ChaseDream

Having conﬁrmed that therewas a Gothic crazeduring the 1790s,we can now ask, further, why did it happen? Once again literary historyprovides us with a piece of received wisdom: the Gothic explosion was collateraldamage from the French Revolution. The most famous version of thisopinion comes from the Marquis de Sade,who argued that the Gothic novels of Radcliffeand Lewis were “the necessary fruitsof the revolutionary tremors felt by the whole of Europe.” According to Sade’s view, the bloody horrors of the revolutionpushed novelists to new extremes of imaginary violence, as they strove tocompete with the shocking reality. WilliamHazlitt’s way of putting matters strikes me as more balanced. Radcliffe’s romances “derived part oftheir interest, no doubt, from the supposed tottering stateof all old structures at the time.” Equating the Gothic with the FrenchRevolution was a contemporary, rather than a retrospective phenomenon, as wecan see from the currency of the smearing pun “the terrorist system of novel writing” employed byreviewers during the latter half of the 1790s (Clery, Rise of Supernatural Fiction,pp. 147–48). The reviewers knew full well that Gothic terror derived from theBurkean cult of the sublime,as the Dissenting critic Anna LaetitiaAikin famously explained in her essay, “On the Pleasure Derived fromObjects of Terror.”The recourse to the sublimeadopted by Radcliffe and her schoolwas partly a desire to exploit contemporary aesthetic fashions and partly an attempt to pitch their work toward the high end of the literary market, for sublimity and terror were associated with tragedy and epic, the twomost prestigiousliterary forms – a strategy that would later pay off handsomelyfor William Wordsworth. By linking Burke’s terror with Robespierre’s in the limited case ofromances by women writers, critics stripped the Gothic of its high literary pretensions, implicitlyaccusing its authors of being social incendiaries,while ﬁguring them as literary sansculottes: inother words, as a semiliterate mob. One needsto be careful about overstating the case. The adjective “terrorist” smeared, but it also condescendedby making “terror”writers the object of a risible pun. The smear worked, not because writers of “hobgoblin romance” were dangerous, but because they palpably were not.

作者: billyisfragile! 时间: 2019-9-5 23:09
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2008/06/dont-judge-plant-its-species

Who's in charge? Whether these milkweed aphids count an ant as friend or foe depends on which plant they eat.
K. MOONEY

Don't Judge a Plant by Its Species
Jun. 24, 2008 , 12:00 AM

A plant is a plant is a plant. Or is it? New research reveals that, even within a species, plants show a surprising amount a variation in shaping the world around them. The finding promises to sort out some maddening inconsistencies in how species interact.

The new study concerns the common milkweed plant (Asclepias syriaca) and the aphids and ants that call it home. All three species depend on each other: the aphids drink the plant's sap and defecate a sweet syrup called honeydew, which ants eat. In return, the ants kick predators off the plant, protecting both the milkweed and the aphids in the process.

Any biologist looking at milkweeds as a whole would see this mutualism play out, but community ecologists Kailen Mooney of the University of California, Irvine, and Anurag Agrawal of Cornell University wondered if the relationship held on a plant-by-plant basis. To find out, the researchers planted 320 milkweeds in an old field full of ant nests, picking 10 plants each from 32 genetically distinct families of full siblings. The team returned throughout the summer to census the insects that colonized the plants.

(770) 3。在做那个primary的实验之前(就是32x10的那个)科学家们没有想到的是
　　我选的：some milkweed have a different effect on ant-aphid relationship。
　　这道题就注意去看第三段，20组的那个结果的一些说法(as expected)和12组的说法，大概就知道了。

Plant genetics made a huge difference in insect dynamics. For 20 of the 32 plant families, ants helped the aphids as expected by increasing the aphid population more than 150% over that on ant-free plants in the same family. But for the remaining 12 plant families, the ants actually decreased the aphid populations by more than half. This averages out to ants boosting aphid populations overall but reveals a previously unimagined role for milkweeds in changing the relationship between the two insects, Mooney and Agrawal report in this month's issue of The American Naturalist.

