| Linguists have understood for decades
that language and thought are closely related. Humans construct reality using
thought and express these thoughts through the use of language. Edward Sapir and
his student Benjamin Whorl are credited with developing the most relevant
explanation outlining the relationship between thought and language, the
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. The hypothesis consists of two parts, linguistic
relativity and linguistic determinism. Supporters of linguistic relativity
assume that culture is shaped by language. Terwilliger defines linguistic
determinism as the process by which "the functions of one’s mind are determined
by the nature of the language which one speaks." In simpler terms, the thoughts
that we construct are based upon the language that we speak and the words that
we use. In its strongest sense, linguisti A. the realities constructed through different languages are different B. language and thought are intimately related to each other C. culture is shaped by language through which it expresses itself D. both the culture and the mind determine the language to be used [单项选择]Neuroscientists have long understood that the brain can rewire itself in response to experience—a phenomenon known as neuroplasticity. But until recently, they didn"t know what causes gray matter to become plastic, to begin changing. Breakthrough research by a team at MIT"s Picower Institute for Learning and Memory has documented one type of environmental feedback that triggers plasticity: success. Equally important and somewhat surprising: Its opposite, failure, has no impact. Earl Miller, the lead researcher on the study, says understanding the link to environmental feedback is crucial to improving how people teach and motivate because it"s a big part of how we learn. But we absorb more from success than from failure, according to the study. Miller"s researchers gave monkeys a simple learning task: They presented one of two pictures. If it was Picture A, the monkeys were supposed to look to the left; if Picture B, to the right. When the monkeys looked in the correct direction, they were rewarded with a drop of juice. All the while the team recorded brain function. "Neurons(cells specialized to conduct nerve impulses)in the prefrontal cortex and striatum, where the brain tracks success and failure, sharpened their tuning after success," says Miller. What"s more, those changes lingered for several seconds, making brain activity more efficient the next time the monkey did the task. Thereafter, each success was processed more efficiently. That is, the monkey had learned. "But after failure," Miller points out, "there was little change in brain activity." In other words, the brain didn"t store any information about what went wrong and use it the next time. The monkey just tried, tried again. Miller says this means that on a neurological level, success is actually a lot more informative than failure. If you get a reward, the brain remembers what it did right. But with failure(unless there is a clear negative consequence, like the shock a child feels when she sticks something in an electrical outlet), the brain isn"t sure what to store, so it doesn"t change at all. Does this research confirm the management tenet of focusing on your—and your team"s—strengths and successes Miller cautions against making too tidy a connection between his findings and an environment like the workplace, but he offers this suggestion: "Maybe the lesson is to know that the brain will learn from success, and you don"t need to dwell on that. You need to pay more attention to failures and challenge why you fail."In the last paragraph, Miller suggests that we should
A. apply his findings to the workplace. B. be cautious while pursuing success. C. not think about the satisfaction of success. D. strive to learn from failures as well. 我来回答: 提交
|
