1 . The sun is setting, brightening your kids’ faces as they play in the waves. You reach for your phone for this perfect moment. But before you do, here’s a bit of surprising science: Taking photos is not the perfect way to keep memory as you think.
Taking too many pictures could actually harm the brain’s ability to keep memories, says Elizabeth Loftus, a psychology professor at the University of California, Irvine. So we get the photo but kind of lose the memory.
Photography “outsources” memories. It works in two ways: We either shake off the responsibility of remembering moments when taking pictures, or we’re so distracted (分散注意力的) by the process that we miss the moment altogether.
The first explanation is the loss of memory. People know that their camera is recording that moment, so they don’t try to remember. Similarly, if you write down someone’s phone number, you’re less likely to remember it offhand because your brain tells you there’s just no need. That’s all well and good — until that piece of paper goes missing.
The other is distraction. We’re distracted by the process of taking a photo—how we hold our phone, composing the photo, such as smiling faces, the background to our liking and clear image, all of which uses up our attention that could otherwise help us memorize.
However, taking photos can benefit memory — when done mindfully. While taking a photo may be distracting, the act of preparation by focusing on visual details around has some upsides. When people take the time to zoom in (拉近镜头) on specific things, memories become strengthened.
Another benefit is that we recall moments more accurately with the photos. Memory has been reshaped with the help of new information and new experiences. Thus, photos or videos help us recall moments as if they really happened.
Memories die away without a visual record backing them up. Therefore, a photo is an excellent tool to help remember when done purposefully, which is worth exploring further.
1. What is the purpose of the first paragraph?| A．To call on readers not to take photos. | B．To introduce the topic. |
| C．To show the interest in taking photos. | D．To make us think of similar experience. |
| A．People depend more on photos to remember than their brains. |
| B．Many sources influence people’s memories during photo-taking. |
| C．Photos are more detailed than memories. |
| D．Taking photos is helpful for us to memorize. |
| A．Situations when taking photos is better. |
| B．How to use photo-taking to memorize better. |
| C．When distraction is most likely to happen. |
| D．How to stay focused while taking photos. |
| A．The Fewer Photos We Take, the Better We Will Remember. |
| B．Too Many Photos Taken Results in Poor Memories. |
| C．Photography Does Help to Memories. |
| D．Remember the Moment and Take Photos Properly. |
2 . Who is a Real Danger? Cyclists or Pedestrians?
We are having a debate about this topic. Here are some letters from our readers.
Yes, many cyclists behave dangerously. Many drivers are disrespectful of cyclists. But pedestrians are probably the worst offenders.
People of all ages happily walk along the pavement with eyes and hands glued to their mobile phones, quite unaware of what is going on around them. They may even do the same thing while crossing a road at a pedestrian crossing or elsewhere. The rest of us have to evade (避让) them or just stand still to wait for the unavoidable collision.
The real problem is that some pedestrians seem to be, at least for the moment, in worlds of their own that are, to them, much more important than the welfare of others.
—Michael Horan
I love the letter from Bob Brooks about cyclists (Viewpoints, May 29). I am afraid they seem to think they own the roads.
I was walking across Altrincham Road one morning when a cyclist went round me and, on being asked what he was doing, shouted at me.
The government built a cycle lane on the road, but it is hardly used.
The police do nothing. What a laugh they are!
The cyclists should all have to be made to use the cycle lanes and wear helmets, fluorescent (发荧光的) jackets and lights at night and in the morning. They should pay some sort of tax and be fined for not wearing them.
—Carol Harvey
Cyclists jump on and off pavements (which are meant for pedestrians), ride at speed along the pavements, and think they have a special right to go through traffic lights when they are on red.
I was almost knocked down recently by a cyclist riding on the pavement when there was a cycle lane right next to him.
Other road users, including horse riders, manage to obey the rules. So why not cyclists?
It’s about time they were registered and insured, so when they do hit a pedestrian or a vehicle or cause an accident, at least they can be treated and there might be an opportunity to claim compensation.
—JML
Write to Viewpoints of the newspaper.
1. Michael Horan wrote the letter mainly to show that __________.
| A．walking while using phones hurts one’s eyes |
| B．some pedestrians are a threat to road safety |
| C．road accidents can actually be avoided |
| D．drivers should be polite to cyclists |
| A．be provided with enough roads | B．be made to pay less tax for cycling |
| C．be asked to ride on their own lanes | D．be fined for laughing at policemen |
| A．ways to improve road safety | B．the real source of road danger |
| C．measures to punish road offences | D．increased awareness of road rules |
3 . In a new blog post for the International Monetary Fund, four researchers presented their findings from a working paper that examines the current relationship between finance and tech as well as its potential future.
