笔记本散热器排行榜-翻书效果ppt

2021年1月31日发(作者：苗条淑女君子好逑)
2014
年
12
月
6
级第一套

Part III
Reading comprehension
Section A
Questions 36 to 45 are based on the following passage.


His future subjects have not always treated the Prince of Wales with the respect one might
expect. They laughed aloud in 1986 when the heir to the British (36) ________ told a TV reporter
that he talked to his plants at his country house, Highgrove, to stimulate their growth. The Prince
was being humorous
—
“
My sense of humor will get me into trouble one day,
”
he said to the aides
(
随从
)
—
but listening to Charles Windsor can indeed prove stimulating. The royal (37)________
that been promoting radical ideas for most of his adult life, some of his (38) _________ which
once sounded a hit weird were simply ahead of their time. Now, finally, the world seems to be
catching up with him.


Take his views on farming. Prince Charles
’
Duchy Home Farm went (39) ___________ back
to most shoppers cared only about the low price tag on suspiciously blemish- free(
无瑕
疵的
)V
egetables and (40) __________ large chickens piled high in supermarkets.


His warnings on climate change proved farsighted; too Charles began (41) _________ action
on global warming in 1990 and says he has been worried about the (42) ____________ of man on
the environment since he was a teenager.


Although
he
has
gradually
gained
international
(43)
__________
as
one
of
the
a
world
’
s
leading conservationists, many British people still think of him as an (44) ____________ person
who talks to plants This year, as it happens, South Korean scientists proved that plants really do
(45) __________ to sound. So Charles was ahead of the game there, too.

A. conform


B. eccentric

C. environmentalist


D. expeditions
E. impact


F. notions


G
. organic



H. originally
I. recognition


J. respond

K. subordinate



L. suppressing
M. throne



N. unnaturally
O. urging

Section B
Should Single-Sex Education Be Eliminated?
[A] Why is a neuroscientist here debating single-sex schooling? Honestly, I had no fixed ideas on
the topic when I started researching it for my book, Pink Brain, Blue Brain. But any discussion of
gender differences in children inevitably leads to this debate, so I felt compelled to dive into the
research data on single-sex schooling. I read every study I could, weighed the existing evidence,
and
ultimately
concluded
that
single- sex
education
is
not
the
answer
to
gender
gaps
in
achievement
—
or the best way forward for
today’s
young people. After my book was published, I
met
several
developmental
and
cognitive
psychologists
whose
work
was addressing
gender
and
education
from
different
angles,
and
we
published
a
peer-reviewed
Education
Forum
piece
in
Science magazine with the provocative title,
“The
Pseudoscience of Single-Sex
Education.”

[B]
We
showed
that
three
lines
of
research
used
to
justify
single-sex
schooling
—
educational,
neuroscience,
and
social
psychology
—
all
fail
to
support
its
alleged
benefits,
and
so
the
widely-held view that gender separation is somehow better for boys, girls, or both is nothing more
than a myth.
The Research on Academic Outcomes
[C] First, we reviewed the extensive educational research that has compared academic outcomes
in students attending single-sex versus coeducational schools. The overwhelming conclusion when
you put this enormous literature together is that there is no clear academic advantage of sitting in
all-female
or
all-male
classes,
in
spite
of
much
popular
belief
to
the
contrary.
I
base
this
conclusion not on any individual study, but on large-scale and systematic reviews of thousands of
studies conducted in every major English- speaking country.
[D] Of course,
there’re
many excellent single-sex schools out there, but as these careful research
reviews have demonstrated,
it’s
not their single-sex composition that makes them excellent.
It’s
all
the
other
advantages
that
are
typically
packed
into
such
schools,
such
as
financial
resources,
quality
of
the
faculty,
and
pro- academic
culture,
along
with
the
family
background
and
pre-selected ability of the students themselves that determine their outcomes.
[E] A case in point is the study by Linda Sax at UCLA, who used data from a large national survey
of
college
freshmen
to
evaluate
the
effect
of
single-sex
versus
coeducational
high
schools.
Commissioned by the National Coalition of
Girls’
Schools, the raw findings look pretty good for
the
funders
—
higher
SAT
scores
and
a
stronger
academic
orientation
among
women
who
had
attended all
girls’
high schools (men
weren’t
studied). However, once the researchers controlled
for both student and school attributes
—
measures such as family income,
parents’
education, and
school resources
—
most of these effects were erased or diminished.
[F]
When
it
comes
to
boys
in
particular,
the
data
show
that
single-sex
education
is
distinctly
unhelpful
for
them.
Among
the
minority
of
studies
that
have
reported
advantages
of
single-sex
schooling, virtually all of them were studies of girls.
There’re
no rigorous studies in the United
States that find single-sex schooling is better for boys, and in fact, a separate line of research by
economists has shown both boys and girls exhibit greater cognitive growth over the school year
based on the
“dose”
of girls in a classroom. In fact, boys benefit even more than girls from having
larger
numbers
of
female
classmates.
So
single-sex
schooling
is
really
not
the
answer
to
the
current
“boy

