1 . Have we reached the peak of the culture war? Looking at my social media feeds, it seems that polarised thinking and misinformation have never been more common. How am I supposed to feel when users I once admired now draw on questionable evidence to support their beliefs?
Perhaps it is time for us all to adopt a little “existential humility”. I came across this idea in a paper by Jeffrey Greenat Virginia from Common Wealth University and his colleagues. They build on a decade of research examining the benefits of “intellectual humility” more generally — our ability to recognise the errors in our judgement and remain aware of the limits of our knowledge.
You can get a flavour of this research by rating your agreement with the following statements, ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very like me): I question my own opinions because they could be wrong; I recognise the value in opinions that are different from my own; in the face of conflicting evidence, I am open to changing my opinions.
People who score highly on this assessment are less likely to form knee-jerk reactions on a topic, and they find it easier to consider the strengths or weaknesses of a logical argument. They are less likely to be influenced by misinformation, since they tend to read the article in full, investigate the sources of a news story and compare its reporting to other statements, before coming to a strong conclusion about its truth.
Developing “intellectual humility” would be an excellent idea in all fields, but certain situations may make it particularly difficult to achieve. Greenat points out that some beliefs are so central to our identity that any challenge can activate an existential crisis, as if our whole world view and meaning in life are under threat. As a result, we become more insistent in our opinions and seek any way to protect them. This may reduce some of our feelings of uncertainty, but it comes at the cost of more analytical thinking.
For these reasons, Greenat defines “existential humility” as the capacity to entertain the thought of another world view without becoming so defensive and closed-minded. So how could we achieve it? This will be the subject of future research, but the emotion of awe (a feeling of great respect and admiration) may offer one possibility. One study found that watching awe-inspiring videos about space and the universe led to humbler thinking, including a greater capacity to admit weaknesses.
Perhaps we could all benefit from interrupting our despair with awe-inspiring content. At the very least, we can try to question our preconceptions before offering our views on social media and be a little less ready to criticize when others disagree.
1. Regarding the culture war on social media, the author is _______.| A．embarrassed | B．concerned | C．panicked | D．stressed |
| A．Existential humility reduces the threat to identity. |
| B．People with intellectual humility tend to jump to conclusions. |
| C．Awe could promote existential humility by encouraging modest thinking. |
| D．The higher you score on the assessment, the more you stick to your values. |
| A．Overcome an Existential Crisis | B．Show a Little Humility |
| C．The Path to Screening Information | D．The Approach to Achieving Humility |
2 . We have been defending humanities for many decades now, but the crisis of the humanities only grows. In the face of declining student interest and mounting political scrutiny (审查), universities and colleges are increasingly putting humanities departments on the chopping block.
As a humanist, I am prepared to admit that I do not know what the value of the humanities is. I once asked the best teacher I ever had why she no longer taught her favorite novel, and she said that she stopped teaching a book when she found she was no longer curious about it. The humanistic spirit is, fundamentally, an inquisitive one.
In contrast, defenses of the humanities are not - and cannot be - conducted in an inquisitive spirit, because a defensive spirit is inimical to an inquisitive one. Defensiveness is, it must be admitted, an understandable response when the chopping block is brought out and you need to explain why you shouldn’t be on it, which requires their participants to pretend to know things that they do not actually know.
Nonetheless, we should be alert to the danger of becoming accustomed to putting our worst foot forward. An atmosphere of urgency and calls for immediate action are hostile to fields of study like literature and philosophy that require a reflective mood, and the pretense (假装) of knowing what one doesn’t actually know is hostile to forms of inquiry that demand an open mind.
A defensive mindset also encourages politicization. If the study of literature or philosophy helps to fight sexism or to promote democracy — and everyone agrees that sexism is bad, and democracy is good-then you have your answer as to why we shouldn’t cut funding for the study of literature or philosophy. Politicization is a way of arming the humanities for its political battles, but it comes at an intellectual cost. Why is sexism so bad? Why is democracy so good? Politicization silences these and other questions, whereas the function of the humanities is to raise them.
