黑客入门教学视频:为什么有些人学的更快

物理学家Niels Bohr曾经这样给专家下过定义: 一个在狭窄的领域犯过所有错误的人。
Bohr的讽刺总结了学习的重要教训之一：人们是如何得到正确的结果的呢? 从一遍一遍的错误里面学习
教育不是魔术，教育是从错误中挤出的智慧。

A new study, forthcoming in Psychological Science, and led by Jason Moser at Michigan State University, expands on this important concept. The question at the heart of the paper is simple: Why are some people so much more effective at learning from their mistakes? After all, everybody screws up. The important part is what happens next. Do we ignore the mistake, brushing it aside for the sake of our self-confidence? Or do we investigate the error, seeking to learn from the snafu?

在《心理学》即将发表的，由Michigan州立大学Jason Moser领导的一个新的研究, 拓展了这个重要的观念。
这篇论文核心的问题很简单：为何有些人如此更加有效的从他们的错误中学习？
毕竟，每个人都会搞砸事情。重要的的是搞砸后会发生什么事情。我们为了自信而忽略错误，不顾错误吗？
或者我们研究错误，试图从混乱中学习?

The Moser experiment is premised on the fact that there are two distinct reactions to mistakes, both of which can be reliably detected using electroenchephalography, or EEG. The first reaction is called error-related negativity (ERN). It appears about 50 milliseconds after a screw-up and is believed to originate in the anterior cingulate cortex, a chunk of tissue that helps monitor behavior, anticipate rewards and regulate attention. This neural reaction is mostly involuntary, the inevitable response to any screw-up.

Moser实验的前提是人对错误截然不同的2个反应。
这两个反应能够通过使用脑电图(electroencephalography, 或者简称为EEG)探测到。
第一个反应被称为错误相关负电位(error-related negativity (ERN))。
这个反应在搞砸事情发生后的50毫秒左右发生，而且被认为是由前扣带皮质(the anterior cingulate cortex)产生的，大量的组织帮助监视行为，预期奖励以及调整注意力。
这种神经反应是人对搞砸事情后的不由自主，无法避免的反应。

The second signal, which is known as error positivity (Pe), arrives anywhere between 100-500 milliseconds after the mistake and is associated with awareness. It occurs when we pay attention to the error, dwelling on the disappointing result. In recent years, numerous studies have shown that subjects learn more effectively when their brains demonstrate two properties: 1) a larger ERN signal, suggesting a bigger initial response to the mistake and 2) a more consistent Pe signal, which means that they are probably paying attention to the error, and thus trying to learn from it.

第二个信号，被称为错误正波(error positivity (Pe)), 在错误发生后100-500毫秒后出现，并且和人的意识相关。
该信号出现在我们贯注于错误，细想让人失望的结果的时候。
近几年无数的研究表明，当实验对象的大脑展示2个属性时，他们学的更快:
1) 更大的ERN信号，暗示着对错误更大的初始反应，以及
2) 更持续的Pe信号，这意味着他们可能专注于错误，并且尝试从中学习。

In this new paper, Moser et al. extends this research by looking at how beliefs about learning shape these mostly involuntary error-related signals in the brain, both of which appear in less than half a second. More specifically, the scientists applied a dichotomy first proposed by Carol Dweck, a psychologist at Stanford. In her influential research, Dweck distinguishes between people with a fixed mindset — they tend to agree with statements such as “You have a certain amount of intelligence and cannot do much to change it” — and those with a growth mindset, who believe that we can get better at almost anything, provided we invest the necessary time and energy. While people with a fixed mindset see mistakes as a dismal failure — a sign that we aren’t talented enough for the task in question — those with a growth mindset see mistakes as an essential precursor of knowledge, the engine of education.

在这个新的论文里，Moser和其他人，通过观察学习的观念如何影响大脑内的，这两个几乎完全不由自主的，出现在半秒内的错误相关信号，拓展了这个研究。
更确切的说，科学家们采用了由Stanford的心理学家Carol Dweck首次提议的二分法。
在她有影响力的研究下，Dweck区分了两类人群:
固定型思维模式的人 -- 他们倾向于认同此类的声明"你有一定的智力，而且你无法改变这一点"
增长型思维模式的人 -- 他们相信，假如我们投入必要的时间和精力，任何事情我们都可以做得更好。
固定性思维模式的人把错误认为是惨败 -- 标志着我们没有足够的能力应付该工作
增长性思维模式的人把错误认为是知识的前身，教育的发动机

The experiment began with a flanker task, a tedious assignment in which subjects are supposed to identify the middle letter of a five-letter series, such as “MMMMM” or “NNMNN.” Sometimes the middle letter is the same as the other four, and sometimes it’s different. This simple change induces frequent mistakes, as the boring task encourages people to zone out. Once they make a mistake, of course, they immediately regret it. There is no excuse for misidentifying a letter.

