一、Part Ⅱ Listening Comprehension
1、Question 1 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、It has given rise to much controversy.
B、It has been very favorably received.
C、It was primarily written for vegetarians.
D、It offends many environmentalists.
2、Question 2 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、She neglects people’s efforts in animal protection.
B、She tries to force people to accept her radical ideas.
C、She ignores the various benefits of public transport.
D、She insists vegetarians are harming the environment.
3、Question 3 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、They are significant.
B、They are revolutionary.
C、They are rational.
D、They are modest.
4、Question 4 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、It would help to protect the environment.
B、It would generate money for public health.
C、It would need support from the general public.
D、It would force poor people to change their diet.
5、Question 5 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、Where successful people’s strengths come from.
B、Why many people fight so hard for success.
C、How she achieved her life’s goal.
D、What makes people successful.
6、Question 6 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、Having someone who has confidence in them.
B、 Having someone who is ready to help them.
C、Having a firm belief in their own ability.
D、Having a realistic attitude towards life.
7、Question 7 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、They adjust their goals accordingly.
B、They try hard to appear optimistic.
C、They stay positive.
D、They remain calm.
8、Question 8 is based on the conversation you have just heard.
A、An understanding leadership.
B、A nurturing environment.
C、Mutual respect among colleagues.
D、Highly cooperative teammates.
9、Question 9 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They use their sense of hearing to capture their prey.
B、Their food mainly consists of small animals and fish.
C、They have big eyes and distinctive visual centers.
D、Their ancestor is different from that of micro bats.
10、Question 10 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、With the help of moonlight.
B、By means of echolocation.
C、With the aid of daylight vision.
D、By means of vision and smell.
11、Question 11 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、To make up for their natural absence of vision.
B、To adapt themselves to a particular lifestyle.
C、To facilitate their travel over long distances.
D、To survive in the ever-changing weather.
12、Question 12 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They acquire knowledge not found in books.
B、They learn how to interact with their peers.
C、They become more emotionally aggressive.
D、They get much better prepared for school.
13、 Question 13 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、They are far from emotionally prepared.
B、They tend to be more attracted by images.
C、They can’t follow the conflicts in the show.
D、They lack the cognitive and memory skills.
14、Question 14 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、Choose appropriate programs for their children.
B、Help their children understand the program’s plot.
C、Outline the program’s plot for their children first.
D、Monitor their children’s watching of TV programs.
15、Question 15 is based on the passage you have just heard.
A、Explain its message to their children.
B、Check if their children have enjoyed it.
C、Encourage their children to retell the story.
D、Ask their children to describe its characters.
16、Question 16 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、They are afraid of injuring their feet.
B、They have never developed the habit.
C、They believe a little dirt harms no one.
D、They find it rather troublesome to do so.
17、Question 17 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、Different types of bacteria existed on public-toilet floors.
B、There were more bacteria on sidewalks than in the home.
C、Office carpets collected more bacteria than elsewhere.
D、A large number of bacteria collected on a single shoe.
18、Question 18 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、The chemicals on shoes can deteriorate air quality.
B、Shoes can upset family members with their noise.
C、The marks left by shoes are hard to erase.
D、Shoes can leave scratches on the floor.
19、Question 19 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、It is sinful and immoral.
B、It is deemed uncivilized.
C、It is an uncontrollable behavior.
D、It is a violation of faith and trust.
20、Question 20 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、Assess their consequences.
B、Guard against their harm.
C、Accept them as normal.
D、Find out their causes.
21、Question 21 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、Try to understand what messages they convey.
B、Pay attention to their possible consequences.
C、Consider them from different perspectives.
D、Make sure they are brought under control.
22、Question 22 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、Cultivation of new varieties of crops.
B、Measures to cope with climate change.
C、Development of more effective pesticides.
D、Application of more nitrogen-rich fertilizers.
23、Question 23 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、The expansion of farmland in developing countries.
B、The research on crop rotation in developing countries.
C、The cooperation of the world’s agricultural scientists.
D、The improvement of agricultural infrastructure.
24、Question 24 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、For encouraging farmers to embrace new farming techniques.
B、For aligning their research with advances in farming technology.
C、For turning their focus to the needs of farmers in poorer countries.
D、For cooperating closely with policymakers in developing countries.
25、Question 25 is based on the recording you have just heard.
A、Rapid transition to become a food exporter.
B、Substantial funding in agricultural research.
C、Quick rise to become a leading grain producer.
D、Assumption of humanitarian responsibilities.
二、Part III Reading Comprehension
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
26、(1)
A、lofty
B、span
C、foster
D、reconciled
E、trait
F、beyond
G、noteworthy
H、henceforth
I、conceded
J、specifically
K、spiral
L、plausibly
M、correlation
N、premature
O、affect
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
27、(2)
A、lofty
B、span
C、foster
D、reconciled
E、trait
F、beyond
G、noteworthy
H、henceforth
I、conceded
J、specifically
K、spiral
L、plausibly
M、correlation
N、premature
O、affect
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
28、(3)
A、lofty
B、span
C、foster
D、reconciled
E、trait
F、beyond
G、noteworthy
H、henceforth
I、conceded
J、specifically
K、spiral
L、plausibly
M、correlation
N、premature
O、affect
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
29、(4)
A、lofty
B、span
C、foster
D、reconciled
E、trait
F、beyond
G、noteworthy
H、henceforth
I、conceded
J、specifically
K、spiral
L、plausibly
M、correlation
N、premature
O、affect
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
30、(5)
A、lofty
B、span
C、foster
D、reconciled
E、trait
F、beyond
G、noteworthy
H、henceforth
I、conceded
J、specifically
K、spiral
L、plausibly
M、correlation
N、premature
O、affect
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
31、(6)
A、lofty
B、span
C、foster
D、reconciled
E、trait
F、beyond
G、noteworthy
H、henceforth
I、conceded
J、specifically
K、spiral
L、plausibly
M、correlation
N、premature
O、affect
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
32、(7)
A、lofty
B、span
C、foster
D、reconciled
E、trait
F、beyond
G、noteworthy
H、henceforth
I、conceded
J、specifically
K、spiral
L、plausibly
M、correlation
N、premature
O、affect
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
33、(8)
A、lofty
B、span
C、foster
D、reconciled
E、trait
F、beyond
G、noteworthy
H、henceforth
I、conceded
J、specifically
K、spiral
L、plausibly
M、correlation
N、premature
O、affect
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
34、(9)
A、lofty
B、span
C、foster
D、reconciled
E、trait
F、beyond
G、noteworthy
H、henceforth
I、conceded
J、specifically
K、spiral
L、plausibly
M、correlation
N、premature
O、affect
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
35、(10)
A、lofty
B、span
C、foster
D、reconciled
E、trait
F、beyond
G、noteworthy
H、henceforth
I、conceded
J、specifically
K、spiral
L、plausibly
M、correlation
N、premature
O、affect
Do music lessons really make children smarter?
【A】A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.
【B】In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled “Music Lessons Enhance IQ.” The author, composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.
【C】Schellenberg had long been skeptical of the science supporting claims that music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language skills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.
【D】The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.
【E】Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field. Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence. His results, published in May, suggest that many of his peers do just that.
【F】For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like “enhance”, “promote”, “facilitate”, and “strengthen”. The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance or if the study appeared in a journal that had “brain”, “neuroscience”, or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.
【G】After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do “real” science for some time—in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs (脑电图), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.
【H】 To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity—the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (辅音) ‘b’ and ‘g’.
【I】But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. “Plasticity has become an industry of its own,” he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.
【J】Neuropsychologist Lutz Jäncke agrees. “Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences,” he said. For over two decades, Jäncke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.
【K】Some researchers are starting to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem Kind ein Instrument, or “an instrument for every child,” which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.
【L】To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, is conducting a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after-school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.
【M】That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? “As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today,” Schellenberg said. “The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith.”
【N】Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, “the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing.” He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to university. “I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general,” he said.
【O】But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. “You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist.”
36、36. Glenn Schellenberg’s latest research suggests many psychologists and neuroscientists wrongly believe in the causal relationship between music and IQ.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Do music lessons really make children smarter?
【A】A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.
【B】In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled “Music Lessons Enhance IQ.” The author, composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.
【C】Schellenberg had long been skeptical of the science supporting claims that music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language skills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.
【D】The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.
【E】Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field. Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence. His results, published in May, suggest that many of his peers do just that.
【F】For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like “enhance”, “promote”, “facilitate”, and “strengthen”. The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance or if the study appeared in a journal that had “brain”, “neuroscience”, or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.
【G】After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do “real” science for some time—in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs (脑电图), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.
【H】 To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity—the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (辅音) ‘b’ and ‘g’.
【I】But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. “Plasticity has become an industry of its own,” he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.
【J】Neuropsychologist Lutz Jäncke agrees. “Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences,” he said. For over two decades, Jäncke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.
【K】Some researchers are starting to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem Kind ein Instrument, or “an instrument for every child,” which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.
【L】To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, is conducting a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after-school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.
【M】That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? “As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today,” Schellenberg said. “The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith.”
【N】Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, “the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing.” He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to university. “I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general,” he said.
【O】But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. “You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist.”
37、37. The belief in the positive effects of music training appeals to many researchers who are musicians themselves.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Do music lessons really make children smarter?
【A】A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.
【B】In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled “Music Lessons Enhance IQ.” The author, composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.
【C】Schellenberg had long been skeptical of the science supporting claims that music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language skills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.
【D】The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.
【E】Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field. Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence. His results, published in May, suggest that many of his peers do just that.
【F】For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like “enhance”, “promote”, “facilitate”, and “strengthen”. The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance or if the study appeared in a journal that had “brain”, “neuroscience”, or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.
【G】After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do “real” science for some time—in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs (脑电图), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.
【H】 To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity—the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (辅音) ‘b’ and ‘g’.
【I】But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. “Plasticity has become an industry of its own,” he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.
【J】Neuropsychologist Lutz Jäncke agrees. “Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences,” he said. For over two decades, Jäncke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.
