Is social media messing with children’s morals?
Parents are often concerned about the effects of social media on their children’s character. We have all heard complaints that young people are spending too much time online and not enough time in the “real world” —with studies showing that nearly three-quarters of 12 to 15-year-olds in the UK have a social media profile and spend an average of 19 hours a week online.
More worrying, perhaps, than the amount of time spent online, are the findings that suggest social media use can actually influence users’ personality and character. Recent research, for example, shown that there is a link between social media use and narcissism (自恋), and that the use of social networking websites may have an nagative effect on social decision making and reduce levels of empathy (同情心).
With this in mind, one of the latest research projects at the Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, looks at the impact social media has on young people’s character and moral development, and aims to understand the benefits social media can have on development.
The first stage of the research involved a “parent poll (survey)” of 1,738 parents of 11 to 17-year-olds from across the UK asked a series of questions on their feelings around social media, and the moral (or immoral) messages that appear online. Our findings so far indicate that parents’ attitudes towards social media are largely negative–over a half of parents we questioned agree that social media “hinders or weakens” a young person’s character or moral development. While only 15% of respondents agreed that social media could “enhance or support” it.
However, it isn’t all doom and gloom, because our research also shows that social media can be a source for good. Nearly three quarters of the parents who use social media on a regular basis reported seeing content with a positive moral message at least once a day-including humour, appreciation of beauty, creativity, kindness, love and courage. And it could well be, that viewing this type of positive online content could have a positive influence on young people’s attitudes and behaviours.
This is because on social media sites, users often come across new perspectives and situations-such as different religions, cultures and social groups. And exposure to these situations online could actually help young people be more understanding and tolerant—and in turn develop their empathy skills. This is because it allows them to view things from other people’s perspectives, in a way they might not be able to in “real life”.
Of course, this translation from exposure to empathy may not always follow-which can be seen in the high rates of cyber bullying. According to a 2015 report, 62% of 13 to 20-year-olds who had been bullied reported some degree of cyber bullying—which shows that empathy doesn’t always play a part in online environments.
But while it may be tempting for some parents to just ban social media use altogether, it is unlikely to be a successful strategy in the long term-social media is not going away. Instead, we need to better understand the relationship between social media use and a young person’s character and moral values. And through our research, we hope to be able to offer constructive evidence-based advice on exactly this.
Because it is clear that the online environment is a moral terrain which requires successful navigation. By understanding how some immoral events can be avoided, we can help to create a safer and more even path for young people to negotiate.
1. According to the research, what are the parents’ attitudes towards social media?2. Why could viewing positive online content have a positive influence on young people’s attitudes and behaviours?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then underline it and explain why.
For parents, it is a good strategy to ban social media because it may have a negative influence on young people’s moral development.4. Please briefly present your opinion on how to be a moral person on social media. (In about 40words)
Faced with employment pressures
3 . Communities across the world are starting to ban facial recognition technologies. The efforts are well intentioned, but banning facial recognition is the wrong way to fight against modern surveillance (监视). Generally, modern mass surveillance has three broad components: identification, correlation and discrimination.
Facial recognition is a technology that can be used to identify people without their consent. Once we are identified, the data about who we are and what we are doing can be correlated with other data. This might be movement data, which can be used to “follow” us as we move throughout our day. It can be purchasing data, Internet browsing data, or data about who we talk to via email or text. It might be data about our income, ethnicity, lifestyle, profession and interests. There is an entire industry of data brokers who make a living by selling our data without our consent.
It’s not just that they know who we are; it’s that they correlate what they know about us to create profiles about who we are and what our interests are. The whole purpose of this process is for companies to treat individuals differently. We are shown different ads on the Internet and receive different offers for credit cards. In the future, we might be treated differently when we walk into a store, just as we currently are when we visit websites.
It doesn’t matter which technology is used to identify people. What’s important is that we can be consistently identified over time. We might be completely anonymous (匿名的) in a system that uses unique cookies to track us as we browse the Internet, but the same process of correlation and discrimination still occurs.
Regulating this system means addressing all three steps of the process. A ban on facial recognition won’t make any difference. The problem is that we are being identified without our knowledge or consent, and society needs rules about when that is permissible.
Similarly, we need rules about how our data can be combined with other data, and then bought and sold without our knowledge or consent. The data broker industry is almost entirely unregulated now. Reasonable laws would prevent the worst of their abuses.
Finally, we need better rules about when and how it is permissible for companies to discriminate. Discrimination based on protected characteristics like race and gender is already illegal, but those rules are ineffectual against the current technologies of surveillance and control. When people can be identified and their data correlated at a speed and scale previously unseen, we need new rules.
