学进去

As Frans de Waal, a primatologist (灵长动物学家), recognizes, a better way to think about other creatures would be to ask ourselves how different species have developed different kinds of minds to solve different adaptive problems. Surely the important question is not whether animals can do the same things humans can, but how those animals solve the cognitive (认知的) problems they face, like how to imitate the sea floor. Children and some animals are so interesting not because they are smart like us, but because they are smart in ways we haven’t even considered.

Sometimes studying children’s ways of knowing can cast light on adult-human cognition. Children’s pretend play may help us understand our adult taste for fiction. De Waal’s research provides another interesting example. We human beings tend to think that our social relationships are rooted in our perceptions, beliefs, and desires, and our understanding of the perceptions, beliefs, and desires of others—what psychologists call our “theory of mind.” In the 80s and 90s, developmental psychologists showed that pre-schoolers and even infants understand minds apart from their own. But it was hard to show that other animals did the same. “Theory of mind” became a candidate for the special, uniquely human trick.

Yet de Waal’s studies show that chimps (黑猩猩) possess a remarkably developed political intelligence—they are much interested in figuring out social relationships. It turns out, as de Waal describes, that chimps do infer something about what other chimps see. But experimental studies also suggest that this happens only in a competitive political context. The evolutionary anthropologist (人类学家) Brain Hare and his colleagues gave a junior chimp a choice between pieces of food that a dominant chimp had seen hidden and other pieces it had not seen hidden. The junior chimp, who watched all the hiding, stayed away from the food the dominant chimp had seen, but took the food it hadn’t seen.

Anyone who has gone to an academic conference will recognize that we may be in the same situation. We may say that we sign up because we’re eager to find out what other human beings think, but we’re just as interested in who’s on top. Many of the political judgments we make there don’t have much to do with our theory of mind. We may show our respect to a famous professor even if we have no respect for his ideas.

Until recently, however, there wasn’t much research into how humans develop and employ this kind of political knowledge. It may be that we understand the social world in terms of dominance, like chimps, but we’re just not usually as politically motivated as they are. Instead of asking whether we have a better everyday theory of mind, we might wonder whether they have a better everyday theory of politics.

1．According to the first paragraph, which of the following shows that an animal is smart?

A．It can behave like a human kid.

B．It can imitate what human beings do.

C．It can find a solution to its own problem.

D．It can figure out those adaptive problems.

2．Which of the following statements best illustrates our “theory of mind”?

A．We talk with infants in a way that they can fully understand.

B．We make guesses at what others think while interacting with them.

C．We hide our emotions when we try establishing contact with a stranger.

D．We try to understand how kids’ pretend play affects our taste for fiction.

3．What can be inferred from the passage?

A．Neither human nor animals display their preference for dominance.

B．Animals living in a competitive political context are smarter.

C．Both humans and some animals have political intelligence.

D．Humans are more interested in who’s on top than animals.

4．By the underlined sentence in the last paragraph, the writer means that ________.

A．we know little about how chimps are politically motivated

B．our political knowledge doesn’t always determine how we behave

C．our theory of mind might enable us to understand our theory of politics

D．more research should be conducted to understand animals’ social world