TED英語演講：人類越來越聰明，而閱讀的內(nèi)容越來越蠢
你最近一次讀的書是什么?這本書你讀了多久?你現(xiàn)在一年讀幾本書?現(xiàn)代人讀書越來越少，這已經(jīng)是全球公認的事實。而一些新的統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)發(fā)現(xiàn)，即使是那些依然讀書很多的人，或許也沒有他們自己認為的那么有文化了。下面是小編為大家收集關(guān)于TED英語演講：人類越來越聰明，而閱讀的內(nèi)容越來越蠢，歡迎借鑒參考。
People Are Getting Smarter, Contents Are Getting Dumber
演講者是《The Escapist 雜志》的總經(jīng)理，亞歷山大·馬克利斯(Alexander Macris)
Today, we’re gonna talk about the content we consume and what that consumption is doing to our minds.
今天我們要來談?wù)勎覀兿M的內(nèi)容，以及這種消費對我們思維的影響。
But before I started to talk about content I wanna talk about something else we consume.
但在講內(nèi)容之前，我想先談?wù)勎覀兿M的另一種東西。
I wanna talk about food.
我想談?wù)勈澄铩?/p>
When we consume food, we experience its taste and we benefit from its nutritional value.
當我們吃食物的時候，我們能體驗到它的味道，并從它的營養(yǎng)價值中獲益。
Taste is subjective. For person to person it can vary.
味道是主觀的。不同的人有不同的感受。
Nutrition is universal and objective.
而營養(yǎng)是普世的、客觀的。
Those of us don’t like our broccoli might say that food and taste and nutrition don’t go well together.
我們當中那些不喜歡西蘭花的人可能會說：食物、味道、營養(yǎng)不可兼得。
Others, strange people, like healthy food.
另一些比較古怪的人則喜歡吃健康食品。
At minimum we can agree that food can be tasty without being nutritious and vice versa.
不過我們至少能達成一個共識：食物可以好吃但沒有營養(yǎng)，反之亦然。
Now one time the American diet consisted primarily of nutritious food such as organic vegetables, whole grain, grass-fed beef.
曾幾何時，美國人飲食的主要成分都是有營養(yǎng)的食物，比如有機蔬菜、全麥、用草喂養(yǎng)的牛的肉。
But as food production became market-driven, food companies found that making food tastier is cheaper than making food nutritious, that consumers actually prefer tastier food rather than healthier food.
但是隨著食品制造業(yè)變得市場導向，食品公司們發(fā)現(xiàn)制作更好吃的食物比制作有營養(yǎng)的食物更劃算，而且消費者實際上也更喜歡那些更好吃的食物，而不是更健康的食物。
Overtime, nutritious food was supplanted by inexpensive cheap food that was available to everybody didn’t have a lot of nutrition, while healthy nutritious food was limited to the dietary elite, the people that shop at Whole Foods.
隨著時間推移，那些有營養(yǎng)的食物被廉價的食物取代了，那些營養(yǎng)不足的人很容易就能獲得這些廉價的食物;而只有那些飲食精英才能獲得健康的、有營養(yǎng)的食物，也就是那些在全食超市購物的人。
The gradual erosion of the nutritional value of our food was ignored by almost everybody until the obesity epidemic transformed our love handles into passion Bannisters.
而幾乎所有人都忽略了這種對食物營養(yǎng)價值的侵蝕，直到肥胖癥大面積爆發(fā)，并把我們的人魚線全都變成了游泳圈。
And now we’re the fattest country in the developed world.
結(jié)果現(xiàn)在我們是發(fā)達國家中最胖的。
I believe when we consume content it’s a lot like eating food.
我覺得，我們對內(nèi)容的消費和對食品的消費是非常相似的。
Like food, content has a taste to it.
就如同食物一樣，內(nèi)容也有自己的味道。
When you experiencce The Avengers, it tastes differently than The Dark Knight.
當你看《復(fù)仇者聯(lián)盟》的時候，它的感覺和《黑暗騎士》是不一樣的。
Which you prefer is just a matter of taste.
不管你喜歡哪個，都只是個口味問題。
Never before has the content menu offered so many varied excellent tastes.
