首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Choice blindness: You don’t know what you want We have all heard of experts who fail basic tests of sensory discrimination i
Choice blindness: You don’t know what you want We have all heard of experts who fail basic tests of sensory discrimination i
admin
2013-07-30
25
问题
Choice blindness: You don’t know what you want
We have all heard of experts who fail basic tests of sensory discrimination in their own field: wine snobs(自命不凡的人)who can’t tell red from white wine(though in blackened cups), or art critics who see deep meaning in random lines drawn by a computer. We delight in such stories since anyone claiming to be an authority is fair game. But what if we shine the spotlight on choices we make about everyday things? Experts might be forgiven for being wrong about the limits of their skills as experts, but could we be forgiven for being wrong about the limits of our skills as experts on ourselves?
We have been trying to answer this question using techniques from magic performances. Rather than playing tricks with alternatives presented to participants, we secretly altered the outcomes of their choices, and recorded how they react. For example, in an early study we showed our volunteers pairs of pictures of faces and asked them to choose the most attractive. In some trials, immediately after they made their choice, we asked people to explain the reasons behind their choices.
Unknown to them, we sometimes used a double-card magic trick to secretly exchange one face for the other so they ended up with the face they did not choose. Common sense dictates that all of us would notice such a big change in the outcome of a choice. But the result showed that in75 per cent of the trials our participants were blind to the mismatch, even offering "reasons" for their "choice".
We called this effect "choice blindness", echoing change blindness, the phenomenon identified by psychologists where a remarkably large number of people fail to spot a major change in their environment. Recall the famous experiments where X asks Y for directions; while Y is struggling to help, X is switched for Z — and Y fails to notice. Researchers are still pondering the full implications, but it does show how little information we use in daily life, and undermines the idea that we know what is going on around us.
When we set out, we aimed to weigh in on the enduring, complicated debate about self-knowledge and intentionality. For all the intimate familiarity we feel we have with decisionmaking, it is very difficult to know about it from the "inside": one of the great barriers for scientific research is the nature of subjectivity.
As anyone who has ever been in a verbal disagreement can prove, people tend to give elaborate justifications for their decisions, which we have every reason to believe are nothing more than rationalisations(文过饰非)after the event. To prove such people wrong, though, or even provide enough evidence to change their mind, is an entirely different matter: who are you to say what my reasons are?
But with choice blindness we drive a large wedge between intentions and actions in the mind. As our participants give us verbal explanations about choices they never made, we can show them beyond doubt — and prove it — that what they say cannot be true. So our experiments offer a unique window into confabulation(虚构)(the story-telling we do to justify things after the fact)that is otherwise very difficult to come by. We can compare everyday explanations with those under lab conditions, looking for such things as the amount of detail in descriptions, how coherent the narrative is, the emotional tone, or even the timing or flow of the speech. Then we can create a theoretical framework to analyse any kind of exchange.
This framework could provide a clinical use for choice blindness: for example, two of our ongoing studies examine how malingering(装病)might develop into true symptoms, and how confabulation might play a role in obsessive-compulsive disorder(强迫症).
Importantly, the effects of choice blindness go beyond snap judgments. Depending on what our volunteers say in response to the mismatched outcomes of choices(whether they give short or long explanations, give numerical rating or labelling, and so on)we found this interaction could change their future preferences to the extent that they come to prefer the previously rejected alternative. This gives us a rare glimpse into the complicated dynamics of self-feedback("I chose this, I publicly said so, therefore I must like it"), which we suspect lies behind the formation of many everyday preferences.
We also want to explore the boundaries of choice blindness. Of course, it will be limited by choices we know to be of great importance in everyday life. Which bride or bridegroom would fail to notice if someone switched their partner at the altar through amazing sleight of hand(巧妙的手段)? Yet there is ample territory between the absurd idea of spouse-swapping, and the results of our early face experiments.
For example, in one recent study we invited supermarket customers to choose between two paired varieties of jam and tea. In order to switch each participant’s choice without them noticing, we created two sets of "magical" jars, with lids at both ends and a divider inside. The jars looked normal, but were designed to hold one variety of jam or tea at each end, and could easily be flipped over.
Immediately after the participants chose, we asked them to taste their choice again and tell us verbally why they made that choice. Before they did, we turned over the sample containers, so the tasters were given the opposite of what they had intended in their selection. Strikingly, people detected no more than a third of all these trick trials. Even when we switched such remarkably different flavors as spicy cinnamon and apple for bitter grapefruit jam, the participants spotted less than half of all switches.
