新視野大學(xué)英語第三版Book2-unit6課文翻譯(20201231223929)

1、Door closer,are you?關(guān)門者”，你是嗎?1 The next time youre deciding between rival options, one which is primary and the other which is secondary, ask yourself this question: What would Xiang Yu do?1下次你要在兩個(gè)難于取舍的、主要的和次要的選擇之間做決定時(shí)，不妨問 自己這樣一個(gè)問題：項(xiàng)羽會(huì)怎么做？2 Xiang Yu was a Chinese imperial general in the third centur

2、y BC who took his troops across the Zhang River on a raid into enemy territory. To his troops astonishment, he ordered their cooking pots crushed and their sailing ships burned.2項(xiàng)羽是公元前三世紀(jì)中國古代王朝的一位將軍。他帶領(lǐng)他的部隊(duì)橫渡漳 河，突襲進(jìn)入了敵方的領(lǐng)地。他下令砸鍋燒船，令他的部隊(duì)大為震驚。3 He explained that he was imposing on them a necessity for

3、 attaining victory over their opponents.What he said was surely motivating, but it wasnt really appreciated by many of his loyal soldiers as they watched their vessels go up in flames. But the genius of General Xiang Yus conviction would be validated both on the battlefield and in modern social scie

4、nce research. General Xiang Yu was a rare exception to the norm, aveteran leader who was highly respected for his many conquests and who achieved the summit of success.3他解釋道，他強(qiáng)加給他們的是戰(zhàn)勝對(duì)手的必要舉措。他所說的無疑十分鼓舞士氣，但當(dāng)他那許多忠誠的士兵眼睜睜地看著他們的船只在火焰中被焚毀 時(shí)，他們并不贊成他的做法。不過項(xiàng)羽將軍的這種砸鍋焚船的做法所顯示出的天賦，在戰(zhàn)場上和現(xiàn)代社會(huì)科學(xué)研究中都將得到肯定。項(xiàng)羽將軍是一個(gè)

5、罕見的不墨守成規(guī)的人，他是一位經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的領(lǐng)袖，由于他征戰(zhàn)無數(shù)并達(dá)到了成功的頂峰，他深受尊敬。4 He is featured in Dan Arielys enlightening new publication, Predictably Irrational, a fascinating investigation of seemingly irrational human behavior, such as the tendency for Keeping multiple options open. Most people cant marshal the will for painfu

6、l choices, not even students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where. Dr. Ariely teaches behavioral economics. In an experiment that investigated decision-making, hundreds of students couldnt bear to let their options vanish, even though it was clear they would profit from doing so

7、.4丹阿雷利極富啟迪性的新書可預(yù)見的非理性對(duì)項(xiàng)羽作了專題介紹。了弓I人入勝的調(diào)查這本書對(duì)看似非理性的人類行為，譬如人類總想留住多項(xiàng)選擇機(jī)會(huì)的傾向，進(jìn)行大多數(shù)人都不能整理自己的思路來做痛苦的選擇，麻省理工學(xué)院上阿雷利博士行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)這門課的學(xué)生也不例外在調(diào)查作決策的一項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)中，幾百名學(xué)生都不能忍受眼睜睜看著他們的選擇機(jī)會(huì)消失，即使他們很清楚這樣做對(duì)他們有利。5 The experiment revolved around a game that eliminated the excuses we usually have for refusing to let go. In the real wo

8、rld, we can always say) Its good to preserve our options. Want a good example A teenager is exhausted from soccer, ballet, piano, and Chinese lessons, but her parents wont stop any one of them because they might come ln handy some day!5實(shí)驗(yàn)是圍繞著一個(gè)游戲展開的，這個(gè)游戲排除了我們通常不肯放手的借口。在現(xiàn)實(shí)世界里，我們總會(huì)說：“保留我們的選擇機(jī)會(huì)是對(duì)的?！毕胍?/p>

9、個(gè)好的例子嗎？ 一個(gè)十多歲的女孩被足球、芭蕾舞、鋼琴、中文課給累得筋疲力盡，但 她的父母不會(huì)讓她停止任何一項(xiàng)活動(dòng)，理由是它們有一天可能會(huì)派上用場！6 In the experiment sessions, students played a computer game that provided cash behind three doors appearing on the screen. The rule was the more money you earned,the better player you were, given a total of 100 clicks. Every

10、time the students opened door by clicking on it, they would use up one click but wouldnt get any money.However, each subsequent click on that door would earn a fluctuating sum of money,withone door always revealing more money than the others. The important part of the rule was each door switch, thou

11、gh having no cash value, would also use up one of the 100 clicks.Therefore, the winning strategy was to quickly check all the doors and keep clicking on the one with the seemingly highest rewards 。6在這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)里，學(xué)生要玩一個(gè)電腦游戲：在電腦屏幕上會(huì)顯示三扇門，每扇門后都會(huì)提供一些現(xiàn)金。該游戲的規(guī)則是每個(gè)人都只能點(diǎn)擊100次，你點(diǎn)擊獲取的錢越多，你就玩得越好。學(xué)生每點(diǎn)擊一次打開一扇門，他們會(huì)用掉一個(gè)點(diǎn)

