Pavlovian reactions aren't just for dogs - Benjamin N. Witts

並不只對狗有用：巴夫洛夫的制約反應 - Benjamin N. Witts

Transcriber: Andrea McDonough Reviewer: Bedirhan Cinar

譯者: Jephian Lin 審譯者: Emma Chiang

You've probably heard of Pavlov's dogs,

你也許聽過巴夫洛夫的狗，

the phrase that often summarizes

這句話通常是在說

Dr. Ivan Pavlov's early 20th century research,

伊凡．巴夫洛夫博士在 20 世紀初的一項研究，

in which he demonstrated that we can alter

在研究中他用實驗證明在狗身上

what stimuli elicit a reflective response in canines.

我們可以改變外在刺激來引出同樣的反射反應。

He showed this by sounding a bell

我們可以這樣來證實，

just before he presented

先對一群狗搖鈴，

his group of dogs with meat powder.

接著拿出肉粉。

After many presentations of the bell,

搖了幾次鈴，

followed by tasty meat powder,

而每次都接著帶出美味的肉粉以後，

the dogs eventually began to salivate

狗漸漸一聽到鈴聲

at just the sound of the bell.

就會流口水。

They salivated even when

就算在沒有肉粉的情況下

there was no meat powder present.

牠們還是會流口水。

This phenomenon isn't limited to dogs.

這個現象不侷限在狗身上。

Consider the placebo effect,

想一下「假藥效應」， （譯註：又稱安慰劑效應。）

in which a pill with no active substances

就是說一顆沒有任何療效的藥丸

brings about a response

帶來一種

similar to a pill with a substance present.

似乎有療效的感覺。

What changes here is our reaction to our ailment,

在這裡，改變的其實是我們對病痛的反應，

such as perceiving less pain

像是感到疼痛減輕，

and not the ailment itself.

而不是疼痛真的減緩。

Or, consider the love humans have for a parent.

或者想一想人類對父母親的愛。

Some would argue that this love is instinctual,

有些人會主張這種愛是與生俱來的，

and they may be partially right.

而他們也有可能有部份是對的。

But, the argument fails to account

然而，這論點沒辦法解釋

for the equal amount of love

當小孩被養父母扶養時

that children adopted later in life

他們在往後的生活中對養父母也產生

hold for their adoptive parents.

同樣那麼多的愛。

But the behaviorist argument can account

但是行為學家的論點可解釋

for both accounts of love.

這兩種愛。

A parent, biological or not,

父母親，不管有沒有血緣關係，

is constantly paired with things like

會持續性地和許多東西關聯在一起，

food,

smiles,

像是食物、

微笑、

toys,

玩具、

affection,

games,

情感、

遊戲、

protection,

保護、

and entertainment.

以及娛樂。

And a parent's constant association

而父母親長期與這些

with these wonderful or crucial aspects of a child's life

小孩生命中如此美好或重要的事物相結合，

has a similar, albeit more complicated,

儘管更複雜, 這就像是

effect that meat powder had on Pavlov's salivating dogs.

肉粉對巴夫洛夫流口水的狗的影響一樣。

In other words, if one's parent is predictive

換句話說，如果父母親常能提供

of really good or really important things,

很棒或很重要的事物，

then one's parent becomes

那麼父母親也成了

a really good and important thing, too.

很棒及很重要的事物。

And there is also romantic advice to be gained

而從巴夫洛夫的觀察中，

from Pavlov's observations.

也可以得到一些浪漫的啟示。

We all need food to survive, right?

我們都需要食物，對吧？

And someone who can provide such things

而如果某人可以提供美味的食物，

in a delicious, saliva-producing manner

令人垂涎，那這人就扮演了

stands to become our human equivalent of a ringing bell.

相當於鈴聲的角色。

In other words,

也就是說，

if you can cook one or more scrumptious meals

如果你為你愛慕的人

for a potential love interest,

準備了美味的一餐，

there's a good chance that you'll be viewed

那未來很有機會在對方眼中

more favorably in the future,

你會更令人喜愛，

even if you didn't prepare the delicious food.

就算下次你沒有準備美味的食物。

And who wouldn't want the love of their life

而誰不想得到

drooling over them?

一生摯愛的追求呢？

But life is not just bell rings and salivation.

但人生並不只是鈴聲和口水。

There's also a dark side to this type of learning,

這類制約學習的過程中也有負面的效果，

called "taste aversion".

叫做「味覺厭惡」， （譯註：又稱加薩效應。）

Taste aversion occurs when we ingest some food

當我們吃了讓我們生病的食物時

that eventually makes us sick,

味覺厭惡會產生，

and, as a result, we avoid that food,

結果，我們會避免吃這種食物，

sometimes for the rest of our lives.

有時候一輩子都不會再吃。

Taste aversion is so powerful

味覺厭惡極具影響力，

that the effect can be seen

儘管是在幾小時後才發病，

even if the illness is experienced hours later

或是那項食物實際上並不是生病的主因，

and even if the food itself did not actually make us sick.

我們還是可以看到同樣的效果。

Such is the case when we have the flu, and, by accident,

好比說我們得了感冒，而意外地

we ingest some food moments prior to vomiting.

我們吃了某樣食物，之後吐了。

In this case, we know that the food

在這情況下，我們知道食物

did not cause the vomiting,

並沒有造成嘔吐，

but our bodies don't know that.

但我們的身體並不知道。

And the next time we encounter that food,

而下次我們再遇到同樣的食物，

we are likely to refuse eating it.

我們很可能就會拒絕吃它。

Now, imagine the potential consequences

現在，想像一下在第一次約會中

of undercooking a meal on a first date.

餐點沒煮熟所潛在的結果。

If the food makes your date sick,

如果食物讓你的伴侶不舒服，

it is possible for them

對方很有可能

to associate that bad feeling with not just the food,

不單單把這個不好的感覺與食物作連結，

but with <i>your</i> food in particular.

而是特別和「你」的食物作連結。

If the episode was traumatizing enough,

如果這插曲已經夠糟了，

or if it also happens on a subsequent date,

或是之後的約會也發生類似的事情，

they may come to relate you with the consequences,

對方也許把你和結果作連結，

just like Pavlov's dogs

就像巴夫洛夫的狗一樣，

related the bell with the meat powder.

把鈴聲和肉粉作連結。

In other words,

換句話說，

the sight of you showing up at the next dinner date

在下次的晚餐約會時，你的出現

might actually make your date nauseous!

很可能就是實際上令人作嘔的原因！

As the old saying goes,

俗話說：

the fastest way to someone's heart

「要抓住一個人的心，

is through their stomach,

要先抓住他的胃」，

assuming you don't make them sick in the process.

當然前提是在這過程中，你沒有令對方身體不適。