为什么我们在网上会这么粗鲁(ZT)

作者:Giada  于 2012-10-6 12:29 发表于 最热闹的华人社交网络--贝壳村

作者分类:佳作共赏|通用分类:英文分享|已有79评论

关键词:网上

向琼台鹤同学和白露学习,也找一篇英文文章来翻译。向广大其他网友学习,也找一篇文章来转贴。

《华尔街报》的专栏作家伊丽莎白·伯恩斯坦十月一日撰文,试图从心理学的角度讨论我们为什么在网上使用粗暴的语言。我从2004年上网玩,在八年间对文中所列的事例屡见不鲜,特别文章的后几段,更是某些网民们在争论政治以及其他有争议话题时常用的手段。希望大家读过此文后,对在网上玩多些思想准备。现实中的朋友在网上都会因网上争论而断交,更何况在网上交的朋友?所以,在网上争论,当撤即撤,继续纠缠无益,反而使自己徒增烦恼。

建议懂英文的朋友们跳过我的中文译文,直接读英文原文,因为原文写得更加简明易懂。我由于时间有限,不能抱着字典对一些词反复推敲。本文基本上是根据周围美国人说话的习惯以意译为主的。其中难免会有忘掉翻译的词,或词不达意的时候,希望大家见谅。

2012年10月1日,7:09时ET

为什么我们在网上会这么粗鲁
-- 网上浏览降低自我控制,并与较高的债务和体重相关联

珍妮弗•布里斯托尔最近失去了一个她最老的朋友,这要感谢在脸书上(Facebook)关于斗牛型狗的争吵。

当她转贴了一篇报纸上的文章时,麻烦开始了。该文章声称去年在纽约市斗牛型狗是最危险的类型。她在贴文章时同时写道:“请谈谈你的看法... 833件斗牛型小狗狗的事件,”布里斯托尔女士是一位40岁在曼哈顿的公关和动物福利倡导者。

最近的一项研究着眼于脸书的频繁用户们的体重超重率和信用卡债务率,研究得出结论:这群用户控制冲动的能力往往会降低。

布里斯托尔女士的朋友们 -- 其中的许多人也活跃于动物福利界 -- 迅速跟进。一位指出,“斗牛犬”不是一个单一的官方品种; 另一位说:当狗变得暴力呈进攻性时,“不负责任的狗主人”经常要负责任。黑色的拉布拉多型狗实际上可能更会咬人 – 另外一位则如此说。

这时,布里斯托尔女士的一位“发小(译者注:童年朋友)”大声宣布:“请相信一位急诊室医生的话:我在15年里一直做这个(译者注:“这个”指治疗被狗咬伤的人,跟随该文有一张网上讨论时的照片,在照片里医生的话说得比较清楚,请看文章出处的链接),我还没有看到一位病人因为被一只金毛猎犬咬而不得不去手术室或金毛犬咬杀了它的猎物。”

这下子引起洪水暴发。一个人要求看医生的“科学研究”证据。另一名指控他根本懒得做确认是否实际上他的病人都是被斗牛型狗咬伤的。有人建议他应该“勇敢地走出”急诊室去看看到底是怎么回事。

“这真是荒唐,”布里斯托尔说,她没有加入争吵。她的发小,那位急诊室的医生,在第二天早晨跟她解除好友关系。这是八个月前的事情了,他从此再也没有跟她来往。

我们为什么在网上如此讨厌对方并让对方讨厌?无论是在脸书(Facebook),退特(Twitter),留言板或网站,我们互相说些绝不会当面说的话,难道我们真的不明白这些话不应该说吗?

匿名是一个强大的动力。躲在一个假的网名后面,让我们感到我们是不可战胜的,并且是隐蔽无法被窥视的。先且不谈这个,在很多网站上,我们并不是像我们想象得那样真的匿名,所有在脸书上的人都不是是匿名的。甚至当我们以真实身份出现在网上时,我们依然胡作非为。

根据哥伦比亚大学和匹兹堡大学的教授即将发表的研究,浏览脸书,降低了我们的自我控制能力。其效果最明显的是那些在脸书上有着最亲密的朋友圈的人,研究人员说。

我们大多数人放在脸书上的自我形象是经过粉饰的。这种粉饰过的正面积极形象和我们在其他人对这个形象点击“喜欢”的形式中得到鼓励,从而提高了我们的自尊。当我们有一个膨胀的自我意识时,往往会表现出自控能力差。

