神经科学与心理学2021pnas.org
语言记录揭示近几十年来认知扭曲激增
Language records reveal a surge of cognitive distortions in recent decades
入门 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：认知行为疗法基础概念、基本统计学
导读
这篇 PNAS 论文分析了 1400 多万本书中的语言数据，发现与“认知扭曲”（抑郁人群常见的负面思维模式，如灾难化、以偏概全）相关的文本标记在过去几十年中显著增多。作者据此推测，社会整体心理可能经历了类似个体抑郁的变化，并反映在历史语言记录中。
HN 关注点：焦点在于这种基于词频的简单统计到底测出了什么：是集体心理真的恶化了，还是写作风格、互联网文化等因素改变了语言本身。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 3 亲历 1
质疑认知扭曲清单可以否定任何基于有限信息的正常推理，作为诊断工具过于宽泛
如果你抬头看天说“今天晴天”，你就是在以偏概全，因为你没看过城市其他地方。如果你在新冠被广泛承认之前就戴口罩或开始谨慎行事，你就是在灾难化。如果你根据对朋友的心智模型来说话行事，你就是在“读心”。“认知扭曲”其实是我们在信息有限（几乎总是如此）时进行推理的唯一工具。它基本上是一个可以否定任何想法的工具箱——病人写下负面想法时，精神科医生只需递上一张清单，非常方便。但同样的标准也完全适用于正面想法或任何想法。
zaptheimpaler查看英文原文
If you look up at the sky and say "oh its sunny today", you are overgeneralizing because you haven't seen the rest of the city. If you had worn masks or started being cautious before COVID was widely acknowledged, you were catastrophizing. If you ever talk or act based on a mental model you have of a friend, you are mindreading. "Cognitive distortions" are the only tools we have to reason about anything in the presence of limited information (which is basically always). Its basically a toolbox to let you discredit any thought whatsoever, which is convenient when a patient writes down negative thoughts and the psychiatrist can just hand them a list. But it would work just as well on positive thoughts or any thought whatsoever.
亲历亲历者证实认知扭曲清单有实用价值，但指出媒体文化在刻意传播受害者心态
5 年前我的治疗师递给我一张题为“认知扭曲清单”的纸，列了十种负面思维模式。我当时没意识到这些模式在我的思维和习惯中有多根深蒂固——花了多年时间，我仍在学习。我学到的一点是，文化中的新闻、故事和态度有很强的动机去嵌入认知扭曲：告诉人们他们是超出个人控制的更大力量的受害者。受害者心态是一个人能有的最糟糕的心态，我不希望它发生在我最坏的敌人身上。
lai-yin查看英文原文
5 years ago my therapist handed me a sheet of paper titled "Checklist of Cognitive Distortions." Ten negative modes of thought. I didn't immediately grasp how ingrained each one was in my mindset and habits - it took years and I'm still learning. And one thing I've learned is that there is a wide incentive to embed cognitive distortions in the news, stories, and attitudes which comprise culture. Telling people they are victims of more powerful forces beyond their individual control. Victimhood mentality is the worst mindset a person can have. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemies.
质疑数据有趣但解释不唯一，互联网使用与指标的强相关性提示可能是网络文化而非集体抑郁在驱动变化
数据很有意思，但这个假设远不是唯一合理的解释。研究发现：通常与抑郁相关的语言模式在书籍语言中迅速变得普遍。但解读仍有争议——也许只是写作者更抑郁了。金融事件虽有标注，但对数据影响似乎不大；相比之下，互联网的使用与所测指标高度相关。也许是网络文化改变了语言而与抑郁无关，也许是互联网让人更抑郁，或让写作者更抑郁，也可能是这些因素复杂的纠缠。
dalbasal查看英文原文
The data is quite interesting, but the hypothesis (imo) is far from the only plausible explanation. I'm not saying this to disparage the work, just to frame. "Individuals with depression are prone to maladaptive patterns of thinking, known as cognitive distortions, whereby they think about themselves, the world, and the future in overly negative and inaccurate ways. These distortions are associated with marked changes in an individual’s mood, behavior, and language. We hypothesize that societies can undergo similar changes in their collective psychology that are reflected in historical records of language use. Here, we investigate the prevalence of textual markers of cognitive distortions in over 14 million books..." Interesting result: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/30/e2102061118/F4.large.jpg So... the finding is that language patterns typically associated with depression have rapidly become common in book language. Interesting. The interpretation is up for debate, I suppose. Maybe its just writers are more depressed. Financial events are labeled, but they don't seem to have impacted the data much. Internet usage, OTOH, seems (at a glance) highly correlated to whatever they're measuring. Maybe online culture moved language in this direction with no real relationship to depression. Maybe the internet made people more depressed. Maybe the internet made writers more depressed. Maybe some complicated knot of those. IE, the internet popularized maladaptive language, which has made us all more depressed. In any case, assuming the methodology is reasonable, it does look like they've found something here. Worth a discussion.
质疑方法论有缺陷：只统计否定短语而不统计对应的肯定短语作比值，无法说明测量的究竟是什么
这是一个非常简单的分析。短语清单很短，数字怎么算出来的很清楚，但它们到底意味着什么并不清楚。一个大问题是他们只统计单侧：比如“预言未来”这一项只统计“我不会、我们不会、你不会”等否定短语，却不同时统计“我会、我们会”等并给出比值。这确实在测量某种东西，但到底是什么？
Animats查看英文原文
This is a very simple analysis. Here's the phrase list: [1] It's quite short. It's clear how they get the numbers, but not clear what, if anything, they indicate. A big problem is that they only count one side. "Fortune-telling: Making predictions, usually negative ones, about the future" - counts the phrases: "I will not, we will not, you will not, they will not, it will not, that will not, he will not, she will not". One would expect that they'd also count "I will, "we will", etc. and show a ratio. But no. This is measuring something, but what? [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2021/07/22/2102061118.DCSupplemental/pnas.2102061118.sapp.pdf
历次讨论
- 2021Hacker News 讨论帖283 分 · 148 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