花辨直播官方版_花辨直播平台官方app下载_花辨直播免费版app下载

English 中文網(wǎng) 漫畫網(wǎng) 愛新聞iNews 翻譯論壇
中國網(wǎng)站品牌欄目(頻道)
當(dāng)前位置: Language Tips > 雙語新聞

新聞壞處多 少讀更快樂
News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

[ 2013-12-31 10:05] 來源:中國日報(bào)網(wǎng)     字號 [] [] []  
免費(fèi)訂閱30天China Daily雙語新聞手機(jī)報(bào):移動用戶編輯短信CD至106580009009

新聞壞處多 少讀更快樂

查看原文

In the past few decades, the fortunate among us have recognised the hazards of living with an overabundance of food (obesity, diabetes) and have started to change our diets. But most of us do not yet understand that news is to the mind what sugar is to the body. News is easy to digest. The media feeds us small bites of trivial matter, tidbits that don't really concern our lives and don't require thinking. That's why we experience almost no saturation. Unlike reading books and long magazine articles (which require thinking), we can swallow limitless quantities of news flashes, which are bright-coloured candies for the mind.Today, we have reached the same point in relation to information that we faced 20 years ago in regard to food. We are beginning to recognise how toxic news can be.

News misleads. Take the following event (borrowed from Nassim Taleb). A car drives over a bridge, and the bridge collapses. What does the news media focus on? The car. The person in the car. Where he came from. Where he planned to go. How he experienced the crash (if he survived). But that is all irrelevant. What's relevant? The structural stability of the bridge. That's the underlying risk that has been lurking, and could lurk in other bridges. But the car is flashy, it's dramatic, it's a person (non-abstract), and it's news that's cheap to produce.News leads us to walk around with the completely wrong risk map in our heads.So terrorism is over-rated. Chronic stress is under-rated. The collapse of Lehman Brothers is overrated. Fiscal irresponsibility is under-rated. Astronauts are over-rated. Nurses are under-rated.

We are not rational enough to be exposed to the press. Watching an airplane crash on television is going to change your attitude toward that risk, regardless of its real probability. If you think you can compensate with the strength of your own inner contemplation, you are wrong. Bankers and economists – who have powerful incentives to compensate for news-borne hazards – have shown that they cannot. The only solution: cut yourself off from news consumption entirely.

News is irrelevant. Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read in the last 12 months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to make a better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or your business. The point is: the consumption of news is irrelevant to you. But people find it very difficult to recognise what's relevant. It's much easier to recognise what's new. The relevant versus the new is the fundamental battle of the current age. Media organisations want you to believe that news offers you some sort of a competitive advantage. Many fall for that. We get anxious when we're cut off from the flow of news. In reality, news consumption is a competitive disadvantage. The less news you consume, the bigger the advantage you have.

News has no explanatory power. News items are bubbles popping on the surface of a deeper world. Will accumulating facts help you understand the world? Sadly, no. The relationship is inverted. The important stories are non-stories: slow, powerful movements that develop below journalists' radar but have a transforming effect. The more "news factoids" you digest, the less of the big picture you will understand. If more information leads to higher economic success, we'd expect journalists to be at the top of the pyramid. That's not the case.

News is toxic to your body. It constantly triggers the limbic system . Panicky stories spur the release of cascades of glucocorticoid (cortisol). This deregulates your immune system and inhibits the release of growth hormones. In other words, your body finds itself in a state of chronic stress. High glucocorticoid levels cause impaired digestion, lack of growth (cell, hair, bone), nervousness and susceptibility to infections. The other potential side-effects include fear, aggression, tunnel-vision and desensitisation.

News increases cognitive errors. News feeds the mother of all cognitive errors: confirmation bias. In the words of Warren Buffett: "What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact." News exacerbates this flaw. We become prone to overconfidence, take stupid risks and misjudge opportunities. It also exacerbates another cognitive error: the story bias. Our brains crave stories that "make sense" – even if they don't correspond to reality. Any journalist who writes, "The market moved because of X" or "the company went bankrupt because of Y" is an idiot. I am fed up with this cheap way of "explaining" the world.