“你可以把它理解为合格证效应:你自我感觉良好因此你感到你有拥有优越感的权利,” 哥伦比亚大学商学院市场营销助理教授和此项研究的合著者基思•威尔科克斯说:“你要保护那个粉饰过的形象,这可能是为什么人们如此强烈抨击那些不同意他们的意见的人。”酗酒的人通常会显示这些类缺乏自我控制,自我“膨胀感”的行为,他补充说。

研究人员进行了一系列的五个研究。在一个研究中,他们询问541 名脸书用户在网站上花费多少时间和在脸书的好友圈里有多少个亲密的朋友。他们还询问了他们的网下生活,包括他们的债务和信用卡的使用情况,他们的体重和饮食习惯的问题,以及他们每星期花了多少时间和真实的人社交。

研究发现,这些花费更多的时间上网和有着密切朋友圈的人,更有可能暴饮暴食,并且他们的体重指数也更大些,以及有更多的信用卡债务,他们的信用评分较低。另一项研究发现,这些浏览过脸书五分钟和有强大的网络关系的人更倾向于选择巧克力饼干而不是燕麦条作为零食。

在第三项研究中,教授为与会者提供一组是不可能解决的字谜游戏,以及定时IQ测试,然后测量过了多久,他们会放弃试图解决的问题。他们发现,这些花更多的时间在脸书上的人更可能并更迅速地放弃艰巨的任务。脸书的发言人拒绝对此发表评论。

为什么我们经常在网上如此咄咄逼人?看看在脸书网页本专栏与我素不相识的一个人最近贴的一个帖子,“为什么我应该自找麻烦写给你?你根本不会回应。”

我们在网上自控较弱因为我们不必看到和我们对话的人的反应,心理学家和麻省理工学院大学教授,从事社会科学和技术的研究的雪利•特克尔说。因为我们较难看到和聚焦在对方跟我们共有的相同的地方,我们倾向于把对方非人化,她说。

特克尔博士说,令人吃惊的是,当人们在线沟通时,许多人依旧忘记他们在网上的发帖有着像大声说话那样的效果。特别是从智能手机发帖,其实你是在发表讲话,但你并不觉得你是在发表,”她说。 “所以,如果你在这个小玩艺儿上说‘我恨你’呢?这小玩艺儿就像一个玩具,它不会给你要付什么后果的感觉。”

对于脸书而言,它的名字是问题的一部分。 “它承诺我们可以看到真人的脸,我们要去的地方是有朋友的地方,”特克尔博士说,她是《单独在一起:为什么我们从高科技那里期待更多和从真实对方那里期待更少》这本书的作者, “如果你在那儿遭到什么伤害,但你并没有做好这个准备,你会觉得受到双重侮辱,所以你会狠狠反击。”

现在是网上政治争吵的高发季节,切普•博斯克深有体会。 博斯克先生54岁,是加利福尼亚州千橡树市的电视播音员和注册的独立选民,他喜欢在他的脸书页面提出政治问题。 “我对那些跟我政见不同的人是如何思考的这件事有兴趣,”他说。 “有时我会写一个挑衅性的问题,以看双方互相叫骂为娱乐目的。”

在过去的几个月里,因为网上的政治争吵,博斯克先生失去了两个现实生活中的朋友。第一个朋友在他网页更新时提出要求人们辩论是否摩门教徒是基督徒这个问题后对他大为光火。 (“你简直胡来得没边儿了,你不知道你在说什么,”她在他的网页上写道,随后又跟上一句:“你是个白痴。”)博斯克先生把她拉黑了。 “我将允许自由讨论,直到你激怒我,”他说。有时候,他会删除整条讨论线。

第二个朋友的友谊结束得更加突然,博斯克的一位老朋友不停地反复地发表自己的政见因而得罪了博斯克的几个脸书好友,甚至于博斯克本人,“他雨后春笋般地发帖大谈特谈政治,而不是在和别人讨论,”博克斯先生说。博克斯先生给他的朋友写贴告诉他,如果他不停止的话,博克斯就要把他从自己的网页上拉黑。他的朋友对此回应是用了非常粗鄙的语言让博克斯滚一边去并与他解除好友。 “我当时非常生气懊恼,”博克斯先生说。