Humanists are not alone in their ignorance about the purpose of their disciplines. But scientists are under a lot less pressure to explain why they exist because the society at large believes itself to already have the answer to that question. If at some point I am called on to defend the study of Homer or Descartes at some official hearing, I will do my best, but I will not run to battle; the battle will have to come to me.
The task of humanists is to invite, to welcome, to excite, to engage. And when we let ourselves classrooms but also in our public-self presentation, we find we don’t need to defend or prove anything: We are irresistible.
1. What is the main concern regarding the crisis in humanities?| A．Students’ lack of interest in studying humanities courses. |
| B．People’s little knowledge regarding the purpose of humanities. |
| C．The mounting political scrutiny faced by humanities departments. |
| D．The pressure on humanists to argue for the value of their disciplines. |
| A．contrary. | B．relevant. | C．sensitive. | D．immune. |
| A．It is the worst action to take in the face of the crisis. |
| B．It leads to a compromise on human’s intellectual depth. |
| C．It requires a reflective mood on the study of humanities. |
| D．It brings about a lower chance of survival for humanities. |
| A．Humanities may not need any defense. | B．Science is more useful than humanities. |
| C．The future of humanities remains cloudy. | D．The battle of humanities is a hard one to fight. |
3 . Borders, departments, or issue areas all represent what systems analysts call system boundaries. System boundaries divide the big, messy, interconnected world into smaller subsystems. This is useful, even necessary. Our minds and our collective governance systems would be stuck if we had to always consider all the connections of everything to everything else. But dividing systems into subsystems can sometimes break a natural cooperativity. For instance, a decarbonizing country will spend money in its energy and transportation sectors and save money in its health system.
Decarbonization could be a win for the whole, but it might be experienced as a bother for particular subsystems.
Donella Meadows, the early systems modeler, wrote that system boundaries are “lines in the mind, not in the world.” And that is actually good news. If departments, and disciplines are just ideas, then there is nothing immovable about them. We can make these borders less obvious and conduct partnerships across them. We can even redraw them to include more of what matters in a single project or investment. That’s the premise of multisolving — using one investment of time or effort to achieve several goals at once.
For instance, Warm Up New Zealand (WUNZ) upgraded the energy efficiency of residential buildings and provided jobs in the building sector after a financial downturn. The project resulted in better health for residents, as well. That translated into health systems savings. Taken together, a 2011 study estimated that across all these benefits, the project saved $3.90 for every $1 invested.
Multisolving seems possible everywhere and like an obvious choice. Yet, it is very much the exception, not the rule. Why is multisolving still so rare when it has the power to boost progress on some of the most urgent issues we face?
Unfamiliarity stands in the way, as does an often-unexamined assumption that making issues smaller makes them easier to address. We often hear the viewpoint, “I already work on poverty (or climate, etc.) and that’s hard enough. Why should I add biodiversity or pollution to the mix?” Fundraising for crossing borders can be a struggle too. Funders want the “visible results” shown, but they don’t always see crossing borders as an essential part of achieving those results.
It is easy to devalue and underemphasize connection-building. After all, it can be delicate and not always visible. But to realize goals in today’s world, from equitable policies and low-carbon facilities to values like cooperation and fairness, we do need deep shifts, and we need them soon. And facilitating the flow of ideas back and forth across borders is one way to speed change.
1. As for systems boundaries, the author is ______.| A．critical | B．puzzled | C．supportive | D．unconcerned |
| A．Prediction. | B．Precondition. | C．Prevention. | D．Presentation. |
| A．People are familiar with multisolving. |
| B．WUNZ performed multisolving successfully. |
| C．Raising money helps to produce visible results. |
| D．Multisolving is widely used to address problems. |
| A．Multisolving: Hard to achieve soon |
| B．Multisolving: Essential to solve small issues |
| C．Multisolving: Conducting partnership across borders |
| D．Multisolving: Making systems whole, healthy, and sustainable |
If you listen to the stream of articles and podcasts telling us how to become a billionaire in 10 easy steps, you might hold the belief that squeezing ourselves dry each second of the day will bring happiness and success.
