Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

已審核 字幕已審核
  • You've heard of your I.Q., your general intelligence,

    你們都聽過I.Q.這個詞,就是所謂的智商。

  • but what's your Psy-Q?

    但,你的Psy-Q(心理智商)呢?

  • How much do you know about what makes you tick,

    你對於成就你的事物了解多少?

  • and how good are you at predicting other people's behavior

    而你又多擅長去預測別人的行為?

  • or even your own?

    甚至說你自己的行為?

  • And how much of what you think you know about psychology is wrong?

    你認為你所瞭解的心理學,有多少是錯誤的呢?

  • Let's find out by counting down the top 10 myths of psychology.

    就讓我們一起來倒數揭露這心理學上的十大迷思。

  • You've probably heard it said that when it comes to their psychology,

    當人們在提及心理學時,你或許曾經聽他們說過:

  • it's almost as if men are from Mars and women are from Venus.

    這就像是男人從火星來,女人從金星來。

  • But how different are men and women really?

    但是,男性和女性之間究竟真的差多少呢?

  • To find out, let's start by looking at something

    為了找到真相,我們就來看看這些

  • on which men and women really do differ

    男性和女性有所不同的事物,

  • and plotting some psychological gender differences on the same scale.

    並且在同規模的圖表上畫出兩性的差異線。

  • One thing men and women do really differ on

    男性與女性有差異的事情之一,

  • is how far they can throw a ball.

    是能夠把球丟得多遠。

  • So if we look at the data for men here,

    讓我們來看看這個關於男性的資料,

  • we see what is called a normal distribution curve.

    我們現在看到的這個就是所謂的常態分配曲線。

  • A few men can throw a ball really far, and a few men not far at all,

    少數的男性可以將球丟得非常遠,另外少數的男性則丟不遠,

  • but most a kind of average distance.

    但大部分的男性都丟在一個平均距離中。

  • And women share the same distribution as well,

    而女性也相同的呈現了常態分配曲線。

  • but actually there's quite a big difference.

    但我們可以看到這裡出現了一個蠻大的差異。

  • In fact, the average man can throw a ball further

    事實上,大部份的男性都可以把球丟得比

  • than about 98 percent of all women.

    98%的女性還要來得更遠。

  • So now let's look at what some psychological gender differences

    那麼我們現在來看看在相同標準規模上的

  • look like on the same standardized scale.

    一些心理性別差異。

  • Any psychologist will tell you

    不論哪個心理學家都會告訴你,

  • that men are better at spatial awareness than women --

    男性的空間感比女性還要更好,

  • so things like map-reading, for example -- and it's true,

    像是地圖識讀的能力而這是真的,

  • but let's have a look at the size of this difference.

    但讓我們來看看這個兩性差異的大小。

  • It's tiny; the lines are so close together they almost overlap.

    我們能看到差異是非常小的。這兩條曲線非常靠近,近乎重疊。

  • In fact, the average woman is better than 33 percent of all men,

    事實上,平均的女性還比33%的男性更好,

  • and of course, if that was 50 percent,

    當然,如果說這個數值是50%的話,

  • then the two genders would be exactly equal.

    兩個性別就並沒有任何差異了。

  • It's worth bearing in mind that this difference, the next one I gonna show you

    我想這個差異會是值得被記住的。也就是接下來我將要給你們看的,

  • are pretty much the biggest psychological gender differences

    差不多是心理學史上所發現,

  • ever discovered in psychology.

    心理性別差異最大的例子。

  • So here's the next one.

    就讓我們來看下一個例子:

  • Any psychologist will tell you that women are better

    任何一個心理學家都會告訴你,女性的語言和語法能力

  • with language and grammar than men.

    比男性還要好。

  • So here's performance on the standardized grammar test.

    這表現在標準語法測驗上。

  • There go the women. There go the men.

    這是女性的,這是男性的。

  • Again, yes, women are better on average, but the lines are so close

    沒有錯,女性平均上是比男性還要好,但是兩條曲線也非常的相近。

  • that 33 percent of men are better than the average woman,

    還有33%的男性比起一般的女性還要好。

  • and again, if it was 50 percent,

    再一次的,如果這個值是50%的話,

  • that would represent complete gender equality.

    那這兩個性別就會是相同的了。

  • So it's not really a case of Mars and Venus.

