搜索引擎讓我們喪失記憶

There are those who google and there are those who annoy those who google. As a member of the former group, people who don’t reflexively look things up online have at best rendered me speechless and at worst left me fearing for the fate of humankind. I have, however, recently learned that those who turn to a search engine at the slightest mention of a forgotten factoid might not be all that better off.

有些人使用谷歌(Google)，也有些人讓使用谷歌的人感到惱怒。我屬於前一類人，那些不會自發在網上查東西的人在最好的情況下只是讓我語塞，在最壞的情況下會讓我爲人類的命運感到害怕。但我最近了解到，那些只要聽到有人忘記了某件半真半假的事便求助於搜索引擎的人，或許未必好到哪裏去。

Before discussing the latest research in this area, it’s worth travelling back to 2011 when some commentators contributed to the genre of “this new technology is definitely going to ruin us this time”. That year, Betsy Sparrow of Columbia University and colleagues published an article in Science entitled “Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips”, triggering starting guns for the latest existential crisis about the web.

在討論這個領域的最新研究成果之前，回顧一下2011年是值得的，當年有些評論員撰寫了“這次這一新技術無疑將毀掉我們”一類的文章。那一年，哥倫比亞大學(Columbia University)的貝琪•斯帕羅(Betsy Sparrow)及其同事在《科學》(Science)雜誌上發表文章，名爲《谷歌對記憶的影響：查找資訊的便利對認知的影響》(Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips)，引發了最新一場有關網絡的生死存亡危機。

The researchers themselves had a positive take on their findings. Sure, the test subjects were bad at recalling memorable bits of trivia — such as an “ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain” — when they thought the data were being saved by a computer in front of them. And, yes, the subjects’ recall was better when they were told that the data wouldn’t be saved. But the interesting part was a separate experiment in which the trivia was saved in generically named folders such as “Facts”, “Data” and “Info”.

研究者本身對他們的發現持有積極態度。沒錯，當受試者認爲數據正在存儲進入眼前的一臺電腦時，他們不善於回想起值得記住的細節信息，比如“鴕鳥的眼睛比腦大”。沒錯，當受試者得知數據將不會被存儲時，他們能夠更好地回憶起。但有趣的部分是一個單獨實驗，實驗中信息被存儲於籠統命名的文件夾裏，比如“事實”、“數據”和“信息”。

The participants could recall which folder a fact was in nearly half of the time, but could only recall the facts themselves 23 per cent of the time. As the researchers wrote: “These results seem unexpected on the surface, given the memorable nature of the statements and the unmemorable nature of the folder names.” Or as Dr Sparrow told the New York Times in an interview: “That kind of blew my mind.”

參與者在近一半的時間裏可以回想起某個事實存在哪個文件夾裏，但只在23%的時間裏能回想起事實本身。正如研究人員所寫：“鑑於事實的陳述容易記憶、文件夾名稱不容易記憶，這一結果在表面上看似乎出人意料。”或者正如斯帕羅接受《紐約時報》(New York Times)採訪時所稱的那樣：“這多少有點兒讓我感到震驚。”

That we remember where facts can be obtained, rather than storing the information itself, is not new. The storage systems may be books, notes, USB keys, the web — or indeed colleagues or friends. When someone interrupts you at work and says, “Hey, I’m having trouble with a deck and I heard you’re a wiz with PowerPoint,” they are using you as memory storage. And when you stare at the wall behind them and ask if they’ve googled for a solution before coming over, you are indicating an unwillingness to act as an IT helpdesk.

我們記得住事實存放的位置，而不把信息本身存入腦海，這不是新鮮事。存儲系統可以是書本、筆記、USB密鑰、網絡——實際上還有同事或朋友。當有人打斷你手頭工作，問道，“嗨，我的幻燈片出問題了，我聽說你是個PPT高手，”他們是把你當成了記憶存儲器。當你盯着他們後面的牆壁看，問他們求助前是否用谷歌搜索過解決辦法，你是在表明自己不願充當IT幫助臺。

But those, like me, who google before asking for assistance may face an unexpected pitfall. According to research published last month by a group of Yale University academics, the mere act of using a search engine may lead us to overrate how much we know.

但是，那些像我一樣、在求助之前先用谷歌搜索的人，或許會遇上一個意想不到的陷阱。根據上月耶魯大學(Yale University)學者發表的研究結果，單單使用搜索引擎的舉動就可能會導致我們高估自己的知識。

The researchers set up a number of experiments. In most of the scenarios, half the subjects used a search engine to look up preselected topics and the other half would not. Then all the subjects were asked to rate their ability to answer questions in a totally unrelated topic area. The group that used a search engine in the first step rated themselves as significantly more able than the second group.

研究人員進行了大量的實驗。在大多數情況下，一半受試者使用搜索引擎查詢預選主題，另一半沒有這麼做。接着所有受試者被要求評估自己回答一個完全無關主題的問題的能力。第一步中使用了搜索引擎的人，對自己能力的評價遠遠高於另一組人。

Several experiments tested for a number of obvious explanations for why this overestimation might happen. What if the first group were told exactly what to type into the search engine and the second group was shown the same article that the first group was directed to? What if both groups spent the same amount of time performing the first step? Or if the information being sought wasn’t something the web could help with? Or if no search results showed up at all? Or if different search engines were used?

爲了測試有關爲何會發生這種高估的許多顯而易見的解釋，還有幾個實驗。如果第一組人被確切告知在搜索引擎裏輸入什麼，而給第二組人看第一組人被導向的同一篇文章，會如何？如果兩組人花費相同時間進行第一步，會如何？或者，如果網絡對於所查詢信息幫不上忙，會怎樣？如果搜索無任何結果，會怎樣？如果使用了不同搜索引擎，又會怎樣？

In every case, the group that had some interaction with a search engine rated themselves higher.

在每種情況下，與某個搜索引擎進行了一定互動的那一組都對自己給了更高的評價。

As to why this might be the case, the researchers think we might be losing track of how much the internet is relied on for instant access to information and consequently we have become “miscalibrated” with respect to our true knowledge.

至於爲何出現這種情況，研究人員認爲，我們或許正在忘記自己在實時獲取信息方面是多麼地依賴互聯網，因此我們對自己的真實知識做出了“錯誤估量”。

Pending further research, this illusion of knowledge after interacting with a search engine may need to be added to the long list of common biases we already know we suffer from.

直至取得進一步的研究結果之前，與搜索引擎互動之後產生的知識幻覺，或許需要被添加到我們已經知道自己深受其害的共同偏見的長長清單。

In the meantime, it may be worth remembering this possibility the next time you use a search engine. Or, failing that, remember where you found this article.

與此同時，你下次使用搜索引擎時，或許有必要記住這一可能性。或者，若是忘了，要記住你在哪裏找到的這篇文章。