听力题1

A. All societies are built upon the cornerstones of basic values.
B. Everyone everywhere demonstrates seven character traits.
C. All societies are kept together by seven basic moral rules.
D. Everyone every where shares a universal moral standard.

A. Accertain whether deferring to authority was confined to right-wing people
B. Find out whether different societies had different versions of morality
C. Make clear whether all societies faced the same moral isssues.
D. Find out whether left-wing people still had a group loyalty.

A. Make independent descriptions of cultures around the world.
B. Strive to understand the basic differences between peoples.
C. Appreciate the foundational value of the existing data.
D. Carry out systematic field studies to gather new data.

trait = feature

left-wing 激进派

right-wing 保守派

systematic 成体系的

问题

1. What do we learn from the Oxford university researchers?
2. What did the new study by Oxford researchers aim to do?
3. What does Harvey White House think social scientists should do?

原文

All societies are held together by seven universal moral rules, which include deferring to superiors and respecting the property of others. Oxford university has concluded that although many cultures are moving towards more liberal, less hierarchical organizations, the new research suggests that traditional power structures and basic values of charity and brotherhood are the cornerstones of successful societies. The huge study of sixty different cultures around the world found that all communities operate under seven basic moral codes. Those universal rules are: help your family, help your group, return favors, be brave, defer to superiors, divide resources fairly and respect the property of others. The character traits held for every kind of community, be they traditional hunter gatherers or advanced civilizations, helping to uphold civilized society and foster social cooperation. Researchers found everyone everywhere shares a common moral code. Said Dr Oliver Scott Curry, lead author and senior researcher at Oxford, “These seven moral rules appear to be universal across cultures because people face the same social problems.“ Even if some of these traits look right wing or conservative, for example deferring to authority, left wing people will still have a group loyalty and deference to someone or something. This shows there really is more that unites us than divides us. The study published in Current Anthropology is the largest and most comprehensive and widespread survey of morals ever conducted and aimed to find out whether different societies had different versions of morality. The team accessed the world’s best archives to analyze accounts from more than six hundred sources of sixty societies around the world. They found that the seven rules were considered morally good in all societies and were observed across all continents, religions and politics. However, some communities valued certain rules more highly than others. Dr Curry hopes that this research helps to promote mutual understanding between people of different cultures and appreciation of what we have in common and how and why we differ. Co-author Professor Harvey White House said, “Social scientists should now set about testing the theory in the field rather than relying on old data. This study was based on historical descriptions of cultures around the world. He said these descriptions were made independent of and prior to the theory. We’re testing in future. If social scientists are serious about testing theories of morality, they will need to gather new data more systematically out in the field.”

defer 遵从，服从

hierarchy - hierarchical

charity 慈善

favor 恩惠

译文

所有社会都由七条普遍的道德准则维系在一起，其中包括服从上级和尊重他人的财产。牛津大学得出的结论是，尽管许多文化正在朝着更加自由、等级制度更少的组织发展，但新的研究表明，传统的权力结构以及慈善和兄弟情谊的基本价值观是成功社会的基石。对世界各地60种不同文化的大规模研究发现，所有社区都在七条基本道德准则下运作。这些普遍的规则是：帮助你的家庭，帮助你的群体，回报恩惠，勇敢，服从上级，公平分配资源和尊重他人的财产。每一种社区的性格特征，无论是传统的狩猎采集者还是先进的文明，都有助于维护文明社会和促进社会合作。研究人员发现，世界各地的每个人都有共同的道德准则。牛津大学的首席作者兼高级研究员奥利弗·斯科特·库里博士说：“这七条道德规则似乎在不同文化中都是普遍的，因为人们面临着同样的社会问题。”即使其中一些特征看起来像右翼或保守派，例如服从权威，左翼人士仍然会对某人或某事有集体的忠诚和尊重。这表明，真正团结我们的东西比分裂我们的东西多。发表在《当代人类学》上的这项研究是有史以来规模最大、最全面、最广泛的道德调查，旨在找出不同社会是否有不同版本的道德。该团队访问了世界上最好的档案，分析了来自世界各地60个社会的600多个来源的账户。他们发现，这七条规则在所有社会都被认为是道德良好的，并且在所有大陆、宗教和政治中都得到遵守。然而，一些社区比其他社区更重视某些规则。库里博士希望这项研究有助于促进不同文化的人之间的相互理解，并欣赏我们的共同点以及我们如何以及为什么不同。合著者哈维·白宫教授说：“社会科学家现在应该开始在这个领域测试这个理论，而不是依赖旧数据。这项研究基于对世界各地文化的历史描述。他说这些描述是独立于理论之前的。我们将来会进行测试。如果社会科学家认真对待道德理论的测试，他们需要在这个领域更系统地收集新的数据。”

听力题2

A. The might be the most important part of out eating experience.
B. They can activate our brain functions in a most direct fashion.
C. They can be reviewed as the windows to out soul.
D. They can mislead us in more ways than one.