【K】Some researchers are starting to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem Kind ein Instrument, or “an instrument for every child,” which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.
【L】To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, is conducting a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after-school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.
【M】That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? “As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today,” Schellenberg said. “The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith.”
【N】Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, “the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing.” He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to university. “I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general,” he said.
【O】But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. “You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist.”
38、38. Glenn Schellenberg was doubtful about the claim that music education helps enhance children’s intelligence.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Do music lessons really make children smarter?
【A】A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.
【B】In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled “Music Lessons Enhance IQ.” The author, composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.
【C】Schellenberg had long been skeptical of the science supporting claims that music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language skills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.
【D】The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.
【E】Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field. Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence. His results, published in May, suggest that many of his peers do just that.
【F】For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like “enhance”, “promote”, “facilitate”, and “strengthen”. The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance or if the study appeared in a journal that had “brain”, “neuroscience”, or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.
【G】After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do “real” science for some time—in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs (脑电图), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.
【H】 To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity—the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (辅音) ‘b’ and ‘g’.
【I】But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. “Plasticity has become an industry of its own,” he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.
【J】Neuropsychologist Lutz Jäncke agrees. “Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences,” he said. For over two decades, Jäncke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.
【K】Some researchers are starting to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem Kind ein Instrument, or “an instrument for every child,” which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.
【L】To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, is conducting a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after-school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.
【M】That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? “As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today,” Schellenberg said. “The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith.”
【N】Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, “the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing.” He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to university. “I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general,” he said.
【O】But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. “You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist.”
39、39. Glenn Schellenberg came to the conclusion that most of the papers assessed made the wrong claim regarding music’s effect on intelligence.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Do music lessons really make children smarter?
【A】A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.
【B】In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled “Music Lessons Enhance IQ.” The author, composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.
【C】Schellenberg had long been skeptical of the science supporting claims that music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language skills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.
【D】The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.
【E】Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field. Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence. His results, published in May, suggest that many of his peers do just that.
【F】For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like “enhance”, “promote”, “facilitate”, and “strengthen”. The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance or if the study appeared in a journal that had “brain”, “neuroscience”, or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.
【G】After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do “real” science for some time—in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs (脑电图), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.
【H】 To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity—the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (辅音) ‘b’ and ‘g’.
【I】But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. “Plasticity has become an industry of its own,” he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.
【J】Neuropsychologist Lutz Jäncke agrees. “Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences,” he said. For over two decades, Jäncke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.
【K】Some researchers are starting to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem Kind ein Instrument, or “an instrument for every child,” which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.
【L】To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, is conducting a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after-school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.
【M】That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? “As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today,” Schellenberg said. “The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith.”
【N】Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, “the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing.” He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to university. “I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general,” he said.
【O】But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. “You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist.”
40、40. You must abandon your unverified beliefs before you become a scientist.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Do music lessons really make children smarter?
【A】A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.
【B】In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled “Music Lessons Enhance IQ.” The author, composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.
【C】Schellenberg had long been skeptical of the science supporting claims that music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language skills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.
【D】The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.
【E】Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field. Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence. His results, published in May, suggest that many of his peers do just that.
【F】For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like “enhance”, “promote”, “facilitate”, and “strengthen”. The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance or if the study appeared in a journal that had “brain”, “neuroscience”, or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.
【G】After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do “real” science for some time—in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs (脑电图), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.
【H】 To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity—the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (辅音) ‘b’ and ‘g’.
【I】But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. “Plasticity has become an industry of its own,” he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.
【J】Neuropsychologist Lutz Jäncke agrees. “Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences,” he said. For over two decades, Jäncke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.
【K】Some researchers are starting to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem Kind ein Instrument, or “an instrument for every child,” which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.
【L】To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, is conducting a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after-school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.
【M】That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? “As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today,” Schellenberg said. “The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith.”
【N】Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, “the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing.” He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to university. “I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general,” he said.
【O】But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. “You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist.”
41、41. Lots of experiments have demonstrated that people with music training can better differentiate certain sounds.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Do music lessons really make children smarter?
【A】A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.
【B】In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled “Music Lessons Enhance IQ.” The author, composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.
【C】Schellenberg had long been skeptical of the science supporting claims that music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language skills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.
【D】The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.
【E】Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field. Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence. His results, published in May, suggest that many of his peers do just that.
【F】For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like “enhance”, “promote”, “facilitate”, and “strengthen”. The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance or if the study appeared in a journal that had “brain”, “neuroscience”, or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.
【G】After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do “real” science for some time—in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs (脑电图), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.
【H】 To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity—the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (辅音) ‘b’ and ‘g’.
【I】But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. “Plasticity has become an industry of its own,” he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.
【J】Neuropsychologist Lutz Jäncke agrees. “Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences,” he said. For over two decades, Jäncke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.
【K】Some researchers are starting to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem Kind ein Instrument, or “an instrument for every child,” which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.
【L】To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, is conducting a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after-school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.
【M】That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? “As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today,” Schellenberg said. “The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith.”
【N】Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, “the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing.” He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to university. “I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general,” he said.
【O】But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. “You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist.”
42、42. Glenn Schellenberg’s findings at the beginning of this century were not supported by a larger study carried out some ten years later.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Do music lessons really make children smarter?
【A】A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.
【B】In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled “Music Lessons Enhance IQ.” The author, composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.
【C】Schellenberg had long been skeptical of the science supporting claims that music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language skills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.
【D】The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.
【E】Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field. Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence. His results, published in May, suggest that many of his peers do just that.
【F】For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like “enhance”, “promote”, “facilitate”, and “strengthen”. The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance or if the study appeared in a journal that had “brain”, “neuroscience”, or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.
【G】After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do “real” science for some time—in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs (脑电图), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.
【H】 To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity—the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (辅音) ‘b’ and ‘g’.
【I】But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. “Plasticity has become an industry of its own,” he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.
【J】Neuropsychologist Lutz Jäncke agrees. “Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences,” he said. For over two decades, Jäncke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.
【K】Some researchers are starting to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem Kind ein Instrument, or “an instrument for every child,” which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.
【L】To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, is conducting a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after-school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.
【M】That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? “As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today,” Schellenberg said. “The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith.”
【N】Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, “the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing.” He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to university. “I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general,” he said.
【O】But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. “You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist.”
43、43. One researcher shares Glenn Schellenberg’s view that it is necessary to conduct long-term developmental studies to understand the effects of music training.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Do music lessons really make children smarter?
【A】A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.
【B】In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled “Music Lessons Enhance IQ.” The author, composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.
【C】Schellenberg had long been skeptical of the science supporting claims that music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language skills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.
【D】The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.
【E】Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field. Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence. His results, published in May, suggest that many of his peers do just that.
【F】For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like “enhance”, “promote”, “facilitate”, and “strengthen”. The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance or if the study appeared in a journal that had “brain”, “neuroscience”, or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.
【G】After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do “real” science for some time—in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs (脑电图), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.
【H】 To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity—the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (辅音) ‘b’ and ‘g’.
【I】But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. “Plasticity has become an industry of its own,” he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.
【J】Neuropsychologist Lutz Jäncke agrees. “Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences,” he said. For over two decades, Jäncke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.
【K】Some researchers are starting to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem Kind ein Instrument, or “an instrument for every child,” which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.
【L】To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, is conducting a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after-school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.
【M】That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? “As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today,” Schellenberg said. “The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith.”
【N】Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, “the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing.” He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to university. “I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general,” he said.
【O】But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. “You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist.”
44、44. Glenn Schellenberg’s research assistants had no idea what he was trying to prove in his new study.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
Do music lessons really make children smarter?
【A】A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.
【B】In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled “Music Lessons Enhance IQ.” The author, composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.
【C】Schellenberg had long been skeptical of the science supporting claims that music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language skills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.
【D】The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.
【E】Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field. Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence. His results, published in May, suggest that many of his peers do just that.
【F】For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like “enhance”, “promote”, “facilitate”, and “strengthen”. The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance or if the study appeared in a journal that had “brain”, “neuroscience”, or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.
【G】After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do “real” science for some time—in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs (脑电图), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.
【H】 To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity—the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (辅音) ‘b’ and ‘g’.
【I】But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. “Plasticity has become an industry of its own,” he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.
【J】Neuropsychologist Lutz Jäncke agrees. “Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences,” he said. For over two decades, Jäncke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.
【K】Some researchers are starting to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem Kind ein Instrument, or “an instrument for every child,” which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.
【L】To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, is conducting a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after-school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.
【M】That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? “As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today,” Schellenberg said. “The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith.”
【N】Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, “the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing.” He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to university. “I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general,” he said.
【O】But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. “You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist.”
45、45. Glenn Schellenberg admits that practice can change certain areas of the brain but doubts that the change can affect other areas.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
The trend toward rationality and enlightenment was endangered long before the advent of the World Wide Web. As Neil Postman noted in his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death, the rise of television introduced not just a new medium but a new discourse: a gradual shift from a typographic (印刷的) culture to a photographic one, which in turn meant a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment. In an image-centered and pleasure-driven world, Postman noted, there is no place for rational thinking, because you simply cannot think with images. It is text that enables us to “uncover lies, confusions and overgeneralizations, and to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another.”
The dominance of television was not confined to our living rooms. It overturned all of those habits of mind, fundamentally changing our experience of the world, affecting the conduct of politics, religion, business, and culture. It reduced many aspects of modern life to entertainment, sensationalism, and commerce. “Americans don’t talk to each other, we entertain each other,” Postman wrote. “They don’t exchange ideas, they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions, they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials.”
At first, the web seemed to push against this trend. When it emerged towards the end of the 1980s as a purely text-based medium, it was seen as a tool to pursue knowledge, not pleasure. Reason and thought were most valued in this garden—all derived from the project of the Enlightenment. Universities around the world were among the first to connect to this new medium, which hosted discussion groups, informative personal or group blogs, electronic magazines, and academic mailing lists and forums. It was an intellectual project, not about commerce or control, created in a scientific research center in Switzerland. And for more than a decade, the web created an alternative space that threatened television’s grip on society.
