Parents have been urged to stop pretending Father Christmas is real in case the “lie” damages relations with their children. Making up stories about Santa risks destroying a child’s trust and is morally unbelievable, according to two experts.
Psychologist Professor Christopher Boyle and social scientist Dr. Kathy McKay also criticize the idea employed by parents—Santa Claus judges children to be nice or naughty. Writing in a well-known journal, they argue, “If they are capable of lying about something so special and magical, can they be relied upon to continue as the guardians of wisdom and truth?”
Defending the claims, Prof Boyle said, “The morality of making children believe in such myths has to be questioned. All children will eventually find out they’ve been consistently lied to for years, and this might make them wonder what other lies they’ve been told. Whether it’s right to make children believe in Father Christmas is an interesting question, and it’s also interesting to ask whether lying in this way will affect children in ways that have not been considered.”
Dr. McKay, from the University of New England in Australia, said there was clear evidence from the world of make-believe in movies and TV that adults looked for a chance to be children again. “The persistence of fandom(影迷) in stories like Harry Potter and Star Wars indicates their desire to briefly re-enter childhood,” she said. “However,” she added, “if adults have been lying about Santa, even though it has usually been well intentioned, what else is a lie? If Santa isn’t real, are fairies real? Is magic? Is God?”
They conclude, “Many people may long for a time when imagination was accepted and encouraged, which may not be the case in adult life. Might it be the case that the harshness of real life requires the creation of something better, something to believe in, something to hope for in the future or to return to a long-lost childhood a long time ago in a galaxy far far away?”
1. What did parents do that drew criticism from Dr. Kathy McKay?A.They were fond of Harry Potter and Star Wars. |
B.They acted as the guardians of wisdom and truth. |
C.They said Santa Claus could judge a kid to be good or bad. |
D.They have told many lies to their children besides Santa Claus. |
A.Parents are capable of making up stories about Santa Claus. |
B.Lies about Santa Claus can have a negative impact upon children. |
C.Stories about Santa Claus develop children’s trust in their parents. |
D.Experts think it right to make children believe in Father Christmas. |
A.They desire to return to the long-lost childhood. |
B.Everything will become better in movies than in real life. |
C.They want to get away from pressure from life and work. |
D.They didn’t watch such exciting movies when they were young. |
A.Positive. | B.Indifferent. | C.Disappointed. | D.Concerned. |
相似题推荐
【推荐1】Does Using Technology in the Classroom Help College Students?
Almost anywhere in the world, you are likely to find people doing the same thing in public places, on trains and buses or wherever else you look. They spend their day looking at laptop computers, smartphones or other personal electronic devices. They are thinking mainly about their electronic devices, and not much else.
Arnold Glass, a professor in Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and a student researcher investigated the issue of divided student attention. During half of their daily class periods, the students in their study were permitted to use any electronic device as much as they wanted.
The students’ academic performance was measured in several ways throughout the semester. They took a short test every day, longer tests every few weeks and a final exam covering all the class material. The researchers found that the average daily quiz results showed no evidence of harmful effects from the use of technology.
Glass says that it shows the use of electronic devices in the classroom prevents students from processing information. The students hear what the professor is saying. But they might be buying things online or reading unrelated emails at the same time, for example. So they are not thinking deeply about the subject matter as they are hearing it.
A.The same can be said about the world of college education. |
B.However, the average results of the larger tests and final exam told a different story. |
C.And that, Glass says, makes it harder for the information to enter their long-term memory. |
D.Technology, in general, is not the only way that students find to distract themselves in class. |
E.But even if technology is helpful to some students, there are times when it needs to be turned off. |
F.Some students argue that the increasing use of technology can have many helpful effects on society. |
G.During the other half, researchers closely watched them to make sure no one was using any technology. |
【推荐2】When children are growing up, what they see in their families is what they tend to consider normal. That means family traditions and other activities are generally seen as just normal. If a family eats dinner together or spends time talking with each other, that’s what the child absorbs and internalizes.
Our family traditions are declining as we move toward a more isolated (孤立的) society. How many families no longer share meals around the dinner table, instead choosing to watch TV or text friends on their phones? This tends to isolate and disconnect family members from each other. It also stops families from communicating and catching up on each other’s lives.