A. It attracts food companies’ growing attention.
B. It invariably determines how food sells.
C. It adversely impacts one’s eating experience.
D. It changes the way people taste food.

A. Enhance the taste
B. Make predictions
C. Identify distinct flavors
D. Enrich the eating experience

invariably 不变的

fashion = way

identify 识别

原文

When it comes to food, color is money. Food companies know that better color gives better prices. So they ensure that their products are attractive in color to bolster earnings. Oranges, for example, have to meet specific color standards. And oranges are just the beginning. There are color standards for foods, including French fries, tomatoes, pumpkins, olives, honey and cherries. The attention to color is for good reason. For all the talk of the tongue, our eyes really might be the most important part of the eating experience. A great number of our brain functions are dedicated to processing vision, while only one or two percent is given over to taste faculties. And the result is that color actually changes how we taste food. Scientists have demonstrated many times the importance of color to taste. In a nineteen eighties study, for example, test participants were asked to name the flavor of the beverage they were drinking without being able to see that beverage. Only one in five was able to identify it as orange. But when they were allowed to see what they were drinking, which was orange in color, each of them identified the orange flavor. And when a drink that was lime flavor was colored orange, nearly half of respondents identified the flavor of the beverage as orange. None made that mistake when the beverage was green in color. What’s happening when someone fails to identify the flavor of a beverage? They can’t see or that has an abnormal color. Is it that participants can’t discern what the flavor is and so rely on visual cues? Or does color actually change the experience of taste? The key to these questions is the effect of color on expectation. The brain makes predictions using color. These predictions rely on expectations that come from experience. Research shows that we’re all born liking sweet things and desire to eat them. But we aren’t born knowing what the sweet things we crave look like. So we need to learn this over time. The brain gets information from the environment. And we learn, for example, that fruits go from green and sour to red and ripe and sweet. Thus, if we see a green berry, we equate its color with a sour taste. And just looking at a red fruit will activate our expectations that it will taste sweet and delicious.

问题

What does the speaker say about our eyes?

What does color actually do? According to this lecture.

What does the brain use color to do?

译文

谈到食物，颜色就是金钱。食品公司知道更好的颜色能带来更高的价格。所以他们确保自己的产品颜色诱人，以提高收益。例如，橙子必须符合特定的颜色标准。而橙子只是个开始。包括炸薯条、西红柿、南瓜、橄榄、蜂蜜和樱桃在内的食品都有颜色标准。对颜色的关注是有充分理由的。尽管人们总在谈论舌头，但我们的眼睛可能确实是饮食体验中最重要的部分。我们大脑的大量功能都致力于处理视觉，而只有百分之一或二用于味觉功能。结果是颜色实际上改变了我们对食物的味觉。科学家多次证明了颜色对味觉的重要性。例如，在 20 世纪 80 年代的一项研究中，测试参与者被要求在看不到他们正在饮用的饮料的情况下说出饮料的味道。只有五分之一的人能够识别出它是橙子味。但是当他们被允许看到他们正在喝的饮料，而饮料是橙色的时候，他们每个人都识别出了橙子的味道。当一种酸橙味的饮料被染成橙色时，近一半的受访者认为饮料的味道是橙子味。当饮料是绿色的时候，没有人犯这个错误。当有人无法识别饮料的味道时会发生什么呢？他们看不到饮料或者饮料的颜色不正常。是参与者无法辨别味道，所以依赖视觉线索吗？还是颜色实际上改变了味觉体验？这些问题的关键是颜色对期望的影响。大脑利用颜色进行预测。这些预测依赖于来自经验的期望。研究表明，我们生来就喜欢甜食并渴望吃它们。但我们并不是生来就知道我们渴望的甜食是什么样子。所以我们需要随着时间的推移来学习这一点。大脑从环境中获取信息。例如，我们了解到水果从绿色和酸变成红色、成熟和甜。因此，如果我们看到一个绿色的浆果，我们会把它的颜色等同于酸味。而仅仅看着一个红色的水果就会激活我们对它味道甜美可口的期望。

听力题3

A. Social Status
B. Financial resources
C. Meaning
D. Happiness

A. Their effect on people’s happiness has long been overstated.
B. Their influence on people’s life varies with social contexts.
C. They can affect people’s experience of meaning.
D. They can ensure people’s overall well-being.

