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
Why Should We Worry About What We Shouldn’t? It would be a lot easier to enjoy your life if there weren’t so many things try
Why Should We Worry About What We Shouldn’t? It would be a lot easier to enjoy your life if there weren’t so many things try
admin
2010-05-09
32
问题
Why Should We Worry About What We Shouldn’t?
It would be a lot easier to enjoy your life if there weren’t so many things trying to kill you every day. The problems start even before you’re fully awake. There’s the fall out of bed that kills 600 Americans each year. There’s the early-morning heart attack, which is 40% more common than those that strike later in the day. There’s the fatal plunge down the stairs, the bite of sausage that gets lodged in your throat, the tumble on the slippery sidewalk as you leave the house, the high-speed automotive pinball game that is your daily commute.
Other dangers stalk you all day long. Will a cabbie’s brakes fail when you’re in the crosswalk? Will you have a violent reaction to bad food? And what about the risks you carry with you all your life? The father and grandfather who died of coronaries in their 50s probably passed the same cardiac weakness on to you. The tendency to take chances on the highway that has twice landed you in traffic court could just as easily land you in the morgue.
Shadowed by peril as we are, you would think we’d get pretty good at distinguishing the risks likeliest to do us in from the ones that are statistical long shots. But you would be wrong. We agonize over avian flu, which to date has killed precisely no one in the U.S., but have to be cajoled into getting vaccinated for the common flu, which contributes to the deaths of 36,000 Americans each year. We wring our hands over the mad cow pathogen that might be (but almost certainly isn’t) in our hamburger and worry far less about the cholesterol that contributes to the heart disease that kills 700,000 of us annually.
We pride ourselves on being the only species that understands the concept of risk, yet we have a confounding habit of worrying about mere possibilities while ignoring probabilities, building barricades against perceived dangers while leaving ourselves exposed to real ones. Six Muslims traveling from a religious conference were thrown off a plane last week in Minneapolis, Minn., even as unscreened cargo continues to stream into ports on both coasts. Shoppers still look askance at a bag of spinach for fear of E. coli bacteria while filling their carts with fat-sodden French fries and salt-crusted nachos. We put filters on faucets, install air ionizers in our homes and lather ourselves with antibacterial soap. "We used to measure contaminants down to the parts per million," says Dan McGinn, a former Capitol Hill staff member and now a private risk consultant. "Now it’s parts per billion."
At the same time, 20% of all adults still smoke; nearly 20% of drivers and more than 30% of backseat passengers don’t use seat belts; two-thirds of us are overweight or obese. We dash across the street against the light and build our homes in hurricane-prone areas and when they’re demolished by a storm, we rebuild in the same spot. Sensible calculation of real-world risks is a multidimensional math problem that sometimes seems entirely beyond us. And while it may be tree that it’s something we’ll never do exceptionally well, it’s almost certainly something we can learn to do better.
Part of the problem we have with evaluating risk, scientists say, is that we’re moving through the modem world with what is, in many respects, a prehistoric brain. We may think we’ve grown accustomed to living in a predator-free environment in which most of the dangers of the wild have been driven away or fenced off, but our central nervous system--evolving at a glacial pace--hasn’t got the message.
To probe the risk-assessment mechanisms of the human mind, Joseph LeDoux, a professor of neuroscience at New York University and the author of The Emotional Brain, studies fear pathways in laboratory animals. He explains that the jumpiest part of the brain--of mouse and man--is the amygdala, a primitive, almond-shaped clump of tissue that sits just above the brainstem. When you spot potential danger--a stick in the grass that may be a snake, a shadow around a comer that could be a mugger--it’s the amygdala that reacts the most dramatically, triggering the fight-or-flight reaction that pumps adrenaline and other hormones into your bloodstream.
It’s not until a fraction of a second later that the higher regions of the brain get the signal and begin to sort out whether the danger is real. But that fraction of a second causes us to experience the fear far more vividly than we do the rational response an advantage that doesn’t disappear with time. The brain is wired in such a way that nerve signals travel more readily from the amygdala to the upper regions than from the upper regions back down. Setting off your internal alarm is quite easy, but shutting it down takes some doing.
"There are two systems for analyzing risk: an automatic, intuitive system and a more thoughtful analysis," says Paul Slovic, professor of psychology at the University of Oregon. "Our perception of risk lives largely in our feelings, so most of the time we’re operating on system No. 1."
There’s clearly an evolutionary advantage to this natural timorousness. If we’re mindful of real dangers and flee when they arise, we’re more likely to live long enough to pass on our genes. But evolutionary rewards also come to those who stand and fight, those willing to take risks--and even suffer injury-- in pursuit of prey or a mate. Our ancestors hunted mastodons and stampeded buffalo, risking getting trampled for the possible payoff of meat and pelt. Males advertised their reproductive fitness by fighting other males, willingly engaging in a contest that could mean death for one and offspring for the other.
