散布矩阵_为什么我们的大脑想要散布错误信息

散布矩阵

重点 (Top highlight)

The other day, I came across a cute little video. It is a monkey playing a memory game incredibly well. Way better than I ever could. Underneath is an explanation: “Millions of years ago,” it says, our ancestors “lost a tremendous amount of short term memory,” which we replaced with different brain material. “But why? So we can — talk.” The conclusion is that chimpanzees, who haven’t made that sacrifice, can accomplish amazing feats of memory but we, who have, can’t.

吨他一天，我遇到了一个可爱的小视频 。 这是一个猴子玩记忆游戏令人难以置信的好。 比以往任何时候都好。 下面是一个解释：“它是在数百万年前的，”我们的祖先“失去了大量的短期记忆，”我们用不同的大脑材料代替了它。 “但为什么？ 那么我们可以聊聊。” 结论是，没有做出牺牲的黑猩猩可以完成惊人的记忆壮举，但我们拥有的黑猩猩则无法做到。

It is one of those conclusions that is surprising and kind of delightful. I’m tickled by the idea that ancient humans swapped one part of their brain for another, like making space in a cupboard. I watch a few seconds of the monkey tapping away at the memory game and then I scroll on. (The video is two and a half minutes of a monkey tapping a screen. Who has that sort of time these days?)

这是一个令人惊讶的是与C面上污染物之一和一种令人愉快的。 我为古代人类将大脑的一部分交换为另一部分的想法而感到雀跃，就像在橱柜中腾出空间一样。 我看到猴子在记忆游戏中敲击了几秒钟，然后滚动。 (视频是猴子敲击屏幕的两分半钟。如今，谁有这样的时间？)

A few weeks later, while talking to some friends, the topic of short term memory comes up and I mention the chimpanzee. I search through Twitter to show them the video. But instead of finding the original tweet, I come across one in which an evolutionary anthropologist is referring to it. “This debunked finding keeps coming back,” it says, “Humans are at least as good at this task as the chimpanzees. It’s a practice effect.”

几周后，在与一些朋友交谈时，出现了短期记忆的话题，我提到了黑猩猩。 我通过Twitter搜索以向他们展示视频。 但是，我没有找到原始的推文，而是遇到了一位进化人类学家提到的那条推文。 它说：“这个被揭穿的发现不断回来，人类在这项任务上至少和黑猩猩一样出色。 这是一种练习效果。”

Since everyone is waiting to see the monkey video, I gloss over this and play the video. “Um, some people think that actually with practice we might be good at this too,” I say lamely. It feels a bit wrong, having brought the monkey up, to immediately fact-check myself and spoil the fun. So we watch the video. And then we carry on with our lives.

由于每个人都在等待观看猴子视频，因此我掩饰并播放了该视频。 “ U，有些人认为实际上通过实践我们也可能会擅长这一点，”我la地说。 抚养猴子，立即事实检查自己并破坏乐趣，这感觉有点不对。 因此，我们观看了视频。 然后我们继续我们的生活。

The tweet containing this “fact” has over 100,000 likes and has been seen 3.1 million times. The message explaining it is untrue has 339 retweets.

包含“事实”的推文已有100,000多个顶，并且被浏览了310万次。 解释不真实的消息有339条转发。

Misinformation. I realize later, even with my halfhearted attempt to offer context, I have spread misinformation. My sotto voce comment that “some people” think this might not be true is like the messages Twitter put on Donald Trump’s tweets. I quietly stamped a virtual message below my words: Get the facts about monkey memory games. Like Twitter, I’m trying to have it both ways. I want to get the engagement from it, while also saying it isn’t real. I don’t explain that the “some people” who think it might not be true are the experts; the people who actually looked into it.

误传。 后来我意识到，即使我全力以赴地提供背景信息，我仍然散布了错误的信息。 我的自嘲 评论说“有些人”认为这可能不正确，就像Twitter 在唐纳德·特朗普的推文上发表的信息 。 我在我的话语下悄悄地贴上了一条虚拟信息：获取有关猴子记忆游戏的事实。 像Twitter一样 ，我试图同时做到。 我想从中获得参与度，同时还说这不是真实的。 我没有解释说认为不是真的“某些人”是专家。 真正研究它的人。

Misinformation is time-consuming.

