1 . Types of Social Groups
Life places us in a complex web of relationships with other people. Our humanness arises out of these relationships in the course of social interaction. Moreover, our humanness must be sustained through social interaction -- and fairly constantly so. When an association continues long enough for two people to become linked together by a relatively stable set of expectations, it is called a relationship.
People are bound within relationships by two types of bonds: expressive ties and instrumental ties. Expressive ties are social links formed when we emotionally invest ourselves in and commit ourselves to other people. Through association with people who are meaningful to us, we achieve a sense of security, love, acceptance, companionship, and personal worth. Instrumental ties are social links focused when we cooperate with other people to achieve some goal.
Occasionally, this may mean working with, instead of against, competitors. More often, we simply cooperate with others to reach some end without endowing the relationship with any larger significance.
Sociologists have built on the distinction between expressive and instrumental ties to distinguish between two types of groups: primary and secondary. A primary group involves two or more people who enjoy a direct, intimate, cohesive relationship with one another. Expressive ties predominate in primary groups: we view the people as ends in themselves and valuable in their own right. A secondary group entails two or more people who are involved in an impersonal relationship and have come together for a specific, practical purpose. Instrumental ties predominate in secondary groups ; we perceive people as means to ends rather than as ends in their own right. sometimes primary group relationships evolve out of secondary group relationships. This happens in many work settings. People on the job often develop close relationships with coworkers as they come to share gripes, jokes, gossip, and satisfactions.
A number of conditions enhance the likelihood that primary groups will arise. First, group size is important. We find it difficult to get to know people personally when they are milling about and dispersed in large groups. In small groups we have a better chance to initiate contact and establish rapport with them. Second, face - to - face contact allows us to size up others. Seeing and talking with one another in close physical proximity makes possible a subtle exchange of ideas and feelings. And third, the probability that we will develop primary group bonds increases as we have frequent and continuous contact. Our ties with people often deepen as we interact with them across time and gradually evolve interlocking habits and interests.
Primary groups are fundamental to us and to society. Sociologists view primary groups as bridges between individuals and the larger society because they transmit, mediate, and interpret a society’s cultural patterns and provide the sense of oneness so critical for social solidarity. Primary groups, then serve both as carriers of social norms and as enforcers of them.
1. According to Paragraph 1, which of the following statements is true of a relationship?| A．It is a structure of associations with many people. |
| B．It should be studied in the course of social interaction. |
| C．It places great demands on people. |
| D．It develops gradually over time. |
| A．Secondary group relationships begin by being primary group relationships. |
| B．A secondary group relationship that is highly visible quickly becomes a primary group relationship. |
| C．Sociologists believe that only primary group relationships are important to society. |
| D．Even in secondary groups, frequent communication serves to bring people into close relationships. |
| A．enlarge | B．evaluate |
| C．impress | D．accept |
| A．drawing comparisons between theory and practice |
| B．presenting two opposing theories |
| C．defining important concepts |
| D．discussing causes and their effects |
2 . Mental illness and disability were family problems for English people living between 1660 and 1800. Most women and men who suffered from mental illness were not institutionalized as this was the period before the extensive building of mental hospitals. Instead, they were housed at home, and cared for by other family members.
Now a new study by Cambridge historian Dr. Elizabeth Foyster will reveal the impact on families of caring for mentally ill and disabled relatives.
Much has been written about the insane themselves but few studies have considered mental illness from the perspective of the carers. The lifetime burden of caring for those individuals whose mental development did not progress beyond childhood, and who contemporaries labeled as ‘idiots’ or ‘fools’, has been little explored by historians. Foyster’s research, which has been funded by the Leverhulme Trust, will carefully examine the emotional and economic consequences for families at a time when the Poor Law bound them to look after their mentally ill and disabled family members.
By asking key questions about the impact of ‘care in the community’ in the 18th century, Foyster hopes that her research will bridge social and medical history. Specifically, she aims to provide an historical perspective for contemporary debates such as how resources can be stretched to provide for children with learning difficulties and an aging population.
“The stresses and strains of family were worsened by high infant mortality and low life expectancy, and many individuals were pushed towards mental breakdown,” she explained. “Moreover, inherited conditions, senility(高龄) and what today would be described as ‘special needs’ could put great emotional demands on family members who had primary responsibility for their sick or disabled relatives.”