Social networks, though, have since colonized the web for television’s values. From Facebook to Instagram, the medium refocuses our attention on videos and images, rewarding emotional appeals—‘like’ buttons—over rational ones. Instead of a quest for knowledge, it engages us in an endless zest (热情) for instant approval from an audience, for which we are constantly but unconsciously performing. (It’s telling that, while Google began life as a PhD thesis, Facebook started as a tool to judge classmates’ appearances.) It reduces our curiosity by showing us exactly what we already want and think, based on our profiles and preferences. The Enlightenment’s motto (座右铭) of ‘Dare to know’ has become ‘Dare not to care to know’.
46、46. What did Neil Postman say about the rise of television?
A、It initiated a change from dominance of reason to supremacy of pleasure.
B、It brought about a gradual shift from cinema going to home entertainment.
C、It started a revolution in photographic technology.
D、It marked a new age in the entertainment industry.
The trend toward rationality and enlightenment was endangered long before the advent of the World Wide Web. As Neil Postman noted in his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death, the rise of television introduced not just a new medium but a new discourse: a gradual shift from a typographic (印刷的) culture to a photographic one, which in turn meant a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment. In an image-centered and pleasure-driven world, Postman noted, there is no place for rational thinking, because you simply cannot think with images. It is text that enables us to “uncover lies, confusions and overgeneralizations, and to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another.”
The dominance of television was not confined to our living rooms. It overturned all of those habits of mind, fundamentally changing our experience of the world, affecting the conduct of politics, religion, business, and culture. It reduced many aspects of modern life to entertainment, sensationalism, and commerce. “Americans don’t talk to each other, we entertain each other,” Postman wrote. “They don’t exchange ideas, they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions, they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials.”
At first, the web seemed to push against this trend. When it emerged towards the end of the 1980s as a purely text-based medium, it was seen as a tool to pursue knowledge, not pleasure. Reason and thought were most valued in this garden—all derived from the project of the Enlightenment. Universities around the world were among the first to connect to this new medium, which hosted discussion groups, informative personal or group blogs, electronic magazines, and academic mailing lists and forums. It was an intellectual project, not about commerce or control, created in a scientific research center in Switzerland. And for more than a decade, the web created an alternative space that threatened television’s grip on society.
Social networks, though, have since colonized the web for television’s values. From Facebook to Instagram, the medium refocuses our attention on videos and images, rewarding emotional appeals—‘like’ buttons—over rational ones. Instead of a quest for knowledge, it engages us in an endless zest (热情) for instant approval from an audience, for which we are constantly but unconsciously performing. (It’s telling that, while Google began life as a PhD thesis, Facebook started as a tool to judge classmates’ appearances.) It reduces our curiosity by showing us exactly what we already want and think, based on our profiles and preferences. The Enlightenment’s motto (座右铭) of ‘Dare to know’ has become ‘Dare not to care to know’.
47、47. According to the passage, what is the advantage of text reading?
A、It gives one access to huge amounts of information.
B、It allows more information to be processed quickly.
C、It is capable of enriching one’s life.
D、It is conducive to critical thinking.
The trend toward rationality and enlightenment was endangered long before the advent of the World Wide Web. As Neil Postman noted in his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death, the rise of television introduced not just a new medium but a new discourse: a gradual shift from a typographic (印刷的) culture to a photographic one, which in turn meant a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment. In an image-centered and pleasure-driven world, Postman noted, there is no place for rational thinking, because you simply cannot think with images. It is text that enables us to “uncover lies, confusions and overgeneralizations, and to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another.”
The dominance of television was not confined to our living rooms. It overturned all of those habits of mind, fundamentally changing our experience of the world, affecting the conduct of politics, religion, business, and culture. It reduced many aspects of modern life to entertainment, sensationalism, and commerce. “Americans don’t talk to each other, we entertain each other,” Postman wrote. “They don’t exchange ideas, they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions, they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials.”
At first, the web seemed to push against this trend. When it emerged towards the end of the 1980s as a purely text-based medium, it was seen as a tool to pursue knowledge, not pleasure. Reason and thought were most valued in this garden—all derived from the project of the Enlightenment. Universities around the world were among the first to connect to this new medium, which hosted discussion groups, informative personal or group blogs, electronic magazines, and academic mailing lists and forums. It was an intellectual project, not about commerce or control, created in a scientific research center in Switzerland. And for more than a decade, the web created an alternative space that threatened television’s grip on society.
Social networks, though, have since colonized the web for television’s values. From Facebook to Instagram, the medium refocuses our attention on videos and images, rewarding emotional appeals—‘like’ buttons—over rational ones. Instead of a quest for knowledge, it engages us in an endless zest (热情) for instant approval from an audience, for which we are constantly but unconsciously performing. (It’s telling that, while Google began life as a PhD thesis, Facebook started as a tool to judge classmates’ appearances.) It reduces our curiosity by showing us exactly what we already want and think, based on our profiles and preferences. The Enlightenment’s motto (座右铭) of ‘Dare to know’ has become ‘Dare not to care to know’.
48、48. How has television impacted Americans?
A、It has given them a lot more to argue about.
B、It has brought celebrities closer to their lives.
C、It has made them care more about what they say.
D、It has rendered their interactions more superficial.
The trend toward rationality and enlightenment was endangered long before the advent of the World Wide Web. As Neil Postman noted in his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death, the rise of television introduced not just a new medium but a new discourse: a gradual shift from a typographic (印刷的) culture to a photographic one, which in turn meant a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment. In an image-centered and pleasure-driven world, Postman noted, there is no place for rational thinking, because you simply cannot think with images. It is text that enables us to “uncover lies, confusions and overgeneralizations, and to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another.”
The dominance of television was not confined to our living rooms. It overturned all of those habits of mind, fundamentally changing our experience of the world, affecting the conduct of politics, religion, business, and culture. It reduced many aspects of modern life to entertainment, sensationalism, and commerce. “Americans don’t talk to each other, we entertain each other,” Postman wrote. “They don’t exchange ideas, they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions, they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials.”
At first, the web seemed to push against this trend. When it emerged towards the end of the 1980s as a purely text-based medium, it was seen as a tool to pursue knowledge, not pleasure. Reason and thought were most valued in this garden—all derived from the project of the Enlightenment. Universities around the world were among the first to connect to this new medium, which hosted discussion groups, informative personal or group blogs, electronic magazines, and academic mailing lists and forums. It was an intellectual project, not about commerce or control, created in a scientific research center in Switzerland. And for more than a decade, the web created an alternative space that threatened television’s grip on society.
Social networks, though, have since colonized the web for television’s values. From Facebook to Instagram, the medium refocuses our attention on videos and images, rewarding emotional appeals—‘like’ buttons—over rational ones. Instead of a quest for knowledge, it engages us in an endless zest (热情) for instant approval from an audience, for which we are constantly but unconsciously performing. (It’s telling that, while Google began life as a PhD thesis, Facebook started as a tool to judge classmates’ appearances.) It reduces our curiosity by showing us exactly what we already want and think, based on our profiles and preferences. The Enlightenment’s motto (座右铭) of ‘Dare to know’ has become ‘Dare not to care to know’.
49、49. What does the passage say about the World Wide Web?
A、It was developed primarily for universities worldwide.
B、It was created to connect people in different countries.
C、It was viewed as a means to quest for knowledge.
D、It was designed as a discussion forum for university students.
The trend toward rationality and enlightenment was endangered long before the advent of the World Wide Web. As Neil Postman noted in his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death, the rise of television introduced not just a new medium but a new discourse: a gradual shift from a typographic (印刷的) culture to a photographic one, which in turn meant a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment. In an image-centered and pleasure-driven world, Postman noted, there is no place for rational thinking, because you simply cannot think with images. It is text that enables us to “uncover lies, confusions and overgeneralizations, and to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another.”
The dominance of television was not confined to our living rooms. It overturned all of those habits of mind, fundamentally changing our experience of the world, affecting the conduct of politics, religion, business, and culture. It reduced many aspects of modern life to entertainment, sensationalism, and commerce. “Americans don’t talk to each other, we entertain each other,” Postman wrote. “They don’t exchange ideas, they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions, they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials.”
At first, the web seemed to push against this trend. When it emerged towards the end of the 1980s as a purely text-based medium, it was seen as a tool to pursue knowledge, not pleasure. Reason and thought were most valued in this garden—all derived from the project of the Enlightenment. Universities around the world were among the first to connect to this new medium, which hosted discussion groups, informative personal or group blogs, electronic magazines, and academic mailing lists and forums. It was an intellectual project, not about commerce or control, created in a scientific research center in Switzerland. And for more than a decade, the web created an alternative space that threatened television’s grip on society.
Social networks, though, have since colonized the web for television’s values. From Facebook to Instagram, the medium refocuses our attention on videos and images, rewarding emotional appeals—‘like’ buttons—over rational ones. Instead of a quest for knowledge, it engages us in an endless zest (热情) for instant approval from an audience, for which we are constantly but unconsciously performing. (It’s telling that, while Google began life as a PhD thesis, Facebook started as a tool to judge classmates’ appearances.) It reduces our curiosity by showing us exactly what we already want and think, based on our profiles and preferences. The Enlightenment’s motto (座右铭) of ‘Dare to know’ has become ‘Dare not to care to know’.
50、50. What do we learn about users of social media?
A、They are bent on looking for an alternative space for escape.
B、They are constantly seeking approval from their audience.
C、 They are forever engaged in hunting for new information.
D、They are unable to focus their attention on tasks for long.
According to a recent study, a small but growing proportion of the workforce is affected to some degree by a sense of entitlement. Work is less about what they can contribute but more about what they can take. It can lead to workplace dysfunction and diminish their own job satisfaction. I’m not referring to employees who are legitimately dissatisfied with their employment conditions due to, say, being denied fair pay or flexible work practices. I’m talking about those who consistently believe they deserve special treatment and generous rewards. It’s an expectation that exists irrespective of their abilities or levels of performance.