不过,他有时还是不能约束自己的煽风点火。当政治话题白热化后并向着他不喜欢的方向发展,“向右或向左,”他说,他会私下里给他的“攻击狗”的朋友写悄悄话,并建议他或她参加讨论。 “我会说,哎呀,这种讨论我看起来不那么对劲,你说呢?” 他说。 “然后,他们将会到那里和让我感到特烦的人较劲,这让我看起来像好人。”

伊丽莎白•伯恩斯坦(Elizabeth Bernstein)在Bonds@wsj.com

原文在此链接:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592404578030351784405148.html

 October 1, 2012, 7:09 p.m. ET

Why We Are So Rude Online
Online Browsing Lowers Self-Control and Is Linked To Higher Debt, Weight

Jennifer Bristol recently lost one of her oldest friends—thanks to a Facebook fight about pit bulls.

The trouble started when she posted a newspaper article asserting that pit bulls were the most dangerous type of dog in New York City last year. "Please share thoughts… 833 incidents with pitties," wrote Ms. Bristol, a 40-year-old publicist and animal-welfare advocate in Manhattan.

A recent study looks at rates of overweight and credit-card debt among heavy users of Facebook and concludes this group tends to have less impulse control. 

Her friends, many of whom also work in the animal-welfare world, quickly weighed in. One noted that "pit bull" isn't a single official breed; another said "irresponsible ownership" is often involved when dogs turn violent. Black Labs may actually bite more, someone else offered.

Then a childhood pal of Ms. Bristol piped up with this: "Take it from an ER doctor… In 15 years of doing this I have yet to see a golden retriever bite that had to go to the operating room or killed its target."

That unleashed a torrent. One person demanded to see the doctor's "scientific research." Another accused him of not bothering to confirm whether his patients were actually bitten by pit bulls. Someone else suggested he should "venture out of the ER" to see what was really going on.

"It was ridiculous," says Ms. Bristol, who stayed out of the fight. Her old buddy, the ER doctor, unfriended her the next morning. That was eight months ago. She hasn't heard from him since.

Why are we so nasty to each other online? Whether on Facebook, Twitter, message boards or websites, we say things to each other that we would never say face to face. Shouldn't we know better by now?

Anonymity is a powerful force. Hiding behind a fake screen name makes us feel invincible, as well as invisible. Never mind that, on many websites, we're not as anonymous as we think—and we're not anonymous at all on Facebook. Even when we reveal our real identities, we still misbehave.

According to soon-to-be-published research from professors at Columbia University and the University of Pittsburgh, browsing Facebook lowers our self control. The effect is most pronounced with people whose Facebook networks were made up of close friends, the researchers say.

Most of us present an enhanced image of ourselves on Facebook. This positive image—and the encouragement we get, in the form of "likes"—boosts our self-esteem. And when we have an inflated sense of self, we tend to exhibit poor self-control.

"Think of it as a licensing effect: You feel good about yourself so you feel a sense of entitlement," says Keith Wilcox, assistant professor of marketing at Columbia Business School and co-author of the study. "And you want to protect that enhanced view, which might be why people are lashing out so strongly at others who don't share their opinions." These types of behavior—poor self control, ‘inflated sense of self—‘are often displayed by people impaired by alcohol," he adds.

The researchers conducted a series of five studies. In one, they asked 541 Facebook users how much time they spent on the site and how many close friends they had in their Facebook networks. They also asked about their offline lives, including questions about their debt and credit-card usage, their weight and eating habits and how much time they spent socializing in person each week.

People who spent more time online and who had a high percentage of close ties in their network were more likely to engage in binge eating and to have a greater body mass index, as well as to have more credit-card debt and a lower credit score, the research found. Another study found that people who browsed Facebook for five minutes and had strong network ties were more likely to choose a chocolate-chip cookie than a granola bar as a snack.

In a third study, the professors gave participants a set of anagrams that were impossible to solve, as well as timed IQ tests, then measured how long it took them to give up trying to solve the problems. They found people who spent more time on Facebook were more likely to give up on difficult tasks more quickly. A Facebook spokesman declined to comment.

Why are we often so aggressive online? Consider this recent post to this column's Facebook page, from someone I don't know: "Why should I even bother writing you? You won't respond."