These two impulses--to engage danger or turn from it--are constantly at war and have left us with a well-tuned ability to evaluate the costs and payoffs of short-term risk, say Slovic and others. That, however, is not the kind we tend to face in contemporary society, where threats don’t necessarily spring from behind a bush. They’re much more likely to come to us in the form of rumors or news broadcasts or an escalation of the federal terrorism-threat level from orange to red. It’s when the risk and the consequences of our response unfold more slowly, experts say that our analytic system kicks in. This gives us plenty of opportunity to overthink--or underthink-- the problem, and this is where we start to bollix things up. Which risks get excessive attention and which get overlooked depends on a hierarchy of factors. Perhaps the most important is dread. For most creatures, all death is created pretty much equal. Whether you’re eaten by a lion or drowned in a river, your time on the savanna is over. That’s not the way humans see things. The more pain or suffering something causes, the more we tend to fear it; the cleaner or at least quicker the death, the less it troubles us; "We dread anything that poses a greater risk for cancer more than the things that injure us in a traditional way, like an auto crash," says Slovic. "That’s the dread factor." In other words, the more we dread, the more anxious we get, and the more anxious we get, the less precisely we calculate the odds of the thing actually happening. "It’s called probability neglect," says Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago professor of law specializing in risk regulation.
The same is true for, say, AIDS, which takes you slowly, compared with a heart attack, which can kill you in seconds, despite the fact that heart disease claims nearly 50 times as many Americans than AIDS each year. We also dread catastrophic risks, those that cause the deaths of a lot of people in a single stroke, as opposed to those that kill in a chronic, distributed way.
Unfamiliar threats are similarly scarier than familiar ones. The next E. coli outbreak is unlikely to shake you up as much as the previous one, and any that follow will trouble you even less. In some respects, this is a good thing, particularly if the initial reaction was excessive.
Our perception of risk lives largely in our feelings, so most of the time we are operating on an automatic system for analyzing risks.
选项
A、Y
B、N
C、NG
答案
A
解析
参见第9段:There are two systems for analyzing risk: an automatic, intuitive system and a more thoughtful analysis.Our perception of risk lives largely in our feelings, so most of the time we are operating on system No.1. system No. 1指的是自动直觉系统。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/qIKK777K
0
大学英语六级
相关试题推荐
Inmanycountriestoday,lawsprotect(36)______.InIndiatheneedforsuchprotectionwasrealizedcenturiesago.About30
A、Hesuggeststhewomannottofinishtheplan.B、Headvicesthewomantosearchmoreinformation.C、Hetellsthewomantomake
Inmoderntimes,severalpeople______(在那瀑布上走过,他们大多数是有意的).
A、Weshouldn’tjudgepeoplebyreadingtheirfaces.B、Weshouldn’tsmileinthewrongplace.C、Weshouldn’tcoverourtruefeeli
A、Sleepcanstrengthenmemories.B、Sleepcanrecovermemories.C、Sleepcanprotectmemoriesagainstinterference.D、Sleepcanha
A、Hedislikesmuseumsandgalleries.B、Hedoesnotcareabouttheweather.C、Goingtothebeachisthebestchoice.D、Hedoesn’t
Inthepast,theglobalaveragetemperaturemayhavebeen27℃.Itisdifficulttopredictthestrongregionalvariationsinthe
A、Setupyourownwebsite.B、Consultthebank’srepresentatives.C、Trybymakingtransfers.D、Cheekyourstatements.BHowcanon
Theloudestoutcryaboutpovertyseemedtocomeinthewealthiestcountrybyfarintheworld.Accordingtomostcalculations,【
Americanhighereducationstandsonthebrinkofchaos.Neverhavesomanyspentsolonglearningsolittle.Thepresentcrisis
随机试题
硫化物竟是钻石的“好朋友”?根据2016年6月21日发表在英国《自然一通讯》杂志上的一项地质学研究,地幔中硫化物的氧化反应可能会诱发钻石的形成。这项发现构成了一个直接证据,可以证明钻石是在地幔中硫化物之上成核形成的。以下如果为真,哪项最能削弱上述观点?(
导线线端如接触不良,可能会烧毁电动机。()
社会变迁
免疫增强剂常用于:
双位点一步法中,若怀疑存在钩状效应,应采用的措施是
斯基德莫尔认为:行政过程中最常用的方法为计划、组织、人事、指导、()等活动。
福利管理的主要内容包括()
测验中某些项目的分数与测验中另一些项目的相关称作()。
赵维和郭晴是某公司企划部的员工,该部门的所有员工都是旅游爱好者。他们或者喜欢韩国,或者喜欢日本。赵维喜欢韩国,郭晴不喜欢日本。如果以上论述为真,下列哪项必然为真?Ⅰ.郭晴喜欢韩国Ⅱ.赵维不喜欢日本Ⅲ.企划部不喜欢韩国的人喜欢日本Ⅳ.企划部一半喜欢韩
进行软件测试的目的是_____。A.尽可能多地找出软件中的缺陷B.缩短软件的开发时间C.减少软件的维护成本D.证明程序没有缺陷
最新回复
(
0
)