我們只使用了大腦的10%?
Pop quiz: Which of these statements is false?
突擊測試：下面這些表述中哪一個是錯的？1. We use only 10% of our brain.
1. 我們只使用了大腦的10%。2. Environments rich in stimuli improve the brains of preschool children.
2. 刺激物豐富的環境可以促進學齡前兒童的大腦發育。
3. Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style, whether auditory, visual or kinesthetic.
3. 個人以自己喜歡的學習方式接收信息時，學習效果更好，無論他們使用的是聽覺、視覺還是動覺。If you picked the first one, congratulations. The idea that we use only 10% of our brain is patently false. Yet it so permeates popular culture that, among psychologists and neuroscientists, it is known as the '10% myth.' Contrary to popular belief, the entire brain is put to use─unused neurons die and unused circuits atrophy. Reports of neuroimaging research might perpetuate the myth by showing only a small number of areas 'lighting up' in a brain scan, but those are just areas that have more than a base line level of activity; the dark regions aren't dormant or unused.
Mark Nerys10%誤區如果你選擇的答案是1，恭喜你答對了。我們只使用了大腦的10%這種想法肯定是錯誤的。然而這種觀點在大衆文化中太深入人心了，心理學家和神經學家將其稱爲“10%誤區”。事實與普遍的看法正好相反，我們的整個大腦都派上了用場──未使用的神經元會死去，未使用的神經迴路會萎縮。神經影像研究報告可能會讓這個謎團永遠不得其解，因爲在大腦掃描中，只有一小部分區域是“亮部”，但其實那只是活動高於基線水平的區域，陰影部分並未休眠或未被使用。Did you agree with the other two statements? If so, you fell into our trap. All three statements are false─or at least not substantiated by scientific evidence. Unfortunately, if you got any of them wrong, you're hardly alone.
另兩個表述你贊同嗎？如果贊同，那你就落入我們的圈套了。三個表述全都是錯的──至少沒有科學證據支持。不幸的是，不管你贊同哪個錯誤的表述，與你犯同樣錯誤的都是大有人在。These 'neuromyths,' along with others, were presented to 242 primary and secondary school teachers in the Netherlands and the U.K. as part of a study by Sanne Dekker and colleagues at VU University Amsterdam and Bristol University, and just published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology. They found that 47% of the teachers believed the 10% myth. Even more, 76%, believed that enriching children's environments will strengthen their brains.
Mark Nerys刺激物豐富誤區桑內•德克爾(Sanne Dekker)和他在阿姆斯特丹自由大學(VU University Amsterdam)及英國布里斯托大學(Bristol University)的同事開展了一項研究，研究結果剛剛發表在《心理學前沿》(Frontiers in Psychology)雜誌上。作爲研究工作的一部分，他們將這三道“神經科學謎題”與其它問題一道拿給荷蘭和英國的242名中小學教師進行測試。他們發現，47%的老師相信那個10%誤區，甚至更多的老師(76%)相信豐富孩子們身處的環境可以強化他們的大腦。This belief might have emerged from evidence that rats raised in cages with amenities like exercise wheels, tunnels and other rats showed better cognitive abilities and improvements in brain structure compared with rats that grew up isolated in bare cages. But such experiments show only that a truly impoverished and unnatural environment leads to poorer developmental outcomes than a more natural environment with opportunities to play and interact. It follows that growing up locked in a closet or otherwise cut off from human contact will impair a child's brain development. It does not follow that 'enriching' a child's environment beyond what is already typical─for example, by constant exposure to 'Baby Einstein'-type videos─will boost cognitive development.
這種看法可能源自於下面的證據：關在有運動跑輪、隧道等設施的籠子裏並有其它同類作伴的老鼠比孤零零關在空空蕩蕩的籠子裏成長起來的老鼠表現出更強的認知能力和更優的大腦結構。但是這種實驗只能證明，確實缺乏刺激物和不自然的環境比有機會玩耍和互動的更自然的環境更容易造成不良的發育後果。由此可以得出結論：將人鎖在小屋子裏或以其它方式切斷人際交往會妨礙兒童的大腦發育。但卻不能由此推斷：在兒童所處的已經很典型的環境之外繼續對環境加以豐富──比如，不停在孩子面前播放“幼兒愛因斯坦”之類的視頻──會促進認知能力的發展。The myth about learning styles was the most popular: 94% of the teachers believed that students perform better when lessons are delivered in their preferred learning style. Indeed, students do have preferences about how they learn; the problem is that these preferences have little to do with how effectively they learn.
