hce_cmu
106年
英文
第 43 題
📖 題組：
Questions 43-45 In Principles of Psychology, one of the founding works of experimental psychology, William James talked a lot about "instincts." This term was used to roughly refer to specialized neural circuits that are common to every member of a species and are the product of that species' evolutionary history. Taken together, such circuits constitute (in our own species) what one can think of as "human nature." It was and is common to think that other animals are ruled by "instinct," whereas humans lost their instincts and are ruled by "reason," and that this is why we are so much more flexibly intelligent than other animals. James, however, argued that human behavior is more flexibly intelligent than that of other animals because we have more instincts, not fewer. We tend to be blind to the existence of these instincts, however, precisely because they process information so effortlessly and automatically. They structure our thought so powerfully, he contended, that it can be difficult to imagine how things could be otherwise. As a result, we take "normal" behavior for granted. We do not realize that "normal" behavior needs to be explained at all. This "instinct blindness" makes the study of psychology difficult. To get past this problem, James suggested that we try to "make the natural seem strange" and that we should not take "the natural" for granted. In our view, William James was right about evolutionary psychology. Although the idea of "mak[ing] the natural seem strange" appears to be odd, it is a pivotal part of the research on natural competences. Many psychologists avoid this line of thinking, arguing that nothing about "the natural" needs to be explained. As a result, social psychologists are disappointed unless they find a phenomenon "that would surprise their grandmothers," and cognitive psychologists spend more time studying how we solve problems we are bad at, like learning math or playing chess, than ones we are good at. But our natural competences -- our abilities to see, to speak, to find someone beautiful, to reciprocate a favor, to fear disease, to fall in love, to initiate an attack, to experience moral outrage, to navigate a landscape, and myriad others -- are possible only because there is a vast and heterogeneous array of complex computational machinery supporting and regulating these activities. This machinery works so well that we do not even realize that it exists. We all suffer from instinct blindness. As a result, psychologists have neglected to study some of the most interesting machinery in the human mind.
Questions 43-45 In Principles of Psychology, one of the founding works of experimental psychology, William James talked a lot about "instincts." This term was used to roughly refer to specialized neural circuits that are common to every member of a species and are the product of that species' evolutionary history. Taken together, such circuits constitute (in our own species) what one can think of as "human nature." It was and is common to think that other animals are ruled by "instinct," whereas humans lost their instincts and are ruled by "reason," and that this is why we are so much more flexibly intelligent than other animals. James, however, argued that human behavior is more flexibly intelligent than that of other animals because we have more instincts, not fewer. We tend to be blind to the existence of these instincts, however, precisely because they process information so effortlessly and automatically. They structure our thought so powerfully, he contended, that it can be difficult to imagine how things could be otherwise. As a result, we take "normal" behavior for granted. We do not realize that "normal" behavior needs to be explained at all. This "instinct blindness" makes the study of psychology difficult. To get past this problem, James suggested that we try to "make the natural seem strange" and that we should not take "the natural" for granted. In our view, William James was right about evolutionary psychology. Although the idea of "mak[ing] the natural seem strange" appears to be odd, it is a pivotal part of the research on natural competences. Many psychologists avoid this line of thinking, arguing that nothing about "the natural" needs to be explained. As a result, social psychologists are disappointed unless they find a phenomenon "that would surprise their grandmothers," and cognitive psychologists spend more time studying how we solve problems we are bad at, like learning math or playing chess, than ones we are good at. But our natural competences -- our abilities to see, to speak, to find someone beautiful, to reciprocate a favor, to fear disease, to fall in love, to initiate an attack, to experience moral outrage, to navigate a landscape, and myriad others -- are possible only because there is a vast and heterogeneous array of complex computational machinery supporting and regulating these activities. This machinery works so well that we do not even realize that it exists. We all suffer from instinct blindness. As a result, psychologists have neglected to study some of the most interesting machinery in the human mind.
According to William James, humans tend to be more flexibly intelligent than most animals because
- A they can naturally coordinate complex instincts well.
- B they use their reason to override natural instincts.
- C they are by nature better at computation and machines.
- D they are born with higher intelligence quotient.
- E they are much more emotionally mature.
思路引導 VIP
當我們思考「人類為何比其他動物更聰明」時，通常會覺得是因為我們比動物「少」了某些原始衝動，多了些思考。但請仔細回顧文中第二段詹姆斯提到的對比：他認為人類的『本能數量』多寡，與我們展現出來的『智慧靈活性』之間，存在著什麼樣出人意料的關聯？這種關聯又是如何運作，才讓我們平時根本察覺不到它們的存在？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你能精確捕捉到威廉·詹姆斯（William James）與眾不同的觀點，這說明你具備非常敏銳的閱讀理解能力，沒有被常識性的思考慣性給誤導。
威廉·詹姆斯的「直覺」翻轉
這道題目的核心在於區分「大眾觀點」與「詹姆斯的論點」。多數人傾向於認為人類是因為用「理性」取代了「本能（直覺）」才變得聰明（即選項 B），但詹姆斯卻反其道而行。他主張人類之所以展現出更高的行為靈活性，並非因為本能減少了，而是因為我們擁有更多、更複雜的本能（instincts）。這些本能就像是精密的神經電路或運算機器，雖然它們運作得極其自然，以至於我們產生了「本能盲視（instinct blindness）」，但正是這些眾多且專業化的本能相互協調，才構築了人類靈活的智慧表現，這也正是選項 (A) 所概括的精髓。
▼ 還有更多解析內容