cap on time with devices — the restriction we first think of for ourselves and our kids —might help. So would parking devices in another room for a while. But it would be moreeffective if we could learn to recognize in ourselves when escape from our thoughts is O.K.and when reflection is in order. As a bonus, judgments like that require inwardly directedattention, a mental habit that in our smartphone era, we’d be dumb to lose.

數(shù)碼設(shè)備不會蠶食我們的大腦。然而，它們引誘我們幾乎總是采取外指向思維，在人類經(jīng)驗中，這種情況可能是是獨一無二的。為設(shè)備使用時間設(shè)定上限——我們首先為自己和孩子想到的限制——可能會有幫助。放下設(shè)備，到另一個房間呆一段時間也會很有用。但是，如果我們可以自己意識到，什么時候應當從思緒中抽離，什么時候應該進行反思，效果就會更好。這樣的判斷需要內(nèi)指向的注意力，這是一個額外優(yōu)點。在目前這個智能手機的時代，放棄這種心智習慣就太不明智了。