ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 6901|回复: 58

[阅读小分队] 【Native Speaker每日综合训练—36系列】【36-03】文史哲

  [复制链接]
发表于 2014-5-4 22:40:59 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
Stay tuned to our latest post! Follow us here---> http://weibo.com/u/3476904471


Part I: Speaker

Connected, but alone

[Rephrase 1, 19:45]




Source:TED
http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
 楼主| 发表于 2014-5-4 22:41:00 | 显示全部楼层
Part II: Speed





The Ultimate Rock, Paper, Scissor Strategy
60 percent of the time, it works every time
By Colin Schultz


[Time 2]

In China, a team of researchers tapped 360 students to try to crack the ever-important nut: how do people play Rock, Paper, Scissors? And what's the best strategy?

Based on their study, says the Washington Post, at the population level, Rock, Paper, Scissors strategies follow a relatively simple pattern:

People start by picking each variable (rock, paper or scissors) about one-third of the time. You can’t really game this stage. BUT after the first round:

•        If a player wins, he will usually stick with the same play.
      •        If a player loses, he will usually switch actions in “a clockwise direction”: rock changes to paper, paper to scissors, scissors to rock.

So that's it. If you know what someone will play next, it's easy to counter and achieve a grand victory.

But wait, what if they know the strategy, too? And they try to predict and out-smart your next move? But then you, knowing that they know, try to preempt their prediction? Then they, knowing you know they know...

Actually, though, if this all sounds too simple, that's because it probably is. People won't just keep riding Paper victory string into the sunset. Instead, says Graham Walker, from the World Rock Paper Scissor society (via this old Mental Floss post), people playing Rock, Paper, Scissors like to think they're being random. They aren't. “People hate being predictable and the perceived hallmark of predictability is to come out with the same throw three times in row,” he says.

[246 words]

[Time 3]

When playing with someone who is not experienced at the RPS, look out for double runs or in other words, the same throw twice. When this happens you can safely eliminate that throw and guarantee yourself at worst a stalemate in the next game. So, when you see a two-Scissor run, you know their next move will be Rock or Paper, so Paper is your best move.

The researchers in China weren't just trying to work out the strategy to a schoolyard game, though. They were using Rock, Paper, Scissor as a way to study people's behavior when making decisions in “non-cooperative strategic interactions.” They were testing which of two different broad strategies people use: either trying to play truly randomly, or playing in an evolutionary way with strategies shifting depending on the outcome. (It was the latter.)

Still, though, as good as your strategy may be, you're never going to beat this Rock, Paper, Scissor-playing robot. Sorry.

[158 words]

Source: Smithsonian
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ultimate-rock-paper-scissor-strategy-180951322/



Top 3 Ways the Media Screws Up Reporting Science
Avoid these common traps the next time you see a scientific headline
by David Rettew, M.D.  | April 29, 2014

[Time 4]

Another day, another headline about the latest tantalizing research study.  Could Tylenol cause ADHD? TV result in behavioral problems? Parental involvement cause poorer school achievement?

As someone whose gets asked to review and decide whether or not to publish articles submitted to scientific journals, I’ve learned how to dig a little deeper.  If you think, however, that the “peer review” process means that scientists can’t publish a study that turns out to be completely misleading or wrong in its conclusions, think again.  Furthermore, even when an article goes to great lengths to point out their own flaws and qualify their results, these subtleties are often the first to go when a media outlet is trying to make a splashy story.

To be fair, many television, radio, and internet reporters are doing their best the walk a fine line between creating interest and not overselling a study.  Nevertheless, here is my view on the three most common ways the media can get it wrong when covering medical and psychological studies.

[196 words]

[Time 5]

#3. Inflating risk.  Many studies that are trying to find risk factors for diseases often report their results something like this…”People who consume green M&Ms are at twice the risk of developing green skin disorder (GSD).”  While true (although obviously not in this case since I made this up), it is critical to know first what the baseline incidence of the disorder is.  If GSD occurs in one in a million people, a doubling of the risk (which sounds pretty bad) means that those who eat green M&Ms have GSD at a rate of 2 in a million: hardly a smoking gun in terms of a risk factor determining a particular illness.

