關于記憶，大多數人都誤會了的四件事
譯者： MISS宅原作者：Katherine Harmon
發表時間：2011-08-05瀏覽量：2927評論數：2挑錯數：0
關于記憶，我們都誤會了的四件事。對于這幾個錯誤的看法，你是不是也曾一度堅信不疑？與其相信記憶是牢不可摧的銅墻鐵壁，不如把他看做是落地即碎的玻璃杯。
Human memory has been shown again and again to be far from perfect. We overlook big things, forget details, conflate events. One famous experiment even demonstrated that many people asked to watch a video of people playing basketball failed to notice a person wearing a gorilla suit walk right through the middle of the scene.
人類的記憶一次又一次地被證明遠遠不夠完美。我們會忽略大的事情，忘記細節，也會將事情弄混。在一個著名的實驗中，很多人被要求觀看一個籃球賽視頻，最后卻證實到沒人注意到一個裝大猩猩的人從視野中穿過了。
So why does eyewitness testimony continue to hold water in courtrooms? A new nationwide survey of 1,500 U.S. adults shows that many people continue to have the wrong idea about how we remember—and what we forget.
那么為什么目擊證人的證詞在法庭上總是站得住腳的呢？一個基于全美1500名成人的新全國性調查指出，很多人對于我們是如何記憶，忘卻事物仍抱有錯誤觀點。
Here are four common incorrect assumptions about memory, held by some of the survey subjects, that experts say should be forgotten:
以下是一些調查中常常出現的四個關于記憶的錯誤看法，專家說它們理應被忘記：
1. Memory works like a video camera, recording the world around us onto a mental tape that we can later replay.
1 記憶的運作與攝像機一樣，它可以將我們周邊的世界攝入我們心靈的磁帶，而且日后還能被回憶起來。
Nearly two thirds (63 percent) of tho in the random telephone survey said that they agreed with this model of a passively recorded memory. This notion runs counter to rearch that has shown events to be recalled bad on "goals and expectations," the rearchers behind the survey wrote in a new paper, published online August 3 in PLoS ONE. It also "contradicts the well-established idea that memory retrieval is a constructive process," too, which can be shaped by assumptions and beliefs, noted Daniel Simons, of University of Illinois, and his co-author, Christopher Chabris, of Union College, both of whom are psychology professors.
在隨機的電話調查中，將近三分之二（63%）的人都認同這種被動留下記憶的模式。這種觀點與證實記憶是基于“目標和期望值”才被回憶起來的研究背道而馳。參與調查的專家們將結果記錄，并于8月3日發表在PLoS ONE網上。它也“駁斥了記憶是一種建設的過程的想法”。依照這個說法，記憶就可以被假想和信仰塑造了。伊利諾斯大學的Daniel Simons和他來自聯合大學的合著者Christopher Chabris共同強調道。他們都是心理學的教授。
2. An unexpected occurrence is likely to be noticed—even when people’s attention is elwhere.
2 一個出人意料的事件會被注意到——甚至是當人們的注意力放在別處時。
More than three quarters (77.5 percent) of people thought that this would be the ca. Clearly, they are unfamiliar with the gorilla suit study. That work and other rearch have shown that unexpected—and even preposterous—details frequently go unnoticed, and thus do not make it into memory. Aside from a fal certainty that one would notice more people wearing oversized primate costumes, this presumption could have some rious implications for the legal system and eyewitness testimony. "If juries and lawyers believe that a suspect ‘should have’ noticed some event, they will tend to e claims of ignorance as deliberate attempts to deceive," Simons and Chabris wrote.
大于百分之七十五（77.5%)的人是這樣認為的。顯而易見地，他們對那個人扮猩猩的實驗并不熟悉。那個實驗和其他研究顯示出的是——出人意料的，甚至是不合理的——細節常常被忽略，那些東西并不會進到記憶中。除了某人可能會看到更多穿了很大的靈長類動物的衣服的人，這種虛假的確定性以外，這樣的假設還可能會對法律系統和目擊者證言造成嚴重影響。“如果陪審團和律師相信嫌疑犯‘本該’注意到一些事情，而他卻沒注意到，那么在嫌疑犯試圖故意欺詐時，他們將傾向于無視那些訴求。”Simons和 Chabris寫道。
3. Hypnosis can improve memory—especially when assisting a witness in recalling details associated with a crime.
3 催眠術可以改善記憶——特別是在幫助目擊者回憶起與犯罪有關的細節的時候。
Most memory experts disagree with this statement, but more than half (55.4 percent) of the surveyed public thought that it was accurate. Courts have already steered away from accepting testimony that was gathered through hypnosis. And many studies have demonstrated that people under hypnosis—and even tho who are not—can often be led by questioners to "recall" things that never occurred.
大多數記憶專家不相信這種說法，但是多于半數的公眾受訪者（55.4%）認為這是對的。法院已經不再接收通過催眠收集到的證據了。很多研究表明人們在催眠狀態下——甚至不在催眠狀態下——都可以在提問者的引導下“回憶”起那些壓根就沒發生的事。