在內(nèi)容領(lǐng)域，我們還從未有過這么豐富的口味可供選擇。
If you enjoy consuming content, the world is an amazing place.
如果你喜歡消費內(nèi)容，那這個世界真是太美妙了。
But content also has a nutritional value.
不過，內(nèi)容也是有營養(yǎng)價值的。
Just as food feeds our bodies, content feeds our minds.
正如同食物供養(yǎng)著我們的身體，內(nèi)容供養(yǎng)著我們的思維。
And as with food, the nutritional effective content is objective and universal.
而且和食物一樣，內(nèi)容的營養(yǎng)價值也是客觀而普世的。
I’ve summarized the findings from over 40 studies on how content consumption affects us.
我總結(jié)了40多項研究的發(fā)現(xiàn)，它們都是研究內(nèi)容消費是如何影響我們的。
Nutritious contents increase our knowledge. It expanse our vocabularies. It improves reflection, critical thinking, problem-solving, visual acuity, imagination.
有營養(yǎng)的內(nèi)容能夠讓我們增長知識。它能擴充我們的詞匯量。它能提升我們深入思考的能力、批判性思維的能力、解決問題的能力、視覺敏銳度以及想象力。
Unhealthy content shortens our attention span. It damages our concentration. It weakens our problem-solving skills and increase impulsivity. And like simple sugars, it leaves you addicted and wanting more.
不健康的內(nèi)容會縮短我們的注意力時長。它還會損害我們集中精神的能力。它會削弱我們解決問題的，還會讓我們更沖動。而且，就像單糖一樣，它還會讓你上癮、讓你欲罷不能。
We already know that the American diet of food rapidly changed in the 20th century in a way that made it tasty but less nutritious.
我們都知道，美國人的飲食在20世紀經(jīng)歷了急速的變化，越來越好吃但是越來越?jīng)]有營養(yǎng)。
The American mind has also changed rapidly.
而美國人的思維也同樣經(jīng)歷的急速的變化。
Did these changes leave our mental diet a healthy balanced on? Or have we began to feed our minds as badly as we feed our bodies, consuming nothing but junk all day?
這些改變有沒有讓我們的思維食譜更健康、更均衡呢?還是說，我們喂養(yǎng)自己思維的方式變得和我們喂養(yǎng)身體的方式一樣糟、每天只吃垃圾食品?
If our mental menu is nutritious, we should see people get smarter and sharper. If our mental menu is unwholesome, we should expect to see a spreading epidemic of stupidity that would parallel the epidemic of obesity.
如果我們的思維食譜是有營養(yǎng)的，那么我們應(yīng)該會看到人們變得更聰明、更敏銳。如果我們的思維食譜不那么健康，那么我們應(yīng)該可以想見：愚蠢會像肥胖癥一樣變成一個嚴重的流行疾病。
Let’s start by examining our reading habits.
我們首先來看看我們的閱讀習慣吧。
Reading, it turns out it’s the most nutritious way you can consume content.
我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，閱讀是所有內(nèi)容消費方式中最有營養(yǎng)的。
The better you are at reading, the better you are at thinking.
你的閱讀能力越強，你的思考能力就越強。
And how do you get better at reading? By reading.
而你要怎么提高閱讀能力呢?答案是：靠閱讀。
Educators call this principle the Matthew effect.
教育家們把這個原則稱為馬修效應(yīng)。
In a series of studies, researchers Cunningham and Standage have demonstrated repeatedly that a high volume of reading increases knowledge, broadens vocabulary and reduces the cognitive decline of aging.
通過一系列的研究，卡寧漢和斯坦迪奇兩位研究者反復(fù)地發(fā)現(xiàn)：通過大量閱讀，你能夠增長知識、擴充詞匯量，并減緩由衰老造成的認知能力下降。
And all of these studies were controlled for general intelligence and verbal abilities.
而且所有這些研究都覆蓋了所有智力水平和所有詞匯能力等級。
So in other words, it’s not that smart people reading although they do, but that reading makes you smarter.
所以，換句話說，事情的核心并不是聰明人讀書更多(雖然他們的確讀得更多)，而是讀書能讓你變得更聰明。
No other type of content consumption has been shown to provide these benefits.
我們還沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)其他的內(nèi)容消費方式能有這樣的益處。
When you wanna strengthen your muscles, the best way to do it is to lift heavy weights, so I’ve been told.
