- 时间：[2015-08-05 11:27:01]
d be treated __
[A] as faithful partners. [B] with economic favors.
[C] with regal tolerance. [D] as mighty rivals.
[A] come and go: big mistake. [B] living and thriving : great risk.
[C] with or without : great risk. [D] legal or illegal: big mistake.
Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.
But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren’t exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we’re doing, Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.
Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases-or hire outside screeners.
John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly “thin slice” information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in “thick sliced” long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a muck longer evaluation; two days, not two seconds.
Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals: doge can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn’t changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.
31. The time needed in making decisions may____.
[A] vary according to the urgency of the situation [B] prove the complexity of our brain reaction
[C] depend on the importance of the assessment [D] predetermine the accuracy of our judgment
32. Our reaction to a fast-food logo shows that snao decisions____.
[A] can be associative [B] are not unconscious
[C] can be dangerous [D] are not impulsive
33. Toreverse the negative influences of snap decisions,we should____.
[A] trust our first impression [B] do as people usually do
[C] think before we act [D] ask for expert advice
34. John Gottman says that reliable snap reaction are based on____.
[A] critical assessment [B]‘‘thin sliced ’’study
[C] sensible explanation [D] adequate information
35. The author’s attitude toward reversing the high-speed trend is____.
[A] tolerant [B] uncertain [C] optimistic [D] doubtful
Europe is not a gender-equality heaven.In particular, the corporate workplace will never be completely family—friendly until women are part of senior management decisions,and Europe,s top corporate-governance positions remain overwhelmingly male .indeed,women hold only 14 percent of positions on Europe corporate boards.
The Europe Union is now considering legislation to compel corporate boards to maintain a certain proportion of women-up to 60 percent.This proposed mandate was born of frustration. Last year, Europe Commission Vice President Viviane Reding issued a call to voluntary action. Reding invited corporations to sign up for gender balance goal of 40 percent female board membership. But her appeal was considered a failure: only 24 companies took it up.
Do we need quotas to ensure that women can continue to climb the corporate Ladder fairy as they balance work and family?
“Personally, I don’t like quotas,” Reding said recently. “But i like what the quotas do.” Quotas get action: they “open the way to equality and they break through the glass ceiling,” according to Reding, a result seen in France and other countries with legally binding provisions on placing women in top business positions.
I understand Reding’s reluctance-and her frustration. I don’t like quotas either; they run counter to my belief in meritocracy, government by the capable. Bur, when one considers the obstacles to achieving the