crisis”
in education.

Brain and Cognitive Development
[G] The second line of research often used to justify single-sex education falls squarely within my
area of expertise: brain and cognitive development. I
t’
s been more than a decade now since the
“brain
sex movement
”
began infiltrating (
渗入
) our schools, and there are literally hundreds of
schools caught up in the fad (
新潮
). Public schools in Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida and many other
states now proudly declare on their websites that they separate boys and girls because
“research

solidly
indicates
that
boys
and
girls
learn
differently,”

due
to
“hard
-
wired”

differences
in
their
brains, eyes, ears, autonomic nervous systems, and more.
[H]
All
of
these
statements
can
be
traced
to
just
a
few
would-be
neuroscientists,
especially
physician Leonard Sax and therapist Michael Gurian. Each gives lectures, runs conferences, and
does
a
lot
of
professional
development
on
so-called
“gender
-specific
learning.”

I
analyzed
their
various
claims
about
sex
differences
in
hearing,
vision,
language,
math,
stress
responses,
and
“learning

styles”

in
my
book
and
along
peer-reviewed
paper.
Other
neuroscientists
and
psychologists have similarly exposed their work. In short, the
mechanisms by which our brains
learn
language,
math,
physics,
and
every
other
subject
don’t

differ
between
boys
and
girls.
Of
course, learning does vary a lot between individual students, but research reliably shows that this
variance is far greater within populations of boys or girls than between the two sexes.
[I] The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits separation of students by sex in
public
education
that’s

based
on
precisely
this
kind
of
“overbroad

generalizations
about
the
different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and
females.”
And the reason it is prohibited
is because it leads far too easily to stereotyping and sex discrimination.

Social Developmental Psychology
[J] That brings me to the third area of research which fails to support single-sex schooling and
indeed suggests the practice is actually harmful: social-developmental psychology.
[K]
It’s

a
well-proven
finding
in
social
psychology
that
segregation
promotes
stereotyping
and
prejudice,
whereas
intergroup
contact
reduces
them
—
and
the
results
are
the
same
whether
you
divide
groups
by
race,
age, gender,
body
mass
index,
sexual
orientation,
or
any
other
category.
What’s
more, children are especially vulnerable to this kind of bias, because they are dependent on
adults for learning which social categories are important and why we divide people into different
groups.
[L]
You
don’t

