- 闖紅燈的經歷（被照相機給照下來了） [2013/06]
- 由中國人不守規矩引發的小感慨 [2013/11]
- 當老人摔倒之後 [2013/12]
- 減肥！減肥！！ [2013/11]
- 電影《The Descendants》（後裔）—一部給成人看的電影 [2011/12]
- 北京出租汽車司機的一番話（二） [2011/06]
- 旅途中小小的不愉快 – 抱怨一下美國 [2013/11]
- 北京出租汽車司機的一番話（一） [2011/06]
- 讀古文小品手記之三：張庭玉的「恕」 [2010/03]
- 北京人和炸醬麵 [2012/09]
- 女兒初中畢業了，悲耶喜耶？ [2011/06]
- 一定要早婚早育—由母親節的祝福想起的 [2011/05]
- 紀念一下狄更斯 [2012/02]
- 甲狀腺和練氣功 [2010/03]
- 從邁克傑克遜私人醫生的過失殺人案聊聊美國刑事法庭的聽證辯論和陪審團制度 ... [2011/11]
- 誰來扮演孩子們的牙齒仙女？ [2010/04]
- 另類的同桌故事 – 不是初戀也沒有友情 [2012/01]
- 寫在小說《那個年代的故事：春花秋實》的後面 [2010/12]
- 公司里的故事：花落誰家 [2010/05]
- 那個年代的故事：春花秋實（一） [2010/11]
向瓊台鶴同學和白露學習，也找一篇英文文章來翻譯。向廣大其他網友學習，也找一篇文章來轉貼。
《華爾街報》的專欄作家伊麗莎白·伯恩斯坦十月一日撰文，試圖從心理學的角度討論我們為什麼在網上使用粗暴的語言。我從2004年起上網玩，在八年間對文中所列的事例屢見不鮮，特別文章的後幾段，更是某些網民們在爭論政治以及其他有爭議話題時常用的手段。希望大家讀過此文後，對在網上玩多些思想準備。現實中的朋友在網上都會因網上爭論而斷交，更何況在網上交的朋友？所以，在網上爭論，當撤即撤，繼續糾纏無益，反而使自己徒增煩惱。
建議懂英文的朋友們跳過我的中文譯文，直接讀英文原文，因為原文寫得更加簡明易懂。我由於時間有限，不能抱著字典對一些詞反覆推敲。本文基本上是根據周圍美國人說話的習慣以意譯為主的。其中難免會有忘掉翻譯的詞，或詞不達意的時候，希望大家見諒。
2012年10月1日，7:09時ET
為什麼我們在網上會這麼粗魯
-- 網上瀏覽降低自我控制，並與較高的債務和體重相關聯
珍妮弗•布里斯托爾最近失去了一個她最老的朋友，這要感謝在臉書上（Facebook）關於鬥牛型狗的爭吵。
當她轉貼了一篇報紙上的文章時，麻煩開始了。該文章聲稱去年在紐約市鬥牛型狗是最危險的類型。她在貼文章時同時寫道：「請談談你的看法... 833件鬥牛型小狗狗的事件，」布里斯托爾女士是一位40歲在曼哈頓的公關和動物福利倡導者。
最近的一項研究著眼於臉書的頻繁用戶們的體重超重率和信用卡債務率，研究得出結論：這群用戶控制衝動的能力往往會降低。
布里斯托爾女士的朋友們 -- 其中的許多人也活躍於動物福利界 -- 迅速跟進。一位指出，「鬥牛犬」不是一個單一的官方品種; 另一位說：當狗變得暴力呈進攻性時，「不負責任的狗主人」經常要負責任。黑色的拉布拉多型狗實際上可能更會咬人 – 另外一位則如此說。
這時，布里斯托爾女士的一位「發小（譯者註：童年朋友）」大聲宣布：「請相信一位急診室醫生的話：我在15年裡一直做這個（譯者註：「這個」指治療被狗咬傷的人，跟隨該文有一張網上討論時的照片，在照片里醫生的話說得比較清楚，請看文章出處的鏈接），我還沒有看到一位病人因為被一隻金毛獵犬咬而不得不去手術室或金毛犬咬殺了它的獵物。」
這下子引起洪水暴發。一個人要求看醫生的「科學研究」證據。另一名指控他根本懶得做確認是否實際上他的病人都是被鬥牛型狗咬傷的。有人建議他應該「勇敢地走出」急診室去看看到底是怎麼回事。
「這真是荒唐，」布里斯托爾說，她沒有加入爭吵。她的發小，那位急診室的醫生，在第二天早晨跟她解除好友關係。這是八個月前的事情了，他從此再也沒有跟她來往。
我們為什麼在網上如此討厭對方並讓對方討厭？無論是在臉書（Facebook），退特（Twitter），留言板或網站，我們互相說些絕不會當面說的話，難道我們真的不明白這些話不應該說嗎？
