商业托福阅读：BabiesVs.Chimps:Who’sSmarter?
Babies Vs. Chimps: Who's Smarter?Humans have a lot in common with the great apes. We both make tools; we both have something sort of like laughter; and we share about 94% of our DNA.
Well now researchers from the Max Planck Institute are trying to puzzle just what cognitive skills we share with these forest creatures. Their study published today in the journal Science compares these skills of two-and-a-half-year-old children to those of chimps and orangutans ranging from 3 to 21 years old. They found that the children and apes equally good at numerical and spacial skills, but when it comes to social learning the children left the apes in the dust.
For instances, toddlers learn how to pop open a container by watching the experimenter, and then copying her them. Apes, however, did not imitate. I mean they made connections like stick helps open box. But instead of imitating, the apes used the slower trick of trial and error. The researchers explain that imitation is a very fast way to acquire a lot of knowledge, and may have paved the way for our departure from these primate cousins, and ultimately allowed us to develop the complex social culture we have today.
【 Fast Reading 】
Babies Vs. Chimps: Who's Smarter?
Chimps are smart, but humans are a lot smarter. Until now, there have been two competing ideas to explain why. The general-intelligence theory says that our bigger and more complex brains give us an overall edge. The cultural-intelligence hypothesis, by contrast, says that humans have specific areas of intelligence where we excel; our brains are not just bigger, but also better than those of our nearest evolutionary relatives.
A new study, published Thursday in Science, makes a strong case that the second theory is the right one. A team of anthropologists from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, developed a battery of learning tests they call the Primate Cognition Test Battery, and gave it to 106 chimps, 105 children and 32 orangutans, to compare the groups directly. Says Esther Hermann, a co-author of the paper: "It's the first time anything like this has been done."
The three groups performed about equally well on "physical learning" — locating hidden objects, figuring out the source of a noise, understanding the concepts of more and less, using a stick to get something that's out of reach. And indeed, the kids were of an age — 2 1/2 years old — where it's widely known that they do perform about as well as chimps in such tests. So for example, the scientists would hide a treat of some kind — a toy, or some food — behind a box, while the test subjects looked on. The kids, chimps and orangs would have to be sophisticated enough to know that the object disappearing from view didn't mean it stopped existing, and had to be able to figure out where it had gone. All three groups did equally well at this sort of thing.
But when it came to "social learning" tasks — such as understanding how to solve a problem by watching someone else do it, figuring out someone else's state of mind from their actions, or using nonverbal communication to explain or understand how to find something — the kids made monkeys of the apes. In one test, for example, researchers showed both groups how to open up a plastic tube to get at a treat. The children learned by watching, and opened it as the adults did. The apes tended to just chew the tube open. In another, researchers would hide the treat while the test subjects were present. Then the subjects would have to find it, with the only clue being that the scientists would look toward the hiding place. Again, the kids beat the apes soundly.
If the kids had outperformed the apes across the board, on both types of task, it would have supported the "just generally smarter overall" theory. The fact that the children excelled in specific areas suggest it's the other theory that's right — that our ability to cooperate and share expertise has allowed us to build complex societies, collaborate and learn from each other at a high level, and use symbolic representation (writing, numerals, imagery) to communicate ideas.
商业托福阅读：BabiesVs.Chimps:Who’sSmarter?
The question of exactly what it is that makes humans special, in short, may be on the way to being solved.</p>【 Analysis 】
Marked with green color ----- New Words(analysis in section 2)
Underlined sentences ----- Good Sentences(analysis in section 3)
Marked with red color ----- Good usage of words or phrases (analysis in section 2 or 3)
Babies Vs. Chimps: Who's Smarter?
Chimps are smart, but humans are a lot smarter. Until now , there have been two competing ideas to explain why. The general-intelligence theory says that our bigger and more complex brains give us an overall edge. The cultural-intelligence hypothesis, by contrast, says that humans have specific areas of intelligence where we excel ; our brains are not just bigger, but also better than those of our nearest evolutionary relatives .
