How Computers Change the Way We Think.docx

How Computers Change the Way We Think 計(jì)算機(jī)如何改變我們的思維方式By SHERRY TURKLE 雪莉TURKLE由The tools we use to think change the ways in which we think. The invention of written language brought about a radical shift in how we process, organize, store, and transmit representations of the world. Although writing remains our primary information technology, today when we think about the impact of technology on our habits of mind, we think primarily of the computer. 我們使用的工具想改變的方式思考。語言文字的發(fā)明帶來的徹底轉(zhuǎn)變的過程中,如何組織、存儲(chǔ)、傳遞世界的表現(xiàn)力。雖然寫作仍然是我們的主要信息技術(shù),今天當(dāng)我們想到那些技術(shù)的影響我們的生活習(xí)慣的心靈,我們認(rèn)為主要是你的計(jì)算機(jī)。My first encounters with how computers change the way we think came soon after I joined the faculty at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the late 1970s, at the end of the era of the slide rule and the beginning of the era of the personal computer. At a lunch for new faculty members, several senior professors in engineering complained that the transition from slide rules to calculators had affected their students ability to deal with issues of scale. When students used slide rules, they had to insert decimal points themselves. The professors insisted that that required students to maintain a mental sense of scale, whereas those who relied on calculators made frequent errors in orders of magnitude. Additionally, the students with calculators had lost their ability to do back of the envelope calculations, and with that, an intuitive feel for the material. 我第一次與計(jì)算機(jī)如何改變?nèi)藗兊乃季S方式,他很快就接著我就加入了教師在美國麻省理工學(xué)院在1970年代晚期,時(shí)代末期,開始計(jì)算尺時(shí)代的個(gè)人電腦。在一個(gè)午餐,幾位高級(jí)初任教師教授在工程抱怨轉(zhuǎn)變規(guī)則,計(jì)算器滑動(dòng)影響他們的學(xué)生的能力,處理問題的規(guī)模。當(dāng)學(xué)生們使用規(guī)則,他們不得不滑插入小數(shù)分自己。教授們堅(jiān)持說,要求學(xué)生保持精神意義上的規(guī)模,而那些依賴計(jì)算器經(jīng)常錯(cuò)誤的數(shù)量級(jí)。此外,學(xué)生失去能力計(jì)算器去做“后面的極限的計(jì)算,與此同時(shí),一個(gè)直觀的感覺材料。That same semester, I taught a course in the history of psychology. There, I experienced the impact of computational objects on students ideas about their emotional lives. My class had read Freuds essay on slips of the tongue, with its famous first example: The chairman of a parliamentary session opens a meeting by declaring it closed. The students discussed how Freud interpreted such errors as revealing a persons mixed emotions. A computer-science major disagreed with Freuds approach. The mind, she argued, is a computer. And in a computational dictionary - like we have in the human mind - closed and open are designated by the same symbol, separated by a sign for opposition. Closed equals minus open. To substitute closed for open does not require the notion of ambivalence or conflict. 那學(xué)期課程,教導(dǎo)我的心理學(xué)歷史。在那里,我經(jīng)歷了一個(gè)計(jì)算上的物體的影響學(xué)生對(duì)他們的情感生活的想法。我班上讀了弗洛伊德的短文,滑的舌頭聞名的第一個(gè)例子:一個(gè)議會(huì)主席打開一個(gè)會(huì)議宣布已經(jīng)關(guān)門了。學(xué)生討論如何解釋這樣的錯(cuò)誤現(xiàn)佛洛伊德一個(gè)人的復(fù)雜的情緒。一個(gè)曾經(jīng)同意佛洛依德的主要方法。她認(rèn)為,思想,就是一臺(tái)電腦。在一個(gè)計(jì)算詞典就像我們?cè)谌祟惖念^腦“關(guān)閉”和“開放”指定的同樣的象征,相距示意的反對(duì)?！胺忾]”等于“減打開?！薄瓣P(guān)閉”來代替“開放”的概念不需要矛盾或沖突。When the chairman made that substitution, she declared, a bit was dropped; a minus sign was lost. There was a power surge. No problem. “當(dāng)主席,替代,”她說,“有一點(diǎn)掉在地上,減去標(biāo)志丟失。有一個(gè)權(quán)力激增。沒問題?！