实验从一个乏味的flanker任务开始。实验对象需要指出5个字符的序列里面的中间字符，比如"MMMMM"或者"NNMNN"等。有时中间字符和其他4个一样，有时不一样。
这个简单的变化会诱使人们频繁的出错，因为枯燥的工作会鼓励人们进行区分。
一旦他们出错，当然，他们马上会后悔。因为没有理由会错认一个字符。

While performing the flanker task, subjects wore an EEG cap, a monitoring device filled with greased electrodes that records electrical activity in the brain. (Unlike fMRI, EEG gives researchers excellent temporal resolution, allowing them to precisely measure a sequence of neural events. Unfortunately, this comes at the expense of spatial resolution, making it difficult to know where in the brain the signals are coming from.)

进行flander任务的时候，实验对象会带上一个EEG帽子。这个帽子是一种内里安装有涂了润滑液的电极的监测设备，用来记录大脑的电活动。
(不像fMRI, EEG给予研究者很棒的瞬时解析度，允许他们精确的衡量神经活动的一个序列。
不幸的是，同时带来了空间解析度的代价，研究者很难知道这些信号来自于大脑的哪个位置)

It turned out that those subjects with a growth mindset were significantly better at learning from their mistakes. As a result, they showed a spike in accuracy immediately following an error. Most interesting, though, was the EEG data, which demonstrated that those with a growth mindset generated a much larger Pe signal, indicating increased attention to their mistakes. (While those with an extremely fixed mindset generated a Pe amplitude around five, those with a growth mindset were closer to fifteen.) What’s more, this increased Pe signal was nicely correlated with improvement after error, implying that the extra awareness was paying dividends in performance. Because the subjects were thinking about what they got wrong, they learned how to get it right.

结果显示，增长型思维模式的实验对象非常明显的更能够从他们的错误中学习。
因此，他们在一个错误后的的成功率立即达到峰值。
然而最有意思的是EEG的数据。数据显示，增长型思维模式的人产生了更大的Pe信号，意味着他们在发生错误后增加了注意力。
(极度固定型思维模式的人生成的Pe幅度大约是5，而增长型思维模式的人接近15)
更重要的是，这些增长的Pe信号很好的和错误后的改进相关，意味着额外的意识投入，带来了成绩的提升
因为实验对象在思考他们的错误在哪里，他们学习到了如何正确处理

In her own research, Dweck has shown that these mindsets have important practical implications. Her most famous study, conducted in twelve different New York City schools along with Claudia Mueller, involved giving more than 400 fifth graders a relatively easy test consisting of nonverbal puzzles. After the children finished the test, the researchers told the students their score, and provided them with a single line of praise. Half of the kids were praised for their intelligence. “You must be smart at this,” the researcher said. The other students were praised for their effort: “You must have worked really hard.”

在Dweck自己的研究(https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/system/files/Intelligence%20Praise%20Can%20Undermine%20Motivation%20and%20Performance.pdf)里,
她展示了这些思维模式有着重要的实践上的意义。
她最著名的研究，是和Cludia Mueller一起，在12个不同的纽约学校里，用相对容易的非语言的谜语，对超过400个15岁的中学生进行测试。
在这些孩子完成了测试后，研究者告诉他们的得分，并且给他们一行赞美的话。
半数的孩子用智力进行赞美: "你肯定很聪明。" 研究者说。
其他的孩子用他们的努力进行赞美: "你肯定很勤奋。"

The students were then allowed to choose between two different subsequent tests. The first choice was described as a more difficult set of puzzles, but the kids were told that they’d learn a lot from attempting it. The other option was an easy test, similar to the test they’d just taken.

然后学生们会被允许选择2个不同的后续测试。
第一个选择是更难的一组谜语，但是孩子们会被告知，他们会从中学到很多。
另一组是一个容易的测试，和之前所做的测试类似。

When Dweck was designing the experiment, she expected the different forms of praise to have a rather modest effect. After all, it was just one sentence. But it soon became clear that the type of compliment given to the fifth graders dramatically affected their choice of tests. When kids were praised for their effort, nearly 90 percent chose the harder set of puzzles. However, when kids were praised for their intelligence, most of them went for the easier test. What explains this difference? According to Dweck, praising kids for intelligence encourages them to “look” smart, which means that they shouldn’t risk making a mistake.

