考研英語閱讀真題正文+全文翻譯(1995-2010)[1].doc

2010 Text 1 Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage. It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies. We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War II, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviewers who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. “So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism,” Newman wrote, “that I am tempted to define journalism as a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are.” Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of Englands foremost classical-music critics, a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists. Is there any chance that Carduss criticism will enjoy a revival? The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat. 在過去的25年英語報(bào)紙所發(fā)生的變化中，影響最深遠(yuǎn)的可能就是它們對(duì)藝術(shù)方面的報(bào)道在范圍上毫無疑問的縮小了，而且這些報(bào)道的嚴(yán)肅程度也絕對(duì)降低了。 對(duì)于年齡低于40歲的普通讀者來講，讓他們想象一下當(dāng)年可以在許多大城市報(bào)紙上讀到精品的文藝評(píng)論簡直幾乎是天方夜譚。然而，在20世紀(jì)出版的最重要的文藝評(píng)論集中，人們讀到的大部分評(píng)論文章都是從報(bào)紙上收集而來。現(xiàn)在，如果讀到這些集子，人們肯定會(huì)驚詫，當(dāng)年這般淵博深?yuàn)W的內(nèi)容竟然被認(rèn)為適合發(fā)表在大眾日?qǐng)?bào)中。 從20世紀(jì)早期到二戰(zhàn)以前，當(dāng)時(shí)的英國報(bào)紙上的評(píng)論主題廣泛，包羅萬象，我們現(xiàn)在離此類報(bào)紙?jiān)u論越來越遠(yuǎn)。當(dāng)時(shí)的報(bào)紙極其便宜，人們把高雅時(shí)尚的文藝批評(píng)當(dāng)作是所刊登報(bào)紙的一個(gè)亮點(diǎn)。在那些遙遠(yuǎn)的年代，各大報(bào)刊的評(píng)論家們都會(huì)不遺余力地詳盡報(bào)道他們所報(bào)道的事情，這在當(dāng)時(shí)被視為是理所當(dāng)然的事情。他們的寫作是件嚴(yán)肅的事情，人們相信：甚至那些博學(xué)低調(diào)不喜歡炫耀的評(píng)論家，比如George Bernard Shaw和Ernest Newman也知道自己在做什么（即他們的文章會(huì)高調(diào)出現(xiàn)在報(bào)紙上）。這些批評(píng)家們相信報(bào)刊評(píng)論是一項(xiàng)職業(yè)，并且對(duì)于他們的文章能夠在報(bào)紙上發(fā)表感到很自豪。“鑒于幾乎沒有作家能擁有足夠的智慧或文學(xué)天賦以保證他們?cè)谛侣剤?bào)紙寫作中站穩(wěn)腳跟”， Newman曾寫道，“我傾向于把新聞寫作定義為不受讀者歡迎的作家用來嘲諷受讀者歡迎的作家的一個(gè) 輕蔑之詞 ” 不幸的是，這些批評(píng)家們現(xiàn)在實(shí)際上已被人們遺忘。從1917年開始一直到1975年去世不久前還在為曼徹斯特衛(wèi)報(bào)寫文章的Neville Cardus，如今僅僅作為一個(gè)撰寫關(guān)于板球比賽文章的作家被人們所知。但是，在他的一生當(dāng)中，他也是英國首屈一指的古典音樂評(píng)論家之一。他也是一位深受讀者青睞的文體家，所以1947年他的自傳一書就成為熱銷讀物。 1967年他被授予爵士稱號(hào)，也是第一位獲此殊榮的音樂評(píng)論家。然而，他的書現(xiàn)在只有一本可以在市面上買到。他大量的音樂批評(píng)，除了專門研究音樂評(píng)論的人以外，已鮮為人知。 Cardus的評(píng)論有沒有機(jī)會(huì)重新流行？前景似乎渺茫。在他去世之前，新聞業(yè)的品味早已改變很長時(shí)間了，而且他所擅長的措詞華麗的維多利亞愛德華時(shí)期的散文風(fēng)格對(duì)后現(xiàn)代的讀者沒有什么用處。何況，由業(yè)余愛好者作音樂批評(píng)的傳統(tǒng)早已經(jīng)成為昨日黃花了。 2010 Text 2 Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. A received one for its one-click online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box. Now the nations top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S. court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bilski, as the case is known , is a very big deal, says Dennis D. Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law. It has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents. Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with is 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, move established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice. The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the courts judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should reconsider its state street Bank ruling. The Federal Circuits action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for inventions that are obvious. The judges on the Federal circuit are reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court, says Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School. 在過去的十年中，成千上萬的商業(yè)方法被授予了專利權(quán)。亞馬遜網(wǎng)站獲得的專利是在線“單擊”付費(fèi)系統(tǒng)。美林公司的資產(chǎn)分配方案得到了法律保護(hù)。有個(gè)發(fā)明者的提箱技巧也獲得了專利。 現(xiàn)在，該國最高專利法院似乎完全準(zhǔn)備好要縮減商業(yè)方法專利，因?yàn)樯虡I(yè)方法專利自從十年前第一次批準(zhǔn)授予以來一直有爭議。在一項(xiàng)使得知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)律師們議論紛紛的提議中，美國聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院聲稱它將利用某個(gè)具體案件來對(duì)商業(yè)方法專利進(jìn)行廣泛的復(fù)審。密蘇里大學(xué)法學(xué)院Dennis D. Crouch說，“正如人們所知道的那樣，Bilski案例是一件非常大的事情”它可能將消除整個(gè)專利類別”。 對(duì)于商業(yè)方法訴求的限制是個(gè)戲劇性的徹底變化，因?yàn)檎锹?lián)邦巡回法院自己引進(jìn)了這種專利。那是在1998年，對(duì)于所謂的美國道富銀行的案件中，聯(lián)邦巡回法院做出了判決，批準(zhǔn)了籌集共同基金資產(chǎn)的方法具有專利權(quán)。這一裁決使得商業(yè)方法專利文件以幾何數(shù)級(jí)增加，起初只是一些新興的網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司對(duì)于某些特定類型的在線交易系統(tǒng)試圖爭取獨(dú)家專有權(quán)。后來，更多的公司競相添加這樣的專利權(quán)，希望這樣一個(gè)防御性的行為可以先下手為強(qiáng)。2005年，IBM公司在一份法院報(bào)告中聲稱：盡管懷疑這種專利授權(quán)的法律基礎(chǔ)，但它已經(jīng)申請(qǐng)了300多份商業(yè)方法專利。同樣，當(dāng)一些華爾街投資公司出席某些反對(duì)其金融產(chǎn)品的法庭案件時(shí)，他們會(huì)給其各類金融產(chǎn)品申請(qǐng)專利來作為自己的維權(quán)武器。 前面提到的Bilski案例牽扯到一份已申請(qǐng)的方法專利，即關(guān)于能源市場的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)避方法（注：也可譯為“套期保值或?qū)_風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”）。上訴法院罕見地裁定，該案件將不由三位法官聽審，而是由全部十二名法官共同進(jìn)行。另外，上訴法院還宣布，它想探討的另一件事情是是否應(yīng)該“重審”道富銀行的裁決。 聯(lián)邦巡回法院的這一裁決效仿了最高法院。最高法院最近做出了一系列的判決，縮小了專利持有者的受保范圍。例如，去年四月，法官們認(rèn)定太多的專利授予了一些顯而易見的“發(fā)明”。喬治華盛頓大學(xué)法律學(xué)院的專利法律師Harold C. Wegner教授表示，“聯(lián)邦巡回法院的法官們正在對(duì)最高法院的反專利動(dòng)態(tài)做出反應(yīng)”。 2010 Text 3 In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that social epidemics are driven in large part by the acting of a tiny minority of special individuals, often called influentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well-connected. The idea is intuitively compelling, but it doesnt explain how ideas actually spread. The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible sounding but largely untested theory called the two step flow of communication: Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those selected people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. In many such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing, promoting, or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends In their recent work, however, some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they dont seem to be required of all. The researchers argument stems from a simple observing about social