Yours,
Li Hua
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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
Children start out as natural scientists, eager to look into the world around them. Helping them enjoy science can be easy: there’s no need for a lot of scientific terms or expensive lab equipment. You only have to share your children’s curiosity. When having a science discussion with them, you need to notice at least three things.
Firstly, give them time to think. Studies over the past 30 years have shown that after asking a question, adults typically wait only one second or less for an answer, no time for a child to think. When adults increase their “wait time” to three seconds or more, children give more logical, complete and creative answers.
Secondly, watch your language. Once you have a child involved in a science discussion, don’t jump in with “That’s right” or “Very good”. These words work well when it comes to encouraging good behavior. But in talking about science, quick praise can signal that discussion is over. Instead, keep things going by saying “That’s interesting,” or “I’d never thought of it that way before.” or coming up with more questions or ideas.
Lastly, show, don’t tell. Real-life impressions of nature are far more impressive than any lesson children can learn from a book or a television program. Let children look at their fingertips through a magnifying glass(放大镜), and they’ll understand why you want them to wash before dinner. Rather than saying that water evaporates(蒸发), set a pot of water to boil and let them watch the water level drop.
What makes a human being? Is it our thoughts? Our emotions? Our behavior?
All of these things make us who we are, but at the center of the matter is the genome(基因组) the genes inside our bodies that may determine everything from our hair color to our intelligence. But if we could change our genome, what would it mean to us?
In an online video posted on Nov. 26, He Jiankui, a biological researcher from Southern University of Science and Technology in China, said that he had helped to make the world’s first genetically edited babies.
These are twin girls, born in November, with genes edited in an attempt to help them resist possible future infection with the AIDS virus.
He said that he chose to do this because HIV infections are a big problem in China. “I feel such a strong responsibility that it’s not just to make a first, but also to set an example,” He told the Associated Press(AP).
The announcement has caused an international storm.
Some believe that success will benefit the families of HIV patients. Given that HIV is “a major and growing public health threat,” attempted gene editing for HIV is “justifiable(无可非议的),” Harvard Medical School genetics professor George Church told AP.
However, others think that since gene editing technology is still premature, it is unsafe to attempt it.
“Gene editing itself is experimental and is still associated with unexpected mutations(突变), capable of causing genetic problems early and later in life, including the development of cancer.” Julian Savulescu, a specialist in ethics(伦理学) at the University of Oxford, told BBC News.
Others fear that this could open the door to using gene editing technology to make designer babies. It might give the parents the options to choose everything from their baby’s eye color to intelligence.
“You could find wealthy parents buying the latest ‘upgrades’(升级) for their children, leading to even greater inequality than we already live with,” Marcy Darnovsky, director of the San Francisco Center for Genetics, told BBC News.
However, Merlin Crossley, a biologist at the University of New South Wales, Australia, believes that’s a long way off . According to him, many genes produce qualities like height and intelligence—not to mention environmental influences.
And he believes the technology will be better controlled in the future.
“It’s hard to get genies(妖怪) back into bottles... but I’m optimistic that this technology, which I think of as ‘genetic surgery’, could be regulated quite effectively in the future,” Crossley told BBC News.
1．According to the passage, which of the four statements is correct?| A．The twin girls with genes edited will not be infected with AIDS. |
| B．He Jiankui found a way to cure people of AIDS. |
| C．The genetically edited babies have aroused a heated debate. |
| D．It makes no sense to edit genes. |
| A．He Jiankui. | B．George Church. |
| C．Merlin Crossley. | D．Marcy Darnovsky. |
| A．People will finally accept gene editing, but it takes time. |
| B．In the future gene editing will surely benefit people. |
| C．It will take a long time before gene editing succeeds. |
| D．There is much research to do on gene editing. |
| A．Gene Editing: A Trend for the Future |
| B．Is Gene Editing the Way we should Go？ |
| C．Can Gene Editing Free People of Future Diseases？ |
| D．Gene Editing: Genies out of Bottles |
There are lots of chances in front of us. Whether you can seize them or not depends on the choices you make. This reminds me of one choice I made during my childhood.
Two tickets. Only two tickets to the final basketball game.
Three pairs of eyes focused on the tickets in Dad’s out-stretched hand. Mike, the oldest, asked the question running through everyone’s mind, “Only one ticket for us three? But, Dad, which of us will go with you?” Avery, the youngest, repeated the question quietly. I asked Dad if there was any chance to get more tickets. I might be the middle sister, but I was just as eager as my basketball-crazy brothers for a night out with Dad. Dad said he’d got the tickets from a friend and there were only two available.
Seeing that none of us would give up the chance, Dad told us he would choose which of the three of us deserved to go by the following morning.
The next morning, we hurried into the kitchen and looked for Dad, only to find that he had gone out. We were told to get started on our Saturday cleanup as soon as we finished breakfast. Mike complained that he couldn’t concentrate on chores with the game a mere eleven hours away. He slurped the last of his milk, grabbed the basketball and headed towards the back door. Avery dashed after his brother. Before I realized it, the door snapped shut. I glanced out the window and saw Mike practicing his shot while Avery cheered him on.
Seeing the mess on the breakfast table—the leftovers on the sticky plates and dirty cups, I felt frustrated. I approached the window and knocked on it. When the boys looked at me, I held up a kitchen sponge and dishtowel. Mike casually nodded to me and held up five fingers. Sure, five more minutes! I didn’t believe they would return to do the cleanup in five minutes, especially in Dad’s absence. Apparently, they had made their choice.
Anyway, I chose to do the Saturday morning chores on my own.
Dad was happy to know I found the ticket he had hidden in the cupboard.
Steve grabbed his bat and glove. “See you later, Mom. I’m going to Paul’s.” With these words, he raced out the door and slammed (砰地关上) it behind him. Summer vacation just began. The boys planned to play baseball every day, so they could make the freshman team.
Seeing Paul waiting outside, Steve lifted his bat onto his shoulder and asked, “What are you doing? Where’s your stuff?” Paul shook his head, “I have to clean Mr. Thimpson’s garage before I can go. With his broken arm, he can’t do it himself. My mom always volunteers me to help the Thimpson’s. They’re kind of old.” “Okay,” said Steve. “I’ll help you. We’ll get done quicker working together.”
The boys went down the block to the Thimpson’s and got started. They put boxes that were scattered (散落) around the garage floor on shelves before they swept. As Paul lifted a big box onto a shelf, it fell off and with it fell an envelope. He picked up the envelope and found it wasn’t sealed. He opened it, inside which were lots of one hundred dollar bills. Gasping in astonishment, Paul pulled out a handful of bills and showed them to Steve.
“Where did you get that?” asked Steve. Paul pointed to the shelf, explaining, “It just fell down when the box fell. There’s got to be a couple of thousand dollars here.” He looked past Steve to the opening garage door. “Nobody is around. If I take some, I bet no one will ever know,” added Paul, uncontrollably picturing the bat and glove in McGroger’s Sports Store that he had longed for.
Steve frowned and shook his head. “Are you crazy? That’s stealing.” “Well, I do a lot of chores for them and don’t get paid. It’s not really stealing; it’s kind of payment for my hard work.” Paul defended himself. “Forget about it. You’re better than that.” Steve grabbed the money from Paul’s hand, stuffed it back in the envelope and put the envelope back on the shelf. “Come on! Let’s get done and go to the park,” Steve urged.
“Hello, boys. Mrs. Thimpson baked you a chocolate cake.” Mr. Thimpson appeared and invited them in.
As they wolfed the cake and were about to leave, Mrs. Thimpson stopped Paul.
Yours,
Li Hua
搜索