News inhibits thinking. Thinking requires concentration. Concentration requires uninterrupted time. News pieces are specifically engineered to interrupt you. They are like viruses that steal attention for their own purposes. News makes us shallow thinkers. But it's worse than that. News severely affects memory. There are two types of memory. Long-range memory's capacity is nearly infinite, but working memory is limited to a certain amount of slippery data. The path from short-term to long-term memory is a choke-point in the brain, but anything you want to understand must pass through it. If this passageway is disrupted, nothing gets through. Because news disrupts concentration, it weakens comprehension. Online news has an even worse impact. In a 2001 study two scholars in Canada showed that comprehension declines as the number of hyperlinks in a document increases. Why? Because whenever a link appears, your brain has to at least make the choice not to click, which in itself is distracting. News is an intentional interruption system.

News works like a drug. As stories develop, we want to know how they continue. With hundreds of arbitrary storylines in our heads, this craving is increasingly compelling and hard to ignore. Scientists used to think that the dense connections formed among the 100 billion neurons inside our skulls were largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. Today we know that this is not the case. Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. The more news we consume, the more we exercise the neural circuits devoted to skimming and multitasking while ignoring those used for reading deeply and thinking with profound focus. Most news consumers – even if they used to be avid book readers – have lost the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books.After four, five pages they get tired, their concentration vanishes, they become restless. It's not because they got older or their schedules became more onerous.It's because the physical structure of their brains has changed.

News wastes time. If you read the newspaper for 15 minutes each morning, then check the news for 15 minutes during lunch and 15 minutes before you go to bed, then add five minutes here and there when you're at work, then count distraction and refocusing time, you will lose at least half a day every week.Information is no longer a scarce commodity. But attention is. You are not that irresponsible with your money, reputation or health. Why give away your mind?

News makes us passive. News stories are overwhelmingly about things you cannot influence. The daily repetition of news about things we can't act upon makes us passive. It grinds us down until we adopt a worldview that is pessimistic, desensitised, sarcastic and fatalistic. The scientific term is "learned helplessness". It's a bit of a stretch, but I would not be surprised if news consumption, at least partially contributes to the widespread disease of depression.

News kills creativity. Finally, things we already know limit our creativity. This is one reason that mathematicians, novelists, composers and entrepreneurs often produce their most creative works at a young age. Their brains enjoy a wide, uninhabited space that emboldens them to come up with and pursue novel ideas. I don't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie – not a writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician, designer, architect or painter. On the other hand, I know a bunch of viciously uncreative minds who consume news like drugs. If you want to come up with old solutions, read news. If you are looking for new solutions, don't.

Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too.

I have now gone without news for four years, so I can see, feel and report the effects of this freedom first-hand: less disruption, less anxiety, deeper thinking, more time, more insights. It's not easy, but it's worth it.

查看譯文

過去幾十年,我們有幸認(rèn)識到過量飲食的危害(例如導(dǎo)致肥胖和糖尿病),進(jìn)而開始改變飲食結(jié)構(gòu)。但是,大多數(shù)人并不知道新聞之于思維,如同糖類之于身體。媒體奉上的逸聞趣事、瑣碎信息其實(shí)與我們的生活無甚關(guān)聯(lián),但易于理解,讀起來并不費(fèi)腦。因此我們對新聞從未有過飽足感。與閱讀書籍和長篇雜志文章(這些都需要邊讀邊思考)相比,無數(shù)閃現(xiàn)在眼前的小段新聞更加易于“吞噬”。對于思維,它們就像五彩繽紛的糖果。如今,新聞對于我們來講如同20年前的食物一樣,人們逐漸意識到,新聞可能也是有害的。