盩he young woman turned a Freudian slip into an information-processing error. An explanation in terms of meaning had become an explanation in terms of mechanism. 這個(gè)年輕的女人變成了一種弗洛伊德溜進(jìn)一個(gè)信息處理的錯(cuò)誤。一個(gè)解釋在語義上變成了一個(gè)機(jī)制來解釋。Such encounters turned me to the study of both the instrumental and the subjective sides of the nascent computer culture. As an ethnographer and psychologist, I began to study not only what the computer was doing for us, but what it was doing to us, including how it was changing the way we see ourselves, our sense of human identity. 這種見面使我的研究工具和主觀兩方面的新興的計(jì)算機(jī)文化。作為一個(gè)鮑爾穩(wěn)-和心理學(xué)家,我開始學(xué)習(xí)不僅是電腦為我們做的,但它所做的是我們,包括如何改變我們自己,我們看到人類身份的感覺。In the 1980s, I surveyed the psychological effects of computational objects in everyday life - largely the unintended side effects of peoples tendency to project thoughts and feelings onto their machines. In the 20 years since, computational objects have become more explicitly designed to have emotional and cognitive effects. And those effects by design will become even stronger in the decade to come. Machines are being designed to serve explicitly as companions, pets, and tutors. And they are introduced in school settings for the youngest children. 在1980年代,我察看計(jì)算對(duì)象的心理效應(yīng)在日常生活中很大一部分意想不到的副作用人們的思想和情感傾向于工程上他們的機(jī)器。在20年以來,計(jì)算物體變得更加明確設(shè)計(jì)擁有情緒和認(rèn)知的影響。和那些“效果”將會(huì)變得更加強(qiáng)大設(shè)計(jì)未來十年來。機(jī)器正在為他們?cè)O(shè)計(jì)的明確、寵物、同伴和獨(dú)創(chuàng)性。在學(xué)校里,他們介紹設(shè)置最小的孩子。Today, starting in elementary school, students use e-mail, word processing, computer simulations, virtual communities, and PowerPoint software. In the process, they are absorbing more than the content of what appears on their screens. They are learning new ways to think about what it means to know and understand. 今天,在小學(xué)里,學(xué)生開始使用電子郵件,文字處理,計(jì)算機(jī)模擬、虛擬社區(qū),PowerPoint的軟件。在這一過程中,他們身上的內(nèi)容多出現(xiàn)在熒屏上。他們學(xué)習(xí)新的方法來思考這是什么意思,知道和理解。What follows is a short and certainly not comprehensive list of areas where I see information technology encouraging changes in thinking. There can be no simple way of cataloging whether any particular change is good or bad. That is contested terrain. At every step we have to ask, as educators and citizens, whether current technology is leading us in directions that serve our human purposes. Such questions are not technical; they are social, moral, and political. For me, addressing that subjective side of computation is one of the more significant challenges for the next decade of information technology in higher education. Technology does not determine change, but it encourages us to take certain directions. If we make those directions clear, we can more easily exert human choice. 以下是一個(gè)簡短的全面列表,當(dāng)然不是我所在的地方看信息技術(shù)鼓勵(lì)思想變化。沒有什么可以簡單的方法是否有特殊的變更編目是好還是壞。這是有爭議的地形。在每一步我們要問,作為教育工作者和公民,不管目前的技術(shù)方向,是帶領(lǐng)我們?cè)跒槲覀兊娜祟惖哪康?。這樣的問題不是技術(shù),而是社會(huì)、道德和政治。對(duì)我來說,解決主觀的一面,計(jì)算是一種更有意義的挑戰(zhàn),今后十年的信息技術(shù)在高等教育。技術(shù)不確定的變化,但鼓勵(lì)我們采取一定的方向。如果我們讓那些方向清楚的,我們可以更容易發(fā)揮人的選擇。Thinking about privacy. Todays college students are habituated to a world of online blogging, instant messaging, and Web browsing that leaves electronic traces. Yet they have had little experience with the right to privacy. Unlike past generations of Americans, who grew up with the notion that the privacy of their mail was sacrosanct, our children are accustomed to electronic surveillance as part of their daily lives. 