As a result of that discrepancy between the privileges they feel they’re owed and their inflated sense of self-worth, they don’t work as hard for their employer. They prefer instead to slack off. It’s a tendency which many scholars believe begins in childhood due to parents who overindulge their kids. This thereby leads them to expect the same kind of spoilt treatment throughout their adult lives. And yet despite how these employees feel, it’s obviously important for their manager to nonetheless find out how to keep them motivated. And, by virtue of that heightened motivation, to perform well.
The research team from several American universities surveyed more than 240 individuals. They sampled managers as well as team members. Employee entitlement was measured by statements such as “I honestly feel I’m just more deserving than others”. The respondents had to rate the extent of their agreement. Employee engagement, meanwhile, was assessed with statements like “I really throw myself into my work.” The findings revealed ethical leadership is precisely what alleviates the negative effects of employee entitlement. That’s because rather than indulging employees or neglecting them, ethical leaders communicate very direct and clear expectations. They also hold employees accountable for their behaviors and are genuinely committed to doing the right thing. Additionally, these leaders are consistent in their standards. They’re also less likely to deviate in how they treat employees.
This means, when confronted by an entitled team member, an ethical leader is significantly disinclined to accommodate their demands. He or she will instead point out, constructively and tactfully, exactly how their inflated sense of deservingness is somewhat distorted. They’d then go further to explain the specific, and objective, criteria the employee must meet to receive their desired rewards. This shift away from unrealistic expectations is successful because entitled employees feel more confident that ethical leaders will deliver on their promises. This occurs because they’re perceived to be fair and trustworthy. The researchers, however, exercise caution by warning no one single response in the perfect remedy. But there’s no denying ethical leadership is at least a critical step in the right direction.
51、51. What does a recent study find about a growing number of workers?
A、They attempt to make more contributions.
B、They feel they deserve more than they get.
C、They attach importance to job satisfaction.
D、They try to diminish workplace dysfunction.
According to a recent study, a small but growing proportion of the workforce is affected to some degree by a sense of entitlement. Work is less about what they can contribute but more about what they can take. It can lead to workplace dysfunction and diminish their own job satisfaction. I’m not referring to employees who are legitimately dissatisfied with their employment conditions due to, say, being denied fair pay or flexible work practices. I’m talking about those who consistently believe they deserve special treatment and generous rewards. It’s an expectation that exists irrespective of their abilities or levels of performance.
As a result of that discrepancy between the privileges they feel they’re owed and their inflated sense of self-worth, they don’t work as hard for their employer. They prefer instead to slack off. It’s a tendency which many scholars believe begins in childhood due to parents who overindulge their kids. This thereby leads them to expect the same kind of spoilt treatment throughout their adult lives. And yet despite how these employees feel, it’s obviously important for their manager to nonetheless find out how to keep them motivated. And, by virtue of that heightened motivation, to perform well.
The research team from several American universities surveyed more than 240 individuals. They sampled managers as well as team members. Employee entitlement was measured by statements such as “I honestly feel I’m just more deserving than others”. The respondents had to rate the extent of their agreement. Employee engagement, meanwhile, was assessed with statements like “I really throw myself into my work.” The findings revealed ethical leadership is precisely what alleviates the negative effects of employee entitlement. That’s because rather than indulging employees or neglecting them, ethical leaders communicate very direct and clear expectations. They also hold employees accountable for their behaviors and are genuinely committed to doing the right thing. Additionally, these leaders are consistent in their standards. They’re also less likely to deviate in how they treat employees.
This means, when confronted by an entitled team member, an ethical leader is significantly disinclined to accommodate their demands. He or she will instead point out, constructively and tactfully, exactly how their inflated sense of deservingness is somewhat distorted. They’d then go further to explain the specific, and objective, criteria the employee must meet to receive their desired rewards. This shift away from unrealistic expectations is successful because entitled employees feel more confident that ethical leaders will deliver on their promises. This occurs because they’re perceived to be fair and trustworthy. The researchers, however, exercise caution by warning no one single response in the perfect remedy. But there’s no denying ethical leadership is at least a critical step in the right direction.
52、52. Why don’t some employees work hard according to many scholars?
A、They lack a strong sense of self-worth.
B、They were spoiled when growing up.
C、They have received unfair treatment.
D、They are overindulged by their boss.
According to a recent study, a small but growing proportion of the workforce is affected to some degree by a sense of entitlement. Work is less about what they can contribute but more about what they can take. It can lead to workplace dysfunction and diminish their own job satisfaction. I’m not referring to employees who are legitimately dissatisfied with their employment conditions due to, say, being denied fair pay or flexible work practices. I’m talking about those who consistently believe they deserve special treatment and generous rewards. It’s an expectation that exists irrespective of their abilities or levels of performance.
As a result of that discrepancy between the privileges they feel they’re owed and their inflated sense of self-worth, they don’t work as hard for their employer. They prefer instead to slack off. It’s a tendency which many scholars believe begins in childhood due to parents who overindulge their kids. This thereby leads them to expect the same kind of spoilt treatment throughout their adult lives. And yet despite how these employees feel, it’s obviously important for their manager to nonetheless find out how to keep them motivated. And, by virtue of that heightened motivation, to perform well.
The research team from several American universities surveyed more than 240 individuals. They sampled managers as well as team members. Employee entitlement was measured by statements such as “I honestly feel I’m just more deserving than others”. The respondents had to rate the extent of their agreement. Employee engagement, meanwhile, was assessed with statements like “I really throw myself into my work.” The findings revealed ethical leadership is precisely what alleviates the negative effects of employee entitlement. That’s because rather than indulging employees or neglecting them, ethical leaders communicate very direct and clear expectations. They also hold employees accountable for their behaviors and are genuinely committed to doing the right thing. Additionally, these leaders are consistent in their standards. They’re also less likely to deviate in how they treat employees.
This means, when confronted by an entitled team member, an ethical leader is significantly disinclined to accommodate their demands. He or she will instead point out, constructively and tactfully, exactly how their inflated sense of deservingness is somewhat distorted. They’d then go further to explain the specific, and objective, criteria the employee must meet to receive their desired rewards. This shift away from unrealistic expectations is successful because entitled employees feel more confident that ethical leaders will deliver on their promises. This occurs because they’re perceived to be fair and trustworthy. The researchers, however, exercise caution by warning no one single response in the perfect remedy. But there’s no denying ethical leadership is at least a critical step in the right direction.
53、53. What is a manager supposed to do to enable workers to do a better job?
A、Be aware of their emotions.
B、Give them timely promotions.
C、Keep a record of their performance.
D、Seek ways to sustain their motivation.
According to a recent study, a small but growing proportion of the workforce is affected to some degree by a sense of entitlement. Work is less about what they can contribute but more about what they can take. It can lead to workplace dysfunction and diminish their own job satisfaction. I’m not referring to employees who are legitimately dissatisfied with their employment conditions due to, say, being denied fair pay or flexible work practices. I’m talking about those who consistently believe they deserve special treatment and generous rewards. It’s an expectation that exists irrespective of their abilities or levels of performance.
As a result of that discrepancy between the privileges they feel they’re owed and their inflated sense of self-worth, they don’t work as hard for their employer. They prefer instead to slack off. It’s a tendency which many scholars believe begins in childhood due to parents who overindulge their kids. This thereby leads them to expect the same kind of spoilt treatment throughout their adult lives. And yet despite how these employees feel, it’s obviously important for their manager to nonetheless find out how to keep them motivated. And, by virtue of that heightened motivation, to perform well.
The research team from several American universities surveyed more than 240 individuals. They sampled managers as well as team members. Employee entitlement was measured by statements such as “I honestly feel I’m just more deserving than others”. The respondents had to rate the extent of their agreement. Employee engagement, meanwhile, was assessed with statements like “I really throw myself into my work.” The findings revealed ethical leadership is precisely what alleviates the negative effects of employee entitlement. That’s because rather than indulging employees or neglecting them, ethical leaders communicate very direct and clear expectations. They also hold employees accountable for their behaviors and are genuinely committed to doing the right thing. Additionally, these leaders are consistent in their standards. They’re also less likely to deviate in how they treat employees.
This means, when confronted by an entitled team member, an ethical leader is significantly disinclined to accommodate their demands. He or she will instead point out, constructively and tactfully, exactly how their inflated sense of deservingness is somewhat distorted. They’d then go further to explain the specific, and objective, criteria the employee must meet to receive their desired rewards. This shift away from unrealistic expectations is successful because entitled employees feel more confident that ethical leaders will deliver on their promises. This occurs because they’re perceived to be fair and trustworthy. The researchers, however, exercise caution by warning no one single response in the perfect remedy. But there’s no denying ethical leadership is at least a critical step in the right direction.
54、54. What do the research findings reveal about ethical leaders?
A、They are held accountable by their employees.
B、They are always transparent in their likes and dislikes.
C、They convey their requirements in a straightforward way.
D、They make it a point to be on good terms with their employees.
According to a recent study, a small but growing proportion of the workforce is affected to some degree by a sense of entitlement. Work is less about what they can contribute but more about what they can take. It can lead to workplace dysfunction and diminish their own job satisfaction. I’m not referring to employees who are legitimately dissatisfied with their employment conditions due to, say, being denied fair pay or flexible work practices. I’m talking about those who consistently believe they deserve special treatment and generous rewards. It’s an expectation that exists irrespective of their abilities or levels of performance.
As a result of that discrepancy between the privileges they feel they’re owed and their inflated sense of self-worth, they don’t work as hard for their employer. They prefer instead to slack off. It’s a tendency which many scholars believe begins in childhood due to parents who overindulge their kids. This thereby leads them to expect the same kind of spoilt treatment throughout their adult lives. And yet despite how these employees feel, it’s obviously important for their manager to nonetheless find out how to keep them motivated. And, by virtue of that heightened motivation, to perform well.
