阅读理解 One of the great successes of the Republican Party in recent decades is the relentless propagation of a simple formula for economic growth:tax cuts.

The formula doesn’t work,but that has not affected its popularity.And while the cult of tax cuts has attracted many critics,it lacks for obvious rivals.

Democratic politicians have tended to campaign on helping people left behind by economic growth.

When Democrats do talk about encouraging economic growth,they often sound like Republicans.

This is not just a political problem for Democrats;it is an economic problem for the United States.The nation needs a better story about the drivers of economic growth.The painful lessons of recent decades point to a promising candidate:higher wages.

Raising the wages of American workers ought to be the priority of economic policymakers. We’d all be better off paying less attention to quarterly updates on the growth of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP)and focusing instead on the growth of workers’ paychecks.

Set aside,for the moment,the familiar argument for higher wages:fairness.The argument here is that higher wages can fuel the engine of economic growth.

Perhaps the most famous illustration of the benefits is the story of Henry Ford’s decision in 1914 to pay $5 a day to workers on his Model T assembly lines.He did it to increase production—he was paying a premium to maintain a reliable workforce.The unexpected benefit was that Ford’s factory workers became Ford customers,too.

The same logic still holds:Consumption drives the American economy,and workers who are paid more can spend more.

Mainstream economists insist that it is impossible to order up a sustainable increase in wages because compensation levels reflect the unerring judgment of market forces.

The conventional wisdom held that productivity growth was the only route to higher wages.Through that lens,efforts to negotiate higher wages were counterproductive. Minimum-wage laws would raise unemployment because there was only so much money in the wage pool,and if some people got more,others would get none.

It was in the context of this worldview that it became popular to argue that tax cuts would drive prosperity.Rich people would invest,productivity would increase,wages would rise.

In the real world,things are more complicated.Wages are influenced by a tug of war between employers and workers,and employers have been winning.One clear piece of evidence is the widening gap between productivity growth and wage growth since roughly 1970.Productivity has more than doubled;wages have lagged far behind.

A focus on wage growth would provide an antidote(矫正方法)to the attractive simplicity of the belief in the magical power of tax cuts.

阅读理解 Journal editors decide what gets published and what doesn’t, affecting the careers of other academics and influencing the direction that a field takes. You’d hope, then, that journals would do everything they can to establish a diverse editorial board, reflecting a variety of voices, experiences, and identities.



Unfortunately a new study in Nature Neuroscience makes for disheartening reading. The team finds that the majority of editors in top psychology and neuroscience journals are male and based in the United States: a situation that may be amplifying existing gender inequalities in the field and influencing the kind of research that gets published.

Men were found to account for 60% of the editors of psychology journals. There were significantly more male than female editors at each level of seniority, and men made up the majority of editors in over three quarters of the journals. Crucially, the proportion of female editors was significantly lower than the overall proportion of women psychology researchers.

The differences were even starker in the neuroscience journals: 70% of editors were male, and men held the majority of editorial positions in 88% of journals. In this case, the proportion of female editors was not significantly lower than the proportion of female researchers working in neuroscience — a finding that reveals enduring gender disparities in the field more broadly.

Based on their results, the team concludes that “the ideas, values and decision-making biases of men are overrepresented in the editorial positions of the most recognized academic journals in psychology and neuroscience.”

Gender inequality in science is often attributed to the fact that senior academics are more likely to be male, because historically science was male-dominated: it’s argued that as time goes on and more women rise to senior roles, the field will become more equal. Yet this study showed that even the junior roles in psychology journals tended to be held disproportionately by men, despite the fact that there are actually more female than male junior psychology faculty.

This implies that a lack of female academics is not the problem. Instead, there are structural reasons that women are disadvantaged in science. Women receive lower salaries and face greater childcare demands, for instance, which can result in fewer publications and grants — the kinds of things that journals look for when deciding who to appoint. Rather than simply blaming the inequality of editorial boards on tradition, we should be actively breaking down these existing barriers.

A lack of diversity among journal editors also likely contributes to psychology’s WEIRD problem. If journal editors are largely men from the United States, then they will probably place higher value on papers that are relevant to Western, male populations, whether consciously or not.