We're less inhibited online because we don't have to see the reaction of the person we're addressing, says Sherry Turkle, psychologist and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of the social studies of science and technology. Because it's harder to see and focus on what we have in common, we tend to dehumanize each other, she says.

Astoundingly, Dr. Turkle says, many people still forget that they're speaking out loud when they communicate online. Especially when posting from a smartphone, "you are publishing but you don't feel like you are," she says. "So what if you say 'I hate you' on this tiny little thing? It's like a toy. It doesn't feel consequential."

And for Facebook, its very name is part of the problem. "It promises us a face and a place where we are going to have friends," says Dr. Turkle, author of the book "Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other." "If you get something hurtful there, you're not prepared. You feel doubly affronted, so you strike back."

It's high season for online bickering about politics, as Chip Bolcik well knows. Mr. Bolcik, 54, a TV announcer and registered Independent from Thousand Oaks, Calif., likes to pose political questions on his Facebook page. "I am very interested in how people think who have different views than mine," he says. "And sometimes I will write a provocative question for the entertainment purpose of watching people yell at each other."

Over the past few months, Mr. Bolcik lost two real-life friends because of online political spats. The first friend got mad at him after he posted a status update asking people to debate whether Mormons are Christians. ("You are so off base you don't know what you are talking about," she wrote on his page, followed later by: "You're an idiot.") Mr. Bolcik blocked her from his page. "I will allow free discussion until you irritate me," he says. Sometimes, he erases entire conversation threads.

The second friendship ended even more abruptly, after one of Mr. Bolcik's old friends offended several of his Facebook friends, as well as Mr. Bolcik himself, by repeatedly posting his views. "He was spouting about politics, rather than discussing," Mr. Bolcik says. Mr. Bolcik wrote his friend and told him he was going to block him from the page if he didn't pipe down. In response, his friend told him off using vulgar language and unfriended him. "I was pretty upset," Mr. Bolcik says.

Still, he sometimes can't restrain himself from fanning the flames. When a political discussion thread becomes heated and he doesn't like the way it is going—"right or left," he says—he privately messages one of his "attack dog" friends and suggests he or she join the discussion. "I will say, 'Gee, this discussion doesn't seem right to me, what do you think?' " he says. "Then they will go on there and berate the person who is upsetting me, and I will look like the good guy."

Write to Elizabeth Bernstein at Bonds@wsj.com


高兴

感动

同情

搞笑

难过

拍砖
2

支持
29

鲜花

刚表态过的朋友 (31 人)

发表评论 评论 (79 个评论)

2 回复 同往锡安 2012-10-6 12:36
有趣的观察,也许有些道理。我觉得把对方非人物化对我来说不是这样的。我认为电脑被后坐的是一个人,一个灵魂,有理性的人。也许我把人想象得太有理性,有人性。有话说,林子大了,什么鸟都有,我想这话是对的,只是不愿意相信而已。

再者,缺乏自控,也是很好的提醒。有时候,我们的确应该限制话题,限制自己需要打交道的人,我们不能希望所有人都是通情达理的,否则在网上会比较失望,也会因此失去网上的乐趣。
3 回复 白露为霜 2012-10-6 12:37
政治,宗教是雷区。不碰为好。
1 回复 翰山 2012-10-6 12:37
看来米国人也大架。不过我的看法,只要不骂人,每个人各抒己见的权利还是应该有,但是(强力)不要求别人同意自己的意见!
3 回复 同往锡安 2012-10-6 12:38
白露为霜: 政治,宗教是雷区。不碰为好。
有道理,也许只能跟完全了解自己的人聊,才是上策。
2 回复 同往锡安 2012-10-6 12:39
翰山: 看来米国人也大架。不过我的看法,只要不骂人,每个人各抒己见的权利还是应该有,但是(强力)不要求别人同意自己的意见! ...
美国人不是提倡Agree to disagree吗?看来不容易做到。
2 回复 翰山 2012-10-6 12:45
白露为霜: 政治,宗教是雷区。不碰为好。
在公司是,不谈政治,不谈宗教,不谈个人财务,不谈性。
网上?大概政治还是要谈吧?!
2 回复 yuki-1217 2012-10-6 12:47
也许也是一种发泄,在现实生活里做不到的发泄~~~
7 回复 翰山 2012-10-6 12:50
同往锡安: 美国人不是提倡Agree to disagree吗?看来不容易做到。
不容易。也要提倡。