The research team from several American universities surveyed more than 240 individuals. They sampled managers as well as team members. Employee entitlement was measured by statements such as “I honestly feel I’m just more deserving than others”. The respondents had to rate the extent of their agreement. Employee engagement, meanwhile, was assessed with statements like “I really throw myself into my work.” The findings revealed ethical leadership is precisely what alleviates the negative effects of employee entitlement. That’s because rather than indulging employees or neglecting them, ethical leaders communicate very direct and clear expectations. They also hold employees accountable for their behaviors and are genuinely committed to doing the right thing. Additionally, these leaders are consistent in their standards. They’re also less likely to deviate in how they treat employees.
This means, when confronted by an entitled team member, an ethical leader is significantly disinclined to accommodate their demands. He or she will instead point out, constructively and tactfully, exactly how their inflated sense of deservingness is somewhat distorted. They’d then go further to explain the specific, and objective, criteria the employee must meet to receive their desired rewards. This shift away from unrealistic expectations is successful because entitled employees feel more confident that ethical leaders will deliver on their promises. This occurs because they’re perceived to be fair and trustworthy. The researchers, however, exercise caution by warning no one single response in the perfect remedy. But there’s no denying ethical leadership is at least a critical step in the right direction.
55、55. What kind of leaders are viewed as ethical by entitled employees?
A、Those who can be counted on to fulfill commitments.
B、Those who can do things beyond normal expectations.
C、Those who exercise caution in making major decisions.
D、Those who know how to satisfy their employees’ needs.
（注：2021年12月六级第三套选词填空与第二套相同）
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
56、(1)
A、premature
B、span
C、henceforth
D、affect
E、specifically
F、noteworthy
G、spiral
H、trait
I、plausibly
J、correlation
K、lofty
L、beyond
M、foster
N、conceded
O、reconciled
（注：2021年12月六级第三套选词填空与第二套相同）
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
57、(2)
A、premature
B、span
C、henceforth
D、affect
E、specifically
F、noteworthy
G、spiral
H、trait
I、plausibly
J、correlation
K、lofty
L、beyond
M、foster
N、conceded
O、reconciled
（注：2021年12月六级第三套选词填空与第二套相同）
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
58、(3)
A、premature
B、span
C、henceforth
D、affect
E、specifically
F、noteworthy
G、spiral
H、trait
I、plausibly
J、correlation
K、lofty
L、beyond
M、foster
N、conceded
O、reconciled
（注：2021年12月六级第三套选词填空与第二套相同）
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
59、(4)
A、premature
B、span
C、henceforth
D、affect
E、specifically
F、noteworthy
G、spiral
H、trait
I、plausibly
J、correlation
K、lofty
L、beyond
M、foster
N、conceded
O、reconciled
（注：2021年12月六级第三套选词填空与第二套相同）
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
60、(5)
A、premature
B、span
C、henceforth
D、affect
E、specifically
F、noteworthy
G、spiral
H、trait
I、plausibly
J、correlation
K、lofty
L、beyond
M、foster
N、conceded
O、reconciled
（注：2021年12月六级第三套选词填空与第二套相同）
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
61、(6)
A、premature
B、span
C、henceforth
D、affect
E、specifically
F、noteworthy
G、spiral
H、trait
I、plausibly
J、correlation
K、lofty
L、beyond
M、foster
N、conceded
O、reconciled
（注：2021年12月六级第三套选词填空与第二套相同）
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
62、(7)
A、premature
B、span
C、henceforth
D、affect
E、specifically
F、noteworthy
G、spiral
H、trait
I、plausibly
J、correlation
K、lofty
L、beyond
M、foster
N、conceded
O、reconciled
（注：2021年12月六级第三套选词填空与第二套相同）
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
63、(8)
A、premature
B、span
C、henceforth
D、affect
E、specifically
F、noteworthy
G、spiral
H、trait
I、plausibly
J、correlation
K、lofty
L、beyond
M、foster
N、conceded
O、reconciled
（注：2021年12月六级第三套选词填空与第二套相同）
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
64、(9)
A、premature
B、span
C、henceforth
D、affect
E、specifically
F、noteworthy
G、spiral
H、trait
I、plausibly
J、correlation
K、lofty
L、beyond
M、foster
N、conceded
O、reconciled
（注：2021年12月六级第三套选词填空与第二套相同）
If you think life is wonderful and expect it to stay that way, then you may have a good chance of living to a ripe old age, at least that is what the findings of a new study suggest. That study found that participants who reported the highest levels of optimism were far more likely to live to age 85 or (26) _____. This was compared to those participants who reported the lowest levels of optimism. It is (27) _____ that the findings held even after the researchers considered factors that could (28) _____ the link, including whether participants had health conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, or whether they experienced depression. The results add to a growing body of evidence that certain psychological factors may predict a longer life (29) _____. For example, previous studies have found that more optimistic people have a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, and a lower risk of (30) _____death. However, the new study appears to be the first to (31) _____ look at the relationship between optimism and longevity. The researchers (32) _____ that the link found in the new study was not as strong when they factored in the effects of certain health behaviors, including exercise levels, sleep habits and diet. This suggests that these behaviors may, at least in part, explain the link. In other words, optimism may (33) _____ good habits that bolster health. It is also important to note that the study found only a (34) _____, as researchers did not prove for certain that optimism leads to a longer life. However, if the findings are true, they suggest that optimism could serve as a psychological (35) _____ that promotes health and a longer life.
65、(10)
A、premature
B、span
C、henceforth
D、affect
E、specifically
F、noteworthy
G、spiral
H、trait
I、plausibly
J、correlation
K、lofty
L、beyond
M、foster
N、conceded
O、reconciled
Why facts don’t change our minds?
【A】The economist J. K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”
【B】 Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
【C】What’s going on here? Why don’t facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.
【D】In Atomic Habits, I wrote, “Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”
【E】Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, “People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples (信徒), rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”
【F】We don’t always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about. I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, “If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it’s perfectly happy to do so, and doesn’t much care where the reward comes from—whether it’s pragmatic (实用主义的) (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one’s peers), or some mix of the two.”
【G】False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.
【H】Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.
【I】The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.
【J】Perhaps it is not difference, but distance, that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s quote, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”
【K】Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does. Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven’t been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes the same radical idea, well, it’s easy to dismiss them as nuts.
【L】One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you’re at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction.
【M】The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don’t share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright. When it comes to changing people’s minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can’t jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it.
【N】Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone’s head and without the risk of being judged by others. It’s easier to be open-minded when you aren’t feeling defensive.
【O】 There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated. I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here’s a crucial point most people miss: People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you’re hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can’t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.
【P】Let’s call this phenomenon Clear’s Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year—even if the idea is false.
66、36. According to the author, humans can hardly survive if separated from their community.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
P、P
Why facts don’t change our minds?
【A】The economist J. K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”
【B】 Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
【C】What’s going on here? Why don’t facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.
【D】In Atomic Habits, I wrote, “Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”
【E】Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, “People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples (信徒), rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”
【F】We don’t always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about. I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, “If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it’s perfectly happy to do so, and doesn’t much care where the reward comes from—whether it’s pragmatic (实用主义的) (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one’s peers), or some mix of the two.”
【G】False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.
【H】Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.
【I】The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.
【J】Perhaps it is not difference, but distance, that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s quote, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”
【K】Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does. Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven’t been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes the same radical idea, well, it’s easy to dismiss them as nuts.
【L】One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you’re at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction.
【M】The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don’t share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright. When it comes to changing people’s minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can’t jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it.
【N】Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone’s head and without the risk of being judged by others. It’s easier to be open-minded when you aren’t feeling defensive.
【O】 There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated. I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here’s a crucial point most people miss: People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you’re hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can’t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.
【P】Let’s call this phenomenon Clear’s Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year—even if the idea is false.
67、37. People often accept false beliefs because they prioritize social bonds rather than facts.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
P、P
Why facts don’t change our minds?
【A】The economist J. K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”
【B】 Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
【C】What’s going on here? Why don’t facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.
【D】In Atomic Habits, I wrote, “Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”
【E】Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, “People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples (信徒), rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”
【F】We don’t always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about. I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, “If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it’s perfectly happy to do so, and doesn’t much care where the reward comes from—whether it’s pragmatic (实用主义的) (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one’s peers), or some mix of the two.”
【G】False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.
【H】Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.
【I】The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.
【J】Perhaps it is not difference, but distance, that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s quote, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”
【K】Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does. Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven’t been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes the same radical idea, well, it’s easy to dismiss them as nuts.
【L】One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you’re at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction.
【M】The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don’t share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright. When it comes to changing people’s minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can’t jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it.
【N】Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone’s head and without the risk of being judged by others. It’s easier to be open-minded when you aren’t feeling defensive.
【O】 There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated. I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here’s a crucial point most people miss: People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you’re hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can’t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.
【P】Let’s call this phenomenon Clear’s Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year—even if the idea is false.
68、38. Most often people learn from those close to them.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
P、P
Why facts don’t change our minds?
【A】The economist J. K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”
【B】 Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
【C】What’s going on here? Why don’t facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.
【D】In Atomic Habits, I wrote, “Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”
【E】Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, “People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples (信徒), rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”
【F】We don’t always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about. I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, “If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it’s perfectly happy to do so, and doesn’t much care where the reward comes from—whether it’s pragmatic (实用主义的) (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one’s peers), or some mix of the two.”
【G】False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.
【H】Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.
【I】The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.
【J】Perhaps it is not difference, but distance, that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s quote, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”
【K】Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does. Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven’t been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes the same radical idea, well, it’s easy to dismiss them as nuts.
【L】One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you’re at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction.
【M】The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don’t share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright. When it comes to changing people’s minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can’t jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it.
【N】Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone’s head and without the risk of being judged by others. It’s easier to be open-minded when you aren’t feeling defensive.
【O】 There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated. I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here’s a crucial point most people miss: People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you’re hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can’t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.
【P】Let’s call this phenomenon Clear’s Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year—even if the idea is false.
69、39. Sometimes people adopt certain beliefs in order to leave a favorable impression on those dear to them.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
P、P
Why facts don’t change our minds?
【A】The economist J. K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”
【B】 Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
【C】What’s going on here? Why don’t facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.