新聞產(chǎn)生誤導(dǎo)。下面借用納西姆·塔勒布[1]的一個(gè)例子:一輛車駛過一座橋,結(jié)果橋塌了。這則新聞的重點(diǎn)是什么呢?是這輛車,是車?yán)锏娜恕麖哪睦飦?,要到哪兒去?(如果他幸免于難)這場事故經(jīng)過是怎樣的?然而,這些都無關(guān)緊要。什么才是至關(guān)重要的呢?是大橋的結(jié)構(gòu)穩(wěn)定性。它暗含著重大風(fēng)險(xiǎn),而同樣的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)還可能存在于其他橋梁。但是新聞中卻充斥著這輛車如何光鮮亮麗,遭遇如何扣人心弦的信息,甚至把它刻畫成一個(gè)人物(非抽象的)。如此報(bào)道,毫無價(jià)值。新聞給大腦一張全然錯誤的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)地圖,讓我們偏離了重點(diǎn)。正因如此,恐怖主義、雷曼兄弟破產(chǎn)以及宇航員這類主題被過度渲染,而慢性精神壓力、財(cái)政失責(zé)以及醫(yī)護(hù)人員這類主題卻報(bào)道不足。

面對媒體,我們尚不夠理性??吹诫娨暲飯?bào)道飛機(jī)失事,也不管這種概率實(shí)際有多大,人們很容易就改變自己對此類風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的看法。如果你以為能通過內(nèi)心的深思熟慮抵消這種影響,那么你錯了。事實(shí)表明,銀行家和經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家縱然利用強(qiáng)大的手段也無法彌補(bǔ)新聞導(dǎo)致的危害。唯一解決之道是:與新聞完全隔絕。

新聞無關(guān)緊要。在你最近一年中閱讀的上萬條資訊中,很難找出這樣一條新聞:因?yàn)樽x了它,讓你面臨人生、職場或事業(yè)的重大問題時(shí)做出了更好的決定。原因在于,你所讀的新聞與你自身毫無關(guān)系。人們很難辨別哪些新聞與自己有關(guān)系,但是很容易知道哪些是新的。當(dāng)今時(shí)代,關(guān)聯(lián)度和新穎性是一對基本矛盾。媒體想讓人們覺得新聞可以為之提供某種競爭優(yōu)勢,而許多人竟信以為真。一旦與新聞隔絕,我們就焦躁不安。而事實(shí)上,新聞只會令人在競爭中處于劣勢。讀的新聞越少,你的優(yōu)勢反而越多。

新聞無法解釋世界。新聞不過是浮于表面的水泡,現(xiàn)實(shí)世界深藏其下。不斷積累事實(shí)有助于你了解這個(gè)世界嗎?很遺憾,不能。恰恰相反,真正重要的事實(shí)并沒有報(bào)道出來。它們不為記者關(guān)注,發(fā)展緩慢,卻擁有改變一切的強(qiáng)大能量。你對杜撰新聞消費(fèi)得越多,你對現(xiàn)實(shí)宏圖的了解就越少。如果資訊越多,經(jīng)濟(jì)就越繁榮,那我們真該期望記者們穩(wěn)坐金字塔頂端。但事實(shí)絕非如此。

新聞毒害身體。它不斷觸動大腦邊緣系統(tǒng)。令人恐慌的新聞使人體內(nèi)糖皮質(zhì)激素(皮質(zhì)醇)呈級聯(lián)式分泌,導(dǎo)致免疫系統(tǒng)紊亂,抑制生長荷爾蒙分泌。也就是說,使身體長期處于精神壓力之下。高糖皮質(zhì)激素水平還導(dǎo)致消化功能受損、(細(xì)胞、毛發(fā)和骨骼)生長緩慢、情緒緊張,讓人容易感染疾病。其他潛在副作用還包括:恐懼感、攻擊性、視野狹窄和麻木不仁。