如果你想鍛煉自己的肌肉，最好的辦法就是用偏大的重量來進行負重訓練(至少我是這么聽說的)。
When you wanna strengthen your mind, the best way to do it is to read challenging literature.
如果你想鍛煉自己的思維，最好的辦法就是閱讀有挑戰(zhàn)性的文學作品。
So how challenging is our literature today compared to the past?
那么，我們?nèi)缃竦奈膶W作品和以前的那些相比，有多么具有挑戰(zhàn)性呢?
I explored a corpus of best-selling books for the 300 years period from 1710 to 2010 and assessed sentence length, paragraph length and reading grade.
我研究了從1710年到2010年這300年間的暢銷書語料庫，評估了它們的句子長度、段落長度和閱讀等級。
Sentence length has been steadily declining for decades from an average of 40 words per sentence to an average of 14.
句子長度一直在穩(wěn)步下降，從曾經(jīng)的平均40個單詞下降到了平均14個單詞。
It’s now as abrupt as our spoken speech. It can’t decrease much further unless we start speaking in tweets.
現(xiàn)在它們已經(jīng)變得和口語一樣直白。再就沒法下降了，除非我們都開始用推特體講話。
Paragraph length held steady from the beginning of the 18th century until the middle of the 20th century when it suddenly began to plummet at an accelerating rate. This is when the era of TV began.
段落長度從18世紀到20世紀是一直持平的，但從20世紀開始就加速下滑，而這個時間點正是電視誕生的時候。
Books written before 1950 had an average paragraph length of over a hundred words. Books written after 1950 had an average paragraph length of 71 words.
1950年以前寫的書的平均段落長度超過100個單詞。1950年以后寫的書的段落長度平均是71個單詞。
And if you look at just books written after 2000, the average paragraph has dropped to 58 words.
而如果你只看2000年以后寫的書，你會發(fā)現(xiàn)平均段落長度已經(jīng)下降到58個單詞。
Consequently the reading grade of best-selling books has also plummeted dramatically over time.
結(jié)果就是，暢銷書的閱讀等級也隨著時間推移而大幅下降。
The reading grade started at 14.5 for bestsellers in the 1700s and then declined inexorably. By 2010 it was down to grade 4.5.
1700年代暢銷書的閱讀等級是14.5，自那以后它就在無情地下跌。到2010年的時候，已經(jīng)降到了4.5。
Now remember. This has nothing to do with taste. The data is not talking about the aesthetic taste of consuming book. There are enjoyable books written at every reading grade at every genre.
而且，請注意，這和口味沒有關(guān)系。這些數(shù)據(jù)并沒有談及讀書的美學品味。每個等級、每個門類的書里都有引人入勝的好書。
When we consider reading grade we’re only talking about nutritional value. And from that point of view, what we’ve seen is that bestsellers were once books that challenged the college-educated mind and they are now books that are easy for 5th graders.
當我們談?wù)撻喿x等級的時候，我們僅僅是在談?wù)撍臓I養(yǎng)價值。從這一點來看，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，暢銷書曾經(jīng)是能夠為大學等級的讀者帶來挑戰(zhàn)的東西，而現(xiàn)在連5年級的學生都能夠輕易讀懂暢銷書。
Also note that the reading grade of the works clusters tightly as we get around 1940. And the 1940s is when researchers began to develop and promote what they termed readability scores.
還需要注意的是，這些書的閱讀等級在1940年左右的時候發(fā)生扎堆。而1940年代正好是研究者們開始研發(fā)并推廣所謂的“可讀性分數(shù)”的時候。
A readability score is a measure of the degree to which material can be understood by readers. So this Flesch-Kincaid reading grade is a readability score.
可讀性分數(shù)被用來衡量讀者能在多大程度上理解一段材料。這個“FK閱讀等級”就是一個可讀性分數(shù)。
Once publishers were able to measure readability, they could target the works they published at whatever reading level would reach the greatest number of people.
一旦出版商能夠測量可讀性，他們就能確定在什么閱讀等級出書能夠觸及最大數(shù)量的人。
At the time when the average American could read at the 8th grade level but enjoyed reading at the 6th grade level, that is for recreation. People liked to read texts that are two grades beneath their actual reading level.
