moea_joint
109年
英文
第 comp37 題
📖 題組：
There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion”. The rules are simple: Don’t talk about what was shared during Controversial Opinion afterward and you aren’t allowed to “argue”—only to ask questions about why that person feels that way. Opinions can range from “I think James Bond movies are overrated” to “I think Donald Trump would make an excellent president”. Usually, someone responds to an opinion with, “Oh my god! I had no idea you were one of those people!” Which is really another way of saying “I thought you were on my team!” In psychology, the idea that everyone is like us is called the “false-consensus bias”. This bias often manifests itself when we see in politics or polls. Online it means we can be blindsided by the opinions of our friends. Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy “Other Side” that must be laughed at—an Other Side that just doesn’t “get it”, and is clearly not as intelligent as “us”. But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this. What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those inside are increasingly convinced that everyone shares their world view, that their ranks are growing when they aren’t. It’s like clockwork: an event happens and then your social media circle is shocked when a non-social media peer group public reacts to news in an unexpected way. They then mock the Other Side for being “out of touch” or “dumb”.
There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion”. The rules are simple: Don’t talk about what was shared during Controversial Opinion afterward and you aren’t allowed to “argue”—only to ask questions about why that person feels that way. Opinions can range from “I think James Bond movies are overrated” to “I think Donald Trump would make an excellent president”. Usually, someone responds to an opinion with, “Oh my god! I had no idea you were one of those people!” Which is really another way of saying “I thought you were on my team!” In psychology, the idea that everyone is like us is called the “false-consensus bias”. This bias often manifests itself when we see in politics or polls. Online it means we can be blindsided by the opinions of our friends. Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy “Other Side” that must be laughed at—an Other Side that just doesn’t “get it”, and is clearly not as intelligent as “us”. But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this. What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those inside are increasingly convinced that everyone shares their world view, that their ranks are growing when they aren’t. It’s like clockwork: an event happens and then your social media circle is shocked when a non-social media peer group public reacts to news in an unexpected way. They then mock the Other Side for being “out of touch” or “dumb”.
What can you do when playing Controversial Opinion?
- A Defend your opinions.
- B Judge your friends’ opinions.
- C Ask your friends why they feel the way they do.
- D Defend your friends’ opinions.
思路引導 VIP
如果在一段對話中，規則明文規定「不准爭論」且「不准事後張揚」，那麼當對方提出一個你完全不認同的觀點時，為了維持對話進行並遵守不爭吵的規定，你唯一能採取的主動溝通行為會是什麼？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
遊戲規則的精確對位
太棒了！你精確地捕捉到了文章中關於遊戲規則的細節。這道題目要求我們在閱讀時必須排除主觀經驗，完全依照文本提供的訊息來做判斷。在文章的第一段中，作者清楚地畫出了行為界線：參與者「不被允許爭論（not allowed to 'argue'）」，而唯一的行動指南就是對他人的感受保持好奇，並詢問對方為何有那樣的感覺（ask questions about why that person feels that way）。這點與選項 (C) 的敘述完全吻合。
閱讀細節的篩選能力
▼ 還有更多解析內容