influence, with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfreywhose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal, influenceeven the most influential members of a population simply dont interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who, according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected, must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example from the initial influential prove resistant, for example the cascade of change wont propagate very far or affect many people. Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to peoples ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced. Our work shows that the principal requirement for what we call global cascades the widespread propagation of influence through networks is the presence not of a few influentials but, rather, of a critical mass of easily influenced people, each of whom adopts, say, a look or a brand after being exposed to a single adopting neighbor. Regardless of how influential an individual is locally, he or she can exert global influence only if this critical mass is available to propagate a chain reaction. 在引爆流行這本書中，作者M(jìn)alcolm Gladwell認(rèn)為社會(huì)流行潮流在很大程度上是由一小部分特殊個(gè)體的行為引起的，這些人就是人們常說的影響者。他們異乎尋常的博聞多識(shí)，能言善辯，人脈廣泛。從直覺上講，Malcolm Gladwell的理論似乎很有說服力，但是它沒有解釋流行觀念的實(shí)際傳播過程。 人們之所以認(rèn)為影響者很重要，是因?yàn)槭艿搅恕皟杉?jí)傳播”理論的影響，即信息先從媒體流向影響者，然后再從影響者流向其他人。這一理論看似合理，但未經(jīng)驗(yàn)證。營銷人員接受兩級(jí)傳播理論是因?yàn)樵摾碚撜J(rèn)為，如果他們能夠找到影響者，并對(duì)他們施加影響，這些精英們就會(huì)替他們完成大部分的營銷傳播工作。這一理論似乎還可以解釋某些裝扮、品牌或社區(qū)為何會(huì)突然受到出乎意料的追捧。對(duì)于許多諸如此類的情況，如果只是走馬觀花地尋找原因，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)總是有一小群人開風(fēng)氣之先，率先穿上、宣傳和開發(fā)人們此前從未留意的東西。這種事實(shí)證據(jù)與該觀點(diǎn)正好一拍即合只有一些特別的人才能引領(lǐng)潮流。 但是，在最近的研究中，一些研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，影響者對(duì)社會(huì)流行潮流的影響力遠(yuǎn)比人們認(rèn)為的要小。事實(shí)上，他們似乎根本就是無關(guān)緊要。 研究者的觀點(diǎn)源于對(duì)社會(huì)影響力的簡單觀察：除了少數(shù)像Oprah Winfrey 這樣的名人之外（她強(qiáng)大的人氣影響力主要來自媒體影響力，而非她與觀眾互動(dòng)的人際影響力），即使人群中最有影響力的人也無法與那么多的“其他人”互動(dòng)，從而引領(lǐng)潮流。然而，根據(jù)兩級(jí)傳播理論，正是這些非名人影響者直接影響了他們的朋友和同事，從而推動(dòng)了社會(huì)流行潮流。但是，要讓一種社會(huì)流行潮流真正發(fā)生，每個(gè)受影響的人還必須影響他的熟人，而他的熟人又必須影響其他熟人，依此類推；但是會(huì)有多少人去關(guān)注這些熟人中的每個(gè)人，與最初的影響者幾乎沒有關(guān)系。舉個(gè)例子來說，在這個(gè)人際影響的網(wǎng)絡(luò)中，如果第一個(gè)影響者受到兩次抵制，那么他的連鎖影響范圍就不會(huì)繼續(xù)擴(kuò)大，或者說影響的人不會(huì)很多。 基于這一人際影響力的基本事實(shí)，研究者們研究了社會(huì)影響的動(dòng)力機(jī)制。我們對(duì)不同人群進(jìn)行了成千上萬次計(jì)算機(jī)模擬，不斷調(diào)整人們影響他人和受他人影響的各種變量。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，人們所說的“全球連鎖反應(yīng)” 影響力通過（人際）網(wǎng)絡(luò)進(jìn)行廣泛傳播 發(fā)生的主要前提，并不取決于是否存在著那么幾個(gè)影響者，而主要取決于易受影響的人們是否達(dá)到了臨界數(shù)量。 2010 Text 4 Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and its just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch. Unfortunately, banks lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult. After a bruising encounter with Congress, Americas Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statement. Bob Herz, the FASBs chairman, cried out against those who question our motives. Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobby group politely calls the use of judgment by management. European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes it reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did not live in a political vacuum but in the real word and that Europe could yet develop different rules. It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But banks shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains. To get the system working again, losses must be recognized and dealt with. Americas new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility from special interests. But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions. 臺(tái)面上，銀行家們將他們的麻煩歸咎于己身，臺(tái)面下，他們一直把目標(biāo)對(duì)準(zhǔn)他人：會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定者。銀行業(yè)抱怨會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)則迫使他們報(bào)告巨大損失，認(rèn)為這不公平。規(guī)則規(guī)定他們必須以第三方付出價(jià)格來評(píng)估部分資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值，而非按照管理者和監(jiān)管者期望該資產(chǎn)能夠獲得的價(jià)格。 不幸的是，銀行的游說活動(dòng)看來已顯成效。其中細(xì)節(jié)可能無法獲知，但是準(zhǔn)則制定者在獨(dú)立性方面這正是資產(chǎn)市場正常運(yùn)行的關(guān)鍵已經(jīng)做出妥協(xié)了。銀行如果不以能夠吸引買家的價(jià)格計(jì)量有毒資產(chǎn)，銀行系統(tǒng)的復(fù)蘇將會(huì)非常困難。 美國FASB（財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)）在與國會(huì)激烈摩擦之后，匆匆通過了規(guī)則的修改。這些修改使得銀行在使用模型評(píng)估非流動(dòng)資產(chǎn)方面用有更大的自由，同時(shí)使得它們確認(rèn)收益表中長期資產(chǎn)損失時(shí)更為靈活。FASB主席Bob Herz大聲反對(duì)那些“懷疑我們的動(dòng)機(jī)”的人們。然而銀行股票上漲了，這些修改強(qiáng)化了“管理層使用理性判斷”的說法，這種說法是一個(gè)游說團(tuán)的客氣之言。 歐洲的部長們立刻要求國際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)(IASB)也這么做。IASB表示它不想沒有完整計(jì)劃就冒然行動(dòng)，但它在今年下半年完成規(guī)則修訂時(shí)必須屈服的壓力十分巨大。歐洲委員會(huì)委員Charlie McCreevy警告IASB說：它不是“處在政治真空中”而是“在現(xiàn)實(shí)世界里”，并表示歐洲可能最終會(huì)發(fā)展出不同的會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)則。 正是這些銀行呆錯(cuò)了星球，它們的賬目上充斥著估值過高的資產(chǎn)?，F(xiàn)在他們爭論道市價(jià)高估了損失，因?yàn)槭袃r(jià)主要反映了市場的暫時(shí)性流動(dòng)性不足，而非壞賬的可能范圍。幾年中沒人會(huì)知道真相。但是，銀行股票以低于賬面價(jià)值的價(jià)格交易，這一點(diǎn)反應(yīng)了投資者的懷疑。死寂的市場一定程度上反應(yīng)了癱瘓的銀行由于怕賬面損失既既不愿出售資產(chǎn)，也不愿意去購買那些看似不錯(cuò)的廉價(jià)資產(chǎn)。 為了讓銀行系統(tǒng)重新運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)起來，損失必須被確認(rèn)和處理。美國收購有毒資產(chǎn)的新計(jì)劃只有在銀行將資產(chǎn)定價(jià)在足夠吸引買家的水平上才會(huì)有效。成熟的市場需要獨(dú)立的，甚至是好斗的準(zhǔn)則制定者。FASB和IASB以往正是這樣對(duì)抗特殊利益集團(tuán)的敵意的，例如改進(jìn)股權(quán)和退休金的相關(guān)規(guī)則。但是現(xiàn)在向批評(píng)者妥協(xié)是自尋壓力，他們會(huì)進(jìn)一步做出讓步。 2009 Text 1 Habits are a funny thing. We reach for them mindlessly, setting our brains on auto-pilot and relaxing into the unconscious comfort of familiar routine. Not choice, but habit rules the unreflecting herd, William Wordsworth said in the 19th century. In the ever-changing 21st century, even the word habit carries a negative connotation. So it seems antithetical to talk about habits in the same context as creativity and innovation. But brain researchers have discovered that when we consciously