考研英語閱讀材料匯編之科技類(2)

復(fù)習(xí)緊張，焦頭爛額？逆風(fēng)輕襲，來跨考秋季集訓(xùn)營，幫你尋方法，定方案！ 了解一下>>

閱讀是考研英語的重要題型之一，也是保障英語成績的關(guān)鍵題目。因此，考研學(xué)子們要充分重視英語閱讀，除了平時(shí)多多閱讀英語雜志、報(bào)紙外，還需要針對閱讀進(jìn)行專項(xiàng)訓(xùn)練。小編整理了關(guān)于考研英語閱讀題源的系列文章——考研英語閱讀材料匯編之科技類(2)，請參考!

Who's the Smart Sibling?

Ten weeks ago, Bo Cleveland and his wife embarked on a highly unscientific experiment-

they gave birth to their first child. For now, Cleveland is too exhausted to even consider having

another baby, but eventually, he will. In fact, hes already planned an egalitarian strategy for

raising the rest of his family. Little Arthur won't get any extra attention just because he's the

firstborn, and, says his father, he probably won't be much smarter than his future .siblings; either.

It's the sort of thing many parents would say, but it's a bit surprising coming from Cleveland,

who studies birth order and IQ at Pennsylvania State University. As he knows too well, a study

published recently in the journal Science suggests that firstborns do turn out sharper than their

brothers and sisters, no matter how parents try to compensate. Is Cleveland wrong? Is Arthur

destined to be the smart sibling just because he had the good luck to be born first?

For decades, scientists have been squabbling over birth order like siblings fighting over a toy. Some of them say being a first-, middle- or lastborn has significant effects on intelligence. Others say that's nonsense, The spat goes back at least as far as Alfred Adler, a Freud-era psychologist who argued that firstborns had an edge. Other psychologists found his theory easy to believe—middle and youngest kids already had a bad rap, thanks to everything from primogeniture laws to the Prodigal Son. When they set out to confirm the birth-order effects Adler had predicted, they found some evidence. Dozens of studies over the next several decades showed small differences in IQ; scholastic-aptitude tests and other measures of achievement So did "anecdata” suggesting that firstborns were more likely to win Nobel Prizes or become (ahem) prominent psychologists.

But even though the scientists were turning up birth-order patterns easily, they couldn't

pin down a cause. Perhaps, one theory went, the mother's body was somehow attacking the later

offspring in uterus. Maternal antibody levels do increase with each successive pregnancy. But

there's no evidence that this leads to differences in intelligence, and the new study in Silence,

based on records from nearly a quarter of a million young Norwegian men, strikes down the

antibody hypothesis. It looks at kids who are the eldest by accident-those whose older siblings

die in infancy--as well as those who are true firstborns. Both groups rack up the same high

scores on IQ tests. Whatever is lowering the latterborns' scores, it isn't prenatal biology, since

being raised as the firstborn, not actually being the firstborn, is what counts.

The obvious culprits on the nurture side are parents. But it's hard to think that favoritism toward firstborns exists in modem society. Most of us no longer view secondborn as second best, and few parents will admit to treating their kids differently. In surveys, they generally say they give their children equal attention. Kids concur, reporting that they feel they're treated fairly.

Maybe, then, the problem with latterborns isn't nature or nurture-maybe there simply isn't a problem. Not all the research shows a difference in intelligence. A pivotal 2000 study by Joe Rodgers ,now a professor emeritus at the University of Oklahoma, found no link between birth order and smarts. And an earlier study of American families found that the youngest kids, not the oldest, did best in school. From that work, say psychologist Judith Rich Harris, a prominent critic of birth-order patterns, it's clear that “the impression that the firstborn is more often the academic achiever is false."

Meanwhile, many of the studies showing a birth-order pattern in IQ have a big, fat,

methodological flaw. The Norwegian Science study is an example, says Cleveland: "It's

comparing Bill, the first child in one family; to Bob, the second child in another family." That

would be fine if all families were identical, but of course they aren't. The study controls for

variables such as parental education and family size. But Rodgers, the Oklahoma professor,

notes that there are "hundreds" of other factors in play; and because it's so hard to discount

all of them, he's "not sure whether the patterns in the Science article are real."