Mark Nerys學習方式誤區學習方式問題的錯誤之見是最普遍的：94%的老師認爲，當課程以學生喜愛的學習方式傳授時，學生表現會更好一些。事實上，學生的確有自己偏好的學習方式。問題是這些偏好與他們的學習效果並沒有多大關係。Cognitive psychologist Daniel Willingham explained this conundrum in his 2009 book 'Why Don't Students Like School?' In the best tests of the learning-styles theory, researchers first ascertain students' preferred styles and then randomly assign them to a form of instruction that either matches their preferences or doesn't. For example, in one study, students were randomly assigned to memorize a set of objects presented either verbally (as names) or visually (as pictures). Overall, visual presentation led to better memory, but there was no relationship between the learners' preferences and the instruction style. A study comparing 'sensing' to 'intuitive' learners among medical residents being taught new procedures reached a similar conclusion.
認知心理學家丹尼爾•威林厄姆(Daniel Willingham)在他2009年的《學生緣何不喜歡學校》(Why Don't Students Like School?)一書裏解答了這個難題。在學習方式理論方面的一些最佳測試中，研究人員首先查明瞭學生喜歡的學習方式，然後隨機分配他們接受一種或對其胃口或不迎合其喜好的教學形式。比如，在一項研究中，學生們被隨機分配去記憶一組物體，這組物體要麼是通過口頭的方式（以名字的形式）或視覺形象的方式（以圖片形式）呈現給學生。總體上看，視覺呈現可以產生更好的記憶效果，但是學習者的偏好與教學方式之間並沒有關係。一項在正接受新規程學習的住院醫生中對“感知型”學習者和“直覺型”學習者進行比較的研究也得出了類似的結論。Of course, good teachers sense when students are struggling or progressing, and they adjust accordingly. Students with disabilities have individual needs that should be addressed. But a comprehensive review commissioned by the Association for Psychological Science concluded that there's essentially no evidence that customizing instruction formats to match students' preferred learning styles leads to better achievement. This is a knock not on teachers─we are teachers ourselves─but on human intuition, which finds the claim about learning styles so self-evident that it is hard to see how it could be wrong.
當然，對於正在努力或者正取得進步的學生，優秀的教師是能夠感知到的，他們會對教學做出相應的調整。對於學習有障礙的學生，他們的需求應該單獨處理。不過一項受託於美國心理科學協會(Association for Psychological Science)所做的全面審查結果顯示，沒有實質的證據表明爲適應學生喜歡的學習方式而制定個性化的教學方式可以讓學生取得更好的學習成績。這不是對老師的一個打擊──我們自己就是老師──而是對人類直覺的叫板。我們的直覺認爲有關學習方式的主張都是不言自明的，很難看得出它有什麼不對的地方。Our own surveys of the U.S. population have found even more widespread belief in myths about the brain. About two-thirds of the public agreed with the 10% myth. Many also believed that memory works like a video recording or that they can tell when someone is staring at the back of their head.
我們自己在美國人中所做的調查發現，人們對大腦的錯誤認識甚至更加普遍。2/3的公衆都贊同那個10%誤區。很多人還認爲記憶的工作原理與錄製視頻相仿，還有人相信當有人在盯着自己的後腦勺時，他們能夠感覺得到。Ironically, in the Dekker group's study, the teachers who knew the most about neuroscience also believed in the most myths. Apparently, teachers who are (admirably) enthusiastic about expanding their knowledge of the mind and brain have trouble separating fact from fiction as they learn. Neuromyths have so much intuitive appeal, and they spread so rapidly in fields like business and self-help, that eradicating them from popular consciousness might be a Sisyphean task. But reducing their influence in the classroom would be a good start.
具有諷刺意味的是，在德克爾團隊的研究中，那些對神經科學瞭解最多的老師對大多數的錯誤看法同樣持相信的態度。顯然，（以令人欽佩的精神）積極擴展自己在大腦和思維方面的知識的老師們在學習的過程中沒能把事實跟錯誤的假想區分開來。有關神經科學的錯誤之見有很大的直觀吸引力，而且在商業和互助團體等領域傳播非常之快，要從大衆意識中清除這些錯誤看法也許會成爲一件永無止境的任務。不過不妨先從課堂着手減少它們的影響，這會是一個良好的開端。
