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,

admin2018-12-01  105
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.
It can be inferred from the first paragraph that______.
选项 A、some groups are really smarter than others
B、the 697 volunteer participants need to complete a series of short tasks together
C、the selected short tasks must have practical significance
D、logical analysis and brainstorming are important in each task
答案C
解析 推断题。根据题干关键词定位到第一段。此题可用排除法。根据But are some groups， like some people，reliably smarter than others?无法推断出A项“一些团队确实比其他团 队聪明”。根据we grouped 697 volunteer participants into teams…Each team worked to gether to complete a series of short tasks可知B项“697名志愿者需要一起完成一系列小 任务”与原文不符。根据which were selected to represent the varied kinds of problems that groups are called upon to solve in the real world可知C项“精选的小任务必须要有实际意 义”符合原文。根据One task involved logical analysis，another brainstorming；others em phasized…可知D项“逻辑分析和头脑风暴在每个任务中都很重要”与原文不符。因此C 项为正确答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/Uv6Z777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)