错误信息是很耗时的。

Human life is plagued with misunderstandings, half-remembered facts, and cognitive biases. We agree with things that confirm our worldview. We listen to people who look like us. We ignore counter-examples. Facts do not change our minds.

误解，一半记忆的事实和认知偏见困扰着人们的生活。 我们同意可以证实我们世界观的事物。 我们听那些看起来像我们的人。 我们忽略了反例。 事实不会改变我们的想法 。

Part of this is that sometimes true things don’t seem true. When you look at the sun, it does seem as if it goes round the Earth. From our position on the ground, it looks like the planet is flat. It’s pretty clear why Galileo wasn’t very popular. It’s a lot of work to change all your mathematical models and philosophical beliefs just because they’re based on something untrue.

部分原因是有时候真实的事情看起来并不真实。 当您看着太阳时，似乎确实绕着地球转。 从我们在地面上的位置看来，行星是平坦的。 很明显，伽利略为什么不那么受欢迎。 更改所有数学模型和哲学信念的工作量很大，因为它们是基于不真实的事物。

“A lie,” as Mark Twain famously said, “can travel halfway around the world before the truth has put on its shoes.” Except Mark Twain never said that. Nor did Winston Churchill. Nor Thomas Jefferson. They all said lots of other good things, but not that one, which is nonetheless often attributed to them anyway. This is the “halo effect.” Because we think highly of those individuals, we ascribe other positive things to them as well. A pithy, well-phrased observation like this is exactly the sort of thing Mark Twain would have said, so we assume he did say it. It doesn’t help that every time we see this quotation it is assigned to one of these figures either (the “availability heuristic” — we think things are real because we see them repeated). We have so many cognitive biases. There’s the “bias blind spot,” the belief that you, specifically, aren’t biased, and the “introspection illusion,” the belief that you have examined your own thought processes. It’s biases all the way down.

“谎言 ”，如马克·吐温的名言所说，“可以旅行中途世界各地之前的真相已经把它的鞋。” 除了马克吐温从来没有这样说过 。 温斯顿·丘吉尔也没有。 也不是托马斯·杰斐逊。 他们都说了许多其他的好东西，但没有一个，尽管如此，反而是经常归功于他们。 这就是“光环效应”。 因为我们高度重视这些人，所以我们也将其他积极的事情归因于他们。 像这样一个措辞精巧，措辞清晰的观察正是马克·吐温会说的那种话，所以我们认为他确实是这么说的。 每次我们看到该报价都会被分配给其中一个数字，这无济于事(“可用性启发式” —我们认为事情是真实的，因为我们反复看到它们)。 我们有很多认知偏见。 存在“偏见盲点”，即您没有偏见的信念，以及“自省幻觉”，即您已经检查了自己的思维过程的信念。 它的偏见一直下降。

Many semi-facts and phrases are improved and enhanced in the retelling. “Writing is rewriting,” as Hemingway said. (For a moment, I couldn’t believe Hemingway did say this and had to check the original. This is the sort of thing I would expect Hemingway to say, so I assumed, for that reason, he didn’t say it. It was so believable I didn’t believe it. Misinformation is time-consuming.) This ability to adapt makes misinformation sticky. Lies don’t spread because they are untrue, they spread because they’re not constrained by the truth. They don’t have to deal with the inconvenient tyranny of reality. They can adapt to make themselves more compelling. “It is not the strongest of the species that survives but the most adaptable,” as Charles Darwin never said.

在复述中，许多半事实和短语得到了改善和增强。 海明威说：“写作就是重写。” (有一阵子，我简直不敢相信海明威确实这么说了，不得不检查原件。这是我希望海明威说的那种话，所以我假设，由于这个原因，他没有这么说。真是令人难以置信，我真不敢相信。错误信息非常耗时。)这种适应能力使错误信息变得很棘手。 谎言不会传播是因为它们是不真实的，它们传播是因为它们不受事实的约束。 他们不必面对现实带来的不便暴政。 他们可以适应自己，使自己更具吸引力。 正如查尔斯·达尔文(Charles Darwin) 从未说过的那样：“生存的物种不是最强的物种，而是最适应的物种。”

Human life is plagued with misunderstandings, half-remembered facts, and cognitive biases.

