2. 考研
  3. Psychologists have known for a century that individuals vary in their cognitive ability. But are some groups, like some people,

Psychologists have known for a century that individuals vary in their cognitive ability. But are some groups, like some people,

admin2017-12-19  45
问题    Psychologists have known for a century that individuals vary in their cognitive ability. But are some groups, like some people, reliably smarter than others? In order to answer that question, we grouped 697 volunteer participants into teams of two to five members. Each team worked together to complete a series of short tasks, which were selected to represent the varied kinds of problems that groups are called upon to solve in the real world. One task involved logical analysis, another brainstorming; others emphasized coordination, planning and moral reasoning.
   Individual intelligence, as psychologists measure it, is defined by its generality: People with good vocabularies, for instance, also tend to have good math skills, even though we often think of those abilities as distinct. The results of our studies showed that this same kind of general intelligence also exists for teams. On average, the groups that did well on one task did well on the others, too. In other words, some teams were simply smarter than others.
   We found the smartest teams were distinguished by three characteristics. First, their members contributed more equally to the team’ s discussions, rather than letting one or two people dominate the group. Second, their members scored higher on a test called Reading the Mind in the Eyes, which measures how well people can read complex emotional states from images of faces with only the eyes visible. Finally, teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. This last effect, however, was partly explained by the fact that women, on average, were better at "mindreading" than men.
   In a new study, we replicated these earlier findings. We randomly assigned each of 68 teams to complete our collective intelligence test in one of two conditions. Half of the teams worked face to face. The other half worked online, with no ability to see any of their teammates. We wanted to see whether groups that worked online would still demonstrate collective intelligence, and whether social ability would matter as much when people communicated purely by typing messages into a browser.
   And they did. Online and off, some teams consistently worked smarter than others. More surprisingly, the most important ingredients for a smart team remained constant regardless of its mode of interaction: members who communicated a lot, participated equally and possessed good emotion-reading skills.
In a new study, the other half of people work online because______.
选项 A、it’ s necessary to ensure the accuracy of the experiment
B、online collaboration is becoming more and more important
C、the experimenters want to see whether collective intelligence will be showed
D、the experimenters want to prove social ability is vital to every team
答案C
解析 细节题。根据题干关键词定位到第四段。根据We wanted to see whether groups that worked online would still demonstrate collective intelligence，and whether social ability would matter as much when people communicated purely by typing messages into a browser． 可知C项“实验者想看看在那种情况下，集体智慧是否会出现”符合题意，为正确答案。 A项“保证实验的准确性是必要的”，B项“网络协作正在变得越来越重要”，D项“实验 者想证明社交能力在每一个团队都是重要的”，均与原文不符。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/NhBZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)