爱华网记忆宫殿存在的，特别管用，就像电视剧里面那样有效。
记忆宫殿很酷炫，有很高的参考价值，可以利用其原理来提高记忆能力，但是沉迷进去是没有必要的。2500年前的古希腊时期就有的记忆能力，不一定完美兼容当今社会；记忆宫殿太消耗注意力、精力和努力，不太合时宜。
相比记忆宫殿这种重量级的记忆方式，我们人类早就有更高效更轻量的记忆方式。
自己翻译BBC的Future专栏的一篇文章，如下，轻按劳务点赞(or not?)
我们喜欢认为智慧是自生的，碰巧出现在我们的头脑中，仅仅是我们内心的想法的产物。我们喜欢认为智慧是自生的，碰巧出现在我们的头脑中，仅仅是我们内心的想法的产物。
但是，谷歌、维基百科和其他在线工具的兴起，让不少人质疑。
输入关键词 “谁在电影中扮演的詹姆斯·邦德？” 和知道答案是“肖恩·康纳利，乔治·拉赞贝，罗杰·摩尔，提摩西·道尔顿，皮尔斯·布鲁斯南和丹尼尔·克雷格（...加上大卫·尼文在赌场皇家）”是一样的吗？
如果我们仅仅知道如何快速获取信息，我们可不可以说我们知道这个问题的答案呢？
我已经写过了有关互联网是否在，但这里的问题是我们如何去界定智力本身。
答案看上去很有趣。
因为当你去看心理学的研究证据时，你会发现，我们的智慧很大程度上取决于我们如何与其他的人和我们周围的环境相协调。
心理学里有一个有影响力的理论是，我们是。
除非我们必须去做，我们会尽量避免思维的工作。
我们都不愿意做脑力劳动。
如果有捷径，我们会避免全面的思考。
如果你曾经投票支持过拥有最憨厚的笑容政治候选人，或选择餐厅时选择里面顾客最多的餐厅，那么你已经是一个认知吝啬鬼。
该理论解释了为什么我们宁愿在卫星导航设备或谷歌地图里输入一个邮政编码的，而不是记忆/回忆场所的位置 - 前者容易得多。
研究表明，人们不倾向于记住可以轻易接触到的东西。
就像在我们眼前的世界的东西，打个比方，可以发生彻底改变，而我们不会注意到。
实验表明，我们正在看的图片里面的建筑可以马上消失，而不会被注意到，或者和我们正在交谈的人可以悄悄被换掉，往往我们不会注意到 - 这个现象被叫做“”。
这并不是人类的愚蠢的例子 - 恰恰相反，其实 - 这是头脑高效的例子。
头脑依靠世界当存档，而不是记忆，通常这是一个很好的假设。
由此，哲学家们认为，心灵把自己拓展到环境中。
正因如此，他们提出，思维發生在环境中，和思维发生在大脑中一样。
哲学家安迪·克拉克将这个称为“”，人类的身体与心灵很自然的与新的工具、主意、技能整合在一起。
从克拉克的角度来看，解决问题的方法并不是问题 - 有正确的工具确实意味着你知道答案，丝毫不亚于已经知道答案。
社会胜利
哈佛大学的丹尼尔·韦格纳在他的一份记忆研究里提供了这样一个。
夫妻被要求进入实验室参加背诵考试。
有一半的夫妻被关在一起，一半被再分配，与陌生人在一起。
两个小组都安静地学习了一个词汇表，然后被单独测试。
由夫妻组成的小组里，不管是整体还是个体，结果都优于陌生人组成的小组。
发生了什么？韦格纳说，恋爱的情侣了解他们的伴侣。
正因为如此，他们会心照不宣地划分工作，这样一来，比如说，一个合伙人会记住技术方面的词汇，因为他会预设对方会记住运动方面的词汇。
通过这种方式，每一个合作伙伴可以专注于自己的优势，所以他们战胜了没有心理联系和劳动分配的小组。
正如你依靠一个搜索引擎来搜索答案，你可以依靠你经常交往的人来处理一些事情（我要修空调怎么办？找邦迪蓝），开发一个共享系统。
韦格纳称之为“交互记忆”。
这种工作方式是人类的一大优势。
比起被迫依靠自己的所有资源，我们可以分享我们的知识，汇集我们的智慧。
技术在留意/追踪所有事情，所以我们没有必要去记住，而大型的知识系统服务的是社会的整体需要。
我不知道计算机是如何工作的，或者如何种植西兰花，但知识就在那里，我从中受益。
互联网提供了更多的潜力，分享这方面的知识。
维基百科是一个最好的例子 - 知识不断发展进步的商店，每个人都可以从中受益。
我每天都用维基百科，经常想起这样的意义。
所以，就像在物理环境中 - 就像我们居住的房间或建筑物或工作 - 我们也有一个心理环境。
这意味着，当我问你你的心灵在哪时，你不应该指着你的额头的中心点。
“交互记忆”领域的研究的意思是，我们的心智由周围的环境、人和工具构成，就像由我们的头骨里面的脑细胞构成一样。
原文
What makes us intelligent?
