原標題是: 《腦筋急轉彎》對記憶跟情緒的描繪是錯誤的，但仍具參考價值, 因為太長放 不下, 只好擅自改標題. 網址: http://pansci.asia/archives/83510 五月的時候在美國心理學會的大會上，就看到這部電影的宣傳攤位，當時就很想看這部討 論心理學的電影，無奈等到近三個月後才如願。電影宣傳中看到以情緒角色來做宣傳，再 加上我的前老闆 Lisa Feldman Barrett 也在媒體上發表文章評論這電影犯了一個重大的 錯誤，都讓我以為這部電影是要談論情緒是怎麼一回事，看了之後才恍然大悟，這根本是 假情緒之名探討更深層的「人之所以為人」的道理啊！ 性格的形成 從電影的角度出發，性格的形成，就是因為經驗，特別是一些「核心經驗」的累積，造就 了不同的性格島。腦中的思緒列車會經過這些島嶼、長期記憶區等，把這些東西帶到大腦 管控室，進而影響我們的行為表現。如果大腦管控室不知道該怎麼作，我們就會腦中一片 空白。 電影中關於性格形成的描述，大方向是對的，但核心經驗不應該像電影中描繪的只是單一 的事件，而是很多類似事件的累積，會形成了一種信念。這些信念會影響我們的心智運作 ，也會受到後續事件的影響而有所轉變，可能會變的更堅定，也可能會變得更脆弱。但若 單一事件是非常震撼的，也很有可能就會因此影響了人的信念，而且非常難扭轉。 記憶究竟是怎麼一回事？ 這大概是電影中嚴重的錯誤之一，因為人的記憶根本不是把單一事件完整的儲存，然後完 整的提取。我喜歡用的比喻是這樣的，若把要記得的事情當作一本書，我們記憶運作的方 式就是把這本書拆開來，然後分門別類放在長期記憶區；日後要回想這件事情時，就從長 期記憶去把這些片段拼湊成一本書，想當然爾，記憶肯定和原本的事件有所出入，但這就 是我們記憶運作的機制。 至於訊息是否真的被遺忘、隨風消逝，還是有爭議的。如同上一段提到的，我們記憶不是 針對單一事件完整保存，所以要完全遺忘某一個元素，其實非常的困難，根本不可能！當 然近來陸續有研究者嘗試抹去記憶，在動物身上也得到頗正面的結果。但我們要做到像電 影《王牌冤家》那樣記憶消除技術，可能還需要很長一段時間。 至於潛意識的描繪，很顯然是受到佛洛伊德的影響，唯一要抱怨的就是，潛意識不一定只 有我們害怕的事物，也會有我們很渴望但不符合社會規範的事物啊！ 不過影片中「憂憂」把快樂記憶變難過，倒是一個相對正確的描繪，因為同一個事件，確 實會因為人們詮釋的角度，而有了全盤不同的情緒感受。 那情緒又是怎麼一回事？ 讓我前老闆抓狂的就是電影中對於情緒的描繪，除了參考我前老闆的文章之外，也可以看 看我幾年前寫的東西。簡單來說，情緒不應該是壁壘分明的幾個簡單概念，但我們從小到 大卻一直被教育情緒就是那樣，所以人們很難接受情緒不是壁壘分明概念這件事情。 講難聽一點，情緒類別可能只是為了方便溝通的一些用語，而不是我們真正的感受。各位 可以想像一下，當沒有「冏」這個詞彙的時候，難道你就不會有那種有點尷尬的感受嗎？ 那情緒究竟是甚麼？其實情緒就是心智運作最基本的元素之一，電影中的所有記憶都被標 記了一個情緒，某種程度來說算是略正確的描繪，因為情緒就是那樣無所不在。當情緒沒 有辦法運作的時候，我們基本上跟早期的機器人沒有甚麼太大的差別，只是執行力比較遜 一點。電影最後的片段強化了情緒在生命中不可或缺的角色，就是很貼切且真實的呈現。 撇開將情緒類別化的錯誤，影片中對於情緒影響的呈現是很具參考價值的： 人們在悲傷情緒下，比較能夠作邏輯性的思考 每種情緒都有其優缺點，妥善運用，就能夠有最好的成效 人或許不能只有快樂，情緒是整套販售的，有欠缺人生就會有缺陷 除了上述討論的部分之外，電影也針對抽象思考、夢境、創造力做了很精彩的呈現，也讓 電影的情節得以順利發展。若要說這電影帶出了甚麼訊息，大概就是： 我們該去擁抱自己的情緒，因為不論是快樂、難過，都有其功用及必要性 要認真過每一分鐘，因為每個事件都會對於我們自己、他人造成影響 要多給自己的信念一些發揮的空間，若只是持續被誘發，那人生有點可惜啊！ 作者: Y. M. Huang 輔大心理系副教授，主要研究領域：探討情緒與認知之間的關係、老化對認知功能的影響 、以及如何在生活中落實認知心理學的研究成果。 部落格網址：認知與情緒新聞網 http://cogemonews.com -- 這篇的參考文獻有 Lisa Feldman Barrett的撰文. 我覺得講的蠻好的. 在emotion學術界 , localizing & constructionism 一直爭論是否有單一腦區可以掌管特定情緒. Barrett是 constructionism的大力推廣者. 有興趣可以念這篇論文. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661312002215 Barrett的撰文的最後一段很重要. 雖然電影中有了錯誤, 但觀眾只要知道有錯誤就好了. 這仍然影響不了電影的娛樂性質, 更何況電影也教導了觀眾, 負面的感受與經驗如何引導 我們的行為. -- Brain Scientist: How Pixar’s ‘Inside Out’ Gets One Thing Deeply Wrong Pixar’s “Inside Out” is the latest in a long tradition of animated entertainment that teaches us about science. Chemistry, as I learned from Saturday morning cartoons, is about mixing colorful, bubbling liquids in test tubes until they explode. “Roadrunner and Coyote” cartoons—those fine nature documentaries—taught me physics: If you run off a cliff, you’ll hang in mid-air until the unfortunate moment that you look down. Computer science is apparently about robots that kill you. And now, with “Inside Out,” we finally have cartoon neuroscience. Your brain, it turns out, is populated with characters for each emotion, and they press buttons to control your expressions. This is all good fun and a sweet movie. What is surprising, however, is that some scientists have taken this model seriously for a century and actually search for these characters in the brain. Not as animated creatures, mind you, but as blobs of brain circuitry. This blob over here is your “fear circuit,” they say, or this other blob “ computes anger.” And every time you experience an emotion, your corresponding blob of neurons supposedly leaps into action, triggering your face and body to respond in a consistent way. Your Fear blob makes you freeze with widened eyes. Your Anger blob makes you scowl and your heart speed up. And so on. The thing is, this science of “blob-ology” is no more realistic than detonating test tubes and hovering coyotes. Today’s neuroscientists finally have the technology to peer into a living brain without harming its owner, and it’s clear that the brain doesn’t operate even remotely in this cartoonish fashion. We might perceive Joy, Fear and Anger as separate entities — even gloriously rendered in 32-bit color — but the evidence from neuroscience is overwhelmingly against it. For example, my lab has analyzed nearly 100 published brain-imaging studies by other scientists, involving nearly 1,300 test subjects across 15 years, and found that no brain region is the home for