Today, facial recognition technologies are receiving the force of the tech backlash (抵制), but focusing on them misses the point. We need to have a serious conversation about all the technologies of identification, correlation and discrimination, and decide how much we want to be spied on and what sorts of influence we want them to have over our lives.
1. According to Para 2, with facial recognition, .| A．one’s lifestyle changes greatly | B．one’s email content is disclosed |
| C．one’s profiles are updated in time | D．one’s personal information is released |
| A．discrimination based on new tech surveillance is illegal |
| B．different browsing data bring in different advertisements |
| C．using mobiles anonymously keeps us from being correlated |
| D．data brokers control the current technologies of surveillance |
| A．call for banning facial recognition technologies |
| B．advocate the urgent need for changes in related laws |
| C．inform readers of the disadvantages of facial recognition |
| D．evaluate three broad components in modern mass surveillance |
4 . Would you turn down the chance to become a smart cookie? We’ve been longing for quick fixes that could increase our intelligence (智力). Today, people’s hopes lie in brain training apps as a speedy “digital pill”. The more you play, the smarter you will get—or so some apps tell us. But is this digital-shortcut all that it seems to be?
The use of games for serious purposes has become widespread with the development of the Internet and smartphones. Brain training apps are typical, frequently featured by Apple and Google’s app stores. Many of such apps say that they are backed by “science”. Even if there were agreement around what makes general intelligence, the idea that increasing it would be as simple as practising a few mini-games every day goes against our current discovery about thinking and learning.
Several major studies, surveying users across a wide variety of apps, have found that they have little effect on users’ performance. A 2021 study by researchers discovered brain training has no significant effect on cognitive (认知的) functioning in the “real world”. The positive effects reported are limited to the very specific mini-games and tasks, such as memorizing lists of words or numbers, or performing mental calculation (心算). So, if your job or your calling in life needs summing quickly or remembering all your friends’ phone numbers, these apps will do. But if you are expecting them to improve your ability to write a novel or form a complex (复杂的) spreadsheet, you have to look elsewhere. Yet, despite the fact that they hardly work, brain training apps play a leading role, partly because they are regarded to be scientific and partly because users think they are fun.
As a co-creator of one of the most popular forms of gamification (游戏化) noted, what is especially disappointing about these apps is that they just aren’t that fun—at least, not compared with the various thoughtful board games and video games coming out every day. Puzzle video games, such as Baba Is You and detective games like Return of the Obra Dinn, see players apply their skill at reasoning, memory and concentration in a far more challenging and engaging (吸引人的) way.
If you aren’t into games, simply go for a walk or learn how to dance. They are likely to be more effective than a brain training app in sharpening your mind. These activities might not lead to an increased IQ, but they are sure to engage your brain deeply while having fun—something I can by no means say of brain training apps.
1. Which of the following would the author probably agree with?| A．Brain training apps help to cure diseases. |
| B．Creativity can be improved with brain training apps. |
| C．Gamification has little to do with increasing intelligence. |
| D．Increasing IQ is as simple as practising a few mini-games every day. |
| A．be moved | B．be opposed | C．be misunderstood | D．be supported |
| A．they turn mental exercises into quick games |
| B．they are considered both scientific and interesting |
| C．they are more effective in shaping our minds than other games |
| D．they have significant effects on the cognitive functioning in the “real world” |
| A．A Smart Cookie or Not? | B．There’s No App for That |
| C．What will Games Lead Us to? | D．A Digital Pill for Intelligence |
You are watching your favorite TV show when a commercial break starts. First you see an ad for candy. Then there is one for fast food. Your stomach growls. Suddenly, all you can think about is how much you need a snack.
If that sounds familiar, you are not alone. Researchers from McMaster University in Canada studied the effects of junk food ad. The researchers examined the effects of advertising junk food on more than 6000kids through TV commercials and other types of media. They found that kids made unhealthy food and drink choicesas quickly as 30 minutes after seeing the ads.
“There is too much unhealthy food advertising out there,” Says Behnam Sadeghirad. He’s one of the researchers who led the study. “This is dangerous for younger children.”
Food and drink ads are everywhere from TV to the Internet. Companies want to make sure you know about their products. They spend nearly 1.8 billion a year on food ads aimed at kids according to a report.
The Nielsen Company tracked the number of food ads that kids saw in 2015. It found that kids watched nearly 12 food ads on TV each day. Most of these ads weren’t for health y foods. In fact, on average. kids saw only one ad per week for fruits and vegetables. Instead, most of the ads were for fast food, candy and sugary drinks.
Jennifer Harris, a professor at the University of Connecticut, says this is a big part of the problem. “Unhealthy foods are not things we should be encouraging kids to eat more often”. Harris says. “But unfortunately those are the products being advertised to them the most”.
