评论
打印
AS much as we love our digital devices, many of us have an uneasy sense that they are destroying our attention spans. We skitter from app to app, seldom alighting for long. Our ability to concentrate is shot, right?
我们喜爱我们的数码设备，但与此同时，很多人也对此感到不安，觉得它们破坏了我们注意力的持续度。我们在各种应用中切换，很少在其中一个上做长时间停留。我们全神贯注的能力遭到了削弱，是吧？
Research shows that our intuition is wrong. We can focus. But our sense that we can’t may not be a phantom. Paying attention requires not just ability but desire. Technology may snuff out our desire to focus.
研究表明，这种想当然的看法并不正确。我们是可以集中注意力的。但我们觉得自己丧失了这个能力也是有原因的。因为这不仅需要能力，也需要意愿。而科技产品可能扼杀了我们全神贯注的意愿。
The idea that gadgets corrode our attention span sounds logical. Screen-based activities can take upward of 11 hours of a teenager’s day, and many demand rapid shifts of attention: quick camera cuts in videos, frenetically paced games, answering questions in multiple apps, not to mention web design that invites skimming. And we often do all this simultaneously, so attention bounces between two (or three or eight) fast-paced tasks. The theory is that the brain’s plasticity turns this quick mental pivoting into a habit, rendering us unable to sustain attention.
数码设备削弱了我们的注意力，这个想法似乎很合逻辑。青少年每天在屏幕上进行的活动时间可以长达11小时，很多设备需要你快速转换注意力：视频中的快速剪接镜头，节奏紧张的游戏，在多个应用中回答问题，更不用说鼓励你一览而过的网页设计了。我们经常同时做这些事情，因为我们的注意力也在两个（或三个，或八个）快节奏的任务之间来回切换。有人认为，大脑具有可塑性，因此快速切换的做法逐渐养成了习惯，导致我们无法持续集中注意力。
But there’s little evidence that attention spans are shrinking. Scientists use “span” to mean two separate things: how much we can keep in mind, and how well we can maintain focus. They measure the former by asking people to repeat increasingly long strings of digits in reverse order. They measure the latter by asking people to monitor visual stimuli for occasional, subtle changes. Performance on these tests today looks a whole lot as it did 50 years ago.
但几乎没有证据表明，人们注意力的持续度正在缩短。科学家用“持续度”来表示两种不同的东西：我们一次可以记住多少东西，以及我们可以全神贯注的程度。他们测量前者的方式是让人以相反的顺序复述越来越长的数字串。衡量后者时则要求人监测视觉刺激，注意到偶然发生的微妙变化。这些测试的结果似乎和50年前相差无几。
Scientists also note that although mental tasks can change our brains, the impact is usually modest. For example, practice with action video games improves some aspects of vision, but it’s a small boost, not an overhaul of how we see. Attention is so central to our ability to think that a significant deterioration would require a retrofitting of other cognitive functions. Mental reorganization at that scale happens over evolutionary time, not because you got a smartphone.
科学家还指出，虽然心智任务可以改变我们的大脑，但其影响通常不大。例如，对于我们如何看东西，动作类电子游戏改善了其中的某些方面，但幅度很小，并不显著。注意力是我们思考能力的核心，以至于只有加上其他认知功能的变化才会导致它出现显著恶化。这种程度的心智重组属于进化范畴，不是弄到一部智能手机就会发生的。
But if our attention span is not shrinking, why do we feel it is? Why, in a 2012 Pew survey, did nearly 90 percent of teachers claim that students can’t pay attention the way they could a few years ago? It may be that digital devices have not left us unable to pay attention, but have made us unwilling to do so.
但是，如果我们的注意力持续度没有缩减，为什么我们会有这种感觉呢？为什么皮尤(Pew)2012年的一项调查显示，将近90%的教师说学生们不像几年前那样注意力集中了？这可能是因为数码设备虽然没有让我们削弱集中注意力的能力，但却让我们失去了这样做的意愿。
The digital world carries the promise of amusement that is constant, immediate and limitless. If a YouTube video isn’t funny in the first 10 seconds, why watch when I can instantly seek something better on BuzzFeed or Spotify? The Internet hasn’t shortened my attention span, but it has fixed a persistent thought in the back of my mind: Isn’t there’s something better to do than what I’m doing?
数码世界提供了源源不断、即时、无限的娱乐活动。如果YouTube上一段视频的前10秒没意思，那为何还要看它，反正我可以马上到BuzzFeed或Spotify找到更好的东西？互联网没有缩减我的注意力持续度，但它改变了我脑海中一个长期以来的想法：是不是有什么东西比我现在手上的更好？
Are we more easily bored than we were 20 years ago? Researchers don’t know, but recent studies support the suggestion that our antennas are always up. People’s performance on basic laboratory tests of attention gets worse if a cellphone is merely visible nearby. In another experiment, people using a driving simulator were more likely to hit a pedestrian when their cellphone rang, even if they had planned in advance not to answer it.