any single emotion. (We do have brain circuits for behaviors like freezing and fighting, as do other animals, but not for complex mental states like fear and anger.) In another analysis covering 22,000 test subjects across more than 200 studies over 20 years, we demonstrated that anger, happiness, sadness and other emotions don’t have consistent responses in the body either. And plenty of studies have shown that human facial expressions have tremendous variety, far more than would occur if they were automatically launched by “ emotion blobs” in the brain. The blob-ology of emotion would be cute if it weren’t also so serious. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration spent almost a billion dollars training its agents to recognize terrorists, on the assumption that their facial and bodily movements could reveal emotion. (It failed.) Our legal system at its core treats emotion and reason like two battling characters in the brain. (They’re not.) Medical researchers investigate the relationship between heart attacks and anger, as if anger has one consistent state in the body. (It doesn’t.) So many critical parts of our lives rest on the invalid assumption that emotions can be located distinctly in the brain. If emotion blob-ology is wrong, how does your brain make emotions? It constructs instances of happiness, sadness and the rest via several general-purpose systems that work together. These systems span your entire brain. One system relates to your general feeling of your body. Another represents your knowledge from your past experiences. These and other systems —which are not exclusive to emotion—converge to make an instance of emotion when you need one. So happiness and fear are not brain blobs — they are whole-brain constructions. The inner workings of emotions in the brain are less like Joy and her pals and more like the Avengers, who save the world by working together as a team. When space aliens attack the Earth and the Avengers need a clever plan, there is no dedicated “clever plan” hero who leaps into action. Instead, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner dream up the scientific parts and Captain America adds a touch of morality. The team also has interchangeable powers: If a situation calls for super-strength but the Hulk is unavailable, then Thor or Iron Man can handle the task. Similarly in the brain, different combinations of circuitry can perform the same task. I suspect the Avengers model of emotion doesn’t match your daily experience at all, because you’re not aware of multiple team members collaborating in your head, but that’s not unusual. Science is full of unintuitive truths. The Earth looks flat even though it’s a sphere. The sun seems to travel through the sky from east to west, when of course it’s the Earth that rotates. Physics tells us that the universe is constructed of vibrating strings in 11 dimensions. And then there’s this little reality called “ evolution” that causes such consternation in certain circles. The bottom line is this: Go ahead, see “Inside Out” and be entertained. Learn its touching, Disney-style lesson that unpleasant experiences can be helpful guides for your behavior. Just remember this isn’t really how emotions work. Joy and her lovable pals from Cartoon Neuroscience Land are the Wile E. Coyotes of our day. Lisa Feldman Barrett is director of the Interdisciplinary Affective Science Laboratory and University Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Northeastern University. Her upcoming book, “How Emotions Are Made,” is to be published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Daniel J. Barrett is the author of 10 books on technology, including the upcoming “Linux Pocket Guide, 3rd Edition” (O’Reilly, 2016). 網址: http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2015/07/brain-scientist-how-pixars-inside-out-get s-one-thing-deeply-wrong ( http://tinyurl.com/ncbhegk ) --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 134.58.253.57 ※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/Cognitive/M.1439464168.A.BB6.html ※ 編輯: mulkcs (134.58.253.57), 08/13/2015 19:10:36 ※ 編輯: mulkcs (134.58.253.57), 08/13/2015 19:11:32