    所以說,這並不是真的像火星人與金星人那樣。

  • It's more a case of, if anything, Mars and Snickers:

    而比較像是其他的東西,例如巧克力棒Mars和巧克力棒Snikers:

  • basically the same, but one's maybe slightly nuttier than the other.

    他們基本上是相同的,但一種可能比另一種含有更多果仁。

  • I won't say which.

    我不會告訴你是哪一種。

  • Now we've got you warmed up.

    現在,你們都準備好了。

  • Let's psychoanalyze you using the famous Rorschach inkblot test.

    我們就來用著名的羅夏克墨跡測驗來做個心理分析。

  • So you can probably see two, I dunno, two bears or two people or something.

    現在你大概可以看到兩個,我不知道,也許是兩隻熊、兩個人或其它什麼東西。

  • But what do you think they're doing?

    但你覺得他們在做什麼?

  • Put your hand up if you think they're saying hello.

    舉手,如果你覺得他們在對彼此打招呼。

  • Not many people. Okay.

    好,沒有很多人。

  • Put your hands up if you think they are high-fiving.

    如果你覺得他們在擊掌,請舉手。

  • Okay. What if you think they're fighting?

    好。有沒有覺得他們在打架的?

  • Only a few people there.

    只有幾個人。

  • Okay, so if you think they're saying hello or high-fiving,

    好的,所以說如果你覺得他們在打招呼或擊掌的話,

  • then that means you're a friendly person.

    就代表你是一個友善的人。

  • If you think they're fighting,

    如果你覺得他們在打架的話,

  • you're a bit more of a nasty, aggressive person.

    代表你是一個讓人感覺不舒服、具有攻擊性的人。

  • Are you a lover or a fighter, basically.

    就看你基本上是個和平者或是個鬥士。

  • What about this one?

    那這個呢?

  • This isn't really a voting one, so on three everyone shout out what you see.

    這不是個需要投票的項目,所以我數到三的時候喊出你看到的東西。

  • One, two, three. (Audience shouting)

    一、二、三。(觀眾的喊聲)

  • I heard hamster. Who said hamster?

    我聽到有人說倉鼠,是誰說的?

  • That was very worrying.

    真是令人擔心。

  • A guy there said hamster.

    那裡有個傢伙說倉鼠。

  • Well, you should see some kind of two-legged animal here,

    你應該會看到畫面上有某種雙足動物,

  • and then the mirror image of them there.

    並且它的寫照圖像在另一邊。

  • If you didn't, then this means that you have difficulty

    如果你沒有看見的話,代表你有困難

  • processing complex situations where there's a lot going on.

    去處理很多同時發生的複雜情況。

  • Except, of course, it doesn't mean that at all.

    除了,當然,這根本就不是那個意思。

  • Rorschach inkblot tests have basically no validity

    羅夏克墨跡測驗基本上在分辨人們的個性上,

  • when it comes to diagnosing people's personality

    是沒有準確度的。

  • and are not used by modern-day psychologists.

    現代的心理學家也並沒有採用這套方法。

  • In fact, one recent study found that when you do try

    事實上,最近一個研究發現當你嘗試

  • to diagnose people's personalities using Rorschach inkblot tests,

    用羅夏克墨跡測驗去診斷人們的個性時,

  • schizophrenia was diagnosed

    在明顯完全正常的參與者中

  • in about one sixth of apparently perfectly normal participants.

    大約有六分之一的人,被診斷出精神分裂症。

  • So if you didn't do that well on this,

    所以如果你在這個測驗上沒有做好的話,

  • maybe you are not a very visual type of person.

    或許只是代表你不是一個視覺型的人。

  • So let's do another quick quiz to find out.

    那讓我們再來做一個快速的小測驗。

  • When making a cake, do you prefer to -- so hands up for each one again --

    你在做蛋糕的時候,你比較喜歡……請你們舉手回答——

  • do you prefer to use a recipe book with pictures?

    你比較喜歡使用帶有圖片的食譜嗎?

  • Yeah, a few people.

    嗯,少數一些人。

  • Have a friend talk you through?

    讓朋友講給你聽嗎?

  • Or have a go, making it up as you go along?

    或是就自己試著動手做做看?

  • Quite a few people there.

    只有一些些人。

  • Okay, so if you said A,

    好的,所以如果你選A,

  • then this means that you are a visual learner

    代表你是一個視覺的學習者,

  • and you learn best when information is presented in a visual style.