阅读理解 Chimpanzees (黑猩猩), human beings’closest animal relatives, share up to 98% of our genes. Yet humans and chimpanzees lead very different lives. Fewer than 300,000 wild chimpanzees live in a few forested corners of Africa today, while humans have colonized every corner of the globe. At more than 7 billion, human population dwarfs that of nearly all other mammals--despite our physical weaknesses.

What could account for our species’incredible evolutionary successes?

One obvious answer is our big brains. It could be that our raw intelligence gave us an unprecedented ability to think outside the box, innovating solutions to thorny problems as people migrated across the globe.

But a growing number of cognitive scientists and anthropologists(人类学家) are rejecting that explanation. They think that, rather than making our living as innovators, we survive and thrive precisely because we don't think for ourselves. Instead, people cope with challenging climates and ecological contexts by carefully copying others.

In a famous study, psychologists Victoria Horner and Andrew Whiten showed two groups of test subjects-children and chimpanzees-a mechanical box with a treat inside. In one condition, the box was opaque, while in the other it was transparent. The experimenters demonstrated how to open the box to retrieve the treat, but they also included the irrelevant step of tapping on the box with a stick.

Oddly, the children carefully copied all the steps to open the box, even when they could see that the stick had no practical effect. That is, they copied irrationally: Instead of doing only what was necessary to get their reward, children slavishly imitated every action they'd witnessed.

Of course, that study only included three- and four-year-olds. But additional research has shown that older children and adults are even more likely to mindlessly copy others’ actions, and infants are less likely to over-imitate-that is, to precisely copy even impractical actions.

By contrast, chimpanzees in the study only over-imitated in the opaque condition. In the transparent condition--where they saw that the stick was mechanically useless--they ignored that step entirely.Other research has since supported these findings.

When it comes to copying, chimpanzees are more rational than human children or adults.

Where does the seemingly irrational human preference for over-imitation come from?

Anthropologist Joseph Henrich points out that people around the world rely on technologies that are often so complex that no one can learn them rationally. Instead, people must learn them step by step, trusting in the wisdom of more experienced elders and peers.

So the next time you hear someone arguing passionately that everyone should embrace
nonconformity and avoid imitating others, you might laugh a little bit. We're not chimpanzees.
after all.

阅读理解 Technology is never a neutral tool for achieving human ends.Technological innovations reshape people as they use these innovations to control their environment.Artificial intelligence,for example,is altering humanity. While the term AI conjures up anxieties about killer robots or catastrophic levels of unemployment,there are other,deeper implications.As AI increasingly shapes the human experience,how does this change what it means to be human?Central to the problem is a person's capacity to make choices,particularly judgments that have moral implications. Aristotle argued that the capacity for making practical judgments depends on regularly making them—on habit and practice.We see the emergence of machines as substitute judges in a variety of everyday contexts as a potential threat to people learning how to effectively exercise judgment themselves. In the workplace,managers routinely make decisions about whom to hire or fire and which loan to approve,to name a few.These are areas where algorithmic(算法的)prescription is replacing human judgment,and so people who might have had the chance to develop practical judgment in these areas no longer will. Recommendation engines,which are increasingly prevalent intermediaries in people's consumption of culture,may serve to constrain choice and minimize luck.By presenting consumers with algorithmically selected choices of what to watch,read,stream and visit next,companies are replacing human taste with machine taste.In one sense,this is helpful.After all,machines can survey a wider range of choices than any individual is likely to have the time or energy to do on their own. At the same time,though,this selection is optimizing for what people are likely to prefer based on what they've preferred in the past.We think there is some risk that people's options will be constrained by their past in a new and unanticipated way. As machine learning algorithms improve and as they train on more extensive data sets,larger parts of everyday life are likely to become utterly predictable.The predictions are going to get better and better,and they will ultimately make common experiences more efficient and pleasant. Algorithms could soon—if they don't already—have a better idea about which show you'd like to watch next and which job candidate you should hire than you do.One day,humans may even find  a way for machines to make these decisions without some of the biases that humans typically display. But to the extent that unpredictability is part of how people understand themselves and part of what people like about themselves,humanity is in the process of losing something significant.As they  become more and more predictable,the creatures inhabiting the increasingly AI-mediated world will become less and less like us.

