1 . By now you’ve probably heard about the “you’re not special” speech, when English teacher David McCullough told graduating seniors at Wellesley High School: "Do not get the idea you're anything special, because you're not." Mothers and fathers present at the ceremony — and a whole lot of other parents across the internet — took issue with McCullough's ego-puncturing words. But lost in the anger and protest was something we really should be taking to heart: our young people actually have no idea whether they're particularly talented or accomplished or not. In our eagerness to elevate their self-esteem, we forgot to teach them how to realistically assess their own abilities, a crucial requirement for getting better at anything from math to music to sports. In fact, it's not just privileged high-school students: we all tend to view ourselves as above average.

Such inflated (膨胀的) self-judgments have been found in study after study, and it's often exactly when we're least competent at a given task that we rate our performance most generously. In a 2006 study published in the journal Medical Education, for example, medical students who scored the lowest on an essay test were the most charitable in their self-evaluations, while high-scoring students judged themselves much more strictly. Poor students, the authors note, "lack insight" into their own inadequacy. Why should this be? Another study, led by Cornell University psychologist David Dunning, offers an enlightening explanation. People who are incompetent, he writes with co-author Justin Kruger, suffer from a "dual burden": they're not good at what they do, and their wry ineptness (笨拙) prevents them from recognizing how bad they are.

In Dunning and Kruger's study, subjects scoring at the bottom of the heap on tests of logic, grammar and humor "extremely overestimated" their talents. Although their test scores put them in the 12^th percentile, they guessed they were in the 62^nd. What these individuals lacked (in addition to clear logic, proper grammar and a sense of humor) was "metacognitive skill" (元认知技巧): the capacity to monitor how well they're performing. In the absence of that capacity, the subjects arrived at an overly hopeful view of their own abilities. There's a paradox (悖论) here, the authors note: “The skills that develop competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate competence in that domain. "In other words, to get better at judging how well we’re doing at an activity, we have to get better at the activity itself.

There are a couple of ways out of this double bind (两难). First, we can learn to make honest comparisons with others. Train yourself to recognize excellence, even when you yourself don't possess it, and compare what you can do against what truly excellent individuals are able to accomplish. Second, seek out feedback that is frequent, accurate and specific. Find a critic who will tell you not only how poorly you're doing, but just what it is that you're doing wrong. As Dunning and Kruger note, success indicates to us that everything went right, but failure is more ambiguous: any number of things could have gone wrong. Use this external feedback to figure out exactly where and when you screwed up.

If we adopt these strategies — and most importantly, teach them to our children — they won't need parents, or a commencement(毕业典礼) speaker, to tell them that they're special. They'll already know that they are, or have a plan to get that way.

1. The underlined phrase "took issue with" in paragraph 1 most probably means      .

A．totally approved of	B．disagreed with
C．fully understood	D．held discussion about

2. The author thinks the problem that shouldn't be overlooked is that      .

A．we don’t know whether our young people are talented or not

B．young people can't reasonably define themselves

C．no requirement is set up for young people to get better

D．we always tend to consider ourselves to be privileged

3. Which is NOT mentioned about poor students according to the passage?

A．They lack the capacity to monitor how well they are performing.

B．They usually give themselves high scores in self-evaluations.

C．They tend to be unable to know exactly how bad they are.

D．They are intelligently inadequate in tests and exams.

4. We can infer from the passage that those high-scoring students      .

A．are not confident about their logic and grammar

B．tend to be very competent in their high-scoring fields

C．don't know how well they perform due to their stringent self-judgment

D．is very careful about their self-evaluations because they have their own limits

5. The strategies of becoming special suggest that      .

A．the best way to recognize excellence is to study past success and failure

B．through comparison with others, one will know where and when he fails

C．we need internal honesty with ourselves and external honesty from others

D．neither parents nor a commencement speaker can tell whether one is special

6. Which can be the best title of this passage?

A．Special or Not? Teach Kids To Figure It Out

B．Let's Admit That We Are Not That Special

C．Tips On Making Ourselves More Special

D．Tell The Truth: Kids Overestimate their Talents

2 . In a recent series of experiments at the University of California, researchers studied toddlers’ thinking about winners and losers, bullies (欺凌) and victims.

In the first experiment, toddlers (学步儿童) watched a scene in which two puppets (木偶) had conflicting goals: One was crossing a stage from right to left, and the other from left to right. The puppets met in the middle and stopped. Eventually one puppet bowed down and moved aside, letting the other one pass by. Then researchers asked the toddlers which puppet they liked. The result: 20 out of 23 toddlers picked the higher-status puppet — the one that did not bow or move aside. It seems that individuals can gain status for being dominant (占优势的) and toddlers like winners better than losers.

But then researchers had another question: Do toddlers like winners no matter how they win? So, researchers did another experiment very similar to the one described above. But this time, the conflict ended because one puppet knocked the other down and out of the way. Now when the toddlers were asked who they liked, the results were different: Only 4 out of 23 children liked the winner.

These data suggest that children already love a winner by the age of 21-31 months. This does not necessarily mean that the preference is inborn: 21 months is enough time to learn a lot of things. But if a preference for winners is something we learn, we appear to learn it quite early.

Even more interesting, the preference for winners is not absolute. Children in our study did not like a winner who knocked a competitor down. This suggests that already by the age of 21-31 months, children’s liking for winners is balanced with other social concerns, including perhaps a general preference for nice or helpful people over aggressive ones.

In a time when the news is full of stories of public figures who celebrate winning at all costs, these results give us much confidence. Humans understand dominance, but we also expect strong individuals to guide, protect and help others. This feels like good news.

1. One of the purposes of the experiments is to ________.

A．teach toddlers how to gain higher status

B．offer toddlers a chance to watch a scene

C．observe the process of toddlers’ solving a conflict

D．find out toddlers’ attitude toward winners and losers

2. The toddlers regarded bowing and moving aside as a sign of ________.

A．obeying rules

B．gaining status

C．giving in to the other

D．showing good manners

3. What does the second experiment tell us about toddlers?

A．They are excellent learners.

B．They are always changeable.

C．They show mercy to the loser.

D．They value kindness over winning.

4. What does the author think of the results of the series of experiments?

A．Disappointing.	B．Encouraging.
C．Unexpected.	D．Controversial.