have
to
look
far
to
find
evidence
of
stereotyping
and
sex
discrimination
in
single-sex
schools.
There
was
the
failed
single-sex
experiment
in
California,
where
six
school
districts used generous state grants to set up separate
boys’
and
girls’
academies in the late 1990s.
Once
boys
and
girls
were
segregated,
teachers
resorted
to
traditional
gender
stereotypes
to
run
their classes, and within just three years, five of the six districts had gone back to coeducation.
[M] At the same time, researchers are increasingly discovering benefits of gender interaction in
youth. A large British study found that children with other-sex older siblings(
兄弟姐妹
) exhibit
less stereotypical play than children with same-sex older siblings, such as girls who like sports and
building
toys
and
boys
who
like
art
and
dramatic
play.
Another
study
of
high
school
social
networks
found
less
bullying
and
aggression
the
higher
the
density
of
mixed- sex
friendships
within
a
given
adolescent
network.
Then
there
is
the
finding
we
cited
in
our
Science
paper
of
higher divorce and depression rates among a large group of British men who attended single-sex
schools
as
teenagers,
which
might
be
explained
by
the
lack
of
opportunity
to
learn
about
relationships during their formative years.
[N] Whether in nursery school, high school, or the business world, gender segregation narrows our
perceptions of each other, facilitating stereotyping and sexist attitudes.
It’
s very simple: the more
we structure children and
adolescents’
environment around gender distinctions and separation, the
more they will use these categories as the primary basis for understanding themselves and others.
[O]
Gender
is
an
important
issue
in
education.
There
are
gaps
in
reading,
writing,
and
science
achievement that should be narrower. There are gaps in career choice that should be narrower
—
if
we
really
want
to
maximize
human
potential
and
American
economic
growth.
But stereotyping
boys
and
girls
and
separating
them
in
the
name
of
fictitious(
虚构的
)
brain
differences
is
never
going to close these gaps.

46.
Hundreds
of
schools
separate
boys
from
girls
in
class
on
the
alleged
brain
and
cognitive
differences.
47.
A
review
of
extensive
educational
research
shows
no
obvious
academic
advantage
of
single-sex schooling.
48. The author did not have any fixed ideas on single-sex education when she began her research
on the subject
49. Research found men who attended single-sex schools in their teens were more likely to suffer
from depression.
50.
Studies
in
social
psychology
have
shown
segregation
in
school
education
has
a
negative
impact on children.
51. Reviews of research indicate there are more differences in brain and cognitive development
within the same sex than between different sexes.
52.
The
findings
of
the
national
survey
of
college
freshmen
about
the
impact
of
single-sex
schooling fail to take into account student and school attributes.
53. It
wasn’t
long before most of the school districts that experimented with single-sex education
abandoned the practice.
54.
Boys
from
coeducational
classes
demonstrate
greater
cognitive
abilities
according
to
the
economists’
research.
55. As careful research reviews show, academic excellence in some single-sex schools is attributed
to other factors than single-sex education.

Section C
International
governments’
inaction concerning sustainable development is clearly worrying
but
the
proactive(
主动出击的
)
approaches
of
some
leading-edge
companies
are
encouraging.
Toyota, Wal-Mart, DuPont, M&S and General Electric have made tackling environmental wastes a
key economic driver.
DuPont
committed
itself
to
a
65%
reduction
in
greenhouse
gas
emissions
in
the
10
years
prior to 2010. By 2007, DuPont was saving $$2.2 billion a year through energy efficiency, the same
as its total declared profits that
year. General Electric aims to reduce the energy
intensity of its
operations by 50% by 2015. They have invested heavily in projects designed to change the way of
using and conserving energy.
Companies like Toyota and Wal-Mart are not committing to environmental goals out of the
goodness of their hearts. The reason for their actions is a simple yet powerful realization that the
environmental
and
economic
footprints
fit
well
together.
When
M&S
launched
its
“Plan

A”

sustainability program in 2007, it was believed that it would cost over £
200 million in the first five
years. However, the initiative had generated £
105 million by 2011/12.
When we prevent physical waste, increase energy efficiency or improve resource productivity,
we save money, improve profitability and enhance competitiveness. In fact, there are often huge
“quick

win”
opportunities, thanks to years of neglect.