    當資訊以視覺的方式呈現時,你能夠得到最佳的吸收與學習。

  • If you said B, it means you're an auditory learner,

    如果你說B,代表著你屬於聽覺的學習者,

  • that you learn best when information is presented to you in an auditory format.

    當資訊以聽覺的方式呈現時,你才會獲得較好的吸收與學習。

  • And if you said C, it means that you're a kinesthetic learner,

    而如果你選C,就代表你屬於動覺的學習者。

  • that you learn best when you get stuck in and do things with your hands.

    在你自己動手實際去做時,你吸收和學習得最快。

  • Except, of course, as you've probably guessed,

    除了說,當然,你可能已經猜到了,

  • that it doesn't, because the whole thing is a complete myth.

    這些都不對,因為這整件事情都是個迷思。

  • Learning styles are made up and are not supported by scientific evidence.

    這些學習方式都是被捏造出來的,並沒有任何科學證據去支持它們。

  • So we know this because in tightly controlled experimental studies,

    我們知道這些,是因為我們進行了嚴謹的研究,

  • when learners are given material to learn

    我們給這些受試者材料讓他們去學習,

  • either in their preferred style or an opposite style,

    材料分成了他們喜歡的學習方式,以及他們不喜歡的學習方式。

  • it makes no difference at all to the amount of information that they retain.

    結果是,不管哪種學習方式,他們所記住的資訊量都是一樣的。

  • And if you think about it for just a second,

    你稍微用個幾秒思考一下,

  • it's just obvious that this has to be true.

    就會發現這是很明顯的事實。

  • It's obvious that the best presentation format

    顯然的,最好的學習模式

  • depends not on you, but on what you're trying to learn.

    並不是是取決於你自己,而是取決於你所學習的東西。

  • Could you learn to drive a car, for example,

    舉個例子吧,你能夠只透過聽別人說

  • just by listening to someone telling you what to do

    來學怎麼開車嗎?

  • with no kinesthetic experience?

    沒有動覺經驗的話,可能嗎?

  • Could you solve simultaneous equations

    在解聯立方程式的時候,

  • by talking them through in your head and without writing them down?

    你能夠只用腦袋來計算而不用紙筆來輔助嗎?

  • Could you revise for your architecture exams

    你能夠用跳舞來復習你的建築學考試,

  • using interpretive dance if you're a kinesthetic learner?

    只因為你是一個動覺的學習者嗎?

  • No. What you need to do is match the material to be learned

    不行啊。你要做的是,將所有要學習的資料和

  • to the presentation format, not you.

    適當的學習方法連繫起來,而不只是你。

  • I know many of you are A-level students

    我知道你們之中有許多A級水準的學生,

  • that will have recently gotten your GCSE results.

    最近才剛拿到你的GCSE(中等教育普通證書)的結果。

  • And if you didn't quite get what you were hoping for,

    如果你並沒有得到你所預期的成果的話,

  • then you can't really blame your learning style,

    你真的不能去責怪你的學習方式,

  • but one thing that you might want to think about blaming is your genes.

    但你或許可以考慮去責怪你的基因。

  • So what this is all about is a recent study at University College London

    這是倫敦大學學院最近所做的一項研究,

  • found that 58 percent of the variation

    他們發現在不同學生和他們的GCSE結果之間,

  • between different students and their GCSE results

    有58%的差異性

  • was down to genetic factors.

    是來自於基因遺傳。

  • That sounds like a very precise figure, so how can we tell?

    這聽起來是一個很精確的數字,那麼我們是怎麼確定的呢?

  • Well, when we want to unpack the relative contributions

    是這樣的,當我們想要解開關於

  • of genes and the environment,

    基因與環境的相對作用,

  • what we can do is do a twin study.

    我們可以做雙胞胎研究。

  • So identical twins share 100 percent of their environment

    所以說,同卵雙胞胎有著100%相同的環境,

  • and 100 percent of their genes,

    以及100%相同的基因。

  • whereas non-identical twins share 100 percent of their environment,

    然異卵雙胞胎也有著100%相同的環境,

  • but just like any brother and sister, share only 50 percent of their genes.

