10月13日口譯文章：研討註解：優良電視劇可進步你的情商
假如你曾因看太多電視，心中隱約覺得慚愧，我發起你看完如下研討成果。這是上周揭櫫於《審美、發明及藝術生理學》上的。個中，研討作者稱，旁觀高質量的電視劇——如《告白狂人》或《白宮風雲》——可進步你的情商。也便是說，看優良電視節目讓你更能體察別人。
申報中，研討作者描寫了兩個讓他們提出這一結論的試驗。個中一個試驗中，他們先讓100小我旁觀電視劇(《告白狂人》和《白宮風雲》)或非假造類節目(《宇宙解碼》和《沙魚周：明白鯊的回擊》。然後，全體介入者接收一項生理學家經常使用於丈量情商的測試：研討職員向他們展現36雙眼睛，並被請求斷定每雙眼睛表達的情感。成果表現，在測試中，旁觀了假造類節目標人，比看非假造類節目標人表示更好。
他們又試了一次，只播放《傲骨賢妻》、《迷失與新星》和《穿越蟲洞》這幾部電視劇，並參加掌握組。掌握組的介入者直接加入眼睛斷定測試，不看任何電視節目。他們的成果再次表現，看假造類節目標介入者情商分更高，而看非假造類節目標介入者，得分也比不看電視的人高。
這與2013年一項被普遍報導的研討成果類似：瀏覽文學小說與在情商測試中得高分相幹。那項研討的作者和此項新研討的作者都以為，龐雜的小說敘事，迫使讀者大概觀眾從多方面思慮題目;別的，由於不是每一個腳色的情感都明白地表達出來，觀眾必需經由過程一些腦力事情來填補這些空缺，忖度腳色的心坎運動。
但是那項對文學小說的研討，也因其研討辦法而廣受批駁。特別是，研討者為他們的研討所選的小說，是由像路易絲·厄德裏奇和契訶夫如許的實際主義作家所寫的。而他們所選的非假造文學作品，是史密森雜誌的三篇文章之一，題為《馬鈴薯是若何轉變天下的》。我提這點不是在說馬鈴薯浮名(我永久不會這麽做的)，而是為了指出，這些非假造類文學作品不是關於人的。這也就難怪試驗者在讀完關於情面的作品後，能更好地懂得人的情感了。這項新研討也有著類似的範圍：人們在琢磨唐·德雷珀(《告白狂人》主角)的頭腦裏想甚麽以後，比看完《沙魚周》以後變得更能懂得別人，這真的使人驚奇嗎?這到底告知了咱們甚麽?
大概並無告知咱們甚麽。但若你想趁如今氣象不太好，為經心投入某部電視劇找托言，那末你看完這個新研討以後曉得該怎樣做了吧。
【參考譯文】
If you ever feel vaguely guilty about the vast amounts of television you watch, might I suggest you cling to the findings of this study, published last week in Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. In it, the authors claim that watching high-quality television dramas — things like Mad Men or The West Wing — can increase your emotional intelligence. That is, watching good TV makes you more empathetic.
In the paper, the authors describe two experiments that led them to their pro-TV conclusion. In one, they asked about 100 people to first watch either a television drama (Mad Men or The West Wing) or a nonfiction program (How the Universe Works or Shark Week: Jaws Strikes Back). Afterward, all of the participants took a test psychologists often use to measure emotional intelligence: They're shown 36 pairs of eyes and are told to judge the emotion each pair is displaying. The results showed that the people who'd watched the fictionalized shows did better on this test than those who watched the nonfiction ones.
They tried this again, only switching up the programs (The Good Wife and Lost versus Nova and Through the Wormhole) and adding a control group, too: people who took the eye-reading test without watching any television first. Again, their results showed that the fiction viewers' empathy scores were superior, though the nonfiction viewers' scored higher on average than those who hadn't watched anything beforehand.
It's a similar finding to a widely reported 2013 study that claimed that reading literary fiction is linked to better scores on this empathy-measuring test. The authors of that study and this new one argue that a complex fictional narrative forces the reader or viewer to consider a problem from multiple perspectives; further, since not every character's emotion is explicitly spelled out, the audience must do some mental work to fill in those gaps, making a guess at the inner lives of the character.
That literary fiction study, however, was also widely critiqued for its methods. Specifically, the fiction the researchers chose for their study was by authors like Louise Erdrich or Anton Chekhov; the nonfiction, on the other hand, was one of three Smithsonian articles, with titles like "How the Potato Changed the World." I mention this not to speak ill of delicious tubers (I would never do that), but to point out that the nonfiction samples they chose weren't about people. No wonder the study subjects were better at reading human emotions when they'd just spent some time reading about human emotions. And this new study falls short in a similar manner: Is it really that surprising that people might be in a more empathetic state of mind after trying to figure out what is going on in Don Draper's head than they would be after watching a Shark Week show? What does that really tell us?
Maybe not much, but if you're looking for an excuse to buckle down with some binge-watching now that the weather's turned, do what you will with this new research.
市場價：HK$ 92