當普通美國人可以閱讀8級的書，但卻更喜歡讀6級的書時，那其實是在為娛樂而讀。人們普遍喜歡讀低于他們實際閱讀水平兩級的書。
Unfortunately, research by Professor Lev Vygotsky found that reading is most nutritious when it’s slightly above your current reading level. Reading books that are at your present level or below does not improve comprehension.
不幸的是，列夫·威高茨基教授的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，那些稍高于你當前閱讀水平的書才是最有營養(yǎng)的。閱讀那些與你當前水平持平、或者低于你當前水平的書，并不會提高你的理解能力。
If you wanna increase your vocabulary and knowledge you have to encounter new words and new facts.
如果你想要增長你的詞匯量與知識，你必須去面對新的詞匯與新的事實。
And this is unfortunate because it means there’s a negative correlation between taste and nutrition.
這是很悲劇的，因為這說明口味與營養(yǎng)之間是呈負相關(guān)的。
The books you enjoy are not gonna be the books that are best for you.
那些你讀起來覺得愉悅的書，并不會是對你好的書。
So as publishers started to use the readability scores to guide their publishing it was inevitable they were going to start making the material tastier but less nutritious because that’s what we the consumers wanted.
所以，當出版商開始用可讀性分數(shù)來指導出版工作，他們就不可避免地在讓書變得更可口卻更沒有營養(yǎng)，因為這就是消費者想要的。
And this is similar to what happened when farmers substituted corn for grass in the livestock. The beef tasted better but it became less nutritious.
這就像是農(nóng)民用玉米代替草料來喂養(yǎng)牲畜，牛肉的口感變好了，但卻變得更沒有營養(yǎng)了。
The publishers of newspapers and magazines hired readability consultants to purposefully simplify their written content. And as a result, in the past 60 years, the reading level of newspapers and magazines has dropped by 2 to 4 grades.
報紙與雜志的出版商更是專門聘請了可讀性顧問來簡化他們的內(nèi)容。結(jié)果就是，在過去的60年里，報紙與雜志的可讀性下降了2到4級。
Decreasing the reading grade of the works allow the newspaper-magazine publishers to greatly increase the audience but it also reduced the nutritional value of reading.
降低材料的閱讀等級讓報紙與雜志的出版商能夠大副提升讀者數(shù)，但同時也降低了這些閱讀材料的營養(yǎng)價值。
Now it’s not surprising that market forces are going to cater towards taste rather than nutrition.
所以我們也就能理解為什么市場的力量會偏向于口味，而不是營養(yǎng)。
What’s especially troubling is that our textbooks have also been dumbed down.
而真正讓人擔憂的是，我們的教科書也變得越來越蠢了。
The average 8th grader is now reading from the textbooks at the 5th grade reading level.
普通8年級的學生現(xiàn)在正在讀著實際只有5年級水平的教科書。
The literature text that was required of 12th graders is nowadays simpler than the average 8th grade reading book before World War II.
現(xiàn)在12年級被要求讀的文學作品，比二戰(zhàn)前8年級讀的書還要簡單。
Despite the fact that books are easier to read than ever, the average American today reads less than ever.
而且，雖然現(xiàn)在的書比以往的都更容易讀，但普通美國人讀書的量也變得前所未有的低。
60% of 18 to 24 year olds used to read literature in 1982. By 2002, this had dropped to 43%.
1982年的時候，18歲到24歲的人中有60%會讀文學作品。到了2002年，已經(jīng)下降到了43%。
The percentage of adults who read for pleasure is decreasing by 7 percent every year.
成年人把讀書作為娛樂活動的比例每年都下降7%。
And the average annual spending has dropped from 33 dollars to 28 dollars in the last 20 years.
過去20年人們用在書上的平均年消費額從33美元下降到了28美元。
It’s accepted that the declining popularity of written media has been caused by the rise of screen media.
人們普遍接受的是，紙媒的流行程度日趨下降是因為屏幕媒體變得越來越流行。
So it’s a dietary shift. It means that not only are Americans reading simpler books, flipping through simpler magazines and learning from simpler textbooks, they’re doing less all of the above.
