|
|
考研英语阅读题源来源广泛，取自《经济学人》、《纽约时报》、《新闻周刊》、《卫报》、《Nature》、《华盛顿邮报》、《The Scientist》等等【了解更多题源】，因此考生可以多关注一下此类文章。下面新东方在线分享一些考过的题源文章，并附上详细解析，本阶段复习，大家可以看看。
From Newsweek
By Mary Carmicheal
July 16, 2007
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.
|
|
发表于 2017-8-6 16:20:44