develop new habits, we create parallel synaptic paths, and even entirely new brain cells, that can jump our trains of thought onto new, innovative tracks. But dont bother trying to kill off old habits; once those ruts of procedure are worn into the hippocampus, theyre there to stay. Instead, the new habits we deliberately ingrain into ourselves create parallel pathways that can bypass those old roads. The first thing needed for innovation is a fascination with wonder, says Dawna Markova, author of The Open Mind and an executive change consultant for Professional Thinking Partners. But we are taught instead to decide, just as our president calls himself the Decider. She adds, however, that to decide is to kill off all possibilities but one. A good innovational thinker is always exploring the many other possibilities. All of us work through problems in ways of which were unaware, she says. Researchers in the late 1960 covered that humans are born with the capacity to approach challenges in four primary ways: analytically, procedurally, relationally (or collaboratively) and innovatively. At puberty, however, the brain shuts down half of that capacity, preserving only those modes of thought that have seemed most valuable during the first decade or so of life. The current emphasis on standardized testing highlights analysis and procedure, meaning that few of us inherently use our innovative and collaborative modes of thought. This breaks the major rule in the American belief system that anyone can do anything, explains M. J. Ryan, author of the 2006 book This Year I Will. and Ms. Markovas business partner. Thats a lie that we have perpetuated, and it fosters commonness. Knowing what youre good at and doing even more of it creates excellence. This is where developing new habits comes in. 習(xí)慣是一種有趣的現(xiàn)象。我們無意識(shí)地養(yǎng)成了習(xí)慣，任由大腦自動(dòng)操作，且不知不覺在熟悉的常規(guī)中感到輕松舒適?！安⒎沁x擇，而是習(xí)慣會(huì)控制那些沒有思想的人?！?9世紀(jì)時(shí)，威廉華茲華斯說。在千變?nèi)f化的21世紀(jì)，甚至“習(xí)慣”這個(gè)詞本身也帶有負(fù)面涵義。 因此，在創(chuàng)造和革新的背景下來談?wù)摿?xí)慣，似乎顯得有點(diǎn)矛盾。但大腦研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)我們有意識(shí)地培養(yǎng)新的習(xí)慣，就創(chuàng)建了平行路徑，甚至是全新的腦細(xì)胞，可以讓我們思緒的列車跳轉(zhuǎn)到新的創(chuàng)新軌道上來。 我們不用因?yàn)樽约菏鞘芰?xí)慣影響的一成不變的生物而否定自己，相反我們可以通過有意識(shí)的培養(yǎng)新習(xí)慣來指導(dǎo)改變。事實(shí)上，我們對(duì)新事物嘗試得越多，就會(huì)越遠(yuǎn)地走出自己的舒適地帶，在職場及個(gè)人生活中變得越有創(chuàng)造性。 但是，不要白費(fèi)力氣試圖戒除舊習(xí)慣;一旦這些慣有程序融進(jìn)腦部，它們就會(huì)留在那里。相反，我們有意使之根深蒂固的新習(xí)慣會(huì)創(chuàng)建平行路徑，它們可以繞過原來那些路徑。 開放思想一書的作者達(dá)瓦納馬克瓦說：“革新所需要的第一樣?xùn)|西就是對(duì)好奇的著迷。然而我們被教導(dǎo)去做決定，就像我們的總裁稱呼自己為決策者那樣?！彼又f，“但是，決定意味著除了一種可能性外，其他的都被扼殺了。優(yōu)秀的具有革新精神的思想家總是在探尋著許多其他的可能性?！?她說，我們都是通過一些自己沒有意識(shí)到的方法解決問題的。研究人員在20世紀(jì)60年代末發(fā)現(xiàn)人類天生主要用四種方法應(yīng)對(duì)挑戰(zhàn)：分析法，程序法，相關(guān)法(或合作法)和創(chuàng)新法。但是在青春期結(jié)束，大腦關(guān)閉一半的能力，僅僅保留了那些大約在生命最開始的十幾年時(shí)間里似乎是最為寶貴的思維方式。 目前標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化測試主要強(qiáng)調(diào)分析法和程序法這兩種方式，也就是說，我們中很少有人會(huì)本能地使用創(chuàng)新和合作的思