所以，我們的飲食方式正在改變。這意味著，美國人不光只能讀懂更簡單的書、只能翻更簡單的雜志、只能看更簡單的教科書，而且他們還看得越來越少了。
And these changes have occurred simultaneously with measurable decreases in our nation’s verbal skills.
與這種現(xiàn)象同時發(fā)生的還有整個國家語言能力那客觀的下降。
This is what the mean verbal SAT scores look like after you correct for the fact that the test makers have been adjusting the scores upward to hide the decline.
上面這是SAT語言能力分數(shù)的平均值，我們在其中剔除了出卷人為了掩蓋下降而對分數(shù)做出的調(diào)整。
There was a 50 point drop between 1962 and 1979. And 1962 TV reached 90% market penetration and textbooks got simplified.
從1962年到1979年，分數(shù)下降了50分。而1962年電視的市場滲透率達到了90%，并且教科書被簡化了。
There has been another 10-point drop since 2000 when Internet access went mainstream.
2000年互聯(lián)網(wǎng)主流化的時候，又下降了10分。
Here’s a comparison of the reading ability of adults in 1949 and 2003, the world before TV and after TV.
這里有一張1949年月2003年成人閱讀能力的對比，分別代表電視出現(xiàn)之前與之后的世界。
The number of US adults capable of reading at the 10th grade level dropped from 54% to 20%.
美國成年人中能讀10級材料的人，從54%下降到了20%。
The number of reading at even the 6th level dropped from 83% to 52%.
就連能讀6級材料的人也從83%下降到了52%。
In other words, more Americans could read at the 10th grade in 1949 than can even read at the 6th grade level today.
換句話說，1949年能讀10級材料的美國人比現(xiàn)在能讀6級材料的還多。
And this is despite the fact that in 1949 the average American had 8 and a half years of education and now the average adult has 12 and a half years of education.
而且這還沒說1949年的時候美國人平均只接受8年半的教育，現(xiàn)在則平均是12年半。
So 4 and a half extra years of education to do worse.
都受了4年半的教育，卻越來越差了。
So far I focused on printed material because it’s the leafy green vegetables of the content diet.
到目前為止，我都在講紙質(zhì)的印刷材料，因為它們是內(nèi)容中的綠葉蔬菜。
What about screen media? How are they doing?
那屏幕媒體又如何呢?它們的現(xiàn)狀又是怎樣?
Well, printed media has obviously declined in popularity. Screen media is doing a little more better.
嗯，紙媒的流行度顯然是下降了。屏幕媒體的狀況要稍微好一點。
Watching television is now the developed world’s favorite activity taking up more free time than anything else.
看電視是現(xiàn)在發(fā)達國家最流行的消遣方式，它占據(jù)的時間比任何其他事情都多。
The only thing we do more than watching TV is sleep.
唯一一項我們花時間比看電視多的事情，是睡覺。
American aged 15 to 24 spend 2 hours a day watching TV and seven minutes reading for pleasure.
15到24歲的美國人每天花2小時看電視，而用閱讀作為消遣的時間只有7分鐘。
If books are the leafy green vegetables in the diet, TVs and computers are the daily bread.
如果說書是飲食中的綠葉蔬菜。那電視和電腦就是我們每天吃的面包。
Now, the good news is that screen media has been shown to increase visual spatial intelligence.
好消息是，有證據(jù)表明屏幕媒體可以提高我們的視覺與空間智力。
Video games have also been shown to improve hand-eye coordination, thank you, 5-year-old who beat me on xbox, and divided attention which makes us better at tracking multiple objects at once.
電子游戲被證明能夠提高手眼協(xié)調(diào)能力，感謝某位在xbox游戲機上打敗我的5歲人士證明了這一點，同時它還能鍛煉我們一心多用的能力，這讓我們能在同一時間內(nèi)更好地關(guān)注多件事情。
The Internet has been shown to increase transactive memory which is sort of a meta memory of where to find information like I no longer remember my birthday so I google it.
互聯(lián)網(wǎng)還被證明能夠提高交互式記憶的能力，這是一種關(guān)于“信息在哪”的宏觀記憶，比如，我不記得自己的生日了，于是就去谷歌上面搜。
In particular, the increase in visual spatial intelligence has been profound and you can see the increased scores on the Raven progressive matrices.