But this obsession with productivity is costing us. Even a car doesn’t stay in the same gear the whole time. “We are not machines,” says psychologist Professor Drew Dawson. “Performance declines as a function of time, of task and time of day.”
Instead of moments of boredom, where we might let our minds wander and come up with novel solutions to problems and novel ways of thinking, we seek constant stimulation - and have a lowered tolerance for boredom as a result.
“It leads people to a false assumption that the world’s most successful people are literally making good use of every single minute,” Dawson says. “That’s a myth. We’re not hardwired to act that way as humans, and it’s a good recipe for burnout.”
COVID-19, for a variety of reasons, has led people to question and even opt out of this myth. “Who wants to lie on their deathbed going, ‘I wish I’d been more productive’?” Dawson says. “Post-COVID, people are starting to say, ‘what am I losing compared to what am I gaining?’”
So, if not more productivity, what should we be aiming for?
·Get our priorities straight.
A life spent chasing the state of being able to do everything is less meaningful than a life of focusing on a few things that count. We can reflect on five things that matter most to us and lead a life around them. Once clear on them, we also become clear on where to direct our attention and what to say “no” to.
·Enjoy downtime(停工期)for its own sake
Glorifying productivity can blind us to the value of other parts of our lives, including boredom, connection, creativity and play. But activities in our lives don’t need to always be productive or worthwhile-enjoying an activity is reason enough to spend time on it.
We weren’t meant to be productive all the time, so stop constantly struggling, and start chilling.
1. What does “obsession with productivity” refer to in the passage?2. How has COVID-19 changed the situation according to the passage?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then underline it and explain why.
It is more meaningful to focus on a few things that count in life, so we can reflect on five things in our life to say “no” to. 4. Do you agree with the statement “enjoying an activity is reason enough to spend time on it”? Why or why not?(In about 40 words)
5 . The need for clarity extends beyond how we communicate science to how we evaluate it. Who can really define stock phrases such as ‘a significant contribution to research’? Or understand what ‘high impact’ or ‘world-class’ mean? Scientists demand that institutions should be clear about their criteria and consider all scholarly outputs—preprints, code, data, peer review, teaching, mentoring and so on.
My view about the practices in research assessment is that most assessment guidelines permit sliding standards: instead of clearly defined terms, they give us feel-good slogans that lack any fixed meaning. Facing the problem will get us much of the way towards a solution.
Broad language increases room for misunderstanding. ‘High impact’ can be code for where research is published. Or it can mean the effect that research has had on its field, or on society locally or globally—often very different things. Yet confusion is the least of the problems. Words such as ‘world-class’ and ‘excellent’ allow assessors to vary comparisons depending on whose work they are assessing. Academia(学术界) cannot be a fair and reasonable system if standards change depending on whom we are evaluating. Unconscious bias(偏见) associated with factors such as a researcher’s gender, ethnic origin and social background helps the academic injustice continue. It was only with double-blind review of research proposals that women finally got fair access to the Hubble Space Telescope.
Many strategies exist to improve fairness in academia, but conceptual clarity is paramount. Being clear about how specific qualities are valued leads assessors to think critically about whether those qualities are truly being considered. Achieving that conceptual clarity requires discussion with faculties, staff and students: hours and hours of it. The University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, for example, held a series of conversations, each involving 20-60 researchers, and then spent another year revising its research assessment policies to recognize social impacts.
Frank conversations about what is valued in a particular context, or at a specific institution, are an essential first step in developing concrete recommendations. Although ambiguous(模棱两可的) terms, for instance ‘world-class’ and ‘significant’, are a barrier when performing assessments, university administrators have said that they rely on flexible language to make room to reward a variety of contributions. So it makes sense that more specific language in review and promotion must be able to accommodate varied outputs, outcomes and impacts of scholarly work.
Setting specific standards will be tough. It will be inviting to fall back on the misleading standards such as impact factors, or on ambiguous terms that can be agreed to by everyone but applied wisely by no one. It is too early to know what those standards will be or how much they will vary, but the right discussions are starting to happen. They must continue.