#2.  Misleading titles.  Everyone knows in the media that a good title is critical to get people to read content (which is why I spent so long on mine).  Titles need to grab you and they need to be short, which means that more nuanced ideas aren’t going to fit.  Author Mark Bittman wrote a short piece for the New York Times discussing a recent study that showed that the link between saturated fat consumption and heart disease may not be as strong as we thought.  The title of the original study was a riveting “Association of Dietary, Circulating, and Supplement Fatty Acids With (Are you yawning yet?) Coronary Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” The Times piece that discussed the article was called “Butter is Back.” Indeed, the actual review was quite reasonable and measured, but the title gives a very different impression about what was actually contained in the article, let alone the original research study.

[270 words]

[Time 6]

#1.  Concluding causation from association.   This one happens all the time. These provocative studies generally admit that they can’t prove causation but that usually gets lost in the proverbial fine print when it comes to reporting.  And while this flaw may sound like methodological minutia, the problem really has the potential of rendering an entire study invalid.   The issue is usually related to one of two things namely a) not being able to answer the timeless chicken or the egg dilemma, or b) there being a lurking and unmeasured variable that was the real driver of the association.   A great example of the chicken/egg problem can be found in many studies that show a link between television viewing and attention problems.  While it may be true that excessive screen time causes attention problems (which is the way the stories are generally spun), it may also be true that those with existing attention problems are more drawn to the stimulation of television and video games.  An example of the unmeasured variable is the recent stir over a study linking taking Tylenol in pregnancy to child ADHD.  While Tylenol might be the cause of increased ADHD, higher rates of ADHD might also be related to the reason a mom took Tylenol in the first place.  The authors tried to measure some of those things but admitted there could have been some that were missed.   This distinction is critical because if indeed the cause was related to the underlying reason someone took acetaminophen rather than the medication itself, then the message for pregnant moms to stop taking it could actually be exactly the wrong thing to do.

Science, in particular behavioral science, is really complicated with many moving parts that need to be controlled or at least accounted for.  Those of us who have the privilege of trying to synthesize this information for people less familiar with how research works need to be very careful with those interpretations, even at the risk of sounding a bit more boring and wishy-washy.

[337 words]

Source: Psychologytoday
http://www.psychologytoday.com/collections/201404/april-26-may-2/how-the-media-screws-science?tr=HomeColItem

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
 楼主| 发表于 2014-5-4 22:41:01 | 显示全部楼层
Part III: Obstacle

California’s bid to tax companies who don’t share the wealth
By Harold Meyerson, Published: May 1  

[Paraphrase 7]

Last week, a committee of the California Senate not only talked about economic inequality — everybody’s doing that — but actually did something about it. By a 5-to-2 vote, it recommended to the full Senate a bill that would cut the state’s taxes on companies with lower ratios between their chief executives’ pay and the pay of their median workers, and raise taxes on companies with the kind of insanely high gap between chief executive and median worker pay that has become the norm in American business.

To the best of my knowledge, the bill — SB 1372 — is the first in the nation that seeks to mitigate economic inequality through corporate tax reform. At a time when all the traditional institutions that enabled workers to win raises have broken down, it offers a way forward for those who’d like to see workers make a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

In the post-World War II decades of broadly shared prosperity, the men (they were almost always men) who ran America’s great companies made relatively low multiples of what their workers made. In 1965, the ratio was 20 to 1, according to studies by the Economic Policy Institute. By 2012, that ratio had risen to 273 to 1, though no one contends that today’s chief executives are 14 times better, or today’s workers 14 times worse, than those of 50 years ago.

Rather, the way to explain this change might be called a tale of two unions. While workers’ unions have atrophied to the point that collective bargaining in the private sector is all but dead, CEO “unions” — that is, the corporate compensation committees composed disproportionately of CEOs’ fellow CEOs — have continually raised chief executives’ pay.

The bill now moving through the California Senate doesn’t compel CEOs and their corporate boards to either raise their employees’ wages or cut their own. It merely presents them with a choice. Those who overpay themselves and underpay their employees can continue to do so but thereby subject their company to higher taxes. Or they can diminish the discrepancy in compensation and thereby lower their company’s taxes.