A new study, published Thursday in Science, makes a strong case that the second theory is the right one. A team of anthropologists from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, developed a battery of learning tests they call the Primate Cognition Test Battery, and gave it to 106 chimps, 105 children and 32 orangutans , to compare the groups directly. Says Esther Hermann, a co-author of the paper: "It's the first time anything like this has been done."
The three groups performed about equally well on "physical learning" — locating hidden objects, figuring out the source of a noise, understanding the concepts of more and less , using a stick to get something that's out of reach . And indeed, the kids were of an age — 2 1/2 years old — where it's widely known that they do perform about as well as chimps in such tests. So for example, the scientists would hide a treat of some kind — a toy, or some food — behind a box, while the test subjects looked on. The kids, chimps and orangs would have to be sophisticated enough to know that the object disappearing from view didn't mean it stopped existing, and had to be able to figure out where it had gone. All three groups did equally well at this sort of thing.
But when it came to "social learning" tasks — such as understanding how to solve a problem by watching someone else do it, figuring out someone else's state of mind from their actions, or using nonverbal communication to explain or understand how to find something — the kids made monkeys of the apes. In one test, for example, researchers showed both groups how to open up a plastic tube to get at a treat . The children learned by watching, and opened it as the adults did. The apes tended to just chew the tube open. In another, researchers would hide the treat while the test subjects were present. Then the subjects would have to find it, with the only clue being that the scientists would look toward the hiding place. Again, the kids beat the apes soundly .
If the kids had outperformed the apes across the board, on both types of task, it would have supported the "just generally smarter overall" theory. The fact that the children excelled in specific areas suggest it's the other theory that's right — that our ability to cooperate and share expertise has allowed us to build complex societies, collaborate and learn from each other at a high level , and use symbolic representation (writing, numerals, imagery) to communicate ideas.
The question of exactly what it is that makes humans special, in short, may be on the way to being solved.
【 Section one 】 Vocabulary
chimp:
A chimp is the same as a chimpanzee( 黑猩猩 ). (INFORMAL)
overall:
generally; when you consider everything : Overall, this is a very useful book.
anthropologist:
a person who studies anthropology( 人类学 )
battery:
~ (of sth) (written) a large number of things or people of the same type: He faced a battery of questions.
orangutan(orang): 猩猩
a large ape (= an animal like a large monkey with no tail) with long arms and reddish hair, that lives in Borneo and Sumatra
treat:
商业托福阅读：BabiesVs.Chimps:Who’sSmarter?
something very pleasant and enjoyable, especially sth that you give sb or do for themsymbolic containing symbols, or being used as a symbol
representation: the act of presenting sb/sth in a particular way; something that shows or describes sth-- 表现 ( 法 )
excel:
(in / at sth / at doing sth) to be very good at doing sth: She has always excelled in foreign languages. ◆ The team excels at turning defence into attack. ◆ As a child he excelled at music and art.
sophisticated:
having a lot of experience of the world and knowing about fashion, culture and other things that people think are socially important: the sophisticated pleasures of city life ◆ Mark is a smart and sophisticated young man.
soundly:
completely and thoroughly: The team was soundly defeated.
outperform:
to achieve better results than sb/sth: The company has consistently outperformed its larger rivals.
【 Section two 】 Good phrases and sentences
Until now, there have been two competing ideas to explain why.
competing ideas:
competing ideas, requirements, or interests cannot all be right or satisfied at the same time.
They talked about the competing theories of the origin of life.
our brains are not just bigger, but also better than those of our nearest evolutionary relatives .
not…. but also….
nearest evolutionary relatives: 进化上的近亲
make a strong case that: 提出了对 …… 的有力论据。
The report make out a strong case for increase spend on hospital .
The three groups performed about equally well on "physical learning" — locating hidden objects, figuring out the source of a noise, understanding the concepts of more and less , using a stick to get something that's out of reach .
学习非谓语动词的并列
figure out: If you figure out a solution to a problem or the reason for something, you succeed in solving it or understanding it. (INFORMAL)
understanding the concepts of more and less 理解多和少的概念
out of reach = unobtainable: 触不到 的 ；无法得到 的
So for example, the scientists would hide a treat of some kind — a toy, or some food — behind a box, while the test subjects looked on.