(770) 1。what can be inferred about milkweed?
　　答案：他们的sap含有sugar。比较确认。

The researchers suggest that the milkweed has an interest in manipulating the ant-aphid relationship: Plants that use their aphids to attract more ants win protection against herbivores such as caterpillars, the team showed in another experiment. But that protection comes at a price—water and sugar the plants lose to the sap-sucking aphids, for example. For some genotypes, it apparently makes sense to have fewer aphids.

The study "makes a connection that nobody has made before," says Gina Wimp, a community ecologist at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Accounting for individual genetic differences and their ripple effects through a community promises to make sense of previously befuddling variation in community ecology, she says.

"It adds a lot of clarity," notes Gregory Crutsinger, an ecologist at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. What's more, he says, it's "kind of a big deal" that plants are actually in control of the long-studied mutualism with ants and aphids.

作者: Hot_Ice 时间: 2019-9-6 09:11
顶楼主！

作者: POMELOPITAYA 时间: 2019-9-6 09:23

作者: 冰镇瓜瓜冰 时间: 2019-9-6 17:12
感谢感谢！

作者: billyisfragile! 时间: 2019-9-7 07:17

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/weekinreview/at-ground-zero-vision-by-committee.html

At Ground Zero, Visionby Committee

By Benedict Carey

· July 3, 2005

THE design plans for ground zero haveundergone as many facelifts, identity crisesand reinventions as an aging Hollywood star.

The plan unveiled last week, of a Washington Monument-likeFreedom Tower built on a pedestal of concrete in Lower Manhattan, was thelatest of several visions for the site and its memorial, differing sharply fromthe distinctive twisting wedge design proposed for the Freedom Tower in 2003.

In the time it has taken to get even this far, a war hasstarted, a presidential election has passed, a colossal football-Olympicsstadium project was designed, debated and voted down, and both the Mets andYankees unveiled plans for new stadiums.

And there is no guarantee that the ground zero designprocess is over; the group overseeing the plans, which includes Mayor MichaelBloomberg, Gov. George Pataki and the developer Larry Silverstein, amongothers, may yet stir more controversy and change course again.

Nor is everyone happy with the design they settled on. Somecritics call it a patch job, or worse. NicolaiOuroussoff, the architecture critic of The New York Times, wrote this withering assessment: "It is exactly the kind ofnightmare that government officials repeatedly asserted would never happenhere: an impregnable tower braced against theoutside world."

All of which raises a question: Was all the back and forthand the character of the final design simply a matter of New York politics asusual? The product of a clash of powerful personalities? Or is something moreuniversal also at play: how small groups make decisions, particularly underpressure?

The pressure was certainly there. The planners have thealmost impossible task of creating a vision that somehow expresses confidence,renewal, mourning and memorialization, said Dr. Richard Moreland, a professorof psychology at the University of Pittsburgh. And, he added, "they'redoing so in an atmosphere in which a whole lot of people in the communitybelieve they have just as much expertise as anyone on the committee to makedecisions."

Still, small committees making large decisions are subjectto several dynamics, some obvious and some less so, that interfere with cleardecision making, experts say.

大概是说小community（或者就是一个小group）跟做决定的关系。作者是批判的态度。第一段引用了一个人的View 第一段引用了另一个做的Simulation。总之两者都是批判的态度。主要弊端有几个，第一段说了同一个community的人可能share same knowledge，这个knowledge还不一定对，有时候只有一个人了解真实的事件情况跟信息，但这种时候大家都不太会听或者采纳这个人的说的东西。大家都觉得自己有权利讨论就代表自己是能提供价值的。（这块有考题）

When making important determinations, small groups in factoften do not take into account the most relevant expertise in the room,researchers have found. In a series of studies, the psychologist Dr. Garold Stasser at Miami Universityof Ohio has found that most smallgroups tend to make decisions based on information all members share about a topic, andto overlook important facts that one or several people may know but the othersdo not.

