评论
打印
Imagine you're at a football game when this obnoxious guy sits next to you.
想象你在一场足球赛中，这个讨厌鬼坐在你的旁边。
He's loud, he spills his drink on you, and he makes fun of your team.
他大吵大叫，把饮料溅到你身上，并且还嘲笑你支持的足球队。
Days later, you're walking in the park when suddenly it starts to pour rain.
几天之后，当你正在公园散步，突然下起大雨。
Who should show up at your side to offer you an umbrella?
此时谁会出现在你身边为你遮雨？
The same guy from the football game.
恰巧就是足球赛上你旁边的那个人。
Do you change your mind about him based on this second encounter, or do you go with your first impression and write him off?
此时你对他的看法会因为第二次相遇而改变，还是会坚持对他的第一印象继续讨厌他？
Research in social psychology suggests that we're quick to form lasting impressions of others based on their behaviors.
社会心理学专家认为我们会基于别人的行为作出永久的印象评价。
We manage to do this with little effort, inferring stable character traits from a single behavior, like a harsh word or a clumsy step.
我们为此无需付出太多努力，通过单一的行为作出对他人稳定性格的判断。比如一句伤人的话，或者笨拙的步伐。
Using our impressions as guides, we can accurately predict how people are going to behave in the future.
凭借主观印象，我们能准确预测他人将会发生的行为。
Armed with the knowledge the guy from the football game was a jerk the first time you met him,
由于把足球赛中第一次遇见的那个人定义为混蛋，
you might expect more of the same down the road.
你可能会预想他会做出更多混蛋事。
If so, you might choose to avoid him the next time you see him.
如果是这样，下次遇见的时候你可能会选择躲着他。
That said, we can change our impressions in light of new information.
基于这样的理论，通过新的信息我们可以改变自己的刻板印象。
Behavioral researchers have identified consistent patterns that seem to guide this process of impression updating.
行为研究者发现了引导印象更新过程的固定模式。
On one hand, learning very negative, highly immoral information about someone typically
一方面，对一个人的负面评价所带来的影响
has a stronger impact than learning very positive, highly moral information.
要高于对一个人的正面评价所带来的影响。
So, unfortunately for our new friend from the football game,
所以，很不幸对在足球赛中认识的那位新朋友来说，
his bad behavior at the game might outweigh his good behavior at the park.
他在观众席上不道德的行为带来的影响会大于他在公园里的友善行为。
Research suggests that this bias occurs because immoral behaviors are more diagnostic, or revealing, of a person's true character.
研究表明，这种偏见产生的原因在于负面行为更容易识别，或者说让一个人的真实性格更有呈现力。
Okay, so by this logic, bad is always stronger than good when it comes to updating.
根据这种思维逻辑，在涉及到信息更新时，坏行为的影响力要大于好行为。
Well, not necessarily.
这一理论不一定完全适用。
Certain types of learning don't seem to lead to this sort of negativity bias.
某些认知方式不会导致这种负面的偏见。
When learning about another person's abilities and competencies, for instance, this bias flips.
当了解到某人的能力时，以此为例，这种偏见就跳开了。
It's actually the positive information that gets weighted more heavily.
实际上，积极信息的影响力变得更大了。
Let's go back to that football game.
让我们再谈回足球赛的事。
If a player scores a goal, it ultimately has a stronger impact on your impression of their skills than if they miss the net.
一个球员踢进球在你对他技术的印象上比他们丢了球影响力更大。
The two sides of the updating story are ultimately quite consistent.
两方面的信息更新最终相当一致。
Overall, behaviors that are perceived as being less frequent are also the ones
总的来说，在人们建立或更新印象时
that people tend to weigh more heavily when forming and updating impressions, highly immoral actions and highly competent actions.
越是少见的行为人们越容易看得更重，比如，非常不道德的行为和能体现能力的行为。
So, what's happening at the level of the brain when we're updating our impressions?
所以，在我们刷新印象时大脑里发生了什么呢？
Using fMRI, or functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,
利用fMRI--功能性磁共振成像
researchers have identified an extended network of brain regions that respond to new information that's inconsistent with initial impressions.
研究者发现，回应新信息的新扩展出的脑区网络同最初的印象并无关联。
These include areas typically associated with social cognition, attention, and cognitive control.
这些区域尤其同社会认知、注意力以及认知控制相关。
Moreover, when updating impressions based on people's behaviors,
再者，当别人的行为刷新了印象，
activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and the superior temporal sulcus correlates with perceptions of how frequently those behaviors occur in daily life.
腹内侧前额叶皮层的活动和颞上沟告诉我们这些行为在日常生活中是否频繁。
In other words, the brain seems to be tracking low-level, statistical properties of behavior
换言之，大脑似乎在进行低水平的行为统计
in order to make complex decisions regarding other people's character.
以此来做出关于别人品行如何的复杂的决定。
It needs to decide is this person's behavior typical or is it out of the ordinary?
大脑需要判断这个人的行为是十分典型还是与众不同。
In the situation with the obnoxious-football-fan-turned-good-samaritan, your brain says,
在这个烦人的球迷变成好人的情境下，你的大脑告诉你“
"Well, in my experience, pretty much anyone would lend someone their umbrella,
依据往常经验，通常大部分人都会为别人遮雨，
but the way this guy acted at the football game, that was unusual."
但这家伙在球赛时的举动可不多见。”
And so, you decide to go with your first impression.
所以，你决定遵从自己的第一印象。
There's a good moral in this data: your brain, and by extension you,
这个信息里存在良好的道德：你的大脑，或者说你本人
might care more about the very negative, immoral things another person has done compared to the very positive, moral things,
也许更关注别人做出的负面的、不道德的事而不是积极的、有道德的事，
but it's a direct result of the comparative rarity of those bad behaviors.
但这是那些罕见的坏行为带来的直接结果。
We're more used to people being basically good, like taking time to help a stranger in need.
我们习惯上认为人大体上是好的，乐于花时间帮助别人。
In this context, bad might be stronger than good, but only because good is more plentiful.
在这样的背景下，坏影响就远多于好的，但这只是因为好事更常见。
Think about the last time you judged someone based on their behavior,
回想一下你上次根据一个人的所作所为来评价一个人，
especially a time when you really feel like you changed your mind about someone.
尤其是在你真的想要改变对某人的看法时。
Was the behavior that caused you to update your impression something you'd expect anyone to do,
那个引发你改变对方印象的行为，是每个人都会做的事，
or was it something totally out of the ordinary?
还是不同寻常的事？