    但就像任何的兄弟姐妹一樣,他們只有50%相同的基因。

  • So by comparing how similar GCSE results are in identical twins

    那麼,經由比較同卵雙胞胎與異卵雙胞胎

  • versus non-identical twins,

    的GCSE成績,

  • and doing some clever math,

    再做一點聰明的數學之後,

  • we can an idea of how much variation and performance is due to the environment

    我們就可以知道有多少表現和差異性是來自於環境,

  • and how much is due to genes.

    而多少是源自於基因的關係。

  • And it turns out that it's about 58 percent due to genes.

    結果證明,58%的比例是因為基因。

  • So this isn't to undermine the hard work that you and your teachers here put in.

    這並不是要推翻你和老師們的辛苦付出,

  • If you didn't quite get the GCSE results that you were hoping for,

    但是如果你沒有得到你所預期的GCSE結果,

  • then you can always try blaming your parents, or at least their genes.

    那麼你可以隨時嘗試著去責怪你的父母,或至少他們的基因。

  • One thing that you shouldn't blame

    有件你不應該去歸咎的事情,

  • is being a left-brained or right-brained learner,

    是關於左腦學習者或右腦學習者,

  • because again, this is a myth.

    因為,一樣的,這是個迷思。

  • So the myth here is that the left brain is logical,

    這個迷思說,左腦是理性的,

  • it's good with equations like this,

    它擅於解方程式,

  • and the right brain is more creative, so the right brain is better at music.

    而右腦是創意的,它在音樂等方面表現得更佳。

  • But again, this is a myth because nearly everything that you do

    但這仍然是個迷思,因為幾乎你做的每件事情

  • involves nearly all parts of your brain talking together,

    都要你大腦的所有部位互相溝通聯繫,

  • even just the most mundane thing like having a normal conversation.

    就算是最乏味的日常對話都是如此。

  • However, perhaps one reason why this myth has survived

    然而這迷思至今仍存在,或許有一個原因,

  • is that there is a slight grain of truth to it.

    就是因為這裡面包含著小部份的事實。

  • So a related version of the myth

    這迷思的另一個版本,

  • is that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people,

    是說左撇子的人比起右撇子的人更有創造力,

  • which kind of makes sense because your brain controls the opposite hands,

    這種說法有點道理,因為你的大腦是控制的是相反的手,

  • so left-handed people,

    所以左撇子的人,

  • the right side of the brain is slightly more active

    他的右腦比起右撇子的人,

  • than the left-hand side of the brain,

    會稍微更加活絡一點,

  • and the idea is the right-hand side is more creative.

    我們的觀念是右腦會更加有創造力。

  • Now, it isn't true per se

    但這個左撇子比右撇子

  • that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people.

    還要有創造力的觀念,就其本身而言就是錯誤的。

  • What is true that ambidextrous people,

    事實上是雙手都靈巧的人,

  • or people who use both hands for different tasks,

    或可以兩手同時處理不同事情的人,

  • are more creative thinkers than one-handed people,

    比單手使用者更具有創意,

  • because being ambidextrous involves

    因為雙手使用者

  • having both sides of the brain talk to each other a lot,

    的大腦兩側需要大量的互動與溝通,

  • which seems to be involved in creating flexible thinking.

    這與創造靈活的思考有所相關。

  • The myth of the creative left-hander

    左撇子較有創意的迷思,

  • arises from the fact that being ambidextrous

    是從左撇子比右撇子有更多人能善用雙手的

  • is more common amongst left-handers than right-handers,

    這項事實中所產生出來的,

  • so a grain of truth in the idea of the creative left-hander,

    所以說左撇子比較善於創造的這個說法是有一點真實性的,

  • but not much.

    但只有一點而已。

  • A related myth that you've probably heard of

    另一個相關的迷思,你或許聽過,

  • is that we only use 10 percent of our brains.

    是我們只有用到大腦10%的這件事。

  • This is, again, a complete myth.

    這一樣的也是完全的迷思。

  • Nearly everything that we do, even the most mundane thing,

    我們所做的每件事情,就算是最無聊的小事,

  • uses nearly all of our brains.

    都要用到幾乎整個大腦。

  • That said, it is of course true

    但的確,我們大多數的人不能

  • that most of us don't use our brainpower quite as well as we could.

    有效的去運用我們的大腦。

  • So what could we do to boost our brainpower?

    那我們該怎麼提升我們的腦力呢?

  • Maybe we could listen to a nice bit of Mozart.

    或許我們可以聽一段莫札特的音樂。

  • Have you heard of the idea of the Mozart effect?

