hce_cmu
106年
英文
第 45 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 the author, "instinct blindness"
- A recognizes the possibility that "the natural [can] seem strange."
- B is what makes current psychological research promising.
- C pinpoints where research on psychology should be directed.
- D fails to acknowledge that human mind is a complex mechanism.
- E enriches psychologists' practice and research agenda.
思路引導 VIP
想像一下，如果你每天使用智慧型手機時，滑動螢幕都極其順暢、從不卡頓，這會讓你傾向於認為這支手機的內部構造很簡單，還是會讓你意識到背後有數百萬行程式碼在運作？這種「太過順手而察覺不到問題」的感覺，會如何影響我們對該事物「複雜程度」的判斷呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
精準把握核心概念：直覺偏誤與科學盲點
恭喜你答對了！這題考驗的是對文章後半部邏輯的整合能力。你能精準選出 (D)，代表你成功識破了作者對「直覺偏誤（instinct blindness）」的定義：當某種天賦能力（如視覺、語言或情感）運作得太過完美、太過自動化時，我們反而會忽視其背後支撐的複雜運算機制（complex computational machinery）。
從「理所當然」到「忽視複雜性」
▼ 還有更多解析內容