Health experts say it’s OK to treat yourself to a cookie once in a while. But what can you do to keep from having an unhealthy snack every time you see an ad for junk food? Harris says it’s important to learn to spot the techniques companies use in their ads, tell their kids what is going on and help kids think about whether these products are good for them.
1. What did researchers from MaMaster University find?2. What do the findings of the Nielsen Company suggest?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then underline it and explain why.
To avoid negative impacts of advertisements for unhealthy food, parents should keep their kids from watching these kinds of advertisements.
4. Please briefly describe what you can do to reduce the negative impact of advertising on your life.
6 . After years of blue-collar(蓝领)jobs being replaced by machines, advanced chatbots are now breathing down white collars. Generative Al tools, such as ChatGPT, have made impressive progress in generating human-sounding language and understanding context. So much so that humans are no match for them in some tasks. Up to 300 million full-time jobs could be lost around the world, which is as much as 18% of the global workforce.
A recent study by OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, looked at the potential for automation across 1,016 jobs. Humans and AI separately rated how well software powered by large-language models, which are trained on a sea of information from the Internet and then reacted quickly to specific functions, could perform 19,000 tasks involved in the jobs. If the software was considered able to reduce the time it takes humans to complete the task by at least half, without a drop in quality, the task was considered ready for AI replacement. For other tasks, the company imagined additional software that could be added to the model, such as computer tools that can automatically pull fresh data from the Internet. They found that 80% of Americans could have at least 10% of their work tasks done by advanced Al tools. The figure rises to 50% of tasks for around 19% of workers.
This automation should not be feared. It could free workers from repeated tasks, contributing to greater productivity. A study published on April 5 suggests that generative AI could bring about sweeping changes to the global economy. As these tools could drive a 7% increase in global GDP and lift productivity by 1. 5 percentage points over a 10-year period.
But studies like this may overstate the potential for automation, ignoring some tacit skills(隐性技能)in professions they know less about. Human qualities important for some jobs, such as empathy or charisma(感召力), will be overlooked. And not all tasks capable of being carried out by AI should be: a man in love should feel it a shame for using it to write a love letter to his beloved girlfriend however touching and sincere it may sound.
Many businesses are also not willing to accept AI. And those who have already accepted it are at the risk of practical and legal(法律的) confusion. When chatbots do not know what to say, they often talk nonsense. The “creative” output they produce is based on a mixture of data sourced from the Internet, raising issues around accuracy, privacy and intellectual property(知识产权).
While much is unknown about how generative AI will influence the world economy and society, and it will take time to play out, there are clear signs that the effects could be profound. But in the real world, AI tools will still need handlers. That may even end up creating new jobs.
1. What is the function of Paragraph 1?| A．To show the popularity of AI tools. |
| B．To give examples of using generative AI tools. |
| C．To draw readers’ attention to the possible threat of AI. |
| D．To compare the impacts of AI on blue and white collars. |
| A．it can perform certain creative tasks |
| B．automation is powered by large-language models |
| C．it develops important human qualities like empathy |
| D．Al tools improve productivity without damaging quality |
| A．AI tools may help increase employment |
| B．AI will eventually take over human jobs |
| C．AI and automation do more harm than good |
| D．human qualities are not necessary for automation |
A person with a photographic memory could remember every detail of a picture, a book or an event many years later, but it has not been proved
The Weight of White Lies
A man taking his mother to a surprise party tells her they’re going to the mall. A woman fibs that the store was out of her overweight boyfriend’s favorite junk food. A tutor assures his student that her spotty resumé looks fine.
Even benevolent forms of deception come in shades of acceptability, and people who learn that they have been misled don’t always see it the way deceivers do. A lie that’s meant to inflate someone’s confidence or discourage a bad habit, for example, often involves making a judgment about what’s best for that person. That presumption can backfire.
In recent experiments, participants playing an economic game on a computer received a tip that led them to one of two possible payoffs. Some learned that the sender of the tip had lied to them to secure them a particular option. If the best option had been debatable rather than obvious—such as receiving $10 right away rather than $30 after three months—participants judged that person as less moral for lying and were less satisfied with the outcome, on average, even if it was the one they had previously said they preferred. “People seem to feel they have a right to the truth, and that by taking that away, you diminish their ability to act freely,” says study co-author Matthew Lupoli, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, San Diego.
Making up falsehoods isn’t the only way to kindly deceive, though: You might also simply leave out unpleasant facts. Recent studies by University of Chicago researcher Emma Levine and colleagues examined both types of lie in hypothetical patient-doctor talks and other contexts.