We have also documented this kind of effect when we simulate online shopping for consumer products such as laptops or cellphones, and even apartments. Our latest tests are exploring moral and political decisions, a domain where reflection and deliberation are supposed to play a central role, but which we believe is perfectly suited to investigating using choice blindness.
Throughout our experiments, as well as registering whether our volunteers noticed that they had been presented with the alternative they did not choose, we also quizzed them about their beliefs about their decision processes. How did they think they would feel if they had been exposed to a study like ours? Did they think they would have noticed the switches? Consistently, between 80 and 90 per cent of people said that they believed they would have noticed something was wrong.
Imagine their surprise, even disbelief, when we told them about the nature of the experiments. In everyday decision-making we do see ourselves as knowing a lot about our selves, but like the wine buff or art critic, we often overstate what we know. The good news is that this form of decision snobbery should not be too difficult to treat. Indeed, after reading this article you might already be cured.
The volunteers were surprised at the fact that in everyday decision-making, people’s beliefs are often______.
选项
答案
overstated
解析
空前的people’s beliefs are表明,本空应填一过去分词(短语)或形容词(短语)。题干中的The volunteers were surprised与首句提到的their surprise对应,in everyday decision-making是原文信息的重现,people’s beliefs是对what we know的同义转述,故what we know前的谓语动词overstate即为本题答案的出处。因为题干将文中know的宾语提至主语位置,故将overstate改为过去分词形式overstated。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/FT97777K
0
大学英语六级
相关试题推荐
Mostworthwhilecareersrequiresomekindofspecializedtraining.Ideally,therefore,thechoiceofan【C1】______shouldbemade
Mostworthwhilecareersrequiresomekindofspecializedtraining.Ideally,therefore,thechoiceofan【C1】______shouldbemade
Mostworthwhilecareersrequiresomekindofspecializedtraining.Ideally,therefore,thechoiceofan【C1】______shouldbemade
A、Neutral.B、Cautious.C、Favorable.D、Negative.C男士认为广告是必不可少的,如果没有广告,人们会不知道能买什么。可推断男士对广告是一种“赞同”的态度。
Highereducationhasaresponsibilitytoprovideaworkforcewiththedesigncapabilityandhigh-leveltechnicaldesignskillst
1.食品安全事故屡有发生2.人们对食品的安全越来越担心3.怎样才能解决好食品的安全问题
SuggestionsforYourWorkAnnieisalongtimesecretary/receptionistfortwoseniorvicepresidentsatabigcompany.Theyh
Oneofthegoodthingsformeninwomen’sliberationisthatmennolongerhavetopaywomentheold-fashionedcourtesies.I
Itisnotwhathesays______(而是他的行为才能说明问题).
A、Shelikesit.B、Shedoesn’thavetotakeit.C、Shelikesonlybiology.D、Shedoesn’tlikeit.D语意理解题。问题问Nancy对有关科学方面课程的感受如何。事
随机试题
手工除锈及动力工具除锈可达到的除锈等级为()。
下列选项中,不是慢性牙髓炎的病理改变的是
2002年9月在南非的约翰内斯堡召开的第二届地球峰会,为全球可持续发展制定了具体的行动计划,重点集中在()、()、()、()、()等几大具体领域。
学生对某一学科产生强烈的好奇心和探究的兴趣,说明学生产生了()。
甲、乙、丙三人打羽毛球,每一局由两人上场,另一人做裁判。第一局抽签决定裁判,往后每一局的比赛在上一局的胜者和上一局的裁判之间进行。打了若干场之后,甲胜了10局,而乙和丙各负了8局,则他们至少打了()局。
敦煌的壁画,今天来看,有关它的艺术类别、作者群体之争早已淹没在它作为风俗记录的伟大功绩之下。它激发的久远的情感共鸣,它唤起的广阔的文化认同,它引导人们对祖先的精神信仰和世俗生活的深度理解,雄健地跨越历史的长河,如此鲜明和有力地以记忆的方式,作用在欣赏者的心
设λ1,λ2是矩阵A的两个不同的特征值,对应的特征向量分别为α1,α2,则α1,A(α1+α2)线性无关的充分必要条件是()
基线由一组配置项组成,这些配置项构成了一个相对稳定的逻辑实体,是一组经过()正式审查、批准,达成一致的范围或工作产品。
Cellphone:yournextcomputerOnehundrednineteenhours,41minutesand16seconds.That’stheamountoftimeAdamRappopo
Throughouthistorythebasicunitofalmosteveryhumansocietyhasbeenthefamily.Membersofafamilylivetogetherunderthe
最新回复
(
0
)