匿名是一個強大的動力。躲在一個假的網名後面，讓我們感到我們是不可戰勝的，並且是隱蔽無法被窺視的。先且不談這個，在很多網站上，我們並不是像我們想象得那樣真的匿名，所有在臉書上的人都不是是匿名的。甚至當我們以真實身份出現在網上時，我們依然胡作非為。
根據哥倫比亞大學和匹茲堡大學的教授即將發表的研究，瀏覽臉書，降低了我們的自我控制能力。其效果最明顯的是那些在臉書上有著最親密的朋友圈的人，研究人員說。
我們大多數人放在臉書上的自我形象是經過粉飾的。這種粉飾過的正面積極形象和我們在其他人對這個形象點擊「喜歡」的形式中得到鼓勵，從而提高了我們的自尊。當我們有一個膨脹的自我意識時，往往會表現出自控能力差。
「你可以把它理解為合格證效應：你自我感覺良好因此你感到你有擁有優越感的權利，」 哥倫比亞大學商學院市場營銷助理教授和此項研究的合著者基思•威爾科克斯說：「你要保護那個粉飾過的形象，這可能是為什麼人們如此強烈抨擊那些不同意他們的意見的人。」酗酒的人通常會顯示這些類缺乏自我控制，自我「膨脹感」的行為，他補充說。
研究人員進行了一系列的五個研究。在一個研究中，他們詢問541 名臉書用戶在網站上花費多少時間和在臉書的好友圈裡有多少個親密的朋友。他們還詢問了他們的網下生活，包括他們的債務和信用卡的使用情況，他們的體重和飲食習慣的問題，以及他們每星期花了多少時間和真實的人社交。
研究發現，這些花費更多的時間上網和有著密切朋友圈的人，更有可能暴飲暴食，並且他們的體重指數也更大些，以及有更多的信用卡債務，他們的信用評分較低。另一項研究發現，這些瀏覽過臉書五分鐘和有強大的網路關係的人更傾向於選擇巧克力餅乾而不是燕麥條作為零食。
在第三項研究中，教授為與會者提供一組是不可能解決的字謎遊戲，以及定時IQ測試，然後測量過了多久，他們會放棄試圖解決的問題。他們發現，這些花更多的時間在臉書上的人更可能並更迅速地放棄艱巨的任務。臉書的發言人拒絕對此發表評論。
為什麼我們經常在網上如此咄咄逼人？看看在臉書網頁本專欄與我素不相識的一個人最近貼的一個帖子，「為什麼我應該自找麻煩寫給你？你根本不會回應。」
我們在網上自控較弱因為我們不必看到和我們對話的人的反應，心理學家和麻省理工學院大學教授，從事社會科學和技術的研究的雪利•特克爾說。因為我們較難看到和聚焦在對方跟我們共有的相同的地方，我們傾向於把對方非人化，她說。
特克爾博士說，令人吃驚的是，當人們在線溝通時，許多人依舊忘記他們在網上的發帖有著像大聲說話那樣的效果。特別是從智能手機發帖，其實你是在發表講話，但你並不覺得你是在發表，」她說。 「所以，如果你在這個小玩藝兒上說『我恨你』呢？這小玩藝兒就像一個玩具，它不會給你要付什麼後果的感覺。」
對於臉書而言，它的名字是問題的一部分。 「它承諾我們可以看到真人的臉，我們要去的地方是有朋友的地方，」特克爾博士說，她是《單獨在一起：為什麼我們從高科技那裡期待更多和從真實對方那裡期待更少》這本書的作者， 「如果你在那兒遭到什麼傷害，但你並沒有做好這個準備，你會覺得受到雙重侮辱，所以你會狠狠反擊。」
現在是網上政治爭吵的高發季節，切普•博斯克深有體會。 博斯克先生54歲，是加利福尼亞州千橡樹市的電視播音員和註冊的獨立選民，他喜歡在他的臉書頁面提出政治問題。 「我對那些跟我政見不同的人是如何思考的這件事有興趣，」他說。 「有時我會寫一個挑釁性的問題，以看雙方互相叫罵為娛樂目的。」
在過去的幾個月里，因為網上的政治爭吵，博斯克先生失去了兩個現實生活中的朋友。第一個朋友在他網頁更新時提出要求人們辯論是否摩門教徒是基督徒這個問題后對他大為光火。 （「你簡直胡來得沒邊兒了，你不知道你在說什麼，」她在他的網頁上寫道，隨後又跟上一句：「你是個白痴。」）博斯克先生把她拉黑了。 「我將允許自由討論，直到你激怒我，」他說。有時候，他會刪除整條討論線。
第二個朋友的友誼結束得更加突然，博斯克的一位老朋友不停地反覆地發表自己的政見因而得罪了博斯克的幾個臉書好友，甚至於博斯克本人，「他雨後春筍般地發帖大談特談政治，而不是在和別人討論，」博克斯先生說。博克斯先生給他的朋友寫貼告訴他，如果他不停止的話，博克斯就要把他從自己的網頁上拉黑。他的朋友對此回應是用了非常粗鄙的語言讓博克斯滾一邊去並與他解除好友。 「我當時非常生氣懊惱，」博克斯先生說。