People in the role of deceiver tended to view the omission of potentially harmful details (such as a poor prognosis) as comparable to or more acceptable than offering a comforting fiction (that a patient’s outlook was favorable). But those in the role of the deceived often considered false-but-supportive statements more tolerable than lies of omission. For deceivers, actively committing a lie feels more intentional and might provoke more guilt than omission, Levine says. But the targets of deception “aren’t likely to be sensitive to these differences because they just experience the consequences.”
In general, honesty is probably still the best policy. A lie that provides some emotional benefits and has little downside could be the closest second.
1. What is the presumption people make when telling a white lie (a lie that’s meant to be good)?2. What are the ways to kindly deceive others?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then underline it and explain why.
Those in the role of the deceived often considered lies of omission more tolerable than false-but-supportive statements.
4. Do you prefer to be honest or tell a white lie when informing your friend of something unpleasant? Why? (In about 40 words)
9 . As a doctor, I can give you a lot of useful advice about how to get healthy and stay that way, but you don’t need me to tell you that exercise is good for you. Staying active can benefit the heart, the waistline, even the mind.
The slowdown occurs for most at the beginning of college. Academic pressure and lack of organized sports are certainly part of the problem. A bigger part may be looking at life changes as an occasion to blow up old rules and not create new ones in their place.
The good news is, there are solutions to all these. We can begin with exercises as simple as remembering to sit straighter or drink enough water. Specific workout plans can turn a general desire to exercise into a firm commitment.
We may never again have the energy of a two-year-old, but getting back even a little of our early-life energy can make our later lives a whole lot healthier.
| A．Being in college is certainly part of the problem. |
| B．This is especially so when it comes to staying fit. |
| C．Not having a clearly defined exercise plan can hurt. |
| D．We often wish to go back to our two-year-old selves. |
| E．For instance, you can schedule a weekly gym visit with friends. |
| F．Still, there’s a real disconnect between what we know and what we do. |
| G．The most puzzling part of our inactive nature is that we don’t start out that way. |
10 . Enlightening, challenging, stimulating, fun. These were some of the words that Nature readers used to describe their experiences of art-science collaborations in a series of articles on partnerships between artists and researchers... Nearly 40％of the roughly 350 people who responded to an accompanying poll (民意调查) said, they had collaborated with artists; and almost all said they would consider doing so in future.
Such an encouraging result is not surprising. Scientists are increasingly seeking out visual artists to help them to communicate their work to new audiences. “Artists help scientists reach a broader audience and make emotional connections that enhance learning,” one respondent said.
One example of how artists and scientists have together rocked the senses came last month when the Sydney Symphony Orchestra performed a reworked version of Antonio Vivaldi’s The Four Seasons.They reimagined the 300-year-old score (乐谱总谱) by integrating the latest climate prediction data for each season — provided by Monash University’s Climate Change Communication Research Hub. The performance was a creative call to action ahead of November’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, UK.
But a genuine partnership must be a two-way street.Fewer artists than scientists responded to the Nature poll. However, several respondents noted that artists do not simply assist scientists with their communication requirements; nor should their work be considered only as an object of study. The alliances are most valuable when scientists and artists have a shared stake in a project, are able to jointly design it and can critique each other’s work. Such an approach can both prompt new research as well as result powerful art.
More than half a century ago, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology opened its Center for Advanced Visual Studies (CAVS) to explore the role of technology in culture. The founders deliberately focused their projects around light — hence the ”visual studies“ in the name. Light was something that both artists and scientists had an interest in, and therefore could form the basis of collaboration. As science and technology progressed, and divided into more sub-disciplines, the center was simultaneously looking to a time when leading researchers could also be artists, writers and poets, and vice versa.
Nature’s poll findings suggest that this trend is as strong as ever,but to make a collaboration work,both sides need to invest time and embrace surprise and challenge. The reach of art-science collaborations needs to go beyond the necessary purpose of research communication, and participants must not fall into the trap of stereotyping each other. Artists and scientists alike are immersed in discovery and invention; challenge and critique are essential to both, too.
1. According to Paragraph 1, art-science collaborations have __________ .| A．caught the attention of critics |
| B．received favorable responses |
| C．promoted academic publishing |
| D．sparked heated public disputes |
| A．art can offer audiences easy access to science |
| B．science can help with the expression of emotions |
| C．art is effective in facilitating scientific innovations |
| D．public participation in science has a promising future |
| A．their role may be underestimated |
| B．their reputation may be damaged |
| C．their creativity may be restricted |
| D．their work may misguided |
| A．Its projects aimed at advancing visual studies. |
| B．Its founders sought to raise the status of artists. |
| C．It demonstrates valuable art-science cooperation. |
| D．It was headed alternately by artists and scientists. |