【D】In Atomic Habits, I wrote, “Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”
【E】Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, “People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples (信徒), rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”
【F】We don’t always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about. I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, “If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it’s perfectly happy to do so, and doesn’t much care where the reward comes from—whether it’s pragmatic (实用主义的) (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one’s peers), or some mix of the two.”
【G】False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.
【H】Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.
【I】The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.
【J】Perhaps it is not difference, but distance, that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s quote, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”
【K】Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does. Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven’t been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes the same radical idea, well, it’s easy to dismiss them as nuts.
【L】One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you’re at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction.
【M】The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don’t share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright. When it comes to changing people’s minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can’t jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it.
【N】Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone’s head and without the risk of being judged by others. It’s easier to be open-minded when you aren’t feeling defensive.
【O】 There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated. I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here’s a crucial point most people miss: People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you’re hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can’t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.
【P】Let’s call this phenomenon Clear’s Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year—even if the idea is false.
70、40. Compared with face-to-face communication, books often provide a better medium for changing people’s beliefs.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
P、P
Why facts don’t change our minds?
【A】The economist J. K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”
【B】 Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
【C】What’s going on here? Why don’t facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.
【D】In Atomic Habits, I wrote, “Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”
【E】Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, “People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples (信徒), rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”
【F】We don’t always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about. I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, “If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it’s perfectly happy to do so, and doesn’t much care where the reward comes from—whether it’s pragmatic (实用主义的) (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one’s peers), or some mix of the two.”
【G】False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.
【H】Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.
【I】The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.
【J】Perhaps it is not difference, but distance, that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s quote, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”
【K】Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does. Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven’t been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes the same radical idea, well, it’s easy to dismiss them as nuts.
【L】One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you’re at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction.
【M】The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don’t share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright. When it comes to changing people’s minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can’t jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it.
【N】Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone’s head and without the risk of being judged by others. It’s easier to be open-minded when you aren’t feeling defensive.
【O】 There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated. I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here’s a crucial point most people miss: People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you’re hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can’t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.
【P】Let’s call this phenomenon Clear’s Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year—even if the idea is false.
71、41. On many occasions in daily life, people benefit more from their social bonds than from knowing the truth.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
P、P
Why facts don’t change our minds?
【A】The economist J. K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”
【B】 Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
【C】What’s going on here? Why don’t facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.
【D】In Atomic Habits, I wrote, “Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”
【E】Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, “People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples (信徒), rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”
【F】We don’t always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about. I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, “If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it’s perfectly happy to do so, and doesn’t much care where the reward comes from—whether it’s pragmatic (实用主义的) (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one’s peers), or some mix of the two.”
【G】False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.
【H】Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.
【I】The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.
【J】Perhaps it is not difference, but distance, that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s quote, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”
【K】Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does. Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven’t been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes the same radical idea, well, it’s easy to dismiss them as nuts.
【L】One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you’re at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction.
【M】The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don’t share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright. When it comes to changing people’s minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can’t jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it.
【N】Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone’s head and without the risk of being judged by others. It’s easier to be open-minded when you aren’t feeling defensive.
【O】 There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated. I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here’s a crucial point most people miss: People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you’re hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can’t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.
【P】Let’s call this phenomenon Clear’s Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year—even if the idea is false.
72、42. If you want to change somebody’s beliefs, you should first establish social connection with them.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
P、P
Why facts don’t change our minds?
【A】The economist J. K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”
【B】 Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
【C】What’s going on here? Why don’t facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.
【D】In Atomic Habits, I wrote, “Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”
【E】Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, “People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples (信徒), rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”
【F】We don’t always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about. I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, “If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it’s perfectly happy to do so, and doesn’t much care where the reward comes from—whether it’s pragmatic (实用主义的) (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one’s peers), or some mix of the two.”
【G】False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.
【H】Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.
【I】The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.
【J】Perhaps it is not difference, but distance, that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s quote, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”
【K】Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does. Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven’t been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes the same radical idea, well, it’s easy to dismiss them as nuts.
【L】One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you’re at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction.
【M】The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don’t share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright. When it comes to changing people’s minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can’t jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it.
【N】Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone’s head and without the risk of being judged by others. It’s easier to be open-minded when you aren’t feeling defensive.
【O】 There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated. I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here’s a crucial point most people miss: People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you’re hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can’t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.
【P】Let’s call this phenomenon Clear’s Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year—even if the idea is false.
73、43. Humans cannot survive without a fair knowledge of the actual world.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
P、P
Why facts don’t change our minds?
【A】The economist J. K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”
【B】 Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
【C】What’s going on here? Why don’t facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.
【D】In Atomic Habits, I wrote, “Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”
【E】Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, “People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples (信徒), rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”
【F】We don’t always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about. I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, “If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it’s perfectly happy to do so, and doesn’t much care where the reward comes from—whether it’s pragmatic (实用主义的) (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one’s peers), or some mix of the two.”
【G】False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.
【H】Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.
【I】The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.
【J】Perhaps it is not difference, but distance, that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s quote, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”
【K】Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does. Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven’t been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes the same radical idea, well, it’s easy to dismiss them as nuts.
【L】One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you’re at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction.
【M】The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don’t share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright. When it comes to changing people’s minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can’t jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it.
【N】Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone’s head and without the risk of being judged by others. It’s easier to be open-minded when you aren’t feeling defensive.
【O】 There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated. I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here’s a crucial point most people miss: People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you’re hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can’t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.
【P】Let’s call this phenomenon Clear’s Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year—even if the idea is false.
74、44. Repetition of bad ideas increases their chances of being accepted.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
P、P
Why facts don’t change our minds?
【A】The economist J. K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”
【B】 Leo Tolstoy was even bolder: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
【C】What’s going on here? Why don’t facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.
【D】In Atomic Habits, I wrote, “Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”
【E】Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way, “People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples (信徒), rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”
【F】We don’t always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about. I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, “If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it’s perfectly happy to do so, and doesn’t much care where the reward comes from—whether it’s pragmatic (实用主义的) (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one’s peers), or some mix of the two.”
【G】False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.
【H】Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can’t expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.
【I】The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.
【J】Perhaps it is not difference, but distance, that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s quote, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”
【K】Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does. Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven’t been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes the same radical idea, well, it’s easy to dismiss them as nuts.
【L】One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you’re at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction.
【M】The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don’t share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright. When it comes to changing people’s minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can’t jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it.
【N】Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone’s head and without the risk of being judged by others. It’s easier to be open-minded when you aren’t feeling defensive.
【O】 There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated. I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here’s a crucial point most people miss: People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you’re hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can’t forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.
【P】Let’s call this phenomenon Clear’s Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year—even if the idea is false.
75、45. Nobody is willing to give up their beliefs at the risk of getting isolated.
A、A
B、B
C、C
D、D
E、E
F、F
G、G
H、H
I、I
J、J
K、K
L、L
M、M
N、N
O、O
P、P
The subject of automation and its role in our economy has taken hold in American public discourse. Technology broadly and automation specifically are dramatically reshaping the way we work. And we need to have a plan for what’s still to come.
We don’t have to look further than our own communities to see the devastating impact of automation. From automated warehouses to cashierless grocery stores to neighborhood libraries that offer self-checkout lanes instead of employing real people—automation is increasingly replacing jobs and leaving too few good new jobs behind.
The statistics in manufacturing are staggering. Despite the widespread fears about trade, a recent report showed that just 13 percent of jobs lost in manufacturing are due to trade—the rest of the losses have been due to advances in technology.
That is why more people are criticizing the ever-increasing role of technology in our economy. Our country is manufacturing more than ever before, but we are doing it with fewer workers. However, it’s not just factories that are seeing losses—software and information technology are also having a dramatic impact on jobs most people think are secure from the forces of a rapidly-changing economy. Something transformative is happening in America that is having an adverse effect on American families. Whether policymakers and politicians admit it or not, workers have made clear their feelings about their economic insecurity and desire to keep good jobs in America.
So why are people so insistent on ignoring the perils of automation? They are failing to look ahead at a time when planning for the future is more important than ever. Resisting automation is futile: it is as inevitable as industrialization was before it. I sincerely hope that those who assert that automation will make us more effective and pave the way for new occupations are right, but the reality of automation’s detrimental effects on workers makes me skeptical. No one can currently say where the new jobs are coming from or when, and any sensible company or country should prepare for all alternatives.
I’m not overstating the danger: look at what’s happened to the labor force. According to economic research, one in six working-age men, 25-54, doesn’t have a job. Fifty years ago, nearly 100 percent of men that age were working. Women’s labor force participation, meanwhile, has slipped back to the level it was at in the late 1980s.
American families and prominent business leaders are aware that there’s a big problem with automation. The value of a college degree is diminishing, and our upward mobility is declining. If we want an economy that allows everyone to be economically secure, we need to start thinking about how we can rightfully address automation.
76、46. What can we observe from the author’s description of our communities?
A、The growing passion for automation.
B、The shift from manual jobs to IT ones.
C、Their changing views on employment.
D、Their fading employment opportunities.
The subject of automation and its role in our economy has taken hold in American public discourse. Technology broadly and automation specifically are dramatically reshaping the way we work. And we need to have a plan for what’s still to come.
We don’t have to look further than our own communities to see the devastating impact of automation. From automated warehouses to cashierless grocery stores to neighborhood libraries that offer self-checkout lanes instead of employing real people—automation is increasingly replacing jobs and leaving too few good new jobs behind.
The statistics in manufacturing are staggering. Despite the widespread fears about trade, a recent report showed that just 13 percent of jobs lost in manufacturing are due to trade—the rest of the losses have been due to advances in technology.
That is why more people are criticizing the ever-increasing role of technology in our economy. Our country is manufacturing more than ever before, but we are doing it with fewer workers. However, it’s not just factories that are seeing losses—software and information technology are also having a dramatic impact on jobs most people think are secure from the forces of a rapidly-changing economy. Something transformative is happening in America that is having an adverse effect on American families. Whether policymakers and politicians admit it or not, workers have made clear their feelings about their economic insecurity and desire to keep good jobs in America.
