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
考研
Science has few more controversial topics than human intelligence—in particular, whether variations in it are a result of nature
Science has few more controversial topics than human intelligence—in particular, whether variations in it are a result of nature
admin
2021-02-21
116
问题
Science has few more controversial topics than human intelligence—in particular, whether variations in it are a result of nature or nurture, and especially whether such variations differ between the sexes. The mines in this field can blow up an entire career, as Larry Summers found out in 2005 when he spoke of the hypothesis that the mathematical aptitude needed for physics and engineering, as well as for maths itself, is innately rarer in women than in men. He resigned as president of Harvard University shortly afterwards.
It is bold, therefore, of Jonathan Wai, Martha Putallaz and Matthew Makel, of Duke University in North Carolina, to enter the argument with a paper that addresses both questions. In this paper, they describe how they sifted through nearly three decades of standardised tests administered to American high-school students to see what had been happening to the country’s brightest sparks. They draw two conclusions. One is that a phenomenon called the Flynn effect applies in particular to the brightest of the bright. The other is that part, but not all, of the historic difference between the brainiest men and women has vanished.
The three researchers drew their data from Duke University’s Talent Identification Programme, TIP, which is designed to discover especially clever candidates early on: all the participants had scored in the top 5% of ability when confronted with exams designed for much older students. TIP, in turn, draws on three national exams: SAT, EXPLORE and ACT.
In the early 1980s, the ratio of males to females in the top 0.01% of maths scores in SAT, the Scholastic Aptitude Test, was around 13 to 1. By the early 1990s, it had fallen to four to one. After this, however, it remained unaltered.
It is clear that the rise itself must be "nurture" of some sort, but the subsequent stasis could have either explanation. A line of reasoning in favour of "nature" is that put forward by Simon Baron-Cohen, a psychologist at Cambridge University. This connects the extreme systematising patterns of thought which make a good mathematician with the advantage of men among those with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism that does not harm a person’s general intelligence. But the difference could equally well be the result of some as-yet-unclear difference between the ways girls and boys are brought up.
That such unclear environmental influences can have real effects on IQ is eloquently illustrated by the Flynn effect. This phenomenon, brought to the world’s attention in the 1980s by James Flynn of the University of Otago, in New Zealand, is that average IQs around the world have been rising at the rate of 0.3 points a year for the past eight decades. Using the TIP data, Dr Wai and his colleagues showed that this is as true of the brightest youngsters in American society as it is of lesser mortals, suggesting that even they can have their abilities boosted by whatever is causing the Flynn effect. Once again, the changes seem to be mainly in mathematics. Scores in the brightest children’s verbal-reasoning and reading abilities demonstrate no clear trend, but all three national tests show sustained improvements in their mathematical ability over the past three decades.
[A] aims to find out extraordinarily smart people based on three exams in America.
[B] shows, with colleagues, that general IQs of the cleverest youngsters have been rising.
[C] assumes that genetically, there is an inequality in mathematical ability between sexes.
[D] presents that there are some relationships between intelligence and Asperger’s syndrome.
[E] shows that IQ has been rising on average under environmental influences.
[F] finds an inequality in mathematical ability between sexes according to his research.
[G] concludes, with his colleagues, that intelligent difference between sexes doesn’t change.
Larry Summers
选项
答案
C
解析
Larry Summers出现在文中的第一段。该段讲到Larry Summers的一个假设:就物理,工程和数学所需要的数学能力而言,女性天生不如男性。C中的genetically、mathematical ability分别与文中的innately、mathematical aptitude同义,inequality是对原文rarer的转述,故确定C为本题答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/Z1Y4777K
0
考研英语二
相关试题推荐
Theauthorthinksthatpullfactors______.Peoplemovingwithincountrybordersareoftenmotivatedbythedesireto______.
Excitement,fatigue,andanxietycanallbedetectedfromsomeone’sblinks,accordingtopsychologistJohnStern(21)Washington
ManyAmericansregardthejurysystemasaconcreteexpressionofcrucialdemocraticvalues,includingtheprinciplesthatallc
Tensofthousandsof18-year-oldswillgraduatethisyearandbehandedmeaninglessdiplomas.Thesediplomaswon’tlookanydiff
Conveniencefoodhelpscompaniesbycreatinggrowth;butwhatisitseffectonpeople?Forpeoplewhothinkcookingwasthefoun
HenricIbsen,authoroftheplay"ADoll’sHouse",inwhichapretty,helplesshousewifeabandonsherhusbandandchildrentose
AnyonecantrackaVenmouser’spurchasehistoryandcollectadetailedprofile—includingtheirdrugdeals,eatinghabitsand
KimiyukiSudashouldbeaperfectcustomerforJapan’scar-makers.He’sayoung,successfulexecutiveatanInternet-servicesco
Organizationsandsocietiesrelyonfinesandrewardstoharnesspeople’sself-interestintheserviceofthecommongood.Thet
Eachsuburbanhousewife,wroteBettyFriedanin1963,struggleswithasinglequestionasshemakesthebeds,shopsforgrocerie
随机试题
在氯苯硝化生产一硝基氯化苯生产车间,收率为92%,选择性为98%,则氯化苯的转化率为()。
简述网上营销渠道设计应注意的问题。
由于小动脉扩张而使流人局部组织或器官中的血量增多的现象,称
辐射对人体危害很大,其中()属电离辐射。
在作业场所中可能接触的电磁辐射包括非电离辐射、电离辐射。下列电磁辐射中,属于电离辐射的是()。
洋务运动是在19世纪60年代初清政府镇压太平天国起义的过程中和第二次鸦片战争结束后兴起的。洋务派主张学习西方武器装备和科学技术,以“自强”“求富”为目标,兴办的洋务事业有()
Thedawnoftheoilagewasfairlyrecent.AlthoughthestuffwasusedtowaterproofboatsintheMiddleEast6,000yearsago,e
下列选项中,哪些是按照文件的物理结构划分的文件分类?()
输入/输出端口有两种编址方法,即I/O端口与存储器单元统一编址和I/O端口单独编址。前一种编址的主要优点是【 】,后一种编址的主要优点是专用I/O指令字节数少,指令执行快和不占用存储空间。
Themostconsistentlyidentifiedteachereffectivenessvariableistimeontask.Thatis,themoretimethatstudentsspendon
最新回复
(
0
)