A. It used questioned totally different from those in their first study.
B. It focused on the sense of meaning of French participants.
C. It analyzed cases from a daily poll of US residents.
D. It examined data collected from multiple countries.

A. They might have more access to external sources of happiness.
B. They might focus on an individual sense of satisfaction or meaning.
C. They might be less easily affected by a community’s overall feeling.
D. They might be less adversely impacted by failure to achieve a purpose.

overstate 过度陈述

poll 民意调查，投票

context 背景，上下文

well-being 幸福感，福祉

原文

Searching for meaning is something many of us experience throughout our lives. For some, this meaning is religious, some political, and some interpersonal. And having a sense of meaning can bring us happiness. A new study looks at the relationship between meaning and happiness in the context of financial resources. Ria Caterpano from the University of Toronto and colleagues find meaning is a far weaker predictor of happiness for rich people than poorer people, suggesting economic resources can impact how we experience meaning. The team analyzed data from over five hundred thousand people across one hundred and twenty-three countries. The first study used data from a daily poll of US residents collected between 2013 and 2015. Well-being was tracked using measures of positive effect, whether during the day before they were surveyed, participants had smiled or laughed a lot or experienced a lot of happiness. Meaning was measured through a daily purpose index, which explored the extent to which participants felt that they like what they do every day and are motivated to achieve their goals. Finally, income levels were assessed. The results showed that the correlation between meaning and happiness was strongest among those in lower income brackets, but as income levels increased, the correlation became weaker. The second study looked at worldwide data. Happiness was measured using the same questions as in the first study, while meaning was measured using the single question “Do you feel your life has an important purpose or meaning?”. The strength of the relationship between meaning and happiness depended on participants’ income. Meaning had a greater influence on happiness for those on lower incomes compared to those in higher brackets. In the final study, French participants indicated the extent to which they felt they led a purposeful and meaningful life and how much they considered themselves a happy person. Finally, rather than using specific income brackets, they placed themselves on a social ladder representing where they stand in society with regard to wealth, education, and career. The results from the study duplicated those of the first, two. Overall, meaning and happiness had a stronger relationship in those with fewer resources than those with more. This might be the case because richer individuals have more access to other sources of happiness, many of which will be external, like lack of stress or community. Thus, a focus on an internal sense of satisfaction, purpose, or meaning is less important.

interpersonal 人际的

context 背景

suggesting 表明 = indicate

assess = estimate = evaluate

correlation 相互关系性

income bracket 收入阶层

income level 收入水平

purposeful 有意愿的，有目的的

duplicate 复制

问题

What does the speaker say many of us search for throughout our lives?

What do Ria Caterpano and colleagues find about economic resources?

What do we learn about Ria Caterpano and colleagues’ second study?

Why do meaning and happiness have a weaker relationship in those with more resources?

译文

寻找意义是我们许多人一生中都会经历的事情。对一些人来说，这个含义是宗教的，有些是政治的，有些是人际的。而拥有意义感可以给我们带来快乐。一项新的研究着眼于财务资源背景下意义与幸福之间的关系。多伦多大学的 Ria Caterpano 及其同事发现，富人比穷人更弱地预测了幸福感的意义，这表明经济资源会影响我们体验意义的方式。该团队分析了来自 123 个国家/地区的 50 多万人的数据。第一项研究使用了 2013 年至 2015 年间收集的美国居民每日民意调查的数据。使用积极影响的衡量标准来跟踪幸福感，无论是在接受调查的前一天，参与者是否经常微笑或大笑，或者体验到很多快乐。意义是通过每日目的指数来衡量的，该指数探讨了参与者在多大程度上觉得他们喜欢自己每天所做的事情，并有动力实现自己的目标。最后，评估了收入水平。结果显示，意义与幸福之间的相关性在低收入阶层中最强，但随着收入水平的提高，相关性变得更弱。第二项研究着眼于全球数据。幸福感是使用与第一项研究相同的问题来衡量的，而意义是使用单个问题“你觉得你的生活有重要的目的或意义吗？意义和幸福之间的关系强度取决于参与者的收入。与高收入阶层的人相比，意义对低收入人群的幸福感影响更大。在最后一项研究中，法国参与者表示他们认为自己过着有目的和有意义的生活的程度，以及他们认为自己是一个快乐的人的程度。最后，他们没有使用特定的收入等级，而是将自己置于一个社会阶梯上，代表他们在财富、教育和职业方面的社会地位。该研究的结果与前两项的结果相同。总体而言，意义和幸福感在资源较少的人中比在资源较多的人中具有更强的关系。这可能是因为较富裕的人有更多机会获得其他快乐来源，其中许多是外部的，例如缺乏压力或社区。因此，关注内在的满足感、目标或意义就不那么重要了。