看到你和赌博客的文章了,你们的观点我不同意。不过,我同意你们发表自己的看法。好像还有一个网友,Amarantha:,也不同意你们的意见,是吧。不过,这种理性讨论本身,还是很好的。
3 回复 同往锡安 2012-10-6 12:52
翰山: 不容易。也要提倡。

看到你和赌博客的文章了,你们的观点我不同意。不过,我同意你们发表自己的看法。好像还有一个网友,Amarantha:,也不同意你们的意见,是吧 ...
你不同意没有问题呀,欢迎不同意见,不过最好说出你的理由~
1 回复 Giada 2012-10-6 13:18
同往锡安: 有趣的观察,也许有些道理。我觉得把对方非人物化对我来说不是这样的。我认为电脑被后坐的是一个人,一个灵魂,有理性的人。也许我把人想象得太有理性,有人性。 ...
我想,这篇文章的意思主要是,人们在网上呆的时间长了,自控能力弱了,所以带来一系列的问题,把对方非人化是其中的一种。这只是一种普遍现象,当然有些人不是这样,比如上网时间不长,可能就相对好些。
6 回复 Giada 2012-10-6 13:20
白露为霜: 政治,宗教是雷区。不碰为好。
哈,好多人就是要引起争论,自己看热闹。这村里就有的是。政治宗教是最好的题目,因为一提就会有争论。
3 回复 Giada 2012-10-6 13:22
翰山: 看来米国人也大架。不过我的看法,只要不骂人,每个人各抒己见的权利还是应该有,但是(强力)不要求别人同意自己的意见! ...
只要是有政治争论的地方就有争吵,估计哪国人都是一样的。
说是互相尊重,在网上更不容易互相尊重,主要就是彼此见不到面。
4 回复 Giada 2012-10-6 13:22
同往锡安: 有道理,也许只能跟完全了解自己的人聊,才是上策。
有的时候,完全了解也不能聊。
2 回复 Giada 2012-10-6 13:23
同往锡安: 美国人不是提倡Agree to disagree吗?看来不容易做到。
一般是这样,但在网上就做不到了,这篇文章说的就是这个。
1 回复 Giada 2012-10-6 13:24
翰山: 在公司是,不谈政治,不谈宗教,不谈个人财务,不谈性。
网上?大概政治还是要谈吧?!
只要不怕打架,就可以谈。
2 回复 同往锡安 2012-10-6 13:24
Giada: 有的时候,完全了解也不能聊。
哈哈,那是蛮郁闷滴~还好,我还有能聊得,哪怕政见,信仰不同,是神格外开恩吧~~
3 回复 Giada 2012-10-6 13:25
yuki-1217: 也许也是一种发泄,在现实生活里做不到的发泄~~~
在网上看不到对方的表情,所以一说开了,自己有了想说的话,不管别人愿不愿意听都一个劲儿地说,最后就打起来了。也许从一开始并不是要发泄的。
2 回复 同往锡安 2012-10-6 13:26
Giada: 一般是这样,但在网上就做不到了,这篇文章说的就是这个。
晕,看来我还不清楚这种倾向~ 期望过高,呵~
1 回复 Giada 2012-10-6 13:49
同往锡安: 哈哈,那是蛮郁闷滴~还好,我还有能聊得,哪怕政见,信仰不同,是神格外开恩吧~~
   那你要感谢你的神。人总有心情不好的时候,那时候说什么也不行,所以最好不聊。
3 回复 同往锡安 2012-10-6 13:51
Giada:    那你要感谢你的神。人总有心情不好的时候,那时候说什么也不行,所以最好不聊。
哈哈,有道理~~ 总之,你的这个网上不再有agree to disagree,已经让我彻底泄气了~ 我得好好记住这点,否则过一段我一忘,又满怀期望起来~
123... 4下一页

facelist doodle 涂鸦板

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 注册

Giada最受欢迎的博文

关于本站 | 隐私政策 | 免责条款 | 版权声明 | 联络我们 | 刊登广告 | 转手机版 | APP下载

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外华人中文门户:倍可亲 (http://www.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系统基于 Discuz! X3.1 商业版 优化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. 更新:GMT+8, 2021-7-28 23:11

倍可亲服务器位于美国圣何塞、西雅图和达拉斯顶级数据中心,为更好服务全球网友特统一使用京港台时间

返回顶部