[ljOWe^e fairly good at judging people based on first （36） impressions, thin slices of experience ranging from a glimpse of a photo to a five-minute interaction, and deliberation can be not only extraneous but intrusive. @In one study of the ability she called "thin slicing,the late psychologist Nalini Ambady asked participants to watch silent 10-second video clips of professors and to rate the instructor's overall effectiveness. ❷Their ratings correlated strongly with students, end-of-semester ratings. ❷Another set of participants had to count backward from 1,000 by nines as they watched the clips, occupying their conscious working memory. ❷Their ratings were just as accurate, demonstrating the intuitive nature of the social processing. [O2C]ritically, another group was asked to spend a minute writing down reasons for their judgment, before giving the rating. ❷Accuracy dropped dramatically. ❷Ambady suspected that deliberation focused them on vivid but misleading cues, such as certain gestures or utterances, rather than letting the complex interplay of subtle signals form a holistic impression. ❷She found similar interference when participants watched 15-second clips of pairs of people and judged whether they were strangers, friends, or dating partners. [3] OOther research shows we're better at detecting （38） deception from thin slices when we rely on intuition instead of reflection.❷"It's as if you5re driving a stick shift,5, says Judith Hall, a psychologist at Northeastern University, "and if you start thinking about it too much, you can't remember what you're doing. ❷But if you go on automatic pilot, you're fine. ❷Much of our social life is like that." [4] OThinking too much can also harm our ability to form preferences. ❷College students5 ratings of strawberry jams and college courses aligned better with experts5 opinions when the students weren't asked to analyze their rationale. ❷And people made car-buying decisions that were both objectively better and more personally satisfying when asked to focus on their feelings rather than on details, but only if the decision was complex— when they had a lot of information to process. [5]
❶Intuition's special powers are unleashed only in certain circumstances.❷In one study, participants completed a battery of eight tasks, including four that tapped reflective thinking (discerning rules, comprehending vocabulary) and four that tapped intuition and creativity (generating new products or figures of speech). ❷Then they rated the degree to which they had used intuition ("gut feelings,v "hunches," "my heart"). ❹Use of their gut hurt their performance on the first four tasks, as expected, and helped them on the rest. ❷Sometimes the heart is smarter than the head. 1CT
📝 全文释义（点击展开）
我们非常擅长根据第一印象一■瞥 一眼照片或交流五分钟等碎片经验——来评 判他人，深思熟虑对我们来说没有必要，而 且会对我们的判断形成干扰。已故心理学家 纳里尼•安巴迪在一项她称之为“碎片撷取” 的能力研究中，要求参与者观看一些教授的 秒无声视频片段，并对其整体效果进行评 分。参与者的评分与学生期末给出的评分惊 人地相似。另一组参与者在观看视频片段时， 必须从1000开始九个数字九个数字地倒着数 数，以此来占用他们有意识的工作记忆。他 们的评分也同样准确，这证明了社交过程中 的直觉本能。 关键在于，还有一组参与者被要求在评分前 花一分钟写下他们的评判依据。（37）而他们 评判的准确性大幅下降了。安巴迪猜想，他 们的深思熟虑使得他们把注意力集中在了生 动但具有误导性的提示上，比如某些手势或 表达，而不是让这些微妙信号之间的复杂作 用形成一个整体印象。她发现,让参与丿 者观看15秒视频片段中成对出现的人，并判 断他们是陌生人、朋友还是约会对象时，也 会出现类似的干扰。 其他研究表明，当我们依靠直觉而 不是深思熟虑时，更能从碎片信息中察觉到 欺骗。美国东北大学心理学家朱迪斯•霍尔 说道：“这就好像在开手动挡的车，如果你开 始过度思考，就不记得自己在做什么了。但 如果你选择自动驾驶，你就没事。我们大部 分社交生活都是如此。” 思考太多也不利于我们形成偏好。当大 学生们没有被要求分析自己评分的原因时， 他们对草莓果酱和大学课程的评分与专家意 见更一致。（39 ）购车时，如果人们被要求 专注于感觉而不是细节，他们做出的决定更 客观，个人满意度也更高，但这只适用于做 复杂的决定——即他们有大量的信息需要处 理时。 直觉的特殊能力只有在特定情况下才能 释放出来。（40 ）在一项研究中，参与者完 成了一系列的八项任务，其中四项利用了反 思性思维（识别规则、理解词汇），四项利 用了直觉和创造力（产生新产品或形成修辞 格）。然后,他们对自己利用直觉（“第六 感”“预感”“我的内心”）的程度进行评分。 如预期那样，（40 ）利用直觉对他们在前四 项任务中的表现造成了不良影响，但在剩余 的四项任务中帮助了他们。有时候,直觉比 大脑更聪明。 厶