We're fairly good at judging people based on first impressions, thin slices of experience ranging from a glimpse of a photo to a five-minute interaction, and deliberation can be not only extraneous but intrusive.
我們非常擅長根據(jù)第一印象判斷人，從一瞥照片到五分鐘互動的單薄體驗，并且深思熟慮不僅可以是無關(guān)緊要的，而且可以是侵入性的。
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.
在一項被稱為 “薄片” 的能力研究中，已故心理學(xué)家納里尼·安巴迪要求參與者觀看教授的 10 秒無聲視頻剪輯，并對教師的整體效率進行評分。
Their ratings correlated strongly with students' end-of-semester ratings.
他們的評分與學(xué)生的學(xué)期末評分密切相關(guān)。
Another set of participants had to count backward from 1,000 by nines as they watched the clips, occupying their conscious working memory.
另一組參與者在觀看視頻片段時，必須從 1000 個數(shù)字中倒數(shù) 9 個數(shù)字，占據(jù)他們有意識的工作記憶。
Their ratings were just as accurate, demonstrating the intuitive nature of the social processing.
他們的評分同樣準(zhǔn)確，顯示了社會處理的直觀性。
Critically, another group was asked to spend a minute writing down reasons for their judgment, before giving the rating.
最關(guān)鍵的是，另一組人被要求花一分鐘時間寫下他們判斷的理由，然后再給出評價。
Accuracy dropped dramatically.
準(zhǔn)確率急劇下降。
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.
安巴迪懷疑他們的思考集中在生動但有誤導(dǎo)性的線索上，如某些手勢或話語，而不是讓微妙信號的復(fù)雜相互作用形成一個整體印象。
She found similar interference when participants watched 15-second clips of pairs of people and judged whether they were strangers, friends, or dating partners.
當(dāng)參與者觀看一對人的 15 秒片段并判斷他們是陌生人、朋友還是約會伙伴時，她發(fā)現(xiàn)了類似的干擾。
Other research shows we're better at detecting deception and sexual orientation from thin slices when we rely on intuition instead of reflection.
其他研究表明，當(dāng)我們依靠直覺而不是思考時，我們更善于從薄薄的切片中發(fā)現(xiàn)欺騙和性取向。
“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.
“這就像你在駕駛一個變速桿，” 東北大學(xué)（美國）的心理學(xué)家朱迪思·霍爾說，“如果你開始考慮得太多，你就記不住你在做什么。
But if you go on automatic pilot, you're fine. Much of our social life is like that.”
但如果你進入自動駕駛狀態(tài)，你就會沒事。我們的大部分社會生活都是這樣的。”
Thinking too much can also harm our ability to form preferences.
思考太多也會損害我們形成偏好的能力。
College students' ratings of strawberry jams and college courses aligned better with experts' opinions when the students weren't asked to analyze their rationale.
當(dāng)沒有要求學(xué)生分析他們的理由時，大學(xué)生對草莓醬和大學(xué)課程的評價與專家的意見更一致。
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.
當(dāng)人們被要求關(guān)注他們的感受而不是細節(jié)時，他們做出的購車決定在客觀上更好，也更讓人滿意，但只有當(dāng)決定是復(fù)雜的——當(dāng)他們有大量的信息需要處理時。
Intuition's special powers are unleashed only in certain circumstances.
直覺的特殊能力只有在特定情況下才會被釋放出來。
In one study, participants completed a battery of eight tasks, including four that tapped reflective thinking (discerning rules, comprehending vocabulary) and four that tapped intuition and creativity (generating new products or figures of speech) .
在一項研究中，參與者完成了八項任務(wù)，其中四項是反思性思維（辨別規(guī)則、理解詞匯），四項是直覺和創(chuàng)造力（產(chǎn)出新產(chǎn)品或言語形象）。
Then they rated the degree to which they had used intuition ( “gut feelings,” “hunches,” “my heart” ) .
然后他們對自己使用直覺（別的叫法有 “gut feelings”、“hunches”、“my heart”）的程度進行評分。
Use of their gut hurt their performance on the first four tasks, as expected, and helped them on the rest.
正如預(yù)期的那樣，使用他們的直覺會損害他們在前四項任務(wù)中的表現(xiàn)，而在其他任務(wù)中則有助于他們。
Sometimes the heart is smarter than the head.
有時直覺比頭腦更聰明。
用戶評論
紅旗5166
怎么看不到原文了？