[2011.09.03] 法庭上证词反反复复

引用 contrary 2011-9-5 22:35

本帖最后由 contrary 于 2011-9-6 23:04 编辑

速记
make up stories，witness
psychologists，advocate，reverse order
Aus, Bri, New，Nor, Spa，Swe，adopted

Coral Dando，Lancaster U,Britain，54，3g
>2d,interview,describe twice continuely
correct
f r
r f
f f-control
record,correct,inaccurate,confabulation

Dando,colleagues,Conigtion,
48.7-control
42.2-r f
38.7-f r
tendency differ greatly

confabulation
0.2-control
0.7-f r
1.4-r f

dangers,trust not test

词汇
1.forensic adj. 辩论的；法院的；适于法庭的
2.patchy adj.  不完整的
3.spin vt. 纺纱；使旋转；编造；结网
4.established adj. 已制定的，已建立的；确定的,公认的
5. fragmentary adj. 碎片的；不完全的；断断续续的
6.confabulation n.虚构事件
7.debriefing n. 任务报告；任务报告中提出的情报

引用 Sophia2011 2011-9-6 01:21

本帖最后由 Sophia2011 于 2011-9-6 01:29 编辑

第二段，

A participant’s final score for each type of recollection was the number of such items recalled or invented in at least one of his two debriefings.
有一位被试在每种记忆事件上的最终得分与他两次描述中至少一次里记忆和虚构的事件数相同。

A participant’s final score应该是普遍的参与者（或被试），而不是特定的个人吧？
each type of recollection
每种记忆事件
每种记忆(或回忆)类型
或每类记忆(或回忆)方式？

另外，control组应该就是实验的对照组，不知楼主查了这个词没？

引用 join_soon 2011-9-6 02:24

本帖最后由 join_soon 于 2011-9-6 02:27 编辑

回复 contrary 的帖子

My notes (typically it is shorter, only key info; this one is intense, has a lot of data)

stor deceitX
witness?
rev        ast, br, nz, nor, spa, swed
－－－－－－－－－－－－above is question (section summary -- I added it, immediately after I read it)
Coral Dan of Lances, bri
54, 3g
2ds>
des twice, Xwait

f, r
r, f
f, f --control
－－－－－－－－－－－－above is design (section summary -- I added it, immediately after I read it)
corr, inacc dog br or black, confab ---- 3 cate
score =#

Cognition

ff 48.7  0.2
rf 42.2 1.4  1.2
fr 38.7 0.7  0.6

danger on trustX, testing~
－－－－－－－－－－－－above is result(section summary -- I added it, immediately after I read it)

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

Forensic psychology
法庭心理学
Backwards and forwards
来来回回【颠三倒四】
A modern approach to interviewing witnesses of crimes may make things worse
一种采访犯罪目击证人的现代方法可能会使情况更加糟糕

Sep 3rd 2011 | from the print edition

Can you work back to the truth?
你能够记起真相吗？

PEOPLE love to tell tales. Indeed, even when someone’s memory is patchy, he will still do his best to spin the information he has into a credible yarn. This is not a matter of deceit. Rather, it is an established psychological phenomenon in which the brain tries to make sense of fragmentary information. Although such behaviour is natural and normal, it is a nuisance for the forces of law and order when they are trying to find out what happened during an incident by taking statements from witnesses. For this reason, psychologists working with the police often advocate asking witnesses of crimes to say what they saw in reverse order, to stop them making things up to help the story run smoothly. It sounds like sensible advice, and police forces in Australia, Britain, New Zealand, Norway, Spain and Sweden have all adopted it. But a new study suggests that far from improving recall, it makes things worse.
人都喜欢讲故事。确实，即使一个人对某件事的记忆并不完整，他仍然会尽其所能利用脑中的信息编造出一个令人信服的故事。但这不是欺骗。更确切地说，这是一种公认的心理学现象，即大脑试图为信息碎片赋予意义。虽然这种行为自然而正常，但当法治力量尝试通过向目击证人录取口供以查明事件的真相时，它就十分讨人嫌了。因此，与警方共事的心理学家提倡要求犯罪目击证人用倒序的方式讲述其所见所闻，以此阻止其为使故事滴水不漏而胡编乱造。这是个听似明智的建议，于是澳大利亚、英国、新西兰、挪威、西班牙和瑞典的警方都采用了这个方法。但一个新的研究表明，这个方法完全不能改善证人的记忆力，反而使情况更加糟糕。