For those of us who grew up in a household where families shared meals together and spent time talking with each other, chances are that we are passing along those traditions to our own families. The problem is, children today often want to spend their time in front of screens rather than people. Cell phones, computers and other attention-grabbing devices often mean parents get resistance to traditional family togetherness time. This pressure can lead to parents giving in and letting children do what they want rather than fight with them over sitting at the dinner table. This creates a new normal that no longer values the idea of families and the society at large, connecting with each other.
Family and community traditions are important, not just for the current shared experiences, but for the future as well. Since children internalize their experiences, that means generations to come may not know what it’s like to sit together around the dinner table and truly connect as a family.
That is why it is so important that parents and caregivers create boundaries of behavior that help to keep family traditions alive. If you remember the shared experiences you had with your parents and grandparents, you know the important bonding that took place during those times. It is this shared experience that brings people closer together and is well worth preserving.
1. What is the phenomenon the author describes at the beginning of the text?A.The increase in shared family meals means a shift towards isolation. |
B.Increased use of technology replaces traditional family interactions. |
C.More and more children prefer to spend quality time with the family. |
D.Family members are more likely to share their updates with each other. |
A.The inability of parents to understand technology. |
B.The challenge of preserving traditional family values. |
C.The influence of technology on children’s education. |
D.The necessity of controlling children’s digital devices. |
A.They will be more addicted to advanced technology. |
B.They will maintain stronger and closer family bonds. |
C.They may create new and irreplaceable family traditions. |
D.They may not understand the value of family gatherings. |
A.Insignificant | B.Irresponsible |
C.Crucial | D.Overemphasized |
【推荐3】Widespread descriptions of animals in pop culture could actually be hurting the animals’ survival chances in the wild, new research suggests.
Franck Courchamp of the University of Paris-Sud was interested in the idea of “charisma”(魅力) in animals. He wanted to know: What species do people consider charismatic? And what are the influences of being charismatic on populations in the wild?
In a research published this month, Courchamp and other researchers list the top 20 charismatic species. Most of the animals identified as charismatic are large mammals living on land. Coming in first place were tigers, followed by lions, elephants, giraffes, panthers, pandas, cheetahs, polar bears, wolves, and gorillas. However, at least half of the interviewees didn’t realize that five of the top ten most charismatic species are threatened. It is paradoxical that we haven’t been able to protect the species we care about the most.
The study also found that we are flooded with images of these creatures, even as they are becoming fewer in the wild. The study suggests that too much of imagery might be creating a “virtual(虚拟的) population” of the animals in peoples’ minds, making them believe there are far more individuals in the wild than is exact.
The study authors suggest that companies who benefit from the use of these images should set aside a small percentage of their profits to protection efforts and informational campaigns (运动). “That would be not only something fair, but that would be something that could bring a win-win situation for them,” Courchamp says. It could bring them positive public relation, for example. Besides, if a company’s mascot(吉祥物) goes extinct, that could hurt them from a marketing standpoint, Courchamp says. Some companies do take this to heart, he says, noting protection efforts by Jaguar and Lacoste. But not enough companies are “truly concerned about the protection of the species that they work on,” he adds.
1. It can be inferred that the widespread images of animals in pop culture ______.A.leads people to forget the less charismatic animals |
B.makes a false impression of the animals’ real situation |
C.raises people’s wildlife protection attention and efforts |
D.brings a win-win situation for both animals and companies |
A.It is important to protect these endangered species. |
B.It is natural to regard the large mammals as charismatic. |
C.It is terrible that the species are dying out at an alarming speed. |
D.It is strange that people’s thoughts contrast with their behaviors. |
A.giving examples | B.taking quotes |
C.making comparisons | D.using numbers |
A.Annoyed. | B.Supportive. |
C.Dissatisfied. | D.Positive. |
【推荐1】For many, scientific innovations tend to be welcome advancements that improve our lives. For some, however, new technologies bring risk of uselessness, in turn leading to great resistance.
With the climate crisis unfolding before our eyes, the race is on to find alternatives that will help humanity leave a smaller footprint on our planet. Because of animal agriculture's leading role as a greenhouse gas emitter, the search for more sustainable protein sources could be one such alternative.