考慮隱私。今天的大學(xué)生習(xí)慣于世界網(wǎng)上的博客,即時(shí)通訊,和網(wǎng)頁瀏覽讓電子痕跡。然而他們沒有多少經(jīng)驗(yàn)與隱私權(quán)。不像過去的一代又一代的美國人,一起長大了的概念,在他們的郵件被神圣不可侵犯隱私,我們的孩子們習(xí)慣于電子監(jiān)測作為他們?nèi)粘５纳?。I have colleagues who feel that the increased incursions on privacy have put the topic more in the news, and that this is a positive change. But middle-school and high-school students tend to be willing to provide personal information online with no safeguards, and college students seem uninterested in violations of privacy and in increased governmental and commercial surveillance. Professors find that students do not understand that in a democracy, privacy is a right, not merely a privilege. In 10 years, ideas about the relationship of privacy and government will require even more active pedagogy. (One might also hope that increased education about the kinds of silent surveillance that technology makes possible may inspire more active political engagement with the issue.) 我覺得增加同事對(duì)于隱私入侵把話題更多的消息,這是一個(gè)正面的改變。但中學(xué)和高中生往往愿意提供了個(gè)人信息網(wǎng)上沒有保障,與大學(xué)生似乎對(duì)違反隱私和增加了政府和商業(yè)的監(jiān)視。教授發(fā)現(xiàn),學(xué)生不明白,在一個(gè)民主、隱私是一個(gè)正確的,不僅僅是一種特權(quán)。在10年內(nèi),思想的關(guān)系及隱私與政府需要更加積極的教學(xué)方法。(一個(gè)可能也希望加強(qiáng)教育的類型的沉默,就有可能監(jiān)視技術(shù)可以激發(fā)更積極的政治參與同問題。)Avatars or a self? Chat rooms, role-playing games, and other technological venues offer us many different contexts for presenting ourselves online. Those possibilities are particularly important for adolescents because they offer what Erik Erikson described as a moratorium, a time out or safe space for the personal experimentation that is so crucial for adolescent development. Our dangerous world - with crime, terrorism, drugs, and AIDS - offers little in the way of safe spaces. Online worlds can provide valuable spaces for identity play. 圣靈或自我?聊天室,角色扮演游戲,和其他技術(shù)場館提供不同的背景呈現(xiàn)為自己在線。這些可能是特別重要的,因?yàn)樗麄兲峁?duì)青少年埃里克Erikson描述為一個(gè)時(shí)間,暫?；虬踩目臻g,在個(gè)人的實(shí)驗(yàn)青少年發(fā)展是如此的重要。我們的危險(xiǎn)的世界犯罪、恐怖主義、毒品和艾滋病提供了很少的安全空間。網(wǎng)絡(luò)世界空間提供了寶貴的身份玩。But some people who gain fluency in expressing multiple aspects of self may find it harder to develop authentic selves. Some children who write narratives for their screen avatars may grow up with too little experience of how to share their real feelings with other people. For those who are lonely yet afraid of intimacy, information technology has made it possible to have the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. 但是一些人能流利表達(dá)自我的多個(gè)方面可以找到真正的自我努力研發(fā)更新。一些孩子寫敘事為他們的屏幕替身長大可能太多和太少的經(jīng)驗(yàn)分享他們的真實(shí)感受如何與其他的人。對(duì)那些感到孤獨(dú),但害怕親密、信息技術(shù)使得人們有可能有幻覺伙伴的需求沒有友誼。From powerful ideas to PowerPoint. In the 1970s and early 1980s, some educators wanted to make programming part of the regular curriculum for K-12 education. They argued that because information technology carries ideas, it might as well carry the most powerful ideas that computer science has to offer. It is ironic that in most elementary schools today, the ideas being carried by information technology are not ideas from computer science like procedural thinking, but more likely to be those embedded in productivity tools like PowerPoint presentation software. 從強(qiáng)大的想法PowerPoint。在1970年代末和1980年代初,一些教育家想做規(guī)劃部分課程的課堂常規(guī)教育。