1. Regarding the current practices in research assessment, the author is ________.| A．supportive | B．puzzled |
| C．unconcerned | D．disapproving |
| A．Bias on assessors can cause inequality. | B．Frank conversations harm scholarly work. |
| C．Specific qualities need to be clearly stated. | D．Broad language ensures academic fairness. |
| A．primary. | B．recognized. |
| C．optional. | D．accomplished. |
| A．Fix research assessment. Change slogans for clear standards. |
| B．Fix research assessment. Change evaluations for conversations. |
| C．Define research assessment. Change simplicity for specification. |
| D．Define research assessment. Change broad language for flexible one. |
6 . Supermarkets have long been suffering as one of the thinnest-margined businesses in existence and one of the least-looked-forward-to places to work or visit. For more than a decade, they have been under attack from e-commerce giants, blamed for making Americans fat, and accused of contributing to climate change.
Supermarkets can technically be defined as giants housing 15,000 to 60,000 different products. The revolutionary idea of a self-service grocery, where people could hunt and gather food from aisles rather than asking a clerk to fetch items from behind a counter, first came about in America. There is some debate about which was the very first, but over the years a consensus has built around King Kullen Supermarket, founded in New York in 1930.
For some 300 years, Americans had fed themselves from small stores and public markets. Shopping for food involved mud, noisy chickens, clouds of flies, nasty smells, bargaining, and getting short-changed. The supermarket imitated the Fordist factory, with its emphasis on efficiency and standardization, and reimagined it as a place to buy food. Supermarkets may not feel cutting-edge now, but they were a revolution in distribution at the time. They were such strange marvels that, on her first official state visit to the United States in 1957, Queen Elizabeth Ⅱ insisted on an impromptu (即兴的) tour of a suburban-Maryland Giant Food.
The typical supermarket layout has barely changed over the past 90 years. Most stores open with flowers, fruit and vegetables at the front as a breath of freshness to arouse our appetite. Meanwhile, they keep the milk, eggs, and other daily basics all the way back so you’ll travel through as much of the store as possible, and be tempted along the way.
In the early days, as the supermarket multiplied, so did our suspicion of it. We have long feared that this “revolution in distribution” uses corporate black magic on our appetite. The book The Hidden Persuaders, published in 1957, warned that supermarkets were putting women in a “hypnoidal trance (催眠恍惚状态),” causing them to wander aisles, bumping into boxes and “picking things off shelves at random.”
1. What problem have supermarkets been facing?| A．They are actually on the way to shutdown. |
| B．They have been losing customers and profits. |
| C．They are forced to use e-commerce strategies. |
| D．They have difficulty adapting to climate change. |
| A．It was put forward by King Kullen. |
| B．It originated in the United States. |
| C．It has been under constant debate. |
| D．It proves revolutionary even today. |
| A．They use tricky strategies to promote their business. |
| B．They are going to replace the local groceries entirely. |
| C．They apply corporate black magic to the goods on display. |
| D．They take advantage of the weaknesses of women shoppers. |
We’ve all seen the little kids—losing temper in the toy store, screaming in restaurants and generally making a scene in public. For their parents, giving in to a kid’s monstrous behavior helps to end the mess and gain some peace and quiet, and this is where overindulgence begins.
According to Kathy Webb, a psychotherapist in Brunswick, overindulgence is the result of parents’ beliefs. A lot of overindulging parents believe their children should be happy all the time, which is the reason why the parents try to avoid conflict at all costs. They also hold that overindulgence equals love, but experts insist that being overly permissive and indulgent is not a healthy kind of love.
Overindulgence can create a myriad of wrong attitudes and behaviors in children. When overindulged, children develop unrealistic expectations which do not serve them as they grow. Healthy parenting, Webb said, means giving children unconditional love, quality time, healthy discipline and respect for what is appropriate. “Healthy parents promote good values and use everyday life experiences to teach their children,” she said.
Many parents don’t intentionally overindulge, but fail to follow through on consequences. “Consequences help children develop their own self-guidance skills,” Webb said. “Without consequences, children never learn to discipline themselves.”
