Critically, another group was asked to spend a minute writing down reasons for their judgment, before giving the rating. Accuracy dropped dramatically. Ambady suspected that deliberation focused them on vivid but misleading cues, such as certain gestures or utterances, rather than letting the complex interplay of subtle signals form a holistic impression. She found similar interference when participants watched 15-second clips of pairs of people and judged whether they were strangers, friends, or dating partners. Other research shows we’re better at detecting deception an sexual orientation from thin slices when we rely on intuition instead of reflection. “It’s as if you’re driving a stick shift,” says Judith Hall, a psychologist at Northeastern University. “and if you start thinking about it too much, you can’t remember what you’re doing. But if you go on automatic pilot, you’re fine. Much of our social life is like that.”
关键的是，另一组被要求一分内钟写下自己判断的理由，然后再给出评分。准确率急剧下降。安巴迪怀疑，考虑的重点是生动但误导性的线索，如某些手势或话语，而不是让微妙的信号形成一个整体的印象复杂的相互作用。她发现，当参与者观看15秒的配对视频，判断他们是陌生人、朋友还是约会伙伴时，也会受到类似的干扰。其他研究表明，当我们依靠直觉而不是反思时，我们更善于从薄片中发现性取向的欺骗。美国东北大学的心理学家朱迪思·霍尔说：“这就好像你在开手动档。如果你开始想得太多，你就记不起自己在做什么了。但如果你使用自动驾驶，你就没事了。我们的大部分社交生活都是这样的。”
We’re fairly good at judging people based on first impression, thin slices of experience ranging from a glimpse of a photo to five-minute interaction, and deliberation can be not only extraneous but intrusive. In one study of the ability she dubbed “thin slicing,” the late psychologist Nalini Ambady asked participants to watch silent 10-second video clips of professors and to rate the instructor’s overall effectiveness. Their ratings correlated strongly with students’ end-of-semester ratings. Another set of participants had count backward from 1,000 by nines as they watched the clips, occupying their conscious working memory. Their ratings were just as accurate, demonstrating the intuitive nature of the social processing.
我们非常善于根据第一印象、从一张照片到五分钟互动的细枝末节经验来判断人，而且考虑不仅是无关的，而且是侵入性的。在一项她称之为“薄切片”的能力研究中，已故心理学家纳利尼·安巴迪（Nalini Ambady）要求参与者观看教授的10秒无声视频片段，并对讲师的整体效果进行评分。他们的评分与学生的期末评分密切相关。另一组参与者在观看视频片段时，从1000倒数到9，占据了他们有意识的工作记忆。他们的评分同样准确，显示了社会过程的直觉本质。
Thinking too much can also harm our ability to form preferences. College students’ ratings of strawberry jams and college course aligned better with experts’ opinions when the students weren’t asked to analyze their rationale. And people made car-buying decisions that were both objectively better and more personally satisfying when asked to focus on their feelings rather than on details, but only if the decision was complex-when they had a lot of information to process.
思考过多也会损害我们形成偏好的能力。当不要求学生分析他们的理由时，大学生对草莓酱的评分和大学课程的评分更符合专家的意见。当人们被要求关注自己的感受而不是细节时，他们做出的购车决定客观上更好，个人也更满意，但前提是当他们有很多信息需要处理时，这个决定是复杂的。
Intuition’s special powers are unleashed only in certain circumstances. In one study participants completed a battery of eight tasks, including four that tapped reflective thinking (discerning rule comprehending vocabulary) and four that tapped intuition an creativity (generating new products or figures of speech). Then the rated the degree to which they had used intuition (“gut feelings,” “hunches,” “my heart”). Use of their gut hurt their performance on the first four tasks, as expected, and helped them on the rest. Sometimes the heart is smarter than the head.
直觉的特殊力量只有在某些情况下才能被释放出来。在一项研究中，参与者完成了一系列八项任务，其中四项是利用反思性思维（辨别规则、理解词汇），四项是利用直觉和创造力（生成新产品或修辞格）。然后，研究人员对他们使用直觉的程度进行评分（“感觉”、“直觉”、“随心”）。正如预期的那样，使用直觉会损害他们在前四项任务中的表现，并帮助他们完成其他任务。有时心比头聪明。
0 条评论