So why are people so insistent on ignoring the perils of automation? They are failing to look ahead at a time when planning for the future is more important than ever. Resisting automation is futile: it is as inevitable as industrialization was before it. I sincerely hope that those who assert that automation will make us more effective and pave the way for new occupations are right, but the reality of automation’s detrimental effects on workers makes me skeptical. No one can currently say where the new jobs are coming from or when, and any sensible company or country should prepare for all alternatives.
I’m not overstating the danger: look at what’s happened to the labor force. According to economic research, one in six working-age men, 25-54, doesn’t have a job. Fifty years ago, nearly 100 percent of men that age were working. Women’s labor force participation, meanwhile, has slipped back to the level it was at in the late 1980s.
American families and prominent business leaders are aware that there’s a big problem with automation. The value of a college degree is diminishing, and our upward mobility is declining. If we want an economy that allows everyone to be economically secure, we need to start thinking about how we can rightfully address automation.
77、47. What do we learn from a recent report?
A、The manufacturing sector is declining at a fast rate.
B、The concerns about the effect of trade are exaggerated.
C、The fears about trade have been spreading far and wide.
D、The impact of trade on employment has been staggering.
The subject of automation and its role in our economy has taken hold in American public discourse. Technology broadly and automation specifically are dramatically reshaping the way we work. And we need to have a plan for what’s still to come.
We don’t have to look further than our own communities to see the devastating impact of automation. From automated warehouses to cashierless grocery stores to neighborhood libraries that offer self-checkout lanes instead of employing real people—automation is increasingly replacing jobs and leaving too few good new jobs behind.
The statistics in manufacturing are staggering. Despite the widespread fears about trade, a recent report showed that just 13 percent of jobs lost in manufacturing are due to trade—the rest of the losses have been due to advances in technology.
That is why more people are criticizing the ever-increasing role of technology in our economy. Our country is manufacturing more than ever before, but we are doing it with fewer workers. However, it’s not just factories that are seeing losses—software and information technology are also having a dramatic impact on jobs most people think are secure from the forces of a rapidly-changing economy. Something transformative is happening in America that is having an adverse effect on American families. Whether policymakers and politicians admit it or not, workers have made clear their feelings about their economic insecurity and desire to keep good jobs in America.
So why are people so insistent on ignoring the perils of automation? They are failing to look ahead at a time when planning for the future is more important than ever. Resisting automation is futile: it is as inevitable as industrialization was before it. I sincerely hope that those who assert that automation will make us more effective and pave the way for new occupations are right, but the reality of automation’s detrimental effects on workers makes me skeptical. No one can currently say where the new jobs are coming from or when, and any sensible company or country should prepare for all alternatives.
I’m not overstating the danger: look at what’s happened to the labor force. According to economic research, one in six working-age men, 25-54, doesn’t have a job. Fifty years ago, nearly 100 percent of men that age were working. Women’s labor force participation, meanwhile, has slipped back to the level it was at in the late 1980s.
American families and prominent business leaders are aware that there’s a big problem with automation. The value of a college degree is diminishing, and our upward mobility is declining. If we want an economy that allows everyone to be economically secure, we need to start thinking about how we can rightfully address automation.
78、48. What does the passage tell us about American workers in an era of transformation?
A、They feel ignored by politicians.
B、They feel increasingly vulnerable.
C、They keep adapting to the changes.
D、They keep complaining but to no avail.
The subject of automation and its role in our economy has taken hold in American public discourse. Technology broadly and automation specifically are dramatically reshaping the way we work. And we need to have a plan for what’s still to come.
We don’t have to look further than our own communities to see the devastating impact of automation. From automated warehouses to cashierless grocery stores to neighborhood libraries that offer self-checkout lanes instead of employing real people—automation is increasingly replacing jobs and leaving too few good new jobs behind.
The statistics in manufacturing are staggering. Despite the widespread fears about trade, a recent report showed that just 13 percent of jobs lost in manufacturing are due to trade—the rest of the losses have been due to advances in technology.
That is why more people are criticizing the ever-increasing role of technology in our economy. Our country is manufacturing more than ever before, but we are doing it with fewer workers. However, it’s not just factories that are seeing losses—software and information technology are also having a dramatic impact on jobs most people think are secure from the forces of a rapidly-changing economy. Something transformative is happening in America that is having an adverse effect on American families. Whether policymakers and politicians admit it or not, workers have made clear their feelings about their economic insecurity and desire to keep good jobs in America.
So why are people so insistent on ignoring the perils of automation? They are failing to look ahead at a time when planning for the future is more important than ever. Resisting automation is futile: it is as inevitable as industrialization was before it. I sincerely hope that those who assert that automation will make us more effective and pave the way for new occupations are right, but the reality of automation’s detrimental effects on workers makes me skeptical. No one can currently say where the new jobs are coming from or when, and any sensible company or country should prepare for all alternatives.
I’m not overstating the danger: look at what’s happened to the labor force. According to economic research, one in six working-age men, 25-54, doesn’t have a job. Fifty years ago, nearly 100 percent of men that age were working. Women’s labor force participation, meanwhile, has slipped back to the level it was at in the late 1980s.
American families and prominent business leaders are aware that there’s a big problem with automation. The value of a college degree is diminishing, and our upward mobility is declining. If we want an economy that allows everyone to be economically secure, we need to start thinking about how we can rightfully address automation.
79、49. What does the author think of automation?
A、It will have the same impact as industrialization.
B、It provides sensible companies with alternatives.
C、Its alleged positive effects are doubtful.
D、Its detrimental effects are unavoidable.
The subject of automation and its role in our economy has taken hold in American public discourse. Technology broadly and automation specifically are dramatically reshaping the way we work. And we need to have a plan for what’s still to come.
We don’t have to look further than our own communities to see the devastating impact of automation. From automated warehouses to cashierless grocery stores to neighborhood libraries that offer self-checkout lanes instead of employing real people—automation is increasingly replacing jobs and leaving too few good new jobs behind.
The statistics in manufacturing are staggering. Despite the widespread fears about trade, a recent report showed that just 13 percent of jobs lost in manufacturing are due to trade—the rest of the losses have been due to advances in technology.
That is why more people are criticizing the ever-increasing role of technology in our economy. Our country is manufacturing more than ever before, but we are doing it with fewer workers. However, it’s not just factories that are seeing losses—software and information technology are also having a dramatic impact on jobs most people think are secure from the forces of a rapidly-changing economy. Something transformative is happening in America that is having an adverse effect on American families. Whether policymakers and politicians admit it or not, workers have made clear their feelings about their economic insecurity and desire to keep good jobs in America.
So why are people so insistent on ignoring the perils of automation? They are failing to look ahead at a time when planning for the future is more important than ever. Resisting automation is futile: it is as inevitable as industrialization was before it. I sincerely hope that those who assert that automation will make us more effective and pave the way for new occupations are right, but the reality of automation’s detrimental effects on workers makes me skeptical. No one can currently say where the new jobs are coming from or when, and any sensible company or country should prepare for all alternatives.
I’m not overstating the danger: look at what’s happened to the labor force. According to economic research, one in six working-age men, 25-54, doesn’t have a job. Fifty years ago, nearly 100 percent of men that age were working. Women’s labor force participation, meanwhile, has slipped back to the level it was at in the late 1980s.
American families and prominent business leaders are aware that there’s a big problem with automation. The value of a college degree is diminishing, and our upward mobility is declining. If we want an economy that allows everyone to be economically secure, we need to start thinking about how we can rightfully address automation.
80、50. What should we attach importance to when dealing with automation?
A、College graduates’ job prospects.
B、Women’s access to employment.
C、People’s economic security.
D、People’s social mobility.
Look at the people around you. Some are passive, others more aggressive. Some work best alone, others crave companionship. We easily recognize that there is great variation among the individuals who live near us. Yet, when we speak of people from elsewhere, we seem to inevitably characterize them based on their country of origin.
Statistics specialists, when they speak of national averages, often make the same mistake.
Newly published research shows how erroneous such overviews are. Three researchers analyzed decades of values-based surveys and found that only between 16% and 21% of the variation in cultural values could be explained by differences between countries. In other words, the vast majority of what makes us culturally distinct from one another has nothing to do with our homeland.
To determine what factors really are associated with culture, the authors combined data from 558 prior surveys that each measured one or more of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. These are traits, such as individualism and masculinity, that describe work-related cultural values. (They are not a measure of visible cultural traits, such as food or dress.) Though the validity of Hofstede’s dimensions has been questioned, they have the singular benefit of having been in use for decades, which allows for historical and international comparisons.
The researchers found that both demographic factors, such as age, and environmental factors, such as long-term unemployment rates, were more correlated with cultural values than nationality. Occupation and social economic status were the most strongly correlated, suggesting that our values are more economically driven than we usually give them credit for.
The evidence implies that people with similar jobs and incomes are more culturally alike, regardless of where they live. Vas Taras, the lead author of the study, puts it this way: “Tell me how much you make and I will make a pretty accurate prediction about your cultural values. Tell me what your nationality is and I probably will make a wrong prediction.”
Taras says our erroneous belief that countries are cultures has caused businesses to teach their employees useless or even harmful ways of interacting with their international peers. Chinese and American lawyers might be trained to interact based on the assumption that the Chinese person is less individualistic, even though their similar social economic situations make it probable they are actually quite alike in that regard.
The country, as the unit of authority, is often a convenient way of generalizing about a population. However, our focus on countries can mask broad variations within them. In the majority of cases we would be better off identifying people by the factors that constrain their lives, like income, rather than by the lines surrounding them on a map.
81、51. What error do experts often make when describing people from other places?
A、They tend to overly rely on nationality.
B、They often exaggerate their differences.
C、They often misunderstand their cultures.
D、They tend to dwell on national averages.
Look at the people around you. Some are passive, others more aggressive. Some work best alone, others crave companionship. We easily recognize that there is great variation among the individuals who live near us. Yet, when we speak of people from elsewhere, we seem to inevitably characterize them based on their country of origin.
