Are all of your memories real? - Daniel L. Schacter

翻译人员: C Cheng 校对人员: Su Wang

In a study in the 1990s,

在上世纪 90 年代的一项研究中，

participants recalled getting lost in a shopping mall as children.

参与者回忆了他们童年时 在购物中心走失的经历。

Some shared these memories in vivid detail—

一些人用生动的细节 叙述了这些记忆——

one even remembered that the old man who rescued him

其中一人甚至记得 那个营救他的老人

was wearing a flannel shirt.

穿着一件法兰绒衬衣。

But none of these people had actually gotten lost in a mall.

但是，事实上，这些人 都不曾在购物中心走失过。

They produced these false memories

他们制造了这些虚假记忆，

when the psychologists conducting the study told them they’d gotten lost,

只因为他们从进行该研究的 心理学家那里得知他们曾经走失过。

and although they might not remember the incident,

虽然他们不一定记得这件事，

their parents had confirmed it.

但是他们的父母对此加以了证实。

And it wasn’t just one or two people who thought they remembered getting lost—

而且并非只有一两个人认为 他们曾走失过——

a quarter of the participants did.

1/4 的参与者都认为如此。

These findings may sound unbelievable,

这个调查结果可能听起来难以置信，

but they actually reflect a very common experience.

但却反映了一个非常普遍的现象。

Our memories are sometimes unreliable.

我们的记忆有时并不可靠。

And though we still don’t know precisely what causes this fallibility

虽然在神经学上， 我们还不能确切地知道

on a neurological level,

是什么造成了这种易错性，

research has highlighted some of the most common ways our memories

但研究人员强调了几个最常见的

造成记忆背离事实的途径。

diverge from what actually happened.

The mall study highlights how we can incorporate information

这个与购物中心相关的研究 重点展示了我们如何

from outside sources,

把来自外界的信息，

like other people or the news,

比如来自他人或者新闻的信息，

into our personal recollections without realizing it.

整合到我们的个人记忆中， 却对此浑然不觉。

This kind of suggestibility is just one influence on our memories.

这种暗示只是 影响记忆的一种方式。

Take another study,

以另一项研究为例，

in which researchers briefly showed a random collection of photographs

研究中，研究人员快速地 把一组随机收集的照片

to a group of participants,

展示给一组参与者。

including images of a university campus none of them had ever visited.

其中一些图像是一所 他们从没去过的大学校园。

When shown the images three weeks later,

三个星期后， 当再次看到这些图像时，

a majority of participants said that they had probably or definitely

大部分参与者表示

他们以前可能或肯定去过这个校园。

visited the campus in the past.

The participants misattributed information from one context— an image they’d seen—

参与者把来自某一场景中的信息—— 一幅曾经见过的图像——错误地判断为

onto another— a memory of something they believed they actually experienced.

来自另一个场景——对某些 自认为真实经历过的事件的记忆。

In another experiment, people were shown an image of a magnifying glass,

还有一项实验，它向人们 展示了一幅放大镜的图像，

and then told to imagine a lollipop.

然后让他们想象一支棒棒糖。

They frequently recalled that they saw the magnifying glass and the lollipop.

他们的回忆经常是 既见过放大镜，也见过棒棒糖。

They struggled to link the objects to the correct context—

他们努力将物体与 正确的场景联系起来——

whether they actually saw them, or simply imagined them.

不论是实际上看到的还是想象的。

Another study, where a psychologist questioned over 2,000 people

在另一项实验中， 心理学家询问了 2000 多人

on their views about the legalization of marijuana,

对大麻合法化的看法。

highlights yet another kind of influence on memory.

这个实验强调了 对记忆的另一种影响方式。

Participants answered questions in 1973 and 1982.

参与者分别在 1973 和 1982 年对该问题做了回答。

Those who said they had supported marijuana legalization in 1973,

那些在 1973 年支持大麻合法化，

but reported they were against it in 1982,

却在 1982 年对此表示反对的人

were more likely to recall that they were actually against legalization in 1973—

更有可能记得他们 在 1973 年是反对合法化的——

bringing their old views in line with their current ones.

即他们的旧观点与 当前观点保持一致。

Our current opinions, feelings, and experiences

我们当前的意见、感觉和经历

can bias our memories of how we felt in the past.

可以使我们对过去的感知 产生偏颇的记忆。

In another study,

在另一项研究中，

researchers gave two groups of participants background information

研究人员为两组参与者提供了 一场历史战争的背景资料，

on a historical war and asked them to rate the likelihood that each side would win.

并要求他们评估各方取胜的可能性。

They gave each group the same information,

他们为两个组提供了相同的信息，

except that they only told one group who had actually won the war—

但是只告知了其中一组 哪一方实际上赢得了这场战争——

the other group didn’t know the real world outcome.

另一组并不知道实际战果。

In theory, both groups’ answers should be similar,

从理论上讲， 两个组的答案应该相近，

because the likelihood of each side winning

因为各方取胜的可能性

isn’t effected by who actually won—

不应受到实际战战果的影响——

if there’s a 20% chance of thunderstorms, and a thunderstorm happens,

就像如果发生雷雨的可能性是 20%， 而它确实发生了，

the chance of thunderstorms doesn’t retroactively go up to 100%.

但发生雷雨的可能性 并不会因此而追升为 100%。

Still, the group that knew how the war ended

尽管如此， 知道实际战果的那一组

rated the winning side as more likely to win than the group who did not.

与不知道的一组相比， 认为胜利的一方更有取胜的可能性。

All of these fallibilities of memory can have real-world impacts.

所有这些记忆的易错性 都可能对现实世界产生影响。

If police interrogations use leading questions with eye witnesses or suspects,

如果警方在审讯时，对目击证人 或者嫌疑犯使用了引导性问题，

suggestibility could result in incorrect identifications or unreliable confessions.

其暗示性可能会造成 错误的身份鉴别或不可靠的供状。

Even in the absence of leading questions,

即使没有引导性的询问，

misattribution can lead to inaccurate eyewitness testimony.

张冠李戴也可以导致 错误的目击者证词。

In a courtroom,

在法庭上，

if a judge rules a piece of evidence inadmissible

如果法官裁定某条证据不足采纳，

and tells jurors to disregard it, they may not be able to do so.

并要求陪审团将其忽视， 他们可能做不到这一点。

In a medical setting, if a patient seeks a second opinion

在医疗场景里， 如果患者请求重新诊断，

and the second physician is aware of the first one’s diagnosis,

而第二个医生对之前的 诊断有所了解的话，

that knowledge may bias their conclusion.

医生的结论可能会因此而产生偏差。

Our memories are not ironclad representations of reality,

我们的记忆并不是 对现实的铁定描述，

but subjective perceptions.

而是主观认知。

And there’s not necessarily anything wrong with that—

这并不一定是个错误——

the problems arise when we treat memory as fact,

问题出现在 我们把记忆当作事实，

rather than accepting this fundamental truth

而不接受这个基本的

about the nature of our recollections.

关于记忆本质的事实。