The proposed legislation wouldn’t exactly plunge CEOs into poverty. It would reduce, on a sliding scale, California’s corporate taxes — currently set at 8.84 percent of net income — for any company paying its chief executive less than 100 times the pay of its median worker, and raise them, also on a sliding scale, for any company paying its CEO more. (Under the terms of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, the Securities and Exchange Commission is required to publish the CEO-median worker pay ratio for every publicly listed company. The SEC is expected to begin this practice this year.)

Once you get past the ranks of CEOs themselves, it’s hard to find defenders of this pay gap. A YouGov poll from February found that 66 percent of Americans — including even 58 percent of Republicans — thought that CEO pay was too high.

The antipathy with which both the public and business scholars view the rise in CEO pay obviously had some effect on the debate on SB 1372 when it was considered in committee last week. All the Democrats voted for it, but even the two Republicans who voted against it were muted in their criticism. Republican Sen. Steve Knight, a Tea Party stalwart, acknowledged that executive compensation is “out of whack” and called the plan “not a bad idea” before saying it’s not the government’s responsibility to address the problem. (The likelihood of the bill passing the whole Senate — it requires a two-thirds vote — is slim but not unimaginable.)

Once upon a time, American workers had more direct ways to win raises. In the decades after World War II, nongovernmental institutions such as unions diminished levels of inequality. Today, in the absence of both unions and full employment, using the corporate tax code to boost employees’ pay and limit CEOs’ is one of the few remaining avenues that could enable workers to regain some of their lost income.

In a recent Wall Street Journal column, William Galston, once the leading intellectual light of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, argued that corporate tax rates should be lowered for companies that boost their employees’ pay in line with productivity increases and raised for those companies that don’t. Between 1947 and 1973, workers’ productivity rose by 97 percent and their median compensation rose by 95 percent. Since the mid-1980s, however, as unions have weakened, all the gains from increased worker productivity have accrued to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans.

Congressional Democrats should emulate their California counterparts and take a cue from Galston. In the current economy, corporate tax reform keyed to rewarding workers for their productivity may be the only way to boost Americans’ incomes. In the current political climate, it may also be the kind of popular and populist cause the Democrats badly need.

[806 words]

Source: Washingtonpost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-californias-bid-to-tax-ceos-who-dont-share-the-wealth/2014/04/30/fc08619c-d07e-11e3-a6b1-45c4dffb85a6_story.html

发表于 2014-5-4 22:43:02 | 显示全部楼层
我又来占座啦~~~~

Speaker
The woman talks about the relationship between human and technology device. Nowadays people are more likely to hide from each other, they are alone when they together, they would rather text than talk because they don't really know each other and no one is listening to each other, so we expect more from technology but less from each other. This is not good for us, we should connect with ourselves, if we don't teach our children to be alone, they will only know how to be lonely. So it is important to connect with yourself, as well as other people.

Time2: 1'37"
Time3: 0'58"
Study shows that Paper, Scissors strategies follow a relatively simple pattern: People start by picking each variable (rock, paper or scissors) about one-third of the time. You can’t really game this stage. BUT after the first round: If a player wins, he will usually stick with the same play, If a player loses, he will usually switch actions in “a clockwise direction”: rock changes to paper, paper to scissors, scissors to rock. Still, though, as good as your strategy may be, you're never going to beat this Rock, Paper, Scissor-playing robot.

Time4: 1'11"
Time5: 1'45"
Time6: 2'28"
This article talks about the three most common ways the media can get it wrong when covering medical and psychological studies.
3 Inflating risk. Without knowing about the baseline of some data, it's impossible to know the real risk.
2 Misleading titles. Titile is an important thing for an article to grab readers' attention.
1 Concluding causation from association. In many research,it is impossible to reach to some conclusion or main causion for many reasons.But media will mislead people to reach this idea.