But parents who have overindulged shouldn’t just throw up their hands and walk away from the situation, feeling like failures. There are steps that can be taken to turn family life around. “All is not lost,” Webb said. “You just have to take it step by step.” Identifying problems and what can be done to correct them are the first steps. This is where parents might want to invest in some counseling or parent coaching and refer to some parenting books.
Such parents should also manage to regain proper parental power. In some families, overindulging parents are acting like peers, not parents. Consistency is also important—children often imitate the behavior they see from their parents. “Say what you mean and mean what you say,” Webb said. It seems that all it takes is one raised eyebrow and a very stern look to stop the misbehaviour. But Webb believes what really grounded her children is their inclusion in the family’s life, not just the fun stuff like vacations and outings. They should also be taught to clean house, cook, and do laundry.
1. What do overindulgent parents believe?2. What is healthy parenting according to Webb?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then underline it and explain why.
To relieve overindulgence, parents can take certain steps such as acting like kids’ peers and ensuring consistency.
4. Share one parenting method that benefits your growth and explain why.(In about 40 words)
8 . Bed rotting — the practice of spending long periods of time just staying under the covers with snacks, screens and other creature comforts — is gaining popularity on social media. Some Generation Z trend followers are now viewing it as a form of self-care, but doctors warn too much could be “sign of depression”. Are these extended breaks really wise for one’s mental health — or could they be a cause for concern?
Dr. Ryan Sultan, a professor at Columbia University in New York, who treats many young people, called the bed rotting trend attractive. “In our culture today, with too much to do, too many expectations and too much productivity, many young individuals (个人) are feeling burned out and often aren’t getting enough sleep. It’s easy to see why taking time off to lie around is attractive,” Sultan said. “In many ways, this is beneficial. It’s a chance to get away from real-life problems and clear your head before returning to life in a better state of mind, ” he added.
For the downside, however, he said a long-term need or desire for bed rotting could do harm to one’s physical health. Spending too many daytime hours in bed — awake or not — could destroy sleep schedules. Our brains are fine-tuned for sleep in darkness and alertness in light. Lying in bed half-asleep during the day will worsen sleep schedules — once that happens, it is a challenge to fix. It could also lead to blood pressure problems and obesity (肥胖).
Long-term need or desire for bed rotting could also be a warning sign of depression, according to a mental health expert. Dr. Marc Siegel, professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center and a Fox News medical contributor, agreed that while some downtime can be useful in terms of de-stressing and rejuvenation (更新), too much bed rotting is a bad health practice. In addition to increasing the risk of depression, it contributes to decreased motivation (动力) as well.
Instead of bed rotting, Siegel recommends regular exercise as a better form of de-stressing. While the occasional lazy day can be beneficial, too much could have the opposite effect. If it happens every day, that’s a fairly sensitive test for depression. Those who lack the motivation to get out of bed could also try calling or texting a family member for support, socializing with close friends, finding a small task to complete, or reaching out to a medical professional for help.
1. According to Dr. Ryan Sultan, why do young people like bed rotting?| A．They are fond of what is popular on social media. | B．They are unwilling to socialize with friends. |
| C．Bed rotting is away to escape stress. | D．Bed rotting helps fix sleep schedules. |
| A．Quickly-activated. | B．Well-trained. | C．Badly-needed. | D．Ill-equipped. |
| A．Being lazy from time to time can be good for individuals. |
| B．Sleeping in light can increase the risk of depression. |
| C．Bed rotting can allow people to avoid expectations. |
| D．Feeling down leads to decreased motivation. |
| A．Different opinions on how to become motivated. |
| B．Main causes of the long-term need for bed rotting. |
| C．Practical suggestions for young people to deal with stress. |
| D．Possible problems from lying in bed for extended periods of time. |
9 . One overlooked benefit of lab-grown food is that it may help the UK deal with the crisis in housing affordability. As farming is replaced by precision fermentation (发酵) , the significant amount of land currently used for livestock farming(including parts of the green belt) will be freed up for development in places that people actually want to live.
However, we’d take a different lesson from the promise of lab-grown meat. Free-market environmentalism and harnessing the power of innovative technologies — supported by market-based measures like a border-adjusted carbon tax — can successfully tackle the problem of man-made climate change without fundamentally uprooting the way we run society. Saving the planet doesn’t have to cost us the earth.