    你聽過莫札特效應嗎?

  • So the idea is that listening to Mozart makes you smarter

    有一個觀念是,聽莫札特的音樂會使你變聰明,

  • and improves your performance on I.Q. tests.

    而且會提升智力測驗的表現。

  • Now again, what's interesting about this myth

    這個迷思的有趣之處

  • is that although it's basically a myth, there is a grain of truth to it.

    也是在於它有一點的事實存在其中。

  • So the original study found that

    原先的研究是發現,

  • participants who were played Mozart music for a few minutes

    聽了幾分鐘莫札特音樂的受試者,

  • did better on a subsequent I.Q. test

    在智力測驗中,

  • than participants who simply sat in silence.

    表現得比只是靜默著坐著的受試者還要好。

  • But a follow-up study recruited some people who liked Mozart music

    但一項後續研究招募了一些喜歡莫札特音樂的人,

  • and then another group of people

    以及另外一群

  • who were fans of the horror stories of Stephen King.

    喜歡史蒂芬.金恐怖小說的人。

  • And they played the people the music or the stories.

    然後他們給這些受試者們聽音樂或聽恐怖故事。

  • The people who preferred Mozart music to the stories

    更喜歡聽莫札特音樂的人比聽故事的人,

  • got a bigger I.Q. boost from the Mozart than the stories,

    從莫札特音樂中,得到更大量的智力增長,

  • but the people who preferred the stories to the Mozart music

    但對於更喜歡聽故事的人來說,

  • got a bigger I.Q. boost from listening to the Stephen King stories

    他們反而在恐怖故事中,得到更大量的智力增長,

  • than the Mozart music.

    而對莫札特音樂反應較小。

  • So the truth is that listening to something that you enjoy

    事實是,當你在聽你享受的東西時,

  • perks you up a bit and gives you a temporary I.Q. boost

    這些東西會使你振作一點,且給你在有限範圍的

  • on a narrow range of tasks.

    短暫智力增長。

  • There's no suggestion that listening to Mozart,

    所以如果你想藉由聽莫札特音樂,

  • or indeed Stephen King stories,

    或當然,聽史蒂芬.金的故事,

  • is going to make you any smarter in the long run.

    來使你長期變得更聰明,那都是不可能的事。

  • Another version of the Mozart myth

    另一個關於莫札特迷思的版本,

  • is that listening to Mozart can make you not only cleverer but healthier, too.

    是說莫札特的音樂不只是能讓你變聰明,更能夠使你健康。

  • Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be true

    可惜這對於

  • of someone who listened to the music of Mozart almost every day,

    幾乎每天聽莫札特音樂的人來說,都不是真的。

  • Mozart himself,

    莫札特他自己,

  • who suffered from gonorrhea, smallpox, arthritis,

    就飽受著疾病的折磨,其中包含著淋病、天花、關節炎

  • and, what most people think eventually killed him in the end, syphilis.

    以及人們認為最終致他於死的梅毒。

  • This suggests that Mozart should have bit more careful, perhaps,

    這表示,也許莫札特在選擇他的性伴侶時

  • when choosing his sexual partners.

    應該要更小心。

  • But how do we choose a partner?

    但是,我們該如何選擇另一半呢?

  • So a myth that I have to say is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists

    有一個迷思,偶爾會被社會學家散播,

  • is that our preferences in a romantic partner are a product of our culture,

    那就是我們對於戀人的選擇與偏愛是一種文化下的產物。

  • that they're very culturally specific.

    他們說這都是具有文化特定性的。

  • But in fact, the data don't back this up.

    但事實上,數據並不支持這個說法。

  • A famous study surveyed people from [37] different cultures across the globe,

    有一個知名的研究,測試了來自全球三十七個不同文化的人,

  • from Americans to Zulus,

    從美國人到南非祖魯人都有,

  • on what they look for in a partner.

    關於他們如何擇偶。

  • And in every single culture across the globe,

    而全世界每個文化都一樣,

  • men placed more value on physical attractiveness in a partner

    男性較重視另一半的身材吸引力,

  • than did women,

    女性則相對較不重視,

  • and in every single culture, too,

    每個文化皆相同,

  • women placed more importance than did men on ambition and high earning power.

    女性比男性更重視另一半的野心以及賺錢的能力。

  • In every culture, too,

    每個文化皆同,