Coral Dando of Lancaster University, in Britain, showed 54 volunteers a short film of a staged mobile-phone robbery. The participants were then split into three groups and, two days later, interviewed about what they remembered from the film. All were asked to describe what they had seen twice, with no wait between the two descriptions. However, the way they were asked to make these descriptions differed from group to group. In one, participants were first told to recall the robbery freely, and then to recall it in reverse order. In another, they were told to recall the robbery in reverse order first and then to recall it freely. The third group was a control. Participants were told to recall the robbery freely on both occasions. All the interviews were recorded and passed to coders who were unaware of the purpose of the study, but who knew all the details of the film. These coders scored every apparent recollection in each interview by noting which items were correct, which were inaccurate (saying a dog was brown when it was really black, for example), and which were complete confabulations—things or events that bore no resemblance at all to anything in the film. A participant’s final score for each type of recollection was the number of such items recalled or invented in at least one of his two debriefings.
英国兰卡斯特大学的卡洛儿•丹多博士给54位志愿者放映了一个故意策划的手机抢劫案短片，然后将被试分成三组。两天之后，她对被试进行采访，询问他们对短片的记忆。所有被试都被要求描述他们所看过的东西两次，而且两次描述之间无时间间隔。但是，不同组别之间，被试被要求进行描述的方式有所不同。在一个组里，被试首先被告知要自由地回忆抢劫案，然后再用倒序的方式回忆。在另一个组里，被试先被告知要用倒序的方式进行回忆，然后再自由地回忆。第三个组是控制组，这组的被试在两种情况下都被告知要自由地回忆抢劫案。所有采访内容都被记录下来，然后交给评分者，这些评分者不知道研究的目的，但对短片的所有细节了如指掌。他们为每一个采访中显见易懂的记忆事件进行评分，标出哪些正确，哪些不正确（比如，被试说见到一只褐色的狗，实际上狗是黑色的），哪些是完全虚构出来的——即与短片毫不相干的物品和事件。有一位被试在每种记忆事件上的最终得分与他两次描述中至少一次里记忆和虚构的事件数相同。

Dr Dando and her colleagues report in Cognition that reverse-order recall had a significant effect on the average number of correct items participants remembered—and not a good one. The control group, with no reverse recall, averaged 48.7 correct observations about the incident. The group that started with reverse recall and finished with free recall managed an average of only 42.2. The group that started with free recall but finished with reverse recall did worst, averaging 38.7 correct observations. And though the number of inaccurate recollections did not differ significantly between the groups, the tendency to make things up completely did.
丹多博士和她的同事在《认知》杂志上报告说，倒序回忆法对被试平均正确回忆的事件数有很大影响，不过是消极的影响。没有使用倒序回忆法的控制组正确回忆事件的平均得分为48.7。先用倒序回忆法再用自由回忆法的组别仅得到42.2的平均分。而先用自由回忆法再用倒序回忆法的组别表现最差，正确回忆的平均分只有38.7。而且虽然不同组别记忆错误的数目的差别不大，但胡编乱造的倾向却差别十分巨大。

Among the control group, an average of 0.2 such confabulations were created by each participant. Among those who freely recalled the robbery first and then recalled events in reverse order, this value climbed to 0.7. Among those asked to recall the robbery in reverse order first and then recall it freely, it was higher still, averaging 1.4 pure inventions per participant. Moreover, when the researchers analysed when these confabulations were mentioned, the majority (0.6 of the 0.7, and 1.2 of the 1.4) were told during the part of interview that involved reverse-order recall.
在控制组中，每位被试的平均虚构事件数为0.2。在被要求先用自由回忆法再用倒序回忆法回忆抢劫案的组别中，这项数据上升至0.7。在被要求先用倒序回忆法再用自由回忆法回忆抢劫案的组别中，这项数据依然更高，平均每位被试虚构了1.4件事。而且，当研究者分析这些虚构事件是在何时出现时，发现它们大部分（数据为0.7件时有0.6件，数据为1.4时有1.2件）都在涉及倒序回忆法的采访里被提及。

Why this is so is a mystery, for it is clearly not what psychology predicts. It does, however, point out the dangers of taking even logically plausible ideas on trust, rather than testing them. Psychologists are often accused by laymen of doing experiments to prove the obvious. In this case, a little more such testing of the obvious might have been sensible.
这种现象仍然是个未解之谜，因为这显然不是心理学所能预测的结果。但是，这种现象确实指明了，相信（而非测试）即使在逻辑上看似可信的想法相当危险。心理学家经常被外行人指责他们用实验去证明一些显而易见的事情。但在这种情况下，对显而易见的事实作更多的试验可能【---past tense?】是明智的。
from the print edition | Science and Technology

