首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
"Would You Kill the Fat Man?" is the title of a recent book about a set of moral problems that philosophers like to ponder, and
"Would You Kill the Fat Man?" is the title of a recent book about a set of moral problems that philosophers like to ponder, and
admin
2018-06-30
38
问题
"Would You Kill the Fat Man?" is the title of a recent book about a set of moral problems that philosophers like to ponder, and psychologists to put to their experimental subjects. In the canonical form, you are on a footbridge watching a trolley speeding down a track that will kill five unsuspecting people. You can push a fat man over the bridge onto the tracks to save the five. You cannot stop the trolley by jumping yourself, only the fat man is heavy enough. Would you do it?
Most people quail at the idea of shoving the man to his death. But alter the scenario a bit, and reactions change. People are more likely to throw a switch that would divert the trolley on to another track where it will kill only one person. The utilitarian calculation is identical — but the physical and emotional distance from the killing makes throwing the switch much more popular than throwing the man.
There are other ways to nudge people’s judgments, too. A rather counter-intuitive one was reported in a paper published last month in PLOS ONE, a journal. In it, Albert Costa of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Spain, and his colleagues, found that the language in which the dilemma is posed can alter how people answer. Specifically, when people are asked the fat-man question in a foreign language, they are more likely to kill him for the others’ sake.
Dr. Costa and his colleagues interviewed 317 people, all of whom spoke two languages — mostly English plus one of Spanish, Korean or French. Half of each group were randomly assigned the dilemma in their native tongue. The other half answered the problem in their second language. When asked in their native language, only 20% of subjects said they would push the fat man. When asked in the foreign language, the proportion jumped to 33%.
The explanation seems to lie in the difference between being merely competent in a foreign language and being fluent. The subjects in the experiment were not native bilinguals, but had, on average, begun the study of their foreign language at age 14. The participants typically rated their ability with their acquired tongue at around 3. 0 on a five-point scale. Their language skills were, in other words, pretty good — but not great.
Several psychologists, including Daniel Kahneman, who was awarded the Nobel prize in economics in 2002 for his work on how people make decisions, think that the mind uses two separate cognitive systems — one for quick, intuitive decisions and another that makes slower, more reasoned choices. These can conflict, which is what the trolley dilemma is designed to provoke: normal people have a moral aversion to killing (the intuitive system), but can nonetheless recognize that one death is, mathematically speaking, better than five (the reasoning system).
This latest study fits with other research which suggests that speaking a foreign language boosts the second system — provided, that is, you don’t speak it as well as a native. Earlier work, by some of the same scholars who performed this new study, found that people tend to fare better on tests of pure logic in a foreign language — and particularly on questions with an obvious-but-wrong answer and a correct answer that takes time to work out.
Dr Costa and his colleagues hypothesize that, while fluent speakers can form sentences effortlessly, the merely competent must spend more brainpower, and reason much more carefully, when operating in their less-familiar tongue. And that kind of thinking helps to provide psychological and emotional distance, in much the same way that replacing the fat man with a switch does.
选项
答案
"Would You Kill the Fat Man?" is the title of a recent book about a set of moral problems that philosophers like to ponder, and psychologists to put to their experimental subjects.
In the canonical form,
you are on a footbridge watching a trolley speeding down a track that will kill five unsuspecting people. You can push a fat man over the bridge onto the tracks to save the five.
You cannot stop the trolley by jumping yourself, only the fat man is heavy enough. Would you do it?
Most people quail at the idea of shoving the man to his death. But alter the scenario a bit, and reactions change. People are more likely to throw a switch that would divert the trolley on to another track where it will kill only one person.
The utilitarian calculation is identical — but
the physical and emotional distance from the killing makes throwing the switch much more popular than throwing the man.
There are other ways to nudge people’s judgments, too.
A rather counter-intuitive one was reported in a paper published last month in PLOS ONE, a journal. In it,
Albert Costa
of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Spain, and his colleagues,
found that the language in which the dilemma is posed can alter how people answer. Specifically, when people are asked the fat-man question in a foreign language, they are more likely to kill him for the others’ sake.
Dr. Costa and his colleagues interviewed 317 people, all of whom spoke two languages
— mostly English plus one of Spanish, Korean or French.
Half
of each group
were
randomly
assigned the dilemma in their native tongue. The other half
answered the problem
in their second language. When asked in their native language, only 20% of subjects said they would push the fat man. When asked in the foreign language, the proportion jumped to 33% .
The explanation seems to lie in the difference between being merely competent in a foreign language and being fluent.
The subjects in the experiment were not native bilinguals, but had, on average, begun the study of their foreign language at age 14. The participants typically rated their ability with their acquired tongue at around 3. 0 on a five-point scale. Their language skills were, in other words, pretty good — but not great.
Several psychologists
, including Daniel Kahneman, who was awarded the Nobel prize in economics in 2002 for his work on how people make decisions,
think that the mind uses two separate cognitive systems — one for quick, intuitive decisions and another that makes slower, more reasoned choices. These can conflict
, which is what the trolley dilemma is designed to provoke: normal people have a moral aversion to killing (the intuitive system) , but can nonetheless recognize that one death is, mathematically speaking, better than five (the reasoning system).
This latest study fits with other research which suggests that speaking a foreign language boosts the second system — provided, that is, you don’t speak it as well as a native.
Earlier work, by some of the same scholars who performed this new study, found that people tend to fare better on tests of pure logic in a foreign language — and particularly on questions with an obvious-but-wrong answer and a correct answer that takes time to work out.