新聞增加認(rèn)知錯誤。新聞為“確認(rèn)偏誤”[2]提供養(yǎng)分,而后者正是一切認(rèn)知錯誤的源泉。沃倫·巴菲特曾說“人類最擅長將所有新信息都解釋一通,以確保先前的結(jié)論不受影響?!毙侣剟t是這種缺陷的幫兇,使我們過于自信,盲目冒險(xiǎn),錯判時(shí)機(jī)。此外,新聞還助長了另一種認(rèn)知錯誤:新聞偏見。大腦渴望“有意義”的新聞,即便這些新聞與事實(shí)不符。弱智記者在稿子中解釋“市場因?yàn)槟衬吃蚨▌印被蛘摺肮疽驗(yàn)槟衬吃蚨飘a(chǎn)”,見解之拙劣,令我不勝其煩。

新聞抑制思考。只有免受打擾才能集中注意力,進(jìn)而潛心思考。新聞片段卻似乎是專為打斷思考而設(shè)計(jì)。它們?nèi)缤《?,為了一己之私分散人的注意力,令我們無法深入思考。更糟糕的是,新聞嚴(yán)重?fù)p害記憶力。記憶分兩種:長期記憶和短期記憶。前者潛力近乎無限,后者卻僅限于一定數(shù)量的不確切信息。短期記憶轉(zhuǎn)化為長期記憶是大腦的一項(xiàng)瓶頸,但要形成對事物的理解,這一關(guān)不可逾越。如果這一過程中斷,我們什么都學(xué)不會。新聞打斷注意力,從而弱化了理解力。網(wǎng)絡(luò)新聞的負(fù)面影響則更為嚴(yán)重。2001年,兩位加拿大學(xué)者曾做過一項(xiàng)研究。他們發(fā)現(xiàn),文章中鏈接越多,人們的理解力就下降得越快。原因何在?因?yàn)橐坏┏霈F(xiàn)鏈接,大腦就至少得做出是否點(diǎn)擊的決定,這本身就是在分散注意力??梢?,新聞是專門打斷思維的機(jī)器。

新聞就像毒品。隨著新聞事件發(fā)展,我們想知道接下來發(fā)生了什么。腦子里那幾百種故事情節(jié)令好奇心愈發(fā)難以抗拒,揮之不去。過去,科學(xué)家們認(rèn)為大腦內(nèi)上千億神經(jīng)元間的緊密聯(lián)系大部分在我們成年之前就固定下來。而今,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)事實(shí)并非如此。神經(jīng)細(xì)胞之間不斷打破舊聯(lián)系,形成新聯(lián)系,如同例行公事一般。接觸的新聞越多,大腦就要越發(fā)頻繁地啟動用于略讀和多重任務(wù)處理的神經(jīng)回路,忽略用于深度閱讀和專注思考的神經(jīng)回路。多數(shù)新聞讀者(即使他們曾經(jīng)熱衷讀書)已經(jīng)失去了理解長篇文章或書籍的能力,僅僅閱讀四、五頁,就無法集中注意力,且心生厭倦,煩躁不已。這并非因?yàn)槟挲g增長或者事務(wù)繁重,而是因?yàn)榇竽X生理構(gòu)造發(fā)生了改變。

新聞浪費(fèi)時(shí)間。如果你每天早晨、午餐時(shí)和睡覺前各花15分鐘讀新聞,工作中再不時(shí)抽出5分鐘來看新聞,不妨計(jì)算一下注意力分散和重新找回所耗時(shí)間。你會發(fā)現(xiàn)每周至少半天時(shí)間就這么浪費(fèi)了。新聞不再是稀缺商品,而注意力卻是。你不會不在乎金錢、名譽(yù)和健康,可為什么卻不把思維當(dāng)回事呢?