发表于 2014-5-4 22:45:39 | 显示全部楼层
首页哪里跑!!!!嘿嘿
Speaker
our little devices in our pocket do not change how we think but change who we are.Technology is making a bid to redefine human connection -- how we care for each other, how we care for ourselves -- but it's also giving us the opportunity to affirm our values and our direction. I'm optimistic.
speaker 灌了点水。。我是真的听了。
Timer2  1:55  VPM158
a research team recently published their founding that a strategy may lie in the general game : rock scissor and paper. people who win trend to keep   in the next round ,while people who lose are likely to change. The strategy is based on the possibility that for the losers ,scissors may change into rock,rock change into paper, paper change into scissors .But does this strategy work effectively ? people know you know they know...  
158 0:57  VPM160
if you know the rule of play ,you may win. But Chinese researchers did nor just do that simple research ,they actually were discovering the pattern that whether people really love to play randomly or love to use an strategy.
Timer4 1.26VPM195
Timer5 1.38 VPM155
Timer6  2.30 VPM146
Media article sometimes may distort  the true point of the scientific discourse  by the temptation of . the measures that the media often use to achieve its aim : 1.Inflation risk ----low probability of G .2.misleading title   3.concluding causation form association  
发表于 2014-5-4 22:58:51 | 显示全部楼层
占~~~~~~~~~
没加标签= =怪不得刷不出

Speaker:Technoligy not only changes what we do,it also changes who we are.A kind of phenomenon called along together.People wnat to be together and also elsewhere.They want to connect to all different places they wanted.And the technology makes it possible.Moreove people should end hiding from each other.Just right distance sometimes may be a problem in connection.And technology such as texting and emailing let us perform the person who we want to be.The current problem is that no one is listening,which makes people want to spend time with machines.Machines appeals to us most where we are most vulnerable.We are lonely but we are afraid of intimacy.Being alone seems to be a problem need to be solved.But actually we need to be customered to being alone.It can help us a lot.

01:09
A study finds out what people are more likely do in playing play Rock, Paper, Scissors.You may think that people will know this strategy which will lead to a complicated situation.But actually it is probably simple.

00:44
You can know a person's strategy in this game after obserbing his play for about two round.Researchers want to use this research to study people's behavior when making decision.

01:01
Medias are always trying to creating readers interest by putting a splashy title or story about a science article.There are 3 ways the media get sth wrong.

01:04
3 Inflating risk. Without knowing about the baseline of some data,it's impossible to know the real risk.
2 Misleading titles. Titile is an important thing for an article to grab readers' attention.

01:23
1 Concluding causation from association. In many research,it is impossible to reach to some conclusion or main causion for many reasons.But media will mislead people to reach this idea.

06:02
Main Iea: Using tax as a method to reduce the salary inequality
The Senate of California has passed a bill about cutting state's taxes on companies with lower ratios between their chief executives’ pay and the pay of their median workers and rasing taxes on companies with the kind of insanely high gap between chief executive and median worker pay.
The ration has risen from 20 to 1 in 1965 to 273 to 1 now,which get antipathy from public and business field.
The workers' union and CEO union may be one of the reason of this change.
However,this bill  doesn’t compel CEOs to either raise their employees’ wages or cut their own.It just gives them a choice: high or low taxes.And this may even reduce California's corporate taxes.
But now workers have less ways to improve their salaries than before.The tax may be one of a few possbile ways.
Corporate tax reform forcusing on rewarding workers for their productivity could be the only way to boost Americans’ incomes and solve the inequality to some extent.
发表于 2014-5-5 07:20:48 | 显示全部楼层
首页!!!!thx~~~~~~
这几天都看的好简略……