As food tech companies use science to unlock the potential of plant proteins, they're producing increasingly better plant-based meats and milks that look and taste like the real thing, but with a much lower carbon footprint. Some in the meat industry are supporting the new and investing in these alt-protein companies.
For some lawmakers, however, these innovative products don't deserve support; they deserve restriction. Missouri State, for example, recently passed a bill making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for companies to call their products ''meat'' if they don’t come from an animal.
So why the mania (狂热) over meat and milk all of a sudden? Was there a consumer who brought home some pies labeled ''plant-based meat'' only to realize he was tricked? Did confused milk-drinkers file complaints with the Department of Agriculture when they found out their soymilk didn't contain actual milk?
There really are some consumers who are truly confused. Surveys show, however, that number is remarkably small. If anything, consumers are choosing these plant-based products specifically because they think they're better for them than the original products. And they have good reason to believe that plant-based milks and meats usually have less fat and more fiber than comparable animal-based foods.
So, consumers aren't confusing ''veggie bacon'' for real bacon; and if they don't think chicken nuggets have the same nutritional value as ''chicken-free nuggets'', then why do some meat and milk groups want a monopoly (垄断) over the M-words? Could it have to do with the fact that the increasing popularity of these foods, which are more sustainable and better for you, is threatening the profits of their constituents?
And with the future of our civilization hanging in the balance as climate change becomes more severe, it's time for policy makers to stop trying to prevent innovation, and instead to celebrate all the ways science can save us, including with sustainable proteins that can and do produce new kinds of meat.
1. What can be learned about the M-word applied to plant-based substitutes?A.They are environmentally friendly. |
B.They are innovative and widely accepted. |
C.They have been restricted across America. |
D.They have been produced in large quantities. |
A.have sufficient faith in new science and technology |
B.prefer the original products to the plant-based products |
C.buy the plant-based products for their great benefit to health |
D.often get confused by the composition of the new kind of meat |
A.it contains no real meat |
B.it brings risks to society |
C.it plays a trick on customers |
D.it poses a threat to their profits |
A.Supportive. | B.Cautious. |
C.Ambiguous. | D.Disapproving |
【推荐2】Do you like shopping? For shopaholics in the UK, the place to head to used to be the “high street”. It was the place where you could find familiar fashion brands and essential everyday items in the centre of a town. But change in our shopping habits has taken its toll on the British high street.
News about shops losing money and shutting is now common. Some city-centre department stores have closed and even long-established retailers (零售商) have reported profit slumps. According to a recent survey, a record 2,481 shops disappeared from UK high streets last year — up by 40 percent.
As the BBC’s Emma Simpson writes, things have become a lot harder for traditional retailers in recent years. They have faced rising costs from wages, business rates and the requirement to introduce Europe’s new data law. But the biggest threat has come from online shopping. She says “Consumers now spend one in every five pounds online — and if businesses are seeing 20 percent fewer sales on the shop floor, as well as their fixed costs rising, then profit margins will be squeezed.”
While some of us like to window shop — browsing for things to buy, only to purchase them online at a discount — the fact is that, overall, shoppers are making fewer visits to high streets. Eventually, town centres could become like ghost towns. If people aren’t out and about shopping, they won't use other services, like cafes, restaurants and cinemas, which leads to job losses. The high street has also suffered from the arrival of big shopping malls, which offer a retail experience under one roof, with free parking, away from the bad weather!
Meanwhile, back on the high street, some shops still exist. Analysts have said it's those that have moved away from traditional retailing that are surviving. These include beauty salons, nail bars and independent coffee shops — but are these kinds of shops enough to keep the British high street open for business?
1. What do we know about “high street” according to the passage?A.It sold only fashionable daily items. |
B.It has changed people’s shopping habits. |
C.It was a big shopping mall in downtown Britain. |
D.It was the destination for people who love shopping in the UK. |
A.Sharp fall. | B.Steady rise. |
C.Slow increase. | D.Slight loss. |
A.The rising costs from wages. |
B.The boom of window shopping. |
C.The popularity of shopping online, |
D.The introduction of Europe’s new data law. |
A.Discounts are offered to attract more consumers. |
B.Parking is free of charge in time of bad weather. |
C.Better service is provided to satisfy the customers. |
D.Some conventional retailer turn to other businesses. |
【推荐3】Time to unfriend Facebook?