If only one member of a board of directors knows that acandidate under consideration for the job of chief executive officer hascheated on his taxes, for example, or if just one member of a design committeetruly understands the rollover risks of thetruck being designed, this information is often taken lightly or ignored in theflow of debate and conversation within the group, social psychologists say.

"And once certain ideas or plans become salient or popular, the group becomes overly focusedon them," said Dr. Scott Tindale, a psychologist at Loyola University inChicago.

For example, some critics of the new Freedom Tower havedescribed the massive concrete base as an extreme concessionto security -- an overreaction to the police department's concerns aboutthe building's safety. Whether true or not, the propensityof small committees to drift toward extreme decisions is also well documentedin specific circumstances. When all members of a group agree on a certainissues, whether it's reforming the I.R.S. or designing a faster minivan,individual members tend to one-up each otherand the choices become by degrees more and more extreme.

"The idea is that your opinion functions in part toreflect well on you, to make you look good," said Dr. Moreland. "Ifit's a group of conservatives talking about the Supreme Court, and one personcomes up with a very conservative opinion," through social pressure othersmove more in that direction.

第二段说有时候group make baddecisions. Something about them not willing to change because they want to saveface or avoid criticism.（注意这块说的是group，不是个人。有个细节题的选项说individual avoid criticism 我觉得是不对的）有个人做了一个simulation，弄了一个小group出来，给每个人派上职务，来决定要不要在一块被一名有钱的resident donate的land上建park. 最后就发现他们是决定建，虽然这块land is contaminated. 然后还发现越跟组里关系密切的人，越会帮助推成这件事，因为loyalty

Particularly when there is a great deal of pressure -- asthere surely is with the ground zero design -- groups act very much like individuals understress, only more so, psychologists say. They procrastinate,calling for further information. And they become committed to bad decisions, to save face or to protect themselves against criticism.

In a recent simulation, Dr. BethDietz-Uhler, a psychologist at Miami University of Ohio, analyzed thebehavior of small groups of three or more people acting as city councilmembers, creating a park on land donated by a wealthy resident. As the simulation unfolded,information was provided that showed the land was contaminated, yet the acting councilmembers, especially those who felt strongly bonded to the group, often stuckwith their decision to build a park out of loyalty to the team.

Remarkably, small committees can and sometimes do make boldand creative choices. In the early 1980's, officials were sharply criticizedwhen they unveiled plans for the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. Theproposed design by Maya Lin, a young architecture student at Yale, envisioned asunken wedge of polished stone etched with thenames of the fallen soldiers. It stirred confusion and outrage among somecommentators and politicians, but Ms. Lin's design was ultimately approved, andhas become one of the most profoundly moving memorials in the country.

Still, many people who have spent their careers asparticipants in high-stake committees say it may be the influence -- or uniqueperception -- of one single forceful member that in the end makes thedifference. As Ralph Cordiner, the former chairman of General Electric, oncesaid: "If you can name for me one great discovery or decision that wasmade by committee, I will find you the one man in that committee who had thelonely insight -- while he was shaving or on his way to work, or maybe whilethe rest of the committee was chattering away -- the lonely insight that solvedthe problem and was the basis for the decision."

作者: alexyh 时间: 2019-9-8 23:17
有小夥伴知道 RC 考古那篇的密码是什麽吗

作者: Sophiew17 时间: 2019-9-8 23:58

Table des matières 难不成也在巴黎？

作者: reneeliu2019 时间: 2019-9-9 01:02
Thank you for sharing!

作者: sdhfiuau 时间: 2019-9-10 08:26

作者: sdhfiuau 时间: 2019-9-10 08:36
请教一下为什么点了链接就跳转到主页了？

作者: newone000 时间: 2019-9-11 23:43
谢谢整理。

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)