误解，一半记忆的事实和认知偏见困扰着人们的生活。

Some untruths are fairly harmless. When you look through lists of common misinformation they sound rather pedantic. Do we really want to be the person who, after hearing someone say, “Methinks the lady doth protest too much,” retorts “Actually, I think you’ll find the line is: ‘the lady doth protest too much, methinks.’” It’s easy to become tied in knots, like my momentary panic about Hemingway. When it comes to misinformation, I miss information. I miss being able to read something without worrying whether it had been manipulated by a Russian troll farm. Our media has become more democratized and given voice to diverse views. But it’s also allowed bad-faith commentary to prosper. The constant suspicion about what we read is exhausting. Now we have to be alert to “facts” that influence people to vote and behave in different ways. We can no longer default to assuming positive intent.

有些不实是相当无害的。 当您浏览常见错误信息列表时，它们听起来很古怪。 我们真的想成为一个听到有人说：“我认为女士太抗议了吗？”的人反驳道：“ 实际上 ，我想你会发现这句话是：'女士太抗议了，方法论。”容易陷入困境，就像我对海明威一时的恐慌一样。 当涉及错误信息时，我会错过信息。 我很想念某些东西而不必担心它是否被俄罗斯巨魔农场操纵。 我们的媒体已变得更加民主化，并表达了各种观点。 但这也使不诚实的评论繁荣起来。 人们对我们所读内容的怀疑不断不断。 现在，我们必须警惕影响人们投票和以不同方式行事的“事实”。 我们不能再默认为积极意图。

There is misinformation and then there is disinformation. Misinformation is incorrect ideas that are shared in good faith, or, at least (as with me sharing the monkey brain game video) in neutral faith, to harmlessly entertain. Disinformation is intentionally incorrect information spread to deceive. Even the word’s origins are disinformed. In the book Disinformation, author Ion Mihai Pacepa explains that the word comes from the Russian, dezinformatsiya, a term invented by Stalin, who chose a French-sounding word to make it seem like the idea of intentionally lying came from the West. Disinformation is self-referential, almost onomatopoeia. It is a word leaking its history.

Ť这里是错误信息，然后有DIS信息。 错误信息是真诚地分享的错误想法，或者至少(与我分享了猴脑游戏视频)出于中立信念而分享的信息，是无害的。 虚假信息是有意传播的不正确信息，具有欺骗性。 甚至单词的起源也没有被告知。 在《 虚假信息 》一书中，作者Ion Mihai Pacepa解释说，这个词来自俄语dezinformatsiya ，这是斯大林发明的，他选择了一个法语发音的词，使它看起来像故意撒谎的想法来自西方。 虚假信息是自我指称的，几乎是拟声词。 这是一个泄漏其历史的词。

It’s almost funny. Or at least it would be if this weren’t slowly and surely wearing away the foundations of democracy. But still there’s something perversely pleasing in this circularity. Similarly, when Donald Trump refers to “fake news,” he is talking about well-researched, balanced journalism. Meanwhile, he heralds actual “fake news” (conspiracy theories, and bad-faith commentary) as real news. If it weren’t all so depressing the ironies would be rather beautiful.

这几乎很有趣。 至少如果不是慢慢地并确定地消灭民主的基础，那至少会是这样。 但是，这种循环性仍然有些令人反感。 同样，当唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)提及“假新闻”时，他所指的是经过充分研究的，平衡的新闻业。 同时，他将实际的 “假新闻”(阴谋论和恶意评论)预示为真实新闻。 如果不是所有的事情如此令人沮丧，那么讽刺将是相当美丽的。

There are tips for combating falsehoods, of both the “mis” and “dis” variety. “I ask myself ‘Does this make sense?’” Anne Mintz, editor of Web of Deception: Misinformation on the Internet, said in 2008. “Check a WHOIS database to find out to whom a website is registered.” It’s a lovely idea, but I wonder how feasible this is now. Most dubious claims are circulated through social media platforms, so WHOIS is not going to tell you anything. The advice seems to date back from a more innocent era. A time when we went to Snopes to find out if putting your PIN into an ATM backwards will summon the police. (It won’t. But it’s a cute little story.)