No one is more sensitive to that criticism than the Norwegian scientists. In fact, they

already have an answer ready in the form of a second paper. Soon to be published in the

journal Intelligence, it's, similar to the Science study except for one big thing: instead of

comparing Bill to Bob, it compares Bill to younger brothers Barry and Barney. The same

birth- order pattern shows up: the firstborns, on average, score about two points higher than

their secondborn brothers, and hapless thirdborns do even worse. "The purpose of the

two papers was exactly the same," says Petter Kristensen of Norway's National Institute

of Occupational Health, who led both new studies. "But this second one is much more

comprehensive, and in a sense it's better than the Science paper." The data are there--within

families, birth order really does seem linked to brain power. Even the critics have to soften

their positions a little. The Intelligence study "must be taken very" seriously" says Rodgers.

No one, not even Kristensen, thinks the debate is over For one thing, there's still that

argument about what's causing birth-order effects. It's possible, says UC Berkeley researcher

Frank Sulloway, that trying .to treat kids in an evenhanded way in fact results in inequity.

Well-meaning parents may end up shortchanging middleborns because there's one thing

they can't equalize: at no point in the middle child's life does he get to be the only kid in

the house. Alternatively, says Sulloway; there's the theory he has his money on, the "family-

niche hypothesis Older kids, whether out of desire or necessity axe often called on to be

"assistant parents," he notes. Getting that early- taste of responsibility may prime them for

achievement later on. "If they think Oh, I'm supposed to be more intelligent so I'd better

do my homework,' it doesn't matter if they actually are more-intelligent," says Sulloway,"It

becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy." If the firstborns' homework involves reading Science and

Intelligence, there'll be no stopping them now.

詞匯注解

重點(diǎn)單詞

embark / im’ba:k/

【文中釋義】v.著手，從事

【大綱全義】v. (使)上船(或飛機(jī)，汽車等)：著手，從事

extra /'ekstrθ/

【文中釋義】 adj.額外的

【大綱全義】adj額外的，附加的 n.附加物，額外的東西adv.特別地

compensate /'k?mp?nseit/

【文中釋義】v.補(bǔ)償，彌補(bǔ)

【大綱全義】v.(for)補(bǔ)償，賠償，抵消

nonsense /'n?ns?ns/

【文中釋義】n.荒謬的言行，胡話

【大綱全義】n.胡說，廢話;冒失(或輕浮)的行為

rap / ræp/

【文中釋義】n.不公正的判決，苛評(píng)

【大綱全義】n.叩擊，輕拍，斤責(zé)，急敲(聲);不公正的判決，苛評(píng)，v. 敲，拍，打，斤責(zé)，使著迷

predict / pri’dikt/

【文中釋義】v.預(yù)言

【大綱全義】v.預(yù)言，預(yù)測，預(yù)告

prominent /'pr?min?nt/

【文中釋義】adj杰出的

【大綱全義】adj.突起的，凸出的;突出的，杰出的

offspring /?fspri?; (us)'?:f-/

【文中釋義】n..子孫,后代

【大綱全義】n. 子孫,后代,結(jié)果，產(chǎn)物;(動(dòng)物的)崽

successive /s?k'sesiv/

【文中釋義】adj.連續(xù)的

【大綱全義】adj.接連的，連續(xù)的

pregnancy /'Pregn?nsi/

【文中釋義】n.懷孕

【大綱全義】n.妊振;懷孕(期);(事件等的)醞釀;(內(nèi)容)充實(shí)，富有意義

nurture /'n?: t??/

【文中釋義】n.養(yǎng)育，教育

【大綱全義】n.營養(yǎng)品;養(yǎng)育，培養(yǎng)，滋養(yǎng)v. 給予營養(yǎng)物，養(yǎng)育，培養(yǎng)，滋養(yǎng)

超綱單詞

egalitarian n. 平等主義 sibling n. 兄弟妞妹

squabble v. 為……爭吵 spat n. 爭吵

primogeniture n. 長子身份 aptitude n. 才能，資質(zhì)