在Dweck设计这个实验的时候，她期望不同形式的表扬会有点不同的效果。
无论如何，只不过是一句话而已。但是不久就非常的明确，不同类型的称赞，给15岁的中学生后续测试的选择，带来了戏剧性的影响。
被表扬努力的孩子，几乎90%选择更难的一组谜语。而被表扬聪明的孩子，大部分选择了容易的测试。

Dweck’s next set of experiments showed how this fear of failure can actually inhibit learning. She gave the same fifth graders yet another test. This test was designed to be extremely difficult — it was originally written for eighth graders — but Dweck wanted to see how the kids would respond to the challenge. The students who were initially praised for their effort worked hard at figuring out the puzzles. Kids praised for their smarts, on the other hand, were easily discouraged. Their inevitable mistakes were seen as a sign of failure: Perhaps they really weren’t so smart. After taking this difficult test, the two groups of students were then given the option of looking either at the exams of kids who did worse or those who did better. Students praised for their intelligence almost always chose to bolster their self-esteem by comparing themselves with students who had performed worse on the test. In contrast, kids praised for their hard work were more interested in the higher-scoring exams. They wanted to understand their mistakes, to learn from their errors, to figure out how to do better.

Dweck的下一组实验展示了，这种对错误的恐惧如何会真正的阻止学习。实验对象还是这些15岁的中学生，她安排了另外一个测试。
这个测试被设计成非常的难 -- 测试实际上是写给18岁的中学生的 -- 但是Dweck想看到这些孩子是如何应对挑战的。
前面被表扬努力的这些孩子努力地去解开谜语。另外一边，被表扬聪明的孩子，非常容易就垂头丧气了。
他们的不可避免的错误被看作是失败的标志: 可能他们不是真的这么聪明。
在参与这个很难的测试后，会有2个选项给到这2组学生，去看成绩好的学生的测试或者成绩差的学生的测试。
被表扬聪明的学生，几乎总是通过选择测试表现比较差的学生与自己比较，以支撑他们的自尊。
对比之下，被表扬努力的学生对取得更高分数的测试更感兴趣。
他们想要理解他们的错误，从他们的错误里学习，搞明白如何做的更好。

The final round of tests was the same difficulty level as the initial test. Nevertheless, students who were praised for their effort exhibited significant improvement, raising their average score by 30 percent. Because these kids were willing to challenge themselves, even if it meant failing at first, they ended up performing at a much higher level. This result was even more impressive when compared to students randomly assigned to the smart group, who saw their scores drop by nearly 20 percent. The experience of failure had been so discouraging for the “smart” kids that they actually regressed.

最后一轮测试和最开始的测试的难度是同一级别的。
然而，被表扬努力的孩子展示了非常明显的进步，平均分提高了30%。
因为这些孩子更愿意挑战他们自己，即使意味着最开始时的失败，他们最终的成绩在一个高得多的水准上。
当和随机的派进被表扬为聪明的那一组的学生对比，这个结果更令人印象深刻，他们发现他们的分数降低了差不多20%。
对被表扬为聪明的孩子来说，失败的经验是如此的让人垂头丧气，以至于他们的成绩退步了。

The problem with praising kids for their innate intelligence — the “smart” compliment — is that it misrepresents the psychological reality of education. It encourages kids to avoid the most useful kind of learning activities, which is when we learn from our mistakes. Because unless we experience the unpleasant symptoms of being wrong — that surge of Pe activity a few hundred milliseconds after the error, directing our attention to the very thing we’d like to ignore — the mind will never revise its models. We’ll keep on making the same mistakes, forsaking self-improvement for the sake of self-confidence. Samuel Beckett had the right attitude: “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.”

对小孩子固有的智力进行表扬的问题 -- "聪明"称赞 -- 在于错误地表述了教育的心理现实。
它鼓励孩子避免使用最有用的学习活动：从错误中学习
因为除非我么经历不开心的做错的症状 -- 在错误发生后几百毫秒后激起的Pe活动，将我们的注意力引向我们更愿意忽略的事情上 -- 思维永远不会改进它的模型。
我们会犯同样的错误，为了自信而放弃自我提高。
Samuel Beckett拥有正确的态度："一直尝试。一直失败。没关系。再试。再失败。失败更好。"