However,
there
is
a
considerable
gap
between
leading- edge
companies
and
the
rest
of
the
pack. There are far too many companies still delaying creating a lean and green business system,
arguing that it will cost
money or
require sizable capital investments. They remain stuck in the
“environment
is
cost”
mentality. Being environmentally friendly does not have to cost money. In
fact, going beyond compliance saves cost at the same time
that it generates cash, provided that
management adopts the new lean and green model.
Lean
means
doing
more
with
less.
Nonetheless,
in
most
companies,
economic
and
environmental continuous improvement is viewed as being in conflict with each other. This is one
of the biggest opportunities missed across most industries. The size of the opportunity is enormous.
The
3%
Report
recently
published
by
World
Wildlife
Fund
and
CDP
shows
that
the
economic
prize for curbing carbon emissions in the US economy is $$780 billion between now and 2020. It
suggests
that
one
of
the
biggest
levers
for
delivering
this
opportunity
is
“increased

efficiency
through management and behavioral
change”

—
in other words, lean and green management.
Some 50 studies show that companies that commit to such aspirational goals as zero waste,
zero
harmful
emissions,
and
zero
use
of
non-renewable
resources
are
financially
outperforming
their competitors. Conversely, it was found that climate disruption is already costing $$1.2 trillion
annually, cutting global GDP by 1.6%. Unaddressed, this will double by 2030.
56. What does the author say about some leading-edge companies?
A. They operate in accordance with government policies.
B. They take initiatives in handling environmental wastes.
C. They are key drivers in their
nations’
economic growth.
D. They are major contributors to environmental problems.
57. What motivates Toyota and Wal- Mart to make commitments to environmental protection?
A. The goodness of their hearts.


B. A strong sense of responsibility.
C. The desire to generate profits.


D. Pressure from environmentalists.
58. Why are so many companies reluctant to create an environment-friendly business system?
A. They are bent on making quick money.
B. They do not have the capital for the investment.
C. They believe building such a system is too costly.
D. They lack the incentive to change business practices.
59. What is said about the lean and green model of business?
A. It helps businesses to save and gain at the same time.
B. It is affordable only for a few leading- edge companies.
C. It is likely to start a new round of intense competition.
D. It will take a long time for all companies to embrace it.
60. What is the finding of the studies about companies committed to environmental goals?
A. They have greatly enhanced their sense of social responsibility.
B. They do much better than their counterparts in terms of revenues.
C. They have abandoned all the outdated equipment and technology.
D. They make greater contributions to human progress than their rivals.

Passage Two
If you asked me to describe the rising philosophy of the day,
I’d
say it is data-ism. We now
have the ability to gather huge amounts of data. This ability seems to carry with it certain cultural
assumptions
—
that everything that can be measured should be measured; that data is a transparent
and reliable lens that allows us to filter out emotionalism and ideology; that data will help us do
remarkable things
—
like foretell the future.
Over the next year,
I’m
hoping to get a better grip on some of the questions raised by the data
revolution:
In
what
situations
should
we
rely
on
intuitive
pattern
recognition
and
in
which
situations should we ignore intuition and follow the data? What kinds of events are predictable
using statistical analysis and what sorts of events are not?
I confess I enter this in a skeptical frame of mind, believing that we tend to get carried away
in our desire to reduce everything to the quantifiable. But at the outset let me celebrate two things
data does really well.
First,
it’s
really good at exposing when our intuitive view of reality is wrong. For example,
nearly every person who runs for political office has an intuitive sense that they can powerfully
influence their odds of winning the election if they can just raise and spend more money. But this
is largely wrong.
After the 2006 election, Sean Trende constructed a graph comparing the incumbent(
在任者
的
) campaign spending advantages with their eventual margins of victory. There was barely any
relationship
between
more
spending
and
a
bigger
victory.
Likewise,
many
teachers
have
an
intuitive sense that different students have different learning styles: some are verbal and some are
visual; some are linear, some are holistic(
整体的
). Teachers imagine they will improve outcomes
if they tailor their presentations to each student. But
there’s
no evidence to support this either.
Second, data can illuminate patterns of behavior we
haven’t
yet noticed. For example,
I’ve

always assumed people who frequently use words like
“I,”