time:1:03.49
Chinese researchers find how to win the game rock,paper and scissor.
The strategy people always use.
What if others also use the strategy?
The game is not random.
________________
time:0:39.49
Researchers try to use this study to futher understand people behavior.
Knowing the strategy may not help you win the game.
______________
time:0:52.31
Line--make interest/not oversell a study.
Three ways media get wrong when reporting studies.
_______________
time:1:13.43
1 inflate risk--ignore or not show the baseline.
2 misleading headline--not fit the content of the article.
______________
time:1:41.56
3 conclude causation from association--chicken and egg problems.two things have impact on each other,but media report them as one lead/cause/influence the other.
Media need to be more serious at reporting science stuides.
______________
time:3:58.30
Califonia promotes a bid--limit CEO's pay,raise employees' pay--deal with economic inequality.
Two choices--no change in paying,higher corporate tax/decrease CEO's pay,raise employees'pay,lower corporate tax.
Background--income change/CEO and workers' change.From World War 2 to now.
Two unions influence the bid--CEO union--keep raise CEO's pay/Worker union--try to change the situation and raise their pay
The influence of this bid:will not put CEO into poverty.lower corporate tax will do good to the company and for both CEO and workers.
The reason behind this bid--no defender for pay gap,better to promote income equality between CEO and employees.
The opinions and supports from people--many vote support,good idea to use corportate tax to change the situation.
Backgroun/the past--workers had more ways to raise their incomes,now they have few.Productivity promotion related to corportate tax before(when related to corporate tax,policies can get better outcome)
Corportate tax--better productivity--higher income.May be the only way to promote the situation,and also the good idea for Democrates.

发表于 2014-5-5 08:08:09 | 显示全部楼层
zhanzuoo~~~~

Obstacle:6’20’’
California would tax the companies less with low ratio between executives’ income and the pay of median work to decrease the discrepancy(mitigate inequality )
Also the another choice is they pay more taxes
In the post-war two decades of boardly shared prosperity, the excecutives earned low mutiplies of what workers earned, later the gap has becoming bigger
This SB tax reform would incent the workers and make big prosperity
Time 2 3  2’55’’
The best strategy to win in the SRP game? People start by picking each variable.If they win they will continue same play.If they loses,they will use ‘a clockwise direction’ of SPR
The knowledge above works on “non cooperative strategic interactions” too
Time 4 1’12’’
Media is always trying to use one-sided result to attract eyes.
Three common ways media used in coverying story
Time5 6 4’05’’
Inflation risk-- very low risk of commit GSD, a doubling of the risk is small nuber too  
misleading title
Concluding causation from association:1 timeless chicken or egg dilemma2 unmeasurable variable mayne the driver of the association
发表于 2014-5-5 09:20:06 | 显示全部楼层
昨天出的,今天还有首页吗?

speaker: in this TED, the pseaker discusses the current situation of digital devices usage. In her opinion, people may have paid too much attention to these devices instead of to real connections with other people. First, this is becuase social networks provide people a feeling of be companied when they feel lonely. Social network on digital devices can response to us whenever we need or want. But according to the speaker, as robots do not have a real sense of life and death, their companions can not be a substitude of contacts between people. Another point is that, since people can edit and delete whatever they send by the net, they hide part of themselves from others. Therefore, the speakers calls for all the audience reconsider the relationship between us and the digital devices. Of corse, she doesn't require people to shut down the devices, but she suggests us to develop a more self-awareness relationships with the machines, our families, our friends and ourselves.
发表于 2014-5-5 10:06:33 | 显示全部楼层
我先占着。。。。。不过不知还有首页没。。。

t2    00:01:41
      A RESEARCH about the game called "Rock, Cissor, Paper"
       Regular pattern found in the game
      In fact, people dont like to be predictable
t3   00:00:53
      Some tricks in that game----    the real purpose of their research on the game: non-coopration strategy interaction
t4  00:01:21
     introduction of the topic
    Media report are out of interest, not the truth.
t5   00:02:07
      ways the media get the report wrong: 1, inflating risk     2, misleading title
t6   00:02:17
     1, several examples are cited to suggest that some reports are not right cos media tend to suit people's flavor
     2. Scientists make research very carefully , however, the research result in the media is not mathable.

obstacle
     00:08:21  我是耗时最长的吧?
    committee
     introduction of the property in emplyees and employers in the past
      ratio rose   
      2 unions led to the changes
     bill      choice
    the purpose of the policy: not let CEOs in povorty.      measurespen the list of salary i n public
    people' comlaint that CEOs have too high salary
    tax on the wealthy to elimate the inequalty
   after WW2, tax fell, contributing to more wealthy people
   overview
     

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-3-29 06:39
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部