阅读理解 If you're someone who has turned to snacking on junk food more in the pandemic(大流行病) you're not alone. Investigative reporter Michael Moss says processed food is engineered to hook you, not unlike alcohol, cigarettes, or other harmful substances. His 2013 book, Salt Sugar Fat, explored food companies’ aggressive marketing of those products and their impact on our health. In his new book, Hooked, Moss updates the food giants’efforts to keep us eating what they serve, and how they're responding to complaints from consumers and health advocates.

Processed food is inexpensive, it's legal, and it's everywhere. Companies’advertising is cueing us to remember those products and we want those products constantly. So the food environment is one of those key things that makes food even more problematic for so many people. Memory, nostalgia(怀旧) in particular, plays a big role in the foods we crave. Soda companies discovered that if they put a soda in the hands of a child when they're at a ball game with their parents, that soda will forever be associated with that joyous moment. Later in life, when that child wants to experience a joyous moment, they're going to think of soda. Many people seek comfort in the snacks they remember from childhood.

Moss examines the way companies capitalize on our memories, cravings and brain chemistry to keep us snacking.

One of the reasons I came to think that some of these food products are even more powerful more troublesome than drugs can be is memory. What we eat is all about memory. And we begin forming memories for food at a really early age. And we keep those memories for a lifetime.

Knowing this, the food industry spends lots of time trying to shape the memories that we have for their products. One of the features of addiction that scientists studying drug addiction discovered back in the 1990s was that the faster a substance hits the brain, the more apt we are as a result to act impulsively. There's nothing faster than food in its ability to hit the brain. For Moss, this puts the notion of' “ fast food” in an entirely new light as this isn't limited to fast food chains---almost 90% of food products in grocery stores are processed foods. Everything in the industry is about speed, from the manufacturing to the packaging.

Overall, Moss outlines the industry's dependence on making their products inexpensive, super delicious, and incredibly convenient for consumers. Now that more and more people care about what they put in their bodies and are wanting to eat healthier, these companies are finding it really difficult to meet that new demand because of their own addiction to making these convenience foods.

阅读理解 Phonics,which involves sounding out words syllable(音节)by syllable,is the best way to teach  children to read.But in many classrooms,this can be a dirty word.So much so that some teachers have had to sneak phonics teaching materials into the classroom.Most American children are taught to read in a way that study after study has found to be wrong.

The consequences of this are striking.Less than half of all American adults were proficient  readers in 2017.American fourth graders rank 15th on the Progress in International Literacy Study,an international exam.

America is stuck in a debate about teaching children to read that has been going on for decades.Some advocate teaching symbol-sound relationships(the sound k can be spelled as c, k, ck, or ch), known as phonics.Others support an immersive approach(using pictures of a cat to learn the word cat),known as“whole language”.Most teachers today,almost three out of four according to a survey by the EdWeek Research Centre in 2019,use a mix called“balanced literacy”.This combination of methods is ineffective.“You can't sprinkle in a little phonics,”says Tenette Smith, executive director of elementary education and reading at Mississippi's education department. “It has to be systematic and explicitly taught.”

Mississippi,often behind in social policy,has set an example here.In a state once notorious for  its low reading scores,the Mississippi state legislature passed new literacy standards in 2013.Since then Mississippi has seen remarkable gains.Its fourth graders have moved from 49th (out of 50 states)to 29th on the National Assessment of Educational Progress,a nationwide exam.In 2019 it was the only state to improve its scores.For the first time since measurement began,Mississippi's pupils are now average readers,a remarkable achievement in such a poor state.

Mississippi's success is attributed to implementing reading methods supported by a body of research known as the science of reading.In 1997 Congress requested the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Department of Education to convene a National Reading Panel to end the“reading wars”and synthesize the evidence. The panel found that phonics, along with explicit instruction in phonemic(音位的)awareness, fluency and comprehension, worked best.

Yet over two decades on,“balanced literacy”is still being taught in classrooms.But advances in   statistics and brain imaging have disproved the whole-language method.To the teacher who is a proficient reader,literacy seems like a natural process that requires educated guessing,rather than the deliberate process emphasized by phonics.Teachers can imagine that they learned to read through  osmosis(潜移默化)when they were children.Without proper training,they bring this to classrooms.