Statistics specialists, when they speak of national averages, often make the same mistake.
Newly published research shows how erroneous such overviews are. Three researchers analyzed decades of values-based surveys and found that only between 16% and 21% of the variation in cultural values could be explained by differences between countries. In other words, the vast majority of what makes us culturally distinct from one another has nothing to do with our homeland.
To determine what factors really are associated with culture, the authors combined data from 558 prior surveys that each measured one or more of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. These are traits, such as individualism and masculinity, that describe work-related cultural values. (They are not a measure of visible cultural traits, such as food or dress.) Though the validity of Hofstede’s dimensions has been questioned, they have the singular benefit of having been in use for decades, which allows for historical and international comparisons.
The researchers found that both demographic factors, such as age, and environmental factors, such as long-term unemployment rates, were more correlated with cultural values than nationality. Occupation and social economic status were the most strongly correlated, suggesting that our values are more economically driven than we usually give them credit for.
The evidence implies that people with similar jobs and incomes are more culturally alike, regardless of where they live. Vas Taras, the lead author of the study, puts it this way: “Tell me how much you make and I will make a pretty accurate prediction about your cultural values. Tell me what your nationality is and I probably will make a wrong prediction.”
Taras says our erroneous belief that countries are cultures has caused businesses to teach their employees useless or even harmful ways of interacting with their international peers. Chinese and American lawyers might be trained to interact based on the assumption that the Chinese person is less individualistic, even though their similar social economic situations make it probable they are actually quite alike in that regard.
The country, as the unit of authority, is often a convenient way of generalizing about a population. However, our focus on countries can mask broad variations within them. In the majority of cases we would be better off identifying people by the factors that constrain their lives, like income, rather than by the lines surrounding them on a map.
82、52. What do we learn about Hofstede’s cultural dimensions?
A、They are useful in comparing cultural values across time and space.
B、They have brought unusual benefits to people of different cultures.
C、They are widely used to identify people’s individual traits.
D、They provide valuable questions for researchers to study.
Look at the people around you. Some are passive, others more aggressive. Some work best alone, others crave companionship. We easily recognize that there is great variation among the individuals who live near us. Yet, when we speak of people from elsewhere, we seem to inevitably characterize them based on their country of origin.
Statistics specialists, when they speak of national averages, often make the same mistake.
Newly published research shows how erroneous such overviews are. Three researchers analyzed decades of values-based surveys and found that only between 16% and 21% of the variation in cultural values could be explained by differences between countries. In other words, the vast majority of what makes us culturally distinct from one another has nothing to do with our homeland.
To determine what factors really are associated with culture, the authors combined data from 558 prior surveys that each measured one or more of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. These are traits, such as individualism and masculinity, that describe work-related cultural values. (They are not a measure of visible cultural traits, such as food or dress.) Though the validity of Hofstede’s dimensions has been questioned, they have the singular benefit of having been in use for decades, which allows for historical and international comparisons.
The researchers found that both demographic factors, such as age, and environmental factors, such as long-term unemployment rates, were more correlated with cultural values than nationality. Occupation and social economic status were the most strongly correlated, suggesting that our values are more economically driven than we usually give them credit for.
The evidence implies that people with similar jobs and incomes are more culturally alike, regardless of where they live. Vas Taras, the lead author of the study, puts it this way: “Tell me how much you make and I will make a pretty accurate prediction about your cultural values. Tell me what your nationality is and I probably will make a wrong prediction.”
Taras says our erroneous belief that countries are cultures has caused businesses to teach their employees useless or even harmful ways of interacting with their international peers. Chinese and American lawyers might be trained to interact based on the assumption that the Chinese person is less individualistic, even though their similar social economic situations make it probable they are actually quite alike in that regard.
The country, as the unit of authority, is often a convenient way of generalizing about a population. However, our focus on countries can mask broad variations within them. In the majority of cases we would be better off identifying people by the factors that constrain their lives, like income, rather than by the lines surrounding them on a map.
83、53. What did researchers find about previous studies on factors determining people’s values?
A、Environmental factors were prioritized over other factors.
B、An individual’s financial status was often underestimated.
C、Too much emphasis had been placed on one’s occupation.
D、The impact of social progress on one’s values was ignored.
Look at the people around you. Some are passive, others more aggressive. Some work best alone, others crave companionship. We easily recognize that there is great variation among the individuals who live near us. Yet, when we speak of people from elsewhere, we seem to inevitably characterize them based on their country of origin.
Statistics specialists, when they speak of national averages, often make the same mistake.
Newly published research shows how erroneous such overviews are. Three researchers analyzed decades of values-based surveys and found that only between 16% and 21% of the variation in cultural values could be explained by differences between countries. In other words, the vast majority of what makes us culturally distinct from one another has nothing to do with our homeland.
To determine what factors really are associated with culture, the authors combined data from 558 prior surveys that each measured one or more of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. These are traits, such as individualism and masculinity, that describe work-related cultural values. (They are not a measure of visible cultural traits, such as food or dress.) Though the validity of Hofstede’s dimensions has been questioned, they have the singular benefit of having been in use for decades, which allows for historical and international comparisons.
The researchers found that both demographic factors, such as age, and environmental factors, such as long-term unemployment rates, were more correlated with cultural values than nationality. Occupation and social economic status were the most strongly correlated, suggesting that our values are more economically driven than we usually give them credit for.
The evidence implies that people with similar jobs and incomes are more culturally alike, regardless of where they live. Vas Taras, the lead author of the study, puts it this way: “Tell me how much you make and I will make a pretty accurate prediction about your cultural values. Tell me what your nationality is and I probably will make a wrong prediction.”
Taras says our erroneous belief that countries are cultures has caused businesses to teach their employees useless or even harmful ways of interacting with their international peers. Chinese and American lawyers might be trained to interact based on the assumption that the Chinese person is less individualistic, even though their similar social economic situations make it probable they are actually quite alike in that regard.
The country, as the unit of authority, is often a convenient way of generalizing about a population. However, our focus on countries can mask broad variations within them. In the majority of cases we would be better off identifying people by the factors that constrain their lives, like income, rather than by the lines surrounding them on a map.
84、54. What is the impact on employees when cultures are identified with countries?
A、They may fail to see the cultural biases of their business partners.
B、They may fail to attach sufficient importance to cultural diversity.
C、They may not be taught how to properly interact with overseas partners.
D、They may not be able to learn the legal procedures for business transactions.
Look at the people around you. Some are passive, others more aggressive. Some work best alone, others crave companionship. We easily recognize that there is great variation among the individuals who live near us. Yet, when we speak of people from elsewhere, we seem to inevitably characterize them based on their country of origin.
Statistics specialists, when they speak of national averages, often make the same mistake.
Newly published research shows how erroneous such overviews are. Three researchers analyzed decades of values-based surveys and found that only between 16% and 21% of the variation in cultural values could be explained by differences between countries. In other words, the vast majority of what makes us culturally distinct from one another has nothing to do with our homeland.
To determine what factors really are associated with culture, the authors combined data from 558 prior surveys that each measured one or more of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. These are traits, such as individualism and masculinity, that describe work-related cultural values. (They are not a measure of visible cultural traits, such as food or dress.) Though the validity of Hofstede’s dimensions has been questioned, they have the singular benefit of having been in use for decades, which allows for historical and international comparisons.
The researchers found that both demographic factors, such as age, and environmental factors, such as long-term unemployment rates, were more correlated with cultural values than nationality. Occupation and social economic status were the most strongly correlated, suggesting that our values are more economically driven than we usually give them credit for.
The evidence implies that people with similar jobs and incomes are more culturally alike, regardless of where they live. Vas Taras, the lead author of the study, puts it this way: “Tell me how much you make and I will make a pretty accurate prediction about your cultural values. Tell me what your nationality is and I probably will make a wrong prediction.”
Taras says our erroneous belief that countries are cultures has caused businesses to teach their employees useless or even harmful ways of interacting with their international peers. Chinese and American lawyers might be trained to interact based on the assumption that the Chinese person is less individualistic, even though their similar social economic situations make it probable they are actually quite alike in that regard.
The country, as the unit of authority, is often a convenient way of generalizing about a population. However, our focus on countries can mask broad variations within them. In the majority of cases we would be better off identifying people by the factors that constrain their lives, like income, rather than by the lines surrounding them on a map.
85、55. What does the author suggest at the end of the passage?
A、There is sufficient reason to generalize about a country’s population.
B、The majority of people are still constrained by their national identity.
C、It is arguable that the country should be regarded as the unit of authority.
D、Nationality is less useful than socio-economic status as an indicator of one’s values.
三、Part IV Translation
86、 延安位于陕西省北部，地处黄河中游，是中国革命的圣地。毛泽东等老一辈革命家曾在这里生活战斗了十三个春秋，领导了抗日战争和解放战争，培育了延安精神，为中国革命做出了巨大贡献。延安的革命旧址全国数量最大、分布最广、级别最高。延安是全国爱国主义、革命传统和延安精神教育基地。延安有9个革命纪念馆，珍藏着中共中央和老一辈革命家在延安时期留存下来的大量重要物品，因此享有“中国革命博物馆城”的美誉。
参考答案：
参考译文
Yan’an is located in the northern part of Shaanxi Province, in the middle reaches of the Yellow River, and is the sacred land of the Chinese Revolution. Revolutionaries of the older generation such as Mao Zedong have lived and fought here for thirteen years, led the War of Resistance against Japan and the War of Liberation, cultivated the spirit of Yan’an, and made great contributions to the Chinese revolution. Yan’an has the largest number, the widest distribution, and the highest level of revolutionary sites in the country. Yan’an is the education base of national patriotism, revolutionary traditions and the Yan’an spirit. There are 9 revolutionary memorial halls in Yan’an, which cherish a large number of important items left by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the older generation of revolutionaries during the Yan’an period. Therefore it enjoys the reputation as “the Museum City of Chinese Revolution”.
喵呜刷题：让学习像火箭一样快速，快来微信扫码，体验免费刷题服务，开启你的学习加速器！