值得強調(diào)的是，視覺與空間智力的提升是很顯著的，你可以從瑞文推理測試的分數(shù)上看出。
These are non-verbal IQ tests which provide a measure of visual intelligence. And screen media are like vitamins for visual ability. Tasty tasty vitamins.
只是一種針對非語言類智力的測試，它能衡量一個人的視覺智力。而屏幕媒體就像是視覺智力的維生素。而且是好吃的維生素。
The bad news is that all types of screen media come at a substantial cost.
壞消息是，所有類型的屏幕媒體都伴隨著高昂的代價。
Professor Patricia Greenfield summarizes the findings as damages to our deep cognitive processes.
派翠西亞·格林菲爾德教授將這些發(fā)現(xiàn)總結(jié)為“對深度認知過程的損害”。
A study by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that for every hour a child spent watching television there was a 9% increase in their attention problems.
美國兒科學會的一項研究表明：一個小孩每多看1小時的電視，他患有注意力障礙的可能性就增加9%。
Children between age 11 and 15 spent 53 hours a week in front of the screen.
11到15歲的小孩平均每周有53小時的時間是呆在屏幕前的。
A 2005 study published in Brain and Cognition has found that the more we watch television during our middle years, aged 20 to 60, the greater our risk of Alzheimer’s.
一項于2005年發(fā)表在《大腦與認知》上的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)：中年人(20到60歲)看電視的時間越長，他們患老年癡呆癥的風險也就越大。
A 2006 study in Southern Medical Journal found that watching lots of soap operas and talk shows was associated with clinically significant impairment of attention, memory and psychomotor speed in older people like your professors.
一項于2006年發(fā)表在《南方醫(yī)學雜志》上的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)：看太多肥皂劇和脫口秀可以對你們的教授這樣的老年人造成嚴重的注意力障礙、記憶障礙和精神運動障礙，這些都是有臨床依據(jù)的。
A large part of television effect on our mind is caused by what Pavlov calls the orienting response. This is the instinctive response we get to sensitivity of change, vision, sound.
電視對我們思維的很多影響，都是巴甫洛夫所說的“定向反應(yīng)”。這是我們對影響、聲音與變化的本能反應(yīng)。
Our brains get turned on by stimuli which triggers dopamine release whenever are....
當有東西促使我們的大腦分泌多巴胺的時候，我們的大腦就會被激發(fā)……
Sorry.
抱歉。
In the last 2 decades, researchers have begun to examine how the shots-cuts edits and effects of television activate the orienting response.
在過去的20年里，研究者們開始研究電影鏡頭的剪輯以及電視對定向反應(yīng)的影響。
A study of EEG activity in the processing of television published in Communications Research found that the more you have the shots quickly edited the more effect television has on your nervous system.
《溝通研究》發(fā)布過一項關(guān)于看電視時人的腦電圖的研究，它表明：鏡頭的剪輯越快，電視對你神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)的影響就越強。
So the average length of shots in our screen media is a benchmark for how healthy it is. To watch shorter cuts make the content more arousing, more addictive and more damaging to our attention span.
所以，屏幕媒體上鏡頭的長度就是這個媒體健康程度的標尺。更短的鏡頭剪輯能讓內(nèi)容更刺激、更生動，同時也讓它對我們的注意力時長造成更大的傷害。
And unfortunately that’s the direction the screen media’s moved in.
不幸的是，屏幕媒體正在往這個方向走。
In 1972, the average shot length of a US film was 8.6 seconds. Now it’s down to 2.5 seconds.
在1972年，美國電影鏡頭的平均時長是8.6秒?，F(xiàn)在已經(jīng)降到了2.5秒。
Film makers call this MTV editing because everything looks like a music video now.
電影制作方把這稱為MTV式剪輯，因為現(xiàn)在所有東西看起來都像音樂錄影帶。
Children’s shows are particularly fast cut. A longitudinal study of Sesame Street found that the average shot length have, over the last 26 years, even dumbed down Sesame Street.
兒童節(jié)目被剪輯得尤其快。有一項關(guān)于《芝麻街》的長度研究發(fā)現(xiàn)：在過去26年里，這個節(jié)目的平均鏡頭長度一直在下降，讓《芝麻街》變得更蠢了。
These trends are a function of the decreased attention span of the modern mind as well as contributing factors to its further reduction.