不過，他有時還是不能約束自己的煽風點火。當政治話題白熱化后並向著他不喜歡的方向發展，「向右或向左，」他說，他會私下裡給他的「攻擊狗」的朋友寫悄悄話，並建議他或她參加討論。 「我會說，哎呀，這種討論我看起來不那麼對勁，你說呢？」 他說。 「然後，他們將會到那裡和讓我感到特煩的人較勁，這讓我看起來像好人。」
伊麗莎白•伯恩斯坦（Elizabeth Bernstein）在Bonds@wsj.com
原文在此鏈接：
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
- [04/28]洛杉磯暴亂二十周年紀念日
- [09/15]藍月亮
- [09/15]回國見聞：亂點鴛鴦買鞋記
- [09/15]一總回復朋友們，謝謝大家
- [09/22]北京人和炸醬麵
- [10/06] 為什麼我們在網上會這麼粗魯(ZT)
- [10/13]都是炸醬麵惹的禍
- [10/29]再度迷失在洛杉磯的城中心—黑夜版
- [11/24]家庭應付自然災害等緊急情況的備用單
- [12/22]什麼是進攻性武器
- [12/22]為什麼在美國不可能全面禁槍
- [06/08]闖紅燈的經歷（被照相機給照下來了）
- [11/12]由中國人不守規矩引發的小感慨
- 查看：[Giada的.最新博文]
- 查看：[大家的.最新博文]
- 查看：[大家的.英文分享]
發表評論 評論 (79 個評論)
- 回復 同往錫安
- 有趣的觀察，也許有些道理。我覺得把對方非人物化對我來說不是這樣的。我認為電腦被后坐的是一個人，一個靈魂，有理性的人。也許我把人想象得太有理性，有人性。有話說，林子大了，什麼鳥都有，我想這話是對的，只是不願意相信而已。
再者，缺乏自控，也是很好的提醒。有時候，我們的確應該限制話題，限制自己需要打交道的人，我們不能希望所有人都是通情達理的，否則在網上會比較失望，也會因此失去網上的樂趣。
- 回復 同往錫安
- 美國人不是提倡Agree to disagree嗎？看來不容易做到。
翰山: 看來米國人也大架。不過我的看法，只要不罵人，每個人各抒己見的權利還是應該有，但是（強力）不要求別人同意自己的意見！ ...
- 回復 翰山
- 不容易。也要提倡。
同往錫安: 美國人不是提倡Agree to disagree嗎？看來不容易做到。
看到你和賭博客的文章了，你們的觀點我不同意。不過，我同意你們發表自己的看法。好像還有一個網友，Amarantha:，也不同意你們的意見，是吧。不過，這種理性討論本身，還是很好的。
- 回復 同往錫安
- 你不同意沒有問題呀，歡迎不同意見，不過最好說出你的理由~
翰山: 不容易。也要提倡。
看到你和賭博客的文章了，你們的觀點我不同意。不過，我同意你們發表自己的看法。好像還有一個網友，Amarantha:，也不同意你們的意見，是吧 ...
- 回復 Giada
- 我想，這篇文章的意思主要是，人們在網上呆的時間長了，自控能力弱了，所以帶來一系列的問題，把對方非人化是其中的一種。這只是一種普遍現象，當然有些人不是這樣，比如上網時間不長，可能就相對好些。
同往錫安: 有趣的觀察，也許有些道理。我覺得把對方非人物化對我來說不是這樣的。我認為電腦被后坐的是一個人，一個靈魂，有理性的人。也許我把人想象得太有理性，有人性。 ...
- 回復 Giada
- 只要是有政治爭論的地方就有爭吵，估計哪國人都是一樣的。
翰山: 看來米國人也大架。不過我的看法，只要不罵人，每個人各抒己見的權利還是應該有，但是（強力）不要求別人同意自己的意見！ ...
說是互相尊重，在網上更不容易互相尊重，主要就是彼此見不到面。
- 回復 Giada
- 在網上看不到對方的表情，所以一說開了，自己有了想說的話，不管別人願不願意聽都一個勁兒地說，最後就打起來了。也許從一開始並不是要發泄的。
yuki-1217: 也許也是一種發泄，在現實生活里做不到的發泄~~~
Giada最受歡迎的博文