We like to think our intelligence is self-made; it happens inside our heads, the product of our inner thoughts alone. But the rise of Google, Wikipedia and other online tools has made many people question the impact of . Is typing in the search term, “Who has played James Bond in the movies?” the same as knowing that the answer is Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig (… plus David Niven in Casino Royale)? Can we say we know the answer to this question when what we actually know is how to rapidly access the information?
I’ve written before about whether or not the internet is , but here the question is about how we seek to define intelligence itself. And the answer appears to be an intriguing one. Because when you look at the evidence from psychological studies, it suggests that much of our intelligence comes from how we coordinate ourselves with other people and our environment.
An influential theory among psychologists is that we're . This is the idea that we are reluctant to do mental work unless we have to, we try to avoid thinking things though fully when a short cut is available. If you've ever voted for the political candidate with the most honest smile, or chosen a restaurant based on how many people are already sitting in there, then you've been a cognitive miser. The theory explains why we'd much rather type a zipcode into a sat-nav device or Google Maps than memorise and recall the location of a venue – it's so much easier to do so.
Research shows that people don't tend to rely on their memories for things they can easily access. Things like the world in front of our eyes, for example, can be changed quite radically without people noticing. Experiments have shown that buildings can somehow disappear from pictures we're looking at, or the people we're talking to can be switched with someone else, and often we won't notice – a phenomenon called “”. This isn't as an example of human stupidity – far from it, in fact – this is an example of mental efficiency. The mind relies on the world as a better record than memory, and usually that's a good assumption.
As a result, philosophers have suggested that the mind is designed to spread itself out over the environment. So much so that, they suggest, the thinking is really happening in the environment as much as it is happening in our brains. The philosopher Andy Clark called humans "", beings with minds that naturally incorporate new tools, ideas and abilities. From Clark's perspective, the route to a solution is not the issue – having the right tools really does mean you know the answers, just as much as already knowing the answer.
Society wins
A memory study by Daniel Wegner of Harvard University provides . Couples were asked to come into the lab to take a memorisation test. Half the couples were kept together, and half were reassigned to pair up with someone they didn't know. Both groups then studied a list of words in silence, and were then tested individually. The pairs that were made up of a couple in a relationship could remember more items, both overall and as individuals.
What happened, according to Wegner, was that the couples in a relationship had a good understanding of their partners. Because of this they would tacitly divide up the work between them, so that, say, one partner would remember words to do with technology, assuming the other would remember the words to do with sports. In this way, each partner could concentrate on their strengths, and so individually they outperformed people in couples where no mental division of labour was possible. Just as you rely on a search engine for answers, so you can rely on people you deal with regularly to think about certain things, developing a shared system for committing items to memory and bringing them out again, what Wegner called “transactive memory”.
Having minds that work this way is one of the great strengths of the human species. Rather than being forced to rely on our own resources for everything, we can share our knowledge and so pool our understanding. Technology keeps track of things for individuals so we don't have to, while large systems of knowledge serve the needs of society as a whole. I don't know how a computer works, or how to grow broccoli, but that knowledge is out there and I get to benefit. And the internet provides even more potential to share this knowledge. Wikipedia is one of the best examples – an evolving store of the world's knowledge for which everyone can benefit from. I use Wikipedia every day, aware of all the caveats of doing so, because it supports me in all the thinking I do for things like this column.
So as well as having a physical environment – like the rooms or buildings we live or work in – we also have a mental environment. Which means that when I ask you where your mind is, you shouldn’t point toward the centre of your forehead. As research on areas like transactive memory shows, our minds are made up just as much by the people and tools around us as they are by the brain cells inside our skull.
If you would like to comment on this article or anything else you have seen on Future, head over to our or message us on .
4/7 首页 上一页 2 3 4 5 6 7 下一页 尾页