The research will shed light upon how caring for the mentally ill and disabled raised difficult issues for families about the limits of intergenerational responsibility, and whether family ties were weakened or strengthened by the experience. The questions of how far shame was attached to having insanity or idiocy within a family, and at what point families began to seek outside help, will also be addressed.
“The family must have seemed an inescapable feature of daily life between 1660 and 1800,” said Foyster. “Although there were those who were abandoned and rejected, for the majority, mental disability was accommodated within the family unit. I aim to get to the heart of what this really meant for people’s lives.”
1. Which is NOT the reason why those mentally ill and disabled were not institutionalized from 1660 to 1800?| A．Mental illness and disability were family problems then. |
| B．The extensive building of mental hospitals didn’t start yet. |
| C．They were abandoned by the government and the family. |
| D．The family would be found guilty if they didn’t care for them. |
| A．Because it can provide some food for thought for some current social issues. |
| B．Because the stresses and strains of family life have driven many people crazy. |
| C．Because she’s looking for ways to communicate with the sick or disabled people. |
| D．Because the limits of intergenerational responsibility in such families, interest her. |
| A．How should resources today be stretched to provide for an aging population? |
| B．How did caring for the sick and disabled affect the family’s earning power? |
| C．How shameful did a family feel when their insane or disabled relatives were found out? |
| D．At what point did those families have to begin to look for outside help? |
| A．reveal the impact on families of caring for mentally ill and disabled relatives |
| B．provide an historical perspective to contemporary debates |
| C．shed light upon whether family ties were weakened or strengthened |
| D．introduce a new historical study carried out by a Cambridge historian |
3 . Hollywood’s theory that machines with evil(邪恶) minds will drive armies of killer robots is just silly. The real problem relates to the possibility that artificial intelligence(AI) may become extremely good at achieving something other than what we really want. In 1960 a well-known mathematician Norbert Wiener, who founded the field of cybernetics（控制论）, put it this way: “If we use, to achieve our purposes, a mechanical agency with whose operation we cannot effectively interfere(干预), we had better be quite sure that the purpose put into the machine is the purpose which we really desire.”
A machine with a specific purpose has another quality, one that we usually associate with living things: a wish to preserve its own existence. For the machine, this quality is not in-born, nor is it something introduced by humans; it is a logical consequence of the simple fact that the machine cannot achieve its original purpose if it is dead. So if we send out a robot with the single instruction of fetching coffee, it will have a strong desire to secure success by disabling its own off switch or even killing anyone who might interfere with its task. If we are not careful, then, we could face a kind of global chess match against very determined, super intelligent machines whose objectives conflict with our own, with the real world as the chessboard.
The possibility of entering into and losing such a match should concentrate the minds of computer scientists. Some researchers argue that we can seal the machines inside a kind of firewall, using them to answer difficult questions but never allowing them to affect the real world. Unfortunately, that plan seems unlikely to work: we have yet to invent a firewall that is secure against ordinary humans, let alone super intelligent machines.
Solving the safety problem well enough to move forward in AI seems to be possible but not easy. There are probably decades in which to plan for the arrival of super intelligent machines. But the problem should not be dismissed out of hand, as it has been by some AI researchers. Some argue that humans and machines can coexist as long as they work in teams—yet that is not possible unless machines share the goals of humans. Others say we can just “switch them off” as if super intelligent machines are too stupid to think of that possibility. Still others think that super intelligent AI will never happen. On September 11, 1933, famous physicist Ernest Rutherford stated, with confidence, “Anyone who expects a source of power in the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.” However, on September 12, 1933, physicist Leo Szilard invented the neutron-induced(中子诱导) nuclear chain reaction.
1. Paragraph 1 mainly tells us that artificial intelligence may .| A．run out of human control |
| B．satisfy human’s real desires |
| C．command armies of killer robots |
| D．work faster than a mathematician |
| A．prevent themselves from being destroyed |
| B．achieve their original goals independently |
| C．do anything successfully with given orders |
| D．beat humans in international chess matches |
| A．help super intelligent machines work better |
| B．be secure against evil human beings |
| C．keep machines from being harmed |
| D．avoid robots’ affecting the world |
| A．It will disappear with the development of AI. |
| B．It will get worse with human interference. |
| C．It will be solved but with difficulty. |
| D．It will stay for a decade. |