這個趨勢解釋了為什么現(xiàn)代人的注意力時長越來越短，也為它的繼續(xù)下降奠定了基礎(chǔ)。
Attention deficient viewers seek out shorter hyperkinetic content which in turn leads to their minds becoming even more attention deficient.
那些注意力不能集中的觀眾會尋找更動感的內(nèi)容，而這些內(nèi)容反過來又讓他們的注意力越來越低下。
This is a vicious cycle that becomes a chiche.
這個萬惡的循環(huán)現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)成了老生常談。
How many of you found the blockbuster from the old days to be too slow-paced, boring and long?
你們當中有多少人覺得以前的熱門電影又慢、又長、又無聊?
In fact, even 18 minutes is probably too long for a talk in today’s attention deficient world. So we’re gonna have a halftime show.
實際上，在這樣一個注意力不集中的世界里，即使是18分鐘對于一個演講來說可能都太長了。所以我們不得不放一點中場休息節(jié)目。
You have to imagine this music playing during this part of the presentation because when we listen to music it triggers a complex neural process.
現(xiàn)在，在演講的這個環(huán)節(jié)，你必須想想一下音樂播放出來的效果，因為聽音樂會促使我們的神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)發(fā)生一些列復(fù)雜的活動。
A controversial 1993 study published in Nature found that listening to Mozart increases your spatial task performance.
1993年《自然》雜志上發(fā)表了一篇別受爭議的研究，它發(fā)現(xiàn)聽莫扎特的音樂能提高你完成與空間相關(guān)的任務(wù)的能力。
Follow-on studies have found similar effects from other music with similarly complex structure such as Bach, Yanni.
后續(xù)的一些研究也發(fā)現(xiàn)那些擁有同樣復(fù)雜結(jié)構(gòu)的音樂，比如巴赫、雅尼，也擁有相似的能力。
A 2011 study found that cognitive recall was increased when listening to unfamiliar classical music.
2011年的一項研究發(fā)現(xiàn)：在聽不熟悉的古典音樂的時候，認知記憶會得到提升。
A 2012 study found that listening to classical music could improve performance of stressful tasks like TED Talks by calming the sympathetic nervous system.
2012年的一項研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，聽古典音樂能夠提高你處理壓力任務(wù)——比如TED演講——的能力，因為它能讓你的交感神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)冷靜下來。
Loud fast music induces stress on the sympathetic nervous system.
音量大、速度快的音樂則會對你的交感神經(jīng)造成壓力。
So these findings are correct.
這些發(fā)現(xiàn)是正確的。
And these are less clear.
而以下這些就比較模糊了。
The most nutritious music would be sedating, complex and unfamiliar, while the least nutritious music would be loud, simplistic and sound familiar.
最有營養(yǎng)的音樂應(yīng)該是使人鎮(zhèn)靜的、復(fù)雜的、陌生的;而最沒有營養(yǎng)的音樂應(yīng)該是吵鬧的、簡單的、聽起來耳熟的。
So what direction is pop music been heading in the last 50 years?
所以，過去這50年流行音樂是在往哪個方向發(fā)展呢?
Well, analysts at the Spanish National Research Council actually evaluated 465,000 pop songs from 1955 to 2010 to evaluate loudness, harmonic, complexity and timbrel diversity.
西班牙國家研究委員會評估了1955年到2010年間465000首流行歌曲，測量了它們的音量、和諧度、復(fù)雜度以及旋律多樣性。
Since 1950s, music has tended towards increased inherent loudness. There’s been a reduction in the diversity of chords but given song a reduction in the number of musical pathways between each chord and the timbers of different instruments has gotten more homogeneous every year.
從1950年代開始，音樂本身的音量就一直在加大。和鉉多樣性也在下降，而且不同樂器、不同旋律之間的差別每年都在變得越來越平均。
Since 1955, pop music uses fewer and fewer tones from the available palette.
從1955年開始，流行音樂里使用的音調(diào)越來越少。
So overall in the last 50 years, pop music has become louder, more simplistic and more similar.
