Name: 為什麼軼事勝過數據？ (Why Anecdotes Trump Data)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T10:25:47.000Z
Duration: 8 min 46 s

Some critics of the TV show Mythbusters claim

一些「流言終結者」(電視節目)的批評者表示

that the show misrepresents the scientific process.

基礎被動語態

For example, experiments are sometimes conducted only once

舉例來說，實驗有時候只進行一次

作為一個科學家，沒有反覆的實驗也沒有統計分析

and using statistical analysis as a scientist would

諷刺的是，這個為了讓人們更了解科學的節目

that is meant to educate people about science

may instead be giving them the opposite impression

帶給人們(對科學)並不科學的印象

But you know, similar criticisms had been made of Veritasium.

但你知道，Veritasium表示了類似的批評

舉例來說，當我與Destin進行我們的實驗

our experiments to show that the water swirls

展示漩渦在北半球與南半球方向會相反

the opposite way in the northern and southern hemispheres,

even though we each did it three or four times in our own hemisphere.

雖然我們各自(負責的)(南北)半球都做了三四次

And I guess that brings forth the question

我的意思是，流言終結者 與 Veritasium 是否應該

really show the repetitive nature of science

真正展示重複的自然科學與統計結果

and use statistical results as evidence for our claims.

來提供我們所宣稱的科學證據？

Well my answer is no, but to understand why

我的答案是不，但要了解為何是不

we first have to dig into something called

我們首先要深入探討什麼是所謂的

1960年代在紐約進行了一場實驗。

individual participants were placed in isolated booths

個人參與者安排在隔離的攤位裡

where they could speak to five other participants through an intercom

他們可以利用對講機對其他五名參與者說話

但每一次只有一個麥克風是有作用的

And these participants were meant to speak in turns

原意是要讓這些參與者輪流說話

for two minutes each about their lives --

每個人有2分鐘可以講他們的生活

Now what the participants didn't know was that

單純只是讀著實驗者所準備給他的稿子演出

這個人又是在第一回合中的第一個發言

He talked about the problems he was having adjusting to life in New York City

他講述著他為了適應紐約市的生活所面臨的問題

and particularly the difficulty that he gets the seizures, particularly when stressed.

特別是因為在壓力下易犯癲癇所帶來的困難處

And so everyone else had their turn and then it came back 'round

when he was speaking he became more and more incoherent as he

這次他的發言內容變得愈來愈顛三倒四

was talking. He said that he could feel a seizure coming on and he made choking noises,

他告訴大家他有癲癇即將發作的預感，然後發出快要窒息的聲音

he asked for help from the other participants --

and, uh, then he continued to get more and more distressed

And the point of the experiment was to see how many of the participants would help.

這個實驗的目的在於觀察有多少參與者會挺身而出

I mean, if you were one of the other participants, do you think you would've left your booth

如果你是這其他的參與者之一，你想你會離開你的攤位去看看他的情況？

In total, about 13 participants took part in this experiment --

and the number that helped before his mic was turned off --

在麥克風消音之前，願意伸出援手的只有4個人

Now, while this might sound a little bit disappointing

這個實驗結果令人對於人類的助人天性

you gotta keep in mind that there were other people listening to the same distress call

別忘了當時還有其他人都聽到了同樣的呼救

and that may have diffused the responsibility that individuals would feel;

那會使得每個人都覺得自己不是唯一要負起責任的人

this is something known as the "bystander effect."

Now, what's interesting about this experiment from my point of view

從我的角度來看，這個實驗有趣的地方

is not how it confirms the bystander effect,

不是在於它如何確認了旁觀者效應

For example, they fail to change their opinion

舉例說，人們並沒有因為這個實驗

of themselves or others after learning about this experiment.

For example, have you changed your opinion

比如說，你會對於自己在這種情況下伸出援手的可能性作出改變嗎？

about how likely you would be to help in this situation --

now that you know that only 30 percent of people did, in that situation?

當你得知在這情況下只有30%的人會這麼做時

Well, there was a follow-up study conducted

進行方法是將2個影片播放給學生們看

of individual participants who were purported to be from the original study.

並聲稱影片中的個人參與者來自於最初始的研究

And they had already learned about the study,

學生們對於那場實驗的細節均了然於胸

and then they were asked at the end of watching those two videos --

然後在看完這兩段影片後向學生們提問

which were pretty uninformative, just showed that these people were

其實影片中並沒有提供什麼太多信息，只是顯示這些參與者是

"你認為影片中這兩名參與者在實驗中伸出援手的可能性有多大？"

that those two particular participants helped?"

that those two participants would have helped --

even though they knew that, statistically, only 30 percent did, so,

即使他們已知曉，統計上只有30%的人會

in fact, if would've been a better guess to say that they probably didn't.

事實上說他們不會幫忙，反而猜中機率較高

學生們似乎並沒有把先前一般性實驗結果吸收內化然後關連運用到特定取樣測試

those general results as pertaining to the particular,

他們就假設它已排除了普通人，好人和正經人

Now, is there a way to get people to really

真正地瞭解這個世界是如何運作？

And then they showed those two participant videos --

然後他們播放了這兩名參與者的影片

again, not mentioning anything about the experiment,

一樣，不再提醒實驗中的任何事情

just showing that these are two, decent, ordinary people

只是給他們看這兩名看起來正經而普通的人

and then they told the students that those two people

這兩個人在實驗中都沒有伸出援手

And they asked the students to, uh, guess

字幕列表影片播放

為什麼軼事勝過數據？ (Why Anecdotes Trump Data)

assume

individual

decent

situation