“me,”
and
“mine”
are probably more
self-centered than people who
don’t.
But as James Pennebaker of the University of Texas notes in
his book, The Secret Life of Pronouns, when people are feeling confident, they are focused on the
task at hand, not on themselves. High-status, confident people use fewer
“I”
words, not more.
Our
brains
often
don’t

notice
subtle
verbal
patterns,
but
Pennebaker
’s

computers
can.
Younger writers use more negative and past- tense words than older writers who use more positive
and future-tense words.
In
sum,
the
data
revolution
is
giving
us
wonderful
ways
to
understand
the
present and
the
past. Will it transform our ability to predict and make decisions about the future?
We’ll
see.
61. What do data-ists assume they can do?
A. Transform
people’s
cultural identity.

B. Change the way future events unfold.
C. Get a firm grip on the most important issues.
D. Eliminate emotional and ideological bias.
62. What do people running for political office think they can do?
A. Use data analysis to predict the election result.
B. Win the election if they can raise enough funds.
C. Manipulate public opinion with favorable data.
D. Increase the chances of winning by foul means.
63. Why do many teachers favor the idea of tailoring their presentations to different students?
A. They think students prefer flexible teaching methods.
B. They will be able to try different approaches.
C. They believe
students’
learning styles vary.
D. They can accommodate students with special needs.
64. What does James Pennebaker reveal in The Secret Life of Pronouns?
A. The importance of using pronouns properly.
B. Repeated use of first-person pronouns by self-centered people.
C. Frequent use of pronouns and future tense by young people.
D. A pattern in confident
people’s
use of pronouns.
65. Why is the author skeptical of the data revolution?
A. Data may not be easily accessible.



B. Errors may occur with large data samples.
C. Data cannot always do what we imagine it can.

D. Some data may turn out to be outdated.

Part IV
Translation
中国将努力确保到
2015年就业者接受过平均
13.3
年的教育。如果这一目标得以实现，今后
大部分进入 劳动力市场的人都需获得大学文凭。

在未来几年，
中国将着力增加职业学院的招生人 数：
除了关注高等教育外，
还将寻找新的突
破以确保教育制度更加公平。
中国 正在努力最佳地利用教育资源，
这样农村和欠发达地区将
获得更多的支持。

教育部还决定改善欠发达地区学生的营养，
并为外来务工人员的子女提供在城市接受教育的
同等 机会。


2014
年
12
月
6
级第二套

Part III
Reading comprehension
Section A


Children
are
natural-born
scientists.
They
have
(36)_____minds,
and
they
aren’t
afraid
to
admit
they
don’t
know
something
.
Most
of
them,
(37)_____
lose
this
as
they
get
older.
They
become
self-
confidence
and
don’t
want
to
appear
stupid.
Instead
of
finding
things
out
for
themselves they make (38)_____ that often turn out to be wrong.


So
it’s
not
a
case
of
getting
kids
inter
ested
in
science.
You
just
have
to
avoid
killing
the
(39)_____
for
learning
that
they
were
born
with.
It’s
no
coincidence
that
kids
start
deserting
science
once
it
becomes
formalized.
Child
naturally
have
a
blurred
approach
to
(40)_____
knowledge. They see learning about science or biology or cooking as all part of the same act-
it’s
all
learning.
It’s
only
become
of
the
practicalities
of
education
that
you
have
to
start
breaking
down.
The
curriculum
into
specialize
subjects.
You
need
to
have
specialist
teachers
who
(41)_____ what they know. Thus once they enter school, children begin to define subject and erect
boundaries that needn’t otherwise exist.



Dividing subject into science math, English, etc, is something we do for (42)_____. In the
end
it’s
all
learning.
But
many
children
today

(43)_____themselves
from
a
scientific
form
a
scientific education. They think science is for scientists, not for them.