有一些技巧可以防止虚假，包括“ mis”和“ dis”两种。 “我问自己'这有意义吗？”《 欺骗网络：互联网上的错误信息 》 编辑安妮·明茨(Anne Mintz) 在2008年说过 。 “检查WHOIS数据库以查找向谁注册了网站。” 这是一个可爱的主意，但我想知道这现在有多可行。 大多数可疑的声明都是通过社交媒体平台发布的，因此WHOIS不会告诉您任何信息。 这些建议似乎可以追溯到更纯真的时代。 当我们去Snopes查一下是否将您的PIN反向放入ATM时，会召集警察 。 (不会。但这是一个可爱的小故事。)

When it comes to misinformation, I miss information.

当涉及错误信息时，我会错过信息。

This is all assuming you even have the time to look these things up. You can’t fact-check everything you read. You start to tie yourself in knots and doubt everything, as I did with the Hemingway quote. At a certain point we have to believe something. How else can you confirm whether something is true? Can I even trust that a rogue Random House employee didn’t insert the line into my Hemingway book to trick me into thinking he wrote it?

所有这些都假设您甚至有时间查找这些内容。 您无法对所有阅读内容进行事实检查。 就像我对海明威语录所做的那样，您开始陷入困境并开始怀疑一切。 在某个时候，我们必须相信一些东西 。 您还可以如何确认是否为真？ 我什至可以相信，一个无赖随机屋的雇员没有将这行文字插入我的海明威书中，以欺骗我以为他写了这本书吗？

What’s worse, those who go to the effort of validating whether something is true are on the whole less likely to be taken in by conspiracy theories. There are plenty of tips for spotting false information, fake news, conspiracy theories, and facts of dubious origin. But if you go to one of these sites, you are already skeptical of what you’re reading. If you’ve been taken in you don’t look for counter-evidence — you look for ways to counter evidence.

更糟糕的是，那些致力于验证某些事物是否正确的人总体上不太可能被阴谋论所接受。 这里有 很多 的 技巧 为 察觉的虚假信息，假新闻，阴谋论和来历不明的事实。 但是，如果您访问这些网站之一，您已经对所阅读的内容持怀疑态度。 如果你已经采取了，你不要找反证-你想办法反证据。

“Cute videos,” researcher Claudio Tennie says on Twitter of another erroneous monkey video, “are mind viruses that produce ‘zombie ideas’.” But they are mind viruses that we want to catch. As Jessica Maddox notes, “stories and images that align with what we want to believe may be a coping mechanism.” These stories are nice. We want to believe them.

研究人员克劳迪奥·特尼(Claudio Tennie)在推特上说 ，“可爱的视频是产生“僵尸想法”的心灵病毒。” 但是它们是我们要捕获的心灵病毒。 正如杰西卡·马多克斯(Jessica Maddox)所说 ，“与我们想相信的故事和图像相符的可能是一种应对机制。” 这些故事很好。 我们想相信他们。

Part of the problem with memorable but incorrect information is that once you read it, it goes into your head even if you know it’s untrue. Take the fact about short term memories and language in monkeys. Learning that it wasn’t true didn’t make me forget it. It’s still there. I fear it’s in my brain forever. But now I have to remember the fact and remember it’s not true. It’s all too easy to remember the cute fact and forget the more boring point that it wasn’t true. “Mind viruses” is about right, and eerily similar to our current predicament. We need to work together as a society to stop the spread. Sadly, masks and social distancing are no help here, even if disinformation hadn’t already gotten to them, too.

令人难忘但不正确的信息的部分问题在于，一旦您阅读了它，即使您知道它是不真实的，它也会进入您的脑海。 以关于猴子的短期记忆和语言为事实。 知道那不是真的并没有使我忘记它。 它仍然在那里。 我担心它永远在我的脑海中。 但是现在我必须记住事实， 并记住事实并非如此。 记住这个可爱的事实，而忘记那不是事实的更无聊的点，太容易了。 “心灵病毒”是正确的，并且与我们当前的困境极为相似。 我们需要作为一个社会共同努力，制止扩散。 可悲的是，即使还没有散播虚假信息，面具和社交疏远在这里也无济于事。

翻译自: https://onezero.medium.com/why-our-brains-want-to-spread-misinformation-9838c0ad89a

散布矩阵