他們認(rèn)為由于信息技術(shù)攜帶的想法,但不妨挑最強(qiáng)大的思想,計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)所提供的。具有諷刺意味的是,在大多數(shù)的小學(xué)教育的今天,信息技術(shù)理念被攜帶不是思想從計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)的思考,但是,像程序更容易被那些埋在生產(chǎn)力工具,如幻燈片演示軟件。PowerPoint does more than provide a way of transmitting content. It carries its own way of thinking, its own aesthetic - which not surprisingly shows up in the aesthetic of college freshmen. In that aesthetic, presentation becomes its own powerful idea. PowerPoint比提供一種方式傳輸?shù)膬?nèi)容。它攜帶自己的思維方式,它自己的審美這并不令人驚訝的表現(xiàn)在審美的大學(xué)新生。在美學(xué),演講就變成自己的強(qiáng)大的主意。To be sure, the software cannot be blamed for lower intellectual standards. Misuse of the former is as much a symptom as a cause of the latter. Indeed, the culture in which our children are raised is increasingly a culture of presentation, a corporate culture in which appearance is often more important than reality. In contemporary political discourse, the bar has also been lowered. Use of rhetorical devices at the expense of cogent argument regularly goes without notice. But it is precisely because standards of intellectual rigor outside the educational sphere have fallen that educators must attend to how we use, and when we introduce, software that has been designed to simplify the organization and processing of information. 可以肯定的是,軟件不能被指責(zé)為較低的知識(shí)水平。濫用前是一樣的癥狀是導(dǎo)致后者。事實(shí)上,我們的孩子是文化,在這種文化中籌集到文化的表現(xiàn),越來越多的企業(yè)文化,在這種文化中外觀往往更為重要,而不是現(xiàn)實(shí)。在當(dāng)代政治話語,酒吧也被降低。利用修辭強(qiáng)而有力的論點(diǎn)的代價(jià)定期去,恕不另行通知。但正是因?yàn)闃?biāo)準(zhǔn)以外的智力開發(fā)教育方面有所下降,教育者必須參加我們?nèi)绾问褂?當(dāng)我們介紹,軟件設(shè)計(jì)用來簡化組織和處理的信息。In The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint (Graphics Press, 2003), Edward R. Tufte suggests that PowerPoint equates bulleting with clear thinking. It does not teach students to begin a discussion or construct a narrative. It encourages presentation, not conversation. Of course, in the hands of a master teacher, a PowerPoint presentation with few words and powerful images can serve as the jumping-off point for a brilliant lecture. But in the hands of elementary-school students, often introduced to PowerPoint in the third grade, and often infatuated with its swooshing sounds, animated icons, and flashing text, a slide show is more likely to close down debate than open it up. 在“認(rèn)知風(fēng)格的PowerPoint”(圖形出版社,2003),愛德華r的資訊”表明,bulleting PowerPoint等同與清晰的思維。它不教學(xué)生開始討論或建立一個(gè)故事。它鼓勵(lì)表現(xiàn),而不是對(duì)話。當(dāng)然,手中的大師,一個(gè)幻燈片展示幾句話和強(qiáng)大的圖像可以作為切入點(diǎn),為一個(gè)輝煌的講座。但在小學(xué)一年級(jí)學(xué)生的手,常被介紹到PowerPoint在小學(xué)三年級(jí),常常迷戀它的swooshing聲音、動(dòng)畫圖標(biāo),閃光文本的幻燈片,更有可能關(guān)閉的辯論,不如說是打開它。Developed to serve the needs of the corporate boardroom, the software is designed to convey absolute authority. Teachers used to tell students that clear exposition depended on clear outlining, but presentation software has fetishized the outline at the expense of the content. 發(fā)展服務(wù)的需求,軟件公司會(huì)議室設(shè)計(jì)傳送絕對(duì)的權(quán)威。老師經(jīng)常告訴學(xué)生明確清晰的概述,博覽會(huì)取決于但演示軟件已經(jīng)fetishized大綱的代價(jià)的內(nèi)容。Narrative, the exposition of content, takes time. PowerPoint, like so much in the computer culture, speeds up the pace. 敘事,揭露的內(nèi)容,需要時(shí)間。在PowerPoint,就像如此之多的計(jì)算機(jī)文化,加快步伐。