We're fairly good at judging people based on first impressions, thin slices of experience ranging from a glimpse of a photo to a five-minute interaction, and deliberation can be not only extraneous but intrusive. In one study of the ability she dubbed "thin slicing", the late psychologist Nalini Ambady asked participants to watch silent 10-second video clips of professors and to rate the instructor's overall effectiveness. Their ratings correlated strongly with students end-of-semester ratings. Another set of participants had to count backward from 1,000 by nines as they watched the clips, occupying their conscious working memory. Their ratings were just as accurate, demonstrating the intuitive nature of the social processing.
Critically, another group was asked to spend a minute writing down reasons for their judgment,before giving the rating. Accuracy dropped dramatically. Ambady suspected that deliberation focused them on vivid but misleading cues, such as certain gestures of utterances, rather than letting the complex interplay of subtle signals form a holistic impression. She found similar interference when participants watched 15-second clips of pairs of people and judged whether they were strangers, friends, or dating partners.
Other research shows we're better at detecting deception and sexual orientation from thin slices when we rely on intuition instead of reflection. "It's as if you're driving a stick shift, " says Judith Hall, a psychologist at Northeastern University, "and if you start thinking about it too much, you can't remember what you're doing. But if you go on automatic pilot, you're fine. Much of our social life is like that. "
Thinking too much can also harm our ability to form preferences College students' ratings of strawberry jams and college courses aligned better with experts' opinions when the students weren't asked to analyze their rationale. And people made car-buying decisions that were both objectively better and more personally satisfying when asked to focus on their feelings rather than on details, but only if the decision was complex--when they had a lot of information to process.
Intuition's special powers are unleashed only in certain circumstances. In one study, participants completed a battery of eight tasks, including four that tapped reflective thinking (discerning rules,
comprehending vocabulary) and four that tapped intuition and creativity (generating new products or figures of speech). Then they rated the degree to which they had used intuition ("gut feelings, ""hunches, " "my heart" ). Use of their gut hurt their performance on the first four tasks, as expected,and helped them on the rest. Sometimes the heart is smarter than the head.
What can we learn from the last paragraph?
根据最后一段的内容可知，直觉的特殊力量只有在特定情况下才能释放出来。在一项研究中，参与者完成了一系列八项任务，其中包括四项利用反思性思维（辨别规则、理解词汇）和四项利用直觉和创造力（生成新产品或修辞格）的任务。然后，他们对自己运用直觉的程度进行评分（“直觉”“预感”“我的心”）。正如预期的那样，使用他们的直觉会损害他们在前四项任务中的表现，但会帮助他们完成其余的任务。B项“直觉可能会影响沉思性任务”与文章中“直觉”“预感”“我的心”表述一致，故选B。A项“生成新产品需要时间”、C项“词汇理解需要创造力”在原文中均未提及，故均排除。D项“客观思考可以提高直观性”，原文中重点阐述的是直觉的作用，与客观思考相反，故D项错误。
以下疾病可引起终末血尿的是：( )
下列何种疾病引起的胸腔积液中的葡萄糖浓度低于1.llmmolL( )
下列对真核生物转录因子的叙述中正确的是( )
经代谢转变可生成γ一氨基丁酸的氨基酸是( )
引起休克的原因很多，但有一个共同点( )
有关心力贮备，以下哪项说法是错误的( )