引用 林木木 2011-9-6 06:18

占位~

引用 林木木 2011-9-6 09:45

回复 contrary 的帖子

the brain tries to make sense of fragmentary information.
-----------------------------
即大脑试图为信息碎片赋予意义。
大脑试图弄清信息碎片的意思。

control——（实验）对照物
楼主要不要考虑：对照组

These coders scored every apparent recollection in each interview by noting which items were correct
感觉楼主用显见易懂的有些不合适
apparent——明显的，不知道这一引申为：突出的，怎么样？

A participant’s final score for each type of recollection was the number of such items recalled or invented in at least one of his two debriefings.
-----------------------------------
有一位被试在每种记忆事件上的最终得分与他两次描述中至少一次里记忆和虚构的事件数相同。
被试每种记忆模式的最终得分就是在两次描述中至少一次记忆或虚构的的事件数。
感觉译得不好，但大致是这么个意思。

引用 林木木 2011-9-6 10:01

回复 contrary 的帖子

and not a good one.
------------------
不过是消极的影响。
而且是消极影响。

this value climbed to 0.7.
------------------------
楼主要不要考虑译成：攀升？

it was higher still,
------------------
still也有更的意思，所以似乎不用译成：依然

挑个骨头：
而且，当研究者分析这些虚构事件是在何时出现时，发现它们大部分（数据为0.7件时有0.6件，数据为1.4时有1.2件）都在涉及倒序回忆法的采访里被提及。
而且，当研究者分析这些虚构事件是在何时出现时，他们发现大部分虚构事件（数据为0.7件时有0.6件，数据为1.4时有1.2件）都在倒序回忆法的采访里被提及。

引用 Freeman_Gong 2011-9-6 10:16

求助贴：
            英文报纸网站里，如何识别消息、社论和特写这三种文体呢？请明白人指点指点，在下看了很久没有看出名堂，因高口阅读需要，实在很急！！！！

引用 contrary 2011-9-6 12:12

回复 林木木 的帖子

the brain tries to make sense of fragmentary information.
-----------------------------
即大脑试图为信息碎片赋予意义。
大脑试图弄清信息碎片的意思。

这句，本来我也想取“理解”之意，但考虑到上一句说，人倾向用记忆碎片来编造故事，我认为这里说的是大脑尝试整合信息碎片，使之成为一个有意义的整体，方能照应编故事一说。

reverse-order recall had a significant effect on the average number of correct items participants remembered—and not a good one.
and not a good one.
------------------
不过是消极的影响。
而且是消极影响。

这里我认为从逻辑关系上看，表达的是转折，上半句说倒序法带来很大的影响，读到这里，读者会倾向于认为这种影响是好的，所以后半句要用转折引出。
其实，and在很多时候都做转折用。

引用 contrary 2011-9-6 12:21

回复 join_soon 的帖子

正在琢磨斑竹的速记。。。异常简洁。。。很像做口译的速记。。。

the forces of law and order  法律和社会治安力量？法律和秩序的力量？

引用 liyucun0 2011-9-6 20:40

本帖最后由 liyucun0 于 2011-9-6 21:27 编辑

你们好快的手脚啊... 我还在看林木木那篇文章..
先占楼，等下过来看.
  

1.But a new study suggests that far from improving recall, it makes things worse.
原：但一个新的研究表明，这个方法完全不能改善证人的记忆力，反而使情况更加糟糕。
这里应该不是改善记忆力呀.  而应该是说的改善回忆的质量这个方面。

2.A participant’s final score for each type of recollection was the number of such items recalled or invented in at least one of his two debriefings
原：被试每种记忆类型的最终得分就是在两次描述中至少一次记忆或虚构的的事件数。
里面有个笔误，然后不应该说是 记忆类型 吧，我觉得回忆方式这样的。 里面有个我想了半天感觉at least one of his two debriefings，这个感觉有点多余呀，直接说两份的记录不就可以了吗? 这里是不是作者还想说，有的人一点都没有回忆到呀... 这个话，有点让人纠结呀.

其它地方的用语之类的，相信你知道我的用词水平的，所以我也就木有提及了.  

引用 37C2 2011-9-8 22:59

回复 contrary 的帖子

请问楼主，音频中为什么0.7听起来像not point seven？

引用 ideaismoney 2011-9-9 09:09

改善证人回忆质量？
改成，帮助人们更好地回忆起之前发生了什么

引用 ideaismoney 2011-9-9 09:16

回复 contrary 的帖子

是速记还是练习口译的笔记法啊?

引用 37C2 2011-9-9 12:15

回复 37C2 的帖子

谢谢解答

引用 37C2 2011-9-10 23:09

回复 contrary 的帖子

楼主，我弄懂了， 其实0.7是读成了nought point seven

查看全部评论(15)