智能手機沒讓我們變傻大綱

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?
我們喜愛我們的數碼設備，但與此同時，很多人也對此感到不安，覺得它們破壞了我們注意力的持續度。我們在各種應用中切換，很少在其中一個上做長時間停留。我們全神貫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，這種想當然的看法並不正確。我們是可以集中注意力的。但我們覺得自己喪失了這個能力也是有原因的。因爲這不僅需要能力，也需要意願。而科技產品可能扼殺了我們全神貫注的意願。

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.
數碼設備削弱了我們的注意力，這個想法似乎很合邏輯。青少年每天在屏幕上進行的活動時間可以長達11小時，很多設備需要你快速轉換注意力：視頻中的快速剪接鏡頭，節奏緊張的遊戲，在多個應用中回答問題，更不用說鼓勵你一覽而過的網頁設計了。我們經常同時做這些事情，因爲我們的注意力也在兩個（或三個，或八個）快節奏的任務之間來回切換。有人認爲，大腦具有可塑性，因此快速切換的做法逐漸養成了習慣，導致我們無法持續集中注意力。

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.
但幾乎沒有證據表明，人們注意力的持續度正在縮短。科學家用“持續度”來表示兩種不同的東西：我們一次可以記住多少東西，以及我們可以全神貫注的程度。他們測量前者的方式是讓人以相反的順序複述越來越長的數字串。衡量後者時則要求人監測視覺刺激，注意到偶然發生的微妙變化。這些測試的結果似乎和50年前相差無幾。

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.
科學家還指出，雖然心智任務可以改變我們的大腦，但其影響通常不大。例如，對於我們如何看東西，動作類電子遊戲改善了其中的某些方面，但幅度很小，並不顯著。注意力是我們思考能力的核心，以至於只有加上其他認知功能的變化纔會導致它出現顯著惡化。這種程度的心智重組屬於進化範疇，不是弄到一部智能手機就會發生的。

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，如果我們的注意力持續度沒有縮減，爲什麼我們會有這種感覺呢？爲什麼皮尤(Pew)2012年的一項調查顯示，將近90%的教師說學生們不像幾年前那樣注意力集中了？這可能是因爲數碼設備雖然沒有讓我們削弱集中注意力的能力，但卻讓我們失去了這樣做的意願。

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?
數碼世界提供了源源不斷、即時、無限的娛樂活動。如果YouTube上一段視頻的前10秒沒意思，那爲何還要看它，反正我可以馬上到BuzzFeed或Spotify找到更好的東西？互聯網沒有縮減我的注意力持續度，但它改變了我腦海中一個長期以來的想法：是不是有什麼東西比我現在手上的更好？

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.
與20年前相比，我們現在更容易厭倦了嗎？研究人員沒有答案，但最近的研究支持了一個說法：我們的天線一直是開着的。在基本的實驗室測試中，僅僅是有一部手機在視線範圍之內，人們的注意力表現就會變差。在另一個實驗中，如果手機在響，即使駕駛模擬器的人決定不去理睬它，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.
數碼批評家做出了可怕的預測——手機就是一口袖珍的心智油炸鍋。事實可能並非這樣，但我的說法似乎也暗示着同樣糟糕的事情：對娛樂的無限熱衷，似乎意味着更有價值的活動將被拋到一邊。我們可能會購買薩爾曼·拉什迪(Salman Rushdie)的書，結果卻沉迷於玩《像素鳥》(Flappy Bird)遊戲。

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.
情況好像也不是這樣。例如，研究表明，休閒書刊閱讀量似乎並沒有隨着數字時代的來臨而改變。在祝賀自己之前，我們不妨先承認，更高雅的愛好從來都沒有那麼流行。打發時間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，數字活動可能還是有所不同。過去十年來，神經學家總結出兩種有關注意力和思考的系統。一種是外指向的，出現在你瀏覽電子郵件，或玩《糖果粉碎傳奇》(Candy Crush)的時候。另一種是內指向的，出現在你發呆，計劃明天會做什麼，或反思過去的時候。顯然，大多數數字活動引發的都是外指向的注意力。這兩種模式就像按動開關；當其中一種打開，另一種就關閉了。事實上，當注意力切換到外指向系統時，內指向的系統就遭到了抑制。鑑於我們在數碼設備上花的時間如此之多，這聽起來有些不妙。

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.
我們真的會失去發呆的能力？希望不會吧。研究顯示，發呆有諸多優點，其中一個和創造力提升很有關係。但是內指向活動也有缺點。比如我們想把事情做好的時候，發呆可能會讓我們分心。當我們糾結於過去的一些侮辱或錯誤時，反思可能並非好事。

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.
數碼設備不會蠶食我們的大腦。然而，它們引誘我們幾乎總是採取外指向思維，在人類經驗中，這種情況可能是是獨一無二的。爲設備使用時間設定上限——我們首先爲自己和孩子想到的限制——可能會有幫助。放下設備，到另一個房間呆一段時間也會很有用。但是，如果我們可以自己意識到，什麼時候應當從思緒中抽離，什麼時候應該進行反思，效果就會更好。這樣的判斷需要內指向的注意力，這是一個額外優點。在目前這個智能手機的時代，放棄這種心智習慣就太不明智了。