12、擊數(shù)，但卻不會(huì)得到任何錢。然而，隨后接著在那扇門上的每次點(diǎn)擊都會(huì)掙得數(shù)額不等的錢，三扇門顯示的錢總有一扇比另外兩扇多。這個(gè)游戲規(guī)則的重點(diǎn)是雖然每次換門沒有金錢回報(bào)，可還是會(huì)用掉一次點(diǎn)擊數(shù)。所以，制勝戰(zhàn)略是要迅速查看所有的門，然后只點(diǎn)擊那扇似乎是錢最多的門。7 While playing the game, students noticed a modified visual element: Any door left unclicked for a short while would shrink in size and vanish. Since they already understo

13、od the game, they should have ignored the vanishing doors. Nevertheless, they hurried to click on the lesser doors before they vanished, trying to keep them open. As a result, they wasted so many clicks rushing back to the vanishing doors that they lost money in the end. Why were the students so att

14、ached to the lesser doors? They would probably protestthat they were clinging to the doors to Keep future optionsopen, but, according to Dr. Ariely, that isnt the true factor.7在玩游戲時(shí)，學(xué)生們注意到了一個(gè)視覺上的變化：如果有片刻沒點(diǎn)擊某扇門，那扇門就會(huì)慢慢縮小并消失。由于他們已了解了游戲規(guī)則，他們本應(yīng)對(duì)要消失的門不予理睬。 然而，在它們消失以前，他們卻迫不及待地去點(diǎn)擊那些變小的門，試圖讓它們開啟著。結(jié)果是，他們?cè)诖颐?/p>

15、去點(diǎn)擊那些快消失的門時(shí)浪費(fèi)了很多點(diǎn)擊數(shù)以至于最后輸了錢。為什么學(xué)生對(duì)那些變小的門如此依戀呢？他們可能會(huì)爭辯說，他們緊抓住這些門是為將來多留一些機(jī)會(huì)。但是，據(jù)阿雷利博士 說，這不是真正的原因。8 Instead of the excuse to maintain future options open, underneath it all the student s desire was to avoid the immediate, though temporary, pain of watching options close.closing a door on an option is e

16、xperienced as a loss, andpeople are willing to pay a big price to avoid the emotion ofloss, Dr, Ariely says. In the experiment, the price was easilymeasured in lost cash. In life, the corresponding costs areoften less obvious such as wasted time or missedopportunities.8在他們?yōu)閷矶嗔粢恍C(jī)會(huì)的借口背后反映出的是所有的學(xué)生都不堪

17、目 睹眼前的選擇機(jī)會(huì)被剝奪，盡管這種痛苦是臨時(shí)的。阿雷利博士說：“每閉上一扇選擇之門就如同經(jīng)受了一次損失，人們寧愿付出很大的代價(jià)， 也要避免情感的失落在實(shí)驗(yàn)中，損失很容易用丟失的現(xiàn)金來衡量在生活中，相應(yīng)的損失就往往沒那么明顯，如浪費(fèi)時(shí)間，錯(cuò)過機(jī)會(huì)。9 Sometimes these doors are closing too slowly for us to see them vanishing. writes. We may work more hours at our jobs without realizing that the childhood of our Sons and dau

18、ghters is slipping away.10 有時(shí)候，這些門是慢慢關(guān)閉的，我們沒有看到它們?cè)谇娜幌?，”阿雷?博士寫道：“我們可能花很多時(shí)間在工作上，卻沒有意識(shí)到我們子女的童年正在悄悄溜走。”11 So, what can be done to restore balance in our lives?One answer, Dr. Ariely says, is to implement moreprohibitions on overbooking. We can work to reduce options on our own, delegating tasks to oth

19、ers and even giving away ideas for others to pursue. He points to marriage as an example, In marriage, we create a situation where we promise ourselves not to keep options open. We close doors and announce to others weve closed doors.12 那么，我們可以做些什么讓我們的生活恢復(fù)平衡呢？阿雷利博士說，個(gè)辦法是制止更多的超額預(yù)約。我們可以自己減少選擇，將任務(wù)委派給其他

20、人,甚至放棄一些點(diǎn)子，讓其他人去做。他用婚姻作為例子：“在婚姻中，我們承諾不保留選擇機(jī)會(huì),我們就創(chuàng)造了獲得最佳選擇的有利局面我們關(guān)上可選擇的門，并告訴別人我們已作出選擇。”11 since conducting the door experiment, Dr. Ariely says he has made a conscious effort to lessen his load. He urges the rest of us to resign from committees, prune holiday card lists, rethink hobbies and remember

21、the lessons of door closers like Xiang Yu.11阿雷利博士說，自從進(jìn)行了這個(gè)點(diǎn)擊門的實(shí)驗(yàn)，他已經(jīng)有意識(shí)地努力減 輕自己的負(fù)擔(dān)。 他敦促我們辭去委員會(huì)的工作，刪減送節(jié)日賀卡的名單，重新 思考興趣愛好，并記住像項(xiàng)羽那樣的關(guān)門者給我們的啟示。12 In other words, Dr. Ariely is encouraging us to discard those things that seem to have outward merit in favor of those things that actually enrich our lives. We are naturally prejudiced to believe that more is better, but Dr. Arielys research provides a dose of reality that strongly sugges