Gazing into their crystal ball, the researchers see the possibility of using the data from your browsing, search, and purchase history to create a more accurate mechanism for determining the credit rating of an individual or business. They believe that this approach could result in greater lending to borrowers who would potentially be denied by traditional financial institutions.
At its heart, the paper is trying to wrestle with the dawning notion that the institutional banking system is facing a serious threat from tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple. The researchers identify two key areas in which this is true: Tech companies have greater access to soft-information, and messaging platforms can take the place of the physical locations that banks rely on for meeting with customers.
The concept of using your web history to inform credit ratings is framed around the notion that lenders rely on hard-data that might hide the worthiness of a borrower or paint an unnecessarily bad picture during hard times. Citing soft-data points like "the type of browser and hardware used to access the internet, the history of online searches and purchases" that could be included in evaluating a borrower, the researchers believe that when a lender has a closer relationship with the potential client's history, they might be more willing to cut them some slack.
"Banks tend to cushion credit terms for their long-term customers during downturns," the paper's authors write. This is because they have a history and relationship with the customer.
The researchers acknowledge that there will be privacy and policy concerns related to including this kind of soft-data in credit analysis. Getting the soft-data points would probably require companies like Facebook and Apple to loosen up their standards on linking unencrypted information with individual accounts. How they might share information with other institutions would be its own can of worms.
1. What is the approach put forward by the researchers?| A．Replacing banks with soft information. | B．Lending money by predicting the future. |
| C．Determining credit ratings by web history. | D．Facing the threat posed by high-tech companies. |
| A．Traditional finance refuse to lend money. |
| B．The new approach helps reduce burden on banks. |
| C．The type of hardware misleads the lender’s judgement. |
| D．Soft information better reflects the truth than hard data. |
| A．Be less strict. | B．Share interests. | C．Forgive others’ fault. | D．Cut a piece of bread. |
| A．Banks will break up with customers. |
| B．High tech companies will be in a mess. |
| C．Sharing information may cause problems of privacy. |
| D．Competition between tech companies will be more fierce. |
4 . NOT that long ago, the world wondered whether clean energy could survive without government support. Now the question is how far it can spread. The number of electric vehicles, which was about 1 million in 2015, last year reached 2 million. In electricity generation, too, trend is with the greens. In the first half of this year wind, solar and hydro generated a record 35% of Germany's power.
Greater success is breeding greater ambition. California is proposing to reach 60% renewable energy by 2030. 176 countries have clean-energy goals. Hawaii, America's most oil-dependent state, has promised to be 100% renewable by the middle of the century and so have 48 poor countries vulnerable to climate change. This week the number of multinationals making a commitment to running their operations on 100% renewable energy rose to 100.
But not every target is helpful. To see why, consider that goal of 100% renewable energy. It makes solving climate change seem easy. In fact, though wind and solar can generate the whole country's electricity some day, renewables still account for less than 8% of the world's total power output. Moreover, cleaning up electricity is only part of the battle. Even though gas-fired heating and cooking can be at least as big a source of greenhouse-gas emissions, renewable heating gets little attention. Transport policy is unpredictable, too. Carmakers may hit their goal of annual sales of 10 million electric vehicles in a decade, but battery-powered road transport, shipping and aviation are dreams. A much-quoted claim that America could rely on wind, solar and hydro alone for its electricity has recently been bitterly criticized by a group of respected academics.
Most importantly, a 100% renewables target confuses means with ends. The priority for the planet is to stop net emissions（净排放量）of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. Putting too much emphasis on wind, solar and other renewables may block off better carbon-reduction paths. New technologies, such as "direct air capture" systems designed to separate carbon dioxide from the air, may in time prove vital. Likewise, greater energy efficiency could reduce emissions by even more than using renewables would.
1. Why is Germany mentioned in Paragraph 1?| A．To introduce the topic. |
| B．To compare with the USA. |
| C．To prove the possibility of the 100% renewables target. |
| D．To provide a successful example of producing clean energy. |
| A．A tough fight against climate change. |
| B．A promising future of clean energy. |
| C．A huge market of electric vehicles. |
| D．A fierce competition between countries. |
| A．Car makers cannot produce enough batteries. |
| B．Use of traditional energies causes air pollution. |
| C．Wind and solar energy will never meet the needs of a country. |
| D．New energy doesn't receive its due attention in every aspect of society. |
| A．New energy plays a minor role in reality. |
| B．Energy efficiency is prior to using renewables. |
| C．Mxiing up means with purposes matters most. |
| D．The target of 100 renewables is too high to reach. |
