题⽬： ⼈们为什么总相信虚假信息 Why people fall for misinformation
作者: Joseph Isaac
In 1901, David Hänig published a paper that forever changed our understanding of taste. His research led to what we know today as the taste map: an illustration that divides the tongue into four separate areas. According to this map, receptors at the tip of our tongues capture sweetness, bitterness is detected at the tongue’s base, and along the sides, receptors capture salty and sour sensations.
1901 年，⼤卫·哈尼格 （David Hänig）发表的⼀篇论⽂ 永远地改变了我们对味觉的理解。 从他的研究中诞⽣了 我们现在所谓的“味觉图”： ⼀张把⾆头划分为 四个独⽴区域的⽰意图。 根据这张⽰意图，⾆尖的受体捕捉甜味， ⾆根检测苦味， ⾆头两侧的受体则 捕捉咸味和酸味。
Since its invention, the taste map has been published in textbooks and newspapers. The only problem with this map, is that it’s wrong. In fact, it’s not even an accurate representation of what Hänig originally discovered. The tongue map is a common misconception— something widely believed but largely incorrect. So where do misconceptions like this come from, and what makes a fake fact so easy to believe?
⾃发明以来， 味觉图被陆续刊登在了 各类教科书和报纸上。 这张图唯⼀的问题是—— 它是错误的。 事实上，它甚⾄没有准确地代表 哈尼格原本的发现。 味觉图是个常见的错误观念—— 虽然⼴为⼈信，⼤体上却是不准确的。 那么，像这样的 错误观念是从哪来的？ 虚假信息又为什么 能让⼈如此轻易地信以为真？
It’s true that the tongue map’s journey begins with David Hänig. As part of his dissertation at Leipzig University, Hänig analyzed taste sensitivities across the tongue for the four basic flavors. Using sucrose for sweet, quinine sulfate for bitter, hydrochloric acid for sour, and salt for salty, Hänig applied these stimuli to compare differences in taste thresholds across a subject’s tongue.
的确，味觉图的旅程 是从⼤卫 · 哈尼格开始的。 哈尼格在莱⽐锡⼤学的学位论⽂中 分析了⾆头各部位 对四种基本味道的敏感度。 他⽤蔗糖测甜味， ⽤硫酸奎宁测苦味， ⽤盐酸测酸味， ⽤盐测咸味。 哈尼格⽤这些刺激 来⽐较被试者⾆头各处的 味觉阈值的差异。
He hoped to better understand the physiological mechanisms that affected these four flavors, and his data suggested that sensitivity for each taste did in fact vary across the tongue. The maximum sensation for sweet was located at the tongue’s tip; bitter flavors were strongest at the back; salt was strongest in this area, and sour at the middle of the tongue’s sides. But Hänig was careful to note that every sensation could also be tasted across the tongue, and that the areas he identified offered very small variations in intensity.
他希望能更好地理解 影响这四种味觉的⽣理机制， ⽽他的数据显⽰，⾆头各部位 对每种味道的敏感度 确实存在差异。对甜味最敏感的是⾆尖； 对苦味最敏感的是⾆根； 咸味在这个区域最强， ⽽酸味则在⾆头两侧的中间。 但是哈尼格谨慎地指出了， ⾆头的各个部位 都能尝出所有的味道， ⽽且他所划分出的区域之间 敏感度差异⾮常⼩。
Like so many misconceptions, the tongue map represents a distortion of its original source, however the nature of that distortion can vary. Some misconceptions are comprised of disinformation— false information intentionally designed to mislead people. But many misconceptions, including the tongue map, center on misinformation— false or misleading information that results from unintentional inaccuracy.