阅读理解

Many oppose workplace surveillance,because of the inherent dehumanizing effect it has and the relentless pressure it brings.But it's on the rise around the world as firms look to become more  efficient by squeezing more productivity from their workers.More than half of companies with over  $750m in annual revenue used“non-traditional”monitoring techniques on staff last year.

Monitoring employee performance gives firms the ability to assess how their staff are performing and interacting,which can be good for both the firm and employees themselves.A growing number of analytics companies offer this service.They gather“data exhaust”left by employees'email and instant messaging apps,and use name badges equipped with radio-frequency identification devices and microphones.These can check how much time you spend talking,your volume and tone of voice,even if you do not dominate conversations.While this may sound intrusive,exponents argue that it can also protect employees against bullying and sexual harassment.

Some of this data analysis can produce unexpected results.For example,it was found that people who sat at 12-person lunch tables tended to interact,share ideas more and outperform those who regularly sat at four-person tables,a fact that would probably have gone undetected without such data analysis.

Over the last few years a Stockholm co-working space called Epicenter has gone much further and holds popular“chipping parties”,where people can have microchips implanted in their hands.They can use the implants to access electronically-controlled doors,or monitor how typing speed correlates with heart rate.Implanted chips may seem extreme,but it is a relatively small step from ID cards and biometrics to such devices.

As long as such schemes are voluntary,there will probably be a growing number of convenience-oriented uses so that a substantial number of workers would opt to have a chip inserted.But if implanted chips are used to reduce slack time or rest breaks,that could prove to be detrimental.And if surveillance tools take away autonomy,that's when they prove most unpopular.A lot depends on how such monitoring initiatives are communicated and this could prevent possible revolts being staged.

If bosses don't communicate effectively,employees assume the worst.But if they're open about the information they're collecting and what they're doing with it,research suggests 46%of employees are generally okay with it.Although many such monitoring schemes use anonymized data and participation is voluntary,many staffers remain skeptical and fear an erosion of their civil liberties.

So workplace  surveillance  could  be  empowering  for  staff and  useful  for  companies  looking  to become  more  efficient  and  profitable.But  implemented  in  the  wrong  way,it  could  also  become  an unpopular tool of oppression that proves counterproductive.

阅读理解 How on earth did we come to this?We protect our children obsessively from every harm;we scrutinize every carer,teacher or doctor with whom they come into contact.Yet despite all this,one group,which in no way has their best interests at heart,has almost unconstrained access.

We seem to take it for granted that advertisers and marketers are allowed to condition even the youngest children.Before children have even developed a proper sense of their own identity,or learned to handle money,they're encouraged to associate status and self-worth with stuff,and to look to external things such as fame and wealth for validation.We're turning out little consumers rather than young citizens who will value themselves for what they contribute to the society in which they live.

We've reached this point so gradually that many of us have never questioned it.It's crept up on us in the 60 years since advertisers started to target the young and found that they could recruit them to a commercial assault on their parents. We've come to know it as“pester power”or the ability of children to pressure parents to make certain purchases.

Many psychologists,child development experts and educators point to research suggesting that this emerging cradle-to-grave consumerism is contributing to growing rates of low self-esteem,depression and other forms of mental illness.

Not all psychologists agree.There're plenty working hand in glove with after-a-year industry that has turned the manipulation of adult emotions and desires into an art form—often literally.It's also one that's forever developing new ways to persuade our children to desire material possessions,and because of advertisements' viral effect they only need to infect a few to reach the many.Advertising and marketing can serve a useful purpose for children.Marketing may help socialize children as consumers,inform them about products,and help them carve out unique identities as they reach adulthood.

Then, should we ban all advertising aimed at young children? I say yes.

Of course there’ll be plenty of objections to an outright ban on advertising to the under-11s. There’ll be those who argue that would be a breach of freedom of speech and infringe the rights of corporations to brainwash little children into demanding their products.

Most parents hate what advertising does to their children,but we do have the power to end it and let our children grow up free from many of the pressures of consumerism until they're old enough to make their own decisions.And though advertising is only part of an all-pervasive(无处不在)marketing culture we need to make a start somewhere.Let's ban all advertising targeting children of primary school age and younger now.