正開turbo mode清理兩個月來的雜誌。
"You can see this audience effect even in small children. In one of my favorite experiments, a group of Vanderbilt University researchers in 2008 published a study in which several dozen 4- and 5-year olds were shown patterns of colored bugs and asked to predict which would be next in the sequence. In one group, the children simply repeated the puzzle answers into a tape recorder. In a second group, they were asked to record an explanation of how they were solving each puzzle. And in the third group, the kids had an audience: They had to explain their reasoning to their mothers, who sat near them, listening but not offering any help. Then each group was given patterns that were more complicated and harder to predict.
The results? The children who didn't explain their thinking performed worst. The ones who recorded their explanations did better-the mere act of articulating their thinking process aloud seemed to help them identify the patterns more clearly. But the ones who were talking to a meaningful audience-Mom-did best of all. When presented with the more complicated puzzles, on average they solved more than the kids who'd explained to themselves and about twice as many as the ones who'd simply repeated their answers."
這是10月號的Wired中由Clive Thompson所寫的"Thinking out loud"，主要是說網絡可以促使同好的交流、資訊流通造成創新的啟發、寫blog或報導等等或可成為集合某些關注某類事情的人士建立平台的契機，以及觀眾效應--當一個人知道自己所寫/貼出來的東西會被別人看到，表達時因為要組織為別人也能明白的方法，有助解決/認清主體。這一點也是我所認同寫blog的好處之一，雖然未必每個人及每一篇都真的會思考別人是否明白(例如很私人的blog以及說話只說三分一又不回答人的fb status)，但有些時候至少對某些人有這個幫助，例如我寫書和電影的閱/看後感，有助訓練記憶力和重組片段的能力(書還是有讀，不過近期也少了時間和體力去寫感想)，科學也是(當然manipulation也難以避免的…例如GMO的網上討論就有很多打手)，我想到其他現實的例子可以是政治類議題，一個人要是只會將自己心中的原則緊抱，只說政治很煩不想理會下卻又下意識為一些事定了性，而不願意有陳述這過程--經過自己對某些事情的取態時好好面對和整理自己為什麼那樣想、那些想法到底是從哪裡來的思考，那麼這個人就算有多聰明，內心也只是不懂兌變的陳腐世界。我最近就因為一些人老是「一知半解卻要亂槍掃射，千發後中了一槍就沾沾自喜的無賴行為」感到煩擾，但我努力說服自己別太早把耳朵關起來。
當然我從不期望自己或每人的blog或網上言論都要像論文一樣全面和有遞進的表達形式(畢竟我不是機械人，亦有很多無知的地方)，創新、發現和理解從來都是一點一滴累積下來後，那驀然一刻就串連起來。
哇，很久沒有打這麼「多字」了。
另外還有一些動漫、日劇的感想，但不知是否有時間寫。