就如其它很多错误观念⼀样， 味觉图是最初来源的⼀种曲解， 然⽽这种曲解的性质 可能存在差异。 有些错误观念是由谣⾔组成的—— 刻意设计出来 以误导⼈们的虚假信息。 但包括味觉图在内的很多错误观念 围绕的是错误信息—— 因⽆意的失实 导致的错误或误导性信息。
Misinformation is most often shaped by mistakes and human error, but the specific mistakes that lead to a misconception can be surprisingly varied. In the case of the tongue map, Hänig’s dissertation was written in German, meaning the paper could only be understood by readers fluent in German and well versed in Hanig’s small corner of academia. This kicked off a game of telephone that re-shaped Häing’s research every time it was shared with outside parties. Less than a decade after his dissertation, newspapers were falsely insisting that experiments could prove sweetness was imperceptible on the back of the tongue.
最常见的错误信息是由 差错和⼈为失误造成的， 但是导致错误观念的具体错误 可以有惊⼈的多样性。 在味觉图的例⼦⾥， 哈尼格的学位论⽂是⽤德语写的， 意味着能真正读懂这篇⽂章的 只有精通德语、且熟知哈尼格的 学术细分领域的⼈。 这开启了⼀场传话游戏， 每次和外⾏⼈⼠分享时， 哈尼格的研究都会改头换⾯。 他的学位论⽂发表后不到⼗年， 报纸已经在错误地坚称， 实验能够证明 ⾆根完全感受不到甜味。
The second culprit behind the tongue map’s spread were the images that Hänig’s work inspired. In 1912, a rough version of the map appeared in a newspaper article that cautiously described some of the mysteries behind taste and smell research. Featuring clear labels across the tongue, the article’s illustration simplified Hänig’s more-complicated original diagrams. Variations of this approachable image became repeatedly cited, often without credit or nuanced consideration for Hänig’s work. Eventually this image spread to textbooks and classrooms as a purported truth of how we experience taste.
导致味觉图⼴为流传的 第⼆个罪魁祸⾸ 是被哈尼格的研究启发的图像。 1912 年，⼀张简略版的 味觉图出现在了报纸上， 报道⼩⼼翼翼地描述了 味觉和嗅觉研究背后的⼀些奥秘。 这篇报道的插图 在⾆头上标注了明确标签， 简化了哈尼格 更加复杂的原始图解。 这幅平易近⼈的图像的变体 被反复引⽤， 但往往没有注明来源， 也没有对哈尼格的研究有些微斟酌。 最终，这幅图像传到了 教科书和教室⾥， 被当成我们如何体验味觉的真相。
But perhaps the factor that most contributed to this misconception was its narrative simplicity. In many ways, the map complements our desire for clear stories about the world around us— a quality not always present in the sometimes-messy fields of science. For example, even the number of tastes we have is more complicated than Hänig’s work suggests.
但也许对这个错误观念 贡献最⼤的因素 是它叙事的简单性。 在很多⽅⾯， 味觉图满⾜了我们对 ⽤明晰的故事讲述⾝边世界的渴望—— 然⽽这⼀特质在时⽽繁杂的 科学领域中却时有缺失。 举个例⼦， 甚⾄连味觉的种类 也⽐哈尼格所提到的更加复杂。
Umami— also known as savory— is now considered the fifth basic taste, and many still debate the existence of tastes like fatty, alkaline, metallic, and water-like. Once we hear a good story, it can be difficult to change how we see that information, even in the face of new evidence. So, next time you see a convenient chart or read a surprising anecdote, try to maintain a healthy skepticism— because misconceptions can leave a bitter taste on every part of your tongue.
旨味（umami）——又称鲜味—— 如今被认为是第五种基本味道，还有很多⼈仍在辩论 其他味道是否存在： ⽐如脂肪味、碱味、 ⾦属味、⽔味等。⼀旦我们听到⼀个好故事， 想要改变看待它的⽅式是很难的—— 哪怕有新的证据摆在⾯前。 所以下次看见⼀张简便图表，或读了⼀个惊⼈轶事时， [ “狗没法向上看！”] 请尝试保持⼀个健康的怀疑态度—— 因为错误观念 会在你⾆头上的每个⾓落 留下⼀种苦涩的味道。
Comments
Post a Comment