It is important to acknowledge that certain types of livestock farming may have issues with sustainability and climate change. But it is not true of all farming systems; and the issues that do exist are being dealt with using the latest research into genetics and biotechnology-for example, recent research has shown that certain types of seaweed can reduce methane emissions from cattle to close to zero.
Farmer data also shows that increased sales of milks have not seen a corresponding reduction in dairy sales.
The global food system, consumer choices and climate change are incredibly complex issues, and anyone who proposes simple solutions is almost certainly not in possession of all the relevant facts and data. Livestock are an important part of humanity’s future food needs.
1. Why does lab-grown food help Britain to solve the housing affordability crisis?| A．As farming is replaced by precision fermentation, the level of agricultural development is improved. |
| B．The significant amount of green belts are used for development in places that people actually want to live. |
| C．Lab-grown food is more environmentally friendly and beneficial to human health. |
| D．A large amount of land used for livestock farming will be freed up for residence. |
| A．Free-market environmentalism can change the way society operates. |
| B．Adjusting carbon tax can successfully solve the problem of climate change. |
| C．Adopting the power of innovative technologies is useful for saving the earth. |
| D．Saving the earth requires changing the way society operates. |
| A．obtain | B．exploit | C．inherit | D．develop |
| A．global food issue is so complex that there are no complete research data. |
| B．sustainability and climate change are common problems in agricultural systems. |
| C．some kinds of seaweed can make the amount of methane emitted by cattle ineffective. |
| D．the sales of substitute dairy products increased, and the sales of dairy products decreased accordingly. |
10 . Nowadays, people are increasingly interacting with others in social media environments where algorithms control the flow of social information they see. People’s interactions with online algorithms may affect how they learn from others, with negative consequences including social misperceptions, conflict and the spread of misinformation.
On social media platforms, algorithms are mainly designed to amplify (放大) information that sustains engagement, meaning they keep people clicking on content and coming back to the platforms. There is evidence suggesting that a side effect of this design is that algorithms amplify information people are strongly biased (偏向的) to learn from. We call this information “PRIME”, for prestigious, in-group, moral and emotional information.
In our evolutionary past, biases to learn from PRIME information were very advantageous: Learning from prestigious individuals is efficient because these people are successful and their behavior can be copied. Paying attention to people who violate moral norms is important because punishing them helps the community maintain cooperation. But what happens when PRIME information becomes amplified by algorithms and some people exploit (利用) algorithm amplification to promote themselves? Prestige becomes a poor signal of success because people can fake prestige on social media. News become filled with negative and moral information so that there is conflict rather than cooperation.
The interaction of human psychology and algorithm amplification leads to disfunction because social learning supports cooperation and problem-solving, but social media algorithms are designed to increase engagement. We call it functional mismatch. One of the key outcomes of functional mismatch is that people start to form incorrect perceptions of their social world, which often occurs in the field of politics. Recent research suggests that when algorithms selectively amplify more extreme political views, people begin to think that their political in-group and out-group are more sharply divided than they really are. Such “false polarization” might be an important source of greater political conflict.
So what’s next? A key question is what can be done to make algorithms facilitate accurate human social learning rather than exploit social learning biases. Some research team is working on new algorithm designs that increase engagement while also punishing PRIME information. This may maintain user activity that social media platforms seek, but also make people’s social perceptions more accurate.
1. What are social media algorithms targeted at?| A．Improving social environment. | B．Generating PRIME information. |
| C．Avoiding side effects of social media. | D．Raising the media platform click rate. |
| A．To make an assumption. | B．To illustrate a conclusion. |
| C．To explain a political issue. | D．To present an extreme case. |
| A．boost engagement and regulate amplification |
| B．strengthen social learning and delete biases |
| C．identify biases and punish PRIME information |
| D．monitor media platforms and guarantee users’ privacy |
| A．PRIME information meets with misperceptions |
| B．Algorithms control the flow of social information |
| C．Social media algorithms twist human social learning |
| D．Online algorithm designs face unexpected challenges |