新聞令人消極。絕大多數(shù)新聞里講述的都是我們無法改變的事。每天反復(fù)閱讀新聞,因無法左右現(xiàn)實(shí)而飽受折磨,我們就會變得消極。久而久之,或悲觀厭世,或麻木不仁,喜歡冷嘲熱諷,凡事聽天由命。這一現(xiàn)象在科學(xué)上稱為“習(xí)得性無助”。也許這么說有點(diǎn)言過其實(shí),但是新聞消費(fèi)至少在一定程度上導(dǎo)致抑郁癥流行。對此我并不感到意外。

新聞扼殺創(chuàng)造力。這是我要講的最后一點(diǎn)。已知信息限制了創(chuàng)造力。這也是為什么數(shù)學(xué)家、小說家、作曲家和企業(yè)家最有創(chuàng)造力的成績產(chǎn)生于年輕時(shí)期。他們腦海中有片廣袤無垠、人跡罕至的天地,在這里他們可以大膽追求新奇想法。據(jù)我所知,那些有創(chuàng)造力的人,無論是作家、作曲家、數(shù)學(xué)家、科學(xué)家、音樂家、畫家,還是醫(yī)師、設(shè)計(jì)師或建筑師,沒有誰是新聞“癮君子”。另一方面,大量極度缺乏創(chuàng)造力的人卻像吸毒一樣對新聞成癮。想墨守成規(guī)?看新聞吧。想別出心裁?還是別看了。

社會需要新聞行業(yè),但不是現(xiàn)在這種局面。調(diào)查性新聞報(bào)道往往能切中要害,而我們的報(bào)道就應(yīng)該發(fā)揮監(jiān)督各類機(jī)構(gòu)和揭露事實(shí)真相的作用。不過,重大發(fā)現(xiàn)不一定非得以新聞形式體現(xiàn)。長篇雜志文章以及有深度的書籍也是上佳選擇。

近四年,我擺脫新聞的束縛,轉(zhuǎn)而選擇去看,去感覺。我的切身體會是:內(nèi)心不再焦慮彷徨,可以深度思考而不被打斷,有了更多時(shí)間來洞察世事。雖得之不易,但物有所值。

[1]納西姆·塔勒布(1960–),安皮里卡資本公司創(chuàng)辦人,紐約大學(xué)庫朗數(shù)學(xué)研究所研究員,當(dāng)前最令人敬畏的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理理論學(xué)者。

[2]確認(rèn)偏誤指的是個(gè)人選擇性地回憶、搜集有利細(xì)節(jié),忽略不利或矛盾的資訊,來支持自己已有的想法的片面詮釋。

(譯者 AshleyColin 編輯 丹妮)

 
中國日報(bào)網(wǎng)英語點(diǎn)津版權(quán)說明:凡注明來源為“中國日報(bào)網(wǎng)英語點(diǎn)津:XXX(署名)”的原創(chuàng)作品,除與中國日報(bào)網(wǎng)簽署英語點(diǎn)津內(nèi)容授權(quán)協(xié)議的網(wǎng)站外,其他任何網(wǎng)站或單位未經(jīng)允許不得非法盜鏈、轉(zhuǎn)載和使用,違者必究。如需使用,請與010-84883631聯(lián)系;凡本網(wǎng)注明“來源:XXX(非英語點(diǎn)津)”的作品,均轉(zhuǎn)載自其它媒體,目的在于傳播更多信息,其他媒體如需轉(zhuǎn)載,請與稿件來源方聯(lián)系,如產(chǎn)生任何問題與本網(wǎng)無關(guān);本網(wǎng)所發(fā)布的歌曲、電影片段,版權(quán)歸原作者所有,僅供學(xué)習(xí)與研究,如果侵權(quán),請?zhí)峁┌鏅?quán)證明,以便盡快刪除。
 

關(guān)注和訂閱

人氣排行

翻譯服務(wù)

中國日報(bào)網(wǎng)翻譯工作室

我們提供:媒體、文化、財(cái)經(jīng)法律等專業(yè)領(lǐng)域的中英互譯服務(wù)
電話:010-84883468
郵件:[email protected]