anecdata n. 二逸事證據(jù) prenatal adj. 產(chǎn)前的，出生前的

重點(diǎn)段落譯文

兩周前，伯·克利夫蘭和他的妻子進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)非常不科學(xué)的實(shí)驗(yàn)——他們生下了他們的第一個(gè)孩子?，F(xiàn)在，克利夫蘭太疲憊了，甚至于不考慮再生一個(gè)孩子，但是最終他還是會(huì)選擇再生一個(gè)的。事實(shí)上，他已經(jīng)計(jì)劃了一項(xiàng)平等主義策略來養(yǎng)活家里的其他孩子。小亞瑟的父親說，他不會(huì)僅僅因?yàn)樾喩穷^一個(gè)孩子而得到任何額外的關(guān)注，并且他也不可能比他將來的兄弟姐妹更聰明。這是很多家長都會(huì)說的一件事，但是從在賓夕法尼亞州立大學(xué)研究出生次序和智力的克利夫蘭嘴里說出來就有點(diǎn)令人驚訝了。如他所知.最近在《科學(xué)》期刊上發(fā)表的一項(xiàng)研究表明，無論父母怎樣嘗試彌補(bǔ)，頭一個(gè)孩子都顯得比他們的兄弟姐妹要聰明一些。克利夫蘭錯(cuò)了嗎?難道僅僅因?yàn)樾疫\(yùn)的亞瑟是第一個(gè)出生的孩子，所以他命中注定是個(gè)聰明的哥哥?

幾十年來，科學(xué)家們一直像兄弟姐妹為一個(gè)玩具打架一樣在出生次序問題上爭吵不休。他們中有些人說作為第一個(gè)、中間所生或者是最后一個(gè)出生會(huì)對智力產(chǎn)生重大的影響。有的人則說那是無稽之談。這種爭論至少可以追溯到阿爾弗萊德·阿德勒——那個(gè)弗洛伊德年代的心理生物學(xué)家。他認(rèn)為頭生的孩子具有優(yōu)勢。其他的心理學(xué)家發(fā)現(xiàn)他的理論很容易使人相信——由于長子繼承法的規(guī)定以及所謂的“浪子回頭”，中間和最小的孩子們已經(jīng)受到了很多批評(píng)。當(dāng)他們著手證實(shí)阿德勒所預(yù)言的出生次序的影響時(shí)，他們找到了一些證據(jù)。之后幾十年的研究顯示不同出生次序的孩子在智力、學(xué)習(xí)能力和其他成就的量度上有微小的不同。一些名人逸事也表明:第一個(gè)孩子更可能贏得諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)，或者成為杰出的心理生物學(xué)家。

但是即使科學(xué)家很容易就找到了出生次序模型，他們也不能確認(rèn)原因.一種理論認(rèn)為，可能母親的身體會(huì)在某種程度上對子宮里后出生的子女進(jìn)行攻擊。母親的抗體水平隨著不斷的懷孕而提高。但是，說這樣導(dǎo)致了智力上的不同是沒有證據(jù)的?！犊茖W(xué)》期刊上一項(xiàng)新的研究擊垮了這個(gè)“抗體假設(shè)”論，這項(xiàng)研究以挪威近25萬年輕人的記錄為基礎(chǔ)。這項(xiàng)研究觀察了兩組孩子，其中一組是那些因他們的哥哥或姐姐在幼年夭折而意外地成為頭生子女的孩子，另外一組是那些本身就是真正的頭生子女。兩組孩子在智力測試中獲得了同樣的高分。不管是什么降低了后出生孩子的分?jǐn)?shù)，總之不是產(chǎn)前生物學(xué)上的原因，因?yàn)槭聦?shí)上最重要的是：不是頭生子女卻被當(dāng)作頭生子女來養(yǎng)。

家長在孩子的撫養(yǎng)方面存在明顯的誤區(qū)。但是很難想象現(xiàn)代社會(huì)會(huì)存在偏愛頭生子女的現(xiàn)象。我們大多數(shù)人不再認(rèn)為第二胎出生的孩子就是第二優(yōu)秀的，也很少有家長會(huì)承認(rèn)他們會(huì)區(qū)別對待孩子。在調(diào)查中，他們一般會(huì)說他們給予孩子同等的關(guān)注。孩子們也意見一致，說他們感覺自己受到了公平的對待。

希望各位考生能夠每天堅(jiān)持閱讀，提高詞匯量和語感能力，為以后的系統(tǒng)復(fù)習(xí)打下堅(jiān)實(shí)的基礎(chǔ)。最后提醒大家，夏季來臨，復(fù)習(xí)備考需注意防暑降溫。預(yù)?？佳谐晒?

相關(guān)推薦
復(fù)習(xí)指導(dǎo)	2017考研英語單詞中的詞根詞綴匯總	2017考研線性代數(shù)重點(diǎn)公式匯總
考研時(shí)間	跨考教育整理—2017年考研時(shí)間表	2016考研真題及答案解析
復(fù)試分?jǐn)?shù)線	34所自主劃線高校歷年考研復(fù)試分?jǐn)?shù)線	歷年考研國家線匯總（跨考教育整理）