Word processing vs. thinking. The catalog for the Vermont Country Store advertises a manual typewriter, which the advertising copy says moves at a pace that allows time to compose your thoughts. As many of us know, it is possible to manipulate text on a computer screen and see how it looks faster than we can think about what the words mean. 字(詞)處理技術(shù)中vs.思考。佛蒙特州的國家目錄商店廣告人工打字機(jī),廣告圖片說”移動(dòng)的速度,讓時(shí)間來撰寫的想法?！北M可能多的人都知道,它是可能操縱文本在電腦屏幕上的時(shí)候,看看它是怎么看起來比我們可以想想這些字的意思是什么。Word processing has its own complex psychology. From a pedagogical point of view, it can make dedicated students into better writers because it allows them to revise text, rearrange paragraphs, and experiment with the tone and shape of an essay. Few professional writers would part with their computers; some claim that they simply cannot think without their hands on the keyboard. Yet the ability to quickly fill the page, to see it before you can think it, can make bad writers even worse. 字(詞)處理技術(shù)中有其自身的復(fù)雜的心理。從教育學(xué)的角度來看,它可以使致力于學(xué)習(xí)的學(xué)生進(jìn)更多的作家,因?yàn)樗茏屗麄冃薷奈谋尽⒅嘏哦温?、和試?yàn)以色調(diào)和形狀的文章。一些專業(yè)作家會(huì)分手對(duì)計(jì)算機(jī);有些人聲稱他們不能簡單地認(rèn)為沒有手在鍵盤。然而能夠快速地填補(bǔ)這個(gè)頁面的時(shí)候,看到它之前,你可以認(rèn)為它,可使壞作家更糟。A seventh grader once told me that the typewriter she found in her mothers attic is cool because you have to type each letter by itself. You have to know what you are doing in advance or it comes out a mess. The idea of thinking ahead has become exotic. 一個(gè)八年級(jí)學(xué)生曾經(jīng)告訴我,她發(fā)現(xiàn)她的打字機(jī)母親的閣樓是“酷,因?yàn)槟阋蛎恳粋€(gè)字母時(shí)出現(xiàn)。你必須要知道你正在做什么提前或出來了一片混亂?！睆拈L遠(yuǎn)考慮的想法已成為情調(diào)。Taking things at interface value. We expect software to be easy to use, and we assume that we dont have to know how a computer works. In the early 1980s, most computer users who spoke of transparency meant that, as with any other machine, you could open the hood and poke around. But only a few years later, Macintosh users began to use the term when they talked about seeing their documents and programs represented by attractive and easy-to-interpret icons. They were referring to an ability to make things work without needing to go below the screen surface. Paradoxically, it was the screens opacity that permitted that kind of transparency. Today, when people say that something is transparent, they mean that they can see how to make it work, not that they know how it works. In other words, transparency means epistemic opacity. 把事物在界面的價(jià)值。我們希望軟件容易使用,我們假設(shè)我們不需要知道計(jì)算機(jī)是如何工作的。在1980年代早期,大多數(shù)計(jì)算機(jī)用戶說透明度意味著,與任何其他的機(jī)器,你可以打開引擎蓋”和“戳周圍。但只有幾年后,麥金塔用戶開始使用術(shù)語當(dāng)他們談?wù)撐募统绦蛞娝麄兯淼奈?easy-to-interpret圖標(biāo)。他們所提及的能力使事物工作而不需要去屏幕表面以下。矛盾的是,這是一個(gè)允許螢?zāi)换鞚岬哪欠N透明。今天,當(dāng)人們說這東西是透明的,他們的意思是說他們能夠看到如何使它工作,而不是他們知道它是如何工作的。換句話說,透明意味著認(rèn)識(shí)論的不透明度。The people who built or bought the first generation of personal computers understood them down to the bits and bytes. The next generation of operating systems were more complex, but they still invited that old-time reductive understanding. Contemporary information technology encourages different habits of mind. Todays college students are already used to taking things at (inter) face value; their successors in 2014 will be even less accustomed to probing below the surface. 那些買了第一代建或個(gè)人電腦的理解他們下到比特和字節(jié)。下一代的操作系統(tǒng)是更復(fù)雜的,但是他們還是邀請(qǐng),老式的還原的理解。現(xiàn)代信息技術(shù)鼓勵(lì)不同的習(xí)慣心靈。今天的大學(xué)生已經(jīng)用來把事物在(國際米蘭)票面價(jià)值;他們的繼任者2014年將會(huì)有更少的習(xí)慣探測地表以下。