—….. — 学会这个表示插入语的符号的用法
when it came to 涉及 … 的时候
Then the subjects would have to find it, with the only clue being that the scientists would look toward the hiding place.
with 的用法大总结 :
preposition
Help Note: For the special uses of with in phrasal verbs, look at the entries for the verbs. For example bear with sb/sth is in the phrasal verb section at bear.
in the company or presence of sb/sth: She lives with her parents. ◆ I have a client with me right now. ◆ a nice steak with a bottle of red wine
having or carrying sth: a girl with (= who has) red hair ◆ a jacket with a hood ◆ He looked at her with a hurt expression. ◆ They're both in bed with flu. ◆ a man with a suitcase
using sth: Cut it with a knife. ◆ It is treated with acid before being analysed.
used to say what fills, covers, etc. sth: The bag was stuffed with dirty clothes. ◆ Sprinkle the dish with salt.
in opposition to sb/sth; against sb/sth: to fight / argue / quarrel with sb ◆ to play tennis with sb ◆ at war with a neighbouring country ◆ I had an argument with my boss.
concerning; in the case of: Be careful with the glasses. ◆ Are you pleased with the result? ◆ Don't be angry with her. ◆ With these students it's pronunciation that's the problem.
used when considering one fact in relation to another: She won't be able to help us with all the family commitments she has. ◆ It's much easier compared with last time.
including: The meal with wine came to $20 each. ◆ With all the lesson preparation I have to do I work 12 hours a day.
used to show the way in which sb does sth: He behaved with great dignity. ◆ She sleeps with the window open. ◆ Don't stand with your hands in your pockets.
because of; as a result of: She blushed with embarrassment. ◆ His fingers were numb with cold.
商业托福阅读：BabiesVs.Chimps:Who’sSmarter?
because of sth and as it happens: The shadows lengthened with the approach of sunset. ◆ Skill comes with practice.in the same direction as sth: Marine mammals generally swim with the current.
used to show who has possession of or responsibility for sth: The keys are with reception. ◆ Leave it with me.
employed by; using the services of: She acted with a touring company for three years. ◆ I bank with the HSBC.
showing separation from sth/sb: I could never part with this ring. ◆ Can we dispense with the formalities?
in spite of sth: With all her faults I still love her.
used in exclamations: Off to bed with you! ◆ Down with school!
Idioms: be with me / you (informal) to be able to understand what sb is talking about: Are you with me? ◆ I'm afraid I'm not quite with you.
be with sb (on sth) to support sb and agree with what they say: We're all with you on this one.
with it (informal)
knowing about current fashions and ideas
Synonym: TRENDY
Don't you have anything more with it to wear?
understanding what is happening around you
Synonym: ALERT
You don't seem very with it today.
with that (written) straight after that; then: He muttered a few words of apology and with that he left.
The fact that the children excelled in specific areas suggest it's the other theory that's right — that our ability to cooperate and share expertise has allowed us to build complex societies, collaborate and learn from each other at a high level , and use symbolic representation (writing, numerals, imagery) to communicate ideas .
The fact that….. suggest…..
excel in: 在 ... 方面胜过
The question of exactly what it is that makes humans special, in short, may be on the way to being solved.
The question of……be on the way to being solved.
【 Homework 】
1. Please translate the last sentence into Chinese.
And indeed, the kids were of an age — 2 1/2 years old — where it's widely known that they do perform about as well as chimps in such tests.
2. What is the main idea of this Article?
3. The article mentioned " the second theory(cultural-intelligence hypothesis) is the right one ." Why?
4.Make a sentence using the one of the good phrases mentioned in Analysis section?
参考答案：
1. 并且的确,众所周知是2岁半大的小孩在这类测试中的表现和猩猩一样.
2. New research in Science reveals that children and apes are on par when it comes to straight numerical and spatial abilities, but when they're tested on social learning, the children excel.
3. Kids and apes performed about equally well on "physical learning". But when it came to "social learning" tasks, the kids beat the apes. It suggest cultural-intelligence hypothesis is right.</p>
页:
[1]