Dr. Costa and his colleagues hypothesize that
, while fluent speakers can form sentences effortlessly,
the merely competent must spend more brainpower
, and reason much more carefully, when operating in their less-familiar tongue.
And that kind of thinking helps to provide psychological and emotional distance,
in much the same way that replacing the fat man with a switch does.
解析
这是一篇实验报告,内容是第二语言与道德难题。实验报告类文章的要点包括:实验的问题或目的、实验的主要方法和步骤、实验的发现、对实验发现的阐释和实验的意义所在。实验的主试和被试、具体的操作流程和实验的时间地点也会有交代,可视字数的限制不予总结。
英文的实验报告一般先指出实验的发现,也有的先引入要研究的问题再提实验发现,然后才是实验目的和过程,接下来写具体的实验发现并阐释原因。如果文章足够长,通常在结尾时指出实验的重要性和社会意义。
重点一:开篇,引入要试验的问题。
本文以心理学上著名的电车难题开篇,引入主题。要点是电车难题及人们对这一难题的反应,次要点是对电车难题中两个选择的描述。
1. "Would You Kill the Fat Man?" is the title of a recent book about a set of moral problems that philosophers like to ponder, and psychologists to put to their experimental subjects.
2. Most people quail at the idea of shoving the man to his death. But alter the scenario a bit, and reactions change. People are more likely to throw a switch that would divert the trolley on to another track where it will kill only one person.
3. the physical and emotional distance from the killing makes throwing the switch much more popular than throwing the man.
次重点:you are on a footbridge watching a trolley speeding down a track that will kill five unsuspecting people. You can push a fat man over the bridge onto the tracks to save the five.
重点二:先报告实验的发现或结果。文章第一次报告实验的发现或结果,一般是高度概括的,比较笼统。
Albert Costa found that the language in which the dilemma is posed can alter how people answer. Specifically, when people are asked the fat-man question in a foreign language, they are more likely to kill him for the others’ sake.
次重点:There are other ways to nudge people’s judgments, too.
重点三:实验的具体发现或结果。再次报告的实验结果往往较具体,有时会报告一系列发现。
When asked in their native language, only 20% of subjects said they would push the fat man. When asked in the foreign language, the proportion jumped to 33%.
次重点:
Dr. Costa and his colleagues interviewed 317 people, all of whom spoke two languages. Half were assigned the dilemma in their native tongue. The other half in their second language.
重点四:对实验结果的阐释。这部分解释实验结果产生的原因和深层原因。
1. The explanation seems to lie in the difference between being merely competent in a foreign language and being fluent.
2. Several psychologists think that the mind uses two separate cognitive systems — one for quick, intuitive decisions and another that makes slower, more reasoned choices. These can conflict.
3. This latest study fits with other research which suggests that speaking a foreign language boosts the second system — provided, that is, you don’t speak it as well as a native.
次重点:
Dr. Costa and his colleagues hypothesize that the merely competent must spend more brainpower. And that kind of thinking helps to provide psychological and emotional distance.
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/IcoYFFFM
本试题收录于:
CATTI二级口译综合能力题库翻译专业资格(CATTI)分类
0
CATTI二级口译综合能力
翻译专业资格(CATTI)
相关试题推荐
Sino-foreigneducationalprogramonbusinessispopularinChinanow,andthedemandforhighlevelinterpretationisgreat.
Americanswhoconsiderthemselves______inthetraditionalsensedonotusuallyhesitatetoheapcriticismindomesticmatters
TheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)wassetupin1988toassessinformationonclimatechangeanditsimpact.
Evidencecameupwhichspecificspeechsoundsarerecognizedbybabiesasyoungas6monthsold.
NextdoortoalunchcounteradvertisingagrilledcheesespecialisagallerywhereVanGogh’s"Irises"sharesthewallswithM
NextdoortoalunchcounteradvertisingagrilledcheesespecialisagallerywhereVanGogh’s"Irises"sharesthewallswithM
Scientistsclaimthatin50years’time,therewillbecomputersthatarelikelybeevenmoreintelligentthanhumanbeings.
Everydepartmenthashadtheirbudget______duringthefinancialcrisis.
InterpretthefollowingpassagesfromChineseintoEnglish.Startinterpretingatthesignalandstopatthesignal.Youmaytak
随机试题
简述马歇尔计划的内容与影响。(辽宁大学2014年历史学专业基础真题)
非职位权力包括( )
以下所列项目不属白色主病范围者为
风瘙痒湿疮
黄教授在2004年6月开始一本学术专著的写作,该专著于2005年7月定稿,2005年12月由出版社出版,2006年1月进行了版权登记。请综合分析本案所涉及的法律问题。
使用软梯上下船舶应设专人监护,并备有带安全绳的救生圈。()
常见的建设工程索赔不包括( )。
根据《保险法》第49条规定,保险人、被保险人为查明和确定保险事故的性质、原因和保险标的的损失程度所支付的必要的、合理的费用,应由( )。
在计算基金资产总值时,基金拥有的上市股票、认股权证是以计算日集中交易市场的()为准。
中国知识分子试图通过弘扬传统文化,加强对国学的深入研究来实现传统文化的伟大复兴。然而在目前这种专业化技术化的大趋势下,中国哲学的研究越是繁荣,它的社会影响就越小,因为专业化技术化拒绝大众的理解,于是哲学工作者的“科研成果”就成了学术共同体小圈子自我欣赏的作
最新回复
(
0
)