Simulation and its discontents. Some thinkers argue that the new opacity is empowering, enabling anyone to use the most sophisticated technological tools and to experiment with simulation in complex and creative ways. But it is also true that our tools carry the message that they are beyond our understanding. It is possible that in daily life, epistemic opacity can lead to passivity. 模擬及其不滿足的流氓。有些思想家認(rèn)為新透明度,讓人讓人使用最先進(jìn)的技術(shù)工具和試驗(yàn)用模擬在復(fù)雜和創(chuàng)造性的方式。但它也確實(shí)我們的工具完成這項(xiàng)任務(wù),他們是遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出了我們的理解。,這可能是在日常生活中,知識(shí)不透明度會(huì)導(dǎo)致消極。I first became aware of that possibility in the early 1990s, when the first generation of complex simulation games were introduced and immediately became popular for home as well as school use. SimLife teaches the principles of evolution by getting children involved in the development of complex ecosystems; in that sense it is an extraordinary learning tool. During one session in which I played SimLife with Tim, a 13-year-old, the screen before us flashed a message: Your orgot is being eaten up. Whats an orgot? I asked. Tim didnt know. I just ignore that, he said confidently. You dont need to know that kind of stuff to play. 我第一次意識(shí)到這樣的可能性在1990年代早期,當(dāng)?shù)谝淮鷱?fù)雜仿真游戲介紹,立即開始廣泛應(yīng)用于家庭和學(xué)校使用。廈門市教的原則讓孩子參與進(jìn)化復(fù)合生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的發(fā)展,從這個(gè)意義上說它是一種獨(dú)特的學(xué)習(xí)工具。在一次會(huì)議中,我扮演創(chuàng)辦,一個(gè)13歲與蒂姆在我們面前,屏幕上閃現(xiàn)了一條短信:“你的orgot被吃掉?！薄笆裁词且粋€(gè)orgot嗎?”我問。提姆不知道?！拔抑皇菬o視這一點(diǎn),”他說大膽。“你不需要知道這類東西玩耍?！盕or me, that story serves as a cautionary tale. Computer simulations enable their users to think about complex phenomena as dynamic, evolving systems. But they also accustom us to manipulating systems whose core assumptions we may not understand and that may not be true. 對(duì)我來說,這個(gè)故事作為一種警醒。計(jì)算機(jī)模擬有能力讓他們的用戶思考的復(fù)雜現(xiàn)象,它的發(fā)展經(jīng)歷了動(dòng)態(tài)系統(tǒng)。但是他們也習(xí)慣我們的系統(tǒng)核心假設(shè)操縱我們可能不明白,這可能不真實(shí)。We live in a culture of simulation. Our games, our economic and political systems, and the ways architects design buildings, chemists envisage molecules, and surgeons perform operations all use simulation technology. In 10 years the degree to which simulations are embedded in every area of life will have increased exponentially. We need to develop a new form of media literacy: readership skills for the culture of simulation. 我們生活在一個(gè)文化的模擬。我們的游戲,我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治體系的應(yīng)對(duì)方法,以及建筑設(shè)計(jì)、化學(xué)家建筑師所設(shè)想的分子,而外科醫(yī)生的手術(shù)均采用仿真技術(shù)。十年后,在何種程度上模擬嵌入到生活的每個(gè)領(lǐng)域會(huì)增加指數(shù)。我們要制定一個(gè)新形式的媒介素養(yǎng):讀者的文化技能模擬。We come to written text with habits of readership based on centuries of civilization. At the very least, we have learned to begin with the journalists traditional questions: who, what, when, where, why, and how. Who wrote these words, what is their message, why were they written, and how are they situated in time and place, politically and socially? A central project for higher education during the next 10 years should be creating programs in information-technology literacy, with the goal of teaching students to interrogate simulations in much the same spirit, challenging their built-in assumptions. 我們來寫文本閱讀的習(xí)慣基于幾個(gè)世紀(jì)的文明。最起