Of course we need to specialize (44)_____. Each of us has only so much time on Earth, so we
can’t study everything. At 5 years old, our filed of knowledge and
(45)_____ is broad, covering
anything from learning to walk to learning to count. Gradually it narrows down so that by the time
we are 45, it might be one tiny little corner within science.

A. accidentally

B. acquiring

C. assumptions

D. convenience
E. eventually


F. exclude

G
. exertion


H. exploration
I. formulas


J. ignite


K. impart


L. inquiring
M. passion


N. provoking

O. unfortunately

Section B
Meaning Is Healthier Than Happiness


[A]
For
at
least
the
last
decade,
the
happiness
craze
has
been
building.
In
the
last
three
months alone, over 1,000 books on happiness were released on Amazon, including Happy Money,
Happy-People-Pills For All, and, for those just starting out, Happiness for Beginners.


[B] One of the consistent claims of books like these is that happiness is associated with all
sorts of good life outcomes, including - most promisingly - good health. Many studies have noted
the connection between a happy mind and a healthy body - the happier you are, the better health
outcomes we seem to have. In a meta- analysis (overview) of 150 studies on this topic, researchers
put it like this: “Inductions of well
-being lead to healthy functioning, and inductions of ill-being
lead to
compromised health.”



[C] But a new study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
(PNAS) challenges the rosy picture. Happiness may not be as good for the body as researchers
thought. It might even be bad.


[D]
Of
course,
it’s
important
to
firs
t
define
happiness.
A
few
months
ago,
I
wrote
a
piece
called
“There’s More
to
Life
Than
Being Happy”
about
a
psychology
study
that
dug
into
what
happiness really means to people. It specifically explored the difference between a meaningful life
and a happy life.


[E] It seems strange that there would be a difference at all. But the researchers, who looked at
a large sample of people over a month-long period, found that happiness is associated with selfish
“taking” behavior and that having a sense of meaning in life is associated with selfless “giving”
behavior.


[F]

without
meaning
characterizes
a
relatively
shallow,
self- absorbed
or
even
selfish life, in which things go well, needs and desire are easily satisfied, and difficult or taxing
entanglements are avoided,
to not helping others in need.” While being happy is about feeling good, meaning is derived from
contributing to others or to society in a bigger way. As Roy Baumeister,
one of the researchers,
told me,
This makes life meaningful but it does not necessarily make us happy.”



[G] The new PNAS study also sheds light on the difference between meaning and happiness,
but
on
the
biological
level.
Barbara
Fredrickson,
a
psychological
researcher
who
specializes
in
positive emotions at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and Steve Cole, a genetics and
psychiatric researcher at UCLA, examined the self-reported levels of happiness and meaning in 80
research subjects.


[H] Happiness was defined, as in the earlier study, by feeling good. The researchers measured
happiness by as
king subjects questions like “How often did you feel happy?” “How often did you
feel
interested
in
life?”
and
“How
often
did
you
feel
satisfied?”
The
more
strongly
people
endorsed
these
measures
of
“hedonic
well
-
being,”
or
pleasure,
the
higher
they
scored
on
happiness.


[I] Meaning was defined as an orientation to something bigger than the self. They measured
meaning by asking questions like “How often did you feel that your life has a sense of direction or
meaning to it?”, “How often did you feel that you had something

to contribute to society?”, and
“How
often
did
you
feel
that
you
belonged
to
a
community
social
group?”
The
more
people
endorsed these measures of “eudaimonic well
-
being”
- or, simply put, virtue - the more meaning
they felt in life.


[J] After noting the sense of meaning and happiness that each subject had, Fredrickson and
Cole,
with
their
research
colleagues,
looked
at
the
ways
certain
genes
expressed
themselves
in
each of the participants. Like neuroscientists who use fMRI scanning to determine how regions in
the brain respond to different stimuli, Cole and Fredrickson are interested in how the body, at the
genetic level, responds to feelings of happiness and meaning.
[K]
Cole’s
past
work
has
linked
various
kinds
of
chronic
adversity
to
a
particular
gen
e
expression pattern. When people feel lonely, are grieving the loss of a loved one, or are struggling
to make ends meet, their bodies go into threat mode. This triggers the activation of a stress-related
gene
pattern
that
has
two
features:
an
increase
in
the
activity
of
prion
flammatory
genes
and
a
decrease in the activity of genes involved in anti-viral responses.