所以總體來說，在過去50年了，流行音樂變得越來越吵、越來越簡單、越來越趨同。
It’s probably becoming less nutritious.
而且也可能在變得越來越?jīng)]有營養(yǎng)。
And this again is not a measure of taste. In fact we should probably not even discuss my taste in music or my jazz album.
再強調(diào)一次，這和品位無關(guān)。事實上我們最好不要在這談?wù)撐业囊魳菲肺?，或是我的爵士樂專輯?/p>
Let’s just say that from an objective review of the cognitive benefits of music you are much better off with Mozart.
我們只是說，如果客觀地看音樂對認知能力的益處，你最好還是聽莫扎特。
So we have answered our starting question.
所以我們已經(jīng)回答了一開始的問題。
Just as the nutritional value of food decline from healthy to unhealthy, so too has the nutritional value of our content decline dramatically.
正如食物的營養(yǎng)價值從健康變得越來越不健康，內(nèi)容的營養(yǎng)價值也在急劇下滑。
Instead of a balanced diet that mixes great tasting content with nutritious fare, we instead feed our minds with the equivalent of deep fried doughnuts.
我們手頭上的并不是一頓兼具口味與營養(yǎng)的均衡大餐，而是想油炸甜甜圈一樣的東西。
If we care, of course I did, bad few.
如果我們真的關(guān)心的話，當讓，我自己是關(guān)心的，只是有些小毛病。
If we care of our mind as much as we care about the health of our bodies, we need to begin to balance our content diet as urgently as we need to balance our food diet.
如果我們像關(guān)心自己的身體一樣關(guān)心自己的思維，那我們就急需將我們的內(nèi)容飲食平衡起來，就像我們急需平衡自己的食物一樣。
We don’t need to give up video games. We don’t need to quit watching CSI. We can even keep listening to Beyonce.
我們并不需要放棄電子游戲。我們也沒有必要不看CSI。我們也可以繼續(xù)聽碧昂斯。
But it wouldn’t hurt us to read something really hard like Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire reading grade 17.4 or to watch something slow and methodical like The Godfather.
但偶爾讀一讀像愛德華·吉本的《羅馬帝國衰亡史》這樣的艱深作品也沒有壞處，這本書的閱讀等級是17.4;或者你也可以看一看像《教父》這樣緩慢而有旋律的作品。
Or you can listen to something sonorous and melodic like Mozart.
或者你也可以聽聽莫扎特這種鏗鏘而有韻律的音樂。
Just don’t do all 3 at once because multitasking is the information superhighway to hell.
只是不要同時做這3件事就好，因為一心多用是獲取信息的死亡高速路。
Thank you.
謝謝大家。
《人類越來越聰明，而我們閱讀的內(nèi)容卻越來越蠢》觀后感
閱讀是一種享受，閱讀是一種升華，閱讀是一種成長。
在每當我讀一篇文章時，總會被文章的內(nèi)容所吸引。被這所謂的文字所束縛，不能逃脫它的“魔掌”。不知這些作者哪來的“神力”，讓人感覺每一字都像是被灌輸了生命。每讀一句，眼前就清晰的展現(xiàn)出一幅畫面。讓我在其中翱翔，感受到生命的美好。
在閱讀中，我感受到杜甫的“會當凌絕頂，一覽眾山小”寬闊的胸襟。和文天祥的“人生自古誰無死，留取丹心照汗青。”無私的奉獻。還有李白的“長風破浪會有時，直掛云帆濟滄海。”執(zhí)著的理想。
多少次，朱自清的《背影》讓我潸然淚下。多少次，海倫凱勒的《假如給我三天光明》讓我肅然起敬。多少次，儒勒。凡爾納的《海底兩萬里》讓我大開眼界。記憶中已記不清還有多少個多少次……
每當夜晚難眠時，我都會拿出一本書，細細的體味。方才安穩(wěn)的入睡。每當我孤獨無聊時，我都會拿出一本書，慢慢的翻閱。與書為友，才不會感到郁悶。每當我無計可施時，我都會拿出一本書，靜靜的尋覓。才知道怎樣去做好這件事。
閱讀，我將對你立下海誓山盟：無論貧窮富足、無論環(huán)境好壞、無論生病健康，我都是你最忠實的摰友。
相關(guān)文章：