For the past 18 months, communicating the findings of science to the world has hit what sometimes seems like an all-time low. Never mind the years of failure in convincing much of the public about climate change; the pandemic has revealed shocking ineptness(拙劣)by the scientific establishment at conveying messages about masks, vaccination, or the dangers of consuming horse drugs and aquarium cleaners—even in the face of a rising death toll from COVID-19. One puzzling element of this crisis is how social media has been skillfully exploited by antiscience forces. Given all of this, what is the right move for science communication as it relates to social media? Unfriend Facebook or beat it at its own game?
A few months ago, New York Times reporters Cecilia Kang and Sheera Frenkel published An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook’s Battle for Domination, in which they explored how the world’s largest social network, Facebook, fills its coffers by exploiting the viral spread of misinformation while trying to convince everyone of its noble mission to connect the world. Kang told me that she believes the algorithms and business practices of Facebook and other social media companies that encourage misinformation erect huge barriers, keeping people from paying attention to authoritative scientific information. Her ideas for combating this begin with understanding two kinds of misinformation that propagate through these powerful social networks. One is the news that is blatantly wrong. These posts are sometimes taken down but mostly flagged by Facebook’s algorithms with a disclaimer, which most people ignore. This has only a minor effect on stopping their spread. Kang sees an even bigger problem: the misinformation that arises from conversational posts among individuals. This kind of informal misinformation is frustrating because it’s not easy to police the people you know from saying crazy things on Facebook. The result is that both kinds of misinformation tend to rise to the top of Facebook’s news feeds because they get more engagement than posts about recent research findings reported in scholarly scientific articles or even in the mainstream press.
Communicating about research in real time is hard because science is always a work in progress, with caveats and answers that are not always definitive. That doesn’t translate well to social media or Facebook’s algorithms that determine which posts to promote. “Oftentimes that kind of content just does not work well in terms of engagement,” Kang said, “because it’s not the kind of stuff that people will immediately try to share.” The antiscience opposition doesn’t care about the caveats. Kang pointed out that “super figures” on social media, such as Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino, have built up a loyal following of people who will believe them no matter what.
As tempting as it may be for frustrated scientists to simply delete their Facebook accounts and avoid this dreck, Kang believes that a better approach for them is to engage more aggressively by being “out there,” competing for people’s attention by the same rules. Refusing to play hardball on the social media field is not serving science or society well. The pandemic has seen the rise of numerous scientists on Twitter who have amassed relatively large followings, but their presence on Facebook is much smaller. Although Twitter is a powerful platform for political messages that get liked and retweeted, people tend to trust individuals they know on Facebook, making it powerful for changing hearts and minds. To do battle in this arena, science will need to find its own super figures who can compete directly with the Shapiros and Bonginos of the antiscience world. Some of these new figures might be practicing scientists, and some might be science communicators. What is crucial is a knack for cutting through the caveats and conditions and forcefully conveying the bottom line. Like their opponents, they need to be adept at strategically exploiting the algorithms that can push a post to the forefront or bury it in the never-ending racket.
Since the end of World War II, scientists have stick to the idea that if they stay objective and state the science, then the rest of the world will follow. As the pandemic cycles on, it’s time to face the fact that this old notion is naive.
1. Correct science information can’t convey to the public because .A.The scientists are incapable. |
B.The government doesn’t want to alarm the public. |
C.The organization which against science is too strong. |
D.The public are not willing to receive the information. |
A.We shouldn’t use Facebook. |
B.Most information released on Facebook is unreal. |
C.Scientists on Facebook are frequently banned to post their thoughts. |
D.Facebook is becoming a tool of scientists. |
A.By using misleading algorithms. |
B.By deleting the posts of some scientists’. |
C.By stopping their services. |
D.By setting obstacles caused by information asymmetry(信息不对称). |
A.The government should not intervene the activities of netizens. |
B.Facebook should relax their control towards the information about the pandemic. |
C.It is ridiculous for the society to ban the useful and trustworthy messages. |
D.The government should publish things about pandemic to comfort the public. |