[L]
Cole
and
Fredrickson
found
that
people
who
are
happy
but
have
little
to
no
sense
of
meaning in their lives - proverbially, simply here for the party
- have the same gene expression
patterns as people who are responding to and enduring chronic adversity. That is, the bodies of
these
happy
people
are
preparing
them
for
bacterial
threats
by
activating
the
pro-inflammatory
response.
Chronic
inflammation
is,
of
course,
associated
with
major
illnesses
like
heart
disease
and various cancers.


[M]
“Empty positive emotions”
- like the kind people experience during manic episodes or
artificially induced euphoria from alcohol and drugs -
”are about as good for you for as adversity,”
says Fredrickson.


[N]
It’s important to understand that for many people, a sen
se of meaning and happiness in
life
overlap;
many
people
score
jointly
high
(or
jointly
low)
on
the
happiness
and
meaning
measures in the study. But for many others, there is a dissonance - they feel that they are low on
happiness and high on meaning or that their lives are very high in happiness, but low in meaning.
This
last
group,
which
has
the
gene
expression
pattern
associated
with
adversity,
formed
a
whopping 75 percent of study participants. Only one quarter of the study participants had what the
res
earchers
call
“eudaimonic
predominance”
-
that
is,
their
sense
of
meaning
outpaced
their
feelings of happiness.


[O]
This
is
too
bad
given
the
more
beneficial
gene
expression
pattern
associated
with
meaningfulness. People whose levels of happiness and meaning line up, and people who have a
strong
sense
of
meaning
but
are
not
necessarily
happy,
showed
a
deactivation
of
the
adversity
stress response. Their bodies were not preparing them for the bacterial infections that we get when
we are alone or in trouble, but for the viral infections we get when surrounded by a lot of other
people.


[P]
Fredrickson’s
past
research,
described
in
her
two
books,
Positivity
and
Love
2.0,
has
mapped
the
benefits
of
positive
emotions
in
individuals.
She
has
found
that
positive
emotions
broaden a person’s perspective and buffers people against adversity. S
o it
was surprising to her
that hedonistic well-being, which is associated with positive emotions and pleasure, did so badly
in this study compared with eudaimonic well-being.


[Q]
“It’s not the amount of hedonic happiness that’s a problem,” Fredrickson tells me, “It’s
that it’s not matched by eudaimonic well
-
being. It’s great when both are in step. But if you have
more
hedonic
well-
being
than
would
be
expected,
that’s
when
this
[gene]
pattern
that’s
akin
to
adversity emerged.”



[R]
The
terms
hedonism
and
eudemonism
bring
to
mind
the
great
philosophical
debate,
which has shaped Western civilization for over 2,000 years, about the nature of the good life. Does
happiness lie in feeling good, as hedonists think, or in doing and being good, as Aristotle and his
intellectual descendants, the virtue ethicists, think? From the evidence of this study, it seems that
feeling good is not enough. People need meaning to thrive. In the words of Carl Jung, “The least
of
things
with
a
meaning
is
worth
more
in
life
than
the
greatest
of
things
without
it.”
Jung’s
wisdom certainly seems to apply to our bodies, if not also to our hearts and our minds.

笔记本散热器排行榜-翻书效果ppt

笔记本散热器排行榜-翻书效果ppt

笔记本散热器排行榜-翻书效果ppt

笔记本散热器排行榜-翻书效果ppt

笔记本散热器排行榜-翻书效果ppt

笔记本散热器排行榜-翻书效果ppt

笔记本散热器排行榜-翻书效果ppt

笔记本散热器排行榜-翻书效果ppt