与20年前相比，我们现在更容易厌倦了吗？研究人员没有答案，但最近的研究支持了一个说法：我们的天线一直是开着的。在基本的实验室测试中，仅仅是有一部手机在视线范围之内，人们的注意力表现就会变差。在另一个实验中，如果手机在响，即使驾驶模拟器的人决定不去理睬它，也更有可能撞上行人。
The direst prediction offered by digital critics — our phones are really pocket-size deep fryers for the mind — may be untrue, but the alternative I’ve suggested sounds nearly as bad. The appetite for endless entertainment suggests that worthier activities will be shoved aside. We may buy Salman Rushdie’s book, but we’ll end up sucked in by Flappy Bird.
数码批评家做出了可怕的预测——手机就是一口袖珍的心智油炸锅。事实可能并非这样，但我的说法似乎也暗示着同样糟糕的事情：对娱乐的无限热衷，似乎意味着更有价值的活动将被抛到一边。我们可能会购买萨尔曼·拉什迪(Salman Rushdie)的书，结果却沉迷于玩《像素鸟》(Flappy Bird)游戏。
That doesn’t quite seem to be the case, either. Research shows, for example, that the amount of leisure reading hasn’t changed with the advent of the digital age. Before we congratulate ourselves, though, let’s acknowledge that brainier hobbies have never been that popular. There have always been ways to kill time.
情况好像也不是这样。例如，研究表明，休闲书刊阅读量似乎并没有随着数字时代的来临而改变。在祝贺自己之前，我们不妨先承认，更高雅的爱好从来都没有那么流行。打发时间的方式一直都不缺乏。
Still, digital activities may be different. Over the last decade, neuroscientists distinguished two systems of attention and associated thought. One is directed outward, as when you scroll through your email or play Candy Crush. The other is directed inward, as when you daydream, plan what you’ll do tomorrow, or reflect on the past. Clearly, most digital activities call for outwardly directed attention. These two modes of attention work like a toggle switch; when one is on, the other is off. In fact, when attention is outwardly directed, the inwardly directed attention system is somewhat suppressed. Given the amount of time people spend with digital devices, that sounds ominous.
但是，数字活动可能还是有所不同。过去十年来，神经学家总结出两种有关注意力和思考的系统。一种是外指向的，出现在你浏览电子邮件，或玩《糖果粉碎传奇》(Candy Crush)的时候。另一种是内指向的，出现在你发呆，计划明天会做什么，或反思过去的时候。显然，大多数数字活动引发的都是外指向的注意力。这两种模式就像按动开关；当其中一种打开，另一种就关闭了。事实上，当注意力切换到外指向系统时，内指向的系统就遭到了抑制。鉴于我们在数码设备上花的时间如此之多，这听起来有些不妙。
Will we actually lose our ability to daydream? Let’s hope not. Among daydreaming’s many merits, research shows, is an association with greater creativity. But there is a dark side of inwardly directed thought, too. Daydreaming often distracts us when we’re trying to get something done. And reflection can turn ugly, as when we ruminate about some past insult or error.
我们真的会失去发呆的能力？希望不会吧。研究显示，发呆有诸多优点，其中一个和创造力提升很有关系。但是内指向活动也有缺点。比如我们想把事情做好的时候，发呆可能会让我们分心。当我们纠结于过去的一些侮辱或错误时，反思可能并非好事。
Digital devices are not eating away at our brains. They are, however, luring us toward near constant outwardly directed thought, a situation that’s probably unique in human experience. A flat cap on time with devices — the restriction we first think of for ourselves and our kids — might help. So would parking devices in another room for a while. But it would be more effective if we could learn to recognize in ourselves when escape from our thoughts is O.K. and when reflection is in order. As a bonus, judgments like that require inwardly directed attention, a mental habit that in our smartphone era, we’d be dumb to lose.
数码设备不会蚕食我们的大脑。然而，它们引诱我们几乎总是采取外指向思维，在人类经验中，这种情况可能是是独一无二的。为设备使用时间设定上限——我们首先为自己和孩子想到的限制——可能会有帮助。放下设备，到另一个房间呆一段时间也会很有用。但是，如果我们可以自己意识到，什么时候应当从思绪中抽离，什么时候应该进行反思，效果就会更好。这样的判断需要内指向的注意力，这是一个额外优点。在目前这个智能手机的时代，放弃这种心智习惯就太不明智了。
