神经科学与心理学2018ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
长期暴露于反常相倚关系的影响
“The effects of lifelong exposure to a perverse contingency” (2002)
入门 · 约 30 分钟读完前置知识：基础统计学、回归均值概念
导读
论文研究一种'反常的偶然性'：由于回归均值，惩罚表现差的人之后其表现往往会改善，而表扬表现好的人之后其表现反而退步，于是日常经验似乎'证明'惩罚有效、表扬有害。论文以飞行教官的经验为例，说明这种统计错觉如何让人终身形成对惩罚式教学的错误信念。
HN 关注点：HN 读者聚焦于回归均值如何制造'惩罚比表扬有效'的错觉，并延伸讨论安慰剂效应以及奖惩在真实沟通中的作用。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：支持 1 质疑 1 补充 2
支持用抛硬币的讽刺性例子说明回归均值如何制造'惩罚有效'的错觉
一年前 HN 讨论飞行教官故事与回归均值时，用户 cortesoft 有个绝妙的例子：抛 100 次硬币，正面算成功、反面算失败。把'失败'（反面）的硬币骂一顿再抛，一半改善了！把'成功'（正面）的夸一顿再抛，一半变差了。显然，骂比夸更有效。
computator查看英文原文
When the flight instructor story and regression to the mean were discussed on HN a year ago[1], user "cortesoft" had a brilliant way to convince you: Yeah, I always make an example with coin flips to show how this is true.... lets say heads is success and tails is failure. Flip 100 coins. Take the ones that 'failed' (landed tails) and scold them. Flip them again. Half improved! Praise the ones that got heads the first time. Flip them again. Half got worse :( Clearly, scolding is more effective than praising. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12707606
补充轶事中的'批评见效'只是回归均值，长期数据表明正向强化更有效
这个例子很好地说明了区分个人轶事与数据分析的重要性。人的表现在两次之间极少有巨大起伏，但随机因素造成的自然波动很常见——无论投篮还是开飞机都一样。因此负面反馈之后往往'看到'进步，但即使你把批评写进信里从不给学生看，'效果'也一样，因为回归均值：这轮差的学生下轮往往变好，这轮好的下轮往往略差。只有长期收集多个学生的数据才能平衡这些效应、判断正负强化孰优孰劣——而数据确实表明正向强化更优。
InclinedPlane查看英文原文
This is a good example of why it's important to recognize the difference between individual anecdotal experience and results gained from properly analyzing data. It's rare for people to make enormous improvements or experience enormous depredations in performance one experience to the next. It's common for natural variations due to random factors, especially when still learning, to crop up and impact performance from instance to instance. That's true whether one is shooting a basketball at a net or flying a jet aircraft. This means that quite often the experience of providing negative feedback will seem to result in improvement. But this is also true if one simply were to secretly write their negative feedback down, put it in a letter, and never show it to the student. Due to the regression to the mean effect. Students who do poorly in one round will often do better in the next, just as students who do well in one round will often do slightly worse in the next. Only over a longer period of time and collecting data from multiple students will you balance out these effects and be able to determine whether positive or negative re-enforcement work better. And the data does seem to indicate that positive re-enforcement is superior.
质疑表扬与批评本质是沟通的一部分，奖惩缺一不可，纯正能量反而空洞
真正起作用的可能是：(a) 教官知道你不知道的东西，(b) 你想学，(c) 建立了沟通。表扬与批评是这种沟通的固有部分；当 (b) 不成立时（比如学校里的孩子），它们会升级为奖惩。我们嘴上说孩子不该被惩罚、只该被奖励，却又用沉默和疏远来惩罚而不承认。只有表扬和正能量的关系不是真正的关系，那会显得空洞甚至令人毛骨悚然。真实的关系大部分时间积极或中性、偶尔消极，因为我们是创造知识的生物——比如游戏中胜负比约 80:20 时学习效果最优，我猜人际关系也类似。没有惩罚的奖励不会'起作用'，反之亦然；这正是暴君过度施罚的原因：只有责罚没有表扬，同样意味着关系的缺失。
tremendulo查看英文原文
I suspect what truly works is (a) the instructor knows something that you don't know, (b) you want to learn it, (c) you establish communication. Praise and blame are an inherent part of that communication. In certain circumstances, especially where (b) is less true, then praise and blame get upgraded to reward and punishment. For example if you are a child at school. We like to say that people (especially children) shouldn't be punished; they should only be rewarded. And then we deny that we are still punishing them, after all, for example by silence and withdrawal. The reality is you aren't in a relationship if you only get praise and positivity. That feels meaningless or even creepy depending on the intensity. A genuine connection will feel positive/neutral most of the time and negative occasionally, since we are knowledge-creating entities. For example, in a computer game you're learning optimally if your win:lose ratio is somewhere around 80:20. I would guess this applies to our relationships too. Neither reward nor punishment will 'work' in the absence of the other. This is why tyrants go over the top with punishment, because all blame and no praise is lack of relationship too.
补充安慰剂效应很大程度源于忽略疾病的自然好转（回归均值）
这基本上也是大多数'安慰剂'效力的来源——许多实验没有考虑到大多数疾病本来就会随时间好转。
ZeroGravitas查看英文原文
This is basically the source of most "placebo" power too. Experiments that didn't take account of the fact that most illnesses get better with time.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2018Hacker News 讨论帖197 分 · 77 评
同领域还值得读
神经科学家能理解微处理器吗？（2017）
Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor? (2017)
提出一个思想实验：把神经科学常用的分析方法（损伤实验、电生理、功能定位等）应用到一个我们完全了解其原理的工程系统——6502 微处理器（运行游戏）上，检验这些方法能否真正“理解”…
神经科学与心理学2017 · 411 分 · 135 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选大脑衰老呈现非线性转变，提示中年“关键窗口”
Brain aging shows nonlinear transitions, suggesting a midlife "critical window"
这篇 PNAS 论文研究大脑衰老的非线性变化，发现大脑老化并非匀速进行，而是在中年（约 40-60 岁）存在一个关键的"临界窗口期"，此时干预可能有效。
神经科学与心理学2025 · 295 分 · 159 评进阶 · 约 75 分钟编辑精选社交网络中大规模情绪传染的证据（2014）
Evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (2014)
这篇 2014 年发表于 PNAS 的论文研究了 Facebook 上约 70 万用户的信息流中，减少正面或负面内容是否会传染性地影响用户自己发布内容的情绪。
神经科学与心理学2020 · 285 分 · 72 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选裸盖菇素使人类大脑去同步化
Psilocybin desynchronizes the human brain
这篇 Nature 研究用个体化的 fMRI 精密成像追踪受试者服用裸盖菇素（psilocybin）前后的脑功能连接变化，发现药物会造成大范围的脑网络「去同步化」，尤其是默认模式…
神经科学与心理学2024 · 273 分 · 259 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选对智力的赞扬会削弱儿童的动机与表现（1998）
Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children's Motivation (1998)
这篇 1998 年的经典论文（Dweck 等人）通过实验研究表扬方式对儿童动机的影响：夸孩子“聪明”（表扬智力）会让他们回避挑战、害怕失败，而表扬努力则更能培养坚持性。
神经科学与心理学2016 · 253 分 · 155 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选